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.
I really hope Bayern score… if there is any justice!
And clearly there is no justice…
Paulmac2 April 18, 2017 at 22:03 And clearly there is no justice…
=====================
A video ref could have reversed the red card, and the two offside goals within seconds of each incident.
Shocking.
EJ…
You are spot on… match officials (outside of Scotland) have been asking for video support for years…
Tonight is a perfect example… the end score was a distortion of grand proportions
However I do believe the SFA have been against video support for matches… then again they are unable to provide 4th officials for matches in the 1st and 2nd divisions in the SPFL… an amateur approach to a professional expectation
PAULMAC2APRIL 18, 2017 at 21:55 5 Votes
=========================
I know you are an ex Referee and your feedback is appreciated. However I have yet to see evidence the SFA, and indeed the Scottish media, are ready for an adult debate on something like extended bans for diving. The number of players who currently escape bans or even being tried on video evidence for what others are tried for, and incur bans for, says it all.
In my opinion the only way to stop cheating by diving is to make a points deduction against the club.
Also surprised that no one has picked up on the equally cynical and in my opinion malicious incident at or around 84 minutes when Sinclair was fouled and the Ross County player Davis, who was not involved in the tackle deliberately stood on Sinclair’s back. It was clearly picked up on TV.
As has often been said the SFA are not fit for purpose but it is the fault of the clubs, they have the power to call them out and vote them out.
Finally with reference to a Mr. G who is a director of Sevco. He is not the nice man that some people think he is. He is a bigot and was one of those who upset DD at last years semi.
http://www.footballinsider247.com/andy-walker-blasts-sfa-celtic-take-advantage-buildup-rangers-clash/
Andy Walker has called it right for a change. Celtic playing Scott Brown on Sunday is within the rules and we are not the first club to appeal red cards which allows the ‘offender’ to play the next match.
But where he is very correct is that the SFA appeals procedure breaks down for a week because of a Monday Holiday? Seriously? What a bunch of amateurs.
ps.
The fact that this flaw suited my club, makes my point very valid. lol
LUGOSI April 19, 2017 at 09:14
——————————–
James Doleman @jamesdoleman
Understand no proceedings in Craig Whyte case at Glasgow High Court today
James Doleman @jamesdoleman
Confirmed, no proceedings in Craig Whyte case today
——————————–
My understanding was that the charges were deserted at the time, but that the time-bar has passed so they cannot be charged on the basis of their original arrests. If new evidence was to be produced I’d imagine that the individuals could be arrested once again and new charges brought.
I think that is unlikely given the reasons for the individuals’ charges being deserted. I wasn’t in court when Green, Grier and Withey were freed (or their release occurred without appearance), but I was in court when Whitehouse and Clark were. I don’t think I’m being in contempt of court in saying that various charges were dropped, both for reasons of insufficient evidence and other procedural matters, which would mean that a conviction would not be possible.
The original indictment (October 2015) was revised on many occasions as legal arguments were presented on behalf of the accused, leaving Whyte to face the two remaining charges.
A light observation. I rarely post on here without having to use Edit. Clear up some (many) typos and add some afterthoughts. Thankfully you get about 4 mins. to do so. BUT! you can’t access the smileys in edit.
. Now as some as my afterthoughts are often humorous (in my head) I want to add a smiley. This morning I had to add ‘lol’ after one of my obviously hilarious points. Now this isn’t good enough, it’s girly, teenagey, and beneath my dignity. Infra dignum tatus as we used to say “infradig”.
I don’t blame Tris nor BP but that army of techy guys they employ behind the scenes. Come on guys get your act together!
Easyjambo
Thank you.
All we need now is for one or more of les autres to appear as witnesses although whether it’s for the Crown or Defence would be anyone’s guess.
I don’t believe Scottish referees are biased. They are in the main just useless
If you saw Real Madrid v Bayern yesterday the ref was as bad a Collum or Dallas jnr!
How Ronaldo wasn’t offside i’ll never know.
Its only a matter of time before there’s some sort of video referee brought into football.
Too much money involved to leave decisions to someone having an off day.
Please forgive the diversion from events (or non-events) elsewhere today, but this has just been posted on the Guardian website and I know that there are many here, as fans not of DUFC but of Scottish football in general, who will appreciate this piece. An outstanding read. Enjoy.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/apr/19/the-forgotten-story-of-dundee-united-glory-years-under-jim-mcleanTHC
THC
April 19, 2017 at 11:44 (Edit)
Couldn’t access the article, but I for one have not forgotten the amazing achievements of Jim Maclean and Dundee United.
LUGOSI April 19, 2017 at 11:43
Easyjambo Thank you. All we need now is for one or more of les autres to appear as witnesses although whether it’s for the Crown or Defence would be anyone’s guess.
========================
I couldn’t possibly comment on whether any of “les autres” will be precognosed with a view to them becoming a witness for either the Crown or Defence.
Apologies AllyJambo, let’s try that again! Mods, feel free to edit original post and remove this one (just remove THC from end of original link. Many thanks).
THC
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/apr/19/the-forgotten-story-of-dundee-united-glory-years-under-jim-mclean
‘Honest mistakes’ do happen. The problems start when there is a statistically unlikely excess of them either to the benefit or detriment of any particular club. To the best of my knowledge neither Real Madrid nor Bayern Munich have been favourably or harshly treated in recent seasons so I am willing to accept RM got lucky last night. But if the same sort of thing happens in the SF I will be much more sceptical, and if it happens again in the final I will change my opinion. And a single random decision going against them next season will not significantly change that position.
i don’t believe there is a conspiracy in Scottish football, but I do think there is institutionalised bias. There is also considerable rank incompetence which helps dilute the bias signal.
While it is welcome that there will be live coverage on Youtube and Facebook, it’s a disgrace that a decision has been taken that there will not be a general sale of tickets for the upcoming Youth Cup final between Celtic and Rangers at Hampden, but a limited distribution via the clubs’ academies.
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=2986&newsID=16893&newsCategoryID=1
If the same logic was applied to this weekend’s semi-final then it should be played behind closed doors, with only families and friends invited. Is is really beyond the clubs to take responsibility for the behaviour of their fans at a youth cup final.
Oh I forgot, ………….. that would mean the clubs accepting some form of Strict Liability.
Another problem is that how do you interpret a “statistical excess” ? So for example a team at the top end of the league will probably do more attacking than a team down at the bottom. So if Chelsea (for example) get more penalties than Sunderland over the course of the season then it doesn’t automatically follow that the Refs are favouring Chelsea.
It could just be that Chelsea spend more time in the opponents penalty area and therefore they end up winning more penalties.
So I think a better way of analysing it would perhaps be penalties awarded as a ratio of possession in the final third or as a ratio of shots on goal etc…. Something like that would probably better identify any sort of bias as opposed to just looking at the raw numbers.
Same with red cards. If team ‘A’ gets 10 red cards and team ‘B’ only gets 1 over the course of the season, How do you know that’s down to bias? Maybe Team A deserved all those red cards? In fact maybe the one red card shown to team B was unjustified?
The big problem will be that once you have the raw numbers it’s going to be nigh on impossible getting everyone to agree on a method for interpreting them and everyone will try and put their own spin on it in order to make their club the one who is hard done by.
I will say though that my one silver lining on this massive cloud of bad refereeing in Scotland is that no one seems happy with the officiating at their matches. So if no-one is happy then I suppose that’d be the biggest indicator that there’s no particular bias in favour of one club and it’s generally just sh*t all round. Its easier to deal with incompetence than it is to deal with corruption.
easyJamboApril 19, 2017 at 09:52
‘.. I don’t think I’m being in contempt of court in saying that various charges were dropped, both for reasons of insufficient evidence and other procedural matters, which would mean that a conviction would not be possible.’
_______________
“Mister eJ, how many times must I ask you to tell me what your case and your point .. I have sat here and repeatedly asked you on this blog to provide me with answers to some basic questions. Where are you in respect of providing answers?..”
I don’t think I could possibly be in contempt of Court if I state, as a simple member of the public not at all versed in law but reasonably intelligent, that the Crown Office/ Procurator Fiscal Service ( or whoever) made an absolute balls of things.
Perhaps my expectations were too high: that there would be crisply formulated charges, and a bundle of evidence to support the view that bringing those those charges was procedurally sound.
In my humble, non-legal, man-in-the-pub assessment, there was nothing crisp about the prosecution’s procedural practices in relation to their presentation of how they had prepared their material to support the charges against any of those against whom charges had been laid.
Not that I for one minute would ever assume that just because a person is ‘an accused’ he is guilty of what he has been accused of.
Never in life.
Just that there seemed to me (unversed in law, but bloody well aware that there have been bast.rds in high legal positions, historically, and that every profession has some possibly incompetent practitioners) that there was no ‘bite’ in the prosecution.
The charges were too diffuse and general , lumping people and events together in what seemed to me to be a very untidy, unconnected sort of way.
But what do I know?
THCApril 19, 2017 at 12:02 (Edit)
Apologies AllyJambo, let’s try that again! Mods, feel free to edit original post and remove this one (just remove THC from end of original link. Many thanks).THChttps://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/apr/19/the-forgotten-story-of-dundee-united-glory-years-under-jim-mclean
___________________________
Thanks for that, THC. An enjoyable, though sometimes sad, read. When I said I’d never forgotten that United team, I was only talking of their on-field exploits, but much of what I read in that piece was unknown to me, though everyone knew Jim McLean was a mean and angry man, I very much doubt he’d last as manager of any club nowadays, and not even as manager of the local Spar! What a loss to the game that would have been.
THC @ 12.06 19 April
Thanks for that link to the Guardian article – as a lifelong Arab nothing new in the article for me but it does serve to highlight days & nights which we are unlikely to see again at Tannadice,Hampden & across Europe – unforgettable times for those that witnessed them – all the more poignant to watch such a poor standard of play/players currently wearing tangerine .
Thanks for the memories !
While I agree the standard of referring in Scotland is sometimes poor and that they could do with some assistance from new technologies I am also aware that they have to deal with issues in real time and that that issues of foul play often involve a bunch of cheating so and sos.
I am also often reminded that many of us who complain may have never worn a black shirt for as much as a kids bounce game, never mind one involving professional athletes going at it hammer and tong for 90 plus minutes.
We have all sat in the stands and from good vantage points seem a pass being on for our own team, only to see one of our players make the wrong decision or push on with his head down.
The game for players and refs at pitch level is different from that seen from the commentary booth, the stands or the comfort of our armchairs. Easy and obvious passes can be missed by players in the same way, as mentioned in an earlier post, angles and speed can result in a ref and their assistants making what appears to be a howler.
I’m not saying the refereeing could and should be improved, just that at times I think some folk appear not to recognize the hard job that it is.
I think we are mibbees being too harsh on the SFA.
No, really !
Well, the blazers have proven to be incapable of processing paperwork correctly, [e.g. Cadette’s late registration, Rangers players’ registration errors over X years, etc.], so why would anyone expect them to get to grips with something as complex / emotionally charged as an ‘unacceptable level of quality’ wrt refereeing services provided in the top league[s] of Scottish football’ ?
And as mentioned earlier, even the big boys in the biggest league are not immune to poor refereeing decisions either.
To be fair: I would never have wanted to be a ref, what with all the abuse they get – even if they have had a decent game.
Imposing refereeing standards has to be initiated from the top, IMO.
Both UEFA and FIFA should be aligned in trying to raise standards in the top leagues around the world.
[I know.]
If you also consider the potential of e.g. China developing a high quality league at some point in the future – then you would want some standards set.
Not singling out China per se, but to maintain, [or establish?], the ‘integrity’ of the game, refereeing should ideally be consistent globally and especially as consumers are now able to watch – and gamble on – games played in virtually any part of the world.
We know that the SFA will not initiate change wrt referees.
The blazers can only be forced into change, IMO…and probably only by UEFA and FIFA ?
naegreetinApril 19, 2017 at 15:08
‘…Thanks for the memories !’
_________
Memories that we, of certainly my generation, all cherish, of Scottish Football as it was before the utterly corruptive and corrupting influence of that cheating majority shareholder of the now ‘In Liquidation’ RFC began .
All the other interesting and important posts about referees and video evidence of referee decisions are, in a sense, meaningless, when one considers the corruption tht lies at the very heart of the formal administration of our sport.
Whyte knows he can walk and the RRM are happy that he does so now that their club is back (with ALL that that very notion entails). There just requires a payment to be made for services rendered in order for the evidence to disappear on Whyte’s terms as opposed to SDMs and we can all just get back to the football as was. So that’ll be nice.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36075347
An interesting article from 2016 showing just how far the English FA go to ensure Referees avoid any conflict of interest. If it is good enough for one of the worlds top football associations, why can’t the SFA do the same.
UPTHEHOOPS
refs down there are full time mate,it’s their day job so have to be squeaky clean to an extent
TONYAPRIL 19, 2017 at 19:12
UPTHEHOOPSrefs down there are full time mate,it’s their day job so have to be squeaky clean to an extent
==================================
I am well aware they are full time. However people spoke of this well before that was the case. All Referees need to be squeaky clean in my view. Grade 1 Refs in Scotland get over £800 a game. That will be more than the basic wage many of the players get.
To summarise, why is it always assumed Scottish Refs are made of higher moral fibre when it comes to officiating games involving the club they support?
UPTHEHOOPS
bigger pot to pick from too,imagine saying to the so called top refs up here you cant ref your own clubs games,RIFC wouldnt have a ref most weeks
UPTHEHOOPS
APRIL 19, 2017 at 19:19…
To summarise, why is it always assumed Scottish Refs are made of higher moral fibre when it comes to officiating games involving the club they support?
========================
OK UTH, I’ll try and follow on from your rhetorical question…
As suggested earlier, a professional person should always be self-conscious of even ‘perceptions’ of conflicts of interest.
You would voluntarily recuse yourself, and your peers would understand and maybe acknowledge your good judgement.
So, with the Scottish refs…there may be some who, unfortunately, are not made of a higher moral fibre.
To remove this risk, and without imposing any new regulations on the refs, [who could even threaten to go on strike if they don’t like having to declare their allegiances], why couldn’t the SFA introduce a ‘voluntary register’?
Every top, registered SFA ref is entered in the ONLINE REGISTER…for transparency of course.
It is then up to the ref himself to enter the team he supports or supported in the past.
A proper, professional ref would gladly enter his team – you would think?
He is then reassured that he will not be placed in an awkward situation of officiating at his own club’s games, and thus his integrity should not even be questioned, [although he could still be a crap ref!]
If refs chose to leave the register blank, then the paying public can be left to make up their own minds about refs’ integrity.
But perhaps ‘the court of public opinion’ might force the refs to comply, if grudgingly.
A potential easy win to improve transparency and to reinforce integrity in the Scottish game?
[Don’t know how they do this in England, so apologies if this is what they actually do wrt refs’ allegiances.]
Oops, meant to add.
If an unusually high number of Scottish refs declare St.Mirren as their boyhood team, then questions will be asked…
STEVIEBC
APRIL 19, 2017 at 15:35
I think we are mibbees being too harsh on the SFA. No, really !
Well, the blazers have proven to be incapable of processing paperwork correctly, [e.g. Cadette’s late registration, Rangers players’ registration errors over X years, etc.], so why would anyone expect them to get to grips with something as complex / emotionally charged as an ‘unacceptable level of quality’ wrt refereeing services provided in the top league[s] of Scottish football’ ?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
STEVIEBC
The above reminded me of a post on the old RTC blog in which somebody said ( was it RTC?) that Baxendale-Walker the inventor of the Rangers EBT scheme had been invited and had actually given a presentation to the SFA with a view to them adopting a similar scheme for Hampden officials. In the event the SFA decided not to introduce EBTs
If true, then it beggars belief that the attendees at this presentation were unaware of how the Rangers EBT scheme worked in practice. Indeed it seems more than likely that it was used as a template in the presentation to describe the mechanics of how an EBT scheme was administered
Also.
For the scheme to be labelled as a legal tax avoidance arrangement Baxendale –Walker must have averred to the SFA that the EBT element was not part of an employees salary .He had to do so for it to be construed as non-taxable.
This meant that after rejecting this scheme the SFA had to
Either
Play safe and refuse to recognise the legitimacy of the B-W scheme as far as player salaries were concerned and insist that EBT details were described in all player contracts submitted to the SFA
Or
Tacitly approve the EBT scheme in so far as excluding EBTs from player contracts submitted to the SFA
And thereby
Agree that Rangers could exclude the EBT element from the player contracts submitted to the SFA on behalf of players registered at Ibrox
Why is this important?
Because the SFA did not make a blanket change to their rules to enable any other club who adopted the B-W EBT scheme to exclude EBTs from player contracts submitted to the SFA. If it was discussed at any SFA AGMs or sub committees it never made it into the MSM.
The long term implications for the SFA were far reaching
They had no rule based reason to justify telling the truth to HMRC or anybody else who enquired about their awareness of EBTs being included in player contracts. They could not admit to anybody that they had given Rangers a unique dispensation to exclude EBTs from player contracts. They had deliberately kept this concession secret from other clubs.
This put the SFA in a quandary when they were forced to admit that Rangers excluded EBTs from player contracts
If they said they had known all along they would be in trouble with Hector and their member clubs
If they denied all knowledge they could be accused of lying if Rangers had written proof that the SFA had given them a dispensation to exclude EBTs from player contracts.
In the event the SFA played the cabbage. They asserted that Rangers player contracts were accepted as truthful documents. It wasn`t their problem if Rangers excluded EBTs
But this then meant
By refusing to disclose that Rangers player contracts excluding EBTs were acceptable the SFA became accomplices in the HMRC cover up by Rangers
However
This lie could only be sustained by the SFA with the active cooperation of Rangers.
The SFA were off the hook if Rangers could not prove the SFA had connived with SDM to exclude EBTs from player contracts way back when EBTs were first being considered seriously at Ibrox
So, it all hinges on whether Rangers plc. have written evidence that could prove the SFA approved of EBTs being excluded from player contracts
And thereby can bring down the whole house of cards by exposing the lies told by the SFA
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
IMO
It’s very likely that Rangers plc. have evidence that confirms the SFA were lying when they claimed ignorance of EBTs being excluded from player contracts
Somewhere in the bowels of Ibrox there must be a letter from the SFA to Rangers plc. making the concession that EBTs can be legitimately excluded from player contracts submitted to Hampden
Because…………….when you think about it
If there wasn`t such a letter
Baxendale-Walker would not have got in the door at the SFA never mind be allowed to give a presentation on the merits of his scheme. He must have started from the basis that the EBT scheme at Rangers was acceptable to the SFA ………..in its entirety
And
This acceptability to the SFA must have gone as far as their willingness to exclude EBTs from player contracts!
You could include the obvious fact that
Nobody at Rangers would have been willing to adopt the B-W scheme without the external endorsement of the SFA
Because
The only meaningful crossover or contact issue between the Rangers EBT scheme and the SFA was whether EBTs formed part of the players contract as far as the SFA were concerned
And if the SFA objected
Then
They were recording for posterity and ahead of any future HMRC investigation that the SFA neither approved nor disapproved of the EBT scheme recently introduced at Rangers
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I reckon this is the real reason why the SFA collapsed their position when Green challenged them to withdraw title stripping from 5 Way Agreement
And it’s probably also the reason that the SFA rigged the LNS enquiry to give the result demanded by Green
The SFA were blackmailed
GOOSYGOOSY
APRIL 19, 2017 at 21:37
…
The above reminded me of a post on the old RTC blog in which somebody said ( was it RTC?) that Baxendale-Walker the inventor of the Rangers EBT scheme had been invited and had actually given a presentation to the SFA with a view to them adopting a similar scheme for Hampden officials. In the event the SFA decided not to introduce EBTsIf true…
=================================
Must admit GG, I cannot remember that story.
As you qualified – if true – then that adds yet another, significant layer of sleaze over Hampden and Ibrox.
…and raises even more doubts / questions about what has happened since 2011/12.
I love my team and my club. I hope against hope that we get the treble and go undefeated, so there! It’s what I wish.
I have wished so much good fortune on other clubs in Scotland in various ways that I wish other clubs would reciprocate.
It wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world for it to happen. And there are many lovely generous Celtic supporters out there who give a great deal to every needy cause. As I am sure is the case for other clubs.
So don’t join in with the media, the SFA and the worst elements of certain fan groups to wish our club down.
I was going to list all the clubs I love in Scotland but I can’t be bothered. If you don’t know by now you haven’t been paying attention for the past two years to my posts (There are many clubs).
Folks
I know the CW trial is of great interest but I would appreciate some circumspection before posting about it. In particular it doesn’t protect SFM from action if we merely quote what is being said on other social media sites.
Thanks for your assistance
I’m just going to follow it via James Doleman. He’s well versed in knowing where to draw the line in what can be reported.
TrisidiumApril 20, 2017 at 08:09 (Edit)
Folks I know the CW trial is of great interest but I would appreciate some circumspection before posting about it. In particular it doesn’t protect SFM from action if we merely quote what is being said on other social media sites. Thanks for your assistance
_________________
Sorry Tris, I think it might have been me who quoted JJ yesterday. As it was pretty speculative (what JJ was writing) I never gave it any thought that it might cause the site a problem. I’ll try to think more before I post anything along those lines again. Please delete post, if you haven’t already.
I’m sure, though, that it’s OK to report that James Doleman has tweeted that Donald Findlay has arrived at Glasgow High Court a few minutes ago. Hopefully a sign that the case is going ahead, though it could just be the formalities to a postponement or case dropped that he has arrived to attend.
JD has tweeted that CW has arrived at court.
Case to be called at 10.00 am, JD doesn’t know yet if live tweeting will be allowed. I’d expect the only event of note today would be whether or not the case is starting today.
GOOSYGOOSY
APRIL 19, 2017 at 21:37
The above reminded me of a post on the old RTC blog in which somebody said ( was it RTC?) that Baxendale-Walker the inventor of the Rangers EBT scheme had been invited and had actually given a presentation to the SFA with a view to them adopting a similar scheme for Hampden officials. In the event the SFA decided not to introduce EBTsIf true, then it beggars belief that the attendees at this presentation were unaware of how the Rangers EBT scheme worked in practice. Indeed it seems more than likely that it was used as a template in the presentation to describe the mechanics of how an EBT scheme was administered
—————————————-
Perhaps my recall is faulty, but I thought that PB-W’s particular scheme was (until recently) considered within legal bounds: it was RFC/MGH/SDM’s maladministration of the trusts (including those pesky side-letters!) that breached the-then HMRC guidelines.
Joe McHugh at videocelts has suggested on Twitter that the content of the JJ blog is an attempt to make waves around the High Court trial that is the focus of much attention today (obviously excluding the SMSM). Perhaps a case that JJ protesteth too much?
JINGSO.JIMSIE
APRIL 20, 2017 at 10:29
GOOSYGOOSY
APRIL 19, 2017 at 21:37
The above reminded me of a post on the old RTC blog in which somebody said ( was it RTC?) that Baxendale-Walker the inventor of the Rangers EBT scheme had been invited and had actually given a presentation to the SFA with a view to them adopting a similar scheme for Hampden officials. In the event the SFA decided not to introduce EBTs If true, then it beggars belief that the attendees at this presentation were unaware of how the Rangers EBT scheme worked in practice. Indeed it seems more than likely that it was used as a template in the presentation to describe the mechanics of how an EBT scheme was administered —————————————-
Perhaps my recall is faulty, but I thought that PB-W’s particular scheme was (until recently) considered within legal bounds: it was RFC/MGH/SDM’s maladministration of the trusts (including those pesky side-letters!) that breached the-then HMRC guidelines
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
JJ
I`m sure your right and therefore if Baxendale-Walker did indeed make a presentation at Hampden it would have been on the up front basis that his scheme was a legal tax avoidance vehicle.
Alternatively, the SFA may have been doubtful about allowing Rangers to exclude EBTs from player contracts. Eventually leading to an SFA/Rangers agreement that Baxendale–Walker should make a presentation at Hampden in order to inform SFA officials about the detail of his EBT scheme
If so this would date the Hampden presentation to the pre-EBT period when Minty was considering the scheme and wanted endorsement by the SFA to exclude EBTs from player contracts. If this was the case the presentation would have focussed specifically on the Rangers EBT scheme and there would have been no reason to invite other clubs to attend.
I doubt whether Minty would have relied on a verbal assurance from an SFA official that EBT details need not be included in player contracts submitted for registration. His legal people would have advised him to get this approval in writing just in case HMRC requested the SFA for sight of player’s contracts(which they eventually did)
If they gave such a letter the SFA were effectively locking themselves into a private deal with Rangers to ignore EBTs in player contracts. When HMRC came calling they could only plead complete ignorance with the cooperation of Rangers.
Given all the due diligence work provided by MCR in the run up to the sale of the club it is inconceivable that the prospective purchaser was not made aware of such a letter. Therefore we could be in a situation whereby this information become public fairly soon
I reckon JJ’s should just go the whole hog and rename his blog “The life & times of Walter Mitty”
Nothing from James Doleman in the past couple of hours, must be some restrictions in place I would guess.
JD just tweeted that a jury has been sworn in at the Whyte trial. Looks like it’s going ahead.
JD just tweeted, still no word on whether or not live tweeting will be allowed.
JD tweets that accredited journalists can tweet live from court. Also gives out a warning against tweets that could be held as contempt of court!
AllyjamboApril 20, 2017 at 15:04
‘….JD tweets that accredited journalists can tweet live from court.’
__________
Aj, I’m so annoyed at myself for not, immediately I saw JD’s crowdfunding thingy, making a contribution!
I tried a few minutes ago to do so, but unsuccessfully.Seems to be closed beacause he reached his target.
But isn’t there a queer irony in the fact that ,given that most of our ‘accredited journalists’ in the SMSM are, as we know, fundamentally dishonest in the matter of ‘the saga’, and have sold their souls cheaply and ignominiously in the cause of propagating and maintaining the lie that TRFC are RFC(IL) , are allowed to tweet-while any of the rest of us tax-payers are assumed to be too untrustworthy to be allowed to report what we hear?
John ClarkApril 20, 2017 at 15:29 (Edit)
I agree with what you say about the ‘accredited journalists’, but I think they will be allowed to tweet because they are more likely to be (considered) adept at ‘reporting’ accurately than other members of the public, have more to lose should they be held in contempt, ie their jobs, and have a professional interest in reporting the case that the court feels obliged to acknowledge. There is also the possibility that unfettered tweeting by the public might lead to mobs forming outside the court if evidence is tweeted inaccurately. The judge/court might just be covering herself in case someone tweets inflammatory stuff that does lead to any unsavoury incidents.
JD says that there will be no witnesses today.
I will try and make it along two or three days next week.
JD tweeting proceedings over for today, he will have a full report up on ‘byline’ later this afternoon. Restarts tomorrow at 10.00am. I think with the prosecution’s first witness.
JOHN CLARK
APRIL 20, 2017 at 15:29
…
But isn’t there a queer irony in the fact that ,given that most of our ‘accredited journalists’ in the SMSM are…allowed to tweet-while any of the rest of us tax-payers are assumed to be too untrustworthy to be allowed to report what we hear?
==========================
Yes, immediately thought the same JC.
If that was to happen on this side of the pond, I’m sure the ambulance-chasing lawyers would be queuing up to sue everyone and their dog !
e.g. undeserved protection of the MSM’s business interests, and discrimination against the general population – i.e. against the tax payers who fund the bleedin’ judicial system…?
And the Bampots know from past experience that the MSM will probably not provide adequate coverage of proceedings, but the citizen journalists will – again – provide that valuable service to the public.
[…whilst the DR monthly sales are continuing their downward spiral to the plughole: declined a further 12% year on year.]
ALLYJAMBO
APRIL 20, 2017 at 15:52
JD tweeting proceedings over for today, he will have a full report up on ‘byline’ later this afternoon. Restarts tomorrow at 10.00am. I think with the prosecution’s first witness.
=========================================
The prospect of Minty being called as a witness – and under oath – could be worth watching in person.
[Assuming he is called of course.]
“I was duped, your Honour…”
The full indictment
easyJamboApril 20, 2017 at 16:40 (Edit)
The full indictment…
Hmm, I’ll leave this here…
‘…you CRAIG THOMAS WHYTE, with intent to acquire a majority and controlling stake in the shareholding of the Club from Murray through Wavetower Limited a company…’
Not just a shareholding of the Club, but of a Club with a capital ‘C’!
Something to remember if ‘same club’ is ever raised again; this is a criminal trial, the indictment must be accurate and have no ambiguous words, terms or names (we might not understand them all, but every word will have been picked over and all the legalese will be correct, even if we can’t get our heads around it). We can be 100% sure that if anything existed within the walls of Ibrox, or was just ‘believed’ to exist, that could, in any way, be described as a club, other than the one described in the document as Rangers Football Club plc, whether spelt with a small ‘c’, capital ‘C’, or even a ‘K’, they would not be using the word ‘Club’ as synonymous with that public limited company known as Rangers Football Club plc!
There is no need to risk such confusion, they could quite simple refer to it as ‘the Company’!
For anyone who might think otherwise, what I’ve just written is factual, and not merely opinion.
That has to be one of the most heartwarming pictures ever. A wee Celtic supporter with scarf on sitting beside a wee Rangers girl with her scarf on laughing together and enjoying themselves. No knocking lumps out of each other!
Oops Aitchison has just scored things might change. I will let you know.
Signing off, Jimbo from his couch watching the game at Firhill.
They are sill talking to each other!
Aw naw, Celtic player sent off, there’s a surprise.
There could be trouble in this troublesome crowd of 1,300 mostly under 15 years of age.
I will let you know.
It’s all over. No flares, no offensive singing and a good game to watch. Role models? Their wee brothers and sisters set a better standard. Off and on the pitch.
JIMBO
i have enjoyed reading your posts.
But that line….Oops Aitchison has just scored things might change. I will let you know.I CAN’T GET THE SMILE OFF MY FACE
Would it not have been sensible for the authorities to redact certain personal details, such as Craig Whyte’s “domicile of citation”, just incase any passing knuckle-dragging neanderthal thought of torching that address in an act of perceived revenge?
I couldn’t believe this was true. I love ‘Youll never walk alone’. I did as a kid before it became a Celtic Anthem. I’ve always been a sensitive person. But I just read on another forum that a Royal Marine – a Liverpool supporter – had a tattoo on his leg with ‘You’ll never walk alone’ and unfortunately part of his leg had to be amputated leaving ‘you’ll never walk’!
I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry (mostly cry). but he went public with it so I guess he saw a funny side in it. God bless him.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11394618/Royal-Marines-Liverpool-FC-tattoo-reads-Youll-Never-Walk-after-amputation.html
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY AT GLASGOW
Continued Preliminary Hearing: 3 October 2016
(002) you CRAIG THOMAS WHYTE, being an officer of a company, namely a director of The Rangers Football Club plc, a company incorporated under the Companies Acts, with company number SC004276 and having its registered office at Ibrox Stadium, 150 Edmiston Drive, Glasgow (hereinafter referred to as the “Club”),
—————
So deffinetly the incorporated club that is being liquidated
Cluster OneApril 20, 2017 at 22:01
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY AT GLASGOW Continued Preliminary Hearing: 3 October 2016 (002) you CRAIG THOMAS WHYTE, being an officer of a company, namely a director of The Rangers Football Club plc, a company incorporated under the Companies Acts, with company number SC004276 and having its registered office at Ibrox Stadium, 150 Edmiston Drive, Glasgow (hereinafter referred to as the “Club”),—————So deffinetly the incorporated club that is being liquidated
———————————————————————-
Aye but “The Rangers Football Club”!!! Is that not the NEW club?
Bordersdon, some accurate records from Companies House:
You’d have thought someone, somewhere, would have had an issue with phoenixing?
Just a quick question for our legal experts on here, if you’ll indulge me…
With Donald Findlay representing Craig White, we could have a scenario where a former Director of Rangers FC is cross examining a former chairman of Rangers FC on behalf of yet another former Chairman of Rangers FC…
I’m sure it is all legal and above board but something just seems…not right about the whole thing, if you know what I mean? Conflict of interest is perhaps not the correct phrase, but the relationship between the three seems to be almost too close to allow truly objective proceedings.
Can someone please clarify for a legal naif?
Ally McCoist has arrived at court to give evidence in the Craig Whyte trial, according to Radio Clyde. Might be an interesting day, especially if he is cross-examined by Findlay for Whyte!
Walter Smith giving evidence now.
The names Dave King and Paul Murray introduced to the proceeding very early, just confirmed, by Smith, as directors in 2010, with Smith taking second opportunity to distance himself from club’s finances, agreeing he was ‘focussed on playing staff’.
Cross examination by Findlay begins
Findlay suggests ‘football clubs are also a business’, Smith agrees!
…and confirms he was a director. I’d forgotten that, so maybe Smith’s in for a harder time than he would otherwise have been!
…Smith confirmed he had fiduciary duties!
Looks to me like Findlay is trying to establish what it was that drove Rangers into the financial mess they were in. The prosecution didn’t seem to advance their case through Smith, other than to establish who he was/his role at the club, so I can’t understand why they would call him. Findlay seems to be ‘using’ Smith more than they did.
Smith says player budget effectively managed by David Murray and Martin Bain.