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?
John Clark at 14.04pm. How I wish we had a chairman like John Reid at the helm of Celtic PLC . He took on the SFA and warned them that he would not allow Celtic to be treated less than anyone else. They knew that he wasn't known as "Labour's attack dog" for being mild and a good guy. Ian Bankier will sit on his hands and do nothing to protect the club from these blatant attacks. Chris Sutton's page today in the DR says it all.
Time for a Celtic statement.
http://www.celticfc.net/news/15556
easyJambo 4th January 2019 at 16:56
Hopefully a sign that the dam is bursting with, I believe, Aberdeen having made a similar statement a few days ago. But I'm not really all that hopeful
One who isn't joining .
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/46763610
On the Morelos thing , what are Police Scotland doing ? Behave like that on the street and you get huckled . Big Duncan got the jile for a lot less . And I'm pretty sure that there were one or two officers observing proceedings .
Ultimately refereeing standards and review processes are down to the clubs themselves. They are the SFA and the SPFL after all. Enough of them have expressed concern about refereeing standards this season alone to justify doing something differently.
Or is it just more bluster to appease their own fans, rather than a serious attempt to facilitate change.
Some things that may help could be:
* Disclosure of teams for which Refs have previously held STs / followed regularly / hold shares
* Transparency of the identities of referees panels and compliance officer and judiciary processes.
* Allowing referees to speak publicly after games
* Introduction of VAR. (starting with only live televised games would limit the costs)
I might not agree with many on here but I genuinely do agree with the majority that Morelos should have been punished. He infuriated me every game with petulant outbursts that are not acceptable in the modern game. A 10 game and a ten week dock of his wages might make him think twice in the future!
In terms of the Old Firm title do we genuinely believe that will go away anytime soon? Both teams hate the term and want it stopped for various reasons but it isn’t happening anytime and I would put a wager that in thirty years (which I’m unlikely to see) that it is still in use then.
it is reported that no action was taken because the match referee saw all of the incidents in question.
……………….
The ref seen everything but took no action.
Why did he take no action if he seen everything?
Why do we now need ref’s if they take no action on these things?
Just as well put Alexa on the field and ask if it was a yellow.
So Celtic deemed a statement appropriate. It is the very least that could be done. Will the other clubs support them? Mibbees aye….
Of course Clyde SSB started this evenings phone-in, in predictable fashion with a large dose of whataboutery and implying sour grapes on Celtic’s part. Derek Johnstone’s views are not worth caring about but the hypocrisy of Hugh Keevins is beyond the pale. Almost in the same sentence he decried Celtic’s statement before declaring that Morelos was deserving of 2 red cards. The demographic must be protected at all costs.
https://twitter.com/stvsport/status/1081255494474522624?s=21
Momentum building?
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1077256421908144128?p=v
Back in Feb 2013 Collum getting it in the neck for getting the card out. It’s an interesting read.
Celtic were right to issue a statement on Beaton's handling of the game. The smsm will condemn Celtic.
A particular happy new year to you Jimbo. I know you’ve had a hard few years and as one of the nicest genuine posters on here I wish you the best of 2019’to you and all your relatives. A true gentleman of which there are far too few In this day and age. I honestly can’t commend you enough. We’ve never met but I imagine would get on very well for a drink! Maybe 2019. Happy new year to you!
I’ve not seen a statement from the SFA explaining that no action can be taken as the match day referee John Beaton saw all the questionable Morelos incidents.
If an official statement is available, I’d be glad of a link.
And if the reason for a lack of disciplinary steps is down to Beaton viewing the deeds yet seeing no wrong, it would be a step forward from the authority to explain why no action has been taken against Beaton himself, instead of awarding him a key fixture in this week’s Championship.
https://stv.tv/sport/football/1434267-alfredo-morelos-to-face-no-action-for-old-firm-clashes/
………………….
borussiabeefburg 4th January 2019 at 19:51
If an official statement is available, I’d be glad of a link.
………………
I don’t believe we the public get to see an official statement, happy to be corrected,
Just that the club’s involved get notice of their complaint.
Remember at the start of the season when the panel rescinded Morelos' red card for his earlier kick-out (Aberdeen?) then Allan McGregor wasn't punished for his kick at Ajer? To buy time for it all to die down, Ian Maxwell came out explaining that UEFA or FIFA had changed the definition of a red card offence and referees/the panel were now assessing 'brutality' on their own interpretation. Remember he said they were contacting UEFA/FIFA for clarity? Nothing ever came of that, other than reports that UEFA/FIFA said the SFA/Maxwell were talking shte and that nothing had really changed. No one (clubs/SFA/SMSM) ever followed up on this as far as I'm aware. Were the SFA just hoping that all the kerfuffle would just die down for a while? That approach seems to have been successful, given that after a bit of a lull, here we are again with TRFC being dealt with very leniently to say the least. This behind closed doors meeting will no doubt just be another delaying tactic. Sick of it all.
Forgot to post this
https://mobile.twitter.com/ScotlandSky/status/1081238740876644357?p=v
………………..
It is reported.
nawlite 4th January 2019 at 21:42
I think the referee's performance on Saturday could be the tipping point for the Scottish football authorities . There is a lot of interest in England and further afield because of the Stevie G appointment , and what was witnessed wasn't too clever . It'll be interesting to see the first player booked/sent off for committing a foul against a TRFC player , now that we know the benchmark . Especially if the victim is Morelos . He reminds me of El Hadji Diouf , only with less class .
“He reminds me of El Hadji Diouf , only with less class .”
Quote of the day from Paddy Malarkey.
http://danieloconnel18.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-sfa-on-trial.html
The blogger is clearly aligned with Celtic however his blog accurately summarises much of what has been discussed on here and he holds the SFA accountable.
Operation "Stop the ten"?
Seems to me that the only reason to act so desperately approaching eight, would be because they may not be around for nine……Or at least be forced to down-size so drastically that, (barring intervention by another SPFL club), it may be a bridge too far to interrupt Celtic. Sevco may find themselves heading for the play-offs to stay up.. …Eight may well be the new ten for them due to their much lauded coontin' abilities.
No concrete evidence of that, other than TOP, Orlitt, Ashley, Sars, Close Finance, UEFA FFP, RES12, and wee Craigy…….Any combination will do.
Call it a guess tinged with hope.
Was in the car when my daughter read out the CFC statement. Didn't quite crash the car in shock, but was rather surprised.
After 6+ years of supposedly 'dignified silence' (?) WRT the RFC/TRFC corruption – and whilst trying to avoid Res.12 – why say something now?
Will hold my natural cynicism for now.
BUT,
if CFC does have a sit down with the SFA / refs management / other clubs' reps, mibbees they could step back and look at the bigger picture.
Morelos is just the catalyst.
How about CFC making the opening statement;
"Why do the majority of Scottish football supporters – aka the paying customers – regard the SFA as an incompetent and / or corrupt organisation?"
…followed by a completely open and robust discussion.
[But the ever present quandary is that the SFA is in effect the clubs themselves…
]
Who will walk away in disgust ? what clubs are weakened ? which club benefits? That's why they cheat, that's why it's ignored,that's why they don't care what anyone thinks. They really do know no shame.
OK, call me a cynic…
The CFC statement was released at 4.45pm today.
A story appeared in the DR at 9.45pm today, stating that Beaton was receiving threats and was forced to call the Police.
Nobody deserves threats for doing their job.
However, what is curious is that the DR also states that threats were made "after the game at Ibrox".
It also quotes that;
"…Beaton is now waiting to speak to officers."
The game was on Saturday and now it's Friday.
Beaton is so concerned about the threats received that he still hasn't actually spoken to the Police – almost a week after the game?
Yet, this story conveniently appears in the media just a few hours after the CFC statement?
Really?!
IMO, some lame PR spinning could be in play here, with the implied blame / deflection being;
"Celtic puts ref in fear for his safety."
Subtle as a brick – from the SFA or Level42 ?
Neil Lennon not quoted as saying "He brought it on himself ". Allegedly , Mr Beaton went for a drink in a well known TRFC supporters pub after the match . Enough of these charlatans . Cancel the contract and bring in fresh, untainted blood . All of Scottish football is suffering from the needs/expectations/hatred of the two clubs fanbases .
Ex Ludo 4th January 2019 at 18:48
So Celtic deemed a statement appropriate. It is the very least that could be done. Will the other clubs support them? Mibbees aye….
Of course Clyde SSB started this evenings phone-in, in predictable fashion with a large dose of whataboutery and implying sour grapes on Celtic’s part. Derek Johnstone’s views are not worth caring about but the hypocrisy of Hugh Keevins is beyond the pale. Almost in the same sentence he decried Celtic’s statement before declaring that Morelos was deserving of 2 red cards. The demographic must be protected at all costs.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Celtic were right to issue that statement because underlying it is a suspicion that Beaton was not applying the laws of the game. He didn't. It was obvious to the whole of Scottish football.
Sevco issued a similar statement undermining Collum. He should be undermined he is a terrible ref who should be relegated to the juniors.
I suppose my point is that the refs are terrible. It wan't always so. I recall talking to a ref after a Rangers game who said to me, " I should have sent XX off but it was only 2 minutes from the end. So I didn't". My question was "Why not?". The answer was because he was a Rangers player.
Beaton may be a former season ticket holder, he may be a Mason or a lodge member, I don't honestly know, or care for that matter. I do care that he has the audacity to claim that having seen all of the incidents last week, he is secure in his judgement that nothing warranted him even having a word in Morelos's ear. Further, I also care that his employers at the SFA, are happy to accept this.
However, the only way to overcome the ambitions of the establishment's favoured club, is to take a leaf out of Jock Steins book " If you're good enough, the referee doesn't matter". Play well enough and the referee's role becomes that of, Timekeeper and Score keeper.
We all make mistakes. Sometimes serious mistakes. Mostly we put our hands up and say, 'it was me', and that's mostly because we don't want anyone else to take the blame. But would we put our hand up and take 100% of the blame when we could just say, 'sorry, I didn't see it!' and so exhonerate ourselves in a situation where no one else gets the blame.
If saying he hadn't had a proper view of the incidents (but had) led to Morelos being deservedly red carded by the CO, then, ultimately, justice would be served, for Morelos had undoubtedly done wrong, not just in a sporting sense, but in a moral and common law sense, too.
So what could lead a referee to accept 100% of the blame for his failure to red card a player, not once in a match, but three times? Especially when to say, 'sorry, I didn't see it' would not have led to Morelos' getting a red card, by itself, as it would have then been up to the panel/CO to review the incidents and take whatever action was required.
That's three times Beaton supposedly saw a violent act perpetrated by one particular player and did nothing, and he's accepting that without excusing himself. If he saw one such incident, and decided it was not serious enough to merit a card, maybe fair enough, but surely the cumulative effect should have automatically registered into a more serious (sending off) offence by, at least, the third incident.
To my mind the big question, though, should be, why would anybody take 100% of the flack for someone elses wrongdoings, when they could easily get out of it by saying they didn't have a clear enough view to say exactly what happened? That only makes sense if the dupe, in this case the referee, has some emotional stake in preventing natural justice prevailing.
Then there's the question of a player committing numerous 'petulant' red card offences in one match, not dirty or desperate tackles, not retaliation for a percieved assault. No, just the actions of a child who, having been exhonerated for previous violence, has come to believe he can get away with it again, and again. Sometimes a child benefits, in the most improper of ways, from being the favourite…
Yes AJ, and it seems that the gloves are now we'll and truly off at Hampden: no messing about, just clear as day cheating to stop one club's dominance.
…and the blazers simply don't care who knows, IMO.
If this is true… Boom….
https://twitter.com/geedublu/status/1081322608975667203?s=20
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/shocked-aberdeen-appeal-scott-mckenna-13355136
StevieBC 4th January 2019 at 23:57
39 1 Rate This
OK, call me a cynic…
The CFC statement was released at 4.45pm today.
A story appeared in the DR at 9.45pm today, stating that Beaton was receiving threats and was forced to call the Police.
Nobody deserves threats for doing their job.
However, what is curious is that the DR also states that threats were made “after the game at Ibrox”.
It also quotes that;
“…Beaton is now waiting to speak to officers.”
The game was on Saturday and now it’s Friday.
Beaton is so concerned about the threats received that he still hasn’t actually spoken to the Police – almost a week after the game?
………………..
John Beaton confirmed he received threats and decided against taking action at the time.
Well he does have previous.
I see this in very simplistic terms.
If, as has been reported, Beaton saw the incidents concerned in their entirety then he is either an incompetent or a cheat.
Unless of course it is as I suggested earlier, Morelos didn't kick or stamp anyone quite hard enough for action to be taken against him. The ref saw the incidents but thought them trivial, or at least treated them as such.
In which case it has clearly been demonstrated that he is being refereed to a different standard to everyone else, and not in a way which is more harsh on him. If that is the case it really has been a very clever manipulation of the referees.
Finloch 4th January 2019 at 11:18
"It has been deemed by the Scottish FA that referee John Beaton saw all incidents involving Morelos in full at the time so no retrospective action can be taken".
…and…
"Bogs Dollox 4th January 2019 at 14:19
Why didn't they just ask him if he saw it rather having to deem it."
:::
:::
The SFA love their use of quasi-legal terminology to confuse & obfuscate.
They've 'deemed' there's no case to answer because their position is unsupportable & unfathomable.
Jingso.Jimsie 5th January 2019 at 11:30
4
0
Rate This
Finloch
4th January 2019 at 11:18
They've 'deemed' there's no case to answer because their position is unsupportable & unfathomable.
===============================================
And inconsistent with recent decisions they themselves have made.
As highlighted by Billydug 5th January 2019 at 09:56 and the link provided.
StevieBC 5th January 2019 at 09:23 26 1 Rate This Yes AJ, and it seems that the gloves are now we'll and truly off at Hampden: no messing about, just clear as day cheating to stop one club's dominance. …and the blazers simply don't care who knows, IMO.
______________________-
Looks very much like it, Stevie. Thing for everyone to remember, though, it's not just Celtic who will suffer from this, for it will be happening in every match TRFC play, particularly more so in the lower profile matches, and a lost game for a lower profile club stings as much as watching your rival for the title get all the help they need.
I wouldn't be at all surprised, though, if boards at many a club don't see it as their problem, as a result of Scottish football being viewed through a Celtic – 'Rangers' prism for so long now, even after one club died. In fact, even that death, of one club, was viewed through the Celtic – Rangers (no quotation marks required) prism.
Even my own club, and Aberdeen, Hibs etc sat back without challenge while TRFC were allowed to enter European football while racking up huge debts, so they must share the blame if they find themselves battling it out for no better than 3rd place, now and in the future, as TRFC continue to spend money they do not have, but survive on regular Euro qualification – well maybe survive.
Billydug 5th January 2019 at 09:56 If this is true… Boom…. https://twitter.com/geedublu/status/1081322608975667203?s=20
__________________
If it's true, just wait until the press get a hold of it…
Jingso.Jimsie 5th January 2019 at 11:30 3 0 Rate This Finloch 4th January 2019 at 11:18 ============================================================================ Surely EVERY compliance officer decision, is an overturning of what a whistler thought he saw, in real time, such as in the case when Morelos had his sending off by Clancy v Aberdeen reduced to yellow. An incident the ref witnessed in real time, but the compliance officer "deemed" an incorrect call, over-ruling the referee's judgement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fc1iipvzr4s
Jingso.Jimsie 5th January 2019 at 11:30
"The SFA love their use of quasi-legal terminology to confuse & obfuscate.
They've 'deemed' there's no case to answer because their position is unsupportable & unfathomable"
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
The SFA's position in two other areas of much, much more importance was 'insupportable and unfathomable' :
[ area 1:the granting of a UEFA licence to a club that owed millions in social taxes on (and after) the deadline set under the UEFA FFP Rules in what to my mind appears to have been a criminal act)
area 2, the abandonment of all sporting truth and honesty by allowing a brand new club to claim (falsely? – absolutely so!) to be a club which once was a member of the SPL, but which lost that membership when it went into Liquidation, and consequently ceased to be entitled to membership of the SFA.]
By allowing themselves to let the devil away with those major matters of institutional sporting corruption, our clubs left themselves a very short spoon with which to sup with that devil, at any meeting set up to talk about the standard of refereeing.
The likelihood is that such a meeting would itself be a 'set-up', with no result other than a decision, perhaps, to tell the referees to make it less obvious that TRFC are being favoured by refereeing decisions as a means of ensuring its 'sporting success ' and thereby its very continuing existence.
If you do not already possess the moral high ground, having signed up to being an accomplice in cheating, how can you genuinely complain when you feel you have yourself been cheated?
Celtic's statement ( not a very good one) , the previous Aberdeen statement ( which was a better one)are just so much wind and p.ss as long as the elephant or devil in the room is ignored.
(It's 23.06 here on Saturday night, temperature at 26 degrees. All day spent at 'Australia Zoo' -[ remember Steve Irwin, the wild-life guy who took one chance too many when filming underwater in 2006, and was fatally stabbed in the heart by a stingray?- his place, about two hours north of Brisbane, now run by his widow and (now adult) children].
Billydug 5th January 2019 at 09:56
If this is true… Boom….
https://twitter.com/geedublu/status/1081322608975667203?s=20
=========================
It would be if we had a media who were willing to demand answers from the SFA and keep them in the headlines until they got those answers. Instead they say nothing because they can't possibly concede a single inch that the SFA are giving preferential treatment to Rangers, even though the evidence you have posted would be absolute shooty-in for them.
From reading Celtic's statement, it looks as if they've bought into the deflection that Beaton saw the incidents therefore they can't be challenged. It reads like they just want to go after Beaton. I really hope that's not the case as it is clear from previous Compliance Officer action (Morelos against Aberdeen; Jamie Walker simulation; Darren O'Dea simulation etc etc) that 'seen' incidents where the referee has got it wrong (Morelos excepted, of course) can easily be overturned. I hope Celtic challenge the sleekit engineering of the process rather than challenge the individual referee.
Ye gods.
Radio Shortbread now deploying deflector shields on full power.
Utterly cringe-worthy, contemptible listening.
I reckon by Monday various media outlets will be demanding that the SFA throw the book at Celtic.
Darren O'Dea banned for two matches retrospectively in incident seen by the referee…but who clearly made an incorrect decision.
I'm pleased O'Dea was punished as it was blatant cheating…however, it is also completely inconsistent with the SFA's announced process for retrospective bans.
Shinnie seems to have completely got away with his embarrassing cheating.
Edit: sorry, I missed Nawlite’s post about O’Dea
Dunderheid 5th January 2019 at 14:32
===============================
If there's is one thing guaranteed to circle the media wagons round the SFA it is when Celtic have the temerity to speak out, even in the reasonable manner they did. I'm afraid there are still many people within Scotland who believe Celtic should know their place in society, which should be to accept a seat in silence at the back of the bus and be grateful for anything they get.
https://twitter.com/footballisfixed/status/1081495739870662656?s=21
Corruption you say?
From preceding posts. At least Darren O’Dea had the good grace to apologise. Quite rare in such matters.
Allyjambo 5th January 2019 at 08:15
To my mind the big question, though, should be, why would anybody take 100% of the flack for someone elses wrongdoings, when they could easily get out of it by saying they didn't have a clear enough view to say exactly what happened? That only makes sense if the dupe, in this case the referee, has some emotional stake in preventing natural justice prevailing.
—————-
Quite.
He has prevented the Referees Panel from investigating, (and in that he must have more faith in them than I do), and the importance of Morelos to TRFC's aspirations at the time can hardly be overstated.
I wonder who advised him on that course of action, and his precise choice of words? He has suffered no sanction, but has been escorted to Somerset Park, a martyr for his integrity. All threats should be investigated and the perpetrators prosecuted, but the timing and coverage of this reeks of PR news management.
macfurgly 5th January 2019 at 15:44
All threats should be investigated and the perpetrators prosecuted, but the timing and coverage of this reeks of PR news management.
——————————————-
The news we see, read and hear tells us the Police generally have little difficulty in tracking down those making online threats, so I fully expect to hear soon that those responsible have been charged…
https://twitter.com/skysportsnews/status/1081299208290877441?s=21
Kris Boyd back in action giving support to his favourite team (not the Club that pays his wages, in case you were wondering)
upthehoops
5th January 2019 at 16:09
=================================
Is it not the case that these threats are because his mobile phone number was leaked and he has been receiving threatening or abusive texts.
If people are stupid enough to be doing that they will probably be stupid enough to get caught as well.
Provided what they have done is actually illegal and it is being investigated. I haven't actually seen any examples of what he has received.
Homunculus@16.55
If Accams razor is applied in respect of Mr Beatons mobile or landline number being acquired by persons unknown then in all probability it has been put into the public domain by someone whom he knows. With friends like these…
Now it's the SFA's turn for a statement.
https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/news/scottish-fa-statement-threats-to-match-officials/?rid=14258
Could Mr Beaton's performance be construed as match-fixing ? A lot of TRFC fans I know benefited financially by his disinclination to take action .
“some of their decisions will be viewed differently”
Understatement of the year (so far) from the SFA.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/amp/football/46761583
Rangers announce two more pre-contract deals.
The wage bill just keeps getting bigger!
Bill1903 5th January 2019 at 19:28 https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/amp/football/46761583 Rangers announce two more pre-contract deals. The wage bill just keeps getting bigger!
=============================================================
Bill, as they don't go on the pay-roll until summer, a couple of high-earning exits before then, and these signings might actually represent a wage reduction in real terms..
Or they may offer Killie and Dundee a few quid and get them in January
Who knows
paddy malarkey 5th January 2019 at 18:38
2 0 Rate This
Could Mr Beaton’s performance be construed as match-fixing ? A lot of TRFC fans I know benefited financially by his disinclination to take action .
…………………..
The referee saw all of the incidents in question but took no action.
1. Would this make the ref corrupt?
2. The ref not applying the rules of the game properly
Would this make him corrupt or just un qualified?
3.The ref not knowing whether to book someone or not or just leave it to the compliance officer to sort out?
Would this make the ref corrupt? or just there to pick up a wage.
4.The ref doing what he is told to do, then taking all the flack from what he is told to do is not the right thing too do.
Does that make them corrupt?
5. The ref having a nightmare of a game, except in the ibrox club’s eye’s(makes a change) and also the compliance officers eye’s.
Does that make him corrupt?
6. Standing in an ibrox related bar after a nightmare game,
Does that make him corrupt?
7. Not knowing if he can explain his decisions in public as to why he was the one to see all the incidents but chose to take no action.
Does that make him corrupt?
So many questions and yet no answers.
Let the scottish football paying public get the answers if it’s celtic asking the questions
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1081650531762868230?p=v
………………………..
Picked this up on my travels today…….Who knew?
Kille should have employed a level5 king of a PR.
An ibrox club have a level 5 PR and they are already letting us know 144 year in advance
Bill1903 5th January 2019 at 19:58 Or they may offer Killie and Dundee a few quid and get them in January Who knows
___________
Probably be of more value working their socks off against Celtic, Aberdeen etc, while not playing/trying against their new club, than bringing them in early.
I have to admit, I don't know much about players outside of my own club because I have no one to talk about Scottish football to down here in darkest Derbyshire, so, can anyone tell me if these two players are likely to improve TRFC, or are they a downgrade on what's already there for next season?
Allyjambo 5th January 2019 at 20:47
I have no one to talk about Scottish football to down here in darkest Derbyshire, so, can anyone tell me if these two players are likely to improve TRFC, or are they a downgrade on what’s already there for next season?
…………………..
Up here we are asking the same question
Cluster One 5th January 2019 at 20:58
Thanks CO, so I take it that, while they might weaken Killie and Dundee, they are not the type of players that are on everyone's lips so are not likely to be an improvement on the existing squad, just cheaper.
Don't post very often but the the Beaton situation makes me wonder how this guy can ever officiate a Scottish game again. Given the SFA statement that he saw clearly every incident regarding Morelos in the Sevco Celtic game, then surely any manager worth his salt would appeal any card given to any of his players by Beaton , whether allowed to by SFA rules or not. There is now no wiggle room, ref has to explain why he carded player a in a similar situation to player b who he did not card….not seeing clearly is no longer an excuse. Now is the chance for every aggrieved club to band together to take down the SFA over inconsistent refereeing decisions, especially those whitewashed by the system.
They won't though
Beaton's career as a ref should be over as a result of this. He's either corrupt or incapable of doing the job.
Paddy Malarkey
Football is corrupt all over the planet and to think for one minute that it could not happen in Scotland would be foolish.
Match fixing could be for financial gain and/or personal aggrandisement.
By the rules, Morelos should have walked after 5 minutes for the intentional assault on Brown.
Beaton says he saw it.
He did not apply the rules of the game. Then, or on another three occasions during the game by the same player.
Ergo……………….
Remember. It was match fixing on an industrial scale for over 10 years.
Allyjambo 5th January 2019 at 20:47
I have to admit, I don't know much about players outside of my own club because I have no one to talk about Scottish football to down here in darkest Derbyshire, so, can anyone tell me if these two players are likely to improve TRFC, or are they a downgrade on what's already there for next season?
============================
Jordan Jones giving it WATP on his Twitter account. That will be enough on its own for a sizeable percentage, including the many supremacists who clearly exist among the Scottish media.
Interesting report in today's Sunday Mail saying Celtic have forced a summit with the SFA this week, the basis of which is Scott McKenna got a retrospective ban ban earlier this season despite the SFA saying Bobby Madden saw the incident, yet Morelos got no ban because the SFA said John Beaton saw all the incidents. On the face of it this just looks like utter corruption within the SFA at various levels.
The SFA:
"Respected and Trusted to Lead."
Of course because it was at a T'Rangers – Celtic game it gets maximum publicity but I cannot say if Beaton is corrupt in favour of the Ibrox side.
Fans from that club clearly had issues with Beaton’s poor performance in a previous game v Hibs.
What I do recall is, when they brought in the magic vanishing spray for free kicks, I watched him at Tynecastle being 'forced' by the crowds chanting to take ten paces, being the first few tries were short of the tequired number. He then proceeded at other free kicks to vary the length of his step. Long to begin with then short towards the end.
He clearly had trouble with the simple task of walking and counting in a uniform manner thus I am 100% convinced he is incompetent.
wottpi6th January 2019 at 11:26
=============
I used the term corruption because it seems a bit of a slam dunker. In my view people within the SFA don't want Morelos banned as he is important to Rangers, just like they did not want him banned earlier in the season when he was the only striker they had. I can think of no other explanation. They appear to just be making up rules on an ad-hoc basis to get a desired outcome (they are good at that!) I hope if Celtic don't get the explanation they want they go in heavy again with another statement. Also, if some idiot is threatening Beaton that is a separate issue, and if it really has happened the police will surely get them.
upthehoops 6th January 2019 at 11:48
Also, if some idiot is threatening Beaton that is a separate issue, and if it really has happened the police will surely get them.
………………….
Took a week, and a day after celtic released their statement for any news to come out about Beaton getting threatened.All look’s to coherst.
finnmccool 6th January 2019 at 00:49 Paddy Malarkey Football is corrupt all over the planet and to think for one minute that it could not happen in Scotland would be foolish. Match fixing could be for financial gain and/or personal aggrandisement. By the rules, Morelos should have walked after 5 minutes for the intentional assault on Brown. Beaton says he saw it. He did not apply the rules of the game. Then, or on another three occasions during the game by the same player. Ergo………………. Remember. It was match fixing on an industrial scale for over 10 years.
__________________________
This takes me back to a previous post where I questioned why a referee would admit to seeing no less than three separate red card incidents, by the same player, yet took no action. That's three cases that TV evidence has shown he got wrong, yet he's prepared to accept that, not only did he get it wrong, but he made a considered decision based on him seeing exactly what happened. That's some admission. If it had been three different players, especially if one was from the other side, it might have been a bit different, but the same player, each time, can only mean the referee had some personal reason for not following the rules of the game, rules that he is duty bound to enforce.
That's not incompetence, for incompetence would be to miss the three incidents completely, but here he has claimed to have had a perfect view, not missing anything, then fallen on his sword to the benefit of one particular club.
Imagine for a moment there was no TV reviews of matches with retrospective cards, and Beaton was asked by the SFA to explain why he didn't send Morelos off for at least one of those assaults. Does anyone believe he wouldn't have claimed to have missed them all, or, at least, not had a good enough view to make the call?
I genuinely can't get why someone would go against human nature in this way, for when anyone is found to have made an error it's human natural to look for an excuse, especially when to have excused yourself (rightly or wrongly) could only have led to the re-examination of the incidents and someone else deciding whether or not an errant footballer should be deservedly red carded.
what if that ref did not want to send that player off but was hopping for a celtic player to retaliate so as to send them off.
easyJambo 5th January 2019 at 17:21
'…..Now it's the SFA's turn for a statement.
"…..As we look forward to 2019, I call on everyone involved in Scottish football, from the public parks to the international stage, to respect our match officials.” '
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Maxwell's statement is pretty poor, conflating as it does concerns, legitimate concerns, about the personal safety of match officials and/or their families [ and we know there are nutcases out there for whom a stiff prison sentence, if found guilty of threatening behaviour, should be mandatory] with calls , in effect,to 'respect' incompetence or worse on the part of referees.
Further, the statement is rendered null and void, blindingly hypocritical, and empty of any real moral force because the SFA as a Governance body long ago itself lost any entitlement to respect, and indeed (some might argue) some of its past/present Board members may also be deserving of censure for being incompetent at best, or a prison sentence for complicity in corruption!
Furthermore, it's just stupid to announce in the same statement that match officials '…work exceptionally hard to maintain high standards' but that '..we will shortly be engaging with stakeholders to allow them to discuss issues, air concerns and propose improvements to this area of our game.'
J Traynor could hardly have written a worse PR statement (and he has written some pretty atrocious ones).
I have just come across this sentence in a book about ‘the mutiny on the bounty’:
“After all,as an officer who has just declared war on his Captain , [Fletcher Christian] can hardly now invoke the Articles of War he has so flagrantly breached, for his own protection.”
Sums it up, nicely.
My post of 12.53 UK time (22.53 here in Queensland) should have given details of the book from which I quoted. It's a most entertainingly written , thoroughly researched but not dry-as-dust , interpretation of the known /accepted 'facts' of the Mutiny of the 'Bounty'. It is entitled, not surprisingly, "Mutiny on the Bounty', by Peter Fitzsimons, hardback, printed and published by Hachette Australia in Australia in 2018, 613 pages, with some colour plates and drawings of' "The Bounty" and pages of references to source material.
I was given a copy last week as a birthday present from my ever-loving wife, so I don't know the price but would reckon about $30 or so ( about £17?).
I don't know if it is available in the UK yet, but if it is, I heartily recommend it to you.
And my real name is not Peter Fitzsimons, and I have not been paid by Hachette! ( I loved the Tintin books, though, published by Hachette, when I was a boy.)
Just a thought, but if Celtic and other teams apart from the protected one don't get the answers the want for whatever reason thus denying the fans of the transparency that the Sevco.F.A spout, could Auldheid and the resolution 12 gang not use it as some sort of leverage to try and get the relevant boards to go after the authorities properly as I said just a thought.