Tell me all your sweet, sweet little lies
All about the dark places you hide
Tell me all your problems, make them mine
Tell me all your sweet, sweet little lies
The stridency of Scottish journalist/pundits, particularly coming from those on the BBC Sportsound platform from where they cry out for an investigation into what took place behind the scenes before and after the SPFL put forward a resolution to SPFL clubs, subsequently accepted by the majority, that allowed SPFL to pay out needed prize money to sides below the Premier level is, to quote an old saying, “the talk of the steamie”.
Whilst those cries are ostensibly in support of a demand led by The Rangers FC for a need to change the governance at the SPFL, it is not clear if they mean the way the SPFL conduct business or the way individuals inside the SPFL go about the conduct of that business.
During on-air interviews, questions are being put to clubs about the degree of confidence they have in individuals rather than the processes, systems and structures. This suggests it is individuals who are being placed under scrutiny, and not the dysfunctional processes and structures themselves. A pity, since there is little doubt the governance is dysfunctional.
SFM has long been asking questions about the system and processes of governance and in fact tried to elicit the help of a number of journalists (in 2014) after information which had not been made available to the then SPFL lawyers Harper MacLeod during or after the LNS inquiry had surfaced.
Information that had it been made available would have changed the charges of Old Rangers’ mis-registration of players contracts, and to the more recent and unresolved matter of their failing to act in good faith to fellow club members (which the SFA Compliance Officer made in June 2018 in respect of non-compliance with UEFA FFP regulations relating to tax overdue in 2011).
Following the last Celtic AGM a detailed independent investigation by an accountant was provided to Celtic who passed it to the SFA where the matter has been overtaken by world events but not forgotten. That report can be read here.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1NeNzADsUAXkcFQ6QtehK5QqNsFa6he8V
It only adds to the mountain of evidence on https://www.res12.uk that suggests the need for reform of both governance bodies, their structures, systems and process.
Instead the media have given us a narrow head hunt to remove individuals for reasons that can only be guessed. This from individuals in the media whose motivations are as questionable now as they were in 2014, when they and their organisations ignored stronger evidence of greater wrong doing than has so far been presented by those currently advocating change.
The current media clamour for heads on a plate carries with it more than a whiff of hypocrisy.
During week commencing 22 September 2014, some volunteer SFM readers posted a bundle of documents that had surfaced to a number of journalists. SFM had previously sent these documents to Harper MacLeod, the then SPL lawyers. These were important documents pertinent to Lord Nimmo Smith’s inquiry into Rangers use of EBTs, documents which had not been made available to Harper MacLeod by Rangers Administrators Duff and Phelps despite being requested in March 2012 as part of the commissioning of LNS.
Earlier SFM blogs provide the details of communications with Harper MacLeod and can be read from the same link(s) provided to 12 Scottish media journalists in the draft below.
Some of the addresses may have received more than one copy but apart from one for whom only an e mail address was known, they should have received at least one hard copy of what Harper MacLeod/SPFL had been provided with which the latter passed to the SFA Compliance Officer in September 2014 according to their last reply to SFM. It is unlikely none were received by the organisations they were addressed to.
The draft to the journalist which the volunteers were at liberty to amend said:
I am a reader of The Scottish Football Monitor web site and attach for your information a set of documents that Duff and Phelps, acting as Rangers Administrators in April 2012, failed to provide to the then Scottish Premier League solicitors Harper MacLeod, who were charged with gathering evidence to investigate the matter of incorrect player registrations from July 1998 involving concealed side letters and employee benefit trusts by Rangers FC as defined in the eventual Lord Nimmo Smith Commission.
The failure to supply the requested information in the form of the attached documents as clearly instructed resulted in incorrect terms of reference being drawn up by Harper Macleod and a consequent serious error of judgement by Lords Nimmo Smith in his Decision as regards sporting advantage.
The information in the attached was provided to Harper MacLeod and the SPL Board in Feb 2014 and it was pointed out in subsequent correspondence that SFA President Campbell Ogilvie had failed to make a distinction in his testimony to Lord Nimmo Smith between the already confirmed as irregular Discount Option Scheme EBTs paid to Craig Moore, Tor Andre Flo and Ronald De Boer from 1999 to 2002/03 under Rangers Employee Benefit Trust (REBT) and the later loan EBTsfrom 2002/03 onwards under the Murray Group Management Remuneration Trust (MGMRT), having initiated the first DOS EBT to Craig Moore (as shown in the attached) and being a beneficiary of a MGMRT EBT as widely reported in national press in March 2012 at the time investigations commenced.
The complete narrative was set out in a series of blogs on The Scottish Football Monitor Web Site that are accessible from
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6uWzxhblAt9dnVHSl9OU3RoWm8/view?usp=sharing
(Edit: The links to the original SFM blogs were listed but some have been lost but original sources have been uploaded to Google Drive accessible from the above link)
However in spite of the correspondence sent to Harper MacLeod, there has been no response from them or the SPFL, save their answer to the original letter. (Edit: There was subsequent correspondence with Harper Macleod after the package and this letter was sent to the journalists which can be read from the above index to the original blogs.)
These points suggests that the SPFL, Harper MacLeod and Lord Nimmo Smith were misled by Duff and Phelps failure to supply the attached documents as instructed as well as Campbell Ogilvie’s failure to correct Lord Nimmo Smiths decision to treat all EBTs as “regular” when the DOS EBTs are not, as the attached evidence clearly demonstrates.
You are one of a number of journalists to whom this letter and attachments is addressed either electronically or hard copy. We are hoping that some journalists will prove themselves worthy of the challenge and investigate the story, even if only to refute it and stop suspicion of a cover up.
A copy of this letter and responses from addressees (or failures) will be published on The Scottish Football Monitor web site for the Scottish football supporting public to note. The e mail address for your reply is press@sfm.scot and we hope that you will investigate what appears to have been the corruption of the very process set up to establish the truth or you will explain why you cannot.
Yours in Sport
Note: The letter above was drafted and distributed with the documentation before a reply from Harper MacLeod was received, but as the reply did not address the issue of the nature of the irregular DOS EBTs, the request to journalists to investigate was even more valid.
The following were the journalists to whom documentation was posted/delivered.
Mr Richard Gordon
Mr Richard Wilson
Mr Tom English all at the BBC.
Mr Grant Russell
Mr Peter A Smith. At STV
Mr Andrew Rennie Daily Record Sports Editor
Mr Paul Hutcheon
Mr Graham Speirs
Mr Gerry Braiden at The Herald
Mr Mathew Lindsay Evening Times (belatedly)
Mr Gerry McCulloch Radio Clyde
Ms Jane Hamilton Freelance ex-Sun Sunday Mail (by e mail)
Only three individuals showed an interest but it is inconceivable to think that the media outlets they worked for were ignorant of the information provided or that the Scottish media sports departments are unaware of the narrative and its implications which were subsequently picked up by The Offshore Game but drew no refuting comments with the exception of Tom English.
He opined that the TOG report was ‘flawed’ although he did not specify how he came to that conclusion.
Darren Cooney of the Daily Record did take an interest in November 2015 when he met an SFM representative, who explained the case then sent him a summary to give to his editor but The Daily Record did not publish the story nor give any reason why they didn’t.
Grant Russell was with STV at the time and a meeting with him was arranged with a fellow SFM contributor but he failed to show up.
He subsequently did show an interest when The Court of Session ruled the Big Tax Case unlawful in July 2017, when he was provided with the a note of the consequences for the LNS Commission. However Grant moved jobs to join Motherwell in late October 2017.
Why bring all this his up now?
Because currently, the existence of texts and e-mails and unsubstantiated claims of skullduggery appear to have energised a media (and BBC Sports Department in particular) that had ‘no appetite’ to investigate actual evidence presented to them in 2014. There seems to be little doubt that an agenda is being followed, but as the preceeding paragraphs demonstrate, it casts doubt that their motivation is reform of the governance of Scottish football, and raises a suspicion that replacement of individuals (whose steerage of the good ship Scottish Football into the RFC iceberg was deemed adequate a decade ago) is what is important. A meaningless powerplay. No more no less.
One may jump to the conclusion that the foregoing is a defence of the individuals at the centre of this controversy, and that it defends the SPFL position in respect of the requisitioners review of governance. That would be the wrong conclusion. The point is that a wide-ranging review of the SFA/SPFL governance is way overdue.
The time window covered by any review should the very least cover the tenure of those accused of malfeasance and mis-governance. The media, and the requisitioners are cherry-picking their poor governance. That is poor governance in itself.
Cluster One 12th June 2020 at 11:21
John Clark 12th June 2020 at 14:02
=============================
Not a lot to report for 676.7 man hours of effort, at an average of £474.17 an hour, over the previous six months. Although I guess it must take a few hours to calculate how much money you can claim from the creditors pot.
Stevie BC
I've watched a bit of German League. Not too bad once you get used to it – but the players' disgusting spitting habits (prevalent in the modern game but even more abhorrent in the current Covid19 climate) are still all too evident.
Surely someone in (a health) authority could have a word.
Please excuse my 'bee in my bonnet' moment.
easyJambo 12th June 2020 at 18:22
————————–
I can't remember if there is still some ongoing litigation that BDO have to prosecute or defend EJ. Surely it must be close to polishing the brass handles and getting the nails ready?
gunnerb 12th June 2020 at 20:06
I can't remember if there is still some ongoing litigation that BDO have to prosecute or defend EJ. Surely it must be close to polishing the brass handles and getting the nails ready?
=================================
They still have a live case against the Administrators re their (in)competence (case no. P115/17).
I believe that all the claims against the Oldco have been settled (barring one that wasn't brought, i.e. Res 12)
easyJambo 12th June 2020 at 21:59
'..They still have a live case against the Administrators re their (in)competence (case no. P115/17). '
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Yes, that's one case I'd like to see argued out.
D&P survived the inquiry into potential 'conflict of interest' (and I would like to see the guts of that 'inquiry' and how the decision was arrived at).
The question of whether D&P handled the Administration competently is even more open to question, in my opinion.
I suspect that the major creditors were spitting blood at seeing assets sold for a fraction of their previously stated value to a chap whose offer was risible.
I was spitting blood vicariously ,on their behalf!!!
View from a small club .
https://ptfc.co.uk/ptfc-news/board-update-13th-june-2020/
paddy malarkey 13th June 2020 at 13:00.
'.View from a small club '
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
From the Thistle link you posted, pm, I abstract this:
".If this vote collapses because people cannot set aside self-interest and ego, our game potentially faces irreparable damage and ongoing division for many years to come.
“At a time unparalleled in footballing history, countries throughout Europe have re-jigged their league set ups to protect the whole – we have the opportunity to do the same."
And I totally endorse the sentiment.
I have wrestled with the question of whether re-configuration of Leagues in reaction to the immeasurably damaging consequences of an utterly unlooked for pandemic (which has affected every country in the world and every aspect of society) could in any sense be described as interfering with 'sporting integrity.
I'm satisfied in my own mind that it could not be so described, but on the contrary, could be said to be the right thing to do in terms of any understanding of sporting integrity and solidarity in times of great stress.
I think that Partick Thistle have been the most unfairly treated of all Scottish clubs in the attempt to find a solution to the current crisis.
I also feel that they have shown dignity and decency in everything that they have said about it , in marked contrast to some others.
For these reasons alone I would support a solution which would do them no harm.
This from a supporter of one of Glasgow’s alleged ‘ two cheeks’ who recognises that Thistle represents the useful organ that is located between them.
( sorry Paddy I always wanted to get that one in!)
The "negative goodwill" in the accounts is a decent idea of how much the assets were undersold for.
That and the fact that they were sold to an entirely different company than the administrator had an irrevocable deal with is enough to pretty much prove that the administration was not dealt with properly.
Going back to basics, once the CVA was rejected the only consideration for the administrators should have had was the best interests of the creditors. It clearly wasn't.
Aurellio Zen 13th June 2020 at 13:50
You calling us wee ducks , pal ? Yer bus is going in the canal for a wash !
Homunculus 13th June 2020 at 17:56
Going back to basics, once the CVA was rejected the only consideration for the administrators should have had was the best interests of the creditors. It clearly wasn’t.
…………………….
Duff and Phelps are being investigated by the Insolvency Practitioners Association (IPA) over an alleged conflict of interest, which they deny.
Duff and Phelps released a statement claiming they had been a complete success. Paul Clark said Our primary function was to keep the business going and effect a sale of the club in order that it could continue, while maximizing the return for the creditors.
These objectives were achieved. It will now fall to the liquidators to realise any further potential funds that may go to creditors.
https://twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1271929341463715840/photo/1
……
It clearly wasn’t.
Homunculus 13th June 2020 at 17:56
'…once the CVA was rejected the only consideration for the administrators should have had was the best interests of the creditors…'
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
The burning question in my mind, Homunculus, is this:
At what point in time did the CEOs of the SFA, the SPL and the SFL tell the Administrators that their decision to grant exclusivity to CG in the event that they (D&P) failed (as they signally did!) to achieve a CVA was not important, because even though RFC plc would then enter 'Liquidation', CG's SevcoScotland would be successful when they applied ( whatever name they called themselves) for membership of the SPL?
It seems to me that right from the off there must have been some kind of dirty understanding that that would be the case.
In the event, of course, the smart guys assumed too much. The SPL to their credit booted out the idea that a new club could be admitted to their league, and the membership of the SFL honourably refused to accept the new club into either the Championship or the next lower division.
Who knows what promises may have been made to whomever in order to get CGs new club into the bottom tier?
And all the time the SMSM , squealing now for financial aid as being essential to democracy, refused to ask questions, as they swallowed their bits of succulent lamb and drank the poisoned wine of Circe.
It gars me greet, that Truth should be so trampled upon!
John Clark 13th June 2020 at 23:32
Who knows what promises may have been made to whomever in order to get CGs new club into the bottom tier?
………………
There was an improved offer to get Charles Green’s Sevco Scotland Ltd directly into the SFL at First Division level.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9390002/Rangers-in-crisis-SPL-set-to-improve-offer-to-SFL-in-last-gasp-attempt-to-get-Rangers-newco-into-First-Division.html
……
Joint statement issued on behalf of the Scottish FA, Scottish Premier League and Scottish Football League.
The Scottish FA, the Scottish Premier League and the Scottish Football League have, for the past two years, been involved in a series of discussions at Board level with the objective of securing radical and co-ordinated reconstruction of the game in this country.
Today, we are asking clubs to consider a package of reforms which have the potential to rejuvenate Scottish football at senior level and safeguard its future at a time when uncertainty and fear prevail.
The proposals are based on five principles previously outlined by the Scottish FA as key to streamlining governance, ensuring greater financial distribution and above all, providing better entertainment, enhanced competition and value for money for supporters.
Upon agreement by the respective Boards, the proposals will placed before the SPL and SFL clubs for approval, to be activated immediately and phased in over a two-year period.
A working party will be formed, including three representatives from both the SPL and SFL, to devise a new structure for the senior professional game in Scotland. This group will have an independent Chairman appointed by the Scottish FA. They will be tasked with delivering by 30th November, 2012, a recommendation for structural change effective 2013/14. This will incorporate primarily:-
a) The introduction of an enlarged top tier for Scottish Senior Professional Football.
b) A new detailed model for senior professional football in Scotland including number of divisions; number of clubs per division; number of matches per season per division; number of promotion and relegation places per division and the introduction and operation of play-offs.
c) An all-through distribution model providing certainty for all clubs as to the percentage of distributable income which will be received. As a minimum, clubs in the current third and fourth divisions will receive the settlement agreement proportion guaranteed as per the current arrangement. In addition, the value and number of parachute payments to relegated clubs will be considered.
d) The introduction of a pyramid for Scottish football to provide a route for licensed clubs to enter the new structure effective 2014/2015
In the event that a final decision is not reached by 30th November, 2012, the Scottish FA will seek to implement a new structure in time for the 2013/2014 season. The members of the working party, including Chairman, will be announced in the near future and will ensure consultation with all stakeholders prior to final recommendations being made.
11 Jul 2012
………..
David Longmuir did get a nice Bonus i believe.
John Clark 13th June 2020 at 23:32
Homunculus 13th June 2020 at 17:56 ‘
The burning question in my mind, Homunculus, is this: At what point in time did the CEOs of the SFA, the SPL and the SFL tell the Administrators that their decision to grant exclusivity to CG in the event that they (D&P) failed (as they signally did!) to achieve a CVA was not important, because even though RFC plc would then enter ‘Liquidation’, CG’s SevcoScotland would be successful when they applied ( whatever name they called themselves) for membership of the SPL?
=================================================
I’m not sure there was a tacet agreement John…….At least not with Charlie Chuckles,(representing Sevco 5088). However it was a problem for D&P.
I recall (from one of the tapes I think), that was why there was the demand from D&P for a two pronged offer. i.e. A purchase price for “The Club”, if a CVA was achieved, (which was actually a loan), and also the lower valued purchase price, should “The Club”, not be rescued, and only the basket of assets were available.
D&P were fearful that Charlie, (representing Sevco 5088), would walk away if, “The Club” couldn’t be saved, and they at the time, were under serious time constraints to get at least some kind of result.
As events turned out “The Club”, wasn’t saved, and in an eight minute meeting 140 years of history was washed down the drain, meaning the offer for the assets alone became the accepted deal.
I think that is where the switcheroo happened, as wee Craigy’s shares were not required for the asset purchase alone, so the purchase was concluded with Charlie, representing Sevco Scotland.
(As it's quiet-ish.)
John Clark 13th June 2020 at 23:32
…
And all the time the SMSM , squealing now for financial aid as being essential to democracy, refused to ask questions, as they swallowed their bits of succulent lamb and drank the poisoned wine of Circe…
========
And I bet every game you watch JC, you call the ref a 'homer'?
Coincidentally, I'm reacquainting myself with this genre – whose meanings seem to be ever more relevant today.
Scottish senior football seems destined to forever operate in some level of chaos…
StevieBC 14th June 2020 at 13:05
'..And I bet every game you watch JC, you call the ref a 'homer'?'
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Ha,ha! At first reading, that went right over my head, StevieBC!
John Clark 13th June 2020 at 23:32
Cluster One 14th June 2020 at 07:41'.
'There was an improved offer to get Charles Green’s Sevco Scotland Ltd directly into the SFL at First Division level…..'
Corrupt official 14th June 2020 at 10:55
'. I’m not sure there was a tacet agreement John…'
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Yes, gentlemen.
Whenever it occurred, there was a specific point when the 'Administration' of Rangers FC plc ceased to be merely a football story and morphed into a much more important issue of potential criminality on a par with the potential criminality of the award of UEFA licence some years before: a story that was simply begging to be investigated by any half-arsed finance or sports journalist.
Instead, there was not only reluctance on the part of the Press to investigate , but insistent denial that RFC plc had ceased to exist in Scottish Football and mass propagandising of the lie that SevcoScotland/TRFC Ltd was not a new football club but the very same RFC plc that had somehow survived Administration.
Not even the Administrators dared to use the words 'football club' when referring to what CG had bought. No, they had to use 'assets and business', and even then could not say 'all' the assets, because they could not sell the contracts that a number of players had with RFC plc because they had not sold the club to CG, and it was the club that was liquidated, and liquidation automatically voided any contract that the football players had.
John Clark 14th June 2020 at 14:35
Whenever it occurred, there was a specific point when the ‘Administration’ of Rangers FC plc ceased to be merely a football story and morphed into a much more important issue of potential criminality on a par with the potential criminality of the award of UEFA licence some years before: a story that was simply begging to be investigated by any half-arsed finance or sports journalist.
…………….
Looking back on this day June 14, 2012 when the CVA was rejected, it was all about the loss of 140 years of history and a New club is born.
The strange thing is looking back you do get a lot of 404 error page failed to open type thing.
I wonder if there is any other major stories out there that have so many dead links
Cluster One 14th June 2020 at 20:56
'..The strange thing is looking back you do get a lot of 404 error page failed to open type thing.'
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
It has taken a few centuries for the evil bast.rds who made their money on the whip-lashed backs of manacled slaves to be unmasked as the pitiless sodding exploiters that they were.
While they were alive their rottenness was not publicly known, so they could bask in the admiration of others and be rewarded with 'honours' and have statues raised to them by those who benefited from their dirty money at the price of fawning all over them.
Those responsible for the big lie at the heart of Scottish Football, however, know as they live and go about their daily business and family life amongst us, that they are held in utter contempt now, and will not be at all honoured by many thousands of us when they shuffle off their mortal coils.
The slave exploiters at least enriched themselves!
What did our football governance people gain from the abandonment of the Sporting Integrity it was their duty to preserve and foster?
And, of course, what may be said about the SFA, the SPL, and the SFL in 2012 can be said in spades about the SMSM and the BBC in Scotland and the determination of the former to foster and promote the lie, of the latter to forbid any on-air discussion of it.
The print/online Press are, of course, mere tools of rich corporations /individuals which pursue only those 'truths' that might bring in the pennies and the advertising revenue.(That is a generalisation, of course)
But there was, and is, something very, very rotten indeed when the BBC yields to pressure and sells the pass, even in the relatively unimportant matter of honesty in sport and sports administration.
Truth is indivisible.
It is incontrovertibly true that RFC plc was liquidated. and on that account ceased to exist as a shareholder of the SPL and member of the SFA.
The denial of that Truth is clearly of lesser significance than a denial of the Truth about slave-labour being one of the means by which wealth was created sufficient to allow Britain to subdue, subjugate and exploit those countries and nations which eventually constituted the 'Empire'.
It is nonetheless a denial that the BBC ought never to have accepted.
Those in Pacific Quay responsible originally for that acceptance and those there today who sedulously ensure that no BBC sports journalist/pundit/football comedian/ guest is allowed even to mention the liquidation of RFC plc as having ended the existence of that football club are deserving of the deepest Circle of Dante's 'inferno'.
May they go there, chained together with those in office in the SFA, SPL and SFL in 2012 and those currently in office in the SFA and SPFL!
I see that not for the first time the SMSM are providing free advertising for Govan-based merchandise.
Seemingly there is new stauncher training kit which can be worn (after purchase at a reasonable price depending on where the Blue Pound is exchanging with the Euro or Bitcoin) when marching round your favourite statue of someone you had never heard of until 20 minutes, or 2012 minutes, ago.
Strangely, the official Club Twitter account has chosen to leak the new MASH-free gear with photographs of two tops bearing the initials of Steven Gerrard and James Traynor.
At first I thought they meant to show the tops of the Manager and the Captain but soon realised if they did the latter would have been JT (PEN).
We now wait to find out how long it will take before the newest Proud Retail Partner becomes more well known as Castore v T'Rangers; Case No: Nothemagain/2020.
LUGOSI 15th June 2020 at 09:10
I see that not for the first time the SMSM are providing free advertising for Govan-based merchandise.
…………………
Looking back at the new club starting life at ibrox, almost every puff piece had a free AD. I don’t know if Liquidation brought on short sightedness down ibrox way as the free AD’s got bigger and bigger with each puff piece.
Self interest prevails over common sense and shared responsibility, so Hearts is forced to take the only option now available to it. Who knows what the consequences could be and the impact on all other clubs.
https://www.heartsfc.co.uk/news/article/club-statement-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8
CLUB STATEMENT
15th June 2020
The SPFL Board has today announced that any reconstruction proposals for season 2020/21 will not proceed to a vote due to a lack of support from other member clubs.
To say we are disappointed, yet sadly not surprised, at this outcome is, of course, an understatement. We have, from the outset, worked tirelessly with fellow clubs and the SPFL Board to try to find a solution that would right the most obvious wrongs that have been caused in Scottish football by decisions taken as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Hearts, along with many others, have stated repeatedly that no club should be disproportionately disadvantaged because of this crisis. This was the final opportunity for kinship to prevail and for Scottish football to stand together in an emergency. It is an unfortunate condemnation of Scottish football that this was not possible.
We thank those who were open minded, pragmatic and willing to come together to try and reach a fair outcome for all. Sadly, there were too few of us.
Now that all other avenues are closed, we are left with no choice but to proceed with a legal challenge. The club has tried throughout these last few months to avoid this course of action but we must now do the right thing by our supporters, our employees, our players and our sponsors, all of whom have been unwavering in their commitment and support. We can hold our heads up high as we have acted at all times with integrity, common sense and with the best interests of Scottish football at heart.
We have stated from the beginning that the unjust and unfair treatment of Hearts, Partick Thistle, Stranraer and indeed other clubs cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. While many weeks have been wasted in trying to find a solution, we must now formally challenge this outcome.
The club can confirm that the necessary steps have been taken to begin this legal challenge. Given that this is now an active legal matter, the club will be offering no further comment at this time.
To our amazing fans we say that we cannot, and will not, sit idly by and watch the decisions made in the past few months further damage Heart of Midlothian Football Club. Thank you for fighting for us, now allow us to do the same for you.
Commiserations , Jambos .
I wonder if anybody is getting an introductory bonus ?
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/sfa-agree-deal-rangers-bankers-22192582
paddy malarkey 15th June 2020 at 14:20
I wonder if anybody is getting an introductory bonus ?
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/sfa-agree-deal-rangers-bankers-22192582
=======================================
Perhaps Hibs will be their first new customer.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/hibs-make-player-wage-request-22194899
Why would the SFA offer to underwrite a loan from Close Brothers?……..Who even asked them to?.
Surely if a club chooses to get a loan they subsequently can't repay, that is the club's problem?
Am I missing something here, or does it reek?
Corrupt official 15th June 2020 at 15:54
………..
Will fans of any club getting a loan that the SFA offer to underwrite said loan be told their club has asked for a loan that the SFA have offerd to underwrite, or will it all be done in secret?
Corrupt official 15th June 2020 at 15:54
'..Am I missing something here, or does it reek?'
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Anything that the SFA board says or does must initially be regarded as suspicious. Their number one priority will be to try to make sure that TRFC Ltd doesn't go belly-up.
TRFC is one of very few Scottish clubs to have a turnover greater than £45 million. That excludes them from access to the Government covid-19 loan scheme. Unlike the other clubs which are also ineligible, TRFC are already near enough skint and will be in desperate straits much sooner than the others-whose credit rating in the commercial loans market is high.
Close Bros already have charges on just about anything TRFC has left to pawn (other than the stadium itself!) and probably aren't all that keen to lend again to TRFC.
The directors of RIFC plc have probably reached the limits of lending from their own personal resources-they will most probably be watching their own business concerns with some degree of anxiety.
Where, then, are TRFC to find the ready wherewithal to keep in business for the first months of the season and beyond?
Perhaps from Close Bros after all, with the SFA underwriting the loan by pawning Hampden Park?
Now, that's possibly a bit fanciful.
But it's the way I now automatically think after the 5-Way Agreement and the arrogant refusal to have the Res 12 issue investigated.
The Governance body lied to us all before, and I believe they will lie again any time it suits.
Anybody seen Alfredo ? And there is usually an eight-page spread of training pictures by now .
Can I ask that anyone including links to pictures on the website refrains from doing so? We have just been served with a fairly threatening notice inviting us to settle a claim for the use of a picture (a daft picture of fans sweating at a match) which was posted by a (unnamed) contributor almost a year ago.
I have explained that the picture was never served by us and that the reference was a link to the resource on another publicly available site. Having had experience with people like this before on another site a few years back, I am not sure that this will make the threat of legal action go away.
This was the major reason we removed the 'upload images' facility, but it is straightforward to get around that by having some html skills.
Not looking to blame anyone, but there is a chance that this could end up costing us a few quid, so could I ask that those of you with html skills please not inject any html into their comments save a link to a web page – especially with regard to src tags.
Cluster One 15th June 2020 at 19:25
Corrupt official 15th June 2020 at 15:54 ………..
Will fans of any club getting a loan that the SFA offer to underwrite said loan be told their club has asked for a loan that the SFA have offerd to underwrite, or will it all be done in secret?
===============================================
Or perhaps already has been done, thus calling off the attack hounds from a club previously in default?.,,,,And I think you are probably correct in your latter suggestion C1 that it would be another sordid secret……..But what box would a club tick on a Euro application form?
Corrupt official
"But what box would a club tick on a Euro application form?"
The same boxes one had ticked all other previous applications, that has worked so far, has it not?
POR CIERTO 16th June 2020 at 08:24
Corrupt official "But what box would a club tick on a Euro application form?" The same boxes one had ticked all other previous applications, that has worked so far, has it not?
================================================
Indeed it has por cierto. And some would say fraudulently. would they not?
The HMFC statement would garner more support from me if some honesty was injected into it. The cries of "injustice" and the blaming other clubs for self interest has so much irony in it that it could prove to be magnetic.
It is only a few short weeks since Ann Budge was handed the chair of a group that was to look into a means of "righting the wrongs" caused by the pandemic. Her first action was to unilaterally state in a BBC interview that there was no way that she would allow the outcome to be a permanent change in the league structure. Other clubs showed surprise as they were believing that no conditions were to be placed on their discussions. There can have been no other reason for Ms Budge's imposition of a condition than self interest. She saw the situation as being that everyone else's vision of the review did not carry the weight that her's did. Not a good starting point for someone looking to keep their club in the top division.
Now she is proceeding with legal action that, because of the time constraints, will probably result in a fine for the SPFL if she wins. A fine that will ostensibly come out of the coffers of all other clubs. She, and the club's fans, may view this as a just outcome but where is the consistency? The fans will occupy a yet unfinished stand that has overrun its building costs by more than double and yet no cries from Budge for recompense from those responsible. Could this be because the project was awarded to someone with no experience of this size of undertaking and who had a further qualification that should have seen them dropped from consideration- they were a member of the Budge family.
So now Budge cries foul and accuses others of self interest but should we listen to someone who appears to be so immersed in the same quality.
Mickey Edwards 16th June 2020 at 09:26
While I agree there is concerns regards the overspend on the new stand at Tynecastle can we just stop the petty nonsense that it is somehow 'unfinished'.
The new stand was opened to fans in November 2017.
I took a coaching badge at Tynecastle in the summer 2018 and was in the European Lounge, all fully functioning at that time, two years ago.
Shop, ticket office, bar and the required nursery facility all fully open and functioning. So long I can't even remember when they were finished.
The changing rooms took a bit more time to complete as did the Skyline Lounge but come any restart of football they will have both been operational and fully functioning for over at least a year.
Tynecastle now has four stands of a uniform design, a full suite of hospitality and catering options, modern changing rooms, additional changing rooms for community use (coaching courses, kids half time heroes events, etc). An enclosed TV studio has been provided. The works on the new stand resulted in new office space and other facilities being provided under the Wheatfield Stand and making use of previous 'dead space'. The concourse goes around all four stand thus providing great access and views for disabled fans. There is a memorial garden and the club museum. Oh and of course a new hybrid pitch.
Given the current situation nobody else will come close to improving their facilities to the level seen at Tynecastle. Aberdeen are the only club I am aware of planning to do anything significant and they are reported to be mothballing their new stadium plans for the foreseeable future.
Yes the product down Gorgie has not been great on the pitch but the 'self interest' is there for all to see in what is a very decent football stadium that the club and fans can be proud off, regardless if there are a few snagging or behind the scenes areas to be completed.
Yes there are some questions to be asked re the finances surrounding the new stand and improvements but, even then, the Foundation of Hearts money continues to roll in. Hearts fans are generally happy with the end product in terms of the club's infrastructure.
If others want to take cheap shots regards what Tynecastle offers Scottish Football by way of a decent ground, then so be it.
Partick now joining Hearts in potential legal action v SPFL.
Both clubs seem to have access to adequate financial resources to move things forward, if they so choose.
Tuesday 16th June, 2020 at 1:59pm
Yesterday, we said that court action was our preferred route to challenging our relegation to League 1. It was only a lack of funding that stopped us. At that time, we reserved the right to change our position should circumstances change.
Last night, in response to our statement, we received a proposal to fully fund legal action should we wish to pursue it, at no cost to Thistle. After careful Board consideration, we have now accepted this extremely generous offer of unexpected help.
Today, following discussions with Hearts, we have agreed that we will launch a joint legal challenge to resolve what others have failed to do since April.
To those who think we should just move on and accept what’s been dished out to us, yesterday 26 clubs put themselves first. Today, we have now been given the opportunity to do the same.
Chairman Jacqui Low on behalf of the Board of Partick Thistle FC.
New podcast – again with David Low. David wearing his Celtic Trust hat in this one so podcast is a bit Celtic-centric.
However the issue discussed – season ticket refund problems – is a wider one.
wottpi@12:51
No cheap shots. The "unfinished" status of the stand was taken from Ann's BBC interview.
Even allowing for that at no point was I being negative about the new stand. I was trying to point out that Ms Budge was being very selective about what could "harm" Hearts.
COVID19 has left many disadvantaged in all walks of life. Like Hearts relegation there are workers who will not be kept in employment in a firm because their performance was not as good as others before the business was hit by effects of the pandemic.
Everyone can find some form of unfairness they will suffer at this time. Hibs will be some £200,000 worse off because of the points per game basis of the decision and they have accepted it. In fact,if they decided to use Heart's "we could have…" argument then who knows what position we could have ended in and how much have we lost because of it.
Had Hearts succeeded in saving themselves through getting a bigger league then the potential of many more "unfair" outcomes was possible. For instance, Celtic are going for 10 in a row next year. If they failed to do that by a couple of points and had lost points to a team that was not suppose to even be in that league what then?
COVID 19 is unfair to us all and we should just accept it. To try to change things would only create other problems that then would be man made and not a an act of nature.
Tom English’s take on recent events.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53062777
And so the battleground changes, from chairmen on Zoom to QCs in court, from indicative votes and extraordinary general meetings to the competition and markets authority and the SPFL articles of association. What joy. Isn’t this the type of crack that made you fall in love with football in the first place?
Skin and hair has flown between club leaders these past months but they can all step aside now and let the legal profession take it from here. The recent history of the game is littered with examples of indignant clubs threatening court over one thing or another only to back away when they got a whiff of the cost, but this time seems different. In their bid to right the wrong of relegation from the Premiership – or expulsion – Hearts would appear ready to go the distance.
One of three things will happen now. Hearts will change their mind and accept their lot after the SPFL’s proposal for an expanded top flight was rejected by clubs. Two, Hearts will lose a legal action and will have no choice but to retreat. Or, Hearts will win a legal action and a new kind of football hell will break loose. Success in court could mean the end of Neil Doncaster as chief executive of the SPFL for surely no leader would survive such a defeat. What it would mean for Hearts – compensation, reinstatement – is really hard to say. The silks are running the show now.
What we had on Monday was 26 of the 42 clubs who couldn’t bring themselves to back a plan that would have spared three of their own members no end of misery, a plan that every last one of them would have supported had they been the one cast into the dismal plight of enforced relegation.
Instead, they danced on the head of a pin for weeks, incapable of finding agreement on the number of clubs they wanted in each division or how many divisions or whether these divisions should be temporary or permanent. To paraphrase a line from Blackadder, in all of those discussions they made about as much progress as an asthmatic ant carrying some heavy shopping.
In Tuesday’s endgame they didn’t even get close to a consensus. All of them said they had sympathy for the three clubs but if they did they had a strange way of showing it. Few, if any, of them thought it was fair that the three should suffer such a blow, but only a small number acted on those beliefs. The rest just declared the problem unsolvable and pulled the ladder up.
Because Hearts are the biggest of the three clubs facing relegation, most of the attention has been on them. That suits the other clubs who have voted against reconstruction. They want the argument focusing on Hearts and not Partick Thistle or Stranraer because it’s easier to kick Hearts than it is Thistle, it’s more convenient to bang on about Ann Budge – a misogynistic tone to some of it – and to mock Hearts’ financial wastefulness and their awful decision-making than it is to confront the steepling injustice that is Thistle’s situation.
That’s a lot harder to face up to if you’re one of the clubs who has done them in. So nobody really wants to spend much time talking about Thistle because it’s uncomfortable. Maybe there’s a bit of guilt there. Better to divert and bombard Hearts instead. Safer ground, that.
But let’s look at Thistle. They are now a club in limbo, possibly starting their season in League One in January, but possibly not. Nobody knows. Nobody is giving them any information because there is no information to give. In terms of the restart, Leagues One and Two remain in no-man’s land.
Some are happy to be there. Others are not. And Thistle are one of the others. Because they’ve been relegated with nine games of a season left to play while sitting two points outside of the safety zone with a game in hand people, will be out of work.
Getting unceremoniously dumped from the Championship, which is scheduled to begin again in October, is bad enough but then to be told that the league they’ve been dumped into might not be starting for another six months at least is a kick too far.
If they haven’t already, they’ll be forced to shed jobs. That’s a direct consequence of not having games and not having income. How can anybody with a fair mind acknowledge that a grave injustice has been done and then vote in a way that does absolutely nothing to address that injustice?
The argument you hear is that nothing could be done, that all clubs couldn’t bend to satisfy the wishes of one or two or three others. The people who are running the game couldn’t find a better solution than this? What does that tell you about the people running the game?
Many of these same people are lying low. Ross County’s Roy MacGregor was one of the few who raised his head above the parapet over the weekend when saying that Hearts should “take their medicine” and desist from legal action. He presumably meant that Thistle should also take their medicine. Let him and others justify those comments to Partick Thistle, a club whose future will be in jeopardy if, and probably when, it’s confirmed that they can’t play league football until next year.
No club deserves this kind of treatment. Having won just two out of 13 league games before football was suspended MacGregor’s own club were in freefall. Even hopeless Hearts had more points than them in that period.
Had Ross County continued that trajectory and dropped to 12th and were then robbed of a chance to rescue themselves because of the pandemic would MacGregor be practising what he’s now preaching about taking his medicine or would he be highlighting a wrong and calling for support? It doesn’t matter who the afflicted clubs are, no properly functioning governing body – one that purports to act in the interests of 42 clubs – would stand over this decision.
What’s also heard in places is the bogus argument to end all bogus arguments, the one that has people saying that if their club was in the same boat as Hearts or Thistle or Stranraer then they wouldn’t be making such a song and dance about it. Donald Findlay, chairman of Cowdenbeath, is one of the people who have put this one forward.
All power to their magnanimity, but it’s somewhat less than convincing. Selfless acceptance of a clear and obvious and hugely damaging injustice is not a trait that you would have associated with football in this county – or any other country – so these views have come as a genuine revelation.
We’re asked to believe that people who scream the house down over a bad refereeing call would sigh and take their medicine when the very stability of their club was put in jeopardy. They wouldn’t be happy, you understand, but they wouldn’t be behaving like Budge with her legal action and her QCs and her vow to fight this to the last. They’d have more class.
They should save that stuff for the tourists. Court now beckons and with it comes the disapproving shaking of heads among clubs who have given Hearts no other option but to fight. “It’s a sad day when lawyers get involved,” said an official at one of those clubs who voted against reconstruction. If only his self-awareness matched his self-interest.
Don't remember Tom English,
ever writing such a lengthy article about ANY one
of the multitude of highly contentious issues and decisions taken in Scottish football back in 2012…
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/jun/16/partick-thistle-the-biggest-victims-of-scottish-footballs-vote-farce
Supporters of Partick Thistle are familiar with being patronised. Saturday afternoons in Maryhill are not a soft option. Following a Glasgow team for whom success is rare means regular pats on the head. It would be blissfully easy to swap Firhill for Celtic Park or Ibrox.
Thistle – the club and support – are now deserving of genuine sympathy. The cards dealt to them represent a sporting scandal. As the Scottish Professional Football League hurtled through an infamous vote aimed at abandoning season 2019-20, they were by far the biggest victims. The fact that debate over a now-aborted league reconstruction rumbled on for weeks prolonged the agony. Hearts have the resource to say they will see the SPFL in court; so, too, it has now been announced will Thistle after a benefactor offered to underwrite legal costs. “We have agreed that we will launch a joint legal challenge to resolve what others have failed to do since April,” said the Thistle chair, Jacqui Low.
Football fans who won’t recognise the gross unfairness of Thistle’s situation are not worthy of the label. Ian McCall’s team trailed the Championship’s second-bottom team, Queen of the South, by two points with a fixture in hand – they had nine to play – and have been bounced into League One under this new phenomenon of points per game.
The trouble is, with many clubs doubtful whether it is practical to play behind closed doors, the SPFL has no start date for Leagues One and Two. Hence Thistle, a business with last reported turnover of £3m and 83 employees, have seen their viable full-time operation shunted into cold storage by a league body supposedly built for members. In the midst of a pandemic, 0.04 of a point sealed their fate. No wonder the club admit to being “sickened”.
Thistle’s loyal following have cause to wonder why they should bother to subsidise fellow clubs with their gate money. Not so fans of Brechin City, a team who ‘finished’ bottom of the bottom tier but were miraculously spared a play-off against clubs from lower down the Scottish pyramid. A pyramid that has been fatally undermined. Pieced together, from a Dundee vote entering Scottish football’s version of the Bermuda Triangle to the announcement of an incomplete outcome and the burden shunted on to Hearts and Thistle, the national sport has been hauled into disrepute. And all, it must be emphasised, completely unnecessarily.
The general theme of pulling together in crisis did not register in what again seems such a petty, self-serving world. So much ill feeling has focused on Hearts, the biggest club caught in the middle of the SPFL’s manoeuvres but – and this is lost on many – the one best equipped to bounce back in a stronger position, regardless of legal outcomes. Thistle have no such confidence; instead a blank page sits where the business plan should be.
Hearts’ relegation to an abbreviated Championship when denied scope to avoid that ignominy on the field was wrong. Raging and subsequent debate as to whether a club of smaller standing would have been spared was handy for the SPFL executive. This shifted the narrative. That Ann Budge, the Hearts owner, was the one put forward to lead attempt after attempt at reconstruction was another useful diversion. Meanwhile the SPFL pays a chief executive, Neil Doncaster, £400,000 a year; more than every player at 40 of 42 member clubs.
Incredibly, the SPFL has allowed the theory to permeate that confirming Celtic’s ninth title in succession was uppermost in its thoughts. Consequences? They can wait. Social media is awash with Celtic supporters – who have The Hague on speed dial for refereeing controversies – pontificating about the validity of this SPFL outcome. The fear, one assumes, is that their latest championship – about which the wider resonance is questionable – could somehow be affected by the noise. If that tribalism is easy to comprehend, the general lack of criticism of the SPFL’s coronavirus approach is bewildering.
Had the league drawn breath, ensuring clubs were not meaningfully hurt by unfair relegations would have been at the forefront of its original resolution. But still, it is quite something to set out a plan that needlessly wounds the innocent and another entirely not to row back when alternative options are available. A 14-team top flight would have cost lower Premiership teams around 0.1% of commercial revenues and the bottom two in the Championship 0.005%. Instead, a structure so ineffective it cannot command a title sponsor is maintained, even before associated damage is considered.
Budge may have been naive in accepting the SPFL’s challenge of doing its executive’s work but some of the language fired towards her, including in a newspaper column that branded her as Hyacinth Bucket, has been vicious and misogynistic. Scottish football does not seem to much like a female self-made multimillionaire putting stake in the game, working without salary for six years and trying to highlight failing systems.
Roy MacGregor, the chairman of Ross County, has insisted Hearts must “take their medicine”. The trouble for MacGregor, and clubs throughout Scotland, is supporters of Hearts and Partick Thistle – the ones who have not lost faith entirely – will not forget. Neither should they. There will be no inclination to hand over cash at the turnstiles to clubs who inflicted harm. When Scottish football needs support, wilful punishment has been meted out. It should be possible to acknowledge this shameful situation and simultaneously point out Hearts and Thistle should have been nowhere near the nether regions of their respective leagues.
Some £300,000 a year has been wiped from a new television deal with Sky as the league compensates for missing 2019-20 fixtures. Similar claims from BT, the BBC and overseas-rights holders are in the mix. The Scottish FA’s chief executive, Ian Maxwell, countersigned a letter to Uefa which asserted a line should be drawn under 2019-20. Maxwell still insists the season’s Scottish Cup will finish; somewhere, sometime, somehow.
Hearts, one of the semi-finalists, have in the meantime been jettisoned into another division – which does not start until mid-October – and told they cannot begin training at the same time as Premiership opponents. If this whole affair was not so serious it would be downright hysterical. Nobody at Firhill is laughing either. If there is justice, that will change before too long.
Are Hearts and Thistle arguing a case for null and void? I think I read on here that the SPFL rules state that the league can be ended at any time by the board.If that is the case then Hearts and Thistle must be saying that even while accepting membership of the league and all of the rules that apply,league ending doesn't automatically mean relegation of the bottom clubs at the time the music stops.Logically then it would follow that teams finishing first second..fifth etc are not entitled to claim their places either, ergo null and void.I have a great deal of sympathy for the clubs who find themselves 'relegated' but as league expansion has been refused by the majority membership then I see no way other than voiding the season that they can remain in their respective leagues.This is going to get very messy.
StevieBC 16th June 2020 at 20:42
Don't remember Tom English,
ever writing such a lengthy article about ANY one
of the multitude of highly contentious issues and decisions taken in Scottish football back in 2012…
=====================================
Your post epitomises why I have become increasingly frustrated by the blog. Rather than debate the rights and wrongs of the article, it appears that everything that is discussed on the blog has to be viewed through the prism of RFC.
We have two SPFL clubs taking legal action against one of the sport's governing bodies. It's the latest incarnation of a body that poster after poster has been ripping into for years. You might have thought that those posters would be supportive of those clubs seeking to expose the failures of governance within the game.
But no, I've seen several posters seek to justify everything the the SPFL has done since the Good Friday Disagreement as all being fine and above board. It's as if they feel it necessary to criticise Hearts and other clubs' search for fairness. Is it because their success in having imposed relegations reversed, should it happen, would lead to calls that the award of titles should similarly be reversed?
Or is it just that many Celtic fans just don't like Hearts and, in the words of Ross County chairman Roy MacGregor, that Hearts should just take their medicine. (as dispensed by RC and other clubs with similar vested interests in voting as they did).
It's incredible that so many chairmen have come out over the last few days saying that they have sympathy for Hearts, Partick and Stranraer and think they were treated unfairly. However, some of those same chairmen actually voted for the imposition of that unfairness.
No matter the outcome of the legal case, Scottish football is broken and it will take a long time to recover from the recriminations that will certainly follow.
Time for another break from the blog, at least until the legal proceedings are concluded.
I think , if Hearts win their case , that there will be no league football until next year , and we will be picking up from where we left off this season . This season's Scottish Cup can be finished before Christmas and next season's started , and we can watch bcd EPL football to whet our appetites until then .
StevieBC 16th June 2020 at 20:42
".Don't remember Tom English ever writing such a lengthy article about ANY one of the multitude of highly contentious issues and decisions taken in Scottish football back in 2012…"
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
He never raised a journalistic voice to condemn the 5-Way Agreement , question the LNS 'no advantage' stupidity and Brysonism, or to dig into the RFC plc connections with SFA functions like awarding of UEFA licences when much the RES 12 digging had shown that there were serious questions to be asked, or even raise a question about the point-blank refusal of the SPFL,and Celtic's meek acquiescence in that refusal, to insist on getting the whole matter thoroughly investigated.
There were big stories in all of that for any real journalist.
English writes very prettily, but fails signally as a journalist when it comes to serious journalistic investigation and reporting ,lacking the ballsy gutsiness that real journalists possess.
In my opinion.
paddy malarkey 16th June 2020 at 22:13
I think , if Hearts win their case ….EDIT
———————————————–
What exactly is their case though PM? What will they present before the court other than 'it's no fair'. There will have to be some substance and if, as I mentioned earlier it is true that the rules state the SPFL board can end the season at any time they see fit (in this instance supported by a members vote) then what will Hearts/Thistle be looking for?
gunnerb 16th June 2020 at 22:29
'..What exactly is their case though '
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
I think they will petition the Court for a Judicial Review on the grounds that it was unreasonable in all the circumstances of the covid-19 pandemic for the SPFL to decide that the normal Rules regarding relegation on account of poor sporting performance should apply; and that invoking Article 163 of the Articles of Association
"163. The Company may by Qualified Resolution from time to time and upon such terms and conditions as it may think fit, expel or accept the retirement or resignation of any Club from the League" would also be unreasonable and unwarranted in the blameless circumstances of a pandemic, given that the consequences of being relegated /expelled for a member of the company that is the SPFL would be more, and disproportionately far more serious than the financial consequences for any and all the members if , for example, reconstruction of the Leagues was carried out.
It will be interesting to see what other grounds for challenge there might be.
gunnerb 16th June 2020 at 22:29
I think they may be pinning their hopes on this or similar .(Define completion).
C17 At the end of each Season (following completion of all League Matches in the Premiership in that Season) the Club in position 12 in the Premiership shall be relegated to play and be eligible to participate in the Championship for and during the next Season.
paddy malarkey 17th June 2020 at 00:00
I see your C17 and raise that awkward discretion catch all thingy . Rule C53.I think this defines completed.Made all the more concrete by the vote to end the season.
C53.1.2 it shall have been determined by the Board, in its sole discretion, that no further League Matches shall be scheduled for or played in by any Club entitled to participate in the Season 2019/2020 Premiership Division Competition and that both of the Season 2019/2020 Scottish Professional Football League and Premiership Division Competitions, are concluded, COMPLETED, determined and at an end
John Clark 16th June 2020 at 23:30
As for the articles JC , I dont think that will fly either. One of the purposes of the discretionary ruling C53 is to allow the board to manage as they see fit when presented with a crisis such as the pandemic and again they can point to the vote in support of their decision and no club is being expelled from the SPFL.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53065126
Could someone explain this to me please? It looks like one of those texts where the details required to understand it have been omitted.
Am I right in thinking that if turnover is lesss than £45M then the Govt. will 80% back a loan, but if turnover is greater than £45M then it's a straight loan from Close Bros.?
That would be 2 clubs max. applying for the latter, up to £5M. Why is this necessary at all?
Where is the underwriting from the SFA mentioned previously?
"reluctant", "merchant bank (x 2)", "respected lender", "SFA spokesperson"
This reads like a PR sleight of hand to me.
macfurgly 17th June 2020 at 00:49
This link here macfurgly.
"They can also talk to Close Brothers after the SFA agreed to underwrite a percentage of any loan not linked to the CBILS scheme".
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/sfa-agree-deal-rangers-bankers-22192582
easyJambo 16th June 2020 at 21:50
6
61
We have two SPFL clubs taking legal action against one of the sport's governing bodies. It's the latest incarnation of a body that poster after poster on SFM has been ripping into for years.
You might have thought that those posters would be supportive of those clubs seeking to expose the failures of governance within the game.
It's incredible that so many chairmen have come out over the last few days saying that they have sympathy for Hearts, Partick and Stranraer and think they were treated unfairly.
However, some of those same chairmen actually voted for the imposition of that unfairness.
No matter the outcome of the legal case,
Scottish football is broken
Agreed EJ and self interest will never fix it.
EJ@21:50 and Finloch@08:14
I cannot agree with your conflation of SFA/SPFL incompetence and the present situation. In fact EJ's "You might have thought that those posters would be supportive of those clubs seeking to expose the failures of governance within the game." is complete distortion of the situation.
The legal action is not being undertaken to prove failures of governance it is an attempt to overturn a democratic decision to deal with an unprecedented situation. Please do not try to paint a picture of white knights riding to save Scottish football when the reality is a cartoon of a minority figure looking to thwart a vote with the sole raison d'etre of self interest.
Self interest in business is no more than the legal requirement placed on directors to act in the best interests of their company. To see accusations of self interest being slung at other companies because they will not back a single business looking to act on its own self interest is farcical.
The simple fact is that the financial and the sporting facets of football have become so entwined that we are seeing threats to the integrity of the sport arising with ever increasing frequency.
This whole farce has become so serious not because a football team has been relegated but because of the financial implications to a company as a result.
I see this as nothing different to the various contentious issues we have been seeing for the past two decades where dubious decisions are being made on a financial basis that are in stark contrast to what should be expected of a sport.
As I tried to say yesterday, businesses are facing a difficult decision when the furlough schemes ends. Many will need to downsize as the pandemic created new normal will not support their original business model. Should the decisions on who to let go me made on the basis of who were the best workers before the lockdown or should they decide using the Hearts legal challenge reasons that the worst workers may have taken it upon themselves to suddenly improve. After all, the latter case "could happen".
Let's not make our fight to clean up our sport depend on whether we are prepared back a call to abandon our own club's business based self interest and back another club's business based self interest.
Mickey Edwards 17th June 2020 at 09:23
3 2
EJ@21:50 and Finloch@08:14
I cannot agree with your conflation of SFA/SPFL incompetence and the present situation.
………………………………
I don't need to answer for EJ who has consistently been one of the most valuable insighters on this blog.
I'm also not conflating or attempting to conflate anything.
I do believe that self interest has got us into this mess and it won't get us out.
For those quoting the SPFL Rules & Regs, please remember that these now have to be read & applied through the prism of the recently-added Rule C7A, on pages 31 & 32 of the linked PDF.
https://spfl.co.uk/admin/filemanager/files/shares/SPFL%20Rules%20and%20Regulations%201-Jun-20%20(MASTER%20COPY)%20CLEAN.pdf
Finloch@09:59
"I do believe that self interest has got us into this mess and it won't get us out"
I need clarity as to what "mess" you are referring to.
I cannot disagree if you are referring to a couple of decades of manipulation of the integrity of the sport in attempt to make more money. The creation of metaphysical entities, the manipulation of terms of reference in "independent" investigations. The wholesale barrage of lies to uphold a financial model that depends on two clubs playing each other. Contracts with TV companies that guarantee conditions that cannot be guaranteed. The awarding of UEFA licenses that break UEFA's own rules. These are all attempts to make money and not decided unilaterally. All clubs approved this so all clubs have lost sight of the fact that this is a sport. Ms Budge may have joined this cabal later than most but has done nothing to upset that particular apple cart despite being fast tracked into the national organisation. In fact in an interview in the Guardian in 2015 she said this –
“We have got a SPFL [the Scottish Professional Football League] and what keeps coming back is: ‘Of course, we are just taking instructions from the clubs.’ How can they really do the job without any power?” Budge asks. “I think it is very weird. Things like that need a fundamental rethink. We need a more powerful force at the centre.”
Intentions of that kind send shivers up my spine. But what should we expect. Like the others who run our clubs she has lost sight of football, or any sport, having public appeal ONLY if it is seen to be untouchable with respect to the integrity on the playing field.
On the other hand, if the mess that you refer to is the apparent "unfairness" that clubs who were bottom of the league being relegated then we couldn't be further apart. As I said earlier, many clubs are disadvantaged by the decision. To change the decision all that will happen is that those that are disadvantaged just now will be replaced by others. But that is OK when self interest comes into play.
It appears that Hearts want to be the only ones to use self interest in this situation. It was they who brought it to the fore at the earliest point when Ms Budge placed restrictions on all other clubs that joined her to find the best way to preserve her team's place in the top league.
Once again, for some on here, its Hearts, Budge, Hearts.
Partick Thistle clearly feel the same way. Had they had a bigger profile and financial backing they most likely would have been spouting the same mantra.
If fact they were first out the blocks seeking legal opinion regards the manner in which ‘self interest’ would be voted for in the Good Friday resolution.
Now with some financial help they have, without hesitation, jumped on the Hearts legal bus. Stranraer would no doubt do the same if they could.
To reverse the often asked question, if it had been Hamilton, St Mirren etc in the same position saying the same things Hearts/Budge are it would have been interesting to see what sympathies and support they would have had from this forum.
So lets take Heart of Midlothian FC out of the equation and ask, hand on heart (excuse the pun) :-
Do the readers and contributors to SFM believe Partick Thistle should just shut up and “take their medicine”?
Thumbs up = Yes (they are just a bunch of moaners and deserve what they get from their league position having only won 6 games all season and the consequence of the points per game formula. A total shambles of a club, with an unfinished stadium, who have dropped down the divisions because of dubious managerial appointments/footballing decisions and pissing generous financial donations up against the wall).
Thumbs Down = No (they are being treated unfairly by their fellow SPFL members as they had a chance to make up a small points differential in the remaining games of season 2019/20 and also were given no immediate apology or offer of compensation for ‘taking one for the team’ in these most difficult circumstances.)
I note reports are surfacing today that following Sky agreeing a compensation deal, BT (and possibly BBC) are now in line for a payout possibly totaling £3m for 2019/20 games not televised.
Not the £10m T'Rangers were claiming (clearly they were using their Morelos Calculator) but still hefty sums.
If the figures are correct then it essentially wipes out the James Anderson trust fund cash.
Everyone and their uncle is making sure they are OK financially yet three teams who have had relegation voted upon them don't even seem to get a sniff at any compensation.
As discussed previously I think a lot of the hoo-ha currently being played out could have been avoided if the SPFL board and member clubs had made some compensation/parachute offer to the three clubs being relegated in the event of no other alternative 'do no harm' solutions being available or agreeable.
Folks perhaps could have taken that medicine with the compensation being the spoonful of sugar. However the bitter pill on offer is much harder to swallow.
I’ve a lot of sympathy for Stranraer, Partick Thistle and Hearts, and feel they have been badly let down, not by each fellow club, but the structure and leadership at the SPFL. However, I also think certain individuals at these clubs have done themselves few favours
To have got to the stage of yet another football court case is disconcerting and was avoidable. Is it too late to reconcile the positions, maybe consider this to have been an opportunity mislaid? Probably.
But rather than the parties setting themselves against each other, I’d like to have seen the SPFL board take a proactive view at the outset and look for options to protect all member clubs. No club, in my view, should suffer relegation in the difficult situation we are in, where the leagues couldn’t be fully completed. Reward successes, but to put a huge financial strain on certain clubs, and a potential cost to all clubs depending on a court sought outcome is down to poor leadership.
No need for TU/TD for me. It is what it is. I don't care which team it is. The concerns for the affected clubs is business related and ALL of the football businesses signed up to the business organisation the SPFL. The rules that they signed up for included the right of the SPFL to terminate the league and that the league positions are fixed.
What we need is less of the paranoia, "It's just because it's Hearts". If you feel that way then you cannot take a balanced position on the situation. My points regarding Budge were because she was insistent that restructuring would only happen if it met HER criteria, ie. temporary. The other affected clubs were not outspoken. We had ICT who also were vocal but they appear to have wanted to benefit from situation.
I don't care which team it is but if any club looks to benefit in such a position then they immediately undermine any sympathy they may deserve.
As soon as Budge stated that she wanted reconstruction to save her club but with the proviso that her conditions must be met then she condoned the self interest from all others.
The words gift, horse and mouth spring to mind.
No paranoia here but just wondering why the majority of your posts relate to Hearts, Budge, questioning the club's anonymous and mysterious financial backers etc etc.
Anyway if I am paranoid I am in good company as, if you have been a long time lurker on SFM, you will note I have often discussed similar with the those suffering from the green/white hooped tinged variety of the condition 🙂
Maybe it has rubbed off over the years!!
Mickey Edwards 17th June 2020 at 12:16
“The concerns for the affected clubs is business related and ALL of the football businesses signed up to the business organisation the SPFL”
So precisely the same business related setup that ALL of the football businesses signed up to the business organisations SPL and SFL when Rangers went into liquidation in 2012, yet pretty much everybody who reads this website is up in arms about the financially-driven decision to pretend Rangers hadn’t met their maker as a result of that liquidation and all the other inexplicable decisions that have marked the saga ever since.
Unless I’m misunderstanding you, you need never post on the Rangers saga again because you’ve worked out that every action carried out by the football authorities was done in the interest of the business. So that’s all right then, case closed! Nothing to see here. Move along!
Also, people seem to be ignoring the recent French and particularly Belgian court judgments which, as I understand it, based their decision on restriction of business, or words to that effect, regardless of what league rules may have been signed up to.
I am seriously suspicious about this SFA underwriting loans from Close Brothers.
Other people have probably mentioned these things so apologies in advance but the things that jump immediately to mind are.
1, Why would Scottish Football Clubs want this before a Government loan. The only answer I can think of is that they have a turnover in excess of £45m, thus precluding them.
2, What exactly are the SFA using as security, which presumably Close Brothers would be looking for. They don't have much in the way of assets to put forward.
It strikes me that there will be a very limited number of clubs who want this and the SFA have no right to take such a risk.
Jingso.Jimsie 17th June 2020 at 10:46
'..please remember that these now have to be read & applied through the prism of the recently-added Rule C7A, on pages 31 & 32 of the linked PDF. .'
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Grateful for that info, jingo.jimsie.
Do you know when the resolution to add that amendment was voted upon?
Homunculus 17th June 2020 at 13:00
—————
That's what I was thinking, but wondering if I had missed something.
WOW!
"No paranoia here but just wondering why the majority of your posts relate to Hearts, Budge, questioning the club's anonymous and mysterious financial backers etc etc."
Really???
My recent posts are regarding legal action being taken and the commentary and accusations stemming from that. That commentary is emanating from Tynecastle in the main and the main accusations are that the other clubs are acting in self interest. And yet every step of the way the actions from Tynecastle are soaked in self interest. It doesn't matter whether you think self interest is good or bad surely there must agreement that, whichever, it must be the same for all. Are you saying HMFC has right to the quality and others don't. I don't care where it comes from it is that I object to and it is why I mention ICT as I could with Falkirk. I also abhor the attitude from Ibrox where it is everybody elses fault. In the past I have also fought against the attitude from Easter Road when they were party to the 2012 fix. At that time I did so directly speaking to both Leanne Dempster and Sir Tom Farmer.
It is easy to soothe your disappointment by believing that it is others ganging up on you but it is not healthy place to be. Could it be that the decision was made because the other clubs came to the conclusion that this was the least unfair outcome?
As to your comments regarding Anderson. I have known for a long time that HMFC was receiving large donations and my attitude was fair play as long as it's legal. That changed when the pandemic hit and I saw millions being paid to a sport, an entertainment, when we had care home workers going without PPE and testing being refused for their clients.
There are far more important challenges about to hit us than whether our club is relegated or not.
It is only a game!!
Highlander@12:46
I am unable to give a response to your post as I am unable to make sense of most of it but as to referencing the French and Belgian cases I think we need to be careful in what we are comparing. I don't know and the courts will agree or disagree as they see fit but I fail to see that relegation is a restriction of business. Are we to see a court case at the end of every season?
The overlying issue for me is that the financial side has now introduced a very unhealthy and quasi-corrupt side to the sport in Scotland. If we cannot find a way to separate the two then I fear there will be no future for it and what we are seeing now are the death throes.
‘John Clark 17th June 2020 at 13:03
…Do you know when the resolution to add that amendment was voted upon?’
########################################
I don’t, but I suspect it may well have been when the the SPFL board abrogated their responsibilities to (some of) the Articles of Association & Rules & Regulations of their organisation to offer the clubs a virtual GM to decide (in stead of the Board) the end of the season. Was that the first week of April? I think it was.
Mickey Edwards 17th June 2020 at 13:16
Mickey Edwards 17th June 2020 at 13:27
Highlander@12:46
For someone who keeps saying its 'only a game' and we should have bigger things to worry about you seem to spend a lot of time on here discussing footballing matters.
In relation to Belgian football's decision to relegate clubs their court dealing with competition law said the following:-
The Auditorate further specifies that it "has elements supporting the assertion that the decision to relegate Waasland-Beveren to division 1B instead of organizing one or more seasons with a division 1A to 17 or 18 clubs would not be aimed to achieve a legitimate objective, but on the contrary would aim to protect the financial and economic interests of certain clubs.
The matter will need to go to a higher court in Belgium and clearly a Scottish Court may not take the same stance of that in another country but the above just agrees with your argument that you can't accuse or criticise some people of self interest when others are doing the same.
Like the Fawlty Tower's sketch Hearts/Budge's self interest (along with Partick, Stranraer, Brora, Kelty etc) only kicked off when others started the whole thing by 'invading Poland'.
Homunculus @ 13.00
I am seriously suspicious about this SFA underwriting loans from Close Brothers.
Other people have probably mentioned these things so apologies in advance but the things that jump immediately to mind are.
1, Why would Scottish Football Clubs want this before a Government loan. The only answer I can think of is that they have a turnover in excess of £45m, thus precluding them.
2, What exactly are the SFA using as security, which presumably Close Brothers would be looking for. They don’t have much in the way of assets to put forward.
It strikes me that there will be a very limited number of clubs who want this and the SFA have no right to take such a risk.
On point 1: There are no Government loans available. Under the CBILS loan scheme the government guarantees 80% of the finance to the lender and pays interest and any fees for the first 12 months. However the reluctance of banks to lend to football businesses is well known. Loans can be for up to £5m and the borrower’s turnover must be less than £45m. In addition the business must be viable were it not for Covid.
On point 2: No idea if CB would need security over the amount underwritten? Presumably they will require security over the amount not guaranteed? Don’t know what %age is being guaranteed by the SFA. Take your point on what the SFA would/could use as security.
Are there any grounds for suspicion about what is behind this offer from the SFA and approved by their Board? I take it at face value but others, clearly, may not. I assume that my club will be looking at this and assessing whether it would help in the current situation taking in to account the the CBILS scheme’s probable limited application to football clubs.
There is, of course, no real comparison between
a) the hugely damaging untruth that TRFC is RFC of 1872 or with the ready acceptance of the SFA's point-blank refusal to have the Res 12 issue(with its possible criminal dimensions) independently investigated and
b )the decision not to reconfigure the league set-up
In a) lies and tergiversation were employed to get round the effect of applying the normal rules about the consequences of the insolvency event of Liquidation – the end of life for a professional football team in Scottish football.
RFC plc were indeed liquidated as per the Articles and Rules. Yet somehow, a new club was and is allowed to claim entitlement to the sporting honours and sporting history, and market itself as if it were RFC of 1872 and had been in existence since 1872.Untruths were told, and actual truth ignored.
The readiness of even ordinarily honest and decent men in public life to swallow such a perversion of facts and truth is, perhaps, exemplified by no less a person than the current shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, Ian Murray ,MP for Edinburgh South.
Even though his involvement with Hearts caused him to realise – more than most, perhaps- the absolute necessity for Hearts to get itself out of Administration in order to stay in Scottish football with its proud history intact, he was happy enough to raise no objection-whether as a private citizen or as a public person- to the dirty shenanigans of our Governance bodies-when our governance people allowed and allow the absolute lie of the 5-Way Agreement to be created and to remain at the heart of our Football, or to ask why the serious allegations made in the Res 12 were so arbitrarily dismissed.
In b) it seems clear that no actual lies have been told, no fantasies of the 'undead' created, no potential criminal actions being exposed that require independent investigation.
Yet in the 'Scotsman' today (print edition,p.61, Allan Pattullo's report), Ian Murray is reported as being 'furious' and 'aghast' over the self-interest of those who have turned their backs on the Tynecastle club.
Now, says Pattullo, Murray wonders how the SPFL can 'be fit for purpose, if it practically gives the green light to the potential for mass redundancies'.
I have already previously indicated that I think the SPFL/SFA ought to have found a way of accepting that Covid-19 was such an unlooked for international disaster that they had some duty to try to find a way to avoid relegating clubs and that I hope the Courts would take that view also.
But the SPFL/SFA seem not to have broken or by-passed the rules. Even if the rules were hastily and frantically amended, they nevertheless (presumably) were duly approved and passed. And the offences that the governance bodies can be convicted of are at worst incompetent short-sightedness and unsound judgment and perhaps a degree of unreasonableness in arriving at that judgment that the Courts would find unacceptable.
easyJambo 16th June 2020 at 21:50
Your post epitomises why I have become increasingly frustrated by the blog. Rather than debate the rights and wrongs of the article, it appears that everything that is discussed on the blog has to be viewed through the prism of RFC.
…………….
Just were are TRFC in all this? It feels like only a few short weeks ago that Hearts had their back in going down legal routes. Now it looks like Hearts have been left holding the baby. I don’t see the same backing that Hearts were giving TRFC coming from down ibrox way.
All the sabre rattling from ibrox was just that, at least hearts, right or wrong are doing what they said they would do.
JC@16:57
The opportunity was given to those concerned to come up with an answer, a committee set up to try to find a means to restructure in a way that everyone found acceptable. This was to be chaired by Hearts. They were given a free rein but immediately reined in every other club by stating that they would veto any attempt at creating a permanent change. Other chairmen let their dissatisfaction be known.
Such gerrymandering of the goal of the committee obviously created the impression of self interest being pursued at Hearts. After that a free for all could be the only outcome.
To now be accusing their counterparts in the league of taking the stance that they themselves started with I find astonishing.
Mickey Edwards
Need to calm down a bit. Not Highlander’s job to answer for Ann Budge, and comparing St one one’s input to a red top rant helpful.
We all have club sympathies on here and a little bit of understanding of where we all come from is one of the better traits of SFM.
I have had cause to wonder, in the light of recent events, how it is that some folk have been stricken with amnesia over just how corrupt the guys who ruin our game are.
We appear to be making the assumption that the SPFL (despite the complicity in the RFC saga of many of those at its head), must be innocent of all charges simply because TRFC were part of a group criticising them.
And If Ann Budge is guilty of self interest, she is no less infected with that malady than any of the rest of folk who run ALL of our clubs. Also, she has given none any reason to be believe that she is less trustworthy than Peter Lawwell, or any other club head. Of course as a Celtic fan who has watched how Res12 has been handled at the last Celtic AGM, she’s a rung or two above PL on the trustworthiness ladder.
There are different views over this, but through years of experience, I’d trust EJ’s judgement. I can’t see who benefited from the bizarre decision to penalise the teams who have been disadvantaged over this. B
I hope the Hearts/Thistle litigation is sufficient to get the SPFL board to do something for the greater good. That is, to be seen to be fair.
Hearts’ self interest is no less worthy than the self-interest of Celtic or Aberdeen or anyone else either. I think, whatever our position on these matters, that SFM members would recognise that.
Btw, I may be behind the curve on this one. Is it actually correct that Hearts threatened clubs with a veto (although I am not sure they have one) over reconstruction proposals?
My guess is no.
The SPFL respond to Hearts and Partick Thistle launching a legal challenge.
………..
SPFL.
a spokesman said, Our solicitors have this evening recieved a petition from Hearts of Midlothian plc and The Partick Thistle football club ltd. We are studying this carefully, along with our legal advisors, and it is not therefore appropriate to comment further at this time.