Scottish Football: An Honest Game, Honestly Governed?

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

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

About Trisidium

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

3,234 thoughts on “Scottish Football: An Honest Game, Honestly Governed?


  1. Real question people. What is all this about TSFM filter, I’ve missed a chapter or two?


  2. Galling fiver says:
    March 18, 2014 at 8:48 pm

    Thought fur coat and nae knickers was the dress code in leafy Morningside, not in what must be a very chilly Govan?


  3. Seems like the best practice would be to borrow Craig Whyte’s tape recorder (giving my age away) when attending meetings with the SFA to ensure your representatives have an accurate record of the discussions!!


  4. I think I mentioned the other day that I got a reply from Mr Doncaster to my letter to him of 13th February.( I was fired up by the report in the ‘Telegraph’ that a proposal to make demotion the penalty for going into Administration had been dismissed by the SPFL).
    In his brief reply ( which included an apology for the delay in replying) Mr Doncaster regrets that he does not ‘ understand a number of the points’ and does not know in particular ” which sensible proposals to deal effectively with rogue clubs……have been dismissed by the SPFL”.
    I hold my hand up and readily admit that my letter was not all that well drafted: got a bit carried away by the exuberance of my own verbosity,perhaps, as old Churchill remarked.
    So I am sending him a reply which I hope makes the basic point I was trying to make, namely, that any proposal to change the penalty for Administration to ‘demotion’ rather than a points deduction was bound to be a no-no at a time when the new club might be the first to have to sufffer it. ( On reflection, maybe I should have kept it as short as that. But what the heck…)
    “Mr N Doncaster,
    Chief Executive Officer,
    The Scottish Professional Football League,
    Hampden Park,
    Glasgow G42 9DE

    Dear [ Mr Doncaster -in manuscript] ,

    Thank you for your reply of 13th March. .
    I am sorry that you found my letter difficult to understand.
    I will simplify.

    I believe that the negligence and/or incompetence (some would even say complicity) of the SFA allowed one club to conceal the true amounts it was paying to many of its players over many years.
    I believe that when the delinquency was finally uncovered, the Authorities colluded in minimising the punishment that was meted out, for the basest of reasons.
    I believe that, again for base reasons, the Authorities allowed themselves to be bullied and chivvied into admitting an utterly unentitled new club into the SFA and SFL, and permitted and continue to permit that new club to claim to be the same club as the one that died through Liquidation.

    I further believe that that new club is itself in danger of suffering an ‘insolvency event’.
    It is the case that the new club, if it does indeed fall into Administration, has acquired sufficient points to make the current ‘penalty’ of deduction of 15 points nugatory.
    I understand that a proposal was put forward recently that the punishment for going into Administration should be ‘demotion’.
    And I believe that that proposal was dismissed (see the ‘Telegraph’ report which occasioned my first letter) because it it was feared that the new, illegitimate club, might have had to be subject to it, and therefore be deprived of the promotion it otherwise has already earned.

    At bottom, I believe that the Football Authorities were and are in such thrall to the owners and fans of the new club that they prostituted themselves and their personal integrity, putting their every effort into protecting RFC(IL) from all of the just and proper consequences of their cheating (formal expulsion and the stripping of unmerited trophies and titles) and into ensuring that the new club will gain promotion regardless of whether it goes into Administration.
    In so doing, the football Authorities have themselves, in my view, cheated the Scottish Football supporter and the Scottish game at large. They have made it exceedingly difficult for many football supporters to believe anything other than that those Authorities, in effect, administer a rigged sport while hypocritically mouthing the UEFA pious platitudes about ‘Fair Play’ and the like.

    I hope that has clarified what I said in my earlier letter.

    Yours sincerely,

    [full real name and address supplied]


  5. jean7brodie says:
    March 18, 2014 at 8:51 pm

    Poking fun at the mods, for clamping down on nicknames for the World’s Greatest Football Administrator


  6. TSFM says:
    March 18, 2014 at 7:33 pm
    117 4 Rate This

    Who’s telling the Truth?

    TU: Thomson’s Troops
    TD: Campbell’s Commandos
    Hey! My dad was a Commando.How dare you!


  7. Apologies for the duplicate post.Can’t think what happened there.

    Sorted
    TSFM


  8. helpmaboab
    My dad was a recce radio operator. He too eschewed the y-fronts, preferring the breezier option 🙂


  9. ianagain says:
    March 18, 2014 at 7:19 pm

    Here we go WHO at the SFA is lying now?
    ————————————————————–
    Eh, Darryl Broadfoot….

    ….could surely answer that

    Certainly can’t be the SFA’s chief exec because at the most critical time of the season he’s swanned off to Australia on a month long holiday and was asleep when the statement was issued.

    54 (tickets to be made available to DUFC) to 0 (Fairness)


  10. slimshady61 says:
    March 18, 2014 at 9:29 pm
    0 0 Rate This

    ianagain says:
    March 18, 2014 at 7:19 pm

    Here we go WHO at the SFA is lying now?
    ————————————————————–
    Eh, Darryl Broadfoot….

    ….could surely answer that

    Certainly can’t be the SFA’s chief exec because at the most critical time of the season he’s swanned off to Australia on a month long holiday and was asleep when the statement was issued.

    54 (tickets to be made available to DUFC) to 0 (Fairness)
    ——————–

    It’s easy for some, with their tax-free income, to swan off.

    Perhaps a Mr Bryson made the statement:

    “It was accurate when I made it, and although other facts have come to light that contradict my statement, my original statement is still no less accurate and stands “as is”, since it was the best of memory at the time, and therefore accurate when it was made. It’s not inaccurate because it turned out to be wrong at later date, don’t you see?.”


  11. Resin_lab_dog says:
    March 18, 2014 at 8:22 pm
    5 0 i Rate This

    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.

    ———–
    Stranger things have happened …… taking my tongue out my cheek …… most semi-finals are pretty tight affairs and Rangers have a few big lumps playing for them, so it will be close.

    Rangers biggest concern is the 2 lumps at centre half but I’d expect McCullough to deal with any Arab forward and to avoid sending off by constantly making a ball shape with his hands and touching the refs elbow and shoulder ……… the Arab forward line will need to be brave and be prepared to take a number of severe whacks…… to the backdrop of the ref , extending both arms , to provide an imaginary advantage …….. I would advise the Arabs to make sure that the ref doesn’t miss any fouls and to keep on the move (3rd man running is enough to beat Rangers static midfield) and simply to hold their nerve………

    Better weather by then , so should suit the young bucks in the Arab team …….

    In addition, I suspect that one of the over-looked advantages of being at home for a semi-final is that you can have a chat with the groundsman. I would expect a heavy pitch making fast passing on the break more difficult ……..

    Other than that I am sure it will be a perfectly fair contest ……


  12. For those following the Harper MacLeod issue I stumbled across the following by chance that has me going hmmmmm.

    A key point in the letter to HM is that documentation explaining the history of and difference between DOS ebts (the wee or to be polite Small) tax case and Big Tax case were not provided to HM although the definition of what HM wanted is very clear that they should have been.

    I never speculated on why that documentation was not provided as the main point is that it was not, regardless of motivation.

    However on 5th April 2012, which is close to the 15 March deadline that D&P failed to meet and were censured for by LNS, Duff and Phelps reported as follows

    TO ALL KNOWN CREDITORS

    http://scotslawthoughts.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/rangers-fc-plc-report-by-duff-phelps-april-2012.pdf

    Small Tax Case

    14.28 The Small Tax Case was bought against the Company by HMRC in respect of outstanding amounts owed from the use of a discounted options tax scheme for payments made to Tore Andre Flo and Ronald De Boer between the tax years 2000/01 and 2002/03.

    14.29 The total amount determined as due by HMRC in respect of this case is in the region of £4,000,000, after interest and penalty charges.

    14.30 The Small Tax Case has not progressed as far as Tribunal and has been settled based upon advice received.

    So D&P knew that De Boer and Flo were paid through a Discount Option Scheme (although the significance might not have struck them) but the case never was settled. There was no arrangement to pay HMRC who were chasing payment throughout 2011 including the use of Sherriff Officers to collect in August 2011, something which D&P were surely aware of in April 2012 and what does settled on advice received mean?

    Were D&P advised it was settled (the liability is still outstanding) and so thought it not relevant to the HM request or do they mean Rangers were advised to settle (which they were) but never did.

    I am not sure what to make of this other than somebody behind the scenes was not being truthful about the small tax case, whether that be D&P in their report to creditors or whoever advised them on the writing of that section.

    Does this add to the case for reviewing the commissioning of LNS when we see clear mistruths by parties asked to assist the commissioning being published as fact?


  13. Auldheid says:
    March 18, 2014 at 10:05 pm

    …..or do they mean Rangers were advised to settle (which they were) but never did.
    ———————————————

    I’m really stupid when finances are discussed. Do you mean they have another outstanding debt?


  14. Auldheid says:
    March 18, 2014 at 10:05 pm
    ————-
    I can’t read 14.29 and 14.30 as being anything other than contradictory, based on the change of tense.
    Even with a comma after, “settled”, it doesn’t make sense.
    “settled” was the expression used by JI with reference to the affairs of the Filtered One.


  15. Auldheid

    Is the small tax case , the big lie that catches the SFA out, ironic given the focus on the BTC. Charlotte Fakes had email correspondence ( from fading memory) between Rangers Finance Dept and SFA pen pushers on this subject , which again from memory rangers stated it was sorted …

    … So it was sorted in principle , just lacked any follow up action … My take on it is keep digging and give the SFA the choice , bias or incompetence , I’m sure there is sufficient incompetence to make a charge of bias be credible.

    Good luck


  16. jean7brodie says:

    March 18, 2014 at 10:13 pm

    No. It refers to the wee tax case bill (Small replacing wee) and infers it was settled which is simply not true.


  17. The filter is in place of the need to go to automatic moderation. I explained that on Sunday.
    There is no name-calling on TSFM. It is cheap, nasty and demeaning. If you disagree with that or the moderation policy, please post on the mod thread or email us.
    If people insist on giving us extra work to do because they deliberately try to get round the name calling filter, we will remove posting rights.
    Please see the FAQ for rules on posting.


  18. John Clark says:
    March 18, 2014 at 9:02 pm
    ————–
    Well said, that letter to Doncaster has been in need of writing for a long time.
    All were agreed on SSound this evening that playing the semi-final at Ibrox was advantageous to TRFC. What was not expressed was that the SFA are thereby clearly choosing to favour one member club over another. This may on the face of it seem to be a small and obvious point, but the resonances from it are not at all. Questions can now be legitimately asked, of past, present and future events, “When did this favouritism begin, how broad has its scope been and how broad may it become?”
    Denying its existence is no longer possible.


  19. Auldheid says:
    March 18, 2014 at 10:05 pm

    “14.30 The Small Tax Case has not progressed as far as Tribunal and has been settled based upon advice received.”
    ———————————————–
    The advice received was not to take the wee tax case to a tribunal since they had no chance of winning. They agreed to settle instead.

    Unfortunately they didn’t have any money so HMRC became the main creditor and put them into administration.

    Flo, DeBoer and Moore were paid using a method that no other club would have recourse to since it would likely be (and in RFC’s case was indeed), challenged by HMRC. RFC didn’t have the money to be able to pay these players in a regular manner, hence the administration and subsequent liquidation process. If other clubs had followed RFC’s tax efficient methods then they too would have risked corporate oblivion. It should not and could not be the intent of the laws of the game that clubs should risk corporate oblivion in the course of their normal affairs. A properly governed sport would strive to ensure that this was not the case.

    Harper McLeod’s response tries to muddy the water by pointing out that these players names did appear in lists 1A and 1B, which they did. These lists referred to side letters. No distinction between DOS (Wee tax case) and the later EBTs (Big tax case), can be inferred from these lists.

    At para 108 of Lord Nimmo Smith’s decision it states:

    “…While there is no question of dishonesty, individual or corporate, we nevertheless take the view that the nondisclosure must be regarded as deliberate, in the sense that a decision was taken that the sideletters need not be or should not be disclosed…”

    However since DOS was not contested and the outstanding tax was agreed to be paid (though never was), I think LNS stretches credulity with the above statement. Operating tax efficient methods that turn out to be tax avoidance and which will have been aided and abetted by the non-disclosure of side letters does not smack of honesty to me. Having such a decision on record unchallenged strikes me as dishonest.


  20. Sorry if this has been done before, but I cannot remember an explanation being given.

    from UEFA website Rangers(il) history seems to stop on 13 may 2012 v’s St Johnstone. All other clubs seem to be up to date

    http://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/club=50121/profile/index.html is rangers (il)

    http://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/club=50050/profile/index.html is Celtic (nil)

    http://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/club=52552/profile/index.html is St mirren (nil)

    http://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/club=62178/profile/index.html is Killie (nil)

    Why does Uefa site not report TRFC results? (I’m thinking its because they cant report on every new club that pops up)


  21. Auldheid says:
    March 18, 2014 at 10:05 pm

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    The word “settled” can have to meanings in the context of the WTC DOS. It could mean the matter was resolved/agreement reached or it could mean it was paid. We know which one actually applies but for D&P not to add that the tax remained unpaid is misleading.


  22. EKBhoy says:
    March 18, 2014 at 9:44 pm

    15

    0

    Rate This

    Other than that I am sure it will be a perfectly fair contest ……

    ______________________________________________

    When will the lucky individual assigned to officiate at this illustrious encounter be decided?
    I believe that the referees in Scotland are by and large an honest and worthy bunch. Alas, I cannot bring myself to conclude that this epithet necessarily applies without exception.

    And I have very serious concerns about those who assign individuals to fixtures.

    All it takes is the right man in the right place.
    Being as it is accepted by all that the SFA are already allowing one favoured institution the home advantage, an additional financial bonus by nature of hosting the venue, and the lions share of the ticket allocation, I think it needs to be reassured that at least the referee chosen is one of unimpeachable character.

    While on the one hand I think teams having (or even appearing to attempt to have) any influence over who officiates at fixtures should by rights be an absolute no-no, I would venture to suggest that such a strict constraint would only apply within the normal confines of an honest game being honestly governed.

    Instead we are in an atmosphere of mistrust and suspicion that those in positions of administrative authority have brought upon themselves by their blatant disregard for any spirit of fairness.
    As such if it was up to me I would be measuring the width of the goals at either end before kick off. And repeat the exercise just before the restart after half time, just in case.
    See..its not that we don’t trust you Mr Ogilvie: Heaven forfend. Its just that we couldn’t spit you very far!


  23. Castofthousands says:
    March 19, 2014 at 12:12 am

    To me withholding the side letters was an integral part of the plan, a decision deliberately taken, to mitigate the risk of HMRC using them as grounds to challenge the scheme. Given Mr Ogilvy’s position with RFC and his vaunted status as “World’s Greatest Football Administrator”, it stretches credulity way beyond breaking point to believe that he did not know what the potential ramifications were in terms of SFA registrations.


  24. bogsdollox says:

    March 19, 2014 at 12:28 am

    Auldheid says:
    March 18, 2014 at 10:05 pm

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    The word “settled” can have to meanings in the context of the WTC DOS. It could mean the matter was resolved/agreement reached or it could mean it was paid. We know which one actually applies but for D&P not to add that the tax remained unpaid is misleading.
    ====================
    Neither applies.

    No agreement.

    No payment in spite of a statement saying a payment had been made.

    A possible late appeal but in spite of advice it would be viewed as vexatious and it might have been on the penalty rather than the core amount.

    Sherriff Officers collected and money held in suspense but later allocated to unpaid PAYE/VAT and NI before administration so never paid.

    The smoke screen around the wtc almost makes you think there is something to hide.


  25. enough is enough says:
    March 19, 2014 at 12:27 am

    0

    0

    Rate This

    Sorry if this has been done before, but I cannot remember an explanation being given.

    from UEFA website Rangers(il) history seems to stop on 13 may 2012 v’s St Johnstone. All other clubs seem to be up to date

    http://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/club=50121/profile/index.html is rangers (il)

    http://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/club=50050/profile/index.html is Celtic (nil)

    http://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/club=52552/profile/index.html is St mirren (nil)

    http://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/club=62178/profile/index.html is Killie (nil)

    Why does Uefa site not report TRFC results? (I’m thinking its because they cant report on every new club that pops up)

    ______________________________________________

    Surely this is simply because they have never participated in a UEFA ranking tournament by dint of ineligibility? They haven’t entered European airspace, ergo the transponder signal not been picked up by the radar! Need it be more complicated than that?


  26. Resin_lab_dog says:
    March 19, 2014 at 12:39 am
    1 0 Rate This

    Surely this is simply because they have never participated in a UEFA ranking tournament by dint of ineligibility? They haven’t entered European airspace, ergo the transponder signal not been picked up by the radar! Need it be more complicated than that?

    Are you implying that UEFA think that they are a new club?


  27. enough is enough says:
    March 19, 2014 at 12:48 am

    1

    0

    Rate This

    Resin_lab_dog says:
    March 19, 2014 at 12:39 am
    1 0 Rate This

    Surely this is simply because they have never participated in a UEFA ranking tournament by dint of ineligibility? They haven’t entered European airspace, ergo the transponder signal not been picked up by the radar! Need it be more complicated than that?

    Are you implying that UEFA think that they are a new club?

    _____________________________________________

    Of course they are.
    Otherwise they’d be eligible for European competitions by dint of having 3 years membership of the national association.
    I’m sure this is written into the rules somewhere for any journalist that wanted to check. Its hardly an existential ambiguity.

    There was another club with a similar name. But they went bust and are not eligible for european competitions either, by dint of having ceased to exist.


  28. Castofthousands says:

    March 19, 2014 at 12:12 am

    Auldheid says:
    March 18, 2014 at 10:05 pm
    Reference the above posts the starting point in considering LNS is the Issues set out in the Annex. This is what LNS and his “wingmen” were required to investigate and determine. All of Issues 1,2,&3 relate to alleged, now determined, in most part, non-compliance with various registration procedures of the SPL and SFA. Issue 4 related to the non-disclosure of material LNS tells you what the Commission saw and by deduction what it did not see.

    With one exception, i.e. the eligibility Issue which was one part of Issue 3, OldCo we found to have breached both SPL and SFA Rules; primarily by reason of non-disclosure of side-letters at the time of registration of the Specified Players. The Commission was not about whether OldCo had breached to rules of football by not paying tax due in relation to the DOS scheme or the MGEBT. It was about whether a whole host of registration rules had been breached on multiple occasions. Paragraphs [103] to [109] of LNS explains the rationale for the sanctions imposed. They appear to be rational given the Issues for investigation and determination by the Commission.

    It matters not one jot whether a particular side-letter was given under the DOS or MGEBS Schemes nor whether a particular scheme was tax efficient or not or was negligently operated inefficiently. The ? for LNS was whether there had been compliance with the SPL and SFA registration regs. during specified periods. he held correctly that the regs. had been breached but not dishonestly or so as to give rise to competitive advantage or so as to result in prima facie registered players in fact being ineligible. the LNS decisions in these areas are perhaps open to debate but this does not detract form what the LNS Commission was asked to determine.

    What most of the posters appear to direct their remarks towards are issues of disrepute arising from alleged unlawful tax evasion. This is the basis on which the SFA not the SPL pursued OldCo and CW in relation to the tax not paid during the period of CW’s control. If OldCo or Sevco/RFC are to be “prosecuted” by football authorities for in effect tax evasion causing football to be led into disrepute it will not be by a re-convened LNS Commission. It dealt with what it was convened to deal. The outcome of the LTT and what will be the outcome of the UTT and any remits back, further hearings or appeals will it seems to me make no difference to the outcome of LNS. This is not by reason of misrepresentation, bias, dishonesty or any other theory of wrongdoing by it or the SPL.


  29. Castofthousands says:

    March 19, 2014 at 12:12 am

    Thanks I was aware of the advice to settle and why but not that it had been settled and by the following definitions it could either mean agreement to pay was reached or payment was made.
    Why not say agreement to settle was reached? That would have been more accurate and less misleading to creditors.

    However the D&P report tells us they knew what the wee tax case was about but not why D&P did not deliver the documents that provided details. As I said it was something I stumbled over that made me wonder if it had significance in motive terms. Parked.

    settle1
    verb
    past tense: settled; past participle: settled

    1. resolve or reach an agreement about (an argument or problem).
    “the unions have settled their year-long dispute with Hollywood producers”

    synonyms: resolve, sort out, reach an agreement about, find a solution to, find an answer to, solve, clear up, bring to an end, fix, work out, iron out, smooth over, straighten out, deal with, put right, set right, put to rights, rectify, remedy, reconcile; More
    informalpatch up;

    archaiccompose

    “every effort was made to settle the dispute”

    antonyms: prolong

    •end (a legal dispute) by mutual agreement.
    “if the dispute was not settled it was possible there would be strike action”

    •reach a decision about; determine.
    “exactly what goes into the legislation has not been settled”

    synonyms: decide on, set, fix, come to a decision about, agree on, name, determine, establish, arrange, arrive at, appoint, designate, assign; More
    confirm;

    choose, select, pick

    “they had not yet settled on a date for the wedding”

    •accept or agree to (something that one considers to be less than satisfactory).
    “it was too cold for champagne so they settled for a cup of tea”

    synonyms: accept, agree to, accede to, acquiesce in, assent to; More
    compromise on

    “the union settled for a 4.2% pay increase this autumn”

    2.pay (a debt or account).
    “his bill was settled by charge card”

    synonyms: pay, pay in full, settle up, discharge, square, clear, defray, liquidate, satisfy


  30. James Forrest says:
    March 18, 2014 at 12:27 pm
    134 0 Rate This

    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! ……………………..
    And another cracker that has been used exhaustively by Hugh Keevins is that there is civil war at Ibrox between the board and King. Would King not have to be part of the organisation for there to be a civil war?


  31. Castofthousands says:

    March 19, 2014 at 12:12 am

    6

    0

    Rate This

    Auldheid says:
    March 18, 2014 at 10:05 pm

    Flo, DeBoer and Moore were paid using a method that no other club would have recourse to since it would likely be (and in RFC’s case was indeed), challenged by HMRC. RFC didn’t have the money to be able to pay these players in a regular manner, hence the administration and subsequent liquidation process. If other clubs had followed RFC’s tax efficient methods then they too would have risked corporate oblivion. It should not and could not be the intent of the laws of the game that clubs should risk corporate oblivion in the course of their normal affairs. A properly governed sport would strive to ensure that this was not the case.
    ==================
    Absolutely.
    ++++++++++++
    Harper McLeod’s response tries to muddy the water by pointing out that these players names did appear in lists 1A and 1B, which they did. These lists referred to side letters. No distinction between DOS (Wee tax case) and the later EBTs (Big tax case), can be inferred from these lists.
    ==============================
    Yup I checked all that before I wrote to HM.
    +++++++++++++++++++
    At para 108 of Lord Nimmo Smith’s decision it states:

    “…While there is no question of dishonesty, individual or corporate, we nevertheless take the view that the nondisclosure must be regarded as deliberate, in the sense that a decision was taken that the sideletters need not be or should not be disclosed…”

    However since DOS was not contested and the outstanding tax was agreed to be paid (though never was), I think LNS stretches credulity with the above statement. Operating tax efficient methods that turn out to be tax avoidance and which will have been aided and abetted by the non-disclosure of side letters does not smack of honesty to me. Having such a decision on record unchallenged strikes me as dishonest.
    ========================
    It is the bits in HMRC’s letter that says the failure to disclose the De Boer and Flo side letters when they were specifically asked suggest fraudulent intent or negligence to HMRC that tells us HMRC would have pursued the fraud angle had Rangers appealed. They did not pursue that angle in stating their case as negligence was enough to pursue recovery but it was the deliberate withholding of key information when specifically asked for it that suggests skulduggery.

    Now why does that behaviour, i.e keeping important matters secret, ring a bell somewhere?


  32. EKBhoy says:

    March 18, 2014 at 11:08 pm

    That digging has been done on Res12.

    If I go any further I’m risking ending up a Kangaroo’s bum. 😯


  33. Whatever happened to;

    “…discussions with potential administrators…”
    “…decision has been reached…”
    “… administration to be announced on Wednesday morning…”

    ❓ ❓ ❓ ❓ ❓

    Anyone?
    It was around a month ago that excitement began ramping up, mouths became frothy and proclomations of immediate impending doom were confidently made.
    And the consensus is the Sevconians are being played like a fiddle??
    I’m beginning to wonder if this isn’t some highly orchestrated, perfectly executed PR stunt in order to keep RIFC and subsidiaries high on the news agenda – remind me again their relevance to anything other than shady business practices and the antithesis of all things ‘sporting’? New businesses fail all the time – it happens, deal with it. Can they be making money on the back of ‘hits’ on certain sites? Genuine question as that technological voodoo stuff escapes me.

    For the avoidance of doubt, I want this whole sorry saga settled. I want truth. I want acknowledgement of ‘crimes’ committed. I want justice to be seen to be done. I want fairness and equality. Do I see any of that happening whilst the current office bearers maintain station at Hampden Park? No. That’s why I believe Auldheid’s campaign (crusade has too many negative connotations!) needs as much support as we can muster. This is getting to, if not already reached the point where it’s about more than football.

    But back to the fitbaw; who the hell cares aboot some diddy League 1 (second division) team? Maybe if we ignore ’em they’ll go away?!

    ____
    Auldheid, can I just say: Ack, AACCKKK, aack acck aaaack!! 😉 :mrgreen:


  34. If the semi final at ibrox is a draw does it go to extra time and penalties or is there a replay? (At Tannadice :mrgreen: )


  35. Re Stephen Thompson on Sportsound last night, a number of things struck me, as well as new questions being raised. It was great to hear Thompson defend his position so strongly and call out the veracity of the SFA statement and question who authorised it. Even better was the fact he reminded the panel he is on record as questioning the venue decision last October, when it was made. Quite tellingly the attitude of the panel raised eyebrows, with Graham Spiers stating ‘you have to take into account the demands of the Rangers fans’, and basically stating Utd should be happy with the amount of tickets they are getting. Barry Ferguson to his credit jumped straight on top of Speirs and pointed out fairness was the only thing to be taken into account – forget the demands of the Rangers fans. Disturbingly for me though, it was abundantly clear that Thompson has suffered an incident on a previous visit to Ibrox, and he stated Graham Spiers was aware of what happened, but Spiers chose to sit in silence. Kenny McIntyre continually pressed Thompson on the fact he was not sitting in the Directors Box but Thompson did well to avoid giving them any of the headlines they wanted.

    For me though the fact the SFA chose to attack Dundee Utd rather than attempt reasoned debate says much. It is as clear as night follows day Ibrox can never be a neutral venue in a million years, and it would be better if the SFA explained how they would attempt to offset that as much as possible. For example, they could have made it a condition an independent team of groundsmen are put in charge prior to semi-final weekend. As it stands Rangers have the same opportunity as they do for every home game to influence the playing surface to suit or hinder particular styles of play.

    This situation simply isn’t fair, and well done to Stephen Thompson for stating so. The SFA meanwhile, stumble along from one botched disgrace to another, and guess who benefits every time?!!!!


  36. The gemmes a bogey ‘I’m out’ it’s not even worth discussing any more, the majority of chairmen have agreed to the SFA’s way of running things so in a way it’s hell mend them ……. Sevco should never have been accepted back in any tier till every ‘enquiry’ court case and debt settled ……… 5 way agreement lol ………. Secrets and lies = scottish football! stinking and rotten to the core needs a severe deep cleaning, but it will never happen…….. Fans need to hit them where it hurts, but we all know that won’t happen 😥 I stopped buying season books last year, ( in favour of choosing my games) but not one more brown penny from my household is going into their pockets, small fry maybe but it’s dying a slow painful death anyway.


  37. @ up the hoops

    The last time I can recall club(s) being publicly slammed by the SFA it certainly did favour one current club. In its damning criticism it somehow managed to give credence to the same club nonsense. Remember this one.
    “”The Compliance Officer has informed both clubs that there is no actionable breach of the rules. None the less, I am compelled to convey my disappointment that we find ourselves in this position, as a result of an apparent erosion of mutual respect between two of our oldest rivals.

    “At a time when Scottish football faces challenges on many fronts, it is incumbent on our biggest clubs to set the highest standards. In this regard both the comments made, and the subsequent time, effort and resource imposed on our Compliance Officer to deal with the complaint, were wholly unnecessary.”


  38. The title of the latest blog on which we are posting is “Scottish Football, an honest game honestly governed.” It goes to the heart of the current debate about the Scottish Cup semi final venues.

    At the moment on United messageboards there is a debate about should our club have keep quiet here, turn up on the day and do our best to do “our talking” with our performance on the pitch? The media love nothing more than to start talking up bitter rivalry in a season which has to date been noteworthy for a relative lack of bile and vitriol.

    So should we keep quiet? It has been suggested that United should have raised this at the time the venues were chosen. Well we did:

    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.”

    http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/latest/sfa-defends-early-decision-on-scottish-cup-venues-1-3164824#.UyiEEJy7tUY.twitter

    We have seen unprecedented times in Scottish Football. Two years ago the authorities did their best to concoct a position where a club would be preserved in the top flight even though they went into liquidation as a result of trying to outspend every other club, even using maybe illegal tax avoidance in the process.

    Any right thinking football fan would be concerned at the implications of the actions of the football authorities. Where would they draw the line in trying to assist one club? Would this be a one off because of the size of their support and the risk of losing them to Scottish football, if the alternative was that that club had to do what every other club that went into liquidation had done before, start out again?

    That’s why this issue of the venues is so important. How difficult would it have been for the SFA to say we will use either Ibrox or Celtic Park given their size but we will not choose which until the participants are known to ensure we can preserve the principle of a neutral venue? Surely any organisation concerned that their reputation was tarnished, that they might be perceived as biased or worse corrupt would want to do all they could to ensure that going forward their decisions were seen as fair and honest and to be willing to explain why if required?

    That’s what is so concerning. We all want to know that our game is honest and honestly governed. Stephen Thompson is willing to raise that question of the SFA in the context of the venue. I hope others are prepared to do so. I don’t know why Campbell Ogilvie was re-elected. But at some point the clubs have to collectively ask themselves a question. The past is one thing but for the future what do we want?


  39. Resin_Lab_Dog at 12:39
    Surely this is simply because they have never participated in a UEFA ranking tournament by dint of ineligibility? They haven’t entered European airspace, ergo the transponder signal not been picked up by the radar! Need it be more complicated than that?
    ……………………………………..
    An unfortunate analogy I think. I’m sure it was unintended.


  40. I like Stephen Thompson, and I support his position regarding the administration of our game. I believe we need more club chairmen doing the same. The downside is that my club seem to have become a figure of hate for the conflicted ones and we now face a match filled with hate rather than the pleasant family atmosphere we enjoy at most of our games. Many of my fellow Arabs seem to have resigned themselves to being on the receiving end of the boot of the SFA and The Rangers, and are saying we should just get on with it as we always have……..nothing is going to change so to speak. I find it deeply disturbing that so many supporters (in the main these are the hard core who support the club with their time and money most weeks – not just semi-finals) are prepared to allow our game to be dragged into the gutter in such a preposterous fashion. I think we are nearing the end game and if the fans don’t stand together now and instigate change, we may never have another chance.

    As I said, I like Stephen Thompson and support his efforts to raise important issues. That said, I cannot understand what caused him to be involved in efforts to appease the liquidated ones when he was on the SPL board (he resigned I know), nor the lack of desire to replace CO at the end of his last term. He has not dealt with those questions adequately and I’m not sure we would be happy with his answers if he was inclined to respond openly. We need change, not more of the same. On that point, I would very much like to here Stephen’s opinion, and those from other clubs who sit on committees at the governing bodies, at how real change can be achieved.


  41. Enough / Resin … the UEFA results record is only updated for top league teams. Nothing more sinister than that.


  42. Today’s Sallyism….

    The Gers boss added: “I think Jackie said on television that we would have an advantage but, being honest with you, there is very little to be made with home advantage in the modern game the higher you go up the ranks in football……
    “I won’t kid you that I am not happy the game is at Ibrox.”


  43. To me it seems simple ….
    TRFC were running low on funds
    Calm Bull says nae bother
    Ah’ll rent yer park twice and pay yie upfront
    The noo !

    Anybody want to ask hiv ra berrs been paid last October ?


  44. whisperer says:
    March 19, 2014 at 9:52 am

    You are probably bang on the money there.

    A. Which means the semi final can’t be moved as they have no money to pay back the upfront cash if it was moved.

    B. They will make very little money on both semi’s as they will have already been paid and spent it.


  45. My boys who were season ticket holders at Tynie from a young age no longer look for any scores from Gorgie or indeed from Scotland.
    They are not unique.
    Both are still avid football fans, still play and watch football, one the league beamed from England 5 times a week and one from the Spanish league with England for his wee team, so to speak.
    They hate the Glasgow mafia that owns and controls our sport including the teams who always win and they just have no interest in Scottish Football or even the Scottish National side.

    That is one reason why the age profile of this site is on the mature side.
    We are losing our kids and I think it is forever.

    We can win new kids however and Sunday showed how it can happen.
    When I saw and walked in the wonderful crowd at Parkhead on Sunday with kids everywhere on both sides you can see there is hope for our Scottish game.
    Inverness especially – a new club from a town where everyone used to support Celtic or Rangers as their big team as well as one of their local teams Clach, Caley or The Jags. And it used to be a two team town from the ex Caley Chairman Mr Sutherland who was well known as a Rangers fan who supported Caley Jags to their finest ever player Charlie Christie who was a Celtic fan!
    And the buses each week full of pot hunters heading to support Glasgow clubs.
    Well nowadays Inverness kids don’t need a big team!
    So armageddon has given other clubs a chance and our game has stared to show green shoots.
    Wonderful for us all.

    But then our (mal) administrators step in again.
    The current semi-final nonsense demonstrates how their agenda is clouded by their Glasgow loyalties.

    Rangers have got into the last 4 – probably unexpectedly but fair play they are there.
    And now because some friend at the SFA a few months ago had prematurely (and unnecessarily early) awarded them the semis as a wee favour (and possibly also to balance the fact that Celtic had got the Finals) in the twisted world of thinking that exists at SFA Towers.
    So was there / is there a plan in place to now have a neutral venue and equitable share of the tickets?
    Er no.
    And will the decision change?
    Er probably no – unless there is a fuss like there was about the supporters allocation for the League Cup Final.

    This is the kind of thinking that will lose all the new kids and the older kids like us.
    The SFA and SPFL are not managing the decline in our game – they are accelerating it.

    And our clubs seem to meekly accept it all.

    Why does Stephen Thompson not make a stand and say he will only allow his team to play the semi at a neutral venue and why don’t the other clubs back him up?

    Scottish football needs Stephen Thompson to start the revolution.


  46. andypandimonium says:
    March 19, 2014 at 9:08 am
    17 0 Rate This
    ————

    In response to your thoughts regarding ST, does Scotland have something like an ‘Association of Club Chairmen’? An organisation where all 42 club chairmen are represented? (Including the various league reps. from those slightly below the 4-tier SPFL). I’m thinking of something independent the SPFL hierarchy.

    Some sort of body to act as a counterweight to the authoritarian and we-do-as-we-please SFA would be helpful. It’s obvious now that the SFA has outlived its purpose in its current form. A president missing in action and its head heid yin who is conspicuous by his absence. A summit of club chairmen could at least (if it acted in concert) bring pressure to bear on the Regime and possibly bring about regime change.


  47. Auldheid,

    I’ve sent a PM to you regarding my thoughts on our response to the reply letter from Harper McLeod and subsequent contributions by we “bampots”.

    I haven’t yet posted it here as it might contain hyperlinks to documents that Auldheid and TSFM would prefer not to appear on our Blog at this stage of our campaign.


  48. Auldheid,

    Desperately trying to keep up with the WTC affair. Re last night’s posts on the use of “settled.” I understood that RFCold came to agreement on advice taken to concede the WTC which is the meaning I took from “settled” i.e. it was settled (agreed) that RFCold would pay. You later infer that no final figure (x) was actually agreed upon but surely there’s no way the sherriff’s officers turned up in august and asked :mrgreen: for approximately £4m, it just doesn’t work like that. They would have asked for x comprising (a) tax, (b) interest and (c) penalties. At what stage was x actually calculated? My own impression is that it had been calculated long ago, but I can see potential for wiggle room there.


  49. Danish Pastry says:
    March 19, 2014 at 10:15 am

    The Chairmen’s group could go by the title The Scottish Fitba Men. Now then, an acronym, an acronym, think god dammit!


  50. Smugas says:
    March 19, 2014 at 10:18 am
    0 0 Rate This

    Auldheid,

    Desperately trying to keep up with the WTC affair. Re last night’s posts on the use of “settled.” I understood that RFCold came to agreement on advice taken to concede the WTC which is the meaning I took from “settled” i.e. it was settled (agreed) that RFCold would pay. You later infer that no final figure (x) was actually agreed upon but surely there’s no way the sherriff’s officers turned up in august and asked :mrgreen: for approximately £4m, it just doesn’t work like that. They would have asked for x comprising (a) tax, (b) interest and (c) penalties. At what stage was x actually calculated? My own impression is that it had been calculated long ago, but I can see potential for wiggle room there.
    ======================
    As I read the D&P report to creditors, the £4m figure includes tax, interest and penalties. Here’s the wording:

    “Small Tax Case

    14.28 The Small Tax Case was bought against the Company by HMRC in respect of outstanding
    amounts owed from the use of a discounted options tax scheme for payments made to Tore
    Andre Flo and Ronald De Boer between the tax years 2000/01 and 2002/03.

    14.29 The total amount determined as due by HMRC in respect of this case is in the region of
    £4,000,000, after interest and penalty charges.

    14.30 The Small Tax Case has not progressed as far as Tribunal and has been settled based upon
    advice received. ”

    I agree with you that “settled” means that the amounts were agreed, apparently by the Murray regime, but clearly to a “Rangers Man” agreeing a debt and actually paying it are very different things. Those very short arms find those very deep pockets a bit of a difficulty.


  51. Finloch says:
    March 19, 2014 at 10:09 am

    Scottish football needs Stephen Thompson to start the revolution.

    ——————————————-

    Quite. Time for an SPFA. With the emphasis on the P, which is has been taken by the current mob in more ways than one.


  52. Smugas says:
    March 19, 2014 at 10:22 am
    2 0 Rate This

    Danish Pastry says:
    March 19, 2014 at 10:15 am

    The Chairmen’s group could go by the title The Scottish Fitba Men. Now then, an acronym, an acronym, think god dammit!
    ————-

    Quite a good one comes to mind 💡

    Just seems that we have Stephen Thompson saying what many people think, and we all give a wee fist pump. We did the same with Turnbull Hutton. Some other chairmen have been equally bold, but they are easily shot down in flames and/or misrepresented when they stand alone. I happened to see the back page of The Sun, dearie me. Hardly unbiased reporting if the headline was anything to go by. More like the SFA propaganda outlet to discredit and/or ridicule Stephen Thompson.


  53. Thanks Neeps

    The point being there is no defence that D&P claimed it was “settled” meaning liability agreed, now waiting on the actual amount as far as I can see. The SFA can hide behind thinking “settled” as advised to them meant paid in as much as that’s all they’ve got in their hand so they’ve no option, However the providers of the information have no such wiggle space.

    Hud at them (ask Angus)


  54. The bit in the SFA statement that made me laugh was this: “The number was offered on the basis of Dundee United’s ticket sales for recent semi-finals.” It went on to give the numbers, to the nearest Arab (“ Last year against Celtic at Hampden Park, with a 12:45 GMT kick-off, Dundee United received an allocation of 10,686 tickets and sold 6,783 … .”

    On what basis is the SFA allocating tickets to United’s opponents? They have never been in a Scottish Cup semi-final before.


  55. sannoffymesssoitizzhizzemdyfonedrapolis says:March 18, 2014 at 7:47 pm 8 0 Rate This

    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?

    Nope. It got caught in spam because it had a dozen or so links 🙁
    TSFM
    _________________________________________________________
    Sorry TSFM. 😳

    Assuming my earlier post has now been automatically deleted from spam I’l repost it in instalments.

    Corrupt official says: March 18, 2014 at 12:25 am
    Your good find prompted me to search for “ineligible” on the SFA website with the following results:-

    Scotland v Italy Under 21 http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1848&newsID=1625
    😳


  56. Taysider
    Any right thinking football fan would be concerned at the implications of the actions of the football authorities. Where would they draw the line in trying to assist one club?
    ————————————————————————————————–

    You infer that football authorities act to assist one club leading into the present issue of the Scottish Cup tie venues.

    This particular decision of the SFA had two clubs that may end up with an advantage of playing a semi-final or final at their home ground. At the time of the decision (October 2013) it would have been fair to assume that Celtic would be the more likely team to enjoy that advantage (to play SC Final at Home) rather than Rangers of the SPFL3 reach the semi-final.

    So regardless of the merits or otherwise of the decision taken in October 2013, if you are going to infer that unfair advantages was being quite deliberately given then be accurate and tell the full story rather than painting it as part of a cunning and exclusivly pro-Rangers plan.

    I fully except the argument that the SFA should have made appropriate provision in the case of either side reaching the semi-final / final.


  57. Before now, has anyone ever made it to the Scottish Cup semi-final without playing a tie against an opponent in the top division? Is this a world record?


  58. TSFM
    That was “only” 9 links ❗ 😛


  59. You have to remember this is the same SFA who penalised the Celtic Ladies team for not being able to field a side for a cup tie.
    The reason why they couldn’t field a team:
    The girls were elsewhere,playing for Scotland!.


  60. The SFA have no defence in their acceptance of “settled” . Craig Whyte had a settled agreement with HMRC on PAYE and NI, in that he wasn’t disputing the amounts due. He could hardly do that as the amounts came direct from Rangers own payroll system.

    The SFA in my view are either completely incompetent or they deliberately chose not to ask the obvious question , which was have you paid HMRC in full .

    If they are incompetent then they are not fit for purpose , as the failings in this case was potentially very expensive for 2 other member clubs. There have been many questions raised to which a reasonable conclusion is that rules are not applied even handedly by the SFA.

    If this is true, then this leads to accusations of Bias. The SFA , through their complete failure to communicate with fans and their determination to retain a conflicted President, have done absolutely nothing that could be used to refute this accusation.

    The reaction to incompetence is to either replace with more competent staff, or to explain and apologise for the incompetence , with appropriate guarantees regarding openness and future performance. The only appropriate reaction to bias is instant dismissal . The SFA have shown a total reluctance to take action against anyone , except Craig Whyte, who has been responsible for the many many scandals involving Rangers over the last 16 years.

    There was hope that Stuart Regan , being an outsider , could deal evenhandedly with every club. He has been proven to be as ineffective as his predecessors . It is quite staggering that he did not insist on Campbell Ogilvie standing down as soon as it was revealed he was an EBT beneficiary. It is beyond credible that he is still there now that documents were made public that showed that not only was he a beneficiary , he was actually the official signatory of a scheme now ruled as tax evasion. This scheme also deliberately concealed the full details of players contracts , in contravention to League rules.

    A responsible SFA would either hold a press conference to deny that the documents were genuine, or if they are genuine then they should instigate a public enquiry into the role played by Ogilvie, whilst standing him down from office until the enquiry is conducted.

    By doing nothing the SFA confirm the widely held view that they are neither open or accountable to the Scottish football public. They also demonstrate that self preservation of officials positions is more important to them than creating an environment where Football can prosper in Scotland for ALL Clubs .

    A response to these issues is the least the Scottish public deserves, but going by past performance all we can expect is more stony silence


  61. Late edit to my post above.
    I fully accept the argument that the SFA should have made appropriate provision in the case of either side reaching the semi-final / final


  62. Barcabhoy

    The SFA have adopted an ostrich head in the sand policy towards all evidence from the CF source.

    As a friend once said to me. An ostrich with its head in the sand feels quite safe right up to the nanosecond before a lion takes a bite out of its ass.

    There be lions in the long grass.


  63. Greenock Jack says:
    March 19, 2014 at 11:13 am

    This particular decision of the SFA had two clubs that may end up with an advantage of playing a semi-final or final at their home ground. At the time of the decision (October 2013) it would have been fair to assume that Celtic would be the more likely team to enjoy that advantage (to play SC Final at Home) rather than Rangers of the SPFL3 reach the semi-final.
    ——

    You’re almost entirely correct, Jack, apart from the suspicion that Rangers have enjoyed a cup run which would appear to be a touch easier than pure luck of the draw would have suggested.

    But yes, fans of all clubs outside the OF were equally dismayed, though not surprised, by the setting in stone of Celtic Park as the Final venue whilst Celtic remained in the competition. That Celtic, had their abilities proved sufficient, would have enjoyed a home Final with no option to switch the venue, is equally as scandalous as the Rangers semi.

    That situation will fortunately not arise, though, and the Rangers one will. Hence the focus being on that.

    To be fair, I doubt if there would have been such indignation from the green corner had Celtic made it to the Final. 😉


  64. Auldheid

    But those Lions aren’t from Lisbon or at least those from the boardroom at Parkhead would seem to have made their lack of intention abundantly clear.

Comments are closed.