A Guest Blog for TSFM by beatipacificiscotia
As a child I read a poem by John Godfrey Saxe, “The Blind Men and the Elephant”, and stumbled upon it again recently. It is a simple tale of how six blind men encounter an Elephant and attempt to describe the animal:
It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.
The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
“God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a WALL!”
You get the idea. The other blind men did little better. The second grabbed the tusk and thought the elephant like a spear. Others thought the elephant like a snake (the trunk), a tree (the leg), a fan (the ear), and finally a rope (the tail). What does this have to do with this blog? Let me explain.
There is a danger of all of us, whether consciously or unconsciously, making the same mistake as these blind gentleman. It is too easy to use the parts of the argument that fit our values and belief system, at the expense of the whole truth. The 13th century Jaina scholar, Mallisena, described a much earlier version of the same tale as a parable to argue that people deny various aspects of truth; deluded by the aspects they do understand, they deny the aspects they don’t understand. He said:
“Due to extreme delusion produced on account of a partial viewpoint, the immature deny one aspect and try to establish another. This is the maxim of the blind (men) and the elephant.”
I am incapable of putting it any better than that, though I would go further. I argue that people are deluded by the aspects that they choose to understand, and deny the aspects that they refuse to understand. Which leads me to my tale …..
I have recently read a news report about a decision taken by the Advertising Standards Authority on advertising activities of The Rangers Football Club Ltd and their claims to history and honours. It includes the following quote referring to advice from the SFA:
“We also consulted with the SFA, which confirmed that its definition of a football ‘club’ varied depending on context, and could sometimes refer to an entity separate from the club’s corporate owner.”
I was most unhappy to read this part of the statement. I am yet to see the definition or statement of when you could “sometimes refer to an entity separate from the club’s corporate owner”. This is a contradiction to the definition of a football club given by FIFA; a definition which is handed down to the Confederations, and from Confederations to Associations.
You may or may not be aware, the application of good governance in football is administered through club licensing. This annual process ensures that minimum standards are maintained, to promote growth and development, and ultimately protects all of football – every club, every player and staff member, the integrity of every competition, suppliers of goods and services, the reputation of sponsors, and most of all the fans. FIFA Club Licensing Regulations state that a license applicant must be a football club, defined as:
“Legal entity fully and solely responsible for the football team participating in national and international club competitions that applies for a licence.”
This is a clear and unambiguous definition, which is being ignored by the SFA. Why is this issue so important? Simply, a football club must be held responsible for its commercial activities. For example, an over-ambitious and over-spending Rangers changed the Scottish football landscape forever. Other clubs tried to compete in an unsustainable “Cold War”-like football arms race. I believe Scottish football was damaged. Many clubs have been taken to the brink of death. This could happen in any country, in any league, anywhere in the world. For that reason, a football club and its corporate body must be one and the same, living or dying, inseparably intertwined. The separation of club and company is a myth, a myth dangerous to good governance. Rangers (1872-2012) should be a cautionary tale told to every club owner.
There are many benefits to club licensing. These including minimum standards for stadia and infrastructure, youth development programs, and much more. I would heartily recommend that you read the FIFA document if you have the time. It gave birth to the word and spirit of Financial Fair Play. Look at some of the financial benefits detailed:
10.3 Benefits
Implementation of the financial criteria will help deliver both short and long-term improvements for clubs, the licensors and the football family in general. For the football family in general, the financial criteria should help to:
• safeguard the continuity and integrity of competitions;
• increase the transparency and credibility of clubs’ financial operations;
• improve confidence in the probity of the football industry;
• create a more attractive market for the game’s commercial partners and investors; and
• provide the basis for fair competition, because competition is not just about the teams on the pitch.
For the licensors, the financial criteria should help to:
• improve their understanding of the financial position and prospects of their member clubs;
• encourage clubs to settle liabilities to creditors on a timely basis;
• enhance transparency in the money flow of clubs;
• enhance their ability to be proactive in assisting clubs with financial issues; and
• provide a starting point for club benchmarking at a national level for those licensors and clubs who want to develop this aspect.
For the clubs, the financial criteria should help to:
• improve the standards and quality of financial management and planning activities;
• enable better management decision-making;
• enhance clubs’ financial and business credibility with stakeholders;
• improve financial stability; and
• enhance revenue-generating ability and cost management.
Important words, and I trust the value and opportunity these regulations offer are now clear. Note bullet points 3 and 4, and that our top league currently does not have a sponsor. The SFA must ensure the integrity of competitions, discourage financial recklessness, and protect football for everyone. This is only possible with a clear, unambiguous statement that confirms club / company are one and the same thing.
To suggest a football club can in some way survive liquidation is to undermine the definition of what is a football club, one of the cornerstones of FIFA Club Licensing Regulations. For the SFA to suggest a football club can in some way survive liquidation, or allow this belief to go unchallenged, is a shameful dereliction of duty. It puts all of football in danger. We cannot allow this. There is too much at stake.
The poem ends thus:
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!
The blind men were each partially right, though in their vanity / stubbornness / ignorance they failed to find the truth. There is a lesson for us all in this story. This may appear to be an attempt to renew the old club / new club debate. It is not. To see this as an opportunity to score points against Rangers fans is to completely miss the point – you have failed to find the truth.
This is global issue affecting one of the fundamentals of good governance. Good governance must be the beating heart of our game – ensuring good health and long life. I am looking at the here and now, and ahead into the future.
We must protect and promote ALL of the FIFA Club Licensing Regulations. To deny any part is to refuse to see the whole elephant, like the foolish blind men.
From the new post.
“To suggest a football club can in some way survive liquidation is to undermine the definition of what is a football club, one of the cornerstones of FIFA Club Licensing Regulations. For the SFA to suggest a football club can in some way survive liquidation, or allow this belief to go unchallenged, is a shameful dereliction of duty. It puts all of football in danger. We cannot allow this. There is too much at stake.”
Excellent post, B, and a timely reminder of the need for secure foundations.
The SFA are a disgrace.
Loving the blindman elephant analogy.
Makes me think of Richard Wiseman books and postulate on the different cognitive biases going on the whole boiling mess of minds within Scottish footbal that led the progressively changing meaning of simple words like ‘club’ and ‘licence’. Since the day it slowly began to dawn upon the SFA that – the sport who’s governance they were charged with as their primary responsibility – was actually being rigged by *themselves agianst the rules they were charged with upholding, albeit inefectually, I’ve really struggled for an analogy to describe the metacognition involved. 5 Blindman describing an elephant. Nice.
*By the time they realised this, they were already too far along to stop riding the tiger
Nice post and one that resonated with me. I started my journey as an engineer and moved more into the commercial side of business as time passed. One thing that always scared me was when I would suggest a way forward and everyone would say ‘great idea’. I needed someone to point out what I was missing; had we covered all the bases. Similarly, if something was wrong in a process, you would use your training and experience to identify the problem then propose the solution. Often, however, you would try to make the facts fit your hypothesis rather than rigorously challenging what you saw before you. That remains the challenge for all of us as we ultimately seek a level playing field in our national game. It’s a long time since I’ve read it, so I’ll say it again: “Without fear or favour “. We need to remain focused on the facts, confirm what we know, acknowledge what we don’t and the good guys will prevail.
Succinct and to the point. Well done on a fine piece of writing beatipacificiscotia.
I think you have done very well to cut through the nonsense and remind everyone of how very simple one of the core issues at the centre of this mess really is. No amount of doublethink on the part of the media, the SFA or anyone else can ever change the fundamental simple principle as enshrined by FIFA.
Great post.
We can all see what is going on. Within the offices of the SFA there is a dinosaur in the room with a blue nose that feeds the elephant and will feed it till he is removed from the building.
Seems we’re all wrong.
From a poster on LSE:
season tickets £28m match day cash ticket sales £6m match day catering £5m bookie £1m Very conservative you have to remember friendlies and 20 games a year. I see this I don’t read about it. There is twenty different clubs like the Chaimans Club all catered for inside the stadium. In the stand I am in Govan Rear the fist three rows are club 72 and season tickets over £1000 per year with cash catering and beverage, separate lounge. Right along the back of the stand there is the Bibo boxes hold about a dozen in each box, cash catering and beverage bibo is latin for drink. Right next to the shop in Govan stand for the plebs with normal season tickets is a bar for cash sales, catering and beverage. Ibrox is a money making machine. Its all back in house now. The bears are pouring money in. Dont apologise just ask if I know I will tell you.
—————-
38k season tickets bringing in £28m?.
That’s an average,including concessions of £736 each.
If we use the stated figure in the accounts of £213 then £28m income means sales of 131,455!.
Anyone see the flaw in this. 😆
Beautiful post agree with it completely I believe aswell as the history debate that if TRFC go into administration the sfa must take there share of the blame…
As they flaunted they’re own rules to let the new club into the league set up without the three years worth of audited accounts. Charlie green ect didn’t prove they could run a football club properly and were allowed to leap frog clubs that have proven to do so .
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
January 30, 2014 at 7:47 am
38k season tickets bringing in £28m?.
That’s an average,including concessions of £736 each.
If we use the stated figure in the accounts of £213 then £28m income means sales of 131,455!.
Anyone see the flaw in this. 😆
===========================================================================
torrejohnbhoy – I’m afraid that is the quality of much “debate” on lse.co.uk which is one of the major forums for discussing the RIFC share price. A classic example of Ranger-nomics that helps reassure the naive and innumerate that The Rangers are going from strength to strength on their friend-making journey through the leagues. Cynical exploitation of trusting and vulnerable football fans.
A great post sir ,chapeau.These matters must at some stage be settled before Scottish football loses any credibility it has left.
Excellent blog and straight to the heart of the matter.
The definition of the “club” always appears to me to be missing something – the word “but” at the end of the sentence.
Whoever asked the question of the unnamed source at the SFA probably got the full answer (with the “but” at the end), but (there’s that word again!!) let the sentence fit in with the agenda he/she is trying to promote – A bit like the yes and no game that lawyers play in court.
It was the same with the definition of “club” by LNS, which people who follow the Ibrox club take as being the letter of the law, but once again conveniently forget the rest of the definition in the ruling.
When Brian Clough said (I think it was him!!?) that football was all about opinions, I don’t think he thought it could go this far!! 😳
I’m sorry to disagree, but in my opinion the post addresses the wrong question.
Of course no club can survive the liquidation of its legal entity. If the legal entity responsible for a “club” goes into liquidation, then that is it, finished. That is what happened to Third Lanark, from memory. I have not come across anyone who disagrees (apart from one avid Third Lanark fan I worked with 20 years ago!). And that is why one of my favourite hobby horses, Lord Hodge’s stalling of the liquidation of RFC, will in due course be seen to be one of the key events in this saga. If LH had followed the normal process, RFC would have been in liquidation before the transfer of the SFA membership to Sevco. End of Rangers at that point.
The relevant question is surely whether the legal operating entity can sell or transfer “the club” prior to liquidation, or even in a solvent situation. I think the answer to that question is a clear yes. SFA approval is required, but the possibility is contemplated in the rules.
And then the argument can commence as to whether the resulting amalgam is the same club as before. In his infinite wisdom, TSFM has reserved another thread (BOCNC) for posts on that particular topic. I refuse to even express an opinion, so that thread is immune from my ravings.
The loon posting on the lse site about the money making machine suggests a turnover of £40M…but the accounts say £19M
How can anyone be so deluded?
Well done Beats on a well written, thought provoking article.
Neepheid, well done for having the balls to disagree. That’s what makes this site different.
I’m going to go a different track again. Unsurprisingly I’m going to leave the clumpany debate behind simply bacause, ironically, of the history.
I’m going to move onto the practicalities. If we are to accept this legally distinct ‘club’ as a concept and I recall it was a cornerstone of dear Bryce’s lengthy lengthy arguements for the defendent citing Portsmouth and others, then a very simple problem rears its head. Why doesn’t a company take on debt, fund a club, win the league and fold. Repeat. And repeat again, and again and again until there is no more to win?
That is not to say that I accept the concept at all, far, far from it. But its acceptance in the formal corridors of power is having consequences on all teams just now, and no-one, certainly not a club owner for instance, seems prepared to admit it.
A Guest Blog for TSFM by beatipacificiscotia
———-
Great piece. Concise, to the point and very readable.
On the same general theme, a quote from The Metro about the state of affairs in England:
Scotland seems to be much further down this road. Although the above was in relation to a re-arranged fixture between West Ham and Sunderland, the principle, of the governing bodies losing their grip in the face of financial considerations, is the same.
From Regan, and Doncaster, to Frank McAvennie, DJ and Gordon Daziel on SSB, on to Chick Young and various journalists too many to number, the message is that Scottish football was, is and always shall be the Old Firm. It’s become the accepted dogma.
Those outside the Glasgow bubble know that football has survived quite nicely thank you without the OF — and RFC in particular. And at the same time it’s the broad church of Scottish football, impoverished as much of it now is, that has supplied the support structure that the OF ‘brand’ has built its success on, not to mention fished for talent. As the excellent blog illustrates, the high heid yins are in denial, and are perputating a myth and a lie because they believe Scottish football can only survive with an OF, no matter how deid and decrepit one part of it actually is. To paraphrase the Metro quote above:
* Apologies to CFC fans for OF references, I know many if not most on here have long considered it a toxic brand. That’s probably not true of all, though, at fan and/or club level.
Great post and a timely reminder for everyone to keep half an eye on the big picture.
On that subject I found myself wishing this return of Craig Whyte story to be true. I wanted this because I think it would be disruptive to RIFC and will increase their chances of another insolvency, which is where a team run like Rangers deserves to be.
Looking at it again, this is clearly second prize. What needs to happen is that someone takes this organisation by the scruff of the neck and turns it into a viable business. Someone needs to do a Fergus on them. While this may be impossible without significant investment or until another administration has hit, it is the only possible chance they have for long term survival.
Whyte returning would be hilarious and would almost certainly guarantee that years in the doldrums would be the best a Renting Rangers could hope for. It would humiliate the support too. But having Whyte anywhere near a football club is not something we should be hoping for. Whether he was the architect of a grand fraud, a willing participant or a patsy, he callously stole millions of pounds from the public purse and left hundreds of other companies unpaid. His presence is utterly inappropriate and even if he can prove he owns the assets, steps should be taken to make sure he has no influence.
Another bad habit on this site is the occasional rant about Rangers and their fans being irredeemably bad for Scottish football. I’m not sure that’s true. A financially and socially responsible club could be a positive if they can actively discourage, marginalise and exclude unacceptable fan behaviour. This might seem unlikely but the alternative will compel whoever owns it into unsustainable spending and neither survival by perpetual corruption or perpetual rebirth will heal the rift that now exists in Scottish football.
Dismissing Rangers fans as a whole as bad for the game is not helpful. They need to be engaged with at some level so the reasonable ones can see that there is an alternative to tolerating the less savoury fans. By shunning all of them we marginalise the reasonable and reinforce the bigot.
Finally, there needs to be a link between fans and the governing body. The SFA needs root and branch reform and no changes to clubs or supporter behaviour will be worthwhile unless the SFA is also reformed and reconciled with the clubs they cheated. I include Rangers in that because the refusal to admit their own bias and corruption has made the atmosphere of hate in Scottish football much worse and dragged other clubs into the problem. A hard dose of honesty at any point in the last year would have lanced that boil before it festered into the state of utter mistrust that now exists.
The SMSM should probably also change. They aren’t crucial to reforming Scottish football, but they could make it
so much easier. More likely though they’ll remain as bottom feeders, peddling lies and populist rumour instead of reporting news until they just become irrelevant.
So, my interpretation of the article is simple…..Sevco is a sideshow, football fans need to organise a meaningful protest against teh SFA and even the SPFL, it’s committees, rules structures, personnel all need to be completely overhauled.
Not sure it will be easy to rally fans of EVERY club (and i include the sevconians in this) to organise a meaningful protest.
the decision to act will invariably mean boycotting their own club (to a point) in order to drive change – plus there is the issue that with no dissenting voices from the clubs themselves, they may not want to change and are happy with the set up
So, how do we motivate a disparate group of fans, across all ages and clubs that the way forward is to oust teh SFA which may mean harming their own clubs in the short term – for that reason alone, i think the focus will always remain on sevco shenanigans
275,000 shares just traded at 25p.
I can understand someone who bought at 1pm wanting to sell. Still can’t quite understand anyone wanting to buy.
beatipacificiscotia
Good read…. you are of course correct from the standpoint of a neutral observer , applying rules without fear or favour. As Neepheid has previously pointed out, Rangers were not technically liquidated when the SFA agreed to transfer the “club”.
This was a discretionary act on the part if the SFA who knew that Rangers would indeed be liquidated.
My view has been that the SFA acted to save Rangers from its owners, at the expense of ‘fairness’ , however the behaviour of the current regime at Ibrox is basically sticking 2 fingers (a la Captain Unbookable) to the SFA and the rest of the clubs.
It seems to me that the SFA having exercised discretion once to be lenient, have set a precident for Rangers, so what to the SFA do next time round?
The current rules from my helicopter understanding of them is that the SFA wish to retain the ” we can do what we like for the good of the game” rule, however this assumes that the clubs are behaving as good corporate citizens.
There needs to be a sea change in the way the SFA executes it’s governance role.
Mr. Regan stated on camera that the SFA do not have the resources to actively manage the “fit and proper person” test, rather the clubs are responsible for managing this , by extension if clubs place their control in the hands of say a nutter then that’s up to them. So yet more leniency / lassiez-faire behaviour from the SFA which probably got them by in the 1970s but the world has moved on and they are rooted in the past.
Within the SFAs budget , there needs to be room for a small team of Accountants / Business Managers who undertake the following:
– manage the fit and proper person test for a club with turnover exceeding £4m per annum , averaged over the last 10 years
– publish quarterly financials , summarised p&l , and payables overdue and establish criteria where consistent failure ( 3 successive quarters) results in transfer embargoes and deduction of sponsorship monies for points gained, disqualification from holding cup semi-finals /finals on the home ground
– amend the rules to state that any club where a liquidation process is inevitable / in-process then a membership cannot be transferred
– amend the rules to state that administration during a season will result in automatic relegation
– amend the rules to state that a second administration in a 10 year period results in relegation to Div 3
– amend the rules to state that a third administration in a 15 year period , membership is withdrawn.
The rules need to be more draconian to handle any perverse economic behaviour from clubs
beatipacificiscotia. Great post.
Legal entity fully and solely responsible for the football team participating in national and international club competitions that applies for a licence.”
If the FIFA definition is not open to interpretation,why have the SFA been allowed to make up their own.
What are FIFA doing about it?
I note with considerable interest that Alloa Athletic are about to reveal Barry Smith as our new manager. Alloa legend Barry (we grant them the honorific immediately, lest we forget later on) will hope to fill the metaphorically large shoes of Sir Paul Hartley, the last man to win SFL Division 3 without losing his employers north of fourteen million quid. Where the SMSM may struggle a little is with Barry’s CV. He was Dundee manager when they were catapulted into the SPL in 2012, after Rangers resigned their place (belatedly, it is thought in some circles), having failed to agree a CVA. The resulting gap in the SFL was eventually plugged by applicants Sevco Scotland, as they were still called. How this circumstance can be squared with the Ibrox giants being shamefully relegated through the leagues by hate filled maniacs, fuelled by jealousy, hatred and fortified wine, may prove an interesting diversion.
“..and ..”
The SPLIC levelled a number of its charges at the ‘owner/operator company’ and the ‘FC’, being Rangers Football Club Plc and Rangers FC.
The meaning of the ‘and’ was kindly interpreted as meaning ‘together but separate’, when all hitherto accepted definitions of a football club, including those Beatpacificscotia mentions in the post above, make no such distinction.
From memory, the SFA rule on eligibility re disclosure of documents included a phrase like ‘in order to be registered and eligible’.
No such separation of these due to the ‘and’ took place with the kind interpretation of this rule, leaving aside the perverse Bryson Interpretation.
The governing bodies interpreted the whole elephant as its separate parts as and when it suited them.
Great post Beatpacificscotia 🙂
PS
The SFA indicated that the meaning of a ‘club’ can vary depending on the context.
Its notable that the reason such a context of a separate club FC arose was in order to level charges at a Club for systematically rulebreaking over a decade, and such a context has not been used for any other purpose before or since. The Club was found guilty.
IMO, its a context that allows a Club to cheat and get away with it.
Smugas says – “Why doesn’t a company take on debt, fund a club, win the league and fold. Repeat. And repeat again, and again and again until there is no more to win?”
———————————————————————————————————————————————-
From a footballing point of view – that may well be technically possible (if the footballing authorities are prepared to put up with, and be complicit in, such conduct) but from an insolvency law and the real world (i.e. non-football) point of view that will not happen.
Suppliers would not continue to supply on credit. Sections, 213 (fraudulent trading), 214 (wrongful trading) and 216 (prohibited names) of the Insolvency Act would come into play and catch up (eventually) with the malefactors. As I have posted before, just because we haven’t seen any of these things in action yet – doesn’t mean they are not happening.
In the situation posited above – the “con” would be obvious to all and sundry and it just could not happen.
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
January 30, 2014 at 10:12 am
2 0 Rate This
So, how do we motivate a disparate group of fans …
———-
In a civilized country with a free press the jounos would be making life very uncomfortable for those who reward themselves richly for running … and ruining … the game. But we’ve seen that this critique not going to come from people who just want to go along and talk about tactics, transfers and ‘the Big Two’.
TSFM can appear to be a bit of a one-trick pony because of the emphasis on THE big issue. In reality, though, there was a lot of animated debate around the subject of bigger leagues (fewer repetitive fixtures), lower prices, summer football, and possible region-based competition. These are issues that occupy the minds of many. Unfortunately, the bigger league scenario is a bit taboo here as it’s often seen as a clever leg-up plan for you-know-who.
I suppose the pressure must come from fans of all 42 clubs now represented in the SPFL. The new structure can force change, and fans surely will push for change if the issues matter enough to them. Doncaster seemed to indicate Scottish football could not afford to listen to the fans, but he’ll do what the chairmen tell him.
The old tales are always the best as they have stood the test of time and much analysis – very enjoyable read beatipacificiscotia.
As a schoolchild I remember a teacher telling me of a man blind from birth dramatically having his sight restored in a pioneering operation and his first sight of a piece of paper blowing past the window prompted him to ask: ‘Is that a bird?’ – it took me into early adulthood before I finally realised what the teacher was actually imparting and it has stood me in good stead all my life.
And now back to to the rampaging blue elephant trying to tear-up the Lennoxtown Greenbelt 😆
——————————————————————————————————————
I note the Bear Case over the alleged corrupt Lennoxtown land deal has suffered a major collapse. It will be buried shortly by the European Commission in a State Aided funeral – one waste of taxpayers money which will be well worth it.
The childishly crude attempt to smear Celtic with corruption encompasses dozens of public bodies including the Scottish Government and hundreds, if not thousands, of decent public servants just doing their job – many of whom will be Rangers’ supporters.
Still we are making progress towards sanity with the latest admission of the Bears’Chief dodgy land deal investigator that the ground on which Celtic’s training centre stands is Greenbelt – everyone else on this planet, of a sane mind, has always been aware of that fact. Previously he declared it was zoned for housing.
Before the dodgy land deal campaign was seized by PR spinners to deflect Bears from the structural collapse of Rangers a couple of Celtic-obsessed Bears saw it as a means of undermining the Parkhead Club. The latest footballtaxhavens article lays bare the motivation and yes everyone else in Scottish Football knows how much it hurts and we do sympathise. It’s not easy to discover that you ain’t top of the dung pile but underneath it.
The Bear Land ‘Expert’ lays bare his inner angst by admitting that Lennoxtown is:
But instead of apologising for getting it wrong over the Celtic site being greenbelt the Bear Land ‘Expert’ tries to slither off and still attempt to link Celtic with some kind of corruption obviously on the basis if you throw enough dung some will stick – presumably doesn’t know about our teflon-coated strip.
The clumsy attempt to link Celtic to an alleged dodgy planning decision requires history to be ignored and timelines changed in a vain bid to prove that Celtic in some way influenced the granting of greenbelt status for their site to get it on-the-cheap by stating:
And the usual ‘We want the names!’ intimidation was added by pointing out that the names of the councillors who made the decision are contained in a helpfully provided link – some things never change in the Blue Swamp.
It’s an inescapable fact that long before Celtic even contemplated moving to Lennoxtown the training site had been identified as greenfield in the Greater Glasgow NHS Board minute of 22nd October 2002. NB NOT 18 April 2006. It states:
After Lennox Castle Hospital closed there was a decision taken to regenerate the site and attempt to replace the lost employment through money generated by selling the major portion of the land for house building but there was also an opportunity to add to the area’s greenbelt. Because of the size of the whole site a masterplan was drawn-up detailing the phased housebuilding programme and this involved numerous public bodies and even the Scottish Government.
In another plaintively childish appeal for some kind of merciful release, from a self-built cul-de-sac the Bear ‘Expert’, emerges with in his question:
It’s quite hard to know how to adequately deal with the question in a short compass as it displays a woeful lack of knowledge and understanding of planning issues and regulation well below that of Planning 101.
However other regulars know that I am always prepared to rise to the challenge and one poster yesterday even commented on my patience – obviously hasn’t seen me in action yet.
For a start – The Masterplan for the whole Lennoxtown site was 6 years in the making because of the complexities and sensitivities of the site. As with all major development proposals there has to be a balance between local and national housing targets and preserving the environment and amenities for locals and the public at large bearing in mind the public ownership origins of the site.
The meeting of 18/04/2006 didn’t upgrade any land to ‘Residential’ and it didn’t downgrade any to ‘Greenbelt’. It was to grant planning permission for two separate developments which met the requirements of two differently zoned plots of land viz one was for housebuilding and one was for greenbelt.
Leaving aside the telling observation that few normal people other than land speculators see ‘Greenbelt’ as a downgrading – the land designations for the site and areas covered by them had been under discussion since even before the hospital closed and were certainly decided in principle by 22nd October 2002. NB NOT 18 April 2006.
The Land ‘Expert’ talks like a spiv when he asks why the Lennoxtown site shouldn’t just be stuffed to overflowing with housing barracks – why not multi-storeys – from which gerrybuilders would walk away with their pockets bulging with dosh – remind you of anyone down Ibrox way? That’s one very good reason why the whole site couldn’t be turned over to housing. There are others such as the heavy tree cover and protected woodland on the site as well as the network of paths and areas of ground used by walkers and cyclists for recreation and leisure activities. And let’s not forget the roosting bats and woodpeckers – if you want ‘Investigator’status in my experience you actually have to do some investigation. Also the problem that the population increase would not only swamp all the Lennoxtown facilities but completely destroy the nature of a village which I have many happy connections with.
The Land ‘Expert’ then asks why the whole site couldn’t be made Greenbelt and betrays a woeful lack of knowledge of the history of Lennoxtown and the pressing need for regeneration of the village and fresh local employment. In a nutshell: Hundreds lost their jobs after decades of secure employment at the hospital and there were also major redundancies from the unrelated closure of two local factories.
And here’s where the State Aid came into the picture. It was agreed by the Scottish Government that the former hospital’s land could be sold to provide cash to fund the economic regeneration of Lennoxtown and the provision of new local medical facilities. Sadly that plan has not come to full fruition yet because of the economic recession with only one phase of the housing development completed and the other 4/5 currently mothballed. All of this information, in great detail, is publicly available but the Bear Land ‘Experts’ don’t want to know because it doesn’t suit their agenda of keeping fellow Bears in ignorance and deflected from any housing developments planned for Ibrox – what price Greenfield then?
Good post. Cutting through the excrement. Well done.
Unfortunately the elephantine excrement that you have successfully excised to expose the truth here has choked the Scottish football authorities. The residual mass of elephant excretia has then been reformed into an ersatz elephant and they are fervently hoping that if they insist it is an elephant then it may magically transform into one.
Sadly for them the excremental creation is dissolving – very malodorously – under their noses.
Thoroughly enjoyable post beatipacificiscotia
The initial comments though have led me to one realisation:-
There are too many animals involved in this whole thing. It’s like a zoo! Only today I have read about a blue nosed dinosaur feeding an elephant at the home of the bears. Let’s not even mention squirrels.
Call Me Cynical
But, what proportion of time with supporters groups will Graham Wallace spent talking about the non-transfer of Lee Wallace and other players – rather than on the cash flow spreadsheet he has projected over the portray of the queen ? The Lee Wallace squirrel may have been shot full of holes but will not have died in vain.
btw this account says Notts Forest only offered 500K upfront and 500K on appearance/performance – obviously not until the end of this season or next season – which is not much use to Graham – but nice for the administrators. http://www.nottinghampost.com/Nottingham-Forest-ready-play-pound-1m-hardball/story-20525752-detail/story.html
PTD1978, I thumbs you down, not because your wrong, but because TRFC had the perfect opportunity to rebrand, and bring themselves into the modern era.
They chose to market and cash in on the new brand, based on everything that was wrong with the old brand, and then some. I’d go as far as saying as a Football Club they are worse than ever, in that respect. And followers are up allegedly.
This blog has at times bent over backwards to encourage the engagement of the mythical decent bear, we have had a few who tick most of the boxes, but an unhealthy agenda free percentage have turned up so far.
As for those responsible for policing our game, and possibly those who should be responsible for bridging any divide, they are too busy assisting the new, improved dislikeable entity themselves, to be interested in the good of our game.
Your right, there needs to be an engagement. But the rest of Scottish football is too busy doing nothing wrong, to engage with those who deem you a hater for suggesting they join the same club. Some TSFM posters excluded, well Ryan anyway. 😆
I see that Nottingham Forest have just acquired the services of Southampton’s left back, Danny Fox for the rest of the season. Not much need for a third tier Wallace I’d have thought?
Info from
@SkySportsPeteO
Excellent article. Only 1 point’s confusing me – The identity of the six blind men: Unless I’m mistaken, the SFA board has 7 members, the SPFL board has 6. Of course, when the blind lead the blind, the chances are that it’ll be unlucky for some (if not all) in Scottish)football, but why is everybody so keen to ignore the elephant in the room?
neepheid says:
January 30, 2014 at 9:17 am
I’m sorry to disagree, but in my opinion the post addresses the wrong question.
Of course no club can survive the liquidation of its legal entity. If the legal entity responsible for a “club” goes into liquidation, then that is it, finished. That is what happened to Third Lanark, from memory. I have not come across anyone who disagrees (apart from one avid Third Lanark fan I worked with 20 years ago!). And that is why one of my favourite hobby horses, Lord Hodge’s stalling of the liquidation of RFC, will in due course be seen to be one of the key events in this saga. If LH had followed the normal process, RFC would have been in liquidation before the transfer of the SFA membership to Sevco. End of Rangers at that point.
The relevant question is surely whether the legal operating entity can sell or transfer “the club” prior to liquidation, or even in a solvent situation. I think the answer to that question is a clear yes. SFA approval is required, but the possibility is contemplated in the rules.
And then the argument can commence as to whether the resulting amalgam is the same club as before. In his infinite wisdom, TSFM has reserved another thread (BOCNC) for posts on that particular topic. I refuse to even express an opinion, so that thread is immune from my ravings.
========================
helpmaboab says:
January 30, 2014 at 10:26 am
beatipacificiscotia. Great post.
Legal entity fully and solely responsible for the football team participating in national and international club competitions that applies for a licence.”
If the FIFA definition is not open to interpretation,why have the SFA been allowed to make up their own.
What are FIFA doing about it?
==============================
Well said HMB.
Nail and head.
All football “associations” – MUST interpret the CLUB using the FIFA – Definition of Club.
No if, but…or maybe.
Scotland “international” and Ex Celtic left back Danny Fox has joined Forrest on loan for rest of the season.
hmmmm, wonder if Forrest have realised a certain 3rd tier player might be available for free in a few months!
looks like they weren’t prepared to offer a penny more than the 900k bid for a 3rd tier player after all – presure now on Wallace if no one else bids
So Jack Irvine gets the BBC and other chosen outlets to release news about an offer for Lee Wallace from Notts Forest.
I daresay he’s had a fair amount of contact with Billy Davies over the years and Billy was happy enough for the story to go out, despite having absolutely no intention of signing the player (especially for 900k 🙄 ).
My take on this is Sevco are absolutely desperate to offload Wallace. Very similar to the situation in January 2012 with Jelavic 🙂 🙂
26. scottc says:
January 30, 2014 at 11:33 am
I once visited a Zoo that had nothing but one wee dug.
It was a shit zoo.
Great post and also great to see a counter argument by neep . It’s what makes this blog so different and diverse
Now Forest have signed Danny Fox and effectively cold shouldered TRFC evaluation of Wallace
What is plan B for bringing in working capital till ST renewals?
Will we see a grab for the assets
A Wonga loan scenario
A share dilution
Adim of TRFC
Or will craigy bhoy put the kibosh on all of the above
Pop corn time Me thinks 🙂
Great blog, beatipacificiscotia! Like most of the stuff posted here, it would be great to get it out to a wider audience.
===================================================
TheLunaticFringe says:
January 30, 2014 at 11:56 am
Excellent article. Only 1 point’s confusing me – The identity of the six blind men: Unless I’m mistaken, the SFA board has 7 members, the SPFL board has 6.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Maybe the 7th member IS the elephant in the room.
neepheid says:
January 30, 2014 at 9:17 am
Of course no club can survive the liquidation of its legal entity. If the legal entity responsible for a “club” goes into liquidation, then that is it, finished.
——
I don’t mean to wilfully disagree, but once again I give you Budapest Honved.
The current club retains the history of the 2004-liquidated Honved’s operating compnay, which was home to Puskas, Bozsik and Kocsis as well as being managed by Zoltan Varga in his later years, and its status as “the” legendary Honved is not argued by anyone at all.
As for State Aid, Honved are about to be handed 5 billion Forints by the Govt to do up their stadium. A lot of money is currently earmarked for stadium improvements all round Hungary, not least a very large wedge being given to the Bishop of Szeged so he can build a stadium and start a new club there! This despite the Diocese being under tax fraud investigation.
Oh Carl, really! 😀
Tom Hennessy @TomGoalie33 2 hrs
@BhoyEddie @TheClumpany BhoyEddie the CEO has had his fill of ra peepul & tried to walk…they’re desperately trying to keep him in situ
paulsatim says:
January 30, 2014 at 12:32 pm
===================================================
TheLunaticFringe says:
January 30, 2014 at 11:56 am
Excellent article. Only 1 point’s confusing me – The identity of the six blind men: Unless I’m mistaken, the SFA board has 7 members, the SPFL board has 6.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Maybe the 7th member IS the elephant in the room.
________________________________________________________________________________
🙂 Hmm. The Elephant With No Name…. In view of the proposed (totally free) Govan re-development scheme (<for want of a better word) perhaps it would be worthwhile investing in some shares in elephant shit? – #4furrapound 🙄
Tic 6709 says:
January 30, 2014 at 12:50 pm
0 0 Rate This
Tom Hennessy @TomGoalie33 2 hrs
@BhoyEddie @TheClumpany BhoyEddie the CEO has had his fill of ra peepul & tried to walk…they’re desperately trying to keep him in situ
=======================================
twitter is always rife with rumours like this…..but if it’s true, could make todays meeting with the many many many different peepils supporters groups tonight very interesting….who knows, if he wants to go, he might actually tell them the truth instead of trying to sugar coat things and cover it up for his employers
hmmmm interesting
Good post!
Putting aside the Old Co/New Co discussion, just this part of the post below reminds me why I read this blog every day.
“There is a danger of all of us, whether consciously or unconsciously, making the same mistake as these blind Gentlemen. It is too easy to use the parts of the argument that fit our values and belief system, at the expense of the whole truth”
I do not come here so I can convince myself of something I already know; I come here to question my opinions and long held beliefs and to try to understand why I have those beliefs. And more importantly, is it right to have certain views.
Those who never question themselves are the ones who seem to have the problems!
neepheid says:
January 30, 2014 at 9:17 am
“The relevant question is surely whether the legal operating entity can sell or transfer “the club” prior to liquidation, or even in a solvent situation. I think the answer to that question is a clear yes. SFA approval is required, but the possibility is contemplated in the rules.”
Respectfully,
The question then begged is – What is “the club”? It all depends on what you mean by this “club”. It must be defined, and an evidence trail be present, during an insolvent or solvent transfer, to show its sale or transfer.
Its not enough to simply accept anyone’s word for it.
For definition and context of “the club”, please see SFA rules.
These should align with the bodies the Author of the above piece mentions – Confederations and FIFA.
The fact that these bodies define clearly what the SFA is doing its best to leave as ambiguous is at least part of what Beatpacificscotia is driving at.
Once “the club” were to be clearly defined, then stating that it conceivably could be transferred is a million miles from showing that it actually was as part of the Rangers Saga or any other club insolvency.
Notably, there is evidence of a sale of assets.
I could conceivably travel to the moon and back.
I could say that I once did, and that anyone who disbelieves me needs to essentially take my word for it.
A number of friendly or sympathetic people could also say I once did – that they believe me.
That would not make it so.
gamesabogey says:
January 30, 2014 at 1:58 am
Nice job by the OP and both the post and the above made me think of Edward de Bono’s “Six thinking hats” – a tool for critically analysing proposals or problems in groups.
The idea behind it is that you need a well-rounded set of people in group work and you need to be able to healthily (!) challenge each other without fear (!) or personal attacks (!). Each person would adopt a stance of sorts as described on wikipedia:
Information (White) – considering purely what information is available, what are the facts?
Emotions (Red) – intuitive or instinctive gut reactions or statements of emotional feeling (but not any justification)
Discernment (Black) – logic applied to identifying reasons to be cautious and conservative
Optimistic response (Yellow) – logic applied to identifying benefits, seeking harmony
Creativity (Green) – statements of provocation and investigation, seeing where a thought goes
Those who can spot the difference between a salary payment and an EBT payment will of course see that there are only five listed above. The sixth hat, as chance would have it, is the Blue hat.
The Blue hat directs the thinking (!), sets the agenda (!) and is responsible for maintaining discipline …
I’ll think I’ll just leave the analogy there and wait for the exclamation mark key to cool down a bit …
Anyway, the point I wanted to make was that the people involved at the core of the OP’s topic and the transfer that Neepheid has highlighted is that the goal was the status quo (at that time) or “rightful place” as others have put it. They consciously or subconsciously believe that this is their prime responsibility. No one in the decision-making circles would have reason to challenge this. Their positions are so obviously conflicted yet no challenge is made to this by anyone in a position to influence.
As depressing as it sounds, if this is the SFA’s goal then we will indeed see more of the same from them with every avenue explored until a certain footballing operation (in some form) is back in the top tier.
We should not be surprised by it any more than TRFC followers are when they are asked for yet more money in various future guises.
Possible Admission that Rangers Finances Are “Not In Great Shape” Shocker!
Who’d have even suspected such a thing?
—
RANGERS CEO Graham Wallace is set to face questions on the future of Lee Wallace when he meets with supporters’ representatives later today.
Drew Robertson of the Rangers Supporters Association said: “Selling Lee would be almost an admission that the finances are not in great shape. If they do sell him, they will never convince anybody that it was anything other than a financial necessity. If they do sell I don’t think anyone expects them to bring anyone else in.” (Mail)
——
Angus1983 says:
January 30, 2014 at 1:09 pm
Drew Robertson of the Rangers Supporters Association said: “Selling Lee would be almost an admission that the finances are not in great shape.
====================================================================
Words fail me. Has Drew been living in outer space for a decade – did he not read the accounts, did he not attend the AGM, has he not listened to a single hint form Mr Wallace (G), does he like the witch sketch in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJFA6uEfUlM
If the twitter rumour is true that Wallace is looking for a way out – who can blame him – he must fear for his sanity if he is trying to do a genuine job of turning the asylum around
Angus1983 says:
January 30, 2014 at 1:09 pm
1 0 Rate This
Possible Admission that Rangers Finances Are “Not In Great Shape” Shocker!
Who’d have even suspected such a thing?
—
RANGERS CEO Graham Wallace is set to face questions on the future of Lee Wallace when he meets with supporters’ representatives later today.
Drew Robertson of the Rangers Supporters Association said: “Selling Lee would be almost an admission that the finances are not in great shape. If they do sell him, they will never convince anybody that it was anything other than a financial necessity. If they do sell I don’t think anyone expects them to bring anyone else in.” (Mail)
=========================================
so what?
if he turned around and said…sorry, we had to sell EVERY SINGLE 1st team player in this window to cut costs and bring in any cash we could otherwise it would be administration on feb 1st…..what would the bears do?
are they going to walk away? or are they going to put up with it to save the club (again)
yeah, the board has robbed them blind, and they’d be well within their rights to walk away from propping them up….but if they HAVE to sell 1 player to keep the club afloat, is that really a bad thing in their eyes?
If I was a bear, i’d let the board do what it needed to get to ST renewal time – and then I’d be campaigning for a complete over haul of the board, review of costs/expenses and streamlining the club to live within it’s means – and if they can get further investment, it isn’t used to simply buy more players, but invest in improving the infrastructure and long term sustainability of the club
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
January 30, 2014 at 1:25 pm
0 0 Rate This
Angus1983 says:
January 30, 2014 at 1:09 pm
1 0 Rate This
Possible Admission that Rangers Finances Are “Not In Great Shape” Shocker!
Who’d have even suspected such a thing?
—
RANGERS CEO Graham Wallace is set to face questions on the future of Lee Wallace when he meets with supporters’ representatives later today.
Drew Robertson of the Rangers Supporters Association said: “Selling Lee would be almost an admission that the finances are not in great shape. If they do sell him, they will never convince anybody that it was anything other than a financial necessity. If they do sell I don’t think anyone expects them to bring anyone else in.” (Mail)
=========================================
so what?
if he turned around and said…sorry, we had to sell EVERY SINGLE 1st team player in this window to cut costs and bring in any cash we could otherwise it would be administration on feb 1st…..what would the bears do?
are they going to walk away? or are they going to put up with it to save the club (again)
yeah, the board has robbed them blind, and they’d be well within their rights to walk away from propping them up….but if they HAVE to sell 1 player to keep the club afloat, is that really a bad thing in their eyes?
If I was a bear, i’d let the board do what it needed to get to ST renewal time – and then I’d be campaigning for a complete over haul of the board, review of costs/expenses and streamlining the club to live within it’s means – and if they can get further investment, it isn’t used to simply buy more players, but invest in improving the infrastructure and long term sustainability of the club
=====================================================
Why don’t the Bears get it . . .
The RIFC Board are there to do what is best for the “shareholders” to make a return on their “investment”.
The board are not their to do “what is best” for the Fans of a subsidiary = The Rangers Football Club LTD
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
January 30, 2014 at 1:25 pm
This is the bit I don’t get either.
And the bit in bold is the bit I completely agree with but don’t seem to see much evidence of.
As many have said before, the coordination of supporters interests seems to have been fundamentally lacking back in the administration days that would have allowed a model to be set up in the interests of the football club.
Reappearance of Whyte or not, the spivs have set in place a structure that cannot be undone unless the supporters are prepared for an unprecedented level of fleecing. The only way to put in place the “Rangers Men” or preferably (?) fan ownership would be admin (and of course some preferential treatment from D&P types).
Would you be willing to crash your club to get it back from spivs?
@MCFC Howdy mate…
“SCOTLAND full-back Danny Fox has sealed a loan move to Nottingham Forest – and killed the English club’s bid for Rangers star Lee Wallace.”
— Great news for the rangers fans shurely!!! The manager must be delighted that rangers ‘Booted’ out Forest’s derisory offer..
Some nice posts to a good blog by beatipacificascotia
Two thoughts
First as futbol says above The SFA actions from the pre-receivership dinner in Glasgow with Regan and RCO onwards were framed by their (almost certainly un-legislated) belief that the commercial value of their product would be less without the Rangers team and their support. (And in commercial terms I can see that that is probably correct , certainly in the short to medium term).
The outcome and the favours promised and the 5 way plan to keep them in SPL was inevitable because RCO had been given enough time to manipulate and blind sight everybody to keep his team and club alive and as the old saying goes “In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king”.
Campbell done good for his heroes at the time even if his plans met up in time with some spivs.
He may have said at the time it was for the benefit of the rest of the SFA members but that was a smokescreen.
Secondly
Talking about decent Rangers fans.
They do exist but they have been blind-sighted too.
I agree we need to have them on our side because they are part of the future.
Recently I have had quite in depth discussions with a staunch Rangers fan.
An ex shareholder, a current shareholder, educated and all round good guy.
When we talked he seemed up for the discussion.
When I said what I really thought about it being corporate fraud going back to the early days of SDM and sadly about to explode again deep down he got it.
When I then said the law of unintended consequences meant that RCO had blown it by effectively gifting the club to the Spivs and thus facilitated the rape of the assets that’s about to take place he responded by saying he had it on good authority that the Celtic land deals were dodgy.
I said that was irrelevant to what was happening to his own club but he couldn’t see it.
He then told me why Celtic were in just as bad a place as his own team.
That’s when I got it.
To me as a non west coaster, non OF fan who always liked to see them both get beaten in domestic matches I now get it.
To many there are only two teams.
I am now convinced the vast majority of the Blue fans club only exist just to beat their ex old firm rivals in green and probably many of the green clubs fans think the same. Or certainly used to.
So do the BBC, the MSM, the SFA, SPFL, Holyrood, etc
Two alpha clubs to care about (one establishment and one to be beaten regularly for supremacy) and a bunch of also rans making up the numbers.
I was going to finish by saying “there are none so blind as those who will not see” but maybe that refers to us!
I hope not!
Scottish Football doesn’t need a re-creation of the Old Firm.
Scottish Football needs Rod Petrie, Roy MacGregor, Kenny Cameron, Stewart Milne, Stephen Thompson, Turnbull Hutton et all the other good guys to wake up.
futbol says:
January 30, 2014 at 1:49 pm
The only way to put in place the “Rangers Men” or preferably (?) fan ownership would be admin (and of course some preferential treatment from D&P types).
Would you be willing to crash your club to get it back from spivs?
==============================================================================
If Drew Robertson’s comments are an example of the calibre of people representing the fans – they have more chance of standing on each others shoulders and reaching Mars than they have of resting control of the club’s corpse from the spivs. Unless the mythical “reasonable fans” spring into action PDQ the club will be debt-free, asset-free,, player-free, and future-free – although I’m sure they’ll never be licence-free.
neepheid says:
January 30, 2014 at 9:17 am
“The relevant question is surely whether the legal operating entity can sell or transfer “the club” prior to liquidation, or even in a solvent situation. I think the answer to that question is a clear yes. SFA approval is required, but the possibility is contemplated in the rules.”
+++++++++++++++++++++
You have fallen down the propaganda rabbit hole with that one. We should not lose sight of clear definitions set out in regulations that apply to football globally. I would recommend reading the FIFA Club Licensing Regulations. One thing that comes through strongly in the document relating to adoption of these regulations by Confederations and National Associations – you can add but not take away. The FIFA Regulations are a minimum standard to be applied by all Confederations and National Associations.
You cannot transfer “the Club” if the Club is the company in administration. Rangers Football Club plc, the Club, was not bought out of administration. The Club was in administration at the time, and soon after formally entered liquidation. “The Club” was never transferred. What you are suggesting happened is a clear contradiction to FIFA regulations. Simply put, it didn’t happen.
The issue for me is that woolly language such as “owner / operator of the club” used by our footballing powers may appear to suggest a separation of club and company. However, this believe will only last until someone asks the obvious next question – “are club and company the same thing”? The cowardly media seem too afraid to ask this question and force an answer. The statement made by the ASA includes a quote from the SFA that has no context or explanation. Has anyone asked what was meant by this statement?
The licensing regulations protect everyone. Their purpose is clear, the definitions are clear, their application is clear, I cannot be more clear than that. Any attack on these regulations is an attack on good governance and an attack on the football family.
Finloch says:
January 30, 2014 at 1:57 pm
————————————–
As one of those “green fans” I would have to agree with you, nail hit firmly and squarely in the middle of the head!
One thing I’ve learned after 2 years of this debacle is that there are other teams out there….. and a lot of their supporters are just as (and in some cases, more) football savvy than those who exist simply to protest about the other half!
beatipacificiscotia says:
January 30, 2014 at 2:02 pm
The licensing regulations protect everyone. Their purpose is clear, the definitions are clear, their application is clear, I cannot be more clear than that. Any attack on these regulations is an attack on good governance and an attack on the football family.
===========================================================================
beatipacificiscotia – In my humble opinion, the SFA is no more corrupt than much of global football. Placing your faith in the higher moral standards of UEFA and FIFA can only lead to despair and disillusionment. All fans (paying customers) can hope to do is hold the SFA to local social standards and the higher standards of similar sporting bodies. For example the IOC are not perfect – but did put themselves through rigorous self examination in a way that FIFA seems to be unable to – see below.
FIFA anti-corruption adviser resigns, April 22, 2013
FIFA anti-corruption adviser Alexandra Wrage has quit her role because of a perceived lack of progress from the organisation in improving its internal transparency.
http://espnfc.com/news/story/_/id/1421846/fifa-anti-corruption-adviser-resigns-over-lack-of-progress?cc=5739
@,ecobhoy
I had a Twitter exchange with the guy behind the state aid claims and told him his dossier was full of inconsistencies that any decent brief would make short work of,but he is convinced that his ramblings are correct and won’t be told otherwise.
I think the pressure is starting to get him carrying the hopes of Beardom on his shoulders.
One of the many anomalies in his case is the total fabrication that the District Valuer wasn’t involved in the sale of Westhorn,this carries great weight in that it makes it look like a ‘deal’ was conveniently done between GCC and Celtic but in one of his blogs he copied in the minutes of a Council meeting where it was noted that “The District Valuer has been party to and supportive of site valuation” GCC Development and Regeneration Sub Committee June 15 2005.
It seems his work will be in vain as there are many more errors contained within it.
I hope when this has run its course that Celtic don’t keep quiet about this nonsense.
paulsatim says:
January 30, 2014 at 12:32 pm
17 0 Rate This
Great blog, beatipacificiscotia! Like most of the stuff posted here, it would be great to get it out to a wider audience.
===================================================
TheLunaticFringe says:
January 30, 2014 at 11:56 am
Excellent article. Only 1 point’s confusing me – The identity of the six blind men: Unless I’m mistaken, the SFA board has 7 members, the SPFL board has 6.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Maybe the 7th member IS the elephant in the room.
——————————————————————————————————————-
There is one man wearing blue tinted glasses who has no sight impairment leading the other 6 blind men.
JimBhoy says:
January 30, 2014 at 1:51 pm
– Great news for the rangers fans shurely!!! The manager must be delighted that rangers ‘Booted’ out Forest’s derisory offer..
======================================================
Howdy JimBhoy. That Forest “offer” of £500K up front for Wallace (L) is going to look like a shed load of money when the Administrators move in. Could have paid their fees for a few weeks. 🙂
Angus1983 says:
January 30, 2014 at 12:39 pm
neepheid says:
January 30, 2014 at 9:17 am
Of course no club can survive the liquidation of its legal entity. If the legal entity responsible for a “club” goes into liquidation, then that is it, finished.
——
I don’t mean to wilfully disagree, but once again I give you Budapest Honved.
++++++++++++++++++++
Angus, Budapest Honvéd became that name, a new club, in 2004: for the 13 years before that the previous incarnation of the club, which this season has averaged 838 fans to home games, was known as Kispest Honvéd FC. In 1991, their average gate was 6,967. In the sixties, the side was called Budapest Honvéd SE (the army side) having been previously been called Kispesti Athletikai Club, then Kispest FC. During the sixties, Budapest Honvéd SE averaged over 10,000, so their gates and support have fallen dramatically as time has progressed and the side fell foul of tax authorities.
The Hungarian FA however, allowed a new club to form and take the place of Kispest Honvéd FC, and in the top league too, as long as the new club, Budapest Honvéd FC, paid off the tax debts of Kispest Honvéd FC.
The press in Hungary, I am told, continued to call the side Budapest Honvéd after they themselves had changed their name in 1991. Can only guess why.
How do I know all this? I was a teenage armchair Honvéd fan.
valentinesclown
There is one man wearing blue tinted glasses who has no sight impairment leading the other 6 blind men.
==============================
Every time I think of the make-up of the SFA it reminds me of the film Godzilla.
One big Dinosaur that everybody can see, but don’t forget all the eggs.
Chris Graham Goes Super Nova over Super Alley
Ally McCoist – A Little Respect? The Rangers Standard 14:30
http://www.newsnow.co.uk/h/Sport/Football/Scottish+League+One/Rangers
If you don’t want to click on the article – this will give you a good idea of the intellectual, logical and emotional content: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY39fkmqKBM
borussiabeefburg says:
January 30, 2014 at 2:36 pm
I was a teenage armchair Honvéd fan.
=============================================================================
Half Man, Half Biscuit song title! Google them, Rush fans!
Forgot to add, in the earlier Hungarian post, thanks to beatipacificiscotia for the guest blog: hopefully my post relates to that from a European perspective.
Another Scottish Football related point which I haven’t noticed being discussed here: last week, N Doncaster cast doubts over teams with artificial surfaces being allowed to play in the top league. Someone can perhaps help me here: are there different rules for the Premiership in Scotland than the other three leagues?
I would have thought not.
Also, why would Doncaster have any definitive say in this? The current SPFL Board contains Les Gray (Hamilton Academical), Mike Mulraney (Alloa Athletic) and Bill Darroch (Stenhousemuir), all of these men representing clubs with artificial surfaces. For the life of me, I can’t imagine these gentlemen voting against a side with an artificial surface being allowed to progress into the Premiership.
BB, so does the fact that Doncaster can make his ‘Grass good, artificial bad’ pronouncement – which is probably AGAINST the views of (some of) the SPFL board – suggest that he does have autonomy on what he does/says? We’ve always taken the view that he is only a puppet/employee of the clubs, but this could suggest otherwise?
MURRAY PARK (AUCHENHOWIE) PLANNING APPLICATIONS – A CONSPIRACY?
The latest footballtaxhavens (ftx) site increasingly appears to be a repository for highly-amusing parallel universe flights of fancy. I loved:
The amazing thing about the quote is that it’s correct, as far as it goes, and only the second thing they’ve got right – the first being the belated admission that the training centre at Lennoxtown is indeed built on greenbelt.
For those worried about EDC being a lonely stellar object in its own wee parallel world then let me enlighten fth. EDC is actually in a rather crowded universe because every other UK planning authority is there as well. The only people who ain’t are deluded Bears and their Blue Planet isn’t parallel to Earth but on a runaway collision course with the SUN.
But the latest Blog on Celtic’s traing centre raised a number of issues that took me back down memory lane to the granting of planning permission for Murray Park especially in relation to some of the charges levelled at Celtic. At least we have a level playing field because the now allegedly-corrupt East Dunbartonshire Council, according to the Bears. also granted planning permission for the Auchenhowie site. Presumably EDC was a corruption free zone back in 1998.
I know The Bear Land ‘Experts’ don’t do history if it doesn’t suit their agenda but I think a bit of digging beside the Allander could well prove fruitful.
However before the juicy bit we have to deal with the tiresome guff about Lennoxtown. Wrt to Celtic’s Lennoxtown facility the fth chief, and probably sole and obviously very exhausted, forensic investigator stated:
Rather snidely The ‘Expert’ fails to provide the rest of the info provided viz:
What fth hides is that visiteastdunbartonshire doesn’t even mention Murray Park in its football listing – well that’s not much of a surprise – perhaps they know something fth doesn’t or perhaps the general air of dilapidation at Auchenhowie no longer meets public expectations through the failure to spend money on the facility which has lost its sparkle as an erstwhile jewel in the Rangers crown of thorns. As to fences check below for the Murray Park position.
The ‘Expert’ additionally pointed out that a EDC planning report wrt to the Celtic training facility states:
It’s not my job to teach The ‘Expert’ basic planning principles and I just don’t have that amount of time. However, he apparently fails to grasp the basic meaning and differing concepts of: Brownfield and Greenbelt.
He also fails to understand that the term ‘leisure/recreational development’ when applied in planning terms as ‘acceptable development’ wrt the zoning requirements for any piece of land encompasses the use and operation of Celtic’s training ground. It doesn’t mean that it must be a publicly accessible facility – albeit in determining a planning application the public/private use of the venue might be considered. In the current financial climate there will be few public facilities built by councils who are actually closing them down to save cash.
However the Celtic planning submission has always clearly identified that Lennoxtown is a private facility, funded by Celtic, for the use of Celtic. The club, as a good neighbour, does allow the use of its facilities to local schoolchildren in particular but afaik has never received any money from the Public Purse – unlike another club with an East Dunbartonshire training centre – to allow limited public access. It’s also worth remembering that there wasn’t a single objection to the building of the centre.
So let’s look at that other training centre – yip you guessed correctly: Murray Park!
Auchenowie is an interesting study in the sometimes complex world of planning permissions and the financial gain which can sometimes accrue from them, or not, as the case might be.
Auchenhowie, before it became Murray Park, had been used in ‘a low-key’ manner for many years by Kelvinside Academy pupils as playing fields mainly to train and play rugby and had no changing facilities.
The area was under-used, rather neglected and overgrown with a lot of self-seeded on-site trees. Wrt the Local Plan it was identified as playing fields set in Greenbelt.
However a slumbering giant awoke and an outline planning application was submitted by Kelvinside Academy to EDC which noted it was for: ‘an extensive sports facility in the Green Belt’.
EDC planning committee heard on 20 August 1998:
In recommending that the committee pass the application a council official stated: I consider that financial planning gain is inappropriate. The committee duly rubber-stamped the proposal which, in itself, is hardly surprising as I’m sure they would genuinely wish to assist the school and make sure they weren’t left without playing fields. And I can even understand why the councillors accepted that there should be no financial clawback for granting outline planning permission despite the obvious increase in value this bestowed on the ground in question.
So what happened after the Kelvinside Academy planning application was approved by committe on 20 August 1998. Well Rangers Football Club Plc submitted a planning application on 9 August 1999 to build Murray Park on the greenfield site owned by Kelvinside Academy.
The planning committee were informed by the relevant official:
I can see no mention of any financial planning gain being applied but I hope I’m correct in assuming a large payment was extracted from the most successful club in the world especially in view of its enormous wealth. I also wonder if the permission would have been won so easily if the original apparently ‘stalking horse’ planning submission by Kelvinside hadn’t been made and approved.
I also wonder that having obtained planning permission whether Kelvinside was able to extract a higher price from Rangers. If anyone ever saw an advert from the school putting the site on the market then please let me know. It may well be that it was a private sale of course – mibbe there was an old rugby connection?
I have no wish to become the victim of paranoid conspiracy theories but I do ponder over my recollection that the Kelvinside Academy playing fields are still at Balgray just off Great Western Road – a short walk from the school. So they obviously weren’t sold it would appear. I suppose there might have been other playing fields that I am unaware of that were sold and I’m sure the many ‘Old Boys’ of that private school on here will set me right.
PS: It would appear Celtic simply followed the Bear Way by ensuring its facility was kept private and fenced to deter any marauding Bears trying to snaffle any of its players because they couldn’t afford to buy them. The big difference with the Murray Park fence is it’s designed to stop the Bears running away at full speed 😆
borussiabeefburg says:
January 30, 2014 at 2:36 pm
Angus, Budapest Honvéd became that name, a new club, in 2004:
——
Aye BB, I know.
However, to all intents, purposes and perceptions, they are now the same club as they always were before that (despite the various name changes between KP and BP versions). Witness their club website and, indeed, the club badge which clearly says 1909 on it – twice. They display all the Honved history, and no-one I know in Hungary would think otherwise. Even Fradi fans don’t regard them as a new club, and seemingly neither do UEFA …
http://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/club=50054/profile/history/index.html
Kispest (“keeshpesht” – lit: “small Pest”) is an area of (Buda)Pest, in the same way as Ujpest (“ooypesht” – “new Pest”) is. Ferencvaros (“Frank Town” :)) is too. A drive along the main road in BP quickly takes you past Ferencvaros, MTK and the national stadiums, with Ujpest just along a bit.
Honved literally means “soldier” – BP Honved were the official Army club from the 1950s on. It’s most likely due to their history that the press continued to refer to them as BP rather than Kispest when the name changed.
nawlite on January 30, 2014 at 3:25 pm
2 0 Rate This
… does the fact that Doncaster can …
——–
That man worries me.
Perhaps he should address the issue of the SPFL website which looks unrepresentative of a national league body and that carries ads on the front page. I’m sorry but it gets on my …
As I scrolled down a minute ago I got an offer (in Danish) for cheap golf balls and another advertising a winter break on Bornholm. These no doubt change from country to country. Even the SPFL logo has an ad covering most of it. Click and you can download an app for hotels.com. The overall impression, though, is of an amateurish outfit that’s a bit hard up. Maybe they are after Neil’s pay hike?
I seem to remember the old SFL website was top notch. I wrote to the SPFL about it, no joy though. Not even an acknowledgement.
What I’m getting from beatipacificiscotia’s blog is that no-one has possession of the incontrovertible truth and that such insight only arrives when a range of perspectives are merged. That to me is the modus operandi of TSFM.
I was often castigated for analysing problems by seeking alternative viewpoints. In one instance it was characterised as ‘rule by committee’. We all I suspect respond to strong leadership but some of the greatest leaders have also been great tyrants. It comes with the territory.
In some ancient political spheres a tyrant was a status of political leadership called upon during extraordinary crises I believe. In calmer political waters liberty and democracy were more effective tools of state control.
TSFM has taught me that it takes a whole range of views to solve intractable problems. Tyranny may be effective in navigating stormy seas but it doesn’t necessarily get you where you need to go. However marketing suggests that you need to keep the message short and snappy if the punter is to take it onboard.
So we have a problem. How do you solve a problem effectively without making the solution so complex that it marginalises many who have an interest in the outcome. I don’t have an answer to this.
Rules are set up when the local social norms become so stretched that it is necessary to set them down in a way that is seen as being equinanimous in the eyes of all who are intended to abide by them. However to attempt to legislate for any future possibility would result in a canon of legislation that would be no more practical than if a much simpler set of guidelines were laid out. So rules by their nature need to be succinct and therefore open to interpretation. When a rule is interpreted it is necessary to go back to the discussion on how the rule was formulated to get as close as possible to the original intent.
I don’t think rules are regarded in this way by the vast majority of people. They are not concerned with the centre of gravity of a rule but in many cases only in its extreme limit. ‘How much can I get away with’.
We have all become inured to the flexibility that can be extracted from rules. In the tax system for instance few of us would have any qualms if an accountant interpreted the rules to our benefit. We have all become complicit in the erosion of ethics and principle. Quite rightly. Why be constrained by a dogma that really only exists to point the direction if you are on the road and navigating the terrain.
The SFA’s apparent lax interpretation of the rules can be viewed in this light. Why require strict adherence to a rule if to do so would lead to an outcome that could be viewed as catastrophic. Bending a rule to suit circumstances can be entirely appropriate and could be seen as an intelligent application of the legislation.
The problem comes when the flexibility starts to draw you away from the centre of gravity of the inherent ethos. There is a risk of capsize. All sorts of things might be shifted around to prevent such instability but with each action another layer of complexity is added. It does not take many such layers of complexity to make the whole problem virtually intractable. Better not to go there would have been the judgement of hindsight. We are where we are however.
It could be that in the process of trying to keep RFC afloat the SFA has destabilised its own organisation to the extent that the next big wave will turn it over. In such a vulnerable situation they should be reaching out for friends who might help should this possibility arise.
chancer67 says:
January 30, 2014 at 2:18 pm
@ecobhoy
I had a Twitter exchange with the guy behind the state aid claims and told him his dossier was full of inconsistencies that any decent brief would make short work of,but he is convinced that his ramblings are correct and won’t be told otherwise. I think the pressure is starting to get him carrying the hopes of Beardom on his shoulders.
One of the many anomalies in his case is the total fabrication that the District Valuer wasn’t involved in the sale of Westhorn,this carries great weight in that it makes it look like a ‘deal’ was conveniently done between GCC and Celtic but in one of his blogs he copied in the minutes of a Council meeting where it was noted that “The District Valuer has been party to and supportive of site valuation” GCC Development and Regeneration Sub Committee June 15 2005.
It seems his work will be in vain as there are many more errors contained within it.
===================================================================
Not only was the DV involved but both Celtic and Glasgow Council had their own separate independent valuers. The actual valuation figure was agreed between the three of them afaik. It wasn’t plucked out of the air by Celtic or Glasgow Council and the Council is additionally in the position where if it doesn’t accept independent professional advice then it really can land in soapy bubble.
The Bear Dodgy land deal campaign has all the signs of running out-of-steam and of becoming as fragmented as the actual support. They truly have lost the ability to see the wood for the trees. In the latest fth post they show a dramatic picture showing a portion of the Lennox Castle hospital site after the hospital building were demolished and stated: ‘Lennox Castle was Brownfield’.
It’s quite sad really because no one has ever said it wasn’t ‘Brownfield’. It obviously was and that’s what commercial land becomes usually after it ceases to carry out operations and becomes a possible site for redevelopment whether that be for housing or any other acceptable use including greenbelt.
It’s the ignorance of these ‘experts’ in basic planning knowledge that stuns me and I have to draw the conclusion that apparently there isn’t a single online Bear with that knowledge either. What has happened to the Rangers support that used to be stuffed with surveyors and allied professionals?
As I say I have had a very close look at how all this campaign started and it’s clear when it switched from a couple of obsessives to the PR-led squirrel. It’s working and keeping the Bears occupied – a vision of Nero fiddling while Rome burns jumps to mind – and not looking at what’s going down at Ibrox.
gamesabogey says:
January 30, 2014 at 1:58 am
45 0 Rate This
Nice post and one that resonated with me. I started my journey as an engineer and moved more into the commercial side of business as time passed. One thing that always scared me was when I would suggest a way forward and everyone would say ‘great idea’. I needed someone to point out what I was missing; had we covered all the bases. Similarly, if something was wrong in a process, you would use your training and experience to identify the problem then propose the solution. Often, however, you would try to make the facts fit your hypothesis rather than rigorously challenging what you saw before you. That remains the challenge for all of us as we ultimately seek a level playing field in our national game. It’s a long time since I’ve read it, so I’ll say it again: “Without fear or favour “. We need to remain focused on the facts, confirm what we know, acknowledge what we don’t and the good guys will prevail.
______________________________________________________________________________________
All good common sense, but those that oppose such an opinion are not interested in fairness, a level playing field, or treating everyone the same without fear or favour.
There are forces at work which will fight tooth and nail to go along with almost anything to preserve the ‘2nd biggest National Institution’ in this country, (allegedly).
I say almost because there is one thing that could bring ‘The Rangers’ to the point of extinction.
Running out of money.
It is likely that those who have the kind of money to rescue Rangers are loathe to do so, or they would have by now. So barring a miracle they will eventually run out of money.
This can be avoided if austerity measures are applied rapidly, but so far those in charge have shown no stomach for such action, no doubt in fear of the supporters reaction, which is likely to be stormy as they know this will mean an uncompetitive team on the field of play.
A struggling team will guarantee a dwindling support, and a dwindling support means a drop in season tickets which are already on a downward spiral.
I think the best ‘The Rangers’ can hope for is administration.
Castofthousands says:
January 30, 2014 at 4:23 pm
“What I’m getting from beatipacificiscotia’s blog is that no-one has possession of the incontrovertible truth and that such insight only arrives when a range of perspectives are merged. That to me is the modus operandi of TSFM.”
+++++++++++++++++++
What I am saying is quite the opposite. The FIFA Club Licensing Regulations are the whole truth, the whole elephant if you like. To argue against the word and spirit these regulations is to lose sight of the truth. My belief is there is a grave danger to football if you attempt to change something as fundamental as “what is a football club” to suit your own agenda.
I agree that great insight comes from the many wonderful debates on this site. However, this single issue of protecting the word and spirit of FIFA Licensing and EUFA FFP is “zero tolerance” for me. I had a bit of a falling out with the excellent Ecobhoy over this very issue when he hinted at something similar to what the SFA told the ASA. I am a fan of his work, but I would not allow this to slide.
Ecobhoy, I hope you now understand where I was coming from now. It is something I am passionate about.
I have just read beatipacificiscotia’s piece, and most of the posts commenting on it.
It re-states wonderfully well some simple, unambiguous truths.
-A football club went into Administration.
-The stuff belonging to that football club was sold to a brand new football club , newly in existence, without membership of any SFA-recognised league, and without SFA membership, and therefore without having kicked a ball as a football team.
-The club that went into Administration went into liquidation. It is dead,and all its glorious or other footballing achievements went to the grave with it.
-The brand new club , in a corrupt and corrupting deal feverishly brokered by the Football Authorities,
was, unentitledly, given membership of the SFL, and ‘conditional’ membership of the SFA, in order to allow it to play its first ever game.
-The death of RFC (IL) freed up a share in the SFA. This was subsequently given to the new club. ( The old club could hardly transfer a share it had lost to itself, could it? Except in the lying,cheating minds of those cowardly individuals who shamelessly distort truth and the very meaning of words).
I believe the new club to be wholly illegitimate.
I believe it should not be playing in the SPFL at all.
Given that for the basest of reasons and against every canon of ‘Sporting Integrity’, it was allowed entry into senior professional football, it is a fact that it has nothing in the way of sporting achievement other than one league title, to its name.
It is currently in dire financial trouble.
It may not have long to live.
I did not, and do not, necessarily wish these things to have been true or to be true now.
I can only say that they are true.
Unlike the blind elephant examiners, the cheats and liars among our Football Authorities were clear-sighted.
They cannot be absolved of the wrong they have done.
They must be rooted out.
ecobhoy says: January 30, 2014 at 3:57 pm
———————–
It seems that budgeting has never been a strong point for the Bears.
Going back to the Murray Park development.
From the 1999 Accounts
Plans have now been announced for a new training ground and youth academy at Auchenhowie to the north of Glasgow. Work has already commenced with a view to having this facility coming on stream from the start of next Season and in full use by the following close season. The cost of this project is estimated at around £10million and we will have a facility which matches the very best available in Europe. The majority of funding is being provided through the Rangers Development Fund, which continues to play a vital role in providing funds for capital investment.
From the 2000 Accounts
Construction of the new training academy which, at a cost of £12 Million will be among the best in Europe is well underway and I expect the facility to be available by June 2001.
From the 2001 Accounts
Of even greater significance, I believe that the completion of the new £13M football centre, ready for the start of the new season in July this year, was the major achievement
From the BBC News 2001
Rangers chairman David Murray unveiled the club’s new £14m training ground on Wednesday and promised that the benefits of the investment would soon be evident.
For older DUFC fans….
To get away from ALWAYS following this blog, I went to the cinema last night to see that film out just now about the Jim McLean era at Tannadice pre-Bosman – 12 years a slave. OT I know, but couldn’t resist!!
ecobhoy says:
January 30, 2014 at 4:31 pm
It’s the ignorance of these ‘experts’ in basic planning knowledge that stuns me and I have to draw the conclusion that apparently there isn’t a single online Bear with that knowledge either. What has happened to the Rangers support that used to be stuffed with surveyors and allied professionals
————————————————————————————–
Future generations may refer back to the strange “Pateyfication process’ that seems to affect Rangers-leaning professionals (it has also been spotted in journalists) when it comes to this kind of thing. First signs are that judgement becomes severely impaired, and in its full-blown stages, vision is diminished, particularly the ability to spot connections between events and their likely outcome, even when these seem obvious to the lay person.