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

1. 
   

   ThirdParty says:
   March 23, 2014 at 11:18 pm

   0

   1

   Rate This

   Campbellsmoney says:

   March 23, 2014 at 10:51 pm

   3

   0

   Rate This

   _______________________________________________

   Seem to betting a few TDs TP.
   Please don’t let this put you off. Insightful and challegning questioning is welcome here.
   Your views and input are worthy of respect and I hope you feel this is afforded to you. Not sure whether you are playing devil’s advocate, or seeking to represent the RFC / SFA persepctive, or trying to bring an entirely other facet to the way things are presented on the blog.
   Either way, it comes across as constructive engagement and is very welcome input to the forum in my view.
2. 
   

   What rules were broken?
   Well without looking up the actual rules at the time, it was about the need for a SFA membership, associate or full, before being allowed into a league or a cup competition. Not a ‘conditional’ one, as there was no such thing in the rules. The rules needed three years accounts or existence as an associate before getting membership into the big boys leagues IIRC.
   If the SFA used ‘discretion’ to invent stuff so significant, then in effect the written rules are next to useless.
   Looking at it from the point of the 5WA, it needed two existing legal entities plus the regulators to transfer a membership which is also not allowed without ‘discretion’ – so has the 5WA now become a precedent for other clubs to use when they have a little local difficulty? What kind of regulator can continue making stuff up?
   The two entities calling themselves a ‘rangers’ could be said to be an enormous con to pretend the new one was in effect the same as the old one, to make money…fraud you say? That’s also not in the rules, as there is one about not bringing the game into disrepute.
   So in my view rules were not applied. in layman’s terms, they were broken, as was the trust in the regulators and the system.
3. 
   

   Third Party:

   I’ve said from the very beginning that the SFL were perfectly entitled to admit Sevco Scotland (as they were called at the time) as a new member of their league.

   However, whoever signed up to the five way agreement (David Longmuir, I presume) would have to explain how he allowed the description of the SPL to be so grossly misrepresented in that document.

   http://www.scribd.com/doc/164650989/5-Way-Agreement-as-Issued-to-All-Parties-for-Signature

   (C) The SFL is an unincorporated association of thirty members acting through its Board which owns, promotes and operates the “Scottish Football League”, in which the thirty association football clubs owned and operated by its thirty members for the time being compete in three divisions (first, second and third).

   http://www.scribd.com/doc/214043163/SFL-Constitution-Rules

   “Associate Member” means a football club however constituted which is admitted to the League pursuant to the provisions of Section 2 of these Rules;
   …
   “Member or Member Club” means a football club however constituted which is a member of the League as provided for in Section 2 of these Rules and includes an Associate Member or Members where the context so allows or requires;

   The SFL rules describes a member (however constituted – incorporated or an association of persons) as a football club.

   The football clubs were not owned and operated by the members, the football clubs were the members. Reading through their Articles of Association, the SFA’s Stewart Regan would have to answer the same question.

   The truth is that the SFA and SFL chose to ignore their own statutes in order to accept the SPL’s (Neil Doncaster’s) fiction that Rangers FC, the “Club”, had a separate identity from The Rangers Football Club plc – now RFC 2012 (IL).

   This is a key element of whether or not the new club had any registered players – indeed whether some of those players are properly registered now.

   As far as I understand events, the ex-Rangers players’ registrations were held, not by Sevco; but by the SFA at the time of Sevco’s first game against Brechin. According to the 5WA, had the agreement fallen through, those player registrations would have reverted back to Rangers.

   The 5WA says:

   3.3 Pending Completion, the SFA confirm it has granted Sevco conditional Full membership of the SFA to facilitate the playing of matches by Rangers FC for the period until midnight on 3rd August 2012. In the event that the transfer of the RFC Share to Dundee FC has not been registered by the SPL by that time, then this Agreement will automatically lapse and the arrangements set out herein will not come into effect
   ; Sevco’s conditional Full Membership of the SFA will automatically lapse; and all player registrations held by the SFA will revert to RFC and Sevco’s interest will be cancelled.
   …
   5.2 On Completion, the SFL shall accept the transfer of the SPL Player Registrations from the SPL to be SFL Player Registrations as if Rangers FC had been relegated from the SPL to the SFL.

   Now I would be interested if anyone can show me the rule that allowed them to accept a player transferred from one club, RFC (not a member of the SFL) to Sevco – a newly accepted members club – but not deal with it as a transfer at all.

   What rule do you think the SFL used to register the Sevco players to that club?

   Genuine question – because I haven’t a clue! 😕
4. 
   

   upthehoops says:
   March 23, 2014 at 12:30 pm

   28

   0

   Rate This

   Campbellsmoney says:
   March 23, 2014 at 11:27 am

   So – yes – they bent the rules for a Rangers – in fact let me rephrase that because talk of “bending” rules is wrong and misleading. Rules were broken. Rules were not applied – rules were not simply “bent a wee bit” – they were simply treated as not applying this time round.

   Was that corrupt or just wrong? I would say that it depends on truly why they did it.

   Either way – it should not have happened and each member who allowed it to happen has something to answer for.
   ===========================================
   Your last sentence sums it up perfectly. I for one believe the rules as they existed should simply have been followed, and if that meant a Rangers ceased to exist then so be it. Did every member agree to what happened though?
   =++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

   Didn’t the Dundee Utd and Motherwell reps on the SPL Board thing resign around the time of the 5 way agreement?
5. 
   

   …description of the SPL to be so grossly misrepresented in that document.

   should have said

   …description of the SFL to be so grossly misrepresented in that document.
6. 
   

   ThirdParty says:

   March 23, 2014 at 9:46 pm

   Auldheid says:

   March 23, 2014 at 9:17 pm

   I was simply looking for an explanation of the often repeated mantra that the rules were broken when OldCo/TRFC was admitted to play in Scottish Football. If you are suggesting it was something to do with club licensing then that is incorrect. The then SFL Rules did not require a club to have a particular or indeed any form of SFA club licence to be a member of the SFL. I think it is a reasonable question to ask which rule?
   =========================
   Club licensing is not an SFL rule, licensing rules are the SFA’s and under those rules a licence can be refused by the SFA or withheld until the conditions are met. What is not known is if a club can be allowed to play without a licence, but I suspect that situation never arises because of the amount of discretion written into club licensing.

   Such discretion like say the exceptional dispensation clause in National Club Licensing Section 8: 8.12 would allow a club unable to provide the historical accounts a new club applying from say the Highland League would have to have in order to get a licence, from having to provide accounts but we do not know if the SFA ever considered or were asked to consider any request to that end.

   Some form of check on the financial prospects of a club is part of club licensing and we simply do not know what the SFA were provided with to give them assurances that SFA membership could be safely granted to TRFC. The problem as I have repeated often is that Membership of the SFA and with it the right to play in domestic competitions should be conditional on clubs having a licence at the appropriate level, not handed out willy nilly as suits the SFA with no criteria to guide them. That is how UEFA require it, fail to meet UEFA licensing standards (which apply to top tier clubs) and you do not get to play in UEFA competition. If one change would regulate Scottish football for the better it is this one. .

   Back to your question: what we do know is that a club whom the SFL agree to admit got Associate Membership of the SFL as a result and if they applied to the SFA within 14 days they got Associate Membership of the SFA (which could become full after 5 years).

   But that process, which applied to new clubs under SFL rules, was never adopted. The SFA chose instead to transfer the membership they held for Oldco to Newco using the discretionary powers in the Article 14 of SFA Handbook with the Paradoxical Title Prohibition of Transfer of Membership , So whilst the rules were not broken they were chosen with care to achieve a required result although there is no explanation why this was done rather than the Associate Membership route from the SFL which required no discretion to be used (but maybe solid accounting info?) .

   I have uploaded an extract of relevant rules at the time to

   https://drive.google.com/?tab=wo&authuser=0#all

   which I think answers your question. The SFA have righty said no rules were broken, what they do not say, is that the right rule was applied in the right way for the relevant process until the completion of the process and why it was applicable. They are disingenuous in that respect..

   Note also change to rules re membership as result of SFL/SPL merger so had TRFC got Associate Membership of the SFA via the SFL route, they would now be full members of SFA.
7. 
   

   Campbellsmoney says:
   March 23, 2014 at 10:58 pm

   And re refereeing

   Imagine that wasn’t Barca and RM tonight. Any dodgy decisions? Honest? Corrupt?
   Or maybe just mistakes?
   It happens apparently.
   ===============================
   It does indeed. Celtic had three goals disallowed against St Mirren on Saturday. I thought I’d write it here because no MSM outlet said much about it.
8. 
   

   upthehoops says:
   March 24, 2014 at 5:55 am
   6 1 Rate This

   Campbellsmoney says:
   March 23, 2014 at 10:58 pm

   And re refereeing

   Imagine that wasn’t Barca and RM tonight. Any dodgy decisions? Honest? Corrupt?
   Or maybe just mistakes?
   It happens apparently.
   ===============================
   It does indeed. Celtic had three goals disallowed against St Mirren on Saturday. I thought I’d write it here because no MSM outlet said much about it.
   ————

   My armchair football viewing this weekend has convinced me once again of the need to use the available technology to aid referees.

   Not to use modern technology is another example of football authorities depriving paying fans of the possibility of seeing fairer and more just decisions in matches.

   Why can I go from watching Andy Murray challenging close decisions to seeing wrong players sent off, good goals deemed offside and offside goals ruled onside, as well as dodgy diving in El Theatrico?
9. 
   

   Danish Pastry says:
   March 24, 2014 at 7:30 am

   Why can I go from watching Andy Murray challenging close decisions to seeing wrong players sent off, good goals deemed offside and offside goals ruled onside, as well as dodgy diving in El Theatrico?
   ===================
   I’m going to disagree. I watched the Classico last night, and maybe with the benefit of super slow motion from every angle (how many cameras do they have at these games, for goodness sake?) perhaps some decisions could be challenged. Watching the game only at normal speed and one angle (remember Scotsport in the 70’s?) it would be very hard to criticise the referee.

   To me, it was a tremendous game, and a lot of that was down to the ref keeping it flowing. How many games have been totally ruined by a ref with whistleitis- plenty that I’ve seen. I just cannot see that a free flowing game would be possible, where the action is constantly broken up with appeals, video analysis, etc. I know it works in Rugby, but that was always a game of many interruptions. I think I prefer a few honest (as in really genuine!) mistakes, and a game that flows.

   Also, I can’t see it being possible to cover every SPL top division game with enough cameras to provide the coverage required. That would be enormously expensive. Goal line technology, OK, but I don’t think it should extend further than that.
10. 
    

    neepheid says:
    March 24, 2014 at 8:40 am
    1 0 Rate This
    ——————

    Fair enough @neepheid. Obviously the dynamics of a tennis match make it very different from football.

    Where I think football could adopt some of the positives is in giving each team 2-3 challenges each match — where the technology is available. The idea has been suggested many times. It would mean only more glaring injustices would be challenged. I don’t believe the fact that the technology isn’t universally available should hinder, say, the upcoming televised matches in the Scottish Cup semis offering teams the challenge system.

    Rather a little ‘regulated’ fair play and sporting justice, than none at all. This doesn’t minimise the responsibility of players to improve their morals and cut out cheating from their game. But the spotlight then falling on certain televised matches could act as the impetus for players to improve their personal ‘honesty’. The cheating football players engage in is utterly frowned upon in most other sports.

    Use technology when you can, if it’s available. The idea of fair play might just catch on 🙂
11. 
    

    In relation to new technology and referreing I agree with the view that too many reviews would spoil the flow of a game.
    However I have always advocated that when reviewing incidents,as opposed to all the multi-angle shots, TV companies and pundits should be able to concentrate on three views. One from the Ref’s Point of View and the other two from the two linesmen/assistant refereees. At the end of the day those are the views that matter when it comes to making the instant decisions in the heat of battle.

    I do recall a few years back Match of the Day freezing images and then doing some fancy computer work to show the view from pitch level. Using that type of technology, which will probably have advanced since then, would show fans and any referee review panel how officials saw the incident on the park as it happened.

    Frankly I think there is a good chance that it would actually show many refs up in a good light and bring a bit more understanding to the terraces of how hard a job they have at times.
12. 
    

    upthehoops says:
    March 24, 2014 at 5:55 am
    21 8 i
    Rate This

    Campbellsmoney says:
    March 23, 2014 at 10:58 pm

    And re refereeing

    Imagine that wasn’t Barca and RM tonight. Any dodgy decisions? Honest? Corrupt?
    Or maybe just mistakes?
    It happens apparently.
    ===============================
    It does indeed. Celtic had three goals disallowed against St Mirren on Saturday.

    ——————————————————————————————————————————————-

    Only three? 🙁
13. 
    

    Danish Pastry says:
    March 23, 2014 at 11:19 pm

    “Club means a Football club, other than a Candidate Club, which is, for the time being, eligible to participate in the League and, except where the context otherwise requires, includes the owner and operator of such club;
    ———-
    So a football club includes the owner and operator?

    Yes or no?
    ——

    Yes. Unless the context otherwise requires.

    In other words, pretty pointless putting the definition in at all.
14. 
    

    “In other words, pretty pointless putting the definition in at all.”

    Quite the reverse I think Angus – it gives a corrupt administration the get out when making decisions in favour of a club / owner / operator (delete as appropriate) that has systematically cheated us all for years
15. 
    

    http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-fan-caught-legal-battle-3276483

    Internecine strife continues down Ibrox way.
16. 
    

    Angus1983 says:
    March 24, 2014 at 10:00 am
    1 0 Rate This

    Yes. Unless the context otherwise requires.

    In other words, pretty pointless putting the definition in at all.
    ————–

    Very ethereal. It is whatever it is on any given day — depending on current interpretation at someone’s discretion.

    I’m sensing from Third Party (I’d hoped he/she would keep posting) that when it comes to incorporated football club businesses the popular concept is ‘selective liquidation’. So club names live on (if purchased) the way the name ‘Woolworths’ was bought up by Shop Direct. But did Shop Direct get the history? Oops, better not start an Old Woolworths/New Woolworths discussion. That would be going a little bonkers 😀
17. 
    

    Emphasis
    In season 2011/12 just over 3.16 million customers went through the turnstiles to watch SPL football in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Dundee, Motherwell, Kilmarnock, Dunfermline, Paisley, Perth & Inverness.
    With the Rangers crisis, the SPL – a commercial operation – faced the loss of nearly 28% of its customer base and one of the two most saleable brands within its set-up. At that point, the chief exec of the SPL was a Devon-born business administrator with a law degree, an MBA and some years as chief exec of Norwich City under his belt. A bureaucrat perhaps but hardly a dyed-in-the-wool green or blue native from the Land of Whataboutery.
    No business takes a 28% drop in customer base lightly and most would do what they could to avert it. In that sense Rangers aren’t special and neither is the SPL. The circumstances of football as a sport are special however and the imperative to ‘safeguard the business’ – that business being the SPL – came into direct conflict with supporters’ sense of fairness, across Scotland. Lots of other companies with turnover in the tens of millions could have slipped into admin, shed debt and bounced back doing essentially the same thing, in the same place with the same customers and most of us wouldn’t notice unless we read the financial pages. In football however that’s simply not fair.
    Direct comparisons with Celtic in the nineties don’t stand up, aside from the fact that Celtic were a shambles by 1994, as Rangers were by 2012. In 1994 however there was no MBA-toting Devon bureaucrat to ‘safeguard the business’ of the SPL as there was no SPL. Celtic nearly went bust in the old days of the clubbish, petty SFL, not in a slicker and – although it pains me to say – more professional SPL environment that had been running as a separate entity for 14 years by the time Rangers hit the buffers.
    Had Celtic suffered an administration in 2012, when they represented 30.6% of the SPL customer base, Doncaster wouldn’t have acted any differently than he did with Rangers and neither would have the other SPL chairmen. Despite the claims therefore, Celtic aren’t special either in being singled out for discriminatory treatment in the contemporary football business environment – except in being seen as equally non-expendable as Rangers in financial terms.
    The behaviour of the SFA, the swapover of personnel with Rangers over the years, and the continuing presence of Campbell Ogilvie is a completely different matter of course.
18. 
    

    No1 Bob says:
    March 24, 2014 at 10:20 am
    0 0 Rate This

    http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-fan-caught-legal-battle-3276483
    ================
    Sandy Easdale from the above link;

    “If any libellous comments are made on any website and brought to my attention they are acted upon by my lawyers.”

    Well that’s us all told, then. I actually feel quite sorry for this Houston guy. He might get a lot of support from his fellow bears, especially if Easdale does actually take him to court. Well I would hope so, anyway.
19. 
    

    neepheid says:
    March 24, 2014 at 10:40 am
    —

    Sympathy up to a point, Lord Copper. The same Record report suggests he quickly blamed others for writing the comments on his website (showing a bit of a lack of leadership and understanding of a publisher’s responsibilities) and flagged up three other websites on which similar comments had been made. He’s not exactly Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.
20. 
    

    rabtdog says:
    March 24, 2014 at 10:40 am

    Agree where you are coming from.
    However did the man with the Law degree, MBA and football experience actually work out how much of the income etc generated by the 28% of customer base you mention found its way back into and was distributed throughout the overall business for the benefit of all?
    Was it ever considered that those ‘responsible’ companies within the overall business may survive and actually be better off if the rogue element of the group were left to wither on the vine?
    Maybe as opposed to rushing into a panicked solution the man withe MBA should have undertaken a 120 day review.
    Afterall it seems to be the in thing when reassessing football businesses. 🙂
21. 
    

    wottpi says:
    March 24, 2014 at 9:20 am

    I do recall a few years back Match of the Day freezing images and then doing some fancy computer work to show the view from pitch level. Using that type of technology, which will probably have advanced since then, would show fans and any referee review panel how officials saw the incident on the park as it happened.

    Frankly I think there is a good chance that it would actually show many referees up in a good light and bring a bit more understanding to the terraces of how hard a job they have at times.
    ______________________________________

    There’s no doubt that referees make genuine mistakes, some of them week after week, so no dispute there.

    Referees are essential, without them the game could not be played.

    But fans do not pay to see the referee, they pay to see football which the referee is well paid to oversee.

    Human failing is the reason for most poor decisions.

    Which brings me to my point.

    Technology where available should be used to improve the decision making process, the whole point of referees.

    I have heard some friends say they like the disputed decisions and the furore it causes, but I don’t see it.

    If that was the case we should just do away with referees altogether.

    That would result in plenty of talking points.

    The best referees I have ever seen are usually anonymous.

    They don’t strut about and behave as if they are the most important person on the field.

    They blow for offences in a calm manner and do not, I hope someone tells Willie Collum, they Do Not sprint up theatrically to the point where the transgression has taken place, point to the ground and pose.

    It’s been argued that referees have only a split second to make a decision, and their detractors watch replays making it easier to come to the right decision.

    True.

    So why not give the referee or fourth official the same opportunity?

    There is the fact that occasionally the camera replays are inconclusive, in which case the referees decision should stand, but in the vast majority of cases they reveal all, which would cut down the amount of wrong calls dramatically.

    A last thought.

    Technology should NOT be introduced to highlight how difficult refereeing is, but to help referees with their difficulties.
22. 
    

    Time for the sons of struth website to practice what it preaches, i hope they have a holding company and spare “the” kicking about. Might find their mantra only works for big hooses and it’s deluded occupants.

    Does TSFM have an opinion as moderator/host? Is Mr Houston in trouble via posters comments?
23. 
    

    rabtdog says:
    March 24, 2014 at 10:40 am
    ================

    I agree with your comments in that any business facing a loss of 28% of its customer base would do whatever it could to protect its position. However the SPL do not have a customer base in the same sense as a business. Whether one of their members has 10% or 28% does not influence their income. Their role is not to be a profit centre but to be a governing body. The decisions made have, by and large, been the wrong ones. They have systematically failed to communicate with the people who matter – the fans. They have deliberately avoided the transparency that the situation demanded.
    They have failed badly in all aspects of this case. That heads haven’t rolled is a mystery to most people.
24. 
    

    Leeds can’t be bought due to the FA sniff test?

    Can someone do a link, it’s on sky.
25. 
    

    Alan Price says:
    March 24, 2014 at 11:15 am

    Hear what you say but cannot agree that ‘Human failing is the reason for most poor decisions’.

    I like having a go at poor decisions like the rest of us but my argument is that we very rarely see the incident from the point of view of the referee therefore how can anyone be sure that ‘for most poor decisions’ the referee has in some way failed.

    Offsides and the ball crossing boundary lines are perhaps the only time at present that the TV camera can actually give an indication of how a linesman may have seen the line. In nearly all other incidents and including the two mentioned the referee’s view is from a wholly different perspective where angles and depth of perception need to be taken into account, along with the possibility that his view can easily be blocked by players. At the same time he may also be keeping his eye on an off the ball situation while trying to follow the game.

    Before trying to help ‘referees with the difficulties’ I would argue that there is a need to establish objective evidence, via the use of technology, whether or not there are any difficulties in the first place as opposed to just reacting to the subjective and biased views of fans.
26. 
    

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26717044

    The Football League has disqualified Italian businessman Massimo Cellino from buying a majority stake in Championship club Leeds United.
    Cellino heads Eleonora Sports, which agreed to buy a 75% stake in Leeds from Gulf Finance House Capital in February.
    However, the takeover was put in doubt last week when he was found guilty of failing to pay import duty on a yacht.
    In a statement the league said they had voted “unanimously” to disqualify the Cagliari owner’s bid.
27. 
    

    Galling fiver says:
    March 24, 2014 at 11:25 am

    http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11715/9229853/football-league-bars-massimo-cellino-from-leeds-united-takeover
28. 
    

    wottpi says:
    March 24, 2014 at 11:36 am

    I like having a go at poor decisions like the rest of us but my argument is that we very rarely see the incident from the point of view of the referee therefore how can anyone be sure that ‘for most poor decisions’ the referee has in some way failed.

    Offsides and the ball crossing boundary lines are perhaps the only time at present that the TV camera can actually give an indication of how a linesman may have seen the line.
    ______________________________________

    I understand the difficulty of linesmen and referees, but we can be sure they have failed because these failures are highlighted every day of the week in TV replays.

    The failure to see what has actually happened due to being unsighted or attention diverted elsewhere for a split second is real, and I’m not trying to apportion blame.

    On the contrary, to suggest they have technological help is an attempt to sympathise with their difficulties.

    To deny them technology that helps them eventually to arrive at the correct decision is not to care too much about mistakes, real or honest, in my view.

    There is the other side of the coin.

    Replays which show the referee got it right will enhance their stature.
29. 
    

    tomtom says:
    March 24, 2014 at 11:20 am
    rabtdog says:
    March 24, 2014 at 10:40 am
    ================
    I agree with your comments in that any business facing a loss of 28% of its customer base would do whatever it could to protect its position. However the SPL do not have a customer base in the same sense as a business. Whether one of their members has 10% or 28% does not influence their income. Their role is not to be a profit centre but to be a governing body. The decisions made have, by and large, been the wrong ones. They have systematically failed to communicate with the people who matter – the fans. They have deliberately avoided the transparency that the situation demanded.
    They have failed badly in all aspects of this case. That heads haven’t rolled is a mystery to most people.

    tomtom, the SPL was a members club more than a governing body. Doncaster’s panic about how to deal with Rangers Administration/Liquidation was always influenced by the potential loss of revenue to the SPL through TV and sponsorship being negatively impacted without one of the two biggest supported clubs being part of the package. My view would be that the SPL brand would be damaged by association with a company that went bust in such circumstances but the Armageddonists always had a much narrower and short-sighted view. Like you, I think that they ought to have ensured the fact and perception of fair play for all – the whole customer base. I’d also agree that they didn’t manage the crisis caused by Rangers well – fans/customers of all teams ended up unhappy – they got lucky though, fans didn’t disappear despite this universal discontent. Why didn’t officers heads roll? Ask the club officials/owners who kept them in place or promoted them in the shiny new SPFL structure.
30. 
    

    WOTTPI, 1114hrs
    re Doncaster – I don’t know
    we’d have to ask him
31. 
    

    Tomtom 1120hrs
    Disagree with you a bit – I’ve always seen the SPL (1998-2013, RIP) as more of a commercial enterprise than a governing body; it was a profit centre in terms of attracting TV and sponsorship income for its members and I see no evidence that it ever treated fans as serious stakeholders, seeing them in much the same way as Tesco views you or I buying groceries (vital but non-participatory)
32. 
    

    rabtdog says:
    March 24, 2014 at 12:26 pm
    0 0 Rate This

    Tomtom 1120hrs
    Disagree with you a bit – I’ve always seen the SPL (1998-2013, RIP) as more of a commercial enterprise than a governing body; it was a profit centre in terms of attracting TV and sponsorship income for its members and I see no evidence that it ever treated fans as serious stakeholders, seeing them in much the same way as Tesco views you or I buying groceries (vital but non-participatory)
    =====================

    Maybe that’s the problem. Short term profit versus long term good governance always ends badly.
33. 
    

    rabtdog says:
    March 24, 2014 at 12:26 pm

    Tomtom 1120hrs
    Disagree with you a bit – I’ve always seen the SPL (1998-2013, RIP) as more of a commercial enterprise than a governing body; it was a profit centre in terms of attracting TV and sponsorship income for its members and I see no evidence that it ever treated fans as serious stakeholders, seeing them in much the same way as Tesco views you or I buying groceries (vital but non-participatory)

    No RIP. They simply rebranded.

    FWIW my take on the SPL’s approach was not that they simply tried to reinflate the RFC corpse, but that they refused to accept there was an alternative, either with a shiny new legally correct TRFC or with no ‘Blue’ representation at all. Yes the lack of sponsorship at present perhaps shows up the naivity of that arguement – but then have the sponsors ever been asked? Every release (and remember this is a commercial company’s marketing department, not the Daily Record) I’ve seen might as well read “look we know this one horse race is a bit sh!t but if you just wait, in fact don’t even bother to sponsor us at all at the moment we’ll come back with our begging bowl once we’ve restored the old order for you.” What were the sponsors to do? Suggest an alternative? Maybe we could all pay them to wait? We probably are!
34. 
    

    Tom Tom

    The problem is that both authorities, SPFL and SFA have been “commercialised” to the extent that the sporting integrity element, without which football ceases to be a sport, gets lost.

    The SFA should be the guardians of integrity, it should be written into their logo and mission statement and be their main purpose.
35. 
    

    Bogs Dollox says:
    March 24, 2014 at 12:35 am
    11 0 i
    Rate This

    upthehoops says:
    March 23, 2014 at 12:30 pm

    28

    0

    Rate This

    Campbellsmoney says:
    March 23, 2014 at 11:27 am

    So – yes – they bent the rules for a Rangers – in fact let me rephrase that because talk of “bending” rules is wrong and misleading. Rules were broken. Rules were not applied – rules were not simply “bent a wee bit” – they were simply treated as not applying this time round.

    Was that corrupt or just wrong? I would say that it depends on truly why they did it.

    Either way – it should not have happened and each member who allowed it to happen has something to answer for.
    ===========================================
    Your last sentence sums it up perfectly. I for one believe the rules as they existed should simply have been followed, and if that meant a Rangers ceased to exist then so be it. Did every member agree to what happened though?
    =++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Didn’t the Dundee Utd and Motherwell reps on the SPL Board thing resign around the time of the 5 way agreement?

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

    Thomson resigned in November 2012 citing professional differences. Motherwell’s David Weir and St Johnstone’s Steve Brown saw what was coming somewhat earlier and jumped ship in July 2012. Seems no one dare deviate from the establishment p.o.v. in modern day Scotland.
36. 
    

    Phils Latest piece.
    http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/when-hope-defeats-fear/#more-4492
37. 
    

    Mr Wallace must be close to analyzing the findings in his 120 day report. With Jack gone it will be interesting how they drip feed what they want to put out via the compliant media lap dogs. Also I would assume the report findings will get out at a time to maximise the SB ‘Mibbees’….In a give us your cash or we are doomed type scenario..

    With Mr Easdale’s threats to the facebook host of the SoS, shouldn’t rangers have looked at a similar gagging order for the glib and shameless liar. I would assume what he has publically stated has done more potential damage to those who own rangers than a couple of drunk bloggers on a fan’s facebook site.

    Billy Davies for manager anyone? 😳

    Q2 this year should be interesting down Govan way.. 😯
38. 
    

    ernie says:
    March 23, 2014 at 7:05 pm
    I was told that Arbroath had remained, until some point in the last twenty odd years, a true club and that they were the only ones left at the time. But I think they have now incorporated (there is an Arbroath Football Club Limited incorporated in December 2004 – so that is probably it now).
    ——————————————————————————————————————
    I’m not certain but I think that this may have had to do with potential personal liability for Board Members in the previous structure. Incorporation provided a measure of protection.

    Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
39. 
    

    I have absolutely no idea why referees make mistakes and i would not like to speculate. However my view is that since his arrival at Celtic Leigh Griffiths has had 30% of the legitimate goals he has scored chopped off because of poor refereeing. That is simply not an acceptable performance by our refs in my opinion.
40. 
    

    fara1968 says:
    March 24, 2014 at 3:05 pm
    3 0 Rate This

    I have absolutely no idea why referees make mistakes and i would not like to speculate. However my view is that since his arrival at Celtic Leigh Griffiths has had 30% of the legitimate goals he has scored chopped off because of poor refereeing. That is simply not an acceptable performance by our refs in my opinion.
    ==========================
    Aye but what about…………etc etc.
41. 
    

    We can all complain about refs – but there is something we can also do to help………….

    Anyone else tired of seeing players roll around clutching their faces when the sleeve of their opponent brushed their shoulder?

    Anyone else tired of seeing players roll around clutching their ankles/knees when the laces of their opponents brushed their shinpad?

    Anyone else tired of players who are 6 foot and 14 stone get shoved off the ball in the penalty area by a sudden breeze?

    Anyone else tired of watching corners coming in while there is something resembling a rugby scrum to prevent anyone heading the ball?

    My favourite photo of my childhood was the one with Don MacKay giving Billy Bremner a piece of his mind – and Billy was in the innocence mode. Only today he would be clutching his face, rolling around while his team mates hold up invisible cards to the ref………..

    Refs jobs are hard enough – but players/managers are not helping with their antics………
42. 
    

    @ ernie
    I only mention Celtic because they are the team I watch. The etc etc that you point out backs up my statement. I do know refereeing is not an easy job but for me that doesn’t mean there should be so many wrong judgements. It’s not about whataboutery it’s about how refereeing can be improved.
43. 
    

    Of course Griffiths has had 30% of his goals chalked off since joining Celtic. The refs are dazzled by the light reflecting off his forehead.
44. 
    

    Dave MacKay – not Don – apologies!!!!

    And another one – why do managers have to stand in those stupid zones with their arms folded looking deep in thought…………and how much water do they really need to drink standing on the side of the pitch?
45. 
    

    FARA1968. Fair enough. I’m nae shy in complaining about the raw deal my own mob get but I do believe that it’s generally swings and roundabouts with the odd “big team” factor thrown in.
46. 
    

    redlichtie says:
    March 24, 2014 at 2:37 pm
    4 0 i
    Rate This

    ernie says:
    March 23, 2014 at 7:05 pm
    I was told that Arbroath had remained, until some point in the last twenty odd years, a true club and that they were the only ones left at the time. But I think they have now incorporated (there is an Arbroath Football Club Limited incorporated in December 2004 – so that is probably it now).
    ——————————————————————————————————————
    I’m not certain but I think that this may have had to do with potential personal liability for Board Members in the previous structure. Incorporation provided a measure of protection.

    Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.

    ——————————————————————————————————————————————————–
    That ties in with what I was told – that Arbroath were the one Scottish football team that wouldn’t go bust because as a club, the committee members were personally liable for debt so they wouldn’t go splurging all the money on swanky (see what I did there) players.

    Scottish Football needs a strong Tuttie’s Neuk.
47. 
    

    Exiled Celt says:
    March 24, 2014 at 3:29 pm

    We can all complain about refs – but there is something we can also do to help………….

    Anyone else tired of seeing players roll around clutching their faces when the sleeve of their opponent brushed their shoulder?

    Anyone else tired of seeing players roll around clutching their ankles/knees when the laces of their opponents brushed their shinpad?

    This sort of behaviour is probably the primary reason I rarely watch football any more. It’s an embarrassment to themselves, their team, the sport, human species and evolution.
48. 
    

    Just reread this little classic from a few years ago by the bold Keef:

    (i removed the link)

    SELLING the naming rights to Ibrox, a new British league cup and Old Firm derbies played overseas are just ome of the ideas being explored as new supremo Craig Whyte and his money men look to build Rangers into a global brand.

    THEY could flog the rights to Ibrox and make a quick killing just as Arsenal did when Highbury morphed into the Emirates.

    They could push for an all-new league cup competition which would see Rangers and Celtic go head to head with Chelsea, Liverpool and Man United.

    They could even take the Old Firm derby halfway across the world to stage it in the United States or in Australia.

    This is the future under Craig Whyte and his newly-assembled executive team at Ibrox.

    Right now, as far as Ali Russell is concerned, Rangers could do just about anything as they set about their quest to turn a debt-ridden Scottish institution into a global money-making machine.

    No idea to bring home the big bucks will be dismissed. No potential little earner ignored until each of its avenues has been completely explored and exhausted.

    These people did not take over this club for the hell of it. Now that they’ve stormed through the front doors of Ibrox they have no intention of making a loss out of the old place.

    And after Whyte’s radical restructuring of the boardroom, the burden will fall chiefly on operations executive Russell to show them the money.

    His credentials are impressive enough, having held down – and been headhunted from – top marketing and commercial posts at the Scottish Rugby Union and Hearts before being appointed as deputy MD by the mega-rich owners of Queens Park Rangers.

    He’s young – having yet to turn 40 – he’s slick and he has all the jargon off pat too. Russell talks about “core markets” and “brand development” much more comfortably than he does about 4-5-1s or 4-4-2s.

    But that’s what Gordon Smith is for, isn’t it? Russell’s job is to concentrate on an altogether different set of numbers. And to inflate them from every conceivable angle.

    “It’s about looking at all avenues,” Russell says, after being asked how on earth he plans to turn a financially stricken club into some kind of golden goose laying eggs on a global scale.

    “It’s about looking at the real estate here. How do we maximise that? Is it just a ground for football or does it have more uses?

    “Can we use rooms on non-match days more effectively? What do we do to grow the brand, where do we play as a team? How do we integrate international players so that we’re building the brand in different markets? Where do we go with our own broadcast rights? There are numerous areas we are looking to investigate.”

    And Russell will be charged of the task of probing each and every one. Even those ideas which to many Rangers fans may seem strictly off limits, like the possible rebranding of Ibrox.

    Now that really would test the levels of goodwill which have been soaring sky high for these people ever since Whyte and his group manoeuvred Sir David Murray out of power for the price of just a single pound.

    In fact, the club could stand to rake in many millions of pounds just by agreeing to sell a name. Russell doesn’t completely rule such a scenario out. If truth be told the businessman inside him must be bursting to strike a deal which would see Rangers gain so much from giving away so little.

    But, with so much emotional investment to protect, neither is he in a rush to rule it in.

    Instead he chooses his words with great care as he says: “At this stage of the new era we consider everything but it’s not something we’d go out and look at.

    “Ibrox is synonymous with Rangers so I don’t think it’s something we would consider at this stage. We are very protective of our intellectual property.”

    Clearly, the sanctioning of such a break with tradition would have to be treated with great caution. But Russell belongs to a modern world of bold thinkers.

    And there are plenty more ideas where that one came from.

    Challenge He adds: “I’m looking forward to helping develop the brand of this club, not just in Scotland but internationally.

    “I think we have some huge opportunities. The club has been under some challenging financial circumstances. Moving forward, we have to challenge ourselves.

    “How do we generate more interest in Scottish football?

    “How do we become central to that and move it forward? In terms of pre-season, we went to Australia last year – do we now go to the US or Japan?

    “What are the core markets we are going to be focusing on so that we reinforce it every time we do a tour. So we don’t just go where the biggest cheque is – we look at growing a fan base in different areas of the world which strategically fit back well into the club itself.”

    Russell and Whyte also plan to quickly develop the land around Ibrox or whatever else it’s called somewhere down the line.

    Hotels, retail outlets and new residential developments are on the cards and Russell is already in talks with Glasgow council chiefs about how best to fund this work.

    He has also opened discussions with SPL chief Neil Doncaster on how best to maximise the Scottish game’s earning potential. And that may well include the breaking down of many borders.

    Russell says: “There has been a lot of talk about cross-border cup competitions.

    “Arsenal and Manchester United have not been playing their best teams in the early stages of the League Cup.

    “A cross-border aspect would generate a lot more interest. Should we be involved in those sort of discussions? Absolutely. If we feel there’s an appetite from the fans I see no reason why we wouldn’t look at it.”

    The prospect of picking up the Glasgow derby and dropping it somewhere on the other side of the planet, in the form of a pre-season friendly, has also been mooted in recent years.

    Russell’s Spidey senses are tingling. “It’s about making it the biggest rivalry in world football,” he says.

    “How do we ensure that without the negativity that maybe came to the surface last term?

    “Could we take it to the States or abroad? Again, we would look at things. However, it would have to be right for the fans.

    “They come first in terms of moving forward. There’s a lot of history here. The brand can’t be tarnished. We can’t move too far too quickly but we have to be open-minded.”
49. 
    

    “Russell’s Spidey senses are tingling.”

    😛
50. 
    

    There’s more than a good argument for video evidence in football. Just look at cricket or tennis. The introduction there has added to the drama, while doing little to slow the games down. Admittedly these are stop start games, but the limited number of appeals to video replay a team or player has would do little to make football a less flowing game. The obvious comparison sport is rugby, where there is a video can only be used for checking tries (and sending off Scotsmen). The system is still open to abuse, but referees have to be clever or blatant about how they favour sides now. Sticking to blatantly biased penalty decisions or framing the questions to the TMO in a certain way. A questionable try against England will yield the question “Is there any reason I can’t award this try”? The same try against Scotland will yield the question “Was the pass to the fullback forward?” As a result the TMO can’t volunteer any info about any other infringement, no matter how blatant.
    In football we should learn these lessons. Limit the number of video appeals a team has for appealing against cards and penalties, but all goals should be automatically reviewed for any infringement from the moment the scoring team took possession or 30 seconds before the goal.
    Of course there would be problems. Can you use the 12 Sky cameras at wherever Celtic are visiting every second week versus the camcorder the BBC have to sent to cover any other less glamourous match? Well clear rules could be agreed for that. The real block would be FIFA. Referees fall under their aegis and therefore the powers that receive brown envelopes want to protect them and prevent anyone looking too close at anything that isn’t scrupulously fair.
51. 
    

    futbol says:
    March 24, 2014 at 4:06 pm

    1

    1

    Rate This

    Exiled Celt says:
    March 24, 2014 at 3:29 pm

    We can all complain about refs – but there is something we can also do to help………….

    Anyone else tired of seeing players roll around clutching their faces when the sleeve of their opponent brushed their shoulder?

    Anyone else tired of seeing players roll around clutching their ankles/knees when the laces of their opponents brushed their shinpad?

    This sort of behaviour is probably the primary reason I rarely watch football any more. It’s an embarrassment to themselves, their team, the sport, human species and evolution.

    __________________________________________

    I do remember in the League cup final Ritchie Foran’s desperate effort to latch his head onto a cross but being clearly restrained and impeded by Considine to the extent that he was unable to direct the ball into the back of the net for a stick on goal.

    The referee failed to award the penalty that impartial observers universally accepted was due with the benefit of a replay…. But fair play the Ritchi for his honesty in staying on his feet.

    Imention this because a couple of days later on Sportsound I think it was Billy Dodds ( I may be mistaken) that was decrying Ritchie’s ‘lack of professionalism’ in failing to go to ground, and thereby failing to assist the referee in reaching the correct decision in regards to the obvious foul, and costing his team the league cup.

    Honest endeavour being equated to a lack of professionalism within the MSM by a former professional sportsman. So there you go. 🙄 So long as we know!
52. 
    

    Looks like the Brora Rangers issue could still yet bring up questions about the rules being applied without fear or favour.
    ‘Insiders’ taking about licences being revoked for taking footballing matters to court

    http://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/sport/football/highland-league/brora-rangers-to-take-legal-action-after-highland-league-cup-expulsion-1.283967

    Of course it can be argued that there is no parallel with matters down Govan way being who exactly took the SFA to court and what membership did they have at the time 🙂

    Anyway it looks like young Liam Watt’s papers may have been sitting unprocessed in an In or Out tray somewhere from before the start of the season.
53. 
    

    Not often I hear voices of fans from outside the central belt. Some Dundee United supporters on ticketing, venues and the SFA:

    http://www.thecourier.co.uk/sport/football/dundee-united/video-dundee-united-supporters-blast-sfa-as-they-snap-up-scottish-cup-semi-final-tickets-1.284645
54. 
    

    I hear on the radio that Aberdeen are getting 20000 tickets for the semi final, and St Johnstone are getting 5000.

    The allocation proportions are one thing, the prospect of a half-empty stadium in Glasgow another – when one of the Edinburgh grounds could have been packed to the rafters with a bit of atmosphere.

    Will the SFA ever admit that they’ve made a complete hash of the semi-final venues?
55. 
    

    No wonder Ali Russell was made redundant – he’s obviously madder than a box of frogs! (or Charles Green for that matter).
56. 
    

    I see the Arabs tickets have went on sale to season ticket holders today with a general sale from Friday,if they sell out by close of business on the 1/4/14 they will get a further allocation,I am looking forward to going to this game [as a neutral] and will apply on Friday,will be good value for £15
57. 
    

    Angus1983 says:
    March 24, 2014 at 6:33 pm

    Will the SFA ever admit that they’ve made a complete hash of the semi-final venues?
    ==================================
    There is more chance of you scoring the winner for Aberdeen in the semi-final than there is of the SFA admitting they’ve made a hash of the venues.
58. 
    

    Just listening to SSB and Hugh Keevins is on about cup final allocations.

    He actually spoke bait of sense for a change until he said that Ross County couldn’t sell anywhere near 10k tickets if they got to a final.
    He then said Dundee United maximum would be 20k.
    He obviously has forgotten about the 2010 cup final between the teams which pulled in a crowd of 47K.
    I was screaming at the radio!
59. 
    

    Angus1983 says:
    March 24, 2014 at 6:33 pm
    11 0 Rate This

    I hear on the radio that Aberdeen are getting 20000 tickets for the semi final, and St Johnstone are getting 5000.

    The allocation proportions are one thing, the prospect of a half-empty stadium in Glasgow another – when one of the Edinburgh grounds could have been packed to the rafters with a bit of atmosphere.

    Will the SFA ever admit that they’ve made a complete hash of the semi-final venues?
    —————
    I very much doubt that we will sell anywhere near 20k
60. 
    

    wottpi says:
    March 24, 2014 at 5:10 pm
    7 0 Rate This
    ————–

    So we may yet see these headlines after all?

    “Rangers expelled from Cup for fielding incorrectly registered player”

    and

    “Rangers lose football license for legal challenge to football authorities.”

    They wouldn’t, would they?
61. 
    

    With respect to the use of video evidence during games to confirm decisions, in my view this is long overdue.
    NHL Ice Hockey uses these and they are usually very effective, and as a result the number of contentious decisions is greatly reduced compared to Scottish Football.
    NHL Ice Hockey is a very fast game and no-one complains about it slowing the game down, and most fans welcome the clarity and transparency they offer. the referees like it too, as it shows that very often they made the correct decision for the correct reasons.
    In addition the referees are miked and explain the decisions on the ice to the crowd following these reviews.
    In my opinion, for Premiership SPFL Games and senior level cup games there is no reason, technically or cost wise, why this should not be applied.
    I do not believe that the SFA would be willing to expose themselves to the light in this way though. Describe it as incompetence, bias, mistakes or whatever you like but for some reason the SFA seem very comfortable with the refereeing and the resultant lack of trust and fall-out from the often outrageous decisions made.
    Re the comments about Leigh Griffiths and Celtic, it can’t be a Celtic thing as he scored a peach of a goal last year for Hibs against Hearts that all three officials at first said definately wasn’t a goal, and then changed their minds and claimed they hadn’t seen the event! Everyone and their dog could see the ball was a yard over the line except seemingly the three men who’s job it was to notice just such events. Video review would have cleared that up within 30 seconds, the game would not have been delayed and natural justice would have been served.
62. 
    

    Resin_lab_dog says:
    March 24, 2014 at 4:53 pm
    ‘… I think it was Billy Dodds ( I may be mistaken) that was decrying Ritchie’s ‘lack of professionalism’ in failing to go to ground..’
    ——–
    Correct. And it’s not the first time Dodd’s has expressed the view that a striker’s duty is to win a penalty if there is the slightest contact made by a defender in the box-especially if the striker feels he might not score.
    I think his observation the other night was met with the kind of semi-embarrassed , move- on- quick response from the others that ‘tales out of school’ are usually met with.
    Dodds did not do himself , or our game,any good by expressing that philosophy in an almost challenging way, defying people to deny players the right to dive in the penalty box.
    I suggest that the audio clip be played at the next training meeting /refresher course for referees, so that some attempt can be made to nail players who adopt the same philosophy.
    The influence ‘radio Dodds’ may have on younger folk is literally incalculable-but it’s probably not for the good.And maybe the Sportsound editor/producer should lay down some ground rules about not encouraging cheating. (Doh! it’s BBC Radio Scotland, what am I saying? 👿 )
63. 
    

    sickofitall says:
    March 24, 2014 at 4:37 pm
    ‘…..“It’s about looking at the real estate here.’
    ————–
    That’s an amusing read,sickofitall. Thanks for posting it (in case Keef doesn’t thank you himself!).
    And Ali sure was right about the real estate, but perhaps for reasons that were far from his mind!
64. 
    

    Brora Rangers must press home the message to the SFA, all clubs are (should be) equal when it comes to Football Laws.
    When The SFA bent over for new Rangers after they took them to Court and won, The SFA should’ve kicked their butt clean out the door, when their bottled crashed when McCoist held a sheet of paper with players and other betting football peoples names on in Blacks defence for betting against his team while playing!When our football leaders let them off the hook for actually fielding incorrectly registered players, when those holding office, including the President who technically may still owe BDO Liquidators of RFC £95k said nothing while New Rangers signed players throughout their signing embargo.
    All these one off allowances should be treated as precedence, Brora Rangers take this SFA shamble all the way, start a fighting fund anything just don’t bottle it!

    Scottish Fitba Needs Strong ‘Diddy Teams’
65. 
    

    Bill1903 says:
    March 24, 2014 at 7:10 pm

    I very much doubt that we will sell anywhere near 20k
    ——

    I agree, Bill.

    But – unless the other 20K tickets (what’s the capacity of Ibrox? I’ve nae idea) are to be given as freebies to Bears to turn up and look after their neutral stadium – they’re looking at a maximum crowd of 25000.

    What in the name of dog is the point of that? A (more than) half-empty stadium just so the semi can be in Glasgow and Rangers can be bunged a few quid?

    The SFA have either made utter fools of themselves yet again, or they really are determined to get Rangers an extra few quid. In either case they probably sleep well at night, but I know I wouldn’t if I was them.
66. 
    

    {rtf1ansiansicpg1252
    {fonttbl}
    {colortbl;red255green255blue255;}
    }
67. 
    

    Aquinas says:
    March 24, 2014 at 9:08 pm

    3

    0

    Rate This

    Brora Rangers must press home the message to the SFA, all clubs are (should be) equal when it comes to Football Laws.
    When The SFA bent over for new Rangers after they took them to Court and won, The SFA should’ve kicked their butt clean out the door, when their bottled crashed when McCoist held a sheet of paper with players and other betting football peoples names on in Blacks defence for betting against his team while playing!When our football leaders let them off the hook for actually fielding incorrectly registered players, when those holding office, including the President who technically may still owe BDO Liquidators of RFC £95k said nothing while New Rangers signed players throughout their signing embargo.
    All these one off allowances should be treated as precedence, Brora Rangers take this SFA shamble all the way, start a fighting fund anything just don’t bottle it!

    Scottish Fitba Needs Strong ‘Diddy Teams’

    _____________________________________________

    I fully expect the SFA to throw th book at Brora in an attempt to assert the authority they lack as a result of their craven incompetence and blatant corruption in the handling of the RFC/TRFC shambles.
    I fully expect them not to bat an eyelid when so doing, and to rely on their :slamb: close associates in the media to spin the story in a manner that fits in with the narrative.

    They gave up any pretence of integrity a long long time ago. We are through the looking glass and the SFA are are in humpty dumpty mode, I suspect:

    "When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."
    "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
    "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master— that's all."

    (Alice through the Looking glass, Lewis Carroll).
68. 
    

    The bear on bear infighting with Easdale and Houston ,does anyone know what was said that Easdale felt the need to set his lawyers onto Houston,in tonight Evening Times Houston declares he is just a normal guy and its all about what is right and wrong,moraly and legaly,no kidding .
69. 
    

    Resin_lab_dog says:
    I fully expect the SFA to throw th book at Brora i….
    But Big peter is on the board now to keep them right 🙂
70. 
    

    upthehoops says:
    March 23, 2014 at 9:21 pm
    Interesting story breaking on another forum, Although the usual rules will need to apply as there is no hard evidence available other than the poster’s say so.
    ————————————————————————–
    Good spot UTH…..confirmed on Rangers website tonight….
    ” AFTER consultation with Celtic, Police Scotland and the SPFL the decision has been taken to play the forthcoming home and away SPFL Under 20s League matches against Celtic behind closed doors.
    This is primarily due to the high level of police presence dictated by Police Scotland and the resulting costs of such required policing.”

    Money does seem to be rather tight down ibrox way…

    …..and rather saddening that a U20 fixture would need a hearty police presence.
71. 
    

    parttimearab says:
    March 24, 2014 at 9:57 pm

    1

    0

    Rate This

    upthehoops says:
    March 23, 2014 at 9:21 pm
    Interesting story breaking on another forum, Although the usual rules will need to apply as there is no hard evidence available other than the poster’s say so.
    ————————————————————————–
    Good spot UTH…..confirmed on Rangers website tonight….
    ” AFTER consultation with Celtic, Police Scotland and the SPFL the decision has been taken to play the forthcoming home and away SPFL Under 20s League matches against Celtic behind closed doors.
    This is primarily due to the high level of police presence dictated by Police Scotland and the resulting costs of such required policing.”

    Money does seem to be rather tight down ibrox way…

    _____________________________________

    That statement is actually remarkably transparent!

    ‘We can’t afford to police the under 20s ‘old firm’ clash!… (and Hector says Naw tae a wee sub!)

    … obviously … this will be because they are saving it up to pay Kris Boyd’s wages, right? They just forgot to mention that bit.
72. 
    

    parttimearab: the statement indicates that both “Home and Away games” will be closed door. Not actually down to finances at Ibrox, therefore.

    However, it is surely utterly depressing that a couple of U-20’s games can’t be played in front of a crowd as the fans can’t be trusted to behave themselves. After the destruction of seating and firing off of flares and rockets at Firhill last year during the Glasgow Cup final, I’m guessing that it too might end up being played out in a an empty Excelsior or Broadwood stadium. Can’t these muppets see what they are doing to the game and their own clubs?
73. 
    

    Brora have just issued a statement on their website backing down despite their statement earlier this evening to the Evening Express that they were going to go to court to have the SHFL held to account if they weren’t reinstated .
    I’d guess their interpretations of the SHFL rules looked decidedly dodgy after another read.
74. 
    

    Resin L D.
    Yes, I agree, SFA will up all gears to smite lowly Rangers of the Brora, that is the moment they should stand forward and say, no, here is are your previous actions, we should be treated in the same fashion, M’Lud! SFA are wide open for a boot in the hawmaws, mon Brora!!
75. 
    

    Highland L F,
    If you’re correct on B Rangers reconsideration that’s unfortunate, but they must have rattled The SFA, It’s a matter of time until a club has them for toast, honesty is always, always the best policy no matter how hard that is at the time.

    It’s not about New Rangers anymore, it’s our football guardians, The SFA, The president of who lied and owes cash to a Rangers, it’s a matter of time until The SFA get fully exposed or even sued? If your club had information (as supplied by The Majestic Auldheid) that the SFA prevented your team a run in European Competition they should take them for every penny they can, because it’s your teams money and The SFA gave it to Rangers because they wanted to save them and feck everyone else.
    Time will tell!

Comments are closed.