Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns

Avatar ByDonald Stewart

Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns

In the aftermath of the recent election and whilst those of us who voted one way are still hoping that our way continues to count, the horse trading has begun. No matter your politics, the fact that a party wholly representing one part of the United Kingdom is suddenly having such a massive influence, coupled with a lack of detail in the public domain over their negotiations, causes people some nervousness; because of the nature of the DUP, for some they claim it terrifies them.

Can we imagine if football was run that way? Can we imagine if it wasn’t?

Having people who have one focus deliberating and influencing your life has always been an issue at the core of the United Kingdom. Proud Scots do not like the power of the English, some English have begun to resent the growing independence of the Scots, the Welsh have turned out to have their own independence and as for the Irish; the Trouble has always never been far behind.

The recognised method of dealing with these issues has now become to allow, where possible, organisations within the domain of the domicile to grow on their own. For some it sows the seeds of an increasing independence as the locals realise they can do it for themselves. It also does, though ensure the organisation is close to its own people and is truly representative of them.

In Scotland, and throughout the last election, the big two – Conservative and Labour parties – have suffered under the accusations of being a “branch office” of their London centric big sister. It has led to people making choices based on the assumption that, at times, neither of the leaders up here have autonomy. When there are policies that will be unpopular in Scotland, they say, the high heid yins in Edinburgh have no choice but to toe the party line.

We do not like that thought.

Nor should we.

I suggested that football has a similar issue. And so. It does…

The views and opinions of the Scottish fans who last Saturday threw up their hands in joy and held their heads in despair all within 90 seconds or so suffer from that lack of representation. As deals are done in secret and “announcements” made over innovations and changes they are collectively silent through the funded organisation established to represent them; at best that organ is muted.

Never has it been more important for the Scottish football fan to feel the importance of their view being heard. Never has it been more important as Project Brave is being undertaken, chairmen are being fined £3,000 for having a bet, we look as though we are going to miss out on another World Cup, expansion of our cup competitions is growing apace, play offs and promotions have delivered their verdicts and handed their budgets to managers who bemoaned last year it was hard, that one of our two giant clubs seems unable to keep itself out of the court room whilst supplying the accused, the defence lawyer, the pantomime villain and a circus or at least two premiership clubs appear to be on the verge of administration.

Supporters Direct – Undemocratic?

The time has come to ensure that the voice of the footballing nation does not come from around the Isles but around the corner. Whilst the work of Supporters Direct has brought a great deal of support and aid to a number of clubs and supporters groups, the fans need something that is much more than a branch office of a bigger organisation.

In the recent past, SD have seemingly been forced to be more visible but let us not be fooled, if you are an ordinary fan, SD have no place for you. You cannot join, you cannot vote, and you cannot influence; so there is not much point. Building a democratic and fair vocal chord for Scottish football fans needs commitment from the bottom up to engage, enlist and enrich the chorus and chanting of disapproval or support for Scottish football.

That’s why I am in the SFSA – isn’t it time for the Scottish Government to take the bull, grasp the thistle and make the clear choice of removing money going all the way to London and giving it to a fans based organisation that represents them here in Scotland?

We think so… don’t you?

Join the SFSA today! It’s free

About the author

Avatar

Donald Stewart author

Donald C Stewart is a lifelong Ayr United fan; the brooding eyes, the depressed demeanour and likelihood to become excited at winning corners a give away. A former Director of Ayr United Football Academy, he is now their Fundraising Manager and Safeguarder. Formerly regular broadcaster for Kicktalk, contributor for Scotzine and now boxing correspondent for Ringside Report and Talking Baws.

1,165 Comments so far

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on9:18 am - Jul 18, 2017


DEN
JULY 17, 2017 at 23:04 

The fans were not supposed to know that they were buying from anyone other than the club. 

There was lot of deception and that was a key one.
=====================================

It was standard operating procedure. 

The club sold their tickets to Ticketus at a discount. The club then sold the tickets (on Ticketus’ behalf) getting a commission for doing it.

As far as the fan was aware they were just buying their tickets as normal. The club didn’t have to explain that they didn’t have enough money to see out the season. They also didn’t have to put a loan into their accounts as they hadn’t taken one, they had just sold their tickets.

Rangers were no different from anyone with regards this “deception”. Except of course that other people did it to help cash flow towards the end of the season. Rangers did it for entirely different reasons. 

View Comment

oddjob

oddjobPosted on9:36 am - Jul 18, 2017


The head of Spanish football has been arrested during an anti corruption raid at the Spanish Football Federation by police.
So it spreads, where next?

View Comment

normanbatesmumfc

normanbatesmumfcPosted on9:53 am - Jul 18, 2017


My email to McDonalds;

You should be aware that The Scottish Football Association (Scotland) whom McDonald’s sponsor, are as diametrically opposed to McDonald’s good governance policy as can be. “The basis for our entire business is that we are ethical, truthful and dependable. It takes time to build a reputation. We are not promoters. We are business people with a solid, permanent, constructive ethical program that will be in style years from now even more than it is today.”– Ray Kroc, 1958The SFA are none of the above as any cursory check of social media will tell you. The Scottish media are less reliable as a source, most having ignored the corruption in the last five years and only Channel 4 News has put any focus on the problem. Seehttps://www.channel4.com/news/hmrc-wins-rangers-tax-battle It would be worth while contacting Alex Thomson who knows quite  a bit about the issues. The SFA, in spite of having one of the UK’s biggest sporting scandals happening on its watch have issued a statement saying the matter is closed, which is an abandonment of ethics.The SFA are an organisation McDonald’s would do well to review its relationship with or if possible (to a round of supporter applause) attempt to instil some of Ray Krogh’s/McDonald’s corporate values.Perhaps it’s not a news item, but it could become one as the SFA continue to treat their customers like fools. You might wish to refer to your marketing department to consider.
 
No more McDonald’s for me and my family while you continue to support this corruption and the shameless liars at the SFA.

My Name

View Comment

Avatar

causaludendiPosted on10:12 am - Jul 18, 2017


I too copied & pasted the letter to McDonalds but I changed what I believed to be a spelling mistake of “Krogh’s” to “Kroc’s”.

View Comment

Avatar

goosygoosyPosted on2:21 pm - Jul 18, 2017


The Road Ahead
The RTC Blog went through a lengthy period to establish its credentials. It then became the go to site for discussing corrupt activities being ignored by the MSM. These  involved  RFC plc and our football  governing bodies.
When its assertions were ultimately proved correct and RFC plc went into liquidation, RTC wisely chose to end the blog. Its purpose was achieved. A corrupt club supported by a corrupt SMSM and corrupt governing authorities died a just death.
SFM was created as a successor to RTC. It gained momentum from a  groundswell of opposition by ordinary fans.It opposed corrupt behaviour by the SPL, SPFL and SFA as it dealt with the new club, Sevco Scotland founded in May 2012 to exploit the assets of RFC in liquidation
Concurrently, SFM aimed to become more representative of all fans by widening the topics discussed and  sharing views on other controversial  issues.
 When SFM was created nobody thought for a minute that it would have to confront the unique fantasy of a dead club being called a living club and 50k sane people  swallowing such nonsense. Nor was it anticipated that every Scottish newspaper would somersault 180 degrees on what they had witnessed and reported in front page headlines in May 2012. Nobody believed either that it would take 5 yrs. for an open and shut tax case to be finally put to bed when the result was so glaringly obvious in 2012.
However
It happened
So
How does May 2012 compare with July 2017? 
It is plain that the cancer in our governing bodies has increased not decreased. Corruption is now so endemic that something much greater than online exposure and condemnation is required. Action is needed to inform and mobile some sort of crowd action.
IMO
We are on the cusp of the most blatantly corrupt Statement ever issued by our Football Authorities since the game was founded in the 19th century.
And we are quite likely to see a united front supporting corruption by all members of the SPFL Board
If
The SPFL ,without Board resignations issue a corrupt statement declaring they will do nothing about correcting titles won through cheating by RFC plc
Then
This SFM blog is at a crossroads
Trying to fight corruption with words will have failed to persuade even one club to come out for sporting integrity.
So where do we go from there?
IMO
Either
SFM prioritise rooting out corruption above every other topic and become in effect a single issue blog in support of mass action on various fronts
Or
SFM give up debating corruption and simply continue as a discussion forum for football matters of common interest.
That’s where I think we are.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on2:26 pm - Jul 18, 2017


JJ’s latest blog and email chain from the days following the LNS decision are illuminating. Well done to him for sourcing and publishing the information.
https://johnjamessite.com/2017/07/18/the-anatomy-of-a-cover-up/

We have the following board members commenting as follows:

Michael Johnston (Kilmarnock) – In my view, we should NOT appeal. 

Stephen Thomson (Dundee United) – I personally wish to ‘draw a line under this’ and move on.

Ralph Topping (Independent chairman) – The outcome in my view is still not proportionate.

Duncan Fraser (Aberdeen) – I am at pains to point out that I, like Ralph, find the size of the fine and therefore the punishment to be disproportionate to the scale of the actions undertaken. 

….. and in conclusion:

Ralph Topping – The consensus is clear on an appeal. There is a majority against.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on2:32 pm - Jul 18, 2017


So what happens next for those who benefited from Ranger’s tax avoidance I hear you ask.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/follower-notices-and-accelerated-payments–2

Follower notices and accelerated payments 

What to do if you’ve been involved in a tax avoidance scheme and receive a follower notice or accelerated payment notice from HMRC.

Overview
If you’ve been involved in a tax avoidance scheme, you could receive a follower notice, accelerated payment notice (APN), or both from HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC).

The notice you receive will tell you what you need to do. Make sure you follow the steps in the notice, if you don’t, you may have to pay a penalty.

Follower notice
If you use a tax avoidance scheme that has the same or similar arrangements to one that HMRC has successfully challenged in court, HMRC will check your tax affairs and may send you a follower notice.

A follower notice asks you to settle your tax affairs with HMRC. If you don’t, you may have to pay a penalty.

As well as a follower notice, you may also receive an APN. If you do, you’ll need to pay the accelerated payment as well as settling your tax affairs.

Accelerated payment notice
You may receive an APN if there’s an enquiry, dispute or appeal in progress that relates to your tax affairs and you’ve either:

been given a follower noticeused a disclosure of tax avoidance schemes (DOTAS) notifiable arrangementreceived a General Anti-Abuse Rule (GAAR) counteraction notice
If you receive an APN, you must pay the amount of disputed tax. HMRC will hold this money until the enquiry into your affairs is complete, or your appeal is resolved. You’ll get the money back if HMRC finds you don’t owe it.

If you don’t pay the disputed tax amount by the date on the notice, you may have to pay a penalty.

View Comment

Avatar

JimmyBeeJayPosted on2:56 pm - Jul 18, 2017


Hi folks,
I am becoming frustrated that no punishment is going to be extended to Sevco/Rangers!  It would appear to me, that the long silence game is being played by all involved i.e. SFA/SPL/Media/Government!
We seem to be living in a land where this injustice is never going to be aired, as the Establishment have locked all the doors!
Celtic are being isolated, therefore if they don’t act soon, anything that they do, will become a sectarian issue, which of course must always be swept under the carpet!  
It appears to me that Scottish Football Fans will have to live with governing bodies, that ask permission from the Ibrox Board before making statements!
Where do we go from here?

Jimmy Bee (Maybe the heat is getting to me?)

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on3:08 pm - Jul 18, 2017


HOMUNCULUSJULY 18, 2017 at 14:32
If you receive an APN, you must pay the amount of disputed tax. HMRC will hold this money until the enquiry into your affairs is complete, or your appeal is resolved. You’ll get the money back if HMRC finds you don’t owe it.
If you don’t pay the disputed tax amount by the date on the notice, you may have to pay a penalty.
—————-
If HMRC go after the employees then they will have to pay up first until appeal is resolved,
A lot of players looking for their letters.
HOMUNCULUS do you know how HMRC would view these letters? if my summary is correct?

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on3:12 pm - Jul 18, 2017


CLUSTER ONE
JULY 18, 2017 at 15:08
=============================

Indeed, the point of an APN is that the person pays up front and then gets the money back if it is found they didn’t owe the tax. The idea was to stop people mucking about for years, this way they are forced into resolving things much more quickly.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on3:16 pm - Jul 18, 2017


JIMMYBEEJAY
JULY 18, 2017 at 14:56

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on3:35 pm - Jul 18, 2017


ODDJOB
JULY 18, 2017 at 09:36 
The head of Spanish football has been arrested during an anti corruption raid at the Spanish Football Federation by police.So it spreads, where next?
=========================

The SFA / SPFL aside, FIFA & UEFA have been commonly regarded as corrupt organisations by the paying punters – and have done so for a very long time.  Only relatively recently has FIFA been busted very publicly.

IMO, we have to assume that EVERY FA across the globe is corrupt – to a greater or lesser extent – unless proved otherwise.  At the very least by association with, and support of, either organisation.

Here’s a depressing thought: mibbees our very own Hampden blazers are amongst the least corrupt FA’s ! 

And as JJ refers to above: yes we seem to be at a watershed.

But why should we expect the clubs / SFA / SPFL to suddenly change their behaviour now – and implicitly admit they were wrong / corrupt / incompetent when dealing with the Ibrox club[s] ?

Perhaps they will offer a pathetic sop to the disillusioned Scottish fans, in the hope that it will keep them – and their money – onside, and everyone could ‘happily move along’.

Don’t know what that sop could be, but fully expect it would only enrage fans further…  11 

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on3:57 pm - Jul 18, 2017


HOMUNCULUSJULY 18, 2017 at 15:12
Thanks for reply
————-
I did read somewhere(now correct me if i’m wrong)there was a law passed not long ago that HMRC could go after employees for unpaid tax.If so would the ex players of an ibrox club soon Receive an  (APN),and if so just how soon after HMRC won the SC case?

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on4:21 pm - Jul 18, 2017


Finance Act 2014

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/26/contents/enacted/data.htm

Part 4 covers Follower notices and accelerated payments

Chapter 1 Para 200 defines “Relevant tax”

200“Relevant tax”
In this Part, “relevant tax” means—

(a)income tax,
(b)capital gains tax,
(c)corporation tax, including any amount chargeable as if it were corporation tax or treated as if it were corporation tax,
(d)inheritance tax,
(e)stamp duty land tax, and
(f)annual tax on enveloped dwellings.

Chapter 2 covers Follower Notices

Chapter 3 covers Accelerated Payments

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on4:25 pm - Jul 18, 2017


CLUSTER ONE
JULY 18, 2017 at 15:57
================================

I believe HMRC have given recipients of EBTs until 2019 to repay them or pay the tax due on them.  

https://www.taxation.co.uk/Articles/2016/04/05/334565/heads-i-win-tails-you-lose

The measures to come in 2017 will transform the dynamic. We do not have the detailed legislation and it will be subject to consultation but, if it resembles the proposals, everybody who has clients with unresolved EBT enquiries will have to think carefully about what advice to give.

Under the proposals, loans to beneficiaries outstanding on 5 April 2019 will be subject to a PAYE charge on that date on the full value of the loan. This is regardless of when the loan was taken out. So a person may have taken a loan in, say, 2006, well before the disguised remuneration was thought about and when prevailing case law was against HMRC on the PAYE matter. Nevertheless a PAYE charge will arise. There are a few exceptions to this rule but they appear to be insignificant and do not affect the general principle.

The government is also proposing to make it easier to collect the PAYE on this liability from the individual rather than the company. This is again a major change. There are circumstances under the existing rules in which PAYE liability can be transferred to an individual but these are complex and do not naturally apply in an EBT context. It is not clear from the documents, but it seems that this power will be available for all charges under the disguised remuneration regime – not just those relating to loans unpaid at 5 April 2019.

I foresee all kinds of difficulties in framing the legislation in a way that operates both practically and fairly.

Further technical charges are also proposed to the provisions to tighten perceived weaknesses and interactions between parts of the legislation, but the detail will have to wait until the consultation paper is issued.

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on4:58 pm - Jul 18, 2017


EASYJAMBOJULY 18, 2017 at 14:26

Is it not fair to say that the JJ emails show the whole board decisions as
Doncaster – No appeal – no reason given
Johnston – No appeal – no reason given but was to be discussed at next board meeting.
Thompson – No appeal – wants to draw a line under it.
Fraser – No appeal (has concerns over level of punishment etc) but decision appears to be purely based on the technicalities of what they would be appealing on.
Topping – No appeal (has concerns over level of punishment etc) but appears to be going with the majority of the four above.
Reilly – No disclosure to date of what his feedback was. However clearly concerned over the whole process, lack of time etc etc.

Given that as many as three members were possibly concerned over the how the whole process was handled and that the final tax position is now known it is hard to imagine why a review of the whole affair is not merited.

View Comment

normanbatesmumfc

normanbatesmumfcPosted on4:59 pm - Jul 18, 2017


My brother and I, sons of a die-hard Rangers Dad, spent our impressionable youths during the 60’s and despite Faither’s constant attempts to bring us up as wee teddies, (new Rangers strips to go with the Stanley Matthews emblazoned football boots), we were for some reason drawn to the green side of the divide. Thank goodness he passed before the excrement hit the fan, for I believe, honest intelligent and fair man he was, he would have joined the masses in the same club/punished enough p1sh. His passing avoided our great father son relationship descending to god knows where…. 
 
I attended my first Celtic home match in 1965 and from there on was hooked. In my mid/late teens I travelled to as many games as I could afford, via the local supporters club bus and as soon as affordable, I became a proud season ticket holder.
 
I continue to support the club I love for the ensuing decades and recent footage of Lisbon triumphs and what it meant to so many people still bring a tear to my eye.
 
Up until 5 years ago, I remained a season ticket holder and shareholder who regularly bought club merchandise for myself and family. However I felt so angered by my club’s lack of condemnation of what had come to light regarding RFC/SFA/SPL/SFL collusion to cover up or mitigate the fall out of RFC’s shortcomings.
 
I have since withdrawn my financial support of Celtic and have not attended a match since 2012. I also ended my less frequent support of the National team at the same time. However I remained behind Celtic as a lifelong fan hoping they will continue to succeed and prosper as a well-run football club plying their trade on an uphill pitch.
 
Now it seems for me, we are rapidly approaching the last chance saloon. I expect Celtic, (oh how I wish some of the other 40 would grow some cojones) to stand up to all this corruption for once and for all. If they fail, I will never again darken their door, nor call myself a Celtic fan. I will be ashamed of the Club I was once proud to call mine and will treat Scottish Football with the same disdain it shows the game’s fans. For me football will no longer exist.
 
I have heard a few supporters from a variety of clubs mention a crowd action. Although I believe Celtic should get this sorted out via CAS, or failing that, the courts, (an unpunished precedent has been set for this action), I would be willing to support any crowd-funding initiative to go where the high heid yins refuse to go.
 
I already subscribe to this site and two others I deem worthy and would willingly part with more of my hard earned rewards to see some of these charlatans dragged into court to see if they continue to peddle their lies and nonsense under oath. I would love to see them squirming under proper examination and questioning.
 
If sorting this out is left to the fans, I will completely turn my back on the game, however I will not turn my back on integrity and let liars, cheats and spineless conspirators swindle me out of thousands of pounds spent watching a crooked game, not without a fight.
 
All I ask is apply the rules and tell the truth.
 
Count me in…….  

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on5:18 pm - Jul 18, 2017


For those following the email saga over on john james which EJ linked previously, I would have thought this passage was of most import.

in advising the SPL board (sans CFC Rep Eric Riley as he was on holiday) leading-QC-who’s-not-really Rod Mackenzie said,

“…The conclusion of the Commission on sanction was that not disclosing the EBT details to the SPL/SFA did not of itself give Rangers any competitive advantage. It would have had the same competitive advantage even if full details had been disclosed. By not appealing to the SFA the SPL is not saying that competitive advantage is immaterial. It is material to sanction in a disclosure case if a competitive advantage was secured from non disclosure which the Commission held there was not…”

An almost immediate response by Duncan Fraser CEO of Aberdeen seems to immediately spot the flaw in that contrived logic, namely that

“… It seems that they viewed the use of the EBT as resulting in no sporting advantage that Rangers would have received if they had been declared. In which case why were they not declared? ..”

Apologies if my editing for brevity in any way changes the meaning.  We’re this an informal chat post event between two CEOs I could just about wear it.  But it’s not.  This is the board that instructed the damn thing!!!

am I also right in thinking that Rodney was effectively the case for the prosecution at LNS?  He seems to be doing an awful lot of explaining of reasons why he didn’t push a certain angle, provides no evidence (in these emails) of angles that he did push except to confirm that the angle that he definitely should have pushed (that Fraser still seems to think he had pushed) that he, em, definitely didn’t!!!  Oh, and because he didn’t even push it ajar no-one can appeal it.  

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on6:23 pm - Jul 18, 2017


Wottpi 

The analysis of what the minutes of the SPL Board meeting reveal, although coming from a Celtic blogger James Forrest, is pretty accurate and regardless of his team leanings has a message for everyone.

I appreciate ads can cause problems reading but is worth persevering. 
https://thecelticblog.com/2017/07/blogs/the-evidence-mounts-up-that-the-lns-inquiry-was-a-sham-scottish-football-needs-a-new-one/ 

View Comment

Avatar

bigboab1916Posted on7:08 pm - Jul 18, 2017


Smugas
July 18, 2017 at 17:18
 
“…The conclusion of the Commission on sanction was that not disclosing the EBT details to the SPL/SFA did not of itself give Rangers any competitive advantage. It would have had the same competitive advantage even if full details had been disclosed. By not appealing to the SFA the SPL is not saying that competitive advantage is immaterial. It is material to sanction in a disclosure case if a competitive advantage was secured from non disclosure which the Commission held there was not…”
This is legal bullshit we know that having a club provide BUPA for your family, insurance, a car for the entire family and a tax free benefit etc. does not in itself give a sporting advantage, the advantage comes from the calibre of player you will be hoping to catch with these deals and there is your sporting advantage.
You put out a net to catch the best and if you cannot afford it don’t cheat the taxman.
However, by not disclosing the side payment advantages to avoid tax is improper registration and this means that for every time the SFA books were audited and licences granted a fraud was been perpetuated in the background.The SFA know this it’s in their rule book.(fecking chancers)
When you get caught this is when the punishments have to match the crime. If you are restricted in law from carrying out a thorough investigation fully due to restrictions that could otherwise influence a decision in law then you must act once restrictions are lifted, the high court and SC are over the decisions have been made and restrictions are no longer in place you must investigate and perform the actions demanded by your paying customers or you can piss off and demands must be made to bring in someone who will do the job right.

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on8:36 pm - Jul 18, 2017


HOMUNCULUSJULY 18, 2017 at 16:25
Thanks again for reply

View Comment

Avatar

HighlanderPosted on8:45 pm - Jul 18, 2017


Having quickly read through ‘emailgate’ and concluded that our football authorities are in permanent thrall to whichever club is playing out of Ibrox at any given time, I’ve come up with a simple solution to the apparent problem of legal technicalities allegedly making it impossible to revisit LNS and the subject of sporting advantage.
 
How about getting off your corrupt asses and instigating a brand new commission in the light of compelling new evidence of mass cheating by one of your member clubs? It’s neither radical nor rocket science! Nobody remotely connected to the original inquiry should be allowed anywhere near the new one, which should be operated entirely independently of the football authorities.
 
If your response to this proposal is that your rules do not permit such a new commission, I will merely refer you to the other 1872 instances of non-existent rules being applied in favour of both Rangers clubs during this never-ending farce.

Contrary to your arrogant perception of your own importance, you, the club chairmen and your paid employees such as Regan and Doncaster are totally expendable. If you leave, somebody else, no doubt equally bereft of integrity, wiil be there to take your place. If the supporters leave on the other hand……..

It’s time you realised just who wields the ultimate power in Scottish football, and that’s not you. You may, as club chairmen, be customers of the football authorities, but the ultimate customer is the supporter. Fail to understand that and you will get everything you deserve.

View Comment

Avatar

roddybhoyPosted on10:44 pm - Jul 18, 2017


Goosy Goosy 14.21………….Totally agree with your ( as usual ) great post . I have been an avid follower since the very start of TSM . I dont post a lot as your good self, allyjambo, barcabhoy , auldheid , john clark, humoncolous ( spelling!!) etc etc and apologies to all the others I havent mentioned write way better than me and are way more intelligent lol . I only post out of frustration and basically have a moan about how bad the situation is and live in hope that the bad guys get rooted out of our game and we can genuinely move on and get on with the “fitba” again !
I lost interest in the site a while back and it was basically because reading the posts night after night with everyone making great points and bringing things to a point where we now know absolutely for certain the scale of corruptness . But we are  basically , now just going round in circles with no real progress getting made. PLEASE dont think I am having a go at the site and all the talented , clever honest people who contribute. By progress I mean , not a single thing has changed regarding the whole rotten corrupt cabal. Every single one of them are still in place and they dont look like moving anytime soon . This in my opinion is their escape route, that we will talk and talk about it and eventually tire of it and they get away scot free. Like you Goosy I too think that TSFM and many other sites have taken this as far as it can go , the evidence is now there in abundance , as you correctly state we are at a crossroads. We now have to think of some way of getting fan participation , either to put pressure on the corrupt lot or put pressure on their own clubs to make them grow a pair and do the right thing by banishing the Regans , Doncasters etc from our game …………….Im sure there must be people out there with some ideas ??

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on11:30 pm - Jul 18, 2017


roddybhoyJuly 18, 2017 at 22:44
It is for the very reason you make that the last two blogs are about The Scottish Football Supporters Association whom SFM joined up with in the last year.
How they intend going about changing Scottish Football will be launched on Thursday at Holyrood but read this and previous blog again for some background.
Some from SFM are attending so you will get feedback or, if BP is up for it 01, a new blog.

View Comment

Avatar

goosygoosyPosted on12:01 am - Jul 19, 2017


 
I`ll stand corrected if I`m wrong
But
IMO
There is a corrupt plan already in existence supported by ALL the current corrupt members of the corrupt SPFL Board
The primary aim of this plan is to minimise attacks on the integrity ( no laughing) of those corrupt Directors prepared to remain in post after the corrupt SPFL  releases its corrupt Statement. The upcoming corrupt announcement will exonerate 14 yrs. of cheating by a dead member club. Indeed the very non existence of this cheat proves that the long term fear and intimidation orchestrated by its Loony element still haunts Hampden and was a major factor driving the corruption.
A secondary aim will be to support Celtic in its hypocritical pretence that it has “misgivings” about the corrupt statement and would be “inclined” to oppose it.
The Plan?
IMO
Stage 1———- Prior to the date of the corrupt Statement the current Celtic nominee to the corrupt SPFL Board  will resign. No Celtic replacement will be announced prior to the date of the corrupt Statement. Concurrently, selected corrupt SMSM lap dogs will be privately briefed (not by Celtic of course) that Celtic are “outraged” at the corrupt Statement when in reality they are 100% behind it.
Stage2———–One or more of the other corrupt SPFL Board members  will make  their fan organisations aware that they will be (or were) unable to attend or “influence” the crucial meeting arranged to finalise the corrupt Statement. They will also feign “outrage” when in reality they are simply following the instructions of their Club Board.The average fan will be left bewildered at how the SPFL achieved a majority vote supporting its corrupt Statement
Stage 3———–The corrupt SFA/SPFL will provide the  corrupt SMSM with a barrage of squirrels to unleash across Scottish football. All of them aimed at providing alternative issues to fill column  inches in the corrupt gutter press and hopefully smother the Statement furore which ensues.
Stage 4———–Irrespective of reality there will be an increase in favourable press coverage on the initial games played by those Clubs who have leaked their feigned “outrage” at the  corrupt SPFL Statement. If necessary some of these Clubs may  get  unexpected helping hands from Referees if they find themselves in difficulties against traditional underdogs. This favouritism will run its course up to but excluding the TRFC v Celtic match at Ibrox in late September. When that match is over it will provide a useful counterbalance to any accusations of bias in favour of TRFC
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Fanciful ?
Ask yourself the question
What would you do if you have no integrity, controlled Referees, were contemptuous of most football fans and intimidated by the sizeable number of Loonies attached to one Club?
As  I said
 I`ll stand corrected if I`m wrong

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on7:15 am - Jul 19, 2017


The e-mail trail we have all been reading, assuming it is genuine, shows just how far the authorities will go to protect ‘Rangers’. Even if more e-mails appear, the authorities can feel safe in the knowledge the media will not even acknowledge their existence.  I have heard a number of wealthy fans are discussing a judicial review. It is the only hope we have of the real truth ever getting out there. 

View Comment

Avatar

redlichtiePosted on7:20 am - Jul 19, 2017


“Dame Jessica Ennis-Hill to get 2011 world gold in London after Chernova decision
Dame Jessica Ennis-Hill will receive her record-equalling third world heptathlon gold medal in a ceremony at the World Championships in London – six years after the event in Daegu.
The 2011 result was confirmed on Tuesday after the Court of Arbitration for Sport (Cas) dismissed Tatyana Chernova’s blood doping ban appeal.
Chernova beat the Briton to gold in Daegu but her results are now annulled.
The Russian also won bronze medals at the 2008 and 2012 Olympics.
The 29-year-old has been told she must give up all three medals after twice testing positive when her anti-doping samples were later re-analysed. Her biological passport has also revealed years of blood doping.
World governing body the IAAF first stripped Chernova of her Daegu gold in November 2016 but the medal could not be reallocated until the appeal to Cas had been heard.
Several ceremonies to reallocate medals are expected to be held at the London World Championships, which runs from August 4-13.
Ennis-Hill, 31, announced her retirement from athletics in October but will now be able to celebrate her third world heptathlon title in front of a home crowd.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/40650500
                                 *                         *                       *
Other sports do the right thing – why not Scottish Football?
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on8:01 am - Jul 19, 2017


I see a number of posts now stating that JJ’s email train shows a blatant intention to support all things Rangers.  I don’t see that from a diddy’s perspective (outwith the usual oc/nc standpoints).  I just see a mind numbing lack of ambition to recreate the duopoly that has served us all so well in the past.  

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on8:59 am - Jul 19, 2017


redlichtieJuly 19, 2017 at 07:20

“Dame Jessica Ennis-Hill to get 2011 world gold in London after Chernova decisionDame Jessica Ennis-Hill will receive her record-equalling third world heptathlon gold medal in a ceremony at the World Championships in London – six years after the event in Daegu.The 2011 result was confirmed on Tuesday after the Court of Arbitration for Sport (Cas) dismissed Tatyana Chernova’s blood doping ban appeal.Chernova beat the Briton to gold in Daegu but her results are now annulled.The Russian also won bronze medals at the 2008 and 2012 Olympics.The 29-year-old has been told she must give up all three medals after twice testing positive when her anti-doping samples were later re-analysed. Her biological passport has also revealed years of blood doping.World governing body the IAAF first stripped Chernova of her Daegu gold in November 2016 but the medal could not be reallocated until the appeal to Cas had been heard.Several ceremonies to reallocate medals are expected to be held at the London World Championships, which runs from August 4-13.Ennis-Hill, 31, announced her retirement from athletics in October but will now be able to celebrate her third world heptathlon title in front of a home crowd.”http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/40650500                                 *                         *                       *Other sports do the right thing – why not Scottish Football?Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
___________________________________

Last Place and Public Humiliation Belongs to Those Who Would Cheat!

Ah, Redlichtie, but the ‘Scottish Question (Sport)’ remains: ‘would she (Chernova) still have won without using dope? Well, obviously the CAS decided that that vexed question is of no consequence, for there is no way we, or they, could ever find the answer to that.

I am sure Dame Jessica will get little pleasure from collecting that long overdue medal, originally ‘won’ by another ‘on the track’, with feelings of regret, and maybe anger, remaining stronger and longer than any joy. The same will go for those athletes who will move one place up on the podium (assuming they will be there) for nothing can replicate the euphoria of that winning moment. The remaining athletes who participated honestly in those games will see nothing for their efforts, at all.

But.

They will all know that justice has been served, that the years of training to be the best athlete they all could be, even though their chances of victory were slim, have been vindicated, for they all, and in particular, that last young lady to cross the line in what may well have been the biggest race of her life, will know that last place and public humiliation belongs to those who would cheat!

Sadly, Scottish football is yet to catch up on that very important and obvious fact.

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on9:03 am - Jul 19, 2017


SMUGASJULY 19, 2017 at 08:01
=============
If Celtic had been guilty of any wrongdoing as well I would have sympathy with your point. The duopoly argument is separate in my view. They didn’t have to do all they did to protect Rangers to maintain that if that is their only desire. The protection of Rangers to the extent it happened in my view has a far deeper reason.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on9:20 am - Jul 19, 2017


SMUGAS
JULY 19, 2017 at 08:01
===============================

Given the final positions in all domestic competitions last year I can only assume that by duoploy you are referring to Celtic and Aberdeen.

View Comment

LUGOSI

LUGOSIPosted on9:58 am - Jul 19, 2017


Now that EUFA have determined that the going rate for lobbing crumpled up pieces of paper trackside is €7000 can our own Footballing Authorities get on with dealing with the lobbing of a battery at a player which took place over 80 days ago?
While they’re doing that they might as well deal with the pitch invasion by a fan, the confrontation by that fan of a player, the requirement of the Referee to restrain the fan (possible claim by Referee against SFA – outwith Job Description/Overtime), the multiple instances of racism and, ’twas ever thus, the sectarian singing. This would be an opportune time to dust down all of the other instances of sectarian singing which were all taken away for inquiry, investigation, reflection, decision making or whatever it was that they fobbed us off with at the time.
Before any Official raises the matter I know rule enforcing is tricky, except in the minority of 41 clubs, and I admit that I do have a vested interest. My vested interest is in not being cheated, fleeced, defrauded, lied to and treated as if I am an idiot. It’s worth pointing out that no-one has a bigger vested interest in this matter than every person who does not put a penny into Scottish football but takes many pounds out of it. The people who put many pounds into Scottish football and don’t take a penny out of it have every right to question the views, and at times the diktats and demands, of persons in the former category. Whether it is Mr Regan, Doncaster, Traynor, Young, Bryson, Jackson, Wilson, Johnstone, Jack, Keevins, Ogilvie and each and every EBT beneficiary the day your vested interest stops being to solely take money out of the game while putting nothing in you’ll get a vote. Until then you can have a view; a view firmly planted in your own peculiar vested interest; a view which I firmly reject.
Should the Footballing Authorities fail to address the incidents of over 80 days ago and those of an even more mature vintage I believe the approved, dignified, respectful, staunch response is the Royal and Ancient Remedy of Combat by Statement.
“I is disappointed for to note that youse have choiced to have not done nuttin’ about the lobbing…”
“Unfortunappointedly, this are not the first time youse have failed for to treat matters of a lobbing nature equivalently as to how others has been treated…”

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on10:05 am - Jul 19, 2017


SMUGASJULY 19, 2017 at 08:01

Was drafting something similar last night but didn’t post.

I recall recently Les Gray, the Chariman of Hamilton, waxing lyrical why we needed a string T’Rangers in the league etc etc blah blah blah.

However there is never any full, open and transparent explanation why this is the perceived wisdom.

I can wholly agree with some of the arguments if Rangers/T’Rangers were bringing lots of positives to our game.

However for the last few decades, be it through the dodgy tax arrangements of SDM, the forked tongue of their current ‘chair’, the convicted tax dodger DCK and the actions of their supports along with the threats regularly issued by the likes of  Club 1872, surely one has to ask what is it exactly that others, like Gray and Killie’s ex Chair Johnston, think we need them for.

It’s not just a lack of ambition from some, it seems to be a fixed mind set that the status quo must in someway be preserved without any question whatsoever.

I’m sure the answer is cash from the TV deals, the chance of an occasional bumper crowd at a cup game and maybe flogging a player to them now and again,  so if that is all it takes – please just come out and say so and admit they could kill your granny and you would just turn a blind eye.

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on10:12 am - Jul 19, 2017


UPTHEHOOPSJULY 19, 2017 at 09:03
SMUGASJULY 19, 2017 at 08:01=============If Celtic had been guilty of any wrongdoing as well I would have sympathy with your point. The duopoly argument is separate in my view. They didn’t have to do all they did to protect Rangers to maintain that if that is their only desire. The protection of Rangers to the extent it happened in my view has a far deeper reason.
     ————————————————————————————–
  I agree. Protecting Rangers(I.L.) is the first line of defence in protecting themselves. We keep harping on about illegal payments to players, but they were also made to instrumental SFA officers. There is enough to suggest aiding and abetting, and to that end, the cooperation, of other SFA officers….But not if Rangers(I.L.) are not busted in sporting terms. And the whole damned lot of them are hiding behind a deluded support who cannot see past the drambeg drum in front of them. 
   We need a review as Celtic have demanded. I am hoping that Celtic have the haw-maws to make it judicial if refused. If not, it must be crowd funded. 
    I have no idea of costs involved, but I doubt it cannot be funded by a pound at the gate. Celtic,   Aberdeen, and Dundee United fans have already shown the appetite. ….Any more. ?
   There comes a time when wearing badges is not enough. Direct action is required. SFM should play an important part in that, and I’m in. 
   We need to expand into a wider coalition with other sites and fan groups as a starting point. They all need brought under one house….. Then we win ! 
   BP, how about contacting them, and having an “open night” or even an open week, month, or whatever. Moderation will need to be stepped up considerably, as it will be trolled to death, but other sites have experienced moderators to assist. 
    The aim is quite simple……Take down the SFA in its present form. 
   Nemo me impune lacessit
   

View Comment

Avatar

DunderheidPosted on10:52 am - Jul 19, 2017


From today’s Herald (Opinion Piece at back of their Sports Section; written by the paper’s Football Editor, Neil Cameron, bemoaning UEFA for charging Celtic and Rangers* with alleged misdemeanours): a wonderful example of the SMSM’s lack of self-awareness:

To put this in some sort of context, there are stadiums in Europe where black players are routinely abused and yet the clubs always seem to escape bans …

Indeed, Neil.

Indeed.

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on11:35 am - Jul 19, 2017


Latest from JJ is interesting.
 
 
https://johnjamessite.com/author/sitonfence/
 
=======
 
Two things caught my eye.
 
 
Aberdeen fans will wonder at Aberdeen FC silence now given their CEOS views then.
 
 
Rangers explanation about why they never registered side letters no longer stands up when we now know that they deliberately did nor reveal De Boer/Flo side letters to HMRC in 2005, leading HMRC in 2011 before the LNS saga got underway to accuse Rangers of fraud or negligence, yet LNS says no question of dishonesty.
 
Aye right. Dickson got away with the same excuse in his FTT testimony but that FTT was only focussed on the BTC so would not have that information.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on12:26 pm - Jul 19, 2017


Firmly agree with your point 1.  Interested to know who the “ill informed and vitriolic” referred to.

Goes without saying that I agree with your point 2 as well.  Interestingly, the clearly orchestrated campaign as soon as the SC ruling came out always went straight to “it’s been legally dealt with”. Much like Mackenzie’s proclamations in the emails.  There’s nothing to say why they should or could be tried just lots of (to my ignorant mind) horribly contrived legal stuff as to why they most definitely can’t, or shouldn’t, or if that fails well they just won’t ok!

View Comment

jean7brodie

jean7brodiePosted on12:35 pm - Jul 19, 2017


Corrupt officialJuly 19, 2017 at 10:12

We keep harping on about illegal payments to players, but they were also made to instrumental SFA officers. There is enough to suggest aiding and abetting, and to that end, the cooperation, of other SFA officers….
__________________________________________________
Thanks CO. That is the issue I keep pondering over. How is it explained away?

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on12:41 pm - Jul 19, 2017


WOTTPI

“…I’m sure the answer is cash from the TV deals, the chance of an occasional bumper crowd at a cup game and maybe flogging a player to them now and again, so if that is all it takes – please just come out and say so and admit they could kill your granny and you would just turn a blind eye…”

how many of those outcomes would they have got by LNS charging £250 MILLION for the competitive advantage which was irrecoverable anyway, RFC going under which they did anyway, the new club being endorsed as it was anyway and the previous directors being told to find another sport.  The fanbase, give or take, would have been the same with the same self righteous sense of entitlement.  Investment, if not at current levels, would still have handsomely outstripped all other clubs bar one.  
The new club were welcome to pretend they were the old.  A wee book on a shelf in a cupboard somewhere would confirm they’re not, as it does just now.  Everything else would be the same bar the following.

You could add to the present situation the added benefit that clubs, rightly, would be petrified to come up with such a pathetic scam in future and expect full censure if they did.  Liquidation (the consequence, NOT the punishment) would retain the finality it always did.  That in itself then regulates the clubs use of excessive debt to chase success in the future.  

And finally, an instantly recognisable and identifiable club with all the traditions it always did is suitably chastened to try try again, a bit like the rest of us have to.

Is this set of circumstances, instantly achievable in 2012,  so terribly worse than what we have now?

View Comment

Avatar

FinlochPosted on1:11 pm - Jul 19, 2017


I was told a year or so after the dust from 2012 had settled that there had been a significant financial settlement between The Regan Doncaster Armageddon boys and the chairmen / clubs of the SPL as was.

If that was so it might explain some of the seeming current desire not to revisit old “agreements”.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on1:32 pm - Jul 19, 2017


So why not do so publicly Finloch?  So that one club* could save face and 41 others lose theirs?

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on1:54 pm - Jul 19, 2017


Smugas
There is an underlying issue in that those with a commercial brief are lazy, which has a knock on effect.
They do not value Scottish football as a sellable product in its own right, so they make it sellable on the basis the outside world value the 4 times plus a year scrap that might overflow into violence.
That makes them lazy and it discourages clubs under SFA development programme from actively trying to er develop. Why bother if you have a regular meal ticket?
Now an alternative if we improve the product would be to sell our game as a truly family all inclusive one but that cannot be done as long as there is no check on the toxic element .
The opportunity to go down the road of cleaning up what makes the game toxic was missed in 2012. Indeed one might argue with some conviction the concessions given to Green by lazy short sighted men have made matters worse.
It’s time not only for an enquiry but a national debate that aknowledges the blue hue of the elephant in the room, its effect on others and comes up with solutions.
That does not mean killing the blue elephant, it means helping them to become grey.
If they do end up bust in the coming season it will take more than a giant defibrillator to revive them but if they do go, those men too lazy to come up with alternatives (streaming our games globally for example on the sheer Scottishness of it) will have a second chance to get it right.
Cue Gerry Rafferty?

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on2:00 pm - Jul 19, 2017


Did I get link Right This Time??

https://youtu.be/0wiCQHWUbUY

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on2:11 pm - Jul 19, 2017


JEAN7BRODIEJULY 19, 2017 at 12:35
    “Thanks CO. That is the issue I keep pondering over. How is it explained away?”
           ———————————————————————————–
   It hasn’t been Miss. Other than, “He’s a very nice man”. 

View Comment

Tincks

TincksPosted on2:31 pm - Jul 19, 2017


goosygoosy  July 18, 2017 at 14:21  
The Road Ahead
——————————–
An excellent summary. 

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on3:46 pm - Jul 19, 2017


GOOSYGOOSY
JULY 19, 2017 at 00:01 

Stage 1———-
Prior to the date of the corrupt Statement the current Celtic nominee to the corrupt SPFL Board  will resign. No Celtic replacement will be announced prior to the date of the corrupt Statement. Concurrently, selected corrupt SMSM lap dogs will be privately briefed (not by Celtic of course) that Celtic are “outraged” at the corrupt Statement when in reality they are 100% behind it.

==============================

Yes, with CFC being the only club so far to put its head above the parapet – re: the statement issued following the SC judgement – the club has very deliberately chosen to place itself in this position.

[And a very prompt reaction to the judgement, when the club has typically dragged its feet re: Res12 etc.]

With the fans – especially CFC fans – eagerly awaiting some action from Hampden, the onus is then on CFC to withdraw its representatives from the SFA & SPFL if the club fundamentally disagrees with the inaction, [or with any inadequate, proposed action.]

But, can’t imagine Lawwell would voluntarily abandon CFC’s formal positions of influence at Hampden, so any withdrawal would only be temporary, IMO.

So, mibbees you are right: a staged manoeuver by all clubs, in the hope that the fans will just not be able to get themselves organised – and once the season starts, the fans might just forget…and move on…for the good of Scottish football, of course !

But the Internet Bampots might not give up that easily!  16

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on3:52 pm - Jul 19, 2017


Over on JJ’s site a poster (The Man) reminds us of a key part of the evidence in relation to the operation of the tax avoidance schemes.

If there was nothing to fear, not only did Rangers not present documentation and side letters to the footballing authorities, as questioned by Duncan Fraser, the evidence available is that they apparently denied these side letters actually existed when questioned by the HMRC.

The whole matter goes far beyond a simple administrative error or differences in interpretation of tax laws and footballing rules.

This was a dishonest undertaking from day one and the subterfuge in relation to side letters and the likes continued for many years despite knowing investigators were on the case.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on4:03 pm - Jul 19, 2017


WOTTPI

Correct, or to put it in RTC terms.

To win one (the BTC) by acknowledging the side letters in “proving” their non taxable nature was to lose the other (LNS) in acknowledging they existed at all.  And it is, sorry, should have been, just as inescapable the other way around.  

If, miraculously, they did somehow escape meaningful punishment in both then surely the “guards” had to go for rank incompetence for allowing such a situation to occur?  What was their purpose if it was not to guard against just such a distortion?  For all three elements to ask us to carry on as if nothing has happened is just taking the piss!

View Comment

jean7brodie

jean7brodiePosted on4:06 pm - Jul 19, 2017


Corrupt officialJuly 19, 2017 at 14:11
_______________________________
More than one11 so they are ‘very nice men’?04

View Comment

macfurgly

macfurglyPosted on4:09 pm - Jul 19, 2017


In the light of the SC decision the LNS Commission does not need to be reviewed, it needs to be set aside and a new independent inquiry established.
LNS’s findings that no sporting advantage was gained depended on the then current FTTT majority view that they were legal and so other clubs could use them. This has fallen.
It is now known that RFC(IL) illegally paid 50+ players over 7 years in all matches at home and in Europe and often with all or most of the team paid thus. It is also known now that by failing to disclose these payments and the side letters to the SFA* they breached their rules on the same scale and that ignorance of these rules or their application in the case of some legal payments is not sustainable.
A new review, rather embarrassingly, cannot have its terms of reference set by the SFA as their CEO sat on the last one and their Past President had an EBT. It can however be set up by the SPFL, although as Regan has helpfully pointed out it would need to be wholly independent, as there may be “vested interests” within the SPFL.
This is essential not only because of the sporting advantage issue, but because to ignore illegal activity by one of its members on this scale, now publicly known, shows either a breathtaking disregard for the law and the SPFL’s own rules, or raises suspicions of there being something to hide. This is not now a question of which clubs favour an inquiry, but which don’t, and why.
An inquiry would not be a witch hunt, but an opportunity to finally deal with this scandal in the public domain and, presumably, would be an opportunity to show that no one at the SPFL (SFL) or SFA did anything wrong.
If they do not commission such an inquiry, then they had better hope that no one else does, because that would certainly leave them vulnerable to accusations of incompetence or worse. Get it done and clean up this mess.
Finally, any legal advice received by the SFA should be made public. There is no reason of commercial confidentiality attached to a confirmation of the reasons behind a course of legal action or not. An unnecessary and glaringly obvious lack of transparency also inevitably raises suspicions of something to hide.
*I assume RFC(IL) did not disclose side letters to the SFA.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on4:29 pm - Jul 19, 2017


Notice how nobody, not the SFA, not the SPFL, and none of their individual board members, not even any of our ‘journalists’, has actually stated that Rangers FC did not cheat.

They all make excuses for not revisiting Rangers use of EBTs, most notably the football authorities saying their legal counsel advises against it, but still, they never say that Rangers Football Club did not cheat.

Quite telling, really, for if they actually believed that Rangers didn’t cheat, or even if they thought they could get away with it, unchallenged, we can be 100% certain that they would all now be singing from that proverbial hymn sheet, in perfect synchronisation.

View Comment

Avatar

PatsyPosted on6:09 pm - Jul 19, 2017


Peter Lawell stepping down from SPFL board to take up a position on the SFA board could this be a manoeuvre of some sort…I don’t know what for but it seems to me there has to be some very good reason for it whether it’s for the good or bad of the game…any ideas gents/ladies ?

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on6:34 pm - Jul 19, 2017


PATSYJULY 19, 2017 at 18:09       1 Vote 
Peter Lawell stepping down from SPFL board to take up a position on the SFA board
—————–
Who knew there was a position available on the SFA board?
———–
Rangers on verge of place on SPFL board as Celtic chief Peter Lawwell decides against standing for re-electionLawwell will instead take up a position on the SFA professional game board
————–
I may be wrong but my understanding was that PL was on the SFA’s professional game board before.

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on6:46 pm - Jul 19, 2017


PATSYJULY 19, 2017 at 18:09
     Could be any of several reasons Patsy. Stepping out of the firing line while lining up the ducks. A form of protest. Stepping away from the fan to avoid the splatter of errrrrr confliction, A new position in the pipeline, Restructure, Or simply letting them away with it. 
   Time will tell, but in the meantime, is your glass half full, or half empty.  
   I’m half full,  but thirsty.  

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on8:15 pm - Jul 19, 2017


PROFESSIONAL GAME BOARD ^(Chairman) Rod Petrie(Members) Neil Doncaster, Duncan Fraser, Peter Lawwell, Alan McRae, MichaelMulraney, Stewart Regan, Sandy Stables, Ralph Topping and Andrew Waddell
^Correct as at (12th July 2015)+Independent Non-Executive Director*Co-opted member
————–
If i’m correct(please tell me if i’m wrong)Did PL step down from the professional game board to go to the SPFL board,and now he is  stepping down from SPFL board to take up a position on the SFA board.
Why did he step down from the PROFESSIONAL GAME BOARD to the SPFL board and why is he moving back to the SFA board?

View Comment

Avatar

goosygoosyPosted on12:13 am - Jul 20, 2017


 
STEVIEBC
JULY 19, 2017 at 15:46
GOOSYGOOSY JULY 19, 2017 at 00:01  … There is a corrupt plan already in existence supported by ALL the current corrupt members of the corrupt SPFL Board The primary aim of this plan is to minimise attacks on the integrity ( no laughing) of those corrupt Directors prepared to remain in post after the corrupt SPFL  releases its corrupt Statement. The upcoming corrupt announcement will exonerate 14 yrs. of cheating by a dead member club. Indeed the very non existence of this cheat proves that the long term fear and intimidation orchestrated by its Loony element still haunts Hampden and was a major factor driving the corruption. A secondary aim will be to support Celtic in its hypocritical pretence that it has “misgivings” about the corrupt statement and would be “inclined” to oppose it. The Plan? IMO Stage 1———- Prior to the date of the corrupt Statement the current Celtic nominee to the corrupt SPFL Board  will resign. No Celtic replacement will be announced prior to the date of the corrupt Statement. Concurrently, selected corrupt SMSM lap dogs will be privately briefed (not by Celtic of course) that Celtic are “outraged” at the corrupt Statement when in reality they are 100% behind it.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Yes, with CFC being the only club so far to put its head above the parapet – re: the statement issued following the SC judgement – the club has very deliberately chosen to place itself in this position.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
DR online 17.35pm 19 July 2017
Rangers on verge of place on SPFL board as Celtic chief Peter Lawwell decides against standing for re-election
 
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Corrupt PL getting out ahead of corrupt SPFL Statement. He is walking away at our time of greatest need
Positive proof
The guy has just confirmed he supports corruption 
Integrity and decency have no place in his mindset
Fancy thinking the average football fan can`t see through what he is doing ?
He is treating all Scottish fans with contempt
And treating Celtic fans like dirt
I hope the CFC board fire him for this
Bro Walfrid must be turning in his grave

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on12:58 am - Jul 20, 2017


By way of light entertainment this evening, I was fiddling about on the Companies House site, looking up this and that (in the course of trying to find whether the full text of the RIFC plc IPO was still available on the net-doesn’t seem to be?)  and my attention was drawn to the list of current shareholders of RIFC plc.

I see that one these is ‘River and Mercantile Asset Management LLP” ( 3,523,059 shares, representing 4.3%)

So I look them up.

One of their shareholders is “River and Mercantile Holdings Ltd”

So I look them up.

And they are wholly owned by ‘River and Mercantile Group plc.’

Now it seems that one of the other companies in that ‘Group’ is ‘Manolete Partners PLC’

So I look them up by name on the web (not just on Companies House).

And I have (and it might just be me)  a wee laugh to myself.

Manolete Partners PLC are ( at least according to themselves) a hot-shot set of ‘Insolvency Litigation’ lawyers, seemingly very good at getting money for stiffed creditors!

If TRFC Ltd/RIFC plc  were to go belly up into Liquidation ( in the way that the old Rangers of 1872 did) what price the creditors going for the services of Manolete Partners PLC?

As I say, the idea of that made me laugh.

What does not make me laugh is the fact that there is a gaggle of forsworn men, supposedly in charge of the application of the rules governing the sport in relation to  which they are both the rule makers  and rule enforcers,who are now lying through their teeth to try to defend the lies they have told for years, prostituting themselves and their souls for utterly base considerations.

I have no idea whether, or to what extent, the directors of the genuine 41 clubs in the SPFL know what is said on this blog.

But let them know that they ,individually, are now attracting to themselves the scorn and contempt that SDM brought upon himself , and that attaches to those wretched perverters of truth and honesty, namely the members of the two ‘Boards’  that they elected.

The Nimmo Smith decision was not some sacred decision of a Court of Law.

It was (in the event) an utterly unsound decision arrived at by an in-house appointed committee which had no more  formal legal status in terms of the law of the land than the decisions of my ‘ proprietors’ association’ when it decides that I have to pay £x a year to have the grass in the ‘common areas’ cut.

If I tell them to get stuffed, and can persuade enough of my fellow ‘residents’ to agree, then the proprietors’ association not only can, but MUST review their decision.

There is no ‘complex legal situation’.

The SPFL, the SFA, are not prevented by ‘legality’ from re-visiting an actually factually unsound and incorrect administrative decision made by a body of their own creation.

They are in charge, they call the tunes.

They called the wrong tune when they set up the ‘LNS Commission’ andd allowed the withholding of critical evidence, and allowed some absolute disgrace to his profession to act ,more as defender of the ‘accused’ than prosecutor, with his absurd Alice-in-Wonderland linguistic gymnastics about ‘registration’.

The businessmen who run our clubs must know what an ars.hole of a lawyer, and how false that lawyer is.And how tainted, therefore, the ‘Commission’s’ decision.

That they shelter behind the kind of guff that is being spouted by people that they KNOW are lying says something powerful about them.

QED.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on1:59 am - Jul 20, 2017


goosygoosyJuly 20, 2017 at 00:13
‘..Corrupt PL getting out ahead of corrupt SPFL Statement. He is walking away at our time of greatest needPositive proofThe guy has just confirmed he supports corruption Integrity and decency have no place in his mindsetFancy thinking the average football fan can`t see through what he is doing ..’
_______
There is the possibility, of course, that rather than being an indication that he ‘supports corruption’ Lawwell ( and Celtic) are making a point: who would want to be a board member of a corrupt SPFL?
Celtic ( as I understand things) have said that the ‘no sporting advantage’ decision must surely be revisited.
If the Ralphs of this world and the other supporters of sporting wrongdoing (when they  know it is wrongdoing) cannot in their fear/ partisanship/feckin stupidity be brought to reason, why would anyone want to be a board member with them?
Seriously, would you want to sit round a table with guys like those on either of our two football governance boards?
I certainly wouldn’t.

View Comment

Avatar

grecian urnPosted on7:38 am - Jul 20, 2017


Memo to Green Brigade, you don’t speak for me.

View Comment

shug

shugPosted on9:13 am - Jul 20, 2017


What a lot of false outrage at a banner of frank spencer with sunglasses lol.I suppose that means I will need to stop wearing combats and sunglasses just in someone thinks it is pro something or other ffs people grow up.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on9:25 am - Jul 20, 2017


John ClarkJuly 20, 2017 at 00:58

The Nimmo Smith decision was not some sacred decision of a Court of Law.
______

Totally agree with you on that, John. What’s more, I doubt any court in the land would uphold the 5WA (if that is what prevents LNS being revisited) if it contains the condition that an illegal act must go unpunished or not face a full examination. The same, too, with regards to the LNS parameters that made the decision final, which ignored the fact that it contained a major aspect that might later, under an ongoing legal case, be deemed to be illegal. Basically, the BTC decision trumped LNS – by a long way!

The law might well be an ass, but it isn’t there to enable wrongdoers to cover up their wrongdoings. It is there, on the face of it, at least, to stop the wrongdoing, or to discourage the wrongdoing happening again. 

It may well be, of course, that the SFA and SPFL(SPL) have got themselves into a position whereby they cannot prosecute a case against RFC, themselves, but that doesn’t mean they can’t get the CAS involved, though that is something, I am sure, they definitely don’t want. In fact, I am sure that if the right kind of pressure, came from the right kind of source, that the game’s governors would be falling over themselves to find some way of keeping it in-house with a new tribunal of their own, for whatever happens, the last thing they want is for an investigations with parameters that might go much further than Rangers’ use of EBTs!

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on9:37 am - Jul 20, 2017


Agreed AJ but I’d add a couple of points.  Whatever it’s legal veracity LNS found Rangers guilty and fined them.  This was, I think, Duncan Fraser’s point that regardless of his surprise at the outcome that you can’t appeal on the basis that you simply don’t like the decision.  Fwiw I have to say I find the words (those that we have) of Rod McKenzie disingenuous at best in this regard.  He appears to have a reason why “we can’t” at every turn.  Has anyone thought to ask the man “if we can” at any point?  I would have thought that should have been his original remit.

Secondly, to me, there has to be a reason why the indemnity leaked by Charlotte and the logical counter one that one assumes exists are separate agreements rather than within the 5WA itself.

View Comment

Avatar

justbecauseyoureparanoidPosted on9:56 am - Jul 20, 2017


SHUGJULY 20, 2017 at 09:13

No Shug. it’s the silly wee neds who think they’re being clever that need to grow up.

View Comment

Avatar

Big PinkPosted on10:00 am - Jul 20, 2017


Grecian Urn
Nor me.

View Comment

Avatar

Big PinkPosted on10:05 am - Jul 20, 2017


Shug
Nothing false about my outrage. Your moral equivalence thing is very much false though.
Choice of wearing geeky clothing = deliberately provocative banners signifying SFA to do with football? Don’t think so.

View Comment

macfurgly

macfurglyPosted on10:35 am - Jul 20, 2017


SmugasJuly 20, 2017 at 09:37  —————
My best guess would be that if they are separate it is because it was assumed that the 5WA would become public knowledge at some point and the indemnities could remain concealed.
I also suspect that the indemnities and the 5WA are behind the recently received legal advice, hence Rod McKenzie’s inability to give a coherent or plausible explanation.
The SFA, and up to this point the SPFL, are not going to investigate what must be the biggest case of illegal payments made to players in the history of world football, and the sporting advantage gained from them, because they agreed that if TRFC as is paid the football debts of RFC(IL) then no action would be taken against RFC(IL), regardless of the outcome of the BTC.
This was wrong from the off. There was absolutely no reason why a new company (and club) should pay the debts of an entirely separate old one.
Give TRFC their money back and deal with the illegal payments.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on10:40 am - Jul 20, 2017


GOOSYGOOSY
JULY 20, 2017 at 00:13 Corrupt PL getting out ahead of corrupt SPFL Statement. He is walking away at our time of greatest needPositive proofThe guy has just confirmed he supports corruption Integrity and decency have no place in his mindsetFancy thinking the average football fan can`t see through what he is doing ?He is treating all Scottish fans with contemptAnd treating Celtic fans like dirtI hope the CFC board fire him for thisBro Walfrid must be turning in his grave

===================================

As I understand it both he and Ian Maxwell (Partick Thistle) are not standing for re-election, both are going to be on the SFA’s Professional Game Board. 

View Comment

macfurgly

macfurglyPosted on10:40 am - Jul 20, 2017


…and get RFC(IL)’s history off the TRFC page on the SPFL website.

View Comment

Avatar

causaludendiPosted on10:53 am - Jul 20, 2017


There is the possibility, of course, that rather than being an indication that he ‘supports corruption’ Lawwell ( and Celtic) are making a point: who would want to be a board member of a corrupt SPFL? 

JC, Celtic / Lawwell are not making a point. His term of office has expired and rather than put himself forward for re-election he is moving to the SFA’s Professional Game Board – a position he held until 2015 IIRC.
I hope upon hope that we are about to see something akin to justice but with this saga’s history and track record I fear that Goosy shall be closer to the money with his prediction. Whilst we wait on the SPFL making a statement the season book money shall still be trickling into the club coffers. Call me a cynic but that is what the ‘omni-shambles’ has reduced me to.

(Something happened the 1st time I wrote this and a wonderful post disappears into the ether ?)

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on10:58 am - Jul 20, 2017


Macfurgly

re the indemnities.  Yes that is my take on them as well.  I’d also throw these two thoughts out there.  To be clear they’re based on nothing but natural cynicism!

1/.  The 5WA would have to have been ratified at the various board levels.  I seriously wonder if the indemnity (plural?) were?  Why?  See 2.

2/. The very existence of the indemnities sucked from the beginning.  Why?  Because Charlie agreed to the unquantified footballing fine of LNS.  An old, wily, very experienced liquidation operator like Charles Green, having seen off the Sevco challenge of Whyte and having finally received assurances that his ‘continuation’ IPO sales pitch would be allowed to fly then decided to risk it all by agreeing to a blank cheque to LNS?  Absolutely not a chance!  He needed two things.  The quantum (I doubt he ever realistically intended to pay anyway) and, crucially, the line in the sand that an indemnity  would offer.  

Again I question if the provision of these were ever sanctioned at the appropriate level, hence the indemnity’s appended nature.  

But thats just my opinion.

ps. Goosy.  JJ has an interesting take on Lawell’s elevation this morning.

View Comment

Avatar

Jingso.JimsiePosted on11:18 am - Jul 20, 2017


MACFURGLY

JULY 20, 2017 at 10:35
——————————-

At the risk of repeating myself:

All the SFA/SPFL talk of legal advice received should be viewed through the prism of those bodies (and individuals) protecting themselves as a first priority & the integrity of the game being secondary (at best).

The SFA/SPFL aren’t going to commit seppuku. They’ll continue to close ranks & wait for the storm to blow over.

View Comment

macfurgly

macfurglyPosted on12:05 pm - Jul 20, 2017


Jingso.JimsieJuly 20, 2017 at 11:18
—————–
Agreed, but the SC decision, in my view, gives this a new imperative and provides a new opportunity.
The 5WA and associated indemnities were, again in my view, undesirable to say the least, but I don’t think anyone is in danger of ending up in court over them.
“Best course of action at the time…”
“Based on legal advice …”
“Need for review in light of recent SC decision…”
“Good of the game at an unprecedented time of confusion…”
“With the benefit of hindsight…”
“Having taken further legal advice…”
“With UEFA breathing down our necks…”
Use the SC decision to bin LNS and the 5WA at the same time. Independently review the whole thing. Clean up the mess, Regan and Doncaster can get out from underneath it and retire quietly with the best reputations they are ever going to get now and we can get our credibility and integrity back. 
The clubs need to urge their representatives on the Boards to do this, and quickly.      

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on12:50 pm - Jul 20, 2017


SmugasJuly 20, 2017 at 09:37  
Agreed AJ but I’d add a couple of points.  Whatever it’s legal veracity LNS found Rangers guilty and fined them.  This was, I think, Duncan Fraser’s point that regardless of his surprise at the outcome that you can’t appeal on the basis that you simply don’t like the decision.  Fwiw I have to say I find the words (those that we have) of Rod McKenzie disingenuous at best in this regard.  He appears to have a reason why “we can’t” at every turn.  Has anyone thought to ask the man “if we can” at any point?  I would have thought that should have been his original remit.Secondly, to me, there has to be a reason why the indemnity leaked by Charlotte and the logical counter one that one assumes exists are separate agreements rather than within the 5WA itself.
_______________________________-

I get your point. Smugas, but I was really just throwing the 5WA in there as a likely cause of this ‘legal advice’ that they can’t revisit LNS. My point was, regardless of whatever document may exist that says they will not re-examine Rangers’ use of EBTs, the law will not recognise a contract that includes the cover up/ignoring of an illegal action.

Again, as LNS was not a legally binding tribunal, adherence to it’s findings remain a matter for the football bodies to administer, so I doubt there is anything under the law that prevents the re-examination of Rangers’ use of EBTs, or even revisiting LNS itself. There is no need to re-examine the use of EBTs as an ‘appeal’ either, for the scope of the tribunal was (deliberately) very narrow, apparently concentrating on the mis-registration issue alone, and not at the payments themselves, or the cheating of the public purse. I cannot imagine there is anything to stop another inquiry on charges of, say, making illegal payments, or payments outwith the registered contracts to players, coming at it from a different direction of; if the players registrations were accepted and therefor considered correct, that Rangers made payments to those players outwith their contracts – and who knows where that might lead?

Besides, if it was simply the case that an appeal is not possible because, as you say, RFC were found guilty of the charges and fined, then it is inconceivable that neither Regan nor Doncaster would not have announced it as such, for it’s really an easy excuse, with little to worry them if it should later prove to have been bad ‘legal advice’ from a top legal mind.

There is another way to deal with it, of course, and that is for the SFA and SPFL(SPL) to remove the titles and say to Rangers (IL), ‘sue us if you will!’

View Comment

Avatar

PortbhoyPosted on1:13 pm - Jul 20, 2017


http://scottishfsa.org/first-independent-evaluation-scottish-football/
https://youtu.be/N7bC2s-VxzY

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on1:13 pm - Jul 20, 2017


   Barcabhoy tweeted this yesterday. 
https://twitter.com/Barcabhoy1/status/887652121495179264

     I must confess to knowing nothing about this, and am not on twitter to ask him, but it does raise issues. If the SFA commission can be over-ridden by the SPFL commission, then both (if indeed there was two) can be over-ridden by the Supreme Court. 
   Can anybody elaborate further on what took place here?

View Comment

Comments are closed.