While the proposed Judicial Review of the LNS decision is to be welcomed it is a position that is fraught with legal difficulties such as the capacity to raise the proceedings, potential time bars and all sorts of other arguments.
It would be complete folly to base an argument here solely upon a judicial review of LNS as that would only leave one string to the bow.
Further, take the stated opinion or Mr Rod McKenzie that LNS only dealt with the issue of Player Registrations within the SPL/SPFL — and nothing else.
Any analysis of what is meant by that statement (and others made by Neil Doncaster) leads to the conclusion that there are other matters to be considered which were outwith the tight and narrow remit handed to LNS by the SPFL.
For me, the clearest consideration is this.
1. Craig Whyte has already been personally convicted by the SFA for deliberately failing to pay taxes as and when they fall due under article 5.1 of the SFA rules.
2. No such charge has ever been levied against RFC — just against their CEO.
3. Not only did RFC fail to pay taxes as and when they became due under Whyte’s watch, they deliberately failed to pay taxes for a 13 year period under the stewardship of Sir David Murray. They did this by deliberately entering into two unlawful tax aggressive tax avoidance schemes which even their advisers warned them could only be undertaken at considerable risk to the club as the schemes were never guaranteed to be successful.
4. Those schemes were entered into so that the club could buy players they would otherwise not have afforded.
5. In furtherance of those schemes, RFC chose to deliberately withhold the full details of their contractual arrangements with both players and managers from both the SFA and the SPL when submitting their applications to play under licence and in terms of the rules of both organisations.
6. In each of the years concerned, RFC had to apply for both domestic and European Licences to play football, and it is the granting of these licences which allows any football club to play in structured competition organised under the auspices of, or with the approval of, the SFA or UEFA.
7. Each and every licence application as submitted to the SFA in the knowledge that key financial and contractual information had been excluded in furtherance of tax avoidance purposes, and tax, which has since been declared to be legitimately due and payable from 1999 onwards, was unpaid and remains unpaid.
8. The above processes and procedures are no different, and indeed are considerably worse, breaches of article 5.1 under which Whyte was personally convicted and fined.
9. Further, as part of the HMRC investigations into the use of unlawful tax schemes, RFC deliberately lied to HMRC, SFA and SPL about the existence of side letters and other contractual documentation. This is particularly so in relation to the annual application for a playing licence.
On 20th May 2011, HMRC, in relation to one of the tax schemes, wrote to RFC and accused the club of “deliberate and fraudulent” behaviour in relation to the continued submission of false PAYE and NIC returns over a period of years.
10. It, therefore, follows that each and every application for a football licence made by RFC to the SFA from 2000 onwards (at least) was based on falsified financial, contractual and tax information and was designed to mislead the SFA with a view to persuading them to grant a licence on misrepresented grounds.
11. Not only is the above a breach of article 5.1 of the SFA handbook, but any licence obtained by misrepresentation has not been validly obtained as it has been obtained by way of false representation and deception.
12. It is a pre-requisite of entry into any league competition that the participating club holds a valid licence to play football.
13. In the event that a club did not or should not have held/hold a valid licence to play, that same club is not free to enter structured competition or register players to participate in such competition. It also follows that any declaration of a result of 0-3 in relation to any particular game as a result of a rule breach (such as fielding an ineligible player) is of no consequence because the club concerned was not eligible to participate at all.
14. The Court of Arbitration for Sport has already been invited by UEFA to hold that any application for a licence or any other compliance submission, which is devoid of all necessary financial and contractual information should be treated as null and void and as never having been received.
15. The same Court has also held that any title, championship, award, record, reward or other benefit which has been gained as a result of an improper or prohibited process should not be allowed to stand, the records of the award etc should be expunged and the sporting records corrected accordingly.
None of the above is dependent on a successful review of LNS but goes hand in hand with that process.
In the forthcoming review of Scottish Football recently announced by the SPFL, in conjunction with the SFA, all of the above should be under consideration.
LNS, under review, may determine that the players were in fact not eligible, but much more fundamental is the fact that there are clear facts and circumstances which should mean that the club itself was never eligible in terms of established legal jurisprudence.
As had been pointed out by Rod McKenzie, none of this has been considered by the SPFL as all matters concerning a licence are solely under the jurisdiction of the SFA.
Thus far, the SFA have taken no action against RFC or any of its officials as a result of the clubs involvement in, and cover up of, the Big Tax Case or the Wee Tax Case – both of which will be the subject of the forthcoming review demanded by Celtic and others.
BLUAUGUST 15, 2017 at 14:38
To date, I may be wrong, but Celtic are the only club to publicly state their disquiet at the silence from the authorities, re any ramifications of the Supreme Court verdict.
They have asked for a review of the LNS conclusions. They also expressed concern at the time.
It would appear that all other clubs are happy to operate under the status quo, even though it has been exposed as a corrupt sham.
The grounds for seeking to leave are connected to the inability to pursue their business in an open and fair environment, which can have a detrimental effect on investors and shareholders, as well as an emotional effect on supporters.
Recent events have shown how physically unsafe Ibrox is and that is before you consider structural safety.
There is no appetite, there’s that word again, either in political. football or media circles to push for meaningful change and certainly not amongst “diddy”, (your word, not mine) clubs.
Personally, I think that those are enough grounds to kick the dust of Scottish football from our heels.
As to whom you apply and where do you go, that is the uanswerable question.
It would have to be by invitation, as in the case of Derry City, when their playing invironment became intolerable.
It would all be needless,if the aforementioned stakeholders, for once, acted in the name of integrity and for the proper good of the game.
So Neil Lennon is not to be prosecuted because he did not commit any crime.
“Following complaints received, we have reviewed the events at the match and, after discussion with the procurator fiscal, established that no criminality took place. Therefore no further action will be taken.”
On the other hand a man has been arrested over alleged offensive and threatening comments made towards him. The man is apparently 54 years old so not some callow youth shouting his mouth off, what should be a mature adult.
The good people who have been lodging the complaints against the Hibs boss are not going to be pleased that some form of sanity appears to have broken out.
Allyjambo August 15, 2017 at 15:32
Were Club 1872 involved in any way with the complaint to Police Scotland, rather than just the rather ill-judged statement?
The direct link to TRFFC/RIFC surely brings their actions into an area of the football club’s influence and responsibility, and if they were involved in what must surely be seen as a malicious act against a member club manager, then the SFA/SPFL should be taking action against TRFC – for Club 1872 are a major shareholder in RIFC, in the same way Romanov was in Hearts’ holding company when they amended the rules to penalise Hearts for what he had said. Of course, he only used words (that we now know were rather accurate) and didn’t name names, unlike the verbal assault on Lennon and, if they were involved, the even worse act of making a formal complaint to Police Scotland.
TRFC/RIFC tend to use supporters organisations to deliver the PR they want out there, but dare not publish themselves. It’s time the SFA/SPFL did something to stop that, for they are emboldening and encouraging these very volatile supporters into some rash acts, to say the least.
===============================
I think that Club1872 was aware of the risks of such charges being levied against them when they started out, hence the creation of a subsidiary company “Supporters Voice Limited” through which their statements are issued. You may or may not have noticed the footnote to the weekend’s statement:
“Issued by Supporters Voice Limited, a Club 1872 company.”
SVL is not a direct shareholder in the club, although they share a common director in James Blair. Also, as Club 1872 only own 10% of the club’s shares, they are not recognised, in company terms, as a “Person with Significant Control” (PSC). I think that the comparison with Romanov would be a moot one, although when he was first sanctioned by the SFA in Oct 2005, he only owned 29.9% of Hearts through UBIG.
It seems to me that a lot of things that were going to happen are still hanging in the air.
Most of us were lead to believe that Celtic FC were going to make a statement and take action on Resolution 12 after the Supreme Court case but the big event is silence. Is R12 now a dead duck?
Again following the SC judgement Celtic alone asked for a review but more silence.
Can anyone give a date for the court hearing against King not obeying the take over panel?
Has anyone had an encouraging response from any club since the SC verdict?
EASYJAMBOAUGUST 15, 2017 at 16:13 Allyjambo August 15, 2017 at 15:32
However the footballing authorities appeared keen to monitor the practices and influences of a minority shareholder in the Plc, in the form of Mike Ashley due to potential issues that could pose problems for the Scottish game.
Were are back in Hedi Poon territory. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks likes a duck etc etc.
We know that the footballing authorities will bend the legal semantics, of the type mentioned by Easy above, to suit their needs.
The reality is Club 18-30 and T’Rangers need a strong warning shot fired across their bows.
To my mind the situation is already out of control and something needs to be done now to bring some semblance of reality to the situation.
I have no problem with 18-30 sticking up for their members and their club in the same way SFM is a group of fans raising its own concerns.
For instance their calling out of the MSM with regard to inaccurate reports of poor fan behaviour outside Hampden at the cup final was warranted from the evidence I have seen.
However their overall agenda, as so far displayed, is generally toxic.
I believe Supporters Voice Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of Club 1872 Limited.
If it isn’t speaking for Club 1872 then it’s difficult to imagine who it is speaking for.
The statement being released by the wholly owned subsidiary is surely no different from it being released by it’s holding company.
The statement was made, in every meaningful way, by Rangers International PLC’s second largest shareholder.
Homunculus August 15, 2017 at 17:53
I believe Supporters Voice Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of Club 1872 Limited.
If it isn’t speaking for Club 1872 then it’s difficult to imagine who it is speaking for.
=========================
Arguably it is only speaking on behalf of its members, and it is still just a minority shareholder in the club. I know it has a common board member with the club in Jame Blair, but I’m unaware of any rights it has to appoint directors to the club. I might not agree with the message they put out, but I would defend their right to make it.
I’ve had some discussions with the Foundation of Hearts directors about the same subject, i.e. it having a voice to represent the fans. The Foundation’s current governance proposals, covering the period after it becomes the major shareholder of the Club, look as if the Foundation will have a passive role as owner of Hearts, which if it came to pass would be a big disappointment to me. A “fan owned” Club that doesn’t have a means to independently, and publicly, express the concerns of its members, would just as well being privately owned. The proposals are currently out for consultation. I have given my feedback and have subsequently met with some of the directors to share my thoughts.
I fully appreciate that it wants to allow the club to run its day to day operations without interference from the Foundation. That’s a given, but I have been at pains to point out that the Club needs to embrace the “values” of its owner at all times. I have suggested that values of “without fear or favour”, “in good faith”, “sporting integrity”, “open and transparent” “fairness”, “integrity”, “honesty” and “inclusive” are essential for both the Foundation and the Club. If the Foundation and the Club embrace and abide by those values in their relationships with each other, supporters, the football authorities and other clubs, then they won’t go far wrong.
EASYJAMBO
AUGUST 15, 2017 at 18:56
==============================
I am not having a go at their right to make the statement, delusional and misleading as it is.
However let’s not pretend it’s not Club 1872, Rangers second largest shareholder, who made the statement.
They behave like they are just a fans group, that simply isn’t true and far from it. They are a substantial shareholder in the PLC which owns Rangers FC.
If Dave King (who claims when it suits him it’s not him who has the shares but New Oasis Trust) can make statements on behalf of the football club (which he owns no shares in, and does not sit on the board of) then why can’t they.
EASYJAMBOAUGUST 15, 2017 at 18:56 1 Vote
Homunculus August 15, 2017 at 17:53 I believe Supporters Voice Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of Club 1872 Limited.If it isn’t speaking for Club 1872 then it’s difficult to imagine who it is speaking for. =========================Arguably it is only speaking on behalf of its members, and it is still just a minority shareholder in the club. I know it has a common board member with the club in Jame Blair,
——————–
Is there not a rule that says
“All members shall: (b) be subject to and comply with (i) the Articles (ii) this protocol and (f) behave towards the Scottish FA and other members with the utmost good faith”.
Sending out a statement with a clear attempt by Hibernian manager, Neil Lennon, to incite trouble and We also expect the SPFL to take action against Mr Lennon over his failed attempt to incite trouble.We hope that Police Scotland will speak directly to Mr Lennon over the coming days and at the very least give him a warning.
The SFA to take action and police scotland to give him a warning, Is not acting in the utmost good faith.
Or am i way off the mark
Phil Mac has an interesting take on the Club 1872 statement.
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2017/08/15/angry-statements-and-unintended-outcomes/
Was feeling sad about the tradgedies in Sierra Leone and Maderia. But I look out my window and a wee guy is playing football. Playing keepie uppie, enjoying himself to the limit.
My local had a bandfest on Saturday night, 5 bands played, all for charity, they raised +£1,000. You need things like this to keep sane.
Anyways, I’m looking forward to tomorrow night, but very nervous. Hope you are all cheering me on.
ThomTheThimAugust 15, 2017 at 11:57
‘….Sometimes, very rarely, actually, I have a certain sympathy for Scottish journalists…
……I think their main fault is in trying to keep hold of their job in a small theatre of action.None of them are free to write whatever they want. ‘
___________
How serendipitous a post, TtT!
I’m not long home from listening to an hour-long ( and quite interesting) talk.
The talk was about a historical chap. ( Aye, the Festival isnae a’ aboot budding Billy Connollys and far-out comedy!)
This chap has been reported for decades, and tens of decades, as having said “Here I stand, I can do no other,” when he refused to change a word of what he had written. At peril of his life!
It turns out that scholarly opinion reckons now that he never actually said those words.
But whatever he said or did not say, he did not change a word of what he had written and which had not found favour by people who could do him serious damage.
For me, the readiness to do that is what separates true journalists from mere bought-and-paid-for hacks and from the bought-and-paid -for editors of little principle ,who would deny true journalists the space to write the truth!
I have no doubt that the Watergate guys would have given two fingers to the Washington Post if their story had been spiked!
Their careers would have mattered nothing, and they would have done what they could in those pre-social media days to get the truth out, somehow
And the thing is, truth is indivisible, whether it’s about the President of the USA, or the functionaries of the litttle world of Scottish Football governance.
EBTRes12gate has a significance as great in context as Watergate.
Maybe even greater as far as the cheated and aggrieved football supporter is concerned!
JOHN CLARKAUGUST 15, 2017 at 23:36
Amen to that.#serendipity.
Lennon sets precedent for ear cupping as Police Scotland state it is not criminal. Lets all do the lenny.
THOMTHETHIMAUGUST 15, 2017 at 15:51
Thom, thanks for your reply but I don’t think you fully addressed my original questions.
I don’t see your case for Celtic FC being uniquely restricted in pursuing its business. Consider this, in terms of sporting achievement Celtic has been the most successful club in Scotland over the past 50 years. It has been the strongest in financial terms for at least 10, probably 20 years, if we take into account the real state of Rangers finances as we now understand them. Currently it’s streets ahead of all other clubs in terms of turnover and ability to buy players and annual player salary budget.
I can understand that Celtic FC would probably like the opportunity to play in a league such as the English Premier League but clearly the selfish interests of clubs from sixth or seventh place down to the middle of the Championship won’t vote for that. I guess that failing some kind of Bosman-type freedom of trade ruling soon (Brexit’s not going to help that), we’re agreed that Celtic is going nowhere fast. And that’s before UEFA take a position.
There is no public record of Celtic FC having sought or called for a Judicial Review of the processes applied by the SPL/SPFL/SFA in respect of the mass mis-registration of players by RFC 2012 (IL) over the period 1999-2011 or the awarding of the Euro licence in 2012.
You continue to cite the 40+ other clubs as being too lily-livered to support Celtic FC in its quest to right wrongs. Celtic FC is the most powerful player in Scottish football politics and it has not publicly called out one officer or elected member of the SPL, SPFL or SFA. It is as culpable as any of the other clubs in the failure to apply the rules as they were written by both the leagues and the SFA.
Personally, I don’t think it would be a disaster of Armageddon proportions if both Celtic and TRFC did manage to find another league to play in. We might have a competitive league akin to recent years in the English Premier League. Imagine 3,4, or 5 genuine potential champions – that would surely be good news for TV, sponsors and crowds across the board?
BLUAUGUST 16, 2017 at 12:09
Thanks for the reply.
Not only were Celtic restricted in their business, but other clubs, like Hearts,who were denied a Euro place, due to granting of a licence under dubious circumstances.
Events have caught up with our exchanges, in that the Celtic Supporters Ass. reps have just reported on a meeting they had with Doncaster and Mc.Kenzie.
I don’t think that Celtic have officially called for a JR, but there are moves afoot to seek one.
Auldheid and BRTH are the men to explain what is happening there.
It was disclosed at that meeting that although Celtic were the only club to call for an Independent review publicly, the SPFL Board, with the support of the clubs, backed the call.
Fear is the reason that none of them spoke out. Memories of the trouble that visited Raith Rovers, after Turnbull Hutton’s stance, including an attempt to burn Starks Park.
Celtic’s power in Scottish football translates to one vote in the chambers of power.
Same as every other club…and so it should.
However, any business, and football is a business, should have the right to develop their enterprises in a fair market.
Scottish football has not been that for at least the last twenty years. It is the SFA’s responsibility to ensure the conditions prevail that all clubs can operate to their own limits, without the nonsense that they have protected and sanctioned.
They have been found out and exposed.
If they are unwilling or unable to reform, then they have to go. If not, then I would like my club to leave their corrupt operations.
Not feasible, I know, but it is the only honourable option.
It is not a Celtic v TRFC thing, even though many would like it to be seen as such.
It is up to 41 clubs to see that your Armageddon scenario doesn’t happen.
I don’t think I can add any more to the subject…..for now!
ThomTheThimAugust 16, 2017 at 12:52
Thom, we’re probably in agreement, along with with 99% of SFM posters and readers on the rights and wrongs of SPL/SPFL/SFA governance, and I’m sorry to keep going on about this – Celtic did not even publicly call for an independent review of RFC 2012’s use of EBT’s after the Supreme Court ruled in HMRC’s favour. Like you, I’ll give it up now.
Here’s the statement from Celtic’s website:
THOMTHETHIM
AUGUST 16, 2017 at 12:52
Events have caught up with our exchanges, in that the Celtic Supporters Ass. reps have just reported on a meeting they had with Doncaster and Mc.Kenzie.
————————————
Here’s a link to the report posted by Joe O’Rourke this morning:
http://www.thecsa.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1956&sid=4b3d24babcbf3caa62ee9085c306045b
This is what it states:
‘I and Association President John Andrews met with Neil Doncaster and Rod McKenzie on Monday night. The reason for the meeting which incidentally was at the request of Mr Doncaster, was for them to explain their position with regards to the Lord Nimmo Smith (LNS) Inquiry.
From the outset they both made it clear that they thought that the SPL did everything by the book and that they had no further part to play in accordance with the advice they got from a Senior Counsel.
They also stated that they, the SPFL, were happy to have an Independent Review of Scottish Football as stated about three weeks ago after they elected their new Board. The problem with that is, no Independent Review is worth having unless it also agreed by the SFA, and so far Mr Regan and his cronies have not agreed to a Review.
Mr Doncaster made it very clear that the decision taken by LNS cannot be revisited, the decision to fine Sevco £250,000 is final. Mr McKenzie stressed that all the information held by the SPL was put before LNS, which included the proof of about 51 side letters. But what they cannot answer is, did the SFA act honestly with regards to LNS.
Mr Doncaster also agreed with us that the Five Way Agreement (FWA) was a barrier to Title stripping. That is the FWA that no-one outside if the signatories has actually seen. McKenzie and Doncaster actually admitted that in one of the early drafts of the agreement Title Stripping was one of the avenues that could be used as punishment to Sevco, not surprisingly Green, and apparently more so McCoist strongly opposed that route, so that clause was taken out.
That’s akin to a High Court Judge telling a convicted criminal that he could face twenty years in jail and the criminal saying I’m not having that. So the Judge says, well ok what about a fine of £250? That will be fine (excuse the pun) your honour.
You have to wonder, if the FWA was good for Scottish Football as a whole, why has it not been made public? According to McKenzie the five signatories would have to agree to that, and he said that wouldn’t happen, but he never told us just exactly who would be opposed to going public, I think they would all oppose it to protect themselves.
Interestingly the SPFL Board backed the call for an Independent Review as proposed by Peter Lawwell at Celtic Football Club, but not one club came out publically and supported Peter Lawwell before the Board went public, which was about three weeks after Peter’s statement.
McKenzie said that club chairmen were backing Celtic, but not in public. I think that proves the point the Bullying and Intimidation by the Sevco Support is actually working, I also think the comments from Ann Budge and Stewart Milne prove that too.
So where do we go from here? Well we’re not beaten yet. We have to force the SFA to back the Independent Review. The only way that can be done is by supporters putting pressure on their own clubs to call for it.
Doncaster claims that the SPFL do not have the power within their rules to strip titles, but the SFA do have that power. So honest supporters throughout the whole of Scottish Football must stand up to the Bullies and Intimidators and force action from your own club’s. This is not a Celtic v Rangers issue, this is Honest and Integrity v Bullies and Intimidators issue. Football has to win, but it can only win if the honest decent supporters unite to make it happen.’ There you have it: according to the above, Doncaster & McKenzie think it’s all the SFA’s fault.
DONCASTER, McKENZIE AND THE MEETING WITH CELTIC SUPPORTERS ASSOCIATION…http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/?p=38726
Rangers Tax-Case @rangerstaxcaseMoreThoughts on the SPFL meetings with Celtic fans
One of the hardest things to accept / put up with in all of this is the need to follow due process.
The SFA and SPFL ought to be able to run our sport in a fair and transparent manner (stop laughing!!).
Few things in this life are as obvious as the fact that the guys running these organisations are corrupt and inept (mental picture: bank robbers with clown shoes).
Nonetheless, it is simply necessary to allow due process to run its course, to allow their corruption and ineptitude to be exposed at every opportunity and at every possible level.
The longer it goes on, the more they turn away from options to do the right thing, the higher up the food chain the process goes.
Unless there is an as yet unforeseen outbreak of common sense / decency, I think this story will end up going to UEFA, possibly FIFA and maybe even to the CAS.
Escape from the confines of this bigoted wee country seems necessary if we are to overcome the apparent fear factor that is forcing our collective chair people to remain silent in public.
This is very definitely a marathon not a sprint territory.
It is not enough to be right. It is not enough to have the law on your side.
You have to engineer the correct circumstances to ensure that you are able to leverage those conditions into a meaningful win.
ZILCH
AUGUST 16, 2017 at 16:19
One of the hardest things to accept / put up with in all of this is the need to follow due process…
============================
True.
But, IMO, if crowd-funding was initiated right now, and say GBP 50K was raised fairly quickly…
I guess the SFA & SPFL would offer to roll over.
Might be wrong, but securing initial funding itself would be a tangible statement of intent from the long-suffering Scottish football supporters: to impose change on the dodgy administrations.
And if/when that happens…I do hope the JR proceeds unhindered.
StevieBCAugust 16, 2017 at 16:43
But, IMO, if crowd-funding was initiated right now, and say GBP 50K was raised fairly quickly…
I guess the SFA & SPFL would offer to roll over.
———————————————————————————————-
Clearing out the SFA / SPFL will happen (I fervently hope) – but the current incumbents will have to be fearing for their wallets or their personal freedom before it happens.
If a JR goes forward, it too will only be successful if due process has been followed – the guys making the running on that will know that far better than me and will be much better placed to tell if the time and circumstances are right.
The report from the meeting with the CSA and Doncaster are pointing to fear of the Ibrox mob stopping club chairs from speaking out in public about this.
The guys leading the charge on the JR front are stepping up where our clubs fear to tread.
We owe them a massive debt of gratitude and should support them in any way we can.
I previously mentioned the established routes through the sporting bodies. The JR route may also be a possibility – we shall see what the final decision is on that one. In the end, I remain optimistic that there are enough avenues open for honest fans to win here.
The route to justice and sporting integrity is less important than getting there (IMO). Thank god we have people of real integrity fighting for us and with us. 🙂
I have insufficient (ie zero) knowledge of the correct processes involved in pursuing the JR. As such I am happy to be guided by @rangerstaxcase and others in the know.
What I do know however is if/when the funding appeal happens I’ll be at the front of the queue to contribute.
I’ve been convinced all my days that our game is crooked and the thought of the charlatans who run it being brought to account is one which would make an old guy very happy.
While we await developments a win to nil in the CL tonight would also do the trick although I fear the injury list might make that wishful thinking.
Given all the talk of rules being followed to the letter I note on Phil Mac’s twitter feed there was a tweet that maybe summed up the farce within the 140 word limits.
That’s is (my summary) – did the rules of Scottish Football and the relevant bodies even allow for the process known as the Five Way agreement, where the it also appears member clubs of both the SPL and SFL were not allowed to know its contents.
Its all very well hiding behind rules but someone will always find other ones you have missed and not confirmed to.
Am I the only person who feels massively underwhelmed by the efforts of the two Celtic Supporters Association reps, assuming of course that what I’ve read today covers the entire extent of what was divulged to them?
It strikes me as a massive dereliction of duty not to have asked a range of probing questions of Doncaster and McKenzie, not least of which would have sought an explanation for leaving the DOS EBTs outwith the parameters of LNS, thus conveniently avoiding having to punish the offender.
Also, what on God’s green earth has double jeopardy got to do with the mechanics of revisiting a football commission with no legal powers which was merely set up to investigate the potential breaking of football authority rules, not the law of the land?
There are a hundred and one similar questions which would have proved difficult for Doncaster and McKenzie to answer truthfully, yet all the CSA reps seem to have obtained is a wishy-washy blanket statement denying culpability.
If I’m missing something, I do of course apologise.
I wonder how this administrative error will play out
Albion Rovers: Disciplinary proceedings opened after club field ineligible player
The Scottish Professional Football League has opened disciplinary proceedings against Albion Rovers, after the League One side fielded an ineligible player during their Challenge Cup victory over Spartans.
Liam McGuigan was on the Rovers bench for the first-round tie on Tuesday.
His team won 5-4 on penalties after a goalless 120 minutes.
Both teams will be entered in Thursday’s second-round draw, pending the outcome of the proceedings.
Wrt the Hibs fans’ treatment at Ibrox , especially if reports of cups of urine and other objects cascading down on them are true, surely they would be able to sue the people tasked with ensuring their safety , security and wellbeing for abandoning them to their fate (stadium operator, stewarding company, Police Scotland ) ?
EASYJAMBOAUGUST 16, 2017 at 18:28
Scottish football needs a Strong Albion Rovers:
Surely he was eligible and properly registered up to the point after the match when the football authorities noticed he was ineligible and improperly registered.
On the other hand, his name is Liam, so he’ll be guilty as charged.
CLUSTER ONE
AUGUST 16, 2017 at 18:48
EASYJAMBOAUGUST 16, 2017 at 18:28
Scottish football needs a Strong Albion Rovers:
=======================================
Would love it, just love it
if the Albion Rovers fans initiated their own crowdfunding appeal to support a club defense – and probable appeal – against this charge ?
Can they call witnesses for SFA charges ?
Calling first witness: Mr. Sandy “imperfectly registered” Bryson…
Could someone who is Twitterate perhaps ask RTC why they don’t start the crowd funding immediately. There are a lot of people just waiting for the green light to give generously to let the SFA know exactly what they think of them. Put pressure on them and watch them sh*t themselves as the money builds up. If ultimately the SFA fold without the need for a JR, give the money to a worthy cause (refereeing lessons.)
Paddy malarkey @18.39
an away supporter complaining to a steward at Ibrox. Aye, good luck with that!
i suspect I’m not alone when I say “Been there, done that, and as a result haven’t been since.”
The only stadium i wouldnt, ahem, “assist” if it was on fire.
HELPUMOOTAUGUST 16, 2017 at 19:11
Could someone who is Twitterate perhaps ask RTC why they don’t start the crowd funding immediately. There are a lot of people just waiting for the green light to give generously to let the SFA know exactly what they think of them. Put pressure on them and watch them sh*t themselves as the money builds up. If ultimately the SFA fold without the need for a JR, give the money to a worthy cause (refereeing lessons.)
_________________
It’s already been explained by RTC. The initial costs are being met by some wealthy Celtic supporters and crowdfunding will only be sought if, and when, they have been successful in their efforts to launch the Judicial Review. An extremely sensible way to go about it, I’d say.
Re the Albion Rovers ineligible player, Livingston also fielded an ineligible player (Alan Lithgow – suspended) in the same competition last year. They were ordered to replay the tie against Crusaders.
SPFL chief executive Neil Doncaster said: “In the interests of sporting integrity and fairness to both sides, the game will be replayed.”
It is probably worth noting what LNS said about the interpretation of rules between the SFA and SPL.
“There is every reason why the rules of the SFA and the SPL relating to registration should be construed and applied consistently with each other. Mr Bryson’s evidence about the position of the SFA in this regard was clear. In our view, the Rules of the SPL, which admit of a construction consistent with those of the SFA, should be given that construction.”
That being the case then the rules applied by the SPFL in their cup competition (the Irn-Bru cup), should be applied in a consistent way to that applied by the SFA in their cup competition (Scottish Cup). Well Spartans lost their place in the Scottish Cup for fielding an ineligible player against Culter. That doesn’t appear to be a consistent interpretation of the rules of the two organisations. Of course, I sure Mr Bryson would argue that the rules only need to be applied consistently for player registrations, or if a club called Rangers might otherwise lose out.
JIMBO
Thanks Shug. I was going to give my post a miss tonight, don’t want to upset people again.
Heard something on R Scotland tonight that UEFA are doing away with Champions Route in the qualifiers next season. Doesn’t sound good.
HighlanderAugust 16, 2017 at 18:18
‘…Am I the only person who feels massively underwhelmed by the efforts of the two Celtic Supporters Association reps..’
____________
I read the readiness of the SPFL to meet representatives of one particular club as expressive of a desire to dismiss the criticisms and the call for a ‘Judicial Review’ as nothing more than a bit of the,”ha ha, the well-known west-coast ‘old firm rivalry'” in the way that I heard a certain Edinburgh academic describing it to overseas students.
I think we must not allow them to do that.
The SPFL are answerable to the supporters of ALL the clubs in the SPFL, and , indirectly, to the whole of Scottish Football.
And I humbly suggest that the SFM should ask Doncaster to submit to a grilling for a podcast, so that we can make it clear to him that the fact of SDM’s cheating, and the FACT of whole Big Lie in support of TRFC, damaged, and continue to damage, the whole and every part of Scottish Football, by striking at the very concepts of sporting integrity and good honest governance.
And, in the ( admittedly unlikely) event that Doncaster should agree to be interviewed for a SFM podcast, he should be left in no doubt that the interview would not be an opportunity for a wee bit of self-promoting PR: it would be an interview of a suspect accused of various serious charges.
Comment on CSA meeting with Doncaster/ McKenzie feedback in bold.
I had a meeting with Neil Doncaster and McKenzie.
Post by Joe O’Rourke » Wed Aug 16, 2017 11:47 am
I and Association President John Andrews met with Neil Doncaster and Rod McKenzie on Monday night. The reason for the meeting which incidentally was at the request of Mr Doncaster, was for them to explain their position with regards to the Lord Nimmo Smith (LNS) Inquiry.
From the outset they both made it clear that they thought that the SPL did everything by the book and that they had no further part to play in accordance with the advice they got from a Senior Counsel.
So a blame game has started. That means recognition that something is indeed rotten has been accepted and the stink seems to be coming from SFA offices.
They also stated that they, the SPFL, were happy to have an Independent Review of Scottish Football as stated about three weeks ago after they elected their new Board. The problem with that is, no Independent Review is worth having unless it also agreed by the SFA, and so far Mr Regan and his cronies have not agreed to a Review.
Because it would mean having to take into account what has been hidden, what has been said but obfuscated, and it puts the people responsible under proper scrutiny. A change will require strong arm tactics.
Mr Doncaster made it very clear that the decision taken by LNS cannot be revisited, the decision to fine Sevco £250,000 is final. Mr McKenzie stressed that all the information held by the SPL was put before LNS, which included the proof of about 51 side letters. But what they cannot answer is, did the SFA act honestly with regards to LNS.
Surely if not all the information held, whether by the SPL, or by SFA or Rangers themselves was not part of the LNS Commission, and especially if that information had deliberately been withheld, then the Commission has to be set aside?
Rod McKenzie on behalf of SPL asked Rangers administrators for all correspondence relating to all ebts but were not supplied with the De Boer side letter of 30th August but more importantly the HMRC letter of 20th May 2011 that accompanied it explaining that tax was due because RFC had acted fraudulently or negligently. Are SPL saying they had that letter but ignored the accusations of fraud and did not consider adding any charge of not acting with utmost good faith as per their own SPL rules drafted by Rod McKenzie in 2011?
Even more sinister are they saying that the SFA were unsighted on the same letter when the set up the Judicial Panel in Feb 2012 and if they had it then that means the SFA did not inform the SPL of its existence when they were establishing the LNS Commission?
The Offshore Game chaps tried to establish if/when the SFA had this letter in November last year but never got an answer.
http://www.theoffshoregame.net/sfa-admits-it-did-know-about-rangers-unlawful-tax-avoidance-scheme-at-time-of-nimmo-smith-inquiry/
The SFA should have had that letter in their possession the week it was delivered to Rangers and if they did not it was because Rangers failed to comply with UEFA rules, which is possibly why TOG never got an answer from SFA as any would have implicated the SFA or Rangers or both.
In short the SPL might have acted on all the information supplied to them but if neither the party under investigation nor the national association provided the SPL with what they should have been given in March/April 2012 then it surely demolishes any case for not revisiting LNS?
It also renders any opposition to a meaningful enquiry by the SFA unacceptable, especially as the SFA may themselves have kept key information in that letter under wraps, even from their own Judicial Panel that only looked at Rangers and Craig Whyte’s behaviour from 6th May 2011. What took place before then was never investigated under SFA rules requiring Rangers FC to act with integrity, sportsmanship in accordance with rules of fair play.
The SFA need to be put in the dock and if they will not agree to a domestic enquiry then surely UEFA must be called in given the doubt that surrounds the part the SFA played in 2011 in granting Rangers a UEFA licence and then helping UEFA monitor the UEFA FFP rules on the overdue payables from 30 June 2011 that the 20th May 2011 letter refers to?
More on the CSA feedback from CQN
lionroars67 on 16th August 2017 1:09 pm
I think you have provided one answer to the question posed in the CSA Report back viz:
” So where do we go from here? Well we’re not beaten yet. We have to force the SFA to back the Independent Review. The only way that can be done is by supporters putting pressure on their own clubs to call for it. ”
When you said:
This is the quote from the letter from UEFA to Res12
We refer to your correspondence dated 27th May 2016 and understand that you are acting for a group of shareholders in Celtic PLC, it is not the general policy of EUFA to write directly to lawyers representing unidentified clients and if this is a matter that a MEMBER CLUB of the Scottish football association (i.e. Celtic FC) wishes to take up with EUFA then the club should do so directly.
Will a club any club in Doncaster’s SPFL league (preferably Celtic) please submit a complaint to EUFA regarding matters of licensing and governance of Scottish football its the ONLY WAY forward
At next AGM of SFA will any of the 42 clubs who are supporting Celtic on requesting a review of these important governance issues propose new people for office bearers of the SFA please!! we need a clear out
Doncaster hiding behind the SFA, the SFA is the clubs ffs, they vote in or out as they see fit, clubs have the power please use it, stop hiding behind risible laughable statements from your association spokespeople
=============================
Unless something emerges that renders the information provided to Celtic shareholders at
http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/official-update-to-res12-july-2017/
unsound, then simply by passing Resolution 12 with an add on that the behaviour of the national association in 2011 and since then as a result of the liquidation of RFC, be investigated in terms of compliance with UEFA’s FFP articles designed to protect the sporting integrity of UEFA competitions and by extension domestic competitions and advise on any remedial action.
If Doncaster didn’t fancy a face to face what about a written Q&A. This would have the advantage that he wouldn’t be on the spot and therefore might be more accommodating but also as it would give him a fair chance to actually check his facts before he then lies to us
. Joking apart, I’m guessing our questions would be quite technical (Auldeheid’s letter dates etc) that would require him to check the position.
We select (pick a number) 20 questions. He gets the opportunity (probably with big Rodney in tow) to answer. Crucially we then get the opportunity to formulate a response (else he would just lie as he has to date) and I’d even then offer him a last word. At least that would establish his position and give a better idea as to where it might be challenged.
Smugas,
Doncaster has no interest in providing answers. His overriding concern is to prevent a JR over Nimmo-Smith. That was the purpose of the meeting on Monday – to head off a JR at the pass.
So focused are they on doing so, they are pointing the finger across the corridor at Regan’s door.
Far from being ‘used’ as has been suggested in some quarters, the fans have the SPFL and the SFA circling their wagons – only it’s TWO circles; not one.
It is my view that the desire to prevent a JR may be more important than continuing with this cover-up.
The JR campaign is funded up to this point by individuals who have been involved in the fight for transparency and justice throughout the last six years.
The legal approaches being considered include the Nimmo-Smith process AND several other aspects, including the main thrust of this blog.
This is not a few guys turning up at a local solicitor looking for advice. A team of senior legal professionals are considering the above and will decide on an approach which is considered to have the best chance of success.
The aim is to secure accountability and reinstate good governance to the game.
Crowd-funding will begin only if a JR is necessary and goes ahead.
Patience needs to best frustration. I can assure everyone that this process is ongoing, is serious, and will not peter out.
It isn’t hard to out-statement Club 1872
A tweet from Brian McLaughlin BBC:
‘Neil Lennon says statement by Rangers shareholder Club 1872 was laughable, insignificant and written by a 15 year old. #bbcsportscot’
I’ve just seen on twitter the welcome return of that long unused descriptive word, ‘nincompoop’. I just wish there was someone in Scottish football that I could use it about on SFM. Oh well, maybe in time I’ll get the opportunity
ALLYJAMBOAUGUST 17, 2017 at 14:14
It isn’t hard to out-statement Club 1872
A tweet from Brian McLaughlin BBC:
‘Neil Lennon says statement by Rangers shareholder Club 1872 was laughable, insignificant and written by a 15 year old. #bbcsportscot’
============$==============
Lennon is talking rubbish. It reads more like it was written by a petulant 12 year old.
AllyjamboAugust 17, 2017 at 14:38
‘..‘nincompoop’. I just wish there was someone in Scottish football that I could use it about on SFM
Bogs DolloxAugust 17, 2017 at 17:06
‘.. It reads more like it was written by a petulant 12 year old.’
_________-
Or a nincompoop?
Now that CFC has virtually secured a second, consecutive CL cash windfall…
Mibbees another SPFL club might start complaining about an ‘uneven financial playing field’ and that one club is poised to potentially dominate Scottish football for several years to come.
And that this prospect would ‘not be good for the Scottish game’.
Mibbees a jealous club would start lobbying for new rules to artificially create a ‘more even’ field?
Like insist on at least X numbers of SPL first team players being from that club’s own academy / youth set up?
[IIRC, there are/were rules around having under-21 players in a squad?]
i.e. relatively expensive signings – but with potentially, significantly higher sell-on values – would be discouraged from the SPL ?
It seems blatantly obvious that a club from Ibrox – even if it was on a stable financial footing – will take many, many years to get anywhere near the financial clout of CFC.
[But agreed, it is not a given that CFC will simply collect the SPL title each year – as football is a funny, old game.]
I bet TRFC wished it had disproportionate influence within Hampden – to effect ‘more fairness’ ?
Should CFC manage to qualify for CL group stages, Ill be looking out for a Club 1872 statement congratulating them on their achievement , and for the solidarity payment heading the way of TRFC (or does it go to RIFC ?).
John ClarkAugust 17, 2017 at 17:28
AllyjamboAugust 17, 2017 at 14:38‘..‘nincompoop’. I just wish there was someone in Scottish football that I could use it about on SFMBogs DolloxAugust 17, 2017 at 17:06‘.. It reads more like it was written by a petulant 12 year old.’_________-Or a nincompoop?
_________________
Damn it, John, I just knew you’d use that word before me
My nincom is truly pooped!
In true Sevco fashion and despite their city rivals publicly saying it’s only qualifier half time I’m surprised they haven’t announced a £300k signing today (you know, near enough the £250k that’s coming).
Edit. Phil says £365k.
So £400k ‘available’ to spend then.
BIG PINKAUGUST 17, 2017 at 10:10
Patience needs to best frustration. I can assure everyone that this process is ongoing, is serious, and will not peter out.
——————-
That has raised my spirits
Spoke too soon!
Extracted from Ewan Murray’s Guardian piece today, [with my highlighting];
“…
But great for Scottish football? A boost to the status of the national sport? We should be spared this overreaction. When a club – or two clubs, let us be clear – with fiscal power to dwarf all before them earns another £30m advantage, the case for broader benefit is virtually non-existent.
…
Pointing out such basic reality is met with fury by those supporters of Celtic who appear to believe their club is indulging in a form of missionary work.
…
It is legitimate to ask when a title challenge will exist. Rival clubs are not lacking in ambition or desire, merely the key element of finance. The essence of sport must be competition; a scene where Celtic can swat aside all before them at home with such consummate ease does not have long-term value for spectators, commercial partners or, whisper it, football professionals.
…
Now? Celtic should cherish heady times. The rest of Scotland has no cause to join in. That group has to, instead, somehow seek a solution.”
================================
And I’m sure Murray wrote similar articles when a dominant RFC was being recklessly financed by the Bank of Scotland ?
I started reading NewNow Celtic last night after watching the game. There was dozens upon dozens of match reports with high praise for Celtic, although most acknowledged things were a bit ropey in the first half hour. It was the same this morning dozens of newspaper reports from all over the British isles, indeed the world – e.g. India, Canada, Australia, USA.
But one hack had to break cover Ewan Murray from the Guardian. What a mean spirited article. Obviously hurting very much.
I was glad I listened in to R Scotland tonight, all the contributors happy for Celtic and happy for Scottish football. Very positive.
Even without £20-£30m from CL, Celtic would still be the richest club in Scotland. They are a huge club with a huge stadium & a fan base who spend lots of money. What can you do? Hand it back and say we don’t want it? Unless we get admitted to an English league – heaven forbid- Scotland is stuck with us.
PADDY MALARKEYAUGUST 17, 2017 at 17:53 7 Votes
Should CFC manage to qualify for CL group stages, Ill be looking out for a Club 1872 statement congratulating them on their achievement , and for the solidarity payment heading the way of TRFC (or does it go to RIFC ?).
—————————–
Other clubs will benefit.
There is good news for the rest of scotlands top flight clubs as well, should celtic secure their place in the Champions League, the 11 other premership clubs will share a pot of €4.4m (4m). Divided between them. each side will receive €401,000 (£365,000)but this must be spent on youth development.
—————-
Do we know if clubs have to submit that the cash they receive,that every penny is spent on youth development. And if it is not what are the Consequences. who monitors what the clubs spend their new found cash injection on?
. Here’s some tweets about the Champions League, as there are still a few misconceptions about this season, and next seasons new format.
Radio Scotland were wrong about next season. The Champions Route is not being abolished, and qualifying will still be seeded.
From next season clubs will no longer have 20% of their national coefficient added to their total. This benefits Celtic.
No, our ’67 big Cup win doesn’t mean we get bonus points as part of our coefficient for seeding. UEFA changed their mind on this.
It will, however, be added to our coefficient when used to distribute CL revenue between the clubs. Every little helps.
Yes, the number of places in next seasons Champions route will drop from 5 to 4, and yes we will face 4 qualifying rounds, not 3.
Yes, the Swiss and Dutch champion will now have to qualify. In effect, there are more and better teams going for 1 less spot.
Yes, we will lose 16 points from our coefficient, due to our 12/13 last 16 appearance no longer counting in our coefficient.
That means there is a real possibility that if we’re in the CL next year, we could be unseeded in the final qualifying round.
————————————————————–
These answers were from questions regarding Celtic in particular but it gives an idea of the changes to qualifying for CL.
View Comment
Cluster OneAugust 17, 2017 at 20:44
—————-Do we know if clubs have to submit that the cash they receive,that every penny is spent on youth development. And if it is not what are the Consequences. who monitors what the clubs spend their new found cash injection on?
————————————————————————————
I’m sure creative accounting will tick all the boxes!!
I know this is not scottish football but. Legia Warsaw fans mock UEFA with huge banner.
more flares than a walk down Argyle street in the 70’s
Bordersdon,
I was thinking that too! Wouldn’t be difficult to move money intended for youth development in a clubs budget, before any announcement of the windfall from CL, to another account code for some other expenditure. Then the £265k is indeed used for youth academy. So strictly speaking it would be used for Uefa’s intended purpose, but not as an ‘extra’ over & above bonus.
I’m being cynical of course, maybe that will not happen.
So long as a club is already spending that amount on youth development then it’s not an issue. No creative accounting required.
They just use that money for youth development and spend the money originally allocated to that elsewhere.
The whole youth development thing is meaningless. It’s additional money the clubs wouldn’t have to spend wherever they want. No-one is going to audit it.
Question though. As the SPFL is one organisation now, with 42 members, should the money not be split between all of the clubs. So about £98,000 each.
Or is it only the top division of the SPFL. I’m sure the lower division clubs would like their share as well.
CLUSTER ONEAUGUST 17, 2017 at 21:56
Seems to be always always you . but Scottish fitba is fecked presently . Are we going with the “nothing happened ” scenario , or that shite did , and for the survival of the business model we all need to think of the survival of our club . We did our bit when we were close to extinction and most RFC/TRFC guys and gals I know were willing to do the same . They were never given the opportunity, in my opinion . What you have now is a support that either go “hard core”or are “papist/taig/tarrier/ apoligists . We seem to be fighting the battles of the 70s all over again . P S Peter Tosh is live from 1983 on BBC Radio 6 presently
Big PinkAugust 17, 2017 at 10:10
‘… Doncaster has no interest in providing answers. His overriding concern is to prevent a JR over Nimmo-Smith. That was the purpose of the meeting on Monday – to head off a JR at the pass.’
__________
I know that Joe O’Rourke, on behalf of the Celtic Supporters’ Association, was in recent forceful correspondence with Doncaster of the SPFL.
I assumed that he had gone further and had asked for a meeting.But (and I was accordingly surprised at the fact) the invitation to a meeting came from the SPFL.
You are undoubtedly correct, BP, in your view that Doncaster and the SPFL do not want the question of whether the LNS judicial panel had relevant facts and evidence concealed from it probed and examined by the Court of Session.
However, given that in essence what Joe and John were told was a variant of ‘a big boy did it and ran away’,the question I ask myself is, what’s stopping the SPFL board from openly calling out the ‘big boy SFA’?
Are they so afraid of the sheer volume of muck that would be dumped in the streets of Scottish Football if every rotten piece
of the SDM cheating,
and the ‘revolving door’ between clubs and high office in the SFA
and the grubby 5-Way Agreement to accommodate TRFC Ltd,
and their own complicity-by-silence in the withholding of relevant info from their own feckin Judicial Panel
and the ludicrous view that a player who is accepted on the basis of misinformation as being ‘eligible’ is eligible until it is found out that he was actually ineligible.( Nimmo Smith must surely have thought ‘what a load of crap!’ but felt constrained to accept that that was what the SFA thought, and if the ‘prosecution’ wanted to undermine their partner authority, who was he to intervene?)
are they so afraid, I say, that they prefer to have their own integrity called seriously into doubt, to defend Regan and the SFA board?
One thing is clear: Scottish Football governance is in a right fankle.
A fankle caused by the sheer desperation that the James Traynor-style headlines about ‘140 years of history ended by Liquidation’ created in their venal hearts.
I had a wee read there of the 6th draft of the 5-Way agreement.
And I think: what sort of minds seriously thought that it was anything but an absurd pretence?
The swearing to secrecy would tell anyone that there was dirty work at the crossroads.
I was on the point of putting a wee smiley thingy at the end of that sentence.
But, of course, there is nothing to smile about when serious allegations are being made- and remain unanswered except by obfuscating ( good word, that, if it exists) references to the big boy who did it and ran away!
HomunculusAugust 17, 2017 at 23:23
‘….. It’s additional money the clubs wouldn’t have to spend wherever they want. No-one is going to audit it.’
_______
I tried in vain to find on the UEFA website( but have to acknowledge that that might be because I’m a techno dinosaur)
a) where it says that the solidarity monies are paid ‘on condition’
b)where there is mention of any checking mechanism that such monies have indeed been used for ‘youth development’ or in ‘community outreach’.
Is it all done on trust?
Which, in our wee Scotland experience of Football governance, does not compute! ( who said that ?Mr Spock? )
Our trust in our Football Governance was betrayed, and still is being betrayed.
Worse than that, it’s dead, Jim!
John ClarkAugust 17, 2017 at 23:42
“You are undoubtedly correct, BP, in your view that Doncaster and the SPFL do not want the question of whether the LNS judicial panel had relevant facts and evidence concealed from it probed and examined by the Court of Session.”
Inform EUFA that a crowd funding is taking place to bring a JR or a court case against the SFA and EUFA will grant a COA as they prefer this method as opposed to having the law meddle in football. They threatned the SFA when Sevco did this.
bigboab1916August 18, 2017 at 00:27
‘….Inform EUFA that a crowd funding is taking place to bring a JR or a court case against the SFA and EUFA will grant a COA ‘
__________
Well, that’s an idea, indeed, to try to put pressure on UEFA to get in on the act and head off the involvement of the actual civil courts of the nation by getting the SFA/SPFL arraigned before the ‘court of arbitration for sport.’
But who could do that? It would need to be a football club?
( and wouldn’t it say something about UEFA if there was nobody there who wasn’t right up to the minute with what’s happening in Scottish Football?)
No, I’m all for getting the courts of the land involved.
UEFA is itself not above suspicion in these matters.
PADDY MALARKEYAUGUST 17, 2017 at 23:28 3 Votes
CLUSTER ONEAUGUST 17, 2017 at 21:56
Seems to be always always you .
—————–
What have i done now?
I’m going with the SPFL and a big boy did it and ran away
I read the Ewan Murray article after seeing it mentioned above.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/aug/17/celtic-champions-league-play-off-astana-scottish-football-disparity
All through this saga Ewan has been one of the few journalists who isn’t scared to give opinions which have not been spoonfed by club press releases.
Indeed he’s been praised a few times on this site.
Yesterday’s article is pretty comprehensive and hits on some realities of football not just in Scotland but all over Europe.
Celtic are a well run club and so, so far ahead in Scotland. The European money they will earn will only make the gap between them and the rest of our clubs bigger …….
… But Ewan points out the reality that in Europe Celtic, the Scottish behemoth are, in financial terms, just wee guys because there is now a group of genuine superclubs whose finances and subsequently whose fire-power dwarfs Celtic’s.
That is a fact and is a real problem for our sport and the change since the 1980s is quite dramatic….
as Ewan says
“In the bygone age of the late 1980s, seasons would start with Celtic, Rangers, Aberdeen, Dundee United and Hearts holding legitimate aspirations of winning the championship. There had been broad benefit then of widespread European success. Now? Celtic should cherish heady times. The rest of Scotland has no cause to join in. That group has to, instead, somehow seek a solution“.
That’s quite a challenge for us all because the gap is widening year by year.
HomunculusAugust 17, 2017 at 23:23 “Or is it only the top division of the SPFL. I’m sure the lower division clubs would like their share as well.”
Call me old fashioned but i thought youth development started at grassroots and if we are talking shortage of facilities is this due to a shortage of cash . UEFA football philosophy on grassroots seems to be based on we take out but put nothing back.
“Does not compute” is earlier than Mr Spock, it was the “Lost in Space” Robot, I believe. Cue loads of puns about Scottish Football.
The whole “if you do not look at it it cannot exist” pantomime going on now undermines any value in the entire senior game it is sport but not as we thought we knew it. The oval ball calls.
Ah, some balance and perspective both from you and Ewan Murray on Scottish football competitiveness. Far too often discussion and decision making is about preserving the duopoly, on the basis that it’s not only good for the game but essential for its survival. The game survived 1950’s and 80’s when the two Glasgow behemoths didn’t absolutely dominate everything, winning only half the of the league championships in the 50’s and a mere 61% of all domestic trophies in the 80’s. In the last 32 seasons 100% of league titles have been won by either Celtic or Rangers, who would be a fan, owner or chairman of any other club that’s supposed to be involved in competition when you’ve no chance of winning?
Scottish Football is in a mess that is to a large extent of its own making – though not exclusively.
IMO, the ultimate source of most of the problems stem from a severe lack of imagination.
Let’s take two issues being discussed on this page of the blog: (a) SPFL / SPL cover-up and corruption, and (b) Celtic’s Champions League-fueled domestic dominance.
Our football governance bodies turned themselves inside out to try to make sure that there was a team in blue playing out of Ibrox despite the original one going into liquidation. Question is why?
Let’s do it multiple choice style:
A. Fear of financial meltdown through loss of the Blue Pound.
B. Fear of violence from the loyal hordes.
C. Bigoted blazers in the boardroom desperate to maintain an Establishment threat to Celtic.
D. Blazers in fear of being caught out (EBTs for C.O., Masterton controlling clubs etc).
E. All of the above.
Well the cynic in me says E. 🙂
But in truth, given that ALL of our clubs have an equal say in these things, and they can’t ALL have been puppets for the bigots (surely?), I reckon the main issue here was that no-one in a position of power had the faintest idea how to build a successful product that was not fueled on the sectarian bile of the so-called Old Firm.
It’s a lack of imagination.
Moving on to the Champion’s League effect.
I was at Celtic Park on Weds night and witnessed a super confident Celtic demolish a good quality team from Astana. Honestly, I loved every second of it and I think BR is doing an amazing job. Possibly the best Celtic team in my adult lifetime.
I am there to see my team compete and to progress. I know we are going to struggle if we reach the group stage because we will be up against teams with order of magnitude more resource than us. I am disgruntled about this because I know that UEFA have tilted the table in favour of a select few nations that happen to have the biggest TV audiences.
Dry your eyes I hear you say, because that £30m Celtic just won is going to ensure complete dominance in the league for the next few years at least and possibly for much longer.
I hear you. You are right. Champions League money is probably going to destroy the premier league in Scotland as a meaningful competition (at least to win it).
Of course, I don’t remember hearing how damaging this was for Scottish Football when it was SDM planning European dominance on his hover pitch. Maybe it was all the moonbeams that dazzled the SMSM from realising the damage that was being done to Scottish Football by Masterton’s millions flowing into Ibrox and the failure to pay Hector his dues?
For a fair few in the media, the real problem here is that it is a team playing in green and white that has taken permanent pole position and not one in red white and blue.
Much as I enjoy wallowing in the schadenfreude of the misery over at Ibrox (I am at least honest enough to admit that I do), I do genuinely fear for the future of our game as a meaningful sport.
This was true when it was Rangers cheating their way to dominance and it is true now while Celtic win fairly on their way to the Group Stage.
Celtic play the competition in front of them, earn the money they can and are obliged to use it to maximise their advantage in all competitions they enter. I did see a great suggestion on CQN yesterday about using some of it to improve conditions in the stadium for disabled fans and see Man Utd are doing something like this already – would be a great ting if it happened.
Big questions is – how will Scottish Football deal with it?
Is there enough imagination to deal with the fact that there is a hugely imbalanced distribution of cash?
Don’t think for one second this means a conversation about gate sharing etc etc. For a start it would barely scratch the surface.
Think bigger.
Who else is in a similar position to Scottish Football in this regard?
Oh yeah, that’s right, every other nation outside of the big 4.
If Scottish Football had any imagination it would be leading a movement for an alternative set up in Europe where we are not at the mercy of living off scraps from the Champions League, Europa etc.
Either UEFA comes to their senses and starts to provide a level playing field in these competitions, or us wee diddy nations should tell them to keep it and set up our own formats, with our own TV deals. Scotland is wee, Holland is wee, Denmark, Norway are wee etc etc, but together we can do something with real clout.
But it takes real ambition and ability to organise on an international basis. It takes imagination.
Do you think we have anyone in the SFA who wants to really tackle this sort of problem? Sure, they would much rather be on jets to Geneva and living high on the handouts.
As ever, the problem here is the people running the SFA and the SPFL. They have to be run out of town and replaced by people of integrity and imagination if we are going to save our sport.
I hope Celtic and BR give some of the so-called giants a bloody nose in the next few months.
I will love supporting them on the big European nights.
But deep down, I would much rather be in a competition that was entered by winning the domestic league and for which we had a reasonable chance of getting to the final stages along with teams from other diddy nations.
ZilchAugust 18, 2017 at 11:27
Excellent piece Zilch. I agree part that Celtic can’t be faulted for driving forward. They were happy though to ally with Rangers on the voting structure of the SPL, which effectively provided the two with a veto on change. Why the others didn’t kick the door in when Rangers went bust is beyond me.
ZILCHAUGUST 18, 2017 at 11:27
Cynic ?
That’s what an optimist calls a realist.
bigboab1916August 18, 2017 at 00:27‘….Inform EUFA that a crowd funding is taking place to bring a JR or a court case against the SFA and EUFA will grant a COA ‘
……………………………………………………………………………………………..
And I wonder who would be Uefa’s go to man for all things Scottish Football???
That’s right Campbell Ogilvie, second only to David Murray in hierarchy on the list of culprits involved in the whole sorry mess, creating the awful stench in our game.
I too believe the law courts in England are the only trustworthy bodies likely to get to the bottom of this cesspit and openly declare the guilty without fear or favour.
No need for further procrastination. Our governing bodies have had umpteen opportunities and many years to do the right thing and despite the numerous opportunities to lance the boil, they choose to increase the festering within it with their lies, deflection and stubborn denial of simple truths.
A plague on them all…………
From a couple of years ago,
http://www.uefa.com/insideuefa/stakeholders/clubs/news/newsid=2229945.html
Solidarity payments to clubs not qualified for UEFA club competitions
The solidarity payments to non-participating clubs via their national associations and/or leagues, formerly amounting to 6.5% of the UEFA Champions League clubs’ share, will now represent 5% of the overall gross revenues of the two competitions. A total of €112m will be distributed to national associations and/or leagues for their clubs, compared to €82.4m in the 2012-15 cycle, thus representing an increase of more than 35%. 80% of this amount will be distributed to national associations and/or leagues with at least one club participating in the UEFA Champions League group stage and 20% to national associations and/or leagues without participating clubs. Only clubs not participating in the group stage of either competition will be entitled to a share of these solidarity payments.
================================
We only have one national association and one senior national league (The SPL absorbed the SFL and the four divisions are now actually part of the same league).
So why would the solidarity payment only go to teams in the top division of that league. Is there a UEFA rule with regards that or is it down to the individual countries to decide how it is divided up.
There was a different argument when the SPL and SFL were different leagues. What if say a team from the lower league (at the time) won the Scottish Cup. Would the solidarity payment not include the other teams in their league.
What about now, if a team from the Championship won the Scottish Cup, would teams in their division get any payment.
Maybe this is income which could be distributed a bit better, it would be a massive boost for lower division clubs, they are in the same league as teams in the top division.