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.
WOTTPI@20:12
My original answer to your post @12:34 yesterday where you wrote a long moan asking why people, the administrators and the lower league clubs, were not doing something. My response was to show that it was unfair to demand that. So my posts are football related.
As far as planning for the future I think you will find that companies of equivalent size to Scottish football clubs will be at the same point of forward planning, financial risk assessment and prayers that they will solvent. Our experience from the 2008 financial crash tells that the banks and financial institutions will not be listening closely to those prayers.
I would say though, as someone who has his own mental health issues, getting angry at the running of the game will do nothing to ward that off. In fact quite the opposite.
JC @ 11:59
This is where giving a donation to the organisation is inappropriate. Far better to put the money in a trust (NOT an EBT) and let the clubs apply for financial aid supported by a clear plan for its use.
Mickey Edwards 2nd June 2020 at 12:04
'..Far better to put the money in a trust ..'
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
I wouldn't disagree with that , of course, although I would wonder why the likes of James Anderson (who probably knows a thing or to about Trusts!) would not himself have suggested that way forward? [ Of course, for all we know he may already have proposed that, and the talks with the SPFL may indeed run along those lines]
The really important thing is to ensure that, whether it's a one-off charitable lump sum payment or a continuing Trust arrangement looking to the future as much as to the present, the 'commercial revenue' distribution model' is ruled out.
I see the SMSM has recently wheeled out SPL referees, in articles whose purpose seems to be to generate sympathy for the whistlers – and for the well paid, side job they have chosen.
Interestingly though, this is one area where most/all SPL clubs’ supporters are united: there is minimal trust or respect for the match officials.
I don’t think a few feeble SMSM articles will help either – and especially going by their attached ‘Comments’.
And another cost of the shutdown – presumably – will be the delayed introduction of VAR. The Scottish Referees Association will no doubt be able to kick that particularly awkward can along the road – for another couple of seasons, at least?
So, whenever the game restarts behind closed doors and further: we are stuck with the unacceptably poor standards of match officiating.
…along with the continuation of unacceptably poor standards of governance at Hampden.
Mibbees the SFA could add a sixth ‘pillar’ to their ‘Strategic Objectives’, just for transparency;
“No change: no improvement.”
John Clark @ 12.31
I had no idea who James Anderson was. However coincidently today’s Herald Business has a big feature on a James Anderson, joint manager of £10bn Scottish Mortgage Investment Trust and Baillie Gifford partner. I assume it is he?? Or maybe not??
Presumably it is within the donor’s gift to say how any donation is spent and if the SPFL feel that they can not commit to any/all of the conditions (an extreme example would be that there has to be a restructuring that meant Hearts were in the top division) then they would have to decline. If it was to pay for every club’s covid testing then that would probably be OK. Alternatively there may be no strings attached and therefor could be the money spent at the discretion of the SPFL. I do not know how much is being donated but unless it were a very large sum then the income from a Trust Fund would likely be insignificant in today’s environment when divided by 42?
Bordersdon@13:55
According to the Scotsman, that's the very man.
As to the trust, a large income is not a priority. The big clubs have no right to stay big and therefore should not be looking to a fund to help them do so. They have the ability to cut their cloth at this difficult time. Unfortunately the amount of cloth clubs below the top leagues have wouldn't be enough to make a thong for an anorexic. The only cuts that they could make would be there own throats. It is for these clubs that a fund would be advantageous at a later date. Just now though I can't see past the mothball option.
bordersdon 2nd June 2020 at 13:55
!Presumably it is within the donor’s gift to say how any donation is spent '.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Both Mrs Budge and Mr Anderson ( the very same Anderson) have indicated that the gift would be made absolutely and without pre-conditions as to how it is to be spent.
And the amounts being mentioned are in the order of £9 million or so, apparently.
42 into £9M=£214 285 and pence. Not a lot of help to the bigger clubs, but a potential life-saver to many clubs which might otherwise die due to lack of lack of revenue because of 'behind-closed-doors matches' .
I think my basic point is that whatever use is made of the charitable donation, the 'commercial revenue' distribution model should NOT be used!!
Homunculus 1st June 2020 at 15:17
paddy malarkey 1st June 2020 at 15:22
…………………
They did Receive a £25 voucher, but i could not find anywhere that it would state a £25 voucher is what you would get as compensation for a situation like this. Seen a few screen grabs of fans not happy for not getting any refund for games not being played.
…………
But Rangers won’t be following the likes of Stirling Albion and Partick Thistle who have offered refunds to fans, and will provide vouchers to be used on club products instead.
The £25 being provided by Rangers will be able to be used on the new MYGERS membership scheme, match tickets – including friendlies, women’s games, cup tickets and legends matches -, hospitality packages, soccer school programmes, RangersTV subscriptions, stadium tours and club events.
I could be wrong but it looks like no refund, you get a £25 voucher a season ticket price freeze and a few other bits and bobs.
Thing is if they are selling next seasons tickets at the same price, and next season kicks off with no fans, Will they be offered another £25 voucher?
It comes as the Ibrox side begin selling their season tickets to fans for next season with managing director Stewart Robertson announcing the new scheme.
wottpi 1st June 2020 at 22:34
21
Mickey Edwards 1st June 2020 at 20:12
In the big scheme of things I don’t think next season’s fixtures are a priority.
But those matters are for other forums.
……………….
Celtic like most clubs may want to get things in order, although that order could change at any time.but best be prepared anyhow.
……………….
Smaller teams could go to the wall if a single case of covid19 shuts it all down again. They will have committed to contracts while knowing that there is no kitty in the Scottish game that can help them.
…Don’t smaller teams get Uefa solidarity payments on the back of Celtic reaching the Champions League group stage?
Could be a life saver for some clubs this season. Celtic doing there homework early could help a lot of clubs.
I know JC was looking into the IPO.
I stumbled across this.
https://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/2012/10/19/comment/chronic-investor-blog/rangers-ipo-likely-to-appeal-to-fans-not-investors-4K3OdfNlzZV4zBan7MLmDK/article.html
…………..
Investors chronacle.
It means that the new club – The Rangers Football Club Limited – is debt-free.
….
As punishment for going into administration, Rangers was booted out of the SPL, Scotland’s top division.
It is a bit over the place. A new club, but no mention of liquidation, just administration, and there is an upside for the 54-times Scottish New club champions.
Cluster One 2nd June 2020 at 20:34
'…
I know JC was looking into the IPO.
I stumbled across this.'
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Ha,ha, Cluster One:
I've put Ken Wieland in among the SMSM's worst purveyors of half-arsed 'journalism' and propagators of misleading pieces.
I'd never heard of him before (my household has not much call for the 'Investor's Chronicle'!) and may I say I would never read anything else he ever wrote or may write again, if he's still around.
Thanks for the link.
John Clark 2nd June 2020 at 21:07
………….
Found while looking for something else, so many things wrong in one article, and they are the ones who are suppose to know what they are talking about.
CO @ 18:42
"Don’t smaller teams get Uefa solidarity payments on the back of Celtic reaching the Champions League group stage?"
No they don't unless they are in the top division in the previous season. So Dundee United will get nothing as will all the clubs in the other three leagues.
I take it that it was a typo when you put "Celtic" in the above quote instead of "any Scottish club" because UEFA don't care whether it is Celtic or not. Only the ever more skewed Scottish set-up means that the odds are stacked against any other Scottish team doing well in Europe.
It is a self-regenerating anomaly that is not good for the Scottish game. It is the very same anomaly that sees Celtic unprepared to call out the Big Lie. That sees desire for income trump the good of the game. Celtic (at this moment it is Celtic although a hat tip should go towards the Ibrox club for outlasting them in last season competition) would veto any move to make our league more competitive if that challenged there place at the top.
Be clear, this is NOT about sport this is about money. Those that still carry the belief in the "Celtic way" and the "Celtic family" need to come to terms with the reality that their club's board has long since jettisoned that fantasy.
To get back to your point. The solidarity payment is not from Celtic but from UEFA. I think if the responsibility of deciding where that money ended up were handed to Celtic we would see it resting in their own bank account. What it currently adds to the coffers of the recipient teams would be less than what they would earn through the gates playing in a league where the disparity in quality and finance was minimised.
Mickey Edwards 3rd June 2020 at 08:34
“Don’t smaller teams get Uefa solidarity payments on the back of Celtic reaching the Champions League group stage?”
No they don’t unless they are in the top division in the previous season. So Dundee United will get nothing as will all the clubs in the other three leagues.
…………………
I was more talking about the smaller teams in the top division as that is were celtic play And the lower leagues have not been given a start date yet.(Celtic to want clarification so that they can prepare for Europe)
So the smaller clubs in the top division will get a UEFA solidarity payments.
….
Dundee utd may miss out on a UEFA solidarity payment but will know that playing in the top division will bring other rewards.
………….
I take it that it was a typo when you put “Celtic” in the above quote instead of “any Scottish club”
…No typo, as the original post was about celtic calling for clarification.
…………………
You say. Only the ever more skewed Scottish set-up means that the odds are stacked against any other Scottish team doing well in Europe.
But then give hat tip towards the Ibrox club for outlasting them in last season Europa competition. Not much of a stack against then.I suppose if other clubs wanted to speculate to accumulate like the ibrox club they could do well in europe and out last them in european competition.
………………….
I agree that the desire for income trump the good of the game.Has done for many years but no one complained about it, they did try and keep that desire for income in the top division in 2012 but the fans believed it would have killed the integrity of the game and was a lesson to be learned to keep club finances in order as you never know what is coming down the pipe.
…………..
Be clear, this is NOT about sport this is about money. Clear as day, always has been about money.
…………………
To get back to your point. The solidarity payment is not from Celtic but from UEFA.
…
Never said it was from celtic.
Don’t smaller teams get Uefa solidarity payments on the back of Celtic reaching the Champions League group stage?
Sky’s deal to show SPFL matches for the coming season and the introduction of virtual season tickets has been concluded.
https://spfl.co.uk/news/scottish-premiership-to-return-as-part-of-new-de
It’s worth noting that it looks as if the liability due to Sky in respect of games not shown at the end of season 2019/20, is being repaid over the five year duration of the new deal.
It was suggested yesterday that Sky was due in excess of £1.5m.
I'm not giving a "hat tip" to a club which lasted longer in Europe by losing £11m in the previous season, then immediately spending £10m on players it couldn't afford.
They are still in the Europa Cup so could win it. However with the amount of money they have spent / lost since they were formed they should have won at least one domestic trophy since they falteringly clambered into the top division.
I recall EUFA solidarity payments being mentioned by ASWGL on SentinelCelts recently
In 2018 nine clubs in the SPFL got more than £370,000 each, in UEFA solidarity payments due to Celtic reaching the Champions League group stages. Celtic themselves received £28.7m.
As CO correctly states it could be a life saver for a lot of clubs
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45978052
What would you rather be when you people are looking to do you for contempt of court- a nobody of a ticket-tout, or a director of the holding company of a professional football club?
In my inbox today, there is an interesting (if rather long) judgment of the (English) civil Appeal Court.
see https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/mckay-v-the-all-england-tennis-club/
Easy Jambo @ 12.40
———————————–
If it is correct that the repayment regarding 2019/20 is £1.5m to be repaid over 5 years and the 5 year deal is for £150m (I think) then this is not a bad outcome. Considering that over 20% of the 2019/20 season was not completed including 50% of the BIG games £1.5m seems very reasonable.
Whether or not the Scottish game is being undersold compared to other comparable countries is of course another question.
my post of 13.44: delete the redundant 'you' between 'when' and 'people' in the first line, please.
bordersdon 3rd June 2020 at 13:51
If it is correct that the repayment regarding 2019/20 is £1.5m to be repaid over 5 years and the 5 year deal is for £150m (I think) then this is not a bad outcome. Considering that over 20% of the 2019/20 season was not completed including 50% of the BIG games £1.5m seems very reasonable.
===================================
In the reconstruction papers a figure of £9m+ was mentioned. The fact that the SPFL has reached a settlement with SKY now opens the door for other broadcasters to do likewise, e.g., re BT live games, BBC highlights, radio and live championship games, international deals (do we still have that?), Ladbrokes as league sponsors etc.
There are still a lot of unanswered questions following the SPFL's statement, particularly about virtual STs. I'm a bit sceptical about the arrangements as I don't think they are quite the radical innovation that they are being portrayed.
"During the 2020/21 season, each Premiership club will be able to sell a package to season ticket holders to watch all home games."
Streaming is limited to existing/new ST holders?
Do you therefore have to purchase a full price ST in order to watch (in theory, only one person in a household would need to buy one for a whole family and friends to watch).
No individual match tickets?
No access for fans to stream away games?
How long is the service available? The whole season or until fans are allowed back (in limited or unlimited numbers)
I assume games can be streamed at 3pm on a Saturday.
Does the streaming service cover games that are already being shown live by Sky?
On what platform will they be streamed, e.g. on a club's website, youtube etc.?
Is there a limit on the number of subscribers for any club?
Who will be providing the cameras/commentators?
Will Sky be taking a cut of the revenue?
Will Championship, L1 and L2 clubs be allowed to stream their games simultaneously?
Sky have a cheek.
They want the money back for non completion of the season whilst still charging Sky customers
for a package which contains no live sport.
I've contacted Sky to cancel or get a price reduction and they tell me I am to be held to the 18 month contract I took out with them last summer.
HS
Higgy's Shoes 3rd June 2020 at 15:36
I've contacted Sky to cancel or get a price reduction and they tell me I am to be held to the 18 month contract I took out with them last summer.
==============================
Is that correct. I was sure that Sky Sports had offered a 3 month pause on subscriptions, i.e. extending them beyond the current contract.
I have a "premier league" Now TV subscription (subsidiary of Sky) which gives me streaming access to all the Sky Sports channels. I also complained about the loss of live sport and finally they agreed to refund 3 months worth of my subscription. A day later, I got an email saying that they had instead decided to extend my contract an no extra cost until the EPL season is complete, which is all I had asked for in the first instance.
EJ: I thought so too.
But trying to get a rebate/cancellation is impossible (obviously not for you).
I noticed you used the words "finally they agreed" which suggests that things weren't straightforward.
Also, one of my friends has Sky through Talk Talk. No rebate for him either.
Although this can't solely be put down to Sky.
But some general questions need to be asked
Have Sky reduced the costs to third parties?
If not, then why not?
If they have, then why aren't these third parties reducing the amount they are charging their customers.
HS
Higgy's Shoes 3rd June 2020 at 16:18
But trying to get a rebate/cancellation is impossible (obviously not for you).
I noticed you used the words "finally they agreed" which suggests that things weren't straightforward.
==============================
It wasn't straightforward. I used their complaints process without success, before eventually emailing Sky's CEO (jeremy.darroch@bskyb.com). That finally got a response from their customer service department and, after a few emails were exchanged, we reached an acceptable settlement.
Now TV's Ts & Cs requires that any material change to the services provided should be communicated to customers. They didn't do that with me. I'd imaging that Sky's Ts & Cs will be similar. Add a threat to take the matter to OFCOM if you don't get a satisfactory outcome.
I'm with Virgin.
They have reduced my payment by c£30 for the last couple of months because of no live sport.
I still have SKY and BT Sport available to me.
The demand on CelticTV servers will be substantial in terms of providing a reliable streaming service. 50K season ticket holders plus existing expat subscriber base all adds up to trouble ahead. I think it will have to be offered via the Sky streaming platform as they have the infrastructure to cope.If the clubs try and limit access to a single stream per registered address on the season ticket list then they fuel the demand for refunds. I can see multi ticket households lending a virtual ticket to a mate as they ahem can't attend the game that week.Pubs will have a field day too.Tricky.
easyJambo 3rd June 2020 at 16:37
‘…., before eventually emailing Sky’s CEO (jeremy.darroch@bskyb.com). That finally got a response.’
“That finally got a response” (my italics)
“””””””””””””””””””””
That’s where I went wrong in these kind of complaint matters!
The CEO of the FCA fecked off to the Bank of England when I complained to him direct about their authorisation of the RIFC plc ‘Prospectus’ without first writing to his minions .
Seriously, though, and may I say, eJ, that your list of questions in relation to the SPFL/Sky ‘deal ‘, when set against the likes of David Currie’s ‘BBC Scotland’ report of about 9 hours ago ,clearly demonstrates the deficiencies of our SMSM sports journalists;
not in the fact that they cannot provide answers but in the fact that they don’t even ask questions, or seem to think it’s important to ask detailed questions that are of great practical significance to football club supporters!
They take their ‘handout ‘ and some encouraging words on the phone from some vested interests, add a few words of bumph of their own, and come out with an unbalanced, totally useless bit of journalistic CRAP.
In my view as one speaking as someone who has no Sky , Virgin, Youtube or football club TV subscription.
Homunculus@13:05
Unfortunately the written word does not allow clarity when an attempt is made to be facetious, there isn't even an emoji for it. CO's responding comments to me intimated that Celtic required to be heeded because, afterall, they would be saving clubs from financial ruin if they did well in Europe. That is just as unacceptable to the supporters of the "smaller" clubs than money generated by the other cheek in Europe. If we are to be grateful to Celtic for the solidarity payments then we should be more grateful to TRFC as their run in Europe was/is longer. I don't think so.
Cluster One @ 10:18 yesterday.
You post was in response to a thread regarding Celtic and Hearts requesting action inspired by self interest when the current situation would mean the requested action would disadvantage other clubs. By introducing solidarity payments you could only be justifying Celtic's right to make the request. To later state that you had meant that "smaller clubs" that would be saved by this was only meant to refer to the top league leaves us to surmise that you believe that only the top league matters and in that league Celtic matter more than other clubs. It is an attitude we smaller club supporters see consistently from the supporters of the "big two" from Glasgow.
Perhaps it would be worthwhile if the "big two" supporters kept in mind that the word "big" refers only to the number of supporters that turn up on match day which in turn leads to bigger bank balances. Within my own time following football I can recall periods where the attendances at Parkhead and Ibrox numbered c.10,000. These were times when other clubs had broken the stranglehold. There are two types of football supporter, those that enjoy the sport and those that want to wear "their"(?) clubs mantle of success. Unfortunately, because they are in the majority at any club, it is the latter that finances continued success. It is why my own club takes three times its average gate to a cup final.
Ibrox is not the sole preserve of hubris it is a characteristic of every glory hunting supporter no matter the replica strip that they wear.
https://twitter.com/jimdelahunt/status/1268492144802701314?s=21
A mouth watering opening game for the EPL. Can’t wait!
Mickey Edwards 4th June 2020 at 09:17
How would celtic’s request for a fixture list for the Spfl disadvantage other clubs?
………………..
leaves us to surmise that you believe that only the top league matters
…
So far it is only the top league that has a start date, and it matters to celtic to see what the fixtures are from that start date.
………….
Perhaps it would be worthwhile if the “big two” supporters kept in mind that the word “big” refers only to the number of supporters that turn up on match day which in turn leads to bigger bank balances. Within my own time following football I can recall periods where the attendances at Parkhead and Ibrox numbered c.10,000.
……………
You don’t have to remind me as i was there.
………………
Perhaps it would be worthwhile if the “big two” supporters kept in mind that the word “big” refers only to the number of supporters that turn up on match day which in turn leads to bigger bank balances.
…
These were times when other clubs had broken the stranglehold
………
We are often reminded thet a big bank balance leads to no sporting advantage.
Having been to Celtic Park and Ibrox Stadium when the home clubs have been in the doldrums , my opinion is that their support is 50/50 at best fans/gloryhunters . What I think we are seeing from the TRFC support is defiance and a refusal to accept things as they stand from the less committed supporters who only wish to be associated with success . Some people on both sides are only buying into the ST lark to try and best their rivals numbers .
As noted by our hero, John Clark,
JC
“In my view as one speaking as someone who has no Sky, Virgin, Youtube or football club TV subscription.”
I don’t often comment but I have considerable sympathy with John’s view of some of those ‘media outlets’. I am amazed that many of the contributors to this Blog, who will rightly condemn SFA/SPFL/Sevco, etc., for the disgraceful management of Scottish Football, will still happily fund the empires of people like Murdoch and Branson. It’s almost as bad as buying ‘stuff’ from Amazon (the tax-free company)!
Wake up and smell the coffee, chaps!
Alas, The Transfer of Undertakings has finally taken it's toll on 'ambitious' plans.
ThenCo:
'The most ambitious plan would feature a 70,000-capacity futuristic stadium, with a retractable roof that would open up a whole new sphere of event possibilities'.
CurrentCo:
'….managing director Stewart Robertson has revealed ambitious plans to turn Edmiston House into a 1,300-capacity conference centre, concert venue and museum – using funds from selling off half the Albion Car Park'.
Haywire 4th June 2020 at 22:30
Liberty Global – Branson only owns 2% of Virgin Media now . But I get your point .
Quick question.
The SFA AGM normally takes place at the beginning of June. Is it going ahead this (or next) week?
The reason I’m asking is that – according to its articles – a ‘season’ for SFA purposes ends the day prior and the new ‘season’ starts on the day of the agm.
Although they are roughly similar, the SFA’s ‘season’ is not the same as the (SPFL’s) league season.
No amendments to the SFA’s articles or its cup rules can be made unless the proposed changes had been submitted by 28th Feb.
So, if the AGM goes ahead on its usual timetable and no amendment has been proposed to define the ‘season’ by another means, I can’t see how the 2019/20 Scottish Cup can be played to a finish.
Has there been any information released about the AGM?
stifflersmom 4th June 2020 at 23:49
'..managing director Stewart Robertson has revealed ambitious plans to turn Edmiston House into a 1,300-capacity conference centre, concert venue and museum – using funds from selling off half the Albion Car Park'.'
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
I have just come into my kitchen to switch off the pc ( been with Mrs C watching re-runs of Downton Abbey, followed by an episode of Midsomer Murders ) and my eye was caught by your post, stifflersmom.
Off to bed now, eager for more information about the 'selling off' of property that Close Bros have a charge on!
I am genuinely curious about how these kinds of things work.
John Clarke 5th June 00:51
It's all a bit Greek to me too; but I can't help but wonder whether the Close Bros have already called in the charge (debt).
eg. Consider the 'positive covenant' scenario (although I'm not sure this applies in Scotland) or the Scottish 'real burden' scenario.
It's possible that the 'car park deal' includes a clause that obliges the landowner (whoever that is) to do something, such as to develop the land. It may follow that the benefits of the developed 'land' may fall to the (or partly) to the persons that have the 'charge upon' it.
In short, TRFC may be using their 'new development' to ooze financial muscle and convince the gullible to part with their seat-less season ticket money, without actually having an interest in it.
stifflersmom 4th June 2020 at 23:49
using funds from selling off half the Albion Car Park’.
………..
How much is half a car park next to a stadium worth these days?
Robertson insisted alternative car parking would be provided for supporters.
There are a couple of bits of land that we are looking at and our making progress on that will be ble to replace the spaces that we lose through the flats that will go onto the Albion car park.
Now let me get this right. They want to sell half a car park, use the money to buy a piece of land to use as a car park, then with the money left over turn Edmiston House into a 1,300-capacity conference centre, concert venue and museum.
Anyone now with a piece of land next to ibrox can just double their price as they know the ibrox club will need car park space in order to open the club deck.
And again, buy land and turn Edmiston House into a 1,300-capacity conference centre, concert venue and museum. Do all that by selling half a car park, somehow i have my doubts, how much is half a car park worth these days when you know the seller is desperate to sell ?
stifflersmom 5th June 2020 at 03:05
It’s possible that the ‘car park deal’ includes a clause that obliges the landowner (whoever that is) to do something
…………….
Part of the close deal was that the ibrox club had to maintain anything close had security over.
Found this also.
Loan Facility,
It will shortly complete a working capital facility with close Brothers. The facility will be secured by fixed security over Edmiston house and the Albion car park amoungst other assets.
The loan will assist with general working capital requirements and upgrading work being carried out at ibrox and in other areas where there is a desire to enhance facilities for staff and supporters.
Philanthropist James Anderson’s offer of around £2m to the SPFL would be split evenly between all 42 members, lower league clubs have been told.
Some good news for small clubs and Mickey Edwards;-)
An interesting 'open letter to 'Scottish Football'' penned jointly by the Federation of Hearts Supporters' Clubs and the Heart of Midlothian Shareholders Association appears in full in the 'letters to the Editor' page in today's print edition of the 'Scotsman'.
It's a lengthy letter and I haven't the tech skills to copy and paste (I'd never get a job in the SMSM!) but the basic point being made is that
"'an independent support group is secured to look at the current set-up of the SPFL, with the power to drive significant change such as: robust, transparent governance; clear, focussed plans which are supported by key metrics to determine success(or otherwise); a board and executive which does not include club representation and operates independently against the above clear, focussed plans-and which is judged robustly by shareholders….We believe the SPFL (as a limited company) should be club owned, but not club run.' [my italics]
Referring to the huge problems of covid-19 the letter ends with
" Heart of Midlothian means the world to us, but this is far bigger than anything down at Tynecastle Park right now".
I make no comment, and there is no comment on the letter by any hack in the newspaper nor in the online edition when I looked at it before I began this post.
Cluster One 5th June 2020 at 10:51
There is an outstanding charge held by Close Brothers, from 1st March 2019
Brief description
(1) all and whole the subjects on the west side of broomloan road, glasgow registered in the land register of scotland under title number GLA68492; and (2) all and whole the subjects known as edmiston house, harrison drive, glasgow, G51 2YX, being the subjects registered in the land register of scotland under title number GLA29534 and GLA62016.
Contains negative pledge.
GLA68492 is a car park, bordered by Broomloan Road and Edmiston Drive.
John Clark 5th June 2020 at 11:28
We believe the SPFL (as a limited company) should be club owned, but not club run.' [my italics]
=================================
I had advance sight of the "open letter"on Wednesday before it was sent out. It fairly accurately represents the views of the majority of Hearts fans. Unsurprisingly, the Daily Record sought only to highlight a view that some Hearts fans might be minded not to attend away games at clubs whose chairmen were vocal in their criticism of Hearts interests during and following the "end of season vote" The DR headlined it as "calls for boycott" and ignored the substance of the letter.
I'm pleased that you picked up on the extract that you did as I also thought that it stood out. Removal of club representation on the SPFL Board does offer a way of introducing fairness to the SPFL's governance.
It is not a new concept at Hearts. Ever since Ann Budge and the Foundation of Hearts entered into an agreement to fund the club and facilitate "fan ownership", their mantra has always been "fan owned but not fan run", i.e. the Club's Board would run the club independently and without interference from FOH, although it would be subject to oversight by what would be its majority shareholder at AGMs or other Board meetings.
Homunculus 5th June 2020 at 13:30
……..
Thanks for reply
So if Close Bros has a charge over the car park and Edmiston House, could this simply mean that they are allowing the sale of half the car park provided all of any funds received are spent solely on improving the value of EH and therefore the overall value of their security?
Alastair Johnston was appointed to the RIFC/TRFC board two years ago today . Compliance officer ?
Just saw this post on the Bears Den . I thought we'd binned this two years ago ? (rather lengthy article ).
Rangers and Celtic would both have 'B' teams in the bottom tier of a 14-14-18 league set-up being proposed by the Ibrox club for next season.
Kelty Hearts and Brora Rangers would also be invited into the SPFL to make up an expanded League One, with the "innovation paper" also suggesting Hearts and Partick Thistle avoid their respective relegations.
Both Old Firm B sides would immediately pay a £125,000 joining fee, with further payments to be made in each of the following three campaigns.
That money would go to third-tier clubs and would reduce by £25,000 each term across a four-year deal, with the entire plan worth a total of £1.2m of "new finance".
What else is in the 'innovation paper'?
Rangers and Celtic B teams can only get promoted as high as the Championship;
Their players will have an age limit of 21;
The Old Firm will purchase at least 200 tickets at a cost of £15 for each away game, with the money paid in advance;
They will also pay £1000 to stream each of those matches, should facilities be in place
Other Premiership clubs can apply to have 'B' teams starting in the Highland and Lowland leagues – replacing Kelty and Brora – with a joining fee of £25,000;
Alternatively, they could forge strategic partnerships with lower-league outfits that would allow up to six players, plus one coach to be loaned by the Premiership club;
Those partnerships would have a minimum three-year commitment and would cease if the lower-league club reaches the top flight.
How would the divisions work?
Hearts and Inverness Caledonian Thistle would be added to top 12;
League would split into a top six and bottom eight after 26 matches;
Top six would play home and away (total 36 games) as would the bottom eight (total 40 games);
One team would be relegated, and another would face a play-off as currently.
Raith Rovers, Falkirk, Airdrie, Montrose, East Fife and Dumbarton would be moved up;
League would split into a top six and bottom eight after 26 games;
Top six would play home and away (total 36 games) as would the bottom eight (total 40 games);
One team would be promoted, plus three more would make play-offs as currently;
Bottom two would be relegated, with the 12th-placed team in play-off.
Teams would meet twice each season;
Top two would be guaranteed promotion, with teams in third, fourth, fifth and sixth in play-offs to decide who would face off with 12th team in Championship;
Bottom side will enter play-off with Highland or Lowland League play-off winner as currently;
There is scope for second bottom team to also become part of play-offs.
Why are Rangers proposing it?
The Ibrox club say their objectives are to ensure no club is worse off as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic and to inject "new finance" into the "vulnerable" lower leagues to improve standards.
Furthermore, Rangers say they want to achieve the "freshness" that reconstruction would bring while making sure "the pyramid is respected" and keeping each club's share of prize-money distribution the same.
Another plank is to tackle the "player transition challenge" with a "menu" of options for different-sized clubs ranging from B teams to the existing loan agreements and reserve league.
What happens next?
It is unclear how much support exists for the proposals, although it is understood Celtic do back them.
All Premiership clubs are aware, and will have had the full document presented to them by Rangers by Tuesday. Furthermore, the Scottish FA and SPFL have both been briefed, and other lower-league outfits have been sounded out.
There is also thought to be broad support for the strategic partnerships – an idea initially suggested by Stenhousemuir chairman Iain McMenemy.
Were the plan to go to a vote, it would need 32 of the 42 clubs to support it. Seventeen of those would have to be in the Premiership and Championship, with 11 of them in the top flight.
While Rangers are aiming for this to be introduced next season, they recognise that will be difficult and are prepared to adapt elements once they have consulted more widely.
Further stumbling blocks are that, while Stranraer would technically avoid the relegation from League One meted out after the early curtailment of last season, they would still end up in the bottom tier.
Clyde, Peterhead and Forfar Athletic would be in a similar situation, while Cove would stay in the bottom tier despite winning League Two last term.
Earlier this week, SPFL chief executive Neil Doncaster wrote to clubs asking if they would back a 14-team Premiership for next season and, if not, how might their objections be overcome.
That followed Hearts' owner Ann Budge's failed attempt to gain support for a 14-14-14 structure for the next two seasons.
And from two years ago .
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42977922
Cluster One 5th June 2020 at 18:04
You have raised an important point I think.
If Rangers are selling half of the Albion Car Park and there is still a security on it then that security will have to be removed, as I understand it.
To me, as a layman, that means there are only two options. Either the loan is going to be repaid, or they are going to provide security over something else. Something which is acceptable to Close Brothers.
Occum's razor would suggest to me that Rangers are paying off the loan from Close Brothers, in order to remove the security, in order to sell off part of that asset.
Pure conjecture, some of the money received from the sale will go towards paying off that loan.
paddy malarkey 5th June 2020 at 19:01
……………
Was it not three?
Homunculus 5th June 2020 at 22:52
……….
And not much left over to finance another piece of land or turn Edmiston House into a 1,300-capacity conference centre, concert venue and museum.
It looks like just another deflection to stop some questions being asked about half the car park sale.
Also noticed you could buy a season ticket for the car park before but not now, it will be first come first served with a higher parking price no doubt.
Why should Celtic and TRFC be allowed to enter their colts team to the 'official' SPFL while other Premier league clubs can only put colts teams into the tier below i.e. the recently created pyramid. Still trying to perpetuate the 'Big 2' or old firm(!!) or playing the 'we can afford to bribe them with more money' card?
I sincerely hope this TRFC proposal fails, though lord knows the Scottish football authorities will surely buy into the 'old firm' thinking even though TRFC nowadays don't have a pot to piss in.
I read Henry McLeish saying he hopes the Anderson donation leads to more moral funding for Scottish football – what could be more immoral than this suggesgted bribe?!?!?!?!
Homunculus 5th June 2020 at 22:52
‘..If Rangers are selling half of the Albion Car Park and there is still a security on it then that security will have to be removed, as I understand it.’
“”””””””””””””””
With a nod to Nawlite’s earlier post
Close Bros must have given permission to TRFC to sell half the car park. And permission to develop Edmiston House.
So either TRFC have somehow repaid all monies they borrowed from Close Bros and the charge has been satisfied, and Close Bros are out of the picture (the charge, however, is still showing as ‘outstanding’ on the CH website)
or Close Bros have agreed to hand out a few more bob ( at a price) to let TRFC ‘develop’ , secured on their charge over what would be a potentially much more valuable set of real estate if the ‘ambitious plans’ ever materialise, but nevertheless secured on the original basis.
If there has been another ‘charge’ it should sooner or later show up on the CH website.
But I suspect that there’s a lot of wind and p.ss emanating from Robertson’s various external orifices!
Though, to be scrupulously fair, some of the needlessly aggressive, confrontational language of earlier ‘statements’ has disappeared, I think.
Cluster One 5th June 2020 at 23:09
Says 7 February , 2018 on the BBC web page , but I don't know what day of the week it is this weather !
Re the Rangers proposal for reconstruction. I think it will fail, which will the allow the notion to be perpetuated that it only failed because Rangers are ‘hated’. The real reason for failure in my view will be that it is currently easier to herd cats than it is to get agreement among Scottish clubs.
I also saw Henry McLeish get a mention. Why is it still regarded that this man’s opinion on Scottish football is of value and should be listened to? Personally I care as much what he thinks as I did what Ernie Walker thought years ago via his ‘think tank’. Their opinions are of no more value than those of fans chatting in a pub.
In the early 90’s the former journalist Gerry McNee often referred to those in charge of determining the future of the game in Scotland as having as much value as a bunch of Myopic Pygmies. Maybe these days such a term would not be regarded as politically correct, but the sentiment remains exactly the same almost 30 years on. In my opinion of course.
Nawlite. A good point. OF worship has been the downfall of our game. If there are benefits to be derived from such a move, why not find a less arbitrary way of deciding whose Colts team goes into the third tier?
Disappointing in my view.
https://celtictrust.net/season-ticket-refunds/
paddy malarkey 5th June 2020 at 23:51
……………..
https://twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1269182927369355264/photo/1
…………..
but I don’t know what day of the week it is this weather !
Me also, With you on that;-)
……………….
Dec 11, 2017 he became a person with significant control. in TRIFC, and on March 14, 2018 he still had not been passed as fit and proper to be on TRFC board. Maybe he has now been passed and the SFA have kept it quite
Big Pink 6th June 2020 at 10:10
0
0
Rate This
Disappointing in my view.
…………..
However, in order to support those who wish to obtain a refund we are providing the link here [http://www.celticfc.net/refunds].
…
This part is not.
Big Pink 6th June 2020 at 10:10
There are a few messages in that link, which part do you find disappointing.
Big Pink 6th June 2020 at 10:10
Disappointing in my view.
https://celtictrust.net/season-ticket-refunds/
=================
As a season ticket holder I have no issues whatsoever with the club's approach, but the great thing about this forum is people are allowed to respectfully disagree.
I have issues with the club's approach to Res 12 and the 5WA, but I think some fans have issues with absolutely everything the club does, and I think it's unhealthy (not pointing the finger at you BP). For example, the news that emerged today that Celtic have hired the company BT used for their live coverage to do the forthcoming match streaming, along with the host and some of the pundits I think is great news. Then you look around the web and see people demanding to know if Stephen Craigan will be part of it, and if so then he shouldn't be. In the early 90's, when the club was at death's door, I wish that was all I had to worry about. I suspect many of the current complainers were not even born then.
These are exceptional times. I believe Celtic and indeed every club deserve to be cut some slack.
"upthehoops 6th June 2020 at 09:52
Re the Rangers proposal for reconstruction. I think it will fail, which will the allow the notion to be perpetuated that it only failed because Rangers are ‘hated’. The real reason for failure in my view will be that it is currently easier to herd cats than it is to get agreement among Scottish clubs."
The real reason for failure is more likely the fact that lower league clubs have unanimously rejected the colt proposal many times. The collusion between the Glasgow clubs is reprehensible, trying to take advantage of adverse financial times to push through the wholly unpopular change.
Borussiabeefburg @ 12.35
————————————————
Spot on Sir.
Re the proposed development of part of the Albion Car-park:
I wonder if the developers, Merchant Homes, have agreed to pay to partly or fully refurbish Edmiston House & supply additional land for car-parking as part of the proposed purchase of a bit of the world-famous Albion Car-park? There’s certainly large sums involved in the project (all figures speculative):
160 flats selling at (a probably high) £150k = £24m (before costs).
160 flats selling at (still probably quite high-ish) £135k = £21.6m (before costs).
160 flats selling at (a more-reasonable) £125k = £20m (before costs).
160 flats selling at (probably slightly low) £100k = £16m (before costs).
borussiabeefburg 6th June 2020 at 12:35
The real reason for failure is more likely the fact that lower league clubs have unanimously rejected the colt proposal many times. The collusion between the Glasgow clubs is reprehensible, trying to take advantage of adverse financial times to push through the wholly unpopular change.
==============
I would prefer to see evidence that Celtic are working with Rangers on this, so please provide it given you have made the statement. They may support it now it has been made, but that is different from collusion. Some other clubs may support it too. Is that collusion too, and if they do is it also reprehensible?
Cluster One 6th June 2020 at 10:36
Sorry , mate , we seem to have been at cross purposes . AJ was anointed in June 2017 and the "Colts" proposal was 2018 . I blame the lack of drink !
So Rangers are proposing reconstruction including Rangers and Celtic colt teams without discussing it with Celtic ??
Aye right
paddy malarkey
“upthehoops 6th June 2020 at 14:36
I would prefer to see evidence that Celtic are working with Rangers on this, so please provide it given you have made the statement. They may support it now it has been made, but that is different from collusion. Some other clubs may support it too. Is that collusion too, and if they do is it also reprehensible?”
The information regarding a Colts proposal has been put forward, as has been the case often in the past, via the media. I doubt either club have anything on their websites, if that’s the sort of evidence you require.
The proposal involves both clubs spending money to get the idea accepted. £600,000 each is the Tom English figure, although I’ve not bothered reading the detail. It’s unlikely Peter Lawwell would agree to a proposal being put forward where money is being spent without collaborating with the Ibrox club in advance. Various Celtic facing blogs state Celtic are supporting the proposal, according to a quick search, which is as far as I’m going.
I believe Celtic have colluded with the Ibrox club on this, as they have in the past: they want Colt teams in the league system, but to try to shoehorn them in in the difficult climate which exists right now is deplorable, in my view.
….proposals for reconstruction.
On paper, I believe this should be given serious consideration by the lower league clubs; but not without serious negotiation. Negotiations should be mindful of the monies that will be generated by Celtic and NowCo. eg. both teams will undoubtedly commission differently designed kits for the 'B Teams'. Sales of these could be as popular as the 'big' team's. In terms of merchandising, the potential is massive. If these games are televised or streamed, 'the big teams wee teams' will attract handsome returns for matchday sponsorship not too mention an enhanced, or separate sponsorship deal for strips; both manufacturer and sponsor. Additionally, the rest of the 'wee teams' will be better placed to negotiate there own enhanced merchandising; however…….
I've managed the best part of a bottle of cheap chardonnay: I better post my 'however' later…rather than ramble.
I'm sure Colt teams from any senior club can be accommodated , but why not further down the pyramid eg tier 6 or 7 ?
Jings, how it is to be unpopular!
https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/news/project-brave-update/
“Scottish FA Performance Director Malky Mackay said: “This is a significant milestone for Project Brave.
“Club Academy Scotland is a fundamental part of the process and a lot of work has gone into developing the criteria used to assess the clubs.
“From Day One this has been a collaborative activity.
“The clubs have been engaged at every step, with daily dialogue to help with their applications.”
And from various publications over the past few years:
https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/celtic/celtic-and-rangers-u20-teams-set-quit-reserve-league-next-season-1418585
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-6988521/Rangers-Celtic-help-lead-plans-trans-European-league-reserves-shake-up.html
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/4192520/rangers-celtic-reserve-league/
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/chris-mccart-gives-detailed-insight-11925894
https://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/17611585.rangers-and-celtic-set-to-quit-spfl-reserve-league-in-a-bid-to-boost-academy-teams/
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/chris-mccart-explains-celtic-ready-14981851
https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/football/edinburgh-city-invite-comment-fans-over-old-firm-colt-teams-590763
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42793072
https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/fp/sport/football/scottish-football/peterhead-boss-slams-colts-idea-from-old-firm-clubs-he-says-are-out-to-bully-way-in/
https://www.centralfifetimes.com/sport/15964060.cowdenbeath-against-plan-for-celtic-and-rangers-colt-teams-to-play-in-league-two/
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/sport/football/elgin-city/1399075/elgin-to-consult-fans-over-old-firm-colts-move/
https://www.footballscotland.co.uk/spfl/scottish-premiership/celtic-rangers-under-20s-set-16213157
https://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/15887194.chris-jack-it-is-nothing-ventured-nothing-gained-when-it-comes-to-old-firm-colt-teams/