Who Is Conning Whom?

Avatar ByAuldheid

Who Is Conning Whom?

What follows is a record of an exchange in October with David Conn of The Guardian in respect of an article written by him in August 2016 reporting the arrival of The Rangers FC in the top tier of the SPFL.

In that article David Conn suggests that there was no tax overdue in respect of “The Wee Tax Case” of 2011 because he was told by the SFA that agreement had been reached with HMRC to postpone payment until after the Takeover by Craig Whyte and on those grounds the SFA granted a licence.

For such an agreement to pass UEFA FFP rules muster it had to be in writing, signed by HMRC and dated 31st March 2011 or earlier. There were behind the scenes discussions on this point and attempts were made separately at the time to obtain such written unpublished documentation that complied with UEFA FFP regulations from Darryl Broadfoot the Head of SFA Communications, but in spite of promises it never arrived.

Not surprising as, had it existed, Celtic would certainly have been informed when they first wrote to the SFA in December 2011 – thereby rendering Resolution 12, placed at the 2013 Celtic AGM requesting UEFA to investigate the UEFA licensing process throughout 2011 as truly unnecessary.

The first e mail (edited with cosmetic changes to aid reading by  a wider audience but no change of sense) made the following points to Mr Conn on 9th Oct 2017…..


Dear Mr Conn.

On 5th August 2016 you wrote an article about the arrival of “Rangers” into the top tier of the SPFL.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/aug/05/rangers-scottish-premiership-tax-issue

(* A relevant extract from that article – in italics – can be read separately at the end of this blog)

Given that the Craig Whyte trial in July 2017, revealed discrepancies (already known to the Celtic shareholders pursuing Res12) between  what was stated at the trial and what was reported to the SFA and UEFA during 2011 in terms of the status of the wee tax case liability, then it would appear that your article:

  1. Does not fully reflect what took place, giving the impression over two paragraphs that a written agreement signed by HMRC to postpone payment had been reached between HMRC and RFC by 31st March 2011. Had this been so it would mean that there was no overdue tax  payable at 31st March 2011 as UEFA define an overdue payable to tax authorities. 
  2. However what was revealed in court in July 2017 was that RFC had accepted the liability before 31st March 2011 and so it was not “potential” with “discussions continuing with HMRC to establish a resolution to the assessments raised”,  as reported in RFC Interim accounts on 1st April 2011. It was for this reason the SFA have asked their Compliance Officer to investigate what took place and had there been a written agreement to postpone prior to 31st March 2011, there would have been no need to describe the liability to the SFA in the way that it was. 
  3. Further your article does not fully reflect the reason why “Rangers” had to wait three years before playing in European competition, which was that UEFA viewed “Rangers” as a NEW club/company. This was not mentioned although the SFA,  who advised you they held an unpublished HMRC letter also held a copy of a letter  dated 8th June 2016 from UEFA Head of Club Licensing Andrea Traverso (copy attached) to that effect.

Consequently  will you be following the SFA Compliance Officer investigation, and indeed will you be telling him the basis on which you reported the SFA’s position in your article of August 2016 without revealing sources of course?

Importantly in terms of all your other investigatory work into skulduggery, are you also aware that despite what you may have been told by the SFA, Resolution 12 was and is ultimately about making the SFA more accountable and transparent to supporters, an aim which I think you would surely support and is there any chance of you helping with that aim by considering what has caused the SFA to finally capitulate and do what Res12 asked for in 2013, albeit domestically?

A national football association using the media to try to derail a genuine investigation into their behaviour is surely of national, never mind Scottish, interest?

In some ways it matters little now if Rangers gained and retained that licence by deception as the court statement indicates, with the result the SFA Compliance Officer is conducting an investigation.

What matters more is that the SFA have used the absence of accountability to cover up their part in the licensing process, not just from March through to September 2011 but to ignore genuine enquiries from supporter/shareholders of a member club from 2014 to  July 2017. During which time their positions;

  • that the bill had not crystallised, or
  • was subject to dispute or
  • was under appeal or
  • that after 31st March, monitoring was not an SFA function, as stated by SFA CEO Stewart Regan,

were exposed (in court) as self-serving myths.

The SFA and how poorly they serve the game in Scotland because they are accountable to no one is THE story of Resolution 12 and you could help bring accountability about by reporting how you were duped by the SFA in August last year and report on what the Compliance Officer finds.

As it is your August article has undermined your reputation somewhat as someone whom I understand seeks better accountability and transparency from football authorities.

PS what Celtic shareholders lawyers reported to SFA, and when, is available if you decide to engage.

Yours etc


After a couple of reminders, one copied to The Guardian Sports Editor a reply was received dated 8th November 2017 in which Mr Conn said.


Hello 

Thank you for your emails and apologies for not having replied sooner; I have been very busy recently. I have seen that some questions have been raised about the piece I wrote in relation to this. I understand that this issue has been of great interest to people; however, I do not currently have plans to revisit it.

Thank you for your interest and apologies again for not replying sooner.

D Conn


As the SFA Head of Communications, Darryl Broadfoot, who departed from his post in January 2017, would most probably be the person to whom David Conn spoke. He is the same person who failed to clarify this article at:

https://stv.tv/sport/football/1358000-uefa-won-t-investigate-resolution-12-rangers-euro-licence-claims/

by STV reporter Grant Russell, who also recently departed from his job at STV.

The STV article omitted certain references about UEFA treating The Rangers FC/The Rangers International FC as a NEW club/company, a piece of unsolicited information  that was contained in a UEFA response to Celtic shareholders’ lawyer from Andrea Traverso, Head of UEFA Club Licensing) and which was copied to the SFA a week before STV published.

Some may also remember the strange episode where The Guardian accepted an advert from the Celtic AGM Resolution 12 requistitioners in 2016 attempting to draw the attention of Resolution 12 on a tax evasion aspect to the wider tax paying British pubic. Having accepted payment for a “Persistence Beats Res12tance” advert, The Guardian for some unexplained reason changed their mind and decided not to publish and refunded the payment.

They have been coy on answering who, what or why they changed their mind and as can be seen from the above reply from David Conn appear unwilling to pursue the UEFA 2011 Licencing issue further (at least for now). Hopefully those plans will change when the SFA investigation is complete, whatever the result.

Mr Broadfoot although no longer an SFA employee, appears to be continuing in some capacity as an SFA spokesman given his appearance on BBC Sportsound on 8th November along with Paul Goodwin of the Scottish Football Supporters Association (SFSA) to discuss the findings of an SFSA survey involving over 16,000 supporters that highly criticised the SFA for their governance of Scottish football.  The programme segment can be heard here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sQRFX2vOWUvkaeRAEEYL3vzMqdXGFE8T/view?usp=sharing

The overriding point here though is not the credibility of main stream media outlets, which is at an all-time low, but the use of those outlets by the SFA officials using the media in an attempt to produce an outcome that suits them and a single SFA member club at the expense of the value of the shares held by shareholders in another SFA member club.

Awareness of the impact on shareholder value of member clubs by SFA decisions is yet another issue that an enquiry into SFA methods/processes should address, particularly since HMRC made the SFA aware in 2009 of their concerns about Rangers use of ebts in player contracts.

Until such an investigation takes place the SFA will be viewed as no longer fit to govern Scottish football in its present form.

 

Extract from Conn Article of 5th August.

Even now, an allegation persists the SFA was deficient in allowing Rangers a licence to compete in the Champions League during that season, 2011-12. The case, based on leaked documentation from the time and pressed by a group of Celtic supporters on their club to pursue as resolution 12 of the 2013 annual general meeting, was recently argued strongly in a report by the Tax Justice Network campaign.

The argument is that in breach of Uefa rules against clubs having overdue tax payable, Rangers owed £2.8m on a discounted options scheme following a successful HMRC challenge known as the “wee tax case”.

The SFA is adamant its committee which considered the licence dealt with the issue thoroughly and received the necessary evidence the tax was not overdue according to Uefa rules. One informed source involved with the issue at the time, who did not want to speak publicly owing to continuing criminal proceedings against Whyte arising out of his tenure at Rangers, said that at the initial deadline, 31 March 2011, HMRC had agreed that the £2.8m did not need to be paid until after his May 2011 takeover.

Before subsequent 30 June and 30 September deadlines, Rangers, by then owned by Whyte, are understood to have told the SFA they were in discussions with HMRC over the money owed. Uefa rules allow tax not to be treated as “overdue” where there is a written agreement with the tax authority for payment to be extended.

The SFA, although declining to disclose details of the documentation it received, citing confidentiality with its member clubs, told the Guardian via a spokesperson: “The Scottish FA has always been clear the licensing award issued to Rangers in 2011 by the licensing committee was correct. The process is audited on an annual basis by Uefa.”

Uefa, pressed on the issue again recently, said: “The licence for the 2011-12 season was granted by the SFA and there was no reason for Uefa to doubt this decision.”

Uefa has said it has no need to investigate further if the tax was in fact overdue according to its definition, because after that season, Rangers’ fate anyway equated to a sanction for breach of the rules: they could not play in European competition for the following three years. HMRC, taking a stern view of clubs defaulting on tax, declined to approve a company voluntary arrangement with creditors and Rangers went into liquidation.

About the author

Avatar

Auldheid author

Celtic fan from Glasgow living mostly in Spain. A contributor to several websites, discussion groups and blogs, and a member of the Resolution 12 Celtic shareholders' group. Committed to sporting integrity, good governance, and the idea that football is interdependent. We all need each other in the game.

818 Comments so far

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on8:29 am - Nov 26, 2017


Ibrox debenture holders can only attend and vote as creditors at the creditors’ meeting on June 14 if they surrender their debenture. Should they wish to do so, they will be able to apply to attend the creditors’ meeting and further details will be provided to all debenture holders.
thanks to @Mintylamb.i found while looking for something else.Poor same club debenture holders.
https://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/cva-statement/
——————-
DARKBEFOREDAWNNOVEMBER 25, 2017 at 23:49 1 16 Rate This
And from the responses to my previous comment I can see that non Rangers fans really don’t get it when it comes to the old club new club. At the end of the day why should it matter.
——
from link above.
We should remember there are many stakeholders who have suffered financial losses as a result of Rangers being placed into Administration. Regrettably, there is no solution available that allows these parties to recover their losses in full.
Charles Green, who is leading a consortium to purchase Rangers, said: “Today is an extremely important milestone for Rangers to begin the journey back to where the Club belongs – as a leading sporting institution that can hold its head high both on the field and off it.
“I have great sympathy with creditors, particularly small local businesses in the community around Ibrox, who have suffered in the lead up to Administration. However, I fervently hope that creditors will form the view that the best interests of everyone will be served by Rangers continuing as the successful Club it is and recovering as a business in the forthcoming seasons.
-==
At the end of the day why should it matter.? Can they hold there head high both on the field and off it.?

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on8:31 am - Nov 26, 2017


DarkbeforedawnNovember 25, 2017 at 23:49 
And from the responses to my previous comment I can see that non Rangers fans really don’t get it when it comes to the old club new club. At the end of the day why should it matter if legally it’s a different club? It is the same feeling to us, it’s the same media coverage, it’s the same routines. Nothing has changed! So for those that say it’s a new club, do you genuinely see a difference?
_______________________

Sadly, we don’t see, or hear, a difference; but that’s not the point (though it is a massive disgrace). The point is that Rangers cheated us all, for at least 10 years. As a major part of that cheating, they spent a huge amount of money, most of which wasn’t theirs. Most of us here respect, and expect, justice. Justice was Rangers dying. Sadly, there are many who don’t acknowledge that. We will keep on acknowledging the death of Rangers, no matter who says we shouldn’t, for we would be joining the ignorant if we were to ignore that fact.

Through its actions, Rangers deserved to die. Only supporters of Rangers who acknowledge that fact deserve our sympathy.

At the end of the day why should it matter if legally it’s a different club?‘ Sounds like something a criminal might say! You know, ‘at the end of the day, why should it matter if legally I committed a crime (as long as nobody acknowledges it)?’ Just like Dave King doesn’t acknowledge his own criminality, along with so many in the SMSM, as though, by not acknowledging it, he isn’t a criminal.

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on8:53 am - Nov 26, 2017


ALLYJAMBONOVEMBER 26, 2017 at 08:31

========================

Spot on A.J. I challenge anyone to put a case forward that ANY other Scottish Football Club would have received the same preferential treatment, from the footballing authorities and wider establishment. As a case in point, when your club was under the threat of liquidation, did the Scottish First Minister ask HMRC to go easy on them?  Did he tell the world how important they were to Scottish society? No is the answer, yet they are the club he himself supports!

View Comment

shug

shugPosted on9:44 am - Nov 26, 2017


This is getting boring now really what is the point eb will never admit publicly what he knows is true his club died because eb and co did nothing to save it the club died not some made up after the event holding company. Sevco rangers is a newco just a tribute act end of story.This is how it goes with your everyday run of the mill sevco fan that I have been unfortunate to come across. ” Aye ave supported rangers all my life” I say really but you’re over fifty and sevco are only 5yrs old your rangers died the reply is usually “nae we didnae” so I ask well explain it then the answer 9 times out of 10 is “cos we didnae”. I have decided that there really is no point getting into a battle of wits with people who are unarmed for such a battle,

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on9:46 am - Nov 26, 2017


It is quite obvious that Mr Becker is reading my posts, but while he is happy to address the less than pertinent points I make (see my last post), he fails, quite deliberately, I’d suggest, to address the real points and the questions I ask

In one post, at November 25, 2017 at 16:56 I asked him the following:

‘So, if I, personally, say that I accept the legitimacy of that transfer of membership, can you tell me what it is you think you are claiming it proves?’

Perhaps he’d like to answer it now, or will he, in the true tradition of the troll, ignore it or post some rambling words that no more answer the question than fly in the sky? No need for a long post (one or two sentences would suffice), and no need to justify his point, just a straight forward answer to the question of what, in the event that the membership transfer was legitimate, does he claim it proves?

View Comment

LUGOSI

LUGOSIPosted on9:47 am - Nov 26, 2017


Following the recent reappearance of the worst and most ineffective troll in trolldom; who, when things aren’t going swimmingly, took the not very novel step of shapeshifting but forgot to change the content so that it was not immediately obvious that it was still Spoutpish. Replying to your own post is in no way obvious and I, for one, am convinced these are two different, unconnected, unrelated people and are in no way linked to the other half a dozen usernames employed by Spoutpish.
I think I can see the strategy at the AGM.
The Chairman’s Address will be by King Cunningham David who will be shameless and glib; in no way connected to any previous glib and shameless utterances.
This will be followed by a speech by Dave Cunningham King who will stress that he has no relationship with the previous speaker but he agrees with him completely and can’t understand why King Cunningham David gets such a hard time.
The massed ranks of shareholders, especially the ones who got theirs for a penny a pop, will be given the good news they longed for. News that would eclipse Celtic receiving the FIFA Fans Award.
This year the Accounts are in the running for the Man Booker Prize. Initial doubts about eligibility on the basis Accounts are factual have been dispelled after all the judges read them and pronounced they were definitely fictional.
The Importance Of Being Special.
Needs.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on10:17 am - Nov 26, 2017


fan of footballNovember 26, 2017 at 09:27

Excellent post, FoF. Might I add to the following excerpt something I wrote of during Hearts’ administration, of how I would view a new club in the event of liquidation.

You wrote:

‘I too would have followed a new club playing in green out of CP but I would never insult anyone’s intelligence by pretending it was the same club .I would see it as a new club making a new start and demand that those in charge of it were never in a position to wreak the havoc of the people in charge of the last club .I would be proud of the honours won by the old club but here is the difference .I would not and never could accept the titles won by cheating ,as far as I am concerned they titles would have no merit at all and I would be happy for them to be removed completely .’

I would add that I would always remain a Hearts supporter, in the same way that I will always remain a Beatles fan. They are gone, but remain in my heart, and are/would be sorely missed. I would follow the progress of a new club, hopefully with ‘Heart of Midlothian’ in their name, or even just ‘Hearts’, and that, eventually, they would gain my support. With luck, they would have remained at Tynecastle.

As to the titles. They would remain with Heart of Midlothian FC, the liquidated club, but I would have liked to have seen an acknowledgement in the new club’s record, that that new club stands in the stead of the liquidated club, and above or below the new clubs titles, HMFC’s titles would be listed, but clearly marked as belonging where they belong, in the liquidated club’s history.

In the fullness of time (and how long is that?) I suspect there would be a merging of the two clubs, firstly in the minds of the Hearts supporters, with a more gradual acceptance by everyone else, until no distinction was made. Of course, in that same ‘fullness of time’, none of us would be around, and who knows what shape Scottish football, or, indeed, all football, would be in? Poor, dishonest and self-serving administrators will, surely, see the end of the game, as we know it, one day – perhaps even before that ‘fullness of time’ has arrived!

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on10:17 am - Nov 26, 2017


ALLYJAMBO
NOVEMBER 26, 2017 at 09:46 … just a straight forward answer to the question of what, in the event that the membership transfer was legitimate, does he claim it proves?

====================================

If it proves anything it proves they were different clubs. If it was the same club why was there a need to transfer the membership. It would already have been a member. 

If it was the same club why was it not treated as such in the Scottish Cup the following year and if memory serves entered at the early stages of the competition. The same club would not have. 

If it was the same club why did it have to apply to join a league it was already in, and get rejected. Then apply to a totally different league, and got accepted, to it’s lowest division. (There was no demotion, it was application). 

If you judge people by their actions rather than their words then Scottish football treated the current Rangers like a new club, even if the words of the authorities told a different story. 

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on10:29 am - Nov 26, 2017


HomunculusNovember 26, 2017 at 10:17

Totally agree with what you say, Homunculus, but I was merely wanting to read what EB thinks he is trying to prove. Note I say ‘thinks’ he is trying to prove, for I don’t think even he knows the answer to that!

I am of the opinion that all trolls are fools (for why else would they troll?), and like all fools, don’t realise just how foolish they are!

View Comment

Avatar

fan of footballPosted on10:40 am - Nov 26, 2017


AJ 
You put it a lot better than I ever could .04

View Comment

Avatar

fan of footballPosted on11:02 am - Nov 26, 2017


I believe that the BIG LIE enforcers do what they do to convince other peepil rather than us
The trouble is that when the so called same club fail to live up to the peepils expectations on the playing field then they have a problem.
So if I believe that it’s just business on the powers that be and the other clubs  part ,then surely WE all have a problem .
If say sevco 2012 become mid table regulars in the spfl or worse because the peepil running the club are making a total pigs ear of the gig ,so much so that the same club believers just get fed up and walk away ,what do the business people do then .
What if sevco are going into the last game before the split needing a win to ensure a top six place ,would the powers that be and the other spfl clubs businessmen have a problem in aiding them to get that win .after all it’s only one game right ,it’s not like it’s giving them the title right .and it would be good for the commercial side of the game right .
Can anyone truly say , “there’s NO WAY they would do that “.
Really could we be certain ,a lot of people found it very strange that there was no tightening of the rules of our game after the BIGGEST scandal and example of CHEATING our game has ever seen .
Maybe it’s not so strange after all 

View Comment

Avatar

DarkbeforedawnPosted on11:37 am - Nov 26, 2017


Plenty of people have disagreed with my posts above without really answering the main points I raised. The biggest thing was I have not noticed a difference and nor have any Rangers fans I know. Whether we’re called zombies or whatever, is no different than any other football slogan. 

And if you really think that a next win would number 1 instead of 55 then you really are wishful thinking. The SFA have already admitted as much. And as I said, UEFA will just take what they say at face value. 
So effectively Rangers don’t notice a difference, SFA don’t notice a difference, The BBC don’t, BT Sport don’t, Sky Sports don’t, the newspapers in Scotland don’t. So please tell me, when you rock up at Ibrox for an away fixture, other than the quality of team we put out what has changed for you? What do you notice different? If someone can answer that then I will happily concede. 

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on11:51 am - Nov 26, 2017


Jingso.JimsieNovember 26, 2017 at 11:08

I wonder if EB has misunderstood the meaning of the book’s title, perhaps, and doesn’t realise it relates to the psychological aspect of the denial of death. Perhaps he thinks denying death is a sign of strength or stoicism!

Being aware of such an intellectually challenging book, though, would certainly fly in the face of someone who would make such a totally fatuous comment about Andrea Traverso’s name, and then, rather than having the nous to retract what he said, inflames it with a totally inappropriate homophobic ‘joke’.

My goodness, I’ve just read (partly) the precis of The Denial of Death on Wikipedia and two sentences (there will be more, I am sure) show just how apt the book is when discussing things ‘Rangers’:

‘ …This, in turn (the immortality project), gives people the feeling that their lives have meaning, a purpose, and are significant in the grand scheme of things.’ (WATP?)

and

‘…Thus these immortality projects are considered a fundamental driver of human conflict, such as in wars, bigotry, genocide, and racism

It might be worthwhile for Stewart Regan and Neil Doncaster to read this book to get some idea of what they have facilitated!

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on12:10 pm - Nov 26, 2017


DarkbeforedawnNovember 26, 2017 at 11:37
‘… The SFA have already admitted as much’
___________
They created a myth, and, like the Nazi regime which created the myth of the ‘Herrenvolk’, they have to lie continually  to try to sustain it.
As much faith can be put in their pronouncements as in any of  a ranting Adolf Hitler’s (or any subsequent mad dictator’s).
And if you choose to believe the myth instead of striving to get Truth re-established as the norm in the governance of a sport, I’m afraid you have little understanding of the concept of Sport.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on12:36 pm - Nov 26, 2017


DARKBEFOREDAWN
NOVEMBER 26, 2017 at 11:37
==================================

Just because propaganda is continually repeated doesn’t make it any more true.

As I have said elsewhere, if you and other Rangers supporters want to believe that you are supporting the same club, fair enough. People believe all sorts of things in spite of the evidence that they are not true.

There are millions of people who believe in creationism and who deny evolution. In spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. You may even be one of them.

That’s the point, what you have is a belief, it is very much easier to get people to believe something if they desperately want to believe that thing in the first place. 

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on12:43 pm - Nov 26, 2017


DarkbeforedawnNovember 26, 2017 at 11:37 
Plenty of people have disagreed with my posts above without really answering the main points I raised. The biggest thing was I have not noticed a difference and nor have any Rangers fans I know. Whether we’re called zombies or whatever, is no different than any other football slogan. And if you really think that a next win would number 1 instead of 55 then you really are wishful thinking. The SFA have already admitted as much. And as I said, UEFA will just take what they say at face value. So effectively Rangers don’t notice a difference, SFA don’t notice a difference, The BBC don’t, BT Sport don’t, Sky Sports don’t, the newspapers in Scotland don’t. So please tell me, when you rock up at Ibrox for an away fixture, other than the quality of team we put out what has changed for you? What do you notice different? If someone can answer that then I will happily concede.
_________________________

What a ridiculous post! You seem to be saying that whatever the ‘Rangers’ fans accept as the truth, is the truth – which is, in fact, basically all that the SFA (Regan) has said on the matter. The SFA has made no other comment other than to state (through Regan) that they will leave it up to the ‘Rangers’ supporters to decide whether they view TRFC as the same club! They totally reneged on their responsibility on the matter, and clearly would have said something quite categorical if they thought there was the slightest room to back the same club argument. As for UEFA, you’ve clearly missed (chosen to miss) the letter from the head of licensing, Andrea Traverso, which stated, categorically, that TRFC is a new club!

For your information, the media do not decide who, or what, lives or dies, and are not, none of them, purveyors of the truth. They don’t even seem to have noticed that Dave King is a convicted criminal, does that mean he’s not?

A wee story of ‘not noticing the difference’:

There’s an old war movie, based on a factual event, called ‘I was Monty’s Double’. In it, an actor, who made a living impersonating Field Marshall Montgomery, was persuaded to take his place on a tour of North Africa to address the troops (to fool the Germans into thinking the invasion was coming from there). (As an aside, my father, when he first watched the movie, realised it was the double he’d seen and listened to in the desert18. Was quite a sad moment in my life to see the disappointment on an old soldiers face.) Anyway, back to the point I’m making, no one noticed the difference, and yet, it still wasn’t Monty.

Monty, of course, was still alive, but clearly, if he’d died and Churchill had decided that it was best to keep up the pretence that he was still alive…with no one noticing the difference, you, apparently, would be insisting that the Field Marshall was still alive and kicking…the Huns of all people!

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on1:08 pm - Nov 26, 2017


DBD

still no mention of creditors then?  Or debt?  Or facilities paid for by said debt?

View Comment

Avatar

gerrybhoy67Posted on1:54 pm - Nov 26, 2017


Guys for the love of God please stop responding.
You’ve tried for a week!
It’s obvious they’re here for a reason and I would suggest to continue feeding them is costing TSFM credibility in the blogosphere.

View Comment

Avatar

fan of footballPosted on1:58 pm - Nov 26, 2017


I believed in a guy called santa ,why? because other peepil told me he was real but then something terrible happened .I grew up and on doing so learned the power of independent thought.
I still have very fond memories of believing in santa ,all the shiney presents he gave me every year .
the peepil may have stumbled across a great new income stream ,rename Ibrokes ,santa’s grotto as the DK seems to have found 40,000 peter pans that have still not grew up 

View Comment

macfurgly

macfurglyPosted on2:20 pm - Nov 26, 2017


DarkbeforedawnNovember 26, 2017 at 11:37
———–
The SFA and SPFL don’t notice because they signed the 5 Way Agreement inviting Charles Green to pay RFC(IL)’s football debts in exchange for being credited with the titles won by that entirely different club and they are still looking the other way. Remember, when Sevco were admitted to Div. 3, Green could have changed the name to Glasgow Athletic, Govan United , Southoftheriver Strollers or anything and played in any colours he chose, self referencing green perhaps. Maybe if the assets had been bought by someone with more than personal enrichment in mind that would have happened, but Green is the one person in this who benefited from the blue hoax.
The effects of that agreement are that:
TRFC / RIFC have had to pay off debts that they had no responsibility for whatsoever, and
RFC(IL) fans have been put in the embarrassing and uncomfortable position of having to go along with a falsehood in the foundation of the new club they want to support.
Even if they wanted to, and it may even be that there are some in the media who are equally uncomfortable about the same club myth, the media outlets have no real choice about how to present the new club TRFC as long as the honours of RFC(IL) remain on the SPFL website.
I don’t know about UEFA, but I imagine whoever is responsible for their club pages simply copied what was on the SPFL site, not suspecting anything untoward.
I wonder if with hindsight even Regan and Doncaster now regret the 5 Way Agreement. Perhaps an insolvency event or better still liquidation at TRFC might finally make it possible to reset the whole thing and give RFC(IL) fans a club they can support without squirming.

View Comment

Avatar

justbecauseyoureparanoidPosted on2:33 pm - Nov 26, 2017


GERRYBHOY67NOVEMBER 26, 2017 at 13:54 5 1 Rate This
Guys for the love of God please stop responding.You’ve tried for a week!It’s obvious they’re here for a reason and I would suggest to continue feeding them is costing TSFM credibility in the blogosphere.

Couldn’t agree more. Apart from anything else it’s incredibly boring!
The troll family working in shifts have successfully hijacked the blog for far too long. Stop feeding them please!

View Comment

woodstein

woodsteinPosted on4:45 pm - Nov 26, 2017


Allyjambo
November 26, 2017 at 15:46
“Finally, the bit in bold above, can anybody translate it for me?”
—————————————————————————- 
Here you go,  Dutch (double)  01

Je eigen gril van het zoeken naar beledigingen en extrapoleren naar belachelijke extremen moet onmiddellijk worden gestaakt voordat ik een hartaanval heb van lachen, je bent van homofobe xenofobe naar een SFA-geïnspireerde racistische fanaticus lol gegaan. Dit is grappig. Tot slot is er een beroemd citaat van James Joyce “Ulysses” waarin Beckers terreurbeheertheorie over verschil is samengevat: “De geschiedenis is een nachtmerrie waarvan ik probeer wakker te worden”, ik stel voor dat je dit op ons verleden toepast geschiedenis en word wakker met het feit dat ik van je houd als mijn buurman, ondanks onze vroegere en huidige verschillen. Vrede xx
 
Je eigen gril van het zoeken naar beledigingen en extrapoleren naar belachelijke extremen moet onmiddellijk worden gestaakt voordat ik een hartaanval heb van lachen, je bent van homofobe xenofobe naar een SFA-geïnspireerde racistische fanaticus lol gegaan. Dit is grappig. Tot slot is er een beroemd citaat van James Joyce “Ulysses” waarin Beckers terreurbeheertheorie over verschil is samengevat: “De geschiedenis is een nachtmerrie waarvan ik probeer wakker te worden”, ik stel voor dat je dit op ons verleden toepast geschiedenis en word wakker met het feit dat ik van je houd als mijn buurman, ondanks onze vroegere en huidige verschillen. Vrede xx
 
 

🙂

View Comment

Avatar

part time petePosted on4:49 pm - Nov 26, 2017


When a football team is reformed after going bust in England, The FA insist that the new club has a slightly different name than the original.
eg Halifax Town became F.C. Halifax Town
Hereford United became Hereford FC
Aldershot became Aldershot Town
Chester City became Chester FC
Now if Rangers had changed their name slightly on the insistence of the Scottish FA then I think we would never be having this debate.
Not sure of the SFA’s reason of not following the English FA’s common sense rules perhaps it was the thought of losing the blue pound if CG wouldn’t sign the 5WA unless he could keep the exact same name.
My view is that the SFA/SFL blinked first and didn’t realise they had the upper hand in the negotiations because Rangers wouldn’t have any where to play if the SFA/SFL had said no to the same name condition.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on5:12 pm - Nov 26, 2017


woodsteinNovember 26, 2017 at 16:45

Thanks Woody, I get it now 21

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on5:15 pm - Nov 26, 2017


JINGSO.JIMSIE
NOVEMBER 26, 2017 at 11:08

As an aside, I have been told that a certain manager-less SPFL club may attempt to continue to the end of the season with a player-coach (and existing DoF/coaching staff), rather than appoint externally…
=====================

JJ that seems like a sensible, prudent choice for TRFC…but when has RFC then TRFC ever done sensible and prudent?!

They are running out of time before the AGM, and even the most rabid bear must be realising that this season is probably a write-off already?

Mibbees elevating Miller to a player / coaching role will buy a wee bit of goodwill…

View Comment

woodstein

woodsteinPosted on5:35 pm - Nov 26, 2017


Disguised remuneration and the Rangers Supreme Court decision
“Changes announced in the budget of 2016 mean that a new ‘loan charge’ will soon be payable on DR loans. The loan charge will apply to all outstanding DR loans made after April 1999 that have not been repaid or settled as earnings with HMRC before 5 April 2019. All loans will be aggregated into one charge in 2019 and could end up being charged at higher rates of tax and NICs than if recipients settle in advance with HMRC. “

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/insolvency/content/101294

For any EB(T)ers looking in. 21

View Comment

Avatar

Banners to the breezePosted on6:07 pm - Nov 26, 2017


A thought with regards to EB;
If I had a solicitor’s practice and wanted to evaluate any new associates … I would ask them to put forward a plausible argument; to counter a water tight, legal adjudication and then hand them the old club/new club brief.Tell them to post their comments on the SFM website, where they would find very well informed, articulate contributors, more than capable of rebutting every single part of their argument. The associates cannot win, but then, that’s not the point.

View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizz

sannoffymesssoitizzPosted on6:15 pm - Nov 26, 2017


Here’s a link to the relevant HMRC guidance Woodstein. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/disguised-remuneration-a-supreme-court-decision-spotlight-41

View Comment

wildwood

wildwoodPosted on7:51 pm - Nov 26, 2017


“I felt a tug on my arm and I went down”

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on8:40 pm - Nov 26, 2017


Sorry to be a bit off topic but I would like to revisit one of my old complaints.  I watched the Cup Final today at Hampden and the pitch looked very good.  Most of the time, it seems to me, when my team is in a semi final we always play on the Sunday after the Saturday game has dug up the pitch.  Now I know that this is done deliberately by our normal opponents to stop our free flowing game ala PSG.  But I bear them no grudges.  So it was good today to be in a final at Hampden on a virgin pitch.

Anyhow.  I watched Sportscene this evening and had a look at the pitches – Dens Park, Tynecastle and at Hamilton.  Deary deary me.  That Hamilton pitch is a disgrace.  Like a thread bare carpet.  No disrespect to Hamilton FC, a club I have a fondness for, but this really cannot carry on at the top level of Scottish Football.  That goes for Kilmarnock doubly so.  Hearts & Dundee pitches were lovely by comparison.

The SPFL, the Scottish Government, Sports Scotland, the National Lottery, anyone, needs to step in and help the smaller professional clubs to upgrade their pitches.  The movement of the ball is laughable.

Rant over.

View Comment

Avatar

HighlanderPosted on8:52 pm - Nov 26, 2017


WILDWOOD
NOVEMBER 26, 2017 at 19:51
“I felt a tug on my arm and I went down”

The current blog is aptly named “Who is conning whom?”

Football used to be a contact sport – before the blatant cheats of recent years took over, including Sinclair today.

I’m all for referees protecting skillful players, but to fall to the ground as if shot by a Gatling gun at the merest brush of an opponent’s fingers is simulation, or downright cheating in everyday parlance, regardless of who does it or who he plays for.

Having said that, the gullible referee was as culpable as the cheating diver. 

In my humble opinion of course.

View Comment

Avatar

gunnerbPosted on9:12 pm - Nov 26, 2017


“I felt a tug on my arm”
Sinclair was fouled in the penalty box. He was pulled back..this is not fair contact in a contact sport it is a deliberate attempt to impede/obstruct prevent the player from scoring. It is true that players today exaggerate the effect of such contact but it doesn`t make that contact legal. It wasn`t shoulder to shoulder or fifty fifty it was a clumsy half retracted attempt to stop the players progress. I felt a touch of sympathy for the referee as he would be criticized either way by the pundits. “Oh..I’ve seen them given”..”He’s missed that one” etc. Once the penalty was given then the red card was inevitable as a goal scoring opportunity was denied by the illegal action of the defender who is getting off far too lightly here. He is no more a professional innocent than Sinclair and the outcome was a diminished spectacle for all viewers.

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on9:16 pm - Nov 26, 2017


MACFURGLYNOVEMBER 26, 2017 at 14:20 18 0 Rate This
DarkbeforedawnNovember 26, 2017 at 11:37———–The SFA and SPFL don’t notice because they signed the 5 Way Agreement inviting Charles Green to pay RFC(IL)’s football debts in exchange for being credited with the titles won by that entirely different club and they are still looking the other way. Remember, when Sevco were admitted to Div. 3, Green could have changed the name to Glasgow Athletic, Govan United , Southoftheriver Strollers or anything and played in any colours he chose, self referencing green perhaps.
———————
That reminded me of a conversation with two ibrox fans at the time
“Are you still going to ibrox if we are called Rangers utd or FC Glasgow rangers?
I will just have to wait and see what happens,might as well what else i’m i going to do on a saturday afternoon? go around the shop’s with the wife”
In that conversation at the time(before charles Green bought the history. no laughing at the back)
there was no remorse at they way their club had died, no denial. Better to get rid than face the shame of what their club did,it  happend and let’s see what happens next.
Then not long after came the defiance and we are getting kicked enough, we are getting punished,we did nothing wrong,we will never forget our enimies, we are going for 55.
Just how Charles Green could change the mindset of over 55,thousand people will go down in the history book’s in the magic circle of the best illusion ever achived

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on9:22 pm - Nov 26, 2017


HIGHLANDERNOVEMBER 26, 2017 at 20:52

==============================

In my opinion it was a definite penalty.  It was also a definite red card because the Motherwell player made no attempt to play the ball. 

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on9:33 pm - Nov 26, 2017


Don’t usually like to get involved in football chat on here but I’ve been forced into it.  This is from Willie Miller’s ratings on the BBC.  Willie Miller is one of the best, most honest pundits in Scotland.

“Cedric Kipre (centre-back) 5

Was lucky to get away with a very strong challenge on Dembele in the first half. He got himself the wrong side of Sinclair for the goal, leading to his sending off. The manager can complain all he wants but there was contact and referee had to make a decision. He’s a young player and hopefully he learns from his mistakes.”

View Comment

Avatar

HighlanderPosted on9:42 pm - Nov 26, 2017


CLUSTER ONE
NOVEMBER 26, 2017 at 21:16

Sinclair was fouled in the penalty box. He was pulled back.

With respect, lightly touching someone’s arm does not constitute “being pulled back” in my estimation, nor is it a foul. What makes the referee award the penalty is Sinclair’s theatrical fall to the floor, not Kipre’s minimal contact.

What next? Don’t breathe near an attacker in the box in case he collapses from inhaling halitosis?

However, I will not clog up the forum with any more on the subject, it’s just that the blight of simulation angers me almost as much as the football authorities ineptitude in the long-running Rangers farce. 

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on9:45 pm - Nov 26, 2017


HIGHLANDERNOVEMBER 26, 2017 at 21:42

========================

I’m really glad your team never get penalties awarded that others disagree with, otherwise you might post about them on here. 

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on10:04 pm - Nov 26, 2017


Right Ernest come back on we have settled our disagreement.

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on10:56 pm - Nov 26, 2017


HIGHLANDERNOVEMBER 26, 2017 at 21:42 11 5 Rate This
CLUSTER ONENOVEMBER 26, 2017 at 21:16
Sinclair was fouled in the penalty box. He was pulled back.
———————–
However, I will not clog up the forum with any more on the subject, it’s just that the blight of simulation angers me almost as much as the football authorities ineptitude in the long-running Rangers farce. 
———————–
Your anger has blinded you a little as i never typed that post19

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on11:04 pm - Nov 26, 2017


I’ll say one thing about tonight,  the TUs & TDs are all over the place, no typical pattern.  1212 (What happened to the sheep emoji?)

View Comment

Avatar

HighlanderPosted on11:44 pm - Nov 26, 2017


CLUSTER ONE
NOVEMBER 26, 2017 at 22:56
Your anger has blinded you a little as i never typed that post

Humble apologies for my copying and pasting error Cluster One. It wasn’t me, it was the Vino Collapso. 16

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on11:48 pm - Nov 26, 2017


HighlanderNovember 26, 2017 at 21:42
‘.., it’s just that the blight of simulation angers me almost as much as the football authorities ineptitude in the long-running Rangers farce. ‘
___________
The two things are connected, Highlander.
Our football authorities have been failing us over many years in the matter of the application of the Laws of the Game.

For example, the concept of ‘obstruction’ has vanished: at corner kicks there’s scarcely a defender who hasn’t got his arms wrapped around an opponent , staring at him fixedly without even looking at the flight of the ball.An offence that I don’t think I’ve ever seen punished in the last 20 years.

And as for the offence of ‘obstruction’, that has become the skillful ‘ushering out’ of the ball- by whole body-blocking of a chasing attacker!

And the skillful use of the chest in controlling  dropping ball has turned into a quite blatant use of the inner arms….

And so on and on….

‘Simulation’ is but the latest manifestation of the ineptitude of the guardians of our game.

Perhaps it is beyond the abilities  of men ,who are themselves prepared to cheat in their governance role, to devise ways of countering cheats on the playing field. [and I do not for a minute express any view on the Sinclair episode, except maybe to say that the use of hands (apart from throw-ins and goalkeeping) was always considered to be a no-no in days gone by. Feet , shoulders (not elbows) and backside , never hands, was the golden rule.)

Still is, except that the ineptitude of our governance has led to such a fudge!

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on11:56 pm - Nov 26, 2017


HighlanderNovember 26, 2017 at 23:44
‘.. It wasn’t me, it was the Vino Collapso.  ‘
_______
Brilliant!

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on10:28 am - Nov 27, 2017


Walker anticipates the slightest of contact and goes down – Sinner, indeed the Celtic captain called him a cheat.
Sinclair gets the slightest of contact and admits to going down easily – Saint. Justified in going down etc etc.

Lets get real. If that had happened anywhere else on the pitch and the ref would have waved it away and should have done likewise in that instance.

My view – both Walker and Sinclair and their likes a disgrace when it comes to this type of nonsense.

To use a outdated expression its a man’s game, toughen the feck up and play football instead of falling about like a street dancer.

I saw more much contact at the boys football yesterday morning and nobody went down. The boys kept on their feet and played on. They’d get hooked if they behaved like that in our team.

View Comment

Avatar

watcherPosted on10:32 am - Nov 27, 2017


Please, Please, Please, Make him stop. Liquidation Denial is dumb, but boy is this guy dumber. I implore everyone ignore this troll, PLEASE!!! I mean the last one was the final one for me. RFC were not voted in! That is because they were liquidated, dead as the monty python parrot, ceased to exist, they were no more, finished! How on gods green earth do you not get that? 

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on11:57 am - Nov 27, 2017


Walker anticipates the slightest of contact and goes down – Sinner, indeed the Celtic captain called him a cheat. Sinclair gets the slightest of contact and admits to going down easily – Saint. Justified in going down etc etc.

========================

You do realise that “anticipating” something happening and it actually happening are entirely different things. Oh and I haven’t actually seen anyone describe Sinclair as a “Saint”.

Here’s a better idea, defending player should stop using their hands on opponents. I hear this talk about it being a contact sport. It’s absolutely true, however that contact does not include using your hands as far as I am aware.

The bit that confuses me though. I thought if the ref gave a penalty then he didn’t also send the player off for that type of foul, they issued a yellow card. Violent or dangerous contact yes, but not that type of foul.

View Comment

shug

shugPosted on12:05 pm - Nov 27, 2017


Regarding that penalty if the ref had done his job in the first place then Mr Kipré wouldn’t have been on the park to give it away, that tackle on Dembele was dangerous and a red card all day long. Imagine if well went down to 10 men then let’s just say it levelled itself out end of story.
  

View Comment

Avatar

FinlochPosted on12:06 pm - Nov 27, 2017


A few years ago I bought my Jambo son the dvd of Celtic v Inter from 1967.
We watched it many times.
An amazing game and Celtic were way better than we could have expected any team of boys from Glasgow to be.
So why raise this now?

Watching the 67′ Final you notice immediately that there is almost none of the nonsense we now take for granted. By that I mean the pulling and shoving in the box and on and off the ball contact which used to be illegal.
Stuff that was not part of our game professionally and at lower levels but seems to abound today at all levels.

I once raised this with an ex SPL ref and he excused the lack of action by saying he was never sure who was starting it!

I didn’t accept it then, still don’t and would like to see illegal contacts stamped out for the benefit of football worldwide.

It was a penalty yesterday and if more like this were given there would be less cheating and more goals too.

View Comment

Avatar

erniePosted on12:16 pm - Nov 27, 2017


We could start by calling it diving or cheating rather than simulation.  BTW that applies to whatever team the cheat plays for, aye, even Aberdeen although SFM is fast turning into a “whataboutery” heaven where one’s own team is clearly incapable of any wrong.  It’s cheating, I don’t know how the refs can eradicate it but it’s spoiling the game for me these days.  Happens almost every game.

View Comment

Avatar

erniePosted on12:31 pm - Nov 27, 2017


Watched a bit of EPL last night.  First time for a long time.  Sterling (Mancity) took a dive and was booked.  The thing is he cheated, he should have been sent off, not only was he going for the penalty but also happy for the nearest defender to get a card of some sort.  There is no part of a sport that includes “best at falling down”.  Also, the pundits often come on with their view that the diver is somehow “entitled” to go down if contact is made; he’s absolutely not.  There is no part of fitba that requires or even suggests going down or, to give it it’s proper name, diving, rather than playing on whether or not contact is made.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on12:46 pm - Nov 27, 2017


Ernie
November 27, 2017 at 12:31

There is also no part of football which says stopping someone’s forward motion by putting your hand on his shoulder and pulling him back is OK as long as you do it just a wee bit.

That is what happened, he broke the rules, it was a foul, it was inside the box, it was therefore a penalty. The red card does baffle me though.

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on12:48 pm - Nov 27, 2017


HOMUNCULUSNOVEMBER 27, 2017 at 11:57

The hands thing is not just down to defenders. People doing the attacking (and they can be defenders) also use their hands.

To my mind the point should really be – is the contact sufficient enough to stop a player carrying out their intended action?

Yesterday the brush of the arm was, IMHO, nothing that would or should have caused a highly trained athlete to loose their balance and poise. 

Just because a slight rub of the arms is in the box and the attacking player chooses to go down doesn’t make it a foul or a penalty when the same offense midway up the park on the wing goes unpunished.

In fact for Celtic’s first goal McGregor was ‘pulled back’ in the exact same manner just before releasing the ball to Forrest.

Now it can be argued the ref payed advantage, therefore no whistle. However the other differences were that McGregor wasn’t in the box and he wanted to stay on his feet and did so by brushing away the flailing arms of the Motherwell defender.

Similarly, before cutting side to pass to Sinclair at the penalty incident, Dembele received a two handed push in the back when cutting in from the wing. Again he must have felt that contact but he didn’t go down and there was no whistle. Why? Because he is a big boy, he felt he had something still to play for and it was outside the box.

The falling in the box at the slightest touch has just gotten out of hand (to excuse the pun). We may disagree on it but the players  ‘anticipating contact’ and those falling for the lightest of touches are much the same in my book and are not playing within the spirit of the game.

As you rightly say teams are sometimes getting a double punishment of a penalty and a sending off, for the weakest ‘challenges’.

View Comment

paddy malarkey

paddy malarkeyPosted on12:50 pm - Nov 27, 2017


For anybody interested – we are Partick Thistle . We don’t cheat . We are bottom of the division . Honesty is it’s own reward .

View Comment

AmFearLiathMòr

AmFearLiathMòrPosted on12:52 pm - Nov 27, 2017


Must admit, I’m quite enjoying reading EB’s posts, as he’s turned the trolling up to 11 – pushing all the buttons:

  • Same Club (over and over)
  • Old Firm rivalry
  • Celtic Fans killed Rangers
  • Uefa recognising Rangers as same club
  • SFA recognising Rangers as same club

I’m just waiting for the bit about Lawell running the game here, how Scottish football was killed by relegating Rangers, the war time titles should count, and how Celtic are only on 2 in a row at the moment.

Go on EB, see if you can push it to 12!

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on1:01 pm - Nov 27, 2017


Wottpi
November 27, 2017 at 12:48 
To my mind the point should really be – is the contact sufficient enough to stop a player carrying out their intended action?
=================================

That makes sense, however it actually isn’t the point. The point is, is it within the rule of football to use your hands to prevent a players motion by pulling him back.

If the answer is no, then in doing it you are commiting a foul.

The defender was acting outwith the rules of the games, you might say it’s a soft foul and that he didn’t really hurt him or pull him enough for him to go down. Fair enough, but the question is not how hard it was, the question is did he commit a foul.

For me the answer is yes, it was a foul. Whether Sinclair went down or not isn’t the point, it’s the action of the defender wich makes it a foul.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on1:05 pm - Nov 27, 2017


Leeds AmFearLiathMòr.  Don’t forget Leeds.

View Comment

Avatar

erniePosted on1:23 pm - Nov 27, 2017


Homunculus, I’m not talking about the LC final, I didn’t watch it.  I’m talking about diving being a sh*t part of our game as we, SFM, were digressing into my club/your club territory again.  Who the transgressor plays for is irrelevant.  To respond directly to your point: a foul is indeed a foul and in the box it’s a penalty.  A dive is a dive.

View Comment

Avatar

PortbhoyPosted on2:31 pm - Nov 27, 2017


Ernest, how do you find the time for all this trolling ????

View Comment

Avatar

bobcobbPosted on2:34 pm - Nov 27, 2017


I’m not wanting to labour the point about yesterday’s penalty, but I would suggest that an incident during a game a few weeks ago laid the foundations for what occurred.
In the recent 2-2 draw between Celtic and Hibs, Sinclair was blatantly pulled back in the box late in the game – it was a much clearer penalty than yesterday’s but it was not awarded. When Sinclair challenged the referee after the game, he was told (by Collum, I think it was) that the penalty would have been awarded had Sinclair gone down.
With advice like that from a referee, is it any wonder that Sinclair did what he did yesterday?  
As it happens, I think the “went down / didn’t go down” and the “contact sport” arguments both completely miss the point. Tugging at a player with your hands – regardless of the amount of contact or whether or not the player goes down – is a foul under the laws of the game. I wish that referees would punish every infringement that we see at corners and free kicks etc. as I think a zero tolerance approach would soon remove this blight from our game.
Incidentally, the ref had no choice but to produce red card once the penalty was awarded. The new rules state that it is only a yellow card if a genuine attempt is made to play the ball (when the offence is in the box and a penalty awarded). Regardless of the contact, no attempt was made to play the ball yesterday; it is the cynical nature of the foul that made it an automatic red card. The rule was changed because of the number of players being sent off (particularly goalkeepers) who committed a foul when making a genuine attempt for the ball. A red card for cynical fouls remains in place. Yesterday’s was a cynical foul.

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on2:45 pm - Nov 27, 2017


HOMUNCULUSNOVEMBER 27, 2017 at 13:01

If, as you rightly say the rules dictate that contact and potential pulling back of a man, regardless of the amount of contact, it is a foul then the same applies in the middle of the pitch. Its a foul regardless of where it happens and who is involved.

Kind of what Bobcobb is getting at.

Agree with what you say but lets see how many similar instances, all over the pitch, go unpunished at this weekends fixtures.

The inconsistency in applying the rule inside  and outside of the box is there for all to see.

View Comment

Avatar

bobcobbPosted on2:56 pm - Nov 27, 2017


I suspect that the vast majority of similar instances will go unpunished, WOTTPI,  and this lack of consistency is at the heart of the problem. An unenforced / obsolete law is no law, so we either scrap it or we enforce it. Personally, I’d rather see the latter occur. I’ve always enjoyed the “contact” element of football but I’ve never had any time for jersey pulling etc. If we actually enforced the rules then players will not need to go down as if shot as they will be secure in the knowledge that the foul will be awarded even if they stay on their feet.

Alas, I don’t see this approach catching on. 

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on3:56 pm - Nov 27, 2017


I suggest everyone views this video of the penalty award yesterday and then tell me Sinclair was not impeded. 

http://kerrydalestreet.co.uk/single/?p=30651738&t=8054574

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on3:58 pm - Nov 27, 2017


BOBCOBBNOVEMBER 27, 2017 at 14:56

Agreed, however you end by making my point.
If they can stay on their feet and continue to play (as per my examples of McGregor and Dembele) then the contact is that light so as to not matter a jot.

And also how many times do we see an attacking player fend off a defender with his arms in an attempt to stop the player making a legitimate tackle. Why should it only be the attacking player who is impeded from showing his skills. Defending is a skill as well (although one being lost IMHO)

There has to be a degree of upper body contact within the game otherwise the game would be totally different to what we know and love.

View Comment

woodstein

woodsteinPosted on3:59 pm - Nov 27, 2017


John Clark
November 27, 2017 at 00:32
 
“And I personally consign you to the appropriate circle in Dante’s ‘Inferno’”
 
JC can I use that line?  With the appropriate acknowledgement of course.
04101010

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on4:04 pm - Nov 27, 2017


I see earlier today Ladbrokes suspended betting on Alex McLeish becoming Rangers Manager, only for McLeish to tell BBC he has had no contact whatsoever about the vacancy.  Following on from what Derek McInnes said last week despite all the previous media stories about him you really do have to wonder when the Rangers support will seriously start to question their board.  The inevitable talk of tainted titles and trebles for Celtic at Thursday’s AGM surely won’t be enough to pull the wool over people’s eyes. 

View Comment

woodstein

woodsteinPosted on4:08 pm - Nov 27, 2017


When I was at school we were always grabbing opposition players and wrestling them to the ground.
 
Oh wait that was Rugby.010107

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on4:20 pm - Nov 27, 2017


bobcobb
November 27, 2017 at 14:34
============================

I agree.

Thanks for clearing up the red card thing. I had forgotten about the “attempt to play the ball” aspect.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on4:30 pm - Nov 27, 2017


Wottpi
November 27, 2017 at 15:58 
BOBCOBBNOVEMBER 27, 2017 at 14:56
Agreed, however you end by making my point.
If they can stay on their feet and continue to play (as per my examples of McGregor and Dembele) then the contact is that light so as to not matter a jot.

And also how many times do we see an attacking player fend off a defender with his arms in an attempt to stop the player making a legitimate tackle. Why should it only be the attacking player who is impeded from showing his skills. Defending is a skill as well (although one being lost IMHO)

There has to be a degree of upper body contact within the game otherwise the game would be totally different to what we know and love.
================================

“Fending off” and “upper body contact” are not the same as using your hand to grab an opponent and impede his progress.

Whether someone can “stay on their feet” is not the point. If a player is through and I decide to pull him back and “take the yellow for the team” but he doesn’t actually fall down are you suggesting that isn’t a foul. It happens quite often and if the referee sees it he gives the foul and the booking. It’s actually a very easy one for the referee.

Whether it is on the half way line or in the penalty box does not change that it is a foul. Neither does whether the player falls down.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on4:46 pm - Nov 27, 2017


I might as well add my 2d worth on the penalty award. Penaty? Yes but soft. Red card? Only given because of the “denial of a goal scoring opportunity”.

I say soft because there are similar minor tugs that happen throughout a game, often at set pieces that go unpunished, so if the ref is being consistent, then why single out that one, and create a further controversy with the red card punishment

I would take issue with the red card though.  Sinclair clearly could have stayed on his feet and got a shot at goal, so to my mind it was he who denied himself a goal scoring opportunity by diving.

Coincidentally, I was listening to Graham Poll on Talksport this afternoon, and he was talking about the difference between simulation and exaggeration. He said that referees are told to punish simulation but not exaggeration.

Well I’m sorry, both are the same in my book.  If a player exaggerates the amount of contact by needlessly throwing himself to the ground, or exaggerates an injury by rolling about on the ground in order to get his opponent a red or yellow card.  It’s still cheating by encouraging the referee to make a decision that he wouldn’t otherwise make.

It does my head in when I see players lose all power to their legs the moment a hand in placed on their arm or shoulder, unless of course the offender is skilled in Mr Spock’s Vulcan “nerve pinch” or “death grip”.

 

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on4:50 pm - Nov 27, 2017


HOMUNCULUSNOVEMBER 27, 2017 at 16:30
“Fending off” and “upper body contact” are not the same as using your hand to grab an opponent and impede his progress.
———————————————————————————
Agreed but that’s my point. On Sunday there was no grab (no shirt was grabbed and tugged and no arm or any other part of Sinclair was restrained) and IMHO there was no impediment to progress.
There was a brushing of arms and that was it.
I’m not saying the challenge wasn’t clumsy and Kipre wasn’t being skinned but Sinclair made it look like there was much more contact than there was and admitted as much after the game.
He felt one wee touch and buckled.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on5:06 pm - Nov 27, 2017


EB @ 14.20

good Lord EB.  At last some common ground.  I have a similar dead man hanging outlook to you!  Albeit, as you know, I felt taking the titles off the old club but then letting them continue sans debt was never going to work but I did see some merit in my ‘bunny hop’ new club scenario (to div 1) discussed previously.

Are you sure you’re not just going down too easy? (Topical, moi?)

View Comment

woodstein

woodsteinPosted on8:05 pm - Nov 27, 2017


Squirrels are bigger at this time of year and there are a lot about.  21

View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizz

sannoffymesssoitizzPosted on8:36 pm - Nov 27, 2017


On Scottish and European football wages / finance http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42141794

View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizz

sannoffymesssoitizzPosted on8:49 pm - Nov 27, 2017


http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/15686552.Survey_reveals_stark_financial_gap_between_Celtic_s_wage_budget_and_the_rest_of_Scottish_Premiership/#comments-anchor

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on9:09 pm - Nov 27, 2017


Looking back i see Alastair  Johnston’s allegations never helped the police much

View Comment

Comments are closed.