Sweet Little Lies


Sweet Little Lies

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.

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

(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.

About the author

Auldheid author

Celtic fan from Glasgow living mostly in Spain. A contributor to several websites, discussion groups and blogs, and a member of the Resolution 12 Celtic shareholders' group. Committed to sporting integrity, good governance, and the idea that football is interdependent. We all need each other in the game.

1,118 Comments so far

HomunculusPosted on7:57 pm - Jun 17, 2020

 bordersdon 17th June 2020 at 14:10

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.


Which clubs with a turnover under £45m were not viable prior to covid. I don't remember an awful lot actually going out of business. Rangers and before them Gretna, not including a few surviving through administration, not a huge number of clubs though.

Equally importantly, why were the footballing authorities letting them start a season if they were not a viable business. Surely there are rules about that.

Yes some clubs have gone into administration recently, it's mostly been top division clubs, who have spent more than they were earning. It's not that the businesses weren't viable, it's that the people running them weren't very good and didn't do their business properly. They were greedy and tried to buy success. 

Most clubs in Scotland will be as viable as other small businesses, prior to covid. They live within their manes and are viable businesses. They deserve the Government backing (which I would suggest is a better guarantee then the SFA) as much as any other small business. 

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on7:58 pm - Jun 17, 2020

Cluster One 17th June 2020 at 19:55

Do you know what "… received a petition …" means in this context.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on8:03 pm - Jun 17, 2020

Hearts & Partick Thistle claiming £10m from SPFL if relegation not overturned
Are they trying to bankrupt the SPFL?

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on8:05 pm - Jun 17, 2020

Homunculus 17th June 2020 at 19:58



Rate This

Cluster One 17th June 2020 at 19:55

Do you know what “… received a petition …” means in this context.
They got an email?

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on8:41 pm - Jun 17, 2020

Cluster One 17th June 2020 at 20:03

Presumably they will apply for an interdict, to prevent the league from starting again until this matter is settled. Even if it is compensation they are looking for they will presumably want the option for relegation to be scrapped. 

Then if they are awarded that compensation it will have to come out of the prize money fund from next year. Whatever happens, the money will be coming from the other clubs in the league.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on8:48 pm - Jun 17, 2020

If it's only about compensation for being relegated , that could have been arranged and agreed at the start of the process as a fall back position if reconstruction failed to fly . I can only presume that they're/we're trying to impose on other clubs that which they've already rejected . I can see no positives in this . 

Any sightings of Alfredo ? Some folk are getting anxious .

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:38 pm - Jun 17, 2020

Homunculus 17th June 2020 at 20:41

'..Presumably they will apply for an interdict, '


The BBC report by Brian McLaughlin


contains this quote:

"As matters stand, we have not asked the Court to grant an interim interdict which would prevent next [Premiership] season commencing on 1 August," the statement said. "However, we have to reserve our right to do so in the event that becomes necessary."

This suggests that Hearts'/PT/ Counsel have suggested that charging straight into legal battle about what relegation would cost them financially without exploring the possibility of being compensated for loss by the SPFL in view of the wholly one-off exceptional circumstances would not impress any Judges! 

The alleged 'offending party ' must ordinarily be given a chance to re-think, or the petitioner can be seen to be bloody-minded and unreasonable, particularly if they themselves had appeared unreasonable in discussing options for  change to minimise their  anticipated loss!

( The way the FCA conducted their action against DK can be seen in light of that approach!)

If the SPFL digs in its heels, Hearts/PT can forge ahead with their legal action, in the knowledge that the Court will accept that they have done their best to be as reasonable as reasonable!

And if the SPFL are now able to underwrite 'loans' to clubs , then it's likely that they can find the funds to set up a structured ,agreed rate of payments of compensation that would not bankrupt the SPFL 'business' . 





View Comment

Mickey EdwardsPosted on10:44 pm - Jun 17, 2020


I think it might be appropriate if you refer to the whole of my thread before you decide who it is that should calm down. I am only looking to remind those who claim that Hearts relegation is down to the other clubs acting out of self interest that Hearts were handed the opportunity to come up with a solution. Ms Budge was given the chair of that committee and her first action was to publicly state that she would not allow the outcome be a permanent change to the configuration of the leagues. Your guess is that I am wrong on that so may I suggest that you listen to the interview she gave with Tom English on BBC Sportsound on the Saturday immediately following her appointment to the committee. You do not have to wait long to hear her overrule the leagues assurance of no preconditions.

Further I find it strange that my post responding to suggestions questioning my intentions to making this very point is belatedly put into moderation while the accusatory post is allowed to stand. That post also carries a rather extreme comparison of the clubs' democratic decision to the invasion of Poland.

View Comment

bect67Posted on11:04 pm - Jun 17, 2020

I have tried to view this whole shambles regarding the legal action in as detached a way as I can. However, Ann Budge and Jacqui Low are, in my humble opinion, taking a ‘wrecking ball’ to our game. They say they have no desire to harm Scottish football but reserve the right to delay the start of next season. How do you square that?
How many more toys have they got to throw out of their prams?

Many clubs have felt hard done to down the years – so Geezabrek!

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:43 pm - Jun 17, 2020

bect67 17th June 2020 at 23:04

'. Ann Budge and Jacqui Low are in my humble opinion, taking a 'wrecking ball' to Scottish Football.'


You will permit me, bect67, to say that in my humble opinion the wrecking ball was first set in swing  by the  football governance 'authorities' in their dealings over many years with SDM's rotten, lying club, and their subsequent abandonment of all notion of integrity in sport by their very ready  creation and propagation of a monstrous and ludicrous sporting lie!


View Comment

wottpiPosted on1:01 am - Jun 18, 2020

Just wondering if it is worth reminding everyone of how we got where we are today.

After weeks of thought and deliberation regards the Covid 19 crisis theSPFL board reached a decision that only one resolution should be put forward to members.

That being that the Championship, L1 and L2 be ended with positions determined by a points per game system and that, on awaiting the outcome of a later Uefa meeting the Premiership would also potentially be ended on the same basis.

My interpretation is that the main thrust was to enable much needed end of season prize money to be released to clubs in the lower divisions.

Those prize monies were to be distributed based on final positions. No mention or offer was ever made regards compensation to any teams who could be seen as " losing out' be that through relegation or missing out on play off slots for promotion.

One of the first calls for potential league reconstruction came from  Dundee FC  via  John Nelms as part of the  "hokey pokey'  voting debacle. It was reported on 11 April he had been planning alternative proposals to effectively halt relegation and promotion. 

In her club statement of 12 April Ann Budge made clear she was considering (alone or with others) putting forward a resolution for a Temporary Adjustment to the Leagues. I  am not aware of any such resolution ever having being lodged.

However the SPFL then board APPOINTED Les Gray and Ann Budge to jointly lead a reconstruction task force as per the press release on 15 April, 5 days after the Good Friday vote.

At or around the same time Patrick Thistle sought legal opinion regards the SPFL resolution and published this on their website on 14 April feeling they were being treated unfairly. At this time the SPFL didn't even acknowledge that PT and Stranraer were being asked to make a sacrifice for the greater good.

In the same way the SPFL board reached their decision regards the original resolution, the SPFL Reconstruction Task Force attempted to evaluate support for potential reconstruction plans. Ultimately these all failed both at the first hurdle and when subsequently raised again later  out of the blue by the main SPFL board.

Given the above it can be seen that the reconstruction issue was raised by Dundee FC a as part of their hokey pokey and wholly supported and sanctioned by the SPFL board. (All as an after thought) Therefore the process was not driven solely by Hearts/Budge specifically for their benefit or their self interest.

Budge was consistent regards Temporary arrangements if reconstruction was to be considered. 

If Ann Budge had said anything out of order why was she not reigned in by her co-chair and full SPFL board member Les Gray.? His silence (and apparent disappearing act) must surely be proof the SPFL were happy with how Budge  and the sub group was proceeding with matters.

With hindsight Hearts and Ann Budge should have had nothing to do with the SPFL"s sub group and just followed PT"s lead and gone down the legal route right from the start.

However by "playing ball' Hearts will be able to show the court  they acted in good faith by trying to explore all potential solutions before feeling the need to follow through with legal action.

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on1:30 am - Jun 18, 2020

Agree with pretty much all of that, though I’m not so sure about hokey pokey at Dens.
I’d be willing to give Dundee the benefit of the doubt. The SPFL board not so much.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on7:55 am - Jun 18, 2020

    I too have every sympathy for Hearts and Thistle, but no more than the sympathy I would have had, should the divisions not have been curtailed due to Covid 19, and they found themselves in the same positions. 

   I am by no means any sort of legal eagle, but imo they are both wasting their money with a legal challenge. It seems to me that to prove they were disadvantaged, they would need to prove they could have bettered their final standing should it have been possible to play out the division in full. 

    I get that the "opportunity" to improve was denied by the curtailment, but that is not the same thing. A bit like an unexpected, but enforced, shop closure denying one the "opportunity" of getting the lottery numbers on in time. 

    I just don't see how either club can prove they would not have been relegated anyway, should the divisions have played out in full. 

    Both clubs have been treated exactly the same as they would have been, had the division been played in full……It was nobody's fault it wasn't.  If there is any "fault" to be found, it is a sporting fault, and that is a position the clubs put themselves in.

    I doubt they have a leg to stand on, and the only outcome will be the creation of ill-will and bad-feeling where previously there was none.

    Neither club is a victim of anything, other than a nasty virus that has affected some more than others.    


View Comment

Mickey EdwardsPosted on9:16 am - Jun 18, 2020


"If Ann Budge had said anything out of order why was she not reigned in by her co-chair and full SPFL board member Les Gray.? His silence (and apparent disappearing act) must surely be proof the SPFL were happy with how Budge  and the sub group was proceeding with matters."

This sort of silence?


"Gray understands it is a hefty task that won’t get off the ground unless positions of neutrality are immediately found.

But a perfect example of conflicting outlooks comes from the chair positions.

Budge has stated publicly she would prefer a temporary restructure, while Gray’s own board at Hamilton want permanent change."


"We can take everyone with us as long as there is compromise in the air because everyone can’t get their own way. It’s impossible.

What we have to do is not pre-empt. That’s why when I speak with Ann, hopefully her and I as co-chairs of this group should refrain from talking about temporary or fixed at this stage. This is a debate for the clubs.

My board want a permanent fix. If they decide that is it then my (task force) position will be untenable.

But I know my board will also accept a temporary fix if it’s the right thing."

Les Gray, 20 APR 2020

View Comment

Mickey EdwardsPosted on9:32 am - Jun 18, 2020

So what next after teams taking legal action to be awarded £10M as compensation for what they could have done. How much should TRFC ask for for being denied the opportunity of taking the Champions League spot? Not just the earnings from that competition but millions due because of their earlier claim that entry to the CL could open the way for the balance of financial power in Scotland to be overturned.

Maybe that's too fanciful.

How about Aberdeen making a claim for being denied European football next year?

Or my own club Hibs who could have shot up the league and won the corresponding prize money instead of by moved down one place at the cost of c.£200K?

The stance that the clubs taking the legal route would be creating should they win is for clubs that have accepted that losing money, because of the premature ending of the league is a result of the pandemic, would be paying the money awarded to those that believe the pandemic should not impact on them.

View Comment

bect67Posted on9:34 am - Jun 18, 2020

John Clark @ 23.43

Excellent point well put  John!

True, as ever, to the spirit of RTC/SFM.

Incidentally, I do notice that Thelma and Louise (AB and JL) are not getting as much (social) media support today…

View Comment

Mickey EdwardsPosted on9:57 am - Jun 18, 2020

I think I should clarify my own position on football after the pandemic. It is that it should be exactly then- after the pandemic.

The plans in Scotland like yesterday's restart in England are premature. England has the advantage of obscene amounts of money to compensate for not having customers at the game.

We are now at the stage in the pandemic where governments move their concentration from preventing unrest in the country due to the wholesale loss of lives to preventing unrest because of financial concerns and frustration at the lack of normality. Football is a prime tool in the current conditions as it appeals to so many of the population.

For Scottish clubs to play along with this needs different conditions than England. 60% of the clubs' income is through the gate. No big sums being thrown our way by the broadcasting conglomerates. So how can the majority of clubs go along with this? They can't.

So fans being allowed back is an essential. We have seen the fanciful ideas of 25% full stadiums but how do you get them into their seats? Airdrops? Many of us have stood outside supermarkets waiting to be allowed in. When B&Q reopened a member of my family spent 3 hours waiting for their turn to be allowed in. Can some one do the calculation for me on how long it would take for everyone to be seated at a 25% full Ibrox or Parkhead?

For me the answer would be to have suspended football totally until it is safe to resume. Suspension would see clubs go to the wall but so will playing in empty stadiums. To give a workable alternative would guarantee the loss of lives.

If you doubt any of this then consider yesterdays news that restaurants and bars in Florida were allowed to open a week ago. Yesterday they had to be shut down again because of COVID19. Likewise in Beijing, South Korea and New Zealand.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on10:08 am - Jun 18, 2020

Corrupt official 18th June 2020 at 07:55

As discussed earlier I don't think the argument will be around whether or not both teams would have stayed up. It will revolve around the fact they weren't given the opportunity to play their way out of trouble and that in passing the resolution as it was worded, others who could have been 'in trouble' had the season been able to continue protected their own position (by voting for the resolution) to the disadvantage of a minority of fellow members.

If it goes to court you have to remember all the emails, Whatapp chats will be brought up and you could see individual club's chairmen and CEO's take the stand. Roy McGregor may well regret his 'take your medicine' quote if he has to explain that in front of a Judge.

Even accepting that last season could not be completed, no offer or compensation was offered to the three clubs effected by the resolution.

So lets say you are a member of a golf club. You buy tickets for the annual awards bash. The club's venue holds 200 people. |A week before the event the venue burns down. The committee organise an alternative venue but can only get one with capacity for 150.

The committee ask the members to vote that those with tickets 1 to 150 get to go. First come first served. 3/4 with those tickets vote yes because they want a good night out.

However it is simply hard cheese to those holding tickets 151 – 200. No refund, no compensation, no mitigation offered. Not even an apology or a 'thanks for being so understanding'. Just take your medicine.

You would be a bit miffed, wouldn't you?

View Comment

wottpiPosted on10:31 am - Jun 18, 2020

Mickey Edwards 18th June 2020 at 09:16

Fair point.

So you agree with me that that it probably have been better for Hearts not to be involved?

Therefore with Budge having stated that she was in favour of Temporary arrangement on 12th April and Les Grays views probably being known given he was a full SPFL board member, did the SPFL choose the joint chairs:- 

a) Because they sought to bring two people with opposing views to the table to seek a solution

b) Because they sought to bring two people with opposing views to the table knowing there was no chance of success

c) Because they are incompetent and if taking the matters or reconstruction seriously they should have brought in a wholly independent chair or chairs.

View Comment

erniePosted on10:39 am - Jun 18, 2020

If the voting goes against your interest in a golf club/SPFL you have 3 choices. Propose an amendment to go to another vote using the vehicle in the constitution/rules to do so. Accept it. Resign.  I don't see the option to delay the function/season for everyone else or to be compensated for damages (rather than cost of ticket for example).  The SPFL is, of course, different from a golf club and the offended parties are a wee bit more than miffed but it does raise the key issue for me.  The clubs voted.

It wasn't Doncaster.  It wasn't even Lawell or Nicola Sturgeon.  It was the clubs.  We have discussed on here many times that, as much as one might abhor Doncaster (I certainly do), the SPFL are the clubs.  A board may well go rogue now and then but eventually the clubs make the decisions either directly, by voting as in this case, or by approving representative authority.

So if Hearts/PT win the case what do they get?  Money presumably.  At best all they can hope for in regards to the division they play in nest year is another vote and the result would be an even bigger majority against.  Surely the courts can't actually enforce the SPFL to put in place a minimum 13 team top tier so that Hearts don't get relegated?  Same with PT.  

I hope they lose otherwise we are in big trouble.  The Dons could have gone on an almighty run of wins with Sevco collapsing (going bust even) and we get second spot.  Compo please.

Would my club have done the same?  I don't know much about the new guy but I can't see it.  However, that's may well be me hoping they wouldn't so maybe they would, maybe every other club would.  There would have been the same vote and the bottom team relegated.  




View Comment

wottpiPosted on10:40 am - Jun 18, 2020

Big Pink 18th June 2020 at 01:30

Sad day for SFM when the administrator and posters are getting thumbs down for trying to review facts, timelines and reported happenings. (Happy for Mickey, in true SFM fashion, to bring his own evidence to the table).

Re John Nelms at Dundee his stance re keeping Hearts up by a bizarre 'reconstruction' were reported as early as the morning of 10 April before the vote. As we know there was all the Whatsapp chats, so lord knows who was saying what.


Friday, 10 April, 2020, 09:05

Dundee chief's bizarre proposal

Dundee chief executive John Nelms has put together a bizarre solution to the current Scottish football predicament.

Rather than the SPFL's resolution, Nelms has suggested that the title be decided in each of the four divisions but no relegation takes place, report the Scottish Sun.


That means rivals Dundee United would not win promotion and Hearts would stay in the Premiership.

It would need the support of two other clubs for it to be presented as an option to all 42.

View Comment

adam812Posted on10:47 am - Jun 18, 2020

wottpi 10.08

An alternative end of season awards golf club dinner dance!

200 members with tickets but venue gets burnt down and alternative room found for only 150.

A suggestion is made that the top 150 performing members would get tickets and the 200 members vote and agree by a substantial majority it's the fairest way. Some are disappointed but most accept they hadn't played well.

There is a complaint from one wealthy member who has a really expensive set of golf clubs and didn't do all that well but the other members agree the way they have decided is best! 

Maybe too simple? 


View Comment

wottpiPosted on10:56 am - Jun 18, 2020

ernie 18th June 2020 at 10:39

No Ernie, in a democracy you always have the 4th option i.e right to take matters to court, even if a vote or a decision goes against you. You may be end up being justified or looking a right arse but it is a legitimate course of action.

For what its worth here is a small calculation.

Compensation for 'taking one for the team' (round figures just plucked out of the air )

Hearts £1m

Partick £500k

Stranraer £250k

£1.75 million divided by the remaining 39 clubs – Circa £45k per club

Spread that over the new five year Sky deal =  £9k per club per season to help keep the peace.

Just a thought.


View Comment

wottpiPosted on11:15 am - Jun 18, 2020

adam812 18th June 2020 at 10:47

Yup still too simple,  as no recognition given to those losing out through no fault of their own.

It is the 'fire' that is the defining issue, not the previous performances of members, and whether the decisions taken regarding what to do about the effects of the 'fire' were fair and equitable.

As discussed earlier the Belgian case sums it up quite nicely (members effectively being given a loaded vote) but I wholly accept Hearts may not find the Scottish Courts to be of a similar mind and could end up with egg on their face.

I'd be surprised if any other aggrieved club and in particular a Plc, with the means to take such a matter to court would not do so to protect their own interests.

My own view is that stopping the coming season starting via an interdict would be a step too far in terms of the effects on Scottish Football but I do believe Hearts and Partick deserve their day in court.


View Comment

Mickey EdwardsPosted on11:16 am - Jun 18, 2020


I understand the disappointment for Hearts supporters but to pick out irregularities, like Nelms, can create more confusion than clarity. It looks suspicious but then so does ICT's involvement in the "whistleblower"/"dossier" farce. Nelms looking to gain an advantage for his club but then again so was ICT's representative. I could of course refer to the ICT persons "allegiances" as others have done but would be stupid.

In addition, to describe Budge's objection to a permanent structure change as a "preference" is a bit of an understatement. At a time when she was looking to others to support her attempts to stop her club's relegation her declaration to block any move toward permanence was ill advised and, quite frankly, aggressive. I gave you the quotes from her co-chair Les Gray but I can assure that reading it does not reflect his tone. He did as his position dictates and stayed diplomatic. Others too came out and expressed their support for his position. To my mind Ann Budge did more to ensure a rejection to her proposals than to get others on board.

As to the example of the golf club do, well what can I say. Those who lost their place at the party would get their ticket money back. You seem to think that were due more because they might have played the slot machine on the night and won.

View Comment

Mickey EdwardsPosted on11:32 am - Jun 18, 2020


Can I request that a decision is made on my post at 19:08 yesterday which has been under moderation since about 30 minutes after it was posted. I was afterall only responding to a post that clearly was questioning my reasons for posting on valid football subjects. For the original post to remain and mine be blocked does go against fairness. No ad hom attacks were made, no bad language and nothing broken with respects to the blog's rules happened.

Thank you.

View Comment

Mickey EdwardsPosted on11:43 am - Jun 18, 2020


"For what its worth here is a small calculation."

Can I request that you do the same for the other clubs in the league. For instance, as Ernie pointed out earlier, Aberdeen being denied the opportunity to go on an "almighty run of wins" has lost them a lot of money. Or my own team Hibs repositioning in the league costing c.£200K. Of course these clubs could follow the current example and pursue it through the courts. I wonder why they aren't? Could it be that they recognise that the current circumstances are unique and it is not in the interest of Scottish football to do so.

I am becoming repetitive now on this but you don't seem to believe that these points deserve a response.

View Comment

HighlanderPosted on12:13 pm - Jun 18, 2020

I wonder how people’s opinions might have differed on Hearts and Partick Thistle taking legal action against the league body if the action was instead in relation to Res 12 issues, the LNS sham, the invention of a metaphysical immortal club, or something similar related to the long-running Rangers saga. I suspect such legal action would be praised to the high heavens and probably even crowd-funded. 

For those who live outside the Celtic bubble, there is a perception, realistic or otherwise, that, following Rangers’ demise, Celtic are the new establishment club and that despite their past condemnation of Rangers officials holding sway for a century or more, Peter Lawwell now rules the roost over Scottish football and absolutely nothing must get in the way of ten-in-a-row. Proof of this is scarce, suggesting it is based on nothing more than paranoia, but actual proof of Rangers past influence was thin on the ground too.

Our new prolific poster (whose productivity, if not subject matter, brings to mind a certain Govan resident with a thousand and one usernames) makes several very good points about football as a sport very much taking a distant second place to football as a business. Money is king, hence many of those baffling decisions made by the football authorities, and crucially Celtic and the rest of the clubs, to pretend that Rangers survived liquidation in order to maintain the one and only only show in town – the money-spinning duopoly.

Notwithstanding that our new poster is of course at liberty to post whatever and whenever he wants, I can’t help but wonder why he has only felt compelled to comment now, when the latest events happen to involve Hearts, when the injustices he rightly points out relating to the Rangers saga have gone on for a decade and more.

I suppose what I’m trying to say in my usual clumsy way is that it’s not just our clubs who display self-interest in abundance – fans are equally as guilty, including me. 

View Comment

erniePosted on12:33 pm - Jun 18, 2020

Well of course everyone has the right to go to court. The Dons could on the basis of they could have been second. Sheffield Wed could on the basis that it was a goal last night. I’m talking about what your options are in the constitution/rules of the club you joined or, in the case of Hearts, the trade body you are in and in which you are a founder member. 


View Comment

Aurellio ZenPosted on12:44 pm - Jun 18, 2020

What would be enough compensation to satisfy Hearts and PT? Could it be substantially more than what will be spent on lawyers? As has been outlined above, surely this needs to be tested by negotiation rather than spafing yet nor money into lawyers pockets.

There is no level of venality below which the SPFL board  will not stoop. Unfortunately for them, the voting system and the self interest of their members creates paralysis as we have clearly seen.





View Comment

Mickey EdwardsPosted on1:02 pm - Jun 18, 2020

Although disappointed that the discussion has resorted to this I will reassure Highlander that his thoughts that I am Lawman/Steerpike are well off the mark. As this follows on from wottpi questioning my being on this blog I can't help feeling that we are witnessing an attempt to discredit others rather than support their own views. I think we have all seen this before when it is shown that certain types of poster's own stance is shown to be weak. So let me state the following which I not only believe but have acted on.

The Ibrox team is a new club.

Res12 should have been supported by Celtic and this backed by all other clubs.

Celtic have played fast and loose with the Res12 guys and are party to deceit as are every other club.

LNS is seriously compromised and should be set aside.

There are potentially many cases of fraud involved in the whole big lie.

The SPFL and SFA are not fit for purpose.

Does that help?


View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:18 pm - Jun 18, 2020

Aurellio Zen 18th June 2020 at 12:44

‘.There is no level of venality below which the SPFL board  will not stoop.’


In  connection with your observation, Aurellio Zen,were my ears deceiving me when  they heard a little earlier this morning that Doncaster has been appointed to the ‘ Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body’ of UEFA????

View Comment

HighlanderPosted on1:22 pm - Jun 18, 2020

Mickey Edwards 18th June 2020 at 13:02

My apologies for giving the impression that I thought you were Lawman/Steerpike – I assumed, wrongly it seems, that my mention of the different subject matter made it clear that I'd eliminated you from such suspicion – the reference was intended entirely to reflect the volume of your posts.

Again, apologies for my clumsiness and I'll retire to lurking for a while in penance.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on1:32 pm - Jun 18, 2020

Mickey Edwards 18th June 2020 at 11:43

Aurellio Zen 18th June 2020 at 12:44

From this information


As it stands at present in relation to the prize money pot then the bottom team in the Premiership receives 4.5% of the total pot. Currently £1.12m

The winner of the Championship receives 2.25 % of the pot.

Therefore based on this years prize money that means relegation means an immediate loss of 2.25% or £560k and for that you have to come straight back up the following season.

I am assuming, given the new deal with Sky and the  the prize monies for the new deal may increase next season.

You then have to add in lower ticket prices, potentially lower crowds, merch, food sales etc  (that is going to happen to everyone anyway with behind doors games). 

However with it being unclear when the Championship will start and if the lower divisions will even play this season then Hearts & Partick will also miss out on whatever potential income streams could/would be available.

I fully acknowledge that others have taken a hit but the hit is going to be felt greatest by those being relegated.

As Ann Budge has said, if relegation was the result of abeing bottom after a full season then you have to take that on the chin and get on with it. But this situation is different.

I must say I think the £10m being reported is on the high side which is why I have argued that some recompense and recognition of 'taking one for the team' early on would have smoothed the waters.

My position remains that the SPFL board were blinkered regards the ending of the season and, like many other times in the recent past, the authorities only have the capacity to deal with short term solutions and fail to see the bigger picture and potential outcomes of their (normally) incompetent actions.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on2:15 pm - Jun 18, 2020

Mickey Edwards 18th June 2020 at 13:02

I have no problem with you commenting at all.

However, like others, all I am wondering is why now, given all that has gone before.

Your end position in posts appears to be that football is only a game and dealing with the Covid 19 crisis should be more to the fore than bickering about who is getting relegated. However, then you post pages and pages bickering and giving us the impression Ann Budge and Hearts are the devil incarnate for daring to protect the club/business/people's jobs etc in these self same difficult times for all of us.

Like Easyjambo and Highlander I think its time to step back once again.

Unfortunately for the site and the guys doing the hard work to keep things going , to my eyes,  it looks like over the past wee while (even before Covid 19) other previous and regular posters, especially those not of a Celtic persuasion,  have taken a similar view and have been less inclined to contribute.

The wide ranging appeal of the site and the tolerance of opposing views has, in my opinion, been on the slide and, these days, as soon as you see a posters name  or reading the first few lines to get a sniff at the content you can predict how its going to go with the thumbs up / thumbs down.

Maybe a lot of us aren't getting enough fresh air these days!!

Stay safe and healthy everyone and I'll maybe catch up sometime soon.







View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on2:59 pm - Jun 18, 2020

" A camel is a horse designed by a committee ".  That is how I'm viewing the current SPFL imbroglio . The whole governance of Scottish football is not fit for purpose . 

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on5:07 pm - Jun 18, 2020

wottpi 18th June 2020 at 14:15

I don't have an issue with Ann Budge, or anyone else involved with Hearts trying to protect the club or the business. Absolutely no problem at all.

Just don't chastise everyone else for acting out of self interest at the same time. That' s exactly what you are doing.

It's also a bit hypocritical trying to get re-structuring, but it has to be temporary. Is that not acting out of self interest again.

I'm afraid her position just comes across as a bit childish sometimes. Everyone needs to behave a certain way, except me. 


View Comment

Aurellio ZenPosted on5:09 pm - Jun 18, 2020

Someone who you could not find a Scottish football fan who does not think is the epitome of ineptitude and who has shown evidence of this in every enterprise in which he has engaged since his appointment has been elevated to an influential position in EUFA!


View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on6:04 pm - Jun 18, 2020

Nice seeing Alfredo going through his paces , and obviously he was back in time to beat the 14-day isolation . What were folk worried about ?

View Comment

ThomTheThimPosted on7:03 pm - Jun 18, 2020

The reason that organisations have rules is so that every member knows what can and cannot be done within the organisation.

This is to prevent individual persons (or clubs) pushing their own agenda.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on10:24 pm - Jun 18, 2020

Dave King, and his malicious and continuous tortious interference in what should have been a private family matter.”
Hope it is ok to post the link. Not football related, but i don’t believe this is the last time we will hear of Mr king getting the blame for something.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:45 pm - Jun 18, 2020

Cluster One 18th June 2020 at 22:24

‘..Hope it is ok to post the link. Not football related..’


Any reference to a person who  ” ..refused or declined to fully disclose his earnings in South Africa ..” is connection enough to football if King’s name is at all mentioned, no matter how peripherally.

Gary Player may or may not have had problems with SARS. We don’t know.

But we do know that King did have such problems. [and let us honour the memory of the tax inspector who had the wit to compare King’s spending with his declared income and insisted on asking questions! And also honour the gritty determination of SARS  to nail the tax cheat)

And that convicted tax cheat King is still operating in Scottish Football.

So, no problem, Cluster One, about being OT, as far as I am concerned.

And a brilliant spot! 

(See me and golf?  I share the view of whoever it was who said something about a good walk spoiled.broken heart)





View Comment

adam812Posted on1:31 am - Jun 19, 2020

I am not able to include a link at present as the online news is being refreshed but I believe Keith Jackson in the Daily Record is reporting that the SFA Compliance Officer is looking into the possibility that rules have been broken by Hearts and Partick as a result of their legal action. If correct he suggests the possibility of significant sanctions. 

He is also reporting many clubs are very unhappy with the action of the two clubs and calling on the SPFL to take action.

If there was any doubt before now it looks certain that this is not going to end well 

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on2:15 am - Jun 19, 2020

I hope you won’t take a break from the blog.
I think the consensus is very different from what the TU/TDS tell us, and indeed no matter how prolific, one poster is just that.
Of course we don’t always agree, but there is nothing wrong with that. What I do know is that the vast majority of our number consider you one of our own. And will be sad for your absence.

And not all Celtic fans on here are unsympathetic to Hearts/Thistle/Stranraer either. ?

View Comment

reasonablechapPosted on7:31 am - Jun 19, 2020

Aurellio Zen

Someone who you could not find a Scottish football fan who does not think is the epitome of ineptitude and who has shown evidence of this in every enterprise in which he has engaged since his appointment has been elevated to an influential position in EUFA!



My money would be on Peter (member of ECA board) having put in a word for him.

Almost certainly, the same Peter who featured in the Good Friday whatsup messages that came to light.



View Comment

reasonablechapPosted on7:56 am - Jun 19, 2020

The word I used a few weeks ago was omnishambles and it now looks as if that may come up short of fully describing the mess that the SPFL have led us towards.

The conflation of issues and the railroading rush to push everything through at such a precarious juncture was just so wrong. It opened a can of polarised worms that they can't close. 

Back in the day there was more accountability. Today, the likes of Cummings and Doncaster vicariously stick their middle fingers up at ordinary folk because they are close to the real power.  

View Comment

wottpiPosted on9:53 am - Jun 19, 2020

Homunculus 18th June 2020 at 17:07

|As you know you are a pedant please note part of my post from 1 June (which was the first for a while) acknowledging Hearts and Budge's self interest. 

My recent contributions are merely a counter point to a new poster who seems to have come on with an Anti – Hearts/Budge bee in their bonnet. Given no such criticism has been directed at the likes of Partick, Stranraer and others, such as Dundee, ICT, who were sympathetic to reconstruction as a means of achieving a position of 'Do No Harm' you have to wonder why one specific club has been singled out.

Extract from 1 June

Yes there is a degree of self interest in relation to Hearts position but she now seems to be  not only putting forward plans for reconstruction but now also trying to find out exactly what other teams are intending to do.

Perhaps her tardiness in dealing with Mr Levein has made her realise action needs to be taken and quickly to make progress if football in the lower leagues is going to survive let alone be played anytime soon.

Where has her co-chair on this group, Hamilton and SPFL Board member Les Gray,  gone – missing in action.

What have the lower league teams contributed to the debate from all these self-proclaimed experienced business men – nothing but criticism. (See Clyde and Cowdenbeath) As far as I can see not one positive uttering or any alternative proposals for finding a way forward.

As discussed above they don’t even seem to have considered the future implications of mothballing on other teams in the SPFL or the pyramid system in general.

Where are these guys in terms of finding  innovative solutions.

Budge, through her contacts, appears to be trying to bringing potential new cash into the game in attempt to see Scottish Football through this crisis.

Where is the similar drive to seek out help and use wealthy contacts for the whole of the Scottish game from the big players at Celtic, Aberdeen, Hibs etc.

Where is the similar drive from the lower league chairmen?

As the old saying goes, if you want something done give it to a busy person. At least Budge comes across as being passionate about trying to move matters forward – not only for Hearts but for others.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on9:56 am - Jun 19, 2020

Big Pink 19th June 2020 at 02:15


Don't worry I'll be back (see above angry) at some point, probably when there are significant developments but will be taking a break to avoid circular arguments becoming boring and tiresome and also to get on with some work!!

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on10:10 am - Jun 19, 2020

wottpi 19th June 2020 at 09:53

I was not having a go at you, it was specifically at Ann Budge.

Not even the position she is taking, I have said on several occasions that I thought reconstruction was the best option for everyone. However the clubs would appear to disagree.

It is specifically her telling everyone they are in the wrong, acting out of  "self-interest", when that is exactly what she is doing herself. Like I said, everyone should behave a certain way, except her.

I don't think it does her or Hearts any favours. Particularly if it's also true that her opening gambit on reconstruction discussions was that it had to be temporary. So, change the structure when it suits me, but change it back when it suits me as well. 

Re compensation, I really don't see it. I don't even understand what the case for it is, other than the clubs involved not getting their own way.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on10:27 am - Jun 19, 2020

According to Superscoreboard the Hearts and Partick Thistle action is not just about getting "compensation". It looks like they are still trying to avoid relegation.



Hearts & Partick Thistle's court action includes trying to stop Dundee United, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers being promoted. Scrapping promotion is the only way to save them from relegation.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on10:28 am - Jun 19, 2020

John Clark 18th June 2020 at 23:45
(See me and golf? I share the view of whoever it was who said something about a good walk spoiled.
From memory i always thought it was a quote by Winston churchill for some reason. Golf was a waste of a good walk.So i looked it up.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on10:36 am - Jun 19, 2020

adam812 19th June 2020 at 01:31



Rate This

I am not able to include a link at present as the online news is being refreshed but I believe Keith Jackson in the Daily Record is reporting that the SFA Compliance Officer is looking into the possibility that rules have been broken by Hearts and Partick as a result of their legal action. If correct he suggests the possibility of significant sanctions.
I remember when the ibrox club were shown the sanctions for taking their complaint outside football.
Expulsion from the league.
A £1mill fine.
Cup bans
In the end they agreed to a signing ban (that kicked in months down the line) but they could play trialists, in the end they got a membership and a 5 way agreement, did ok out of it in the end.

View Comment

Mickey EdwardsPosted on11:06 am - Jun 19, 2020

It appears that the frequency of my posts is causing some concern so perhaps I should point out a couple of things.

One strand of what I have written is regarding the unrealistic expectations on the restart of the sport in Scotland.

The other was on the point that Ms Budge was given the opportunity to come up with the plan to deal with the consequences of a prematurely ended season. The first thing the Budge did was, as Homunculus points out, was to dictate to the others what she would not allow to happen in the outcome of what, we were assured, was a working group that was to have a remit without preconditions.

The frequency of my posts following that parallel those of wottpi and Highlander neither of whom gave an explanation for Budge placing restrictions on everyone else. My posts only repeated my point but still no acknowledgement of the damage Budge was doing to Hearts, Partick and Stranraer's cause. Sure, no satisfactory outcome may have come from a more open attitude from her but it at least would have not have immediately alienated many of the clubs from whom she was seeking cooperation. Instead a stance is taken by posters that my Hibs background meant that I was attacking Hearts and Budge. In the past I have, in posts elsewhere and in direct discussions with TRFC supporters, faced the standard response to my objections to post-2012 events – I was a Rangers hater. My answer to them was always, as it is now, that I am a hater, I hate cheating and corruption. The fact that in those years and earlier one team stood out in this respect and that wasn't attacking the team but what they did.

Despite wottpi's assertions at 9:53 there is no recognition that the failure to restructure the leagues was in a big part due to intransigent stance in Budge's interview with Tom English. Instead, he points to a post that he believes will show Budge's attitude was not wrong and also suggests that Les Gray became anonymous and should have dealt with Budge's position if he found it to be wrong. This despite my providing the documentation to Gray's response and disappointment on that very point.

I am accused also of only raising objections to Hearts and ignoring Partick and Stranraer. That would only be true if these other posters' stance that I was attacking a team was correct. If you accept the truth that my points were referring to Budge's wanting her cake and eat it stance then why should Partick and Stranraer ever be mentioned. In fact I would guess that at least one of these teams' opinions would be more aligned to my own on Heart's stance. They after all were looking for a reprieve from relegation.

Truth be told I am in the camp that, even before pandemic, would prefer the league sizes be increased. The demands of TV to have small leagues so they can show more "big" games is detrimental to our sport as is their control over kick-off times and days.

I find it sad that I have to write such a post as this where I am having to explain the reasons for my posts. To my view this stems from being viewed as a supporter of a team who the other posters see as the "enemy" and therefore should not have a view on the actions of "their" team. If that were classed as a valid stance by the blog then the comments section would be empty as Celtic supporters would be barred from commenting on events at Ibrox.

This is not a time for posters to abandon the site especially if they believe that the site is allowing attacks on their club. Better to step back and ask themselves if their perceptions are wrong. My stance is aligned with the sites stated aim of assessing the actions of the Adminstrators of the sport and, where necessary, holding them to account. That can only be done effectively if supporters of as many teams as possible are represented in these posts.

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on11:39 am - Jun 19, 2020

'adam812 19th June 2020 at 01:31

I am not able to include a link at present as the online news is being refreshed but I believe Keith Jackson in the Daily Record is reporting that the SFA Compliance Officer is looking into the possibility that rules have been broken by Hearts and Partick as a result of their legal action. If correct he suggests the possibility of significant sanctions…' 


From the above, would it be reasonable to assume that the Compliance Officer has completed examining the actions of members of the boards of RIFC, TRFC & indeed the SPFL following the recent 'dodgy dossier' rammy? Charges to follow or (the much more likely) 'Nothing to see here, move along!'?

View Comment

reasonablechapPosted on11:39 am - Jun 19, 2020

I think Ms Budge is another who was and is interested in holding administrators of the sport to account.

This omnishambolic clusterf**k wasn't concocted by HMFC but I'm sure the 6th floor at Hampden will welcome the metaphorical guns being turned towards Tynecastle.


View Comment

reasonablechapPosted on11:46 am - Jun 19, 2020


Jackson (DR) has been the go to press hack for the SPFL throughout this affair. 

When it comes to his articles, Jackson isn't of fixed colour favourable slants (blue/green/whatever). He generally trades them for an ongoing supply of insider info.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:58 am - Jun 19, 2020

adam812 19th June 2020 at 01:31

'..I believe Keith Jackson in the Daily Record is reporting that the SFA Compliance Officer is looking into the possibility that rules have been broken by Hearts and Partick ..'


The link is 


From which I quote this little snippet:

"Now Whyte [Clare, the CO] could be set to wade into the civil war which has been ripping through the Scottish game since it was forced into lockdown in March"

The CO can wade as much as she likes, but she must know in her own heart that she is working for an organisation that will disregard any findings that they don't like and abandon any pretence of having regard for truth and justice- as witness the arbitrary dismissal of any need to investigate the Res 12 issue.

Why she doesn't walk away from any connection with that sullied, dirty, lying organisation which boasts of its 'Judicial Panel Protocol' in the way that tyrants boast of their respect for law is something of a mystery. 

Must be nearly as bad as being lawyer for a lying football club!


View Comment

wottpiPosted on12:42 pm - Jun 19, 2020

Just passing on for information purposes.


View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on2:45 pm - Jun 19, 2020

The Daily Record is out-Daily Record-ing itself with TRFC articles today.

There’s a ‘Morelos to Qatar for £15m’ story – 


There’s also a story that shows the professionalism & intellect of some of their players – 




View Comment

bect67Posted on4:06 pm - Jun 19, 2020

I'm clearly missing a point regarding the £10m 'compensation sum' quoted for Hearts and Partick Thistle. How did they arrive at that figure?

Each day we are reading about savage cuts mad by what will be assuredly be all 42 clubs – which makes this whole claim figure (if true) just – well mental!

Would whatever those two clubs were going to lose anyway be deducted from any compensation? (experts please!)

…and would they, in their magnanimity towards the rest of Scottish football (remember they don't want to damage it!) forego some of it to help others? Oops I forgot – self interest must rule!

Does the SPFL have the money to pay  out?

Finally, I think Hearts and Partick should be aware that the sword they are dangling over the Scottish game might just be the sword of Damocles hanging over them.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on5:16 pm - Jun 19, 2020




On Wednesday 17th June 2020 Dundee United, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers were served with a petition lodged in the Court of Session by fellow SPFL member clubs, Heart of Midlothian and Partick Thistle which, if successful, could prevent our clubs’ promotions, and potentially have catastrophic financial implications for every SPFL member club as well.

Whilst we are extremely unhappy that we have been drawn into this legal action, we can confirm that we immediately instructed external lawyers to act on our behalf and to protect our clubs’ interests. Since the SPFL resolution was passed by 81% of member clubs on 15th April 2020, which confirmed us all as title winners who were to be promoted,  we have undertaken extensive and costly preparations for a new season in new leagues, including obtaining major financial commitments from our supporters, business partners and stakeholders. Our removal from those leagues would be ruinous on and off the field.

We have each had a highly successful season, brought to a premature end by something bigger than our clubs and bigger than our sport.  Our status as champions of our respective leagues is not being contested, and nor should the promotion which has always, and should always, come with it.

The legal action that has been raised by Heart of Midlothian and Partick Thistle not only threatens the financial stability of the SPFL, but also its individual member clubs.

For all of these reasons, we must and will robustly defend our position.

As legal proceedings are now underway, we intend to make no further comment on the matter at this time.

View Comment

bect67Posted on5:31 pm - Jun 19, 2020

Thanks for that Homunculus …

Hearts and Partick have now completely 'lost the dressing' room and the ba' is well and truly 'in the slates'.

Did they think others would accept their actions meekly!?

View Comment

reasonablechapPosted on5:54 pm - Jun 19, 2020

Finally, I think Hearts and Partick should be aware that the sword they are dangling over the Scottish game might just be the sword of Damocles hanging over them.


The Sword of Damocles was hung over the Scottish game when the SPFL decided to railroad their way down Omnishambolic Avenue come hell or high water.

At a time when we needed foresight and leadership… We got creative lobbying, limited time constraints, misleading by omission, voting scandals, silence, media spin campaign, etc.

Now it’s indirect threats to Hearts and Partick Thistle. Who are both predictably and quite correctly seeking redress to the unnecessary circumstances they have been placed in from an office, rather than the field of play.

In it’s current form, the SPFL, from it’s corporate governance standards to it’s executive officers, is not fit for purpose.

When many recently said that now was not the time to have an Independent Investigation, they were IMO badly mistaken. More of the same lack of leadership and dubious standards is only going to ensure a rockier road than was necessary. 



View Comment

reasonablechapPosted on6:01 pm - Jun 19, 2020


Hearts and Partick have now completely ‘lost the dressing’ room and the ba’ is well and truly ‘in the slates’.

Did they think others would accept their actions meekly!?


Did the SPFL think that affected clubs would meekly accept or be threatened out of seeking to redress injustice ?

The SPFL set this trainwreck in motion.

The clubs are only doing what you’d expect them to do given the cards they have been dealt.



View Comment

HomunculusPosted on6:03 pm - Jun 19, 2020

bect67 19th June 2020 at 17:31

The next thing will be whether the SFA join in and threaten action against them, I believe it is against the rules for member clubs to take matters to Court.

Of course that doesn't stop them doing it, however it also doesn't stop the SFA taking action against them for doing it.

Reconstruction was the best thing for everyone in my opinion. Leaving Hearts in the top division and adding Dundee Utd and presumably ICT would have worked, and maybe even have made it a better division. 

The SPFL executive clearly believed that, and tried to make it happen. The majority of the clubs didn't want it though, so we are where we are and I don't see how it doesn't get messier and messier. 


View Comment

HomunculusPosted on6:15 pm - Jun 19, 2020

reasonablechap 19th June 2020 at 18:01

They are seeking to redress what they perceive as injustice.

By inflicting injustice on others.

The vote was taken, the decision was made. Hearts and Partick Thistle may not like the outcome but that does not mean it was unjust. For the three teams to lose their promotion would, in my opinion be unjust.

View Comment

reasonablechapPosted on6:28 pm - Jun 19, 2020


When I said clubs are doing what you’d expect them to do, I include the promoted clubs and their joint statement.

It’s a slowmoving but predictable trainwreck that shouldn’t have been set in motion in the way it was and the SPFL are reaping what they have sown.

 ps. the vote was questionable and that is being kind.



View Comment

HomunculusPosted on6:49 pm - Jun 19, 2020

reasonablechap 19th June 2020 at 18:28

 ps. the vote was questionable and that is being kind.


The top division clubs unanimously agreed that the league could not be finished on the park, prior to the SPFL executive making the decision to finish it and that the final placing would be based on average points per game. 

So even if the original vote was "questionable" and I don't know what you mean by that, they all effectively agreed with it's outcome anyway. 


View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on6:56 pm - Jun 19, 2020

reasonablechap 19th June 2020 at 18:28

As a Thistle fan and ST holder , I'm !00% with Homunculus in his thinking . We (and Hearts) played our way into that position and would have liked the opportunity to play ourselves out of it . Once the league was called , that was it . We finished bottom using the formula applied to all clubs and got relegated . It would have been a nicer had the clubs voted for 14-10-10-10 but unfortunately that didn't appeal to them . Or if Mr Anderson had given his money directly to Hearts to see them through a season in the Championship . Our problem is that the league we are now in may not operate for months , or even ever , due to uncertainty over clubs ability to survive and play bcd with no alternative source of income to entrance fees . What would have been your suggestions to do things differently and achieve consensus ?

View Comment

Mickey EdwardsPosted on7:04 pm - Jun 19, 2020

Just a thought.

If the legal action is successful and the outcome cannot be afforded by the SPFL will they make use of the Close brothers loan underwritten by the SFA.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on7:21 pm - Jun 19, 2020

Mickey Edwards 19th June 2020 at 19:04

It would be "affordable" the money will be coming from the other teams.

That's assuming that there will still be income from broadcasters, sponsors and the like. 

Personally I don't see that compensation will be due though. The clubs might not like what is happening, however I don't think it is "unjust" in the sense that it was democratically agreed by the members.


View Comment

bect67Posted on7:44 pm - Jun 19, 2020

reasonablechap (or RC for short – hope you’re ok with that!)

My apologies in advance if you suffer from argumentative personality disorder, but I believe you are, in essence, a ‘stirrer’ with an agenda. 

Although it’s seemingly pointless trying to elicit openmindedness from you, I will refrain from commenting on the content of your posts, and instead offer you the following:-

I’m only speaking for myself, but it seems to me  your contributions are deliberately adversarial (with most reasonablechaps on here) and clearly in keeping with having an agenda.  

I try and learn from my TDs on this blog, and acknowledge when I get things wrong (a wee bit of humility never goes amiss).

You might want to glean some learning points from how others regard your posts instead of apparently/ automatically disagreeing with them – as seems to be the case with you..

 What do you mean I’m wrong?

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on10:40 pm - Jun 19, 2020

Homunculus 19th June 2020 at 18:03



Rate This

bect67 19th June 2020 at 17:31

The next thing will be whether the SFA join in and threaten action against them, I believe it is against the rules for member clubs to take matters to Court.
I had a look back at the ibrox saga.
Rangers have overturned a 12-month transfer embargo in the Scottish law courts – but they could now face more severe sanctions as a result.

The club succeeded in their application for a judicial review at the Court of Session in Edinburgh as Lord Glennie backed their assertion that a Scottish Football Association judicial panel had exceeded its powers in administering the ban on registering players.

The judge accepted the club’s case that only the specific punishments laid down under the related rule should be imposed on the club for bringing the game into disrepute.

However, he proposed that the decision be referred back to an SFA appeal tribunal, which had upheld the decision that a transfer ban was appropriate punishment for a failure to pay more than £13million in tax last season.

The explicit punishments stated in the SFA’s rule 66 are a maximum £100,000 fine, suspension or expulsion from participation in the game, ejection from the Scottish Cup or termination of membership.

The independent three-man SFA disciplinary panel had considered ending Rangers’ membership, saying they viewed the offence second only to match-fixing in terms of seriousness, but decided a transfer ban was more appropriate.
Having already administered the maximum fine, an SFA appeal would therefore only be entitled to throw them out of the Scottish Cup for a spell or else stop the club playing football altogether in Scotland.

FIFA have also stepped in to the dispute, stating that they expect member associations to take “direct action” against clubs who take them to court.
Don’t know what punishment both clubs would get but if any they could appeal and state they were not as bad as the ibrox case in bringing the game into disrepute.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on10:44 pm - Jun 19, 2020

That reminds me wonder how the compliance officer is getting on with the ibrox club bringing the game into disrepute with their allegations and their gross breaches of confidentiality?

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:38 am - Jun 20, 2020

bect67 19th June 2020 at 19:44

'.reasonablechap ……I believe you are, in essence, a ‘stirrer’ with an agenda. '


Unquestionably so, bect67.

RC , to use your shorthand ,in my opinion, seems to be an instrument of those bad guys who foisted the Big Lie on Scottish Football. 

What he has to say is in line with the whole rotten mentality of those who so perverted Scottish Football governance. A mentality that in effect said 'bugger sporting integrity' , TRFC is 'Rangers of 1872'

The tragedy is that they know they are illegitimate and baddies but like the 'Wild Bunch' exult in their badness!

May they (metaphorically!) come to the same bad, inglorious end.


View Comment

Comments are closed.