Acouple of weeks ago we revisited the OCNC debate. This is a useful exercise to turn to periodically, for I have noticed how, with the passage of time, new aspects have become clear as new information emerges, or some ridiculous claim is made and then debunked.
In those circumstances, we are given the opportunity to reassess what we already know using the new known knowns, or finding significance in something previously overlooked, but now shed in a new light.
Or put another way, the Beauty of Hindsight!
In introducing his notion that both ‘sides’ are merely putting their opinion, SFM contributor MarkC recently brought me to see that one side must be correct and factual, while the other will merely be left expressing an opinion. In the same way that one side must be right, because TRFC is either a new club, or it’s not, one argument must be the one that is factually correct and leaving the other as just opinion (at best). Once a factual argument is put forward, it can only be countered with fact, for anything else is just opinion.
Armed with facts, there would be no need to prove that TRFC is a new club, for first it would be necessary for those who claim ‘same club’ to show, using documentary evidence and facts, that ‘Rangers Football Club’ isn’t currently in liquidation.
So, factual evidence; what facts do we have?
Well, it is a fact that Rangers Football Club availed itself of the advantages of incorporation in 1899, and it’s a fact that Rangers Football Club Plc entered the terminal state of liquidation in 2012.
It is also a fact that at no time since this incorporation took place has anyone been aware of any other Rangers Football Club ensconced within Ibrox, no one has written or spoken about it; or not, at least, until a snake oil salesman used it to push his off the shelf company as ‘The Rangers Football Club Limited’.
What’s more, no other failed incorporated football club has ever availed itself of this new notion of the ‘eternal club’. The SFA was apparently unaware of it either, for they never offered up the salvation of its use to the likes of Airdrieonians, or Gretna, or dear old Third Lanark.
In fact it seems to have miraculously appeared only as a result of the failed CVA attempt of Rangers FC Plc, and the words of one of the spivs who surrounded Ibrox at that time (and for some time before, and after).
The only ‘fact’ put forward to support the ‘same club’ argument is that the SPL say, in their rules, that they are the same club. But the rules don’t actually make them the ‘same club’, for it’s not the SPL’s place to say what is and isn’t a club, and they only explain how they would treat the situation under their rules, and as Easyjambo and Hirsutepursuit (see appendices I, II and III) brought to our attention, the football authorities had reasons to introduce this to their rules that had nothing to do with establishing a separate club that lives on eternally.
It does, though, as Easyjambo’s post describes, show a willingness by football’s governors to change the rules to support their desired outcome.
As Hirsutepursuit (Appendix II) points out, the change to the SPL’s rules that enable this ‘interpretation’ of continuance after liquidation, only came about in 2005. So, have we to believe/accept that the split between club and Club has only existed since 2005 and is the preserve of the SPL?
And that brings me to look again at what Lord Nimmo Smith said of how the SPL rules view the continuation of a ‘Rangers’ (see appendix IV for reference). In short, a lot of words that confuse rather than clarify, and give no legal basis, or justification, for what he, or the SPL rules, say. Basically, the rules say ‘Rangers’ continues as the same club because the SPL rules say it does.
Then, in January 2015, Doncaster said this in an interview with the BBC:
“In terms of the question about old club, new club, that was settled very much by the Lord Nimmo Smith commission that was put together by the SPL to look at EBT payments at that time.
“The decision, very clearly from the commission, was that the club is the same, the club continues, albeit it is owned by a new company, but the club is the same.”
What Doncaster seems to be saying here is that TRFC are RFC because LNS said so.
Which is strange because it was the SPL’s own rules, and nothing else, that LNS based his findings on, and to have lent weight to the ‘same club’ argument, LNS would have had to have used some independent reasoning, or examples in law, to back this up. Instead we are left with the following:
- (i) the SPL, through an interpretation of their rules, told LNS that they looked on TRFC as the ‘same club’,
- (ii) so LNS said the SPL looked on TRFC as RFC,
- (iii) and then Doncaster said it’s the same club because LNS said so,
It’s a bit like me telling Big Pink (who is an acknowledged expert in the field of colours) that SFM treat black as white, BP tells the world that SFM treat black as white, and a couple of years down the road I announce that black is white, because Big Pink said so!
SOMETHING IMPORTANT I THINK WE’VE OVERLOOKED
Now here’s a fact for us all to consider. At some point Rangers FC ceased to be a member of the SPL. With the help of Neil Doncaster, Sevco (Scotland) Ltd tried to gain entry to the SPL and to participate as The Rangers FC. They failed.
Whatever entity was trying to gain entry into Scottish football, it was at that time not a member of the SPL, and so never had been under the jurisdiction of the SPL.
Therefore whatever the SPL rules or Doncaster said, or what conclusion LNS reached over the matter when it was based solely on what the SPL rules said, it madeno difference to the new club, since the SPL or Doncaster had no locus in the matter. Sevco were in limbo, and everything then depended on Sevco, as The Rangers FC, getting entry into the SFL.
Now, the ‘same club’ argument’s only factual ‘evidence’ is the SPL’s rules, and if they hadn’t included the recent amendment highlighted in Easyjambo and Hirsutepursuit’s posts, then there would be no ‘factual’ evidence, at all, however flimsy it might be.
So let’s take a look at what the SFL’s Constitution and Rules say on the matter, and I will quote the relevant parts!
Here’s what it says on a liquidated club joining the league:
“ …”
And here’s what it says, in full, about how it would treat a liquidated member club:
“ …”
In fact, there is absolutely no mention of liquidated clubs in the SFL’s Constitution and Rules, because the notion that a club could live on after liquidation is just that, a notion invented by a spiv!
And because liquidation means the end of a football club, there is absolutely no reason for rules covering such an eventuality to be considered within the rules of football.
And as I said earlier:
‘…the change to the SPL’s rules that enable this ‘interpretation’ of continuance after liquidation, only came about in 2005.
So, have we to believe/accept that the split between club and Club has only existed since 2005 and is the preserve of the SPL?’
What is now obvious is that there was nothing in the rules of Scottish football that gives succour to the notion that TRFC is one and the same football club as RFC.
When the SPL clubs voted against Sevco, to be called The Rangers FC, from entering the SPL, they made the SPL rules on the ‘same club’ matter irrelevant.
When Sevco, to be called The Rangers FC, entered the SFL, they were, according to the SFL’s own rules, a new club, for there is nothing in the rules that says otherwise, or can be interpreted as saying so!
Of course, by the time Doncaster made his nonsense statement, the SFL had been disbanded, and it’s clubs were now part of the SPFL, with rules tailored to suit those who bought into the ‘same club’ notion. Handy, huh?
WAS IT ALL ABOUT ARMAGEDDON?
We all laughed at the time it was spewed forth, but perhaps Armageddon was a real possibility, but not in the way we were encouraged to believe. We know that RFC owed a significant amount of money (football debts) to clubs outside of Scotland, and so outside of the SFA’s influence. We also know, with some certainty, that the SFA turned a blind eye to, or were incompetent in policing, some of RFC’s wrongdoings (the EBTs and European Licence) and the last thing the SFA, and SPL, would want would be non-Scottish clubs kicking up the inevitable stink and getting UEFA/FIFA involved, and investigating the SFA. So how to prevent it?
Plan D (plans A through to C had been used up trying to save RFC)
Create a scenario where TRFC must pay these debts, is the answer! How to do that? Well there’s that rule in the SPL Rule book! Right! but we must ensure Rangers stay in the SPL! Easy, we’ll frighten the other clubs into voting them into the SPL, and so TRFC will have to pay ‘Rangers’ football debts… Oops, the vote went against us! OK, we can stall the other leagues for a year, let’s get them into the Championship, promotion’s a certainty… Oops, we did it again… Let’s create a new set up, all under the (effective) SPL umbrella, with rules to suit, before anyone notices!
Could it be that all that help wasn’t so much because, or not only because, it was ‘Rangers’, but because of what no Rangers, to pay the non-Scottish football debt, might mean for the SFA and SPL, and so for the whole of Scottish football? Was that the real Armageddon?
Footnote
While putting this blog piece together I found it very difficult to write whenever I had to include the ‘what do you call it’ newly discovered ‘club’ thingy.
I find the ‘big C/little c’ method of describing it to be a nonsense, and at best a poor effort to create whatever it was they (whoever they are) wanted to create.
Even Lord Nimmo Smith, a much more learned man than I, failed to come up with a word, phrase or expression to adequately describe it. In short, a club with a capital ‘C’ is exactly the same as a club with a small ‘c’ – and only a fool could imagine it creates a difference!
Is a game of Football somehow different from a game of football?
But, of course, what can you call something that you can’t see, you can’t feel, can’t hear, can’t smell, something that has never been heard of or spoken of before?
Clearly, LNS could find nothing within the millions of words previously written within the myriad of cases dealt with under Scots Law, UK Law and EU Law, and clubs and associations, both corporate and incorporate, will have been the subject of a fair number of legal cases in the past for him to draw on, yet there was no answer to this conundrum to be found there.
And if Lord Nimmo Smith was unable to draw on his legal knowledge or research, he was merely expressing a layman’s opinion on how the SPL viewed a ‘????????’ club!
In such circumstances, his opinion is no more valid than any other reasonable person’s might be!
Acknowledgements
Easyjambo and Hirsutepursuit for the posts I have used in the appendices and my thanks in particular to EJ for kindly providing me with some documents I was unable to find on the internet by myself.
I’d also like to acknowledge the part MarkC played in bringing the debate back to SFM’s attention, it can’t be easy, constantly arguing against the accepted wisdom in any debate, but it always seems to bring out the best in us and something new.
APPENDIX I: HIRSUTEPURSUIT
March 1, 2017 at 23:02
EASTWOODMARCH 1, 2017 at 08:366 Votes …
Deviously, both the SPL (around 10 years ago coinciding with Rangers (In Liquidation) entering very choppy waters) and the SFA more recently, changed their rules to adopt this distinct “Club” (capital ‘C’) type definition, distinguishing it from the “owner and operator” company. It could have been said at the time to be a licence for unscrupulous, badly run “Clubs” to dump debts and shaft creditors, and so it proved with Sevco’s exploitation of these rules.
In 2005 the SPL changed its articles to create the definition of Club (with a capital C) – which actually INCLUDES the ‘owner and operator’. Whether the ‘owner and operator’ should be EXCLUDED depends on the context of the article in which it is used and to WHICH Club (with a capital C) it is referring.
The SFA did not add the ‘owner and operator’ tag until 2013.
It is interesting because the original SPL articles referred to the clubs (with a lower case c) as its members. Its members each held shares in the SPL. The clubs were listed by their full company names – rather than their trading names.
The Club (with a capital C) definition came about because the SPL were trying to launch SPL2 and one of the clubs (with a lower case c) that could have been included was Brechin.
Brechin is not a company, so could not as a club (with a lower case c) become a member/shareholder in the SPL. To cover this eventuality, a form of words was created that would allow the club (with a lower case c) to play in the SPL even if the share was not actually held by the club (with a lower case c).
If a club (with a lower case c) has not been incorporated, the club (with a lower case c) cannot own anything. In such cases, the assets are held by its members (usually a committee member or members). Since the original articles defined the member/shareholder as a club (with a lower case c), it would have resulted in the committee member who took ownership of the SPL share being defined as the club (with a lower case c).
The reference to ‘undertaking of a football club’ in the definition of Club (with a capital C) meant that it could refer to both an incorporated body and an unincorporated body of persons.
So the context of when the ‘owner and operator’ should be EXCLUDED from the definition of a Club (with a capital C) is only when that owner and operator is not a club (with a lower case c).
What is even more interesting is that three non-corporate clubs (with a lower case c) have each been listed as members/shareholders of the current SPFL – even though none have the legal personality to own anything.
…which is strange.
APPENDIX II: HIRSUTEPURSUIT
March 1, 2017 at 23:32
I should add that LNS found The Rangers Football Club PLC (the owner and operator) guilty of offences that predate the creation, in 2005, of the definition of Clubs (with a capital C).
Even if you accept that Rangers FC (the Club with a capital C) can be separated from The Rangers Football Club PLC/RFC 2012 (the owner and operator) – which, to be clear, I do not – that distinction only came about in 2005.
So if there is guilt prior to 2005, that guilt lay with the club (with a lower case c).
LNS didn’t seem to spot the distinction.
…which is even stranger.
APPENDIX III: EASYJAMBO
March 2, 2017 at 08:01
My recollection of the change in the SPL and SFA rules on “Owner and Operator” was implemented in early 2006, as the SFA wished to sanction Vladimir Romanov for his comments, but couldn’t do so because he held no official post at the club (small “c”).
It was Vlad’s son Roman who was Hearts chairman at the time, although Vlad was the major shareholder. So feel free to blame Vlad for the change in the rules.
Hearts were fined £10,000 by the SFA for Vlad’s comments about referees in October 2006. The DR article below, suggests that the SFA rule change came into effect in May that year.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/h/heart
APPENDIX IV
(46) It will be recalled that in Article 2 “Club” is defined in terms of “the undertaking of an association football club”, and in Rule 11 it is defined in terms of an association football club which is, for the time being, eligible to participate in the League, and includes the owner and operator of such Club.
Taking these definitions together, the SPL and its members have provided, by contract, that a Club is an undertaking which is capable of being owned and operated.
While it no doubt depends on individual circumstances what exactly is comprised in the undertaking of any particular Club, it would at the least comprise its name, the contracts with its players, its manager and other staff, and its ground, even though these may change from time to time. In common speech a Club is treated as a recognisable entity which is capable of being owned and operated, and which continues in existence despite its transfer to another owner and operator. In legal terms, it appears to us to be no different from any other undertaking which is capable of being carried on, bought and sold. This is not to say that a Club has legal personality, separate from and additional to the legal personality of its owner and operator. We are satisfied that it does not, and Mr McKenzie did not seek to argue otherwise.
So a Club cannot, lacking legal personality, enter into a contract by itself. But it can be affected by the contractual obligations of its owner and operator. It is the Club, not its owner and operator, which plays in the League. Under Rule A7.1.1 the Club is bound to comply with all relevant rules. The Rules clearly contemplate the imposition of sanctions upon a Club, in distinction to a sanction imposed upon the owner or operator. That power must continue to apply even if the owner and operator at the time of breach of the Rules has ceased to be a member of the SPL and its undertaking has been transferred to another owner and operator.
While there can be no Question of subjecting the new owner and operator to sanctions, there are sanctions Which could be imposed in terms of the Rules which are capable of affecting the Club as a continuing entity (even though not an entity with legal personality), and which thus might affect the interest of the new owner and operator in it. For these reasons we reject the arguments advanced in paragraphs 2 and 9 of the list of preliminary issues.
jimboApril 8, 2017 at 00:07 Now as regards to Auldheid’s wee picture thing I’m mystified. I imagine him to be an auld guy but his picture is of a ‘Marvel’ hero type!
Probably most appropriate. Him & JC – THE AVENGERS!!!.
——————————-
My lad painted that pic, probably when smoking something illegal. On Twitter I describe myself as
Retired malcontent and mind messer in Celtic Cyberspace.
I think the graphic is a good fit as my face lies about my age.
Having met JC I’m reminded of Dr Fu Manchu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mysterious_Dr._Fu_Manchu#/media/File:Mysteriousfumanchu.jpg
Sorry JC
AuldheidApril 8, 2017 at 00:41
‘…Having met JC I’m reminded of Dr Fu Manchu…
jimboApril 8, 2017 at 00:07
Now as regards to Auldheid’s wee picture thing I’m mystified. I imagine him to be an auld guy but his picture is of a ‘Marvel’ hero type!Probably most appropriate. Him & JC…’
___________
Ha,ha!
For the benefit of the lieges, I should perhaps observe that I am much more like my wee harmless koala atavar than like the fiendish Fu Manchu-whether in looks or in temperament!
On the subject of avatars, mine is a brick from the arch in Stan Checkman’s peanut stall in Clelland Street in the Gorbals. Those of a certain age may remember it. A wee bit of Glasgow history.
From today’s Daily Mail
Now if Johnston is the chief prosecution witness, then I wonder if SDM will be Whyte’s chief defence witness 🙂
easyJamboApril 8, 2017 at 10:26 (Edit)
While not very hopeful that much new dirt will be revealed, I do hope that Johnston’s evidence includes the fact that Murray chose to ignore the investigation report, commissioned by the club, that showed Whyte to be more than a wee bit dodgy! It was, I am sure, Johnston, himself, who revealed this to the media. A lengthy courtroom analysis of this complete disregard, by Murray, of the known risk to the survival of the club, would surely be damaging to his reputation and put him under severe pressure should he be called to give evidence.
Should this, and any other known knowns, not be highlighted in court, we will know, beyond doubt, that the fix is in!
Still, if the case is scheduled to last 3 months, there must be an awful lot of evidence to be heard. Surely not all of it is to Whyte’s disadvantage, alone! There can be little doubt that Whyte told lies to Rangers, but did he tell them to Murray? Did Murray tell him what lies were necessary to ease his passage into the Blue Room?
http://www.insider.co.uk/news/b7-exclusive-alastair-johnston-outlines-9880009.amp
At the end of the day businesses owned or controlled by David Murray sold shares to businesses owned or controlled by Craig Whyte.
Murray may have had to do due diligence on Whyte to ensure that he (Murray) was not getting involved in money laundering, by receiving criminal property.
However I cannot think of any reason why he had to do anything more than that. It really wasn’t his issue whether or not selling those shares was in the best interests of Rangers. If anything his obligation was to the shareholders of the companies selling the shares and to the shareholders of those companies.
Lloyds was a substantial shareholder in MIH. By April 2012 they owned 25% of the shares in the company.
easyJamboApril 8, 2017 at 10:26
‘..From today’s Daily Mail………….’
AllyjamboApril 8, 2017 at 12:04
‘….Still, if the case is scheduled to last 3 months, there must be an awful lot of evidence to be heard. Surely not all of it is to Whyte’s disadvantage, alone!….’
_____________________
I was just about to go off to my bed ( it’s just after 10.50 pm here, and I was up very early this morning) when I saw your post.
I was cheered to see that the trial might last 3 months ( unless the Crown Office or whoever has made a hames of their case and the whole thing collapses) because it means that I should get to see at least some of it .
There is, of course, only one person facing criminal charge(s), and he must, of course, be presumed to be innocent until and unless, after trial, he may be found guilty.
But there are many others who, while not at all guilty of crime and not facing any charges, will face grilling by the accused’s Counsel when being cross-examined on the evidence they provide.
That might be interesting, although probably nothing new to us will emerge.
See you in Court in early May!
John Clark
April 8, 2017 at 13:54
“See you in Court in early May!”
——————————————————————-
I do hope Donald Russell Findlay QC doesn’t mumble.
Silly me, of course not he has an excellent singing voice.
A couple of results today I’m very happy about. Livingston winning League one. I used to go to Almondvale (as it was then known) on a regular basis a few years back. Nice friendly club. They were treated like sh.t by the Hampden beaks in the past for a silly registration mistake. Nothing like the industrial scale of another club but…you know the rest.
Partick Thistle. First time to get into the top 6 after the split. They have had a decent season. It can’t be easy being squeezed between the two giant clubs in Scotland in the same city. And they are not tainted by any baggage.
Besides they have the best mascot in Scotland. Kingsley. Scary wee guy!
I think Hoopy the Hound & Broxy Bear would run a mile from him.
Meet Kingsley:
https://ptfc.co.uk/fans/kingsley/
John Clark April 8, 2017 at 13:54 “See you in Court in early May!”
====================
I’m afraid not. My SQA exam duties extend throughout May, so I won’t be able to attend at all during that month.
I’ll try and make it to some of the April dates but even then there will be a few that I won’t be able to attend.
ALLYJAMBO
APRIL 8, 2017 at 12:04
…
I do hope that Johnston’s evidence includes the fact that Murray chose to ignore the investigation report, commissioned by the club, that showed Whyte to be more than a wee bit dodgy! It was, I am sure, Johnston, himself, who revealed this to the media…
========================
Was thinking the same AJ.
Alistair Johnson was a well regarded business person working for IMG IIRC when he joined Rangers.
Then Murray is unable to ditch Rangers, with embarrassing HMRC action in the pipeline, so he offloaded to a chancer for the princely sum of £1.
Johnston claims all he could do was “jump up and down”, and then watch passively as Minty pushed through the sale to Whyte.
A capable, professional guy like Johnston knew he had another option: resign as a director of this plc in protest. If only to protect his own reputation.
Yet, with what he admits he knew about Whyte and what was coming down the line for Rangers – he stayed on.
He could have resigned immediately when it became apparent that the sale was going through anyway.
Apparently he was then ‘removed’ by Whyte in May 2011.
So why did he stay on?
Poor judgement on his part?
Or, did Johnston somehow know that even with an obvious wide boy as owner, Rangers would still carry on in the SPL, and debt free?
Would love it, just love it, if that was cleared up under oath as well.
SFA dossier on David Murray’s sale to Whyte (article on):
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/rangers-in-crisis-sfa-dossier-reveals-877727
jimbo April 8, 2017 at 20:49
==============
Full report attached
woodsteinApril 8, 2017 at 17:47
‘ I do hope Donald Russell Findlay QC doesn’t mumble..’
____________________
I have to say that, whatever else about our Donald, his court-room delivery and style are a joy to behold.You can make out every word he utters without straining your ears, and he uses his fine singing voice like an accomplished actor!
STEVIEBCAPRIL 8, 2017 at 20:21
Alistair Johnson was a well regarded business person working for IMG IIRC when he joined Rangers.
Then Murray is unable to ditch Rangers, with embarrassing HMRC action in the pipeline, so he offloaded to a chancer for the princely sum of £1.
Johnston claims all he could do was “jump up and down”, and then watch passively as Minty pushed through the sale to Whyte.———————————————————————————————————————–
I am pretty sure that this RFC director played the no surrender card in an interview with the BBC..maybe the Who sold the shirts special. I wouldn’t trust anybody who has served on an Ibrox football type board in the last twenty years.
JOHN CLARK
APRIL 8, 2017 at 22:30
===================================
Whilst I agree he used to have decent diction and projected his voice well, he is one of the least effective advocates I have ever seen.
He plays to the Jury.
I have witnessed (pun intended) Judges firmly put him in his place for his histrionics.
He really isn’t very good at his job and is basically a celebrity QC.
His PR is far better than his advocacy.
GUNNERB
APRIL 8, 2017 at 22:32
========================
Purely from memory, in a documentary discussing the position he said something along the lines of
“We have a wee saying around here … surrender no …”
Homunculus says,
“He really isn’t very good at his job and is basically a celebrity QC.
His PR is far better than his advocacy. ”
As a retired lawyer I agree. That is not to say that he is bad, but he is not a patch on the late great, even if eccentric, Sir Nicholas Fairbairn, who was renowned as the man with the Silver tongue.
I rest my case.
Davie Provan April 9th 2017.
They need rebuild from top to bottom.Hard enough if Caixinha HAD SERIOUS MONEY AVAILABLE,but there’s NO EVIDENCE THAT THE CURRENT GERS BOARD HAS THE CASH to revieve the club. GOD KNOWS WHY IBROX FAN’S BOUGHT INTO DAVE KING IN THE FIRST PLACE.
———-
They bought into DK in the first place because YOU and the rest of TSMSM, were cheerleeding DK and the fans bought into it.Now DK has not come up with the promises he said he would,and no hard questions from the SMSM why he never delivered on his promises.You Dave and the rest of the SMSM have now gone on revision mode about DK.
Look at that statement again and ask yourself. Did i really write that. GOD KNOWS WHY IBROX FAN’S BOUGHT INTO DAVE KING IN THE FIRST PLACE.
————-
Dave then goes on to say.
Good players COST GOOD MONEY and if rangers are to benefit from Caixinha’s knowledgeof the foreign market they had BETTER BE PREPARED TO SPEND IN THE NEXT WINDOW.I recon they’ll need at least six new faces with a proven striker the priority.
——
Just how are they going to get a proven striker and 6 new faces when dave himself say’s there’s NO EVIDENCE THAT THE CURRENT GERS BOARD HAS THE CASH.
God help the smsm in this country
I notice in today’s article and subsequent comments, JJ chastises John Clark and EasyJambo for not divulging details which were subject to reporting restrictions. Presumably JJ thinks it’s sensible for SFM’s court reporters to appear in court facing charges themselves?
What a plonker! By the way, has anyone read JJ’s apology or retraction about Dundee United’s claimed imminent administration yet? No, me neither.
HIGHLANDER
APRIL 9, 2017 at 14:07
=====================================
To be fair he is trying to raise money to bring his balls of steel to Glasgow from his fantasy exile and risk death to selflessly allow his self-styled forensic mind and eloquent writing style to report on the Craig Whyte trial.
One hopes if he does he manages to keep the racism, homophobia, sexism and political intolerance to a minimum, as that saves re-writing history by deleting the most offensive aspects of his drivel.
With regards his Dundee United exclusive. I’m afraid he is just one of those people who believes that if you throw enough dirt at a wall some of it is bound to stick. You then ignore the 90% that falls to the ground and claim to be in the know based on the lucky stuff.
The only member to vote FOR Sevco was … Rangers FC. How can Sevco be the same club if Rangers are voting on Sevco’s proposed entry to the league? If they’re the same club there was no vote needed, they’re already a member, no?
I haven’t read every “John James” blog but I’ve read a good few but I’m not sure if this has been covered so I’m going to ask the question – Has he ever given any explanation as to why he claimed to be a rangers fan at the outset of his blogging but has subsequently dropped that pretence ? Why did he pretend to be a rangers fan and why did he later stop pretending to be a rangers fan?
easyJamboApril 8, 2017 at 21:34
Attachment 2012-04-30-Gary-Allan-Panel-Note-of-Reasons.pdf
jimbo April 8, 2017 at 20:49 ============== Full report attached
==================
That reminds me of a question I had yonks ago which was why was the non payment of the wee tax case bill not included in the charges of non payments to HMRC. PAYE was, VAT was, so why not the liability CW agreed to take on?
There are references in the Gary Allan Panel Note to the big tax case.
“18. That for some time prior to 6 May 2011 Rangers FC had been in dispute with HMRC in relation to problems surrounding income tax from employees’ earnings. A financial vehicle entitled the Employee Benefit Trust (“EBT”) was in issue which had also become known in the public domain as “The Big Tax Case”. The matters involved in that specific dispute did not involve any financial activity or liabilities arising during the period between 6 May 2011 and 6 March 2012 but the potential impact of an adverse ruling on Rangers FC being delivered by the tax tribunal was a matter of public notice and debate both before and after 6 May 2011. The matter, which involved a very substantial sum of money was under consideration by the appropriate tax tribunal from whom a ruling was awaited. As at the date of the Judicial Panel Tribunal Hearing no ruling has been issued.”
and this is a doozey in terms of omission.
44.
” That shortly after the acquisition, on 3 June 2011 Mr Craig Whyte as Chairman of The Rangers FC Group Limited, in terms of Takeover Panel requirements, issued a letter to shareholders in which he set out a number of intentions which would apply for the period of the next twelve months. These included undertakings to waive Rangers FC debt in the event there was not an insolvency event as a result of “the Big Tax Case”, provide or procure immediate working capital of £5,000,000, and provide immediate player acquisition funds of £5,000,000, with a promise of providing or procuring four more injections of £5,000,000 over each of the succeeding years.”
It is a doozey in that it omits reference to CW’s undertaking to pay the wtc liability which occurs immediately AFTER the £5,000,000 WORKING CAPITAL in the undertaking itself (Circular to Shareholders of The Rangers Football Club PLC.)
(d) The Rangers FC Group has undertaken to provide or procure the provision of up to
£5,000,000 of additional working capital facilities to the Club; (FOLLOWED BY)
(e) The Rangers FC Group is to contribute to the Club the amount required to meet a liability
owed by the Club to HM Revenue & Customs in relation to a discounted option scheme tax;
There is no reference at any point in the Judicial Review Report either in charges or explanatory paras of the wtc (DOS Liability) and I find that strange in that by April 2012 the SFA knew that the wee tax bill was an overdue payable from 31 Dec 2010 and was one of the reasons to refuse RFC a UEFA licence for 2012/12. in March 2012.
I find it curious that the non payment was never included amongst the charges and it is yet another question mark over SFA behaviour when it came to pursuing action against RFC.
I noted an interesting comment on another forum from a Rangers fan who claims the SFA have not yet cleared Rangers to play in Europe next season, and are requesting a lot more info on accounts etc. No idea if true of course.
Fair play to Kenny “old bhoy” Miller – keeping the fight for 2nd alive. Didn’t see that score coming – though didn’t see the game.
Was Sutton being a wee bit mischievous in promoting that Brer Pedro offer a new contract? I would bet money against that – he will want to shape the team rather than bow to fan pressure if he is 1/4 of the guy he purports to be…
upthehoopsApril 9, 2017 at 18:22
Given they were economical with the truth in 2011with their acounts it’s not surprising it’s not a shoo in.
The accounts look dodgy in acceptability terms.
If future forecasts depend on UEFA money to break even why should other clubs who already have no break even possibility be put aside for TRFC?
Then overdue payables to employees at 31st March.
The main issue for SFA though is trust. Can they trust what they are told?
Once bitten etc so a bit of checking required.
AULDHEIDAPRIL 9, 2017 at 19:31
I have zero faith in the SFA to do the right thing. This could simply be a case of building up evidence in case they are challenged. If they trust what they are told they may come away with the ‘it’s up to UEFA’ line again if anything goes pear shaped. You also have to wonder whether a resolution similar to Resolution 12 will appear at the Hearts AGM. It would be so much easier if the media would actually commit to wanting a game free of and rule bending and breaking. Their silence makes it easy for the SFA.
The SFA will grant Rangers a licence to play in Europe.
UEFA will allow that but they may impose certain conditions.
Here is the STV simple explanation of what could happen. If it is incorrect I’m sure someone will correct it for us.
https://stv.tv/sport/football/1374309-explained-will-rangers-need-approval-to-play-in-europe/
HomunculusApril 9, 2017 at 21:35
Check previous blog where this was discussed after Easy Jambo highlighted same STV article by the chap who did not publish that UEFA saw TRFC/RIFC as a new club company in their reply to Res 12 lawyers in mid June 2016 and curiously never checked what the SFA were told after what was said to SFA that differed was published on social media.
http://www.sfmonitor.org/towards-a-more-professional-sfa/?cid=155902
Back to the football I’m afraid!.
Who would have expected that result in Aberdeen?
There has been a lot of comments on social media and pundits that things can change in a short time in the football world. So true.
In two weeks time Celtic & The Rangers will face each other at Hampdump. Can any one of us predict the result?
But we are the worst league in the world. Nothing exciting. No surprises. No money.
But we have our moments.
Who wouldn’t have expected it not every manager appears to be faithful to those that employ them.
This is a post from CQN yesterday (apols to anyone who doesn’t want to see ‘Celtic’ posts) and relates to Allyjambo’s opening post on this thread.
Although I’ve been onboard since almost the outset of RTC, I had forgotten about this piece of evidence that further supports the ‘new club’ argument. It’s so easy to forget bits when there’s so much evidence!
http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/the-curious-case-of-the-cancelled-kelty-hearts-testimonial-and-why-it-blows-open-the-rangers-continuity-myth/
Homunculus April 9, 2017 at 21:35
Auldheid April 9, 2017 at 22:01
=====================
Some key dates in the SFA’s Licensing calendar.
31 March 2017 Return of all documentation from the licence applicant unless an earlier date is specified
7 April 2017 Final submission date for licence applicants for all documents relating to the UEFA criteria unless exceptional dispensation has been agreed by the Licensing Committee
17 April 2017 Scottish FA to communicate to UEFA the possibility of a club outwith the SPFL (Premiership) qualifying for any of the UEFA Club Competitions
20 – 30 April 2017 Licensing Committee meets to consider all licence applications. NB The written representation to the Scottish FA as detailed in the Financial Section at Article 51 must be submitted a minimum of 7 days prior to the date set for the meeting of the Licensing Committee and this is highlighted in the “Club Report” to licence applicants following the audit.
5 – 25 May 2017 Appellate Tribunal meets to consider any licence applicant appeals
31 May 2017 Scottish FA to provide UEFA with its list of licensing decisions
shugApril 10, 2017 at 04:19
‘…Who wouldn’t have expected it not every manager appears to be faithful to those that employ them.’
____________
I think we know what you mean, shug.
But for McInnes actually to have the power to tell his players to sell the game?
On the face of it, a wee bit unlikely.
We know that he wants “The Rangers” job, and that he suffers as a fan when ‘The Rangers’ get beaten.
But realistically, he would know that he could not , even if he wished to, run the risk of asking his team, in any kind of ‘team talk ‘ to sell the game.
These days , as we all know, in Scottish Football you can trust nobody!
From the top downwards.
Such have been the consequences of the deceit of the once heralded knight of the realm SDM, now shown to have been a basta.d cheat,
And of the complicity in that cheating of the football governance folk AND of the professional liars of pretendy journalists in the SMSM.
JOHN CLARKAPRIL 10, 2017 at 14:39
shugApril 10, 2017 at 04:19‘…Who wouldn’t have expected it not every manager appears to be faithful to those that employ them.’____________I think we know what you mean, shug.But for McInnes actually to have the power to tell his players to sell the game?On the face of it, a wee bit unlikely
————————————————————————
I know where I would have told a manager where to go if I was ever instructed to throw a game John, and I suspect any other player at any lev el would be the same.
However, the tactics, formation etc…….That’s another story.
That comes with no underhand allegations, but for example to go with one up top v a parked bus will bring it’s own natural outcome.
But Aberdeen basically played the same starting XI and formation that they’ve been playing for weeks (bar the odd injury/suspension). Aberdeen are a better side than rangers but they’re not THAT much better to the extent that a 3-0 defeat is completely out of the question.
The idea that McInness sent his side out to lose (by playing the same side and formation that had somehow got them 12 points clear in the first place) is frankly absurd and makes this site and the posters saying it/hinting at it look utterly pathetic.
Now if he’d dropped half the first team and replaced them with kids and played Nial McGinn in goals or something…. then maybe you’d have a point. But as it stands this just looks like sour grapes from people who have become too accustomed to bad news regarding rangers that their brains cannot process something positive happening to the ibrox club without there being some sort of underhand reason for it.
Just an observation on how the second best team in the league have lost 2 from 3 to The rangers. The dons seem to be at sixes and sevens when they play this lot almost as if there is no game plan or maybe someone getting their tactics mixed up.
CHARLIE_KELLYAPRIL 10, 2017 at 18:37
“frankly absurd and makes this site and the posters saying it/hinting at it look utterly pathetic.”
——————————————————————————————————————
Perhaps you missed this bit Charlie.
“That comes with no underhand allegations,”
A few thoughts on yesterday’s game:
AFC played poorly for ninety minutes.
TRFC played poorly for eighty minutes & got lifted by Miller’s goal. There was nothing between the teams up to that point.
TRFC’s second goal was down to a mistake by the CB.
TRFC’s third goal should have been an ordinary save at the near post for the GK, but it wasn’t.
The pitch was a disgrace & the wind off the Beach End (?) caused numerous misplaced passes & mis-hits.
To infer that AFC weren’t trying (they had the only shot on target in the first half that brought an excellent save from Foderingham & had several on target in the second half) just isn’t borne out by what I saw on TV (the whole game).
::
::
I also note that DCK is acting as Chairman of TRFC again as he bangs the drum for ST sales. You’d think he’d have other matters on his mind…
Its not “just an observation” though is it? “Today is Monday” or “Its sunny outside” are observations. You know what you’re getting at and I know what you’re getting it so stop acting like a child by hiding behind “Oh it was just an observation” when someone calls you out on it.
ICT (the worst team in the league) are one of only three sides to have taken a point off Celtic this season. So what are your “observations” around that scoreline other than poorer teams sometimes raise their game or get a freak result against better opposition? Did Brendan Rodgers tell Celtic to take it easy that day?
These sorts of results happen in every league in the world. Malaga (currently 14th in La Liga) beat Barcelona 2-0 on Saturday. Aberdeen lost away to Hamilton (2nd worst team in the league) just a few weeks ago. Is that part of some sinister McInnes masterplan to help Hamilton avoid relegation ?
So a 3-0 defeat was not out of the question I humbly suggest if anyone recorded the game then go and watch it now if it wasn’t for the ineptitude of waghorn and garner in front of goal it could have been 2-0 in the first 15 minutes am I really to believe that The dons are so poor sorry I just fell of my chair laughing as to the aberdeen performance the phrase headless chickens and clueless come to mind this of course is only my opinion and it is no more or less valid than any other opinion.
easyJamboApril 10, 2017 at 14:26
Cheers EJ. Ties in with dates in 2011, although the same info in 2011 would have made it difficult if not impossible for Mr Regan to say this in 2012.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6uWzxhblAt9YktGc0kwWjJCY1E/view?usp=sharing
This is not a celtic site….is it an Aberdeen one
Last word of course it’s and observation it is what happens when you look at things you observe. I am not hiding behind anything what anyone reads into it is up to them nothing more.
Can a mod remove my last few post they appear to be upsetting.
As you all know it is the closing hours of 10 April. By the 12 April Dave King has to have issued a prospectus to the shareholders at Ibrox. (not sure if it’s TRFC or the ‘holding clumpany’) at 20p per share.
What’s happening? I’m sitting here with bated breath!
Well Shug if we’re now going down the rabbit hole of counting missed chances as potential goals and extrapolating a possible scoreline from that then let’s do that……. Aberdeen had 10 attempts at goal and rangers had 10. Aberdeen had 5 on target and rangers had 4. So by your logic the score could have been 10-0 to Aberdeen or 10-0 to rangers or anything in between.
I do have to observe though that ten attempts at goal is very strange behaviour from an Aberdeen team that weren’t trying to win.
Aberdeen also won more corners (7 to rangers 3) and had more possession (56% to rangers 44%). Again this all very strange behaviour for a team that wasn’t trying to win.
Auldheid, we demand answers!
AuldheidApril 10, 2017 at 19:49 (Edit)
First time I’ve heard that, Auldheid, and two things struck me while listening;
1) How much Regan sounds like that other Yorkshireman, Charles Green. Not just his accent, but also the timbre and emphasis as he speaks, as though he is the only one in the room as clever as he (but ever so humbly put)!
2) For a question (supposedly) sprung on him because of a plethora of twitter questions about the subject, Regan had his answer off to pat, no pauses to think of the answer or how best to put it, and, of course, the only question raised by the interviewer was one that was more helpful (to Regan) than searching, rounded off nicely with ‘OK’ and an implied ‘let’s move on to something that is actually important’.
Obviously I didn’t hear the whole PR exer… I mean interview, but I wouldn’t be surprised if that small part of it was what it (the interview) was actually all about!
Another thing, the BBC had, apparently, asked the license paying public to send in the questions they want answered, but the one they admit that had a huge number of people asking, only merited 170 seconds of their airtime! In fact, they’d have been as well having Darryl Broadfoot doing the interview, although I suspect he wrote both the questions, and the answers.
JINGSO.JIMSIE
APRIL 10, 2017 at 19:27 I also note that DCK is acting as Chairman of TRFC again as he bangs the drum for ST sales. You’d think he’d have other matters on his mind…
———————————————————————–
Am I correct in saying that this Wednesday is the deadline for him making the 20p offer. Failing that the Takeover Panel will have to take action against him.
Surely even if he doesn’t want to make the offer the other Directors / Concert Party members must.
As we have discussed before King really doesn’t have much left to lose, certainly not reputationally but Park at the very least doesn’t want issues with the FCA.
Perhaps all will be well and he will have a prospectus, adviser etc in place by Wednesday and I am fretting over nothing.
Apologies Jimbo, I didn’t see your post re the above.
Possession 54% TO 46%. Shots on target 5 TO 6 actually. The dons 0% strike rate from shots on target The rangers 50% strike rate from shots on target or going by the other stats quoted 75% take your pick.
Cluster OneApril 10, 2017 at 19:51 This is not a celtic site….is it an Aberdeen one
——————————————————————–
Touche mon ami. Nae accent! One of these days I think! To suggest Deek set his team out to lose is frankly s**t. We know he is a Rangers man at heart (so was AF) and would like that gig sometime in the future. Up until the first goal we were pressing very well but s**t happens. DMcK does not have a good record in big games (eg the LCF against Celtic when we were absolutely terrible).
Just an observation, but 50 years ago, the best team in the league lost twice in two matches to Dundee United.
I don’t think isolated comments reflect on the site at all – although the consensus response to them does. Shug has sole ownership of his. I would say however that having spoken to my mate Ally Begg after the match yesterday, he was quite upset – but not THAT upset.
If Shug is an Aberdeen fan then I think he is paying scant regard to the professionalism of a side who are on course to beat their own points record.
If he’s not an Aberdeen fan, well I suppose the binary world has come back to haunt us once more.
I’ve never known a player or manager, when set against the team he supported as a kid, do anything other than give everything he had.
Like all conspiracy theories it would be very difficult to keep a lid on it regardless.
Aberdeen gave everything, they played the way they have done – successfully – for weeks. Yesterday they got a couple of bad breaks – and fell to a great piece of skill from TRFC’s best player ever.
Happens – all the time. That’s why the game is such a compelling watch for us footie fans.
I thought that the Aberdeen v Rangers game was pretty even.
Rangers were the better team in the first half, but not by a huge way. Aberdeen were dominant in the first half hour of the second half.
Kenny Miller scored an absolute cracker, lovely technique and very composed, candidate for goal of the season in my opinion. Rangers went two ahead with a bit of a mistake by the Aberdeen defence. Rangers went three up when Aberdeen were chasing the game, as often happens.
Stupid cliche time, I don’t think there were three goals in it, but on balance Rangers deserved their win. The best two players on the park were Kenny Miller and Wes Fodderingham.
I don’t believe there was anything more sinister in it.
Oh and the ref had a good game from what I saw.
I wonder when BBC Scotland will be announcing their coverage of the Scottish women’s game ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39556657
Wrt AFC v TRFC , it looked to me that the Aberdeen players had settled for a draw when Rangers struck – basically downed tools . I watched the whole game on replay, and am glad Police Scotland managed to track down the one guy who was vocally terrorising the non-PUL population of Aberdeen .
Listening as I type to the pod cast. Phil Gordon & BP are very good. So glad to hear so much about the Jags. I will tell you something about them. They don’t try to kick us off the park.
And yes we need a Scottish based TV broadcaster. get rid of SKY (especially) and BT. You would think SPFL would be the answer – don’t make me laugh!
Back to Ian Cathro now. (wee soul)
Been thinking today about the upcoming Craig Whyte trial, and gave some thought to Whyte’s ‘tapes’.
I suspect a number of us were quite disappointed when we read that the police had been unsuccessful in gaining access to Whyte’s phone to uncover what evidence of wrongdoing he held there, expecting much to be uncovered implicating many of our own ‘prime suspects’. I now wonder if it was maybe a good thing that CW still has his ‘evidence’ untainted to produce in his own defence, though I would never suggest that Police Scotland, who made such a valiant attempt to honour justice with their illegal seizure of evidence they hoped to use against Grier (I think it was), might somehow ‘lose’ it all or find a way to make it inadmissible.
For all we know, though, it might never see the light of day, but I take some comfort in the thought that a number of very naughty people might well be sitting rather nervously at home for the next few months, wondering if it might not have served them better to have done the right thing when deciding how to play their own part in ‘Rangers Downfall’!
BIG PINKAPRIL 10, 2017 at 20:38 Rate This
TWM #12 Now available:
——————
I enjoyed that. Good listen
That’s the TWM over. I thoroughly enjoyed that. Although BP is over egging it a bit. I’ve met him and he is far too young to remember Hugh Robertson., that was the early 60s for goodness sake! I think you did your research on UTUBE.
Anyhow, a good point by Phil Gordon. Armageddon didn’t happen! 4 or 5 major trophies won by non Glasgow clubs in the past few years. Don’t get me wrong I wish my club had won every one of them.
Which brings me to my final point. Which clubs do I like outwith Celtic. The clubs which if I had to lose to I would rather it was them. Sorry if I miss your team out.
Hibs.
St. J.
Aberdeen
Dundee Utd.
Shotts Bon Accord
Arbroath
Livi.
There are others but I can’t remember.
There is one more which I can’t make public, and it’s not the teddy bears.
ALLYJAMBOAPRIL 10, 2017 at 21:47
Been thinking today about the upcoming Craig Whyte trial, and gave some thought to Whyte’s ‘tapes’.
——————————————————————————————————–
Regardless of whether plod gained access to CW’s tapes or not is not the issue. If CW’s lawyers intends to use them in his defence, they would need to disclose them to their opposite numbers.
There is probably a legal term for it which some of the more learned posters could provide, but basically, surprises are Verbotten.
Has he?…..Mebbes aye, mebbes naw. Time will tell.
HOMUNCULUSAPRIL 10, 2017 at 20:26
H – I may be wrong but my interpretation of the TAB decision was that, based on the email evidence, Letham warned King not to buy shares that would take them to over 30% and thus force the concert party to make an offer.
It would appear there is nothing wrong with working in concert if you stay below the 30% mark.
The TAB seem to have acknowledged one half of the concert were trying to play by the rules but it was King’s action that took all of them over the top.
Therefore it is DCK who must make the offer. The others appear not to be under any order to do anything as the issue was not one of their making and they appear to have provided evidence to back that up.
However, as you say, you have to wonder why people would even want to get involved with folk like DCK in the first place.
Having power, money and successful businesses does necessarily mean you have morals or common sense.
Corrupt officialApril 10, 2017 at 22:23 (Edit)
ALLYJAMBOAPRIL 10, 2017 at 21:47 Been thinking today about the upcoming Craig Whyte trial, and gave some thought to Whyte’s ‘tapes’. ——————————————————————————————————– Regardless of whether plod gained access to CW’s tapes or not is not the issue. If CW’s lawyers intends to use them in his defence, they would need to disclose them to their opposite numbers. There is probably a legal term for it which some of the more learned posters could provide, but basically, surprises are Verbotten. Has he?…..Mebbes aye, mebbes naw. Time will tell.
_________________________
My point was not that CW will be able to spring a surprise on the prosecution, but that he still has access to the ‘tapes’ and they are, I believe, still admissible, unlike the ‘evidence’ Police Scotland lost the right to use in the Grier (I think it was) case due to their ‘overzealousness’! Their case collapsed.
We also have to be aware, though, that Whyte won’t necessarily choose to use the ‘tapes’ in his own defence. Oh, and there might not actually be anything sensational on them, for all we know
Regardless, until Whyte’s defence is produced in court, there will be some people, high in Scottish football, past and present, who will be more than a little twitchy over the coming months. There is some comfort to truth seekers in that thought
Just received the monthly newsletter from the Scottish Football Supporters Association. If anyone is unhappy with the lack of questions put to Regan recently, now’s your chance???
From the email;
“We think that it’s vital that the SPFL and the SFA hear directly from fans, as well as carrying out their own survey through a client organisation. We are the only national autonomous vehicle who can make that happen. It’s YOUR VOICE that we are concerned to get across in an informed, robust but constructive way.
That’s only one example of why it really matters that Scotland has a national fans body that is run for and by fans in Scotland, and is fully accountable and financed in Scotland.As of today we welcome ANYBODY with an interest in our game to submit questions for consideration. We will be employing a professional academic led business to really see what fans feel”.
SEND QUESTIONS TO THIS EMAIL ADDRESS: questions@scottishfsa.org
Probably a waste of time as I’m sure this paper tiger will have a series of “filters” in place to ensure too many SFA/SPFL feathers remain unruffled. Or, is it an attempt to attain the email addresses of the “haters”?
7.16 p.m here in Birkdale, Queensland on Tuesday 11th April, and 26 degrees Celsius.
I spent this forenoon watchingthe action in ” the 2017 Hancock Prospecting Australian Swimming Championships, where Australia’s greatest swimmers compete for their place at the World Championships.”
A great morning’s entertainment.
And I am just now listening to Phil Gordon. Is it just me, but he sounds remarkably like ‘Radar’ Jackson. (Did they go to the same school ?)
I do enjoy the podcasts, and the nicely structured but easy and free production.
It is no criticism of TWM to say that the enjoyment woud be much greater if our governance body would admit that they “got things badly wrong” in relation to both RFC(IL) and to Sevco/ TRFC, apologise appropriately, acknowledge that TRFC is NOT and never could have been TRFC, and is not entitled to claim that they are;and also strip RFC(IL) of those honours and titles to which the cheating of SDM disentitled them.
Then we might get back to the status quo ante, without feeling that we have been suckered by blazered liars as much as TRFC fans have been suckered by a man who has perhaps two days to comply with the TAB decision in order to avoid a very rare event-being cold-shouldered by the entire Finance establishment of the UK and, probably, other countries.
NORMANBATESMUMFCAPRIL 11, 2017 at 10:28 Just received the monthly newsletter from the Scottish Football Supporters Association. If anyone is unhappy with the lack of questions put to Regan recently, now’s your chance???
From the email;
“We think that it’s vital that the SPFL and the SFA hear directly from fans, as well as carrying out their own survey through a client organisation. We are the only national autonomous vehicle who can make that happen. It’s YOUR VOICE that we are concerned to get across in an informed, robust but constructive way. That’s only one example of why it really matters that Scotland has a national fans body that is run for and by fans in Scotland, and is fully accountable and financed in Scotland.As of today we welcome ANYBODY with an interest in our game to submit questions for consideration. We will be employing a professional academic led business to really see what fans feel”.
SEND QUESTIONS TO THIS EMAIL ADDRESS: questions@scottishfsa.org
Probably a waste of time as I’m sure this paper tiger will have a series of “filters” in place to ensure too many SFA/SPFL feathers remain unruffled. Or, is it an attempt to attain the email addresses of the “haters”?
—————————————————————————————————————————————–
——————————————————————————————————————————————
Hold the faith NBM.
And send in your questions.
Stuff like our last blog on who polices things like referees, or who decides to have Hampden semi finals with northern teams before the fans can get to Glasgow by public transport.
These guys have done and are doing some good and mostly unsung stuff at grass roots with clubs and fans and have no agenda to avoid ruffling of feathers.
They want a better deal for us all.
I think we need a strong multi-club, fan-led and run independent monitor on what is happening because right now we have no voice apart from the tartan branded English Supporters Direct.
And they are way too close to The SFA.
There was a very important documentary about Scottish football on the Beeb last night, but deafening silence about its subject on here.
Starter for ten: do you know what your club’s child protection policies are? Do you think they are adequate?
Phil’s latest blog is unsurprisingly claiming that King is just not going to make a share offer.
And as someone else pointed out: if King does indeed get the cold shoulder – and tries to hang on glibly and shamelessly at the Ibrox club – where does that leave their bankers Metro Bank, and their auditors Campbell Dallas ?
Looks like it could get rather messy – again – down Govan way.
Mibbees forming an orderly – and dignified – line to kiss Ashley’s ‘ring’ might now be the only option left for RIFC / TRFC ?
Regardless: there will be even more negative press about Scottish football generated by this new club.
PMGB has blogged that the SFA have returned TRFC’s UEFA licence application as it was ‘incomplete and unsatisfactory’. Hopefully the information Phil has received is accurate and that this is just the start of a perfect storm
though it perhaps started with the TOP decision.
normanbatesmumfcApril 11, 2017 at 10:28
‘…..Just received the monthly newsletter from the Scottish Football Supporters Association…..’
__________________________
I agree with the remarks of Finloch at ‘FinlochApril 11, 2017 at 10:57 ‘
Supporters Direct , England based but presuming to speak also for Scottish football supporters, is receiving funding from the SFA.
That fact instantly casts doubt on its ‘independence.’
Even brute beasts learn that you don’t bite the hand that feeds you!
The Scottish Football Supporters Association is truly independent of the SFA, of the SPFL, of any feckin self-seeking ‘sponsor’.
It, essentially, is you and me. What do we ,who pay our money,want?
(Leave aside for the moment the ‘saga’, and assume that our sport may be honest one day)
Well, the SFSA will act as a kind of consumer watch-dog, to try to get our individual clubs as well as the SFA and SPFL boards to treat their customers , football fans generally in the case of the SFA, and, in the case of the SPFL clubs, their own supporters and visiting fans-with something like respect rather than as mere till-fodder.
I joined.
And I joined because , leaving aside the huge elephant of how the SFA in particular tried to con us all into believing that, uniquely, a football club in liquidation is still actively participating in the SPFL, there is a whole lot of other aspects of our customer/consumer relationship with our individual clubs and with our national team that needs to be monitored.
Even when the present regimes have been ousted and have slunk off without credit, disgraced as having , on their watch, run Scottish Football on to such rocks as would make it unlikely that it can be truly refloated.
ALLYJAMBOAPRIL 10, 2017 at 20:26 >> 1) How much Regan sounds like that other Yorkshireman, Charles Green
Hold on just a cotton-pickin’ minute! Regan is from County Durham, from his accent he sounds to me more like he’s from the East Durham coast (Seaham, Easington, Peterlee). I’d gladly suggest he was a Yorkshireman, but only to assuage my guilt (I hail from County Durham too).
Gym TrainerApril 11, 2017 at 17:55 (Edit)
ALLYJAMBOAPRIL 10, 2017 at 20:26 >> 1) How much Regan sounds like that other Yorkshireman, Charles Green
Hold on just a cotton-pickin’ minute! Regan is from County Durham, from his accent he sounds to me more like he’s from the East Durham coast (Seaham, Easington, Peterlee). I’d gladly suggest he was a Yorkshireman, but only to assuage my guilt (I hail from County Durham too).
____________________
And that’s a heavy guilt you must carry
, Gym.
His voice and diction still reminded me of Green, in a rather unpleasant smart arse way, which is probably an indication that both have developed it as a way to speak to lesser people, from their viewpoint (such as football fans), that they are trying to fool.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39571776
What is the world coming to? These terrorists always target the innocents. Cowards.