Time to Ditch the Geek Show

Avatar ByBig Pink

Time to Ditch the Geek Show

 

The link at the bottom of this piece points to an excellent blog by James Forrest on the ‘decline’ of the Old Firm, and particularly the viewing figures for the recent matches between Celtic and TRFC.

Whilst James, as you would expect is focusing on the consequences of the OF tag for Celtic, it is worthwhile considering that the decline in viewers is an excellent litmus test of the provenance of TRFC with regard to RFC.

Is it because the ‘you’re not Rangers anymore!’ faction is winning the argument?

Or might it be that viewers, voting with their feet, are simply indicating what many of us have said all along – that a brand name does not amount to serious competition.

There has been a presumption – particularly held in the MSM- that Scottish football badly needed a Rangers to provide a challenge to Celtic dominance. Our counter to that is that TRFC, representing the ‘Rangers’ constituency, are in no position to provide any such challenge.

Common sense dictated this.

Not that common sense came into it for our newsroom chums. At the beginning of last season, a whole troupe of hacks ventured their prediction that TRFC would win at least one trophy in that campaign. Again this season, despite the huge gulf in performance levels between TRFC and the top two, even more hacks are queuing up to offer their optimism on the Ibrox club’s chances of success and glory.

I am bound to say that those same hacks will be quick to point out Gordon Strachan’s shortcomings as Scotland manager whilst ironically demonstrating, through their predictive deficit,  that their football judgement has little if any bearing on L’actualité.

I am however disposed to charity. Perhaps what they meant was that TRFC, given its massive fan base, has the most potential (in time) to challenge Celtic. Then, absurdly, the same MSM choke the life out of that potential by assisting charlatan after charlatan on their way through the self-enriching revolving door at Ibrox.

The TRFC potential, if it exists in the foreseeable future, requires the Ibrox club to be rid of those who still, after decades of disgrace and disaster, sell the same false promises dressed up as moonbeams to the masses.

In actual fact, and as it stands right now, Aberdeen, Hibs and Hearts have a significantly greater potential to challenge for honours; they are well run clubs who balance the books. Crucially, they have no debt, no directors whose presence on their boards effectively cuts off access to investment – and they put the emphasis on building Teams (capital T) and not collections of individuals with an exotic distant-past, questionable influence, and huge draw on salary resources .

Even more crucially, they have realistic expectations of where they want to be in the short to medium term.

TV audiences, relying on neutral fans hungry for a spectacle will not be – in fact are not –  conned by this OF sophistry. Without doubt in my view, Scottish football is a far more interesting and compelling place now than it was five years ago. The brand has grown in the absence of the Old Firm, and with the right nurture, can grow even stronger.

TRFC can be part of it all, but the expectations have to be commensurate with their circumstances. All the OF has to offer is a 350 year old conflict that few of us understand – or care to understand. The MSM championing of that embarrassment is a major reason why Scottish football cares less about quality and diversity than it should.

The audiences however, will not be fooled.

Celtic, Rangers, the SFA and everybody else in our game need to jettison the OF brand. It is no longer – if it ever was- relevant. Paying customers in the 21st century deserve better than a geek show.

https://thecelticblog.com/2017/10/blogs/falling-tv-viewing-figures-for-old-firm-games-is-the-beginning-of-the-end-of-the-big-lie/

Pic from the Film Noire classic, Nightmare Alley

About the author

Avatar

Big Pink administrator

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

611 Comments so far

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on4:53 pm - Oct 13, 2017


EASYJAMBO
OCTOBER 13, 2017 at 16:27
Talking of Fraud
  ……. A statement from Accies chairman Les Gray
http://www.hamiltonacciesfc.co.uk/club-statement-2/
The following is a club statement from the Chairman:Hamilton Academical FC have been the target of an elaborate fraud resulting in the loss of a substantial sum of monies…
=======================================

Trust they didn’t fall for that old trick: where someone from Africa – or even South Africa – needs to ‘rest’ a huge amount of money in your bank account, and is willing to pay you a generous fee ?  09

Seriously though, I hope the Accies’ loss doesn’t affect their viability.

Worst case scenario though, a precedent has surely been set in Scottish football ?
A club suffering an enforced admin/liquidation event in the SPFL could simply result in another ‘RFC/TRFC same club’ resolution ? 

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on5:08 pm - Oct 13, 2017


STEVIEBCOCTOBER 13, 2017 at 16:53

While I wish no harm to the Accies I note that some wag posting on Phil Mac’s twitter feed is asking that  given that the fraud and loss of money has taken place in the recent past, why bother with all these investigations and ‘raking over the coals’?

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on5:08 pm - Oct 13, 2017


Jingso.JimsieOctober 13, 2017 at 15:18
‘…That seems far too clever for the SFA. Who are these people?
____________________
Maybe not so clever:the Riotous Assembly act was used in 2014 against East Dunbartonshire Council in the damages claim made by the owners of what used to be called ‘an approved school’.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on6:04 pm - Oct 13, 2017


STV News reporting that Accies have lost £750k in the fraud.

That is a huge sum for a club of Accies size.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on6:18 pm - Oct 13, 2017


Jingso.JimsieOctober 13, 2017 at 15:18
‘That seems far too clever for the SFA. Who are these people ‘
___________
Not really:the 1882 act was used successfully in 2014 against East Dunbartonshire Council by the owners and furnishers of an approved school after a ‘riotous assembly’ of youngsters caused a fair amount of damage.
I don’t know whether The Football Company tried first to sue the SFA, but I’d imagine they very probably got first class advice about using the Act from their own legals from the beginning, with that case being fairly recent.

View Comment

Avatar

naegreetinPosted on6:19 pm - Oct 13, 2017


Re Accies/Fraud

That £750K figure is both appalling & intruiging – you wonder how they could be de-frauded by such a figure – transfer/agent dealings perhaps . I know of Les Gray (Chairman) – he runs a wealth management company amongst other things !

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on6:32 pm - Oct 13, 2017


I really can’t understand why the SFA have announced this meaningless international friendly so soon after the failure to qualify for the WC.  The fans are scunnered at the moment, we do not have a new manager in place yet.  Why now?

From a Celtic perspective it’s the last thing we need just now, we have a very hectic schedule.  At the moment we have played 18 games so far and the internationalists even more.  It’s one thing for the club to take the hit – risk of injuries, fatigue – for the actual WC, fine, but for a friendly?  No thanks.  I would pull them all out.

The cynic in me can’t help wonder if this is a reward for Stewart Milne’s backing for Regan as much as anything else.

View Comment

Avatar

redetinPosted on6:46 pm - Oct 13, 2017


Scotland v Netherlands at Pittodrie. And another slap in the face for Dons fans when not one Aberdeen player is picked for the team?

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on6:52 pm - Oct 13, 2017


EASYJAMBO
OCTOBER 13, 2017 at 18:04 
STV News reporting that Accies have lost £750k in the fraud.
That is a huge sum for a club of Accies size.
==================================
Oops!  No, apologies that is no joking matter at all.  18

And Jimbo – I think we might see lots more inconvenient international friendlies, especially against those countries going to the WC.
The SFA has to find money from somewhere.

And was Regan on a hefty ‘performance bonus’ if Scotland qualified ?
Would be interested to know the quantum as well…

View Comment

paddy malarkey

paddy malarkeyPosted on6:56 pm - Oct 13, 2017


Same old SFA – still corrupt .

View Comment

paddy malarkey

paddy malarkeyPosted on7:05 pm - Oct 13, 2017


Blagged from Rangers Media 

http://content.invisioncic.com/Mrangmedia/monthly_2017_10/IMG_4080.PNG.1188dd24a99451e92b1cf736f807f8e8.PNG

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on7:08 pm - Oct 13, 2017


The only thing that would make this friendly palatable to me would be if the profits from the game went to Hamilton Accies.  Providing of course Hamilton are the innocent victims of fraud.

Btw, it is a disgrace that 2 or 3 Aberdeen players are not in the squad. Surely this time.

View Comment

Avatar

Jingso.JimsiePosted on7:13 pm - Oct 13, 2017


PADDY MALARKEY

OCTOBER 13, 2017 at 19:05  

Blagged from Rangers Media 

http://content.invisioncic.com/Mrangmedia/monthly_2017_10/IMG_4080.P
———————————————

<sings>There’s only one Jason Holt…</sings>

Errrrrrr…

<sings>There’s apparently two Jason Holts…</sings>

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on7:16 pm - Oct 13, 2017


Paddy, nearly spilled my drink laughing there!  Took me a moment to see it.12

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on7:56 pm - Oct 13, 2017


Hat tip to the guy’s at SFM by phil.
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2017/10/13/impecuniosity-and-credulity/

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on8:32 pm - Oct 13, 2017


Scotland will take on the Netherlands at Pittodrie in an International Challenge Match on Thursday, 9 November, kick-off 7.45pm.
————
ABERDEEN chairman Stewart Milne has revealed he doesn’t want Rangers stripped of titles after the Supreme Court ruling on EBTs.
In an interview with the Daily Mail, Milne called on clubs to focus on Scottish football’s future instead of probing the fallout from the ‘Big Tax Case’.
———–
A nice reward perhaps

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on8:40 pm - Oct 13, 2017


“CLUB STATEMENT
By: Hearts Media on 13 Oct, 2017 20:11

Heart of Midlothian can confirm it was the subject of an internet fraud earlier this year. 
The matter is now part of an active police investigation and therefore no further comment will be made. ”
==============================

Is this connected at all with the Accies’ fraud ?

View Comment

Avatar

armchairsupporterPosted on8:53 pm - Oct 13, 2017


SCOTTCOCTOBER 13, 2017 at 10:14

ARMCHAIRSUPPORTEROCTOBER 12, 2017 at 22:28Other people’s money I should think, EJ. Did someone on here not once say that he had borrowed from one of the 3 bears or some such thing.Anyway great posts tonight. Thanks also to JC for keeping us updated. https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2017/08/29/the-carlos-and-dave-show/View Comment

Thanks SCOTTC
I knew I had read it somewhere. I love Phil to death but sometimes he is a bit too cryptic for me – hard to work out who’s who (Blue Room Chap, Serious Professional, Perfectly Quaffed Factotum etc.)
Perhaps that is why DK won’t mind losing his original loan as it wasn’t his to start with. It would be interesting to investigate whether 1.5m was deposited (by someone still in the story) with New Oasis prior to them making those funds available to TRFC. Mind you, that would take some proper journalism.
NAEGREETINOCTOBER 13, 2017 at 11:29
 

Re Lack of BBC coverage at TOP/King COSYou have to wonder if there is something sinister about the BBC’s decision not to cover what is both an important sport & business case – do they fear reporting something negative (potentially) regarding matters Ibrox related ?I tweeted Lamont querying whether he had a bigger story to cover to-day – v. strange.

Is it because they cannot work out what the party line is yet or rather they have not been told what the party line is yet?!

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on8:54 pm - Oct 13, 2017


Just for the record, here is a report of this morning’s business in the Dave King  matter:

Mr ( or lord) Davidson took up where he left off yesterday, on the issue of ‘discretion. He observed that the Court is in a ‘hybrid’ position, being partially co-opted into an administrative function, while still having a law function.

In Section 955 , he repeated, the language is discretionary : the Court ‘MAY’ make an order. That permissive power is, admittedly, narrowed by the purpose , namely ‘to secure compliance’. But, Lord Davidson contended, not so narrowed as to force the Court to do what is sought.

If there are alternatives available, he continued,the Court cannot be fettered. In reference to the ‘Explanatory Note’ describing the purposes of the Act [or of that part of the Act?], this is just a Departmental view, not at all the legislators’ view: Parliament used the words it used in the Section.

Lord Davidson’s position was therefore that the Court has and retains a quasi-judicial review power.’

“If I’m wrong”, he asked, ” what is the Court going to do? There are questions about funds, and the practicality of the 20p price.The Court is not obliged to make an order, without regard to the possibility of contempt, of criminality, and the practicality of the 20p.”

The alternative, he continued, was  to seek information on funds, and prove that funds are there.

He continued: “The Petitioner is pushing the Court into a corner,in saying that all that the Court can do is make an order. On the matter of funds, the Respondent  has only money to maintain  himself and family. If the Petitioner does not concede this point, he should provide proof.

Lord Davidson moved on at this point read an extract from the TOP’s Hearing’s  ‘reasons for decision’ in which they say  ” King communicated with others as if..” This did not mean that the Hearing suspected that King had control. They made NO finding to that effect.
Because the Panel were trying to see if King was acting in concert, not whether he had control.

Lord Bannatyne: But if he had no control, how could he act in concert?

Lord Davidson: ‘Acting in concert’ is a broad concept– nods and winks are not proof of ‘concert’

On the subject of price, Lord D. observed that the Committee had looked at this in arriving at their determination…

Lord B: What else could they have done?

Lord Davidson asked ” is the Panel allowed to do the Pontius Pilate bit? The Panel had facts in front of it.  They were required to make a rational decision…

And when the Takeover Appeal Board came to look at it, they didn’t consider it at all- at a time when there were some transactions current .

There was abdication by the Panel and the Board did not even consider the matter.

And in my submission the Court should NOT do likewise.The upshot is that the Court should refuse the order, or ask for proof of funds.

m’lord is NOT obliged to disregard ‘consequences’
_____
Mr McNeill began his final speech, by saying ‘last stutter of defiance.The singularity here is that Mr King is making his 4th and different attempt.

When interviewed he denied being in a ‘concert party’. The suggestion was that he was a simple entrepreneur, merely trying to influence people.

But the Committee hearing saw his emails in one of which he says to [Wallace?] ” I outline my high-level proposals..’ and went on to describe some high-level structured proposal, and in various places [in the evidence] the committee was able to see Mr king’s ability to ‘nuance’ the Code.

Then there was the email in which he pretended that his shares purchases had not been co-ordinated.

This is not ‘unwitting’.

He did not come to the Panel hearing and say ‘I didn’t know’.
He requested a Review-and decided not to appear.
He says that the Committee did not understand the separation between him and NOAL.
But of course they did understand. ( And MR McNeill read an extract from the Panel ,para 84[if I heard correctly]

And on the 20p point, The Panel did consider this, up to a point.But the Appeal Board fully considered the point. The price fixed was fixed at 20p because that was the ‘equality of treatment’ price. Whether the shareholder benefits was irrelevant.

And, under the Code, there are dispensations available under Rule 9.King had been on the Board for two and a half years, and had been engaged with the Panel for two and a half years. He had ample opportunity to provide proof of funds…..

Lord Bannatyne: There’s no argument that NOAL has funds?

McNeill:( No, m’lord).
            Two letters appear by magic, one seeking the protection of the Court in the proper ambit of Judicial Review and the other protesting that none of us understands ‘Trusts’. The material [he] produced put the Court no where near ‘not knowing’!

King is in de facto control.
I would add,said Mr mcNeill, that the ‘after-the-event’ letters from the Trustees take us no further.

If king is held in contempt it is up to him to find funds , or stay out of the country.

One purpose of Rule 9 is to treat shareholders equally, therefore the 20p price.It is a potential benefit whether some use it or not.But in any case it is NOT for the Panel to let them off the requirement, and the Court should support the requirement.
It is clear that after King got control, Ashley had to go.It took over 2 years from the EGM.. and Ashley wanted a very specific price for his shares- 27.53p. The £7.265 million pounds reflects the need to get Ashley out.
It appears from the reasons prayed in aid that King has used a Trust structure that allows him to to plead lack of funds.The Respondent says he has no personal funds outside the structure. That means he has personal funds inside the structure.
Lord Bannatyne: On the discretion question, what discretion could the Court have?
Mr mcneill: perhaps it can have the parties to the proceedings below….(waffle)
lord bannatyne: Judicial review style?Can you tell me  in this case?
Mr McNeill: i think there is no alternative [to making the order] If my learned friend had said thatbthere had been an ‘error’ below,then perhaps….if there had been an error in price….
Lord B: If I thought the Panel had been wrong, could I just…..
Mr Mcneill: If King were to say said for personal reasons he would want LOAL to make the offer…..
Lord B:   binary decision..
I think I’ll rise and think about it. Could you take ten minutes to have a think about what discretion I have?
[ten minute break]
On resumption,
Mr McNeill: in the circumstances, it seems that the only option is to support the order sought.That does not infer (sic)that 955 wording removes general discretion. I did not demur from the ‘hybrid’ view, it reflects what the Master of the Rolls [Donaldson] said.
The different order possible would include a situation where a contravention had been found by the panel, and the TAB but the person appealing to the this Court that there had been a procedural error, one bing that someone had had a conflict of interest.
It would then be appropriate for thhe Court to make an appropriate order. So, the Court would not refuse, but make an order for  re-hearing before a differently constituted panel. The ‘hybrid’ nature allows a form of ‘judicial review’.
Lord B: almost impossible.
Lord Davidson: exercise discretion in NOT making an order. How could it be reasonable to order Mr King who is penniless…
Judge B: Thank you all. Avizandum, not surprisingly!
[ For anyone just coming on to the blog, my report of yesterday afternoon’s proceedings was posted yesterday at  21.22.]

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on10:45 pm - Oct 13, 2017


Extracts from a Q & A, Dave King with K. Jackson (Scotland Live 11/09/15)

(My emphasis)
“Q: So your personal contribution has been one loan of £1.5m?
A: Yes, and the Three Bears had already put in £1.75 million and then another £750,000. That was perfect to get us through to the start of the season. The season ticket cash is not enough to get us through to the end of this season, we know that.
Q: The jibes about ‘where is Dave King’s money?’. Do they bother you?A: Not really. I’ve put money into the club. I said I would fund the shortfall and I’ve done it.
Q: But you did promise to invest £30m of your children’s inheritance. Didn’t that box you into a corner?
A: No because people are not saying that to me – not outside of this room. It only ever comes up in chats with you guys.
You people have reasons for continuing to bring it up.”
——————————————————————-

Oh these were the simple days when we knew where we stood.
It was Dave’s money.  (In fact Who the heck are NOAL?)

The family trust seemed a more fluid concept back in those days.  £30m available.  DK not comfy with the question but no denial of the promise he made.

Happy days.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on11:05 pm - Oct 13, 2017


“Hamilton Academical FC have been the target of an elaborate fraud resulting in the loss of a substantial sum of monies.”
_________
Some very wicked people might have wished that Celtic plc had felt able to issue an identical statement  following the granting of a UEFA competition licence to an (allegedly) unentitled club which was suffering a degree of impecuniosity and in need of a wee cash injection!

View Comment

Avatar

bigboab1916Posted on1:25 am - Oct 14, 2017


John ClarkOctober 13, 2017 at 20:54
Lord Davidson: exercise discretion in NOT making an order. How could it be reasonable to order Mr King who is penniless…

Ever get that feeling someone is trying to rescue a situation through favour, lord davidson would have been better coming straight out and telling it like it is: Is there no help for the widows son?

View Comment

Avatar

FinlochPosted on8:20 am - Oct 14, 2017


JOHN CLARKOCTOBER 13, 2017 at 20:54  
Just for the record, here is a report of this morning’s business in the Dave King  matter
—————————————————————————————————
Big thanks John for the insightful report of how the two days played out.

Do you think the state of play is that the judge is minded to help out the RRM and looking for wriggle room in Avizandum?

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on8:26 am - Oct 14, 2017


bigboab1916October 14, 2017 at 01:25   John ClarkOctober 13, 2017 at 20:54Lord Davidson: exercise discretion in NOT making an order. How could it be reasonable to order Mr King who is penniless…Ever get that feeling someone is trying to rescue a situation through favour, lord davidson would have been better coming straight out and telling it like it is: Is there no help for the widows son?____________________
This seems to be the main thrust of King’s defence, not that he’s done nothing wrong, just that he doesn’t have the wherewithal to fund the result of his wrongdoing. I doubt there is anything in law that allows for a wrongdoer to avoid complying with a legally constituted hearing’s decision, just because he doesn’t have many millions at his immediate disposal, but get the impression Lord Ballatyne isn’t too keen to be the man to decide on this case. I suspect he feels that, one way or the other, an appeal is coming on down the line! We might even see a repeat of the EBT case, where it may well be the ToP’s wish that it goes all the way to the Supreme Court, where a decision in their favour will set an irrevocable precedent and give them the power to go after the King’s of this world, unfettered.
One wee problem for RIFC/TRFC should this case drag on, perhaps for a couple of years or more, is that it is very unlikely that King will be allowed to sell his shares until the case is settled (for how could he then comply with the order?) and so he will be hanging around, like a bad smell, for some time to come, keeping any reasonably honest investors (or those who would like to look reasonably honest) at bay!

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on9:30 am - Oct 14, 2017


Mr King who is penniless…
Could he not just sell his home in Johannesburg. Looks as if it is worth a pretty penny,or maybe some of that wine in the cellar,he must have one or two luxury cars also.
What the judge should be telling Mr king. you may say you are penniless but you have assets worth maybe millions you did know what you were doing,now make the offer and if you have to sell everything you have to make that offer so be it

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on9:40 am - Oct 14, 2017


  Now that Sevco can officially wave bye-bye to Big Liar’s millions, the desperation to associate themselves with Celtic will become more acute…
    I hear they are even considering adopting some Celtic songs in the terracing, such as “The auld rand team to play for”, and, “The fields of Fleshers Haugh”
   I overheard a variation of “This is how it feels to be Celtic” last night…It was so funny. 10 

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on9:46 am - Oct 14, 2017


The interesting point to me is the question; did Rangers benefit from Kings ill judged incursion into ownership?  Ordinarily the answer would be a straight no.  He ran up further losses prejudicing existing shareholder value thus changing how they may have viewed a compulsory offer of 20p per the law.  

But this is this extraordinary being the football clumpany where value is derived not by the balance sheet but by results on the field apparently regardless of how they are achieved.  Lord Banatyne should come down on the side of the law.  But he will be aware that the majority of Rangers shareholders probably won’t agree with him.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on10:09 am - Oct 14, 2017


FinlochOctober 14, 2017 at 08:20
‘..Do you think the state of play is that the judge is minded to help out the RRM and looking for wriggle room in Avizandum?’
_________
A long time ago, I worked in a government department . There were changes in a particular Act of Parliament, designed to remove a discretionary power which the Government of the day believed was being widely abused and costing an absolute fortune. Henceforth, by a new Act of Parliament, ‘Discretion’ was removed and ‘statutory entitlement’ had to be proved.
I happened to be acting as bag-man for the chap whose principal job was to tour round Scotland to hammer home the new ‘culture’ to the local managers whose staff would have to implement the new scheme.
Without a word of a lie,the message was that almost no one would be able to satisfy the legal requirements  and therefore be ‘entitled’ to a payment, because the black and white of one of the ‘conditions’ was that the need for the award was to be related to a serious health and safety threat.
In the event, of course, the very poor draftsmanship of the law meant that within a short space of time , people were demonstrating that ( and I exaggerate for effect) non-possession of chip-pan posed a ‘serious risk to health and safety’, and winning their Appeals. (It got so expensive and farcical that, in over-reaction, Government had to  push very much more restrictive legislation through Parliament).
The word ‘may’ in a piece of legislation gives a permissive power, not an instruction to be rigidly followed.Usually, it gives a degree of choice: power to do this or that.
Lord Bannatyne seemed to be genuinely perturbed in relation to Section 955. It says ‘may’, which implies discretion, but gives no alternatives. Lord D. argued that whatever he decides to do has to be done with regard to ‘securing compliance’. But he cannot (it seems) do the full ‘Judicial review’ bit and send the matter back to the Takeover Appeal Board on the grounds that they ‘erred in law’-because they didn’t, or at least, no one argued that they did.
I think he will have to try to argue that, in the context, ‘may’ could be understood as meaning ‘must’, in the sense of ‘well, if you’re satisfied, go ahead and make the order, and if you are not satisfied, don’t make the order’
To answer your question, no, I think Lord B  really does need time to think through what Sec 955 means, well aware that the eyes of every would-be  Del-boy on the board of a company who wants to take over cheaply are on him!
He will not be interested in anything other than getting his decision legally right and appeal-proof!

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on10:19 am - Oct 14, 2017


Am I alone in not understanding the tweety box?  All I’m seeing is a line “utter utter tosser”. Meaning?

View Comment

Avatar

Jingso.JimsiePosted on10:24 am - Oct 14, 2017


JOHN CLARK

OCTOBER 13, 2017 at 18:18  

Jingso.Jimsie

October 13, 2017 at 15:18

‘That seems far too clever for the SFA. Who are these people ‘
___________

Not really:the 1882 act was used successfully in 2014 against East Dunbartonshire Council by the owners and furnishers of an approved school after a ‘riotous assembly’ of youngsters caused a fair amount of damage.I don’t know whether The Football Company tried first to sue the SFA, but I’d imagine they very probably got first class advice about using the Act from their own legals from the beginning, with that case being fairly recent.
——————————————

Thanks, JC.

If GCC are found liable, they always have the option to withdraw their licence approval for Hampden.

Can’t have that sort of behaviour in premises of which they are the licensor, can they?

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on11:12 am - Oct 14, 2017


The word “may” in legals terms.

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1229

may
v. a choice to act or not, or a promise of a possibility, as distinguished from “shall,” which makes it imperative. 2) in statutes, and sometimes in contracts, the word “may” must be read in context to determine if it means an act is optional or mandatory, for it may be an imperative. The same careful analysis must be made of the word “shall.” Non-lawyers tend to see the word “may” and think they have a choice or are excused from complying with some statutory provision or regulation.

It seems to me that the context would make it ludicrous for the Court not to take action. That would render at least that part of the code pointless. 

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on11:17 am - Oct 14, 2017


SMUGAS
OCTOBER 14, 2017 at 10:19
===================================

It appears to be a reply to someone called Tim Montgomerie.

“The @maitlis interview of Emma Thompson was PR for latter. ET not pressed on what she’d done to tackle the abuse she claimed was everywhere”

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on12:02 pm - Oct 14, 2017


SMUGASOCTOBER 14, 2017 at 09:46 5 0  Rate This 
The interesting point to me is the question; did Rangers benefit from Kings ill judged incursion into ownership?
—————-
Mr Somers said king would wreck gers

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on12:09 pm - Oct 14, 2017


Clusterone.

Yes, and were it stacked to the hilt with institutional investors I’d agree.  But it’s not.  It’s owned to a large degree to whom returns financially are secondary to emotional.

of course their quandary is that, in no small part down to King they now need a lot more of the former without the risk of losing the latter.  And again largely due to King, they aren’t listed to allow them to achieve that.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on12:18 pm - Oct 14, 2017


Thanks Humunculus.  But who’s the tosser?  Weinstein?  Montgomery? The interviewer (is that Montgomery?), Thomson?

baffled, not for the first time!

View Comment

Avatar

ChristyboyPosted on12:20 pm - Oct 14, 2017


CLUSTER ONEOCTOBER 14, 2017 at 09:30

But if he sold them, can he move the proceeds out of SA ?

View Comment

Avatar

erniePosted on12:26 pm - Oct 14, 2017


Well I’ve done the round of news outlets this last 24 hours and the casual acceptance of the SFA’s complete lack of giving a phuck, over and above the sevco scam, is giving me a sair heid.  I doubt if the friendly at Hampden is the full pay off for Stewarty Milne (it’s handy but no more) but the timing is blatantly obvious.  However, the clincher for me (i.e. that the SFA can and will do whatever they want, unchecked) is the oft quoted “controversial” history of our caretaker national coach.  Controversial?  The guys a documented racist, misogynist and homophobe, there’s no controversy.  He shouldn’t be in any job with the SFA never mind manager.
We are toxic, thanks to the SFA.

View Comment

Tincks

TincksPosted on12:29 pm - Oct 14, 2017


Many thanks as ever to SFM’s dynamic duo of court reporters.  Caped Crusader JC and Boy Wonder EJ.

JC – Good points re Lord B’s role and deliberations in yours of 10.09

In all the on line chatter re the case what caught my eye the most was a series of tweets by James Doleman.  To paraphrase, James was saying that he had read Alasdair Lamont’s tweets from Thursday and JD was cautioning that his gut instinct was that Lord B might end up siding with DCK in this matter.  

JD was very careful to add caveats but was effectively saying that there might be an outcome to this case that many might find surprising. 

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on12:44 pm - Oct 14, 2017


CHRISTYBOYOCTOBER 14, 2017 at 12:20 0 0  Rate This 
CLUSTER ONEOCTOBER 14, 2017 at 09:30
But if he sold them, can he move the proceeds out of SA ?
——————
That is a good answer or a good question.19
More likley nothing owned in his name

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on12:56 pm - Oct 14, 2017


Homunculus
October 14, 2017 at 11.12
________
I concur! 
And I hope Lord B does as well.
Well, actually I think he probably does: and will decide that he cannot refer the case back to the lower on the ground that there was any error in law, and therefore has to interpret  the word ‘may’ as meaning ‘must’.
Otherwise, as you say, the Section would have no purpose or point.
And it’s hard to see what any ground of appeal could be, if did make the order.

View Comment

Avatar

Jimmy BonesPosted on4:37 pm - Oct 14, 2017


Well said Ernie at 12:26.
Allardyce is more of the same + an admitted cheat as well.  The fact that Mackay & Allardyce are even being mentioned for this role sickens me and shows up the SMSM and SFA for what they are – corrupt cheats.

View Comment

Avatar

bigboab1916Posted on5:28 pm - Oct 14, 2017


The irony Craig White at least had a pound06

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on5:58 pm - Oct 14, 2017


Be wary about the sensationalist headlines in the papers about King being “penniless”. As ever these sort of quotes should not taken out of context.

Lord Davidson QC (Baron of Glen Clova) actually posed a hypothetical question, starting with “If” it was found that Mr King is penniless  ……. then it wouldn’t make sense to forcing him to comply …… then to be held in contempt of court …… because he was unable to comply …… etc.

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on7:49 pm - Oct 14, 2017


Due to a technical issue we have had to restart the draw. The full draw will restart in a few minutes.
—————
I wish i had made that up, but alas

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on8:49 pm - Oct 14, 2017


Easyjambo 
October 14 2017 at 17.58
‘…Lord Davidson QC…..posed a hypothetical question starting with ‘if’….’
__________
Yes, indeed, when he first began talk about impecuniosity it was in hypothetical mode.
But his very last statement, before he said ‘That’s it’ in  conclusion of his presentation was his suggestion in answer to the judge’s throwaway remark ‘almost impossible’ in these very words ” exercise discretion in NOT making an order. How could it be reasonable to order Mr King who is penniless…”
(I copied those words exactly because I thought he was being a wee bit cheeky, getting the last word in  and almost under his breath. He sort of smiled and shrugged his shoulders as he said ‘ and that’s it’.)
And of course he had once or twice referred to King not having any monies and  being dependent on the trust for his family (living) expenses ( a point Mr McNeill made use of).
But you’re right in making the point that it was not being seriously said by anyone that King is literally penniless: just that he ( claimed) not to have access to  funds such as would enable him to begin to comply with any order. 

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on9:40 pm - Oct 14, 2017


I don’t know DK’s family circumstances and how much they are all dependant on the family trust for living expenses.  The only thing I seem to remember is that his wife runs her own business and his daughter is on the boards of some of his companies/interests.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on10:03 pm - Oct 14, 2017


I learned today that the Notice of Celtic plc’s AGM does not contain any mention of AGM 2013 resolution 12.
I may be entirely wrong, but I think I am right in thinking that that resolution has neither been rescinded by the Requisitioners nor discussed and voted upon at any subsequent AGM?
Can ‘resolutions’ simply be dropped ,kicked into touch un-actioned , by a Board, without the authority of an AGM? And never again mentioned?

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on10:03 pm - Oct 14, 2017


One of the subjects on Off the Ball this evening was, in light of Hamilton’s recent difficulties, “Have you been diddled?”.
The irony of course being that tax dodging EBTer Alex Rae as a guest.
Didn’t hear the whole show but was hoping that a Mrs Face-Painter from Glasgow, Hector from London and Mr Sars from South Africa maybe called in to contribute a few humorous anecdotes to the show.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on10:42 pm - Oct 14, 2017


WOTTPI
October 14, 2017 at 22.03
————-
I was listening with only half an ear , but I think some reference was made to the ‘face-painter’: not sure it was Tam himself or whether he was reading someone’s texted-in message.
I understand that  the lady face-painter did actually get paid, by a fan’s whip round, if memory does not deceive me. Which gesture seemed to indicate that at least some of the 500 000 000 had sufficient personal decency, and pride in the good name of their club, to be moved to be concerned that ‘little people’ had been badly affected  in consequence of the earlier actions of a cheating chancer and his successor in office.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on11:21 pm - Oct 14, 2017


Can’t really add much to anything tonight but if you don’t mind would just like to say I was very happy for Gary Mackay Stevens today.  The guy made a big mistake in Glasgow a few weeks ago, the worse for wear.  (Who hasn’t?)  Ended up in the Clyde for ages.  Very cold.  Must have been terrifying.  Thankfully he ended up OK.  Like many others I was very concerned when the news broke.  So to hear of him back playing today and scoring the winner made me feel good.  He comes over as a smashing bloke.  Hope he goes forward and upwards.

View Comment

Avatar

FinlochPosted on11:24 pm - Oct 14, 2017


I was in the boardroom of a diddy club today when the draw for the next round was made. 
 We all watched it closely.
Some commented when the nine and six balls were mixed up.

Then hilarity broke out.

The commenters were right  and the balls were called wrong.

Redraw time with red faces but no shame.

Not just swap the 9 and 6 draw slots.

Amateur hour. 

Amateur hour by Stewart Regans organisation but with nobody to sack this time to protect his salary.

It all made the video done recently by the Scottish Football Supporters Association look very apt and predictive. 

What an effing mess.

Where by the way are the results of the survey we all filled in a couple of months ago. 

The SFA are truly incompetent. 

Give us us our ball back Stewart!

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on12:32 am - Oct 15, 2017


Finloch [apologies, I seem to have lost the cut and paste facility!],
“we all watched it closely”
________
And  we have all learned that these things have to be watched closely! 
It  is a really sad state of affairs that our default position has to be one of distrust, such has been the damage done to our former readiness to believe that a sports governance body would, by definition, operate with integrity,in the perhaps naïve belief that the very essence of sport is fair integrity of competition. 
We have seen that the SFA has serious questions to answer.
But answer give they none, except a two-fingered assertion that they are satisfied that they have nothing to answer for, and that, in effect,they are bug.ered if they will let anybody else  check the truth of that assertion- even when member clubs of the SFA asked for that to be done!
What is really annoying, as far as I am concerned, is that the SMSM just accept that state of affairs!
And having said that, I ask: what is it about the mechanics of making a ‘draw’ so prone to causing there to be a cock-up? 

View Comment

tony

tonyPosted on9:12 am - Oct 15, 2017


just read this from david low 
https://heavidor.wordpress.com/2017/10/14/dave-king-and-the-takeover-panel-the-truth-that-dare-not-speak-its-name/

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on9:17 am - Oct 15, 2017


What little experience I have of Bingo – from the days when social clubs were popular – the bingo balls Nos. 6 + 9 were underlined to avoid confusion.  The SFA couldn’t think of that?

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on9:37 am - Oct 15, 2017


I wonder how DK’s legals satisfied themselves that they would get their fees? Is it the practice for QCs to ask for money up front? Or will King be able to claim on the ‘directors’ liability’ insurance cover?

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on9:59 am - Oct 15, 2017


JOHN CLARKOCTOBER 14, 2017 at 22:42
I understand that  the lady face-painter did actually get paid, by a fan’s whip round, if memory does not deceive me. Which gesture seemed to indicate that at least some of the 500 000 000 had sufficient personal decency, and pride in the good name of their club, to be moved to be concerned that ‘little people’ had been badly affected  in consequence of the earlier actions of a cheating chancer and his successor in office.
———————
It’s just a pity that no one in charge then or now from ibrox has any personal decency to say sorry, and in the eyes of many the club has no longer any pride or a good name.
The gesture from 500 000 000 to pay one (will have to look it up to see if that was the least that was owed to anyone).
The gesture from 500 000 000 to pay one does not show enough remorse that not only that the ‘little people’ had been badly affected but the whole of scottish football.
I wonder sometimes if after the one was paid and a look at gathering more money to pay maybe more small creditors and each amount was higher than the last. It was much easier to look at the one’s running their club and think well they don’t care why should we,all just collateral damage for the worlds most successful club and all that, onwards and upwards

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on11:50 am - Oct 15, 2017


34,000 Bayern Munich fans trying to buy tickets for CP on 31.10.17.  08  we don’t want a re-run of the Arsenal v Cologne game when 20k of their supporters turned up.

Hope Celtic fans are not tempted to sell their tickets for a profit.  Police say BM fans will be ejected from the home areas.  They have been allocated 3,200 seats.

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on1:18 pm - Oct 15, 2017


John ClarkOctober 14, 2017 at 22:03  
I learned today that the Notice of Celtic plc’s AGM does not contain any mention of AGM 2013 resolution 12. I may be entirely wrong, but I think I am right in thinking that that resolution has neither been rescinded by the Requisitioners nor discussed and voted upon at any subsequent AGM? Can ‘resolutions’ simply be dropped ,kicked into touch un-actioned , by a Board, without the authority of an AGM? And never again mentioned?
=====================
It is still on the agenda and there will be an update at the AGM.
The matter of the granting of the UEFA Licensing in 2011 has been referred to the SFA Compliance Officer.
A reminder:
Resolution 12 requested  the Celtic Board exercise the provision contained in the Procedural Rules Governing the UEFA Club Financial Control Body Article 10 with jurisdiction and investigation responsibilities identified in articles 3 & 11 (Note 1), by referring/bringing to the attention of the UEFA Club Financial Control Body (CFCB), the licensing administration practices of the Scottish Football Association (SFA), requesting the CFCB undertake a review and investigate the SFA’s implementation of UEFA & SFA license compliance requirements, with regard to qualification, administration and granting of licenses to compete in football competitions under both SFA and UEFA jurisdiction, since the implementation of the Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations of 2010.
It was Celtic’s official position at the 2013 AGM that Resolution 12 was unnecessary, but a decision to adjourn rather than vote the resolution down was reached because of information that challenged that claim.
That information and a lot more from research and a better understanding of UEFA rules since should be part of what the Compliance Officer examines and much will depend on how convincing a case he can make for the original stance that Res12 was unnecessary, a stance adopted by Celtic as a result of enquiries they made of SFA in 2011.
What is said at AGM by Celtic will depend on what progress the SFA Compliance Officer is making with his investigation.
Either Res12 is voted down or passed, which will be determined by what the SFA come up with. 

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on1:25 pm - Oct 15, 2017


An interesting bit of information from Video Celts
https://videocelts.com/2017/10/blogs/latest-news/douglas-park-and-the-hamilton-accies-connection/
Click on to give site a hit but following is advert free.
Ibrox money man Douglas Park is also a substantial shareholder in Hamilton Accies.
According to Hamilton’s most recent statement, in June 2016 96% of the club is owned by a company called Edencrest with Park the single most significant shareholder after that.
In December 2014 Park, along-with George Taylor and George Letham bought a 16% stake in the Ibrox club from Laxey Partners who had rejected an offer from Dave King.
The breakdown of that deal was that Park owned 6.14% of the club. When he stepped down as a director in June 2015 his son Graeme was fitted out with an extra large blazer as he took his daddies seat on the board.
Along-with Taylor and Letham, Park has provided much of the soft loans that have kept Sevco afloat with Metro Bank refusing to provide overdraft facilities.
SFA and SPFL rules prohibit anyone from having a stake in more than one member club with that rule also applying to family members.
Former SFA President Campbell Ogilvie retained a shareholding in Rangers (IL) despite becoming a director of Hearts two months after leaving Ibrox, a breakfast table sale to his wife made no difference to his rule breaking although no action was ever taken.
In a list of Hamilton shareholders published in June 2016 Douglas Park is listed as Shareholding 14 with 5000 Ordinary shares in the club. Accies director Leslie Gray is listed as having 100 shares- a fiftieth of Park’s stake.
Former Accies secretary Scott Struthers has 300 shares in the club, the President of the Hamilton Academical Supporters Society has 3,000 shares.
In July of this year Gray was voted onto the board of the SPFL alongside Stewart Robertson of Sevco by the top flight clubs.
Yesterday Hamilton confirmed that they have been the victims of an online fraud believed to be in the region of £750,000.
Park made his fortune from Parks of Hamilton and the Park’s Motor Group and was a director of Hearts when Wallace Mercer was in charge of the Edinburgh club.

View Comment

woodstein

woodsteinPosted on1:34 pm - Oct 15, 2017


justshatered
October 12, 2017 at 22:31
“While I have no sympathy for the individuals this seems, again to this simple guy, that HMRC will be getting paid twice; once through the Liquidators pennies in the pound and then billing the individuals”
——————————————————————————
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/rangers/ex-rangers-stars-face-financial-ruin-amid-ebt-crackdown-1-4086996
Chancellor George Osborne set out plans in the 2016 Budget aimed at claiming back £24 billion in tax by 2021.
Took a while to find08

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on2:13 pm - Oct 15, 2017


The foregoing from Video Celts reminds me of a post I made a while back on SFM  about “Slow Glass”.

———————
Auldheid says:    
April 4, 2015 at 3:15 pm  (Edit)
The thing about Jim Spence I feel is that if he were not in the mainstream media he would be on here posting or blogging.
He cares about his club but is balanced, he cares about the game and loves both.
He was talking on Sportsound there about Dundee United being caught on the back foot on the matter of the make up of the managers contract in respect of player sales.
The conversation turned to transparency and for football to catch up in realising it has to become more transparent in its dealing with supporters.
What football has not realised is that transparency is already here but in a form that makes us slow to realise it.
The medium is social media and the ability to share but contained by Slow Glass.
Slow Glass from a short story by Bob Shaw slows down the light passing through it.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_of_Other_Days
In the story and others you have Slow Glass of different thickness in terms of the time it takes for the light to emerge.
You have Glass a day thick/long to Glass ten years and more thick/long.
Thus the Utd story was captured by Slow Glass about 3 or 4 weeks thick. Maybe more or less as I don’t know the detail but you get the drift.
The Rangers story will emerge in full over 10 years thick glass.
The LNS story will take at least another year before the truth will emerge that shows it to have been a sham.
Res12 if measured from the Celtic AGM in 2013 will take two years for the truth to emerge.
The thickness/slowness of the glass depends to a large extent on main stream journalist removing the dust of PR that slows the light, but light is inexorable.
It can do nothing but shine.
The sooner authority and not just football realise that transparency is already here emerging via Slow Glass the thinner the Glass will become.
No more waiting years for the truth to emerge, which might just make folk act truthfully and honestly in the first place. It will be an interesting future as social media replaces mainstream as music downloads replaced CDs ( that replaced tapes that replaced records that replaced cylinders)
In the meantime let’s keep our football Glass polished and hasten the emergence of light in our own landscape.
———————–
I see on re-reading  that the Res12 glass is at least four years thick, but the general point, supported by the most recent revelation from Video Celts, is that sooner or later disregard for the rules, enabled by the lack of transparency and accountability, is no longer a hiding place.
Trust in the SFA has completely gone as they continue their forlorn “hide and don’t seek” policy.
With each new revelation that rules are  simply ignored when it does not suit the particular interests of those earning a living from football, directly and indirectly, the grand illusion that Scottish football is a sport honestly governed and policed, continues to evaporate. So how can faith in the game be restored?
When a match day ticket is purchased for a game or a season, certain conditions are laid down that the purchaser has to accept.
Is the time approaching when the seller has to assure the buyer that the seller has complete confidence that the game they are paying to watch is honestly governed and policed along with what assurances the seller can give the buyer that this is so.
Not raking over old coals is simply not good enough, those coals contain embers that the purchaser has to be assured the seller has dowsed. 
It boils down to how daft/loyal do the clubs think supporters are?
Next season before they purchase, I suggest buyers seek assurances that their club has every confidence in the SFA to police the rules that make football a sport with reasons why their club believes so.
They can start asking now.

View Comment

scottc

scottcPosted on2:54 pm - Oct 15, 2017


JOHN CLARK
OCTOBER 15, 2017 at 09:37
 
I wonder how DK’s legals satisfied themselves that they would get their fees? Is it the practice for QCs to ask for money up front? Or will King be able to claim on the ‘directors’ liability’ insurance cover?

John, I think PMG has blogged that he asked the RIFC board to cover his legal expenses and they said no. As for Director’s liability, I’m not sure it would cover this

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on3:00 pm - Oct 15, 2017


Ticket conditions
……………
3a.  The face value of this ticket will be refunded in full by the SFA in the event of subsequent disciplinary enquiries, resulting in a Red card Rescinded or a Red card retrospectively awarded.

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on3:27 pm - Oct 15, 2017


JOHN CLARKOCTOBER 15, 2017 at 09:37 9 0  Rate This 
I wonder how DK’s legals satisfied themselves that they would get their fees? Is it the practice for QCs to ask for money up front? Or will King be able to claim on the ‘directors’ liability’ insurance cover?
————————-
Paid? A promise of a front row seat at the ibrox club’s first ever champions league game is all that king was able to offer.(wonder if any took up that offer10)
——————————–
AULDHEIDOCTOBER 15, 2017 at 14:13 4 0  Rate This 
The foregoing from Video Celts reminds me of a post I made a while back on SFM  about “Slow Glass”.
———————Auldheid says:    April 4, 2015 at 3:15 pm  (Edit)
————-
I remember reading that first time round and putting it in my fav’s.but if you would have asked i would have said it was from about 6 months ago.How time goes bye

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on8:46 pm - Oct 15, 2017


Can’t believe the amount of semi finals Celtic have to play at Hampden on a Sunday once the crap pitch has been dug up on the Saturday.  This time when it would have suited us more we play on the Saturday.  The team won’t get home until the early hours of Thursday morning from Munich and have to play at lunch time Sat.

What rotten luck!!  Or is it  mmmmmmm????????07110711

View Comment

Avatar

gunnerbPosted on9:53 pm - Oct 15, 2017


IMBOOCTOBER 15, 2017 at 20:46 7 4  Rate This 
Can’t believe the amount of semi finals Celtic have to play at Hampden on a Sunday once the crap pitch has been dug up on the Saturday.  This time when it would have suited us more we play on the Saturday.  The team won’t get home until the early hours of Thursday morning from Munich and have to play at lunch time Sat.
What rotten luck!!  Or is it  mmmmmmm????????

—————————————————————-
I have seen this faux complaint over many a year from the likes of  Sir Alex Ferguson, Walter Smith,and others. I am pretty sure supporters of other teams would love to be in such a difficult situation.It is the price of success…get on with it.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on10:23 pm - Oct 15, 2017


AuldheidOctober 15, 2017 at 13:18″It is still on the agenda and there will be an update at the AGM. The matter of the granting of the UEFA Licensing in 2011 has been referred to the SFA Compliance Officer………..What is said at AGM by Celtic will depend on what progress the SFA Compliance Officer is making with his investigation. Either Res12 is voted down or passed, which will be determined by what the SFA come up with.”
________________________
Thanks for that, Auldheid.

My concern is  that , at the moment, and on the face of things, we don’t know ( maybe Celtic plc do?) what exactly the Compliance Officer’s brief is.

His boss as it were( i.e. the SFA) seems to have spoken about  referring to him only the task of investigating  the club’s licence application, and not how that application was dealt with by the SFA.

And the Compliance Officer’s function is to consider whether there has been a contravention, and if so, whether to deal with it under his own (limited) powers or refer it to a Judicial Tribunal.
He has no powers to make a complaint directly to the Club Licensing Control Body, since it appears that only ‘parties’ ( a club or a National Association) can do that.

So, with a wee narrow brief, his findings would be restricted to RFC(IL)’s application process, and if he referred something to  a Tribunal, that Tribunal would be restricted to considering only whether RFC(IL) had been guilty of rule-breaking.

It’s not RFC(IL) that needs looking at: we know they lied ( and died).

It’s their accomplices or aiders and abettors in the SFA that we want to nail. Preferably , ultimately on criminal charges, if the evidence were there.

The Fergus McCann of David Low’s book would be looking for any  few million that his club had been cheated out of.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on11:20 pm - Oct 15, 2017


gunnerbOctober 15, 2017 at 21:53
‘…I have seen this faux complaint over many a year from the likes of Sir Alex Ferguson, Walter Smith,and others….’
_________
Yes.

The complaint  may have had some validity  in former times,in so far as a roughed -up pitch might have been  advantageous to an  opposition  whose home pitch was  less than billiard-table perfect,and whose players might have been less than Messi-like in their ability to slide inch-perfect passes  across beautifully maintained green swards and weave their way without stumble or slip  in tied-to-the -boot control of the ball through a packed defence.

Those days, of course, are long gone.

And it is a nonsense to think that a roughed-up pitch gives any advantage to one team over another.

They both are equally disadvantaged, and equally have to adapt.

We as spectators lose out in terms of what we have to watch!

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on11:43 pm - Oct 15, 2017


John Clark
Your scenario is one possibility but does it cover Celtic’s position that Res12 was unecessary?
Look at what Res12 asked Celtic to do and it covered the whole licensing process in 2011.
If SFA response does not cover what Res12 requested then it’s either Celtic go to UEFA or they justify to shareholders that it is not necessary to do so.
The dangers of damage limitation on SFA part are well recognised.
Either Res12 is unecessary or Celtic are happy with the form of governance the SFA provide and are happy to sell tickets on the basis the SFA are trustworthy. (As are Directors of all clubs advocating moving on without justifying why.)

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on12:10 am - Oct 16, 2017


AuldheidOctober 15, 2017 at 23:43
‘…Look at what Res12 asked Celtic to do and it covered the whole licensing process in 2011.’
______
Aye, exactly.

But it doesn’t look as if Celtic have asked ( or demanded!) that the SFA should have included themselves in the ambit of the Compliance Officer’s brief, as being alleged to be in breach of UEFA rules.

As I think you have explained to the blog, there appears to be incontrovertible evidence that the SFA lied.

One of the consequences of that lying was that the Shareholders of a plc were cheated out of millions.

The Board of that plc seem to be singularly unwilling to act on behalf of their shareholders to get those millions back, and nail the alleged liars.

In terms of their fiduciary duties to shareholders( not to  football fans, that is irrelevant) Celtic plc should have been right in there , calling out the alleged liars and cheats and getting compensation for their lost millions.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on1:09 am - Oct 16, 2017


I was just on the point of getting to my bed when I saw a tweet about support for the naming of a stand or something after Fergus McCann.

Given that Celtic FC would have died the ignominious death that RFC died had it not been for said Fergus  it seems to me unthinkable that he should not be  honoured for his ‘business’ acumen that saved the club.

A business acumen that did not involve signing up to a struck-off pornographer lawyer’s tax dodge of the kind that David Murray ( and bug.er the ‘sir’) was only too eager to adopt
.
When one thinks of the difference between Murray’s tax cheating and readiness to destroy 140-odd years of club history to save his own personal business and compares it with McCann’s absolute insistence on truth and transparency in his saving of Celtic, one has to draw certain conclusions about the moral integrity of both men. 

I know which of the two has moral and business integrity.

And it’s not the cheating knight of a liar.

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on7:20 am - Oct 16, 2017


JOHN CLARKOCTOBER 16, 2017 at 00:10
 

But it doesn’t look as if Celtic have asked ( or demanded!) that the SFA should have included themselves in the ambit of the Compliance Officer’s brief, as being alleged to be in breach of UEFA rules.

John, I wrote recently to the club in my capacity as a shareholder to express my concern that the SFA were limiting the Compliance Officer’s remit to a simple case of did Rangers mislead the SFA. I received a reply basically saying Celtic have to let the agreed SFA judicial process take its course, and then they will decide on their next move.  As far as I am aware Celtic have every single piece of evidence in their possession that the Res 12 guys worked so hard to gather.  As we all now know, the SFA at the very least have clarification to provide that goes way beyond a simple case of being misled. This isn’t going to go away and the longer the SFA silence on a response goes on leads me to speculate they might be snookered and are struggling to come up with a justification.  As Celtic said to me in their response the release of correspondence between them and the SFA hows just how questioning they have been. I think it’s time the Celtic Board were given a break on this and in my view people’s ire should be fixed firmly on the other Scottish clubs who were also denied by the licence award in 2011 yet still seem willing to be sh*t upon by the SFA from a great height. If that is not the case, then it is time they grew a set and made that publicly known. 

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on8:20 am - Oct 16, 2017


jimboOctober 15, 2017 at 20:46 26 12 i Rate This 
Can’t believe the amount of semi finals Celtic have to play at Hampden on a Sunday once the crap pitch has been dug up on the Saturday.  This time when it would have suited us more we play on the Saturday.  The team won’t get home until the early hours of Thursday morning from Munich and have to play at lunch time Sat.
What rotten luck!!  Or is it  mmmmmmm????????
————————————————————-
I would have thought that the final line of my post showed a bit of tongue in cheek.

However it reflects a commonly held attitude of mistrust amongst many fans in Scotland towards the powers that be at Hampden.

Most fans have got a handle on the cheating regarding EBTs, player registrations, retaining of titles, the continuity myth, the old boys network etc. etc.  And especially the corruption at Hampden.

What trickles down from these very real issues are the conspiracy theories.  Nothing emanating from Hampden is trusted.
Hot and cold balls, cup home games awarded to the team from Ibrox being the most popular.  Who can blame folk?  You wouldn’t trust Regan and Doncaster and their cohorts as far as you could throw them. 

View Comment

Bill1903

Bill1903Posted on8:23 am - Oct 16, 2017


                       jimboOctober 15, 2017 at 20:46  
Can’t believe the amount of semi finals Celtic have to play at Hampden on a Sunday once the crap pitch has been dug up on the Saturday.  This time when it would have suited us more we play on the Saturday.  The team won’t get home until the early hours of Thursday morning from Munich and have to play at lunch time Sat.
What rotten luck!!  Or is it mmmmmmmmmmmmm
—————————
Look on the bright side at least you get to play semi finals and finals just a couple of miles away and you’ve even got your own end!

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on8:38 am - Oct 16, 2017


Bill 1903 0204

On the few occasions I went to old Hampden the Celtic ‘end’ was open to the elements – terracing with no roof.  Whereas the opposition did have a roof over them.  So my conspiracy theory still stands!

View Comment

Comments are closed.