A Blog by James Forrest for TSFM
I am a socialist, and as a socialist I believe in the fundamental goodness of people. Some people find that hard to believe when they read the stuff I write.
I published my first novel recently, on politics and the corrupting nature of it, and it is a deeply cynical book, a book where no-one has clean hands come the end. What has surprised some of those who’ve read it is that I didn’t focus on the lies and smears of the right, but the hypocrisy and deceit of those who claim to be of the left.
Corruption, you see, doesn’t respect political boundaries or points of view. It’s like rainwater. It finds every crack, and gets in there.
My political beliefs revolve around two apparently paradoxical elements; the belief in the inherent decency of people and the need for a strong, and powerful, state. I believe the second underpins the first, and this brings me into conflict with a lot of people, some on the left and some on the right. Too many people see the state as inherently evil, as something that interferes too much in the lives of ordinary people. As something suffocating.
Yet the state exists to protect us. It exists to provide a safety net. It exists to regulate and to oversee. If the state is made up of bad people, if the gears of society are captured by those with malicious or selfish intent, the results are obvious; war, corruption, chaos.
The vast majority of our problems in the modern age can be neatly summed up in two lines from Yeats’ poem “The Second Coming”, which I used to open my novel. “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”
We live in a time when those who are protecting their own interests have assumed such power that they’ve cowed the rest of us. They have become a law unto themselves. They have changed the nature of the game, because they have sapped our will to the extent some barely put up a fight anymore. The weak get weaker, and the strong use their strength to crush the rest even more. It is a vicious struggle, a downward spiral.
Society is held together not only by the endeavour and common interests of its citizens but by a collection of laws. We elect the people who make those laws. They do so in our name, and we can remove that right every four years. That is a powerful thing, and we do not appreciate it enough. The present corruption exists because we allow it to exist.
The people around me continue to puzzle over my uncommon interest in the affairs of a football club on the west of Glasgow. My own club plays in the east end. I tell those who ask that my primary interest in the goings-on at the club calling itself Rangers is no longer about football; how could it be, after all? With promotion this year they are still a full two divisions below us, emasculated, skint, weak and unstable. If we were fortunate enough to draw them in cup competition the match would be over, as a tie, by the halfway point … in the first half.
In footballing terms they are an utter irrelevance.
Rangers is more than a football club to me. They are a symbol. Their unfolding calamity is an on-going outrage. What is happening there, what is being allowed to happen, is an offense to decency. It is a stain on the face of our country.
In short, it is a scandal. It is a scandal without parallel in sport.
Yet it’s not just a sports story either. If it was, I might not be so focussed on it. What is happening at Rangers is a colossal failure of governance. It is a damning indictment against the very people who are supposed to oversee our game. It is a disgraceful abrogation of responsibility from those at the top, those who claim to be “running things.”
If this is not a failure of governance it is a result of corruption at the heart of our national sport. It says they are bought and paid for, and I will say no such thing here.
So let’s give them the benefit of the doubt. We’ll say instead that what they are is weak, indecisive, inept and disconnected from reality.
It reminds me of our political class, which has become insular and ignorant about what the public wants, and what it needs. It’s not a wonder parties like UKIP can achieve national vote shares of 25% at local elections. Nigel Farage strikes me as a dog-whistle politician, the kind who knows how to appeal to a select group of voters. He is little different to Charles Green, the man who beguiled Rangers fans into handing over large amounts of money, because he was “standing up for the club.” It is easy to do what he did, easy to do what Farage is doing.
Real leadership requires toughness. Say what you like about the Tories, but they have that in spades. Yeats was right about the worst being full of passionate intensity. Green was. Farage is. Cameron and Osborne personify it in their political outlook.
It is easy to be cowed by blunt force politics, and by “tough talking Yorkshire men” and venomous speeches about “strivers and skivers.” The politics of divide and conquer is the oldest form of politics there is, and it’s no surprise to see it practiced by some of the vested interests in the game here in Scotland. Yet, lest we forget … something significant happened last year. The maligned and the ignored, the weak and the voiceless found something they never realised they had. They discovered that, in a very real sense, the power was in their hands.
Last year, the fans rose up when the governing bodies and the media went all-out to save Rangers from the self-inflicted wounds caused by a decade of cheating, malpractice and ineptitude. I have no problem calling that what it was.
What happened at Rangers seemed incredible, but it was all too predictable, and some of us had been talking about it for years before it hit. The Association seemed caught in the headlights but it would amaze me if they really were as insular and ignorant as they appeared. They must have known how bad the outlook was for Rangers. They just chose to ignore it.
They were aided and abetted by a thoroughly disreputable media, a collection of cowards and compromisers, charlatans and frauds, masquerading as journalists, but who long ago laid aside any claim to be bold investigators and settled for commenting on events as they unfolded. More often than not, with their ill-informed opinions, sometimes due to weaknesses in intellect and others wilfully ignorant, they failed even in that.
Entire newspapers became PR machines for crooks and swindlers. They aided in the scam because they didn’t do their jobs, some because they were lazy, some because they were incompetent and others because they wanted a seat at the table and were willing to sacrifice whatever integrity they once had in exchange for one.
That all of this was embraced by the Rangers fans is amazing to me. They trusted when they should have been asking questions. They closed their eyes, covered their ears and sang their battle tunes at the top of their voices so they wouldn’t have to hear anything they didn’t like. As incredible as I found it then, and still find it now – and now, even more so, when they have already seen the results of it once – I find it pathetic too, and I do feel pity for some of them.
A lot of these people are genuine football fans, and nothing more. They have no interest in the phony narrow nationalism, or the over-blown religion, or the notion of supremacy which manifested itself in a ludicrous statement from McCoist when interviewed recently on Sky.
Some of the Rangers fans look at their team of duds, kids and journeymen, they look at a boardroom of cowards and crooks, they look at a failing manager in his first (and last) job in the game and at a dark future and are not in the least bit impressed by, or interested in, the chest-out arrogance espoused in those ridiculous words “we are the people.” They know full well that their present crisis was made by men like McCoist, and they understand that pretentious posturing is not an act born of strength, but a scrambling around in the gutter, and a symptom of weakness.
They understand their position, and they hate it. And because they care about Rangers, because they value the club, because they cherish those things that made it a great Scottish institution, they want that back. They understand that before the Union Jack waving, Sash singing, poppy wearing, Nazi saluting, Orange element became the public face of their support Rangers meant something else, and that, above all things, is what pains them the most.
People do not hate Rangers. When the country appeared to turn its back last year, they were turning the back on favouritism and the bending of rules. Yet it would be a lie to say that there is not an element of dislike in the gleeful mockery of many rival fans.
But they don’t hate Rangers either. They hate the version of it around which a certain section of the support continues to dance. They hate the version which hates, and so too do many, many, many Rangers supporters, and they definitely deserve better.
David Murray chose not to openly challenge that version. Indeed, he encouraged certain strands of it to flourish and grow, with his “Britishness Days” and his effort to turn the club into the “team that supports the troops.” Other clubs have done as much, if not more, for the British Army than the one that plays out of Ibrox. Other clubs have given more money. Other clubs have lent their support to those on the front lines. They just chose to do it with respect, and with class, and with dignity. They chose to do it in private, understanding that there eventually comes a tipping point between looking after the ends of the soldiers and using them to promote your own.
The army has not battened on to Rangers. Rangers has battened on to them, and although it is unclear when an altruistic motive became darker, what started out as a gesture of solidarity is now used to entrench division and promote a notion of superiority.
Craig Whyte took over from Murray and immediately understood the lure of the “dog whistle.” He knew too that the media would accept whatever he told them, without question, and as he spoke up for “Rangers traditions” he made sure the lunatic fringe was well onside. He met face to face with the hard-core extremists in the support first and made them his praetorian guard. They spoke up for him until the day the club entered administration.
So, whereas Murray pandered to them and Whyte used them to further his own ends, it was only a matter of time before someone suggested to Charles Green that he could use the same tactics to win over the support. He went even further and blatantly promoted and encouraged this mind-set, and stoked the hate and nonsense to frightening new heights. The same people who cheered Whyte to the rafters jumped on board the Big Blue Bus and the results are clear.
Through all of it, the ordinary Rangers fan has seen his club buffered against the rocks, battered, broken, smashed to smithereens and sunk. Now there’s a big hole in the side of the lifeboat, and they are terrified that further tragedies await.
They are right to be concerned. Much of the media is still not telling them what they need to know. The people in charge of their club – the owners who have lied, the former hack who covered up the truth about Whyte and now acts as a mouthpiece for Green, the “club legends” who are content to sup with the devil and take his greasy coin when they should be standing toe-to-toe with the fans – are trying to silence those members of the press who do have facts to present.
How many times now have media outlets been banned from Ibrox for daring to report the truth? The manager who demanded the names of a committee last year defends those inside the walls who are desperate to keep secret the things that are going on. He is either an unprincipled coward, or he is, himself, bought and paid for. The fans suffer for it.
The “inconvenient truth” is still being kept from them, and this denies them any chance to play an active role in their club. Indeed, it is all too possible that they’ve passed a point of no return, and that their club is heading for a new liquidation event and it can no longer be stopped.
In either case, their power has been eroded to the point at which they must feel they have nothing left to do but stand back and watch what happens next.
They are wrong. I am a socialist. I believe in the inherent good of people. I think the ordinary decent Rangers fans are the only people left who can save their club … and the means by which they will do it is as simple as it could be.
They must stand up for “big government.” They must embrace the need for a “strong state.” They must lobby the SFA, and they must trust the SFA and they must get the SFA to follow its own rules and thereby save them from any further harm.
There is a tendency amongst some Celtic fans to see our governing bodies as pro-Rangers. If it is true then those running our game are ruining Scottish football without benefiting the thing they love more. The incalculable harm that has been done to Rangers in the last 20 some months is a direct result of the subservient media and the willingness of the football authorities to be “deaf, dumb and blind.” Those who believe this has actually helped the Ibrox club have not been paying attention in class. It has irrevocably scarred them, and it may yet have played a hand in destroying them once and for all, as a force if not as a club entirely.
For years, the SFA sat and did nothing as a club in their association operated a sectarian signing policy. They did nothing whilst the fans sang sectarian songs. In their failure to act they strengthened those elements of the Rangers support, instead of isolating, alienating and eventually helping to eliminate those who saw that club as a totem pole of division and hate. Their failure over EBT’s, and their lack of scrutiny, led to one of the greatest scandals in the history of sport, and I say that with no equivocation at all. The testimony of their registrations officer in the Lord Nimmo Smith investigation was a disgrace and in years to come it will rank as one of the most disreputable and damaging moments in the association’s history.
The most egregious failures of all were the failures in the so-called “fit and proper person” tests, which allowed first Whyte and then Charles Green to assume controlling positions at Ibrox. They will pass the buck and say the responsibility lies with the club itself, in much the same way as they are content to let the club investigate itself at the present time, but any neutral who looks at this stance knows it is unprincipled and spineless. It’s like letting the defence set the terms at a trial. It is foxes investigating the chicken coop.
It is a blueprint for corruption, and a recipe for disaster.
It is now too late for the SFA to declare Green “unfit”, as it was too late when they finally slapped that title on Craig Whyte. He and his allies own Rangers, and they control its destiny. They can push the club to the wall if they choose, in the final extremity, if that gets them what they want. The time for changing that is past. The damage has already been done. The barbarians are not at the gates. They are inside the walls, and sacking the city.
The SFA will be forced to punish Rangers for the sins of the owners, for the second time in as many years, and whilst it is right that the club face up to that, all the better to send a message to other clubs and other owners, the SFA cannot be allowed to slither off the hook here as though this was none of their doing. Green will skip off into the sunset. Craig Whyte has yet to pay his fine. These people never cared about Scottish football and they don’t care now.
The SFA are supposed to. Our governing body is supposed to govern, for the good of the whole game, and not as a support system for a single club. What they have allowed to happen on their watch is absolutely shameful and if the people responsible were men at all, with any sense of accountability, they would resign en masse.
They can pretend ignorance, but only the truly ignorant would accept that. Craig Whyte was not inside Ibrox a week before RTC and other sites were dismantling his entire business history, with some of the people here doing the work the SFA would not. Whyte himself claims to have made the governing bodies aware of the scale of what was facing the club, and they did nothing at all. Heads should have rolled a year ago.
In October of last year, on this very site, I posted an article in which I wrote:
“Which isn’t to say the due diligence matter isn’t worrying, because, of course, it is. Again, no-one is going to convince me that the SFA has conducted proper due diligence on Charles Green and his backers. No-one will convince me they are satisfied that this club is in safe hands, and that the game in this country will not be rocked by a further implosion at Ibrox. They failed to properly investigate Craig Whyte, because of lax regulations requiring disclosure from the club itself, regulations which are just a joke, but they can be forgiven for that as the press was talking sheer nonsense about him having billions at his disposal, and a lot of people (but not everyone!) were either convinced or wanted to be convinced by him.
To have witnessed what Whyte did, to have witnessed the Duff & Phelps “process” of finding a buyer, and having Green essentially emerge from nowhere, with a hundred unanswered questions as to his background and financing, for the SFA to have given this guy the go ahead, only for it to blow up in their faces later, would annihilate the credibility of the governing body and necessitate resignations at every level. There would be no hiding place.”
There are times when it is fun to be right, but this is not one of them. It is dispiriting and disquieting to have been so on the nose. It scares the Hell out of me, as someone who loves football in this country, to have seen this matter clearly when the people running our game apparently either did not or chose to ignore very real, very obvious, concerns. The Internet Bampots had no special insight or access to information that was denied those at the SFA. We just weren’t prepared to ignore it and pretend that it wasn’t there. There was too much at stake.
I have become convinced that things will never change until the Rangers supporters join us in demanding the full and unabridged truth here. They need to come out from under the bed, and confront their fears. They need to be willing to take the consequences, so that their club can emerge clean from this, and start again, with all this behind them.
And it can all happen with one simple thing. The application of the rules.
The existence of laws comes down to a simple principle; they protect society from those elements within it who are interested only in their own selfish ends. We may cry out at those rules and regulations we see as “restrictive”, but the law was not made to restrict our freedoms but to protect them. Had the SFA years ago acted against Rangers sectarian signing policy, and the songs from the stands, the club would not have mutated to the point where there was no help on hand when they needed it the most. Let’s not kid ourselves about this; Whyte and Green were only able to grab control because the club itself has a dreadful image which put off respectable and responsible buyers. The SFA could have helped change that perception years ago and did nothing.
The SFA could have conducted its own investigation into who Craig Whyte was. They could have asked David Murray for full disclosure when he was running up £80 million of debt, a sum of money that is beyond belief for a single club in a small provincial backwater league. Had they had the guts to do that the club would never have spent itself into oblivion and forced the hand of Lloyds, which led indirectly to their ignominious end.
The SFA could have fully investigated Charles Green and the means by which he took control, instead of rushing through a license. His emergence at the last minute was transparently suspicious and designed to force them into a quick decision, but they did not have to bow to that pressure by making one, without being in possession of the facts, as it is now 100% clear they were not.
Had they asked for every document, had they insisted on legal affidavits and personal securities from investors (and this would have been perfectly legitimate and is common place in other licensing areas) none of this would have come to pass. After Craig Whyte they had a moral responsibility to the rest of the game to get this one right and their failure is without parallel in the history of Scottish football.
As the club hurtles towards a new abyss, names are cropping up which should send a shudder down the spines of every honest, genuine supporter of not only Rangers but every team in the land. The SFA claims that a strong Rangers is essential for the sake of Scottish football, but they have been extraordinarily lax in protecting that club, and therefore the game, from destructive elements. Craig Whyte and Charles Green had dubious personal histories, and the acquisition of the club itself was mired in controversy and scandal. Yet it was allowed.
Neither Green nor Whyte were known to have operated outside the law, yet neither was worthy of trust or stood up to scrutiny. Neither man should ever have been granted the status as fit and proper persons to assume a role in our national sport, and if it is true of them what can we say about the three men who are, presently, being touted as the Great White Hopes for a bright, new Rangers future; Dave King and the Easdale brothers?
King recently cut a deal with the South African government over an on-going dispute over taxes. In other words, he pled guilty and accepted the central plank of their argument; that for years he was engaged in wilfully with-holding vast revenues from their Treasury. The media does not like to put it like that, and the SFA seems willing to ignore it utterly, and this would be scandalous enough. But it does not stop there. HRMC rules – as well as the SFA’s own governance documents – actually bar him from serving on the board of the new club.
Last but not least, aside from being an admitted tax cheat, King is also awaiting trial in South Africa, having been indicted for corruption, forgery and fraud – 300 charges in total. Yet as recently as last week, we were told that the Association was willing to look at him and consider representations from his lawyers. This is almost beyond belief.
If Dave King’s position is untenable, and he is yet to be convicted of a crime, what can we say about the position of the Easdale’s? One of the two brothers, Sandy, has already served jail time. He is a convicted criminal, a fraudster nonetheless, who’s “victim” was the same Treasury who are appealing one case involving the old club and liquidated it entirely over another. This is precisely the kind of “businessman” the fit and proper person test was supposed to weed out, and if the SFA holds its nose here the reek will stink out the halls at Hampden for decades. If King or the Easdale’s are judged fit and proper, then who exactly is the test for? What exactly do you have to do to fail it? How do we explain the existence of laws, when these are not applied?
Pascal says “Law without force is impotent.” The SFA’s weakness has allowed one version of Rangers to destroy itself, and has allowed an existential risk to another. If the next power at Rangers resides in South Africa or Greenock I can say with some certainty that the Association is engaged in an even more dangerous roll of the dice, because the surfacing of fresh scandal will be an ever present risk, and will be of the sort no-one will survive.
The damage to Scottish football will take years to heal. The Scottish game has been through enough trauma. It does not need more. It barely survived the last calamity to hit Rangers. The rest of us should not be forced to pay the price of the next one.
The greater damage will be done to Rangers itself. If the Green crisis ends in another collapse – as it well might; another administration event is a certainty, and another liquidation is a much more likely prospect than it was before 14 February 2012 – the club will once again have to start from the bottom, and this time the reputational damage will be impossible to repair. The club faces internal strife, sporting sanctions, and criminal investigations. The last takeover might be declared a fraud. the Whyte takeover will almost certainly be. The share issue might be invalid, as well as criminal, and the people involved may well end up in jail. Lawsuits could follow from investors, there could be as yet unknown consequences from the Upper Tier Tax Tribunal (thank you Brogan Rogan for pointing out what those might be) and a host of other issues.
Rangers fans must be the loudest voices here. How do you want the world to view your club in years to come? Do you want one to be proud of, or one forever associated with the shame and disgrace of these days gone by? The one which bailed out on its tax obligations. The one with supporters who disgrace your very name. The one which allowed Whyte and Green to take you to the cleaners and send you to the wall. The one which handed over control to one convicted criminal and another awaiting trial. Do you want to be reborn clean, or mired in the muck?
David Murray destroyed your financial stability. He made it so no bank would issue you a line of credit and no investor of note wanted to buy. Craig Whyte liquidated you. Charles Green has cast the future of the Newco into doubt and acted in a manner which has annihilated your credibility with the financial markets for decades to come.
Between these three men, they have taken everything from you, and the press and the people who run the game here, as well as some of your own blindly ignorant fans, have allowed them to do all this and more. Now they conspire to hand the keys to Ibrox to other men of questionable character, who will wreck further havoc on the reputation of the club.
The Scottish Football Association has damaged the game it was supposed to protect, but above all else their greatest failure of governance was a failure to protect one of its biggest clubs from its own excesses and those of its owners.
Rangers fans, the SFA have betrayed your trust, more than the trust of any other club. What you must insist on now is full disclosure and transparency from the powers that be in Hampden. The SFA has to end the charade of allowing your club to handle this in-house. They must hand everything over to an outside agency – whether a legal one, or a footballing body like UEFA – and they must demand co-operation and answers, and threaten to withhold the license if they don’t get them.
You must not be afraid of that. You must embrace it. The men with their hands on the gears at Ibrox are motivated by money, and nothing more. If the license is withdrawn their “investments” are worthless. They cannot risk that.
You must demand that the rules on fit and proper persons are applied, and where necessary even made stronger, to prevent your club falling into unclean hands. You must demand that they protect your reputation from further damage, by getting this all out there and acting accordingly, even if that means your club does not play football for at least a year.
You must be willing to suck it all up, knowing that what will emerge is a Rangers which has been cleansed and moves forward with honour, and dignity, led by custodians who treasure it rather than those who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
The Rangers Standard has recently emerged as a genuine voice for those in your support who are sick and tired of what Rangers has become, and want it restored to something that is worthy of the love and respect in which you hold it. On that website, there are discussions about the kind of club you seek to be and about whether the institution of Rangers is about more than just football.
If that’s how you feel about it then you know it is about more than how many titles the club can claim, about more than just results on the park, about more than just the game. Rangers, like Celtic, is an idea. It has to be something you are proud of.
I am a socialist, but one with a fevered imagination and a tendency to write very dark things. This piece won’t have been good reading for some of you (perhaps all of you haha!) but I think there’s more hope in here than in other things I’ve written.
In spite of everything that’s come to pass, I still believe. I believe in Scottish football. I believe in our system of football governance, even if those who are working in it are failing on some level.
In society, as much as we strain against them, laws exist for our protection. To fail to enforce them is to leave us at the mercy of those elements who would do us harm. The rules of football ensure the protection of all clubs, not just a few.
The failure to enforce the rules has never had graver consequences than here in Scotland. The irony is that bending and breaking them has hurt the one club those violations were designed to help. It cannot be allowed to happen again.
The rules must be applied without fear or favour.
The best must find their conviction, and their passionate intensity once more.
James is a co-editor of the On Fields of Green Blog http://www.onfieldsofgreen.com/
ecobhoy says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 13:28
Clearly.
Although, give yourself credit, your response clearly exceeded the minimal ad-hom in the post that provoked it.
Thinking about the responsibility of governing bodies towards good governance:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/143099754/SFA-ArticlesofAssociation-2006
http://www.scribd.com/doc/143196212/SFA-Articles-of-Association-2009
Rhetorical question. #1
What were the underlying circumstances that prompted this rule change?
Rhetorical question. #2
When did the preservation of an “essential” footballing brand name (post liquidation of a member) become a priority for the SFA board?
Rhetorical question. #3
Do you think the SFA Chief Executive who oversaw this rule change would have been useful to a the owner of a club whose business plan included the possibility/probability of liquidation?
Rhetorical question. #4
Given the background to the rule change, is it credible for the SFA and its ex-Chief Executive to say Mr Whyte’s actions (in not paying the club’s bills) came as a surprise?
Rhetorical question. #5
Who set all of this in motion?
Night Terror says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 12:52
@verselijkfc
There may something in your point, but I don’t really see how it relates to the question of whether the SFA should be responsible for the F&PP test or not.
———————
If those at the top of the tree are as utterly unqualified as GS certainly was (or Peat) to perform their own role, let alone the wider role of building and managing an organisation capable of “governing” Scottish football (i.e. be responsible for ensuring its members comply with all its rules and regulations), then indeed there is little prospect of it discharging the F&PP test in any meaningful way. Ogilvie is similarly incapable of acting in an independent way because of his previous associations (IMO).
The SFA has been rather clever with respect to Whyte though, as it ought to be the club that is sanctioned/punished, not just individuals, such as Whyte, though by all means ban him sine die (why not the Mint though?). However, where is the incentive for clubs to improve their own vetting mechanisms if they know that a person or persons will be made to carry the can if it all hits the fan? There must be consequences (preferably severe) for the club and that is what the SFA can judge on. After all, I recall a certain Law Lord stating clearly in the inquiry into Whyte and RFC (IL) that the club and its custodians are in fact indivisible i.e. the people running the club = club.
Night Terror says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 11:57
—————————————–
I sympathise with your views. One lesson I’ve learned in life is that many simple statements such as – The SFA should ensure all owners of Scottish football clubs are fit and proper – prove to be horrendously complex and difficult to achieve in practice.
Your scenario of the SFA stepping in to prevent the sale of a club resonates as I have read and listened to RFC fans claiming that the SFA are at fault for allowing them to fall into the hands of Craig Whyte and the the club itself is basically blameless (a variation on the ‘it was an individual not the club’ guff). However I can well imagine the furore if the SFA had intervened, especially as consensus seems to be Administration would have been inevitable by that point anyway.
There would have been no benefit of hindsight to vindicate the SFA, just succulent headlines about the SFA turning away a “billionaire” trying to invest £52.5 million in a Scottish football club. The Succulent Lamb consumers make life difficult in this respect also.
However, sympathy evaporates when you consider it was Regan himself who very publically trumpeted the idea that the SFA would ride to the rescue to ensure that all future club owners would pass a fit and proper person test. This is not an expectation that has been dumped upon them, it is a criterion they themselves helped to create, presumably as some sort of damage limitation PR exercise.
And of course after the Craig Whyte show they ignored everything they just said two minutes before and let Charles Green do what he liked.
So, yes I agree it’s a difficult but not impossible task but would have more (i.e. any) sympathy with them if they hadn’t played up to the expectation themselves.
Much depends on the level of doubt sufficient to render someone as unsuccessful to pass a fit and proper test i.e. how many failed companies does someone have to be associated with before you decide they’re not fit and proper? I don’t think we’re talking about guys who are on the borderline when dealing with Whyte and Green, I doubt if the line is even in sight for them.
Your point about responsibility of the club itself is a good one, however there are many regulated occupations in the UK e.g. lawyers, child/social/health care staff, public licence holders – some for obvious reasons, some less so. The central tenet is that it is important to the public interest that people in these jobs are fully qualified/competent/of moral integrity etc etc If it is perceived to be in the public interest in so much as regulating football club ownership preserves the game as a whole nationally, I don’t think it should be an unobtainable goal to set up such a framework for Scottish football.
The trouble is pandora’s box is open and there are certain clubs in such a bad state e.g. Hearts that such criteria if applied could lead to them going out of existence in the absence of interest from legitimate parties.
Of course, allowing them to fall into the hands of vultures may merely be kicking the day of reckoning down the road – but then again, in the case of RFC, who knows the path that would be have been taken by Bill Miller or Blue Knights if Charles Green and his gang had been rumbled and therefore wasn’t able to muscle them all out?
So in summary – I have sympathy for the SFA in this regard, but I don’t really!
Night Terror says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 13:29
2 0 Rate This
@manandboy
Are you confusing morality with rules?
_________________________________________________________________________
In the real world, they go together.
Night Terror says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 13:38
ecobhoy says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 13:28
I am quite capable of responding to ad hominem moves in a similar manner.
Clearly. Although, give yourself credit, your response clearly exceeded the minimal ad-hom in the post that provoked it.
=======================================================
That might be your opinion but it isn’t mine and I regard my response as measured and informative. I do find it quite strange that you identify signs of provocation in my post – but there you go, if we were all of one mind then the site wouldn’t exist and would be of little value to Scottish Football 🙂
@CelticParanoia
Sympathy in principle but not in practice, eh?
I make no excuses for the way the SFA have failed to administer their own procedures competently, but I do defend them from accusations of not administering procedures they should have no business administering.
I take your point regarding Regan’s comments about future F&PP tests – as you pointed out, such warm words sound lovely and are redolent of the best of intentions, but are devilishly hard to implement. It might be charitable to say he was under some pressure at that time and this gave him something competent-sounding to say. Pity is was complete rubbish, eh?
There seems to be much discussion concerning application of the “Fit & Proper Person” test.
Real World Alert … F&PP tests in most situations are usually superficial and minimal, next to meaningless, and based on statements made by the subject. F&PP criteria are far more usually applied retrospectively, in the negative, than prospectively. In other words “Mr X has ceased to be a fit and proper person to do xyz”.
I fear the blog is leading itself down a blind alley if it continues to make a F&PP test into something which, in practice, it is not.
on the footballing front…
More reasons to dislike UEFA:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/may/23/uefa-champions-league-europa-league
Uefa is set to award a place in the Champions League to the winners of the Europa League from the 2014-15 season, in order to make that competition more attractive, with an announcement expected on Friday.
Other plans under consideration include whether to award a fifth Champions League place to clubs in the big European leagues and to expand the number of Europa League places on offer.
———–
Outcome?
Greater share of the wealth to the richest clubs/leagues increasing the competitive gap further between the haves and have not’s. Less opportunity for clubs in smaller leagues to actually qualify for the group stages as, no doubt, club-5 will be seeded in any qualifying round.
———–
Some reasons to like them a little more:
The European governing body has also confirmed that any player or official disciplined for racism in one of its competitions will receive a minimum 10-match ban.
F&PP
When the SFA can appoint extremely expensive lawyers to investigate this and that,
then surely they can do the same with prospective club owners.
Of course, this kind of reasoning doesn’t belong in the parallel universe which is TRFC/SFA.
manandboy says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 14:12
Should they prioritise their lawyers’ time on this, that, or club owners? How many this cases should they pursue compared to how many club owners or the number of outstanding that cases?
What if a club owner is also suspected of that but is vehemently against this?
Are you for this? Or is that suggestion a load of F&PP?
Night Terror says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 14:00
3 1 i
Rate This
I take your point regarding Regan’s comments about future F&PP tests – as you pointed out, such warm words sound lovely and are redolent of the best of intentions, but are devilishly hard to implement. It might be charitable to say he was under some pressure at that time and this gave him something competent-sounding to say. Pity is was complete rubbish, eh?
—————————————————————————
Making it up as he goes along I believe.
Random word association: Cynical opportunism. Manipulation. Caught in the headlights. Out of depth. Say anything to appease. Lack of cojones etc etc
Night Terror says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 14:20
===========================================
NT, you’re beginning to look like a man that would start an argument in an empty hoose. 🙂
manandboy says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 14:12
F&PP
When the SFA can appoint extremely expensive lawyers to investigate this and that,
then surely they can do the same with prospective club owners.
————————————————————————
The SFA have appointed exremely expensive lawyers to make creative interpretations of rules that suit their wish to reach a pre-determined outcome.
The SPL did the same with assistance of the SFA via Bryson in the case lf LNS.
I equate it to US-led foreign interventionism. A hugely expensive exercise that only the niave could believe is carried out for the publically stated benevolent aims and is often not employed in many much more deserving cases which remain ignored in mainstream media.
@blu – it has been said.
Has Mr Lennon had his punishment dished out yet ,must be at least a 10 game ban,surely.
angus1983 says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 14:11
There seems to be much discussion concerning application of the “Fit & Proper Person” test.
Real World Alert … F&PP tests in most situations are usually superficial and minimal, next to meaningless, and based on statements made by the subject. F&PP criteria are far more usually applied retrospectively, in the negative, than prospectively. In other words “Mr X has ceased to be a fit and proper person to do xyz”.
I fear the blog is leading itself down a blind alley if it continues to make a F&PP test into something which, in practice, it is not.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I’m hearin’ ya.
However, it must be possible to erect some hurdles to keep the real spivs out.
For example,
Directors who have previously been disqualified as Directors – not acceptable
People with Criminal convictions related to fraud, theft, deception, violence etc – not acceptable.
Scrutiny by external accountants and lawyers of the business plan
These are only three suggestions which might block some of the worst and the first two can be easily checked. The third one would cost a few bob but would save a lot of heartache in the long run.
bogsdollox says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 14:33
Sure, but who is responsible for ensuring the information on the individuals attempting to clear these hurdles is genuine? Who has most to gain by keeping the real spivs out?
SFA or club?
There are all kinds of criteria that could be applied, but the issue is
– how much time and expense it would cost to find out for sure
and
– who should be responsible for the accuracy & reliability of such a test
The SFA doing it immediately puts them at risk, and any appeals against a decision they make could go somewhere rather awkward.
Letting the clubs do it, then, if subsequently these prove to be inaccurate, clear and severe penalties seems like a deterrent and punishment that would satisfy everyone fairly cheaply, albeit retrospectively.
The only reasonable way for a FPP test to work is to put the onus on the members. If the member confirms that a new owner meets the FPP criteria, and it subsequently turns out that the new owner is a “wrong’un”, then the consequences should fall on the club, and those consequences should be severe, and set out very clearly, in advance, with no discretion available to the “authorities”. If the sanction was immediate expulsion from the SFA without appeal, then the system would become self-policing very quickly. In my opinion.
Any system which puts the onus on the SFA is just letting the members off the hook. And think of the cost.
greenockjack says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 11:40
“You didn´t answer the question. Here it is again. Is it not true that what CW has a hand in or points you towards, invaribly leads to little”.
—————-
My response appears to have been less concise than we would have both wished.
The TSFM blog and its predecseeor have considered in some detail events surrounding the liquidation of Rangers FC. Months before RFC even went into administration, bloggers were exchanging ideas and information that foresaw such an outcome far in advance of the main stream media. This particular blogosphere has therefore proved itself as a credible information source in my opinion.
In the course of the bloggers discussion they used material from a variety of sources. Some they had acquaintance with due to their professional activities. Some was taken from the MSM. Some was researched online. Whatever the source of the information, its veracity was debated to the point where there was a ‘corporate knowledge’ of the facts. As I said, the unfolding reality reflected this analysis very closely. No single individual has a monopoly of the truth on here. We all make our contributions where we think it appropriate and so aid each others thought processes. That is how the earlier pictures were constructed.
So along comes Charlotte. She provides lots of potentially interesting material. We are debating this material and in due course I suspect we will reach a conclusion concerning its reliability. You never know, some industrious journalist out there might be engaging in a similar examination.
The information provided could be a scam. If it is then it is of a high order. However, so much data has been provided that it is likely that somewhere in those 10,000 words they will have got a few things wrong. This possibility is under active consideration. If it is a scam then the question will arise: Who would go to such elaborate lengths to fabricate such detailed information and for what purpose? That then becomes our next line of enquiry. It will be a great compliment to the bolosphere if someone has found it necessary to manufacture such a scam. They would have a motive for doing so. That could be a big story in itself.
If it is not a scam then we have a whole bunch of stuff that corroborates what has already been postulated. Plus a few more interesting details. What this infers is that the footballing authorities are to some extent, corrupt. The business community is possibly guilty of infringing a whole series of commercial laws. The main stream media has been complicit in these actions and is therefore similarly tarnished.
You infer in your question that Charlotte is CW. I undersatnd why you would draw that conclusion. However none of us have evidence of this so far therefore it cannot be accepted as anything more than a hypothesis. You will see that a number of hypotheses have been put forward concerning Charlotte’s identity and most of them are still in play.
To say that the information leads to little is equally understandable since we do not yet know its quality. At the very least it leads to a lively and active debate. At the most it might uncover all manner of underhand dealings. From the discussions on here I would have to conclude that it does not lead to little. It appears to have led to a great deal whether it is true or not.
Perhaps because there is not a simple answer to all this you feel the endeavour is pointless. For me that is not how human beings work. For example. I do not know the significance of the Higgs boson particle. If you sat down and tried to explain it to me I would likely become confused. This would not be the same as saying that investigation of this fabled particle leads to little. Just because something is confusing and indecisive does not mean it is insignificant. It can be very significant indeed.
I cannot always make my thoughts clear Jack but I have done my best. If you are still not satisfied then I’m afraid you will just have to accept that I am facsinated by these disclosures and therefore conclude that I am a misguided and deluded individual.
After re-considering what I wrote this morning I have come to the conclusion that the FPP test is only ever applied in retrospect. Certainly recent history seems to suggest that an individual buying a football club is considered Fit and Proper until something happens to overturn that assumption. Thus Craig Whyte is OK until he fails to pay VAT, and his club/team/company is placed in administration. Along comes Charles Green, who again is thought to be fit and proper. Fortunately for Chukka he takes the job with sex and travel before having to answer any embarrassing questions, but surely his alleged racist outburst would have been sufficient to move him into the doubtful category at least.
So Regan says he’s going to apply the FPP test in advance? I still come back to my original query – what are the criteria and how will it be administered? I belong to the Membership Panel for a Chartered Institution. Every candidate that comes before us has already either passed an exam or has presented a portfolio of work carried out over a considerable period demonstrating their competence. They come before the panel for three reasons-
– verification of their identity in order to prevent personation
-verification of their competence by answering questions on their portfolio
– finally to verify that they have read and understood the important points of the Institution’s Code of Conduct.
The panel members of course are utterly independent and are disqualified if they have any prior knowledge of the candidate.
For the life of me I just couldn’t see anything so complex ever being introduced into Scottish football, let alone adhered to by the current incumbents at the SFA.
Night Terror says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 14:31
===========================================
Joking aside, I think that you’re right to make the distinction between what the responsibilities of the membership organisation and the individual members are. Neepheid @14:46 sums it up quite nicely.
For those who are suggesting that due to its poor oversight of FPP the SFA might be open to litigation by duped investors in RIFC, what is the Nomad Cenkos supposed to be doing? AIM?
I am persuaded by Night Terror’s argument that primary responsibility for determining “Fit and Proper Status” lies with the club rather than the licensing body. It is for the licensing body to determine the standards that need to be reached and for the club to take the necessary steps to ensure that they can sign off against them.
Fit and proper ownership/control tests for Clubs, as I’m sure most are aware, don’t just exist in Scotland but throughout the UK and in other parts of the world and in other sports. I’m happy to be corrected but, whilst the actual standards may vary from one body to the next, I have not come across an example of where they are anything but “self certification” processes. For all the reasons articulated by Night Terror I just can’t see any practical alternative and even the EPL with all it’s vast resources are quite clear that self certification on the basis of objective criteria is the only workable solution.
However, what puzzles me is that from that point on it seems to be totally taken on trust and there does not appear to be even the simplest audit process in place to ensure that clubs have actually taken all reasonable steps to assure themselves that their new Director or Owner meets the required standards. In many walks of life “regulators” set standards and businesses are expected to comply without day to day interference but with the explicit understanding that you might get a knock on the door unannounced and be required to demonstrate exactly what steps you took that allowed you to arrive at the conclusions you did. It would be entirely possible, and affordable, for the SFA to do this and would act as a further disincentive to spivs simply lying through teeth on the quite fair assumption that they are likely to get away with it.
Night Terror says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 14:43
0 0 i
Rate This
bogsdollox says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 14:33
However, it must be possible to erect some hurdles to keep the real spivs out.
Sure, but who is responsible for ensuring the information on the individuals attempting to clear these hurdles is genuine? Who has most to gain by keeping the real spivs out?
SFA or club?
——————————————————————–
Fine in theory, but for ‘club’ read ‘owner’.
In the recent public cases, an individual or group with a majority shareholding has been the party making the decision to sell. There is no guarantee the motive of the seller aligns with the best interests of the club.
SDM wanted the hell out of dodge, so much so he sold up for £1. I doubt F&PP was uppermost in his thoughts despite much veneration in succulent reportage to the contrary (“I looked deep into his cold steely eyes and ripped the deal up at the last minute” blah blah yadda)
Any majority shareholder could have his head turned by a financial offer and the remaining custodians of the club would be hard pushed to prevent it, if it was determined to be against the interests of the club.
There could be a role for the SFA as a check/balance against such vested interests instead of their current incarnation as an executive arm to promote interests of Spiv FC
A series of simple criteria such as outline by bogs would provide a level of protection and importnantly transparency, hopefully heading off the need for the expensive taskforce of UN lawyers
thebasharmilesteg says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 14:46
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You are right the current incumbents cannot govern Scottish football but that doesn’t mean it is an impossible task to apply some simple tests to weed out the chancers. Neither do they need to accept full responsibility for getting it right – the club could be left with the ultimate responsibility.
@CelticParanoia
Good point, CP. Hadn’t thought of that.
Maybe the SFA should be in charge of F&PP after all.
Fit and Proper Person Test ?
As applied by the SFA?
Not worth the breath it takes to say it.
The responsibility for introduction of the Spivs into the game lies fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the individuals that sell their clubs to them.
In case of t’Gers? SDM – this means you.
If anyone is to blame for the catastrophic disintegration of integrity in our national sport, it is SDM.
Sure CO is a corrupt administrator – but he was in the pay of SDM – (sorry – beneficiary of a loan).
Sure the BOS leaned on other clubs to the advantage of t’Gers – but this was at the behest of SDM
The list goes on and on and on.
The source of corruption stems from the involvement of SDM.
Until such time as there is a clearout of senior officials at the SFA there I doubt there is much point in hoping for them to apply a FPP test. Who would trust them?
However…
I hope to see the day when this issue is re-examined by a renewed Scottish Football Association that will identify the culprits behind the biggest scandal to ever hit our sport.
I hope that in the brave new world of a revamped Scottish Football Association, that the people charged with looking after the governance of our national sport will have the strength of character to issue lifetime bans to all those who have wrought such damage.
I live in hope that it will become a matter of record that SDM was found to have not been a fit and proper person to run a Scottish Football club, and is banned sine die.
I’m prepared to wait for justice. I believe it will come.
regarding the fit and proper persons test discussion…
i know about whataboutery…
there appears to be a hint of needless whatifery about this whole discussion…
just a suggestion but…
1) get a robust set of criteria/rules
2) decide who has to apply said criteria/rules
3) apply the criteria/rules
hey presto!
Night Terror says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 11:49
various.
—————
I can see your argument and for me it has much to merit it. There is however a declared FPP test administered by the SFA so they themselves appear to recognise they have a responsibility here. More widely, if, IF, the SFA are custodians of the sport then it is not unreasonable that they might seek to protect its future in whatever way they can. Of course any measures they implement will have their limits.
More widely I’d agree that these limits are close confines. Jim Jeffries was lately bemoaning the points deduction from the team (Dunfermline) when it was the club board that had manifestly mismanaged finances during their recent insolvency event. The points deduction may seem unfair on the players but it does act as a disincentive to the organisation as a whole from financially overextending itself. It is the easiest point at which to intercept and punish the wrongdoing. Similarly when it comes to other matters of club governance, the SFA may have to wait until a rule is breached before acting rather than intervening to prevent a perceived potential for a breach.
Night Terror says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 15:05
0 0 i
Rate This
@CelticParanoia
Fine in theory, but for ‘club’ read ‘owner’.
In the recent public cases, an individual or group with a majority shareholding has been the party making the decision to sell. There is no guarantee the motive of the seller aligns with the best interests of the club.
Good point, CP. Hadn’t thought of that.
Maybe the SFA should be in charge of F&PP after all.
——————————————-
Well I thought Bogs suggestions were fairly simple and transparent:
No disqualified directors
No mulitple bankrupts (maybe 1 could be tolerated, maybe not)
No criminal convictions for fraud
I take the subsequent point by callumsson @ 14:54 that in most cases a regulatory body set a regularoey framework against which clubs/,members/approved centres are audited, but there are also precedents in Education, where schoosls, colleges, training providers have to be Approved to deliver qualifications and are then audited annually against the regulatory criteria.
A simple transparent Approval process (basic F&PP – perhaps Fit and Proper Person is a rather grand term, perhaps it’s more like ‘OK you passed a basic background check) followed by ongoing Audit i.e. annual accounts – oh, wait a minute… we already have that and it’s just ignored!!
Oops, hit post too soon there…
Of course there is a distinction between the owner of the shares and the running of the club.
It’s pretty hard to prevent anyone buying shares in a club – especially if they are available on a public exchange.
Dave King might own shares in RIFC but if he were to try and appoint the ghost of Brooks Mileson as CEO, one would hope the Ibrox club’s board would find such an appointment would not pass their F&PP test by a significant enough margin to merit self-certifying the appointment with the SFA.
It would be very entertaining to see the SFA trying to prevent a club owner from selling his shares at a huge profit to a new investor with a chequered past because she did not pass the SFA F&PP test.
john clarke says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 11:43
29 0 Rate This
Pleasantly surprised to get an email reply from the Herald, as below:
—–
“.Hi John, the article which appeared in the paper was shorter than the one which I submitted due to constraints of space.
I can assure you I am aware of a number of unverified documents which are in the public domain and relate to Rangers but we are bound by the legalities of what we can and cannot report.
I expect there may well be more to report on in the future but the latest development in the story was the fact the IPA cleared Duff & Phelps.
Regards
Greig Cameron
——
Great stuff John and bravo to Greig Cameron for responding in that manner.
zilch2 says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 15:09
I agree we are discussing a hypothetical model here for implementation at some point in the future when the heavily and less heavily conflicted incumbents have been removed
Well I never! Didn’t realise our very own SPL has quite deliberately decided against having any specific “Fit and Proper” test and relies on the SFA’s articles of association (as opposed to the EPL which has decided on tighter FPPT’s than the FA).
“Any test that attempts to assess the suitability of prospective directors by reference to objective criteria is inherently a very difficult thing to formulate and apply,” SPL chief executive Neil Doncaster told me when I asked him why his league has no fit and proper hoop to jump through.
“Despite the existence of such tests elsewhere in the UK – and the Scottish Football Association’s articles of association – insolvency events in football have continued to occur.
“Relying on a fit and proper person test to ensure clubs are run in a manner that would avoid insolvency has no track record of success in Scotland or elsewhere in the UK”
From Mark Slater’s blog of a couple of years ago. Interesting perspective.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/mattslater/2011/11/british_test_is_fit_for_nothin.html
Night Terror says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 15:16
0 0 i
Rate This
Night Terror says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 15:05
@CelticParanoia
Fine in theory, but for ‘club’ read ‘owner’.
In the recent public cases, an individual or group with a majority shareholding has been the party making the decision to sell. There is no guarantee the motive of the seller aligns with the best interests of the club.
Good point, CP. Hadn’t thought of that.
Maybe the SFA should be in charge of F&PP after all.
Oops, hit post too soon there…
Of course there is a distinction between the owner of the shares and the running of the club.
It’s pretty hard to prevent anyone buying shares in a club – especially if they are available on a public exchange.
Dave King might own shares in RIFC but if he were to try and appoint the ghost of Brooks Mileson as CEO, one would hope the Ibrox club’s board would find such an appointment would not pass their F&PP test by a significant enough margin to merit self-certifying the appointment with the SFA.
It would be very entertaining to see the SFA trying to prevent a club owner from selling his shares at a huge profit to a new investor with a chequered past because she did not pass the SFA F&PP test.
———————————————————————–
Horses for courses I suppose.
I don’t think this approach would be very successful for airline pilots. Let’s wait until you crash a plane before we strike you off!
You make a lot of salient points and I’m sure if any RFC owner was prevented from selling up to a spiv “billionaire” purveyor of moonbeam warchests there would be an outcry in the Scottish media.
Whether it’s an initial approval process, ongoing regulation or both – the bottom line is we aint going to get any of it with the current office bearers at the SFA who have done everything to circumvent existing regulations.
It could be argued that the Whyte and Green spivvery witnessed over the past 24 months could have been prevented to a large extent by simply applying existing rules.
So for me that should be the starting place – a fit for purpose (not promotion of Spiv FC interests) organisation that acts with transparency and objectivity, rather than introducing new criteria that will never be adequately discharged.
By jove I think the unstoppable force stopped and the immovable object moved!
Night Terror says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 13:23
………………………………………………
The relevant point on FIFA is…if they were to get involved for any reason due to the actions of one club…then it must be the responsability of the SFA to ensure they have taken all reasonable and appropriate steps to ensure the probity of that club and who owns it…
HirsutePursuit says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 13:43
PROHIBITION ON TRANSFER OF MEMBERSHIP
__________________________________________________________________________
If I am on your wavelength HP
then the changes made in Article 16
of http://www.scribd.com/doc/143099754/SFA-ArticlesofAssociation-2006
could easily be construed as having been made specifically with RFC/TRFC in mind.
Almost as if part of a plan.
A CO plan?
HP, you’re a genius.
manandboy says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 15:48
0
0
Rate This
HirsutePursuit says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 13:43
PROHIBITION ON TRANSFER OF MEMBERSHIP
__________________________________________________________________________
If I am on your wavelength HP
then the changes made in Article 16
of http://www.scribd.com/doc/143099754/SFA-ArticlesofAssociation-2006
could easily be construed as having been made specifically with RFC/TRFC in mind.
Almost as if part of a plan.
A CO plan?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Wasn’t Smiffy there too at the time?
Night Terror says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 09:04
This should be simple for the SFA.
Did the Ibrox Club lie to them? If so, the consequences should be severe, and it doesn’t matter who it was that was speaking for the club when they made a porky.
If the SFA think the IC lied to them, they should be doing everything in their power to find out rather than waiting for the IC to admit it or someone else of whatever agenda revealing it.
It’s not a matter of looking up the rulebook. It’s a matter of lying. Did they or didn’t they?
If the SFA can’t handle that then they are in a very bad way.
————————————————————————-
It really is this simple. If the Ibrox club had not confirmed to the authorities at the time that CW was not involved would they have been granted membership/licence?
If the answer to that is ‘No’ then any upcoming finding that CW was involved should automatically lead to the withdrawal of membership/licence.
Scottish football needs a strong Arbroath.
bogsdollox says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 15:52
Wasn’t Smiffy there too at the time?
__________________________________________________________________________
Do you think GS was really part of the ‘get out of jail’ think tank ?
Wrt the FPP test can anyone point to a successfully implemented system in some other sporting context that could be used as a model for the SFA?
Whilst the SFA purportedly have such a system the debate on this site and their own comments clearly show that their own system is ineffective.
Scottish football needs a strong Arbroath.
ecobhoy says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 13:28
zerotolerance1903 says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 12:27
————–
I really don’t think you two posters, whom I consider to be some of the most informative on display currently, should be at odds with each other. Night Terror, although far from unprincipled, is aware that he can encourage a lively debate but ecobhoy and ZT seem to be coming to disagreement for different reasons. It seems to me that they have inadvertantly found themselves on the opposite ends of a discussion almost by mistake. I’ll be disappointed if I read on and find them putting their considerable capabilities to use by tearing lumps out of each other.
manandboy says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 15:59
bogsdollox says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 15:52
Wasn’t Smiffy there too at the time?
__________________________________________________________________________
Do you think GS was really part of the ‘get out of jail’ think tank ?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It was a strange appointment at the time. I couldn’t see how a players agent and football pundit was relevant experience for Chief Executive of the SFA but then the only relevant qualification was that he was someone who could be relied upon to “do the right thing”.
GS was a Whyte appointment as a Director of Rangers – you have to ask yourself why.
Night Terror
Your principal argument , seems to me to be absolving the SFA from any accountability. I am highly suspicious of that as a motivation .
Greenockjack
You appear highly motivated to link individual posters with whoever is in the crosshairs of the Rangers community, much like another Jack.
In my view both of your recent contributions are bordering on trolling , and in your own way it seems to me that you are both on a deflect and distract mission.
The issues you are desperate to discuss are not the issues that are of any import to the future of football in Scotland.
Apologies for a third post in almost as many minutes….
Wrt the excellent ‘Armagedon’ analysis provided earlier today on the Wings Over Scotland site :
http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-armageddon-files/
http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-armageddon-files-2/
In line with the Regan/Doncaster craving for achieving the best commercial solution for Scottish Football could I suggest that the punishment meted out to the Ibrox club when the day of reckoning eventually comes be that they are forever condemned to restarting in the 3rd division every three years?
Scottish football needs a strong Arbroath.
manandboy says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 15:59
Quantcast
bogsdollox says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 15:52
Wasn’t Smiffy there too at the time?
__________________________________________________________________________
Do you think GS was really part of the ‘get out of jail’ think tank
————————————-
Occam’s Razor guys! I think we might be going a black helicopter too far in suggesting that certain members of the SFA, some of whom later moved onto other jobs, were as foresighted as to change the rules on transfer of membership, in advance of old Rangers demise. While there is no doubt that they are conflicted in other matters, none of them are that clever.
Danish Pastry says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 15:18
john clarke says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 11:43
29 0 Rate This
Pleasantly surprised to get an email reply from the Herald, as below:
—–
“.Hi John, the article which appeared in the paper was shorter than the one which I submitted due to constraints of space.
I can assure you I am aware of a number of unverified documents which are in the public domain and relate to Rangers but we are bound by the legalities of what we can and cannot report.
I expect there may well be more to report on in the future but the latest development in the story was the fact the IPA cleared Duff & Phelps.
Regards
Greig Cameron
—————————————————————————
Great stuff John and bravo to Greig Cameron for responding in that manner.
—————————————————————————
A good result and the response is good because it reminds us of things like the pressures on space imposed for lots of reasons but often by breaking news stories.
A journo might have been given an approximation of the space available for his/her story and they will usually write to say 10% above that in the likes of a broadsheet on the basis it is easier to cut than to add.
But until a paper edition is actually printed a paper is a ‘live animal’ and constantly changes position and mood and so does the space previously ‘guaranteed’ for a story – even one which has made the schedule.
That’s when the sub-editors come into play and cut the copy to size – for some strange reason it seldom seems to go the other way. But of course it actually does because some stories get longer especially if they are of the ‘breaking news’ variety and new stories also ‘break’.
There are good sub-editors, poor sub-editors and genius ones who no matter the cut required make the story read and make sense as if it had always been written for the size it ends up. Writers usually make very poor subs of their own copy because every word is precious to them and they want them all in and they fight hard for this.
But, as I say, it’s nice to be reminded that reporters aren’t Masters of the Universe in terms of their copy being used.
HirsutePursuit says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 13:43
—————–
So many rhetorical questions, so many obvious answers. Are you watching this Jack?
Mr Lennon given a 1 match ban suspended,who would have guessed it,seems that he was guilty of something ,punishment consistent ,well who knows ,it must have been for blatantly ignoring the rules ,reason still to come.
And May I add –
Scottish football needs a strong St Ternans.
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/dundee/226577-league-reconstruction-plans-fail-to-get-sfl-support-in-informal-vote/
Scottish Football League clubs have indicated they will not vote in favour of league reconstruction plans as they stand.
An informal, indicative vote held by 29 of the league’s 30 members at Thursday’s AGM showed proposals to push through a new system for next season would not get the required 22 in favour.
Fourteen clubs voted in favour but fifteen clubs voted against. A formal vote will be held on June 10.
First Division clubs convened their own separate meeting shortly after to discuss a threat to apply for membership of the Scottish Premier League with a view to admission in time for the 2013/14 campaign.
One step closer to a breakaway SPL2, worst of all possible worlds
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/dundee/226577-league-reconstruction-plans-fail-to-get-sfl-support-in-informal-vote/
mullach says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 16:04
ecobhoy says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 13:28
zerotolerance1903 says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 12:27
————–
I really don’t think you two posters, whom I consider to be some of the most informative on display currently, should be at odds with each other. Night Terror, although far from unprincipled, is aware that he can encourage a lively debate but ecobhoy and ZT seem to be coming to disagreement for different reasons. It seems to me that they have inadvertantly found themselves on the opposite ends of a discussion almost by mistake. I’ll be disappointed if I read on and find them putting their considerable capabilities to use by tearing lumps out of each other.
———————————————————————————————————
ZT responded to a comment I made and I responded back and the matter seems to have rested there. NT, for whatever reason, took a snippet of my response and commented on it. I thought using the ‘snippet’ in the way it was was unfair but I recognise that as subjective and let it pass.
I can assure you that I see this blog as too important to allow myself to be distracted by ‘circuses and side shows. There are bigger issues at stake as to whether my ad-homs are bigger than ZT’s and I in no way infer any criticism of ZT in that remark but I’m sure the party actually involved may well recognise my drift.
But there really is too much to be done in the middle of potential chaos and carnage for Scottish football never mind reconstruction to be deflected by a tag team at work – I certainly won’t be nor will I attempt to tear lumps out of ZT as I truly believe we are all entitled to our opinions unless they are patently absurd, designed to deflect the blog or just not acceptable to the moderation policy.
We are all entitled to express opposition or alternatives to counter-opinions as long as we don’t, in turn, stray into the same minefield.
scapaflow14 says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 16:26
One step closer to a breakaway SPL2, worst of all possible worlds
We talk about mutually assured destruction in the context of the spiv disclosures but the metaphor could also be argued to apply to the SPL and SFL. Alternatively maybe high stakes poker. Who will blink first?
No trolling from Night Terror as far as I’m concerned; neither have I seen him absolve the SFA of all accountability. What he said, quite clearly and very well, was that the overwhelming balance of accountability lay with the Club and not the SFA. You might disagree with that, I don’t, but its an honest position to hold and goes to the very heart of the debate around the governance of Scottish football.
thebasharmilesteg says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 16:14
2 0 Rate This
manandboy says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 15:59
Quantcast
bogsdollox says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 15:52
Wasn’t Smiffy there too at the time?
__________________________________________________________________________
Do you think GS was really part of the ‘get out of jail’ think tank
————————————-
Occam’s Razor guys! I think we might be going a black helicopter too far in suggesting that certain members of the SFA, some of whom later moved onto other jobs, were as foresighted as to change the rules on transfer of membership, in advance of old Rangers demise. While there is no doubt that they are conflicted in other matters, none of them are that clever.
____________________________________________________________________________
I remain unconvinced specifically because CO became the SFA’s FIRST vice-president in June 2007.
– And, it all fits too neatly together.
Night Terror says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 16:28
0 2 Rate This
Those barely cling to their will to live should scroll one post further down.
======
I have been doing that quite a lot.
I was tempted to give you TU just for that one sentence.
What’s happened to the blog ?The salient points of the arguments about FPP test have been done to death.
Can we get on now.
Barcabhoy, I thought you would have got there sooner.
Night Terror,
Where did I say what should be discussed ?
I said , unambiguously, that you are keen to discuss issues that are not of import to Scottish Football. That’s an opinion, and one I’m perfectly entitled to make.
The thrust of your posts are ultra defensive of the SFA, that’s a point I’m equally entitled to make, whether you like it or not. Darryl Broadfoot gets paid handsomely for carrying out this role. I’m sure he’s delighted you are doing it Gratis.
Finally I have misrepresented nothing. The tenet of your posts is , in my opinion , ultra defensive of the SFA, an organisation which is the ultimate decision maker in Scottish Football.
This is an organisation who have been disproportionately represented by one Club, Rangers, throughout its history.
Presidents , National Team Managers, Referee heads and disciplinary committee’s have been in the control of Rangers supporters for much of the history of the SFA. Yet you are highly sensitive to criticism of the SFA and go to great lengths to remove them from any serious responsibility for the debacle the game is in at the moment.
Why is that ?
thebasharmilesteg says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 16:14
“Occam’s Razor guys! I think we might be going a black helicopter too far in suggesting…in advance of old Rangers demise. While there is no doubt that they are conflicted in other matters, none of them are that clever”.
————-
Thanks for your note of caution. I am prepared to at least consider it a path of least resistance. One of the possible scenarios was for a crash of the club to wipe out RFC historical debts. Who was that sailor guy that went missing then turned out to be living next door to his wife?
If there was a Mr, Big, could the premeditation have in fact stretched this far. HirsuitPursuite is not in the category of speculative blue sky thinkers that I would place myself. If his/her alarm bell has been tinkled by this possibility then I think it should be borne in mind.
@barcabhoy
I’m sorry you have gained that impression – I guess I have not expressed myself clearly enough for you. I really have done my best today, so restating the numerous posts I have already made would not be in the best interests of my time or yours.
However, in short:
– I am defensive about spending effort trying to hold the SFA to account on F&PP for something they are not and should not be accountable for.
– I am critical of the way they have handled the fallout from the Ibrox club’s business throughout
– I have exchanged heated words with Mr Broadfoot in the past during his tenure at the SFA and do not hold him in high esteem
– I am concerned that you think the regulation of Scottish football is not a fit topic to discuss here – if you think this is not appropriate, perhaps you would be able to supply a list of topics you would find of sufficient import for Scottish Football
Is it really too much to expect that you can engage with a contrary opinion without alleging some unstated ulterior motive? Shame on you.
Taysider says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 16:26
1 0 Rate This
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/dundee/226577-league-reconstruction-plans-fail-to-get-sfl-support-in-informal-vote/
Scottish Football League clubs have indicated they will not vote in favour of league reconstruction plans as they stand.
An informal, indicative vote held by 29 of the league’s 30 members at Thursday’s AGM showed proposals to push through a new system for next season would not get the required 22 in favour.
Fourteen clubs voted in favour but fifteen clubs voted against. A formal vote will be held on June 10.
First Division clubs convened their own separate meeting shortly after to discuss a threat to apply for membership of the Scottish Premier League with a view to admission in time for the 2013/14 campaign.
———
Deary me. There is a solution though. Sack Doncaster and Regan, then there would be plenty enough trickle down in the pot to get Div 2 & 3 clubs onside, with some to spare. Anyone know what CO is on? Must be a huge saving there too. He could then just keep on gardening. His roses must be lovely by now.
barcabhoy says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 17:06
I’ve enjoyed reading today’s discussion on FPP – it’s something that goes to the very heart of Scottish football, so for you to say it’s of no importance is wide of the mark. As far as I can see NT is just asking the question ‘How could they be expected to implement it?’, and, again, as far as I can see, the response is ‘Because they should’ – no explanation as to how they would be expected to go about, just ‘they should’. He’s encouraging debate on how this would take place, and to be honest, I thought we’d arrived at some consensus when Neepheid suggested that it should be the responsiblity of the club involved, and if they are found to have lied or got it wrong in some way, then they should be kicked out.
According to the IPA Duff and Duffer are off the hook.
“The Investigation Committee of the Insolvency Practitioners Association has advised complainants of the outcome of the disciplinary investigation into Paul Clark and David Whitehouse, partners of Duff and Phelps and the former joint administrators of Rangers Football Club Plc.
“The complaints centred on whether the insolvency practitioners were in breach of the insolvency profession’s code of ethics when accepting their appointment.
“The Investigation Committee, made up of independent practitioners and lay members, has, over the past 13 months, carried out a thorough investigation of the administration of Rangers Football Club and the actions of the joint administrators in agreeing to accept the appointment and has concluded that the practitioners complied with the relevant guidance and legislation.”
http://www.football365.com/scottish-football/8730400/-?
Taysider says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 16:26
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/dundee/226577-league-reconstruction-plans-fail-to-get-sfl-support-in-informal-vote/
Scottish Football League clubs have indicated they will not vote in favour of league reconstruction plans as they stand.
=====================================================
Another step close to SPL2. Another step closer to a club being advanced for the first time ever outwith the basis of on-field success. 🙁
How I hope that Hearts do NOT go down this route:
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/hearts/226557-scandinavian-consortium-close-to-negotiating-a-price-to-buy-hearts/
Let it be a fans’ buyout …
I was expecting this daft rule (ha! ha!) to be invoked.
Celtic, as the designated (!) away team will wear their all black strip at the Cup Final.
Surely, at this season’s end showpiece, both teams should be able to wear their traditional (first) strip. In reality, there is no away team here.
As a CFC supporter, this really dull strip anyway takes away quite a bit from the occasion for me.
Ironically,I don’t think this rule would apply if Celtic were playing Sevco (stop laughing but am I right?)
Hearts held their AGM today. Unfortunately I couldn’t make it, but the key thing that came out of it is that the cashflow projections for 2013/14, include £1M in player sales (difficult to know who or how many players would make up that sum), and £1.5M to be raised in a new fans membership scheme.
The Board clearly live in cloud cuckoo land if they believe that either target is achievable. The £1.5M is half as much again as was raised in the share offer last December.
Initial feedback is that no fans will be putting their hands in their pockets to stump up more money while the current regime is in place.
My take on proceedings is that Hearts will now go into administration of their own accord, possibly as early as August or September, if the club isn’t sold beforehand.
manandboy says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 15:59
3 0 Rate This
bogsdollox says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 15:52
Wasn’t Smiffy there too at the time?
__________________________________________________________________________
Do you think GS was really part of the ‘get out of jail’ think tank ?
=======================================================
For anyone with knowledge of Rangers use of EBTs and the potentially catastrophic liability it was accruing, the demise of Gretna around 2007/08 is sure to have focussed the mind.
When the London Police raided Ibrox in 2007 (in connection with other events) and took away the players’ EBT side-letters, Rangers were effectively dead club walking.
It certainly looks like the SFA deliberately put in place a contingency in 2008/09 that would give their board, the ability to keep a liquidated club’s brand alive.
Was GS there by design or simply by good fortune? However he came to be there, he sure was in the right place at the right time. And however this rule change came about, it sure came about at the right time.
Did some members of the SFA board see the liquidation of Rangers coming from a long way out? Yes IMO, of course they did.
Did some members of the SFA board have Rangers in mind when they agreed to put this rule change to the members? Yes IMO, of course they did.
Would some members (and ex-members) of the SFA board think that CW had been brought in by SDM, specifically to liquidate the old club? Yes IMO, of course they would.
I have removed several posts which contained nothing other than personal manifestos and less than respectful comments aimed at others.
Whether that is the intention or not, the effect is that of trolling. Please refrain from further comment. I know this will probably result in a series of hissy fits, but there’s far too much important stuff going on today for us to be clogged up with the defence of personal reputations.
Danish Pastry says: Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 18:03
How I hope that Hearts do NOT go down this route:
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/hearts/226557-scandinavian-consortium-close-to-negotiating-a-price-to-buy-hearts/
Let it be a fans’ buyout …
=================================
The problem is that anyone who has a lump sum to front a bid would be in a much more advantageous position in negotiations with UBIG / Ukio administrators than the current fans group, Foundation of Hearts, who have an unspecified number of unconfirmed monthly pledges to support their own bid. Some sort of joint bid may be possible though.
The information the was revealed yesterday about the history of those fronting the Scandinavian bid leaves a lot of doubt in my mind.
I don’t know how much investigation STV have carried out today, but the article looks just to be little more than a re-hash of the statement yesterday from Crest Sports Group.
Whoever, does take over, I’m pretty sure that they will wait for administration to hit UBIG and/or Hearts before making their move.
bect67 says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 18:04 (Edit)
I was expecting this daft rule (ha! ha!) to be invoked.
Celtic, as the designated (!) away team will wear their all black strip at the Cup Final.
Surely, at this season’s end showpiece, both teams should be able to wear their traditional (first) strip. In reality, there is no away team here.
As a CFC supporter, this really dull strip anyway takes away quite a bit from the occasion for me.
Ironically,I don’t think this rule would apply if Celtic were playing Sevco (stop laughing but am I right?)
__________________________________________________________________________
This ridiculous state of affairs is masked by the usual excuse that “we have to ensure there is no ambiguity in the outfits of both teams”. In reality it is another symptom of the same sickness that has beset our game for the last fifteen years.
Clubs are contractually bound in many cases to wear alternative colours to drive sales for the shirt manufacturers. Ergo, colour clashes are manufactured in cases where there are none.
An extra fiver finds it way into the hatful of nickels and dimes, so all is well with the world. Tradition is all very well, but money is money innit?
Charlotte’s back
“Quick Question: Has the SPA between MIH and Wavetower ever been release in full? Meanwhile here’s the MOU. http://www.scribd.com/doc/143265813/Memorandum-of-Understanding-26-Nov-2010 …”
Charlotte’s back
Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes 4m
Quick Question: Has the SPA between MIH and Wavetower ever been release in full? Meanwhile here’s the MOU. http://www.scribd.com/doc/143265813/Memorandum-of-Understanding-26-Nov-2010
easyJambo
I will defer to your judgement on what is good for Hearts, and like all of us on this blog, I sincerely hope that the club come through this tough period as quickly and as unscathed as possible.
However, on a selfish note, whatever happens, Tynecastle must be retained. It may not be the most beautiful ground in the country, but in the age of all seated stadia, it is the most characterful, intimidating and exciting place to play football in Scotland. I remember the New Year’s Day match against Celtic in 2006. Hearts were 2-0 up after fifteen minutes – just by cruising the wave of fanpower and excitement on display that day.
For Celtic fan it wasn’t pretty, but that is exactly the kind of fierce rivalry we have been looking to preserve in Scottish football. We mustn’t lose it.