Some of us are old enough to remember the days when we played football in the streets with lamp posts for goals. The “baw” in my day was a plastic “Hampden Frido” (with wee studs that left yer forehead looking like a golf ball when heading it – see picture) and a “Wembley Mettoy”.
Cue memories of MouldMasters and days of pain and glory
But I digress.
The plastic ball was prone to bursting and on a good day or evening a replacement was secured by the original version of crowd funding.; However, the Calton then was a poor neighbourhood and sometimes the “baw” depended on the generosity of a single provider.
This came with risks because generous folk can still be bad losers and if the provider’s team of rags, taigs and bluenoses (remember when that didn’t matter) was getting a drubbing or a high shot was deemed a goal but he protested because he was only 4 feet 6 tall and ,with no crossbar ,height is but a subjective perspective, hence argumentative, or perhaps the goal that created a 10 goal gap occasionally saw the baw ,metaphorical if not physically, land on the slates, at which point the provider and now owner, out of his sense of entitlement as owner, grab the baw and threatened to storm off in the huff.
As long as the game was everything and in the Calton then EVERYTHING was fitbaw, the bawless plebs were only too willing to reduce the imaginary cross bar height or take their foot off the gas, hence the derogatory saying of those who capitulate too easily “they hivnae any baws”.
Memories! Wit are they like and what is the connection to modern day Scottish professional football?
I’m indebted to this article by The Battered Bunnet first posted on CQN on 30 June 2012 at https://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/abject-failure-of-leadership/comment-page-2/#comment-1479329 since reproduced on other blogs including SFM but worth reproducing here:
“Senior Hampden source tells ch4news cannot see how RFC were allowed to play lastseason at all. Doesn’t believe they met finance criteria…”
Alex Thomson – Twitter
Alex Thomson’s tweets yesterday re ‘senior Hampden source’ casting doubt on Rangers’ eligibility to obtain a Club Licence last year were rather intriguing.
We have by now a clearer picture of the failure of governance at Rangers through the David Murray/ John McClelland/ Alastair Johnston/ Craig Whyte years, albeit we await further definitive details from the judgement of the Tax Tribunal. Essentially, over a period spanning 2 decades, the means that Rangers used to sustain its football operation utterly disregarded the requirements of both corporate governance and football regulation. While the scandal related solely to payments and procedures within Rangers, we could hope that it was contained internally.
However, the revelation that Rangers paid former manager Souness via EBT while he was manager at Blackburn Rovers confirmed for the first time that the scandal had become external. I understand that RangersTaxCase and Alex Thomson have further information on the extent of payments to Souness and also to Walter Smith, and look forward to the details being revealed, but it is now clear that the Rangers ‘toxin’ had leached out of the club by 2001.
The compelling question now is: How far did the toxin spread?
Was it contained within the ‘outer circle’ of former Rangers employees, however inexplicable such payments may appear? Or did it extend beyond that outer circle, and contaminate senior figures in the Game in Scotland. The contamination does not relate solely to payments from Rangers’offshore trust, but more subtly perhaps, the behaviour of individuals in positions of influence.
We know that Rangers’ Executive Chairman JohnMcClelland was an SPL Board member during the startling ramp up of EBT use from 2003 to 2005, and was himself a beneficiary of the scheme.
We know that Rangers’ Chief Executive Martin Bain was an SPL Board member 2008 to 2011, coinciding with the receipt by Rangers of the HMRC assessments on the EBT scheme, of which he was himself a beneficiary.
We know that current SFA President Campbell Ogilvie was simultaneously an SFA Director and Executive Director and Company Secretary of Rangers, and was a beneficiary of the scheme.
These parallel functions of course present a profound conflict of interest for each man, at once implementing a scam on the Game to disguise a fraud on the Revenue, while owing specific legal duties of care to the Game being scammed.
So far, so shabby.
Thomson’s tweets yesterday indicate a doubt on the part of a ‘senior Hampden source’ that Rangers were eligible to hold a Club Licence last season, thus disqualifying them from participating in European competition, and perhaps Scottish Football too. Is this doubt grounded in a retrospective review of the licence qualifying criteria given what has emerged recently? Or was there a ‘blind eye’ turned by the SFA’s Licensing Committee to information in the public domain at the time of the Licence application? In this respect the ‘Wee Tax Case’ represented a fundamental failure against at least one Licence criterion.
The proposals to the SFL clubs this week make it plain that should the SFA conclude the outstanding Disciplinary issues against Rangers with either suspension or expulsion of Rangers from the SFA(perhaps the only sanctions remaining available to the SFA following Lord Glennie’s Judicial Review) that the Game will face ‘financial meltdown’.
Concurrently, the SPL has adjudged Rangers to have a prima facie case to answer in respect of SPL rule breaches on player registration, the outcome of which will confirm that the club fielded ineligible players in upwards of 400 SPL matches. The only possible disciplinary outcome given such a sustained breach of SPL rules, corrupting the completion as it did from its inception in 1999 to 2011, is expulsion from theSPL.
As a consequence, the SFA, as the authority responsible for implementing FIFA’s Rules on the Registration of Players, will be required to act on these breaches of FIFA rules. Again, expulsion for what amounts to Championship fixing is inevitable.
Curiously, the SFL, this week asking its members to vote to admit the Sevco Rangers club into their top tier, has the same issue given that its League Cup competition featured dozens of ineligible Rangers players through the years, and further claims by Hugh Adam that its‘Premier Division’ competition during the 1990s was similarly bent through the use of ‘off the books’ payments to players by Rangers.
The scale of it all is breath-taking and were the rules of the Game to be applied, Rangers FC would be expelled from each Governing body in turn, before we even consider the extraordinary breaches of faith and duties by co-serving Directors.
But according to the SFL/SFA/SPL circular to clubs, “Rangers Terminated or Suspended’ will cause “Financial Meltdown”.
To avoid this meltdown, it is proposed by the Executives of the combined SFL/SFA/SPL that the rules of the Game are not applied to Rangers, and that the clubs effectively rewrite the rule book to permit what remains of the club to compete at the top of the SFL.
In effect, according to the Governing Bodies,the Rules of the Game CANNOT be applied to Rangers or the Game’s finances will‘meltdown’.
The corollary question this raises is: For how long have the Governing bodies been so unable to apply the Rules of the Game to Rangers? Is this a new epiphany, or a longer standing recognition?
When Rangers submitted their allegedly ineligible application for a Club Licence in 2011, did the SFA recognise that Rangers failing to participate in Europe would cause the club to fail, as it subsequently did? Were the Rules ignored to avoid ‘financial meltdown’ then?
How far did the toxin spread?
Did this recognition extend back to the period following the disintegration of Murray International, hitherto Rangers’ source of continuing funding? Was the season of ‘Honest Mistakes’ some absurd, dutiful reaction to the recognition that should Rangers fail, Scottish Football would melt down?
Was the ineligible status of so many of Rangers’ first team players noticed prior to the SPL’s Inquiry commencing on 5th March? Was it noticed in an Audit as part of the SFA’s Club Licensing process some years ago? Was it noticed by the recent SFA Chief Executive Gordon Smith, who as an Agent had represented players on Rangers’ books through his Directorship of Prostar Management and other Agencies?
Beyond the duplicity of Ogilvie, McClelland and Bain, were Rangers’ irregular practices known to others at the SFA and SPL,others who chose not to address the matter, thus further contaminated the Governing Bodies with the Rangers toxin?
It is heartening that the Liquidators of Rangers plc will be instructed to examine all of the circumstances surrounding the failure of Rangers as a corporate entity. Equally, perhaps the detail contained in the Tax Tribunal judgement will reveal further connections,hitherto unknown.
What is likely to remain hidden from view though, is the full extent to which key influencers at the Governing Bodies were aware of Rangers’ conduct and circumstances, and how this affected their behaviour and their decision making in applying the rules of the Game to that club.
What we can say with certainty now though is that the people holding office at the Governing Bodies are unable or unwilling to apply the Rules of the Game to Rangers, despite the breaches being fundamentally and profoundly corrupt. The SFA and SPL, despite having outstanding disciplinary cases against Rangers that will, in all other circumstances see the club expelled from the Game, are intent to delete the cases provided the SFL clubs accept the Sevco Rangers into the SFL’s top division.
The Rules of the Game cannot be applied to Rangers.
When the rules cannot be applied, the Game itself is broken, and we can say now with some certainty that the Rangers toxin has spread beyond the club, its former employees and Directors of the Governing Bodies, and contaminated the very Game itself. The Office Bearers of the SFA,whose FIFA mandate requires them to “protect and foster the Game” in Scotland,and “protect it from abuses”, have contrived to do the contrary, to the point where the Game is stricken.
It is for this reason that a thorough clear out of the Office Bearers in the Governing Bodies is now a prerequisite to the Game recovering from the poison inflicted upon it by Rangers. The dissolution of the Governing Bodies is perhaps appropriate.
Clear your desk Gentlemen, the bus to ignominy departs shortly.
The position that the SFA and then SPL found themselves in is perfectly clear from the foregoing. Desperately keen for commercial reasons to hold onto the “baw” they changed the rules, but never took ownership of the baw from the owner and so are still beholden to him.
Hence the blog title “We Are Going To Need Another Baw “ because the one currently in play is burst, stuffed with £14M worth of share vouchers.
What was done in 2012 was understandably commercially necessary, but the price to be paid was twofold:
- Not just to the integrity of our game then but the ongoing price now, where all energies are directed at continuing to pretend that the rules are followed without fear of favour.
- The idea that the Scottish game cannot survive without a “ Rangers” is one that most folk would accept but the danger arising, which is unacceptable, is that because of it “Rangers” think they can do as they please as a result which requires rules to be reinforced. And seen to be reinforced.
They clearly aren’t under the SFA’s own rule enforcing process called the Judicial Panel Protocol https://www.sfm.scot/jpp-perverting-justice/ not to mention Club Licensing processes that have so far manged to avoid the scrutiny that, had Resolution 12 been acted upon in 2013, would have resulted in changes that would protect the game from all those who think it is still their baw.
The general perception of supporters is that lessons have not been learned from past behaviour.
Until there is evidence that they have, for example: the Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal investigating at snail’s pace the process followed in 2011 that allowed a UEFA licence to be granted to Rangers FC without question, coming to conclusion or providing reasons why it cannot by the spring, the perception will continue to be “Its all about Rangers” followed by what is the point?.
Is it not about time now that the fear that drove thinking in 2012 was faced and recognised by all clubs as unfounded and a new integrity filled baw was used?
What is there to fear now from restoring integrity to its rightful place, unless of course you were party to the thinking that kicked the integrity of our game to death in 2012 and are still in a position of influence?
StevieBC 7th February 2019 at 09:08
'…but not one photo of McGregor's studs up, high foot.
A cynic might think that there is a concerted effort to ensure the TRFC keeper doesn't get cited by the Compliance Office.'
StevieBC, there has been a concerted effort by the SMSM for at least six and a half years, and probably for a period much longer ( going back as far as that wretched cheat of a knight's hubristic, vainglorious, triumphalist nonsense) to lie in order to protect that knight's club, and then to protect CW's club, and since the birth of the newest club in Scottish Football , Charles Green's new creation, to protect that club.
Few things in life are certain.
One of the certainties is that the SMSM (from old Keevins to the editor of the DR) are the dinosaurs of the modern communications world if they imagine that 'internet bampots' are not far better and more widely informed of the truth of things than they.
If the SMSM think that they can by selective photography and textual reportage mislead the thousands , the literally thousands of folk who , among them, take pictures of every piece of action in a game , then they are up a gum tree.
In matters to do with the reporting of Scottish Football, the credibility of the SMSM is busted, gone: and their declining sales are evidence of that.
And if the SFA think that we, Scottish football's essence, could accept for one minute that the Compliance Officer has not seen the clip of the McGregor assault, then they really have lost the plot!
They are no longer in the business of sport, but in the business of ensuring that their Big Sporting Lie of 2012, an absurd perversion of sporting truth, is propagated as relentlessly as was any lie uttered by Adolph and the fiendish Goebbels.
A pitiful bunch of 'governance' people, caught in a lie, terrified to admit it, and wholly unable to seek help in resolving the impossible situation they allowed themselves to be put in, namely, of having as a governance body been complicit in cheating, to have lost all moral authority to govern and deal with cheats.
John Clark 7th February 2019 at 01:26
I watched bit of Superbowl the other day, and not for the first time wondered at what seems to be an elaborate 'refereeing' system, involving 7 officials, each with differing functions.
In an idle moment this morning ( grandweans at school, son at work, wife and daughter-in-law in town) and me wi' ma airm in a sling, I've been scouting around on the web looking at how the NFL recruits its umpires.
—————————————————————————————————————————-
Hi John
For all American football has 7 officials it doesn't make them immune to making massive errors as witnessed 2 weeks ago in the Superbowl semi final. New Orleans Saints were denied a place in the final by a huge wrong call.
I'm not sure if I've got this correct but am I right in believing that VAR has no place in American sport?
The incident was replayed from every possible angle but I believe officials cant use it. I could of course have picked this up wrongly.
Anybody well versed in American sporting rules?
HS
Higgy's Shoes 7th February 2019 at 13:14
'..I'm not sure if I've got this correct but am I right in believing that VAR has no place in American sport.'
********************
From what little I've read, Higgy's Shoes, I think you are right.
There was something of a to-do when some official simply wiped the tapes of a controversial game, but nothing came of that .Other than bad odour!
Such as emanates from the 6th floor at Hampden!
wottpi 7th February 2019 at 10:51
===============
It's been going on for years.
What about the decision made by Andy "Rangers Daft" Davis when he was the linesman at Hearts v Old Rangers at Tynecastle a few years back in a game where it was vital for 1872 Rangers to win.
I'm sure somebody can dig out the video evidence and post it up. In fact I might even have a go myself.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47161011
paddy malarkey 7th February 2019 at 14:16
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47161011
——————————————————————————————
A bit of a dilemma for the SFA Paddy, after it was deemed ok for Morelos to lessen the chances of future fatherhood for Broony and Christie.
Compliance Officer,… "Did you see the alleged stamping of McKenna's testicals?"
Boaby Madden……."Oh yes!..But that was nothing !……I sent him off for tussling McKenna to the ground".
CO……"Sorry Boaby, but that's a yellow at best"…."Punishment reduced"…..
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/47161011
'..As of this season, the compliance officer plays no part in the proceedings."
***********
it's late at night here in Birkdale, but I'm still able to ask what the hell is that all about?
What is all the much vaunted Judicial panel Protocol meant to be about?
Higgy's Shoes 7th February 2019 at 13:14
I'm not sure if I've got this correct but am I right in believing that VAR has no place in American sport?
==============================
There are both review and challenge processes in American Football, although it is the chief official on the pitch who carries out the review.
Officials routinely review all touchdown plays. Each coach also has a limited number of reviews in each game in which they can challenge, pass completions, fumbles, the spot of the ball where a player is downed, in or out of bounds etc. The one thing they are not allowed to challenge are foul calls by the officials, as in the Saints v Rams game.
John Clark 7th February 2019 at 14:46
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/47161011 '
..As of this season, the compliance officer plays no part in the proceedings." *********** it's late at night here in Birkdale, but I'm still able to ask what the hell is that all about? What is all the much vaunted Judicial panel Protocol meant to be about?
——————————————————————————————————————
"which will be a video conference between a tribunal of trained, independent judicial panel members."
Dunno John, but one of the outcomes from the tea & biscuits referee summit, was the revelation that nobody in Scotland was VAR trained.
"By video conference", suggests it will be decided outside of Hampden's 6th floor, and the tapes exported. (Or maybe just fear of panel members being identified on the doorstep arriving).
Maybe the tea and biscuits had an effect, but I won't hold my breath.
Hypothetical of course, but…
If an appeal is made for a red card, and the decision is upheld…is there any scope to conversely, add to the punishment?
Perhaps on the basis of the severity of the actual foul, [e.g. a set of studs forced down on a pair of someone else's goolies],
and / or
For the frequency of offences ,[or even frequency of appeals?]
'Vexatious' springs to mind.
As well as 'some brass neck'!
'John Clark 7th February 2019 at 14:46
'..As of this season, the compliance officer plays no part in the proceedings."'
———————————————-
The Compliance Officer presents the case/incident, but plays no part in the panel's (the 'Three Wise Monkeys'?) deliberations.
From an STV report
Just in case anyone has any doubt about the history of Allan McGregor's penchant for kicking opponents. This one was from 12 years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=lVpJOtfX0jA
Referee Mike McCurry’s decision was a goal kick to Rangers.
So the complicit officer is ready to look at the burke (dive) and the simunovic challenge on oli shaw.
I watched the game and would love to say that he did indeed dive however I would be lying if I said that I thought it was a slight clip as he went past if it was then at that speed it would have been enough to send him down. The simunovic one he was just strong and I would be absolutely raging if this was Gray or McGregor being pulled up for this but this is not about a dive or a bad tackle this is about what went on at Aberdeen last night the sending off and the ignoring of the sevco keepers deliberate leg breaker of a challenge. So will it be be no case to answer or all 4 getting banned or the celtic player picking up bans and sevco players let off answers on a postcard please to No Protection For Anyone But Sevco. This has now gone way beyond a joke.
The CO seems to be getting a lot of stick – one would expect that from the Record, BBC Shortbread and other Traynor mouthpieces, including Sutton unfortunately. I think SFM could & should do better.
The protocol the CO is bound by, which was agreed by all the clubs, can be found at this link – it is a long document, but in light of recent criticism, can I clarify a couple of items. In my understanding (I have read the JPP) :
(1) the CO has no involvement whatsoever in hearing an appeal against a red card.
(2) the CO can only "cite" a player after she has presented the evidence to a 3 person panel of former referees who must agree, unanimously, that there is a case to answer. Despite the CO's press release after Defoe was not cited, the press reported that the CO had insufficient evidence to proceed. I think, actually, the CO will have presented the evidence to the panel of 3 who did not unanimously agree to a citing. Remember, the panel is made up of ex-referees who are totally impartial !!!
(3) McGregor is a thug – it is at least the 3rd time this season he has been guilty of a violent assault – the CO can present the evidence to a panel but cannot proceed without their unanimous agreement. I think the previous occasions were in matches against Motherwell and Celtic (in August ?), but I cannot recall if there was any CO involvement in these. Certainly, the match referee did not take any action in either case.
(4) It is clear that the Beaton effect – honest, miss, I seen it ! – prevents the CO from acting (I guess that is a FIFA rule, that the referee can’t be undermined). Perhaps the SFA Refs feel they are onto a good thing there?
I liked normanbates’ comment from earlier in this discussion (6th Feb at 17:01) ::
“”A "Rangers"-facing SFA, appointing a "Rangers" Fan, to appoint "Rangers" fans to the top level of Scottish refereeing. Add to that Rangers fans subversion of the joke that is "compliance" and "disciplinary process", with a Rangers-friendly media for scrutiny. Nope, it ain't broken at all….
The only thing "broken" is the backbones of the hierarchy running the other clubs in Scotland…””
However, it would be nice to think that there are people working within the SFA who are as horrified as we are by what’s going on and are working as best they can to change it. Or am I living in cloud cuckoo land again ?
Sorry, I know you all want to read it through!!
https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish-fa/football-governance/judicial-panel-protocol/
Jimmy Bones 7th February 2019 at 22:30
However, it would be nice to think that there are people working within the SFA who are as horrified as we are by what’s going on and are working as best they can to change it. Or am I living in cloud cuckoo land again ?
============================================
Going by recent events I would say yes.No disrespect JB but if there are then they are badly outnumbered and are fighting a losing battle.
We play sevco on the 8th March and I can't help but think we will not finish with 11 men on the park.
Has anyone in the MSM labelled the accusations of bias as a conspiracy theory yet? It is getting so blatant now that I can only assume it is concomitant with the level of their debt and the need for Champions League riches to offset the balance sheet. I want them bankrupted , liquidated and out the game for good , they are a poison our society does not need. A permanent embarrassment and a permanent disgrace.
shug 7th February 2019 at 22:41
Jimmy Bones 7th February 2019 at 22:30
However, it would be nice to think that there are people working within the SFA who are as horrified as we are by what’s going on and are working as best they can to change it. Or am I living in cloud cuckoo land again ?
Going by recent events I would say yes.No disrespect JB but if there are then they are badly outnumbered and are fighting a losing battle.
==================
I would actually suggest that there NO staff at the SFA who are horrified.
If they were horrified, IMO, they would have left Hampden at the first opportunity.
Perhaps more pertinent: applicants who might be horrified at the SFA's decision making are probably weeded out during the recruitment process.
A bit like the 'recruitment process' of Category 1 referees.
Which begs the obvious follow up question: just how diverse and inclusive is the SFA itself? Especially as it also receives public monies.
And whilst this latest refereeing scandal is indeed shocking…it's just the latest scandal. There has been so much corrupt / inept / curious decision making in recent years that any staff who had reservations about their employer's integrity…well, they've had ample opportunity since even 2012 to walk away from Hampden.
But, for me the SFA must be staffed by 'like minded' individuals, and who are most certainly NOT bothered at all about current goings on.
How can I be so certain?
Well, in all the turmoil since 2012, I am not aware of even 1 whistle blower amongst current or ex-staff at the SFA.
Ergo, the SFA as an organisation is not going to change / improve of its own volition.
IMO.
Continuing my wee look at umpiring in the NFL, I came across this quite interesting letter from a shareholder in the Green Bay Packers.
What's our equivalent of the U.S Federal Trade Commission?
"September 25, 2012
The Honorable Jonathan Liebowitz, Chairman
Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20580
Dear Chairman Liebowitz,
The Federal Trade Commission is charged with protecting consumers from unfair or deceptive trade practices. Generally speaking, under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, a commercial entity may not make a representation, omission, or otherwise mislead (or take actions likely to mislead) a consumer.
The National Football League’s assertion to sports fans that it is providing a product of equal quality to prior seasons while using non-union “replacement referees” in the current season qualifies as a deceptive practice worthy of your agency’s immediate investigation.
First, the National Football League (NFL) creates and owns intellectual property – televised football games — that it licenses to distributors and consumers. It asserts that its product is of “professional” quality and that the competition between any given two teams is genuine, not staged or pre-determined by the league.
Second, implicit within this assertion of product quality is the notion that the officiating of games is conducted at a high-standard, “professional” level. Consumers are led to believe that referees know and understand the NFL’s rules and will apply them objectively, consistently, and accurately.
Third, in the context of its current lockout against unionized professional referees, the NFL has hired referees who do not meet the generally accepted standard of “professional” quality. Significantly, many of the referees have records of incompetence. For example, some of the NFL’s current referees were dismissed by their prior employer, the “Lingerie Football League,” meet the NFL’s own claims of high-level, professional quality.
Last night’s game between the Green Bay Packers and the Seattle Seahawks was just the latest example of the NFL’s illegal violation of consumer protection statutes. The very commentators
hired by NFL broadcasting partner ESPN to provide play-by-play action to the television audience suggested that the outcome was not legitimate. “The [replacement referees] just cost the Packers the game,” ESPN commentator Mike Tirico said. He continued, “This is wrong . . . I don’t feel good about this.” Tirico’s partner, Jon Gruden added, “I don’t like the way this game finished. I have a bad taste in my mouth.”
In my individual capacity as a shareholder in the Green Bay Packers, and in my capacity as Chairman of Sports Fans Coalition, the pre-eminent non-profit public policy advocacy
organization on behalf of sports fans in the U.S., I urge the Federal Trade Commission to open an investigation immediately to determine whether, as asserted herein, the National Football
League has violated federal consumer protection statutes.
Sincerely,
_/s/______________
David Goodfriend, Chairman
Sports Fans Coalition"
The link to the full context in which that letter was written is
https://www.businessinsider.com/packers-shareholder-calls-for-federal-fraud-investigation-into-nfls-use-of-replacement-referees-2012-9/?r=AU&IR=T
Have we, as consumers, a case against the SFA for its refusal to ensure the highest levels of competence, impartiality and transparency in the administration of the 'goods' it markets?
(We can still ask the Police to investigate a suspected crime as well, later, of course!)
Jimmy Bones 7th February 2019 at 22:30
However, it would be nice to think that there are people working within the SFA who are as horrified as we are by what’s going on and are working as best they can to change it. Or am I living in cloud cuckoo land again ?
==========================
I go back to the point I always make. Certain groups of people within Scottish society believe they are socially and morally superior to others. They believe they are the right people to lead, and that every decision they make is based on their principles of fairness and is for the greater good. I think it us abundantly clear over the years and to the present day that those people have a firm grip on the SFA. It's what they deem to be the greater good which concerns me.
shug 7th February 2019 at 22:41
Jimmy Bones 7th February 2019 at 22:30
However, it would be nice to think that there are people working within the SFA who are as horrified as we are by what’s going on and are working as best they can to change it. Or am I living in cloud cuckoo land again ?
============================================
Going by recent events I would say yes.No disrespect JB but if there are then they are badly outnumbered and are fighting a losing battle.
We play sevco on the 8th March and I can't help but think we will not finish with 11 men on the park.
===================================
When I said yes I meant about living in cloud cuckoo land and not that there really were folks working in the sfa who were horrified at the goings on.
Thumb downers as The Fonz would say SIT ON IT.
“It’s good that they are finally opening the purse strings. You can’t close that gap without the financial support and it’s great to se him (Steven Gerrard) getting that support. He has done a tremendous job and hopefully he will carry on and get it over the line.”
The above quote by Mark Warburton is from a typical puff piece in the Evening Times. There are many, many inconsistencies and spin in the article all leading to this quote which not only misrepresents TRFC’s financial health but heaps praise on Gerrard for doing such a great job.
There was some chat a couple of weeks ago about the referees taking strike action. Since that time it would appear that they are actually working to rule – their own rule and Señor Morelos will probably get his red card rescinded yet again.
With regard to the CO it is evident that the actual power remains with the panel of ex-referees. It seems odd that there has to be a unanimous decision for any complaint to proceed. The media tend to play down the role of this panel and indirectly undermine the role of the CO.
The cup ties at the weekend beckon now.
StevieBC 7th February 2019 at 15:47
As it stands the appeals process is open to abuse with the “Let’s appeal, we have nothing to lose attitude”
I would like to see any appeal that fails then have the punishment doubled, that would make clubs think twice about the whole process.
I am sure there are many honest hard working employees of the SFA. Unfortunately they are unlikely to be in a role of power or influence.
Simply keeping their head's down and getting on with their paid functions. Why would they risk their livelihoods, with the knowledge their "whistle-blowing" is likely to fall on deaf ears, (Employer and MSM). We know already there has been a plethora of malfeasance but they seem to be able to carry on the "Old Boys Club" regardless.
Fans, via their clubs are the only hope for revolution but in the vast majority of cases they appear unaware or apathetic.
Sad to see Scottish football reduced to such a state….
Has there been a change on the blog? I can't go back to earlier posts or find the most recent post?
I’m on page 22 now, but can’t get on to page 23 which presumably has posts later than the ones on page 22?.
John Clark 8th February 2019 at 13:18
Has there been a change on the blog? I can't go back to earlier posts or find the most recent post? I’m on page 22 now, but can’t get on to page 23 which presumably has posts later than the ones on page 22?.
—————————————————————————————————————-
Ditto John. ….P22 does not appear to be full yet, as comments have appeared on that page since this I last looked this morning.
Timtim 8th February 2019 at 00:03
'…they are a poison our society does not need.'
******************
Be that as it may, Timtim ( and I nearly wrote Timtam-which is a brand of chocolate biscuit here in Queensland which I am very nearly addicted to!), the real poison is in the very heart of the Governance of Scottish Football.
A now dead football club, killed by the cheating of its majority shareholder in order to save his other business interests, is neither here nor there, nor is a six year old club laughably masquerading as a club 140-odd years older( and possibly deceiving investors by its false claims) of any real import.
The poison is in the lying, deceitful heart of the very body charged with ensuring Sporting integrity.
the individual sports cheat, the individual sports club that cheats, are truly to be despised and scorned and appropriately punished.
What to do when the bloody body in charge of that 'sport' has so compromised itself by untruth after untruth in defence of the indefensible?
normanbatesmumfc 8th February 2019 at 09:40
'..Simply keeping their head's down and getting on with their paid functions. Why would they risk their livelihoods, with the knowledge their "whistle-blowing" is likely to fall on deaf ears..'
**************************
Aye, okay, normanbmfc, but where is there the 'deepthroat' of the Watergate era?
Not to be seen or heard. And why?
because there are no Woodwards and Bernsteins in the ranks of the SMSM.
Those heroes brought down the 'most powerful man in the world'.
Our shit.y lot are afraid to call out a rotten, relatively insignificant, football governance body.
It's a wholly absurd piece of nonsense, really, when you think of it.
normanbatesmumfc 8th February 2019 at 09:40
I am sure there are many honest hard working employees of the SFA. Unfortunately they are unlikely to be in a role of power or influence. Simply keeping their head's down and getting on with their paid functions. Why would they risk their livelihoods, with the knowledge their "whistle-blowing" is likely to fall on deaf ears, (Employer and MSM). We know already there has been a plethora of malfeasance but they seem to be able to carry on the "Old Boys Club" regardless.
—————————————————-
Way back in 2010 when the Hugh Dallas email story broke, the heid high yins at Hampden decided to conduct their own internal investigation into the misuse of SFA time and equipment. The HR department requested the IT section to provide a list of all staff who had received and/or forwarded the offending email. It was found that the email was not confined to Dallas and his close cohorts but it was also ‘enjoyed’ by a wide section of the employees in the organisation.
The SFA President (none other than the legendary George Peat) was tasked with disciplining the miscreants. Very quickly the union became involved and threatened to expose the hierarchy should the lowly employees be punished. There was the suggestion that this type of email humour was commonplace within management who felt at ease circulating these emails and copying them to their friends in the media. It was no surprise that the Pope email enquiry was quietly dropped with only Dallas himself being publicly rebuked.
As a matter of course, clubs have to notify the SFA of their players’ remuneration. This information is both confidential and sensitive. In 2005 Marin O’Neill re-signed Bobo Balde due to a defender crisis. The player was injured shortly afterwards and remained on the treatment table for the rest of the season. Someone at Hampden accessed Balde’s contract and an email was circulated and copied to a friendly press that Celtic were paying big Bobo £28k a week to sit on his erchie – laughter all round. This example showed me a certain culture existed at the SFA. Thank goodness it is all in the past and that our beloved football authorities are now a fine upstanding bunch of chaps.
What puzzles me is why there has never been so much as one single whistle-blower at Hampden in the last 9 years or even a hint of the skulduggery mentioned on social media. On a daily basis ordinary employees must witness the contempt with which the hierarchy treats clubs and fans alike. Secretaries and staff would see draft letters and minutes being prepared which were deceitful or which favoured one club unfairly. The office workers would be instructed to dispose of all the correspondence that flooded in from the public without acknowledgement or answer. They would have also witnessed the euphoria on the 6th floor following Sandy Bryson’s testimony at the LNS Enquiry or the relief when Regan announced there would be no investigation in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling.
Way back in the autumn of 2015, I wrote the following in the 'Whose Assets Are They Anyway?' blog on here:
'I can only assume that employment in the offices of the SFA/SPFL is such a sinecure that no-one has been tempted to go full ‘Deep Throat’ (or ‘Hoat Pie’) & reveal the machinations that must be taking place on the 6th Floor on a weekly/daily/hourly basis to keep the badly-holed rat-trap afloat.'
Things don't seem to have changed. I suspect that the following may be the case:
Everything is tightly compartmentalised. The 'drones' don't get a sight of the bigger picture.
It’s an easy job & it would be difficult to find something similar at the same salary
The ideal SFA/SPFL employee isn't a football fan/enthusiast. I suspect that they prefer people to say they don't really follow the game when being interviewed.
Everybody is subject to a strict non-disclosure agreement.
::
::
BTW, Ashley's been back in the London courts today re TRFC retail matters. £400k & counting for lawyers, apparently.
The next key court date for Sports Direct v Rangers is 12 April.
https://stv.tv/news/west-central/1435377-rangers-in-court-fight-with-ashley-over-merchandise-deal/
Simunovic cleared sevco keeper offered 2 match ban.
shug 8th February 2019 at 17:25
Simunovic cleared sevco keeper offered 2 match ban.
Assuming that is verified, then the correct call during the Aberdeen game, at 3-2 down, should have been a red-card pen to the Dons….
A costly and possibly league position determining “error” by the whistler, affecting final pay-outs and Euro spots.
They will appeal it of course.
Corrupt official 8th February 2019 at 17:50
1
0
Rate This
shug 8th February 2019 at 17:25
Simunovic cleared sevco keeper offered 2 match ban.
Assuming that is verified, then the correct call during the Aberdeen game, at 3-2 down, should have been a red-card pen to the Dons….
A costly and possibly league position determining “error” by the whistler, affecting final pay-outs and Euro spots.
===========================
Exactly 100% correct but this is how the wind blows.
Darnell Johnson has been offered a two-match ban after his challenge on Celtic defender Izaguirre well I suppose what is good for the goose we should do a sevco and appeal it.
shug 8th February 2019 at 17:59
Darnell Johnson has been offered a two-match ban after his challenge on Celtic defender Izaguirre well I suppose what is good for the goose we should do a sevco and appeal it.
——————————————————————————————————————
Have to agree with you Shug….It was a clumsy challenge, but exacerbated by a slip from Izzy before contact was made.
Where does this leave Madden as he had as clear a view as you would ever get
joburgt1m 8th February 2019 at 08:38
35 2 Rate This
StevieBC 7th February 2019 at 15:47
As it stands the appeals process is open to abuse with the “Let’s appeal, we have nothing to lose attitude”
I would like to see any appeal that fails then have the punishment doubled, that would make clubs think twice about the whole process.
…………………….
Clubs do think twice about it as an appeal costs the club money and some clubs just can’t afford an appeal.
But for clubs with some money yes i believe it can be open to abuse with the “Let’s appeal, we have nothing to lose we won a watch last time.
Oh dear, on tonights Mastermind 'which Scottish football club was relegated to the fourth tier for financial irregularities in 2012? The contestant suggested Celtic.
I wish I had been in the black chair, although I guess my response would not have been broadcast. Publicly funded and still peddling the lie
Seems it's a 3 game ban for more-or-less.
Appeal rejected.
What just happened? Has the world started spinning backward? McGregor and Moreles banned! Shockeroonie massive .
While awaiting the Morelos decision, what about the ref and the Compliance protocol in this McGregor one then? Will madden be disciplined/demoted for failing to spot the violent conduct? Leaving aside the already-raised point about the in-game impact i.e. a penalty and a sending off denied to Aberdeen, how does the SFA explain how the panel can intervene here when the referee clearly saw the incident, but decided not to act. In the new year derby, the fact that Beaton saw the incidents was put forward as the reason why there could be no review. With Madden's positioning here, he can only have said the same as Beaton allegedly said i.e. I saw it and decided not to act. Images show that he cannot claim not to have seen it, which is the usual justification for the involvement of the panel. Will the SFA explain? Will any of the SMSM ask for clarification? Will Celtic ask for clarification? The panel's involvement in the McGregor case clearly demonstrates that there is a difference between the 2 incidents/statements – what can that be? 1. McGregor's and Morelos' transgressions were obvious red card offences (Morelos perhaps due to cumulative effect) = same 2. Each instance(s) was seen by the referee = same 3. Beaton was asked if he saw the incidents – if he said he hadn't the panel would become involved. According to our understanding of the process, Madden would have been asked if he saw the incident – if he said he hadn't the panel would become involved. This could provide a difference, but from the images there is no way on earth Madden could claim not to have seen the incident,, so this cannot be the difference that allowed the panel to become involved on this occasion. If both referees claimed that they saw the incident then that would lead to 4. Beaton saw the incidents and decided no action was necessary. As a result it was claimed that the panel could not become involved. Madden saw the incident and decided no action was necessary. As a result it would have been claimed that the panel would not become involved unless Madden admitted that he made a mistake . If that is the case, can we expect Madden to be disciplined? Will that be transparently reported? Don't hold your breath.
nawlite 8th February 2019 at 19:43
0
0
Rate This
While awaiting the Morelos decision, what about the ref and the Compliance protocol in this McGregor one then? Will madden be disciplined/demoted for failing to spot the violent conduct? Leaving aside the already-raised point about the in-game impact i.e. a penalty and a sending off denied to Aberdeen, how does the SFA explain how the panel can intervene here when the referee clearly saw the incident, but decided not to act. In the new year derby, the fact that Beaton saw the incidents was put forward as the reason why there could be no review. With Madden's positioning here, he can only have said the same as Beaton allegedly said i.e. I saw it and decided not to act. Images show that he cannot claim not to have seen it, which is the usual justification for the involvement of the panel. Will the SFA explain? Will any of the SMSM ask for clarification? Will Celtic ask for clarification? The panel's involvement in the McGregor case clearly demonstrates that there is a difference between the 2 incidents/statements – what can that be? 1. McGregor's and Morelos' transgressions were obvious red card offences (Morelos perhaps due to cumulative effect) = same 2. Each instance(s) was seen by the referee = same 3. Beaton was asked if he saw the incidents – if he said he hadn't the panel would become involved. According to our understanding of the process, Madden would have been asked if he saw the incident – if he said he hadn't the panel would become involved. This could provide a difference, but from the images there is no way on earth Madden could claim not to have seen the incident,, so this cannot be the difference that allowed the panel to become involved on this occasion. If both referees claimed that they saw the incident then that would lead to 4. Beaton saw the incidents and decided no action was necessary. As a result it was claimed that the panel could not become involved. Madden saw the incident and decided no action was necessary. As a result it would have been claimed that the panel would not become involved unlessMadden admitted that he made a mistake . If that is the case, can we expect Madden to be disciplined? Will that be transparently reported? Don't hold your breath.
==============================================
Ah but did he see it in it's entirety that's the question.
It is a bit of a bad news day down ibrox way with the money Pena may be due for walking away. Then another court Battle with Mike Ashley
(everything is a battle with this crew)The Morelos decision, and the McGregor offered 2 match ban.
What time the Ibrox statement and who get’s boycotted this week?
nawlite 8th February 2019 at 19:43
unless Madden admitted that he made a mistake . If that is the case, can we expect Madden to be disciplined? Will that be transparently reported? Don’t hold your breath.
………………….
Aye for his punishment he will get to referee the game when an ibrox club come to celtic park next
Sevco keepers offered ban appealed free to play in cup game.
Ok, pleasantly surprised that McGregor's been charged.
But, as mentioned above, the correct decision – if taken during the game – would undoubtedly have totally changed TRFC's game plan.
[Agreed: TRFC still could have won regardless.]
As mentioned earlier, Shirley the logical follow up is for the Refs' Panel / Supervisors to query why the correct decision wasn't taken in the first place: as in, 'right first time'.
And it's not just the ref, but the linesmen and 4th Official as well. Did anyone try to point out McGregor's challenge to Madden in real time?
All this shows, IMO, is yet another high profile, highly significant officiating error, made during a top level game.
What are the SFA / Refs Association planning to do to avoid a recurrence?
…and when can we start shipping in foreign refs…?
https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/1093883476300976128?s=21
Seems sevco has gone to war not sure if it's the holding company the club or sevco fans watch for a flood of home videos getting sent to the co on a daily basis.
Apologies for the downtime folks. Sadly we have lost all comments made on Saturday as we had to restore the site from a backup made at 5.00am on Saturday.
Hoping that things will settle down now.
I have arranged to do a Podcast with David Low next weekend – AFTER Dave's Deadline Day. I have also arranged to do a more in-depth interview with David on the 25 anniversary of the McCann takeover – particularly with regard to if and how the whole episode had any impact on the wider game in Scotland.
Good that the site is back online what caused the problem BP.
I honestly don't think I have ever saw as much arrogance as I have this week from mainstream journalists. It seems no-one's opinion on social media counts for anything, and we are all just morons. These people should realise many of those who post on social media have achieved things in life they could only dream of. Yes, there are idiots on social media, just like there are idiots in the mainstream media. No wonder newspapers are on the way out.
uth, agreed. It's the death rattle of a thoroughly discredited, and obsolete sports 'journalism' in Scotland.
Personally, I'm upset as I haven't got my own tinfoil hat yet!
And the supreme irony is: these hacks who try to look down their noses at the Internet Bampots…will have to somehow adapt, to become social media commentators themselves.
But, as the SMSM sports churnalists have been so resistant to change over the years – WRT reporting the truth about Scottish football – I'm guessing that Jingle Jackson, Union Jack, Keevins, Clyde SSB, et al will eventually all go the same way as the dodo.
And they won't be missed.
StevieBC 10th February 2019 at 10:19
===============================
I can remember the days (no doubt you can too) when they controlled everything, and highlighted what they wanted to highlight. Well those days are not coming back, and rightly so in any democratic nation. I paraphrase slightly, but Hugh Keevins, who hails from the days I mentioned, recently said on Radio Clyde 'what those on social media think counts for nothing'. Does he actually think his view is somehow of value? Pathetic stuff.
Mr. Hugh Keevins.
He doesn't know what he doesn't know.
Or, mibbees in his case: ignorance is bliss?
…but their days are numbered, that's for sure!
Did the blog break again?
I posted yesterday re the Darnell Johnson situation. I thought he was booked on Wednesday for the challenge on Izzy so don't understand why he would be getting offered a two game ban from the CO.
UTH@13.07
It’s a really odd thing to say by Hugh Keevins since his week revolves around a phone in radio show which seeks views from the public. The shows’ producers probably do such a good job vetting the calls he gets an entirely false sense of what the public actually think.
neebs67 10th February 2019 at 18:13
I posted yesterday re the Darnell Johnson situation. I thought he was booked on Wednesday for the challenge on Izzy so don't understand why he would be getting offered a two game ban from the CO.
I replied yesterday that he was booked but if thomson has said that he didn't see it fully then this is the reason behind the offering of 2 match ban. This is what the difference between the mckenna tackle on edouard and the more-or-less assaults in the £brox match beaton said he saw them in their entirety so nothing could be done,where as i think it was madden said he didn't fully see the mckenna one.
StevieBC 10th February 2019 at 10:19 52 3 Rate This uth, agreed. It's the death rattle of a thoroughly discredited, and obsolete sports 'journalism' in Scotland. Personally, I'm upset as I haven't got my own tinfoil hat yet! And the supreme irony is: these hacks who try to look down their noses at the Internet Bampots… …………………….. Gather most of their output from that particular source.
StevieBC 10th February 2019 at 13:30
37 0 Rate This
Mr. Hugh Keevins.
He doesn’t know what he doesn’t know.
Or, mibbees in his case: ignorance is bliss?
…but their days are numbered, that’s for sure.
…………………..
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1094702740096409600?p=v
……………..
He knows Liquidation is the end of things. But not if you are a club from ibrox
Ex Ludo 10th February 2019 at 18:50
It’s a really odd thing to say by Hugh Keevins since his week revolves around a phone in radio show which seeks views from the public. The shows’ producers probably do such a good job vetting the calls he gets an entirely false sense of what the public actually think.
==========================
I don't listen to it much these days. In terms of vetting the calls I am highly suspicious of what goes on. You could hardly say the past few years have been bad for Celtic fans, but despite that Radio Clyde manage to find a plethora of negative Celtic fans to call in. I also remember one time after Celtic played Aberdeen a few years back. Craig Brown the then Aberdeen Manager had complained that his player got booked for his goal celebration, and Charlie Mulgrew of Celtic had not been booked for his. The only problem was that Mulgrew had been booked, and I had witnessed it with my own eyes. Despite that, on the Monday night phone in Keevins continually pressed the line about Mulgrew not getting booked, and making a huge issue about it. So I phoned the call in number and explained to the Moderator that a pundit was continually pressing a falsehood and that they should check their facts. Five minutes later the host said 'we have people calling the station to tell us we're wrong and we have checked and we are indeed wrong'. It was sloppy, lazy, and completely unprofessional of them, and no doubt had many fans up in arms at a Celtic player getting away with something he hadn't actually got away with.
Clyde SSB Rules.
1. Hugh is always right.
2. If Hugh is wrong. See Rule 1.
IMO,
the only thing that will catch the SFA's attention is money.
If public monies – contributed by you and me – are stopped, then the SFA will have to address our concerns – the concerns of the fans, aka the paying customers.
Why should the SFA receive public monies?
That should be the starting point, IMO.
https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/competitions/premiership/each-of-the-42-scottish-league-clubs-average-home-attendance-ranked-in-order-1-4870515?page=11
42 teams in Scotland and yet only 12 in Australia/New Zealand. Teams have existed in Scotland on the smell of an oily rag but what do they contribute to making Scotland a football force in the 21st century?
If 32 teams were culled from the SPFL we would have a top 10 Premiership and 32 more Junior teams. Is Scottish football too diluted? How hard is to excel at say Albion Rovers when your teammates cannot even pass the ball to you? Should Scotland accept continued mediocrity in football or should there be be radical change? I live in NZ and we have just 5 professional rugby teams from whom we choose the 15 All Blacks who have won the last two World Cups and are regarded as being the best team on the planet. What worked for Scottish football 50 years ago when a team could be assembled from a 30 mile radius of the stadium cannot work in the 21st century. I'd love to see a debate on real and radical change in Scottish football.
StevieBC 11th February 2019 at 00:31
the only thing that will catch the SFA's attention is money.
If public monies – contributed by you and me – are stopped, then the SFA will have to address our concerns – the concerns of the fans, aka the paying customers.
Why should the SFA receive public monies?
That should be the starting point, IMO.
========================================
There is a lot of moaning about the SFA but they are an entrenched part of the Scottish Establishment. Rightly or wrongly many people view them as an outdated Masonic cabal who generally favour Rangers. Any reform of the SFA would be viewed as a concession to those who think that way, so the situation becomes even more entrenched. In my opinion the recent confirmation by an ex-grade 1 Referee that Rangers fans are far more likely to make the grade shows something is deep rooted and needs to change. It needs to change even if they try their hardest not to show bias, because it suggests that a Rangers man is of superior stock in the eyes of the SFA. We need to get away from this – it's 2019 not 1959!
Fisiani, so no promotion or relegation then, if only 10 teams can be in the professional league?
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2019/207.html
For those interested in the most recent round of litigation (SDI vs. RFC Ltd.)
Fisiani & Nawlite:
I'd suggest that 2 x 12 team leagues would be sufficient for the SPFL in Scotland. 33 league matches, with the top six teams of the previous season getting the additional home matches as a reward for achieving that position. One automatic promotion/relegation place & one play-off between eleventh in the top league & second in the second division. One automatic relegation place in the second division.
A proper pyramid system beneath, where the top 'Junior' teams, split North/South or East/West, play in two qualifying leagues, the winners of each to take part in a play-off to access the second division.
I'd also like to see a commitment to a fixed number of home-developed players in each match-day squad, or a commitment to number of 'residence-qualified' players. There are (IMO) too many average-at-best non-Scots playing in Scotland.
It's all pie-in-the sky, though. Too radical for Doncaster & his committee-members.
Shug on the 10th @18.56
many thanks for the reply. I am not having a go at you but how can he book a player then say he didn't have a 100% view of the incident. Also, the challenge happened right under the nose of the linesman who would have had a clear, uninterrupted view. Surely he would have been able to advise the ref on what card, if any, was required? Seems to me they are making it up as they go.
Fisiani and Jingso.Jimsie: the number of Junior teams in the Scottish game has vastly diminished in the past two years, apart from in the West of Scotland, with quite a few clubs there planning to move to the Seniors in the near future.
The vast majority in the east are now within the senior pyramid system, which was set up initially following a promise to several clubs in exchange for them not kicking up a fuss at Green's Sevco getting a step up into the four league system.
In any case it would be interesting to learn what you think the likes of Albion Rovers take away from the overall Scottish game. Most clubs at the lower levels now run very valuable community set-ups which provide a focus not only encouraging young activity but also providing opportunities for the woman's game, disabled groups, fitness for the obese and so on.
To an extent I agree with Jingso.Jimsie that a restructuring could be beneficial: unfortunately, Neil Doncaster, encouraged by Chris McCart at Celtic and Craig Mulholland at Ibrox, wants a fifth division organised with colt sides playing against the top three from each of the Lowland and Highland Leagues. Of course, six games in the Highlands each season, and eight against Ibrox and Celtic Park colts, is unpalatable and financially prohibitive for the likes of East Kibride, BSC Glasgow and Kelty Hearts, the present top three in the Lowland League, and similarly unattractive for Brora, Cove and Fraserburgh.
However, one aspect on which I totally concur: try to cut down on the players who aren't Scots in teams if we want to see an overall improvement to the Scottish football profile.
'borussiabeefburg 11th February 2019 at 18:08
Fisiani and Jingso.Jimsie: the number of Junior teams in the Scottish game has vastly diminished in the past two years, apart from in the West of Scotland, with quite a few clubs there planning to move to the Seniors in the near future.
In any case it would be interesting to learn what you think the likes of Albion Rovers take away from the overall Scottish game. Most clubs at the lower levels now run very valuable community set-ups which provide a focus not only encouraging young activity but also providing opportunities for the woman's game, disabled groups, fitness for the obese and so on.'
————————————————-
1. I have used the term 'Junior' to denote 'not Senior', ie below the SPFL structure. On reflection, it's easy to misconstrue & for that I apologise. I also should have made clear that I would expect the eighteen teams displaced from the SPFL would continue in a lower grade of football.
2. I don't think that clubs like eg Albion Rovers 'take away' anything from the Senior game in Scotland. It's that they don't add much (IMO). The community involvement is to be applauded, but how would that really change if they weren't an SPFL team?
Please note that I'm not being reactionary for the sake of it.
Fisiani 11th February 2019 at 02:21
I’d love to see a debate on real and radical change in Scottish football.
………………….
Back in January 2013 there were plans.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1095052015590346752?p=v