Celtic Shareholders who put forward a resolution to the Celtic AGM in 2013 are preparing for the 2019 AGM tomorrow and some of their conclusions are reproduced below. Celtic are planning to vote the current resolution of 2019 down after several years of kicking the can down the road after an agreement to adjourn the 2013 motion was agreed at that AGM.
Given the weight of evidence, and the prevarication that has gone on for this extended period of time, you don’t have to be a student of politics to infer that Celtic are failing their own shareholders over this.
There appears to have been, at best, a failure of SFA governance over this issue. At worst? Well that doesn’t really bear thinking about. That Celtic (and other clubs too) have been in possession of the evidence outlined below but have failed to act on it is a damning indictment of the quality of people running our clubs. Peter Lawwell’s words from 2008 about the integrity of competition seem hollow coming from the same lips as the man who has failed to pursue any kind of sporting integrity over upholding the rules of the game.
Of course we are talking about a fundamental difference in how people see the game. There are those of us who (some say naively) consider that upholding the aspects of fair play and competition are paramount, and those who see the commercial aspects of the game as the foremost consideration. A pragmatist might find a way to accommodate both, but there are apparently no pragmatists in boardrooms all over Scotland – just financial accountants.
It would be unfair to categorise the latter constituency as suffering from some kind of character defect of course. Doesn’t make you a bad person because short term financial gain is your thing.
But it puts you at odds with the paying punters – or at least some of them. As a Celtic fan myself, I’m not so sure that I can take any real joy from my own club’s success if I have come to the conclusion that they themselves are happy with a rigged competition. I am not so sure I can credibly throw stones at anyone who is caught cheating when I see that serious evidence of malpractice is being ignored and hidden under the rug by my own club.
I am sure there are those who feel the same as I do. Are there enough of us? Probably not, but the effect of it all from a personal perspective, is that it disconnects me from the process where common goals and objectives are shared between fans, players and clubs. That’s what clubs are for after all isn’t it?
In short, if the game is rigged, there is no common objective.
And consequently, many of us, deprived of that shared mission, that bond broken, will be forced to re-evaluate their relationship with their clubs.
We all have our own thoughts, but the urge to walk away forever is strong with me.
The Resolution 12 Story
In 2012, Celtic shareholders brought a resolution before the Celtic PLC AGM which asked the Celtic Board to refer certain matters to UEFA because they felt that the Scottish Football Association was compromised, no longer fit for purpose in relation to these matters, at least, and had failed Celtic and all the other football clubs in Scotland and in its duty as a Governing body, and it has separately failed UEFA as the Licensing Authority appointed by UEFA to grant licences to play in European Football in relation to Scottish teams.
The actual wording used was as follows;
“This AGM requests the Board exercise the provision contained in the Procedural Rules Governing the UEFA Club Financial Control Body Article 10 with jurisdiction and investigation responsibilities identified in articles 3 & 11 (Note 1), by referring/bringing to the attention of the UEFA Club Financial Control Body (CFCB), the licensing administration practices of the Scottish Football Association (SFA), requesting the CFCB undertake a review and investigate the SFA’s implementation of UEFA & SFA license compliance requirements, with regard to qualification, administration and granting of licenses to compete in football competitions under both SFA and UEFA jurisdiction, since the implementation of the Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations of 2010.”
The response of the Celtic Board was to argue that this resolution was NOT NECESSARY because the board itself had already recognised that there had been failings within the SFA Licensing process, and they were already in correspondence with the SFA in relation to much the same issue.
The difference between the board and the Resolutioners was that the board wanted to continue corresponding with the SFA rather than refer the matter to UEFA or anyone else, whereas the Resolutioners argued that the SFA were hopelessly compromised, were unfit for purpose, could not of themselves remedy the situation they had created, and so wanted to refer the matter to UEFA as an independent and overseeing body whose rules had been flaunted, broken, ignored and to be frank, completely manipulated as a result of SFA inaction and inactivity.
After much discussion between the board and the Resolutioners, it was reluctantly agreed that the resolution should be adjourned and to allow the SFA to be given the opportunity to demonstrate that they could operate as a proper Governing body should and to answer all and any questions put to them via the Celtic PLC board and , where appropriate, the Resolutioners and ,if necessary, their solicitors.
In the interim period, it has become clear to the Resolutioners that the SFA are not fit for purpose, just as they originally argued, and that they are not, and never could have been, the appropriate body to consider and determine the failings in the licensing system that the Resolutioners had complained of.
This is not merely opinion on the part of the Resolutioners but is the determination and judgement of a formally constituted judicial panel appointed by the SFA itself.
The Resolutioners complain that the SFA have failed, and continue to fail in the following areas;
- They failed to oversee a fair and robust European Licence application process before and after March 2011 in respect of the appropriate season.
They had failed to mount any sort of investigation despite being contacted by HMRC from 2006 onwards in relation to the unlawful activities of a member club – they should have had a watching brief and requested regular updates from HMRC directly but didn’t. - They failed to properly apply the necessary tests demanded by UEFA in considering licence applications, and subsequently, through their then CEO, sought to justify their licensing process and the grant of certain licences on a number of different contradictory grounds – none of which stood scrutiny.
- They failed to monitor, update their records or make specific enquiries between 30th March 2011 and Mid May 2011 when the list of application grants was formally intimated to UEFA – and by which time there was widespread public rumour and speculation about the state of the tax affairs of a member club together with specific legal documents which outlined that there was indeed a tax bills due which would have disqualified that club from being granted a UEFA licence – had the rules been applied properly.
- They failed to grasp the situation between March 2011 and August 2011 when the Sheriff Officers were seen arriving at the same club and had still made no enquiry.
- They failed to carry out any monitoring duties at all post the grant of the licence, with then CEO Reagan telling Celtic that once a European licence was granted – which it was in April 2011 – all further compliance monitoring and any necessary action was the province of UEFA. This was later contradicted by UEFA themselves.
- They failed to monitor through the June 30th and September 30th, two key datelines specified with the UEFA regulations, and there exists a damning e-mail from one SFA officer to the offending club which effectively says that he hopes UEFA will be too busy to notice the deficiencies in the latest submissions sent by the SFA to UEFA in respect of the club concerned.
Throughout, the SFA denied that there were any failures in their procedures, that licences had been correctly granted, there had been no breaches of the rules and maintained that their procedures had been audited and approved by UEFA during the period.
According to the official UEFA website, no such Audit actually took place with the same website confirming which Football Associations were in fact audited at the relevant time. There is no mention of any SFA Audit.
The SFA claimed that not only was there nothing wrong with the grant of the licence, but that there was nothing for them to report during the post grant period as it was not their responsibility – and then added that even if something had been wrong, or was later found to be wrong with the grant, they could not report the matter to UEFA and could take no action because they were time barred from doing so.
Post the Craig Whyte Trial, where long held evidence was publicly noted and commented upon, Celtic and the SPFL publicly called for there to be a full independent Legal inquiry into all that had transpired during “the EBT years” and all aspects of how what had occurred, impacted on football Governance in Scotland.
The SFA rejected those calls and instead insisted on their own internal inquiry into the UEFA licence process for 2011/2012 – despite previously insisting that there had never been anything to investigate or report to UEFA who had entrusted them with the administration of their Licensing process.
The SFA wrote to every club in Scotland to say they were undertaking that investigation and later publicly announced that as a result of that investigation they had uncovered sufficient evidence to justify bringing formal charges alleging breaches of both SFA and UEFA rules.
This despite denying for a number of years that there had been any need for an investigation and despite reassuring Celtic that their licensing process was robust, had been conducted properly, and had not resulted in any incorrect grant of a licence.
The SFA appointed a judicial panel to hear those charges, determine whether they had been proven or not and then to hand out an appropriate punishment.
That Judicial panel have ruled that legally they (the SFA appointed panel) and the SFA itself cannot bring, hear, determine and act on those charges, nor consider the activities of the football club concerned in any judicial forum, because apparently the SFA had previously decided and formally entered into a contract which says that the SFA will not, and cannot, administer their normal Governmental and Judicial function (which would normally apply to any other club in Scotland and at any other time in the history of the SFA or UEFA) in relation to the acts concerned and the specific football club in question.
Instead, the Panel ruled that the charges concerned should be considered by the Court of Arbitration for Sport as a matter of contract and law – and could not be considered by an SFA appointed panel.
In other words, it has been judicially determined that the SFA cannot as a matter of law enforce its own rules or those of UEFA in relation to one club, and have signed away their entire right to oversee proper football Governance and the implementation of SFA and UEFA rules in this instance.
Further, that contract must have been known to all the appropriate SFA officers who decided and took part in the inquiry that led to the SFA bringing the disciplinary charges – Stuart Reagan, Andrew MacKinlay and Tony McGlennan – and when the SFA rejected Celtic’s call for a fully independent inquiry.
In effect, those same officers mounted their own internal inquiry and brought proceedings which they knew, or ought reasonably to have known, which would end in a legal dead end.
Such a course of action amounts to professional incompetence on a monumental scale – at best!
Further, subsequent SFA officials, assured the officers of Celtic Football Club that following the decision of the Independent Judicial Panel there was no reason why the SFA would not take the matter to CAS and in turn used the officials of Celtic Football Club to relay that message to the Resolutioners in the knowledge, and with the intention, that Celtic PLC shareholders would rely on those assurances and would act accordingly. Those actions and those assurances should now be the subject of a wholly separate inquiry.
Since those assurances were made to Celtic officials, Solicitors acting on behalf of shareholders have written to the SFA on no less than three occasions requesting clarification on what the SFA is doing, whether or not the decision from the independent tribunal advising that the matter should go to CAS will be implemented, and requesting a proposed timetable when this will happen. All such letters have been ignored or avoided by the SFA.
Subsequently, the current CEO of the SFA has stated that whether or not the matter should go to CAS will only be determined prior to Christmas 2019 – some 18 months after the ruling by the independent judicial panel.
This position is a complete volte face from what the SFA told Celtic officials immediately after the 2018 panel hearing.
The conclusion to all of this can only be that the SFA is not fit for purpose and that the governance of Scottish football is so bad, so broken and so far removed from normal judicial and corporate business practice that it must be looked at by an independent body if the matter is not referred to CAS.
Further, all of this must be made public, must be out in the open and must be properly disclosed otherwise any future investment in any club whether by private individuals, stock market listed entities, banks, loan houses, credit houses or whatever is predicated on the wholly fraudulent notion that the SFA will consistently apply its own rules or those of UEFA.
Celtic, as a respected member of UEFA, should not and cannot, stand back and allow this shambolic governance to continue unchecked and without external examination as to do so would be doing a total disservice to UEFA, and such a course of action would potentially make Celtic a party to the entire shambolic administration we have seen thus far.
The resolutioners have stated consistently since 2012 that SFA governance is not fit for purpose and have requested that this entire matter should be referred to UEFA as the overall governing body for European football and as a footballing authority who has entrusted the SFA to oversee the fair application of its rules in Scotland.
Despite what is now accepted as continued and regular SFA failure, that request has met with obfuscation and resistance.
However persistence beats resistance and no matter what the outcome of the 2019 Celtic AGM this is an issue which will not go away and is worthy of consideration and determination in a more formal legal forum.
Jingo.Jimsie
I bow to your superior knowledge of the relevant laws, but my view is that Morelos deserved a second red card. Kent behaviour also deserved a red card.
Could you perhaps clarify that this could not have been done retrospectively for their inciteful actions?
I accept that my view is clouded by my disgust for such thugs – but can Christie'n misdemeanour really be considered as more serious that their's.
Surely there must be a mechanism whereby Morelos and Kent can be held to account. The inaction by the SFA to date is beyond my ken at least.
@ bect67:
My post of 1556 is badly-worded, even by my usual standards!
Firstly, I don't know if the actions of Morelos & Kent were reviewed by the CO.
Secondly, it is my understanding that gestures (as an offence) have, in general, been downgraded to yellow-card status. (Morelos' red-card at Motherwell was a second booking for gesturing at the fans, I recall.) It would have to be deemed to be an incredibly violent or aggressive gesture to warrant a straight red- card, although that is provided for in Law 12. Kent's gesture has not been deemed, by the referee or the CO, to meet the criteria for a red-card. On the day, for whatever reason, Mr. Clancy decided to take no action. Had he produced a card, it would likely have been only a yellow.
Morelos is different. He was sent off for two bookable offences. Whilst leaving the field he committed what appeared to be another (at least) yellow-card offence. He can't be booked again; the referee's only sanction is a second, straight red-card. The referee chose to ignore it (or he may not have seen the gesture, but the assistant & fourth official should have). The CO has grounds for retrospective action, but seems loath to proceed.
bect67 7th January 2020 at 16:35
I don't think that either should necessarily get a ban for their gestures , but both should be hauled before the authorities and publicly reprimanded . Otherwise the game decends to gutter level .
If us mere mortals / paying punters do something stoopid at work, whether intentional or not, the sensible, professional -and expected – thing to do is to apologise.
In the absence of any punishment – or further punishment – then Christie, Morelos and Kent should be publicly apologising for their on field behaviour.
…and actively discouraging young players from copying their misbehaviour.
Despite the confounded SFA Disciplinary processes;
individuals can still accept responsibility for their actions and hold their hands up when they're wrong…
paddy malarkey 7th January 2020 at 17:00
'..both should be hauled before the authorities and publicly reprimanded .'
++++++++++++++
But by whom, or by what 'authority', pm?
By a body which many of us believe 'interfered' with its own Judicial Panel by introducing a farcical ridiculous notion that an ineligible player is eligible until he is later found to have been ineligible but cannot be deemed to have been ineligible for the period before the mistake/deception is discovered, or a body that refuses to acknowledge that there are serious questions about it that can only be properly investigated by a investigatory team completely independent from it?
At present, for the SPFL or the SFA to imagine that they have any moral authority whatsoever to discipline 'workers' for work-place offences when the Boards of those bodies are believed to be rotten to the core is like a Mafia chief claiming the moral high ground over against the driver of a delivery truck who helps himself to a bottle of bootleg hooch!
John Clark 7th January 2020 at 19:02
JC , I think they know that that there are serious questions about them that can only be properly investigated by a investigatory team completely independent from it , and that is why they decline to do it . Leave aside the shenanigans about what what constitutes a club , or secret agreements , and let them do the bits they can and should be doing . These two players should be dealt with for bringing the Scottish game into disrepute , pour encourager les atres , regardless of the moral standing of those who do it .
Ok. Who remembers this one?
He said: “A player manhandling a referee and only getting a fine? I think that is outrageous. It comes down to the SFA as the employers to look after their employees.
………..
Ok. Another clue.
It’s understood Murray did not feel the actions were of an aggressive nature but Miller insists it has still broken one of the game’s golden rules.
…….
Remember now?
That time when you can manhandle a referee when you are getting sent off, but because the referee does not feel the actions were of an aggressive nature (even though it is against the rules a fine will do.
……………………
If the SFA think a player manhandling a ref is worthy of just a fine then our officials have no chance.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/if-the-sfa-think-a-player-manhandling-a-ref-1100321
………………
Sorry for turning that post into a quiz.
Some of you may have noticed some different behaviour on the site in the last couple of days.
We have moved the site to a test location with a new configuration and we hope to be able to decide whether or not the experience has been satisfactory.
Any observations, please let us know.
paddy malarkey 7th January 2020 at 19:46
'..These two players should be dealt with..'
++++++++++++++
You'll appreciate that I wasn't so much suggesting that they should not be dealt with, just underlining the fact that the sins of their 'judges' may be blacker and infinitely more heinous than footballing offences on the pitch.
Big Pink 7th January 2020 at 21:15
'..observations, please let us know…'
+++++++++++++++++
I don't know whether it is connected with what you mention, BP, but I'm certainly pleased that we can again get back to previous posts by scrolling up or down to the nearest 'older posts' thingies as we used to be able to do, instead of being limited to scrolling in one direction only.
Or was it only me who sometimes found it a pain having to go backwards for pages before you could find the option to click on an earlier page?
Big Pink 7th January 2020 at 21:15
………
Keep getting woild you like to recieve notification from this site.
Click on not now it appears moments later anyway.
John Clark 7th January 2020 at 21:38
the sins of their 'judges' may be blacker and infinitely more heinous
Nothing new there , JC , that's how it rolls in this benighted wee country .
Big Pink 7th January 2020 at 21:15
Sometimes I click once to post a comment , sometimes twice , then sometimes after I've clicked twice , it tells me it's a duplicate comment . Confused ? Not arf !
Cluster One 7th January 2020 at 21:11
Are our referees not employees of a company contracted by the SFA to supply a service ? Asking for an auld guy who thought that was how it worked .
Missed out a "u" earlier . Told you about my spelling !
The Herald's piece on the lack of action on the CAS situation has ironically brought – again – Celtic's role into stark relief.
The attendant statement by the Celtic board at the AGM – that Celtic did not have sight of the 5WA – is also in the mix, not only because that statement was untrue, but because the proof of their having known about it (and there most certainly is) begs further questions about what they agreed to, why they agreed to it, and why the thing has to remain a secret from shareholders.
Despite the rush to victim-hood at Ibrox by fans of all Rangerses, the whole affair rather highlights the claims of the Res 12 folk that the real villains of the piece here are the authorities, the boards of the SFA, SPL and SFL (all of whom had sight of the 5WA), and the ridiculous current ‘head in the sand’ practitioners at Hampden.
As ever, the sin of the cover up grows larger every day, whilst the initial crime remains as it was.
There is as much chance of the SFA going to CAS as there is of a Donald Trump state visit to Teheran.
Persistence is required, and crucially, recognition of the WHOLE truth is required of fans.
paddy malarkey 8th January 2020 at 00:53
'..Are our referees not employees of a company ..'
++++++++++
The judgment in Stephen Conroy's Employment Appeal tribunal might be of interest, pm, in that the decision was that he was NOT and employee of the SFA within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Conroy ( a referee) was claiming unfair dismissal. The SFA denied that he was an employee. Conroy lost his appeal.
The case is reported in the BAILLII at
https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKEAT/2013/0024_13_1212.html&query=(scottish)+AND+(football)+AND+(association)
John Clark 8th January 2020 at 10:30
Cheers , John . I thought they were part of a group rather than individual service provoders .
Regarding Celtic's recent condemnation of Ryan Christie's ban as a result of 'testiclegate', can anyone explain why they have conveniently forgotten that Steven MacLean of Hearts was given a two match ban following a similar incident involving Celtic's Eboue Kouassi just over a year ago? Asking for a friend who is concerned that the two clubs with the largest supports are involved in yet another squalid tit-for-tat squabble designed to appease their fans, all to the constant embarrassment of the rest of Scottish football.
Providers !
An interesting read , that , JC .
£213,000 per season is not a bad wee lift .
And nice to know that none of them are season ticket holders for any club , nor are they shareholders , lenders or investors in any member club of the SFA . I can sleep a bit easier now .
Highlander 8th January 2020 at 13:00
Its a cheap shot to compare the SFA treatment of Celtic and TRFC as some sort of old firm cheeks nonsense. I accept the commercial comparison of ugly sisters but certainly not the sporting one.
Big Pink 8th January 2020 at 09:28
——————————–
Have you had sight of the recent Independently produced report the Resolution 12 guys have had written?
gunnerb 8th January 2020 at 20:46
With all due respect, you mentioned “old firm cheeks nonsense”, I certainly didn't.
I read several interviews in recent articles where various representatives of Celtic, including John Kennedy, made clear both before and after the Compliance Officer's decision that the charge and subsequent ban Christie faced were ridiculous and unwarranted, a stance which was completely at odds with Celtic's (and this forum's) opinion when Steven MacLean faced precisely the same charge and received precisely the same ban following a match against Celtic. It seems to me impossible to reconcile those two sets of circumstances without conceding that your own club affiliation has affected your judgement, but good luck in trying.
For the avoidance of doubt, I agree that MacLean's punishment was fully warranted, but that means so too was Christie's.
For the further avoidance of doubt, when Morelos stamped, kicked and clutched the groin of Celtic players and no action was taken because the referee claimed he saw each instance and deemed them not to be offences – however ridiculous that may seem – it is an entirely different matter to MacLean and Christie's, aside from which two wrongs don't make a right.
I don't have a great deal of respect for BBC journalist Tom English, but his recent article on the subject of the tit-for-tat war of words between Rangers* and Celtic hit the nail on the head. These two clubs constantly whinge and moan about decisions that go against them when in reality they suffer just a tiny fraction of bad decisions compared to the other clubs who play against them, clubs who know it's pointless complaining because only the two best supported clubs appear to matter. The constant sniping between the two clubs, all to appease their own supporters, would rightly have other lesser clubs up on charges of bringing the game into disrepute, yet these two clubs have a set of rules of their own.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51022782
Highlander 8th January 2020 at 22:51
With respect Highlander, I apologise for interpreting your original post as somehow criticizing both TRFC and Celtic equally in regard to disciplinary matters. I was obviously wrong and my shorthand two cheeks remark was misleading and unforgiveable.
Highlander
You have manged to completely miss the point.
I seem to remember a certain goalkeeper being cautioned by the police for genuflecting at a football match.
At the recent Celtic Sevco match, two away team players made obnoxious gestures at opposing fans. One, who has a history of violently assault on the football field, fires imaginary bullets and another gives a cut throat gesture. Many people were left in amazement that the only player cited was Christie.
That, is the point.
If you remember, the SFA has a history of alleged conspiracy to commit fraud against a particular business based in the east end of Glasgow. Jim Farry? Hugh Dallas? Do you really expect Celtic supporters to blindly accept that the SFA does not have an agenda?
I'm not sure how you arrive at the 'tiny fraction' of bad decisions going against Celtic compared to the teams that play against them. I don't see how that is possible unless you have studied every match and counted them up.
But maybe you are 'whingeing and moaning' about your own team's misfortunes against Celtic?
As for MacLean? That was a sleekit and nasty attempt to genuinely injure a fellow professional. It was cold and calculated.
If my memory serves me well ( no lughing at the back ), I seem to recall that , early in his tenure as manager at Ibrox , Mr Gerard lamented the decisions given against his team , and suggested that there was historical bias against them . I suggest he was preparing the ground for what we have now , in terms of his teams onfield behaviour – going down easily (not quite diving in most instances ) to pressure the referee to make a decision , robust , semi-legal or illegal challenges ( taking liberties ) to defy the referee to take action ,while screamin "victimisation" , much like his behaviour when he was captain of Liverpool . I think he has seen the latitude given to Scott Brown ( too much ) and thought "we'll have some of that , but for all our players " and do what he did at Anfield , which was pull up his captain's armband to let the referee know the order of things and put him in his place . He has just done the same thing with his latest statement about crying wolf and playing violins , in my opinion . An inveterate cheat or a born winner – you choose .
finnmccool 9th January 2020 at 01:00
Having read your post, I apologise because I wasn't aware that Celtic's ire was caused by Kent & Morelos, both of whose antics towards the Celtic support were, I agree, despicable and deserving of punishment. As if that wasn't bad enough, there is a strong sense of Rangers* concocting a racism charge in an attempt to dilute Morelos' culpability. If that sense is inaccurate and Morelos was indeed racially abused, then I apologise for my cynicism and hope the perpetrators are tracked down and dealt with.
The complaints I read about were more specifically targeted at Christie's offence, something that was somehow perceived to be unworthy of punishment despite being identical in my eyes to the MacLean incident.
gunnerb 9th January 2020 at 00:29
No apology necessary, particularly since I misunderstood the full context.
Highlander 8th January 2020 at 13:00
Regarding Celtic's recent condemnation of Ryan Christie's ban as a result of 'testiclegate', can anyone explain why they have conveniently forgotten that Steven MacLean of Hearts was given a two match ban following a similar incident involving Celtic's Eboue Kouassi just over a year ago? Asking for a friend who is concerned that the two clubs with the largest supports are involved in yet another squalid tit-for-tat squabble designed to appease their fans, all to the constant embarrassment of the rest of Scottish football.
—————————————–
To compare the two incidents above is unfair. As often happens in football, when one player goes past another, the "beaten" player will often stick out a hand and grab his opponent to attempt to slow down or stop his progress, allowing him to recover the situation. This is what happened in Christie's case and the fact he was bent double when reaching out, his hand and arm were at waist level. This meant he could only "get across" his opponent by contact in the genital area.
The McLean incident took place when both players were stationary in the penalty box awaiting the cross. McLean reached behind him and deliberately assaulted his opponent, (out of badness).
Anyone who has played the game, or watched both incidents objectively would certainly know the difference in the offences.
The Morelos grab on Christie in a previous match is more comparable and this went unpunished, even though the player carried out another two or three assaults on Celtic players during the match.
With the upcoming court case between Sevco Retail and Sports Direct, could it be Ashley's intention to see TRFC go into administration and if the "damages" award is substantial, would he become the biggest creditor?
If so, would he be in control of who was appointed as Administrator, or does the distressed company make the selection? Also, depending on the quantum, could he scupper a CVA?
Should the above unfold and a "proper" Administrator be appointed, could it be that Ashley could secure the services of his selection of players at knock down prices, (due to circumstances), up to the quantum of his award. Might this be his long-game intention?
normanbatesmumfc 9th January 2020 at 11:27
"Anyone who has played the game, or watched both incidents objectively would certainly know the difference in the offences."
Indeed, and anyone such as me who played the game would certainly know that stopping your own forward momentum by anchoring yourself to your opponent is an offence.
You are of course entitled to your opinion, and that is all it is, but it is my opinion that grabbing somebody's groin ratchets up the seriousness of the offence by a notch or two, however trivial you are intent on making it sound.
Would you deem it acceptable if Christie had grabbed Morelos' face to slow down his momentum? I suspect not, yet I for one would prefer to receive a facial injury than risk castration.
Ewan Murray, in the Guardian, writes about VAR in Scotland:
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/jan/09/var-scotland-rangers-spfl-celtic
I like use of the term '…an embryonic stage…' in the article.
normanbatesmumfc 9th January 2020 at 11:55
could it be that Ashley could secure the services of his selection of players at knock down prices,
………………….
What would he do with them?
An article that popped up on my feed…Trying to think of a Scottish parallel..ah well.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/50842424
Jingso.Jimsie 9th January 2020 at 15:56
Ewan Murray, in the Guardian, writes about VAR in Scotland: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/jan/09/var-scotland-rangers-spfl-celtic I like use of the term '…an embryonic stage…' in the article.
========
Don't think that article tells us Bampots anything we don't already know.
But, it does reinforce a rather ironic paradox developing for 'our elite' referees.
A lot of clubs have been moaning for a long time about the officiating standards.
However, the referees don't take criticism well and have gone on strike before: there seems to be a general reluctance to admit there are problems – or that standards need improving at all.
Yet, now we have VAR, which is intended to assist / improve officiating, (recent EPL controversies notwithstanding).
It looks like the Scottish clubs are mibbees not keen on introducing VAR.
But, without VAR experience, the Scottish refs are eventually going to be excluded from officiating at FIFA and UEFA competitions.
So… the men in black could soon become the biggest cheerleaders for introducing VAR in Scotland!
Not for any selfish reasons, of course…
I wonder when the Scottish Referees Association will start making public noises 'about improving the Scottish game' with VAR?
(…or we could just use foreign refs instead?
)
Regarding recent website update/issues. Tried to contact admin via the contact sfm tab at top of page but unable to do so.
normanbatesmumfc 9th January 2020 at 11:55
"..If so, would he (Ashley) be in control of who was appointed as Administrator, or does the distressed company make the selection?.."
+++++++++
The Insolvency Act 1986 (Sched.B1) has this to say :
"Para 12 (1)An application to the court for an administration order in respect of a company (an “administration application”) may be made only by—
(a)the company,
(b)the directors of the company,
(c)one or more creditors of the company,
(d)the [F2designated officer] for a magistrates’ court in the exercise of the power conferred by section 87A of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (c. 43) (fine imposed on company), or
(e)a combination of persons listed in paragraphs (a) to (d)."
It looks like any of these could take the initiative?
I remember thinking that I believed that CW had won a watch when he got the Administrator(s) of his choice, but I haven't come across anything [in what I've read in the Act so far] that suggests ,that while a creditor can object to the 'Administration', he has any right to object to the particular Administrator who is to be appointed by the company.
So, perhaps, I was unnecessarily and unjustly critical of HMRC for allowing him his own way!
Once appointed the Administrator is an officer of the Court, after all. And would not ever do anything improper at the 'company's' behest. Or at least, nothing that wouldn't survive judge's scrutiny.
And I am suddenly struck with a question: Was the novation from Sevco 5088 to SevcoScotland part of the Administration process?
Was the deed of novation ever seen, or said to have been seen, by anyone? I can't remember.
John Clark 9th January 2020 at 21:44 5 0
normanbatesmumfc 9th January 2020 at 11:55 "..If so, would he (Ashley) be in control of who was appointed as Administrator, or does the distressed company make the selection?..
——————————————-
" And I am suddenly struck with a question: Was the novation from Sevco 5088 to SevcoScotland part of the Administration process? Was the deed of novation ever seen, or said to have been seen, by anyone? I can't remember".
————–
I imagine that if anyone was in the know, on a need to know basis, it would be BDO. They weren't negotiating the floating charge, with somebody who had nuthin'. …..For nuthin'.
I don't usually pay too much attention to thumbs down on this site, on the basis that they can be taken as a badge of honour for not conforming to groupthink or the status quo. However, when more than a hundred folk demonstrate their displeasure for having the audacity to criticize Celtic FC, any player or official of Celtic FC, or the supporters of Celtic FC, I can't help but notice.
This site is rightly highly commended for its non-partisan discussions on all that's wrong with Scottish football, focused mainly on governance issues surrounding the Rangers* debacle, since that is by far the biggest issue of recent years. Many of the best posters on here, such as easyJambo and Allyjambo are Hearts supporters like myself, while posters from clubs such as Partick Thistle, Aberdeen, St Mirren and many others add to the mix.
Unfortunately, what spoils this site at times are the user-imposed rules.
Rule 1: Thou shalt not be critical of Celtic in any way.
Rule 2: Thou shalt not be critical of Celtic in any way.
I completely absolve the mods from criticism in that regard because I know they make strenuous efforts to avoid this.
However, Celtic and their 'best supporters in the world', who have had umpteen UEFA fines in recent times, are far from perfect. If the SFA is the axis of evil, why didn't Lawwell and Riley address the matter when they were in a position to do so as board members? Why remain mute over Rangers' cheating, same club myth and res.12? I'll refrain from adding to those three matters as I'm sure you get my point. CELTIC ARE NOT, MUST NOT, BE BEYOND CRITICISM!
'Highlander 10th January 2020 at 08:16
I don't usually pay too much attention to thumbs down on this site, on the basis that they can be taken as a badge of honour for not conforming to groupthink or the status quo. However, when more than a hundred folk demonstrate their displeasure for having the audacity to criticize Celtic FC, any player or official of Celtic FC, or the supporters of Celtic FC, I can't help but notice…'
################################
One hundred plus people haven't given you 'thumbs down': it's one or two individuals who choose to abuse the system & press the button repeatedly.
The moderators could turn the facility off, but I suppose it has as many fans as detractors. Above my pay-grade, anyway!
Highlander 10th January 2020 at 08:16
ooooooooo
If you don't like them, Firefox doesn't show thumbs up or down. It doesn't show ads either though, so if you want to support the site with a click or two you have to go to another browser.
I just nipped over here to Edge to try Jingso. Jimsie's trick above and give you 100 thumbs up, like a lab. rat at a food lever, but it would only allow me to give you 1. Sorry.
Not a court date as such, but I note from today's Court Roll that an "unopposed motion" was granted yesterday in the the case of Imran Ahmad v Police Scotland.
A51/19 Imran Ahmad v Iain Livingstone – SGLD – Ledingham Chalmers LLP
The case, if it reaches a proof hearing (trial), would make for an interesting argument. Ahmad was never actually arrested, having fled the country when the other accused of "conspiracy" were detained.
easyJambo 10th January 2020 at 13:21
'..the case, if it reaches a proof hearing (trial), would make for an interesting argument.'
++++++++++++++++
I imagine this is Ahmad pursuing his claim for damages for wrongful prosecution, even though he had jumped the dyke before he could be arrested like the other alleged conspirators and was not subjected to wrongful arrest and detention.
He has his good name to think about: after all, being hunted by the polis as a fugitive! ( I don't think there was any charge against him alone that was not related to alleged conspiracy?)
For some extraordinary reason I hear the voice of Cantona waffling on about seagulls following the sardines as an image of chancers getting in on the damages act!
Highlander 10th January 2020 at 08:16
Mibbes being a wee bit precious ? I managed to suggest that Scott Brown was given too much latitude without complaint , not even my usual singleTD (at least!) . Usual spelling mistakes , though , looking at the post .
John Clark 10th January 2020 at 15:06
———————————————-
I've had a look over the original indictment once again.
Amhad was indicted, with six others, of enabling the the commission of serious organised crime by conspiring to fraudulently acquire the business and assets of the Club for less than their market value.
Ahmad was also indicted along with Green of defrauding investors in Sevco 5088 Limited, defrauding investors in The Rangers International Football Club plc, obtaining shares and money by fraud (from both the switcheroo and the IPO).
Highlander 9th January 2020 at 13:15
normanbatesmumfc 9th January 2020 at 11:27
"Anyone who has played the game, or watched both incidents objectively would certainly know the difference in the offences."
Indeed, and anyone such as me who played the game would certainly know that stopping your own forward momentum by anchoring yourself to your opponent is an offence.
You are of course entitled to your opinion, and that is all it is, but it is my opinion that grabbing somebody's groin ratchets up the seriousness of the offence by a notch or two, however trivial you are intent on making it sound.
Would you deem it acceptable if Christie had grabbed Morelos' face to slow down his momentum? I suspect not, yet I for one would prefer to receive a facial injury than risk castration.
_______________________________________
I was not deeming Christie's actions as acceptable, merely stating it was not fair to compare to McLeans and a better comparison was the Morelos grab on him. All three "grabs" are completely unacceptable, as are many challenges that happen during the course of a season.
Castration though, is a bit unlikely unless you're playing against Edward Scissorhands!
I am a Celtic "supporter" and shareholder although since 2012 they have had no financial support from me. I have not attended any football game in Scotland, nor will I return, unless or until the wrongs, I believe have taken place, are righted.
However, I am hugely critical of Celtic and their corporate behaviour over the last 7-8 years. I am not a fan of Neil Lennon and think the job is above his capabilities and believe there are a number of players in the squad not fit to wear the jersey. That said, I will defend everything "Celtic" against what I believe to be unfair criticism.
But that's just my opinion…..
easyJambo 10th January 2020 at 15:43
'…I've had a look over the original indictment once again.'
++++++++++
'Mr eJ, I ask you, how many times have I asked you… I take it that that is the original as amended how many times? Do I have a copy…?'
The written reasons for "bawgate"
https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/media/5936/reasons-ryan-christie-celtic-fc.pdf
Hi Highlander.
In answer to your question about Lawwell et al.
Money.
I don't think you will find many Celtic fans who trust the Board to stand up for the concerns of the fans.
I think you know my position on the Christie incident and how other incidents in that match were dealt with by the SFA.
John Clark 10th January 2020 at 16:36
'Mr eJ, I ask you, how many times have I asked you… I take it that that is the original as amended how many times? Do I have a copy…?'
==============================
You may recall that we attended the preliminary hearing in October 2015 That indictment was first revised in January 2016 for a hearing at Glasgow High Court. On checking my documents we acquired a copy of the January indictment and had it photocopied (x2) at the central library, during a subsequent hearing.
You may recall that it was Lord Turnbull, at the preliminary hearing, who questioned whether or not IA had been properly served with the requisite papers.
https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/details-of-charges-against-craig-whyte-and-charles-green-revealed-1-3918715
===============================
As an aside, did you note that Douglas Fairley QC (most recently representing Paul Clark) was elevated to Lord Fairley earlier this week following his appointment as a Senator of the College of Justice? He is one of five new appointments as judges, but the only one that we have encountered during our time in court.
John Clark 10th January 2020 at 15:06
easyJambo 10th January 2020 at 15:43
…………………
He once claimed he was owed £500,000 in unpaid bonuses.
https://twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1215691748212707328/photo/1
Cluster One 10th January 2020 at 17:52
John Clark 10th January 2020 at 15:06
easyJambo 10th January 2020 at 15:43
…………………
He once claimed he was owed £500,000 in unpaid bonuses.
https://twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1215691748212707328/photo/1
===============================
His contract:
https://imgur.com/9iww10K
easyJambo 10th January 2020 at 17:25
'..As an aside, did you note that Douglas Fairley QC (most recently representing Paul Clark) was elevated to Lord Fairley earlier this week.'
+++++++++++++++
I did indeed, eJ, and had thought of enquiring whether his induction ceremony was open to the public, having half a mind to attend if that were possible, but forgot about it until it was too late to ask. (He very helpfully spelled out for me the names in an Eastern European EU case he cited during the most recent Clark activity).
John Clark 10th January 2020 at 21:08
He very helpfully spelled out for me the names in an Eastern European EU case
===========================
That would be "Jishkariani v Georgia"
There was also the Canadian case of "Miazga v Kvello"
easyJambo 10th January 2020 at 21:42
'..That would be "Jishkariani v Georgia"''
++++++++++++
The very one.
[And reading my own post mentioning Lord Fairley made me laugh in recollection of an episode in one of Patrick O'Brian's novels in the Aubrey/Maturin series. To his eager officers Captain Aubrey describes his meeting , over dinner in the mess when he was a junior officer, with his hero-Lord Nelson. Who spoke to him !
Agog with this closeness ,at second-hand, to greatness, one of the junior officers asks in awe: " What did Admiral Nelson say to you, sir?"
And Aubrey sombrely and in suitably hushed tones replies, "He said to me most handsomely and genially, 'pass the salt'." [Russell Crowe acted that little scene very well in a film 'Master and Commander' a number ( 15?) of years ago]
It's not that I hero worship Lord Fairley in mentioning that he 'spoke to me', it's just that a person's immediate readiness to be civil and helpful to an enquirer instantly makes me think positively about that person.
finnmccool 10th January 2020 at 17:07
'.In answer to your question about Lawwell et al.
Money.'
++++++++++++
As proved, in my opinion, by the readiness of Celtic plc to allow TRFC to claim to be entitled to be the Rangers FC that was the other half of the Trade Mark 'The Old Firm', in spite of the fact that the original Rangers that was the other half of the Trade Mark had died and no longer existed.
Such dirty, deceitful marketing ploys demonstrate that the present Celtic Board care not one more whit for sporting integrity and market truthfulness than SDM did.
Celtic did no more favour to Scottish football integrity than did all of the other clubs in their readiness to support an absolute lie.
We are talking here of a whole bunch of boards who have taken us for a ride: they want to make money, come lies and deception.
And how they can lie, through the SPFL and SFA boards.
And how the serial cheating by SDM and(who knows, the complicity in that cheating by the SFA?) has brought all this about!
Touched a nerve there highlander
62 thumbs up isn't bad though ?
A happy new year and a peace offering to all on here. I would still like to remain part of this site as I believe scrutiny in Rangers and the SFA is necessary and this is the only place such discussion occurs without bile or abuse. I have also accepted now that the OC/NC debate will never be over and see no further point in arguing. The Celtic fans who believe is a new club are entitled (and I can see their argument) and should be happy we are a new club. Fans such as myself don’t need to argue either:- our match day experience has not changed and the SFA and UEFA will still record they next title as number 55, new club, newco or continuation. So I see no further reason to debate any of this. We all have our varied beliefs and are all entitled to it. As spelt out above neither camp should be unhappy or have to argue – to them we are a new club, to us we are the same club. It’s like arguing someone to choose between Mohammed or God. Tomato tomatoe so to speak.
When we put that behind us, This year will be a very interesting one. The resolution 12 saga will have to come to an end (and I’m with most on this site who believe the SFA and Rangers were in cohorts to try and save the club and should be punished). Mike Ashley saga will also be one to watch as he will not do “walking away” and any substantial fine could seriously cause my club problems. Then we need to see who next takes over Rangers (hopefully not another crook!) now King is standing down, and whether he will honour his promise of turning the club debt free before he leaves. We have the VAR situation which will be very divisive – as we have seen in England – and I’m not even very sure how I feel about it! Like others have pointed out there is a lack of ownership (or just poor management) at Celtic that needs looked into, and then we have the Scotland play offs to debate no doubt!
All in all I would like to remain part of this site after taking a few weeks off, and would love any OC/NC to be put to the separate thread (and that goes for the NC also not just my views) and discuss in peace all the great many problems with our great game.
All the best for 2020 and above all let’s hope our personal lives and health are with us. After all, football is only a game.
Darkbeforedawn 11th January 2020 at 10:34
When we put that behind us, This year will be a very interesting one. The resolution 12 saga will have to come to an end (and I’m with most on this site who believe the SFA and Rangers were in cohorts to try and save the club and should be punished)
………………
We may not be able to put that behind us and neither will TRFC or the SFA if there is punishment.
………………….
Then we need to see who next takes over Rangers (hopefully not another crook!) now King is standing down, and whether he will honour his promise of turning the club debt free before he leaves
………………..
King made a lot of promises.
………………….
Have to go now, All the best for 2020.
……
Ps. Then we need to see who next takes over Rangers (hopefully not another crook!)
….
Any News on this Hong Kong investment coming in January, i heard a lot about as DK stepped down, it’s all gone very quite on that front.
ClusterOne @11.17
https://twitter.com/4ladshadadream/status/1215889659026382848?s=21
I’m wondering now if the Hong Kong investment is linked to the tweet above?
I take the Hong Kong investment with the same pinch or salt as I took the Motherwell Billionaire.
Darkbeforedawn 11th January 2020 at 10:34
"to them we are a new club, to us we are the same club. It’s like arguing someone to choose between Mohammed or God. Tomato tomatoe so to speak."
You are part of the problem not only have you isolated and refered to an us and them mentality and included yourself in the us in this instance, you have made it clear your intentions to deny the legality of the club you follow not been able in law to claim to be the same club, as it died with it's creditors debts. If you do not deal in facts how can you be taken seriously and therefore what you have stated merely and simply comes under the title denier and propagandist for the myth makers.
The "them" as you describe are able to produce on every turn through evidence and legal decisions show your denials to be just that and fanciful rants for gullible followers of your "us" in need of reassurances, the truth will always be the truth regardless how often it is denied and the gullibles will wake up every morning knowing deep down they live a lie and are shackled to a myth, a myth and lie they are afraid to walk away from, what a way to live your life,tied to a belief system and one now connected through a false narrative, choices do not apply as you suggested for the choice is one that simply cannot be denied, Rangers 1872 died and Rangers 1872 cannot be the same if the first is true and we know it is through legal documents, indeed happy new year.
Darkbeforedawn 11th January 2020 at 10:34
'..After all, football is only a game.'
+++++++++++++++++
And a game so governed by unprincipled men as to be, in effect, rigged and run on lines that are the very antithesis of all that is represented by the concept of 'Sporting Integrity'.
The SFA after 7 years of deceit and cowardice have still not faced up to the truth that the death ,by Liquidation, of Rangers FC of 1872 as a club entitled to participate in Scottish Football did actually occur, and that all their lies and propaganda cannot undo that event.
It says something about the black rottenness of their hearts that they remain so steeped and entrenched in falsehood and denial of actual fact when even the regime in Iran can find the moral courage after only 3 days to own up to their lying claims about the downing of a civil airliner and acknowledge the actual truth that their military were responsible for that (almost certainly) accidental tragedy.
The whole football world knows that RFC of 1872 is in Liquidation and that TRFC is a seven year old club.
That truth cannot disappear, cannot be made to disappear, no matter how many and great may be the propaganda pieces , or how many people may delude themselves.
It will, as I saw stated elsewhere, be 143 years before any 150th anniversary of TRFC can be celebrated in truth. RFC of 1972 died for all footballing purposes in its 147th year.
And that is not a pious wish, but a simple statement of fact recognised at the time by every now lying sports hack and propagandist of deceit.
I can’t understand the backlash to what I thought was a very well intentioned piece on here. And have no idea why this could even possibly start a NC/OC debate. I’ve made it as plain as I can make it, I understand everyone’s views and can respect them. I don’t see any reason for an argument:
1. Celtic fans or others can feel happy that Rangers are a new club and can point evidence to this point.
2. Rangers fans experience the same experience and are treated by the governing bodies and media as a continuation and can be happy.
Where is the problem with the above? Both sets can carry on and be happy with their own view whatever it is.
there are far bigger issues in Scottish football and as a site that I genuinely believe wants to be a site for ALL Scottish football fans, it’s a new decade so let’s leave it behind and move on with the bigger problems facing us.
Darkbeforedawn 11th January 2020 at 18:05
"…and are treated by the governing bodies and media as a continuation and can be happy."
+++++++++++
Therein lies the lie! TRFC are not Rangers of 1872 and ought not to be treated as if they were.,no matter what its fans would like to believe.
Objective truth, rather than lying propaganda, is what is required-of the SFA and of the TRFC Ltd Board and, of course, of RIFC plc.
Purely as an observer of what I find to be a well managed moderation then this very comment should be moved to the OC/NC forum. My proposition in my earlier post is we should put this behind us, agree to disagree and move onto more pressing issues? The forum is very quick to move a certain view point to that forum but not an opposed view.
We all feel passionately about football, we all respect each other on this site (which is more than can be said about most) so why not consine every single OC/NC regardless of sides to the separate chat and keep the main forum for all other Scottish football matters?
Darkbeforedawn 11th January 2020 at 18:43
It was you who brought it up again , buddy , telling us your viewpoint , and suggesting we put the cheating and lying and secret deals behind us . For whose benefit ? Not fans of Scottish football's other 41 clubs, in my opinion . It would suit certain vested interests if we would do this . As you say , you can go to Ibrox Stadium and watch a team wearing (Norwegian?) blue and listen to the folk songs that the followers of the old club entertained us with , and convince yourself that that last eight years were a Bobby Ewing dream , but the rest of us live in the real world . I nearly lost my club as well , so I think I can understand your need . I think if we stick to TRFC/RIFC then we'll all know who we mean .
Darkbeforedawn 11th January 2020 at 18:43
'…agree to disagree and move onto more pressing issues?'
+++++++++++++
How can you imagine that there could be 'more pressing issues' than trying to get rid of corruption and deceit at the heart of our sports governance?
We have had a sleazy deal done in secret in order to create a myth, a myth that most certainly would not have been dreamt of in respect of any other club that might have gone into Liquidation: so little dreamt of that some clubs bust their guts to get out of Administration.
The sheer brazen effrontery of our lying Governance people is unforgiveable, and the people involved must be hunted out of office and out of football before more damage is done and more lies and deceit cause all respecters of truth and sporting honesty get so thoroughly fed up that football dies.
You can cheat some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but you cannot cheat all of the people all of the time. Truth ultimately prevails.
AvatarDarkbeforedawn 11th January 2020 at 18:43 therein lies the lie! trfc are not rangers of 1872 and ought not to be treated as if they were.,no matter what its fans would like to believe. objective truth, rather than lying propaganda, is what is required-of the sfa and of the trfc ltd board and, of course, of rifc plc. Purely as an observer of what I find to be a well managed moderation then this very comment should be moved to the OC/NC forum. My proposition in my earlier post is we should put this behind us, agree to disagree and move onto more pressing issues? The forum is very quick to move a certain view point to that forum but not an opposed view. We all feel passionately about football, we all respect each other on this site (which is more than can be said about most) so why not consine every single OC/NC regardless of sides to the separate chat and keep the main forum for all other Scottish football matters?
————–
So, having raised the OC/NC debate from it's slumber you have decided to put it back to bed. Clearly the 'why now', whatever the answer was, has passed, one way or the other. Here's a wee tip for you, although you shouldn't need it; it is not for you to decide when, or even if, the OC/NC debate, or, indeed, any debate, has been argued over long enough, for only when a wrong has been righted, and justice served, can any wrongdoing be put to bed, and those wronged will be the ones to decide when it's time for that.
Your 'proposition' is about as honourable a proposition as we have come to expect from anyone steeped in 'Rangersness' and is no surprise to me, and I suspect anyone else who has read your posts since you first joined us under whatever guise you chose at any particular time.
Still, this is the second time within the past few weeks that you've reopened the debate you are now claiming should be put to behind us. You are not doing it for the benefit of the blog, you are doing it for some benefit of one, or both of, your old and new clubs.
I'd say it was a nice try, but in truth, it really was pathetic.
AllyJambo@22.02
Yes indeed. A not so subtle version of “nothing to see here, let’s all move along”
DbD's posts kind of diverted me from a point I was going to make earlier, which I think is perhaps worth making in a general way.
Football, swimming and a bit of squash and badminton were my sports of old( alas, only swimming is now within my decreasing physical capacities!).
I mention this only to make the point I am neither a golfer nor a card-player ( for money).
But, from having lived quite a long time in diverse social settings in which many other men ( not any women, though) of my acquaintance and some friends and colleagues were keen golfers and/or were in quite serious card schools, I believe that being caught indulging in cheating in either of these 'sporting' pursuits is to render oneself a pariah, a social outcast.
No one will play another round with you if you are caught nudging your ball into a better lie, or slip a card from your sleeve to produce a totally unlikely Royal flush.
In other words, folk who do not abide by the rules of their sport are viewed with suspicion and distrust by their fellow players/club members.
What has this got to do with sfm.scot?
Well, this morning's 'Scotsman' carries an interesting feature about Alastair Johnston, of the wittering, incoherently nonsensical rant of a 'statement' the other day.
He has ( and let me say at once, to his credit, ) donated his golf library of some 30 000 (yes, thirty thousand) books including at least one published in 1566 (yes, fifteen sixty-six) to the Royal and Ancient.
And I naturally ask myself, why would a man who so loves golf and the whole sporting ethic of golf be so desperate to accept the cheating of RFC of 1872 and the myth signed up to by the SFA that somehow that club is still participating in Scottish Football?
He is not unintelligent, he is a business man, so he KNOWS what Liquidation means.
What , therefore, does he think his rant makes him, other than the equivalent of a golf ball nudger or score-card cheat,or a dodgy card sharp?
Sporting integrity is not something that applies only in the sport of golf, or to card players.
If you cheat at any sport, you are a cheat, purely and simply, and there is nothing honourable about any 'achievement' you make in the sport of your choice, as the dope-takers know in the world of the Olympic games.
And as a bit of trivia afore I go to my kip, the wiki entry for oor Alastair tells us ( last edited on 07/01/20) that his first client when he joined IMG was none other than Gary Player, who, I believe, once had as his grovelling, drooling caddy none other than oor Dave frae the 'Mulk.
What a tiny wee world we inhabit!
I think my post has been taken entirely out of context. I merely raised the point there will never be an agreement so I will make it a resolution not to try and argue! Which if you have read through my previous posts the last 24 hours not once have I tried to justify, argue or debate it – simply state that I see your viewpoint, I know mine (and I have only ever been DBD on here, no other log ins!).
I think there are other huge points like my earlier post that should be looked into or debated, many of which are coming up later this year! Where is this so called money coming from for the Ibrox stadium expansion (what’s the King equivalent of the Murray moonbeams?!). Why is Peter Lawwell the highest paid chief executive in UK football? Why have Scotland not reached a finals in 22 years?
I merely tried a peace offering to see if we could start discussions on all other issues and Scottish football as a whole instead of the site becoming a one topic forum. If people cannot agree with me that ALL of Scottish football should be discussed, including the governance, the Rangers board, Res 12, referees, the national team etc. Then the forum should just be renamed the ‘reasons Rangers are a new club forum’.
0AvatarDarkbeforedawn 12th January 2020 at 04:55 I think my post has been taken entirely out of context. I merely raised the point there will never be an agreement so I will make it a resolution not to try and argue! Which if you have read through my previous posts the last 24 hours not once have I tried to justify, argue or debate it – simply state that I see your viewpoint, I know mine (and I have only ever been DBD on here, no other log ins!). I think there are other huge points like my earlier post that should be looked into or debated, many of which are coming up later this year! Where is this so called money coming from for the Ibrox stadium expansion (what’s the King equivalent of the Murray moonbeams?!). Why is Peter Lawwell the highest paid chief executive in UK football? Why have Scotland not reached a finals in 22 years? I merely tried a peace offering to see if we could start discussions on all other issues and Scottish football as a whole instead of the site becoming a one topic forum. If people cannot agree with me that ALL of Scottish football should be discussed, including the governance, the Rangers board, Res 12, referees, the national team etc. Then the forum should just be renamed the ‘reasons Rangers are a new club forum’.
——————
As it was you who reintroduced the topic to the blog, just before Xmas, this seems more than a little hypocritical, to say the least. Reintroduced it with nothing new to support your argument, and absolutely no explanation as to why you decided to raise it at that particular time, though suspiciously close to Alastair Johnston's own nonsensical rant on the same topic. Timing, as they say, is everything.
But putting aside the various arguments made here and elsewhere, can you tell us why it might be that one of those 'continuation' arguments, such as your own, was not published the instant Rangers FC, having failed to achieve a CVA, was 'sold' to Charles Green/Sevco, if, indeed, a way to achieve continuation had been found and implemented?
You have spent over 7 years trying to come up with a reasoned continuation argument, but even if you had managed to come up with something viable, why could it possibly be that the people involved, with a massive vested interest in having the whole of Scottish football accept that Rangers didn't die, didn't even attempt to describe how it could come about that, after over 100 years of incorporated football clubs dying from unresolved insolvencies, one club could suddenly survive the biggest, and most scandalous, insolvency of all? Not only was this explanation not given, but instead the claim was made, and even included in the new club's first set of accounts, that Green/Sevco had "bought the 'istory" of Rangers FC! A ludicrous lie that, if the targeted audience had had one scintilla of common sense, would have asked, "if he's bought the club, why did he have to buy the history?"
Put quite simply, and with no need to push arguments for or against one argument or the other, if some way had been found to keep Rangers Football Club alive, then a full and frank, authenticated, description of it's mechanics would have been published at the time. It wasn't, and never has been, and what's more, when something can be achieved truthfully, there is never, ever, the need for invention/lies, particularly something as ludicrous as "I bought the history".
Darkbeforedawn 12th January 2020 at 04:55
Why is Peter Lawwell the highest paid chief executive in UK football?
=======================
No matter what anyone thinks of Lawwell, I think this has been taken out of context. The widely quoted figure of over £3m contains a bonus accumulated over a number of years. I guess he gets that because the rest of the Celtic Board are happy with the way he runs the PLC financially, and in purely financial terms he does a brilliant job. That of course is not of a primary concern to many Celtic fans who couldn't care a toss about the bank balance and just want nine followed by ten in a row. Personally I do want to see Celtic run in a proper manner because it is quite clear the club has no friends in the right places and needs to be self sufficient. I maintain that Scottish Football, and Scottish society would have been more than happy to see Celtic disappear forever in 1994. The bank funding Rangers was trying their hardest to make it happen, and not one media person or politician cared a jot. Thank God for Fergus McCann. Having said all that they can afford to gamble a bit to ensure the title is secured this season. I for one hope they do.
upthehoops 12th January 2020 at 10:23
"….I maintain that Scottish Football, and Scottish society would have been more than happy to see Celtic disappear forever in 1994"
++++++++++++++++++
It is important to add, that Celtic was not bilking the taxpayer or telling lies for a decade to the SFA about how much they were paying their players in order to hide a tax dodge. Celtic's financial problems were due to failures in management, not to having been caught out by HMRC in the utterly shameful way that SDM's/CW's Rangers of 1872 were.
Yet we had the world and his wife demanding that 'Rangers' be saved.
And the liars and deceivers in our Football Governance bodies were only too ready to concoct an insanely irrational lie in absolute defiance of hard fact and any notion of truth and integrity.
The names of the men who did this will live on in infamy when they shuffle off their mortal coils.