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.
NAWLITE
SEPTEMBER 21, 2017 at 22:17
Tom English is suggesting that “If SPFL really wants transparency then let them press ahead with their own review of how the old SPL acted in this saga.”
——————————————————————–
The SPFL is just a renamed SPL, with more shareholders.
It was incorporated on 13th May 1997 and has company number SC175364
It would be a review of themselves.
He knows that already.
The Chairman, Murdoch McLennan, who recently announced that the SPFL did not support a review was appointed on 1st August 2017.
Presumably he was brought in to “look to the future” and move on from the cheating past.
The SPFL (SPL as was) no more want a proper review than the SFA.
I was going to ignore this message, but then I saw the amount of support it got from the SFM community. I was appalled. Its not a sectarian song apparently, and perhaps strictly speaking it isn’t, but to outsiders looking in it is every bit as repugnant as anything that TRFC fans (or indeed any other group of fans) may wish to sing.
I admitted perviously, I’m not an expert on the Irish politics. The IRA may have noble beginnings, standing up to the oppressor, one mans terrorist is another freedom fighter etc etc. But, as someone who had young family in that shopping centre in Manchester that particular day, I find it incomprehensible that anyone would believes glorifying the IRA is something that it is ok to sing about at a football match – a football match for gods sake.
The song may not be strictly sectarian for the pedants amongst us (and this site thankfully has many pedants pointing out the wrongs of the world in a more useful way), but to those looking at Celtic & Rangers from the outside it is impossible to separate the IRA/UDF or whoever from sectarianism and henceforth that song to the rest of us most certainly IS sectarian. Stop the whataboutery, stop the hate and bile returning to your support. If you need a target aim for Regan and the rest of the SFA or the Scottish media who are disgustingly wilfully helping to fan the flames of bigotry by turning their collective backs on the issue once again.
If Celtic and Rangers want to have any thoughts of joining the English leagues, then they will have to rid themselves of this baggage once and for all. Until then you most certainly won’t be welcome. But then “nobody likes us and we don’t care”. This stuff is not welcome at any of the other 40 odd grounds around Scotland, the lack of it over the past few years has been a joy – please don’t let it come back.
I know you CFC fans all hate the term – but two cheeks. By re-opening that once forgotten song book you are becoming one with your hate filled brothers from the other side of town. If you can’t see that then we might as well give up now.
My family walked out of Manchester that day unscathed thankfully. There are enough problems in this world without letting this nonsense get a firm foothold back in our society.
As the SPFL perform an unexplained backward somersault on their previously stated position one is left to ponder on where we go from here.
Auldheid is, as always, performing heroics keeping us up to speed in general terms and to him I am grateful.
However, no matter which angle the matter is approached from or whichever aspect of the matter is found most egregious; be it the tax cheating, the lying, the concealment of documents, the inaction of authorities, the denials, the deflection, the spin, the fobbing off, the impact on other clubs, the extraction of fans’ money under false pretences, the Permarage, the ongoing sectarianism, racism and bigotry, the casual disregard for imperfectly registered players, the tolerance of certain individuals anywhere near the administration of a football business (other disgraces are available), certain things keep coming up.
At the risk of underthinking I view the matter as nothing more than a jigsaw puzzle. It’s not even a particularly difficult jigsaw. The only problem is that we’ve been trying to complete the jigsaw while a number of the jigsaw pieces have been deliberately withheld from us.
One of the pieces that is missing is that while the caravan has kept rolling the barking of certain dogs has been conspicuously absent.
I don’t think I have seen a reference to, far less heard a word from, Nicholas Stewart or Charles Flint in the last four and a half years.
These gentlemen it will be recalled, or perhaps some wish you would not recall, comprised two-thirds of the Commission chaired by Lord Nimmo Smith. It will be recalled that the Commission Decision on 28th February 2013 was unanimous and accordingly none of the three Commission members displayed the testicular fortitude shown by Dr Heidi Poon in proceedings in another place.
The question remains; no matter where we are is there anything to stop the three Commission members, all of whom hold/held the rank of Queen’s Counsel, from being asked to provide an Opinion on what they were told then and what we know now?
If they want a Fee pay it; it’ll be buttons in the scheme of the shape of things to come.
The learned gentlemen will know that one potential outcome, whether they wish to be amenable now or not, is that they may be cited to appear at a Judicial Review and be obliged to give evidence under oath when the same questions can be asked but this time the answers will have to be the truth, nothing but the truth and that oft overlooked part of the oath, the whole truth.
It might only be one piece of the jigsaw but it would put a lot of the “Lord Nimmo Smith said…” myth to bed.
Tom English is suggesting that “If SPFL really wants transparency (Insert LMAO emoji)
No they don’t really want transparency,and it should be the first thing on any journalists list to find out why.
CLUSTER ONESEPTEMBER 22, 2017 at 09:53
I am sure many journalists actually would love to go after this entire affair. The reasons behind why they are not allowed to is the real problem. I know someone closely related to a news journalist at a major outlet. Many times articles about Rangers have been rejected by Editors because an equally damning article about Celtic can’t be found. It truly is a pathetic state of affairs when there MUST be a negative story about a football club operated properly within the law, before the truth can be written about one that isn’t.
Real journalists would print why they are not allowed to go after this entire affair and the reasons behind why they are not allowed to go after it.If you have to be allowed to go after this entire affair, they are journalists only in name.
The reasons behind why they are not allowed to and why they allow it is the real problem.
http://nilbymouth.org/what-is-sectarianism/
Once again, and with deep regret…
I strongly agree that there is no place for songs about the IRA, the UDA or any other source of armed conflict at a football match.
The question is how do we persuade people to move on from it?
If all you can do is tell Celtic fans that they are sectarian for supporting a political organisation then we are going to get nowhere.
It may seem like semantics to you, but it is at the very heart of people’s identity and political conscience.
It is essential that we have accuracy and balance in any solution to this.
You will not persuade Celtic fans to stop singing IRA songs by complaining they are sectarian – simply because those singing them do not believe that is accurate.
You might have better luck telling them to stop singing them because they are political and their reference to conflict is unwelcome at a sporting event. That is accurate.
Of course, you then need to have balance. If the problem is politics or glorifying violence, then let’s properly target that.
So, for example, no wearing of poppies on football shirts on the pitch. The poppy started off as a symbol of remembrance for war dead (including members of my own family) but has been politically hijacked and is now used to glorify the British Armed Forces – a prime player in the conflict we are trying to move away from. In the catalogue of innocents killed in that conflict, there is plenty of scope to criticise the British Army too.
I also think we need to question the singing of Flower of Scotland at the national games. Don’t get me wrong – I love singing that song and belt it out with all the rest – but I am questioning myself on whether it is really appropriate now? Sending Edward home again involved a fair amount of bloodshed and death and in these troubled times, how much do we need to drag up the atavistic past?
If we want to find a solution to this problem, we have to do more than just complain about it. We need to find real solutions that are fair and recognise the legitimacy of different political views.
As in any conflict resolution situation, you need to make steps towards those you have previously fought to find peace. Dealing in absolutes gets us nowhere.
As I said previously, I think there are plenty of people here that want to see this problem go. To do so we have to move out of our own comfort zones and do a bit of digging into the nature of the conflict and of our own bias and prejudices.
The alternative is we carry on as previously. The football authorities and the SMSM seem perfectly content to do this. With some openness and goodwill, I think we could do better.
Easy Jambo
Something to chew over there. Thanks.
Celtic represent their shareholders in this matter and it is Celtic the SFA have to satisfy first in order for Celtic to satisfy shareholders that the SFA are squeaky clean in all aspects of their handling of the issue from 2011 to date.
Your suggestion of involving those shareholders direct, whatever the result, would send out a solid transparency and accountability message to the SFA as in how it can and should be delivered.
nawliteSeptember 21, 2017 at 22:17
Tom English is one of 13 journalists sent hard copy by SFM contributors in 2014 of evidence that could not have been presented to LNS for him to be able say there was ” no question of dishonesty corporate or individual” regarding ebts and side letters. The evidence screamed the opposite.
If Tom never received it he can maybe clear himself by saying so, but I think he has read the Tax Justice Network report on the matter, but if it has flaws has not pointed them out. Now is his chance.
More significant though is the simple question that the SFA/SPFL and SMSM are avoiding and that is
Does Tom (and fellow journos) think RFC acted dishonestly since 2000 and have the enquiries based on all evidence now available made that clear, or have they simply been an attempt at avoiding that uncomfortable truth?
If so, why the desperate need to avoid admitting RFC broke the rules and with it the trust in Scottish football in order to gain financial and sporting advantage?
What is the worst that could happen after a few resignations?
Who is so unsure of their own place in the grand scheme of things that they depend on “trophies won” in dubious circumstances to reinforce their sense of worth?
Perhaps too deep for Tom although Graeme Speirs might want to think about it; so for Tom the simple question is.
Do you think RFC have acted honestly and in good faith towards the rest of Scottish football from 2000 and if not how did they get away with it?
Zilch
My last word on the subject of songs was in Feb 2009. I think the approach advocated remains valid.
How To Tell If a Song Is Sectarian
Written by Auldyin
Saturday, 21 February 2009
Every now and then a songs debate flares up in Celtic Cyberspace and the one thing you can be sure of is no agreement will emerge. This will always be so unless there is a set of criteria to go by.
Examining The Billy Boys offers one set of criteria for a sectarian song in that the words “up to our knees in fenian blood” offers violence to a person of an identifiable religious faith either directly or in this case by inference, fenian = Catholic.
If you take the Soldiers Song or The Fields that are deemed acceptable by Celtic if I understand it correctly. The thing about these songs is that they are “inward aimed” or “centred on self” celebrating that sense of self.
Sectarianism is defined as ” bigotry, discrimination, prejudice or hatred arising from attaching importance to perceived differences between subdivisions within a group, such as between different denominations of a religion or the factions of a political movement.
The key words are sub divisions WITHIN a group. The group involved with The Fields or Soldiers is a single group where no sub division exists.
For a song to be sectarian it has to project OUTWARD from that group ideas or beliefs that the group wish to impose on others or to express distaste or hatred for those OUTSIDE the group.
The key words are inward celebration and outward projection. The first cannot by definition be sectarian but the latter depending on the words can.
So why not use those criteria to at least draw a line?
Now on what is objectionable to others: songs that are inward celebrating might cause offence to others but they are the ones taking offence, it is not being offered to or aimed at them. It is something intolerant in them that sparks the offence taken.
If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, why not offence? We as Celtic supporters are not responsible if others take offence at our songs of inward celebration. It is only when outward projection as in say add ons occurs that sectarianism might apply. These criteria would apply to Rangers songs as well as our own. This debate has been going on for ever. You would think someone would have penned official criteria from usage by now to give guidance to the support. Note criteria is NOT a song list. Folk can use the criteria to look at what they sing and maybe think about why they are singing what they are. Inward celebration of belief/faith/culture/tradition or outward projection of those things on to others. Question the motivation, using the criteria, not the words of the song.
Zilch,
My point wasn’t to open a debate on what is and what isn’t sectarian – quite frankly thats a side argument – if its offensive I don’t care if its sectarian or not. But to question why it appears to be ok with some to sing about the IRA, and why the excuse appears to be because it “isn’t a sectarian song”.
Be it sectarian or not, there is no place for this at a football match in any normal society. It depresses me that so many are willing to accept this situation, and as mentioned elsewhere it seems incongruous that CFC fans are so ready to point the finger at TRFC fans whilst watching some of their own fans start the slide down that slippery path once again.
I’ll also add here that my own teams fans sing songs that may be considered by some offensive and I really wish they didn’t, but meantime you will never hear me defending those fans that are singing them.
I just saw someone mention on another forum whether the press release for the forthcoming Rangers accounts will be nominated for a top fiction award, such as the Nobel Prize in Literature. After all, didn’t they say a loss was a profit the last time?
Now that the majority of fans [?], the SFA, the SPFL and CFC have clarified their ‘final’ positions…
We seem to be at stalemate – if only temporarily?
Although there is a wide spectrum of motivations involved, there is actually one thing we all should be able to agree with;
“We do want to move on.”
Don’t think that would be disputed by anyone?
To remove all the negativity, bad faith, suspicion, ill feeling, etc. from the Scottish senior game would be an ideal starting point from which to reinvigorate the future development of the national game.
And to state the bleedin’ obvious: we all want the same end result: it’s just that different stakeholders have different opinions on how to get there.
The fans must be meaningfully engaged to bridge the yawning gap with the administrators.
IMO, it’s not rocket science.
Whilst a JR might be the only option to enforce access to the details of the Hampden shenanigans in recent years, it won’t expedite reconciliation anytime soon – and ‘moving on’ will just be kicked further down the road.
But at the moment, IMHO, a JR looks like the only hope ?
[I have ignored the SMSM in the above as they are not decision makers as such – but have proved to be an unhelpful, sh!t stirrer on the sidelines – and whose relevance and influence is fast approaching the gutter anyway.
]
Tayred
I’m afraid I think that your views on this are straight-down-the-middle support for encroachment on the right to freedom of speech.
We already have laws in Scotland to deal with (inter alia) breach of the peace, racist or sectarian behaviour and the like. We even have the damnable (and incoherent) OBAF Act.
Although you’re singling out songs referencing IRA/UDA/UVF and similar, what you’re actually asking for is that songs you yourself (and, I would accept, perhaps many thousands of others) don’t like to be proscribed.
As you rightly assert, there are scores of songs sung by fans of almost every club which will be objectionable to their rivals or, indeed, to neutrals.
To take the point a wee bit further: here’s a wee list of songs sung by visiting fans at Celtic Park which I myself (a match-going Celtic supporter) strongly dislike … but (while I lament those fans’ apparent need to sing such ‘songs’) which I understand and accept those fans’ have a right to sing:
Jimmy Savile, he’s one of your own
In your Glasgow slums
The sash my father wore
I was born under a Union Jack
Big Jock knew
Just for balance, here’s a selection of other ditties that are often heard, which seem to break existing laws (not counting any which may [or may not] fall foul of the OBAF Act), yet against which no action is ever taken:
The Famine Song
The Billy Boys
UDA all the way (Eff the Pope and the IRA)
No Pope of Rome (no chapels to sadden my eye, etc)
Living in a democratic country which enjoys considerable freedom of speech, I’m strongly against supporting any tack that would lead us down the OBAF route.
But I would quite like to see the exiting laws being enforced.
LUGOSISeptember 22, 2017 at 09:10 However, no matter which angle the matter is approached from or whichever aspect of the matter is found most egregious; be it the tax cheating, the lying, the concealment of documents,
What would you think would be the case if this was in the workplace you have an incident you leave get set for say a tribunal and the last minute you are advised to settle and you do. Howver it materialises that you were not provided with relevant document there was as you say concealment, what do you think the outcome of this would be, do you think the the Union would be onto it in a flash,
so where is the players union to claim back lost revenue for players due to the cheating and concealment the Union is Fraser Wishart talk about conflict of interest.
EASYJAMBOSEPTEMBER 20, 2017 at 01:12
In parallel, a poll on Hearts most popular forum, JambosKickback, over the past couple of days has produced the following responses.For a review 455 – 80.82%Against a review 31 – 5.51%Don’t care 77 – 13.68%So I’m reassured that Hearts fans remain strongly in favour of a review, whatever the club Board chooses to do or not do.
————————————————————————————-
All that poll highlights is that 80.82% of JKB members are strongly in favour of a review. Not necessarily representative of Hearts fans as a whole. It equates to around 0.03% of Hearts’ ST holders, although I suspect that a good number of JKB members do not have STs.
Personally, I am all for Mrs Budge broadcasting her views on this but as you say unlikely before TRFC visit Murrayfield.
Flywheel
I cannot believe the amount of TDs for Tayreds post. and this from a supposed non partisan site encompassing supporters of ALL Scottish football clubs. I have done my little bit to try and support SFM financially since its inception, but, no more, I,m out.
DUNDERHEID, no. The law doesn’t come into it. It has already proved to be utterly useless at doing anything about it because its unworkable. Freedom of speech is valuable and should be guarded. No problems with that.
But here we are in a chat site full of intelligent people. People it seems that are quite happy for certain chants to be sung, despite complaining like hell when “the other side” gets off with it week-in week-out. I just don’t understand it! The one line answer “its not sectarian” floored me, and I’ll wager most outside the South-West of Scotland won’t understand it either.
Listing songs other clubs sing that are just as objectionable is fine – I don’t like them, nor understand why perfectly sensible people find them amusing. But while TRFC are belting out their well known ditties and CFC fans bring out their IRA songbook, its very hard to tackle the ignorance in songs about the economics of housing in urban environments! The Jimmy Saville related songs are quite simply revolting.
Anyway. Its a pointless argument as it sadly seems too ingrained in people from all the big to be solved anytime soon. Have a good weekend folks.
SHYSTER FLYWHEEL SHYSTERSEPTEMBER 22, 2017 at 16:00
I tend to find it amusing, the way polls drawn from an internet based community can be written off as not being representative and therefor meaningless, for where else can a general consensus be drawn from and displayed? While all poll results should be treated with care, and suspicion, when major decisions might be based on them, an overwhelming result from a group of people united by the club they support must surely be a reasonable indication of how like-minded people might view a subject that impinges heavily on that shared interest. 80% one way or the other is a huge consensus that could be moved against, quite considerably, in a wider example, but still remain resounding! Of course, much more telling is the fact that less than 6% interested enough to vote were against a review.
It will/would become more significant if similar polls, taken from similar fan sites/groups across the country, returned similar results.
One thing, can you tell me what the significance of being an ST holder is when valuing a supporter’s opinion? I’ve been a pay-at-the-gate supporter for most of my life, a ST holder for ten years, and now, living too far from Tynecastle to make more than the odd game, an FOH member almost from the off (my name is on the FOH top). I find it a bit elitist to suggest anyone who supports the Hearts, or any other club, has an opinion of things affecting their club that is of any less value than anyone elses, particularly if that support is 100% behind the Hearts (in this case) with no sympathy for any other, no matter who that other club might be.
TAYREDSEPTEMBER 22, 2017 at 16:56
Ingrained is the right word. I’d maybe say addicted.
Perhaps we should be asking would people’s lives be any less rich and full of meaning if they didn’t sing certain songs?
What is it that makes people want to praise bigoted knife gangs and bombers, revel in the tragedy that is child abuse and shout obscenities at two old age pensioners,who are forced to wear funny costumes in the course of their duties.
You’ll just have to take my word for it but the entrenchment shown on here in the “songs” debate is hard to believe outwith the Glasgow goldfish bowl. It’s disingenuous to mess around with what the problem is, it’s not the pedantic meaning of words, the law, the police or the football authorities. It’s not even really about the fans and whataboutery only entrenches it further. The problem is that Celtic or Rangers could distance themselves from all the sh*t any time they want and they choose not to.
Auldheid,
”Now on what is objectionable to others: songs that are inward celebrating might cause offence to others but they are the ones taking offence, it is not being offered to or aimed at them. It is something intolerant in them that sparks the offence taken.”
By your criteria above, it would be perfectly acceptable for a group of fans to turn up at a football ground singing “Ode to Isis” and as long as it was inward looking, it would be the fault of the rest of the crowd if they were offended.
I usually read your posts with interest and respect your views, but I find this stance ridiculous.
StevieBCSeptember 22, 2017 at 15:21
‘….But at the moment, IMHO, a JR looks like the only hope ? ‘
_____________
I’ve wondered off and on, StevieBC, whether any individual shareholder of Celtic plc would be entitled to go to the police with what he believed to be information supporting an allegation that an actual crime had been perpetrated ( to wit, the abuse of power by the governing body of a ‘trade association’ in conspiring with one member of that association to defraud another member of that same association of many millions of pounds?
And would the police be obliged to investigate, and , if thought appropriate, refer the matter to the Procurator Fiscal for prosecution in the criminal courts?
I would like to see that approach through the mechanisms of criminal procedure adopted first.
In the ordinary way, if ,as many believe, there is clear documentary evidence that shows that the SFA, fully aware of the true state of RFC(IL)’s ‘tax debt payable and demanded to be paid’ situation nevertheless deliberately worked to ensure that RFC(IL) was illicitly granted a licence to have a crack at the CL,the police could not simply ignore such evidence and such allegation.
If investigation followed, and led to charges and prosecution, and the charges were proved, then job done by the State.
If the police refused to investigate, or if investigation concluded that there was insufficient evidence that a crime had been committed, or if prosecution failed to result in conviction, then resort could be had to Judicial Review of the decision to award RFC(IL) the licence as having been a decision arrived at in contradiction of the plain facts before the deciding body ,and as abuse of, or mistaken use of, their administrative powers under their Articles etc.
It would be hard to see how the original decision could be allowed to stand.
And a Judicial Review of the LNS decision on the ‘no sporting advantage’ might usefully be sought as well( separately, of course, as having been made by another decision-making body)
Perhaps the Res2 guys have considered all this, and ruled out the ‘reporting of alleged crime’.
I just wish I had the savvy to prepare a report and assemble the ‘evidence’ to approach the Police myself!
RYANGOSLING
SEPTEMBER 22, 2017 at 19:21
By your criteria above, it would be perfectly acceptable for a group of fans to turn up at a football ground singing “Ode to Isis”
================================
I genuinely thought you were speaking about the Egyptian Goddess, responsible for love healing etc, and thought what’s the problem with that.
Then I realised you were probably talking about ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) and saw your point. One man’s terrorist etc.
Personally I think the whole thing is a squirrel and am more interested in what people are trying to hide by bringing this particular old chestnut up right now. I can only assume it’s to take fan’s eye away from the review long enough for it to fizzle out.
What’s next, the head of the SFA publicly describing Celtic as “tiresome”, or are we moving on from Peat to Petrie doing it.
On the13 March 2017, the takeover Appeal Board published its decision upholding ruling of the Takeover Panel Executive and of the hearings committee of the Takeover panel that Mr David Cunningham king acted in concert with Messrs George Letham,George Taylor and Douglas Park to accuire more than 30% of the voting rights in rangers and in consequence had incurred an obligation under the takeover code……etc.
http://www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/2017_8.pdf
———————-
N O T I C E
Opening of the Legal Year
Practitioners will wish to be aware that the ceremony for the Opening of the Legal Year will commence at 10.00am in Court No. 1 on the morning of Monday, 25 September 2017.
This will comprise of a short address by the Lord President and a formal introduction of the new Queen’s Counsel to the court. A full bench will sit for the occasion.
Practitioners, court staff and others interested in attending are very welcome and will be accommodated as space permits.
Thereafter, the Annual Service to mark the beginning of the Winter Term will be held in St Giles’ Cathedral, commencing at 10.45am. A short reception in Parliament Hall to mark the Opening of the Legal Year in Scotland will follow directly after.
Court business due to be held in Edinburgh on 25 September will commence from 11.30am on this date, unless specified otherwise.
————————-
A small question if i may
Now that the Opening of the Legal Year will commence at 10.00am in Court No. 1 on the morning of Monday, 25 September 2017.will we see any movement in the Takeover panels initiated proceedings in the court of sessions seeking an order requiring Mr king to comply with its rulings?
Cluster OneSeptember 22, 2017 at 21:01
‘…..will we see any movement in the Takeover panels initiated proceedings in the court of session../
___________
It will be all eyes on the Rolls of court of Session, C1 ,daily from now on!
( I suppose we would have heard if the Takeover Panel had changed its mind and withdrawn its motion?)
Ryan Gosling.
If such an event were to happen that is where motivation would come into play.
Few would reckon it was not to offend given no connection whatsover to the history of either club.
Granted ascribing motivation can be difficult but in the instance you suggest few would think it wasnt to offend.
My point stands. In the absence of criteria how can any judgement be made?
It’s time folk took personal responsibility for what offends them and looked into why. That should include the possibility that no offense is intended whether it be the singing of The Sash or Soldiers are We.
There is a word for that and it’s called tolerance.
Not enough of it around.
HomunculusSeptember 22, 2017 at 20:24
RYANGOSLING SEPTEMBER 22, 2017 at 19:21
By your criteria above, it would be perfectly acceptable for a group of fans to turn up at a football ground singing “Ode to Isis”
================================
I genuinely thought you were speaking about the Egyptian Goddess, responsible for love healing etc, and thought what’s the problem with that.
Then I realised you were probably talking about ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) and saw your point. One man’s terrorist etc.
Personally I think the whole thing is a squirrel and am more interested in what people are trying to hide by bringing this particular old chestnut up right now. I can only assume it’s to take fan’s eye away from the review long enough for it to fizzle out.
What’s next, the head of the SFA publicly describing Celtic as “tiresome”, or are we moving on from Peat to Petrie doing it.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The squirel is of course the equilvance of the Rangers v Celtic singing and saying both are sectarian. I make no judgement on that.
My question is that if the law of the land is being broken in football grounds week in week out why the Scottish Govt and Police Scotland are doing nothing.
Now its an easy one to explain Nicola’s position given her constituency but why are Police Scotland sitting on their hands when there is clear Hate Crime/Anti Irish racism being belted out at Ibrox and away grounds every week.
Can Bobby Madden and Hugh Keevins adjudicate on that one please on SSB next week.
John Clark
One of the Res12 boys has long held this view that the Serious Fraud Office should be involved but we had to go through the gears but if the CompOff investigation concludes that a) RFC lied to obtain a licence and b) the SFA were complicit in a fraud (although they will be arguing the were negligent if a fraud charge were brought) then the SFOwould be the way to go but it’s not just small shareholders who would claim to be defrauded although they led the charge.
In such circumstances of fraud being proved I would hope Dermott Desmond, who has had to fork out a good few bob since 2000 and accept much criticism from 2004 , might decide the SFO is the way to go.
Now that would attract attention.
If the adverts do not get in the way this is an excellent read from James Forrest on why an enquiry into 5 separate issues is essential.
https://thecelticblog.com/2017/09/blogs/here-are-just-some-of-the-reasons-an-inquiry-into-the-sfa-is-needed/amp/
On the UEFA licence aspect RFC signed a Declaration that allowed SFA to obtain info from HMRC during 2011 and on the matter of preplanning for Rangers demise, Gary Withey had a chat with Rod McKenzie on the issues and hurdles, subsequently shared with Doncaster, in early October 2011.
It is no wonder an enquiry is being resisted.
AuldheidSeptember 22, 2017 at 23:40
‘…but if the CompOff investigation concludes that a) RFC lied to obtain a licence and b) the SFA were complicit in a fraud (although they will be arguing the were negligent if a fraud charge were brought) then the .’
________
Sadly,Auldheid, I think the SFA’s sudden readiness to refer the licence issue to the Compliance Officer is no more than anattempt to protect themselves , in SDM style , by saying ‘we were lied to’, if the Compliance Officer were to find grounds to refer the matter to a Judicial Protocol tribunal.
There is absolutely no way that it would be open to such Tribunal to consider whether the SFA were ‘complicit’. They will not be asked to do anything other than say whether Rangers lied.
These guys are not stupid.
They will not have put themselves at risk of going to jail!
They will bewail the fact that they were ‘duped’, apologise for not noticing that they were duped, and tell folk that they are powerless to take action against an entity in Liquidation!
And that’s only if the compliance officer finds enough grounds to refer the matter to a Tribunal!
And then only if the tribunal decides that Rangers did lie!
We are supping with the devil, I fear, and cannot trust a word of what the SFA says.
Or the SPFL either!
There is unquestionably a whole dirty mess to be forensically examined.
And attempts, feeble attempts, by the likes of Regan and certain university professors and the SMSM and now MacLennan, to pretend that there is no mess, just a small query, is an assault on us all.
Grave wrong has been done. Sporting ‘cheating’ on a scale far in excess of anything by the Lance Armstrongs has been, allegedly, perpetrated by the very people supposedly charged with ensuring that our sport was clean.
We simply have to use every legitimate tool to bring that cheating into the light of day, and nail the cheats.
And, if the evidence is there, jail them!
HOMUNCULUSSEPTEMBER 22, 2017 at 20:24
Personally I think the whole thing is a squirrel and am more interested in what people are trying to hide by bringing this particular old chestnut up right now.
==============================================
Trying to hide their feelings most likely,it must be hard coming to the realisation that their clubs are now part of the corruption that’s taken hold of scottish football.
AuldheidSeptember 23, 2017 at 00:07
‘….If the adverts do not get in the way…’
__________
I take it that that might possibly be an allusion to my exasperation expressed some time ago when the feckin adverts ran across the screen and partially hid people’s posts!
I have no objection to advertising per se, just to adverts that ran across the wee space that one posts in, instead of being confined to the margins!
Auldheid,
https://www.pinsentmasons.com/PDF/Fraud%2520in%2520Scotland%2520(Pinsent%2520Masons).pdf
My understanding of this is that if:
1. A negligent or reckless statement is made with the intention of achieving an outcome that would not otherwise be achieved,
and
2. That negligent or reckless statement is untrue
A civil fraud has occurred.
So, for example,
A licencing body is shown to be negligent or reckless in the process of assessing one of its licence applicants
It knew or had good reason to suspect that the licence applicant had provided a false or misleading submission.
It grants a licence and consequently negligently or recklessly informs the governing body that the licencee is fully qualified to take part in its competition.
Participation in the competition provides the opportunity to earn significant financial benefit.
A correctly qualified licence applicant is denied the opportunity to participate in the competition because its rightful place was taken by the incorrectly licenced participant.
These circumstances appear to constitute a civil fraud by the licensor against the potential participant (and its shareholders), correctly qualified for a licence but denied its legitimate place in the competition and the opportunity to earn a significant financial benefit.
It would appear that the correctly licensed participant and its shareholders have suffered a loss that could be recovered from the licensing body – the perpetrator of the civil fraud.
…as I understand it.
See if this works?
http://www.fraudadvisorypanel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Fraud-Facts-17B-Fraud-in-Scotland-Revised-March14.pdf
AULDHEIDSEPTEMBER 23, 2017 at 00:07 If the adverts do not get in the way this is an excellent read from James Forrest on why an enquiry into 5 separate issues is essential. https://thecelticblog.com/2017/09/blogs/here-are-just-some-of-the-reasons-an-inquiry-into-the-sfa-is-needed/amp/
—————————————————————————–
I want to read James piece but the adverts make it impossible to just read the text and keep hijacking me.
I couldn’t finish.
For what its worth Big Pink, Tris I am also now finding the adverts on the SFM site more and more of an intrusion too.
And there we have it. Any criticism of Rangers and I’m a hater, taig etc. Any implied criticism of Celtic and I’m launching a squirrel and am part of the corrupt, anti Celtic Scottish football. Grow up FFS.
FINLOCHSEPTEMBER 23, 2017 at 07:29
I want to read James piece but the adverts make it impossible to just read the text and keep hijacking me.I couldn’t finish.
————-
I clicked on the link and i’m not getting any ADs. don’t know what i’m doing right,or wrong. I would copy paste but it is a very long good article,and don’t know if i would have permission to do so.
CLUSTER ONE
same here mate,not one ad,maybe james disabled them
I can’t believe that Bruno Alves has left the country, doesn’t he know there’s a football match on today, in Glasgow, that the whole world wants to see? Of course, maybe he’s been tasked with doubling the viewing numbers in Portugal by ensuring all his family members and friends are aware that this footballing extravaganza is taking place today
HirsutePursuitSeptember 23, 2017 at 01:11
From the “PinsentMasons Fraud Brief ‘ (and thanks for posting the link,HP)
‘Fraud is committed when someone achievesa practical result by the means of a falsepretence..’
My mind immediately flew to the question of whether a new football club set up in 2012 would be guilty of fraud in claiming for purposes of an IPO and other marketing purposes to be a much older club that now is no longer a football club?
If the prospectus for a new football club merely said ‘we are a newly constituted football club, with no history of sporting success’ how many investors would be attracted?
Keef may have out-Keefed himself in his piece today in the DR.
John ClarkSeptember 23, 2017 at 10:32
HirsutePursuitSeptember 23, 2017 at 01:11From the “PinsentMasons Fraud Brief ‘ (and thanks for posting the link,HP)‘Fraud is committed when someone achievesa practical result by the means of a falsepretence..’My mind immediately flew to the question of whether a new football club set up in 2012 would be guilty of fraud in claiming for purposes of an IPO and other marketing purposes to be a much older club that now is no longer a football club?If the prospectus for a new football club merely said ‘we are a newly constituted football club, with no history of sporting success’ how many investors would be attracted?
_________________
Perhaps more importantly, John, is the question of how many people would not now have lost a lot of money in RIFC shares? For there can be little doubt that there is a direct link between the disastrous share price plummet and the fact that the shares purchased in the IPO were not shares in Rangers Football Club, nor in the holding company of Rangers Football Club!
James Forrest
JOHN CLARKSEPTEMBER 23, 2017 at 10:32
My mind immediately flew to the question of whether a new football club set up in 2012 would be guilty of fraud in claiming for purposes of an IPO and other marketing purposes to be a much older club that now is no longer a football club?
========================
The IPO was RIFC PLC, which isn’t a football club of any age at all. It is a PLC which owns shares in TRFC Ltd.
TRFC Ltd was incorporated on 29th May 2012
RIFC PLC was incorporated on 16th November 2012
Neither is in any way linked to RFC PLC 2012 (in liquidation), which was previously known as The Rangers Football Club PLC.
You will note that the current position is a Ltd Company whose shares are owned by a Holding Company. That wasn’t previously the case. They just made that up.
HomunculusSeptember 23, 2017 at 13:46
‘…The IPO was RIFC PLC, ‘..etc
______
Yes, of course.
RIFC marketed its shares on the basis of their main business-operating a football club with a 100 and oatcake history of staggering sporting success and as a brand with 500M fans world-wide, and so on.
TRFC claims to be that club.
A double deception of would-be investors?
The prospectus clearly aims to make people think they are investing in the the club in liquidation as though there had been no liquidation,merely a change of ownership from CW to CG.
John Clark September 23, 2017 at 18:07
—————————–
Just cast your mind back to May/June and the Whyte trial, where the Advocate Depute stated (repeated by Lady Stacy) that in order to prove a criminal fraud three things were required:
“A false pretence, dishonestly made, in order to obtain some practical result.”
Now I wonder who in Scottish football could possibly have made a false statement, knowing that it wasn’t true, in order to obtain a UEFA licence.
JOHN CLARKSEPTEMBER 23, 2017 at 00:35
=========================
In my humble opinion the Compliance Officer’s remit will be to:
1. Confirm Craig Whyte lied to the SFA to gain a licence.
2. Ignore that Whyte only continued the lie which started before his time at Ibrox.
3. Ignore the fact that three Ibrox Directors who were there when the lie started are still there.
4. Confirm that the SFA were honest and blameless at all times.
The Judicial Panel will then say action has already been taken to ban Whyte from Scottish football, the matter is closed, and it really is time to move on. Stewart Regan will then say there are some incredible things happening in Scottish football so why can’t everyone just be happy. Many of us will continue to believe the SFA are a deceitful, dishonest organisation with something to hide.
There is a different option though. Allow a Judge in the Court of Session to decide who lied, who didn’t and what their motives were for doing so. Then we really can move on.
upthehoops September 24, 2017 at 06:27
JOHN CLARKSEPTEMBER 23, 2017 at 00:35 =========================
In my humble opinion the Compliance Officer’s remit will be to:
1. Confirm Craig Whyte lied to the SFA to gain a licence. 2. Ignore that Whyte only continued the lie which started before his time at Ibrox. 3. Ignore the fact that three Ibrox Directors who were there when the lie started are still there. 4. Confirm that the SFA were honest and blameless at all times.
=========================
I think you are close to the mark, but I do think that the blame for the “lie” will be put at the door of the Rangers directors who were Murray Group employees.
I believe that the two directors (Mike McGill and David Horne) whose evidence at the Whyte trial has led to this review will be used to exonerate the RFC directors and employees such as Alastair Johnston and Andrew Dickson.
The TOR for the inquiry will be restricted to the Licence application itself, and will not look at the set-up and operation of the DOS scheme which led to the WTC bill.
My guess would be that the outcome will be that :
1. Andrew Dickson will say that he asked McGill and Horne about the position re the WTC in advance of the licence application being submitted in March 2011
2. Dickson will say he was told by the McGill and Horne to submit in the application with the potential liability / ongoing negotiations line.
3. Dickson, Johnston and the SFA will be found to have acted in good faith at all times, i.e. no dishonesty.
4. Whyte will be found to have perpetuated the lie and not disclosed further correspondence with HMRC to the SFA in advance of the 30 June and 30 September 2011 checkpoints.
5. There will be confirmation of the life-time ban on Whyte and a statement to the effect that the Murray Group employees have no role in Scottish football so no action can be taken.
6. Dickson and Johnston will be allowed to continue their footballing roles with their FPP status confirmed.
EASYJAMBOSEPTEMBER 24, 2017 at 11:13 =================================
You may well be right about Murray Group employees getting the blame as an outcome of the review. However, I believe that the information Celtic are in possession of could blow a Gerrymandered SFA response out the water, and the PLC Board also have to respond to Resolution 12 at this years AGM.
EASYJAMBOSEPTEMBER 24, 2017 at 11:13
I would be surprised if Craig Whyte allows his reputation to be further traduced by the football authorities in this country without standing up for himself . Who knows what he knows .
PADDY MALARKEYSEPTEMBER 24, 2017 at 14:42
I would be surprised if Craig Whyte allows his reputation to be further traduced by the football authorities in this country without standing up for himself . Who knows what he knows .
==========================
I often wonder if the dinner conversation in the Hotel Du Vin in December 2011 was recorded by Whyte.
I’ve been trying to read through the Judicial Panel protocol, to find how, precisely, the SFA ‘referred’ to the Compliance Officer, and what, precisely ,the Compliance officer will do.
Para 5 of Part 2 of the Protocol says:
” The Scottish FA shall appoint a ‘Compliance Officer’…..who shall have general responsibility for observance by all those involved in association football in Scotland….”
Para 9 of Part 4 says:
” The Compliance Officer shall commence proceedings for determination of an alleged breach of the disciplinary rules by delivery of a Notice of Complaint….to the alleged party in breach..
In relation to the matter referred by the SFA to the Compliance Officer on September 11th 2017, how was the matter referred to him? Was it suggested to him that the SFA and a club might have been in breach? Has he consequently ‘delivered’ a notice of complaint to the SFA and to officers of a club?
Or was he simply pointed in the direction of a club, and has he delivered a Notice of complaint to that club?
And which club would that be? RFC(IL)? Or to those officers of a new club who had been officers of RFC(IL)?
Are we going to be told what exactly the Compliance Officer has been asked/told to do?
Are former directors of a now dead club even subject to the Judicial protocol in respect of their former directorships of a now defunct club?
Couldn’t they simply tell the Compliance officer go jump in the Clyde?
Is the SFA simply acting the goat, smugly revelling in the view that neither their own complicity and/or incompetence can be honestly and truly examined in depth, nor can a dead club be brought to ‘trial’?
JOHN CLARKSEPTEMBER 24, 2017 at 16:25 4 1 Rate This
I’ve been trying to read through the Judicial Panel protocol, to find how, precisely, the SFA ‘referred’ to the Compliance Officer, and what, precisely ,the Compliance officer will do
—————
That got me thinking….ok i know.
would anything be referred to the compliance officer about the Takeover Panel decission that Mr David Cunningham King acted in concert with Messrs George Letham, George Taylor and Douglas Park to acquire more than 30% of the voting rights in Rangers And that the
Takeover Panel had initiated proceedings in the Court of Session, Edinburgh under section 955 of the Companies Act 2006 seeking an order requiring Mr King to comply with it’s rulings.
would a compliance officer have the authority to look at chairmen of a club/company who have been found to have acted in concert to acquire more than 30% of the voting rights in Rangers.Would this be a not acting in good faith type thing,or is it up to the SFA to look out for someone associated with a club/company who’s dealings are now initiated in the court of sessions
UPTHEHOOPSSEPTEMBER 24, 2017 at 15:07
I often wonder if the dinner conversation in the Hotel Du Vin in December 2011 was recorded by Whyte.
——————–
At the time i did put all the recordings onto a disc,but it has been a long time since i have listened to them
Is it not strange to anyone that the season is now over? Saturdays game was strange for me as a Dundee fan. Celtic were so far ahead of Rangers it was like tumbleweeds blowing down a set in a western. Anyone notice the “extra time” 2 minutes. That is six subs, 3 minutes, and the time Craig Gordon needed treatment, four minutes. Craig Thomson must have been aware of the script, cut, cut, cut, go to full time.
Chaps and Chapesses
Craig Whyte was nowhere near submitting the application for a UEFA Licence.
That was done before 31st March 2011 under Article 50 of UEFA FFP and CW did not take over until the 6th May 2011.
The submission to be granted a licence under Article 50 came from RFC under Chairmanship of Alistair Johnson and Regan revealed in his e mail to RFC of 7th December that licence was granted because SFA had a letter from Grant Thornton saying liability was potential and gave the impression it was subject to discussion (as in “was in dispute” if what Regan said in public and is a matter of record thereafter is any guide).
Neither was true. Liability was accepted before 31st March and discussions were not about disputing the bill but about making payment. The liability was an overdue payable as UEFA define one, which could easily have been established if SFA had asked HMRC as RFC had empowered the SFA to do under Article 43 (h).
What CW could say is that he only followed the Johnson line in subsequent submissions in June under Article 66 and September under Article 67, although he embellished that line by suggesting £500k had been paid towards the liability when no payment had been made specifically for that purpose.
Dickson was a member of the SFA Licensing Committee, and even if he was unaware of the true status of the liability in March 2011, which is a big ask, he must have known by December 2011 after discussions with Regan on 6th December, that the basis on which the license was granted was unsound. Sherriff Officers do not come calling to collect potential liabilities, so what took place in Dickson’s conversation on 6th December to allow Regan to produce the draft statement that caused so much consternation at RFC?
That is one question to be established.
The second one is what was Regan told between 7th December and or at the meeting at the Hotel De Ville that Ogilvie attended that made Regan decided not to publish anything?
Did Dickson/RFC tell Regan the truth that the liability was not potential or under any form of dispute but to make that public would be damaging to the plans being hatched at that time to keep RFC alive or did Dickson continue with the Johnson narrative, which is unsound and did he believe it to be true?
Did Dickson excuse himself in March 2011 from the Licensing Committee as an interested party (as in Ogilvie excusing himself from the ebt review) and should he have done so knowing the liability was not as described or did he influence the Licencing Committee by stating that as long as the liability was potential and being questioned, it was OK to grant the licence? His role needs to be established.
These are the issues that have to be addressed and the Compliance Officer, if he wants to retain any claim to integrity or credibility, must ensure that they are.
Celtic have all of this information and have had it gone over with a legal eye, hence the SFA having to set up an investigation and so do their shareholders to whom Celtic have to report to at the next AGM.
The prima facie case is RFC before CW got involved, lied to be granted the UEFA licence, lied in subsequent submissions to UEFA and all that is in doubt is whether SFA were either negligent or complicit and how far they went to keep UEFA on board with the lies in 2011 and Celtic shareholders at bay when they started putting evidence of skulduggery to SFA via Celtic in 2014.
watcherSeptember 24, 2017 at 20:26
There was 5 minutes extra time but I thought it would be more for reasons you give.
easyJamboSeptember 23, 2017 at 19:23
John Clark September 23, 2017 at 18:07—————————–Just cast your mind back to May/June and the Whyte trial, where the Advocate Depute stated (repeated by Lady Stacy) that in order to prove a criminal fraud three things were required:“A false pretence, dishonestly made, in order to obtain some practical result.”
Now I wonder who in Scottish football could possibly have made a false statement, knowing that it wasn’t true, in order to obtain a UEFA licence.
++++++++++++++++
In my view and if there is nothing in available evidence that comes out to contradict, fraud as defined at CW trial, took place.
Only the SFA’s part is unclear and they must not avoid that judgement or take part in it.
Auldheid, thanks for the correction but you know the point i was trying to make, just not as eloquent or factual as you. By the way keep doing what you are doing,respect sir. Too many beers today.
AuldheidSeptember 24, 2017 at 20:37
‘….The liability was an overdue payable as UEFA define one..’
__________
And that’s the definition that matters!
I assume that the Compliance Officer’s powers of investigation include a right to approach UEFA directly for statements of evidence or facts in the expectation that UEFA can be presumed to be obliged to respond to such an approach?
After all, it’s UEFA’s own rules that have (allegedly) been seriously breached, not the SFA’s, and breached by(allegedly) the SFA as well as by a club.
Maybe UEFA will have to begin its own investigation.
Watcher,”Anyone notice the “extra time” 2 minutes. That is six subs, 3 minutes, and the time Craig Gordon needed treatment, four minutes.”I’m pretty sure that in England the referee has to add 30 seconds per substitute as per your calculation but in Scotland the added time for substitutes is at the refs’ discretion. I have noticed that some games even with 6 substitutes have little or even no added time. Like many other things in the Scottish game there is a lack of consistency. Surely there should be strict guidelines over added time for substitutes.
If there is prima facie evidence of criminal fraud, the compliance officer cannot proceed on the basis that the matter can be dealt with via SFA procedures. It certainly cannot.
Anyone who suspects that a crime has taken place can report it to the police.
Anyone who has firm evidence that a crime has taken place should always report it to the police.
Of course, should the compliance officer discover or suspect that his employer was a party to this alleged criminal fraud through recklessness or negligence, his employer could potentially be made subject to recovery proceedings under the heading of civil fraud.
The compliance officer just might be in a fairly difficult situation.
It does not follow that all substitutions necessarily result in time lost and that 30 secs per sub is automatic.
Many run of the mill substitutions occur when the ball is out of play and a natural break occurs. If someone runs off the park at a corner and someone runs on to replace them, it takes all of ten seconds. Hardly worth extending the game by 30 secs.
The time for many substitutions for injuries gets incorporated into the time lost due to attending to the injury. Similarly if a players is removed from the field to receive treatment but it is decided he cannot continue, the substitution is usually dealt with by the quick wave on by the ref at the next suitable break. Once again no need to automatically add on 30 seconds.
Refs may however choose to add on time if a substitution involves obvious time wasting in the latter stages of a game by the slow walk from the far side of the pitch by the suddenly cramped up winger, taking off his shin pads and waving to the crowd one by one etc etc.
30 seconds does however seems to be the unwritten time used in these types of circumstances.
Of course the whole thing is subjective when it comes to exactly where your team are in the game.
e.g
Your are all over Anderlecht but its still 0-0 at ninety minutes. Hey Mr Man in Black play as long as you want.
PSG and going to make it 7 by adding 2 in the five minutes extra time as opposed to just leaving it at 5 at the ninety minutes.
FFS Ref – blow the whistle!!!!
wottpiSeptember 25, 2017 at 09:37
‘..FFS Ref – blow the whistle!!!!’
_______
Not sure why you got a thumbs down for that,wottpi ( at the time I write)!
There isn’t a supporter of any club who hasn’t wanted a match to end quicker/ or last longer in the circumstances you describe.
It’s a serious point,though. The game should last 90 minutes of playing time with stoppages times carefully and independently and visibly measured, checkable by all,by an off-field official, as in other sports.
If there has ever been serious, public discussion of this I am not aware of it. There may have been, of course, and perhaps the powers that be have decided they prefer to leave it to the ‘discretion’ of the referee.
And as with all things human, one man’s discretion can be another man’s blindness, bias, or incompetence!Or all three ( and in extreme cases, throw in cupidity!)
[Except in Scotland,of course, where the members of our professional football associations allow their Boards ‘absolute discretion’ in a whole range of matters!]
As an exercise in propaganda, mis-representing the facts, belittling people and generally being an offensive buffoon Chris Jack has managed to surpass even his own standards with this tripe.
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/15554864.Chris_Jack__Last_Thursday_should_be_the_final_date_on_the_Rangers_EBT_timeline_after_SPFL_review_U_turn/?ref=plst
John Clark September 25, 2017 at 10:19
wottpi September 25, 2017 at 09:37
=======================
Vagaries of referees’ timekeeping has long been one of my frustrations re the laws of the game. All that is required is for the running clock to be maintained by someone off the pitch, as they do in rugby, with the referee indicating when he wants “time off” and “time on”.
That way, the fans are aware when, why and for how long the clock has been stopped. The game can be ended either by the sound of a hooter, or when the ball goes out of play after the hooter.
JOHN CLARKSEPTEMBER 25, 2017 at 10:19
Interestingly enough the whole issue of decent communication with fans was demonstrated last night in the NFL.
Detroit scored what looked like a game winning touchdown against Atlanta with only eight seconds on the clock. The refs signaled touchdown.
However a video replay review was called for an it ruled that the despite seemingly catching the ball and falling into the end zone the player’s knee was down before the goal line and the play was called dead half a yard out. Refs onfield decision reversed.
Normally in such circumstances the ball would have been spotted and the game clock would have ran on. The Lions offense then would have tried to get off another play in the 8 seconds remaining.
However the following rule was applied.
So even with the ball half a yard from the goal line the Lions were not permitted to have one last go at getting over the line as the 10 second run off ate up the 8 seconds remaining.
No doubt the Lions fans left unhappy but they at least knew the reason for the not getting a touchdown or another bite at the cherry.
Surely the SFA have not been trying to mislead the media on the justification for awarding that 2011 UEFA Licence and so denying Celtic shareholders an honest attempt to get at the truth?
https://videocelts.com/2017/09/blogs/latest-news/will-the-guardian-return-to-the-2011-rangers-licence/ with a link to E Tims orginal at http://etims.net/?p=11998
Why is it taking 6 years since Sherriff Officers called in August 2011 to collect a tax payment that had to be overdue for such action that takes weeks to set up to have been taken?
Darryl “I am Scottish football” Broadfoot has questions to answer as have the SFA even although Mr Broadfoot is now apparently employed at arms length.
Will David Conn seek answers?
HomunculusSeptember 25, 2017 at 10:41 As an exercise in propaganda, mis-representing the facts, belittling people and generally being an offensive buffoon Chris Jack has managed to surpass even his own standards with this tripe.
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/15554864.Chris_Jack__Last_Thursday_should_be_the_final_date_on_the_Rangers_EBT_timeline_after_SPFL_review_U_turn/?ref=plst
=======================
Notice how Jack tries to belittle Res12?
The last thing the media want is light being shone on what appears to be fraud until such times as CompOff can say otherwise.
The SFA did not finally decide to look into the UEFA licence of 2011 affair without their Counsel saying there was a case to investigate.
You can read in E Tims latest http://etims.net/?p=11998 just how desperate the SFA were in 2016 to muddy the waters and if they keep trying via misinformed articles like Jack’s they only strengthen Celtic’s hand.
Whilst the SPFL not wanting an enquiry might stay Celtic’s hand, on Res12 Celtic have locus and can take it to UEFA unless given an explanation that puts everyone in the clear.
His reference to bampots knowing rules shows both arrogance and ignorance. Many “bampots” have skill sets way beyond the capacity of one journo to comprehend.
AULDHEID
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 at 13:27
============================
Maybe it’s easier to convince a Sheriff that there is an outstanding debt and get a Court Order to enforce that debt than it is to convince the SFA of the same thing.
Sheriff’s in Scotland are well known for their laissez-faire attitude towards the law and their willingness to enforce dubious debts. The SFA on the other hand are famous for their transparency and even handedness.
So Sheriff’s Officers in August, arrestment of the account in September. Who do these people think they are. They were just making stuff up and getting a Sheriff to rubber stamp it.
They owed £2.8m, it was an agreed debt, it was uncontested. Craig Whyte agreed to pay it and didn’t. The actions taken towards the end of 2011 were nothing to do with whether the debt existed or not. They were simply legal remedies HMRC tried in order to collect the unpaid tax.
AULDHEID
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 at 13:34
=================================
It reminds me of a caller into Super Scoreboard a year or two ago.
Hugh Keevins in his patronising, arrogant, dismissive way said something like “Oh, we have another legal expert on to express an opinion”. The caller replied something along the lines of “Yes Hugh, I am a practising solicitor”.
His attitude changed somewhat. (Keevins, not the caller).
HirsutePursuitSeptember 25, 2017 at 01:27
If there is prima facie evidence of criminal fraud, the compliance officer cannot proceed on the basis that the matter can be dealt with via SFA procedures. It certainly cannot.
Anyone who suspects that a crime has taken place can report it to the police.
Anyone who has firm evidence that a crime has taken place should always report it to the police.
Of course, should the compliance officer discover or suspect that his employer was a party to this alleged criminal fraud through recklessness or negligence, his employer could potentially be made subject to recovery proceedings under the heading of civil fraud.
The compliance officer just might be in a fairly difficult situation.
===============
As matters stand and if the justification for granting the UEFA Licence is as Regan stated after a discussion with Andrew Dickson on 6th Dec 2011 before putting that statement to RFC on 7th December to their consternation, then the liability was neither potential nor under any form of discussion in terms of dispute ( which is how Regan explained things subsequently in a Tweet), then there is a strong case of fraud.
Regan suggested on 7th December to RFC:
‘It is noted from the report submitted to the Licensing Committee by Rangers FC’s advisors Grant Thornton UK LLP, dated 30th March 2011, that:’
“All the recorded payroll taxes at 31 December 2010 have, according to the accounting records of the Club since that date been paid in full by 31 March 2011, with the exception of the continuing discussion between the Club and HM Revenue and Customs in relation to a potential liability of £2.8m associated with contributions between 1999 and 2003 into a discounted option scheme. These amounts have been provided for in full within the interim financial statements.”
Regan then goes on to say:
‘Since the potential liability was under discussion by Rangers FC and HM Revenue & Customs as at 31st March 2011, it could not be considered an overdue payable as defined by Article 50. We are satisfied that the evidence from all parties complied with Article 50 and, on that basis, a licence was awarded for season 2011-12. Add editor’s notes. (Include Article 50 here from UEFA Regulations)’
Following discussions later in December with Campbell Ogilvie in attendance (Hotel De Ville?) the SFA issued no statement. So whilst Regan might have had to approach RFC with his statement because of the confidentiality of licensing, what exactly was Regan told thereafter that kept him silent on the justification?
Was any of that mentioned to enquires Celtic made subsequently ?