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?
Who said Scottish football was dull? The prospect of a strike by referees pales into insignificance when the President of Liberia is planning to come and watch his son play in Scotland.
https://twitter.com/paulsimone12/status/1082693728526090240?s=21
All the discussions and blogs among supporters is not going to change anything if the clubs won't speak out and remove the worse corrupt officials in the governing bodies. The referees who cheat do so knowing they will not only get away with it but be rewarded with a big National semi or final. Hearts and Kilmarnock, after a token protest, accepted punishment for their Managers complaining about a referee. Neither stood up and compared their manager to SG not being rebuked and banned for a similar if not worse offence.
Then there is the silence from Aberdeen over the different treatment of McKenna compared with that of Morelos.
Celtic have made a somewhat mild protest but as we know nothing will be done.The clubs need to get together and put an end to the dirty tricks. Does anyone really think this will happen?
Ballyargus@22.15
The silence of Aberdeen over the McKenna result in the light of the leniency shown to Morelos is a concern. One can only speculate as to why since the lack of consistency is clear for all to see. At the risk of starting a rumour, might it be that Mr McKenna will be heading to Glasgow in the not too distant future?
" To: info@scottishfa.co.uk;
Subject: F.A.O. Hala Ousta / Diversity & Inclusion Manager.
Hello Hala,
as you seem to be the relevant SFA contact, and as I am a long term Scottish football supporter, could you please provide diversity statistics for referees officiating at SPL games please?
Purpose is that I am having debates about Diversity in Scottish football governance and these stat's would be most helpful.
I am presuming that as an organisation receiving public funding that there are no issues with providing this – anonymised – information?
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
[StevieBC] "
Regarding the diversity of Scottish Referees. It is often said that the majority are Freemasons. I have absolutely no idea if this is the case, but there is much chat seen on message boards suggesting this is certainly the case with many, even going to the point of naming the lodges they belong to. In a free world there is nothing wrong with being a Freemason, but IF a majority of Referees are members I always to go back to a concern I had a good number of years ago. I worked beside (and got an very well with) a senior Freemason who was also a Rangers season ticket holder. He made great pains to stress there were no barriers to membership, but could never offer an explanation as to why all the other Rangers season ticket holders in our place of employment were also Freemasons. He denied that there was any chance this would ever influence their chances of making a fair judgment in life, and even went on to say that Freemasons could never lie. So my concern is that with a clear link between Freemasonry and Rangers (and only a fool would deny that is the case) where on earth does it leave us if those people are also Referees, but genuinely believe they could never act out of bias, and could never lie? Oh what a tangled web they weave!
StevieBC
I doubt the refereeing cohort reflects national demographics any more than the journalistic profession or politicians. Or for that matter club officials. Fans and players are the only sections of the football world that come close.
https://twitter.com/frpaulstone/status/1082918962139156480?s=21
Word of the day- “hiatus”
Ex Ludo 9th January 2019 at 08:57
https://twitter.com/frpaulstone/status/1082918962139156480?s=21
Word of the day- “hiatus”
———————————————————————————-
I heard he didn't have the stomach to stay.
'Ballyargus 8th January 2019 at 22:17
…Hearts and Kilmarnock, after a token protest, accepted punishment for their Managers complaining about a referee. Neither stood up and compared their manager to SG not being rebuked and banned for a similar if not worse offence.
Then there is the silence from Aberdeen over the different treatment of McKenna compared with that of Morelos…'
———————————————————-
Therein is one of the failings of the SFA & its Judicial Protocols.
Each case is treated as unique, perhaps to give a notion of 'balance': there seems to be no place for precedent (or common sense) which, in my opinion at least, creates an impression of bias.
"RE: F.A.O. Hala Ousta / Diversity & Inclusion Manager.
From: [D&I Mgr deputy] Wed 2019-01-09 9:09 AM
Inbox To: [StevieBC]
Thank you for your email.
Due to GDPR regulations we cannot give you the numbers in regards to referees within SPFL matches, this is due to the small number of officials who are placed within these matches and therefore the sample size is too small and the ability to identify these referees is higher.
I can say across Scotland 5% of referees within Scottish Football regards themselves as having a disability.
We do not gather information in regards to Ethnic Minority as this does not affect their ability to perform their duties and does not require additional support or adjustments.
Thank you "
===============
Fair play: a very prompt response… and the only reply I have ever received from the generic, SFA email address.
And we all know now that the SFA has Diversity & Inclusion resources at Hampden.
Well, according to the DR and its 'Exclusive unnamed source' today…
There really isn't a refereeing problem after all.
It's apparently all the fault of that new Compliance Officer lady.
Truly desperate stuff from the DR / Referees’ Association / SFA?
StevieBC 9th January 2019 at 11.28".
"….Fair play: a very prompt response… and the only reply I have ever received from the generic, SFA email address…..
And we all know now that the SFA has Diversity & Inclusion resources at Hampden."
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Good initiative, StevieBC.
I find myself smiling as I read elsewhere that the Funding for the Football Equity Officers has come from the Scottish Government’s CashBack for Communities Fund which takes funds recovered from the proceeds of crime ..
It would be a beautiful irony if the Res12 issue were to see certain people in the SFA eventually being charged with and convicted serious financial crime while in office.
StevieBC 9th January 2019 at 11:34
Whether or not you take the Daily Record report with a pinch of salt or not, it does appear to be the case that managers, the refs themselves and fans are all unhappy with the application of the rules of the game in Scotland and the subsequent confusing decisions from review panels.
Everyone needs to get around a table and sort this obvious mess out, and quick.
The Scottish Grade 1 referees hiatus in Spain this year has been cancelled however it is expected that the Compliance Officer will overturn this decision on appeal.
wottpi 9th January 2019 at 12:26
'….Everyone needs to get around a table and sort this obvious mess out, and quick. '
___________________
Sadly, though, the last time the powerful people in the SFA , SPL and SFL sat round a table to deal with a major problem, namely the unprecedented, decade long sports cheating of RFC of 1872, they sold the soul of truth and their personal integrity, by concocting not only a lie, but a ridiculously and insultingly stupid, stupid lie.
The not-so-powerful people ( the majority of clubs in membership of one or other of the then league associations and therefore in membership of the SFA) did S.F.A!
Like the mutineers on the 'Bounty', our individual clubs, through their acceptance of the untruth put out by their respective boards, acceded to wrongdoing themselves.
And are in no moral position even to begin to command the respect of supporters of their own clubs let alone of other clubs and of sportspeople generally.
UNLESS they first force through the rescission of the 5-Way Agreement , and declare publicly that TRFC Ltd is NOT now, and never could have been, RFC of 1872 they have no hope of running an honest Sport and of being accepted as running an honest sport.
Get that sorted, hunt out the creators and pushers of that Agreement, and then they may be trusted to look, as honest administrators of a sport,at the other serious operational issues around trust and belief in the integrity of our sport, and of our referees and of our club boards.
Phil latest.
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2019/01/09/industrial-action-and-impartiality/
Jingso.Jimsie 9th January 2019 at 10:54
'Ballyargus 8th January 2019 at 22:17
…Hearts and Kilmarnock, after a token protest, accepted punishment for their Managers complaining about a referee. Neither stood up and compared their manager to SG not being rebuked and banned for a similar if not worse offence.
Then there is the silence from Aberdeen over the different treatment of McKenna compared with that of Morelos…'
———————————————————-
Therein is one of the failings of the SFA & its Judicial Protocols.
Each case is treated as unique, perhaps to give a notion of 'balance': there seems to be no place for precedent (or common sense) which, in my opinion at least, creates an impression of bias.
=================================================
Interesting points which yet again demonstrates why the SFA is not fit for purpose. They appoint a legal "expert" as CO to run their quasi judicial disciplinary system but yet leave out one of the keystones of a fair system! Mental.
Bogs Dollox 9th January 2019 at 14:17
'….They appoint a legal "expert" as CO to run their quasi judicial disciplinary system but yet leave out one of the keystones of a fair system! ..'
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Just as they appointed a retired judge, [with no judicial power to punish falsehood in 'testimony'] withheld relevant information from him and also allowed their 'expert' to give farcical evidence about players being 'eligible' when they were not in fact 'eligible' because their 'ineligibility' only begins when it is discovered, so that during all the time before it is discovered that they were in fact 'ineligible', they were 'eligible'.
We have some chookies in the legal profession, right enough, whether employed by newish football clubs or by football governance bodies.
https://twitter.com/elliotr1971/status/1082903791731728384?s=21
Hadn’t seen any of this before. How to kill domestic football in one fell swoop.
Hard to believe that an anonymous Chinese club would splurge £35m on a West Ham star:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/46816340
I wonder if the BBC just made that up cos someone wanted the club to appear successful and that it was thriving financially?
Fishnish, if a bid from China can be invented to try to improve an expected/hoped for offer from ManU, why not invent it? If TRFC* can get away with it and any journalist querying the bid can be forced to apologise for querying it, then why not? Will West Ham get away with inventing a bid and not needing to prove it?
nawlite 9th January 2019 at 19:12
If TRFC* can get away with it and any journalist querying the bid can be forced to apologise for querying it, then why not?
……………
The famous “I seen the verbal bid”
Sometimes i think these journalists believe we are all the gullible ibrox support.
Or where the journalists all so gullible themselves to believe the Murrays the whyte’s the Green’s and the king, that they think well us journalists fell for it, why can’t we follow in the footsteps and hope not just the ibrox support will fall for our rubbish but the wider scottish football support
Celtic and Rangers be aware!
A poster on the Jambos Kickback message board used an avatar of Christophe Berra at the start of the season. He got injured and was out for a coupe of months.
He decided to change his avatar to Steven Naismith. Sadly he too got injured and was out for a couple of months.
Rather than risk another injury to a Hearts player, he changed his avatar once again, but this time to Hibs' Martin Boyle. Unfortunately for Hibs he got himself injured playing for Australia and is now out for the season.
The latest choice of avatar is a picture of Scott Brown and Alfredo Morelos. I'm sure that he wishes no serious harm to either player, but be warned.
I just read a job advert there where the SFA are advertising for Equality & Diversity Advisory Board Members (x3). Yes, the SCOTTISH FA are actually talking about Equality & Diversity. There are still eleven and a bit months of the year to go, but there will surely not be a bigger piss take this year!
I have just read a Twitter thread by @SPLBanter which gives an insight into the view of a referee on the disciplinary processes.
As a footnote to the final claim, @laurasportlaw retweeted the following from her company account:
I know a current match official who I speak to every week or two and I think he would concur with much of the above. The system is clearly broken and either the SFA or perhaps the "big clubs" appear unwilling to fix it, despite their recent protestations.
The shambolic SFA viewed from a different perspective…
If you could relocate the SFA organisation to another country – like the USA for example – its existence would probably be curtailed by the costs of endless civil suits raised against it related to discrimination, cheating, restriction of trade, etc…
And not to mention numerous criminal cases related to Corrupt Practices, and even Racketeering.
But in Bonny Scotland… hee haw.
Thanks for that easyjambo @ 11:47
I tend to agree with @laurasportlaw: that the bit in there about "big clubs" threatening to take matters to CAS sounds like bo**ocks.
EasyJambo on 10/01/2019 @ 11:47
==============
A Grade 1 official of my acquaintance discussed the issue of clubs using lawyers in the disciplinary process with me last year. To help further debate he was quite specific that the 'big clubs' who do this are more than just two from Glasgow. I feel it's worthwhile pointing that out before we are reminded of the footballing Utopia we would have without those two clubs.
In my opinion, and in alphabetical order, 'big' Scottish clubs are Aberdeen, Celtic, Hearts, Hibs and Rangers.
We are less than 30 hours away from the next checkpoint in Dave King's undertaking to the Court of Session, in that by 5.30pm on Friday 11 January he is required to have the cleared funds in place with a UK institution.
I don't believe that confirmation of this needs to be made public at this time, but a public confirmation statement provided by the "cash confirmer" should be expected at some stage.
However, that might not happen before 25 January, the date by which King is actually required to make the offer.
If there is to be further procrastination and delay, then this is the point that it is most likely to occur, as it requires the exchange control authorities in South Africa to approve the transfer of funds. It would be relatively easy for King to submit the bare bones of a funds transfer request, then for the authorities to ask for more information, only for King to take his time to respond to any such request.
EJ, it seems that there are 2 distinct areas that the SMSM seems keen to conflate;
&
If the quality of the refereeing was of a high standard, then in an ideal world, the review process would be rarely used, IMO.
Even if the review process was fantastic, it wouldn't have any bearing on how Beaton totally messed up the officiating of – possibly – the most anticipated SPL game of the season.
Would prefer if the focus was on the performance of the ref – and linesmen and 4th official – of the TRFC v CFC game dealt with in isolation as the priority.
Seems like the SFA spin is to confuse and conflate…and definitely not answer fans' queries on Beaton's incredibly 'poor' decision making throughout this high profile match.
easyJambo 10th January 2019 at 11:47
That is an interesting piece and reflects something I come across in my line of business.
That being, that professionals within an organisation attempt to interpret and follow regulations and guidelines as handed down by the controlling authorities but the lawyers from that self same organisation, who have no particular knowledge of the subject or the underlying intention behind the guidance and regulations, then argue a totally different standpoint if the going gets tough in terms of non-compliance and they need to squirm out of their responsibilities.
As intimated the problem is how regulations and guidelines are worded in the first place because lawyers will, without a second thought, argue black is white on behalf of their clients regardless of the wider outcome and consequences.
There is a relatively straight forward way of backing up the intended interpretation of the rules, rather than a quasi legal form that leaves it open to alternative interpretation. In the definitions section you state that words and phases used in the document should be read as in "common speak" (i.e. as understood by the members of any panel) and/or as expressed in meetings held when discussing the implementation of changes to the rules.
For example the "excessive force or brutality" requirement for red card offences is clearly open to interpretation by smart lawyers. However, I'm sure that the intention was that offences such as kicking out at an opponent, on or off the ball, should be seen as being both excessive and an act of brutality. I'm sure that would have been discussed (and recorded in minutes) when FIFA provided the change of wording to the rules.
easyJambo 10th January 2019 at 12:11
'…It would be relatively easy for King to submit the bare bones of a funds transfer request, then for the authorities to ask for more information, only for King to take his time to respond to any such request.'
========================
He could try that, certainly.
But I think King himself shot himself in the foot when he quite unnecessarily asserted that he had lots of experience of dealing with the SA treasury rules on shifting money overseas.
Lady Wolffe ( or whichever judge) will be apt to take a very dim view of any attempt by the 'experienced' King to make a balls of his request to the SA authorities in order to give them cause to seek further information, and thus spin the process out.
I imagine that King will be in soapy bubble tomorrow ( or later today, Brisbane time) if the TOP people report that they have received no proof by 5.30 pm that funds are available in the UK.
( does the Court itself diary these things, and Court Officials chase them up? Or is it up to the TOP to tell the Court if King doesn't provide them with proof that he has got the funds available in the UK?)
Dunderheid 10th January 2019 at 11:58 I tend to agree with @laurasportlaw: that the bit in there about "big clubs" threatening to take matters to CAS sounds like bo**ocks.
____________
Not necessarily so, if everyone involved is prepared to go along with it, and anyone who might object is unaware of the CAS position on the matter.
Not saying that the tweeted info is correct, just that there are so many inexplicable decisions that anything is possible with the SFA. I would have thought, though, that there would have been something whereby all the clubs, and players, agree to abide by the laws of the game regardless of how a civil court/CAS might view the details of any onfield offence.
Allyjambo @ 14:44
The quotes from the phantom referee cited on the @SPLBanter thread are at best hearsay, at worst just plausible-sounding no-names-no-pack-drill cattle excrement.
e.g. '… he is of the opinion [and i stress OPINION] that the compliance officer and folk involved in the disciplinary procedure are intimidated by QC from the “big clubs” who will argue their clubs case based around the exact wording of interpretation of the law. as he said as far as he was concerned from a footballing/refereeing point of view it was a clear sending off. but from a lawyers point of view it is ambiguous and when they start threatening to take cases to CAS they back down. part of the problem is clearly the vagueness in the wording of some of the laws. as it allows lawyers to take advantage of what football people would see as perfectly sensible decisions.'
Nobody is going to challenge match refereeing decisions via CAS.
To me this is merely deflectionary nonsense: 'the big bad compliance officer and 'folk involved in the disciplinary procedure' did it.'
Seriously?
John Clark 10th January 2019 at 14:22
( does the Court itself diary these things, and Court Officials chase them up? Or is it up to the TOP to tell the Court if King doesn't provide them with proof that he has got the funds available in the UK?)
=====================================
Lady Wolffe did diarise a few dates. 28 January for her to be advised informally of the current state of play, 29 January for a "by order" hearing to formally close matters if King has complied and 4 February if he hasn't complied, in which case he is required to attend in person.
I'm sure that the TOP will be quick to petition the court if King has missed a deadline.
Dunderheid 10th January 2019 at 15:33
I wasn't suggesting there was anything in it, just pointing out that just because something doesn't make sense doesn't mean the SFA won't be up to using it as a method of getting the result they want. I think we've seen more than enough evidence of that happening to ever doubt that it could happen.
“Finland forward Riku Riski refuses to play match in Qatar for 'ethical reasons'“
The above is from the Guardian. I couldn’t get a link but it is available online. Ethics in football, whatever next? Mr King playing ball with a court order?
Aye,
I also read that, Ex Ludo.
Here's the link:
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/jan/08/finland-riku-riski-refuses-to-play-sweden-match-in-qatar-ethical-reasons
If the Clubs were seriously concerned about the differing treatment of say McKenna vs Morelos they would fund a QC to investigate how the Laws of the Game can be interpreted so differently.
It is therefore obvious that most of them don't really care. People like Auldhead and most of us that read and help to fund this site would raise the necessary funds for a review but it's absolutely ridiculous that the Clubs do do this themselves.
Do they not care that this one team is ruling Scottish football?
It seems that the Treasury are going to review the "loan charge" arrangements in respect of outstanding EBTs, which is due to come into force in April. It might help a few who are considering bankruptcy.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tax/income-tax/tax-avoidance-crackdown-reviewed-amid-fears-could-bankrupt-contractors/
Ballyargus, a QC you say?
But how would the SFA guarantee the output they're looking for…?
But you're right in that an 'independent' third party could be engaged now so the SFA can gain control of the narrative – and to close down the Beaton story.
Quieten down the plebs – I mean us paying supporters – kick the Beaton fallout into the very long grass, [not Tynecastle], and CFC and other clubs can just wait for due process to be completed.
…mibbees by the summer!
They must still be dozing at Hampden to miss this glaring, open goal.
Fishnish@17.38
Thanks for the link. I’m wondering just how many other players will find themselves in the same ethical quandary by the time the Qatar WC comes around?
Evening all.
Fishnish,ExLudo:
Wrt conditions for workers building the stadia,the Mirror recently carried a report by a Trade Union in Norway claiming that if a minutes silence was held for every worker who has died building these stadiums then the 1st 44 games would be played in silence.Not 44 minutes,44 games.
Is this really a price worth paying?.
Torrrejohnboy
I worked in the Middle east for many years.
The conditions for 3rd world workers are the same in every country in the Gulf. Horrendous.
The only question from ex-pats was, how much had the Qataris paid for the tournament?
There is no doubt that Scottish football is corrupt. But FIFA? Corrupt to the very core to the tune of hundreds of millions.
The Qatari world cup should be boycotted by every nation. A blind man on a galloping horse can see that it was spawned from corruption.
But it will go ahead as planned with full coverage from the BBC.
I was in Libya the week before Cameron, Sarkozi and Clinton bombed a wonderful country into the stone age. I lost many friends to those psychopathic serial killers. Obama will go down as the most murderous President the USA has ever had. A real nasty piece of work. A true psychopath.
The UK and the US supply the bombs and planes to destroy the lives of the people of Yemen. Our government is responsible for death, famine, malnutrition, disease and the destruction of the basic amenities necessary for life.
They can shove their World Cup up their erchies.
Gutted for Andy Murray. A wonderful ride he took us all on over the past 10 years. A genuine sporting great endowed with an abundance of integrity. Rare.
Big Pink 11th January 2019 at 01:15
'..Gutted for Andy Murray. ..'
__________________________
There was a 'discussion' of whether Murray is in the same league as the Big Three-Nadal, Federer, Djokovic -on a Queensland FM Radio station this morning (it is now after 10.00 pm here on Friday 11 Jan) while I was driving over the Gateway Bridge.
One chap said that while Murray is one of the Big Four, he's not on the same level as the other three.
When reminded that Murray had won Wimbledon etc , and had been knighted , the chap laughed, called Murray a 'pom' and was knighted because he is a 'pom'.
When he was reminded that Murray is a Scot, the guy laughed again , and said , 'he's a pom when he plays at Wimbledon because English tennis is dire and the English need someone to cheer for".
[ On my son's bookshelves there is an 'Australian Pocket Oxford Dictionary. (You'd need a bloody big pocket, mate!) I looked up 'pom' and was amazed at its supposed derivation. From 'pomegranate' as pronounced to rhyme with 'emigrant'. Never knew that was where it had come from, although I knew it was a half-derogatory term for English emigrants to Oz after the war and into the late 1960s/early 70s]
My post of 12.24 (UK time) refers.
What a contrast there is between the Murray knight of tennis sportsmanship and personal honour and integrity , and that other knight ( what was he knighted for?) who is without honour in the sport of football, widely regarded as having being no more than a lying , cheating wretched skunk of a 'businessman.' prepared to subvert a sport by lying to the governance bodies consistently for a decade.
And what a parallel between that lying knight and the lying 'commoners' of the Governance bodies, who knew , or ought to have known if they had bothered their ars.s to look the obvious in the face, that lies were being told to them.
Does the Scottish Referees' Association have a 'Code of Conduct', if only applicable to Category 1 refs?
I'm sure many Bampots will recognise this: at various employers in my past they held mandatory induction courses.
Part of the content was basically don't get pissed in bars and shout out about your employer and it's strategy / plans etc.
You're not on the clock so enjoy yourself – but be professionally discreet.
Common sense advice which we accept.
Similarly, it would seem professionally prudent for any Category 1 refs to avoid visiting any hostelries after a top level game, or even the day after.
To avoid potential drunken confrontations, unflattering pictures in the media etc…
Common sense advice.
WRT Beaton;
1) He is consistent.
He showed poor judgement throughout the derby game.
He showed poor judgement by visiting a bar after the game.
2) He arguably brought the Refs' Association into disrepute.
He was photographed / reported as imbibing in an obvious TRFC pub.
Especially after such a controversial game, why would any ref feel totally relaxed and comfortable about going out for a drink – and in a footy pub no less?
Booze aside, the optics don't reflect at all well on Scottish refs as a whole.
JC @ 13.10 11 Jan 2019
Re Murray – he got his Knighthood for "services to Scottish industry" in 2007 courtesy of Gordon Brown no doubt on the recommendation of his (Murray's) chum the Noble Lord Grossart – if that appointment has turned out to be seriously flawed & just to show both major political parties are capable of crap appointments I give you Baroness Mone of Mayfair appointed (Christ knows what for) by David Cameron .
Anyway , what is that whirring noise – is it the sound of squillions of SARand being converted into £'s & winging their way to a UK bank account ?
Naegreetin@14.48
Someone in an earlier post suggested that 17.30 GMT today is the deadline for the man with the Rand.
https://twitter.com/chris_jack89/status/1083632498536574976?s=21
No one could have predicted this.
The SFA has issued a Q&A on the disciplinary / compliance officer processes.
It seems to fail on the point that there is no retrospective claims process, if a referee has seen an incident, but fails to take appropriate disciplinary action.
easyJambo 11th January 2019 at 18:26
It seems to fail on the point that there is no retrospective claims process, if a referee has seen an incident, but fails to take appropriate disciplinary action.
I wonder if the referee involved in the latest fiasco knew this , or if any action will be taken to rectify this anomoly .
easyJambo 10th January 2019 at 12:11
26 1 Rate This
We are less than 30 hours away from the next checkpoint in Dave King’s undertaking to the Court of Session, in that by 5.30pm on Friday 11 January he is required to have the cleared funds in place with a UK institution.
I don’t believe that confirmation of this needs to be made public at this time, but a public confirmation statement provided by the “cash confirmer” should be expected at some stage.
However, that might not happen before 25 January, the date by which King is actually required to make the offer.
………………….
In the meantime i expect loads of squirrels.
easyJambo 11th January 2019 at 18:26
4 0 Rate This
The SFA has issued a Q&A on the disciplinary / compliance officer processes.
……………….
Pressure mounting.
Since it's quiet , a wee bit of Scottish football history , courtesay of the Guardian . I wonder which club the poster follows ?
FacebookTwitterPinterest
Stade Louis II, in Monaco. Photograph: Michael Steele/Getty Images
Knowledge archive
“Milan legend (well, you know, tackles, tackles and more tackles) Gennaro Gattuso was sent off for Palermo in his first game as a manager,” stated Bogdan Kotarlic in 2013. “I know that it is not something completely unusual for a tyro manager to be sent off but I would like to know who were the others?”
Luckily, Eugene McGinley was on hand with the answer. “Graeme Souness was dismissed in his first game as player-manager for the old Rangers,” he wrote. “August 1986. Not surprisingly, his tackle was closer to an assault on Hibs player George McCluskey and a melee ensued in which virtually every player on the field became involved – all except for Scottish international keeper Alan Rough, who later admitted he was too lazy to run up and get involved. Souness followed this up with another dismissal in the Glasgow derby with Celtic the following August.”
And a nice picture of a stadium .
A bit of a dent in Kilmarnock's title challenge , with Greg Stewart recalled and Jordan Jones neutered . An opportunity for a young tyro like Kris Boyd , perhaps ?
paddy malarkey 11th January 2019 at 21:04 An opportunity for a young tyro like Kris Boyd , perhaps ? ……………….. At his age and one who played for the old rangers and one who was an EBT beneficiarie, I would expect he is a shoe-in for a move to ibrox this january transfer window.
This SFA's "SFA Q&A" should be followed up with a presser.
Unless they don't want to be asked any further, awkward questions – which the supporters might like to be asked?
If this is the SFA's method of grabbing control of the narrative – after 2 weeks – it's rather 'Traynor-esque' in its pitifulness.
IMO.
easyJambo 11th January 2019 at 18:26
The SFA has issued a Q&A on the disciplinary / compliance officer processes.
It seems to fail on the point that there is no retrospective claims process, if a referee has seen an incident, but fails to take appropriate disciplinary action.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So why was the fella McKenna punished retrospectively by the CO for a 1980's type challenge(I'm not objecting to the challenge Btw it was legit because its a mans game).
Too many playing the game in blue and silver slippers these days.
Bogs Dollox
It's a person's game now . Assault is assault , regardless of sex .
Bogs Dollox 11th January 2019 at 23:29
So why was the fella McKenna punished retrospectively by the CO for a 1980's type challenge(I'm not objecting to the challenge Btw it was legit because its a mans game).
===========================================
https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/media/4401/written-reasons-scott-mckenna-aberdeen-fc.pdf
You would think that the various betting companies involved in sponsoring Scottish football would be putting pressure on the SFA and the Scottish Referees' Association?
Can't be good for business when the punters can clearly see for themselves that Scottish referees are free to unduly influence games – and whilst the SFA strains to look the other way.
The absurd notion that betting companies could help to enforce a long overdue cleanup in Scottish football… is possibly one of the few viable options available.
StevieBC 11th January 2019 at 22:03
This SFA's "SFA Q&A" should be followed up with a presser.
Unless they don't want to be asked any further, awkward questions – which the supporters might like to be asked?
====================================
It has been alleged by several people that every one of the four officials in the last Rangers v Celtic game is a Rangers supporter, with at least one being an ex-season ticket holder. I would like to ask the SFA why they think such situations are okay, especially when our close neighbours, who are one of the 'big five' Football Associations, go out of their way to avoid similar circumstances. I have no idea whether some Referees do act out of bias, but it is an inescapable fact that bias by decision makers plays a huge part in Society. Corruption at various levels in many areas of life is never out of the news. Why do the SFA think it is impossible for bias to play a part in how some games are officiated? An adult debate on this matter is required, and if the SFA can't ensure that Referees have no conflict of interest, then they need to bring them in from elsewhere.
I am at a loss to understand why a referees strike is a threat.
Get referees in from elsewhere, fan-tastic.
Referee strike you say………………
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_JOGmXpe5I
Ok,fellow Bampots might recognise this ;
As a footy obsessed kid, I had ambitions to get to the top.
After a few major injuries i realised it was not for me, and I lost the heart to play on in a serious capacity.
Some of the guys I played with at that time did 'OK' e.g. like Andy Walker who i didn't rate and those who team mates who i did impress like Ian Durrant who I certainly did rate as a 16 year old team mate.
But when I/we complain about cheating, I always remember my own childhood. If, during a kickabout an opposition player complained it was their throw -in or by kick, I would happily defer and loudly tell my own team mates that we don't need to cheat to win.
40 years on I stand firm in my beliefs.
The SFA are cheats.
Cheats never win.
Am I missing something…?
StevieBC 13th January 2019 at 02:23
Ok,fellow Bampots might recognise this ;
As a footy obsessed kid, I had ambitions to get to the top.
After a few major injuries i realised it was not for me, and I lost the heart to play on in a serious capacity.
Some of the guys I played with at that time did 'OK' e.g. like Andy Walker who i didn't rate and those who team mates who i did impress like Ian Durrant who I certainly did rate as a 16 year old team mate.
But when I/we complain about cheating, I always remember my own childhood. If, during a kickabout an opposition player complained it was their throw -in or by kick, I would happily defer and loudly tell my own team mates that we don't need to cheat to win.
40 years on I stand firm in my beliefs.
The SFA are cheats.
Cheats never win.
Am I missing something…?
_______________________________–
I think you are missing the fact that cheats do win, and often.
It's a lovely thought to think that cheats might never win (and what a wonderful tool sayings like that are for cheaters), or even that they are always caught out, but neither case is true. And when they are caught out it's often too late to do anything about it, or, as we have seen so often over the past few years, even when caught out the anticipated fallout from trying to bring justice to the table is too great to face for those who should be righting the wrong.
Maybe you've forgotten the times when it was the big lad who did the cheating, the big lad with mates…they tended to get away with cheating – until they met someone (perhaps a cheat, himself) bigger than them.
The best we can really say about cheaters is, not that they never win, but that, when caught out, they are never respected. Sadly, cheaters seldom worry about whether or not they are respected, and probably don't understand the concept of self respect either.
I do wish, though, that cheaters genuinely never win, or better still, didn't exist.
The refs’ allegiance thing is actually more of a clubs other than Rangers and Celtic issue than a Glasgow derby one. Given the narrow demographic of the ref profession coupled with the fanbase share of the big two, it’s hardly surprising that the rest feel they get it tight when facing either.
The Rolls of Court had this entry last Thursday (10th Jan), under
" Lord Beckett"
Petition Dept
Starred Motion
to be allocated
60 mins A413/16 David Whitehouse &c v James Wolffe QC"
I checked Friday's roll earlier today but there was still no date given as far as I could see.
In the list of cases to do with 'the saga' generally ,and with individuals variously involved ( a list which in large part I owe to eJ's much more exact and careful record-keeping than my own, and his readiness to share it,) is further business on Whitehouse's claim against the Lord Advocate, relating to Lord Malcolm's decisions in September 2018.
The Administrators ( how much fun we had with 'Duff and Duffer'!) had any and all criminal charges against them abandoned by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. They are therefore entitled to pursue civil actions for , in their view, wrongful arrest and detention etc etc.
My beef with them is that they signed the 5-Way agreement, as representing the still-in-existence Rangers of 1872, as if to lend credence to the lie that somehow , the share that RFC of 1872 had in the then SPL was theirs to pass on to Charles Green as if he were simply a new owner of RFC of 1872!
Charles Green did not buy Rangers of 1872-even in the dastardly way that CW had bought it.
No, he bought a bundle of assets from a club that Duff and Duffer were not capable of saving from Liquidation, and therefore did not and could not
legally buy all the player registrations,
legally call the club he founded as 'SevcoScotland Ltd' in 2012 'Rangers Football Club' of 1872
but had to name it, cunningly and deviously enough, 'Rangers FC Ltd'
as being a completely new sporting entity, which had to apply as a brand new football club for membership of a league in order to get membership of the SFA
And had to have the permission of the Administrators of Rangers of 1872 to borrow players from RFC 1872 in order to play , as Team 12, its first match in professional football!
Criminals they may not be: sports cheating facilitators they certainly were-in my opinion.
And personally, if they lose their actions against the Chief Constable and the Lord Advocate, I will not weep for them.
Big Pink 13th January 2019 at 10:20
The refs’ allegiance thing is actually more of a clubs other than Rangers and Celtic issue than a Glasgow derby one. Given the narrow demographic of the ref profession coupled with the fanbase share of the big two, it’s hardly surprising that the rest feel they get it tight when facing either.
—————————————————————————————————————
The thing is, it's more than "feel" though BP..
I can't speak for other club's fans, but 3 times this season, Celtic have faced 11 men when they should have been facing 10. If the Morelos incidents were over-ruled, (as most sane fans concede should have been), that would have been 4.
4 in 20 games ?…..That's 20%
If you were to include Naismith sticking the welly into a concussed Johnny Hayes, and McGregor putting the boot into Ajer while he was on the deck, that would be 6 in 20. …30% of games.
20% is bad enough FFS.
In Scotland we have rather bizarre honest mistakes, that don't conform to the 50/50 rules of probability. …..That is not just a feeling.
I wouldn't exactly be jumping up and down with joy if I was a Sevvie though.
Following the 2010/11 season of honest mistakes, hindsight has shown how desperate the survival odds of Rangers(I.L.) actually were. In my opinion, it's not 8IAR they should fear.
John Clark 13th January 2019 at 13:37
to be allocated
60 mins A413/16 David Whitehouse &c v James Wolffe QC"
================================
I went into the CoS on Friday for 10am, but the case still hadn't been allocated and there was no indication of when it would be heard. I couldn't see anyone from Whitehouse's legal team so I didn't hang around.
Corrupt Official
I think people are missing the point here (most especially on Twitter
. )
I am not arguing for or against the idea that refs are biased. Only the perception that they are. People will argue the case for their own clubs' victimhood from Dumfries to Dingwall, and there is no way we can objectively judge the merits of each claim or each incident. As a mathematician (he said bigging himself up) the rules of probability really don't apply here as any indication of behaviour either – however counter-intuitive that might appear to be. Wild outliers are not conclusive proof of anything very much other than that they are outliers. I'd agree the Celtic experience in the last few matches would appear to be outliers, and much as I am tempted (as a Celtic supporter) to see th ehand of darkness in there, I'm pretty sure fans of other clubs will have equally horrifying tales of injustice to tell.
On the other hand the perception of bias is reinforced by the curious demographic construction of the refereeing ranks. I'd say that in terms of the myriad christian cultures in Scotland (that's Tims and Prods to most of us), there is less of an imbalance than there is of working folk, people of colour, women, and crucially football allegiances (not just Celtic and Rangers).
Arguing narrow partisan interests, however unfairly they we feel we have been treated, only serves to make the SFA's divide and rule tactics more effective. The big picture of looking at the problem holistically will give us a better chance of a solution – and an end to most of the injustices whether through incompetence or bias.
Professional officials with declared allegiances are most certainly the way to go – organised independently of football and accountable to all stakeholders in the game.
My honest belief is that refs are overwhelmingly honest people trying to do a fair job. I also believe that they are as susceptible to unconscious bias as are the rest of us. A fair spread of disclosed allegiances can mitigate any anomalies that arise out of that.
The other thing to keep in mind is that there are a hundred debates like this going on all over the football world. Of course a hundred wrongs don't make a right, but we are not unique.
If we make a start on professionalising the refereeing service though, we could be.
Sometimes one has to look at the more obvious factors with regards decisions. One being that due to finances Celtic are likely to have a higher level of player than the teams they meet in domestic football. That doesn't mean they will always perform better, otherwise the game would be pointless, but over a protracted period you would expect them to.
Meaning that they are also likely to have more of the possession and more of the play in the opposition's half and "final third".
So the opposition players are more likely to be tackling the Celtic players leading to more fouls against, bookings against, sending offs and penalties.
I am not saying that this means that there is or isn't bias, simply that it has to be factored in.