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?
Newsflash
Latest reports coming in that the phone threat, "Yir dinner's gaun in the dug" was received by John Beaton on licensed premises after his work, have yet to be confirmed. A chippie spokesman confirmed that Mr Beaton bought a sausage supper without Broony sauce on the way home…..Mrs Beaton was unavailable for comment. Updates to follow.
I've just read the gombeen man's piece posted on the BBC Scotland sport website 2 hours ago.
Even he, SMSM man that he be, can say this about Maxwell's proposed meeting with 'stakeholders' about refereeing standards:
"It's going to be a talking shop, nothing more. Nothing will change. There will be no lasting improvement in relations and no improvement in refereeing performance.
Everybody will shake hands at the end after vowing to try harder to understand the other's point of view – and then all hell will break loose again. You'd need to be irredeemably gullible to think otherwise"
Evincing that degree of cynicism about the SFA comes a bit late from yer man.
Where was he when the biggest act of football cheating was carried out by the SFA, in cahoots [great wee expression, that] with those who foisted on Scottish Football the lie, the monstrous untruth, that 'Rangers' , in Liquidation, are not as dead as the dodo as a football club entitled to play in Scottish professional football, but that somehow, uniquely, they exist as TRFC Ltd?
He was on the side of untruth, that's where.
To his discredit as a human being, and his double discredit as any kind of 'journalist'
Nothing he has to say now counts for very much.
Like the gombeen men of old.
thattim 6th January 2019 at 12:40
13 0 Rate This
what if that ref did not want to send that player off
………………
What if that Ref had that player on for first goal and did not want to send him off after repeated offences, but did his best to keep that player on the park, as he can’t score a goal if he get’s sent off.
Well you never know in these times.
'Allyjambo 6th January 2019 at 12:34
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…'
————————————————–
John Beaton has taken this position because he's been assured that the Head of Refereeing has his back & will defend the indefensible.
John Fleming will already have discussed the ramifications of anything sticking to Beaton with Ian Maxwell & you can bet your bottom dollar that provision of officials to future matches (nothing as crude as 'industrial action', no siree!) will have been part of the conversation. Another part of the meeting will have dealt with how to deflect blame from the SFA & its referees to another party (or parties!).
Scottish football 2019 — SSDY.
Upthehoops@10.15
The Compliance Officer really doesn’t keep very good records does she? The SFA are probably not conversant with screen grabs or the internet thingy either. More likely they believed that no-one at Celtic would want the hysterical criticism that would be engendered by the various media outlets following the statement. Has war finally been declared?
John Clark, I agree with your view on Tom English, but what jumped out at me while reading his opinion piece was how he could leave out ANY comment on the (quickly becoming!!) fact that the incidents can't be reviewed by the CO because the referee saw them. Every fan on every forum I've looked at can list many more than the obvious ones that have already been listed here and ask why is it different this time. Yet no journalist* has asked the similar obvious question. Are they ALL so pro-TRFC/pro-SFA that they aren't willing to say "….but you've done that before so why not this time??!"
Cluster One 6th January 2019 at 14:56
'..What if that Ref had that player on for first goal ..'
&&&&&&&&&&&&&
The whole murky world of betting companies as sponsors of sport comes into view, Cluster One.
Just as there have been ( believe it) knights of the realm who cheat in sport, so there are bad bast.rds at socially lower, but still influential, positions in any sport who can affect the outcome of any sporting event, if they are bribed.
Is there now any point in any of us spending our honestly earned money to give profit to cheats and charlatans, liquidation deniers?
The damage that the lying knight, and the lying Governance body, have done is quite possibly bringing about the slow death of Scottish Football as an honest sport.
nawlite 6th January 2019 at 15:32
..Are they ALL so pro-TRFC/pro-SFA that they aren't willing to say "….but you've done that before so why not this time??!"
Short answer, yes, nawlite.
I would elaborate, but it's now quarter to two, Brisbane time so I'd better get to bed wherein lies Mrs C, sound asleep since about 11 p.m, and therefore ignorant that I've a quiet Fat Yak or two since then!
I hope!
Kentes6th January 2019 at 14:16
Res12 was always about SFA reform
and cleaning up the game.
Problem was as long as refereeing did not affect Celtic''s performance and so result fair governance was never top of supporters (of all clubs) agenda.
Beaton has drawn attention to what Res12 hoped would never return ie the days when Rangers used debt to finance trophies to such an extent failure to win meant they HAD to win. So they had to make sure by all means possible that they did.
As to your point I think Beaton has changed supporters attitudes, certainly Celtic ones but even if other clubs are not going to win the title's, decisions that win points for TRFC that might other wise be lost harm those clubs too.
Regarding getting other clubs on board for change, the message of Res12 is they ie Directors are not interested, something their supporters might want to question especially if the extent of the crookery is more widely recognised.
Work on that is underway.
Ex Ludo 6th January 2019 at 15:24
The Compliance Officer really doesn’t keep very good records does she? The SFA are probably not conversant with screen grabs or the internet thingy either. More likely they believed that no-one at Celtic would want the hysterical criticism that would be engendered by the various media outlets following the statement. Has war finally been declared?
=============================================
If people have been threatening John Beaton they need to be found and feel the full force of the law.
Having said that the SFA know fine well how the media react in such circumstances when Celtic are involved. It's very strange because the media have been bleating about Referees all season. Remember though they backed Dougie McDonald and Hugh Dallas in the past, despite both clearly being in the wrong.
As for war being declared, I hope so. However it would be a very dirty war, and every single media outlet in the land would be firmly on the side of the SFA, although let's face it, they are already.
Auldheid 6th January 2019 at 15:57 0 0 Rate This Kentes6th January 2019 at 14:16
A valid position Auldheid/Kentes, and highlighted here by Lachlan Cameron, whereby a point or two here and there, can be the deciding factor in whether to keep, or sell a player, thus weakening a team even further.
This in turn equates to a lower standard in what the paying public can expect to see on the park, compounded by emotional heartache and an ever downward spiral ….Self flagellation.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/swansea-city-digest-chief-reveals-15637290
Well are we all just paranoid I'm not so sure.
https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/1080883508070019072
Ref:Auldheid 6th Jan 15.57
Thanks for the reply Auldheid for me it means the game is definitely a bogey because if no teams are going to stand up to the Sevco.F.A then there is no point continuing to attend games as the suspicion will be that all teams are involved a various levels in the cheating.
All the teams are cheating their fans and subsequently their shareholders so maybe the shareholders have to start withdrawing their financial support like the normal fans did at the start of this cluster#uck, or even have shareholders threaten to report the various clubs to company house or whoever as surely the clubs are not following their fiscal duties when they let crap like this continue.
It just feels like the end is coming for Scottish football but not with the ending most of us hoped for
Beaton alleged that he received abuse / threats.
And who am I to doubt the word of an SPL referee?
BUT,
based on my own feelings, and the reactions of fellow CFC fans after the game…
the person – IMO – who was actually more likely to be on the receiving end of fans' frustrations…
was Peter Lawwell, or even Brendan Rodgers!
And that's the truth.
Kentes 6th January 2019 at 18:56
It just feels like the end is coming for Scottish football but not with the ending most of us hoped for
========================================
I can never remember a more generally happy period among the media and the rest of the establishment regarding Scottish football than the period 1986 to 2011. That of course was the period when a Scottish owned bank financed Rangers way beyond what they should have, and when Rangers chose to employ tax evasion as a method of financing players they could not afford. The establishment cared little, never asked where the money came from, and were happy as long as Rangers generally won more than Celtic, which they did over the period in question. Now they smell blood again after the result last week and are starting to visualise a Rangers team winning the league again, ironically due to spending money they don't have. Make no mistake, that is the ending THEY dream of.
Phil latest.
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2019/01/06/why-sevco-are-praying-that-celtic-mess-up-for-a-third-time/
UTH, I was in my teens when Celtic did 9 before and too busy playing football (and too naïve) to notice how the papers dealt with it. Anyone here old enough to know if it felt the same then as it does now? I feel generally that things have worsened considerably since those days with regard to the dislike/hatred among supporters of each club. Perhaps as I said, naivety on my part, but perhaps I'm right due to the cheating, the liquidation the entitlement etc.
Nawlite@23.09
The first Celtic NIAR was achieved while the Rangers of that era also had a strong team. Both teams won European trophies in that period and in the ‘67 season Dundee Utd beat Celtic home and away. Like you I couldn’t comment on the editorial line taken by the SMSM in that era. Then again Rangers were run on sound business principles in those days and were not in danger of going out of business at any point so no need for desperate measures to be put in place to compensate because the club wasn’t a loss making business without a credit facility from a bank.
It has been a very long time since I last posted anything; but having watched the performance of the match referee between the Two Glasgow sides on the 29th I just had to comment.
It is always best to allow a few days to pass before expressing any comments on a game of football to ensure all emotions are out of your system and you can reflect on the facts in an objective way.
The media have focused on 3 main discussion points of the match, however there was 4 out with a lot more in the game to be concerned about.
I have said before on this site there are 3 things as a supporter you must consider when looking at a decision of a referee and his assistants, speed, distance and angle of the incident. All 3 contribute to getting it right or wrong
On the first major call, the kick out at Mr. Brown within the first 5 minutes of the game starting. On reflection it was petulant and warranted more than just a free kick. If he had been booked, it would not have been harsh, but would have made the game far more challenging for the referee with 85 minutes to run. The Referees distance, speed and angle are perfect to get this correct, with a clear view.
On the second incident, the deliberate studding of Mr. Ralston. Absolutely no debate here, it is and always will be in any professional game of football a Red Card offence. The offence is clear, intentional and intended to cause injury. It is violent conduct, there can be no other course of action to follow. The referee’s distance, speed, angle and clear view of the incident allow a correct decision.
On the third incident, again this is an act of violent conduct, regardless of its petulance. To strike an opponent in the groin, is deliberate and intended to cause harm. A Red card should follow, but I can understand why a referee might issue a yellow due to its petulant nature. Again distance, speed, angle and clear view are perfect for the referee to make a correct decision.
The fourth incident which does not appear to have been considered. In the process of Mr. Christie clearing the ball from his own box, Mr Morelos attempts to block the clearance with the aid of a follow through with his forearm to the head of Mr. Christie. The referee may not have had a clear view of this, however his assistant referee did.
Now, if we look at the whole game, there is also a very unusual number of minor decisions, with varying degrees of importance that were either ignored or resulted in odd decisions, again that appeared to favour one side only.
One such incident that highlights some of the other minor issues in this match, is Mr. Forrest running towards the penalty box with the ball about 7 yards outside the box in a central position. Mr. Worrel I believe has a full grip of his top, not a snap tug, but a full hold that lasts 2-3 seconds, thus deliberately denying a clear advantage to the attacker. The referee’s distance, speed and angle (no more than 5 yards from the incident) has a clear view. There is no indication of advantage as Mr. Christie then collects the ball and moves forward, then loses the ball very quickly, there is no call back for the original foul on Mr. Forrest, no booking, play is just allowed to continue, very odd. The game is littered with such incidents in favour of the same team?
Having reviewed the whole game, you are left with a couple of conclusions.
With so many major and minor decisions wrong in 90 minutes, the referee has shown himself to be completely incompetent to officiate a professional game of football at any level and certainly not a category 1 match and should be removed from the list.
This becomes difficult as he is a FIFA listed referee,
However, the alternative possibility with so many decisions wrong in favour of one team is, that it could be viewed as cheating.
Cheating carries a far more significant concern.
When decisions are so consistently wrong in a single game by a match official and his team, you have to consider if this has been designed to favour a particular outcome of a football match, it is then not a such a big leap towards thoughts of match fixing, which as we know in professional football is a criminal offence due to the vast sums of money that is wagered on football. Such a situation would bring a whole new dimension of investigation.
I am not suggesting match fixing has taken place, but one could see how this could become a consideration.
I honestly believe Mr. Beaton thinks he is above scrutiny of any sort, and clearly on past decisions this season by the SFA would support his belief in this.
If Mr. Beaton is saying he saw all the incidents in all their glory, which appears to be the case based on the SFA’s announcement, then on the first incident he has a defence, on the other incidents two, three and four, he has none and that I am afraid leaves him and the SFA open to the points I raise above unless there is a clear an unequivocal explanation by both on this.
Whilst court action is unlikely, it would be interesting to hear both parties version of events and at the same time put the fear of God into the SFA and all match officials regarding the consequences of their actions.
Kentes 6th January 2019 at 18:56
Ref:Auldheid 6th Jan 15.57
Thanks for the reply Auldheid for me it means the game is definitely a bogey because if no teams are going to stand up to the Sevco.F.A then there is no point continuing to attend games as the suspicion will be that all teams are involved a various levels in the cheating.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Clubs will stand up if their supporters tell their Board of Directors that supporters will withdraw support if no corrective trust restoring action is taken on the governance issue.
As the club most affected by cheating in terms of it cost them first place and BIG money opportunity, it is natural Celtic supporters should feel most aggrieved, but if other clubs lose points in a game via bad referee decisions, they will want to be satisfied it was just bad decision making and not one where the referee was a known or suspected supporter of either Celtic or Rangers.
If a draw between say Killie and Hearts caused Rangers/Celtic to increase the points gap you wouldn't want the referee to have wrongly disallowed an otherwise winning goal would you?
That suspicion has to be removed from our game and I make no apologies for repeating this suggestion:
Making Refereeing a Service the SFA Provide to SPFL
This approach would see a split of responsibility with the SFA doing the recruitment, training and match appointments (having taken the nature of the game to be officiated into account possibly in discussion with SPFL) and charge clubs per match for the referees the SFA have trained ?
The monitoring and evaluation would be the province of the customer i.e. SPFL , using referees or ex referees from anywhere to mark to a standard set by the SPFL in agreement with the SFA.
This spilt of responsibilities would prevent any one person being in a position to exert his own influence on referees as a result of being part of the appointment and evaluation process.
It would safeguard the SFA from the kind of suspicion that led to the referees’ strike in 2011 and Beaton today and lead to a higher standard of referee because the customer would be setting the standard not the supplier (as happens everywhere in business but football)
If it did not, it would free the SPFL to hire their own referees from wherever they could get them.
A bit of competition never did anybody any harm and that includes our referees who, if they reached higher standards, would be in more demand outside Scotland.
<
p style=”margin-left:0cm; margin-right:0cm”>
Football is not a level playing field when the game is so governed by cash
https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2019/jan/06/football-level-playing-field-cash-premier-league
In politics it is said that when America sneezes, the world catches a cold. In sport when Manchester United fire a manager – which is rather often nowadays – the chain reaction is felt throughout football. And nowhere more, at present, than at Tottenham. The way the media reacted after José Mourinho was ousted from Old Trafford, it seemed it was already a done deal that Mauricio Pochettino would be United’s new manager next season. It was almost as if it was an embarrassing inconvenience that he had to play along with being Spurs manager for the next few months.
After all, if you’re a film director and you’re offered a Hollywood blockbuster with an unlimited budget, do you really want to continue labouring away on EastEnders? That was the kind of professional distance that was portrayed as existing between Manchester’s nobility and north-London’s perpetual also-rans. Never mind Spurs lead United in the Premier League and, by the reckoning of most observers, are the better team.
Money and power had spoken – or at least made some masonic gesture of interest – and that’s all there was to it. Tottenham fans were outraged by the condescension shown to their club, and the club was angered that its press conferences were being turned into forums for the discussion of United.
In all this, Pochettino himself seemed rather coyly detached, almost amused, as well he might be. For he did not arrive at Spurs from another planet. Nor even from another country. He came from Southampton, the unglamorous club that, had it ever been able to hold on to its players and managers, would probably now be challenging for the Champions League rather than engaged in another relegation struggle.
Pochettino left the Saints at the end of the 2013-14 season with Southampton eighth in the Premier League and their highest points total for a generation. The Belgium international Toby Alderweireld, who was to join Southampton on loan from Atlético Madrid, soon moved to Spurs (in a transfer that Southampton disputed). The centre-back was followed a year later by the defensive midfielder Victor Wanyama, and the year after that by Paulo Gazzaniga, the reserve goalkeeper.
So Spurs have done rather well out of Southampton, not forgetting, of course, that in 2007 they also acquired Gareth Bale – one of their finest players – as a teenager from the same club. Yet Spurs haven’t done quite as well as the league leaders, Liverpool. Nathaniel Clyne, Dejan Lovren, Adam Lallana, Sadio Mané and Virgil van Dijk were all transferred from St Mary’s to Anfield. On top of which the injured Alex Oxlade‑Chamberlain, who moved from Arsenal, was another product (like Bale, Lallana and Everton’s Theo Walcott) of the Southampton academy. Other illustrious graduates include Luke Shaw, the left-back who joined United in 2014 for £30m, then a world record for a teenager.
That’s some side who have passed through St Mary’s without ever being allowed to play together. Of course, it’s the economic reality, the food chain of football, that smaller clubs sell to bigger clubs. Southampton have received something in the region of £166m in the last five years from Liverpool alone. It’s the kind of money that keeps the lesser clubs going in the Premier League – but at the price of losing the talent that would have made Southampton title contenders.
You could say it was ever thus. Except it wasn’t. There was a time when smaller clubs like Southampton were able to keep some of their best players and, along with Ipswich, Nottingham Forest, Derby and Aston Villa make the kind of impact only Leicester, outside the Big Six, have managed in recent times.
Leicester’s triumph in 2016 was deemed such a freak incursion that it’s going to be turned into a Hollywood film. Given the overwhelming odds stacked against a club like Leicester winning the Premier League, it’s a story certainly worthy of celluloid immortality or, failing that, a straight-to-online genre piece with blush-making football scenes.
The point is, though, why should economic might determine sporting achievement? What kind of message is that for the watching millions? Principles of loyalty, esprit de corps, self-sacrifice are not nearly so impressive when they are the preserve of only the super‑rich.
Manchester City are under investigation for overspending. There is talk that if, following exposure of private emails, they are found guilty they will be banned from the Champions League. Given Uefa has shown little appetite for examining how clubs such as Real Madrid, Paris Saint-Germain and Barcelona can afford the incredible amounts of money they dispense on their star-studded squads, I wouldn’t expect a forensic inquiry. But if City have been manipulating their budget figures then they should be severely punished, along with others among the entitled super clubs who make an already unfair system bend still further to their financial whims.
Unless the top six in England are going to be a self‑perpetuating cartel that, in turn, pays deference to a suspiciously funded self-perpetuating top-six cartel in Europe, then football needs to reform its business model. Perhaps there needs to be a limit to how many players above a certain amount of transfer fee (say £30m) can be bought by one club, and a limit on the average wage.
At the moment, according to Sporting Intelligence, Barcelona’s average first-team pay is in excess of £10.4m a year. That’s about £200,000 a week. United’s is £6.5m (about £125,000). Tottenham’s is £3.5m (£67,000) and Southampton’s £2.7m (£51,000). But is it success that brings money, or the other way round? In City’s case you would have to say that money has bought success. In Southampton’s case, the money has come from forgoing success.
Something is fundamentally and sportingly wrong about that picture. The problem is that football fans are so fixated on their own teams and their own relative setbacks and advancements that the bigger picture is seldom viewed for what it is: a rigged system for the super-rich.
Let’s hope Pochettino stays at Spurs and that, should he guide them away from relegation, Ralph Hasenhüttl is not snaffled from Southampton. Football fans have had quite enough of being sneezed on.
sannoffymesssoitizz 7th January 2019 at 05:05
Strange article that, is it not? It seems to suggest that having more money than other clubs creates a sporting advantage. But I thought a once eminent Scottish Law Lord ruled against that notion!
The article also suggests that a club, Manchester City, is currently under investigation for spending money on players that it hasn't accounted for to football's governors. That's not money that the club has sourced via unlawful means, just money that's come into the club via over-rich owners (their own money). City might lose the right to play in the world's biggest money spinning club football competition as a result.
I, personally, welcome this investigation as I'd love to see a levelling of the financial playing field, with football becoming more self-sufficient; as it once was (that's not going to happen). But how on earth can Manchester City be being investigated when it's already been established that a football club sourcing money from proven illegitimate means, as opposed to sourcing it from wealthy individuals, while hiding it from the game's governors, doesn't give a sporting advantage and any titles gained while indulging in questionable financing were legitimately won?
In addition, as far as I am aware, there's no claim that Manchester City have deliberately, or even unintentionally, mis-registered their players to disguise the influx of cash donations. Perhaps they should have thought of trying that to ensure they escape any punishment once caught!
Maybe they should try citing the Scottish case as a precedent. I'm sure the SFA would be only too pleased to explain how the decision came about.
Back in the ‘70’s the BBC’s flagship Saturday sports programme, Grandstand, would frequently devote some time to the various incarnations of motorsport. One particular item that was memorable for me featured 4 identically prepared Ford RS 1600’s. The drivers who from memory included Stirling Moss then raced around the Brands Hatch circuit. I only recall the one race but the race really determined who was the best driver rather than who had the best car. It was effectively a more level playing field but whether or not that could be achieved in football is entirely another matter. Some of us are old enough to be aware of fixed wages for footballers but it would be impossible to return to those times. There simply isn’t enough Woodbine and Bryllcreme any more.
I believe someone once declared “for every fiver they spend, we’ll spend a tenner. That didn’t end well but it could be a while before the money men take their capital elsewhere.
To me Beaton is just a very very poor referee. Rangers fans coined the phrase ‘cheatin Beaton’ after one particularly woeful game where he sent off one of our players and booked a further 8, whilst only giving Hibs 3 yellows for what was a relatively clean match. The minute his name was announced for the last game the Rangers forums were awash with “well that’s us lost this game even before its started”. He can’t possibly be biased towards both Celtic and Rangers yet depending on what site you read that’s exactly the conspiracy theories posted. A woeful woeful referee but certainly no conspiracy.
Just a reminder that the issue regarding Beaton's competence and that of other officials is spread across the league.
https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/competitions/premiership/hearts-craig-levein-ready-to-argue-his-case-over-criticism-of-referee-1-4852487
I am sure Craig 'Its all about Rangers' Levein will strongly argue his case with the SFA's panel today.
Will be interesting to see how it turns out in terms of Beaton being part of the problem once again and the consistency of any punishments given what has been said by others in the past.
Has CFC been forced to apologise or to 'clarify' its statement yet?
You can see how this is going to pan out.
'Constructive' meeting at Hampden, followed by conciliatory statements all round.
…and the poor / dodgy officiating continues.
We are dealing with the SFA here: a 'worldclass stoopid' organisation.
Why should the long suffering supporters expect anything different now?
IMO, the only way to force change is if several other clubs go public with their concerns on the standard of officiating at games.
[And for balance: why are the linesman and 4th official at the TRFC v. CFC not getting called out?]
StevieBC 7th January 2019 at 11:20
IMO, the only way to force change is if several other clubs go public with their concerns on the standard of officiating at games.
[And for balance: why are the linesman and 4th official at the TRFC v. CFC not getting called out?]
—————————————————-
I wonder what was mentioned/not mentioned in the Referee Assessor's report. Surely he's there to monitor standards & comment thereon?
Jackson in the Record this morning makes a reasonable point:
'Also, Maxwell should have the courage to look internally at his own organisation as there was something inherently flawed about the procedure which left Beaton so horribly exposed last week. It seemed to go something like this:
SFA: “Did you not see him kick a guy in the nuts?”
Ref: “Aye.”
SFA: “And you don’t think that’s a red-card offence?”
Ref: “Naw.”
SFA: “OK then. As you were.”
Maxwell, or someone else on Hampden’s sixth floor, should have stepped into this farce and made sure that common sense was seen to prevail…
…But what makes no sense is that Beaton can act as his own judge and jury, effectively deciding for himself that there was no case to answer.'
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/firestorm-fwittery-threatens-ruin-classic-13821180
Some reflections on John Beaton’s refereeing, with particular reference to his performance in the recent Glasgow derby …
I’ve been present at several games refereed by John Beaton.
Based on this, my impression of him is that he’s a probably a slightly poorer ref than the average ‘top-flight’ ref in Scotland.
As Paulmac2 suggests above (7 Jan @ 00:24), he appears to keep up with play, reasonably well, yet despite this (IMHO) he typically seems to get a good number of decisions wrong.
Often (as exemplified by the most contentious of his decisions at Ibrox), it can be argued that he’s merely trying to ‘let the game flow’. But such an argument has limited weight when such contentious decisions seem to favour only one team. On this occasion, it's an argument that can only be defended by those who subscribe to the infantile view that ‘these things have a habit of balancing themselves out over the course of a game/season/sporting career [delete as appropriate]’.
Of course, it can reasonably be argued that during games with large and vociferous home supports, referees can be swayed by the madding crowd. However, that argument can’t be applied to the Glasgow derby decisions that the Compliance Officer picked up on – and which (it is reported) John Beaton says he saw during play: the crowd did not appeal to the referee on any of these instances: so these decisions were his to take, unaided by a baying mob.
Taking everything into consideration, I can’t get past the view that John Beaton is merely the latest ‘fan with a whistle doing his best’ to officiate a game involving ‘his team’. Probably not a conscious conspirator: just a simple human being with all our usual weaknesses.
We all know (for we have often been told so: by Scotland’s outstanding cohort of pundits) that football officials here in Scotland are above reproach in these matters: we have a super-human breed of referee which is incapable of being influenced by such tawdry matters as unconscious bias.
While pondering this, I glanced at Wikipedia to see what it had to say on this thorny issue (see below). Bizarrely, social scientists long ago anticipated how refereeing works in Scotland.
Enjoy:
From wikipedia:
‘A cognitive bias is a repeating or basic misstep in thinking, assessing, recollecting, or other cognitive processes. That is, a pattern of deviation from standards in judgment, whereby inferences may be created unreasonably. People create their own "subjective social reality" from their own perceptions, their view of the world may dictate their behaviour. Thus, cognitive biases may sometimes lead to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, illogical interpretation, or what is broadly called irrationality. However some cognitive biases are taken to be adaptive, and thus may lead to success in the appropriate situation. Furthermore, cognitive biases may allow speedier choices when speed is more valuable than precision. Other cognitive biases are a "by-product" of human processing limitations, coming about because of an absence of appropriate mental mechanisms, or just from human limitations in information processing.’
Classic SFA cul de saccing though.
If they do nothing they are accused of ignoring long established rules re feet and genitalia
not so much whataboutery as whereaboutery.
If they act retrospectively the other way then, with some justification, they will be accused of breaking their own rules (with no mention of the irony that would entail).
That’s Jackson’s point. A true leader would have seen that coming and dealt with it, not post it up and hope nobody noticed, or think that if he appeased 40% (rough numbers) that the other 60% would meekly accept it.
Jingso.Jimsie 7th January 2019 at 11:33
'…Jackson in the Record this morning ….'
Thanks for that link, Jingso.Jimsie.
I wholeheartedly agree with oor Keef when he says:
"…But there are some who, amid all this excitement and blinding hatred, find it impossible to maintain a sense of perspective. A subspecies of reporters ,who cannot be trusted ….."
What's that? Eh, what? he said 'supporters' not 'reporters'?
So he did, by gum.
But I think my version is equally valid.
And guys like our SMSM hacks know it.
Bad, and very bad, cess to them
Jingojimsie@11.33
Sounds like Keith Jackson has been dipping into SFM? Other blogs are available of course.
Dunderheid@12.10
Cognitive bias would go along way to explain a persons decision making in a fast moving, ever changing, and competitive environment however the referee’s match report, I would imagine, be written up in less frenetic circumstances. In that time of relative calm John Beaton completed his report and saw fit to include the various assaults. If he deemed these to be of no consequence then why both to mention these in his report? It doesn’t add up.
StevieBC 7th January 2019 at 11:20
IMO, the only way to force change is if several other clubs go public with their concerns on the standard of officiating at games.
[And for balance: why are the linesman and 4th official at the TRFC v. CFC not getting called out?].
————————————————————————————————————————
For this post you have received 31 thumbs up.
Yet I point out that Craig Levein has publicly called out Beaton and his assistant and is currently having to defend his comments at the SFA and get 23 thumbs down.
Similarly he was implying the other week that McInnes (being a dick) was weak and inconsistent with regards to backing up fellow managers in their criticism of referees. No doubt helped, in my mind, by his apologist chairman, Milne.
There may be no love lost between Celtic and Hearts but Levein, on this issue, is far more an ally to the Parkhead club than an enemy.
Sometimes I have to wonder what some people on this blog are smoking!!
Darkbeforedawn 7th January 2019 at 10:54
To me Beaton is just a very very poor referee. Rangers fans coined the phrase ‘cheatin Beaton’ after one particularly woeful game where he sent off one of our players and booked a further 8, whilst only giving Hibs 3 yellows for what was a relatively clean match. The minute his name was announced for the last game the Rangers forums were awash with “well that’s us lost this game even before its started”. He can’t possibly be biased towards both Celtic and Rangers yet depending on what site you read that’s exactly the conspiracy theories posted. A woeful woeful referee but certainly no conspiracy.
————————————————————————–
Everyone is entitled to their opinion DBD, and there is no need to debate the context. However the real debate is how such a "woeful referee", can rise through the ranks of the part-time "profession".
It ceased to be a debate of his competency versus corruption the moment the SFA began lying to protect him. Enough examples have been provided, (and I'm sure you have read them) that the SFA response was, and is, a falsehood with regards to their inability to act.
Have you an opinion on why the SFA would lie to not only an association member club, (for which they have previous), but to the SMSM and the public at large, including loyal customers?
Do you consider that the requests of CFC to get eyes on the after-match referee report to be reasonable and just, as in law, whereby prosecution and defence are legally required to exchange information?
Do you consider that EVERY individual, or group, facing allegations of incompetence/corruption should be denied the right of reply, in a modern inclusive society?
That is what appears to be happening here. That IS the debate. Why have the SFA either
(a) …Over-stepped their own authority as in the McKenna example. or
(b)…Undermined their own authority as in the Beaton example
Clearly both examples cannot be a true and accurate position. Do you agree?
Corrupt official 7th January 2019 at 14:06
As you imply it is all about consistency.
I have no problem with Beaton perhaps being on a mind to let a bit of argy bargy go on in matches as sometimes I feel the the physical side of the game is being lost.
However he has to apply his thoughts and rulings fairly to both teams and can't do it on his own when other referees are more of a mind, or feel they have been instructed by a higher power, to blow their whistle and/or pull out cards for the same types of incident.
At present we are way off a consistent approach across the top flight and the review panels, far from helping the situation, have just muddy the waters even more this season.
I think I may safely and truly say that Lennon, Clarke, McInnes, Levein, have all expressed their dissatisfaction about 'standards' of refereeing to the point of having to face disciplinary proceedings. TRFC Ltd and Celtic FC have also expressed their dissatisfaction with 'referees'.
But the very root problem has not been squared up to: none of the above, none of the other clubs in the professional game in Scotland has ( with the exception of Turnbull Hutton of deeply respected memory) has made any effort to root out the corruption to which they put their names: the lie that SevcoScotland/ TRFC Ltd is the Rangers of old.
Until that untruth is nailed for what it is, huffing and puffing about refereeing decisions that seem to favour the very cuckoo in the nest is just so much wind and pi.s!
Nothing will do to restore any faith and trust in Scottish Football as a business never mind a sport, other than an admission by the SFA that
TRFC Ltd is a six year old club,
is absolutely NOT the Rangers FC that was founded on Glasgow Green by the young men of 1872 ,
and that that historic and genuinely successful sporting club is no more, and simply cannot, does not, compete in Scottish professional football, and therefore cannot add to its sporting record and history.
Remember, it was no less than the (substantial and not slim) figure of the present PR man at RIFC plc/TRFC Ltd, who announced in banner headlines that 140 years of history had ended!
The cant and hypocrisy of him, and of the majority of his SMSM fellows, is as repellent as the failure of our clubs to nail the Board(s) that they elected as their guardians of our sport.
Like the mutineers on 'The Bounty' our football clubs KNOW that they are operating in a dishonest business and sporting environment so ,naturally, they will try to exploit that fact on an ad hoc basis for any immediate advantage.
None of them can see that , like the mutineers on 'The Bounty' they have abandoned all notion of truth and right and legitimate authority, by allowing the very Governance body to lie and cheat.
Off the current topic , hadn't seen this before . A bit of honesty from Jig ?
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/lee-mcculloch-startled-rangers-celtic-13817617
https://stv.tv/sport/football/1434368-craig-levein-given-two-match-ban-for-criticising-referee/
The price of telling the truth. In the linked article Alfredo Morelos features prominently. Imagine that.
In response to CO comment at 14:06, I couldn’t agree more. I think the SFA needs to be more transparent and Celtic should be justified in asking for an explanation. In my personal opinion Morelos should have received 4 yellow cards, and if I was being harsh 2 red cards. If Beaton saw every incident and didn’t think any were a booking then he should not be a referee. And that’s coming from a Rangers fan. Were those four (IMO) yellow card offences committed by a Celtic player I would be as livid as everyone here. I also dislike it because it allows players to feel they can get away with anything nowadays. Ever since Ronaldo was not sent off in the World Cup because UEFA had rewrote the rules around petulant kick outs it’s been open season. I’ve watched a few Juventus games this year and he seems to do it every game now! Under the current rules Morelos should have got 4 yellow cards. Under the old rules it would have been 4 red. And I personally would rather the old rules! What is deemed an “innocent” petulant kick? Will it take a serious injury before it’s changed? The only place I disagree with most on here is i think if it were Scott brown or any other Celtic player who had done the same they would have got off as lightly. Beaton should never referee another game again. Nor should Collum or Dallas. If we don’t have decent referees in our ranks we should bring them from outside Scotland.
He said: “A lot of things get missed on Morelos too, he gets kicked from pillar to post.”
Steven Gerrard via the DR online casting Senor Morellos as a victim. All about opinions says Hugh Keevins.
Did the ibrox club not get the best ref’s available when they were playing in the lower leagues?
Something to do with the lower league ref’s would not be able to handle a big crowd at ibrox.(or something along those lines)
It looks like the SPFL ref’s can’t handle big games so why not go for the best ref’s available from somewhere else.
Slippy g is a total twat he thinks more or less is a marked man what a twat I think it is everyone else that have the marks usually stud marks from that wee sleekit animal.
John Clark 7th January 2019 at 15:02
But the very root problem has not been squared up to: none of the above, none of the other clubs in the professional game in Scotland has ( with the exception of Turnbull Hutton of deeply respected memory) has made any effort to root out the corruption to which they put their names: the lie that SevcoScotland/ TRFC Ltd is the Rangers of old.
……………………
A reminder for any young ones looking in.(Is something we should be mindful of) as the events before and after 2012. Any teenagers looking in just now were still at primary school when this was going on and a lot of it would have passed them by.
So here is a reminder of how the late Mr Hutton viewed the football governing bodies.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1081670019522674688?p=v
Cluster One 7th January 2019 at 19:06
…
It looks like the SPFL ref’s can’t handle big games so why not go for the best ref’s available from somewhere else
===================
Absolutely CO!
And if/when the refs threaten to strike – like they actually did in 2010 – then let them.
But, I think the refs are fully aware that this time around there is a dearth of goodwill towards them from most supporters.
Would also be rather refreshing – and an improvement – to permanently replace 'honest mistakes' with just 'mistakes'…
"The only place I disagree with most on here is i think if it were Scott brown or any other Celtic player who had done the same they would have got off as lightly."
Boyata swore at Beaton against St Johnstone and got a straight red card. He would have been better off just kicking someone.
*The truth is of course that Boyata totally deserved to be sent off for being a complete muppet but Beaton wasn't worried about sending off a Celtic player.
I still find it amazing that so many people (including plenty of pundits) are still peddling the "yellow cards, red would have been harsh" line.
He deliberately stood on another player, raking his studs down his side. When has that ever been a yellow card?
He deliberately hit another player in the face with his elbow/forearm – I don't remember anyone saying that Simunovic was unlucky to see red when he did that to Morelos. Both were blatant red cards but the same linesman saw them completely differently. We don't know if Beaton claimed to have seen that one as it seems to have been swept under the carpet even further than the other three offences.
Darkbeforedawn 7th January 2019 at 17:25
In response to CO comment at 14:06, I couldn’t agree more. I think the SFA needs to be more transparent,,,,
—————————————————————————————————
Thanks for the reply DBD, but you have offered no opinion on why either the SMSM, the SFA, or both, broke their own rules to ban McKenna…..Then broke them back again, to admonish Morelos.
That was the crux of my question.
NCLBhoy 7th January 2019 at 19:57
I still find it amazing that so many people (including plenty of pundits) are still peddling the "yellow cards, red would have been harsh" line.
He deliberately stood on another player, raking his studs down his side. When has that ever been a yellow card?
===================================
That's correct and he had not 1 but 3 attempts to catch Ralston he succeeded on his 3rd go sleekit wee rat.
Don’t know if anyone was watching the FA cup 4th round draw on the telebox there. Seemed very straightforward. Glass bowl. Camera inside. 32 balls.
And that was it. Jobs a good un
I'm sick of the terms "more transparency" and "petulant".
I don't need any more transparency. I can see right through the SFA. Just apply the rules.
Petulance. What does that mean? I petulantly kicked you in the knackers or stamped on your back or whacked you in the baws or elbowed you in the face?
That would be great in a court of law. My client pleads petulance regarding the vicious assault on the gonads of Mr. Brown, your Honour.
Maybe Morelos should have been booked for persistent petulance?
DBD. Get a grip. The match officials made honest mistakes but managed to "fix" them.
Smugas
Glass bowl. Camera inside…….can they not just borrow the Scottish Children's Lottery machine?
Randomly came across this – and had no idea it was about refs: apologies if it’s been posted here before.
Fans of ANY Scottish club wondering how Scottish refereeing is so poor should check this link.
Yes, it's a CFC supporter's take – Paul Larkin – but just the first 10 minutes or so is a real eye opener: the refereeing rot was systematically implemented from as far back as the early 60's…
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d-fH2-ABHX0
[A good old chapeau to Paul Larkin.]
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/46780481
Levein banned for one match + one suspended.
"The rule states that no team official shall "criticise the match officials in such a way as to indicate bias or incompetence or make remarks about such match official(s) which impinge on his character".
Just as well King is not a team official then following his remarks on Collum. Only a Chairman(?) of the holding company and in no way a shadow director of the football club, being not a fit person y'understand.
Collum was demoted.
…all it would take is just one 'overlooked' ref, [or an ex-ref], to sue the SFA for discrimination…
Ineptitude, a complete lack of consistency and making it up as they go along! The refs in Scotland seem to change their interpretation of the rules on a daily basis! I get into the same arguments on Rangers forums all the time with a huge number of fans who have a rediculous notion where they seem to think there is a conspiracy and that Lawwell controls the SFA and the SPFL and that every decision goes Celtics way. I just believe they are completely hopeless. Because Beaton made a mistake this game, I have no doubt he’ll probably send a Rangers player of for a 50/50 challenge next game he referees just to be seen to “be consistent”. It’s a shambles and foreign refs is the way to go.
While watching the Newport County v Leicester City Cup game on Sunday the BBC reporter gave some interesting information.
Apparently Newport were liquidated in 1989 and then reformed later that year!
Interesting on their wiki page
Newport County AFC
1912; 107 years ago (founded)
June 1989; 29 years ago (reformed)
That would probably be a fair assessment of the club currently playing out of Ibrox.
They are obviously Rangers(Same ground,same songs,same sense of superiority,same lack of fiscal sense) They are just reformed although that cant be said for the characters who run them.
No one expects the Rangers Reformation
oh come on. Someone had to say it
A little off topic, but Alex Salmond is seeking judicial review of a decision by the Scottish Government, and the hearing is currently in progress at the Court of Session. (edit: he's just been successful in having the Scottish Government's actions deemed unlawful).
A few tweets from those in court give a flavour of when Judicial Review is applicable, which appear to have parallels with the desire of many football supporters to have decisions of the SFA and LNS set aside.
Here are the tweets
Based on the above, then I'd suggest that there was "apparent bias" on the part of the SFA and SPL in their dealings relating to the substance and the aftermath of RFC's use of EBTs and their non disclosure.
easyJambo 8th January 2019 at 11:23
'…Alex Salmond is seeking judicial review of a decision by the Scottish Government, and the hearing is currently in progress at the Court of Session. (edit: he's just been successful in having the Scottish Government's actions deemed unlawful).'
_______________________
eJ, I have just this minute been checking the rolls of court and saw that lord Pentland was dealing with Salmond's case today: had I been at home, I think I would have attended.
I remember that at one 'Rangers' matter I attended, one of the three judges ( I think Lord Drummond Young ) made the observation that the Courts had power to look at decisions made not only by state funded public bodies and organisations, but by 'private' bodies , because natural justice requires that due , impartial, process be followed. [I think he made the observation almost as an aside, to correct a view earlier expressed by a QC that there was no place for Judicial Review when the matter was a private matter relating only to the application of a private company's rules and regulations to its members]
It's interesting that the tweets today-and thanks for posting them-just mention 'decision-maker' , without further qualification.
I think that certainly the decision to award a UEFA licence must be open to judicial Review, for there appears to be solid evidence that the decision was made in spite of clear knowledge that lies had been told.
The LNS findings could certainly be challenged on the 'no sporting advantage' angle, as well as on the allegation that relevant facts had been withheld so as to misdirect LNS.
The 5-way Agreement would also fall to be reviewed by the Courts, as an agreement founded on an actual legal and commercial and sporting untruth, in such defiance of the facts as to suggest that there was indeed no proper, fair and balanced application of the Articles of Association of either the SFA or the then SPL and SFL.
Interesting times, and perhaps those of us who want the restoration of simple sporting truth to our game can take heart that the baddies may yet fail in their wishes that a Big and Ridiculous Lie should be forever perpetrated!
So 69 thumbs down to my last comment but I yet no one has offered a reason for this?
Darkbeforedawn 8th January 2019 at 13:52
So 69 thumbs down to my last comment but I yet no one has offered a reason for this?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I believe you already know the answer but here is my take on it anyway.
You believe Beaton merely made honest mistakes due to incompetence but that can't be the case given the number of incidents he saw but chose to ignore. If he is so incompetent he shouldn't be refereeing at Premiership level.
As for the SFA being merely incompetent that I can accept to some degree but underlying their thinking and actions is a bias toward Rangers and Celtic but mainly Rangers.
Looks to me that Level 5 could have scripted Timothy Weah's interview with BBC Scotland . All the right buzz words in all the right places .
Bill1903 8th January 2019 at 08:24
'….They are obviously Rangers(Same ground,same songs,same sense of superiority,same lack of fiscal sense)
________________________________
No, they are not. 'Rangers' did not 'reform'.
A new club was created, a new legal entity that is simply not the entity that is currently in Liquidation and which has not been even eligible to kick ball since 2012!
Just like Newport County, RFC of 1872 went out of business, and ceased to be eligible to play in Scottish Football on that account, like Gretna, and Airdrieonian, and Renton and and and and…"
"Despite reaching the Welsh Cup final, County were relegated from the Third Division in 1987 and in 1988 finished bottom of the Fourth Division with a mere 25 points, meaning that their 60-season stay in the Football League was over. They failed to finish their first season in the Conference and finally went out of business on 27 February 1989 with debts of £330,000. They were then expelled from the Conference for failing to fulfil their fixtures"
There no doubt many people in Newport who wish with all their heart that whatever is the Newport FC of today were indeed the Newport of Welsh Cup Final appearance.
There many thousands, perhaps even 500 000 000, of supporters of the Liquidated RFC of 1872 who fervently wish that their club had not died. But as the old saw has it, 'if wishes were horses beggars would ride'.
There are wicked men in football Governance who in fear and panic and to appease those supporters concocted a most ridiculous lie, laughable in its childish denial of truth, that a new club is a venerable old club because it kind of has the same name, and plays in the same stadium, and has the same type of c.ea.i.g ba.s.a.ds running it as ran the dead club.
And , children, there are even more wicked men in the Press who , for money's sake, or out of shameful partisanship , forsake any notion of being 'journalists', lie to them, and assure them that RFC of 1872 is not dead.
Seriously, let us not use words like 'the club reformed' as if it was the same club under a different ownership or coach or whatever.
RFC of 1872 did not reform. It died as a football club.
Darkbeforedawn 8th January 2019 at 06:32
This thanks for the reply dbd, but you have offered no opinion on why either the smsm, the sfa, or both, broke their own rules to ban mckenna…..then broke them back again, to admonish morelos. that was the crux of my question.
Ineptitude, a complete lack of consistency and making it up as they go along! The refs in Scotland seem to change their interpretation of the rules on a daily basis!
———————————————————————————————————-
I can well understand arguing with Sevvies over complete fantasies with no basis in reality. That happens a lot,
However when the transparency that you ask for, of events is apparent, you again deflect from the question. Our refs may indeed be all of the things you mention, or they may even be bent, bribed, bigoted, blind or bananas…….Who knows?
Transparency, i.e. being "see through". is readily available here and evidenced by both examples (McKenna v Morelos). showing the two positions to be incompatible and both cannot be correct.
It is this I refer to. The SFA response. Their interpretation of the rules !
Not arguments on Sevvy sites, referees decisions, or the price of cheese on the moon. but how two diametrically opposed positions can be interpreted from the same rule-book by our national association. Basically as a means to avoid investigating decisions made during a match between a club they have proven to have lied to previously, and a club with which they have a secret agreement with.
Nice enough guy that you appear to be DBD, surely even you can see how bad this looks.
At the very least, the SFA should,
(a), Forward an open public apology to Aberdeen FC, for over-stepping their authority, offering an "independent", investigation into how they got it so wrong. Or…
(b) Explain to Celtic FC how and when, the new "Aberdeen rule", came into place (for a trial period only). but had reverted back to the old rule 20 minutes before the Glasgow Derby.
That is the only honest out-ball for the SFA.
However, having witnessed first hand "Bryson's Law", which came into effect involving another club (before it's demise), that coincidentally, they also held a secret agreement with, I won't be holding my breath.
My honest opinion is that our governing bodies can never, and will never, adopt a policy of honesty, whilst a "secret agreement club" is involved directly, or indirectly in the process.
One, both, or all three of them has to go, (sorry, one has already gone), for the good of Scottish football. They are a massively corrupting influence upon our sport creating irreparable damage.
In your opinion, should it be one, or both?, and why? or why not even?
paddy malarkey 8th January 2019 at 14:29
'…Looks to me that Level 5 could have scripted Timothy Weah's interview with BBC Scotland . All the right buzz words in all the right places '
_________________________
Oh, how I long for the day when I hear this from any footballer:
" I am a professional footballer to trade.
I know that, even avoiding permanent testicular or other career-ending damage from criminal assault by despicable 'sportsmen', my earning capacity will reach its peak when I am only in my middle to late twenties and then begin to tail off season by season.
I am a realist. I go for jobs that will pay most and will at least not look bad on my cv because they are with clubs that are internationally known and , by and large, can mix it with some of the best in Europe.
No more than any football fan do I need to 'love' my employer.
As a professional looking after my career, I will give of my best not for the club, but for me. Just as the club will look after me not for my sake, but for theirs.
There's no romantic claptrap: this is business – very, very heavily spelled out in lengthy legal language, and I know that any club I choose to work for will use every legal trick in the book to enforce such contract as I sign, and my agent will be looking at every possible legal wrinkle that may increase my earnings and his percentage cut.'
How refreshing that would be!
And how much nearer the truth!
John, undoubted fitba' fan that you are, and like most, emotionally involved with your club, it is refreshing the realistic views you hold, (as almost all on here), and your ability to cast emotion aside, when reviewing situations, and interpret your thoughts into text, an admirable quality.
Thank you, and lang may yir lum reek.
For me its (b) everyday of the week. I was absolutely astonished that he was not retrospectively sent off. I personally think even he would have looked back on this and realised he made a mistake, not once but three times! But in order to save face he just dismissed it as ‘not warrant of a booking’. Which will lead to open season as every player will now think they can get away with murder. Also only in Scotland would a rule exist that as long as the referee ‘saw’ the incident, a separate panel of judges can’t overrule the decision?? A contentious decision like that should be put to a panel of 3 neutral judges whether the referee sees it or not.
Cheers DBD.
You are probably no worse than the rest of us, when occasionally we let the blinkers of club loyalty impede our vision.
In the main for most sets of fans, the blinkers are only obscuring trivialities. In the grand scheme of things nought more than litter bugging, when compared to the atrocities committed by Rangers(I.L.) and the SFA under the stewardship of Minty.
It has been exposed, for those who care to review the evidence, but continues to this day unacted upon, denied, and obscured behind rabble-rousing and point scoring.
I have said from the on-set, that the guilty now hide behind the loyalty, and emotional blackmail that the tribute club made possible, and that fans of that club are now in the way of achieving justice and having the guilty prosecuted.
That belief gets reinforced with every passing day and every crooked judgement.
The only way I see it being resolved is for Sevco fans to review the evidence and join the rest of Scottish fitba fans in seeking answers, and demanding that wrongs be righted.
I have no hope of that route ever coming to fruition, as the atrocities committed, are a bridge to far for pretendygers to face up to. It flies against the grain of everything they mistakenly thought the old club was. It is far too sore to admit to it publicly, and wear the humiliation via association.
I had no desire to deprive the multitude of decent bears with nothing to do on a Saturday, but to achieve justice now after such a manipulated propaganda campaign, I fear that is the only way.
Ironically, if fate was accepted at the time, tainted titles were voluntarily ceded, and Minty called out for the cheating crook he so obviously is, "Coming back stronger" would have been an excellent campaign, and Ibrox fans would have been respected and for the most part, probably even applauded.
That was never going to happen though, so long as Chuckles had money to make, and the establishment needed an establishment club, to hide behind, and distract from almost a billion pounds of missing bank cash, and where it is now. Money does not just vanish.
That, my good man, was the real reason for the need for a Sevco.
Us dumb schmuck fitba fans are just stuck in the middle of it, playing divided and conquered. The establishment have thrown us off our land, and it is now populated by sheep. Penned there bickering and bahhhhing, by an ankle snapping collie in the form of the SFA, and a billion quids worth of posts and barbed wire.
Corrupt official 8th January 2019 at 15:00
I can well understand arguing with Sevvies over complete fantasies with no basis in reality. That happens a lot,
…………..
Sevvies….I once seen them called Hurty’s.
How long before they start a petition to get the word sevvies banned? (it is offensive or something)
Or how long before others want it in the Dictionary?
Cluster One 8th January 2019 at 18:19
Corrupt official 8th January 2019 at 15:00 I can well understand arguing with Sevvies over complete fantasies with no basis in reality. That happens a lot, ………….. Sevvies….I once seen them called Hurty’s. How long before they start a petition to get the word sevvies banned?
———————————————————————————————-
lol. Slim Jim did try several months ago, but he lost his typing finger when I explained why.
A leading referee accused senior footie figures of pushing them to the verge of revolt, insisting "A strike won't be far away"
PUSH US & WE'RE OFF
Banner headline
………………………..
They tried that blackmail before.
Scottish referees strike to go ahead despite SFA proposals
The Scottish Football Association will press ahead with plans to bring in foreign referees after the country’s top officials refused to back down over strike action.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2010/nov/25/scottish-referees-strike-sfa-proposals
……………..
Instead of walkout warnings and threats of strike action. (Let’s face it, who gives a feck if they do)
Anyway instead of taking the hump why not. Yes you, yes you the refs ask the clubs and the governing bodies what is it you have been advised to do that you are doing so wrong, why are you so bad at our jobs and why are you getting everything so wrong.
So instead of taking the hump and threatening strike action and walkouts, try and learn and work with people to see what you the refs are doing wrong and get it fixed, that way you won’t be labelled hopeless, rubbish, incompetent.
You know you are rubbish, we know you are rubbish, so if you don’t want us to bring in foreign refs to do your jobs, look for help to improve your skill. If not don’t strike or walk away just resign and do the whole of scottish football a favour.
Corrupt official 8th January 2019 at 18:32 ………….. I missed that
To all football fans out there the very spirit of our game is under more threat now then ever before as witnessed at the weekend ,the four officials at the rangers celtic game have all stuck a knife in all our backes, to say they saw all the incidents and to say they seen nothing wrong can only mean that they are strangers to the truth and are acting dishonestly to gain rangers an advantage.If these people and those in power are allowed to continue no team will get a fair game and fair treatment,What happened be for 2012 was bad enough this will take corruption to a new level where illegal acts are seen around the world and condemned but not by Scotlands so called football officials.
It might help if the head of refereeing , with the help of video footage of the contentious decisions , explained why the challenges were perfectly acceptable , and contrast them with the Scott McKenna decision , which was also deemed not to be a foul but was punished retrospectively . There is something far wrong if they don't know why they are being vilified .
paddy malarkey 8th January 2019 at 19:23
It might help if the head of refereeing , with the help of video footage of the contentious decisions , explained why the challenges were perfectly acceptable , and contrast them with the Scott McKenna decision , which was also deemed not to be a foul but was punished retrospectively . There is something far wrong if they don't know why they are being vilified .
====================================
Therein lies the problem. They are unwilling to admit any wrongdoing at all. If what you describe is not blatant wrongdoing, then what is?
I read a tweet this morning which I immediately dismissed as wishful thinking. It posited that given the dire finances down Ibrox way another administration event was happening soon. This evening I picked up on another tweet which perhaps illustrates the strategic outlook of the teams currently first and second in the SPFL. The combined ages of Weah and Bayo is only slightly more than Defoe’s. Time will tell if old age and treachery will triumph over youth and skill.
In these modern times of multiculturalism, diversity and social inclusion, I wonder if this is the root cause of the failings at The Scottish Referees' Association?
Mibbees the refs' ranks just don't reflect the diversity of Scotland's population in 2019?
I'm sure they could quite easily produce the demographics amongst e.g. the Grade 1 refs ?
Any – and every – modern, progressive organisation would actively seek to develop a diverse workforce to aid continuous improvement – amongst many worthwhile reasons.
Recruiting mostly from a rather 'restricted' demographic – e.g.in terms of ethnicity, social background and geographical location – just might produce groupthink, where individuals simply cannot recognise nor anticipate problems within their own organisation.
And regardless of how blindingly obvious their failings appear to those looking in…