The Vice Closes

ByBig Pink

The Vice Closes

News in The Times of Celtic’s letter to Stewart Regan regarding that club’s wish for a Judicial Review into the SFA’s handing of the Rangers EBT crisis increases the pressure on Regan considerably.

The SFA Chief Executive’s ill-advised spat with Pie and Bovril editor David McDonald this week may even be a sign he is devolving, and at least it demonstrates that, despite Twitter disaster after Twitter disaster, Regan doesn’t learn readily from his mistakes.

Also, it appears from the contents of Celtic’s letter that their target in terms of a Judicial Review has been the SFA, and not the SPFL, all along. That chimes with developments as I understand them elsewhere in this process.

Even though it now appears that Celtic and a fan group are seeking a Judicial Review it is by no means certain that it will ever happen.

Having a sound legal basis for it, obtaining standing, and having a reasonable chance of victory are all variables in the equation, and each has to be weighed carefully before progress can be made.

Having said that, if the reason any Judicial Review fails is because of that lawyer-speak we have been subjected to of late, the SFA may yet come to believe that hiding behind legalese is neither in football’s best interests, nor in the interests of the individuals at the SFA who are under fire.

The bottom line as they, is this;

Rangers did acquire an unfair advantage over others by their use of EBTs. The SPL themselves were flabbergasted when Sandy Bryson proclaimed his eponymous ‘imperfectly registered’ doctrine. They all know – everyone in every board room in the country, in every SFA department, in every SPFL office – that cheating took place.

In fact and in spirit.

The jaws of the vice are tightening as we speak. The fans group who are building a case for a Judicial Review give its handle a wee turn every day, and the leak of the Celtic letter to Regan reduces his wiggle room even further.

It is surely now just a matter of time before this ridiculous and infamous chapter in Scotland’s football history is dealt with.

Of course people will accuse anyone who is a Celtic fan, or an Aberdeen fan, or a Dundee United fan (clubs whose rivalry with Rangers is keenest) of partisanship in this affair. That is mere deflection and bears no scrutiny whatsoever.

As a Celtic fan myself, I can’t deny that I am angry at what took place between (at least) 2000 and 2009, but does that mean that as a Celtic fan I have to recuse myself from having an opinion?

And as a former employee of the club, am I excluded from any conversation about the integrity of our game because the club at the centre of the scandal is Rangers? Pull the other one.

SFM, and the wider fans’ movement has been consistently appalled by this sorry chapter over the last six years, but is no kangaroo court. We are not asking for conclusions to be drawn without due process. We see unexplained regulatory anomalies in the processes at Ibrox and Hampden which have never to our knowledge been addressed. We simply wish that they should be.

Further, if my club was at the heart of this nonsense, I think I’d be incandescent with rage that they had allowed me to revel in the joy of winning all those trophies, only to have the achievements cheapened and nullified by their mismanagement. I would regard that as the ultimate betrayal (and Celtic fans can give you a list of club betrayals as long as Mao’s march).

I’d be thinking that those same business practices that apparently had given us so much, had actually caused to fail catastrophically. Having taken delight in the honours, I would have to accept the consequences too.

The SFA, by their corrupt approach to the demise of Rangers, have denied Rangers fans the catharsis that they could benefit from. In fact the authorities’ refusal to deal with the situation in terms of their own rules it has fostered a siege mentality to exist at Ibrox.

This in turn has enabled a series of charlatans, including the current board, to drive the bus in the direction of a brick wall for the last five years.

After the phenomenally successful share issue (something that can’t happen again whilst King is in charge for regulatory reasons), the new Rangers were given seed capital which should have flowered by now with the regular watering of their huge fan base. That £22m, which should have seen the club competing at the top by now has gone, and the potential which existed in 2012 has been diminished severely.

It’s no fun being a fan of Scottish football in the midst of this. But we make a fundamental error if we think that Rangers fans are enjoying it. They are victims in this too, and they have been defrauded by the Murray-era shenanigans, and the circus performers who have been on the scene since then – every bit as much as the rest of us.

The honourable thing (no laughing at the back) for the SFA to do would be to agree to Celtic’s request for a Judicial Review.

If the pressure is turned up another notch or three on the SFA, then maybe we will all get closure, and perhaps finally we can move on.

About the author

Big Pink administrator

Big Pink is John Cole; a former schoolteacher based in the West of Scotland, He is also a print and broadcast journalist who is engaged in the running of SFM . Former gigs include Newstalk 106, the Celtic View, and Channel67. A Celtic fan, he is also the voice of our podcast initiative.

875 Comments so far

Corrupt officialPosted on9:22 pm - Sep 8, 2017

  I am more than a little confused. 
    The SPL, representing 42 clubs have invited the SFA to participate in a review.
    The SFA representing the same 42 clubs say nay…………………………..WTF?

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on10:09 pm - Sep 8, 2017

NEEPHEIDSEPTEMBER 8, 2017 at 15:45 31 0  Rate This 
If it is correct that Celtic’s 5 year old letter to the SFA was leaked to The Times by the SFA’s former employee and current PR guru, Mr Broadfoot, presumably as the opening shot in a “divide and rule” campaign, then the SFA have some serious questions to answer.
What i don’t get is whoever leaked celtic’s 5 year old letter to the Times. Why did the Times decide to run with it?. It’s a 5 year old letter.Maybe if it was ran in the Times straight after the SC case you could see the relevance, but
Why just before the SFA’s EBT statement.
Did the Times have prior knowledge the SFA were about to release a statement?
How long did the Times have the letter? If it was leaked to them on the same day as the SFA were about to release there statement, something does not sit right. The Times release of the letter After the SFA’S statement on EBT’s would not then have looked so dodgy.
Did the Times given the leaked letter jump the gun too fast?

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on10:18 pm - Sep 8, 2017

I’ve now read through Andrew Dickson’s full evidence to the FTTT.  I had doubted Mr Thomson’s performance in representing HMRC during the appeals process, but I can see that he did a decent job in his questioning of Dickson.

I’m just amazed how the FTTT reached a majority decision in favour of Rangers, when evidence such as that from Dickson was presented to them.

Mr Thomson managed to extract, from Dickson, the admission the the players were remunerated for their services as footballers through the Trust, an observation that was ultimately shared by the Supreme Court and a key element in their decision.

Q. You have a football player.   He’s coming to the club to play for the club. He’s going to provide service to the club by playing football at football matches.   That’s what he’s there for; agreed?
A.  Correct.
Q.   He’s entitled to be remunerated for that?
A.  Correct.
Q.   Normally that would be through salary, appearance  money and bonuses, being the main things, and maybe some fringe bits and pieces which we don’t need to bother about.   There are various  contractual obligations arising from that contract of employment.   The employee has a number of obligations as an employee; you agree with that?
A.  Yes.
Q.  And the club has a whole raft of obligations as  an employer?
A.  Yes.
Q.   What we have are two documents, one of which says that it’s a contract of employment and the other says  nothing about what it is but we call it a side letter.  The  only reason, Mr Dickson, that the player is getting the  side letter is because he is supplying his service to the club.  Agreed?
A.  Correct.

and also:

Q.  What is the player doing in return for getting these hundreds of thousands of pounds through the Remuneration Trust, Mr Dickson?
A.  Playing football.
Q.  Playing football?  Providing a service to the club; yes?
A.  Yes.  Yes, yes

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on10:56 pm - Sep 8, 2017

JOHN CLARKSEPTEMBER 8, 2017 at 19:45 
A timely and very useful statement by the Scottish Football Supporters Association (SFSA)-the truly independent football supporters’ association ( currnt membership at 69,000 plus,  is to be found on this link wonders at the pig-headedness of the SFA which seems to be so afraid to have light shed upon its actions that it is prepared to defy both the SPFL and 69 000 paying football supporters!They claim to have behaved with unimpeachable integrity. We find it hard to relate that claim to the frantic, panicky bullying of clubs and cries of ‘Armageddon’ in the attempt to shoehorn a new creation into successivley the SPL, SFL 1 and SFL 2.As said before, merely self-certifying your integrity cuts no ice when there is evidence that your integrity is questionable.

It’s always a clear sign that a person, or organisstion, that claims to always act with integrity, has none, for if it did always act with integrity, it would be obvious to us all, and no such claims would be necessary.

In fact, a sign that the SFA does always act with integrity would have been to not only agree to participate in a review, but to insist that it was carried out with extreme transparency in a way that brooks no doubt of the review body’s honesty and impartiality.

Finding excuses not to do something is the exact opposite of acting with integrity!

View Comment

Bogs DolloxPosted on11:31 pm - Sep 8, 2017

September 8, 2017 at 22:56 
Finding excuses not to do something is the exact opposite of acting with integrity!

As is pushing Darryl Densefeet out to arms length from the SFA a few weeks ago and suddenly he’s on almost every BBC Scotland sports outlet pushing an agenda. Suspicious or what. He’s not even a very nice person. But at least “plausabile deniability” has been established.

Then we get a 5 year old letter that serves two purposes.

One – it has heavyweights on hear apologising profusely to Lawell because they accused him of doing nothing. Whereas the opposite is true – 5 years ago he was playing the “long game” and should be applauded for that. But apart from the odd aside from him not much was said as the New The Rangers was resurrected for the financial benefit of “The Old Firm”, SPFL, SFA, BT, Sky and the hasbeen pundits who have nothing to say about our game but get a wage anyway.

Two- As others have said, the immaculately timed SFA letter to all clubs suggests Celtic are the only “club” tracking this issue ” – relentlessly” for 5 years. Which is of course untrue.
One of the purposes of the letter and media frenzy is to defelect from the demands for a full judicial review and to channel it into an “SFA/SPFL review” which would have a remit not to deliver a verdict to strip titles. We should be happy with a “review” the Record/Mail will cry shortly and if you’re no. Then you are zealot.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on11:49 pm - Sep 8, 2017


One of the purposes of the letter and media frenzy is to defelect from the demands for a full judicial review and to channel it into an “SFA/SPFL review” which would have a remit not to deliver a verdict to strip titles. We should be happy with a “review” the Record/Mail will cry shortly and if you’re no. Then you are zealot.

‘Defelect’, Bogs, the word intrigues me.

Was it a typo, the latest management speak buzz word, or a word you’ve invented yourself, both describing the action of diverting of the brown stuff on it’s way from the fan? An excellent word to use when discussing the SFA and/or SPFL! Let’s hope the denizens of both these organisations start a sort of tennis match, ‘defelecting’ said brown stuff back and forward  between the two offices at Hampden!

To you, Stewart, no to you Neil…to you…SPLAT!

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on12:04 am - Sep 9, 2017

The problem for the SFA is that it provided a signature for the 5WA and authorised the transfer of Rangers full membership to Sevco Scotland.

In doing so, it tacitly accepted the SPL assertion that an association football club could be transplanted from an insolvent corporate body to a brand new and shiny corporate body.

When the SPFL called for an SFA led enquiry, it was basically saying, if we’re going down, you’re coming with us.

If and when the LNS decision comes apart, it will lay open the lie of continuity. The deceit in propagating that lie may yet lead us back to the Court of Session, because that lie allowed the prospectus for the share issue by a brand new football club to incorrectly claim the honours of the recently deceased club.

The SPL may have instigated the falsehood, but the SFA (and the SFL – by listing an incorrect history on its website) accepted the lie.

Investors in the new club may well feel that the governing bodies were, at best negligent, at worst conspirators in a fraud that has left many of them seriously out of pocket.

The SFA had a duty of care to ensure that the SPL acted with honesty and integrity. If it is found to have colluded with the league in such a way that a falsehood has led to financial decision making – the SFA is in serious trouble.

The SPL have an arguable defence that it believed its interpretation was correct. And in any case, its rules only apply to how it, as an organization wishes to perceive the status of the new club. It had no power to provide any guidance on the nature of a football club in a more general sense. The SPL could not tell the SFL what to put on its website nor instruct the SFA to provide clarity on that point. The SFA had ample opportunity to make comment on the LNS commission, to provide a clear answer to the ASA, to state a clear position on the nature of a football club.

The SPL may later say it had misunderstood or misinterpreted it own articles, but at least its interpretation can be argued. There is no corresponding arguments that can be made from a reading of the SFA or SFL articles.

If the SPL got it wrong, it will staunchly argue it was a decision made in good faith. The SFA will have to explain, from its articles, how it allowed the claim of continuity to go uncorrected.

If it cannot do so, and it can be shown that the SFA have been negligent in its oversight responsibilities, that is sufficient for a claim of civil fraud.

So the SPL may have started the lie for financial gain, but the SFA is also in the dock for (at the very least) its incompetence.

View Comment

Bogs DolloxPosted on12:13 am - Sep 9, 2017

AllyjamboSeptember 8, 2017 at 23:49 
One of the purposes of the letter and media frenzy is to defelect from the demands for a full judicial review and to channel it into an “SFA/SPFL review” which would have a remit not to deliver a verdict to strip titles. We should be happy with a “review” the Record/Mail will cry shortly and if you’re no. Then you are zealot. ____________
‘Defelect’, Bogs, the word intrigues me.
Was it a typo, the latest management speak buzz word, or a word you’ve invented yourself, both describing the action of diverting of the brown stuff on it’s way from the fan? An excellent word to use when discussing the SFA and/or SPFL! Let’s hope the denizens of both these organisations start a sort of tennis match, ‘defelecting’ said brown stuff back and forward  between the two offices at Hampden!
To you, Stewart, no to you Neil…to you…SPLAT!
Good spot. Jambo. But you missed my other new word as in “plausabile deniability” in the first part of my post.

The point being, that as we all know, we are being fed keech by a PR cabal who are not fit for purpose and who are now bordering on criminality should they keep it up.

When I say the PR guys are not fit for purpose I step back and ask why they have been allowed to become so central to football at Rangers and the SFA/SPFL, what on earth is there to cover up because football is played on the pitch.

Its not normally played in the newspapers either – but e.g. Destabilise Hearts best player and wage structure by trying to get him for nowhere near his value but never intending to go through with the purchase through lack of money – but heyho a competitor for 3rd place is destablised.

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on1:04 am - Sep 9, 2017

This morning I had a feeling that Celtic were behind the leak of the letter, but Peter Lawwell was insistent today that Celtic wanted to maintain pressure in private and to avoid the green/blue thing. Tris was pretty certain that the SFA had leaked it through Darryl Broadfoot to his pal Ewing Grahame (the writer of The Times piece).

Tris was correct. Celtic are furious. Expect to hear from them tomorrow.

This smacks of desperation by the SFA. Their preferred mode of operation up to now is to give this as low a profile as possible. Their new strategy has been employed because the old one wasn’t working very well. From their perspective, there is a huge risk in airing the thing unnecessarily. However the pressure from the SPFL, from Celtic, and the real threat of an imminent legal challenge has forced their hand.

Celtic’s response is necessary because the SFA have painted a huge target on their back. The response will be measured, but striking the correct tone will be a crucial step towards building a coalition of stakeholders to break up the jobs for the boys mentality at Hampden and the inherent dishonesty and corruption that comes with that mindset.

At least Darryl Broadfoot is doing his job, whatever the distaste with which we might view his methods; Regan on the other hand is doing exactly the opposite. Scottish football is not safe in the hands of someone who confers with a member club on the form of untruth to be transmitted to other member clubs, to UEFA and to the press.

Scottish football’s wider interest, lon,g medium or short term, have never been served by Regan. Neither are they served by the likes of Dickson and Ogilvie, nor a host of others.

They all need to be gone, and the sooner the better. 

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:14 am - Sep 9, 2017

HirsutePursuitSeptember 9, 2017 at 00:04
‘… because that lie allowed the prospectus for the share issue by a brand new football club to incorrectly claim the honours of the recently deceased club.’
Yes, indeed.

And what a shabby, shabby dirty wee con that was, when we look back on it!

A con supported by the SFA and the SPL and the SFL, the members of all of which companies had  themselves been lied to and ripped off and cheated by one of their number!
Utterly inexplicable.

God Almighty! that what we used to love , football as a sport, with notions of fair play and honest endeavour, should have been so betrayed by its very administrators and ‘guardians’!

And they think they can carry on as before!

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:30 am - Sep 9, 2017

Big PinkSeptember 9, 2017 at 01:04
‘..At least Darryl Broadfoot is doing his job, ‘
And being wonderfully assisted by BBC radio Scotland, funded by you and me!
Who will cleanse that Pacific Quay of tide-borne ordure called ‘Sportsound’

View Comment

bigboab1916Posted on1:46 am - Sep 9, 2017
Remember they all dined at the table and took the scraps, this debate was when they felt good about  the outcomes and everyone else was spiteful against the institution, the guy on this phone in speaks the truth and is giving full barrells by Spiers at the end when they start to roll the fade him out part. The guy rips them an new arse and defends Alex thomson as Speirs has tried to discredit a fellow journalist seeking the truth, they describe Thomson as an overexcited journalist, should they all not be this is is and was the biggest scandal in the game, journalists are usually awarded for stories like this. Thomson is a fine journalist and has been in the places Spiers would run from, this interview is the most devious and one sided back slapping shite you might hear for a while.
John Clark i feel the same as you do there is not one BBC pundit worth their salt, they are terrified of having to go back to real jobs and too many  have an easy ride, Spiers is a weasel and a crawling back stabbing wee shite.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on8:48 am - Sep 9, 2017

The issue the Regan cabal now have is had they gone, as HP says, for rank incompetence in 2012 they might just have got us past everything else.  A begrudging acceptance that the situation was clearly wrong (that what happened happened and wha’s like us kind of thing) but at least they had fallen on their swords for doing so.  

It was them them trying to bluff their way through it that was/is the nail in their coffin.  At least Ofilvie had the sense to get outta Dodge.  But leaving now simply won’t be enough.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on9:02 am - Sep 9, 2017

Reflecting on  the Dickson transcript I am left thinking here is another dodgy accountant walking the corridors of Ibrox.
Dickson can’t see a scam when it is in front of him and actually helps operate it without question.
Mini Murray is a fantisist seeking to use other people money.
King (If he even passed his exams) we all know about from the SA courts.
No exactly a good reflection of the profession.
Speaking of which where did Essex Beancounter go? Can’t recall seeing any posts for a long time.
Always hope those who have maybe just tailed off from the site  are well and nothing untoward ‘re health etc.

View Comment

causaludendiPosted on10:30 am - Sep 9, 2017

Wottpi, EBC posts from time to time on JJ’s site.

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on11:52 am - Sep 9, 2017

View Comment

Carfins FinestPosted on12:05 pm - Sep 9, 2017

Looks like the gloves are off. Celtic Statement today.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on12:07 pm - Sep 9, 2017

JEAN7BRODIESEPTEMBER 9, 2017 at 11:52 2 0  Rate This
The Club believes that such a review is essential if a line is to be drawn under this whole affair.
What the SFA should have stated days ago…..The SFA believes that such a review is essential if a line is to be drawn under this whole affair.Not raking over old coals like the statement they put out.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on12:40 pm - Sep 9, 2017

The gloves are off now with the Celtic statement today.  However, as long as other clubs refuse to get involved the SFA can be comfortable in the knowledge it is a Celtic v Rangers thing, and that the media will, for the most part, side with their view.  The statement from Celtic doesn’t indicate any demand for title stripping, only for what they clearly know to be independently acknowledged. As they said, an inability to apply disciplinary measures is no reason to not have a review. 

Where I do have difficulty is the view that we can somehow end up with a ‘reformed’ SFA. In my lifetime the SFA, the Scottish media, and the Scottish Establishment have viewed a successful Rangers winning more often than not as being the best thing for Scottish football, and Scotland in general. In my view that has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt since 2012, from the First Minister of Scotland down. How can we ever get an SFA who will NOT think the same way? It’s the way the Scottish establishment is, and will be for some considerable time yet. Regan came here with no pro-Rangers baggage, yet look what’s happened to him!

View Comment

jimboPosted on12:49 pm - Sep 9, 2017

The link provided in the Celtic FC statement is a copy of the recent letters between PL & SR.  Sorry can’t copy and paste segments, but the letter from Peter Lawwell to S. Regan dated 7 Sep. 2017 is a brilliant read.  PL ties SR’s arguments in knots.  Very hard hitting.

View Comment

RMcGeddawnPosted on1:04 pm - Sep 9, 2017

That statement 
IN the light of all information that has now become available, Celtic has been in correspondence with the Scottish Football Association in pursuit of the Club’s belief that an independent review should be commissioned to consider the events that led to the liquidation of Rangers Oldco and the governance issues arising from those events. This is exactly the same position as adopted by the SPFL board on behalf of all Scotland’s 42 professional clubs. 
The Club believes that such a review is essential if a line is to be drawn under this whole affair. On that basis, Scottish football could learn lessons and move on. The Club considers, however, that failure to carry out a full review of these events and issues, which have been without precedent in Scottish football, would represent a failure in transparency, accountability and leadership. 
Celtic was, therefore, disappointed to note that the Scottish Football Association board has confirmed that it does not intend to commission such a review. Throughout these processes, Celtic’s consistent objective has been to establish the full facts, which is surely the least that all stakeholders in Scottish football – including the supporters of all clubs – are entitled to, and to learn the appropriate lessons. That remains our position.  
With the agreement of the Scottish FA, recent correspondence between the Club and the Scottish FA can be accessed using this link
That link
The new TAL – Transparency Accountability Leadership

View Comment

Billy BoycePosted on1:12 pm - Sep 9, 2017

Thank you, Jean, for that link.
This morning, as if on cue, Aberdeen’s chairman, Stuart Milne, gave an interview in the Daily Record expressing his desire to move on and not rake over the coals.  I smiled at the timing of this helpful voice on behalf of the beleaguered SFA.  Is this part of a rearguard action by the SFA, courtesy of Darryl Broadfoot’s chums in the media?
Regan must be sitting in his office on the 9th floor feeling like Richard Nixon did in the days before the Watergate dam burst.  However, I must reiterate what I posted on here yesterday.  At the end of the day poor little Stewart is merely a hired hand and will go with the flow.  What concerns me is the cabal at Hampden behind him who are determined to resist the review at all costs.  They know that their shenanigans might no longer be kept ‘in-lodge’ and have already resorted to the dirty tricks as evidenced by the leaked Celtic letter to ‘The Times’.  I would not be surprised if there is a sudden flurry of document shredding in the coming weeks before any commission can get its hands on them.
With the Celtic / SFA correspondence now in the open it is essential, more than ever, that the whole issue is not allowed to become merely an Old Firm spat.  The SFA will no doubt be briefing the SMSM to regard it as such in the desperate hope of dividing the fans.  In my view it will take more than the cabal and their brand new PR chappie to put one over the fans, particularly as we have truth on our side.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:13 pm - Sep 9, 2017

Two points:I’m not at all limpressd by the Celtic statement’s  weasel words:
“…….to consider the events that led to the liquidation of Rangers Oldco”
Two points on that:
1. It was the feckin club that was liquidated.
2. The call for a ‘review’ to ‘see what happened and learn lessons’ is, frankly, next to being useless if there are no powers to revisit the scandalous determination of the LNS commission that permits the results of so many games over so many years won by a cheating club which played ineligible players to stand.
That huge injustice simply has to be corrected, even if any review held were to  lead to a super-clean, super-honest, super-transparent Administration  in the future.
TRFC is living a lie.
And that has to stop.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on1:20 pm - Sep 9, 2017

In fairness Lawell majors in his latest letter that disciplinary consequences are not the focus, and indeed correctly identifies that to do so “risks missing the point” but later does qualify that that approach does not rule out disciplinary consequences at a later date.  

Happy with that.  (Even more) unhappy at my own club!

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on1:51 pm - Sep 9, 2017

From the SFA’s own web page…..• Respected and Trusted to Lead

View Comment

neepheidPosted on2:06 pm - Sep 9, 2017

It seems that Broadfoot’s amateur hour PR ploy of leaking a 5 year old confidential letter from Celtic to the SFA has spectacularly backfired. Now it’s all out in the open- and having first broken confidence themselves, the SFA cannot complain about that.
Celtic’s 5 year restraint, in keeping their dealings with the SFA confidential, cost them a lot, not just my season ticket money, but  doubtless the money of a few others besides, plus, and more importantly, the erosion by many others of their faith in the club they have loved all their lives.
Now Regan is staring at the abyss. As I posted yesterday, even the leaking of Celtic’s 2012 letter would, in itself, finish him in any normal association. Can he now do anything other than resign? He faces pressure from the SPFL for an enquiry. He faces a Judicial Review which could extend to all shenanigans going back 10 years and more.
Even his own Compliance Officer, who I assume is a solicitor with something to lose professionally, will shortly be opening a few rusty old filing cabinets in Ogilvie’s old room. I was going to say look under the carpet, but that really is a stretch for an internal enquiry.
On a personal level, I can now resume my relationship with CFC, happy in the knowledge that my club were not ignoring the corruption, but challenging it in a professional manner. That feels very good indeed, believe me.

View Comment

tamjartmarquezPosted on2:19 pm - Sep 9, 2017

Grahame Ewings article may have made the Scottish print edition of the Times. Although searchable on-line, this article was not in the print edition I purchased in England-shire – I have thumbed through the 7 September issue front to back. It would be good to get true coverage in the print media and sports-desks nationally.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on2:43 pm - Sep 9, 2017

There is a picture doing the rounds of Stewart Regan, chief executive of the Scottish Football Association, with his head stuck in a rather painful device. The caption reads: “The vice closes”. This may or may not be true but it has been an uncomfortable week for the SFA’s top man.
Regan had a public spat with a Scotland fan on Twitter about Hampden ticket prices and didn’t appear to come out of it very well. And now, with a renewed urgency, he is facing fresh pressure from across Scotland to give his assent to a new inquiry into the Rangers EBTs fiasco, which would examine how both the SFA and the Scottish Professional Football League dealt with that crisis.
The SPFL, led by Neil Doncaster, are right up for the new inquiry. Indeed, they are urging one. The SFA, however, had followed a policy of near stony silence on the matter, until their letter to clubs was revealed on Thursday in which they basically say: “Oh, go away. We don’t want anything to do with it.”
This is a very strange response. What is there to be fearful of? What is there to hide? If there was no governmental corruption or wrongdoing or incompetence to be found, why would the ruling body cavil at this?
I’ve no doubt they say they have “legal advice” not to go down a fresh inquiry route. But legal advice is not binding. There is always competing “legal advice” in every situation. I presume the SPFL have also taken legal advice on assenting to a new inquiry and they are OK about it. No public hangings are to take place — I think — if a new inquiry occurs. So what is the SFA so scared of?
The Lord Nimmo Smith inquiry of 2012, which found Rangers guilty and fined the club £250,000, is bizarrely deemed to be the end of the affair for all eternity. There is this strange line put about — “LNS was final, it was binding, it cannot be gone back on” — which would be the death knell for hundreds of cases of perceived injustices. I’m pretty glad the Justice for the 96 campaign over Hillsborough did not wilt when they were repeatedly told that previous government and police inquiries were “final and binding”. Frankly, they were having none of it.
In the case of the old Rangers FC and its use of EBTs, there may be no case at all for title-stripping. In the case of Regan and the SFA, it may be shown that no wrongdoing and certainly nothing underhand went on. But enough new evidence has emerged — on side letters, on Campbell Ogilvie’s testimony, on the 2011 licence granted to Rangers, on the Supreme Court’s damning verdict that Rangers should have handed over tax, on alleged unfair sporting advantage — to know that a fresh inquiry seems needed.
Not the least of the weird Lord Nimmo Smith conclusions was that, in failing “full disclosure” rules in regard to EBTs and registering its players with the authorities, Rangers broke rules but gained no sporting advantage. For five years football people — fans, journalists, even lawyers — have scratched their heads at this. At the very least, via a fresh inquiry, some of it deserves to be examined anew.
I get dog’s abuse for saying this but I’ll say it again: I’ve got little appetite for Rangers title-stripping. For two reasons. First, the old Rangers, established in 1972, foundered in 2012 via liquidation: it is gone. Ally McCoist had said it himself: “This decision [going into administration] could kill our football club.” Secondly, no-one can have any illusions about the tarnished aspect of these 13 Rangers titles claimed during this period. It is painfully obvious — even to diehard Rangers fans — that something grubby went on. That is now a plain fact. A huge asterisk will for ever accompany these titles.
What is more germane to me is the wish of supporters across Scotland to see their game being clean and accountable and transparent. For too many, this is not the case right now. Transparency would be the nub of any new inquiry: for the SFA, for the SPFL, for Rangers, for all the clubs.
So let this fresh inquiry take place. Stop fearing it, SFA. We can all presume you have nothing to hide. Let it happen, let there be consequences, then let’s everyone please move on from this mess.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on3:39 pm - Sep 9, 2017

There is a picture doing the rounds of Stewart Regan, chief executive of the Scottish Football Association, with his head stuck in a rather painful device. The caption reads: “The vice closes”.
Where can i get this picture09

View Comment

GiovanniPosted on3:45 pm - Sep 9, 2017

I’m confident that the SFA are currently trying to determine how the inevitable review can be organised so that they can maintain some control over it. I’m also confident that someone will have to take the blame and I guess that Ogilvie & Regan and others are busy scheming on that point. Someone has to carry the can and they’ll try to fit someone up for it.
My money is on Andrew Dickson being the fall guy.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on4:04 pm - Sep 9, 2017

The media have already turned this into a Celtic v Rangers issue. It really is time directors of other clubs grew a set. I simply don’t believe all of them are against a review. What kind of game do they want, and aren’t they worried the heavily indebted TRFC are already receiving preferential treatment from the same SFA by the granting of a European Licence this season?

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on4:07 pm - Sep 9, 2017

GIOVANNISEPTEMBER 9, 2017 at 15:45 
I’m confident that the SFA are currently trying to determine how the inevitable review can be organised so that they can maintain some control over it. I’m also confident that someone will have to take the blame and I guess that Ogilvie & Regan and others are busy scheming on that point. Someone has to carry the can and they’ll try to fit someone up for it.My money is on Andrew Dickson being the fall guy.


If the Compliance Officer establishes that the Rangers Board lied to the SFA in 2011 then surely the current Ibrox Directors who were part of that board should be banned sine die from Scottish Football?

View Comment

jimboPosted on4:12 pm - Sep 9, 2017

It’s a pity this call for an independent review into the handling of Rangers is being viewed as a Celtic v ‘Rangers’ thing.  It was inevitable I suppose, it seems to bring comfort to those at Hampden and the media.

But what can’t be ignored is the SPFL on behalf of member clubs are asking for this too.
In addition, the 70,000 member Scottish Football Supporters Assc. is calling for it as well.
Aberdeen Supporters trust likewise.
I’m sure there are many other fans all over Scotland who are sympathetic but don’t have a voice through a club fan set up who are minded to tackle the issues.  Or maybe they are being heard through SFSA. (Or on here!).

Never mind, if Celtic have to take the lead, so be it.  They are big enough and strong enough to take on the amateurs (at best) in Hampden.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on4:19 pm - Sep 9, 2017

GiovanniSeptember 9, 2017 at 15:45 
I’m confident that the SFA are currently trying to determine how the inevitable review can be organised so that they can maintain some control over it. I’m also confident that someone will have to take the blame and I guess that Ogilvie & Regan and others are busy scheming on that point. Someone has to carry the can and they’ll try to fit someone up for it. My money is on Andrew Dickson being the fall guy.

I think the plan has always been to use Craig Whyte as the fall guy in the event we reached the point we’re at now – they seem to see him as the most hated man in Scottish football and that throwing him to the wolves would satisfy everyone. I am sure that was evidenced by the ‘sop’ of the Euro Licence investigation. As always, though, they have misread the depth of feeling over it all and are maybe realising, too late, that they should have taken more positive, and correct, action long ago, or else resigned! All involved in the deception(s) are now fighting, not only for their jobs, but for their reputations (and future employability) as well. Who knows what else they may be fighting to avoid, of a perhaps more serious nature?

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on5:36 pm - Sep 9, 2017

It’s a very interesting exchange of letters if anyone has not read yet

View Comment

valentinesclownPosted on5:53 pm - Sep 9, 2017

Thank you Celtic for openly challenging the SFA on the issue of an independent review. Hopefully I will be thanking more clubs in the near future. The SPFL letter to the SFA asking for a review (mentioned a few times in the correspondence between Celtic and the SFA)  states that this had the backing of 42 clubs.  So let me hear them back my club and stop the cowardly smsm from making it a Celtic stand alone issue.

View Comment

bect67Posted on7:27 pm - Sep 9, 2017

How hard has Chris McLaughlin looked for support of other clubs calling for a review? Even if he can’t find it among them, may I suggest he contacts the SFSA (with its 70,000 members) for their views.
The power of CFC and the SFSA will, I believe will be enough to eventually see off further denial and deflection from SMSM, SFA SPFL etc. The review WILL happen, and …
ps in 2012, I posted that I thought Lawell was ‘playing a long game’. I didn’t honestly, think it would take five years to – but there ye go!

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on7:32 pm - Sep 9, 2017

Mibbes now would be a good time for SFA to put the 5-way agreement into the public domain so we can all see their efforts on behalf of all Scottish football . They could then bask the public acclaim that would surely follow .

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on7:43 pm - Sep 9, 2017

If other clubs owners do not want a full enquiry are they saying they are happy to tell their supporters that they back the SFA stance & SFA are to be trusted to always act fairly? So pay up.
How else could their silence or desire to move on be interpreted?

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on7:53 pm - Sep 9, 2017

Ally Jambo. 
That the SFA might want to use the UEFA licence as a sop would be a serious misjudgement on the SFA’s part.
It’s all unfolding nicely.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on8:01 pm - Sep 9, 2017

The SFSA are a part of a future governace model that will change the management of and so the culture of football of Scotland.
Let’s make football about joy and not snarling conflict.
I heard Stuart Cosgrove mention a bit of that joy between Tommy Wright and Neil Lennon today on Off the Ball. Too bloody right, more smiles less snarls is the way ahead, but first face the problems head on.
That is why SFM has backed the SFSA they will help bring about that culture change.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on8:08 pm - Sep 9, 2017

Ally Jambo
Dickson is not the fall guy, he is the instrument that has played the discord tune since 2004.
But there was more than one flute joining in or mesmerised by the tune and who was the conductor or is it Pied Piper? 
They say no player is bigger than a club, neither are any administrators bigger than the game.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on8:12 pm - Sep 9, 2017

It looks as if RTC has a lot of information that he is prepared to reveal as the end game approaches.  As well as the Andrew Dickson evidence to the FTTT he has also released some snippets of director John McLelland’s evidence.  He has now moved onto an allegation of fraud involving RFC and agent Blair Morgan.
Rangers Tax-Case‏ @rangerstaxcase
@scottishfa Evidence at FTT of Scottish football agent & RFC conspiring to defraud Everton FC of their share of a transfer. Not interesting?
@ScottishFA You really don’t want to know more about what a Scottish club and an agent licensed by you were doing in this case? Interesting.
@scottishfa If you insist on trying to bury our heads in the sand, what do you think the next logical step would be?

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on8:23 pm - Sep 9, 2017

Let’s be clear about this. The perception that this is a Celtic v Rangers thing is only that – a perception – created by whom?
Where is the research to back it up? I was annoyed at Tam Cowan aiding and abetting that perception on Off The Ball this evening without apparently realising that the media were the ones promoting it and  indeed that is what he was doing.
Reality is not perception. The reality is a natural thirst for fairness and justice and that voice will be heard.  It will not be spun, it will not be stilled.
I have to say in balance that I am at one with Stuart Cosgrove. This is about good governance, nothing else. Titles stripping etc is not the aim because only diehards and the uninformed value them any more.
It’s what is good for Scottish football (and Scottish Society) and the attitude that this centres around one club (of any hue)  is counter productive to that aim.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on8:28 pm - Sep 9, 2017

Some additional info on the Michael Ball transfer to PSV from an Everton fans  website

His career at Rangers continued to be dogged with injury, and he did not get on too well with Dick Advocaat, but by 2004, he was making regular appearances fro the Old Firm side and approaching the magic 60-game mark that would give Everton another ��M on top.  However, Rangers incredibly balked at making the payment, threatening to sideline the lad rather than meet their contractual obligations.  After much posturing in the media, some sort of agreement was hammered out between Rangers and Everton just before the January 2005 transfer window to enable Ball to continue to play at Ibrox. 
Rumours suggest that the deal involves Rangers and Ball each paying Everton around �4k per game for the next 30 games Ball plays for Rangers, totaling just half of the �500k owed under contract.  No official confirmation of such rumours was ever forthcoming… and Michael Ball eventually left Rangers for PSV Eindhoven in a strange deadline-day deal at the end of August 2005. 

…… and confirmation of Ball paying Everton himself in a DR article from 2012

View Comment

oddjobPosted on8:34 pm - Sep 9, 2017

Auldheid @1943
Perhaps Banking arrangements come into play?

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on8:35 pm - Sep 9, 2017

Easy Jambo.
When you join the dots  –  Dickson’ s testimony to the FTT on 18 April 2011 about having no knowledge of HMRC asking questions about the Remuneration Trust (the DOS ebts) , when as a member of the UEFA Licensing Committee that granted a UEFA licence on 19 April on basis the liability arising was potential (when it wasnt) and subject to discussions (when it wasnt)  you do have to wonder how many compartments exist in his head?

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on9:03 pm - Sep 9, 2017

AuldheidSeptember 9, 2017 at 19:53  
Ally Jambo. That the SFA might want to use the UEFA licence as a sop would be a serious misjudgement on the SFA’s part.It’s all unfolding nicely.

Totally agree about the serious misjudgement, Auldheid, but surely, with them, it’s just par for the course. I think that from the word go, Regan and co have misjudged absolutely everything.

I think their greatest misjudgement was in their own ability and they probably still haven’t realised that they are really sh*te at their job.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on9:05 pm - Sep 9, 2017

Auldheid September 9, 2017 at 20:35
Here’s what RTC posted from John McLelland’s testimony
Rangers Tax-Case‏ @rangerstaxcase 3h3 hours ago   RFC director John McClelland tells the FTT that Rangers board knew of HMRC problem with EBTs in 2005 but the board failed to investigate.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on9:08 pm - Sep 9, 2017

…………… and also
Rangers Tax-Case‏ @rangerstaxcase 2h2 hours ago   John McClelland, RFC board member, says “a bad boy did it and ran away”. He’s almost boasting of RFC board’s lack of diligence!
The attachment also explodes the entire “it was in our accounts” defence. Neither HMRC nor Grant Thornton told of side letters’ existence.

I sure that you will also recall Ian MacMillan’s letter to HMRC from April 2005 denying the existence of side-letters.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on9:13 pm - Sep 9, 2017

I’m pleased to see that Aberdeen’s fans group “Dons Together” has responded to the SFA statement.  I just wish that my club’s fans groups would do the same.

Reaction to SFA EBT Statement
General September 8th, 2017

​In reaction to the SFA’s statement outlining their intention not to get involved in any inquiry into Rangers’ use of Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs), we issued the below correspondence to the SFA:

We – as Aberdeen FC’s only democratic and constituted fans’ organisation, existing to represent the views of Aberdeen supporters – would like to express our bitter disappointment at your decision not to participate in any review of Rangers’ use of Employee Benefit Trusts.

To decline an invitation made by SPFL clubs appears tantamount to a dereliction of duty.

We also find the statement you issued is close to insulting.

It could be argued that “raking over the coals” is fully justified in the circumstances. Indeed, this is an issue that has not been put to rest for any one of the six years in question and still burns brightly. Turning a blind eye to injustice damages ‘the image of the game in Scotland’ further than any enquiry ever could.

We cannot contest that ‘it will be impossible to satisfy every supporter, every club official and every member club’. In the work we do it is ever-apparent that you cannot even satisfy every Aberdeen supporter! However, our engagement with supporters and supporters groups affiliated to Aberdeen and other clubs would suggest that the vast majority would welcome an inquiry and expect the SFA to be part of it.

It is more beneficial to act on the behalf of the majority rather than drop the case altogether. Indeed, we polled our members (of which we have over 2,000) to find that over two-thirds want an inquiry. In addition, 44% of respondents would contribute financially to fund an independent review. As it is the majority view our members and the Aberdeen support, we have long taken the position that merit of the Rangers team’s success be thoroughly challenged and it is why we send this email to you.

We argue that your flagrant disregard for justice, as sought by the majority of Aberdeen supporters and those elsewhere in Scottish football, represents a complete lack of the integrity you defend at the tail of your statement and we invite you to reconsider your position on the matter.”

We await a response.

View Comment

jimboPosted on9:17 pm - Sep 9, 2017

Don’t get me started about Tam Cowan.  Today he mentioned that over the past few years, not once has he or his pals spoke about football issues ( surrounding Hampden or Ibrox) at Fir Park.  The implication being that nobody is interested.

Stuart Gosgrove immediately corrected him saying that during his travels he (SG) had met countless fans desperate to talk about all these issues.  It was what prompted me to post as I did above,  that this is bigger than they would admit to realising.  They take comfort in thinking it is a Glasgow issue. for a minority of fans.

Chick Young hated to say it but ‘OK let there be an investigation’, however he feels there will never be closure.  It will still be discussed when we have all popped our clogs.

In some ways that might be true.  It’s historical, or hysterical?.  Just like when he said the value of an EBT equated to a decent night out in Glasgow.  That will take a while to forget.

I think all pundits I heard on BBC Scotland today agree there should be a review, but very grudged.

They said, Richard …. And Tom English, they were sick of talking about it all .Really? When?

View Comment

wottpiPosted on10:53 pm - Sep 9, 2017

Only heard bits and pieces on Radio Shortbread before and after today’s game at Murrayfield and not really caught up on earlier posts to SFM.
However what struck me in the coverage of recent developments is that the SPFL board asked for a independent review but for the SMSM that is apparently not enough. They have to provide evidence that others are behind the board as apparently the country’s leading club, premier champions, our sole Euro representative and supplier of multiple players to the national team is inadequate.
Yet at the same time Chris McLaughlin can’t find clubs supporting the boards stance neither can he provide any evidence of anyone in the SPFL other than T”Rangers and Stewart Milne,  strongly raising any objections to the idea of an independent review.
If Lawwell is for and Milne is against they cancel each other out. The only people publicly against an investigation is ‘ the club’ would be investigated!!!!!! Doh!
Why is the SFA board decision to not participate or sanction a review stronger than the SPFL boards request to have one? I believe I heard one commentator starting  to explore why the SPFL may have the upper hand in a power grab  and leave the SFA to things like ladies and youth football and supplying refs.
I note RTC has pointed us in the direction of Tax Tribunal  testimony and Easyjambo has highlighted some issues above.
Even before reading anything tonight my mind was returning to yesterday’s discussion re Dickson’s evidence regarding the side letters.
Regardless of who did what, it seems more than obvious that information relating to footballer’s files were tampered with by an organisation most likely outwith the football administration department of a member club.
To me that is something, alone, that requires investigation, review  and monitoring. 
If that can happen at Oldco then how can the SFA be certain that majority shareholders like Desmond, chairmen like Milne, Hearts Bidco and a certain SA businessman are not all abusing their positions.
To sit with your fingers up you arse and not  review, learn and advance is just infantile.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:00 am - Sep 10, 2017

 jimboSeptember 9, 2017 at 21:17
‘…They said, Richard …. And Tom English, they were sick of talking about it all .Really? When?’
I have personal reasons to be grateful to Richard Gordon for his being of help to my teenage son in Paris when he( the son) was there for the World Cup.

Nevertheless,I think he made a mistake in being too ready to join the ‘let’s move on’ brigade.

He is being paid as a BBC person, not as an ‘ad hoc’ pundit.

And it is not for the BBC to decide that we should all just move on and ignore not just the  feckin EBT stuff, but the other stuff that the sainted RTC has dug up and reported in his tweets.

There are serious questions to be asked of our Football Authorities in terms of their possible involvement in criminal matters.

And the more they self-certify their ‘innocence’ the more we should press for thorough examination.

When high and mighty Chief Constables can find themselves in the dock on very serious criminal charges decades after  their alleged crimes, and another Chief Constable has had to be put on gardening leave while charges [ not criminal charges, of course] against him are being investigated, the puny little men of our Football Authorities cannot for one minute think they are home and dry simply by refusing to have an independent ‘review’ of how they dealt with the monumental cheating by RFC (IL) .

They are by no means safe. None of them, in terms of how they discharged their governance duties.

If there are criminals amongst them, they will be found out.

They may not know when that may be. But it is certain to happen.
And in the meantime they must sweat it out.

I am so glad that I can sleep much more easily than any of them.

And let’s hear it for RTC!

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on2:13 am - Sep 10, 2017

IMO, the SFA has confirmed – in writing – that is STILL way out of touch with its main stakeholders and main customers: the perennially ignored fans.
The SFA in its current form is not fit for purpose – as if we needed confirmation from the SFA diddies themselves!
The SMSM remains stoopid after all this time – but their relevance is racing to the gutter every day and will soon be extinct like the dinosaurs.
It’s looking that a fans’ funded JR is looking ever more appealing / necessary…?

View Comment

Bill1903Posted on10:18 am - Sep 10, 2017

Talking to some of my fellow Dons fans yesterday and the mood certainly wasn’t lets move on from all this. Stewart Milne and his board members are aware of the strength of feeling but what they choose to do is anyone’s guess.
Incidentally the sooner Hampden is dumped and replaced by Murrayfield the better. Had an enjoyable day in Edinburgh yesterday although very lucky to escape with a point.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on10:20 am - Sep 10, 2017

Just wondering here. The main reason Brendan Rodgers is at Celtic is because the Rangers board upset a real billionaire. I wonder if said billionaire is getting equally upset with the SFA. I have heard he is a man who simply wont stop if he decides to go after someone.  

It’s not always a good thing that money buys power, but something is required to sort out the corruption at Hampden.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on10:25 am - Sep 10, 2017

John ClarkSeptember 10, 2017 at 01:00

And the more they self-certify their ‘innocence’ the more we should press for thorough examination.

But that’s something I’ve noticed, John, in all the Hampden statements, they never protest (self certify) the innocence of anyone, not themselves, LNS Inquiry, Rangers…they just say, in various ways, ‘time to move on’!

I’ve said it before; the truth is easy. What’s more, it is generally final, allowing everyone to ‘move on’. We have not moved on because we have not heard the truth, though we may have a very good idea of what that truth is/was. Only people who lied, or have a vested interest in maintaining the lies, would not welcome the opportunity to let the world know the truth, it really is that simple.

View Comment

rougvielovesthejunglePosted on10:35 am - Sep 10, 2017

So having long since given up on the SFA ever doing the right thing or the ‘national’ broadcaster ever providing some fair and balanced coverage of the national game, at about 3.45pm yesterday, I put it on, for 5 mins,  purely to get the half time score at Murrayfield.

Was Chick Young on level 5 funded or tax payer funded commission to state ‘it’s armed forces day today at Ibrox’?! He must have said it about 5 times in his HT ‘analysis’ before I gave up on finding out the Dons score. 

And on this armed forces day nonsense,  who covers the costs of this? Tax payer, club or company? Surely a club/company that requires £4million by month end can’t be throwing money at this?

With regards to Stewart Milne, Bill1903, he has always been out of touch with his own supporters, but appears now to have taken it to an entirely new level. 

View Comment

jimboPosted on11:10 am - Sep 10, 2017

The make up of the SFA.
Comprises of a Main Board and then two subservient boards. The Professional Game Board and the Non Professional Game Board.

It’s interesting to look at the connections between the MB & the PGB.
The main Board consists of eight members: the Scottish FA Office Bearers (Alan McRae, President; Stewart Regan, Chief Executive;  and Rod Petrie, Vice-President), plus Ralph Topping (SPFL), Michael Mulraney (SPFL), Tom Johnston (Scottish Junior FA) and independent non-executive directors, Barrie Jackson and Gary Hughes.

Professional Game Board:
Chairman: Rod Petrie (Scottish FA)Members: Alan McRae (Scottish FA), Stewart Regan (Scottish FA), Andrew McKinlay (Scottish FA)*, Neil Doncaster (SPFL), Ralph Topping (SPFL), Duncan Fraser (SPFL), Michael Mulraney (SPFL), Stewart Robertson (SPFL), Sandy Stables (SHFL) and Andrew Waddell (SLFL)
Seems a strange set up that 5 members of the PGB also sit on the MB.  Where’s the scrutiny there?

Also, 2 members of the SPFL sit on the MB.

With regards to the 2 Non Executive members of the MB, what is their job if not to ensure Transparency, Integrity and Leadership?
So how did the vote go when deciding to refuse a review?  I would like to think the two SPFL members would vote in favour of a review obviously and the two Non Execs. because that it is in the interest of their function.  Did the President have a casting vote?

Was there even a vote?  or just Regan & McRae issuing ‘advice’,  some murmuring and nodding of heads?

Getting rid of Regan is not enough.  It’s rotten to the core.  heaven knows who you replace them with but at least ensure there is a place for real independent NEs (not the old pals act) and at least one place for TSFSA.

Election to the three boards, who should have different makes ups, should be by member clubs of each category PGB & NPGB

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on11:59 am - Sep 10, 2017

We joined the dots. For years, all we could do was join the dots, the dots being the known knowns of the Rangers saga. We used our own judgement and augmented the information coming from people we had never met, such as PMGB* and RTC*, not knowing for certain (at first) how genuine they were, but the dots did all join up.

There was often a fair distance between the dots where the ‘meat’ of the saga was a known unknown, while all the while there was the existence of unknown unknowns. But, somehow, we knew that that meat was there, and that what we believed had happened, and was still happening, was real.

Gradually, over the years, the meat has been revealed, though we can be sure that there is meat yet to appear, and some that might never see the light of day, but every succulent piece of meat (steak, not lamb) that has ever been revealed has proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, that we read it 100% correct. We joined the dots perfectly. We even judged the characters of the main players correctly, and none of them were judged as honourable.

The meat continues to appear, and with it there is evidence that there are actually some good guys in the boardrooms of Scottish football. Hopefully, the time it has taken for them to show their hand is an indication of their determination to right the wrongs fully, and that their example will lead to others joining them in cleaning out our game of a cancer that must be removed, completely, for that is the only way to ensure it is gone.

* It is amazing how we (most of us, at least, though I’d guess all) just knew, after just a couple of blogs, how right they both were.

View Comment

James ForrestPosted on12:22 pm - Sep 10, 2017

Allyjambo, excellent as always.
This site continues to be of the highest quality. Here’s my piece on why Rangers fans – above all others – should welcome this inquiry.

View Comment

jimboPosted on12:28 pm - Sep 10, 2017

You never said truer words AJ, ‘Join the Dots’. I noticed over the past few years that it was the same names which kept coming up time and time again.  Craig Whyte trial, LNS, Tax tribunals, RTC, EBT lists.  Same people, same dirty tricks.

Even today I was reading James Forrest account of the meeting in the Glasgow Hotel (Hotel de Ville?) with Craig Whyte, OCT. 2011.  Present were Neil Doncaster & Ralph Topping who then informed Stewart Regan shortly afterwards of the upcoming implosion at Ibrox.  Allowing them time to get a plan together to help out.
All three of them still plying their trade at Hampden 6 years later.  Unbelievable.

View Comment

valentinesclownPosted on12:58 pm - Sep 10, 2017

I have never had any real faith in our SFA (even before the ebt years) when it comes  to their IMO favorable approach to the old Rangers.  Maybe I am tainted with the paranoia gene (but incidents like Jim Farry strengthen my paranoia).  History show us that there have been many ex directors of the old Rangers in positions of power in our Governing bodies of our sport( an uneven balance again IMO). So to where we are now with the possibly the biggest sporting injustice to ever take place in the UK. The SC ruling that ebt’s were nothing but contractual and  therefore making all players who received them were therefore registered illegally within our sport. If this had taken place in England the outcry would be like a tsunami of coverage from all media outlets (bearing in mind no one club would be favoured in England like it is in Scotland by their FA or media). In Scotland not a whimper from our smsm concerning the SC verdict, no open discussion ever took place, no in depth coverage applied by an smsm, no outcry from them. Think about that, the biggest sporting injustice totally ignored and not questioned or challenged by our media. Getting back to ex RFC directors on SFA positions in the past which made my paranoia gene twitch.  When Mr Regan and Mr Doncaster came on the scene I mistakenly dropped my guard  and thought ok this may be a step in the right direction. So how did both of them IMO also support, help, favour not only the old RFC but also the newco? What exactly took place with meetings with Mr Whyte before administration and liquidation, what took place at 5 way agreement meeting and also what took place with meetings with Mr Green? Why do both of them not carry out their professional role in their jobs? It is beyond absurd that the SFA do not want a review into this issue. Absurd but not unexpected. Move on, move on is the cry, why do they all not just feck off. Only in Scotland .

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on2:32 pm - Sep 10, 2017

valentinesclownSeptember 10, 2017 at 12:58

So how did both of them IMO also support, help, favour not only the old RFC but also the newco? What exactly took place with meetings with Mr Whyte before administration and liquidation, what took place at 5 way agreement meeting and also what took place with meetings with Mr Green? Why do both of them not carry out their professional role in their jobs? It is beyond absurd that the SFA do not want a review into this issue. Absurd but not unexpected. Move on, move on is the cry, why do they all not just feck off. Only in Scotland .

I think the answer to that is self-interest. We see it at the very top of government, all the way down to the back benches, and throughout business, particularly in the finance sector. There is a huge swathe of people who have learned how to look like they know what they are doing, who live on management speak and how to avoid letting people know they don’t know how to do something or the answer to a difficult problem.

The Regans and the Doncasters of this world tell their masters what they want to hear, and they do it often enough that the masters get lazy and just let them get on with it. It is easier for a club chairman to accept what they are told by the SFA/SPFL CEO than it is to question too deeply (perhaps just ask the odd soft ball question for the sake of it) and maybe hear what they don’t want to hear, like, ‘unless we screw you all Rangers are going bust!’

Instead they hear something like, ‘there’s one of the Old Firm (West of Scotland) clubs having a bit of a financial problem, might cause a bit of a problem for you all if we can’t sort it out without it getting into the media. But it’s OK, we’re on top of it. We’ll keep the board advised of anything they need to know and they can let you know (what they think itis safe to let you know).’

‘OK Stewart/Neil, we’ll leave it in your capable hands, after all, it’s what we pay you for. Anyone going to the pub?’ 

View Comment

theredpillPosted on2:55 pm - Sep 10, 2017

The history,might be of interest.
Scottish Football AssociationNot to be confused with Scottish Football Union.The Scottish Football Association (also known as the SFA and the Scottish FA), or Comann Ball-coise na h-Alba in Scottish Gaelic, is the governing body of football in Scotland and has the ultimate responsibility for the control and development of football in Scotland. Members of the SFA include clubs in Scotland, affiliated national associations as well as local associations. It was formed in 1873, making it the second oldest national football association in the world. It is not to be confused with the “Scottish Football Union”, which is the name that the SRU was known by until the 1920s.
Scottish Football AssociationUEFAScottish Football Association Logo.svgFounded 13 March 1873; 144 years agoHeadquarters EdinburghFIFA affiliation 1910UEFA affiliation 1954IFAB affiliation 1886President Alan McRae[1]The Scottish Football Association sits on the International Football Association Board which is responsible for the laws of the game. The SFA is also a member of FIFA and founder member of UEFA. It is based at Hampden Park in Glasgow. In addition, the Scottish Football Museum is located there.
The Scottish Football Association is responsible for the operation of the Scotland national football team, the annual Scottish Cup and several other duties important to the functioning of the game in Scotland
 Following the formation of Scotland’s earliest football clubs in the 1860s, football experienced a rapid growth but there was no formal structure, and matches were often arranged in a haphazard and irregular fashion.
Queen’s Park, a Glasgow club founded in 1867, took the lead, and following an advertisement in a Glasgow newspaper in 1873, representatives from seven clubs – Queen’s Park, Clydesdale, Vale of Leven, Dumbreck, Third Lanark, Eastern and Granville – attended a meeting on 13 March 1873. Furthermore, Kilmarnock sent a letter stating their willingness to join.
That day, these eight clubs formed the Scottish Football Association, and resolved that:
The clubs here represented form themselves into an association for the promotion of football according to the rules of The Football Association and that the clubs connected with this association subscribe for a challenge cup to be played for annually, the committee to propose the laws of the competition.[3]
Chief executive 
The chief executive of the Scottish Football Association oversees the development of football in Scotland and the administration of disciplinary matters, and is also responsible for the general organisation of the national side. One of the most prominent roles of the chief executive is to hire and dismiss Scotland national football team managers.[4]
There have been eight chief executives since 1882:[5]
John McDowall (1882–1928)Sir George Graham (1928–1957)Willie Allan (1957–1977)Ernie Walker CBE (1977–1990)Jim Farry (1990–1999)David Taylor (1999–2007)Gordon Smith (2007–2010)[6]Stewart Regan (2010–present)[7]National teams
Scottish FA regions
Club competitions
Club licensing 
The Scottish Football Association encourages quality of governance in football clubs through a system of club licence awards. All SFA member clubs are assessed annually in four areas (grounds, first team support, youth team support, and governance) and, if appropriate, awarded a licence at gold, silver, bronze or entry level. As of January 2015, gold-level licences have been awarded to only two clubs, Celtic and Hibernian. All clubs in the Scottish Professional Football League are required to be licensed at entry level or above, this has been extended to the Highland Football League and Lowland Football League.
Member clubs 
As of January 2017, 88 clubs are full members of the Scottish Football Association, comprising:
All 42 clubs in the Scottish Professional Football LeagueAll 18 clubs in the Highland Football LeagueAll 16 clubs in the Lowland Football League2 clubs in the East of Scotland Football League: Burntisland Shipyard and Coldstream5 clubs in the South of Scotland Football League: Newton Stewart, St Cuthbert Wanderers, Wigtown & Bladnoch, Threave Rovers and Edusport Academy3 junior clubs: Banks O’ Dee, Girvan and Linlithgow Rose2 amateur clubs: Glasgow University and Golspie SutherlandAffiliated associations
National associations The Scottish Football Association has affiliated to it the following six national associations:
Scottish Amateur Football AssociationScottish Junior Football AssociationScottish Schools Football AssociationScottish Youth Football AssociationScottish Welfare Football AssociationScottish Women’s FootballLocal associations EditThe following nine local associations are affiliated:
Aberdeenshire and District Football AssociationEast of Scotland Football AssociationFife Football AssociationForfarshire Football AssociationGlasgow Football AssociationNorth of Scotland Football AssociationSouthern Counties Football AssociationStirlingshire Football AssociationWest of Scotland Football Association

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on2:59 pm - Sep 10, 2017

That so called journalist, Tom English, who seems to consider himself a cut above the rest, has tweeted the following:

‘The Scottish football world doesn’t revolve around this issue. Many care passionately. Many don’t. Disingenuous to suggest otherwise’

I added my tuppence worth with:

‘It’s surely disingenuous to suggest those who don’t see proper football governance as important are correct? 1/2’

‘More important than, say, the thoughts of some long gone ex Rangers legend! 2/2’

So, with the revelations of the past couple of days still fresh in the mind, all Tom English can think of doing is to deride those who are trying to do his job for him!

What an utter idiot, to suggest that just because not every football supporter seeks justice that it is wrong for the rest to do so! Is he suggesting complacency is what’s best for Scottish football, the way forward?

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on3:12 pm - Sep 10, 2017

Given that there will be UEFA officials at Celtic Park on Tuesday night I wonder if there might be a rather topical banner regarding the incompetent buffoons who allegedly govern the game in this country. I imagine it would be one UEFA fine Celtic would not bother about in the slightest if it happens. 

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on3:29 pm - Sep 10, 2017

upthehoopsSeptember 10, 2017 at 15:12

I would gladly join in with the crowd funding if there was a fine, and I’m sure I am not alone in that amongst the non-Celtic posters 04

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on5:22 pm - Sep 10, 2017

ALLYJAMBOSEPTEMBER 10, 2017 at 15:29 
I would gladly join in with the crowd funding if there was a fine, and I’m sure I am not alone in that amongst the non-Celtic posters 

If social media is a guide then a large number of non-Celtic fans want further action taken. This is in addition to various statements from various supporters organisations.  The mainstream media have obviously got a secret line of contact with the ‘great many’ fans of other clubs who want to move on, because I see no evidence of that anywhere.  Perhaps it’s just the journalists who support other clubs who say they want to move on, more than likely due to their livelihood depending on it. Anyway, I guess we have to believe them because journalists never exaggerate stories or tell lies to suit their own agenda – never!

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on5:33 pm - Sep 10, 2017

SEPTEMBER 10, 2017 at 17:22

I’m sure there are a great many fans who just want to move on.

They are called Rangers supporters.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:08 pm - Sep 10, 2017

There was a time when fans of an ibrox club marched on Hampden to demand answers,lead by one of their great’s.why are these same fans not marching on hampden now to demand answers.Many must by now be more knowlegable of  what happend down ibrox way.Is it because the answers they might get will not be of their likeing

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on7:19 pm - Sep 10, 2017

SEPTEMBER 10, 2017 at 17:33  
SEPTEMBER 10, 2017 at 17:22================================
I’m sure there are a great many fans who just want to move on.
They are called Rangers supporters.

We have a winner!  10

View Comment

bigboab1916Posted on7:31 pm - Sep 10, 2017

Remember the time they told that guy to truck off and the red card protests and we dont do walking away, bet they wished they had not listened to the old present board.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on8:25 pm - Sep 10, 2017

Rangers fans have told us for six years the SFA/SPL/SPFL are corrupt, kicked their club when it was down, and did nothing at all to help. It has already been proven in a criminal court they were not the victims of the fraud they claimed they were. So therefore why don’t they want a review of the allegedly corrupt SFA/SPL/SPFL to find out what really happened – what’s not to like?

View Comment

Comments are closed.