Scottish Football Administration in the 21st Century


Redetin says: October 11, 2013 at 11:07 am But we …

Comment on Scottish Football Administration in the 21st Century by peterjung.

redetin says:
October 11, 2013 at 11:07 am
But we had a great school team in they days too. Remember they played a cup game at Fir Park and our supporter bus got a windae pit in by an opposing fan. They won the final at Hampden, that was 1965, great day out. Their like will never be seen again


redetin…many thanks for that very interesting link…had a wee scroll through and low and behold…here in 1961 is the team my old dad captained….will make him happy to know it is remembered even in a small way!

peterjung Also Commented

Scottish Football Administration in the 21st Century
Markybhoy says: (26)
October 18, 2013 at 4:40 pm
……The Jam’s farewell at the Apollo…….

Somewhat OT but……wow….seems like yesterday……a truly memorable night for me too….

Scottish Football Administration in the 21st Century
iceman63 says: (290)
October 17, 2013 at 1:04 pm
There are now many strands unraveling ……..


Powerful stuff iceman….digging it!…… 😀

Scottish Football Administration in the 21st Century
Purely coincidental of course that both the report in the Record and the Express both completely fail to mention the central crux of the resolution and rather highlight what within Scotland will easily be the most controversial part (valid none the less IMHO).

That both these reports appear in the Scottish National Press, on the same day that the appointment of Dave King is shown up for the nonsense it always patently was and when Rangers are having a bitch fight with themselves in court can only of course be another one of those strange coincidences in life…….

Recent Comments by peterjung

LNS – A Summary
Re The Various Drafts of the 5 Way Agreement:
See the attached which purports to be the original first draft and compare it with what was posted above by Homunculus as reportedly the final draft – Draft 6.
The first draft is full of mentions of sanctions for EBT’s… the final draft there is no mention of EBTs at all.  Who knows if John James has sight of yet a later draft or even the final signed version but I would suggest one thing – if these drafts are genuine it certainly illustrates which way the wind was blowing throughout the “negotiations” …..
Actually reminds of the time when “Rangers” were hauled up in front an SFA Judicial Panel for what, at the time, was described by Gary Allen QC as “Only match fixing in its various forms might be a more serious breach. They brought the game into serious disrepute.”
You may recall what happened next….

  • Mr McCoist’s infamous “Who are these people” dog whistle rant….
  • 24 Hours personal security amid threats and bomb scares for Gary Allen QC
  • Credible threats (according to Police) to burn down Raith Rovers stadium
  • etc.

And then…

  • “Rangers” go to the Court of Session seeking a judicial review against the punishment from the SFA Judicial Panel (12 month signing embargo)
  • “Rangers” win their case and despite such legal action being fundamentally against the principles of FIFA they are subject to precisely zero punishment for this…
  • “Rangers” then negotiate to actually accept the transfer embargo after all (that was nice of them) ….but only to start after the current transfer window that was then open closes

So ..”Rangers” went in a few short weeks to being found guilty of actions deemed to be second only to match fixing to effectively zero punishment…not only for the initial offences but indeed also for the serious matter of taking legal action against the sports national body…
I would say looking at Draft 1 of 5WA then Draft 6 it would be true to form for the final version to contain a guarantee of no action on the EBT issue…
While I am here…..why has no one asked any serious questions on why Graeme Souness was getting paid by Rangers via an EBT 10 years after leaving the club…..I am convinced there are some very dark goings on indeed behind all of this…. and this is the real reason why there is such a concerted effort going on for everyone to forget about this and move on…..

LNS – A Summary

iceman63 16th November 2015 at 5:24 pm
It seems to me that the recent desperate briefing to DR about no means of changing the LNS decision and the latest ramblings from Roger Mitchell are signs of a desperation hitherto unknown in the corridors at Hampden……
…The mysterious and to date unexplained changes to SFA rule 14 which changed from there being no mechanism to allow a registration to be transferred to one which under the same heading of preventing such a transfer , now allowed one: this change being  made in November 2011….

Iceman – can you  – or anyone else – elaborate further on this change to Rule 14?

Whose assets are they anyway?
A recent somewhat dark and sinister development emanating from the sphere of some of the “Rangers Bloggers” has motivated me to post this.
I noticed a few days ago that the blogger known as John Stevens (@pzj_1) has turned to a new and despicable tactic of posting family and personal details online.  Now I seem to recall that this is the individual who was behind the “Celtic Land Deal/State Aid” allegations….
However his new quest would appear to be the unmasking of the other “Rangers Blogger” known as “John James”.  The latest “accused” is as far as I am aware just the latest in a string of individuals that John Stevens has accused of being “John James”.  However this new development of posting photographs, names and other details of not only the accused individual, but also of other family members, brothers, sisters, parents etc. is shocking to see even for this unhinged character.
Now it seems that those lovey tolerant lot over at the Vanguard Bears have taken some inspiration from John Stevens and began a similar campaign of their own.  In fact they have even went to the lengths of posting a three part blog.  Now this is really disgusting with all sorts of individuals named and smeared with family photographs posted including children.  The crime seems to be as far as I can make out is being employed by HMRC, being somewhat distantly acquainted with friends of Peter Lawell’s family and a few innocuous tweets and Facebook postings that in the eyes of the VB make them part of a “Rangers” hating conspiracy within HMRC all determined to bring down “Rangers”.
Of the damning evidence offered up by the VB is that some people had the audacity to engage in a fancy dress party dressed as “zombies”.  This apparently is proof of them being “sickening, bile filled, sectarian bigots” or some other such nonsense.
Of course every sane person knows that John Stevens and the VB are generally unhinged lunatics who until now could be largely ignored as irrelevant.  However this new tactic of posting peoples personal details and images online is a very worrying and sinister development.
I would hope that those individuals who have been targeted are consulting their lawyers as this has got to be at the minimum borderline criminal behaviour?
I will not provide the links to this material but it came to my attention through posts on the Bears Den site.  The vast majority of replies are fully supporting of the VB and John Stevens with various congratulations offered and several dark hints of violent repercussions to be visited upon some of the targeted individuals.  To be fair there are a small number of poster questioning the inclusion of children (adults are no problem it would seem) but they seem to be largely shouted down by the majority.  That the mods of the Bears Den allow both the original posts linking the material and the replies to be posted un-moderated is a very poor reflection on the mentality of the people in control of this site.
John Stevens and the Vanguard Bears have shown themselves to be twisted, deranged and possibly dangerous.  Action must be taken against them now before this gets out of hand and someone gets hurt.  How would one go about reporting this behaviour to the police?

Whose assets are they anyway?

grecian urn 4th November 2015 at 1:27 pm #
Shirley LNS MUST revisit his verdict. Won,t hold my breath through!

I refer you to my post at “peterjung 4th November 2015 at 12:47 pm”
They have already anticipated this outcome and have built this into the original decision…..again I quote:
The SPL presented no argument to challenge the decision of the majority of the Tax Tribunal and Mr McKenzie stated expressly that for all purposes of this Commission’s Inquiry and Determination the SPL accepted that decision as it stood, without regard to any possible appeal by HMRC. Accordingly we proceed on the basis that the EBT arrangements were lawful.

The LNS decision will not be revisited based on this IMHO……

Whose assets are they anyway?
Regarding the talk of “Title Stripping” and revisiting the LNS decision…here is the get out as explicitly built into the original decision in the case of such an eventuality as today:
 [104] As we have already explained, in our view the purpose of the Rules applicable to Issues 1 to 3 is to promote the sporting integrity of the game. These rules are not designed as any form of financial regulation of football, analogous to the UEFA Financial Fair Play Regulations. Thus it is not the purpose of the Rules to regulate how one football club may seek to gain financial and sporting advantage over others. Obviously, a successful club is able to generate more income from gate money, sponsorship, advertising, sale of branded goods and so on, and is consequently able to offer greater financial rewards to its manager and players, in the hope of even more31 success. Nor is it a breach of SPL or SFA Rules for a club to arrange its affairs – within the law– so as to minimise its tax liabilities. The Tax Tribunal has held (subject to appeal) that Oldco was acting within the law in setting up and operating the EBT scheme. The SPL presented no argument to challenge the decision of the majority of the Tax Tribunal and Mr McKenzie stated expressly that for all purposes of this Commission’s Inquiry and Determination the SPL accepted that decision as it stood, without regard to any possible appeal by HMRC. Accordingly we proceed on the basis that the EBT arrangements were lawful. What we are concerned with is the fact that the side-letters issued to the Specified Players, in the course of the operation of the EBT scheme, were not disclosed to the SPL and the SFA as required by their respective Rules.

About the author