Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond

ByTrisidium

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.

About the author

Trisidium administrator

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 Comments so far

Ex LudoPosted on11:27 pm - Jan 17, 2020


Is football more important than life and death?

https://twitter.com/millar_colin/status/1218306462067372032?s=21

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:21 am - Jan 18, 2020


Ex Ludo 17th January 2020 at 23:27

'…Is football more important than life and death?'

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

Not in itself, I'd say.

But of course our Football Governance body has demonstrated that telling lies is more important in football governance than telling the  truth!

An attitude of mind that will lead to the death of football as an honest sport in this county.

 

View Comment

stifflersmomPosted on12:25 am - Jan 18, 2020


Tired and inebriated but forever drawing parallels……….

Do you really want to get them? What are you prepared to do?

Everything within the law.

If you open the can worms you must be prepared to go all the way. Because they're not gonna give up the fight, until we believe the myth.

We can never (and never will) believe the myth.

The relevance just occurred to me. 

 

 

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:30 am - Jan 18, 2020


My post of 22.28 refers.

An obvious amendment: where I say 'on the part of the clubs and the SFM' read ' on the part of the clubs and the SMSM'

I live in dread of sanction by Big Pink!wink

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on2:36 am - Jan 18, 2020


stifflersmom 18th January 2020 at 00:25

It's just a game to you . Life and death ( sometimes literally) for some . The beautiful game .

Here's what happened to one player in 1994 , and I don't think it's got better . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMd_hi-ZOoU

We have a guy with 41 criminal convictions pretending to be the chairman of a football club , a managing director who admits in open court that he takes direct instruction from said convict and is only responsible for day-to-day control of an ersatz abomination , and a governing body who use the third-knuckle handshake to keep the show on the road , aided and abetted by a competitor who sees profit as prime and competition as useful , and gambles on being just ahead of the curve . This latest pish is just that – pish . But they will get away with it because your average fan just wants to watch his/her team play football , and couldn't give a monkey's f*ck about the two cheeks' delusions of grandeur or past glories . When was the last time we won a European competition , qualified for International finals ? These guys are the problem , not the solution , but it's a closed shop , as they used to say when we had Unions . Don't get me started !

 

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on3:20 am - Jan 18, 2020


While the lights are still on , does anybody else hear Stevie G's post match summary of tonight's game as anything other than a plea to the board for some quality players , because this lot won't cut it ? You'll all be laughing out of the other side of your face when we put four by CFC again tomorrow . By half time , again !

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on4:30 am - Jan 18, 2020


Have I got an empty ?  My partner's Da passed on tonight and I'm drinking him to heaven or hell or wherever his missus now resides . He was a lovely guy , and so was she ( female though ) , and had absolutely no interest in any sport bar golf . Although from common stock , his Da used to caddy for Belle Robertson when she was in her pomp , and he picked up the bag for a while . Between the three of them , they deconstructed my golf swing at Aberfoyle one day – 3/4 back swing  , not long but accurate . Lethal with a putter , though . I was only there to make up the numbers and for their sport . But when I beat them with a borrowed half-set ,wearing gutties   it got like they were doing me a favour allowing me to compete with them . It's the same feeling I get being a supporter of a lesser team in Scottish football – you're there to be patronised , and woe betide you if you complain about injustice because we're doing you a favour allowing you to take the field against our elite . In a perfect world ,imo , the two cheeks will feck off to the land of milk and honey , and leave the rest to enjoy the sport minus their paranoia and sectarianism ( you're grandweans will all support Thistle or similar and the world will be a better place .) I thank you . I was trying to squeeze in " vicarious " as it's my word of the day but I'm not that clever . Tomorrow's is wafflestomper .

View Comment

Ex LudoPosted on9:12 am - Jan 18, 2020


Paddymalarkey@03.20

"The priority was to get in the hat for the next round. So I'm pleased about that, the clean sheet and the 5th win on the spin.

 

Outside of that, I feel pretty flat. For large periods of the game I was quite bored watching it"

That SG quote post-match in full. Is he saying he’s bored with football in Scotland and needs a new challenge? 

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on10:17 am - Jan 18, 2020


Something stinks to the high heavens about this SFA announcement yesterday. The Morelos gesture was getting heavily debated within the mainstream and social media as soon as it happened. The easiest thing for the SFA to do would have been to state the next day he had been booked for it. The fact is they didn't, and there was absolutely no record given in the post match stats that he received a third yellow card. The third yellow card in itself is unheard of – any player who has already been given a red then commits another offence is given another red. Has there ever been a previous occurrence where this has happened?

In my view it is not beyond the realms of doubt that certain people within the SFA probably wanted to do nothing, and others thought if they take that course it makes them look ridiculous. The end result of all of this is it makes it look like they are doing something, but it is nothing other than a slap on the wrist, and Morelos escapes a further three match ban. I don't care if anyone thinks I am inventing conspiracy theories, because in 2010 a Referee lied, and was backed by people within the SFA even though they knew he lied. Only because an Assistant Referee was not prepared to have his character blackened did we find out the truth. The fact is the Referee lied, and people within the SFA backed the lie, even though they knew the truth. In the 90's Jim Farry, the head of the SFA deliberately cheated Celtic, and lied about it. Only the tenacity of Fergus McCann exposed his lies. So personally I am not willing to believe the SFA are being honest in this recent case. It is undeniable they have bent and broken rules in the past to help 'Rangers' so why wouldn't they do it again, while trying to make it look like they are taking action? 

As usual the media are happy with the outcome and are fully backing the SFA, Why not, because Rangers and Morelos are basically getting away with it yet again. 

There simply can't be a more unfit for purpose Football Association anywhere else in the civilised world. 

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on10:19 am - Jan 18, 2020


'John Clark 17th January 2020 at 22:28

…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…'

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

John James published similar allegations (I think it was two assaults on CFC players' & an 'intervention' by a member of the management team) on 01.01.20.

If true (and who knows, between the SFA's dilatory, obfuscatory approach to disciplinary matters & Police Scotland's practice of 'omerta'), then it's a shameful reflection on Scotland as whole.

 

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:14 am - Jan 18, 2020


upthehoops 18th January 2020 at 10:17

'..It is undeniable they have bent and broken rules in the past to help 'Rangers' so why wouldn't they do it again, while trying to make it look like they are taking action? '

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

For as long as the SFA propagate the fiction that TRFC is the self-same football club as the liquidated RFC of 1872 their actions and statements  have to be regarded as the actions and statements of liars and cheats until the contrary is proved, and not of decent, honourable, persons exercising their offices of trust with utmost individual and collective integrity.

The 5-Way Agreement in itself is proof positive that our sport is rigged, and that secrecy and lies rule.

 

View Comment

HighlanderPosted on11:45 am - Jan 18, 2020


upthehoops 18th January 2020 at 10:17

_______________________________

Scottish FA Board 2019:

Rod Petrie

Ian Maxwell

Mike Mulraney

Neil Doncaster

Duncan Fraser

Ana Stewart

Malcolm Kpedekpo

Above is a list of the current SFA Board members. It is highly unlikely that one solitary member wields sufficient power and influence to be able to dictate policy in a Rangers*-facing direction, otherwise I'm confident Peter Lawwell would have 'sorted' the SFA when he was a board member to the extent that his achievements were visible.

So, which two or more of the above list are the masons in black (suits)?

If that proves too difficult to answer, try another question. Is it just possible that the football authorities do everything in their power to avoid upsetting both of the Glasgow giants?  

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on12:21 pm - Jan 18, 2020


Apologies for my rant to anybody unfortunate to read it . I'll get my punishment at Firhill later .

View Comment

Edgewood DirkPosted on8:21 pm - Jan 18, 2020


@Allyjambo

I know I'm a bit late with this but the log-in/password retrieval on this website has been mucking me about for the past 3 days.  Your cricket story reminded me of another I heard about a batsman who was hit in the nuts by the 2nd last delivery of the match.  This was in the 1950s when the BBC didn't admit to the existence of such places so the commentator was having a little trouble,

"Oh, I say!  He's taken a…. rather painful one there, looks to be …..very uncomfortable…team mates are gathered round to help…but I think he's…yes, he's getting up again…back on his feet, he's going to play on…

So then…

One ball left!"

View Comment

ChristyboyPosted on9:04 pm - Jan 18, 2020


Greetings guys and gals. Been off for a wee while but good to see a lot of you guys still beating the drum. Probably been mentioned but if there was another yellow card for Morelos after the game surely it would be in his match report yeah? which can be produced? 

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on9:13 pm - Jan 18, 2020


Highlander 18th January 2020 at 11:45

'..Above is a list of the current SFA Board members..

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

Of that list, Highlander, only one (Petrie) was on the SFA board in 2011/2012. 

Doncaster was CEO of the SFL at that time(not on the SFA Board) and therefore also a key figure in the 5-Way Agreement, and now of course is on the SFA Board.

Those two are the continuity link to the dastardly Board of the SFA which in 2012  helped create the myth of the undead RFC of 1872, a myth which in my opinion they presently -along with the other current Board members-continue to foster and propagate.

If they were and are  ready to do that, I believe that there is no telling what they might not be prepared to do to protect their 'investment' [in 'continuity Rangers' ] by any means they deem open to them.

 

 

 

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on2:51 am - Jan 19, 2020


Illuminating .

http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/topic/215947-show-the-red-card-to-liquidation/

Posted April 5, 2012

"We are aware that some fans wish to stage a protest at the match on Saturday against any form of liquidation. We understand their deep concern on this issue but the bidding process is at a critical and sensitive stage and, as administrators, we cannot support action – even though we favour a CVA – that may be interpreted as ultimately detrimental to the Club's prospects of emerging from the administration process successfully.

"The last few weeks have been extremely turbulent and a difficult time for the football club and I would like to thank the fans, the players and all of the staff at the Club for their tremendous continued support throughout this period."

Where's the holding company at ?

 Can anybody pinpoint the first instance of "same club" . I've looked at available  media , and all of a sudden , it just was , as if by edict .

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on7:17 am - Jan 19, 2020


Edgewood Dirk 18th January 2020 at 20:21 @Allyjambo I know I'm a bit late with this but the log-in/password retrieval on this website has been mucking me about for the past 3 days. Your cricket story reminded me of another I heard about a batsman who was hit in the nuts by the 2nd last delivery of the match. This was in the 1950s when the BBC didn't admit to the existence of such places so the commentator was having a little trouble, "Oh, I say! He's taken a…. rather painful one there, looks to be …..very uncomfortable…team mates are gathered round to help…but I think he's…yes, he's getting up again…back on his feet, he's going to play on… So then… One ball left!"

_____________

Yes, ED, cricket commentary has brought some gems of bloopers, not least the one that went,

"The batsman's Holding (Michael), the bowler's Willey (Peter)".

I'm sure the commentator (Brian Johnson?) did preface it with, something like, "I'm glad to say I can now say something I've been waiting to say for many years…"

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on7:43 am - Jan 19, 2020


Christyboy 18th January 2020 at 21:04 Greetings guys and gals. Been off for a wee while but good to see a lot of you guys still beating the drum. Probably been mentioned but if there was another yellow card for Morelos after the game surely it would be in his match report yeah? which can be produced?

________—

Rest assured, CB, it'll all be covered in the Five Way Agreement, which shall ever be proof that TRFC receive no favours from the game's governors, no matter which club they might individually support.

However, there is no need to support a club to be guilty of ensuring it receives favourable decisions when your position and future in that position, plus promotion within the body, requires you to promote the accepted interests of that body by favouring that one club. No one knows which side their bread is buttered on more than ambitious people do. To believe otherwise would mean to believe that everyone involved in the Bank of Scotland's financing of Rangers via David Murray were all individually Rangers supporters (or friends of David Murray).

View Comment

Ex LudoPosted on10:14 am - Jan 19, 2020


Paddy malarkey @02.51

any form of liquidation” Interesting choice of words in that Rangers statement from 2012. It’s almost like they knew what was coming but couldn’t bring themselves to just say it straight.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on10:28 am - Jan 19, 2020


paddy malarkey 19th January 2020 at 02:51

As I've stated on a number of occasions previously, and never had it rebutted by any of our frequent deniers, there was never any mention of a distinction between club and company in any writing or even pub talk by the most Rangers of Rangers men until the CVA failed – and it didn't start instantly, either, for, as you say, it just seemed to pop up out of the ether (without the slightest explanation). Not only that, the very men most likely to find it (a separate club/entity) clearly failed to do so despite their intense searching through the club's books (and drawers where the 'Club' thingy might have been hidden mail). Of course, a PR man's knowledge must always trump that of insolvency experts in all matters dealing with insolvency!

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on11:31 am - Jan 19, 2020


'Highlander 18th January 2020 at 11:45

'…Above is a list of the current SFA Board members…'

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

You don't actually believe that board decisions are made in the board room by board members whilst minutes are being taken, do you? That's as likely as a third yellow card for a player in one game (oops, wait a minute…). 

Tha SFA board will have a thorough 'warm-up' over tea & biscuits before the meeting. Strategy will be discussed, opinions aired & positions cemented to present a unified board. No contention in the actual meeting & in & out as quickly as possible.

View Comment

DarkbeforedawnPosted on11:40 am - Jan 19, 2020


As I've stated on a number of occasions previously, and never had it rebutted by any of our frequent deniers, there was never any mention of a distinction between club and company

I’ve long said the moment I believe started the club and company discussion was HMRC announcement. Like everyone else I believed that liquidation would be the end of the club and that the tax man in no way possible would ever condone an asset sale where “Rangers” could continue. But at that point rightly or wrongly the precident was set and the media reported from the back of that. 

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on11:52 am - Jan 19, 2020


The really depressing fact about Scottish football today, is that – as mentioned above – the two main characters who so manipulated the game in 2012 are still actively involved.

 

In fact, both have since been promoted for their endeavours;

Doncaster is now CEO of the combined SPFL

&

Petrie is now at the very pinnacle of Scottish football as SFA President – and in practice, he seems to be operating as a de facto 'Executive President'.

 

So, whether it's the alleged / absurd post match yellow for Morelos, the lack of improvement to officiating standards, the general Hampden pandering to all things Ibrox, etc…

 

Our own clubs – ALL clubs – have either explicitly or implicitly supported the promotion of both these individuals.

That's all we really need to know, IMO.  angel

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on12:58 pm - Jan 19, 2020


Darkbeforedawn 19th January 2020 at 11:40

And just what authority do HMRC have to state whether or not a club has died? And what did they say to suggest an incorporated football club has an unincorporated football club living alongside/inside it?

HMRC's role in our world is to determine whether or not tax is owed and to collect that tax, nowhere in their role is it stated that they have the authority, or the ability, to determine the status of any entity, a football club or any other! For anyone other than the thickest, HMRC made a throwaway comment to relieve themselves of a tiresome inconvenience, nothing more.

Furthermore, for anyone to say something, and have anyone other than the aforementioned thickest believe it makes it a fact, is as bad as those who believed the earth was flat just because the 'experts' of the day said it was. The opposite is also true, of course, and so the earth is not round because the experts say it is, it's round because it is round and has been proven to be so.

For the effect that some event, such as liquidation, has on anything to change, then the previously accepted effect has to be proven to have changed, or the laws surrounding it to have changed, or else we are living on a flat earth!

And still you don't answer the question; if there was some sort of 'Club' separate from the incorporated Rangers, why was there never, ever any reference to it before it became a necessity to one of football's greatest ever liars? Oh, and why did Charles Green/Sevco find it necessary to buy Rangers' history if he/it had already bought the 'Club'?

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on1:18 pm - Jan 19, 2020


Darkbeforedawn 19th January 2020 at 11:40

           I’ve long said the moment I believe started the club and company discussion was HMRC announcement. Like everyone else I believed that liquidation would be the end of the club and that the tax man in no way possible would ever condone an asset sale where “Rangers” could continue.

——————————————–

        I doubt you have any idea who this un-named, "spokesman", for HMRC was, his credentials, abilities, or qualifications. Yet his words carry more weight to you than Walters, who wished the new club well.  Or even the words to the judge by Charles Green, who should really know what he bought, or Gough, or Naismith, or McGregor, or even your own eyes, and abilities of logic.

   And facts….Such as having to apply for membership and an SFL share, an eight minute meeting, early Scottish cup entry rounds, or a cancelled charity match, (cancelled due to the non-existence of one of the clubs involved). 

    I know you want to be, but it is just too difficult to take you seriously DBD. You have relinquished control of your own mind. 

    

View Comment

tonyPosted on3:39 pm - Jan 19, 2020


CO

Not forgetting Donald findlays words

They are a new entity who must establish their own history and tradition

View Comment

tonyPosted on3:41 pm - Jan 19, 2020


I can't believe I'm still talking about this nonsensesmiley

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on3:59 pm - Jan 19, 2020


Darkbeforedawn 19th January 2020 at 11:40

I’ve long said the moment I believe started the club and company discussion was HMRC announcement. Like everyone else I believed that liquidation would be the end of the club and that the tax man in no way possible would ever condone an asset sale where “Rangers” could continue. But at that point rightly or wrongly the precident was set and the media reported from the back of that. 

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

That's not correct. The HMRC statement came out on 12 June 2012 to accompany advance notice that they would be voting against a CVA.  Two days later, when the CVA was formally rejected, the media without exception put out their banner headlines of "Rangers RIP" et al.

A typical response to the HMRC announcement was as written in the Independent.
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/scottish/rangers-consigned-to-liquidation-7844196.html

The "separation" came from negotiations between the football authorities and Charles Green, with their collective desire that there must always be a "Rangers" in the leagues. Out of those talks, the 5 way agreement was born and a footballing “continuity” deal agreed.

The media only switched on the 5 way agreement.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on4:10 pm - Jan 19, 2020


tony 19th January 2020 at 15:41

'..I can't believe I'm still talking about this nonsense.'

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

But, for as long as the Big Lie is there at the very heart of our football governance, we must continually get at the liars, at every turn and twist, until they are forced to acknowledge the truth, set the record books straight, investigate the Res 12 licence matter, and let us get back to some semblance of honestly competitive sport.

It's the sheer bloody nerve of them to even think that they could get away with such nonsense with such pathetically ridiculous lies! The same contemptuous attitude that das Herrenvolk displayed towards rightness ,decency and Truth. Gott bestrafen sie!                       

View Comment

Edgewood DirkPosted on4:38 pm - Jan 19, 2020


Paddy malarkey,

I've pointed out myself, numerous times that the idea of separate club and company only appeared once liquidation became inevitable (the earliest mention I've found was in June 2012) and asked why it was that nobody realised before then; so far without response.

Given the sort of abuse received by anyone suggesting that 'Rangers' are a new club it's surprising that there was no response to the likes of Chris Graham,

https://imgur.com/FPUrYS0

Jim Traynor

"…however Charles Green dresses it up, a newco equals a new club…"

Or Hugh Keevins

"140 years of tradition dies today, there is now no longer something known as Rangers Football Club"

View Comment

DarkbeforedawnPosted on4:45 pm - Jan 19, 2020


To all the reply’s to my comment, this was purely in response to everyone who says that Rangers fans refuse to answer questions. I’m always happy to answer my views on anything. 
 

Jim Traynor

"…however Charles Green dresses it up, a newco equals a new club…"

Or Hugh Keevins

"140 years of tradition dies today, there is now no longer something known as Rangers Football Club"

 

And is this the only time they are seen on here as the custodians of truth? I can’t believe how often they are are quoted when it suits an agenda. 

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on5:37 pm - Jan 19, 2020


Darkbeforedawn 19th January 2020 at 16:45

And is this the only time they are seen on here as the custodians of truth? I can’t believe how often they are are quoted when it suits an agenda. 

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

Traynor and his fellow lamb munchers had been rightly condemned for towing the Rangers PR line for years before Rangers demise.

However, when the tie to Murray and PR spin was broken following the sale of the club to Whyte, the narrative changed to one of much more honest reporting of the financial reality at the club, which saw the club going into administration and then the RIP moment when the CVA was rejected.

Perhaps you missed Traynor "revealing" the Ticketus funding arrangement in January 2012 (although it had been discussed on RTC as early as May 2011).

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/whyte-the-fans–the-cash-for-gers-1115402

What is galling, is that many sportswriters (including Traynor) did a complete about-face following the implementation of the 5 Way Agreement, some of them through their re-engagement as PR misers for the newco.  They are rightly condemned to this day for that change. 

 

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on5:51 pm - Jan 19, 2020


Darkbeforedawn 19th January 2020 at 16:45 To all the reply’s to my comment, this was purely in response to everyone who says that Rangers fans refuse to answer questions. I’m always happy to answer my views on anything.

______________

Well answer them, then. You've continually refused to answer the questions that I have repeated frequently. Scroll back a bit and you'll see a few of them. My apologies if they fall into the difficult category…or the kind you just don't want to answer.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on8:32 pm - Jan 19, 2020


Allyjambo 19th January 2020 at 12:58
HMRC made a throwaway comment to relieve themselves of a tiresome inconvenience, nothing more.
…………..
With the threats HMRC and their employees were getting at the time, was it any wonder they would say anything to keep the hoards from the door

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on8:53 pm - Jan 19, 2020


Cluster One 19th January 2020 at 20:32

I think they would have said something similar even without the vile threats of violence, for they can well do without constant questioning from aggrieved bodies or the media,  and particularly from a football club with such a large support. They could well have been approached by some Rangers supporting politicians (a la Salmond (though he's not a bear), though I am not suggesting he'd have had any further involvement after his earlier plea for leniency from HMRC), and thought, 'sod this for a laugh, let's just make a conciliatory statement and be done with it.'

And that's what it was, a conciliatory statement, and from their (HMRC) point of view, it worked, because they really do not have any interest in the truth of what happens to a liquidated company/football club other than ensuring they get their cut of the proceeds.

But what I say here doesn't get away from the fact that McCoist's wolf whistle, and it's aftermath, worked, and I'm sure everyone involved, in any way, knew exactly what they'd face if they weren't careful with their words.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on8:57 pm - Jan 19, 2020


Darkbeforedawn 19th January 2020 at 16:45
And is this the only time they are seen on here as the custodians of truth? I can’t believe how often they are are quoted when it suits an agenda.
………………….
Are you suggesting that at the time of these quotes that they were lying?
And if so are you now suggesting now they are telling a truth?

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on9:05 pm - Jan 19, 2020


Allyjambo 19th January 2020 at 20:53
………………
You only have to look back to see who was not threatened back then

View Comment

DarkbeforedawnPosted on9:36 pm - Jan 19, 2020


Well answer them, then. You've continually refused to answer the questions that I have repeated frequently. Scroll back a bit and you'll see a few of them. My apologies if they fall into the difficult category…or the kind you just don't want to answer.

 

I thought I had answered them all mate. If there is anything I have not then apologies. Genuinely I will engage with any questions. If there’s something I haven’t answered then list them for me as numbered questions then I cannot be accused of only answering what suits me. 

View Comment

DarkbeforedawnPosted on9:44 pm - Jan 19, 2020


Are you suggesting that at the time of these quotes that they were lying?
And if so are you now suggesting now they are telling a truth?

 

My point is it seems very hypocritical to use the very people you spend almost every day disagreeing with everything they say to use as your “sources” because of one thing they wrote many years ago. If you were always looking to them as honourable on all other topics then I would see the point. 

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on9:49 pm - Jan 19, 2020


Darkbeforedawn 19th January 2020 at 21:36 Well answer them, then. You've continually refused to answer the questions that I have repeated frequently. Scroll back a bit and you'll see a few of them. My apologies if they fall into the difficult category…or the kind you just don't want to answer.

I thought I had answered them all mate. If there is anything I have not then apologies. Genuinely I will engage with any questions. If there’s something I haven’t answered then list them for me as numbered questions then I cannot be accused of only answering what suits me.

________________

Can you tell us why you didn't just scroll back as I suggested? Never mind, here's one such set of questions you could so easily have scrolled back to – the post is on this page.

 

Allyjambo 19th January 2020 at 12:58 Darkbeforedawn 19th January 2020 at 11:40 And just what authority do HMRC have to state whether or not a club has died? And what did they say to suggest an incorporated football club has an unincorporated football club living alongside/inside it?

HMRC's role in our world is to determine whether or not tax is owed and to collect that tax, nowhere in their role is it stated that they have the authority, or the ability, to determine the status of any entity, a football club or any other! For anyone other than the thickest, HMRC made a throwaway comment to relieve themselves of a tiresome inconvenience, nothing more.

Furthermore, for anyone to say something, and have anyone other than the aforementioned thickest believe it makes it a fact, is as bad as those who believed the earth was flat just because the 'experts' of the day said it was. The opposite is also true, of course, and so the earth is not round because the experts say it is, it's round because it is round and has been proven to be so.

For the effect that some event, such as liquidation, has on anything to change, then the previously accepted effect has to be proven to have changed, or the laws surrounding it to have changed, or else we are living on a flat earth!

And still you don't answer the question; if there was some sort of 'Club' separate from the incorporated Rangers, why was there never, ever any reference to it before it became a necessity to one of football's greatest ever liars? Oh, and why did Charles Green/Sevco find it necessary to buy Rangers' history if he/it had already bought the 'Club'?

View Comment

DarkbeforedawnPosted on10:30 pm - Jan 19, 2020


To both your questions there:

The first is they perhaps don’t but what gives writers on SFM more authority than HMRC, football governing bodies and ASA when it comes to the matter? Who, in your opinion, does have the authority if not the very football governing bodies?

And the second question I think you have me mistaken as someone else. I have never said that the club and company was different. I have always said the oldco was liquidated and a newco setup which acted as a ‘continuation’ of the previous. There is precedence  in football for such scenarios (eg Fiorentina and many others) where the newco is a continuation of the oldco and carries on with the history (and in UEFA’s case) the points of the previous. 

View Comment

Edgewood DirkPosted on10:40 pm - Jan 19, 2020


Darkbeforedawn ,

I wouldn't dream of presenting Messrs Traynor and Keevins as any sort of fonts of truth (certainly no more than the ASA or the ECA), my point was to inquire as to why no-one from 'Rangers', whether club, company or support, spoke out to correct what they must surely have regarded as false or incorrect statements or, indeed, against the authors of these headlines.

https://i.imgur.com/EX73hih.jpg

View Comment

bordersdonPosted on10:41 pm - Jan 19, 2020


A wee comedy for a Sunday night. I believe if you ask Alexa when Glasgow Rangers were formed the answer is 2012!! Try it. She will be binned doon Govan way. sadsadsad

 

View Comment

Edgewood DirkPosted on10:51 pm - Jan 19, 2020


Alexa will tell you a lot more than that…

https://twitter.com/mickmccahill/status/1097610539327475712?lang=en

View Comment

misterlightbulbjokePosted on11:26 pm - Jan 19, 2020


Rangers fans believe  that  a comic who incorporates  singing into  his act becomes a set of twins.Mental.

There are people  like darkbeforedawn who blithely tell us all that there's  nothing wrong with having one society  and two truths. Here's  the problem:imagine half of society doesn't think murder  is a crime and the other  half  think it is,can they peacefully co-exist? Of course they can't. Allowing  Rangers fans to believe they were relegated has created an all too real Mr Hyde.

View Comment

TimtimPosted on11:28 pm - Jan 19, 2020


@AJ

The Earth is round because it has been proven to be so ? 

I have spent many hours investigating so called "conspiracy theories" , the first thing to note is the term conspiracy theorist was brought into use by the CIA in order to discredit people asking difficult questions. Many theories are extremely valid (I don't believe Lee Harvey Oswald was responsible for the murder of JFK and I don't believe the official version of 9/11) but because I believe alternate views on these issues doesn't mean I automatically believe all conspiracy theories such as the Earth is flat . This doesn't stop me from winding up my son who is in his 3rd yr at Heriot Watt studying Mathematical Physics that I think there is a possibility that it may well be. I shouldn't really , he stays on Gorgie Rd and that is punishment enough imo. Returning to the issue at hand I note that (1) there will always be someone out there at the wind up and (2) the evidence will lead you to the truth . Strong evidence isn't hearsay or opinion of uneducated or unqualified individuals but that backed by legal precedent or the laws of science.

Conclusion – they were liquidated in 2012 (club and company) see law of incorporation for details

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on11:51 pm - Jan 19, 2020


Timtim 19th January 2020 at 23:28

Not according to BBC Sport in their report on Saracen's difficulties .

 'Big teams do return from catastrophe. Rangers are challenging Celtic again at the top of the Scottish Premiership, eight years after being demoted to the fourth tier.' 

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:13 am - Jan 20, 2020


Darkbeforedawn 19th January 2020 at 22:30

"..Who, in your opinion, does have the authority if not the very football governing bodies?"

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

O, for any favour, give it a chuck!

Liquidation has always meant the death of a club. Never has a liquidated football club been resurrected by the SFA or anybody else.

The SFA has no power or authority to say that a newly created football club (under their own rules)is the very same club that lost its membership of a league ,under that League's rules, through the 'insolvency event' of Liquidation and in consequence lost its membership of the SFA . 

The whole idea is absurd.

View Comment

TimtimPosted on12:44 am - Jan 20, 2020


I think it's also worth noting @JC that one may have to live a lie if they cannot cope with living with the truth. Stage one of the Kubler-Ross model explains that some are still very much in the denial phase.Is it beyond comprehension that the Governing body would choose to promote whatever version it believes leads to the greatest revenue ? We were originally told the truth only because it takes time to concoct a lie . 

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:24 am - Jan 20, 2020


Darkbeforedawn 19th January 2020 at 21:44

0

20

Rate This

Are you suggesting that at the time of these quotes that they were lying?
And if so are you now suggesting now they are telling a truth? 

My point is it seems very hypocritical to use the very people you spend almost every day disagreeing with everything they say to use as your “sources” because of one thing they wrote many years ago. If you were always looking to them as honourable on all other topics then I would see the point.
………………..
And yet at the same time you quote HMRC as a source of a throw away quote at the time to be the bearer of truth because of one thing they wrote many years ago.If you were always looking to them as honourable on all other topics then I would see the point.
Even Green thought he could save the original club when he was given the nod. He knew like everyone else if HMRC rejected the CVA that was the end.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on11:14 am - Jan 20, 2020


Darkbeforedawn 19th January 2020 at 22:30

I see we have the usual rubbish trotted out re the oldco/newco debacle.

Forget HMRC the ASA etc. What is it that the footballing authorities in this country believe?

DbD gives examples of other teams in other countries that have achieved some form of continuation after liquidation.

If that is the case then the Scottish Footballing family should have no problem in citing such examples and explaining how Rangers and The Rangers are the same club, or not, within a Scottish context.

The fact they have been unable to explain their position in a public manner and hide behind  the 5-Way agreement and vacuous statements such as Regan making reference to 'letting the fans decide' just highlights a list of failures in dealing with the game, the clubs, the fans, the media etc etc etc. 

If you cannot be honest and open with those who ultimately pay your wages then, what ever your apparent stance is, you will always be viewed with suspicion.

Therefore the problem is simply solved by the SFA & SPFL.

Tell everyone why, in footballing terms,  Rangers and T'Rangers are the same continuous footballing entity and your reasoning behind it

or

Tell everyone why, in footballing terms,  Rangers and T'Rangers are not the same continuous footballing entity and your reasoning behind it.

Not doing so is treating ALL fans of ALL clubs as mugs.

OK one group or another aren't going to be happy with any final decision and explanation but, hey, that's life.

However people would at least have some form of respect for the authorities being definitive and showing leadership as opposed to feeling the game is run by a bunch of self-serving headless chickens with no vision, no direction and no honesty or transparency. 

 

 

 

 

View Comment

Ex LudoPosted on11:29 am - Jan 20, 2020


https://twitter.com/goal/status/1219160380397637632?s=21

A football story with a happy ending to change the mood on here.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on11:29 am - Jan 20, 2020


paddy malarkey 19th January 2020 at 23:51

 

Timtim 19th January 2020 at 23:28

Not according to BBC Sport in their report on Saracen's difficulties .

 'Big teams do return from catastrophe. Rangers are challenging Celtic again at the top of the Scottish Premiership, eight years after being demoted to the fourth tier.' 

Equally intrigues me how we now seem to hear about big TEAMS in the mainstream media.  As if that somehow solves the Club inequation.

Im also intrigued how the distinction referred to above applies only to big teams.  Is there some cut off point where small teams no longer get the benefit of the doubt?

View Comment

wottpiPosted on12:34 pm - Jan 20, 2020


Smugas 20th January 2020 at 11:29

I was going to add further to my post above but your one covers some of what I was going to say.

Scottish Football and indeed other sports appear to fear losing their big guns.

From a business perspective I have no problem if that is the way sporting authorities want to go in terms of making allowances for certain clubs that they believe are important to the success and continuation of their game.

The problem is where are the limits, be that financial, doping etc to be set?

If it is open and transparent and the new rules/limits are then applied without fear or favour then whats the problem?

However from a sporting perspective it totally goes against the idea of the consistent application of rules across all levels and pyramid systems.

As such it is probably better to opt for a US style franchise type system for top tiers and admit the way of the past are long gone.

 

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on12:46 pm - Jan 20, 2020


You should always follow the money…

I wrote this back in 2013 on SFM.

 

 
As part of the purchase of Rangers’ business & assets to Sevco Scotland, the club’s administrators sold the then pending SPL 2nd place prize money (£2.55m) for season 2011/12. Effectively meaning that the club’s assets were purchased for £2.95m – not the headline £5.5m that is often quoted. Later, as part of the 5-way agreement, Sevco waived their right to this £2.55m which was retained by the SPL and (possibly) distributed to the remaining SPL clubs. Of course, before distribution they had the extra expense of the LNS Commission and the £1m TV rights payment to the SFL to pay for. It is not clear (to me at least) why Sevco would have needed to pay the SPL anything. They have never been a SPL club and owed nothing to that league. As Rangers had completed the season’s fixtures, the SPL had no straightforward legal cause to withhold the prize-money. Anyway, as a technical step, the SPL required the administrators of the old Rangers to sign-off on Sevco’s prize money waiver; but as they had already sold it on, it caused no further deficit in the old club’s accounts. I am sure the £2.55m has to be the “compensatory money” that your friend refers to. As I’ve said before (on many, many, many occasions ? ) the SPL behave in their own commercial interest at all times. Unless you were to take the very cynical view that the £2.55m was a straightforward payment for constructing the dodgy LNS remit and case execution – and I make no such allegation – you would have to think that this “forced” payment by Sevco to the SPL was grossly unjust.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on12:51 pm - Jan 20, 2020


Some honesty in Scottish football . Well done Brian Rice . I hope you get   the help and support you need , rather than punishment .

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51176275

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on1:07 pm - Jan 20, 2020


In a similar vein , and after reading the Steve Conroy adjudication , I asked the SFA how they monitor potential conflicts of interest in refereeing appointments ( ST holders shareholdings , etc ) , and the reply was

The Referees on the List of Referees have to declare any conflicts of interest as they arise as part of their letter of engagement. 

they have to self-declare . My mate's a Sheep fan and staunch Ludge man , and he reckons that several in the refereeing fraternity hold shares in a certain RIFC , the holding company of the company that runs the club . Would this be seen as a conflict ? Is there any way to check if his assertion is true ?

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on2:34 pm - Jan 20, 2020


Timtim 19th January 2020 at 23:28  @AJ The Earth is round because it has been proven to be so ? I have spent many hours investigating so called "conspiracy theories" , the first thing to note is the term conspiracy theorist was brought into use by the CIA in order to discredit people asking difficult questions. Many theories are extremely valid (I don't believe Lee Harvey Oswald was responsible for the murder of JFK and I don't believe the official version of 9/11) but because I believe alternate views on these issues doesn't mean I automatically believe all conspiracy theories such as the Earth is flat . This doesn't stop me from winding up my son who is in his 3rd yr at Heriot Watt studying Mathematical Physics that I think there is a possibility that it may well be. I shouldn't really , he stays on Gorgie Rd and that is punishment enough imo. Returning to the issue at hand I note that (1) there will always be someone out there at the wind up and (2) the evidence will lead you to the truth . Strong evidence isn't hearsay or opinion of uneducated or unqualified individuals but that backed by legal precedent or the laws of science. Conclusion – they were liquidated in 2012 (club and company) see law of incorporation for details

___________________

No, Timtim, the earth is not round because it was proven to be so, it is round because it is round – a sphere actuallysurprise. Scientists eventually managed to prove it was round, taking it from a theory to a known truth accepted by all. The same is required by the liquidation deniers. It's not enough for them to believe RFC lives to persuade us all that Rangers didn't die, they have to be able to prove it with something more than fancy theories they've produced themselves and numerous 'he said, she said' and 'what about…' claims. And as Alastair Johnson and Darkbeforedawn recently showed us by their re-opening of the OC/NC debate, it really does matter to them. It matters to them a lot.

View Comment

normanbatesmumfcPosted on4:58 pm - Jan 20, 2020


wottpi 20th January 2020 at 11:14

Therefore the problem is simply solved by the SFA & SPFL.

Tell everyone why, in footballing terms,  Rangers and T'Rangers are the same continuous footballing entity and your reasoning behind it

or

Tell everyone why, in footballing terms,  Rangers and T'Rangers are not the same continuous footballing entity and your reasoning behind it.

________________________________________________________

Quite right wottpi, a simple solution indeed, hence we must ask why neither has been forthcoming???

 

The reason is, they want scenario one to be the case, but know scenario two is the reality.

They also know their attempted "rationale" for deciding scenario one was their version of what happened would be ridiculed by anyone with half an ounce of knowledge of company and insolvency law.

What is the old saying? "Better to remain silent and appear a fool than speak and remove all doubt"

SFA = Silent Fact Avoidance

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on5:14 pm - Jan 20, 2020


paddy malarkey 19th January 2020 at 23:51

'…Not according to BBC Sport in their report on Saracen's difficulties .'

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

I have just fired off a complaint(on the BBC's on line complaints form) about Tom Fordyce's (BBC chief sports writer, forsooth) ignorant observation about RFC of 1872 being 'demoted'.

The sheer bloody ignorance (at best) or perverted bias (at worst) of some of these BBC people is astonishing. I assume he is an Englishman, and possibly gets his football info from some lying hack in BBC Scotland, but that is no excuse.

If an end to the BBC licence fee means that he and his ilk have to find another outlet for their untrue and misleading utterances, I would find that quite satisfactory.

 

View Comment

TimtimPosted on5:17 pm - Jan 20, 2020


@AJ

Well I for one am convinced that the entity originally known as Sevco Scotland may now be referred to from this day onwards as Flat Earth F.C. 

I will now proceed with the task of having Alistair Johnston renamed Jack Ruby 

View Comment

tonyPosted on6:56 pm - Jan 20, 2020


Timtim

 

I would have thought Jack ? more appropriate 

View Comment

Ex LudoPosted on7:34 pm - Jan 20, 2020


AllyJambo@14.34

I have to take issue with your categorisation of our planet as a sphere. It is in fact an oblate spheroid. #pedantscorner. ? 

 

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on7:48 pm - Jan 20, 2020


‘paddy malarkey 20th January 2020 at 12:51

Some honesty in Scottish football . Well done Brian Rice . I hope you get the help and support you need, rather than punishment…’

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

I have sympathy for Brian Rice as a person who has gambling problems. I have no sympathy for Brian Rice the football manager.

He’s been charged with Rule 31 breaches for each of the last five years. In those five years, he’s worked at Inverness CT, St. Mirren & Hamilton. He calls it a ‘lapse’. It’s not, it’s a pattern of behaviour.

https://www.hamiltonacciesfc.co.uk/club-statement-sfa-notice/

There’s no mention in the Accies’ statement about which matches were involved. Surely he hasn’t been betting on matches involving his own team? It’d have been easy to refute that today in the statement.

I note that the Compliance Officer has been active on the Rule 31 front for the past couple of months, handing out bans of up to twenty games. Did he choose to self-report before being pinched by the CO?

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on8:04 pm - Jan 20, 2020


Jingso.Jimsie 20th January 2020 at 19:48

The man is sick , he has an addiction . He may well have jumped before he was pushed , and he may well have a motive for doing so (lesser punishment ?) . He won't be able to compartmentalise his life , same as any addict . Like a functioning alcoholic , he knows he's doing wrong but can't help himself . Our current manager had the same/similar problems .

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39878876

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on8:29 pm - Jan 20, 2020


Ex Ludo 20th January 2020 at 19:34 AllyJambo@14.34 I have to take issue with your categorisation of our planet as a sphere. It is in fact an oblate spheroid. #pedantscorner. ?

______________

In all honesty, I knew it wasn't a perfect sphere, but I didn't know it was called an 'oh be late  hemorrhoid'. Pedantry can be a right old pain in the ass mail

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on9:35 pm - Jan 20, 2020


paddy malarkey 20th January 2020 at 20:04

‘..Like a functioning alcoholic , he knows he’s doing wrong but can’t help himself . ‘

On Sportsound tonight, Alan Maitland of the Accies came across as a very enlightened, humane man, confessing to having been angry and questioning at first when Rice owned up to his illness, but realising that there was a real difficulty there and that Rice needed help and was asking for help. 

John Hartson, too, was tremendously helpful , asking Maitland to convey to Rice his readiness to buddy him to a meeting of GA.

On Morelos,  Derek Feguson argued like an ar.e, MacIntyre showed (not for the first time) how unsuited he is to be a presenter of any kind of discussion, and Michael Stewart behaved like a hero.

MacIntyre had referred to Hartson’s own very bad behaviour on the pitch (25 years ago!) and had asked Hartson what his moral authority was, to criticise Morelos. Hartson  explained that he had at the time held up his hands  and apologised. 

Ferguson referred to the fact that three weeks(!) after the throat-cutting gesture people were still talking about it, and Morelos was the victim of a campaign, purely and simply.

Hartson said it was disgraceful the way Gerrard and the Ibrox machine were defending Morelos

Quite bold and forthright : listen to the podcast for a half hour’s entertainment.

And be prepared for MacIntyre to be removed from the list of those who ‘present’ Sportsound. And possibly for Stewart to be given the heave for daring to have a go at Ibrox.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:01 pm - Jan 20, 2020


My 'complaint' to the BBC, using their online complaint form ( which I suspect is designed to try to put you off complaining in that you have to select  from a list the subject matter your complaint relates to. The list doesn't specify 'complaints against untrue reports' !)

I had to write this "on-line report by Tom Fordyce on 19 Jan 2020" as my subject matter, followed by this:

"Tom Fordyce , BBC chief sports writer, has told an untruth in his 19/01/2020 on-line report on the Saracens Rugby club affair . He has stated that Glasgow Rangers were 'demoted' to the 4th division (in 2012).
Glasgow Rangers was NOT demoted. It went into Liquidation (where it now sits (renamed as RFC 2012) awaiting dissolution when the Liquidators are finished.
A new club was set up in 2012. This was called SevcoScotland. This new club had to apply for membership of a Scottish league. It was refused membership of the then Scottish Premier League, refused membership of Divisions One and Two of the then Scottish Football League.
It was finally admitted into the 4th Division as a new club as The Rangers Football Club.

Suffering the insolvency event of Liquidation automatically causes a Scottish football club to lose its share in the League association of which it is a member, and consequently any entitlement to membership of the Scottish FA.
The Rangers Football Club of 2012 foundation is not, and cannot possibly be, the Glasgow Rangers of 1872 foundation. That latter club died as a football club able to participate in Scottish professional football.
And it is quite unacceptable that any reporter should so mislead people as to pretend that somehow a club in Liquidation battled its way back from 'relegation'.
I demand that Tom Fordyce broaden his knowledge of the facts before he utters such a stupid, ill-informed statement again."

I provided my name and part postcode, of course.

The complaint has been acknowledged by automatic email (which mentions that they had a greater number of complaints after the General Election than usual so it may be a while before I get a reply….)

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:13 pm - Jan 20, 2020


Allyjambo 20th January 2020 at 14:34

'..it really does matter to them. It matters to them a lot."

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

It certainly does, aJ!

If by any chance the FCA were to decide, on the evidence of Insolvency legislation and its application to Rangers FC of 1872, that that football club was actually in Liquidation when the IPO Prospectus issued by RIFC plc was issued in 2012 in which it was clearly implied that prospective investors in RIFC plc would be investing in the most successful club in world football, instead of in a brand new, never kicked a ball, 'club 12' outfit, newly set up and newly admitted into Scottish Football,  well, there might be hard consequences. 

The RIFC plc board are desperately afraid not only of the obvious football consequences of the truth being admitted and told, but of potentially more serious, much more serious ,consequences in the market place.

It would, I imagine, be quite a serious matter to float a company on the market on a misleading prospectus, if any 'businessmen' ever thought of doing such a thing.

 

 

View Comment

nawlitePosted on11:28 pm - Jan 20, 2020


John Clarke, if it helps I still have the email I received from the SFA dated 4 March 2015 in which a David Ogilvie (any relation?!) quite clearly states – and I quote – "Rangers FC were not relegated from the SPL." 

If you can message me your email address, I can send the full email chain.

View Comment

nawlitePosted on11:34 pm - Jan 20, 2020


John Clark, 2 apologies….

1. I gave you an unnecessary 'e'.

2. The email was from David Ogilvie at the SPFL, not the SFA.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:49 pm - Jan 20, 2020


nawlite 20th January 2020 at 23:34

'..1. I gave you an unnecessary 'e'.'

++++++++++

I think immediately of essexbeancounter, a poster who used to refer to me as john clark(e). I hope he is still with us even if not posting. If so, let me wish him all the best.

I'll  DM you in the morning, nawlite. Siren songs are coming from the master bedroom! angry

 

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on12:30 am - Jan 21, 2020


nawlite 20th January 2020 at 23:28

John Clarke, if it helps I still have the email I received from the SFA dated 4 March 2015 in which a David Ogilvie (any relation?!) quite clearly states – and I quote – “Rangers FC were not relegated from the SPL.” 

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

It’s great that you have kept a copy of such documents. They provide a contemporaneous record of what was the actual situation on any given date.

The recent postings of DBD, prompted me to look back at the archives of the RTC blog with regard to the earliest discussions about Ticketus. The first mention was by “Johnbhoy” on 5 June 2011. Now that date was a full seven months before the MSM woke up to the fact.

Here is his post following the publication of a floating charge security document at Companies House.

JohnBhoy says: 05/06/2011 at 5:35 pm

I reckon the probable solution to this is the most obvious.
It’s season tickets we’re talking about here.
Who gives out loans against future season ticket revenue? Ticketus.
How much is involved here? Roughly £52million.
What were the total sums pledged by Whyte for his takeover over four years? Roughly £52million.
So what’s happened here?
Whyte has pledged future Rangers season ticket cash to pay for HIS takeover.

How perceptive of Johnbhoy to put 2 and 2 together and come up with 4.

Looking back at the posters on the blog at that time brings back many memories of sharing resources, knowledge and skills, by the likes of TheBlackKnight, the Don Dionisio, Lord Wobbly, Slimshady, Mark Dickson, OnandOnandOnand (the clued up Rangers fan) and Adam (the Steerpike/Lawman equivalent) and many others besides. I miss these guys.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on1:14 am - Jan 21, 2020


I had a log in problem at the weekend and couldn't condemn the IRA sh*te we heard from CFC supporters at Firhill , nor the attempt to steal a match ball when it landed in our stand . Do they only do this stuff when cameras are in attendance , or are they always that reprehensible at away grounds ? My brother tried to justify it by saying that they are only getting bold because TRFC supporters have been getting away with it throughout the "journey" . Two cheeks .

View Comment

Comments are closed.