Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond

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.

This entry was posted in Blogs by Trisidium. Bookmark the permalink.
Tom Byrne

About Trisidium

Trisidium is a Dunblane businessman with a keen interest in Scottish Football. He is a Celtic fan, although the demands of modern-day parenting have seen him less at games and more as a taxi service for his kids.

1,006 thoughts on “Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond


  1. A couple of days ago the redoubtable Jim Spence tweeted the following :

    “I’ve had three serious pieces of grief as a journo. 1) Asking  whether Rangers died. 2) Posing the question would a Dundee and United merger make sense. 3) Suggesting that Buble was better than Sinatra…..No 3 was the worst”

    The tweet was clearly intended as a joke however the underlying message is also clear. The real world consequences of pointing out the bleedin’ obvious re Rangers* led to a move away from his job at BBC Scotland. The truth re Rangers* is way more than a philosophical argument.


  2. John Clark 12th January 2020 at 13:28

    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.

    ============================

    I am no lover of the Celtic Board of that era, but they stood little chance. Rangers under David Murray were a plaything of the Bank of Scotland, and the media were happy to go along with the notion that Murray was funding it all. An utterly shocking period when you look back at all that went on. 


  3. AJ – reason for my timing a few weeks ago was coinciding with the UEFA points being awarded for years prior to 2012. As much as I would love to be in Alastair Johnstons inner circle and know what the hell is going on, sadly I have never even met the man. 
     

    And having seen the backlash when I last came on here this was what made me decide to back away from the debate altogether. 
     

    UTH – that’s a very interesting point on Lawwell and not one I was aware of reading the press! I suppose like all big business he is in the job to make money for his share holders and to that extent he is doing his job and I’m sure DD is pretty happy with him. That could change very quickly though. 


  4. Gents why and how did sevco become the co owners of the trademark. Did they bye it as part of the asset agreement/rip off?

    Equally important why did sevco not change *ownership* until the given date.

    List of events Date 22 November 2018 Type Recordal registration. Recordal type:

    Change owner details

    Text Change of owner details has been recorded due to recordal RC000116100 received on date 30/10/2018; owner(s) Celtic F.C.Limited (id: 218706),Sevco Scotland Limited (id: 613831) has been updated to owner(s):

    Celtic F.C.Limited (id: 218706),The Rangers Football Club Limited (id: 613862)

    Finding it very difficult to get any more information on this. Anyone aware of who at Celtic would be involved with this.

    It does demonstrate sevco were still in existence after TRFC was registered in their new company name/number. Both share the same company address.


  5. Darkbeforedawn 12th January 2020 at 16:20
     

    UTH – that’s a very interesting point on Lawwell and not one I was aware of reading the press! I suppose like all big business he is in the job to make money for his share holders

    =============================

    If informed speculation is correct Celtic will announce the richest kit deal in Scottish football history with Adidas to start next season.  Again though, many fans will see it as unforgivable if they don't win the league this season, record kit deal or not. 


  6. Darkbeforedawn 12th January 2020 at 16:20

    That could change very quickly though. 

    How so ? Spill the beans !


  7. Darkbeforedawn 12th January 2020 at 16:20 AJ – reason for my timing a few weeks ago was coinciding with the UEFA points being awarded for years prior to 2012. As much as I would love to be in Alastair Johnstons inner circle and know what the hell is going on, sadly I have never even met the man. And having seen the backlash when I last came on here this was what made me decide to back away from the debate altogether. UTH – that’s a very interesting point on Lawwell and not one I was aware of reading the press! I suppose like all big business he is in the job to make money for his share holders and to that extent he is doing his job and I’m sure DD is pretty happy with him. That could change very quickly though.

    _________________

    But why here? You already know that we would not be impressed by anything that any football organisation does, as pragmatism beats integrity and the need for honesty in all that they do. Money is god in all professional football organisations and anything they do cannot be held up as proof of anything…other than their preparedness to lie on behalf of a favoured member of one of their member FAs. And you didn't just leave with our response to the UEFA points award, you chose to reintroduce old arguments to prolong the debate you now wish to end.

    There was no 'backlash', either, just counter arguments to what you chose to post. For 'backlash' look at what your erstwhile hero McCoist caused with his 'who are these people' rant. Now that truly was a backlash. Unlike you. the victims of McCoist's rabble rousing could not just walk away if unhappy with the response.

    As always, you have chosen to nit-pick rather than answer the questions you no doubt have difficulty answering. And that difficulty answering is because there is no answer that would suit your own agenda.

    Apologies to the blog for the bold type but it's obviously necessary to highlight the salient parts of a post to a denier of truth and reality who prefers to respond to the most menial of points.


  8. 'upthehoops 12th January 2020 at 16:20

    …Rangers under David Murray were a plaything of the Bank of Scotland, and the media were happy to go along with the notion that Murray was funding it all…'

    ##############################

    I think you've got that the wrong way round.

    BoS (or important members of the board) were in thrall to Murray. How that came to pass I'm not sure, but  RFC & his wider business empire were not always under the scrutiny from the bankers that they should have been (that's understatement, BTW!). 

    There's a quote attributed to J. Paul Getty, 'Owe the bank a $100, that's your problem. If you owe the bank a $100 million, then that's the bank's problem'. Murray's debt was multiples of the higher figure…


  9. paraniodbyexperience 12th January 2020 at 16:32

    '…Gents why and how did sevco become the co owners of the trademark. Did they bye it as part of the asset agreement/rip off?'

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

    Ha ha, pbe, they may have assumed  they'd bought it, until someone realised late that legally SevcoScotland/TRFC were not the Rangers Football Club that were one of the 'old firm', and they had to get the trade  mark registered in the name of the new club. (In the same way that Sportscotland realised that Sevco/TRFC were not the Rangers who had signed the agreement with them in relation to Auchenhowie,  and had to get Sevco/TRFC to sign a fresh  agreement that they would be bound by the agreement signed by the defunct club)

    I think Celtic, as the other part of the original 'old firm', could have blocked that but obviously chose not to. 


  10. paraniodbyexperience 12th January 2020 at 16:32
    ………………
    What i can find, but i’m sure i had some more on it. One day i will need to sort this stuff out.
    https://twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1216488791399071745/photo/1
    ……………..
    Celtic stopped using the term old firm years ago,
    https://twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1216489476521938944/photo/1
    …………..
    As John Clark 12th January 2020 at 21:17 Points out, could have blocked that but obviously chose not to.
    ……..
    When there is money to be made.


  11. Cluster one

    What i can find, but i’m sure i had some more on it. One day i will need to sort this stuff out.
    https://twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1216488791399071745/photo/1
    ……………..
    Celtic stopped using the term old firm years ago,
    https://twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1216489476521938944/photo/1
    …………..
    As John Clark 12th January 2020 at 21:17 Points out, could have blocked that but obviously chose not to.
    ……..
    When there is money to be made.

     

    Cluster one thank you.


  12. As always, you have chosen to nit-pick rather than answer the questions you no doubt have difficulty answering. And that difficulty answering is because there is no answer that would suit your own agenda.

    An other reason for coming back on was there had appeared to be a new Rangers fan on the forum but I’m not convinced it wasn’t Ernie or one of his aliases. 

     

    I have always attempted to answer all questions on here as honestly as I can with my view on it. And my view is probably the most simplistic to follow: 1. Rangers as a club/company was/is liquidated. 2. A Phoenix springs from the ashes (aka Florentina) and takes on the undertaking of the club minus the debts (with agreement from none other than HMRC). 3. For sporting purposes, the MSN and authorities look at us as a “continuation” (albeit with broken timeline). It isn’t a new concept in football. There can be grey areas (old club, new club, Phoenix continuation club”. 
     

    Hopefully that has spelled out 100% my views and hopefully answers your questions. I just don’t want the site becoming a one topic forum. 
     


  13. Darkbeforedawn, you have spelled out absolutely nothing and not made any attempt, whatsoever, to answer the original question.

    For Rangers Football Club, or any football club, to survive it's own liquidation there could only possibly be one convoluted and never before thought of route taken by the administrators to that end. There would not be a number of possible explanations, or even a combination of any or all. There would be one route only, and that would have been spelled out clearly in whatever legal documentation is required by administrators at the end of the administration.

    But, of course, the buyers of such a miraculous occurrence would, themselves, be in great desperation to shout from the rooftops the exact mechanics used in bringing this to pass, especially in the case in point, because establishing, beyond doubt, the continuation of Rangers was worth millions to Charles Green. Yet, here we are, still arguing the point, and here you still are, grabbing at every straw you can find, and still the only words coming from anyone directly involved in this miraculous salvation involved the ludicrous notion that Charles Green 'bought the club's history', while no indication of the mechanics, or the timeline of events showing how it was peiced together allowing the club to continue has ever been published.

    But here's something for you to consider and perhaps deem to answer.

    If Rangers really were saved by some insolvency practitioner's slight of hand, why would Charles Green feel it necessary to come up with that nonsense of buying the club's history (and even include it in the club's initial balance sheet and accounts)? What's more, if he had bought the club, why would he then feel it necessary to buy it's history (even if it was possible to buy the history of anything, unless he meant he'd bought the Rangers' History book), for doesn't the history come with, and stay attached unto the death of, the club?

     


  14. Darkbeforedawn 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"

    _________________________________________________________________________

    There lies the problem DFD, there needs to be an agreement. An agreement that facts trump opinions. Maybe the day will never come for the unvarnished truth, but until it does, many men of integrity will not let the lie pass, or be part of any agreement to accept the flawed, ambiguous, deceitful counter-position.


  15. Darkbeforedawn 13th January 2020 at 11:25

    2 A Phoenix springs from the ashes (aka Florentina) and takes on the undertaking of the club minus the debts (with agreement from none other than HMRC).
    ++++++++++++++++++++
    HMRC didn't agree to anything. They rejected the CVA, forcing an asset sale and liquidation.

    An unattributed HMRC statement issued the same day confirmed that fact. “Liquidation will enable a sale of the football assets to be made to a new company"

    The bit of the HMRC statement that the continuation followers hang onto is "Rangers can make a fresh start". In the context of the full statement, it correctly could have read "A newco Rangers can make a fresh start".

    It is the football authorities who have facilitated newco Rangers being treated as a continuation of oldco Rangers. I don't dispute that, but please don't make false claims about what HMRC actually did.


  16. A shock appointment by the SFA.

    The new Head of Referee Operations is not from the West of Scotland.  Crawford Allan has been given the gig. From my knowledge of him, I can't recall him upsetting too many people in the past.

    His most notable game was probably one of the saddest, when Phil O'Donnell collapsed and died. 

    However, I'd keep an eye on the progress of his daughter Vikki, who is currently an assistant referee, to see if the family connection helps or hinders her progress (let's say she's not the best). She is currently secretary of the Edinburgh Referees Association.


  17. Darkbeforedawn 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"

    There already was agreement that your club and its history died, to this day a man who comments on Rangers TV was one of the first to inform the media of what had just happened when a CVA was refused.

    You can listen here.

    https://talksport.com/uncategorized/255017/miller-140-years-rangers-history-has-gone-down-plughole-174266/

    Maybe after listening you will realise that regardless of what fans want to think, the truth will always be the truth and people in the know, knew exactly what happened that day.

    People can now believe and think what they like, but the bottom line remains, the man said they went down the plughole and you know it and we know it and the money men at Ibrox knew it, when the taxman said no, his final word was just that final and it sealed the fate of the historic club born in 1872 to the grave.

     

     

     

     


  18. Darkbeforedawn 13th January 2020 at 11:25

    '…I just don’t want the site becoming a one topic forum. '

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

    And I want truth and sporting integrity to be restored to Scottish Football.

    Other interesting and important aspects of football are , of course, discussed on this site. But always in the knowledge and against the background that Scottish football is living a lie , and always determined that the shadow of that lie will be lifted when honest men are again in control of our game. 


  19. easyJambo 13th January 2020 at 17:19

    '..Crawford Allan has been given the gig.'

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

    And he's being tested on the VAR business following an untidy, noisy argument between oor Daryll, Kenny Mac and Michael Stewart – in which not one of the three seemed to be listening to the two others. 

    Allan didn't have time to say anything other than that refs are human and can make mistakes, hopefully few, and more or less left it at that as the programme ended.

     


  20. John Clark 13th January 2020 at 19:32

    And he's being tested on the VAR business following an untidy, noisy argument between oor Daryll, Kenny Mac and Michael Stewart – in which not one of the three seemed to be listening to the two others. 

    Allan didn't have time to say anything other than that refs are human and can make mistakes, hopefully few, and more or less left it at that as the programme ended.

    ====================================

    I didn't listen to the programme but I think it was Kenny Clark who was the ex-referee taking part.


  21. dom16 13th January 2020 at 22:13

    ""Astros fire manager and GM; club fined $5m for wrongdoing"

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

    What would happen to any governance official who was complicit in any way? broken heart


  22. John Clark 13th January 2020 at 19:32

    And he's being tested on the VAR business following an untidy, noisy argument between oor Daryll, Kenny Mac and Michael Stewart – in which not one of the three seemed to be listening to the two others. 

    Allan didn't have time to say anything other than that refs are human and can make mistakes, hopefully few, and more or less left it at that as the programme ended.

    ====================================

    I've just watched/listened to a bit of the exchange. It's worth sharing. (it was Kenny Clark, not Crawford Allan)

    https://twitter.com/i/status/1216857366592937988

     


  23. easyJambo 13th January 2020 at 23:53

    I've just watched/listened to a bit of the exchange. It's worth sharing. (it was Kenny Clark, not Crawford Allan)

    —————————————-

    Isn't it amazing that the SFA have searched far and wide from a huge number of interested candidates and given the job to one of their own. Well, it's not amazing really, because by selecting an ex-Scottish Referee, they have chosen an upstanding individual of the highest integrity, who knows only the truth and nothing but the truth, and always acts without fear or favour no matter the consequences. 

    For as long as I can remember the above is how Scottish Referees have always been presented to us by the SFA and the media. What is this great secret that makes a man so great by dint of his Scottish birthright when no other group of Referees in the entire world fit that profile? I'd love to know, but as I said it is a secret, and inferior mortals like myself must accept that those who hold that secret are acting for the greater good! 


  24. easyJambo 13th January 2020 at 23:53

    '..I've just watched/listened to a bit of the exchange. It's worth sharing. (it was Kenny Clark, not Crawford Allan).'

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

    Yes, indeed,eJ, but they had a phone link with Crawford Allan round about the 57th minute. There was much hilarity when MacIntyre's question to Allan  (" do you have issues with the process around disciplinary matters?") was met by a good few seconds of silence, causing laughter and comments such 'the ex-head of referees' getting off his mark, sharpish. There was a wee fault on the line that caused Allan's answer not to be heard at first.broken heart


  25. Re the appointment of Crawford Allan:

    Another insular, in-the-bubble, 'We're doing the best we can, we can't upset the Grade 1s, because we’re feart of them.' appointment. 

    Is the board of the SFA so blind to the almost-daily criticism of refereeing performance, standards & consistency from fans, players, managers & media that it thinks that an 'in-house' appointment is what is needed at this time?

    It makes me wonder how much input the regional associations had into the selection. It makes me wonder if Mr. Allan is a 'compromise' appointment to quieten dissent. It makes me wonder if he was actually the first choice of the panel. It makes me wonder if this appointment is just part of the same old SFA 'Magic Roundabout' routine. It makes me wonder if there is something not quite 'right' in Scottish refereeing that an outside candidate would have seen & addressed.

    Still, according to the press release, the CEO got all his boxes ticked with this appointment. Good for you, Ian. Are you sure that your boxes were the correct ones for ongoing development of refereeing standards in Scotland? Was there a box designated ‘Honest mistakes & how to ignore them’? I hope that Mr. Allan oversees a sea-change, but history indicates a jaundiced view should be taken of the prospects of any change at all.

    There is, of course, an 'up-side' for the SFA in this appointment; no relocation fees required as the successful candidate is local. Funny that!


  26. RE: Crawford Allan, I know it has been debated a lot in Scotland over the need for foreign referees and we always know this is unlikely to fly. How refreshing would it have been though had the SFA decided to appoint a foreign Head of Refereeing to keep in check those below him?


  27. Jingso.Jimsie 14th January 2020 at 09:24

    '….but history indicates a jaundiced view should be taken of the prospects of any change at all.'

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

    Recent history, from the granting of a UEFA licence on the basis of a an alleged false statement of fact (which the SFA refuses to have investigated independently ) to the nonsense of the utterly perverted 5-Way agreement allowing and insisting that  a heinous sporting lie be propagated, confirms the view that the SFA board is either rotten to the core, or that an element in it is so entrenched as to be all-powerful against the weak and puny efforts of such good men as there may be in the running of Scottish Football.

    It's an appalling state of affairs when a national body is , with justification, so distrusted that there are calls for non-nationals to be imported in the hope of ensuring decency, honesty and fairness in the application of the rules of the sport!

     


  28. John Clark @ 1343:

    The biggest takeaway from Allan's appointment is that it appears that the tail is wagging the dog; the tail being the referees & the dog being the SFA. It's an insider, steady hand on the tiller, don't rock the boat, wan o’ oor ain appointment par excellence, but not what the Scottish game needs. 

    The passing of John Fleming gave the SFA an opportunity; the chance to replace him with a new man or woman, a new strategy, even a new structure. Frankly, as has been evidenced by their handling of several other contentious events in recent history, I think they didn't have the bottle (or professionalism) to do so.


  29. Tomorrow's SDI v TRFC court date. Don't expect anything of note to come from this "directions hearing", as I have previously intimated.

    ROLLS BUILDING
    COURT 24
    Before LIONEL PERSEY QC sitting as a Judge of the High Court

    Wednesday 15 January 2020
    At 10:30 AM

    Directions Hearing

    CL-2018-000631 SDI Retail Services Limited v. The Rangers Football Club Limited


  30. easyJambo 14th January 2020 at 17:05

    Tomorrow's SDI v TRFC court date. Don't expect anything of note to come from this "directions hearing", as I have previously intimated.

    =============================

    Does this mean they have somehow managed to kick the can down the road again?


  31. upthehoops 14th January 2020 at 18:41

    Does this mean they have somehow managed to kick the can down the road again?

    =======================================

    See my post on 3rd January 2020 at 22:59 (on page 9)


  32. Hi, easyjambo.

    I re-read your post. I take it the blue text was copy/paste?

    Is a 'shot across the boughs' a real saying? indecision

    Let's hope soon the boughs break and sevco will fall, SFA and all. mail

    How many sequels can this horror movie have?


  33. Bows, as in boats’ bows not trees’ boughs, I should think.

    Wood yew believe I had to log in to post that…?


  34. easyJambo 15th January 2020 at 16:39

     

    When the injunction was granted it was obvious as to its intent and application. How many times does it have to be confirmed? More prevarication and filibustering to allow RIFC to continue to cheat the league. I note that the judge gave permission for parties to air greivances in public by letting journalists have access to their notes. Declined by both sides.It is stated elsewhere that the judge considered a "knotty problem" to have been raised today. I wonder what it could be?


  35. Just shows the difference, eh? Alex Salmond tries to get HMRC to go easy on CW's Rangers FC  and doesn't get very far. 

    No worries, though, the SFA creates a huge lie to suggest that CW's Rangers nevertheless did not die, but lives in a very healthy debt free  condition, and bugger the creditors.

    And not one other Scottish football club kicks up a fuss!

    The UK government on the other hand can (temporarily at least) abuse its powers in  bailing out Flybe ( any important Tories or wives, sons, daughters  got a big stake in that airline ?)

    Straight off,  though, the other airlines appeal straight to Europe against that government help! No messing about, no special treatment for a failed company.

    Good on them, and I wish the SFA Board had had the guts to let normal rules that have applied to many other clubs apply to the Liquidated RFC of 1872.

     

     


  36. Meanwhile back at the ranch as the Court case with Ashley goes on. No news of the much vaunted new share offer, and no news of King selling his shareholding.  No news either that £10M is NOT now needed to see the season out. 

    Meanwhile Radio Clyde are sorting out the maximum Dundee Utd can demand for Lawrence Shankland should Rangers decide just to step in and take him away. For anyone who wants to know the maximum they can ask is £1M tops. I do hope the Dundee Utd board are paying full attention…after all, this is Rangers we are talking about.


  37. UTH

    the old sale by media tactic,never heard it but sounds like they are gearing up for morelos saying adios


  38. upthehoops 15th January 2020 at 18:43

    13

    3

    Rate This

    Meanwhile back at the ranch as the Court case with Ashley goes on. No news of the much vaunted new share offer, and no news of King selling his shareholding. No news either that £10M is NOT now needed to see the season out.
    ………………
    No news on.
    Alex Rae in Rangers investment claim as he predicts January cash boost at Ibrox.
    Rae added: “I’ve heard it from a very high source in Ibrox so I would prefer to believe that instead of anybody from Twitter.”
    ……
    Wonder if anyone on Clyde 1’s Superscoreboard will ask him how this is going, or was Alex just mouthing off with deflection at the parting of Dave king, or had he been reading too many ibrox blogs and could not see the woods from the trees, as the Hong Kong investment rumours were just a deflection to ease kings departure and questions being asked.
    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/alex-rae-rangers-investment-claim-20940333


  39. Cluster One 15th January 2020 at 20:19

    Alex Rae in Rangers investment claim as he predicts January cash boost at Ibrox.
    Rae added: “I’ve heard it from a very high source in Ibrox so I would prefer to believe that instead of anybody from Twitter.”

    =============================

    Perhaps the next 'Sash Bash' Alex attends he will get even more useless nuggets of information to share with the world. 


  40. Cluster One 15th January 2020 at 20:19 Alex Rae in Rangers investment claim as he predicts January cash boost at Ibrox. Rae added: “I’ve heard it from a very high source in Ibrox so I would prefer to believe that instead of anybody from Twitter.”

    ___________

    Well, looks like they've kicked the SDI/MA can further on down the road in January, would that not count as a cash boost at Ibrox?


  41. Just had to tell you all this.

    Watching the SA v England Test Match and the camera has zoomed in on Pfaff du Plessis vigorously shining the ball just to the side of his you know what, and the commentator says, 'he (du Plessis) told me this morning that he's a pretty bad tosser.' 

    The commentator (I'm not too sure if he'd realised at this point how what he said had matched up with the picture on screen) went on to say he was referring to the coin toss at the start of the match.

    Not too sure it's one of the great cricketing commentators' bloopers, but it sure tickled memail

     

     


  42. So…

    "A judge overseeing the latest stage of a High Court fight between (The) Rangers and Sports Direct owner Mike Ashley has suggested litigants should decide whether journalists are given paperwork outlining claims and counter claims"

    I wonder what 'spin' the SMSM would put on the release of any such information (I would imagine that only one party would be prepared to do so).

    The judge apparently had no objection to " reporters being given copies of skeleton arguments"

    I'm sorry Your Honour, but any such Sevco skeletons will be kept well and truly in the cupboard by our compliant media under the ever watchful eye of Herr Traynor


  43. I can see why the latest round of MASH v GASH was designated as a Directions Hearing because at least one of the parties seems totally lost.

    It seems the only noteworthy event was T'Rangers asking for an injunction to be relaxed as it hindered dealings with Elite. From memory the entire point and purpose of the injunction was not merely to hinder T'Rangers dealing with Elite (or anyone who breached SDI's matching contractual entitlements) but to stop dealings entirely. Elite's role has never been too clear as they only seemed to appear after the already questionable Hummel deal. At one point they popped up in Court; tried to put an oar in (purely to assist the positions of themselves and T'Rangers) and were told if they wanted to join the action they should apply to do so. Later Elite said they weren't going to do so and cited the cost as one of the reasons.

    I thought Hummel made kit and Elite flogged it. From current reporting it could be the other way round. Either way neither should be doing anything unless MASH has decided not to exercise his matching rights.

    Whatever was going to be put up on behalf of T'Rangers was going to have to be against the background of last July's decision when T'Rangers A-Game of stratagems and cunning ruses was dismantled, destroyed and dismissed with no-one from T'Rangers emerging with any credibility.

    If this is the best argument at the disposal of T'Rangers it's easy to see why they would not be in a hurry to release their skeletal arguments. It can't be a simple task to construct a skeleton when all you've got is one or two bones and neither of those is a backbone.

    It can only be a matter of time before someone like Club IQ72 breathlessly issues a statement; sorry, A Statement, warning "It's a trap! Don't buy anything from anyone because Mike Ashley is getting at least 99 pence in every £! He might even be getting 2 pence more than this! The only staunch way to act is to send us £1690 every day…"

    I wonder if the Judge ended the day by performing a number of throat slitting gestures to indicate that proceedings were concluded?


  44. Re : Shankland/The Rangers FC

    As a DUFC supporter I would be apalled if the above scenario materialises but I would have to admit his style (a natural goalscorer rather than target man) would suit The Rangers' style of play (slick movement from defence thru midfield played on the ground at pace) & he would score a lot of goals for them in a "McCoist" way .

    What the club have to weigh up is whether selling to a competitor your main asset makes sense – it is a test for the new American owners & it will be interesting to see how they handle the situation (given DUFC have a large debt) . I remember Jim McLean refused to sell Richard Gough to the now defunct Rangers FC & sold him to Tottenham instead (who ultimately sold him to Rangers in the end) for the above reason .

    Allied to the club's position is the player's opinion , of course , where he envisages his future lies – not I suspect with QPR (mid table Championship) who are sniffing around – the player has his Scotland career prospect to think about also .

    Time will tell us what his value is & where he ends up .


  45. LUGOSI 16th January 2020 at 11:58

    "……It can't be a simple task to construct a skeleton when all you've got is one or two bones and neither of those is a backbone…"

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

    And  when even your lawyer has to try to mislead the Judge in trying to present any kind of case. 

    Does the Law Society have any part to play when a Judge in announcing his judgment in open Court  asserts  that a lawyer dealing with case has tried to mislead him?

    Are lawyers not subject to any disciplinary body? 


  46. Next week's court action

    LORD DOHERTY – C Munn, Clerk

    Thursday 23rd January

    Starred Motion 

    Between 9.30am and 10.30am

    A295/16 David Whitehouse v Chief Constable of Police Scotland &c – A & W M Urquhart – Ledingham Chalmers LLP – Scottish Government

    I'm not sure what will be involved in this short hearing. DW won an  appeal at the end of October, ending the Lord Advocate's immunity from prosecution,  so I can only assume that it will just be another step in the process towards a proof hearing (trial of the evidence).


  47. Just heard Andy Cameron's little tribute to the late Bobby Brown, historically accurate in recalling the occasion when he first saw him play, at a game between two now defunct clubs -RFC of 1872 and Third Lanark .


  48.  https://twitter.com/danroan/status/1217854953580126214?s=21

    How other leagues deal with recalcitrant clubs. 

    I had occasion to walk around Cathkin Park a number of years ago on a summer evening. The sun cast shadows through the trees growing up through the old terraces which also filtered out the traffic noise from Aikenhead Rd. Very peaceful and eerie at the same time. As good a place for the ghosts of past players to rest.


  49. I was a little taken aback this morning when I noticed that Celtic plc's share price has dropped from about 162p I think two weeks  or so ago to 142.50 today.

    This evening I note this comment on 

    https://www.lse.co.uk/ShareChat.asp?ShareTicker=CCP&share=Celtic

    '

    "KingHenrik

    Posts: 3

    Price: 137.50

    Sell

    whats happening to the price? Today 13:05

    should I sell my shares? been told a negative story about to break."

    Anyone got any whisper? 

     


  50. John Clark 16th January 2020 at 20:21

    I was a little taken aback this morning when I noticed that Celtic plc's share price has dropped from about 162p I think two weeks  or so ago to 142.50 today.

    ==================================

    The mid price at the close today was 134p, so the fall is greater than you noted. It was 162.5p as recently as last Friday.

    The share price has been pretty stable throughout 2019, so the recent fall is notable.

    The volume of shares being traded in recent days is not significant, 8,995 on Monday, 6,112 on Tuesday, 8,269 on Wednesday and 7,826 today.   The last substantial trades were between 11 and 13 November when over 106k were traded, but with no impact on the price.

    It may not be the amount that is being traded that is the issue, but who is selling, e.g. a director or major investor.

    Other than that, it can only be a "market maker" expressing a view that the shares have peaked in value for the time being and that the short term market sentiment is to sell and realise any profits made over the last few years.. 


  51. easyJambo 16th January 2020 at 21:36

    '….It may not be the amount that is being traded that is the issue, but who is selling, e.g. a director or major investor.'

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

    I don't pretend to understand anything but the most basic rudiments [ learned as a boy from the film 'the Million Pound Note' (1954, with a young Gregory Peck)], but the number of shares recently sold is really infinitesimal relative to the total number in issue, or  to the holdings of any director or any of the major investors? 

    There must surely be some other factor that has affected the price so significantly?

    I read slimshady's ( he has not posted on here recently: I miss him) tweet, following up on Cluster One's link.

    But his observation is not really correct: the huge majority of shares are held by a handful of 'shareholders'. The total number held in aggregate by individual supporters is relatively small, in the whole scheme of things, I would imagine.

    The really big shareholders are not likely to be spooked by a few fans/supporters/small shareholders selling their relatively small holdings!

    Is there the possibility that some 'market maker' anticipates that TRFC will win the league, and have legitimate entitlement to compete in the CL? and begin to earn a few bob that RFC of 1872 illicitly obtained in 2011?

    Celtic plc's failure to deal  with the grant of a UEFA Competitions licence to an unentitled club might now turn round and bite them in their timorous ars.!

    And as my granny might say, if she were alive today, hell mend them!

     

     


  52. ALFREDO MORELOS was booked by Old Firm ref Kevin Clancy for his “game over” gesture to Celtic fans.

    the Colombian striker was handed the equivalent of a post-match yellow card inside Celtic Park on December 29.
    ……..
    Wonder if anyome witnessed this? This took it’s time to emerge.


  53. CO

    I would find it surprising if it hadn't been witnessed, and also wonder why the booking for 'Cut Throat Jake' signalling merely that the game was over (a claim supported by both Sevco and the SMSM) has not been contested. Why no challenge over the issuing of the yellow card?

    Surely such an innocent gesture cannot be punished – if indeed it was for that and not another transgression.

    However, the silence to me speaks volumes – and Gerrard knew exactly what the vile and provocative gesture meant.

     


  54. John Clark 16th January 2020 at 13:57

    I've just noticed your post posed two questions. The answer to both is "Yes".

    The Law Society of Scotland, by statute, regulates, oversees, disciplines etc. its members.

    For the last few years they've been located at Atria One on Morrison Street in some place called Edinburgh. Perfect for anyone located near Edinburgh to make enquiries about the wellbeing of any member who might not be adhering to the rules of membership.

    If it helps "Blair" will be filed under "B.".


  55. Cluster One 17th January 2020 at 07:25 &

    bect67 17th January 2020 at 09:42:

    I note that it's the Sun that has reported this 'post-match' caution for Morelos.

    As I outlined in my two posts on 07.01.20 at 1556 & 1655 (they're on page 10), I can't see any position in the Laws that allows for a third caution to be issued to one player in one game (and still can't). I also think that the journalist has been cute in using the phrase 'post-game', diverting from the fact that the offence occurred during the match & on the pitch, not after the player was off the field.

    It's taken two & a bit weeks for this 'caution' to appear in the public domain. The player's actions have been the subject of much discussion. The SFA has said hee-haw. TRFC commented on the situation days after the incident whilst in Dubai.

    Were the SFA a modern, 21st century business, it could have issued a short statement before New Year confirming Morelos' gestures had been seen & the referee had cautioned him for them. However, that might have led to some journo asking about three (cautions) being a magic number.

    This leads me down two paths:

    The first is that Mr. Clancy has made an unconscionable howler by issuing a third yellow & the SFA has chosen to back him/attempt to sweep it under the carpet rather than admit he's made a mistake.

    The second is that the SFA has agreed, with TRFC, to circumvent its own JPP & not issue a Notice of Complaint to Morelos. If that's the case, that makes a mockery (again) of the whole system.

    (As an aside, I noticed a call this week for every substituted player to make the 'cut-throat' gesture this weekend & for the rest of the season. A couple of days later, belated news of Morelos' caution appears. Coincidence, what?) 


  56. Jingso.Jimsie

     

    I was under the impression that after a red was issued  if a player gets in more trouble the only card you can receive is a second red indecision


  57. Jingso.Jimsie 17th January 2020 at 11:55

        The world and it's dug knows that if the whistler spots an infringement and acts upon it, (or not), then that is pretty much the end of the episode. It's a certainty that the Louden loop-holers are aware of it. 

         Judging by Sevco's, "Game over gesture", twaddle response, and the threat of a robust defence against the invisible racists, what they didn't appear to be aware of was that Morelos received a third yellow. Nor did the SFA website on which only the red gets a mention. 

        Lets be honest……………..It never happened !………..It is a lie, from a governing body noted for it.

       Now mickey mouse charges dating back months, against non-playing staff emerges.

       Talk about a quick change of subject.  

        Fact is, if a "GIRFUY" gesture is a yellow, then a, "You're gettin malkied", is a deffo red anyway. (IMO)

        On a plus note for Celtic fans, if we don't do 10 we get rid of Lawell…… If we do do 10, we get rid of Sevco, and the malign conjunction it has with the governing bodies………..Maybe? 


  58. A very strange sequence of events. 

    Someone (presumably Sevco) leaks a story to a friendly journo (at the Sun, no less) about a 3rd yellow card.  A very confused SFA, having taken no action whatsoever about Sevco’s behaviour at the 29/12/19 game, throw their toys out of the pram and produce several disciplinary notices on Sevco, some of which will not be acted upon until sometime in February and refuse to tell us why the 3rd yellow card was not produced until 3 weeks after the game.  

    Tthey’re having another Dougie-Dougie moment.  Perhaps we could call it a Kevin-Clare moment.   

    Sweep, sweep – expected punishment – a small fine and no player or staff suspensions to harm the cause. .


  59. I know TRFC are up on charges for fireworks at the away match v Feyenoord (Feb 27 ) , but was there not to be an investigation into dodgy singing away to Porto as well ?


  60. I was looking at IFAB Laws of the Game to try to understand the third caution (http://www.theifab.com/laws/chapter/32/section/94/) but could find nothing (mibbes just my incompetence ) but noted this 

    Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off.

    By my reading , a TRFC player should have been sent off when CFC were awarded a penalty in a recent game . That can't be right or it would have happened . Is it me ?


  61. paddy malarkey 17th January 2020 at 18:08
    …………….
    They say Febuary is a short Month, putting an eye over ibrox it looks like it could be a long hard month ahead.


  62. JimmyBones@17.51

    ClydeSSB this evening tying themselves in knots trying to explain the third yellow card. Shurely if a player already has a red card and then commits a further infringement then that should also be a red card? I suppose we’ll have to wait for a Dave King statement.


  63. 'Corrupt official 17th January 2020 at 17:12

    Jingso.Jimsie 17th January 2020 at 11:55

            Judging by Sevco's, "Game over gesture", twaddle response, and the threat of a robust defence against the invisible racists, what they didn't appear to be aware of was that Morelos received a third yellow. Nor did the SFA website on which only the red gets a mention. 

        Lets be honest……………..It never happened !………..It is a lie, from a governing body noted for it…'

    ###############################

    Third yellow, you say? Quite a good read here. Graham Poll: Come on down…

    https://thesefootballtimes.co/2018/06/15/three-yellow-cards-and-one-red-face-graham-polls-world-cup-nightmare-of-2006/

    Re Kevin Clancy: he's got (or been rewarded with) the Dundee Utd v. Hibs game on Sunday. It's live on BBC1 Scotland. No pressure then, Kevin! I hope you don’t wake up on Sunday with a tight calf & have to withdraw…

    Incidentally, the SFA website doesn't feature a table of players' names & number of cautions they have received in League games, although it does for the Scottish Cup. Seems strange that you can't see how many yellows your favourite player has. Perhaps the SPFL's contract to sell its data to be passed on to gambling companies proscribes that information being made public?


  64. Jingso.Jimsie 17th January 2020 at 11:55

    '…I also think that the journalist has been cute in using the phrase 'post-game', diverting from the fact that the offence occurred during the match & on the pitch, not after the player was off the field."

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

    Perhaps the journalist had heard that there was an offence committed after the match and that the yellow card related to that, and not any on-field offence?

    I had a phone call on Monday from a friend in Glasgow, who told me he was trying to research a persistent rumour going the rounds in douce Newton Mearns that a player was involved in an assault on an opposition player in the tunnel at the end of the match, resulting in the assaulted player having to be rushed to hospital. 

    The fact that news of a post-match card has only just struggled out of the cess-pit that is the TRFC /SFA/SPFL nexus might just be an indication that something indeed had occurred that the 'authorities' wanted to keep schtum about.

    On the other hand,the fact that it was only a 'yellow' might be an indication that whatever may have happened was not in anyway as serious as a crime of assault .

    Or, perhaps, such is the level of distrust , it might be a further indication of the desire to tone down such incident as may have occurred for fear that the police might have to get involved.

    My pal asserts that no one at his end believes the third yellow was given in respect of 'the gesture'

    Certainly, there seems to have been a desire on the part of the clubs and the SFM to ignore the 'post-match' angle.

    [As an aside, and speaking as the father of a quondam player for illustrious Aussie teams such as Kangaroo Rovers and Brisbane Celtic , I think I would have  been  happy to swing for any player who, for example,  maliciously kicked him in the haw-maws after a match had ended ( or, indeed, even during a match!broken heart)]

    And if any journalist asked me whether my son had been so  assaulted, he would be given chapter and verse, names and pack-drill, no matter what inducements might have been offered to buy my silence.]

    But of course our SMSM is singularly lacking in any desire to hunt out the truth of any matter to do with TRFC/RIFC plc that might show them in a bad light. 

     

Comments are closed.