A Guest Blog by Auldheid for TSFM
Honesty requires both transparency and accountability. In pursuit of honest, transparent and accountable governance of Scottish football, and only that objective, the following letter, with attachments, has been sent to SPFL lawyers, CEO and SPFL Board Members.
An honest game free from deception is what football supporters of all clubs want. It is the action the letter and attachments prompt that will tell us if there is any intention of providing it.
It is a response on behalf of readers here on TSFM, but the sentiment which underpins it is almost universally held amongst fans of all clubs. Importantly it is a response directly to all clubs, especially those with a SPFL Board member, that will make the clubs and the football authorities aware just how seriously supporters take the restoration of trust in an honest game, honestly governed.
The annexes to the letter contain information which may be published at a later date. We thought it appropriate to first await any response from any of the recipients.
Please also draw this to the attention of friends who are not internet using supporters and love their football and their club.
Auldheid
__________________________________________________________________
Harper MacLeod
The Ca’d’oro
45 Gordon Street
Glasgow
G1 3PE
19 Feb 2014
Copy sent to SPFL CEO and Board Members *
Dear Mr McKenzie
We the contributors to The Scottish Football Monitoring web site write to you in your capacity as the legal adviser employed by Harper MacLeod to assist the Scottish Premier League (now the Scottish Professional Football League) to gather evidence and investigate the matter of incorrect player registrations involving concealed side letters and employee benefit trusts as defined in the eventual Lord Nimmo Smith Commission.
We note from the then SPL announcement that set up an enquiry that the initial date range to be covered was from the inception of the SPL in July 1998, but that was changed to 23 November 2000 because, according to our understanding, that is the date of the first side letter supplied by Rangers Administrators Duff and Phelps. It is also our understanding that the SPL asked for all documentation relating to side letters as well as the letters themselves.
It is a matter of public record that Rangers Administrators failed to supply the SPL all relevant documentation. Indeed the seriousness of not complying with SPL requests was the subject of an admonition of Rangers/Duff and Phelps from Lord Nimmo Smith under Issue 4 of his Commission.
Quite how serious that failure to comply or concealment was in terms of misleading the Commission and so Lord Nimmo Smith can now be assessed from the information contained at Annexes 1 to 10 attached.
We think that as legal advisers to the SPL (now the SPFL) you have a responsibility to make them aware that their Commission was misled by the concealment of documents starting on 3 September 1999, and signed by current SFA President Campbell Ogilvie, whose silence on the ebt matters referred to in the attached annexes* is questionable at the very least.
This letter but not attachments is being posted on The Scottish Football Monitor web site as this is matter for all of Scottish football and support for the issue being pursued to establish the truth can be gauged by responses from supporters from all Scottish clubs once the letter has been published there.
A copy of this letter with Annexes has also been sent to the SPFL CEO and members of the SPFL Board.
Acknowledgement of receipt and reply can be sent by e mail to:
(Address supplied)
Yours in sport
On behalf of The Scottish Football Monitor contributors and readers. http://www.tsfm.org.uk/
Addressees copied in
Neil Doncaster CEO
The Scottish Professional Football League
Hampden Park
Glasgow G42 9DE
Eric Riley (Celtic),
The Celtic Football Club
Celtic Park
Glasgow G40 3RE
Stephen Thompson (Dundee United),
Tannadice Park,
Tannadice Street,
Dundee, DD3 7JW
Duncan Fraser (Aberdeen);
Aberdeen Football Club plc
Pittodrie Stadium
Pittodrie Street
Aberdeen AB24 5QH
Les Gray (Hamilton),
Hamilton Academical FC
New Douglas Park
Hamilton
ML3 0FT
Mike Mulraney (Alloa)
Alloa Athletic FC
Clackmannan Road
Recreation Park
Alloa FK10 1RY
Bill Darroch (Stenhousemuir).
Stenhousemuir F.C.
Ochilview Park
Gladstone Road
Stenhousemuir
Falkirk
FK5 4QL
TSFM
Can’t see the new club thing holding leverage over King tbh, it would just drive more fans towards him requiring more inventive financing initiatives by the board in the meantime until the ST tickets finally sell. And they ultimately will sell with a 1st Division challenge and a helpful wee war chest signing to seal the deal. Big risk would also be that it would force Campbell et al to hang their hat on one of the camps and I think even the spivs are scared to forecast the extent of the authority’s ‘creativeness.’
If TRFC are to be sold then a contrived admin is the big stick since from a footballing point of view a 15pts(?) points deduction would make their task even harder if not impossible which is not something a likely purchaser would be too keen on, if history is anything to go on.
If RIFC are to retain TRFC, and I’m struggling to understand why since dripping roasts don’t tend to need multi million pound pots of gravy every 12 months, and bearing in mind the true annuity there is the properties which could/should be hived off any time they like onthe strength of the debt outstanding, they have more to gain by keeping everyone onside in a mock siege scenario, pretty much as they have done for 24 months now.
TSFM says:
March 18, 2014 at 11:10 am
2 0 Rate This
Has King actually gone back to SA?
Anyone got a flavour of what the fans who bet the farm on him are saying about it all?
My thinking was that King had some leverage, but the threat of a “Yes we are a new club” statement from the board if King carried out his ST scheme would have trumped everything.
In other words, King did not really have any leverage at all.
_________________________________
Rangers board meets Dave King – and blinks
By Grandmaster Suck
Updated Tuesday, 18th March 2014
The board have blinked – they made a huge mistake by meeting King – in short, they have caved into the pressure from the fans.
Mr King is saying he believes that the terms of the Laxey loan and the explanation of those terms mean the directors of the club have styled the company as a high risk investment.
He has backed them into a corner and made them promise publicly not to use Ibrox or Murray Park as security for loans.
He got Mr Crichton to explain the rationale for the Laxey loan in terms which make it clear to any reasonable person that the club is a high risk investment.
He has got the Board to admit there is a need for a fresh round of fundraising.
All of which they were previously very unclear about – those are statements a board of a public company can’t go back on.
The board has also tied themselves into producing a finance plan. They may produce the finance plan but I doubt they will be able to produce the finance by themselves. Which leaves Dave King in pole position.
As a result of the meeting with Dave King and the pressure from the fans the Board have moved to a position they did not wish to be in. They have effectively admitted the club is a high-risk company unable to attract finance under normal terms. They have restricted their own room for manoeuvre by ruling out Ibrox or Murray Park being used as security for finance.
The crucial paragraph for me is –
The only significant issue that I discussed with the board that is not contained in the board statement is the Laxey loan facility. Mr Crighton, on behalf of the board, made a forcible argument as to why the board considered and approved the terms of the Laxey loan. The board considered that a combination of legal risk and the current financial position justified the loan terms. I replied that a consequence of the board’s view of the high risk to anyone advancing funds to the club is the board’s fiduciary responsibility to ring fence any season ticket money that is received (even if fans don’t request this) unless sufficient committed financing is in place at that time. The board did not agree with me on this logical consequence but I believe that my observation is correct.
So the game of poker continues.
As discussed looks like the Board raised on the flop against the GSL’s middle pair.
I’m thinking that the GSL called to keep in the hand.
However they are both ready to check on the on the Turn, which will be some intermediate and wishy washy announcement before the end of the 120 day review.
My guess is that it will all come down to the River, where the GSL will fold knowing fine well the Board had a pair of aces from the start and rigged the flop to get a full ‘big house’ and the cash that goes with it.
“Published” ? Is that the 120 day review their on about?
If they get to the final, perish the thought, as do AFC, does this mean that a march on Hampden is in the offing to demand they clear up the 3yr membership vs 3yr accounts myth. Will Campbell have to tell them his hands are tied, can’t waive the mythical accounts mince with UEFA as they are a new club. Or has entry by loosing finalist to a club who has already qualified been put to the “discretion” of head office also.
No offence to anyone left in. I’ll get me coat if that rule no longer exists, been so many changes I’ve lost track.
TSFM says:
March 18, 2014 at 11:10 am
“In other words, King did not really have any leverage at all.”
_________________________________________________
I think King is perhaps a one trick pony. An expert at getting investment from an unsuspecting public, and support from the more naïve/honest financiers (perhaps an oxymoron there, but I hope you get my drift) but in a different league (not necessarily a better league) when it comes to dealing with the men at TRFC, but is still trying to use his one and only trick. Unfortunately for him, and perhaps the TRFC support, they trump his trick every time. He’s maybe discovered that it’s much harder to persuade/intimidate people when you have no genuine bargaining tool, and especially when they don’t actually want to believe you anyway. A bit like a car salesman trying to sell a swamp to a group of swamp salesmen.
One of my favourite movies is Mars Attacks and as I read more on the Return of the King the more I see King as The USA President played by Jack Nicholas and The Ibrox Board as those mad Martians with a wicked sense of humour.
I can see them now rolling around helpless with laughter screaming “business plan” , “another 30 days”? “compete with Celtic for European place”
” Remind me someone, just what planet are we on again?”
Cue more fits of laughter as they holster up their ray guns.
andy says:
March 18, 2014 at 11:37 am
From Grandmaster Suck;
“Mr King is saying he believes that the terms of the Laxey loan and the explanation of those terms mean the directors of the club have styled the company as a high risk investment.
He has backed them into a corner and made them promise publicly not to use Ibrox or Murray Park as security for loans.”
_______________________________________________
GMS’s whole ‘message’ was, at best, extremely naïve, but the above paragraph showed just how much wishful thinking is going on amongst the bears. I’ve checked back at both the board and King’s statements and fail to find any ‘promises’ anywhere. The board statement, and the only one that might hold the board to anything, only says they have no ‘intention’ to use MP or Ibrox to raise funding, which doesn’t mean they can’t change their mind. besides, the board have no obligation to the supporters, only to the shareholders, and that is to maximise profit. If they can show that selling these properties, or using them as security, can increase the profitability for the shareholders, even promises wouldn’t commit them otherwise. But, most importantly, there was absolutely no promises.
Even King’s statement doesn’t say ‘promises’ were given, just assurances. But no matter, his statement binds TRFC to absolutely nowt, regardless of what they told him.
The two statements tell us, and the bears, absolutely nothing about what is happening at Ibrox, other than that the board is in an immovable position, and even Dave King can do nothing about it.
The statement from ‘Grandmaster Suck’ tells us the bears are no nearer getting their act together than ever they were.
Good Afternoon.
We are of course on Planet Sevconia. A place where rules are not applicable to the elite and taxes are for the little people.
It strikes me that King is away with his tail between his legs. Could it be because it was pointed out that his actions could actually be detrimental to the share price and that he would suffer the consequences.
King has never invested a penny of his own money in the former Rangers(IL), it was the South African Tax Authorities money.
Nor did he have any chance of investing in the new set up as his money, and it may be that he has weaalth off the radar, is tied to South Africa and he cannot get it out. Moreover if he has any out which the authorities do not know about and he suddenly produces it then SARS will be all over him like a rash and jail time would beckon.
As a matter of interest when does the 120 period end. Is the 120 days Sevconian days or earthly days?
Where are the accounts?
The response of some of the Rangers sites today, as well as some of our friends in the press, is remarkable stuff. Where is the disconnect from reality here? How hard is it to look at this situation rationally?
King has “backed the board into a corner”. Aye? How? By giving them the time they asked for! The board said they would take 120 days to review the business plan. We know it’s a nonsense, that reputable organisations can turn around a business review far quicker than that, making cuts all the while if they think they need to, but I digress.
This is what they said they were doing all along. King has backed them into a corner how? Someone explain it to me. I feel like my head is going to explode. He says its by getting them to publicly commit to letting the fans know what was happening once it was done.
Excuse me, but isn’t that the point? Wasn’t it the point from the very start? Isn’t this a commitment they already made, forty days and forty nights ago?
They need more investment, they’ve accepted the need for this. Yeah? I read Sandy Easdale saying that months ago too. But they also said it would be on their own timeline, not his.
They restated their ambitions. I have ambitions of my own. I’m writing a novel right now and I’d like to see it become a bestseller. Will it? I’ll need to be very good or very lucky. It’s nice to have ambitions. But ambitions are a bit wishy-washy … and they’re subject to 120 days review haha.
Someone tell me exactly what King “got” from this that hasn’t been on the table since the start? The board wanted time, they got it. They wanted a fair hearing from the fans for their “plans”. They got that too. They wanted to pick and choose the hour and means at which they sought fresh investment, and they’ve got it. They rejected his plans for ring fencing assets.
Someone want to tell me where the board has been “backed into a corner”?
King has been routed. Not beaten, not outmanuevered, not even made to go and stand in the corner sucking his thumb. He’s been told to sod off, and to keep his mouth shut, under threat of legal sanctions, and he’s doing what he’s told.
The King revolution is over. Some people just don’t want to understand, but maybe they’ll understand this part, what buying time actually means.
By the time the report is published, the season ticket forms will already be out. Fans will already be considering whether or not to renew. A PR campaign will be encouraging them to “take the final step with us” (I should work for their PR department, that’s exactly the slogan they should use … and no, you can’t nick it lol) and many of them will be tired enough of all the politics to do just that.
Those who are unsure, wavering, don’t want to put down their money whilst the board is in place, those who backed King, are in for a rude awakeneing when he tells them they are out of time to pursue the scheme he proposed to them. That setting it up and running it properly would be a logistical nightmare in that timeframe, that anyway, the club has enough money to see them through until Xmas.
Time was all the board ever needed. Even if King has been given vague assurances about everything else, time was the most critical factor, and the pieces had to be in place when the 120 review ended. He’s just assured that won’t happen.
Defeat. Total and irrevocable. And it’s being spun like victory. Fools.
So, Margerita, or Blue Pitch?
Auldheid says:
March 18, 2014 at 12:05 pm
2 0 Rate This
—————-
This story desperately needs a bit of humour Auldheid. It’s heavy going reading about the non-stop cynicism!
My related comedy would be ‘Duck Soup’ with Rufus T. Firefly (played by DK) being appointed to bankrupt Freedonia (Sevconia); the fans being played by Mrs Teesdale (Mark Dingwall) and Laxey by Trentino (Norman Crighton) and CW as ‘Pinky’.
An fruity, anarchic ending 😮
Any others?
Allyjambo says:
March 18, 2014 at 11:43 am
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Isn’t KIngs leverage the witholding of the season ticket money by the fans who he has been working to win over?
Notwithstanding of course his lack of a suitable mechanism to achieve it and perhaps the threat of legal action to prevent him and his disciples from exercising the power of their cash veto?
Number 1 Bob
Again its a common theme.
DK (in presentation) – I’ve control of the income..
Laxey – But we’ve got the capital
DK – Ah, but without the income you’ve got…
Laxey – The capital.
DK – but you can’t stop CFC winning ten in a row with just capital…
laxey – And….
DK – But you can’t can you, admit it, you just can’t…
Laxey – And….
DK – You’re not really Rangers men at all are you?
Laxey – And….
DK – Any chance you could sub me £10 for the taxi?
bogsdollox says:
March 18, 2014 at 12:31 pm
1 0 Rate This
Allyjambo says:
March 18, 2014 at 11:43 am
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Isn’t KIngs leverage the witholding of the season ticket money by the fans who he has been working to win over?
Notwithstanding of course his lack of a suitable mechanism to achieve it and perhaps the threat of legal action to prevent him and his disciples from exercising the power of their cash veto?
——————
If the only real money in football is what the fans stump up, those potential millions not being ‘invested’ in STs (even if it is only 5-10,000 fans who decide to pay at the turnstiles) must be worrying the Regime.
Fewer STs sold and a £1.5m debt carried over to next season, won’t be the best start to the new campaign.
None of it makes any sense whatsoever, even ‘Duck Soup’ had a plot!
Danish,
Depends what cost base they’re carrying 😕
Smugas says:
March 18, 2014 at 1:12 pm
1 0 Rate This
Danish,
Depends what cost base they’re carrying 😕
———-
Smugas,
You mean it might just be the kids, a youth coach, and sandwiches on the bus? Wallace did say at the AGM that their current level of spending was too high for even the top tier.
Danish Pastry says:
March 18, 2014 at 12:58 pm
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Judging from the reports about the number of blue cards being displayed by the fans on Saturday the Board do have something to worry about regarding the level of season ticket renewals.
I think King has had to disassociate himself from the use of this tactic due to potential legal action against him but it still remains the most effective weapon the Fans have in the war against the Spivs and the threat of using it is unlikely to go away.
He will also be thinking about the bad PR from being accused of not acting in good faith in discussions with the Board or with the best interests of the club in mind if he talks openly about starving the clumpany of funds.
Even anecdotal evidence from long suffering Rangers fans I know suggests they’ve suffered enough and many won’t be renewing. When I say “suffered enough” they refer to being fleeced by spivs but also to the unwatchable standard of football being played.
Wottpi at 11:38
Your understanding of ‘pokerese’ is surely the sign of a misspent youth.Where as I don’t have a scooby what it all means.Ah,a sheltered life mine.
I have to say I have been watching the “coming of the King” from afar with increasing incredulity….
And then…was that it?
Really…that was it?
Oh dear…they are in an even worse predicament than I could have cared to imagine……
The nonsense from the chief bears about backing the board into a corner is up there with some of the most self-delusional stuff I have yet witnessed in this whole saga….and that is really saying something given all that has happened along this road…
Listening to the SSB podcast from last night this morning my time while I went about my business was hilarious….how many times can the MSM representatives twist themselves around…I think it was Guidi last night and he made such an arse of himself it was embarrassing….
On one level great entertainment….on the other if it wasn’t so disgusting at the way they are f**king over their own fan base never mind the rest of Scottish football it would be hilarious…..
Can I expect Neil Patey to show up sometime soon with some rainbows for the gullible to latch onto…oh I hope so…
As it is though…. it is neither clever nor funny…..
Are the SFA the SPFL, and the rest of our teams really just going to sit back and watch this bunch of crooks once again make a complete mockery of our sport? I fear they are maybe going to do just that…
It would seem so……once more through the looking glass we go….
@Castofthousands‘
Further to your query last night about ineligible players, here is a bit about the Brechin expulsion .and administered after the event.
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2008/jan/31/newsstory.brechin
And here is a piece written by the late Paul McConville regarding the registration situation of Sevco in the Ramsden Cup. Ironically against Brechin. I know you are interested more from a retrospective punishment angle, Sandy Bryson Stylee, but it is related and still of interest.
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/07/28/the-brechin-ultimatum-did-sfa-botch-rangers-fcs-membership-are-any-rfc-players-registered/comment-page-1/
I dont get this idea that Sevco meeting Aberdeen in the Sc Cup final gets them into the “can we play in Europe please Campbell” scenario
Aberdeen won the 2nd most important cup trophy. If they win the most important cup trophy then they qualify on that basis as its more important.
The only way Rangers could get into a Europe discussion, bar winning it, is to be beat by the League winners in the final which cant happen.
Or have these rules changed along with every other bloody rule.
…and one more point…well two actually…
Firstly just who the hell does this character King think he is?
I believe he is neither a shareholder nor a season ticket holder…..
In fact all he is, is an overseas “fan” [] …..
It is a really sad indictment on Scottish society that this guy is given the exposure he has been given …..can you imagine for a minute the feast the MSM would have with this guy if he was a supposed saviour riding to the rescue of another football club from the East End….just look at the treatment Fergus got and he was the real deal……
One other minor point…sorry back to the hilarious SSB last night (yea I know)…one enterprising caller phoned in and wished the panel a very happy St Patricks day…cue several seconds of stony silence…..the caller repeated the salutation…and the silence was repeated …..broken only by a rather grumpy Mr Dalzeil barking “what’s your point…”
Ok…I know SSB is mostly for idiots but I do find it can give a very interesting window into the machinations of how the MSM in hock with our beloved football “authorities” seek to manipulate opinion….as someone far away from Scotland I do find it gives an interesting perspective into the Scottish football gold fish bowl…..so I beg your indulgence with my musings on all things SSB….apologies in advance…
😀
I’ll ask again.Why aren’t our football authorities demanding to know if the people ‘operating’ out of Edmiston Drive have the wherewithal to continue as a going concern.Their ensuing collapse has implications for the rest of the clubs in the SPFL.Internal chit chats between assorted mountebanks(look it up)is not enough.
Doncaster,Topping et al. What’s keeping you?
helpmaboab says:
March 18, 2014 at 1:47 pm
When you know you won’t like the answer, don’t ask the question. Rule 1 of the SPFL board handbook 😀
James Forrest says:
March 18, 2014 at 12:27 pm
________________________________________________________________________________
James – just read your latest piece….I think you are bang on the money with the comments about the legal implications of “Mr” King’s manoeuvrings….
Good stuff
http://www.onfieldsofgreen.com/the-revolution-will-not-be-televised/
helpmaboab says:
March 18, 2014 at 1:47 pm
‘Mountebank’ – good one hmb 🙂 .
Further to my point above, from the SPFL website.
The entry of Scottish clubs to UEFA’s club competitions for Season 2014/15 is determined by reference to the UEFA Country Ranking at the end of Season 2012/13.
At that time, Scotland was ranked 24. This provides access for three clubs through their Scottish Professional Football League position at the end of this Season and one club through this Season’s Scottish Cup.
As a result of that ranking, Scottish entrants to UEFA’s competitions for 2014/15 will be as follows:
Scottish Premiership Champions
Champions League qualifying round 2 (Champions pathway)
Scottish Cup winners
Europa League qualifying round 2
Scottish Premiership runners-up
Europa League qualifying round 2
Scottish Premiership third place
Europa League qualifying round 1
In the event that the Scottish Cup winners have qualified for the Champions League, the Scottish Cup runners-up will qualify for the Europa League but will enter at qualifying round 1. If this happens, then the Scottish Premiership third place club will enter the Europa League at qualifying round 2.
————-
So Aberdeen winning the League cup has no bearing on them or Sevco
Helpmaboab,
I can only assume that the untainted, non establishment powers-that-be are sitting back and watching the self implosion with the view that their hands are clean this time and no-one has kicked anyone whilst they were down, quite the reverse in fact. Whether they will hold sway though is quite another matter.
Andy Graham
Although the SFA could put Rangers forward as a possible UEFA competition participant ( and that has to be done mid April) under Article 15 for clubs in lower tiers not subject to UEFA licencing standards, it is UEFA who have the final say.
As matters stand their finances and accounting for them make them a bad bet under UEFA Article asking for the most recent audited accounts (Art 4? or 50) but given they might pass muster, UEFA would have to set aside Art 12 requiring 3 years membership of the SFA. That is not satisfied until 3 Aug 2015. UEFA have already used Art 12 to prevent Derry making a premature return and given the whole sorry history of tax evasion and the sums involved I cannot see UEFA using its powers to allow entry.
So if ain’t gonna happen because it is outside the SFA’S power to make it happen.
andygraham.66 says:
March 18, 2014 at 2:18 pm
And no mention of the Scottish Cup runners up qualifying in the event the winners qualify through their league position. TRFC can only qualify if they win the cup, and receive the benefit of the traditional lies and deceit to ‘fool’ UEFA 😈
Re my previous check
http://kerrydalestreet.co.uk/single/?p=12841854&t=9070302
for the full story. If I had a £ for every time I’ve mentioned Article 12 I could buy a football clump any.
My previous post regarding European qualification made an assumption AFC would qualify due to league position. Therefore if DUFC fail to penetrate the bears then said bears can ask RCO for a special circumstances ( we’re tore) waiving of the accounts rule, which does not exist. Therefore leaving said EBT’d up SFA dude, having to tell the deluded they are indeed only two. Cheers.
Ally Jambo
If UEFA are fooled we can fold up the football pitch and get out a Tiddly Winks mat.
They won’t be, not twice by the same FA. Last time was June 2011.
Auldheid says:
March 18, 2014 at 2:35 pm
I sincerely hope you are right, Auldheid. It would almost be worth seeing them win the cup to create the scenario; but no, some things are best not to come to pass!
Ally Jambo
UEFA will be under European Commission scrutiny if they allow the rules whose aim is to pay social tax and prevent liquidation as a means of avoiding it with no consequences for the offender, to be circumvented.
UEFA unlike the SFA do not see the future of their competitions being dependent on a strong Rangers.
Just a suggestion on the “neutral” semi final venue……
At the very least can TRFC be allocated the away dressing room?
Exiled Celt says:
March 18, 2014 at 3:00 pm
0 0 Rate This
Just a suggestion on the “neutral” semi final venue……
At the very least can TRFC be allocated the away dressing room?
=========================
They were drawn out first so they get the “home” dressing room anyway
tomtom says:
March 18, 2014 at 3:15 pm
Exiled Celt says:
March 18, 2014 at 3:00 pm
Just a suggestion on the “neutral” semi final venue……
At the very least can TRFC be allocated the away dressing room?
=========================
They were drawn out first so they get the “home” dressing room anyway
+++++++++++++++++++++
Then it is a home tie as described by Ally then. No pretence at all.
No, because it is only if the winners have qualified for the Champions League (not Europa League). The only way they have a sniff, is by winning it.
Anyone who would like to participate in future podcasts (using either their site handles or their own names), please contact me. I’m particularly (but not exclusively) interested in people with particular expertise who can bring some authority. I’m also aware that since BP is a Celtic fan, that a balance needs to be struck as well.
However it is your blog and community. Everyone is welcome.
Hopefully my PM will now be bulging 🙂
Corrupt official says:
March 18, 2014 at 1:25 pm
“Further to your query last night about ineligible players, here is a bit about the Brechin expulsion .and administered after the event.”
———————————
Thanks Corrupt official. I’ve copied these links and the previous one. I hadn’t previously seriously navigated LNS waters so I’ll have to do some background work to see if this angle is fruitful. It’s such an obvious approach I’d suspect it will have already been tried but I’ll have a look anyway. HirsutePursuit posted a lot of stuff about SFA and SPL rules at the time LNS made his decision so some archaeology may be required to pull together the cross references.
TSFM, might there be a case for having a rule book archive link on the site for when circumstances present the occasion?
peterjung says:
March 18, 2014 at 1:56 pm
10 0 i
Rate This
James Forrest says:
March 18, 2014 at 12:27 pm
________________________________________________________________________________
James – just read your latest piece….I think you are bang on the money with the comments about the legal implications of “Mr” King’s manoeuvrings….
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
I don’t think I agree. On what basis could RIFC or TRFC sue Mr King for saying to potential customers “do not give your money to these people unless X,Y or Z happens”?
I can say to people – “do not shop at Marks & Spencers”. M&S can’t sue me for that.
If I say – “don’t shop at Wallace Gromit cos they serve out of date cheese” and that is a lie – then they can sue me.
So what is the legal basis meant to be?
peterjung says:
March 18, 2014 at 1:42 pm
25 0 Rate This
…. Ok…I know SSB is mostly for idiots but I do find it can give a very interesting window into the machinations of how the MSM in hock with our beloved football “authorities” seek to manipulate opinion….as someone far away from Scotland I do find it gives an interesting perspective into the Scottish football gold fish bowl…..so I beg your indulgence with my musings on all things SSB….apologies in advance…
—————-
Peter,
The good news is Stuart and Tam’s new show invites callers, tweets and emails. And if the first show is anything to go by there will be a lot of space for callers.
Some smart people do make the effort to contact SSB from time to time, and that they actually make the effort to contact Keevins & co suggests there is a huge need for Scottish fans to let their voices be heard. Where else to go?
SSB’s drawback, caller wise, is that it has only a few first-time callers and often dwells too long on regular callers who are ‘safe’ and allowed to beat their drum.
Most puzzling of all is why none of these pundits and talk-show hosts lift the phone to invite Regan, Doncaster and Ogilvie to comment on current events. Those guys seem totally unaccountable to anyone but themselves. Not unlike North Korea. Do they ever hold press briefings? They should surely put on a weekly press conference for the assembled media.
http://news.prod.stv.tv/west-central/268853-imran-ahmad-court-bid-for-500000-rangers-pay-out-delayed-for-year/
A full hearing of a former Rangers commercial director’s bid to secure a £500,000 payout from the Ibrox club has been delayed.
Imran Ahmad’s claim against Rangers, which had been scheduled for a hearing in April, could now go ahead in February 2015, although earlier court dates may become available.
Lord Woolman agreed to discharge a hearing of evidence and submissions in the action due to begin on April 1 at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.
Lawyers acting for Mr Ahmad, whose employment at Rangers was terminated in 2013, are seeking to recover board minutes, details of contracts and other documentation.
Junior counsel for the ex-commercial director, Ewen Campbell, said as he understood it Rangers have concerns over commercial confidentiality.
Mr Campbell told the court: “The pursuer (Ahmad) sees recovery of documents as potentially very important in this matter.”
Alan Summers QC, for Rangers, said a settled set of pleadings in the action was needed rather than having to deal with “a moving target”.
Mr Ahmad maintains that he was entitled to five per cent of commercial contracts negotiated by him subject to written approval from the chief executive officer or chairman.
He contends that a letter from then chief executive Charles Green had confirmed that his bonus for 2013 would be “no less than £500,000”.
Rangers are contesting the claim.
I wonder if this will apply to the SFA and Scottish Football.
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-owners-must-unmasked-6844965
Coventry City owners must be unmasked, says MP leading campaign to change football
Damian Collins MP also wants to clubs to be tied to their grounds to prevent another situation like Sky Blues move to Northampton
Damian Collins MP
The situation at Coventry City is the most severe example that current football governance is failing.
That is the view of a leading politician who will chair a debate on reforming football governance at Westminster Hall today as he aims to push through a bill to force changes to the way the game is run.
Damian Collins, MP for Folkestone and Hythe, will refer to the Sky Blues fiasco as he addresses politicians about changes he feels are needed around football ownership and finance.
He said: “The owners of Coventry City have run the club into the ground. It is an absolute disgrace what they have done there and it should not be allowed to happen again.”
He added: “We have to stop private individuals running clubs into the ground.
“Coventry City is probably the most stark example in the country of just how bad the situation is at the moment.”
Current regulations do not require Sisu’s investors to be named as owners of City due to the relatively small stake in the club owned by each individual. But Mr Collins said that would change if his bill is passed.
“At Coventry City we don’t even know who owns the club. Anyone who owns any stake in the club has to be published,” he said.
“I don’t think it’s right that fans don’t who the owners of their club are. There are many reasons why fans would want to know that.
“We want to know where they have come from and what their motivation is.”
Mr Collins has also called for clubs to be tied to their grounds to prevent another situation like the one which has seen the Sky Blues play its ‘home’ matches 35 miles from Coventry.
He said: “The reason Coventry have left is because of the financial situation the club has got itself into.
“It should be a matter for the FA to determine whether a club should be able to move away. A club and its ground should be locked together.
“It should not be allowed to happen where we have a situation like Coventry’s where the team plays miles away from their home city.”
The Tory MP’s bill will also call for an end to the football creditors rule which sees money owed to those in the football community paid first when clubs find themselves in distress.
The bill is backed by 11 MPs, including Coventry South MP Jim Cunningham, and could be passed in time for the 2015/16 season.
But Mr Collins said he hoped the football authorities would act before they were pushed: “Most of the things in the bill can be put into place by the football authorities themselves. But if the authorities won’t act, then the government will intervene.”
SFA Statement on semi-final ticket allocation
Statement regarding semi-final ticket allocation
Tuesday, 18 March 2014
In response to recent speculation and comments made by Dundee United officials, the Scottish FA is compelled to clarify the club’s ticketing allocation for the forthcoming William Hill Scottish Cup semi-final between Rangers and Dundee United at Ibrox.
At the pre-operations meeting held on Tuesday, 11th March, Dundee United were made an initial offering of 11,063 tickets, allocated in the entirety of the Broomloan Road Stand, the Govan West corner and a section of the Govan Stand Front and Rear.
The number was offered on the basis of Dundee United’s ticket sales for recent semi-finals. For last year’s semi-final against Celtic at Hampden Park, with a 12.45pm kick-off, Dundee United received an allocation of 10,686 tickets and sold 6783.
For the 2010 semi-final against Raith Rovers at Hampden Park, with a 3pm kick-off, Dundee United were allocated 11,806 tickets and sold 9969.
The Dundee United official present stated that in order to ensure a maximum attendance, in the first instance the club would not require the additional allocation in the Govan West corner, Front and Rear and, instead, would prefer the Broomloan Road stand, capacity 8012.
He was invited to revert to the club for confirmation but declined. Notwithstanding the present allocation of 8012 – as requested by the club – Dundee United retain first option on the Govan West corner, and a section of the Front and Rear, an additional 3051 seats.
Should the club a) request that additional allocation and b) sell it, then there remains the opportunity to extend the allocation subject to agreement between the clubs and the relevant police and stewarding advice.”
Re Rangers and UEFA , I believe that in the event that Rangers win the Scottish Cup them the SFA will plead with UEFA and hey ho, license granted.
Pointless getting too agitated about the inevitable.
It is 50 / 50 the Rangers Arabs semi, and with the portrait of Her Majesty shining down on the home team dressing room, we all know anything is possible.
Union of fans statement in response to Dave King statement replying to RFC board statement. http://www.unionoffans.org/statements/2014/3/18/follow-up-statement-re-dave-king
James Forrest says:
March 18, 2014 at 12:27 pm
‘….I have ambitions of my own. I’m writing a novel right now and I’d like to see it become a bestseller. .
Danish Pastry says:
March 18, 2014 at 12:30 pm
‘….My related comedy would be ‘Duck Soup’ with Rufus T. Firefly (played by DK).’
—————–
Looks like we’re all getting into authorial mode! Just keep your plot lines clear of ‘greens’ and ‘blues’ in 8th century Byzantium, guys – my fantasy novel features them! It also necessarily features an element that features mightily in Dave King’s statements- horseshit!
Jean7Brodie at :2.05
Been waiting for ages to use that word Jean and it is completely appropriate for the boardrooms of Ibrox and Mount Florida.
“We are pleased that they are no longer considering the massive scaling back of club operations that would have been required, both on and off the park”
“We also note that they have confirmed that they do require further investment as a matter of some urgency.”
So no cuts, but we need a wad of new cash quickly. 😯
I think if I was Ahmed I would be going back to court to ask for money to be ring fenced, given this statement and the delay in the court case.
James Doleman says:
March 18, 2014 at 5:33 pm
1 0 Rate This
Union of fans statement in response to Dave King statement replying to RFC board statement. http://www.unionoffans.org/statements/2014/3/18/follow-up-statement-re-dave-king
—————-
Well, they are determined to see this through and to use fan power if necessary, so they should be praised for that.
They also seem to trust Dave King, and not suspect that he is in any way running the board’s errand.
So, where do the board now find more of other people’s money to curtail the scale back? Another Greenesque job, investors put money in short term (looks good on paper) but lift even more out, thank you very much loyal fans?
I am clearly misinformed and simply in error. I had the notion that the reason cup finals and semi finals were held on neutral terrain was to do with fairness and in all kind of senses ‘a level playing field’. When did this change? We got to be consistent. Celtic in a final at Parkhead would be similarly intolerable.
And if Dundee United get 11,000 seats, how many do their opponents get? The same? There are no precedents.
By the SFA formula how many would Aberdeen have been allocated had they been drawn in lieu of DU? And the fact is in the NEW ORDER they could fill Ibrox. for the chance of attending the inaugural Aberdeen V Faux Rangers match.
Dundee United chairmen critical of the anonymous letter from SFA. ‘Why no name?’
Asking for dialogue with people at the high end of the SFA. Too right, where are Regan and Ogilvie?
Dundee Utd Statement
CLUB STATEMENT
18 March 2014
In response to the Scottish FA statement regarding ticketing information for the upcoming William Hill Scottish Cup semi final, Dundee United suggests there appears to be some confusion in this incomplete account, which certainly does not reflect the position of the Club.
The Scottish FA informed that the initial allocation of the Govan West corner was made on the basis that only the lower section of the Broomloan Road Stand would be allocated. Our official requested to include the whole of the Broomloan Road Stand in the initial allocation, together with the additional option of the Govan West corner, plus further extra sections of the Govan Stand as necessary. This remains our position and we are happy to reiterate it now.
Our position on the need for a neutral venue remains the same also. We still hope that the Scottish FA will revisit this as there is still time to do so. However, should that not be the case, we urge as many United supporters as possible to attend the tie and get behind the team and counter the lack of neutrality which, amongst other things, exaggerates any ticketing imbalance. This imbalance would not be such a factor at a genuinely neutral venue.
Re Dave King and his Lord of The Ringfencing act ,why do the fans need him to administer a plan of this sorts,why dont they just say we are not buying a season ticket but we will just turn up and pay at the gate ,or buy a ticket as walk in punters do,it will cost them more but will also give the club more cash on the day ,King with his off the radar wealth can sub the club ,interest free, through until the fan money starts comming in,how about it Dave,it is getting beyond a joke now,are there any more wealthy comedians still to come forward with ways in how to fleece a bear ,you just have to put a fez on the heads of this lot and the parties started,just like that.
nowoldandgrumpy says:
March 18, 2014 at 6:46 pm
7
0
Rate This
Dundee Utd Statement
CLUB STATEMENT
18 March 2014
In response to the Scottish FA statement regarding ticketing information for the upcoming William Hill Scottish Cup semi final, Dundee United suggests there appears to be some confusion in this incomplete account, which certainly does not reflect the position of the Club.
=============================================================
Here we go WHO at the SFA is lying now?
Ticketgate; Bit of Karma coming back to haunt Stephen Thompson, remember he was on the SPL board that allowed the 5-way agreement. If he is surprised that those left in power (after doing everything possible to save rangers) are now doing anything possible to help rangers rather than anything different, then he is naive.
Hopefully Aberdeen’s cup win and this ticket nonsense will knock some heads together in the boardrooms of ‘the diddy clubs’ and we might see a sea change in how they do business.
Ever hopeful!
If there are any solicitors on the blog who can offer a registered address service to TSFM, I’d be happy to hear your terms. Obviously the cheaper the better. I would just rent a PO Box, but I am concerned that we may have to at some time in the future provide an address for the organisation, thus the request.
Who’s telling the Truth?
TU: Thomson’s Troops
TD: Campbell’s Commandos
🙂
Campbell’s Commandos?
First time for everything I suppose!
Maybe Thomson can build a shoogly bridge with Ally and get him to ask who these letter writers are ,we should be told
sannoffymesssoitizzhizzemdyfonedrapolis says:
March 18, 2014 at 11:19 am
TSFM
My post at 1:16 am on March 18, 2014 still showing “Your comment is awaiting moderation.”
Have I inadvertantly done something wrong?
Listened to BBCSportsound and part of SSB and the pundits all stating that Dundee United will not take anywhere near 20,000 tickets for semi final at Govan. Same pundits stated that League Cup final crowd would be embarrassing for Scottish Football. As far as I am concerned United should be given the 20,000 tickets and if the do not sell them all then return what is left.
George Peat stated that the venue could easily be changed in time for the semi final, so why not simply change the venue Campbell? He also said a plan B should have been in place in case rangers got to the semi? So again Campbell why not have a plan B? Here is a crazy idea, why not use Celtic park as plan B?
At the risk of
A being wrong or
B stating the bleeding obvious…
The reasons the SFA would not countenance TRFC having to play a semi final at Parkhead would be because there isn’t enough help being given if that were to happen; and in the event that TRFC lost, their fans would trash the stadium, TRFC won’t / couldn’t pay damages, and the SFA wouldn’t know how to discipline the club when payment wasn’t made.
bad capt madman says:
March 18, 2014 at 8:05 pm
0 0 Rate This
At the risk of
A being wrong or
B stating the bleeding obvious…
The reasons the SFA would not countenance TRFC having to play a semi final at Parkhead would be because there isn’t enough help being given if that were to happen; and in the event that TRFC lost, their fans would trash the stadium, TRFC won’t / couldn’t pay damages, and the SFA wouldn’t know how to discipline the club when payment wasn’t made.
———————————————————————————————————————————
What is to say they will not do the same if they get to the final and lose
I think some people are dismissing the TSFM filter too readily, after all he [TSFM Filter 🙂 ].
EKBhoy says:
March 18, 2014 at 5:33 pm
7
6
Rate This
Re Rangers and UEFA , I believe that in the event that Rangers win the Scottish Cup them the SFA will plead with UEFA and hey ho, license granted.
Pointless getting too agitated about the inevitable.
It is 50 / 50 the Rangers Arabs semi, and with the portrait of Her Majesty shining down on the home team dressing room, we all know anything is possible.
_____________________________________
… TRFC overcome the 9 man arabs with a 92 minute penalty awarded in suspicious circumstances. Ally praises the referee.
Who to believe Thomson or SFA. I think this tells us the answer from 31 Oct 2013
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/latest/sfa-defends-early-decision-on-scottish-cup-venues-1-3164824#.UyiEEJy7tUY.twitter
The Scottish Football Association has defended its decision to name Celtic Park and Ibrox as the venues for the latter stages of the William Hill Scottish Cup by insisting that clubs wanted to know the stadia in advance.
With Hampden closed as an athletics track is laid for the Commonwealth Games, the SFA board decided that Rangers will host both semi-finals on 12 and 13 April, while the final will be played at Parkhead on 17 May.
When Hampden was being rebuilt in the late 1990s, decisions on final venues were taken on an ad-hoc basis in a bid to avoid teams being handed home advantage.
The SFA is now contractually obliged to host semi-finals at Hampden but it could have temporarily reverted to the previous norm of delaying decisions on last-four venues until after the quarter-finals to avoid a situation where Ibrox could be less than half-full for a clash involving two smaller teams.
But the SFA claims clubs want advance knowledge and dismissed suggestions that games could be played at Murrayfield, while insisting any venue would need to be able to accommodate at least 25,000.
In a series of tweets, the SFA said: “It is important for fixture planning schedules to announce the venues as early as possible.
“Ave s/f [average semi-final] attendances are 25k+ so only two football stadia can accommodate those numbers.
“Member clubs (we are a members’ organisation) preferred to know in advance where s/f and finals would be held. Stadium rental, insurance, stewarding etc all require planning well before finals and semi-finals. More cost-effective to arrange in advance.”
Dundee United chairman Stephen Thompson expressed surprise at the decision having been made so early, however. “I can understand why Celtic Park has been chosen, it is the biggest stadium in Scotland,” Thompson told The Scotsman. “But if Celtic get to the final it will be a huge advantage to them, and the same stands for Rangers at Ibrox if they get to the semi-final.
“I am just surprised at why the decision has to be made so much in advance. Major games are played at stadiums with just ten days’ notice. There is no reason why this has to happen. I understand why there has to be an alternative venue because Hampden Park is unavailable. But you would hope they could have tried to maintain the concept of neutrality.”
nowoldandgrumpy says:
March 18, 2014 at 8:23 pm
Check back on here to last October, think you’ll find that Dundee United’s and just about everyone else’s reservations about the haste to announce venues was extensively discussed
For anyone who missed the BBC Sportsound broadcast the Podcast is here.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/scotfoot
valentinesclown says:
March 18, 2014 at 8:08 pm
3 1 Rate This
bad capt madman says:
March 18, 2014 at 8:05 pm
0 0 Rate This
At the risk of
A being wrong or
B stating the bleeding obvious…
The reasons the SFA would not countenance TRFC having to play a semi final at Parkhead would be because there isn’t enough help being given if that were to happen; and in the event that TRFC lost, their fans would trash the stadium, TRFC won’t / couldn’t pay damages, and the SFA wouldn’t know how to discipline the club when payment wasn’t made.
———————————————————————————————————————————
What is to say they will not do the same if they get to the final and lose
I’d put my mortgage on it were that to happen
Fortunately the Arabs must be rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of passing them off their substandard lower league pitch thereby making it impossible
3 clear goals minimum (allowing for honest mistakes)
Although I am dismayed by the SFA’s intransigence over Rangers getting what they themselves have declared as a “home” tie for the semi-final, there is a silver lining (for some of us).
Should our Arabian colleagues be sadly unable to overcome this latest act of daylight swickery and consequently fail to progress to the Final, then (St Johnstone allowing), the Sheep Who Are On Fire will get the opportunity to simultaneously destroy and humiliate Rangers in said Final (hand-picked and briefed referee allowing).
Valentine’s clown @ 8:08 – Derek Ferguson said the semifinal shouldn’t be at Ibrox, but if it was to be, Dundee United should get half the tickets because it was the fair thing to do and more important than some perceived notion of commercial need. He was very vocal on this. Graham Speirs also said the tie shouldn’t be at Ibrox.
Semi finals were decided early to allow the skint club to see off admin1 a little longer, the money is spent, the split of tickets and venue will not change. Their going Commando in faux fur, not a riddy in sight. Dignity.