Good Evening.
As we ponder the historic vote to create a new Governing body to oversee Scottish League football, I cannot help but wonder what brilliant minds will be employed in the drawing up of its constitution, rules, memorandum and articles of association?
Clearly, Messrs Doncaster, Longmuir and even Mr Regan as the CEO of the SFA will be spending many hours with those dreaded folk known simply as “ The Lawyers” in an attempt to get the whole thing up and running and written down in the course of a few short weeks.
In truth, that scares me.
It scares me because legal documentation written up in a hurry or in a rush is seldom perfect and often needs amendment—especially when the errors start to show! The old adage of beware of the busy fool sadly applies.
It also scares me because the existing rules under which the game is governed are not, in my humble opinion, particularly well written and seem to differ in certain material respects from those of UEFA. Even then, adopting the wording and the approach of other bodies is not necessarily the way to go.
I am all in favour of some original thought– and that most precious and unusual of commodities known as common sense and plain English.
Further, the various licensing and compliance rules are clearly in need of an overhaul as they have of late produced what can only be best described as a lack of clarity when studied for the purposes of interpretation. Either that or those doing the studying and interpreting are afflicted with what might be described as tortuous or even tortured legal and administrative minds.
If it is not by now clear that the notion of self-certification on financial and other essential disclosure criteria necessary to obtain a footballing licence (whether European or domestic) is a total non-starter — then those in charge of the game are truly bonkers.
Whilst no governing body can wholly control the actions of a member club, or those who run a club, surely provisions can be inserted into any constitution or set of rules that allows and brings about greater vigilance and scrutiny than we have at present—all of course designed to do nothing other than alert the authorities as early as possible if matters are not being conducted properly or fairly.
However, the main change that would make a difference to most of the folk involved in the Scottish game – namely the fans— would be to have the new rules incorporate a measure which allowed football fans themselves to be represented on any executive or committee.
Clearly, this would be a somewhat revolutionary step and would be fought against tooth and nail by some for no reason other than that it has simply not been done before—especially as the league body is there to regulate the affairs of a number of limited companies all of whom have shareholders to account to and the clubs themselves would presumably be the shareholders in the new SPFL Ltd.
Then again to my knowledge Neil Doncaster is not a shareholder in The SPL ltd– is he?
I can hear the argument that a fan representative on a league body might not be impartial, might be unprofessional, might be biased, might lack knowledge or experience, and have their own agenda and so on—just like many chairmen and chief executive officers who already sit on the committees of the existing league bodies.
Remember too that the SFA until relatively recently had disciplinary committees made up almost exclusively of referees. I don’t think anyone would argue that the widening of the make up of that committee has been a backward step.
However, we already have fan representation at clubs like St Mirren and Motherwell, and of course there has been an established Tartan Army body for some time now. Clubs other than the two mentioned above have mechanisms whereby they communicate and consult with fans, although they stop short of full fan participation– very often for supposedly insurmountable legal reasons.
As often as not, the fans want a say in the running of their club, but also want to be able to make representations to the governing bodies via their club.
So why not include the fans directly in the new set up for governing the league?
Any fan representative could be someone proposed by a properly registered fan body such as through official supporters clubs, or could be seconded by the clubs acting in concert with their supporters clubs.
Perhaps a committee of fan representatives could be created, with such a committee having a representative on the various committees of the new league body.
In this way, there would be a fan who could report back to the fan committee and who could represent the interests of the ordinary fan in the street in any of the committees. Equally such a committee of fans could ensure that any behind the scenes discussions on any issue were properly reported, openly discussed, and made public with no fear of hidden agendas, secret meetings, and secret collusive agreements and so forth.
Is any of that unreasonable? Surely many companies consider the views of their biggest customer? This idea is no different.
Surely such a situation would go some way towards establishing some badly needed trust between the governing bodies and the fans themselves?
If necessary, I would not even object to the fan representatives being excluded from having a right to vote on certain matters—as long as they had a full right of audience and a full right of access to all discussions and relative papers which affect the running of the game.
In this way at least there would be openness and transparency.
In short, it would be a move towards what is quaintly referred to as Democracy.
Perhaps, those who run the game at present should consider the life and times of the late great Alexander Hamilton- one of the founding fathers of the United States of America and who played a significant role in helping write the constitution of that country.
Hamilton was a decent and brilliant man in many ways—but he was dead set against Democracy and the liberation of rights for the masses. In fact, he stated that the best that can be hoped for the mass populace is that they be properly armed with a gun and so able to protect themselves against injustice!
Sadly, Hamilton became embroiled in a bitter dispute with the then Vice President of the nation Aaron Burr in July 1804. Hamilton had used his influence and ensured that Burr lost the election to become Governor of New York and had made some withering attacks on the Vice President’s character.
When he refused to apologise, the Vice President took a whacky notion and challenged him to a duel! Even more whacky is the fact that Hamilton accepted the challenge and so the contest took place at Weehawken New Jersey on the morning of 11th July 1804.
The night before, Hamilton wrote a letter which heavily suggested that he would contrive to miss Burr with his shot, and indeed when the pistols fired Hamilton’s bullet struck a branch immediately above Burr’s head.
However, he did not follow the proper procedure for duelling which required a warning from the duellist that they are going to throw their shot away. Hamilton gave no such indication despite the terms of his letter and despite his shot clearly missing his opponent.
Burr however fired and hit Hamilton in the lower abdomen with the result that the former secretary to the treasury and founding father of the constitution died at 2pm on the twelfth of July.
The incident ruined Burr’s career (whilst duelling was still technically legal in New jersey, it had already been outlawed in various other states).
In any event, in Hamilton’s time full and open democracy in the United States of America would have met with many cries of outrage and bitter opposition. Yet, today, the descendants of slaves and everyone from all social standings, all ethnic minorities and every social background has the constitutional right to vote and seek entry to corridors of power.
In that light, is it really asking too much to allow football fans to have a say and a presence in the running of a game they pay so much to support?
Re CO’s pay. OK, so the best administrator in the world’s salary is 20k apparently. What of the 33k increase? (or was that calculated as a percentage of 280k – I’m not buying the DR to find out) and what is his total package? – which I suspect is closer to 280k than 20k – unless he’s got an income on the side of course!
slimshady61 says:
June 21, 2013 at 10:41 am
1 0 Rate This
briggsbhoy says:
June 21, 2013 at 10:04 am
————————————
I am sceptical about the asbestos stories on Ibrox. Three of the four stands were built after asbestos was outlawed for construction purposes, so that only leaves the main stand and it was completely revamped 20 years ago. I would have thought it unlikely that the matter would not have been dealt with at that time.
========================
I don’t think that the roof problem is necessarily an asbestos one, more the supporting structure that is rusting.
Now how badly maintained is that stadium or how old is that steel?
Now if it’s the steel;
Who supplied the steel and was it of sufficient standard?
This line of enquiry gets very dangerous, very very quickly and spreads outside of football even quicker!
CO got 95,000 as an EBT – if that is a “good night out” then no way is he on only 20K a year.
Since his wife held the shares in RFC-NIL while he was at Hearts, maybe she gets his pay at SFA as well.
Maybe – just maybe – CO gets 20K a year – while 260K a year goes to Mrs CO.
Then SFA would not be telling porkies – and neither would MSM.
54 lies to nil (copyright Slimshady)
john clarke says:
June 21, 2013 at 2:13 am
“I am not in the least a political animal, but there is something desperately wrong in a political culture in which , in 2013, there is no effective challenge to another bunch of crooks…”
—————–
For me it echoes resonantly with what we have witnessed on a smaller scale in the football arena. The wee man in the street does not have the time or inclination to plough his way through legal statutes to determine whether what is taking place is fair and justified. He elects politicians, who then appoint judiciary, to do this for him. When the political elite fall into a kind of oligopoly (cabal), the one right the wee man has, to vote a government out of office, becomes emasculated.
By making the laws and rules so complex that no-one can understand them, it then falls to the best paid lawyers to determine right from wrong. Yet we all have a gut instinct for what is right. It is a tribal instinct that comes from evolution employed to protect the species. When this instinct is usurped by the priveleged we are left in a state of powerlessness. That is until the pressure grows excessive and starts spilling out as all sorts of discontent.
We have e brief opportunity, while the interweb is new and unconstrained, to undermine these establishment forces. By and large I think we’re doin a decent job but only time will tell. This is not just about us, it is about those who are yet to come into being.
Danish Pastry says:
June 21, 2013 at 9:08 am
Maybe CO is working up a bonus and increase on salary so he can pay off his EBT loan, know what I mean.
20k a year,yeah right,perhaps he collects a 2nd wage from his other job,
HAMPDEN PARK LIMITED
Current directors and secretaries
Mr Robert Campbell Ogilvie 01-01-2011
http://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC200222#people-tab
Shady as Tomtomaswell says how could folk be absailing off the roof in they are in such a bad state.
There is a difference between the roof structure and the roof cladding. You would expect the cladding to wear, and assuming it is now getting on for 30 years old, it would be reasonable to expect that it would be showing signs of rust / general weathering, and due for some significant renovation. The structure would still expected to be intact however, as the cladding is intended to as an overcoat to protect it from the rain / frost / sun. Structural steelwork would in any case have a significant safety factor built into the calculations of the section size, types of joints etc. That’s not to say that deterioration in cladding is not serious – it must be maintained in a safe condition, both for the supporters who sits underneath it, and for workers who have to go on the roof and depend on it as a safe platform.
Is it common knowledge,
That BDO are the auditors for the S.F.A,
That Ralph Topping was reappointed to the board of the S.F.A after a pretty dramatic resignation,
and that George Peat is still a director of Hampden Park Limited despite moving on from the presidents job at the sfa almost 2 years ago.
Interesting about the steel ,rumour has it that as part of the Duncan Ferguson deal united where paid a portion of the transfer fee in steel from Murray’s companies ,I wonder how that structure is holding up ,I would imagine some sort of contra deal would have happened with some other clubs that where having work done ,anyway ,why not at ibrox also ,only a rumour mind.
Smugas says:
June 21, 2013 at 10:57 am
Re CO’s pay. OK, so the best administrator in the world’s salary is 20k apparently. What of the 33k increase? (or was that calculated as a percentage of 280k – I’m not buying the DR to find out) and what is his total package? – which I suspect is closer to 280k than 20k – unless he’s got an income on the side of course!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If he is only on 20k I can understand how he is struggling to repay that EBT loan. I suspect on that kind of money he doesn’t have many good nights out these days.
TW says:
June 21, 2013 at 10:15 am
3 0 Rate This
Scottish FA @ScottishFA 5m
To clarify story in today’s @Daily_Record totally incorrect. President’s salary is £20k not £280k as reported.Apology expected in print tmrw
———
Phew, thank heavens for that! I just could not get my head around 280,000 for what really is a ceremonial-symbolic post, a post that many people would do for nowt out of sheer honour.
Still doesn’t justify his no-show, or him still being in situ on top of his EBT tax dodge, nor does it justify the salaries of ND and SR who’ve presided over complete and utter chaos. But in the spirit of the current banking world, abject failure often merits a fat bonus.
wottpi says:
June 21, 2013 at 9:54 am
“All clubs need the cash but a major fan protest is required to get the message across that this has to stop.”
——————
I’m not a supporter just a fan so I have limited legitimacy in advancing my viewpoint. That said, I think the reason last years fan’s(supporter’s) protest was effective was because there was a single topic upon which many could agree. As circumstances unfold now we see there are many and varied aspects that bring about discontent. This is too wide a front to provoke a militant fan reaction I suspect. Even Rescunner Ogilvie’s compromised position would not have the same motivational force as an exclusively on field issue.
There will be an outlet for all this frustration at some point. The authorities may attempt to defuse it by offering some comprimises of the right kind in the meantime.
Another Dallas working at Hampden,must have been a popular name in scotland at 1 point,
Mr Peter Dallas
HAMPDEN PARK LIMITED
http://companycheck.co.uk/director/914799540#director-details
Statement
Daily Two Panda apologises for incorrectly reporting a salary of 250,000 when it should have read 2.2m. This misreporting caused by us now having to make up our own stuff without having it made up for us. 😉
I cannot believe that CO’s salary at the SFA is 20k , unsupported by income from other sources.
But whatever,
CO’s WORTH to TRFC is at the very least £280,000 pa.,
and may indeed be immeasurable.
briggsbhoy says:
June 21, 2013 at 11:28 am
“Shady as Tomtomaswell says how could folk be absailing off the roof in they are in such a bad state.”
—————
Just a guess but the army personnel may not be constrained by health and safety legislation in the same way that civilian contractors would be.
Castofthousands says:
June 21, 2013 at 12:47 pm
0 0 Rate This
briggsbhoy says:
June 21, 2013 at 11:28 am
“Shady as Tomtomaswell says how could folk be absailing off the roof in they are in such a bad state.”
—————
Just a guess but the army personnel may not be constrained by health and safety legislation in the same way that civilian contractors would be.
=========================
There is no longer any Crown Indemnity over H&S.
However, the ‘Can do attitude” of the forces sometimes overrules common sense and/or normal behaviour 😉
I note a sudden upsurge in posts about Ibrox being rusty and the possible consequences.
Is there a source for this, or is the discussion being built on hearsay?
Dont get me started on the army presence at Ibrox. The sight of them, in uniform, wandering about the park at Ibrox was a disgrace.
They were in uniform, that means I am paying their wages, they should not be walking about displaying support for any group.
For clarity, the same goes fo a Celtic scarf, a Dundee Utd scarf, a Ross County scarf or anything else which displays support for a specific group within society. It is just wrong.
I have no issue with inviting the armed forces to football grounds, if it is an appropriate occasion and is dealt with in a proper dignified manner.
http://alzipratu.wordpress.com/2013/06/21/company-law-for-dummies/
I believe CF refers to communication between then owner TMBBCW and stadium manager regarding various H&D issues at mordor,hope this helps.
Obviously should read H&S apologies.
manandboy says:
June 21, 2013 at 12:42 pm
8 0 i
Rate This
I cannot believe that CO’s salary at the SFA is 20k , unsupported by income from other sources.
———————————————————————————–
The odd random EBT keeps the wolves from the door i’m sure.
Hengistpod says:
June 21, 2013 at 1:15 pm
0 1 Rate This
I note a sudden upsurge in posts about Ibrox being rusty and the possible consequences.
Is there a source for this, or is the discussion being built on hearsay?
==============================
one of Charlottes latest tweets has communication stating that £150K of damage, not in good shape, roof not safe – later on the soon to be legendary comment appears “YOU CAN’T CLEAN RUST”
SO, straight from Rangers that Ibrox is needing repaired
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
June 21, 2013 at 1:31 pm
Very nicely done, thanks for the link.
Castofthousands says:
June 21, 2013 at 12:27 pm
Totally agree and thats is why a-holes like those in charge remain in post (and that covers a variety of organisations throughout the country) because they at least have a ‘focus’ on where they are going and the masses have so many differing opions or indifferences on various matters..
The trouble is that the game is going nowhere at present dispite these people having been in charge for years.
IMHO there is so much wrong with the overall management and promotion of the game that it needs a good clear out – full stop.
Gaz says:
June 21, 2013 at 1:31 pm
3 0 Rate This
Dont get me started on the army presence at Ibrox. The sight of them, in uniform, wandering about the park at Ibrox was a disgrace.
…..
I have no issue with inviting the armed forces to football grounds, if it is an appropriate occasion and is dealt with in a proper dignified manner.
=======================
The Armed Forces agreed with you!
http://www.scotzine.com/2013/01/rangers-remembrance-day-parade-branded-inappropriate/
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
June 21, 2013 at 1:44 pm
one of Charlottes latest tweets has communication stating that £150K of damage, not in good shape, roof not safe – later on the soon to be legendary comment appears “YOU CAN’T CLEAN RUST”
SO, straight from Rangers that Ibrox is needing repaired
==================================================
I have to admit, that one made me spit out my breakfast the other morning in a fit of laughter, surprised it hasn’t gained more attention!
That Remembrance day was sure one to remember for all concerned……………unsurpassed dignity indeed !
ForresDee says:
June 21, 2013 at 2:03 pm
0 0 Rate This
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
June 21, 2013 at 1:44 pm
one of Charlottes latest tweets has communication stating that £150K of damage, not in good shape, roof not safe – later on the soon to be legendary comment appears “YOU CAN’T CLEAN RUST”
SO, straight from Rangers that Ibrox is needing repaired
==================================================
I have to admit, that one made me spit out my breakfast the other morning in a fit of laughter, surprised it hasn’t gained more attention!
———————————–
that comment reminded me of Neil Youngs “Rust never Sleeps” album
I’m hoping Billy No Well gives “My My, Hey Hey (Out of the Blue)” the Sevco treatment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4Y1wDdMYH4
HirsutePursuit says:
June 21, 2013 at 9:54 am
You continually repeat the non-legal entity mantra as if it were a generally established fact. I would just like to tie down how this fact has been established in your own mind.
==================================================================
Wrt my interpretation of the legal position as to why I believe a ‘club’ is a non-legal entity I have explained this in a number of posts – a lot of which have been in reply to other posters, including yourself, who have responded to me.
As to continually repeating a position I am most certainly not as bad as at least one other poster who appears to believe that repetition equals fact. But I have an open mind on the legal side because it is only an interpretation of the various rules and law which apply. So your interpretation, which might be different from mine, is equally valid.
However, to me the legal position of a ‘club’ ultimately means nothing as I have my own personal view as to the meaning of ‘club’ which goes beyond the applicable laws/rules.
I believe a number of posters on here are similar, in one respect to me, because deep-down IMO they don’t care about the legal position either. All they want is for Rangers as a ‘club’ to have died and never be resurrected or at least not to have continued and many construct quite elaborate, but misguided, legal scenarios to justify their position. If that’s what they want to do then that’s fine by me as I don’t need to be proven correct.
I find however that most of these posters when asked to substitute their club for the recent history and present position of Rangers to tell me whether they would accept and believe that their club had died and the club that was currently playing was, in fact, a new club with no history. I have previously stated that as a Celtic supporter I wouldn’t accept that. But it’s a question which is a very personal one and IMO transcends the legal realities.
The other test is to show me a legal transaction that any SPL Club has undertaken in its own name and not that of its operating company. For those who believe that all clubs have a legal entity that should be a dawdle. Obviously full documentation would be required and not something written on the back of a fag packet or run-up with clip-art.
As to your desire to understand the workings of my brain that truly is an ambitious project and I wonder how much time you have on your hands. Indeed you might decide a psychiatrist should be called-in to assist with the task.
In the meantime you can get a glimpse of how my mind works vis a vis my personal understanding of ‘club’ by reading: ecobhoy says: June 21, 2013 at 9:27 am.
When I see a poster employ the thoughts and pronouncements of D&P and Doncaster to bolster their ‘legal’ argument against mine then I have a quiet laugh to myself and realise they have shot their bolt and have nothing left to interest me in an intellectual sense.
fara1968 says:
June 21, 2013 at 10:18 am
@ Ecobhoy
I always think that your posts in the morning have a different feel around them to the ones that you post much later at night. You do spend an awful lot of time on here for one man. Maybe you just ain’t a morning person or heaven forbid someone has you guys working shifts.
====================================================================
@ fara – What exactly are you trying to suggest? If you have a point to make why don’t you just make it and I will respond to it.
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
June 21, 2013 at 2:13 pm
that comment reminded me of Neil Youngs “Rust never Sleeps” album
I’m hoping Billy No Well gives “My My, Hey Hey (Out of the Blue)” the Sevco treatment
———————————————–
Out of the blue but hardly into the black…into the red would be more appropriate perhaps
Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes 15m
Within your remit Mr Bryson – chasing up agent fees? First attempt (see footer) contained erroneous email address.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/149173625/Sandy-Bryson …
another floater!
alex thomson @alextomo 1m
Both sides now enter a period of exchanging evidence prior to possible court action
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More
alex thomson @alextomo 1m
Craig Whyte says Rangers and Charles Green have responded to his Letter Before Claim. Imran Ahmad has not…
ecobhoy says:
June 21, 2013 at 2:30 pm
HirsutePursuit says:
June 21, 2013 at 9:54 am
You continually repeat the non-legal entity mantra as if it were a generally established fact. I would just like to tie down how this fact has been established in your own mind.
==================================================================
Wrt my interpretation of the legal position as to why I believe a ‘club’ is a non-legal entity I have explained this in a number of posts – a lot of which have been in reply to other posters, including yourself, who have responded to me.
As to continually repeating a position I am most certainly not as bad as at least one other poster who appears to believe that repetition equals fact. But I have an open mind on the legal side because it is only an interpretation of the various rules and law which apply. So your interpretation, which might be different from mine, is equally valid.
However, to me the legal position of a ‘club’ ultimately means nothing as I have my own personal view as to the meaning of ‘club’ which goes beyond the applicable laws/rules.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Your interpretation cannot be “equally valid” because you say that your have based your view on something other than the legal framework (ie your personal view”). HP is discussing the matter within the confines of the laws/rules but you are using subjective criteria.
schottie59 says:
June 21, 2013 at 3:13 pm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Email addresses for Mr Overman or Olverman aren’t the same
bogsdollox says:
June 21, 2013 at 12:12 pm
fara1968 says:
June 21, 2013 at 10:18 am
@ Ecobhoy
I always think that your posts in the morning have a different feel around them to the ones that you post much later at night. You do spend an awful lot of time on here for one man. Maybe you just ain’t a morning person or heaven forbid someone has you guys working shifts.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The one that covers the back shift has a bit of a temper and had a go at me yesterday afternoon for asking where all this circular, pointless and ultimately fruitless debate was taking us. The answer was apparently nowhere in particular. Meanwhile the interweb is almost full up.
=======================================================================
@bogsdollox – Are you actually stating that more than one person is posting as ecobhoy? Please clarify your position on this.
As to me having a temper and having a go at you I certainly think that’s a bit of an exaggeration – the posts are all there to read and I have undernoted them. As I don’t know you it would be wrong of me to suggest you have led a sheltered existence so I won’t.
——————————————————————————————–
UNDERNOTED
bogsdollox says:
June 20, 2013 at 4:00 pm
Is there some action that will come from all this theorising? If so, what?
ecobhoy says:
June 20, 2013 at 4:41 pm
Well – that’s a BIG question!
I have no idea what may or may not ultimately come from anything I post so really I can’t answer your question. However, I travel hopefully through life and adopt the glass half-full philosophy with the intention of emptying it quickly and getting another full one.
Essentially I post for my own pleasure and I leave it to others to make their own judgements – some will ignore me, some will read some of my posts, some might even respond. I am interested in responses and it doesn’t matter whether they are favourable or not as there is almost always something to be learnt from listening to others although on rare occasions there isn’t.
bogsdollox says:
June 20, 2013 at 4:47 pm
I’m going to take that as a no. Carry on clogging up the interweb, (The 2nd sentence was edited out later)
ecobhoy says:
June 20, 2013 at 4:59 pm
Thank you and please do whatever you wish – but I don’t need your permission and WILL carry on.
If TSFM feels I am clogging up anything he will no doubt let me know and I will abide by his instructions. I realise the discussion with HP recently joined by Duplesis are detailed, complex and open to differing interpretations and not everyone’s cup of tea. But it has been mature, informative and hasn’t stalled with lots of ways of looking at old and new issues being explored.
But if I or the topic is getting under your skin it might be better just to ignore my future posts so as not to cause you any aggravation.
bogsdollox says:
June 20, 2013 at 5:10 pm
Relax – I was only wondering if something was going to come of all this debating but as you note above on things like LNS it is up to the SFA/SPL/clubs to take action and as you rightly say that won’t happen.
On the oldco/Newco debate we’ve had that on here a million times. We think its a new club. Rangers fans don’t and until we can accomodate each other on those differing views we won’t unite all Scottish football fans for a campaign against the SFA demandin root and branch changes.
ecobhoy says:
June 20, 2013 at 5:30 pm
I am always relaxed except when I’m drunk and then I’m usually unconscious.
As I say I am fairly ambivalent about the Rangers old/new club issue because, as I have said before, if Celtic was in Rangers shoes then like the vast majority of Celtic fans I would be declaring that the old club lived on and hadn’t died. On emotive issues I always try to understand the opposing viewpoint to try and find a balance.
But on the oldco/newco club debate I have been trying to present what I see as the salients points as impartially as I can. It obviously has attracted a lot of TDs and if only a tiny fraction of those TDs have actually read any of my posts then I will be happy as they may have provided some food for thought.
If they have TD’d just because they have a fixed position and closed mind on the subject well that’s up to them. Having nearly seen Celtic die as a business I know I would have fought to retain the unbroken existence of the club just as Rangers supporters are currently doing.
ecobhoy says:
June 20, 2013 at 5:30 pm
bogsdollox says:
June 20, 2013 at 5:10 pm
Relax – I was only wondering if something was going to come of all this debating but as you note above on things like LNS it is up to the SFA/SPL/clubs to take action and as you rightly say that won’t happen.
On the oldco/Newco debate we’ve had that on here a million times. We think its a new club. Rangers fans don’t and until we can accomodate each other on those differing views we won’t unite all Scottish football fans for a campaign against the SFA demandin root and branch changes.
—————————————————————————————————————————————–
I am always relaxed except when I’m drunk and then I’m usually unconscious.
As I say I am fairly ambivalent about the Rangers old/new club issue because, as I have said before, if Celtic was in Rangers shoes then like the vast majority of Celtic fans I would be declaring that the old club lived on and hadn’t died. On emotive issues I always try to understand the opposing viewpoint to try and find a balance.
But on the oldco/newco club debate I have been trying to present what I see as the salients points as impartially as I can. It obviously has attracted a lot of TDs and if only a tiny fraction of those TDs have actually read any of my posts then I will be happy as they may have provided some food for thought.
If they have TD’d just because they have a fixed position and closed mind on the subject well that’s up to them. Having nearly seen Celtic die as a business I know I would have fought to retain the unbroken existance of the club just as Rangers supporters are currently doing.
This is a tad partizan in places……that said it is still, in the main, on the money………
Usual apologies if posted before.
http://etims.net/?p=2864
bogsdollox says:
June 21, 2013 at 3:20 pm
Firstly, please answer my post: ecobhoy says: June 21, 2013 at 3:27 pm
mind you …our hero loved to spell his name in various ways …and his DOB….hehehehehe
why does “throw it a biscuit ,maybe he,ll let you ” pop into my head everytime bogsdollox posts !
bogsdollox says:
June 21, 2013 at 3:24 pm
2 2 Rate This
schottie59 says:
June 21, 2013 at 3:13 pm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Email addresses for Mr Overman or Olverman aren’t the same
=======================================
Maybe that’s why they were forwarded by Amanda Miller. Of course it could be another of Bryson’s little gems in that he comes out later with “Oooh sorry, I must have sent the paperwork to the wrong email address. My bad”
Morag has such attraction that she has her own gravitational pull. Almost as great as a black hole into which five stars have disappeared.
Frankie Boyle
heehehehehe braw!
Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes 8m
Sandy Bryson doing all he can to prevent escalation? Alarm bells should have been ringing instead. http://www.scribd.com/doc/149187288/Sandy-Bryson-Intervenes …
”…..Sandy isbeing as patient as possible but has indicated that if the issue remains unresolved for much longer that he will require to refer the matter to the Judicial review committee ..” (from Charlotte’s post some minutes ago)
—
Good old Sandy! Doing his bit to help his fellows.
A foretaste of his incredibly helpful assistance during the LNS enquiry.!
bogsdollox says:
June 21, 2013 at 3:24 pm
“Email addresses for Mr Overman or Olverman aren’t the same”
—————-
Good spot bogsdollox. When Schottie59 responded and said Craig was spelled as ‘Graig’, I went back for a third look.
At the risk of sounding like a Charlotte apologist, I think there is a simple explanation which begs a further question.
Simple explanation: Bryson typed in the wrong e:mail address. Of course this would mean he would get a errror message in response. Charlotte provides three such messages wrongly addressed then the next is to Amanda Millar where Bryson askes her to forward the e:mail to Olverman. Amanda does this using the correct e:mail address. So Charlotte seems to be taking the mickey by showing Bryson up as an inept user of e:mail.
Further question: Charlotte lists Bryson’s three unsuccessful attempts and the message to Amanda. When this was forwarded to Rangers, Bryson’s three unsuccessful attempts could not have been entrained in the message he sent to Amanda I believe. I think Charlotte has just tagged these onto the same document to add colour. So if my scenario is accurate, how did she get hold of Bryson’s three unsuccessful attempts if they would never have been delivered?
As you said previously, its the small things that make life worth living.
Here’s the document again if anyone alse wishes to contribute possible explanations.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/149173625/Sandy-Bryson
arabest1 says:
June 21, 2013 at 3:29 pm
This is a tad partizan in places……that said it is still, in the main, on the money………
Usual apologies if posted before.
http://etims.net/?p=2864
============================
Bloody Brilliant, that should finally put the arguments to bed about same club.
Castofthousands says:
June 21, 2013 at 4:58 pm
0 1 Rate This
bogsdollox says:
June 21, 2013 at 3:24 pm
was more his spelling of “WHITE” not Whyte….
bogsdollox says:
June 21, 2013 at 4:09 pm
———————————
No one detests censorship more than me but there comes a point where I am thinking of asking TSFM to ban all discussion on the LNS enquiry sine die.
Can we just let that matter go, please? It is so much blue water under the bridge and there are many other better subjects to debate.
Whether RFC died with 54 or 49 titles matters not a jot.
They died, let’s get on with it.
54 (or 49) to 0 (more comment)
The National Stadium Sports Medicine Centre has had a Robert Ogilvie as a director since 2003
The SFA Football Museum Trust has a Robert Ogilvie as a director since 2003
The SFA has had a Robert Ogilvie as a director since 1990
Hampden Park Ltd has had a Robert Ogilvie as a director since 2011.
Is this, I wonder, an indication of the huge administrative talent of Robert Ogilvie, that man of sterling integrity without whose steadying, modestly secret , hand – some people allege- Scottish Football would not be where it is today?
I expect that the said Robert , perhaps reluctantly accepting 20 grand from the SFA, also accepts, with the same reluctance, some trifling annual sum from each of the other companies.
So, good people, no need to worry that Robert is on the breadline.
slimshady
I agree with you totally
they died with 49 titles and let that be an end to it
ecobhoy says:
June 21, 2013 at 2:30 pm
HirsutePursuit says:
June 21, 2013 at 9:54 am
ecobhoy says:
June 21, 2013 at 9:27 am
====================================
is this statement referring to:
A). Your own definition of a football club? i.e. The cultural entity “owned” by its supporters.
B). The SPL’s definition of a “Club”? According to its Articles & Rules.
C). The LNS Commission? From the determination.
D). The SFA’s definition of an association football club? According to its Articles or Club Licensing Rules.
E). UEFA’s statutes? Multiple sources.
F). Some combination of the above or something else?
You continually repeat the non-legal entity mantra as if it were a generally established fact. I would just like to tie down how this fact has been established in your own mind.
=======================================================
My question was in relation to which definition of “club” you were referring when making the statement above. It is, of course, your prerogative to ignore the request; but my question appears to stand unanswered.
I do not have a single definition of the word “club”. Its specific meaning, IMO, is derived from the context in which it is used and the particular meaning assigned to it be the text within various document, articles and rules. I think you believe it has a single “legal” meaning; but I’m not certain. This is why I asked.
So when you say “It is a fact that a football club can’t engage in commercial contracts simply because it isn’t a legal entity and therefore has no legal ability to contract”; is this statement based simply on your personal view? Perhaps not; but could you confirm.
I think this is partly true; but I think most ,on this forum, simply wish to see fairness applied. Personally, I have no problem with the continuing cultural/spiritual entity passing from the old club to the new club; I do have a problem with those who seek to circumvent the regulations by ignoring or fabricating the meaning of words or expressions within those regulations.
See my previous response.
A personal response; but not sure how this is relevant to my question
The other test is to show me a legal transaction that any SPL Club has undertaken in its own name and not that of its operating company. For those who believe that all clubs have a legal entity that should be a dawdle. Obviously full documentation would be required and not something written on the back of a fag packet or run-up with clip-art.Is this a reference to the Ticketus invoices? What relevance has this to my question?
I have no desire to understand the workings of your brain. Really! I don’t! I would simply like you to tell me which definition of a club you were referring to when you said. “It is a fact that a football club can’t engage in commercial contracts simply because it isn’t a legal entity and therefore has no legal ability to contract”.
Because I know you are not an imbecile, I know that you fully understand the context in which these examples were used. It is a shame that you choose to misrepresent them. This appears to be a recurring theme! At the same time, it’s nice that you are keeping yourself amused.
HP and ecobhoy, This is getting a wee bit out of hand.
The two of you have a lot more to offer the blog.
As Slim said, time to let it go .
(you could settle it with pistols at dawn )
HP is really hearing an Echo! hahaha ….that tale of the precise and detailed summing up from a distinguished QC ,when after the Learned Judge replies “I am sorry but I am none the wiser!”
the QC says “No my Lord,but you are better informed”
I would say HP is the QC……..braw!
Tic 6709 says:
June 21, 2013 at 5:50 pm
3 0 Rate This
HP and ecobhoy, This is getting a wee bit out of hand.
The two of you have a lot more to offer the blog.
As Slim said, time to let it go .
(you could settle it with pistols at dawn )
========================================
At one level I agree with you. I have already served a two match ban for exactly the same offence. 🙁
On the other hand, the SPL’s misrepresentation of existing regulations and the SFA’s weakness and collaboration is pretty much what this blog is all about. I post here because I think that sport cannot exist without fairness and we should call out those who seek to cheat.
Fairness should be written in the regulation. The regulations should be applied to everyone in exactly the same way. If the regulations are ignored or mis-applied to the benefit (or detriment) of a particular participant, we should call them out as cheats or simply walk away from the sport.
At this stage, I feel it is still worth calling them out.
Castofthousands says:
June 21, 2013 at 4:58 pm
bogsdollox says:
June 21, 2013 at 3:24 pm
“Email addresses for Mr Overman or Olverman aren’t the same”
—————-
Good spot bogsdollox. When Schottie59 responded and said Craig was spelled as ‘Graig’, I went back for a third look.
At the risk of sounding like a Charlotte apologist, I think there is a simple explanation which begs a further question.
Simple explanation: Bryson typed in the wrong e:mail address. Of course this would mean he would get a errror message in response. Charlotte provides three such messages wrongly addressed then the next is to Amanda Millar where Bryson askes her to forward the e:mail to Olverman. Amanda does this using the correct e:mail address. So Charlotte seems to be taking the mickey by showing Bryson up as an inept user of e:mail.
Further question: Charlotte lists Bryson’s three unsuccessful attempts and the message to Amanda. When this was forwarded to Rangers, Bryson’s three unsuccessful attempts could not have been entrained in the message he sent to Amanda I believe. I think Charlotte has just tagged these onto the same document to add colour. So if my scenario is accurate, how did she get hold of Bryson’s three unsuccessful attempts if they would never have been delivered?
As you said previously, its the small things that make life worth living.
—————————————————————————————————————————–
I did mention previously that CF has shown emails with no time stamps, just a date, so I assume they are cut and paste jobs (edited) to show a certain path
Golly – how did we miss that! TU has a `football debt` ! [it facilitated football deals and they get a whopping huge percentage just like football agents] Why don`t they get on the blower to the SFA to smooth payment along. Tip: S. Bryson is the bloke over at Hampden that sorts these things out. 😉
HP, I have never disagreed with any of your posts,in fact I have quoted some of them to friends and foes.
I also agree with your above post. It’s just that I think you are being dragged into a different agenda.
You have always had the respect of myself and many others on here ,long may it continue.
Castofthousands queried on June 21, 2013 at 4:58 pm
Simple explanation: Bryson typed in the wrong e:mail address. Of course this would mean he would get a errror message in response. Charlotte provides three such messages wrongly addressed then the next is to Amanda Millar where Bryson askes her to forward the e:mail to Olverman. Amanda does this using the correct e:mail address. So Charlotte seems to be taking the mickey by showing Bryson up as an inept user of e:mail.
Further question: Charlotte lists Bryson’s three unsuccessful attempts and the message to Amanda. When this was forwarded to Rangers, Bryson’s three unsuccessful attempts could not have been entrained in the message he sent to Amanda I believe. I think Charlotte has just tagged these onto the same document to add colour. So if my scenario is accurate, how did she get hold of Bryson’s three unsuccessful attempts if they would never have been delivered?
_________________________________________________________
Single email with only the times removed. I tweeted that he’d made a mistake with the email address. The times have been removed as they screw up due to a combination of my time zone, current location and proxy servers, and client used, hence why I remove the time element and nothing else (unless redaction required for safety concerns).
I’ve mentioned this time and time again.
http://alzipratu.wordpress.com/2013/06/21/company-law-for-dummies/ …
this means you! hehehehehe braw !
http://www.onfieldsofgreen.com/the-land-of-the-blind/
Latest On Fields of Green for you fine fellows.
Sandy asks for her to send it on to Mr Overman.
that’s the sort of thing used to get you chucked out of the cup – by Sandy.
maybe still does.
@HirsutePursuit on 20/6/13 at 3:03pm
Thanks for that – the position in terms of the April 2010 Articles and the Companies Act 1985 is pretty much as I expected, although I couldn’t be bothered to check!
@HirsutePursuit on 20/6/13 at 3:48pm
I don’t think we can get away from the general position that “owner and operator of a club” and “club” are defined as 2 separate things in the Articles, and I think that any interpretation which treats them as the same thing is questionable on that basis alone.
I can see in principle that an owner and operator only becomes a Member when the owner and operator acquires a share – so that “Member” is a subset of owner and operator rather than its equivalent. In reality though, in order to be bound by the Articles in the first place an owner and operator will have to be a Member, and so in practice every Member also equals owner and operator of club, and accordingly equals club in terms of your argument.
I just can’t see that the Articles can reasonably be construed in such a way that all of these terms mean the same thing – i.e. the club’s company.
Getting back to the use of the Companies Act 2006’s definitions as regards the SPL’s articles, and in particular the definition of “undertaking,” as I’m sure you’re aware, Article 4 is actually just a holdover from the model articles provided under the regulations propagated under the 2006 Act and its predecessors.
Pretty much every Company incorporated after the introduction of the model Articles will include a similar clause- but that’s because the terminology used in the Articles about how the Company is organised will try to reflect the terminology of the Companies Acts for obvious reasons.
I think it’s one thing to use the Companies Acts as an aid to interpretation to a Company’s own rules and (in lay terms) constitution, but it’s another thing to use them as a means of defining the nature of its shareholders. In short I think you’re trying to use Article 4 in a manner for which it was not intended – and this I suppose takes me back to the caveat within the Article itself that the 2006 Act is to be used unless the context otherwise requires.
Finally, I should say that I agree that Rangers are not currently a club in the SPL sense – but of course when boiled down, that means nothing more than Rangers are not an SPL club, which is obvious.
Finally Finally, I don’t want to step on ecobhoy’s toes, but I have my own thoughts on what’s meant by non-legal entity in the context of whether club and company are separate things, and I’m going to try to post something on this later tonight.
slimshady61 says:
June 21, 2013 at 5:17 pm
bogsdollox says:
June 21, 2013 at 4:09 pm
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I’m pleased that you agree with me.
alex thomson@alextomo
Both sides now enter a period of exchanging evidence prior to possible court action
#KettleOnConstantBoil
Overtime for PR guys kicks in ….. should be fun
RIFC waken up and recieving info that was not deemed important enough to warrant extension of internal investigation ….. #SqueakyBumTime
SFA investigation NOT closed yet so evidence is relevent … #OnGoing
Q. What is full remit of SFA investigation …. Not sure I have seen that ? ….. Must check !
Will SFA request info ? ….
Did CW forward his evidence to SFA ……. A Question that Chatlotte may be able to help with ?
if they are the same club why
did CG and the rest of his money is king peepil want to pay £3m more to buy it
were the players allowed to just walk away from their contracts
were they not paid 2nd place prise money from last term
not seeded in the SC
Were they given the privilege of starting in Div 3
Are they not allowed to participate in European competition for 3 yrs apposed to the 1 yr BAN the old club received for not submitting audited accounts .
Did Regan not say they were the same club when asked on TV (if they were he would have been delighted to state the fact ).
Have the peepil in charge of this same club not reported the theft of over £2m in 2nd place prize money owed to them .
Have the peepil in charge and the fans not marched on Hampden to demand to know why they are not still in the SPL
have the sheriff officers not been back to Ibrokes to collect the office furniture they chalked up when the old club stole the players tax money .
Have they had their full membership to the much heralded (by triggers broom fc ) ECA changed to an associate membership .
Were they an associate member of the SFA at the same time as the old club were members of the SFA /SPL
Why were they not allowed to play any pre season friendlies last season .
Why when found guilty of not declaring the full extent of players contract did the fine end up at the old clubs door and not triggers broom fc .
Did the club have to re apply for under a different name .
Then again I suppose there is a simple explanation for all of the above ,are you online Mr Bryson I await your view with bated breath
sorry for the spelling mistakes
I blame the schools
newts
what is full remit of SFA ,,,,may I suggest AT phone Ibrokes with his enquiry as phoning the SFA will prove to be a more drawn out process as they will have to have any reply proof read by their puppet masters from Govan
Castofthousands says:
June 21, 2013 at 4:58 pm
bogsdollox says:
June 21, 2013 at 3:24 pm
“Email addresses for Mr Overman or Olverman aren’t the same”
—————-
Good spot bogsdollox. When Schottie59 responded and said Craig was spelled as ‘Graig’, I went back for a third look.
At the risk of sounding like a Charlotte apologist, I think there is a simple explanation which begs a further question.
Simple explanation: Bryson typed in the wrong e:mail address. Of course this would mean he would get a errror message in response. Charlotte provides three such messages wrongly addressed then the next is to Amanda Millar where Bryson askes her to forward the e:mail to Olverman. Amanda does this using the correct e:mail address. So Charlotte seems to be taking the mickey by showing Bryson up as an inept user of e:mail.
Further question: Charlotte lists Bryson’s three unsuccessful attempts and the message to Amanda. When this was forwarded to Rangers, Bryson’s three unsuccessful attempts could not have been entrained in the message he sent to Amanda I believe. I think Charlotte has just tagged these onto the same document to add colour. So if my scenario is accurate, how did she get hold of Bryson’s three unsuccessful attempts if they would never have been delivered?
As you said previously, its the small things that make life worth living.
Here’s the document again if anyone alse wishes to contribute possible explanations.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/149173625/Sandy-Bryson
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Just one last question. Why are the timings on the missing?
I’m not comfortable with the way stuff is being doctored or the way it is being presented.
pau1mart1n says:
June 21, 2013 at 8:10 pm
Sandy asks for her to send it on to Mr Overman.
that’s the sort of thing used to get you chucked out of the cup – by Sandy.
maybe still does.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That was my other question. Sandy knows these guys but can’t get their email address right or spell the name correctly.
And just one last question. As the Registrations dogsbody at the SFA why is he dealing with disputes over RFC not paying an Agent?
Newtz,
I can’t find it but I’m pretty sure the investigation was cancelled and it merely merited a single line somewhere in another report about reconstruction!
Charlotte Fakeovers says:
June 21, 2013 at 7:34 pm
“I tweeted that he’d made a mistake with the email address.”
—————–
Thanks for the response Charlotte. I can’t recall the tweet. You have had a fairly prolific output and I am now straining to keep pace.
I wasn’t questioning the authenticity of the information, I just wondered how you would have obtained access to e:mails that never arrived at their RFC addressee. I threw it out to the wider blog to see if my logic was flawed. To me it suggested your information sources could have stretched as far as the SFA offices.
Of course you are under no obligation to confirm this. I hoped other contributors might either confirm my suspicion or offer an alternative train of logic.
Charlotte Fakeovers says:
June 21, 2013 at 7:34 pm
“Single email with only the times removed.”
———————–
You’ve already answered my question. I’ll have to rethink my logic.
jonnyod says:
June 21, 2013 at 9:08 pm
———————————
@jr eg – The RIFC remit was restricted to events prior to June 14th ….. #GreenWash
———–
ForresDee says:
June 21, 2013 at 9:14 pm
———————————-
If that is the case ……………. #BlueRinse
———————————-
#LackOfAccountability
#LackOfTransparency
#AbdicationOfGovernance
—————————-
It warrants pressure on SFA to state current position and clarify position, As Custodians of the game in Scotland they have a duty to answer relevant question regarding more serious and specific questions of ….
#Collusion
#Complicity
#Whytewash
#GreenWash
#BlueWash
……