Time to Make Things Happen

Avatar ByAuldheid

Time to Make Things Happen

In the light of the SFA President’s unfortunate remarks in the MSM today, relegating every Scottish football club other than Celtic or Rangers to support role status, this blog by Auldheid on the need to have a conversation about the leadership and governance of the Scottish game is remarkably prescient.

It is also important in that it shows there are people out there (and not just us at SFM) who are engaged in finding workable solutions to our problems – solutions to which involve the major stakeholders in football, the fans (or customers as most boardrooms would have it).

The people involved in finding solutions are well-connected and not without influence, but most importantly they seek to give fans a greater voice in the game – and they do not represent a paid-for voice with a seat at the SFA table or a funding source that depends to a large extent on saying nothing when fan interests are damaged.

SFM is more than happy to endorse Auldheid’s sentiments. 

Tris

 

The following extracts have been taken from an earlier SFM Blog (The Lost Voice of the Armageddon Virus), to emphasise the fact, if any were needed, that something is rotten in the state of Scottish football.

 

“Significantly for matters out with the confines of the (Craig Whyte) case – and this has been incredibly under-reported by the main stream media – David Murray also told the court earlier that he had used EBT’s in order to get better players for Rangers than they could otherwise afford, re-igniting social media exchanges over the validity of William Nimmo-Smith’s report into Rangers use of EBT’s.

You may remember that Nimmo-Smith himself considered that Rangers had gained no sporting advantage by their use of the scheme – a conclusion diametrically at variance with Murray’s – the man who operated the scheme to achieve exactly that end.

If Murray is telling the truth, then it puts Nimmo-Smith’s conclusions in doubt. And even if you leave aside for the moment the amended and extremely creative terms of reference set by Neil Doncaster which effectively excluded the already known to be unlawful DoS EBTs from Nimmo-Smith’s team, the SPL has been shown up as a bit a joke.

Another sensational piece of info the court heard, which again has gone almost completely unreported, was that in an email from Mike McGill of Murray Group, dated 17 March 2011, he says “the (wee tax) case only recently went from a potential liability and had not “crystallised” until recently” – this long before a Euro licence was awarded to Rangers on the basis, according to Stewart Regan, that the bill had “not crystallised” when the licence was awarded.

It may be that the laws of unintended consequences will prove to be more significant to football than the matter of Craig Whyte’s guilt or innocence.”

 

However the “revelations” only tell many of us what has been questioned or known since 2011 about Scottish football that has filled gigabytes of space  on numerous forums and blogs about the handling by the SFA of the grant and retention of a UEFA Licence to Rangers FC in 2011 and the flawed creation of the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission  whose Decision in February 2013 was met with incredulity by those who follow the game as the Decision bent all previous understanding of the intent of registration rules pretzel shaped in order to meet a desired damage limitation outcome.

More has yet to come arising from the Craig Whyte trial and the decision of the Supreme Court on the legality of  EBTs as administered by Rangers FC.

Yet despite what has been known for several years (and has been or will be further confirmed as the wheels of justice grind slowly to an end), and in spite of all the words spilt, tweets tweeted and blogs blogged,  nothing appears to impact on the SFA or SPFL.

Indeed, it was tweeted just the other week by Alex Thomson of Channel 4 News that regardless of the Supreme Court Decision there would be no taking title away from the history of Rangers FC using the LNS Decision as a defensive line in the sand in spite of the Decision itself being founded on sand.

How Doncaster is able to say that really needs examining in terms of his authority and the two fingers it gives to the integrity of the League he is CEO of..

But this is not another blog to rail against the powers that flee, who hide behind main stream media spin, and worse, use the loyalty supporters feel for their clubs to do nothing about the rotten state of football governance in Scotland. This is a blog about ending the biggest barrier to making change happen – the lack of an  effective Scottish football clubs supporters union around which the fans can gather and press for change.

There is an organisation called Supporters Direct, who are invited to sit around the Hampden table but who lack the essential ingredient to make them effective –  independence from the SFA (who partly fund them).

You don’t bite the hand that feeds you stuff. They are also an organisation whose roots are in England with a Scottish offshoot. You can read what they are about at

http://www.supporters-direct.scot/about/

Improving football governance in Scotland is not their main aim – which is not surprising given some financial dependence on the SFA – so they do not represent a coherent and easily navigable way forward on the road to providing much-needed transparency and accountability to Scottish football.

However, all is not lost, there an alternative Scottish organisation founded in Scotland called  The Scottish Football Supporters Association (SFSA)

http://scottishfsa.org/

whose nine point manifesto includes a commitment to improved football governance. The SFSA manifesto was launched on 7th Jan 2016 at Holyrood, and enjoys the support of a number of MSPs including former First Minister Henry McLeish.

A copy of the full SFSA Manifesto can be read at

https://drive.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=http://scottishfsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/SFSA_The_Fans_Manifesto_A4_20pp_Screen.pdf

and the relevant part in terms of football Governance is at Point 8 that says

Reclaim The Game

Regular Independent Auditing and Review of the Performance of Governing Bodies and Clubs.

 “When a fan is asked how well the club they are following is doing they can point to a league table. This quickly establishes the quality of the on-field performance at any given time.  Of course, the reality of football means that there will be fluctuations in performance depending on a range of variable factors. But the beauty is that a league table never finally lies. Its judgement is there for posterity. However, when we are asked to rate the performance of the club as a business there are few clear criteria. This is because of a complete lack of transparency throughout the game. Often it is only when criticism emerges that we get to see how a club is actually managed.

This lack of transparency is being questioned and changed in the banking and commercial sectors. It is no longer acceptable in Scottish football. Clubs have to maximise their effectiveness and live within their means. We want to see independent monitoring and evaluation of the off-field performance of clubs and governing bodies in all areas, from financial transparency to customer services. This includes performance tables. The SFSA will seek to reward high performance through annual awards. We believe that strong support and community focused clubs will find themselves in a better position to thrive and to attract new revenue streams, creating a virtuous circle for the game and breaking down the mistrust about transparency and fan engagement in boardrooms.

In recent times the reputation of both the Scottish Football Association (SFA) and the Scottish Professional Football League (SPFL) have likewise suffered. This reflects badly on the game and hampers our ability to attract new investment into the sport. In modern commerce, most of the major brands and businesses evaluate customer feedback on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. Looking at the SFA survey results from over 10,000 fans the Net Promoter score for our two national bodies is revealing and concerning.

The gulf between those who run football and those who love it and pay for it is far too wide to be healthy, which is why substantial reform in the boardrooms and throughout the governing bodies is in their interest, the fans’ interest, and the interests of Scottish football as a whole. “  

We know that over the next 6 weeks the SFSA will be going live with a major campaign to highlight governance and transparency along with a plan to deliver it and will provide details at that time when preparatory work completed.

We at SFM believe it is the responsibility as fans who care about an honest game (and who doesn’t?) to take the opportunity to work with our new national fans organisation in not just talking about change but to make sure that change actually happens.

We can all start that process by joining the SFSA.  It costs you nothing apart from 5 mins of your time and you can join at  http://scottishfsa.org/  to become the means of  making Scottish football something we all feel happy to support because we feel part of it rather than apart from it..

About the author

Avatar

Auldheid author

Celtic fan from Glasgow living mostly in Spain. A contributor to several websites, discussion groups and blogs, and a member of the Resolution 12 Celtic shareholders' group. Committed to sporting integrity, good governance, and the idea that football is interdependent. We all need each other in the game.

168 Comments so far

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on11:31 am - Jun 10, 2017


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-4589456/Porto-fined-hit-restrictions-breaching-UEFA-rules.html
NYON, Switzerland (AP) – UEFA has ordered Porto to pay a fine of 700,000 euros ($784,000) for overspending and has set the Portuguese club targets to limit spending on player wages and transfers for the next two seasons. European soccer’s governing body said Friday that Porto was the only club that failed to comply with the requirement to break even on its spending and trading as part of ‘Financial Fair Play’ rules. Under the terms of a settlement that covers the next four seasons, Porto has agreed to be deducted 700,000 euros of its Champions League prize money. A further 1.5 million euro fine will be imposed if Porto exceeds its spending limits. Porto can register only 22 senior players instead of 25 for next season’s Champions League group stage, and 23 players for European competition in 2018-19. UEFA also limited the new signings Porto can include in its European competition squads over the next two seasons. Porto says it will break even by 2020-21.

———————
Can anyone explain why UEFA have found why Porto was the only club that failed to comply with the requirement to break even on its spending and trading as part of ‘Financial Fair Play’ rules.?
is it because porto are in a UEFA competition that UEFA looked at portos overspending?
Could a UEFA order be placed on an ibrox club by UEFA next season?

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on2:24 pm - Jun 10, 2017


Cluster OneJune 10, 2017 at 13:33

Thanks for the update, C1. Have to wonder, though, what we are meant to deduce from the following excerpts from the piece:

‘The man reportedly told Mr King he had Mr Whyte’s permission to release the data.’

‘A Rangers spokesman said that Mr King would not be commenting on the court claim and added that to be correct, these emails were neither stolen nor hacked”.’

Now that seems to suggest that the people at TRFC are aware that King did, in fact, obtain the emails/data, so:

Are we to believe that King might ‘believe’ a stranger that he had Whyte’s permission to give copies of his emails to anyone? Would anyone not connected to ‘Rangers’ be believed should they make such a claim? Only the owner of emails, or electronic data, can give permission for their use to anyone else, and there can be no mistaking who the owners is. As I suggested previously, it’s not as though it’s a stolen mobile phone being discussed, or anything else that someone might legitimately be selling (however unlikely), but no one legitimately sells, or even passes on for free, someone else’s private correspondence, and absolutely no one believes someone who says, ‘it’s OK, he said I could sell it or give it away for free!’

And, how does a ‘Rangers’ spokesman know the emails hadn’t been ‘stolen or hacked’, when the true owner’s own QC states that they were hacked and what he said was accepted by opposing counsel as fact? These RRMs know just about everything there is to know, certainly much more than those lawyer chappies, about all things legal, such as the status of a football club in liquidation!

View Comment

LUGOSI

LUGOSIPosted on2:33 pm - Jun 10, 2017


Just a thought about the game at Hampden this afternoon.
I wonder if should we hear lusty renditions of songs about Murdering Catholics, a Famine and the Pope would anyone in authority say or do anything?
The host Football Association?
The visiting Football Association?
UEFA?
FIFA?
Police Scotland?
What would they say? What would they do?
Similarly if the game involved an invasion of the field of play by a fan who got as far onto the pitch as to require the Referee to manhandle the fan away from a player; or if fans threw items, say, a battery or a golf ball, at players; or if there were at least two instances of racist behaviour would anyone in authority say or do anything?
I don’t know what the answer is in the hypothetical first scenario but I do know that in the second scenario there was action by Police Scotland but nothing whatsoever has been said or done by the football governing body. Perhaps their inquiry is taking longer because as well as the behaviour listed in the second scenario all of the behaviour listed in the first scenario was also present.
If only there were instances of similar behaviour and the records checked to see what action was taken on those occasions.
If Stewart Regan and the SFA want to commission a survey to learn why some of us are not as enthusiastic about our National team as we could be, or as we used to be, I, for one, would be happy to tell him why.
My reply might even move on from the foregoing to EBTs, European Licences, fit and proper person assessments, clubs demonstrably spending more than they earn, facts and law denial…
I wouldn’t be unhelpful.
I could help by pointing out that the only thing which has clearly exercised Mr Regan for months; the acquittal of Craig Whyte, and led to his only public pronouncement for months involves a bit of fuzzy logic. Mr Regan told the Press that Mr Whyte (Fraud convictions – 0) would not be welcome to join the likes of Mr King (Fraud convictions – 41) and that the SFA would be pursuing Mr Whyte for a £200,000 fine imposed in ,erm, 2012. (Why does that date ring a bell?) Leaving aside why this fine’s still outstanding five years down the line I could help by pointing out that Mr Whyte has been declared Bankrupt. I could help by ensuring that the SFA have lodged their claim with Mr Whyte’s Trustee in Bankruptcy. I could help by pointing out that the only party entitled to deal with Mr Whyte’s financial affairs is his Trustee in Bankruptcy and to do things any other way could be prejudicial to other creditors.
While we’re on the subject of fines has Mr Regan ever confirmed, at a Press Call or otherwise, that all fines; Oldco/Newco/Anyco, let’s just call it Ibrox-based-club, have been paid?
He could ask Campbell Ogilvie or Andrew Dickson.
They’ll know.

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on8:35 pm - Jun 10, 2017


On vacation with family and watched the Scotland game in its entirety – for the first time in a few years – in a bar.

I was confidently telling my daughters that Scotland would get humped.
What do i know!
Pleasantly surprised at how things panned out.
And yes, we all knew they would equalise in injury time.

And I was loudly swearing at the TV when Griffiths (?) tried to play the ball out – instead of hoofing the ball out of play.
But a draw was a fair result.

It’s the drama / unpredictability that keeps the game interesting.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on10:01 am - Jun 11, 2017


SFA President, Alan McRae on Celtic’s achievements last season:

“They have done it once, hopefully it won’t happen again next season because we’ve got to have challengers. They know you need to have people challenging, otherwise it will get very boring and dreary.”

and then he gave forth:
“We definitely need a good, strong Rangers. They are back but they still have a bit to go. I am sure they will (get there) eventually.”

Good to see the SFA are still as even handed as always.

Thankfully, for once, a Record reporter told him where to go with that attitude:

“Celtic needing a strong Rangers is a myth SFA president Alan McRae does not need to perpetuate” – Gordon Waddell.

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on3:48 pm - Jun 11, 2017


Good Blog
We can all start that process by joining the SFSA. It costs you nothing apart from 5 mins of your time and you can join at http://scottishfsa.org/ to become the means of making Scottish football something we all feel happy to support because we feel part of it rather than apart from it.

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on7:08 pm - Jun 11, 2017


Still thinking about Alan McRae and his desire for a ‘strong’ Rangers. How, exactly, is that defined? Let’s consider the possibilities. 

Is it the Rangers of the early 80’s. Sectarian signing policy apart, it’s fair to assume that was a well run club. It’s almost certain the very notion of diddling her Majesty’s revenue service out of its legally entitled tax would not even merit a discussion in the Ibrox boardroom. I’m willing to bet all bills were settled within the required timescales as well. However, things were bleak on the field of play, with no league title won between 1978 and 1986. 

Is it the Rangers under David Murray, who had the keys to the Bank of Scotland’s safe, and when the going got a little tougher, who did diddle her Majesty’s revenue service out of its legally entitled tax. The tax fiddling and the almost unlimited bank borrowing did pay heavy dividends on the pitch though, with a huge number of trophies won. 

Is it the Rangers post 2012, which has spent almost £40m to achieve a best of 3rd in the top league, but which continues to haemorrhage money at an alarming rate. 

Given that Alan McRae said Rangers were ‘back’ I’m thinking he harbours dreams of the Rangers under David Murray. Who does he expect should pay for it though? Perhaps he thinks Rangers should be made a national treasure and given heavy funding by the Government. Who knows!

View Comment

Avatar

bigboab1916Posted on7:58 pm - Jun 11, 2017


Had the SFA did what they are employed to do and that is govern with rules then there would have been a strong Rangers. The Rangers of old died on their watch they knew they were part of it, their lies and hidden agendas encouraged spivs to walk all over them and cause the death of a football team adored by many inncoent fans and the loss of finaces to creditors and tax authorities.
They destroyed a history and no egging over will bring back from the dead a liquidated club.Their museums are full of nostalgia from the Thirds,Airdrieonians and Gretna to name a few who took the road to oblivion and left behind mere memories.
This joker has attempted to revive a memory and create a Frankenstein wrapped up and packaged as a Rangers of old to sell onto a TV company as an old firm package. There is no old firm and the story you put out fools no-one there is shit coming down the pipe since the high court case and most of the paperwork lies with the SFA.
Deflections and untruths will divide as opposed to unite Scottish football and fans alike, this guy has pigeon holed the Sevco a team who could not play their first match due to registration problems and legalities, thus to pretend its the same from an official of the SFA is anfront to all. This team had to beg cap in hand to be given a licence to play football again, that was the reality, this team played their first game as Sevco, their liquidated body whom they replaced was still in the SPL awaiting its removal and replacement from team 12.
This guy has demonstrated no loyalty to his profession and his loyalty to one team and therefore should be removed from his post, The role of the SFA regardless of their team prefrence in their civilian life is to reamian impartial. Aberdeen finished a strong second on all domestic fronts and if anything one would expect this to be the challenge next season, as stated they the SFA had a strong Rangers but allowed it to destroy itself from the inside out, hope this guy enjoyed the old years as that is all that remains of his team a blip on the map and as time moves on a memory in the mould of the thirds, and maybe the thirds would have been a better name for the RIFC as it was suited to them in their first ever SPL, third they were indeed.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on8:26 pm - Jun 11, 2017


BibBoab1916 –
“as stated you had a strong Rangers and allowed it to destroy itself from the inside out”
A few days ago a MSJ, Keith Jackson called it right in a hatchet job on the people who have run *Rangers in the past decades: 
“The very truth of the matter is, convictions or not, this is a story of a football club who were callously and systematically ripped apart from the inside.”

This is good to hear from KJ.  Many Ibrox fans were taken in by the guff from A. MCoist  “Who are these people?” when attempts were made to punish their club for footballing crimes just short of match fixing.  Don’t get me started on the rubbish from Charles Green.  It left the bears with the mind set that they were done down.  Made to start in the bottom tier by the big bad SFA & leagues , the other clubs, HMRC on a mission.  All of this led to them singing ‘nobody likes us and we don’t care’

As Keith Jackson wrote the other day – look inwards for the source of your troubles. (I paraphrase).

I can’t believe I sound like an apologist for the DR on here today but that is two good articles in the past week, one’s which are by and large in accord with our thinking on here. 

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on8:38 pm - Jun 11, 2017


Big Bob 19.16.
You make a point that needs repeated over and over again.
Had there been true independent oversight of the SFA, ebts would have been questioned at the first  sign of their use in Rangers accounts.
If there is one club that would benefit from application of financial fair play in principle as well as practice it is the one whom were given a place in the bottom tier of Scottish football.
Yet there is no sign that principle is being applied and no sign that other clubs wish to see it applied either.
This is because there is no means to apply pressure at relevant levels to bring about the changes so desperately need to produce a much more modern, professional and forward thinkin SFA. 
If sufficient supporters get behind the SFSA then that pressure group will be created.

View Comment

Avatar

bordersdonPosted on9:06 pm - Jun 11, 2017


 
My kitchen clock shows midnight.And I am sitting here, still somewhat stunned by the sheer brilliance of Griffith’s goals.As examples of football skill at its most sublime they are hard to beat.That two such masterpieces of technique should have been produced within minutes of each other , under enormous pressure, is almost unbelievable.No football afficionado in the whole world of football, however jaded and cynical he may be, could not but be enthralled by that display of technical perfection.The beautiful game at its best.Isn’t it such a pity that the beauty of our game should have been so disfigured by the lies of the 6th Floor blazers, and by the SMSM in support of those lies?( It’s actually now nearly midnight+30: got diverted for a while by a text from the brother)
———————————————————————————–
Been away for a while on the lively Island of Harris.
I was there yesterday JC. With my sons who will support Scotland evermore. Big day, great day with my boys. So many emotions in such a short time. They are aware of the SMSM and the OC/NW club but at the end of the day were there to support their country against the Auld Enemy. We are all Dons supporters and just as disappointed that our Board has lain down to the media lie. The biggest club will not ruffle any feathers either I’m thinking? I’m with you on the lies etc but I despair about the solution!!!

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on9:08 pm - Jun 11, 2017


I’ve just enrolled in the SFSA, though I am never confident of the effectiveness of such bodies, but hopefully they might prove effective. The enrolment form does include, however, sections to tell them what you feel for your club, what you think of the SPFL and the SFA and one requesting you to tell them what ‘specific issues that you want us to concentrate on in the coming year’.

As you can imagine, I was less than complementary about the SPFL and the SFA, and I’m sure not many want to know what I feel about the Hearts, but this is what I wrote suggesting they might ‘concentrate on for the next year’ It is not, of course, exhaustive.

‘Righting past wrongs, wrongs that may have been classed as perceived before the revelations from the Whyte trial, showing that carve ups such as highlighted by the Resolution12 issue did take place. Should the Rangers EBT appeal fail, then pressure should be brought to have the LNS decision reviewed, and the already shown to be illegal DOS scheme included in that review.
The inclusion of a European Financial Fair Play compliance statement in Aberdeen and Hearts annual accounts should become compulsory for all Premiership clubs, with penalties issued for false statements, with clubs posting two consecutive years losses forced to justify their claimed compliance within the account statement. Clubs must be stopped from spending money they do not have to bolster their team in anticipation of recovering the funds from European riches; European riches which are then denied to other clubs who took care of their finances properly, and fairly.
The incompetents, such as SFA President, Alan McRae, must be stopped from issuing statements that make it clear that those running the game consider Scottish football is just about Celtic and ‘Rangers’, and that every other club is just a bit part player. In case you missed it, this representative of all Scottish football clubs said the following:
‘We definitely need a good, strong Rangers. They are back, but they still have a bit to go, I am sure they will (get there) eventually.’
Well, I can’t speak for everyone who doesn’t support ‘Rangers’, but I do know that I don’t need a good, strong one, even one that has never been tainted with the use of EBTs! Just why is it necessary for them to always mention ‘Rangers’? Are they trying to help sell season tickets for them?’

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on9:18 pm - Jun 11, 2017


Another very good blog, Auldheid.

View Comment

Avatar

bordersdonPosted on9:19 pm - Jun 11, 2017


monopoly or duopoly? no sure it makes a lot of difference?

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on9:31 pm - Jun 11, 2017


bordersdonJune 11, 2017 at 21:19

There were things about this season that were better than many of the duopoly seasons – in fact, isn’t it only half as bad to have only one team’s supporters lording it, rather than two sets? Even when they lost, they were telling you that your team’s rubbish because yours finished twenty points behind theirs? I’d suggest, too, that, even for supporters of the duopoly teams, the seasons they didn’t win were just as bad for them as they were for the rest of us, perhaps worse, because we all enjoyed their pain! There’s only ever one club’s supporters celebrating, it matters not which one, or how often, when it’s not yours!

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on9:46 pm - Jun 11, 2017


ALLYJAMBOJUNE 11, 2017 at 21:08
I’ve just enrolled in the SFSA, though I am never confident of the effectiveness of such bodies,
this is what I wrote suggesting they might ‘concentrate on for the next year’
——————-
I feel after reading what you wrote, my one word “transparency” was too little 05
Ps great post ALLYJAMBO

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on11:03 pm - Jun 11, 2017


bordersdonJune 11, 2017 at 21:06
‘…We are all Dons supporters and just as disappointed that our Board has lain down to the media lie. The biggest club will not ruffle any feathers either I’m thinking? I’m with you on the lies etc but I despair about the solution!!!’
_____________
I’m with Auldheid in  thinking that  a starting point to finding a solution to the dysfunctionality, deceit, dishonesty and downright dereliction of duty of the SFA ( as well as of silly little men who become Presidents of that organisation who have nothing to offer but absurdly out-of-place comments  and insulting put-downs of our game) is for us all to sign up to the Scottish Football Supporters Association (SFSA)

Leaving aside , for the moment, the festering wound  of the ‘saga’ and its causes and effects, there is a crying need for the Scottish Football industry to be brought to realise that it MUST learn to be responsive to its consumers.

It is part of the entertainment industry, in which most providers know that they live or die to the degree that they do or do not keep their customers happy.

The SFSA, as a body wholly independent of the SFA, looks to enable us as consumers of a service to insist on being heard , and to run the rule over the ‘businesses’ who depend on our custom, and over the whole administration of our sport.

As customers, the first thing we want is not to be cheated. We want no match fixing, no sliding of money illicitly to favoured clubs, no manipulation of judicial tribunals , no unprofessional  ‘trust’ in the honesty of clubs when it comes to self-certification of their financial disclosures, no selective application of rules …..

The Westminster Parliament has begun to snap at the FA, as members grew in awareness of the deficiencies of that body and its arrogant dismissal of criticism.

They consider it a serious business of parliament to seek to impose greater transparency on the FA.

Here in Scotland, the Scottish Parliament needs to be kicked in the bahookey to look at SportScotland and its attitude to the running of Scottish Football as an industry.

That means asking hard questions of the SFA.

Something that ‘Supporters Direct’ , taking money from the SFA, cannot be trusted to do,or even want to do!

So, let’s give the  SFSA our support,so that there is a powerful body, authorised to speak to the SFA, the SPFL and individual clubs on behalf of tens of thousands of us who put our money and our hearts into football.

And look forward to a more honestly run and governed game.

View Comment

Avatar

briggsbhoyPosted on11:25 pm - Jun 11, 2017


Occasional lurker and never posted in a long time. Just a thought after the Craig Whyte trial. The latter had sold 3 years of season tickets for Ibrox to Ticketus. I appreciate that the old club have a number of creditors but if as according to the SFA (and EUFA if you listen to a Sevco fan) the new club are indeed the old club why did Ticketus not get 3 seasons worth of ticket sales out the new club?  If I was Ticketus I would have pursued this, maybe they did !

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on1:46 am - Jun 12, 2017


briggsbhoy June 11, 2017 at 23:25 
Occasional lurker and never posted in a long time. Just a thought after the Craig Whyte trial. The latter had sold 3 years of season tickets for Ibrox to Ticketus. I appreciate that the old club have a number of creditors but if as according to the SFA (and EUFA if you listen to a Sevco fan) the new club are indeed the old club why did Ticketus not get 3 seasons worth of ticket sales out the new club?  If I was Ticketus I would have pursued this, maybe they did !
======================
D&P went to the Court of Session in March 2012 for directions on what could / could not be done with regard to the Ticketus contract.  Lord Hodge addressed the point by concluding that the purchase of season tickets by Ticketus did not give them any “trust” rights over the seats as they had claimed. Lord Hodge explained that, under Scots law, an asset must exist before it can be placed within a trust.  As the STs for seasons 2012/13 onwards didn’t exist at that point in time then it was “fatal” to Ticketus’ claim. He also advised that it was up to D&P to decide whether or not to break the contract, although he warned that it would mean that Ticketus would be be able to make a claim against the Oldco as a creditor for breach of contract.

However, under English Law the outcome would have been different as it allows “proprietary” and “irrevocable” rights over the seats purchased, which would continue following an insolvency event. The nature of those legal rights do not exist in Scots Law.

View Comment

Avatar

briggsbhoyPosted on5:00 am - Jun 12, 2017


Easyjambo
Thanks for your response. So Ticketus made a claim with the Adimistrators of the oldco and in the court case that followed Ticketus lost. Could Ticketus not have argued that the agreement started at the end of each season for the following so therefore it existed each year. Someone must have got their arse well and truely roasted at Ticketus. At the whyte court case were the witness from Ticketus former employees. 
The gauling thing is the new shower carry on with no shame for the trail of destruction they left behind and still claim to be the same mob. Pity they couldn’t sue the SPFL or SFA for poor management of the game that cost th financially.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on7:49 am - Jun 12, 2017


bordersdonJune 11, 2017 at 21:19  
monopoly or duopoly? no sure it makes a lot of difference?
______________________

It makes a difference of one, Bordersdon, and it’s possible, I suppose, to view a duopoly as twice as bad as a monopoly, depending on whether or not you are (potentially) a part of a duopoly.

It is clear the SFA have learned nothing from the past five years, and clearly consider it more important to keep the supporters of an Ibrox club happy before showing any consideration for the supporters of all other clubs. Does the president of the SFA actually believe that it helps sell tickets at all our clubs, if he, and his CEO, continually bum up one particular club, regardless of which club that might be?

Another view we might take of that statement from Alan McRae is that he was encouraging a club, that has made constant, huge (in Scottish football terms) losses for the past five years, to spend even more money for the sake of Scottish football! It’s a stance, and attitude, we might expect from the staunchest of bears…

…taking that view a little further, was he giving TRFC carte blanche to do as they please in their pursuit of Celtic?

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on7:57 am - Jun 12, 2017


I should have added to my last post that McRae, and the rest of the SFA, only get away with such partisan statements because they know these statements will always go unquestioned, and uncriticised, within the mainstream media!

View Comment

LUGOSI

LUGOSIPosted on8:35 am - Jun 12, 2017


I have just re-read the comments by SFA President Alan McRae; mainly because I didn’t think I could possibly have read them correctly the first time. Sadly, I hadn’t. President of association has favourite and isn’t shy about letting everyone know. I don’t know why I was surprised given that the same man, holding the same position agreed to meet our esteemed John Clark in January 2016 when the agenda was Mr McRae’s publically expressed views about the Ibrox club; views that were demonstrably, at best, revisionist and at worst factually untrue. The meeting became a cause celebre not so much for Mr McRae’s words of wisdom, as he didn’t utter too many words, but for the edict of Darryl I Am The SFA Broadfoot. It appears that without the chaperone role of the departed Mr Broadfoot (to, of all things, Public Relations-he may be trustworthy and persuasive but he’s no, um, let me think, Jim Traynor?) Mr McRae is only repeating now what he thought then and what he’ll continue to think until he is stopped in his tracks by the truth.
A flavour of Mr McRae’s world view can be gleaned from his throwaway line about current SFA employee Malky McKay. Mr McRae thinks racist, homophobic and sexist text messages were “wee mistakes”.
Right you are Mr McRae, and EBTs and the lying about side letters were a wee mistake about taxation and honesty.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on9:43 am - Jun 12, 2017


LUGOSIJune 12, 2017 at 08:35

The more I think about this latest SFA venture out of their bunker, the more it becomes obvious that they only ever appear in public to spout forth in the interests of a dead club, or TRFC. Why else would McRae have picked out said club for special mention, when the obvious choice for a challenger to Celtic must be the runner-up from all three domestic competitions of last season? While TRFC’s support far outnumbers all other potential (loose use of potential) challengers, their financial position makes chasing Celtic an act of lunacy, and a recipe for a repeat of what happened to RFC five years ago.

Since Rangers crashed, with others almost crashing, there has been a common sense approach amongst all other clubs to financial matters, everywhere except Ibrox. It’s not this fiscally aware approach that has led to Celtic’s increasing dominance, it’s purely down to Celtic’s long-term financial prudence and use of the riches that that has created, plus, of course, the biggest attendances in Scottish football, by far. No club can possibly bridge that gap by spending on the quality of players needed to do it in a hurry (a hurry being the next five years), and it could only possibly be achieved by good management, excellent youth progression and exceptional recruitment of quality affordable players.

After what happened to Rangers, and Hearts, Dunfermline, Dundee…, in the recent past, the SFA’s main concern should be to stop it happening again, not who can challenge Celtic! Every single statement regarding any challenge they issue should carry a health warning against gung ho title chasing; but that wouldn’t fit the narrative required/demanded down Govan way!

That statement, as well as not singling out TRFC, should have carried that health warning, but, it was, as I say, issued for the benefit of TRFC (or, rather, the current board), although whether or not what results from it is beneficial to the club, is a moot point!

View Comment

Avatar

bluPosted on10:07 am - Jun 12, 2017


LUGOSIJune 12, 2017 at 08:35
AllyjamboJune 12, 2017 at 09:43
The various reports of Mr McRae’s post SFA AGM musings are consistent in what they say, and it certainly appears as if he is promoting one team. From personal experience, I would suggest that he’s just not very good at this business of representing the interests of all of the member clubs of the Scottish Football Association. Some might say he’s just not very bright, and you can understand why. I wouldn’t argue. In my brief encounter with him he couldn’t hold the company line when challenged and had to be rescued/led away by the paid help. Gordon Waddell deals with the issue quite well in his online article yesterday.

His post-AGM comments will have pushed a lot of buttons this morning. And he’s right – certainty of outcome is the last thing football needs. But to describe the potential of a Celtic Treble as boring and offering the need for a “good, strong Rangers” as its antidote?
A Dark Ages’ sentiment perpetuating a needless stereotype. It’s the entire problem with his role, though – it’s a total anachronism in 21st-Century football.
The ultimate blazer in an era when we’re supposed to have left the gold buttons and badges behind. A job earned by nothing other than good attendance and patience, perpetuated by succession and sentiment. This is nothing personal against McRae, who’s an absolute gent. And if you’ve reached the top of their totem pole you’ve most certainly served your time. The bigger question, though, should be how have you served it? And for whom?

View Comment

Avatar

keddawPosted on11:52 am - Jun 12, 2017


Never mind the SFSA, start an organisation called Fans United, or Fans Union, so we can send an FU to the SFA.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on12:00 pm - Jun 12, 2017


A hard hitting letter to S. Regan from the Celtic Supporters Assc.  Well worth a read, all issues previously brought up on here:

http://www.thecsa.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=1942&p=6132

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on12:44 pm - Jun 12, 2017


I wonder where we Craigy stands on this now.
https://www.channel4.com/news/by/alex-thomson/blogs/craig-whytes-lawyers-send-letter-action

View Comment

Avatar

aberdeen1970Posted on12:51 pm - Jun 12, 2017


Signed up to the SFSA.  Thanks for the link.  I note they have over 66,000 members which is a good platform

View Comment

DustinBreaks

DustinBreaksPosted on3:17 pm - Jun 12, 2017


Going to sign up to the SFSA shortly but trying to find the words to articulate the biggest concerns is difficult.  Even taking out the gaping holes in governance, you look at some of the other issues that they have not copped any flak for such as PAYING a TV company to show Rangers games.  One of our national bodies actually taking money out of the game.  We are now being told they cannot afford things like video technology.
We have had examples of disciplinary meetings where the some of the judging panel doesn’t even sit through most of the defense.  Some panels dont decide to sit all week because there was a holiday on the monday.
The money wasted on hampden, basically to get some shiny offices.
And many many more…
There is very little from the SFA or the SPFL that is strikes you as run professionally.  It is basically a bowling club committee.  The sooner we knocked down and start again the better.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on3:52 pm - Jun 12, 2017


Dustinbreaks,

re articulating your biggest concerns.  Just write “witness our very own president’s latest 2 club gaffe” and take it from there.  

View Comment

jean7brodie

jean7brodiePosted on5:03 pm - Jun 12, 2017


DustinBreaksJune 12, 2017 at 15:17
______________________________________________
Same here DB. I have had the form open and ready to complete for about 2 hours! How to be succinct09
Thanks Smugas, may do that and let it all out07

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on5:44 pm - Jun 12, 2017


I didn’t think it needed anything else!!!

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on6:09 pm - Jun 12, 2017


EASYJAMBOJUNE 12, 2017 at 01:46
————–
Very informative post.
thanks.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on10:13 pm - Jun 12, 2017


I will never forget that wee moment ever.  On the R. Scotland show before the game the English pundit (can’t remember his name) politely mentioned Scotland didn’t have a ‘striker’ !

I think it was at half time Graham Souness (on Sky) suggested wee Leigh getting pulled.

Obviously I have great faith in the Griff, and I was angry on his behalf.

Then he did what he did.  Spectacular.  We all celebrated:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/watch-how-scotland-fans-celebrated-10612170

It was great for a minute 050505

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on10:35 pm - Jun 12, 2017


http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=746b35a7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
could be of interest to some guys on here. I have read some of it but i’m too tired18

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on11:15 pm - Jun 12, 2017


Cluster One June 12, 2017 at 22:35 
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=746b35a7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7 could be of interest to some guys on here. I have read some of it but i’m too tired
========================
Thanks for the link. I presume that publication was delayed until after the conclusion of the Whyte trial.  I will take the time to read through it, but I suspect that it relates to the reason that the charges against the D&P guys were dropped.  Whitehouse and Clark have also initiated an action against the Police in the last few weeks.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on12:11 am - Jun 13, 2017


Further to the above post, there was a second judgement, from 16 April 2016, relating to an award of costs in relation to the appeal.  The appellants were awarded expenses of £10,000, although the Crown (Advocate Depute James Keegan) also gave an undertaking to pay £42,000 towards the costs of an Independent Counsel who looked into the circumstances of the case.

Lord Carloway said:

It is customary, in a review such as this, to modify any award to a fixed sum rather than add the additional expense of a taxation.  This is in recognition of the principle that the prosecuting authorities should not be unduly restricted in their duty to investigate and prosecute crime by the threat of contrary awards of expenses, should they err in their task.  They act not in their own, but in the public, interest.  Given that context, awards of expenses in criminal review processes are not to be seen in the same light as those in civil appeals. It will only be in an exceptional case that a general award would be made.  This is not such a case
Although the actions of the Crown were classified by the court as oppressive in a legal sense, they were not motivated by bad faith.  The procedure adopted was inept, but there was at least some basis for seeking recovery of a limited part of the material covered by the warrant. In these circumstances, although an award of expenses is justified, for reasons similar to those given by Lord Hardie in S v McGowan 2009 SLT 922 (at para [10]), there is no basis for departing from the usual practice of modifying the award to a fixed sum.  Having regard to the procedure which has occurred upon the Bill, the court will make an award of expenses modified to £10,000. 

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on7:06 am - Jun 13, 2017


I note via Twitter that the Daily Record are somewhat triumphantly announcing that Rangers have spent close to £10m already this summer. If the figure is even close to accurate it will almost certainly include wages, signing on fees and agents fees. However the bottom line is the world and its granny knows they can’t afford that level of spending. Also, how does it fit in with the break even monitoring requirement they are allegedly now under with UEFA? Or do UEFA only monitor if the SFA tell them there is now a requirement to do so? That has never been clear, and with the recent comments from the SFA President who knows what lengths the SFA will go to assist. 

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on8:08 am - Jun 13, 2017


The SFA will go to every length they can to assist the Ibrox club.  Each and every day the SFA’s reputation is dragged through the mud on social media by every club’s supporters (even at Ibrox believe it or not!).
But nothing will happen as things stand, you couldn’t mark their necks with a blow torch.  They are the Invincibles – sorry Celtic!.
I often wish Fergus McCann was still at Celtic to take these chancers on.  Peter Lawwell for all his business acumen doesn’t like to rock the boat.

I’m beginning to believe in Karma, maybe one day these people will get their just rewards.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on10:55 am - Jun 13, 2017


A good article here from The Clumpany, not just witty, but showing up The Herald’s Martin Williams for the fool many suspect (in line with all his fellow ‘journalists’) him to be. Credit, too, to tweeter Archduke of Bohemia for providing Clumps with the excellent ammunition, allowing him to turn both Williams and the Herald into his cannon fodder – again.

https://theclumpany.wordpress.com/2015/09/19/the-holding-herald/

I do wonder if the exchange was continued between the Archduke and Martin Williams, or did, as is usually the case, our intrepid ‘journo’ run for the hills before making an even greater fool of himself.

Still, with their inability to uncover the stories, under their very nose, that they are, supposedly, trained to find, I do tend to wonder if they have the skills to find a hill – in our land of hills and mountains – to run for21

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on12:20 pm - Jun 13, 2017


 A little email exchange between me and the Scottish Courts Service:
10 Jun at 11:55 PMTo enquiries@scotcourts.gov.uk
Message bodyJust a quickie: when reporting restrictions are imposed in cases which might incidentally relate to a concurrent criminal trial, are those restrictions automatically lifted when that criminal trial is eventually  concluded?Or must there be a formal lifting of the restrictions by each judge who  imposed them in the individual case he/she was hearing?Cheers,

Enquiries account for SCS <enquiries@scotcourts.gov.uk>
12 Jun at 9:26 AMTo
Message bodyGood morning,
 
Can you tell me if your enquiry relates to an ongoing case or a recently ended one and if so which court it was heard in?
 

Enquiries account for SCS Subject: Re: lifting of reporting restrictions Good morning, and thank you for your prompt response.The trial I refer to was the relatively high-profile trial of Craig Whyte, recently acquitted of two charges in the High Court, Glasgow.  

Enquiries account for SCS
Good Morning,  I have forwarded your enquiry onto Glasgow Sheriff Court for them to look at your enquiry.  Regards             
I wait with interest to learn what the High Court in Glasgow might have to say.

View Comment

Avatar

nawlitePosted on2:12 pm - Jun 13, 2017


Apologies for the long post, but I wanted to share my mail to the SFA re McRae’s comments. Once I get started, I get so annoyed and I write too much!!

“I write to complain strongly about the recent statement made by the SFA president, Alan McRae and would appreciate a response to my complaint. I hope that, like most sizeable organisations in the 21st century, you have a complaints policy which assures your customers of a considered response to any considered complaint.
After reading Mr McRae’s reported comments, my immediate reaction was one of disgust. How dare he dismiss the rest of your member clubs so lightly as to allow him to talk up the failed business model that is Rangers version 1 or version 2? The SFA is supposed to be an impartial body in place to govern and SUPPORT all of its members. How do his views evidence any support for Aberdeen? Hearts? Any other club? Aberdeen, after all, were runners-up in all 3 major competitions last season, so are quite obviously best placed to provide the required challenge to Celtic. Recognising that overall standards – and those of Celtic – will increase if the competition improves does not require super-intelligence or the very wise! To that end, Mr McRae’s desire for increased competition is no news to most Scottish football fans – the regrettable news is that he would prefer that competition to come from Rangers!!  
As an impartial fan, I struggle to understand why he felt the need to state “We definitely need a good, strong Rangers. They are back, but they still have a bit to go.” It seems he sees Rangers as the only one of his member clubs capable of preventing a “very boring and dreary” treble season? I hope this does not betray an undisclosed support for Rangers (though I accept he would only be following the precedent of his immediate successor in that case), but my concern is that it betrays at least a backward looking organisation that cannot see a positive future other than a return to a failed duopoly business model that led to the death of one of its member clubs.
Leaving aside the questionable view of a liquidated club being back from anywhere (!), I have real fears over the inference that will be taken from Mr McRae’s words by those currently in charge at Ibrox. After all, there are now three men at Ibrox who were mainstays of the Board of the Rangers awaiting formal liquidation. Mr McRae’s desire to see a strong Rangers to challenge Celtic could easily be interpreted by them as an invitation to embark once again on a spree of overspending similar to the long term spree that led to liquidation. Would the SFA be prepared to turn a blind eye once again to overspending and possibly a return to the cheating of EBTs when even overspending isn’t enough to get them where they and their fans want them to be….and perhaps even the President of the SFA, going by his comments!!
In my opinion, the overspending has already kicked in and I hope the SFA is monitoring things very closely at Ibrox. Given Rangers’ very poor financial performance in recent years, it is quite obvious that the current recruitment is not being funded from built-up reserves and, given the lack of media trumpeting, no further soft loans from Directors have been forthcoming recently (you know we would have heard about it!). Like me, the SFA must be aware that recruitment is being funded by fans’ season ticket spend and while this is not illegal, the SFA must further be aware that such front-loading of expenditure is doing nothing but storing up problems for later in the year. I assume the hope is that a new source of funds, Europa League income, will allow them to meet obligations later in the season, but as the SFA knows only too well – evidenced by our falling national coefficient – reaching a stage where the competition becomes cash positive is very, very difficult as shown in by recent years where at best only 1 or 2 of ALL teams entering at the first qualifying stage manage to reach the Group stages.
I take it as a given that the SFA is aware that overspending in the hope of recovering that spend by means of the UEFA competition you enter is a clear breach of UEFA’s FFP rules. That said, given your disregard for Rangers’ poor financial performance re FFP AND your indifference toward your own F&PP rules when it comes Rangers’ Board, perhaps I shouldn’t take anything as a given when it comes to Rangers and the SFA! 
I feel sorry that clubs like Aberdeen, Hearts etc who have in recent years worked hard to provide the best challenge they can, while running their club well and sustainably do not earn the respect of the SFA President who, it would appear, would much rather see (his?) Rangers doing whatever they need to do to get ‘back’ to where they were. I do not recall him praising either of those clubs when they provided good sets of accounts which included the statement that they had complied with UEFA FFP rules. I guess these important issues are of little interest within the SFA!
I look forward to your response as I genuinely believe that you have a duty to respond to any customer voicing their concerns in a  considered, (mostly) respectful manner.”

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on2:29 pm - Jun 13, 2017


I quite like ‘Ibroxnoise’ as a site, it is usually well written, does not contain any bile in the articles and mostly concentrates on all things The Rangers.  Rarely any digs at Celtic or any other team.  It has been critical of Dave King on many occasions.

But today there was a major flaw in an issue with Alan McCrae’s recent opinion.  The writer reckons the SFA president’s preference for a strong Rangers has come 5 years too late.  Apparently the SFA should have stepped in to stop the new club from being started (my words) at the bottom.  More than that though he feels the Scottish Government should have stepped in to mediate.  The problem is though that this is strictly against UEFA & FIFA rules.  They would have a fit if this took place even if the SFA allowed it.

Apparently Doncaster & Regan are appearing before a committee or something of the Scottish parliament on Thursday to explain the wages paid to youth players in Scotland, they are sometimes below the minimum wage, which is against the law.  Doncaster has already stated that state interference in football is a big no no.  It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on3:36 pm - Jun 13, 2017


nawliteJune 13, 2017 at 14:12

An excellently worded email, nawlite, and a good read, to boot. But don’t hold you breath waiting for an answer, though, for the chances are that if one does arrive, it will stink so badly that you will be glad to hold your breath then05

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on3:45 pm - Jun 13, 2017


Jimbo 
The patience of the SG with the SFA is at the end of their tether.
Govt,  not just Scottish, no longer have the fear of an organisation totally discredited by its own corruption, so the FIFA fear card is more likely to anger than anything.
Playing it is a reflection of the arrogance of the two CEOs and clubs towards anyone or body who try to challenge them.
It will be interesting to see the SGs response.
On a separate note it is interesting that when the General Secretary of the Celtic Supporters Association, representing a large swathe of supporters in Scotland , accuses the CEO of the SFA of lying, that so far not one main stream media has reported it.Perhaps the fact Rangers are part of the accused might be a factor.
Now if the accusation is not true why does Regan not sue? If it is true why is he still in a job?
Either way, why is the accusation not being covered by the media and how much is their credibility destroyed as a consequence?
There is an underlying toxicity to this whole affair that will slowly damage all who try to hide it.

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on5:01 pm - Jun 13, 2017


nawliteJune 13, 2017 at 14:12
You might want to ask him this supplementary.
Second:

This is from The SFA National Licensing Manual:
 8.12 Financial Information
 Clubs are required to provide
 a summary of financial
 information drawn from the
 Audited Accounts submitted
 at 8.11.
 
Clubs should be aware thatthis information may be madeavailable via the Scottish FAWebsite.  
 
This information covers
 
Period Ended
Turnover
 and as a % of Turnover
 Wages (Total Payroll Costs)
 Wages to Turnover Ratio
 Profit or Loss for Period
 Net Assets at Period End
 Net Debt at Period End.
 
 
This notification was first made at least two years ago but I have never seen it published. Perhaps the SFA could point to any publication or explain why none?
 (Publication would of course give an indication why a UEFA licence was granted to TRFC this year and if it was safely granted why are SFA not publishing or promoting that the information has been published?)

View Comment

Avatar

bigboab1916Posted on10:42 pm - Jun 13, 2017


McRaes comments should be brought up by Hearts of all clubs and they should demand that he confirm how he sees the current team at Ibrox as Rangers and how they get stronger without breaching FFP.
Hearts and others who have faced admin should remind him that only the production of a CVA exit certificate is evidence of a teams existence and will preserve that clubs history, and, they all did obtain one and that anything else is bullshit.
If he wishes to perpratate the myth Hearts should insist that their admin be made null and void and compensation and special treatment be given to them also. Hearts should raise the issue of how a team which is the same played a game under Sevco in another division from itself rangers in the SPL and they could not take part in a testimonal as they had no licence, how is this possible, why would the runners up in the SPL not have a licence to play football.
This issue should not be allowed to go away as not only does it bring into doubt the mentalty of those running our game but opens up the game to corruption whereby the leaders of the game lead by example and if so this opens them up to bribes etc the games leaders have to have integrity. This is a serious issue to knowinly lie in a position of authority is begging to have the door pushed in to all unsavoury activities and once tainted you leave yourself open.
Too many issues not been addressed like why was Whites fine not took from Rangers as was allowed there would be no point chasing a guy you wanted to see the back off for £200,000.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on11:27 pm - Jun 13, 2017


jimboJune 13, 2017 at 14:29
‘..Apparently Doncaster & Regan are appearing before a committee or something of the Scottish parliament on Thursday ..’
____________
Yes, indeed they are, Jimbo, as below:

“PPC/S5/17/12/APUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE AGENDA12th Meeting, 2017 (Session 5)Thursday 15 June 2017

Item 5.Consideration of a continued petition:The Committee will consider acontinued petition—PE1319by William Smith and Scott Robertson on Improving youth footballin Scotland;and will take evidence from—NeilDoncaster, Chief Executive, Scottish Professional Football League;Andrew McKinlay, Chief Operating Officer and Stewart Regan, ChiefExecutive, Scottish Football Association.”

The meeting is in the Sir Alexander Fleming room ( Committee Room 3) in the Holyrood Parliament building , kick-off at 8.45 a.m.

 I watched how the FA President was grilled aggressivey by the Westminster committeee, and was made  to feel very uncomfortable.

He at least had the excuse that he was new in the job, and clearly had not really had time to make sure he had been properly briefed about every major issue.

I think I may toddle along to see how Messrs Regan and Doncaster square up to a Parliamentary Committee, without a similar excuse to absolve them of responsibility.

It is indicative of something ( perhaps that the office of President of the SFA is merely honorific and without executive power) that our SFA president has not been summoned to appear.

 If you are interested  go to  http://www.parliament.scot/S5_PublicPetitionsCommittee/Meeting%20Papers/Agenda_and_Papers_-_15_June_2017.pdf and scroll through to see what has already been said in a previous hearing of the Committee by Doncaster and the SFA/SPL

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on11:45 pm - Jun 13, 2017


It’s an interesting point Auldheid why all the accusations against the villains in this piece are not challenged.

It is well known nowadays that what is posted on social media can be criminal, hence my harmless comments.

John james has fallen out with me but I still love his aggressive dig at the bad boys, no holds barred.  Why he hasn’t been taken to court is a mystery – or is it?  Too much truth in his accusations?

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on11:55 pm - Jun 13, 2017


I meant to add to my immediately preceding post that, if opportunity presented itself, I might ask Mr Regan to think back to my face-to-face question to him: what would he do if I produced incontrovertible evidence that RFC ( now IL) actually had been billed for outstanding social taxes due by the UEFA cut-off final deadline date and were not simply  in discussion about their potential liability , ‘crystallisation’ of debt not yet having occurred.

And face him with the evidence we now all know confirms that both  RFC and the SFA knew damned fine that RFC ought not to have been granted the UEFA competitions licence.

And that lies were told by one party and questionably accepted at face value without investigation , or by both parties,collusively, as some of the correspondence (with squeals of panic) seems to show.

They simply cannot be allowed to get away with that level of incompetence, or that level of complicity in deceit, any more than the ‘toom tabard’ President can be let off the impolitic and , frankly, totally indiscreet, comments he gratuitously made.

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on7:07 am - Jun 14, 2017


JOHN CLARKJUNE 13, 2017 at 23:55
if opportunity presented itself, I might ask Mr Regan to think back to my face-to-face question to him: what would he do if I produced incontrovertible evidence that RFC ( now IL) actually had been billed for outstanding social taxes due by the UEFA cut-off final deadline date and were not simply  in discussion about their potential liability , ‘crystallisation’ of debt not yet having occurred.
And face him with the evidence we now all know confirms that both  RFC and the SFA knew damned fine that RFC ought not to have been granted the UEFA competitions licence.
And that lies were told by one party and questionably accepted at face value without investigation , or by both parties,collusively, as some of the correspondence (with squeals of panic) seems to show.
——————–
I believe i don’t even have to double dare you to do that.
Ps Do a craig whyte………………Click.22

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on9:47 am - Jun 14, 2017


Hmm, I posted the other day about my decision to join the SFSA with the following note of caution:
‘…though I am never confident of the effectiveness of such bodies, but hopefully they might prove effective.’

Well I received an email of their newsletter this morning and clicked on the undernoted link, entitled:
‘What does the Craig Whyte story tell us about the SFA?’
I was still not confident of the effectiveness of this body as I clicked the link, but hopeful, none the less; I’m afraid, judging by this effort, my lack of confidence was, in my opinion, well founded.

Encouragingly, the first paragraph of the newsletter had contained this, ‘Our plan is to get 100,000 fans signed up to the SFSA and then we believe that with a united voice, change at the top of our game can be achieved.’, which might suggest a hard hitting organisation out to enforce change at the head of Scottish football, ready to go where no football ‘journalist’ has dared go before.

But, no, even the SMSM are not afraid to write the following! I’ll say no more about the content, other than that the revelations in court that put the slam dunk into the Resolution12 claims doesn’t get a mention!

http://scottishfsa.org/what-does-the-craig-whyte-story-tell-us-about-the-sfa-by-steve-mcgregor/

Note to the SFSA, if you genuinely want to force change at the SFA and the SPFL, go for the jugular, not just a kick up the arse – of the kind the SMSM have already missed with (not that they were actually trying to hit anything)!

View Comment

Avatar

Jingso.JimsiePosted on11:24 am - Jun 14, 2017


JIMBO

JUNE 13, 2017 at 23:45       

It’s an interesting point Auldheid why all the accusations against the villains in this piece are not challenged.
It is well known nowadays that what is posted on social media can be criminal, hence my harmless comments.
——————————————

I suspect that the SFA & SPFL hierarchies think (!) that they are containing/managing the whole RFC(2012 IL)/TRFC stream quite well, simply because it’s not broken out to be a UK-wide story. (Why is that, I wonder?)

I also suspect that those same hierarchies haven’t really bought into (or appreciated) the effect of social media on ‘news’ these days & simply believe that a compliant SMSM printing/broadcasting tosh that follows their SFA/SPFL agendas will literally form the accepted history of early 21st century football in Scotland.

They possibly still believe the Traynorism of the ‘keyboard clatterers & internet bampots’ as being worthless as a source.

I hope it bites them in the ar*e!

View Comment

Avatar

nawlitePosted on2:01 pm - Jun 14, 2017


JingsoJimsie says “They possibly still believe the Traynorism of the ‘keyboard clatterers & internet bampots’ as being worthless as a source.”
In my opinion, our experience to date shows that while not worthless, we’re certainly proving ineffective and the football authorities are, therefore, probably right to feel they can sit tight because we haven’t found a way to get what we know out there. It is being contained, whether we like it or not.
We know and can demonstrate the truth and we know that if those truths were more widely known, it would be enough to bring them down. Some of those truths are now public thanks to the CW trial yet still we can’t get them properly into public debate.
It is the SMSM who are choosing to ‘contain’ the truth and while we can moan and call them for all sorts on here and on other sites, that’s not really making the difference. Similarly, some of us communicate our feelings to the authorities directly (regularly), but because it’s only one or two voices, it has no impact. We need to look at how WE can make an impact – no one else will, be it the SMSM, our clubs, the Government etc
I worked in a bank when the Charges complaints issue was first kicking off and know for a fact that for the first few weeks/months the early complainers were ignored/fobbed off – even though those amounted to hundreds in my bank alone. It was only when there were standard letters provided online and when ALL the finance websites started encouraging their customers to write and complain that it was taken seriously. Soon the authorities (Financial Services Authority at that time) stepped in to protect consumers and forced the banks to deal with the issue. By that time, even though each refund cost them, the banks were handling so many complaints that they were glad to get guidance as to the expected process/outcome because it then became a simple widget-handling process.
It was the volumes that made the difference and we fans could create the same problem. If everyone who cares about this had access to standard letters to send to the SFA, the SPFL, UEFA, their club, other clubs, SportScotland, their MP, their MSP, their MEP, their local paper(s), national papers, the BBC etc etc etc I believe there would be enough noise created that it couldn’t be ignored. If we created them and BP/Tris shared them with other appropriate website/blog owners, it could take off.
I’m not actually a fan of standard letters, but having dealt with them in their thousands during the Charges campaign then the PPI campaign, I have seen how effective they can be in forcing an organisation to act. Maybe it’s time! And before anyone asks, I don’t think I’m good at this sort of thing, but if BP/Tris think it’s worth doing I’d get involved with others to help draw up appropriate letters.  
Thoughts?

View Comment

LUGOSI

LUGOSIPosted on2:36 pm - Jun 14, 2017


ALLYJAMBO JUNE 14, 2017 at 09:47
I think the SFSA may be being judged a bit harshly and a bit prematurely.
I also read the article and I have to say there is nothing in the short piece I disagreed with.
Auldheid’s blog about the SFSA was published four days ago and since then it would appear that a number of posters on this site have enrolled. I know I have. A number of posters have expressed their difficulties with the wording in completing the enrolment form but I have to say that my view was a bit more pragmatic (or possibly just lazy). My view was that it was highly unlikely that any organisation was going to pore over each and every aspect of every view of over 66,000 people and particularly not if those views were expressed ad longum.
For what it’s worth my enrolment referred to one club being treated differently, and not in a bad way, from every other club and in the section about specific issues to concentrate on I told them to take their pick from sectarian singing; racist behaviour; EBTs; fit and proper person assessment; European licensing; club expenditure compared to income; statements on company/club status.
In my case in four days one identified issue has already been addressed so in my case that’s progress if not a result.
Everything has its time and tide.
EBTs, LNS etc. will be centre stage once the Supreme Court decision is issued.
Let’s see what the SFSA do then.
European licensing and FFP will be centre stage once the Ibrox club actually play and we see if their opponents ask the entirely reasonable question as to whether or not the Ibrox club should actually be there.
Let’s see what the SFSA do then.
Sectarian singing will be centre stage, more likely than not, the next time the Ibrox club play. As a member I’ll be asking the SFSA what their official view is.
Let’s see what the SFSA do then.
Rome wasn’t built in a day.
But only because they didn’t have the right sort of people; staunch, dignified, respectful people in charge.

View Comment

Avatar

Jimmy BonesPosted on5:49 pm - Jun 14, 2017


NawLite 14:01
I tend to agree that this is going nowhere at the moment and perhaps standard letters would be a way forward.  The question remains though – which organisation would we force to act.  The SFA, SPFL, SMSM and all the Scottish football clubs are too committed and bound in to their version of the story.  The other choices are UEFA, FIFA but to me these are both so corrupted that no number of letters is likely to impact them.  
Parliamentary committees at Holyrood and/or Westminster are a possible route as are Scottish Sport who I understand direct public funds into football through the SFA.  Other suggestions are welcome.
I would be happy to commit some time + effort to this type of campaign.

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on5:59 pm - Jun 14, 2017


32Red Shirt Sponsorship Confirmed.
But no new shirt to put it on.(how does that work?)
Will the ibrox club be going for season 2017-18 with last years shirt,and if so is this a way of not paying for unsold stock as the stock will still have the 32 Red logo on it,and still be up for sale.

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on6:19 pm - Jun 14, 2017


http://scottishfsa.org/what-does-the-craig-whyte-story-tell-us-about-the-sfa-by-steve-mcgregor/
the revelations in court that put the slam dunk into the Resolution12 claims doesn’t get a mention!
ALLYJAMBOJUNE 14, 2017 at 09:47
——————
Tweet sent to https://twitter.com/scottishfsa
will see if i get a reply.

View Comment

Avatar

bigboab1916Posted on8:31 pm - Jun 14, 2017


I would urge some of the members on here who have the ability to write in a coherent manner and have a it more legal savvy to visit an old statement that could now come back to haunt the SFA.
https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/the-rangers-football-club-ltd-a13-224406.html
Now we have had the court case its time to put this to bed.
Hope someone takes the challenge considering the kinloch case fits nicely into advertising codes and we know the outcome from this case.

View Comment

Avatar

bigboab1916Posted on8:47 pm - Jun 14, 2017


Meant to add this wee reminder
James Doleman‏ @jamesdoleman
McGill agrees neither the group or the club could have paid Findlay “that would be the end of Rangers?” 1/2

McGill “If they came out if insolvency that would have preserved the old club.” Findlay “Let’s not go into all that” 2/2
 old as is in he end of the history timeline.

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on2:16 am - Jun 15, 2017


AllyjamboJune 14, 2017 at 09:47      i 19 Votes 
Hmm, I posted the other day about my decision to join the SFSA with the following note of caution:‘…though I am never confident of the effectiveness of such bodies, but hopefully they might prove effective.’
Well I received an email of their newsletter this morning and clicked on the undernoted link, entitled:‘What does the Craig Whyte story tell us about the SFA?’I was still not confident of the effectiveness of this body as I clicked the link, but hopeful, none the less; I’m afraid, judging by this effort, my lack of confidence was, in my opinion, well founded.
Encouragingly, the first paragraph of the newsletter had contained this, ‘Our plan is to get 100,000 fans signed up to the SFSA and then we believe that with a united voice, change at the top of our game can be achieved.’, which might suggest a hard hitting organisation out to enforce change at the head of Scottish football, ready to go where no football ‘journalist’ has dared go before.
But, no, even the SMSM are not afraid to write the following! I’ll say no more about the content, other than that the revelations in court that put the slam dunk into the Resolution12 claims doesn’t get a mention!
http://scottishfsa.org/what-does-the-craig-whyte-story-tell-us-about-the-sfa-by-steve-mcgregor/
Note to the SFSA, if you genuinely want to force change at the SFA and the SPFL, go for the jugular, not just a kick up the arse – of the kind the SMSM have already missed with (not that they were actually trying to hit anything)!
==================
The article in question was a comment on a report on the BBC and therefore on an aspect that SMSM had covered. It is the msm who are guilty of not covering the Res12 slam dunk.
It was a news item reflecting but one aspect of SFA incompetence and SFSA used it to highlight but one aspect of Regan’s poor judgement.
Even had the McGregor article covered Res12 on SFSA it would have been no more mains stream than any other blog which is why the SFSA need as much support as possible to let them speak with the kind of authority the mains stream cannot ignore.

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on6:58 am - Jun 15, 2017


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxPZ5ExeAqY

I’ve just watched the video again from 2012 with Alex Thomson and Stewart Regan. Why on earth is Regan still in place all these years later, especially given what has emerged in the following years? Incredible doesn’t even begin to describe it.  Regan has since decided the comfort of his bunker is a far better option, but that does not explain why he is still in position, although I do not believe if he was gone that his replacement would be any less beholden to all things ‘Rangers’ than he is. 

View Comment

Avatar

chill ultraPosted on9:18 am - Jun 15, 2017


AULDHEIDJUNE 15, 2017 at 02:16
3 Vote
AllyjamboJune 14, 2017 at 09:47      i 19 Votes 
Hmm, I posted the other day about my decision to join the SFSA with the following note of caution:‘…though I am never confident of the effectiveness of such bodies, but hopefully they might prove effective.’ Well I received an email of their newsletter this morning and clicked on the undernoted link, entitled:‘What does the Craig Whyte story tell us about the SFA?’I was still not confident of the effectiveness of this body as I clicked the link, but hopeful, none the less; I’m afraid, judging by this effort, my lack of confidence was, in my opinion, well founded. Encouragingly, the first paragraph of the newsletter had contained this, ‘Our plan is to get 100,000 fans signed up to the SFSA and then we believe that with a united voice, change at the top of our game can be achieved.’, which might suggest a hard hitting organisation out to enforce change at the head of Scottish football, ready to go where no football ‘journalist’ has dared go before. But, no, even the SMSM are not afraid to write the following! I’ll say no more about the content, other than that the revelations in court that put the slam dunk into the Resolution12 claims doesn’t get a mention! http://scottishfsa.org/what-does-the-craig-whyte-story-tell-us-about-the-sfa-by-steve-mcgregor/ Note to the SFSA, if you genuinely want to force change at the SFA and the SPFL, go for the jugular, not just a kick up the arse – of the kind the SMSM have already missed with (not that they were actually trying to hit anything)! ==================
The article in question was a comment on a report on the BBC and therefore on an aspect that SMSM had covered. It is the msm who are guilty of not covering the Res12 slam dunk. It was a news item reflecting but one aspect of SFA incompetence and SFSA used it to highlight but one aspect of Regan’s poor judgement. Even had the McGregor article covered Res12 on SFSA it would have been no more mains stream than any other blog which is why the SFSA need as much support as possible to let them speak with the kind of authority the mains stream cannot ignore.
______________________–
As I read your latest post, and your reference to ‘the Res 12 slam dunk’ I could have easily lost sight of the fact that the original purpose of Resolution 12 at the AGM of 2013 was to ask Celtic Plc to challenge the SFA on the 2011 licence awarded to Rangers to compete in Europe.
This resolution was not debated, let alone passed. Instead, following persuasion by Celtic Plc., you and your fellow three requisitioners, (possibly four if you include Phil Mac Giolla Bhain who was in on it at the start), agreed to have the Resolution adjourned; there was no prior consultation with any of the group of 100 signatories, including myself, who had taken the trouble to send in documents, photocopies, etc., of shareholders’ details in order to have the resolution debated. The Res 12 project has since morphed into a joint ‘initiative’ between you requisitioners and Celtic Plc.
So, Auldheid, whether deliberately or not, your use of language such as ‘Res 12 slam dunk’ is misleading, giving the impression that Celtic Plc are pursuing the SFA to come clean. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Old Firm project is alive and well. Our game will only to start to get cleaned up if we face up and challenge such unpalatable truths.
 

View Comment

paddy malarkey

paddy malarkeyPosted on12:41 pm - Jun 15, 2017


I was monitoring a thread on Rangers Media where the opening poster had suggested that the “song book” be modified in light of the sect supported by many of the new arrivals .The tone and language of responses was truly eye-opening but,alas , the thread appears to have been “resigned” .

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on4:22 pm - Jun 15, 2017


Chill Ultra
I think if you read back the term “slam dunk” was first used by Ally Jambo and repeated by Cluster One.
It’s not a term I used in reference to Res12, only a repeat as shorthand of a perception of Ally Jambo. 
So if you got that wrong I have no accusation to answer as the argument is one of your construction for motivations I question, particularly as you were provided an honest account of what took place in 2013, which you have not accurately portrayed.
The suggestion of an adjournment offered an opportunity to firm up the suspicion that the UEFA licence was improperly granted, but had it been known it would take 5 long years in which the folk you accuse of impropriety have done the heavy lifting, life would have been a lot easier had Celtic simply voted Res12 down, had a bun fight at the AGM and in 4 weeks it would have been forgotten
With regard to failure to consult it was logistically impossible in time and communication terms so a judgement was made that the vast number of shareholders who have been kept updated since have been happy to accept.
Oh and it’s not over but has moved to a new phase.
.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on4:52 pm - Jun 15, 2017


AULDHEIDJUNE 15, 2017 at 02:16
AllyjamboJune 14, 2017 at 09:47      i 19 Votes Hmm, I posted the other day about my decision to join the SFSA with the following note of caution:‘…though I am never confident of the effectiveness of such bodies, but hopefully they might prove effective.’Well I received an email of their newsletter this morning and clicked on the undernoted link, entitled:‘What does the Craig Whyte story tell us about the SFA?’I was still not confident of the effectiveness of this body as I clicked the link, but hopeful, none the less; I’m afraid, judging by this effort, my lack of confidence was, in my opinion, well founded.Encouragingly, the first paragraph of the newsletter had contained this, ‘Our plan is to get 100,000 fans signed up to the SFSA and then we believe that with a united voice, change at the top of our game can be achieved.’, which might suggest a hard hitting organisation out to enforce change at the head of Scottish football, ready to go where no football ‘journalist’ has dared go before.But, no, even the SMSM are not afraid to write the following! I’ll say no more about the content, other than that the revelations in court that put the slam dunk into the Resolution12 claims doesn’t get a mention!http://scottishfsa.org/what-does-the-craig-whyte-story-tell-us-about-the-sfa-by-steve-mcgregor/Note to the SFSA, if you genuinely want to force change at the SFA and the SPFL, go for the jugular, not just a kick up the arse – of the kind the SMSM have already missed with (not that they were actually trying to hit anything)!==================The article in question was a comment on a report on the BBC and therefore on an aspect that SMSM had covered. It is the msm who are guilty of not covering the Res12 slam dunk.It was a news item reflecting but one aspect of SFA incompetence and SFSA used it to highlight but one aspect of Regan’s poor judgement.Even had the McGregor article covered Res12 on SFSA it would have been no more mains stream than any other blog which is why the SFSA need as much support as possible to let them speak with the kind of authority the mains stream cannot ignore.
___________
‘The article in question was a comment on a report on the BBC and therefore on an aspect that SMSM had covered. It is the msm who are guilty of not covering the Res12 slam dunk.’

Sorry, Auldheid, it doesn’t read that way to me. To me it’s an article supposedly covering ‘What does the Craig Whyte story tell us about the SFA’ with a link to a BBC article at the end that is not referred to in the piece. To me, the Craig Whyte story tells us that, amongst other things, the SFA were either complicit or incompetent in their policing of a European license to Rangers, on at least one occassion, and that has been confirmed in the High Court. The SMSM has ignored this extreme evidence of wrongdoing.

The SFA’s incompetence in passing Whyte as fit and proper has been well documented by the SMSM, and though worthy of repeated highlighting, it is as nothing in comparison with other examples of their ‘incompetence’. The SFA didn’t let all clubs down by passing Whyte as fit and proper, they didn’t even let Rangers down, or not as much as it is painted, for we know the club was well on it’s way to ruin before he ever came on the scene, but damning Whyte is always a safe story as he is hated by all supporters of the defunked club.

In my opinion, any article headed ‘What does the Craig Whyte story tell us about the SFA?’ that merely repeats what the complicit SMSM has already said, is indicative of a body not prepared to upset the same people that the SMSM is afraid to upset.

I do hope I am wrong, and you may be in a position to know more about the people running the SFSA than I am, and I would trust your opinion of them and their value in our fight for a fair and well run Scottish football governance (but do not expect you to tell us and breach any confidentiality) but won’t be satisfied that they will produce much unless I see something far more hard hitting than this.

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on5:30 pm - Jun 15, 2017


AULDHEIDJUNE 15, 2017 at 16:22
      “Oh and it’s not over but has moved to a new phase.”
    —————————————————————————-
  Expected that, but am still ever so glad to hear it. Pass on my very best wishes to the others, as they are a credit to their nation, their sport, and (whether they deserve it or not,) their club. 
   I was reading the SFSA stuff, and am broadly in agreement with the thinking, but I can’t help but feel a national “union” of season ticket holders may be a better way forward. 
   A couple of quid in subs is nothing to protect your £4/500 “investment”. 
   Regular match attendees capable of cohesive and coordinated industrial action, ranging from sit-downs to walk-outs, or refusals. A seat at the table, and a voice not silenced by a “transparency” catch-phrase. A voice in the SMSM.
   It could become a powerful force over any issue fans feel worthy of challenge. 

View Comment

Avatar

chill ultraPosted on5:51 pm - Jun 15, 2017


AULDHEIDJUNE 15, 2017 at 16:22
 ‘life would have been a lot easier had Celtic simply voted Res12 down, had a bun fight at the AGM and in 4 weeks it would have been forgotten’
 Auldheid.  At the time of the 2013 AGM my understanding and that of many of the 100 signatories was that getting the resolution onto the AGM agenda would be a litmus test as to the intentions of the Plc regarding its future dealings with Rangers.
Had the Plc voted for, and carried out the wishes of the shareholders to actively seek answers, the SFA would have been put in a very awkward spot. Had the Plc voted down the resolution then we would have known then (what we know now) that the intention of the club was to restore the Old Firm brand as soon as it could.
The adjournment was the Plc’s get-out, the ideal solution; it meant that it could string along genuine supporters, not just of Celtic, to believe that it was actively seeking, with the help of  ‘Res 12’, to expose the corruption that blights our game. You, and your fellow requisitioners by your acquiescence allowed the club the wriggle room it was only to glad to accept.

View Comment

Avatar

Jingso.JimsiePosted on7:13 pm - Jun 15, 2017


I see Neil Doncaster got a bit of a doing from Brian Whittle MSP at Holyrood today.

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on8:20 pm - Jun 15, 2017


Derek McInnes and Tony Docherty have elected to remain at Pittodrie
good to see the lure of England not always what is best

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on8:22 pm - Jun 15, 2017


JINGSO.JIMSIEJUNE 15, 2017 at 19:13       4 Votes 
I see Neil Doncaster got a bit of a doing from Brian Whittle MSP at Holyrood today.
—————–Not seen it,but hope JC made it and will do a post on it later.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on8:39 pm - Jun 15, 2017


I’m in a state of distress.  The media are constantly telling us that English & foreign clubs are up for signing our entire first 11 even although Scottish Football is poor. (?)

But worse,  they are now telling us that Patrick Roberts is not coming back home 05.  How cruel can they get?  Going to Nice – where the hell is that? 

050505

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on8:54 pm - Jun 15, 2017


JIMBOJUNE 15, 2017 at 20:39
But worse,  they are now telling us that Patrick Roberts is not coming back home .  How cruel can they get?  Going to Nice – where the hell is that? 
Near Huddersfield06
http://readceltic.com/2017/06/15/huddersfield-join-celtic-in-the-race-to-sign-patrick-roberts/

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on9:04 pm - Jun 15, 2017


chill ultraJune 15, 2017 at 17:51 (Edit)      i 11 Votes 
AULDHEIDJUNE 15, 2017 at 16:22  ‘life would have been a lot easier had Celtic simply voted Res12 down, had a bun fight at the AGM and in 4 weeks it would have been forgotten’ Auldheid.  At the time of the 2013 AGM my understanding and that of many of the 100 signatories was that getting the resolution onto the AGM agenda would be a litmus test as to the intentions of the Plc regarding its future dealings with Rangers. Had the Plc voted for, and carried out the wishes of the shareholders to actively seek answers, the SFA would have been put in a very awkward spot. Had the Plc voted down the resolution then we would have known then (what we know now) that the intention of the club was to restore the Old Firm brand as soon as it could. The adjournment was the Plc’s get-out, the ideal solution; it meant that it could string along genuine supporters, not just of Celtic, to believe that it was actively seeking, with the help of  ‘Res 12’, to expose the corruption that blights our game. You, and your fellow requisitioners by your acquiescence allowed the club the wriggle room it was only to glad to accept.
================
Celtic’s position was made clear in their official response published in the Annual Report for that year distributed before the AGM and it was that Res12 was unnecessary. Have a read.
” Board Response
The Board is committed to protecting and promoting the interests of the Company, having regard to, among other things, the principles of fairness and sporting integrity.
 Having regard to those interests and principles, the Board monitored the developing situation at Rangers Football Club carefully. The Company maintained a consistent position that the circumstances should be considered by the football authorities and the matter dealt with fairly and proportionately. This position was made clear to the football authorities, including the Scottish FA.
The Company received assurances from the Scottish FA regarding the Club Licensing process for Season 2011/12 at the time. The Board considersthat it took appropriate steps to protect the interests of the Company.
The Board will continue to take steps to protect and promote the interests of the Company. The Company participated in the restructuring of Scottish
football and will continue to monitor the development and effectiveness of governance systems.
 The Board remains committed to a strategy that promotes and protects the interests of the Company and does not rely on any other club. That stand alone strategy has been successful, as demonstrated by the robust results for the year to June 2013 and encouraging start to the current year. 
In the circumstances the Board considers the resolution to be unnecessary and recommends that you vote against it.”

So there in writing is the answer to what you wanted to know.  Or rather what suspicions you had regarding Celtic’s motives.
Celtic were not going to take the matter to UEFA  as requested and indeed asked those attending a meeting before the AGM to withdraw it on the basis that assurances had been sought from the SFA.
In all conscience that could not be agreed to because of contradictory information leaked in the summer regarding the processing of the UEFA licence in 2011 (now confirmed in court) and there was an impasse to which an adjournment was suggested as a solution.
That was seen as an opportunity to keep the issue alive and investigate the soundness of the suspicions regarding the UEFA licence, which was the SOLE aim of Res12 and not to confirm suspicions that individuals may have had about The Board, and without which there was no locus for Celtic to accept the Resolution in the first place, so your supposition of what took place is well wide of the mark.
There were a number of aims of Res12 one of which might have been what you wanted to establish in terms of The Boards position regarding preserving Rangers, which I have given you, but it was not the only one, and whilst you might be angry that you did not get what you thought you were signing up to, there are many who are content that those representing the signatories acted in good faith and with the best of intentions to see an investigation into the SFA and their handling of the licensing process in 2011 (NOT an investigation into the Celtic Board) through to the end and that end is nigher given the vindication of the suspicions in court last week that caused the adjournment.

View Comment

Comments are closed.