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.
Where has this myth that “Referees don’t book Scott Brown” emerged from? Have people lost the ability to google and are now just resorting to making stuff up?
Prior to yesterday Brown had received 11 yellow cards in the league this season.
Homunculus April 17, 2017 at 10:58
If only there had been an assistant referee keeping up with the game and in line with the most advanced player.
=====================
The assistant refs stay in line with the last defender rather than the most advanced attacker.
EASYJAMBO
APRIL 17, 2017 at 11:14
===============================
Apparently it’s the second last defender or ball, if the ball is closer to the goal.
“2. General positioning during the match
The assistant referees must be in line with the second-last opponent or the ball if it is nearer the goal line than the second-last opponent.
The assistant referees must always face the field of play.”
FIFA have even provided a nice wee picture.
Both Assistant Referee’s positioning can be seen.
Just an observation. Did anyone else think it odd that the referee was seen walking off the pitch with only one assistant when Brendan Rodgers went to shake hands at the end of the match & not the usual trio of officials?
The standside one had almost sprinted up the tunnel right on the full time whistle. Funny that.
Homunculus April 17, 2017 at 11:30
Apparently it’s the second last defender or ball, if the ball is closer to the goal.
“2. General positioning during the match
The assistant referees must be in line with the second-last opponent or the ball if it is nearer the goal line than the second-last opponent.
The assistant referees must always face the field of play.”
====================
When referencing the last defender I was assuming that the keeper was also in position.
I had to laugh at MOTD last night when, in the last minute of the Liverpool game, the commentator Jonathan Pierce criticised Moreno for shooting towards an empty goal rather than passing to Sturridge on his left. Sturridge was in an offside position, ahead of the Moreno but with only one defender between him and the goal as the keeper had been stranded upfield.
It’s a mistake, I’ve seen a few times when assistant referees seem to have a blind spot to keepers being off their line when judging offsides.
I’ve reproduced below an exchange on twitter regarding yesterday’s “penalty incident”.
Matt McGlone: “Blatant blatant cheating” I’m sure in many ways he’s not just talking about Schalk, but the ref. The world must realise what’s going on here
Tom English: Deary me. Horrendous decision but let’s not call in the UN just yet…
——————————————————————-
I would instinctively agree with Tom English. The ref has likely made a howler as opposed to cheated. But, and it is a bloody big but, what TE singularly fails to understand is that for the best part of two decades one Club engaged in industrial scale cheating using illegal measures to avoid paying tax in order to put a quality of team on the pitch that they otherwise could not have afforded.
The authorities that are supposed to safeguard the integrity of the sport under their protection connived in an investigation that boggles the mind of any neutral onlooker, declaring that said club:
A) Engaged in rule breaking second only to match fixing, and
B) Gained no sporting advantage
The titles and cups won during this era have never been voided and the SFA apparently allows a successor organisation to claim the full history, including said titles and cups, despite the original organisation being liquidated.
TE should realise that for large numbers of people who just want to follow honest sport, all trust has been lost. Unless and until there is an open and frank accounting for the Murray era many will see conspiracy where maybe only cock-up exists. It’s a very human response to the situation as it stands.
CLUSTER ONE
APRIL 17, 2017 at 09:56
TAMJARTMARQUEZAPRIL 17, 2017 at 09:50 IF Celtic appeal the Brown red card is that cheating?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, No it’s in the rules they can appeal a straight red card. the ref got the penalty wrong who’s to say he got the red card wrong
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Why did the Referee not book Sviatchenko ?
Isn`t any foul in the penalty box not supposed to be an automatic yellow card ?
I beleive that is. John Gilligan of WATP fame and not in the dim and distant days of daft laddyhood but in the last few weeks, that is reprehensible stuff and not subtly so
Celtic are wholly within their rights to appeal the Brown sending off.
It is not cheating.
However what is going to be their defense of their captain’s actions?
The tackle was a blatant retaliatory strike for an incident that occurred between the two players only a few seconds earlier.
If I was a hoops fans I would be less worried about the ins and outs of an appeal and more worried about Brown reverting to his ‘old self’ whereby their captain has selfishly committed a poor tackle for his own personal satisfaction in a game that was almost done and dusted resulting in potential self-harming consequences in relation to the upcoming major cup semi-final.
For all that I like his battling qualities, Scott Brown shows us he still has the propensity to be a silly wee boy when in headless chicken mode.
You are absolutely correct. However, the inference you make is that the John Guidetti incident I referred to, for example, was somehow unimportant because Celtic weren’t the aggrieved party. Indeed you failed to address the point I was making, which is that when Celtic gain from equally appalling refereeing decisions, such as Samaras conning the referee into awarding a penalty against Spartak Moscow in the CL, there is no mass hysteria and ludicrous accusations of referees cheating, rather than simply being incompetent.
I’m afraid it’s you that’s guilty of “making stuff up”, because I said, and I quote “most referees seem to allow Brown between five and ten fouls on average per game before having the temerity to book him!” It’s not that he doesn’t get booked that’s the issue, it’s the fact that refs allow him umpteen ‘practice swings’ before producing a card.
Maybe we’re all guilty of wearing tinted goggles at times.
Allyjambo
?
April 17, 2017 at 10:25
————————————————————–
From the Sun
He uses the handle @CraigWhyte22 and his bio, accompanied with a selfie, reads:
“Entrepreneur. Business Turnaround Strategist. Former owner Rangers Football Club”.
This one could be interesting .
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39621886
HIGHLANDERAPRIL 17, 2017 at 13:23
“Maybe we’re all guilty of wearing tinted goggles at times.”
——————————————————————————————-
Including referees?
HIGHLANDER
“most referees seem to allow Brown between five and ten fouls on average per game before having the temerity to book him!”
From a quick look Celtic appear to have committed about 360 fouls in their 33 league games so far this season.
Using your five to ten average that would mean Scott Brown alone is responsible for somewhere between about 45% and 90% of all Celtic fouls in the league this season; quite an achievement even for Scott Brown.
Perspective, wonderful thing eh.
woodsteinApril 17, 2017 at 14:26 (Edit)
I noticed Bartin had tweeted that it was a Sun spoof earlier. Sadly it is more likely that that rag would stoop that low than it is that a spiv like Whyte would do such a thing! I suppose it’s easier for such a disgraceful chip wrapper to sucker people in on twitter than to make an effort to produce a decent publication and cover the trial themselves. No doubt any coverage of the trial they give will be selective interpretations of what James Doleman tweets!
paddy malarkeyApril 17, 2017 at 14:33 (Edit)
This one could be interesting .http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39621886
__________
Squeaky bum time in the Hampden bunker again! I suspect a phone call has already been made to the Highland League to smooth it over.
While not wishing to see Buckie Thistle lose out because of a clear error, it would highlight the injustice of the LNS decision, for all to see, if a club was to lose, or nearly lose, a title for such an inconsequential aberration. In truth, though, if the rules specifically state an ineligible player cannot sit on the bench, then the point (for the draw) should be lost.
Cue Sandy Bryson.
CrownStBhoy,
You’re incorrectly assuming that the 5-10 pre booking fouls per match all have free kicks awarded for them!
I wonder if Buckie Thistle can use the “Bryson defence” ?
TAMJARTMARQUEZ
APRIL 17, 2017 at 10:22
When asked if he had any complaints about the red card, Celtic boss Brendan Rodgers said:
“No. Scotty has gone in and caught the boy late, but I’d have to see it again.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39616097
========================================
Even though they have played some lovely footie in recent years, I just don’t like Arsene Wenger, and by default Arsenal.
Perhaps like many others, [?], this stems from the period when his players such as Viera where being fairly regularly sent off for violent conduct, spitting at a player, etc.
Wenger refused to comment on the incidents, nevermind criticise the players’ actions.
He typically used the lame excuse that he didn’t see it, as he was tying his shoe laces, looking up at the stand, picking his nose, etc.
So, that Rodgers’ quote is refreshing, and further confirms the perception that he is a decent bloke first and foremost.
[I haven’t seen the tackle, but it’s always been the case that if you are good enough, you don’t need to foul.]
PADDY MALARKEY
APRIL 17, 2017 at 14:33
This one could be interesting .
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39621886
=================================
Absolutely PM !
And I presume this competition ultimately falls under the SFA jurisdiction?
So, I would gladly contribute to a crowd funding page for Buckie to go to the Court of Session if they are penalised with anything more than a proportionate financial penalty, and/or a transfers sanction.
You reap what you sow, and all that…
TincksApril 17, 2017 at 12:23
‘..I would instinctively agree with Tom English. ..’
__________
And, sadly, I would as instinctively disagree with what the gombeen man says.
He has-especially by signing up with BBC radio Scotland- pledged his allegiance to the propagandisation and perpetuation of the biggest lie that ever Scottish sport as a whole, never mind Scottish Football, has perpetrated.
He has taken the shilling.
Nothing that he now has to say about anything to do with Scottish Football is to be taken any more seriously than the wittering words of Radar or Chick or Kenny.
The man is as busted a flush as any of those in the SMSM who choose to deny objective fact, and who fail in their journalistic ‘duty’ to call out the liars and cheats.
SMUGAS,
If no free-kick is awarded then that would make it a good tackle, not a foul.
You don’t get booked for that.
SMUGASAPRIL 17, 2017 at 15:34
CrownStBhoy,
You’re incorrectly assuming that the 5-10 pre booking fouls per match all have free kicks awarded for them!
Have another read, I say nothing about bookings just fouls which at approximately 360 for 33 matches did have free kicks awarded and 5-10 per game for anyone would take some doing!
HomunculusApril 17, 2017 at 08:14’…
‘..I’m not sure if you are being a wee bit facetious re witnesses John, but just in case anyone doesn’t know. People don’t get to choose if they are a witness of not. If you have evidence to give and you are cited to appear then that is not an optional thing. You don’t get to decide whether you give evidence or not.’
________
Not so much being facetious,Homunculus, as suddenly realising that perhaps it may be possible for ‘witnesses’ to retract any statement they may have made.
For example, if someone had signed a statement to the effect that he was party to , or knowledgeable about, say, a conspiracy to, say, buy a business, say, for example , a football club, it must surely be possible for him to say, no, I made a mistake, got it all wrong, and retract my statement?
A witness may be called on the basis of his testimony.
But I don’t think he can be prevented from saying simply, in the witness box, that he retracts what he said.
The witness is not on trial,after all!
He might get done for wasting police time or some such. But he can’t get done for changing his mind and withdrawing his statement.
But that’s just what I , suspicious as I have become of anything and everything that touches on the interminable ‘Rangers’ saga, am ready to believe.
SERGIO BISCUITSAPRIL 17, 2017 at 16:09
SMUGAS, If no free-kick is awarded then that would make it a good tackle, not a foul. You don’t get booked for that.
——————————————————————————
So as no foul or booking was given against Josh Meekings in the 2015 cup semi can we assume Hoops fans now agree that no foul or illegal play took place and, by your logic, Meekings just made a good match winning goal line clearance.
WOTTPI,
Getting away with a foul and not committing one at all are two different things.
But you knew that anyway
HIGHLANDER
APRIL 17, 2017 at 13:23
You are absolutely correct. However, the inference you make is that the John Guidetti incident I referred to, for example, was somehow unimportant because Celtic weren’t the aggrieved party. Indeed you failed to address the point I was making, which is that when Celtic gain from equally appalling refereeing decisions, such as Samaras conning the referee into awarding a penalty against Spartak Moscow in the CL, there is no mass hysteria and ludicrous accusations of referees cheating, rather than simply being incompetent.
===========================================
I didn’t think it was possible for a whole paragraph to be a non sequitur but you have managed it.
How could you possibly take any of that from my post which you quoted. The fact that I didn’t “address the point you were making” does not mean you can address it for me then get annoyed about it.
I merely pointed out that the penalty incident would potentially effect the lower six teams, it would have no effect on Celtic as the division was already won. Do you actually disagree with that.
I also didn’t make any “ludicrous accusations of referees cheating”, I said ” the match officials’ failing to do their job properly”, which is little different from your own “simply being incompetent”.
I’m afraid what you have done is taken the words I posted and then put your own entirely different interpretation on them. In short, you read what you wanted to read, not what I actually posted.
JOHN CLARK
APRIL 17, 2017 at 16:52
====================================
John, if someone gives a witness statement it is written down. It is read over by the witness and it is signed and dated. They confirm that it is true and accurate. If they have any paperwork or documents which support what they are saying then those will formally be produced in the statement. That signed statement is then made available to the Procurator Fiscal and to the Defence. Either side can precognose the witness, that is to say they can go through the statement with them and ask questions about it.
For most non-controversial witnesses that statement will be agreed in advance and if there is no intention to cross-examine the witness it will simple be accepted into evidence.
If under oath a witness then decides to say something else they would expect to be in big trouble. They would have to come up with a very good reason for it. Just deciding to say something else isn’t really an option. If they had doubts those should have been discussed when they were giving their statement and should have been reflected.
Perhaps Highlander could tell us all how many fouls Scott Brown has committed this season?
I assume he knows and isn’t just engaging in nonsensical hyperbole with his “5-10 fouls per game” claim.
So over to you Highlander – How many fouls has Brown committed and how does this work out on a “fouls committed to yellow cards received” ratio ?
Furthermore how does this ratio compare to other players in the league?
Perhaps Highlander could tell us all how many fouls Scott Brown has committed this season?
I assume he knows and isn’t just engaging in nonsensical hyperbole with his “5-10 fouls per game” claim.
So over to you Highlander – How many fouls has Brown committed and how does this work out on a “fouls committed to yellow cards received” ratio ?
Furthermore how does this ratio compare to other players in the league?
=========================================================
Seriously? Who cares? Take it to a Celtic blog.
BFBPUZZLED
APRIL 17, 2017 at 13:15
======================================
He included it in his Christmas message apparently.
I didn’t see it myself, but the support seemed to like it.
Apologies to those I have misrepresented in my recent posts, both of which were typed whilst under the affluence of incohol during the Easter long weekend break.
No, I don’t have accurate data on Scott Brown’s foul count, but the point I was trying to get across, poorly as it transpires, is that the number of fouls awarded and the number that ought to have been awarded are two entirely different things. I even quoted an example of an unpunished horror tackle to justify my claim.
Similarly, I was trying (and apparently failing spectacularly) to express to Homunculus that all poor refereeing decisions affect the other team, not just those which go against Celtic and which subsequently gain prominence on this site due to the demographics here. Again, apologies if my clumsy wording misrepresented you.
Phil’s latest suggesting that the TRFC Board want King out – as every day he remains it is further damaging the brand.
[Didn’t know the brand had any value these days. ]
So, is this King’s last play: extort some sort of pay-off / preferential buy-out – or else he isn’t leaving ?
And
Is it better to have ‘the Devil you know’ remain just until ST’s are sold, and with the help of the compliant SMSM: everything is just peachy and King will ‘beat’ the TOP/TAB, and will then, finally over-invest…
Or
Would it be better to wheel in some other ‘RRM duper’ to make more false promises to the bears – and create some positive buzz to boost sales ?
Decisions, decisions…
TWM #13 now available
Alan Nixon “Celtic would be a top half Premiership side in England”
`Just watched The Amazing Spiderman 2 there. I can’t think of a better refereeing supervisor than him. Every time one of the incompetent eejits make a mistake they are zapped and severely punished!
On a more serious note I’m off to listen to BPs latest. TWM#13, really looking forward to it.
BFBPUZZLED
APRIL 17, 2017 at 13:15
I believe that is. John Gilligan of WATP fame and not in the dim and distant days of daft laddyhood but in the last few weeks, that is reprehensible stuff and not subtly so
HOMUNCULUS
APRIL 17, 2017 at 17:32
Attachment
BFBPUZZLED APRIL 17, 2017 at 13:15 ======================================
He included it in his Christmas message apparently.
I didn’t see it myself, but the support seemed to like it.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
BFBPUZZLED, HOMUNCULUS
Understand where you are coming from
No doubt the support enjoyed hearing the WATP message for it is one of those rare traditional phrases that unify the decent and lunatic elements who attend Ibrox.
It’s certainly not one of my favourite comments but I have to say I`ve heard worse,………….. a lot worse
i would also say
If the rest of Scottish football including Celtic fans like me, wants to see the decent Rangers support cut themselves adrift from the seriously bigoted lunatic fringe…..
We need to be realistic
How many of us can point to a Rangers fan in our circle of friends and acquaintances whom they have never heard saying WATP on many many occasions?
Have we ever thought that this comment was seriously intended to be overtly sectarian as opposed to banter?
If so
Have we ever challenged it as an unacceptable sectarian jibe?
More likely we did nothing or responded with banter from our own culture
Why?
Because
It’s never been difficult to distinguish between the 90 min bigots who genuinely see nothing wrong with the WATP war cry and the 24/7 bigots who have more in common with NI loyalists than their fellow Bears. It is much easier to ascribe sectarianism to their preferred chants and we take it as offensive behaviour
John Gilligan has no doubt often made a WATP comment in his lifetime and probably most frequently as banter in the company of Celtic minded friends. That doesn`t remotely put him in the same category as the vile abusers of the English language who inhabit the lunatic fringe
He is a more than decent man with a track record to prove it and as a good Bear deserves all the slack you would cut for one of your friends in similar circumstances.
It will be guys like John Gilligan who will put an end to the cancer that’s eating away at Rangers
Or walk away if the task proves impossible
BFBPUZZLED April 17, 2017 at 13:15
Homunculus April 17, 2017 at 17:32
He included it in his Christmas message apparently.
I didn’t see it myself, but the support seemed to like it.
——————————————————–
I can’t remember who it was but a couple of days ago a poster on here remarked that he had met John Gilligan and he was a fine gentlemen – albeit a 90 minute bigot. I meant to answer his post to ask him if this was the same John Gilligan who sat at the top table at Ibrox not too many moons ago with other TRFC directors in a Q & A session with fans. When one Bear stood up and made a joke about paedophilia at Celtic the said Mr Gilligan chortled heartily.
Immediately following the victory of TRFC against Celtic in last year’s Scottish Cup semi-final, I think it was the unseemly conduct of the same director that irked Desmond so much that he went on a mission to sign Brendan Rodgers. I guess Celtic fans owe our Mr Gilligan a debt of gratitude for his most dignified behaviour.
GOOSYGOOSY
APRIL 17, 2017 at 21:20
================================
From what I can gather he said it as a Director of Rangers, making an official broadcast, on Rangers TV.
How do you think that compares to friends of mine saying it. How do you think it will assist in breaking down a supremacist mentality.
What he did in the past is of no interest to me. What he does now in his official capacity is.
“It will be guys like John Gilligan who will put an end to the cancer that’s eating away at Rangers”
Not by saying what he said in the context he said it, playing to the people who he wanted onside. That sort of behaviour, by one of their Directors leads to the behaviour being deemed acceptable.
One also has to wonder which of the Rangers board Graham Spiers was talking about when he said “It also doesn’t help right now that at least one member of the current Rangers board thinks that The Billy Boys is a tremendous song. This being the case, the club may well go backwards, not forwards.”
How did that work pit for him btw.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/jan/29/two-columnists-depart-from-glasgow-herald-in-row-with-rangers
I know that Auldheid and others have campaigned for changes to the governing structure and accountability for referees, at least for those occasions where there is demonstrable and recurring incompetence by the officials. The introduction of video refs would undoubtedly help the officials collectively to come to the right decisions, which is all we can really ask for.
The above is all very laudable, but I don’t think that referees’ incompetence is the biggest problem in the game at the moment. The Schalk penalty incident highlighted a bigger problem than simply blaming the ref who gets a big decision wrong. What was the root cause of both the penalty decision and the subsequent red card for Brown? It was cheating by Schalk, plain and simple …. cheating.
Cheating is endemic in the professional game. From appealing for a throw in, “going down easily”, being “clever”, diving, feigning injury, etc., it’s all cheating designed to put pressure on the ref to give a particular decision in favour of the cheater.
Until the sanctions for such cheating exceeds the rewards then it will continue unabated. Ross County gained a point at the cost of a probable two game ban for one first team squad player, which was a great result for them in the context of the league. What if the penalty for such an incident was the same two game ban, but an additional two point penalty on the club? Would the manager be as sanguine about explaining why it happened and complain that previous decisions had gone against his team? I think not.
GOOSYGOOSYAPRIL 17, 2017 at 21:20
It will be guys like John Gilligan who will put an end to the cancer that’s eating away at RangersOr walk away if the task proves impossible
—————-
They don’t do walking away
HOMUNCULUS
APRIL 17, 2017 at 21:35
GOOSYGOOSY APRIL 17, 2017 at 21:20 ================================
From what I can gather he said it as a Director of Rangers, making an official broadcast, on Rangers TV.
How do you think that compares to friends of mine saying it. How do you think it will assist in breaking down a supremacist mentality.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
What he did in the past is of no interest to me. What he does now in his official capacity is.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
What JG did for many years in the past enabled me to form a view about him. I can`t expect people with no exposure to form a similar view. That`s why I asked for those who did know him to comment on my initial post
My view includes the perception that he is appalled by the lunatic fringe and would support actions that drove them out of Ibrox. For all I know he is working towards that end or doing absolutely nothing.
Having said that
You are spot on in saying there are no public comments that confirm he is doing anything about cutting the lunatic fringe adrift. Indeed those WATP comments you highlighted would certainly find as much favour with the Loonies as they would with the vast majority of the support
That doesn`t mean we should tar JG with the lunatic fringe brush.
IMO
It means that for him to to do nothing abut the Loonies for the duration of his Directorship he will have to act out of character and against his basic instincts.
He might do that, who knows?
My belief is that he would prefer to leave than to fight a hopeless battle without support from the people who matter.
Time will tell
It’s a bit quite so i have been doing a bit of a clean up on the computer and found this. https://scotslawthoughts.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/rifc-prospectus.pdf A good bit of reading to look back on,but this part is a beauty.since there is a lot of news on shares at the moment.
———————–
Rangers International Football Club plc(Incorporated in Scotland under the Companies Act 2006 with registered number SC437060)Proposed Placing and Offer of up to 38,528,571 Ordinary Shares at 70 pence per shareApplication for Admission to AIMNominated adviser and broker : Cenkos Securities plcIssued and fully paid Ordinary Share capital on Admission71,943,771 Ordinary Shares (assuming subscription in full of the Offer Shares)
1. IntroductionSince its formation in 1872, the Club has become one of the world’s most successful clubs, having won54 League titles, 33 Scottish Cups, 27 League Cups and the European Cup Winners’ Cup in 1972. The Club’sloyal and sizeable supporter base, both in Scotland and around the world, enables the Club to boast one ofthe highest percentages of season ticket holders in the UK, with over 36,000 having been sold for the currentseason. Playing at the 50,987 seater Ibrox Stadium and benefitting from the world class 37 acre Murray Parktraining facility, the Club has been a dominant force in Scottish football for decades.In 2010, the previous holding company of the Club, RFC 2012 plc, was issued with a tax bill andpenalties. Unable to settle this bill, RFC 2012 plc was placed into administration and, following a CVAproposal being voted down, the business and assets of RFC 2012 plc were acquired by RFCL on 14 June2012. On 19 November 2012, the Company was incorporated with the intention of acquiring the entireissued share capital of RFCL upon Admission in order to allow an investment in the Company to qualifyfor VCT and EIS tax relief. The Company has not carried out any trading activities since incorporation.Immediately prior to Admission, the Company will acquire the entire issued share capital of RFCLpursuant to the Share Exchange Agreement and will remain in place as the holding company of theRangers Group. The Share Exchange Agreement is conditional in the Placing Agreement becomin
CLUSTER ONE
APRIL 17, 2017 at 22:47
It’s a bit quiet so I have been doing a bit of a clean-up on the computer and found this. https://scotslawthoughts.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/rifc-prospectus.pdf a good bit of reading to look back on, but this part is a beauty. Since there is a lot of news on shares at the moment. ———————– Rangers International Football Club plc.(Incorporated in Scotland under the Companies Act 2006 with registered number SC437060)Proposed Placing and Offer of up to 38,528,571 Ordinary Shares at 70 pence per share Application for Admission to AIM Nominated adviser and broker : Centos Securities plc. Issued and fully paid Ordinary Share capital on Admission71, 943,771 Ordinary Shares (assuming subscription in full of the Offer Shares) 1. Introduction Since its formation in 1872, the Club has become one of the world’s most successful clubs, having won54 League titles, 33 Scottish Cups, 27 League Cups and the European Cup Winners’ Cup in 1972. The Club’s loyal and sizeable supporter base, both in Scotland and around the world, enables the Club to boast one of the highest percentages of season ticket holders in the UK, with over 36,000 having been sold for the current season. Playing at the 50,987 seater Ibrox Stadium and benefitting from the world class 37 acre Murray Park training facility, the Club has been a dominant force in Scottish football for decades.In 2010, the previous holding company of the Club, RFC 2012 plc, was issued with a tax bill and penalties
Unable to settle this bill, RFC 2012 plc was placed into administration and, following a CVA proposal being voted down, the business and assets of RFC 2012 plc were acquired by RFCL on 14 June 2012.
On 19 November 2012, the Company was incorporated with the intention of acquiring the entire issued share capital of RFCL upon Admission in order to allow an investment in the Company to qualify for VCT and EIS tax relief The Company has not carried out any trading activities since incorporation.Immediately prior to Admission, the Company will acquire the entire issued share capital of RFCL pursuant to the Share Exchange Agreement and will remain in place as the holding company of theRangers Group
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Whats interesting about the above is the extract below
“Unable to settle this bill, RFC 2012 plc was placed into administration and, following a CVA proposal being voted down, the business and assets of RFC 2012 plc were acquired by RFCL on 14 June 2012.”
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
This comment is incorrect
Sevco Scotland changed its name to The Rangers Football Club Limited on 31 July 2012. Its correct abbreviation following the name change on this date is TRFCL not RFCL
It was Sevco Scotland that acquired the business and assets of Rangers Football club plc on 14 June 2012.
From 14 June 2012 until 31 July 2012 the football club based at Ibrox was Sevco Scotland. There is not and never was a legal entity called Rangers Football Club Limited that played any part during this period
It seems odd to that London lawyers working on the IPO would bother to camouflage the name change particularly since it involved inaccurate representation of the facts in a Prospectus
Much more likely it was a change made to a draft IPO document by the TRFC board. This may have been inspired by a desire to appeal to the hard of thinking. Potential investors who might be inclined to buy shares in the IPO out of loyalty to RFC plc which by that time was in the process of liquidation
Either way
For 6 weeks between 14 June 2012 and 31 July 2012 the football club based at Ibrox was called Sevco Scotland. This means all documents relating to the commercial issues and relating to the status of employees during this period would have described their employer as Sevco Scotland.
Presumably during this period the ethereal entity called “Rangers Football Club” was hovering around having an out of body experience somewhere between the BDO office at Anderson Quay and the football stadium at Ibrox
HomunculusApril 17, 2017 at 17:19
‘…John, if someone gives a witness statement it is written down. It is read over by the witness and it is signed and dated. They confirm that it is true and accurate. If they have any paperwork or documents which support what they are saying then those will formally be produced in the statement…….’
_____________
I’m sure you must be right, Homunculus.
I just don’t know whether the statements/precognitions made by witnesses to the police or prosecuting authorities are made under oath?
Isn’t it possible for a witness to say in cross-examination or whatever that he simply does not remember what he told the police , or that he was mistaken at the time, and now realises that the statement he gave was inaccurate? And that he is very sorry, but he got things wrong and now wishes to rescind his statement?
If his written statement was not made under oath, then perhaps the ‘live’ statement in court which is made under oath would take precedence and have to be accepted by the Court, whatever the suspicions?
the witness might have to attend the trial, but if he told the prosecuting authorities that he intended to renege on his original testimony, they might well think it pointless to have him summoned.
Maybe I’ve watched too many (American) movies where terrified witnesses change their testimony to the frustration of the DA!
goosygoosyApril 17, 2017 at 23:49
‘… For 6 weeks between 14 June 2012 and 31 July 2012 the football club based at Ibrox was called Sevco Scotland. ‘
_________
goosygoosy,
I think it is more than odd that the Stock Exchange didn’t pick this up.
At the very least, there seems to be a degree of casualness in how the Stock Exchange operates.
I believe the whole IPO was predicated on an untruth , a deliberate lie, aimed at deceiving the market into thinking that shares in Sevco were shares in the historic ‘Rangers’ and not in a new club. That the Stock Exchange accepted the prospectus containing that untruth is remarkable.
Once or twice I have tried to get Companies House to look into what RIFC say on their website about it being the original Rangers. They won’t bite, any more than the Advertising Standards Authority bit.
I think I might have a go at getting it on the Stock market record that at least one person has asked them to look at the question of whether some sleight of hand was involved in the IPO in hiding th fact that the shares being offered were NOT shares in the RFC (IL) but in the new club falsely claiming to be that old club.
I suppose hell will freeze over before any newspaper or BBC ‘business’ editor or journalist will ask such a question.
It has been a while…
The events at Ross County on Sunday prompted me to pass comment.
As an ex Grade 1 Ref I can confirm… human beings will make mistakes (shockeroonie) When a game has had a highly contentious incident/decision made whether it affects the outcome or not…it is best for all concerned to refrain from making any emotionally fuelled comment immediately after a game…as it doesn’t help but rather can provoke the worst type of reactions from some who are unable to control their behaviour.
I have always found that waiting 24 to 48 hours before passing judgement allows a more constructive, thoughtful and meaningful discussion to take place.
As far as the game on Sunday is concerned there were 2 main talking points.
There are 3 things that come into play with any match official and it affects all 4 of them (6 this coming weekend) in a game at this level and that is…
1. Speed
2. Distance
3. Angle
If any one of these factors is wrong…it increases the likely hood of an incorrect decision…in professional football you can be assisted by players reactions or lack of, to add certainty to a decision.
As far as I can see…taking the Scott Brown tackle first…it was a straight Red Card. At the speed I saw it…it was Red…so lets be clear…there is no ifs or buts… the appeal will not be successful… Celtic are merely applying their right to use the appeals process…if they do appeal.
The penalty is just as straight forward… but with a wider explanation and discussion to be had…
As stated above you need these 3 core elements to facilitate the right decision. You can as a referee be too close to an incident. In my opinion the ref on Sunday was too close and had the wrong angle. The assistant possibly had the right angle…however was he watching for offside or player movement and not actually the incident fully? The fourth official would have been the one with the perfect angle. But takes no involvement in decision making… in the grand scheme of things it was such a bad error that there should be a mechanism in place that reflects this in terms of the match officials. Recently in England Keith Stroud made a fundamental error in a game and was immediately removed from his game the following weekend. This was as much to help the officials as it was to punish them. Yet in Scotland the match referee has been awarded a cup semi final appointment… the following weekend? That cannot be right.
There seems to be a fear of managing officials in Scotland this way… as to do so would be confirming their error and in theory undermine them…when instead it is designed to improve them. Without this why would they need to improve?
Yes referees can be dishonest… and we should not discard that possibility… but there should be enough mechanisms in place to catch/prevent them.
I genuinely believe Scottish football is so far behind in respect of refereeing it has become an embarrassment. This season has seen so many fundamental errors affecting so many big decisions for so many clubs that there has to be a huge question mark over the training and overall management method of match officials in Scotland.
If the standard does not improve… then the next thing that could be seen in Scottish football… court action against a match official…playing devils advocate…I win the euro lottery… and I am betting on a game… I would not think twice about going to court… I might not win the case… but I sure as hell will put the fear of God into someone who has cost me money… and I am sure the public would want to hear some of these guys explain themselves publicly…
As to the player who took a dive with approx. 2 feet of fresh air between him and his opponent… points deduction is the only real deterrent that will work…banning the player… financial penalties on the player or the club will not deter it…
1 point deduction for the first offence… 3 for the 2nd… 7 for the 3rd and so on… a club will soon get heavy with their own players…
I guess I might be back again next weekend
GOOSYGOOSYAPRIL 17, 2017 at 23:49
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Whats interesting about the above is the extract below“Unable to settle this bill, RFC 2012 plc was placed into administration and, following a CVA proposal being voted down, the business and assets of RFC 2012 plc were acquired by RFCL on 14 June 2012.”<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< This comment is incorrect
———-
I and many others know that comment is incorrect. And if you think that comment is bad take a few minutes and read through some more https://scotslawthoughts.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/rifc-prospectus.pdf
how they got away with some of the stuff in there i will never know
Don’t fall into the trap Goosy Goosy.
“It was Sevco Scotland that acquired the business and assets of Rangers Football club plc on 14 June 2012”
Saying a company acquired the business, helps support the same club myth. When you acquire a business, it comes with all the bad bits as well as the “good” bits. What Sevco Scotland did was acquire some of the assets of a distressed company heading into liquidation. They then sought to commence operating as an entirely new football business.
On “Dingwallpenaltygate”, on the BBC website gossip page, a Herald quote from an interview with the head of referees;
“After Ross County’s controversial penalty against Celtic on Sunday, Scottish FA head of refereeing operations John Fleming says that only the introduction of video assistant referees will enable officials to stop players cheating by diving.”
Now while I’m all for the introduction of video technology, I agree with some of the posters on here. Make the penalty for diving/cheating/simulation much more appropriate if you want to stamp it out. However in my humble opinion a points penalty would punish all the team’s players, some of whom may be completely against diving in any circumstances. The culprit may already be a thorn in their side as honest hard working sportsmen.
I believe it is the culprit who should be punished and a 2 game ban is woefully short of the punishment I would suggest. If the authorities are serious about stamping this out, (and they’ve been on about it for decades at every level of the sport), then in clear cut cases like Sunday’s, why not give the player a 2-month ban, with a fine of 2 month’s wages, (given to a charity or used in development of youth football). Increasing the term of the ban for repeat offenders would soon stop the players cheating and their club’s accepting this behaviour.
Whether or not this could be done legally, (arrestment of income?) I don’t know, but there certainly needs to be a greater deterrent required than a 2-week “holiday” on full pay!
JOHN CLARK
APRIL 18, 2017 at 00:51
============================================
It is possible, in theory for the statement to be taken under oath, but it is exceptionally rare. It would more be used with a compellable witness who for some reason is not willing to give a statement in the normal manner and would be summoned to appear before the Sheriff to be precognosed under oath.
If you don’t mind travelling to England for a moment. In an English witness statement there is a “perjury clause”. That is to say that the person signs a statement saying that they understand that if anything they say isn’t true then they could be done for perjury. We did not have anything like that in Scotland and the witness statement was really just an idea of what the person was going to say when under oath.
In Scotland we don’t quite do that but the person does sign and date the statement, which ends with something like “I confirm that this is a true and accurate record”. That statement is then lodged with Crown Office (normally the regional PF). If that person later contacted the PF to say that they had decided that was now not true and they wanted to “rescind” that evidence then they would have to come up with a really good reason why. It would have to be something like Police pressure, duress from another witness. It couldn’t be “I’ve just changed my mind” or “I just don’t fancy appearing” or” Actually this might be a bit embarrassing”.
In short, if someone has provided a witness statement and it is not agreed into evidence (by both sides) then they can look forward to appearing under oath, giving that evidence, then being cross examined about it.
EASYJAMBO
APRIL 17, 2017 at 21:39
The above is all very laudable, but I don’t think that referees’ incompetence is the biggest problem in the game at the moment. The Schalk penalty incident highlighted a bigger problem than simply blaming the ref who gets a big decision wrong. What was the root cause of both the penalty decision and the subsequent red card for Brown? It was cheating by Schalk, plain and simple …. cheating.
———————————————————————-
I think it goes back to Mr. Robertson’s decision not to book Patrick Roberts for contact with the crowd after he scored.
IMO, after CFC scored their second, the referee appeared to lose focus. Was that because he realised that he could have booked Roberts & hadn’t; or did another official comment on it? Was there another factor, such as mental or physical fatigue?
Match officials’ conversations still aren’t recorded, are they?
Patience seems to be the name of the game. It looks as if there will be no court action till midweek with the jury being sworn in tomorrow.
HomunculusApril 18, 2017 at 09:51
‘….It is possible, in theory for the statement to be taken under oath, but it is exceptionally rare…..’
_____________
Grateful for that information/explanation, Homunculus, thank you.
I note that the BBC are reporting that Buckie Thistle could be in line for a points deduction due to an alleged ineligible player. Unused substitute Callum Murray was listed in the squad for Saturdays game against Fortmartine United. I do hope they have Sandy Bryson on speedial
Goosy
WATP is a very bad thing indeed in the context of regarding the Irish as untermenschen – some of the stuff it comes fromr is shameful in the extreme.
You may be correct about the general record of mr Gilligan and hopefully he can do good where he is but he had no justification or need for doing that.
Banter is a word coming to have the meanng of granting a licence to say anything no matter how extreme.
I better say no more or I might start quoting things which underpin the WATP mentality
I know there are some who believe we only discuss refereeing decisions on here when a bad call goes against Celtic (and that we generally try and avoid such discussions), but I think that the overall standard of refereeing in Scotland needs to be addressed. The most significant bad call at the weekend was not in Dingwall, it was at Fir Park and could have far more serious consequences for a club – in this case ICT and their potential relegation – than the dropping of two points by the runaway champions. That Motherwell goal was a key turning point in the relegation battle. So I’m not wishing to debate any particular club or decision – every fan of every club who posts on here will have a list of bad calls, I’m sure. What I would like to see, however, is a mature and rational debate on what we can do to improve standards because bad calls are affecting everyone.
I’ll put my cards on the table right now; I’m a Celtic fan but don’t give any credence to the biased / conspiracy argument. Officials make mistakes and that is part of the game – to err is human, after all. I do, however, think that the standard of refereeing in Scotland has actually deteriorated over the past few years and the errors currently being made are often of such unbelievable incompetence and significance that I think we are going backwards – something I would have said was impossible a few years ago – say back in 2010.
John Fleming has held the position as head of referee development since 2011. I would argue that in the six years since his appointment, Scotland has yet to produce a good referee, and by that I mean of international quality (just look at the performances of Thompson and Collum in UEFA competitions). Can any of our current crop seriously be considered as of even acceptable standard? So is it fair to ask a few questions of Mr Fleming and the SFA?
1. Who is Mr Fleming accountable to?
2. What are his performance targets? Has he met them? By what criteria is he deemed to be successful in meeting these targets?
3. Who is training our current crop of officials? What qualifies them to do this?
4. By what criteria are some referees fast-tracked? Does Mr Fleming decide this alone or as part of a committee?
5. What procedures are in place to reward good performance and punish poor performance?
I’m sure SFM regulars will have other questions but these are just some I would like answered for starters. I’m NOT out to have a witch hunt against referees – I genuinely want them to receive the best training and support available. That is the responsibility of the SFA in general and Mr Fleming in particular. Who do we turn to when they are (in my opinion) clearly not up to this particular job? We are always told that the SFA is the clubs, but when any club official is critical of a referee, the SFA throws the book at them. So what is the solution?
Again, I don’t wish this to become a tit-for-tat list of bad decisions either for or against a particular team. I just want some suggestions on how we can improve the standards of officiating in our game and hold those failing to deliver to account.
The criticism of referees is probably understandable but the refs are not helped by the treatment dished out to them by players. As well as trying to cheat at every opportunity players constantly verbally abuse referees even to the extent of running alongside them whilst doing so and “eyeballing” them in a very aggressive way.
I would like to think that all the referees officiate in a neutral way and do not deliberately favour or punish one side over another and that mistakes are just that. This may be naïve but if we believe otherwise we really are in trouble. I would guess that over a season things pretty much even out.
As my name would suggest I live in a part of Scotland where rugby is the main sport and consequently I watch more rugby than football. Now arguably rugby is a far more difficult game to referee than football and I wonder what folk on here would think about football adopting some of the things that apply to that sport. e.g.
The only player s the referee will talk to is the captains of both sides. The referee is not continually harassed by players.
Protests against eg penalty decisions will usually end up with the kick being taken 10 metres further up the pitch.
The referee can yellow card (send off for 10 minutes) players for offences not deemed to be reds.
The behaviour of football players toward referees is, I believe, absolutely atrocious at all levels and is clearly copied by the kids coming in to the game. I do agree that we should work to improve the quality though but player behaviour also needs to be addressed urgently.
That’s a very good post, BordersDon and one I wholly agree with. I seem to remember a trial of the ten yard gain some years ago but perhaps my memory is playing me false?
A crackdown on the players poor behaviour would go a long way to helping referees and restoring respect in our officials. The sin-bin idea for abusing refs is one I wholeheartedly support.
Bordersdon – some interesting thoughts
as an x rugby player and referee I would suggest that it’s a cultural thing. Rugby players are taught right from the start about the ref and consequences of chatting back/usurping their authority. The SRU (governing body) are draconian in their pursuit of anyone – players and spectators who flout refs. E.g. They sanctioned spectators at last years cup final with 12 week bans for ref abuse.
Really cant see the ref thing being adopted in football. Would be nice to see some more sanctions though!
While I’m on a roll…:
good podcast. Liked Alan’s take on things.
Where i do depart from his analysis is in Celtic and rangers need to be vieing with each other. Why so? His argument on this was pretty weak and shows little understanding of the finically situation of which ever entity is leading things at ibrox.
Keep up up the great work BP!
Bordersdon
I agree about the stark contrast between the treatment of Rugby and Football referees and that the Treatment of Rugby referees should be something of a gold standard. However that ethos is drummed into players from their first contact with a Rugby match to the point of it being a pavlovian response. To reach that kind of respect would be impossible given what youngsters see from older players. Serious sanctions are needed
. Rugby as seen on Tv has some refereeing and communication from refs to very high standards. (certan World Cup quarter finals aside)
The nature of Rugby as a game gives much opportunity for retaliatory skullduggery which it is very difficult to pick up even in the era of television match officials.
Whilst I understand that I won’t agree with all commentary from guests on the podcast… Are we seriously being asked to accept that Scottish football needs a strong rangers… Never mind asking the questions the msm don’t ask… Are we now not questioning the answers…. Thought there should at least have been a reply to Mr Nixon and his thoughts… Won’t go over the points in full but surely a mention of attendances, cups being won by teams other than Celtic or rangers being of benefit to Scottish Football … Apologies if I missed any retort to this by anyone…or I I heard wrongly.. But allowing this nonsense to go unchallenged fills me with dispair…. Be aswell listening to radio Clyde…. Back to lurking mode….for the time being.
SARANTSEVILLE 03
Alan Nixon gave his reasons for saying what he did. He didn’t just come out with a mantra. He justified his position, and even added an acknowledgement that his view wasn’t in harmony with many people.
Short of me saying “you’re talking rubbish”, or ” Your facts are wrong” I don’t really see how I could have processed that any further – especially since it was a bolt-on to the main part of the conversation.
Had there been an adversarial setup in the studio, with two sides arguing opposite opinions, then that would have been fine, but that’s not the way it is set up.
From my perspective, the insight he offered into the characters of Brendan Rodgers and David Moyes was important, as was his view of the relative merits of Scottish clubs and managers with their English counterparts.
Given Alan’s extensive experience and long exile in England, I thought those were more important aspects of the conversation.
I also doubt very much that you will hear stuff like we produce on Dave King, The SFA, or Armageddon on Clyde – but I haven’t listened for a while, so I can’t be sure, but my apologies for wasting your time 🙂
BORDERSDON
APRIL 18, 2017 at 15:17
The criticism of referees is probably understandable but the refs are not helped by the treatment dished out to them by players. As well as trying to cheat at every opportunity players constantly verbally abuse referees even to the extent of running alongside them whilst doing so and “eyeballing” them in a very aggressive way.
———————————————————–
There have been various ‘Respect The Official’ initiatives over the years, yet we still have what you describe.
Referees have the right (via Law 12) to caution players for unsporting behaviour & dissent. They seldom do, though.
An interesting Tweet – which clearly summarises the scale of ‘the cheating years’ at Ibrox.
https://twitter.com/isnibs1/status/828015817992323073
Big pink… In reply to your reply.. I don’t listen to Clyde myself.. Why not state that your facts are wrong to Alan ? You have more information on this than most people…as for his insight into Brendan wanting to be loved… Don’t we all. And you aren’t wasting my time.. I fully subscribe to the principles of tsfm.. I was only making comment on what I felt was an opportunity to inform someone who has been in excile and out of touc whilst he gave the same narrative as the usual suspects… . Keep up the good work… You are doing more to serve our game than most ?
Bordersdon
Excellent contribution on refs. The culture in football certainly doesn’t help refs. I was talking to BigsBee the other day (he is a ref) and he was relating stories of schoolkids following the lead of coaches, parents and big league players by abusing refs, systematically claiming for every throw-in etc.
All of this is I believe driven by the same culture that gave us 2012 and all that – money. The soul of the sport is very much being infected by the love of it, and only proper, fearless regulation will provide a basis for a solution.
And only an independent regulatory body can provide that. The clubs either live in ignorance of the way the game is going, or couldn’t care less.
Having the clubs run the SFA is as daft as Kelvin McKenzie and Paul Dacre running the press complaints commission.
BP:
“Having the clubs run the SFA is as daft as Kelvin McKenzie and Paul Dacre running the press complaints commission.”
Great comment.
As I have said several times, the clubs are about as complicit as Regan & Doncaster.
I recently discussed with a Grade 1 official of my acquaintance regarding the punishment fitting the crime for diving and he made the fairly obvious, but very valid point that if players didn’t cheat the Ref would have far less chance of making a wrong decision. However he also told me about the number of clubs who send lawyers to disciplinary hearings, and in my view this is where it could get very messy if e.g ten games bans are handed out for diving. Very few dives are as clear cut as the one we witnessed at the weekend, and the claim of ‘there was contact’ always clouds the issue. A lot depends on the player involved and how much fuss the media choose to make. In my view there would be as many injustices handed out in terms of bans as there would be players escaping censure because a lawyer has gone for the ‘not proven’ angle. I am all for cheating being punished, but I have zero confidence in the SFA to administer long bans for diving in a fair and consistent manner. My reason for saying that is they don’t administer the current disciplinary process in a fair and consistent manner, so why would this be any different.
Panel of six random unconnected fans tasked weekly with watching freely available highlights (preferably before general release). Unanimous view from the panel that the player dived leads to a five match ban. Problem solved at the top level virtually for free, overnight.
Smugas April 18, 2017 at 20:51
=============
You’d better get your panel over to Madrid pronto.
The ref is about to give Casemiro a yellow then realises it would be his second and lets him away with it. Two minutes later he gives Vidal a second yellow for a perfectly timed tackle.
The game is corrupt.
normanbatesmumfcApril 18, 2017 at 09:38
“However in my humble opinion a points penalty would punish all the team’s players, some of whom may be completely against diving in any circumstances.”
The whole Ross County team and the club benefited from the dive! The whole team should be punished… points deduction is the only real deterrent whether a goal is scored from it or not… the aim of simulation is to gain an unfair advantage by cheating… whether it is to win a penalty, win a free kick in a dangerous area or get an opponent sent off…
I have yet to see Ross County make any public statement of condemnation (they may have…I have just not seen it)… I have yet to see any of his team mates condemn it…
As the Ross County manager stated after the game… “we will take it”… so in essence he saying what most managers think… yes it was cheating…yes it was wrong…but hey ho… I am going to take the rewards we got from it…
easyJambo April 18, 2017 at 21:38 ============
Smugas April 18, 2017 at 20:51
=============
You’d better get your panel over to Madrid pronto.
The ref is about to give Casemiro a yellow then realises it would be his second and lets him away with it. Two minutes later he gives Vidal a second yellow for a perfectly timed tackle.
The game is corrupt.
=============
Casemiro then dives in the box looking for a penalty. The referee waves play on.
Ronaldo then scores what could be the winning goal but he was offside.
The game is still corrupt.
upthehoopsApril 18, 2017 at 20:12
The punishment has to be severe enough to make the player think twice about diving.
I agree smart players will look for the contact… that is legitimate… it is for the ref to determine if the contact is fair or not…if after the contact the ref needs to decide whether the player exaggerates or enhances his actions to provoke a favourable decision… which indicates a dive with contact… football is a contact sport… no foul play on
Alan Shearer was the best at drawing a penalty/free kick… if he knew the contact was coming he simply allowed his body to become limp…and suddenly he had the worst case of falling over ever… he was a master at it..
easyJamboApril 18, 2017 at 21:38
I have been watching that game… can you imagine this being an SPFL game?
All the main decisions against one team… the away team… the sending off was incorrect… Real’s extra time goal…offside and hand ball…
The Scottish twitterati would go into meltdown…