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?
Big Pink 13th January 2019 at 18:03
Corrupt Official I think people are missing the point here
———————————————————————–
I will bow to your superior mathematical qualifications BP, . Perhaps I am over-simplifying the complexities of probabilities, (which I don't fully understand), but I was thinking, that if a ref makes two howlers in a game, One would favour one team, and the other, favour the opposing team,
Of course natural anomalies occur, but it appears to me the only predictable constants are the anomalies.
I also think that the generalisation that our whistlers are overwhelmingly honest is exactly that… A generalisation. Neither should there be a need to "select" referees for matches….Whit's that a' aboot?
Grade 1 whistlers, and paired matches in a hat is a simple enough process to implement. There is not a match has any more importance than any other match, from a refereeing point of view.
Having said that, I am not averse to your suggested route forward, although Brexit may limit overseas applicants from putting forward their C.V.'s.
Big Pink 13th January 2019 at 18:03
I'm sorry but I don't agree with you at all.
Reading – Corrupt official 13th January 2019 at 13:57 – lists some of what has been going on this season. Someone earlier gave the example of a game Celtic won but somehow had a much greater fouls against column than the beaten team. To me your piece sounds like something the Celtic club would write to make a token protest but not expect to do anything about it. Much like the last 6-7 years. How can you claim that most of the refs are,"overwhelmingly honest people trying to do a fair job" after the events of the past few weeks? Remember the panels that found McGregor and Morelos not guilty were made up of retired refs. I don't see that making these same people professional would change anything, the whole recruitment process would have to change. Refereeing jobs should be open to all suitably qualified persons in the British Isles and beyond, the only requisite being the ability to speak English.
Homunculus 13th January 2019 at 18:15
"So the opposition players are more likely to be tackling the Celtic players leading to more fouls against, bookings against, sending offs and penalties."
******
Perfectly reasonable assumption.
However, in a recent game v St.Johnstone, when the home team had scant possession, but indulged in a robust defence of their territory, according to the match stats, St.J conceded three fouls and Celtic .fourteen. Add in a red card for the visitors and your assumption looks skewed.
Incidentally, the referee was a Mr. J. Beaton, who I later considered had been auditioning for the recent game at Ibrox.
Sorry, but I'm afraid the game is corrupt and the mindset that led rules to being broken, to accommodate Sevco, is now been re-commissioned to ensure their survival.
ThomTheThim 13th January 2019 at 19:25
Add in a red card for the visitors and your assumption looks skewed.
==========================================
You must have missed this bit "I am not saying that this means that there is or isn't bias, simply that it has to be factored in."
What I am saying is that there are a variety of factors, these include incompetence, honest mistakes, amount of possession and yes in some instances corruption.
Homunculus 13th January 2019 at 19:34
I know you weren't. At face value, those factors are perfectly plausible, but, in reality, they are overshadowed by the almost irrefutable evidence of so many games down through the ages.
There have been many stories, now often with added Youtube footage, of retired referees regaling his listeners at after dinner speeches.
Personally, I am in no doubt that dark arts are involved in refereeing and those triumph genuine honest mistakes.
For proof, I will rely on the SFA's Balance of Probability verdict.
Big Pink
Have I been Moderated on my recent reply to Homunculus and a follow up post?
Big Pink 13th January 2019 at 18:03
===================================
You make a lot of decent points. The most frustrating thing for me though is the notion peddled by the SFA and the media that bias among Scottish Referees is actually impossible, which is a quite absurd stance to take. As for the demographics among Referees I recall an ex-lower grade Referee phoning Radio Clyde in the late 90's and stating categorically that he knew for a fact over 90% of Grade 1 Referees at the time supported Rangers. The Panel's view was that it didn't matter. Of course it matters, in fact I doubt any other country in the civilised world would tolerate such an imbalance. I have no idea of the current demographics but I do believe all conflicts of interest need to be declared. It is just not acceptable anymore, but in my view we are up against other influences which are not easy to overcome.
I wonder if D. Findlay will be singled out for opprobrium given his outspoken view that TRFC are 'a new entity' which must establish 'it's own history and traditions' when TRFC visit on Cup business on Friday ?
ThomTheThim
13th January 2019 at 19:45
====================================
You may think that the major factor when Celtic are playing other teams is corruption on the part of the referees. I don't, I think it is the other factors I mentioned. However I am willing to accept that bias is also an issue, unconscious or otherwise.
https://twitter.com/david_conn/status/1084538133759344641?s=21
Some things take a bit longer to work themselves out.
It's good to see some disagreements (put politely and no name calling) on the site. I think that is healthy as it would be pretty pointless if the community were all sycophantic. I also feel it makes the reading more enjoyable where different viewpoints are expressed and again without any vitriol.
Now if some of the regular "Thumb Downers" would give a reason for their vote the site would be even further improved.
easyJambo 11th January 2019 at 23:50
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
11. the submission of the compliance officer addressed the tribunal to the effect that the referee, although he stated he was in a good position to see the alleged party in breach clearly playing the ball with his right foot, he later stated in his statement that he was unsure of the extent of the contact (with the opposing player) and did not award a free kick. the compliance officer contended that this meant that the referee had in fact not seen the part of the interaction which constituted the alleged breach.
==============================================
As EJ points out the SFA reasoning for the apparent dichotomy twixt the Mckenna Aberdeen retrospective action and the lack of any action for Morelos' repeated transgressions is the less confident refereeing of Mr. Madden compared to the unreserved declaration of Mr. Beaton. For a referee to be so convinced of their opinion on at least four controversial moments indicates either an arrogant incompetence or bias. He should not be allowed to referee at the highest level for a long time. BP, I think, argues that the pool from which we draw our umpires will inherently produce people who are A./interested in football and B./ have a big team. How do we overcome this to the benefit of all clubs. Auldheid has pointed the way forward repeatedly. Make refereeing a service that is supplied on a a competetive basis..force the SFA to justify their postion as the provider.
Homunculus 13th January 2019 at 21:24
3
2
Rate This
ThomTheThim
13th January 2019 at 19:45
====================================
You may think that the major factor when Celtic are playing other teams is corruption on the part of the referees. I don't, I think it is the other factors I mentioned. However I am willing to accept that bias is also an issue, unconscious or otherwise.
Homunculus 13th January 2019 at 21:24
3
2
Rate This
ThomTheThim
13th January 2019 at 19:45
====================================
You may think that the major factor when Celtic are playing other teams is corruption on the part of the referees. I don't, I think it is the other factors I mentioned. However I am willing to accept that bias is also an issue, unconscious or otherwise.
Homunculus 13th January 2019 at 21:24
3
2
Rate This
ThomTheThim
13th January 2019 at 19:45
====================================
You may think that the major factor when Celtic are playing other teams is corruption on the part of the referees. I don't, I think it is the other factors I mentioned. However I am willing to accept that bias is also an issue, unconscious or otherwise.
Homunculus 13th January 2019 at 21:24
3
2
Rate This
ThomTheThim
13th January 2019 at 19:45
====================================
You may think that the major factor when Celtic are playing other teams is corruption on the part of the referees. I don't, I think it is the other factors I mentioned. However I am willing to accept that bias is also an issue, unconscious or otherwise.
Homunculus 13th January 2019 at 21:24
3
2
Rate This
ThomTheThim
13th January 2019 at 19:45
====================================
You may think that the major factor when Celtic are playing other teams is corruption on the part of the referees. I don't, I think it is the other factors I mentioned. However I am willing to accept that bias is also an issue, unconscious or otherwise.
********
Corruption is only a major factor in those games where I consider corruption to have taken place.
On other occasions is it definitely incompetence.Then we have those other occasions where the refs incorporate Game Management ; where they control the game in a manner that is most pleasing to the TV viewers and sponsors.( Making a game of it).
This involves the non awarding of free kicks or penalties if one team is well ahead, etc.
This is common in all competitions and can be seen in European and International tournaments.
Pierluigi Collini was an advocate of this,as is/was his protegé, H. Dallas.
It is a style which is prevalent amongst Scottish referees.
Is that corruption ? No
But the machinations of the Ref committee and Appeals process stink the place out.
Anyone else think it's strange that no-one has been arrested yet for threatening John Beaton? I ask because in the past it has always seemed fairly straightforward for the Police to track down the culprits in such matters due to the advanced digital age we live in. I suppose they should be given some leeway though. Perhaps the threats were only made in the couple of hours in between Celtic releasing a very measured statement and the SFA themselves then telling us Beaton had been threatened. Another strange thing is that when Willie Collum allegedly received death threats a few years back, again following a statement by Celtic, no-one was arrested for that either. It was left to Chick Young to fight the good fight as he greeted the foreign Refs flying into Glasgow Airport to breathlessly tell them the strike 'is all about death threats'. He omitted to tell them about a Referee and the then head of Refereeing lying through their teeth to a member club then continuing the lie until a Linesman told us all the actual truth.
Yes, the rest of the football world must look at Scotland with envy given we are such a bastion of integrity.
ThomtheTim
No moderation. Why do you ask? Problems?
Upthehoops
It’s not impossible that refs can be biased, and I am pretty certain that on occasion actual cheating has occurred. Refs are human and prone to human weakness. I do think cognitive bias is a bigger problem though, which does not imply actual dishonesty.
The allegiances of refs shouldn’t matter, but in terms of the above, it does. The English rules insisting on declared allegiances is there precisely because of that possibility that cognitive bias is a material consideration. Even more complicated in the days when the duopoly was in full flow.
One of the recurring themes in any discussion, mainstream media or otherwise, of Scottish refereeing is the part-time or non-professional nature of the job.
It has been at least five years since the part-time or non-professional fee for Scottish Premier League/Premiership matches was increased by £40.00 to £840.00. For all I know it may have been increased again since but I'm sure if it had decreased we'd have heard all about it.
Accordingly, whatever your views on Mr Beaton's performance on 29th December 2018 (and his performances in any other Premiership matches);(and the performances of any other referees in any other Premiership matches) it is worth bearing in mind that you are witnessing the provision of a service which is being charged at over four hundred quid an hour. I can't be bothered to check but I doubt brain surgeons get £400.00 per hour.
Whatever difficulties Scottish referees may or may not have being underpaid far less amateur is not one of them.
Big Pink 14th January 2019 @ 08:29
==============
Cognitive bias is an issue which concerns many fans I speak to. Unfortunately the media or the SFA are not even prepared to say that is possible. That is nonsense of course, and is why you can't have four supporters of one team in charge of a game involving that team. Sadly I think we stray into other areas when that happens because certain groups in power regard themselves and others from the same group as socially and morally superior. Therefore denial of even the possibility of any type of bias is the mantra.
I continue to find John Beaton's incredible 'honesty' when, after almost universal acceptance that he'd got 3 or 4 major decisions wrong, all favouring one particular player, he should hold his hand up and say he saw each incident clearly and yet took no action. He didn't say that at the time he'd thought he had a perfect view, he actually admitted to seeing repeated kicks and stamps by the same player, that TV evidence shows as being both cowardly and without provocation. This is unnatural for even the most conscientious of humans, even more so when you consider that had Beaton decided to protect himself and his reputation, the upshot would, unless there was further excuse finding for Morelos, have been for justice to prevail.
Even without reference to whatever club Beaton supports, this is just incredible and smacks of a referee making deliberate decisions that favour one team/player.
Big Pink,
Thanks for the response.
Two posts disappeared from my PC, but remained on my iPad.
Therefore I must have had a problem with the PC, as the subsequent dog’s breakfast of a post would suggest.
There is an old adage in rugby that it’s only a penalty (which is given for foul play or breaking the laws) IF the ref sees it. And given the large pileups in rugby it’s understandable if refs miss the odd one or two. Indeed for the game to function they have to ignore certain offences otherwise they would spend all their time whistling.
So why mention this? The players know fine well they are pushing it. Back in the day the opposition would make sure the offender was “put right “ by the judicious use of a boot/studs to said player.
I would contend that football players know they can push it also. Indeed they will seek to test where the ref will act. If a ref is being particularly lenient then the envelope to push increases.
Add in incorrect application of the laws and poor governance makes for a very poor situation
Upthehoops
Good point re the moral superiority affectations. A deeply embedded part of the problem.
A friend passed on this academic paper of umpires and discrimination. It identifies ethnic/race bias in baseball umpires and notes their bias is less when monitored. Also pitchers change their pitches when they know the umpire they face. Wonder what this study would look like with Scottish football referees"
STRIKE THREE: DISCRIMINATION, INCENTIVES AND EVALUATION
Christopher A. Parsons, Johan Sulaeman, Michael C. Yates and Daniel S. Hamermesh
Abstract
Major League Baseball umpires express their racial/ethnic preferences when they evaluate pitchers. Strikes are called less often if the umpire and pitcher do not match race/ethnicity, but mainly where there is little scrutiny of umpires. Pitchers understand the incentives and throw pitches that allow umpires less subjective judgment (e.g., fastballs over home plate) when they anticipate bias. These direct and indirect effects bias performance measures of minorities downward. The results suggest how discrimination alters discriminated groups’ behavior generally. They imply that biases in measured productivity must be accounted for in generating measures of wage discrimination.
http://legacy.iza.org/en/papers/122_16032010.pdf
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.
=================================
Today's CoS listings confirm that Friday's petition was granted "unopposed", although we have no idea what it was about. The fact that it was ultimately unopposed would explain the lack of any activity on Friday.
LUGOSI 14th January 2019 at 09:59
Accordingly, whatever your views on Mr Beaton’s performance on 29th December 2018 (and his performances in any other Premiership matches);(and the performances of any other referees in any other Premiership matches) it is worth bearing in mind that you are witnessing the provision of a service which is being charged at over four hundred quid an hour. I can’t be bothered to check but I doubt brain surgeons get £400.00 per hour.
………………. Now what would anyone do if they were paying that much for a service, and that service was not up to scratch?
Cluster One 14th January 2019 at 18:15
13
0
Rate This
LUGOSI 14th January 2019 at 09:59
Accordingly, whatever your views on Mr Beaton’s performance on 29th December 2018 (and his performances in any other Premiership matches);(and the performances of any other referees in any other Premiership matches) it is worth bearing in mind that you are witnessing the provision of a service which is being charged at over four hundred quid an hour. I can’t be bothered to check but I doubt brain surgeons get £400.00 per hour.
………………. Now what would anyone do if they were paying that much for a service, and that service was not up to scratch.
*****
I would deduce that the SFA considered that the service was “up to scratch” and was cheap at the price, thank you.
Big Pink 14th January 2019 at 16:33
Upthehoops
Good point re the moral superiority affectations. A deeply embedded part of the problem.
———————————————-
Just to emphasis the point BBC Sportsound tonight had a Referee supervisor on to defend Beaton's decisions re Morelos, and to state that Scotland has no need for Refs to declare allegiances, whether it works well in England or not. You would almost think this pathetic sense of moral superiority was drilled into them via another fraternal organisation, but surely not!
upthehoops 14th January 2019 at 21:11
Just to emphasis the point BBC Sportsound tonight had a Referee supervisor on to defend Beaton's decisions re Morelos, and to state that Scotland has no need for Refs to declare allegiances, whether it works well in England or not. You would almost think this pathetic sense of moral superiority was drilled into them via another fraternal organisation, but surely not!
=====================================
It was Kenny Clark on Sportsound and there is an article BBC article about his comments.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/46871390
Coincidentally I was speaking to a match official on Sunday night who had attended the referees get together earlier in the day and he commented that there were photographers at the Oriam looking to get some snaps of Beaton and others. I don't think they appreciate such coverage.
I asked him what he thought of the SFA's statement last week. The response ……. "pathetic".
Cognitive bias. Incompetence. Part timers…blah blah blah.
It is match fixing.
allyjambo summed it up best:
"Even without reference to whatever club Beaton supports, this is just incredible and smacks of a referee making deliberate decisions that favour one team/player."
That is a criminal offence. It is corruption given the amount of money spent by punters on tickets and bets.
Everyone who reads this site knows that.
Apologists can say what they want. For 12 years the football matches in Scotland were fixed to the advantage of one team. That is a fact proven in the highest court in the land.
ThomTheThim 14th January 2019 at 20:49 I would deduce that the SFA considered that the service was “up to scratch” and was cheap at the price, thank you. …………………….. I recon they have not been paying attention, and not getting value for money .
easyJambo 14th January 2019 at 23:55
It was Kenny Clark on Sportsound and there is a BBC article about his comments.
=====================
What is the point of having Kenny Clark on?
Clark and the BBC who regularly indulge him are a huge part of the problem. Unless everyone is regarded as equal despite their background this can never be resolved. The view that one type of person is morally superior to another, and therefore more suitable to lead, only leads to three things. Lies, cheating and corruption among some of those bestowed with power, although not all. History shows that, and football is not exempt.
"This new system, it only came in at the start of the season, it was copied pretty much from England, where I understand it has worked very well and yet somehow or other it doesn't work so well in the goldfish bowl of Scottish football," Clark told BBC Radio Scotland's Sportsound.
Nothing to do with goldfish bowls Mr Clark, but when 95% of decisions favour one team, one might suggest it doesn't work at all!
Re: Last night's Sportsound on BBC Shortbread:
I only caught the last few minutes of the programme (not available yet as a podcast on the BBC iPlayer), so I missed the names of the studio guests. Michael Stewart was one, as was Kenny Clark, perhaps also Darryl 'I am the SFA' Broadfoot and one or two others.
I have to say that, from the section I heard, Michael Stewart was making a brave fist of calling out the fiasco that is refereeing in Scotland: in the face of attempted ridicule by some of the other studio guests.
When he was a serving ref, I used to think Kenny Clark was 'one of the better ones' we had in Scotland. However, he's now become a parody of (and apologist for) the bent refs that we all despise.
Most risible last night was his stout defence of the mantra that Scottish ref's are beyond reproach: incapable of any kind of bias; that they should not be required to declare any (potential) conflict of interest. (Typical, too, of host Kenny McIntyre to give Kenny Clark the final, unchallenged say on this, as he drew the programme to its close.)
Such a line (of implicit neutrality) is no longer defensible, in this age when every top-flight decision is open to close examination via TV coverage and we have an ever growing list of contradictory refereeing decision to complain about.
Kenny Clark would have us believe that these ‘inconsistencies’ are only ever honest mistakes.
Anyone with a well-adjusted sense of fairness can see the volume of wrong decisions that are being made – and that the Scottish set up is now wholly inadequate.
We’re long past the age when only referee supervisors in the stand are capable of judging a referee’s performance.
Attempts by the SFA to be 'transparent' are transparently inadequate: referees need to be accountable, in one way or another. The purchasers of their services (that's you and me, via our gate money, or TV subscriptions) have a right to expect sensible, meaningful measures of performance; with consequences if standards are seen to be slipping. This must include declarations of interest: to help avoid even the semblance of unconscious bias.
Equally important, there should be no means for those responsible for any part of the disciplinary process (i.e. referees, their supervisors, Compliance Officers, or 'Judicial Panel' members), to be able to wash their hands of their responsibilities by passing the blame for failures in the system to others involved in the process. There is such a thing as individual responsibility, as well as collective, organisational responsibility. If self-evident failures are brought to light there must be a swift and fair mechanism for correcting such failures. This must include adequate opportunity for those involved in the process routinely to provide qualitative feedback to the governing body overseeing the process.
Dunderheid 15/01/2019 @ 09:48
================
What happens if Morelos, in the next game he plays, commits another red card offence which the Ref witnesses? Does he send Morelos off then face a torrent of abuse saying he only reacted to Celtic complaints, or does he not bother in the knowledge at least one of three anonymous appeal panel members will clear him anyway. Let's not forget it was the appeal panel following the opening game of the season who caused all this. The Referee did the right thing in the eyes of the majority.
Morelos now free to do as he pleases in my view.
I can think of (at least) 2 reasons why referees may fear having to declare club allegiances: the first is that their performances in previous games involving 'their club' will immediately be re-examined.
A second is the likelihood that a good number of these ref's will fear that such a declaration may be the 'thin end of the wedge': they may later face pressure to declare other 'fraternal' allegiances.
finnmccool 15th January 2019 at 01:15
Cognitive bias. Incompetence. Part timers…blah blah blah.
It is match fixing.
allyjambo summed it up best:
"Even without reference to whatever club Beaton supports, this is just incredible and smacks of a referee making deliberate decisions that favour one team/player."
That is a criminal offence. It is corruption given the amount of money spent by punters on tickets and bets.
Everyone who reads this site knows that.
Apologists can say what they want. For 12 years the football matches in Scotland were fixed to the advantage of one team. That is a fact proven in the highest court in the land.
=============================================
I'm not really sure who the "apologists" are but I see your comment has received widespread support. A genuine question, when was it proven in the highest court in the land that matches had been fixed to advantage one team for a 12 year period.
If referees ever have to declare the team they support then they will all be St Mirren fans like Chic Young(wink wink)
A Celtic supporting ref isn't going to get many cup finals is he.
I'd get half a dozen foreign refs in. They might be hopeless but at least they'd be impartially hopeless.
Allyjambo 14th January 2019 at 10:50
I continue to find John Beaton's incredible 'honesty' when, after almost universal acceptance that he'd got 3 or 4 major decisions wrong, all favouring one particular player, he should hold his hand up and say he saw each incident clearly and yet took no action.
——————-
If Beaton was reminded before the match that if he witnessed violent conduct and did nothing at the time and then said later that he had seen the incident clearly, then his decision could not be challenged, then it makes sense. All he had to do was play the role. It would also mean he was corrupt, as would be any official who advised him thus, either before or after the game.
Like everyone else, I've seen some bad decisions in my time, but never a sustained practice by a referee of ignoring fouls to allow possession to be turned over and incidents of violent conduct to avoid issuing a red card as, it seems to me, was the case here.
This match was vital to TRFC, Beaton went too far and it has to be a watershed and seen to be so.
Fleming needs to be made explain his choice of officials to an SFA Committee. The SFA website Disciplinary Update page needs to include both the names of Panel members and their rationale for arriving at a decision so this can be scrutinised by the public. Ex-referees on the Panel are being paid as expert analysts. They have no right to anonymity and should be confident in their decisions being open to discussion. Similarly, in the event of VAR being introduced, the names of those examining the evidence must be public, as was the case in the World Cup.
This would not remove prejudicial referees, nor prevent the smsm blurring the narrative, but at least it would make corruption more difficult, alert referees to the possibilty of cognitive bias, provide proper transparency and allow public scrutiny by the paying customer.
Just Kenny's way of saying WATP , and you should know your place . You can't get more straightforward than that .
Homunculus 15th January 2019 at 12:34
'…. A genuine question, when was it proven in the highest court in the land that matches had been fixed to advantage one team for a 12 year period.'
_ _ _ _ _ __ _ _
finnmccool, to whom you address this question will no doubt give his own reply, Homunculus.
Had I made the statement that finnmccool made, and had you addressed your question to me, I think I would have replied along these lines:
the Supreme Court decided that the way in which SDM used EBTs was not licit, and that 'loans' made by such trusts were in fact earnings, and therefore taxable.
As we know from various sources, SDM lied to the SFA and the then SPL about how much many of the players he employed were being paid- contrary to SPL and SFA fundamental rules.
Consequently, those players were , under the rules, ineligible.
In every game that the now defunct RFC of 1872 participated in over a decade or so, there was an ineligible player playing for them.
Under the rules, certain things should have happened.
Those things did not happen.
At the very least, there was retrospective rigging!
Utterly unacceptable.
The language and terms used by posters on a blog is not the language of lawyers.
But it is absolutely true that the lie of SDM and the supposed 'unawareness' of those officers of the SFA possibly complicit in the lie allowed and brought about an unprecedented episode of sports cheating .
And that had the same effect as if match results had been 'rigged'.
Bill1903 15th January 2019 @ 12:48
===========
John James is not the flavour of the month with some on here. However today he is claiming 27 out of 32 Grade 1 officials support Rangers. If that is true, then we have a massive problem which should not be ignored any longer. Something clearly stinks if that is the case.
upthehoops 15th January 2019 at 14:54
This is the reason why there is no appetite to disclose their loyalties.
'macfurgly 15th January 2019 at 13:08
If Beaton was reminded before the match that if he witnessed violent conduct and did nothing at the time and then said later that he had seen the incident clearly, then his decision could not be challenged, then it makes sense. All he had to do was play the role. It would also mean he was corrupt, as would be any official who advised him thus, either before or after the game…'
————————————————-
A few days after the game at Ibrox, as concerns about Mr. Beaton's performance were being aired, I mentioned on here the role of the Referee Supervisor/Assessor who is there to monitor the performance of the match official (among other duties).
Without evidence to the contrary, it can only be assumed that this individual saw little (or nothing) wrong with Mr. Beaton's handling of the game & marked him as competent & capable, as Mr. Beaton was appointed to a professional match in Scotland on the next Saturday (Ayr Utd v Falkirk.), even though, with no Premiership games, there was an opportunity to quietly 'rest' him following the controversy (and his uncalled-for social media issues).
Something stinks in the Scottish refereeing world, apart from the standard of performance they show weekly.
upthehoops 15th January 2019 at 14:54
——————————————————–
Doe he try to prove this claim, or simply make it.
upthehoops 15th January 2019 at 11:16
41 2 Rate This
Dunderheid 15/01/2019 @ 09:48
================
What happens if Morelos, in the next game he plays, commits another red card offence which the Ref witnesses? Does he send Morelos off then face a torrent of abuse saying he only reacted to Celtic complaints, or does he not bother in the knowledge at least one of three anonymous appeal panel members will clear him anyway. Let’s not forget it was the appeal panel following the opening game of the season who caused all this. The Referee did the right thing in the eyes of the majority.
Morelos now free to do as he pleases in my view.
…………………….
What happens if Morelos, in the next game he plays, commits another red card offence which the Ref witnesses? The player who was offended reacts in lashing out at Morelos.
How can the Ref send him off and not Morelos.?
Could also the offended player, in his defence claim he was getting no protection from the ref?
Could he also claim in his defence his actions were brought upon because of the ref’s in-action?
If such a senario would happen. Just imagine the can of worms it could open up.
John Clark 15th January 2019 at 14:21
=====================================
OK, I thought we were still talking about referees, my mistake.
However what you say, whilst correct with regards the outcome is a considerable distance away from "For 12 years the football matches in Scotland were fixed to the advantage of one team. That is a fact proven in the highest court in the land."
The Supreme Court ruled that disguised remuneration was earnings for tax purposes. For it to be match fixing the people doing the fixing would have to have been aware of the situation at the time, aware that it was illegal and either supported it or at the very least done nothing to stop it.
Doing nothing after the event is corruption but I really don't see how you can retrospectively fix a match.
The team themselves doing it is cheating, absolutely but again hardly "match fixing". In fact did they not go out of their way to hide the "side letters" / "second contracts" from the SFA. The very matter which was looked at later.
Cluster One 15th January 2019 at 19:20
Not sure how it works in today's convoluted interpretation of the rules, but in yesteryear, he who retaliated was often treated more harshly than the original perpetrator.
The logic being that no player could take the law into his own hands, as it was the refs job to mete out justice.
Often the original foul was not even punished with a booking.
Jingso.Jimsie 15th January 2019 at 16:00
A few days after the game at Ibrox, as concerns about Mr. Beaton’s performance were being aired, I mentioned on here the role of the Referee Supervisor/Assessor who is there to monitor the performance of the match official (among other duties).
Without evidence to the contrary, it can only be assumed that this individual saw little (or nothing) wrong with Mr. Beaton’s handling of the game & marked him as competent & capable, as Mr. Beaton was appointed to a professional match in Scotland on the next Saturday (Ayr Utd v Falkirk.)
…………………..
Maybe the Referee Supervisor/Assessor who was there to monitor the performance of the match official (among other duties).Was just not competent & capable,to asses and monitor the performance of the match official to the standard required for his title.
ThomTheThim 15th January 2019 at 19:30
3 0 Rate This
Cluster One 15th January 2019 at 19:20
Not sure how it works in today’s convoluted interpretation of the rules, but in yesteryear, he who retaliated was often treated more harshly than the original perpetrator.
……………
Thanks for reply.
And that is my point, if the sent off player could appeal? He could point to having no protection from the ref, and said player provided video evidence to back his claim.
How then would they justify the ref’s favoritism to one player but not others?
What would happen if the club backed the sent off player and his claims?
Wanted to ask a question if i may?
£350K Inquiry March 1, 2012 pic.twitter.com/ZlyGpmdSTp
……………..
We know the Fine of £250,000.
……………
“Within the current SPFL rules there is a provision (known as the offset rule) whereby if any amounts are due to the SPFL, the Board of the SPFL are entitled to withhold amounts due to the Club up to the value of the amount outstanding.
“The Board of the SPFL determined that it would impose the offset rule to recover the £250,000 fine from the Club.
“As a result of this decision, the Club invoked Article 99 of the SFA Articles seeking a determination by an Arbitral Tribunal appointed by the SFA that the sum was not due to the SPFL.
“The tribunal was held in October 2015 and found in favour of the SPFL and as such the Club was liable to pay the fine plus associated costs.£286,000
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-pay-250000-ebt-fine-9149702
……………………..
SPL bill gers for titles enquiry April 3, 2013 pic.twitter.com/8zI2HyUCXw
………………………
My question is. Did the cost of this enquiry ever get paid by any ibrox club
………………….
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1085279240352878592?p=v
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1085279374906220545?p=v
………………….
Sorry about above links, hear they are.
Homunculus 15th January 2019 at 19:11
Doe he try to prove this claim, or simply make it.
===================
He said he has a source, that's all. I have no real issue with him. In this case I would not be at all surprised if his figures are accurate.
Anyone else think Scottish Refereeing is currently run in the way many Scottish owned workplaces were up until the 90's, i.e if you don't have a certain background you are considered inferior and unsuitable for advancement? That changed when a lot of companies fell into foreign ownership where the new owners could not care less about a person's background as long as they could do a job well. Anti-discrimination laws were also introduced which made it harder for those exclusive 'clubs' to continue. Some people will no doubt say it's all conjecture, but if they can convince me Scottish Refereeing advancement is based solely on ability then I'm interested to hear how it works.
Cluster One 15th January 2019 at 20:14
Back in that same yesteryear, it was often stated that,” the referee is always right, even when he is wrong”.
Having flirted with review panels etc., the SFA have reverted to backing the refs, selectively.
Homunculus 15th January 2019 at 19:20
7
16
Rate This
John Clark 15th January 2019 at 14:21
=====================================
OK, I thought we were still talking about referees, my mistake.
However what you say, whilst correct with regards the outcome is a considerable distance away from "For 12 years the football matches in Scotland were fixed to the advantage of one team. That is a fact proven in the highest court in the land."
The Supreme Court ruled that disguised remuneration was earnings for tax purposes. For it to be match fixing the people doing the fixing would have to have been aware of the situation at the time, aware that it was illegal and either supported it or at the very least done nothing to stop it.
Doing nothing after the event is corruption but I really don't see how you can retrospectively fix a match.
The team themselves doing it is cheating, absolutely but again hardly "match fixing". In fact did they not go out of their way to hide the "side letters" / "second contracts" from the SFA. The very matter which was looked at later.
_____________________________________________________________
You're just splitting hairs H
More on my views on Referees. Kenny Clark claims no- one would cheat fans after working so hard to get to the top. Maybe so, who knows. However, since the 60's the vast majority of grade 1 Refs have come from one Association. It has always been alleged, with some justification, that a large number come from a Rangers background. So whether or not they cheat, how hard are they actually having to work to get to the top, and what are the main qualifications for getting there?
"The Supreme Court ruled that disguised remuneration was earnings for tax purposes. For it to be match fixing the people doing the fixing would have to have been aware of the situation at the time, aware that it was illegal and either supported it or at the very least done nothing to stop it."
I give you two words; Campbell Ogilvie.
Still not actual match fixing, but certainly out and out cheating in order to give one, (now dead) club and advantage over all others.
Re. Beatongate.
Why would the Referees Supervisor do anything other than back him. He appointed the "biased 4" and got exactly the result they wanted.
This is not an anomaly, we will see many more instances of this bias in the months to come. The other 11 will have to be considerably better than Sevco on the field of play in order to get anything out of a game against them.
Just watch…..
Re Kenny's Clark's comments on why hard working Ref's would be daft to show bias when having worked so hard to get to the top.
The logic of that makes perfect sense.
However we have evidence of top referees lying (Dougie Dougie) and the then head of referring development apparently backing them up.
That same Head of Referring, having gone right to the very top, felt comfortable enough to send dodgy emails from his SFA account.
Now we have Beaton allegedly being seen as comfortable drinking in 'T'Rangers' pub after a game between the two big Glasgow Clubs.
What is said and what is done are two different things.
'ThomTheThim 16th January 2019 at 08:54
Back in that same yesteryear, it was often stated that,” the referee is always right, even when he is wrong”.
Having flirted with review panels etc., the SFA have reverted to backing the refs, selectively.'
—————————————————–
The convoluted statement of last Friday from the SFA merely restated the role of the referee as per Law 05 of the IFAB Laws of the Game. They simply couldn't do anything else without throwing their referees under a bus.
(Remember that the SFA contribute to & approve of any law changes/tweaks from IFAB. Also remember that, earlier this season, they supposedly wrote requesting clarification of certain changes/tweaks that they had contributed to & approved of!)
Good Morning,
Haven't posted for a while. Suffering from battle fatigue and wonder sometimes whether we can beat the system.
On the position of referees. I rarely listen to and will never watch a Sevco game, however, and I think I am right on my dates. On 23 rd December there was a match against St. Johnstone aired on BBC radio and I dipped in and out.
What I am sure of is that in that game Billy Dodds who was co commentating was lambasting the referee. He said things such as "these are not difficult decisions for the referee", "Is this a game to see how many fouls Morelos can commit before he gets booked?" and "The only reason the referee does not book Morelos , is because he doesn't want to."
I am absolutely sure about his comments and there were many more besides although I may have got the game and date wrong. It would have been an away game for sure.
I don't know if commentaries on games are available and if so maybe someone could check.
The point is that bias, for whatever reason, does exist, and was even noticed by someone who has a leaning towards the team playing out of Govan; and if it was not bias it was incompetence and should not be permitted.
The arrogance and self serving righteousness must stop. The referees complain that we are criticising them but don't stop to think that if the got it right or were even consistent that the criticism would not be there. Yes there will always be mistakes, we are only human but face up to them ,admit them, learn from them, and do not promote an aura of hubristic infallibility.
World class breakfasts off the menu at Auchenhowie:
https://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/glasgow-news/fire-breaks-out-rangers-auchenhowie-15685211
'There are no reports of any injuries.'
Dunderheid 16th January 2019 at 11:29
0
0
Rate This
World class breakfasts off the menu at Auchenhowie:
https://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/glasgow-news/fire-breaks-out-rangers-auchenhowie-15685211
'There are no reports of any injuries.'
——————————————————————-
Insurance job?
I reckon Kenny was correct in his assertion . These guys don't suddenly become incompetent/corrupt when they get to the top of their "profession" . They've had to display these traits to get there .
One referee, Jim Callaghan, was effectively sacked as a top level ref in the 60s after a failure to send off John Hughes of Celtic. Admittedly, Big Yogi had just sent Willie Johnston’s goolies a few feet northward. He was binned though. The ref not wee Bud’s Baws?
Big Pink 16th January 2019 at 12:23
Here's an account of the incident from someone at the match. As a Celtic supporter his view needs to be read with some caution.
https://thecelticstar.com/fall-horrendous-newspapers-went-mad-rangers-always-bad-losers/
Further to the suspension, not sacking, of Jim Callaghan it is interesting to note that 2 other referees were suspended after they too were deemed to be too lenient in dealing with Rangers opponents players who tangled with a Rangers player.
"Referee Kenny Hope
was considered to have been too lenient in his handling of the
Rangers-Aberdeen game when he was seen on television, as well as at
Ibrox, to be indulging in arguments with Pittodrie captain Willie
Miller; referee Louis Thow was considered 'soft' in his handling of the
Aberdeen-Rangers game when he allowed Neil Simpson to stay on the field
after a tackle which badly injured Ian Durrant". From the Herald 13/01/89.
Compare these incidents to John Beaton's performance at Ibrox and how that was dealt with and come to your own conclusion.
borderman67 16th January 2019 at 11:33
'..Insurance job? ..'
======================
Ah, bordesman67, that it should come to this! that we should have become ready to believe it possible that the Board of RIFC plc could even think of perpetrating insurance fraud. They know damn fine that the Standard Security held by the Scottish Sports Council requires that the proceeds of any insurance claim would not go into their coffers to help bail them out of financial distress, but would have to be expended on restoring Auchenhowie to the " full reinstatement value of the security subjects(and not the market value thereof)"
Whatever they are, the Board of RIFC plc are not naïve.
Whether the Scottish Sports council has mechanisms in effect to ensure that insurance policies are in place, and premiums all paid up to date…. who knows? It seemed to take a while before they realised that TRFC Ltd is not legally the RFC of 1872 with which club the standard security had been agreed in the first place!
borderman67 16th January 2019 at 09:12
You're just splitting hairs H
======================================
Again I see that is a popular opinion.
I am absolutely not splitting hairs. The argument that the Supreme Court has ruled that there was match fixing in Scotland over a 12 year period to favour one team, whilst perhaps attractive to some people is specious nonsense. It is not a "fact" as described by the person who posted it.
Rate This Dunderheid 16th January 2019 at 11:29
World class breakfasts off the menu at Auchenhowie: https://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/glasgow-news/fire-breaks-out-rangers-auchenhowie-15685211
'There are no reports of any injuries.'
——————————————————————-
Insurance job?
———————————————————–
Or the result of deploying an army of volunteers to wire yir plugs and fit yir cookers?…A keep the lights on candle too near the curtains?
Too early to say at this stage, but Jailbird Joey's coffee machine has been ruled out as a possible cause.
Thankfully no injuries have been reported, although 3 firemen were red-carded for tackling the fire.
Hoopy 7 16th January 2019 at 11:17
'….Suffering from battle fatigue and wonder sometimes whether we can beat the system.
========================
Be of good cheer: truth is truth.
We have the truth.
The liars do not.
We win, just by telling the truth.
It is an absolute fact that the 5-Way agreement was like the hypothetical Act of Parliament which declares that black is white and makes it a criminal offence to assert that that is nonsense.
All the Acts of Parliament in the world cannot make black white.
And all the huffing and puffing of the SFA, and of CG, and of DCK and the whole tribe of folk that parade as RIFC plc/TRFC Ltd, and of the SMSM chaps who are not fit to wipe the fundaments of real journalists, cannot make TRFC Ltd the Rangers FC of my, and my dad's, and my grandad's times
RFC of 1872 died. Ceased to exist.
It is a lie of enormous proportions that TRFC Ltd is the Rangers of 1872.
Those who propagate that lie know it to be a lie.
And those who propagate that lie are among those who assert that it is unthinkable that a referee in Scottish football should be personally biased, and allow his personal bias to betray him into abandoning his personal integrity.
What a stupid observation to make even in the abstract!
But in the light of relatively recent experience, what an unsound observation!
The attitude of mind that allows people to think like that is pre-historic and must be rooted out.
When even amateur (as opposed to professional) sport is riddled with individual cheatery there can be no room for 'assumptions' about integrity: there must be strict checks , and less of the 'honour' system:
In our professional game there have been and there are bad bast.rds who by their cheating, aided and abetted by the very Governance body which covered up and minimised that cheating ,and made sure it was not honestly dealt with, who constructed such a sporting lie as never before appeared in all recorded history.
We simply cannot trust the game.
We win, hands down.
Seriously, who can be arsed with a bunch of cheats? of 'journalists', of football club owners, of 'governance' bodies rotten to the very core?
Homunculus
To be fair to you, the courts have not been asked to rule on any cheating, (match-rigging), which may have been , undertaken by Rangers(I.L.) and the SFA. so why would they.
However evidence, both documentary and sworn testimony presented in related cases, and from the LNS commission, strongly points to the fact that knowingly, they did.
Hence the need for an independent judicial review, and a response relating to RES12.
Auldheid: would you agree that the longer the authorities (or, indeed, anyone – or any organisation – with a vested interest in the truth being delayed or denied) are able to keep the Res 12 issue in the long grass the harder, or less likely, it will be to get the truth aired?
I ask this because there seems to be a strong possibility that Celtic and our football governing body are in cahoots vis-à-vis delaying any meaningful response to fans' and shareholders' enquiries.
For how long ought honest fans let this matter limp along without meaningful response before we should try some affirmative action?
As you have said yourself, we (the fans) have but one realistic opportunity each year (the run up to season ticket renewal) to apply pressure on our clubs, and this year's opportunity is just around the corner.
Corrupt official 16th January 2019 at 14:14
'….Thankfully no injuries have been reported, although 3 firemen were red-carded for tackling the fire.'
======================
FFS, Corrupt official!
I nearly choked on a sip of Fat Yak when I read that!( at 01.20 Brisbane time, 16th Jan)
Kenny in action .
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=kenny+clark+after+dinner+speech&&view=detail&mid=8E1760E0D5B2BADFF5DF8E1760E0D5B2BADFF5DF&rvsmid=BBF4FECA287D81B402D8BBF4FECA287D81B402D8&FORM=VDQVAP
paddy malarkey 16th January 2019 at 16:49
Kenny in action .
=============
He's no Kevin Bridges.
There was a time on here when criticising refs and conspiracy stuff was taboo. What's changed?