Podcast Episode 1

By

Ecobhoy says: February 12, 2014 at 11:33 am neepheid says: February 12, …

Comment on Podcast Episode 1 by Auldheid.

ecobhoy says:

February 12, 2014 at 11:33 am

neepheid says:
February 12, 2014 at 10:38 am
(and others asking about what happened in 2012)

I think, a change to the existing rules, or at least to the existing procedures. And a very significant change. The clubs can in future hide behind the board, and so completely ignore the feelings of their fans. What the clubs are seeking to avoid at any cost is a repeat of the events of summer 2012, when they had to stand up and be counted in a transparent manner. They did not like that one little bit. Transparency is their enemy, They much prefer their grubby deals to be done in private.
==================================================
Nail on head! They were exposed to fan pressure last time and didn’t like it. But they knew with the financial shambles of a Rangers still spending recklessly beyond their means it would probably end-up back in an admin/liquidation scenario.

Walking by on the other side of the moral highway with eyes averted means they can wash their hands of any responsibility no matter what. They will sympathise with fans who complain but blame the Board of the SPFL, the SFA and everyone they can think of.

However it boils down to cowardice and the hope fans will swallow it – they won’t and many won’t walk away from their club and I am one of them. So we have to become better at getting our message across. We must have the belief that eventually Scottish Football can only be saved if those in charge are honest and their decision-making is not only transparent but takes account of the wishes of fans without whom the game will inevitably die.
========================
If you go through this topic on KDS , particularly the letter under the Spoiler to Doncaster and his replies) you will get a good idea of what transpired.

http://kerrydalestreet.co.uk/topic/8658278/1/

Supporters told clubs then they were not having it and I think we need to tell them again.

It is like having the game run by bent referees free to make up their own rules (Ok I know some appear to do but its the best I can come up with).

Auldheid Also Commented

Podcast Episode 1
sannoffymesssoitizzhizzemdyfonedrapolis says:

February 24, 2014 at 9:33 pm

Auldheid says: February 24, 2014 at 8:17 pm

Thanks for your thoughts which prompted me me to do some further internet research.

Re FIFA and government involvement in football.

UK Parliamentary Select Committees are elected from amongst the cohort of MPs periodically.
All Party Parliamentary Groups consist of volunteer MPs who share a common interest in a particular subject. From the Report you posted the APPG for Mutuals liaised with the Chair of the Select Committee for Culture Media & Sport and the APPG on Football before inviting representatives from the FA / EPL/ EFL and supporters Direct to meet with them in November 2013.

There was of course the Scottish Football Review Committee chaired by Henry McLeish that reported in 2010.

My search on the Scottish Parliament website discovered the following meeting on 20 February 2014.

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/visitandlearn/73204.aspx

I’ll try to check periodically for a report of the meeting and post it on here in due course.

==================
Well done that man. I had a wee trawl through the same site but found nothing. I remember Margo McDonald was on some sports committee but that went back a few years ago and she has moved on.

It would be worth while keeping an eye on updates.


Podcast Episode 1
The Podcast with Stuart Cosgrove is well worth listening to, giving a wider Scottish football perspective.


Podcast Episode 1
sannoffymesssoitizzhizzemdyfonedrapolis says:

February 24, 2014 at 7:07 pm

I have not dug into the report but you raise an interesting point about its jurisdiction to only England.

The question is why England was able to get the government involved in looking at football and the Scottish Government, in spite of how much it saw the part the game plays in the social fabric of Scotland, has steadfastly refused to really get involved as happened down south, using the FIFA defence i.e FIFA do not want Government interference in football.

I think the all party Select committee approach made, if I remember correctly, from volunteer MPs was how a Chinese Wall was erected to give government a foothold without breaching the FIFA defence.

My point is that now more than ever, when you have folk in authority with a responsibility to govern themselves that they are incapable of meeting and so creating lawless territory, the Scottish Government, as has been suggested for England, do not decide enough is enough and step in to insist the SFA put its house in order.

Something like the Scottish equivalent of the English Parliamentary body with a similar zeal for reform is what is needed.
Instead we got the Offensive Behaviour at Football bill as Governments only intervention and what a discouraging advert for intervention that has been.


Recent Comments by Auldheid

Here we go again
Cluster One
Hirsute Pursuit

Thanks for the clarification.

I can see how the Brechin reason and Romanov reason got conflated back then so we can drop Romanov from the underlying issue to look at which is:

What was the argument in support of the change in SPL rules introducing owner and operator and if it was solely to deal with a potential problem in respect of Brechin having no “owner” of a share, how did that rule change in 2005 transform Rangers from being an incorporated single Public Limited Liability Company (PLC) earning its revenue from football to a Public Limited Liability Company (PLC) that overnight owned a club earning the same income from the same source?

In terms of conforming with UEFA FFP before 2012 was it Rangers FC PLC that applied for a UEFA Licence or Rangers FC as a stand alone club or was it Rangers PLC whom Rangers Football Club had a written contract with to be their operators? The application template suggests it was Rangers Football Club only.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/0B6uWzxhblAt9VnptRTJBR01RTEE/edit

Post 2012 if its not the current club (Rangers FC Ltd) applying for a UEFA licence but the football Company (Rangers International Football Club PLC) they have a written contract with and the football company’s (RIFC) main source of revenue is from the club activities, then how can a Company go bust unless the club ceases to be able to provide that revenue?

Now had UEFA seen the 5 Way Agreement there would be the satisfaction of knowing they were OK with it.

As it stands UEFA did what their rules told them to do, Waited 3 years to allow the club that had undergone a terminal change in its legal structure to satisfy UEFA requirements in respect of historical membership of the SFA before being eligible to apply to play in UEFA competitions in circumstances that were not to the detriment of the integrity of those competitions.

After 3 years, whichever club ie legal entity that applied for a UEFA Licence, it was not the Rangers Football Club (PLC) that last applied in 2012 (which was rejected because they had no audited accounts and the wee tax bill of 2011 was admitted , unlike March 2011 when described as a potential liability, as a payable that as the world and its wean knew in 2012 was outstanding.)


Here we go again
HirsutePursuit 13th March 2021 At 21:31
3 0 Rate This

Auldheid…

On the subject of a franchise…

At the very least the possibility that the 5 Way Agreement has turned Scottish Football into a franchise should be explored by UEFA just in case.

On McDonalds I remember reading McDonalds Behind The Arches many years ago and one of the fascinating things to come out is that their wealth was not based on burgers but on the land and buildings owned . Kind of fits your point to your family member.


Here we go again
UptheHoops

On exclusions zones because supporters might turn up for invented reasons I think recognition of “knuckleheadessness ” as an all pervading human condition is necessary.

Knuckleheads.

I think it is an American term.

I quite like it, kind of onomatopoeic quality to it. Not so much sounds like but looks like.

Anyhoo it is a denial of reality that the support of Celtic and “Rangers” do not have their share of knuckleheads and they recognise each other.

The knuckle in the head stops the consequences of the emotions reaching the brain.

It’s a condition that most grow out of but it’s also one that we grow into before we grow out of it. A human condition.

So best not deny it and deal with it free from judgment of which support has the most knuckleheads or which kind of knucklehead is worse than the other.

Just say that anyone turning up at CP will be taken as evidence of knuckleheadedness to become huckleheads into a police van.

Set a perimeter around the ground and any one approaching without valid reason to do so will be huckled.

HuckleberryTim or HuckleberryHun.


Here we go again
Upthehoops 13th March 2021 At 18:45
0 0 Rate This

Auldheid 13th March 2021 At 16:15

It is the huge incentive that CL money provides that in my opinion is the creator of an incentive to cheat to get at it, PARTICULARLY if the ability repay the debt depends on getting the CL money.

+++++++++++++++++++++

Absolutely agree with that. Financial Fair Play in Scotland post 2012 would have been a good move, although the new Rangers would have suffered more than anyone because of it in my view.

And there you have it. Canny have rules that hinder Rangers business model .

If the 5 Way created a franchise like McDonalds but selling hateburgers then sectarianism is only the sauce that goes on the otherwise tasteless moneyburger to make it tasty.


Here we go again
Hirsute Pursuit

Thanks for your response useful as ever.

If the intent was to create a franchise is that not questionable of itself?

If it wasnt then SPFL misused it.

Either way the SPL appear het, it’s just from when?


About the author