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were behind the scenes discussions on this point and attempts were made separately at the time to obtain such written unpublished documentation that complied with UEFA FFP regulations from Darryl Broadfoot the Head of SFA Communications, but in spite of promises it never arrived.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 on8:07 pm - Nov 30, 2017


STANNOVEMBER 30, 2017 at 19:53 0 0 Rate This
Hopefully this will settle the argument. https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/936275297347031041
————–
ROLLY POLLY ALL DAY LONG21

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on8:18 pm - Nov 30, 2017


STAN
NOVEMBER 30, 2017 at 19:53
===================================

FFS, are people suggesting that wasn’t a penalty. 

Where was the attempt to even go for the ball, he just barged into the back of an opponent. 

View Comment

Avatar

StanPosted on8:19 pm - Nov 30, 2017


The video shows the Celtic penalty last night was 100% correct. The penalty at the weekend may have been soft, but the Motherwell defender pulled the player to make the ref make a decision. He should have been red carded for almost breaking Dembeles leg – that should be the discussion not whether a player who could have broken another players leg managed to stay on and pulled a player back in the penalty box. Motherwell want to play in a physical way as shown against Rangers and their players will earn their bookings and sending offs more often than not IMO.

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on8:22 pm - Nov 30, 2017


Surely there are Rangers fans out there, and Rangers fans in the media, who believe the annual subservience by shareholders and media at the AGM will ultimately not do the club any good? 

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on8:35 pm - Nov 30, 2017


Homunculus November 30, 2017 at 20:18 STAN NOVEMBER 30, 2017 at 19:53
===================================
FFS, are people suggesting that wasn’t a penalty. 
Where was the attempt to even go for the ball, he just barged into the back of an opponent. 
=================================
I’m one of those people.

IMO McGregor initiates the contact by running across the path of Rose, who was going for the ball.  McGregor does not run towards the ball. The moment there is contact, he hits the deck. He was looking for the contact and it was he who arguably committed a foul by obstructing Rose. 

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on8:45 pm - Nov 30, 2017


EASYJAMBO
NOVEMBER 30, 2017 at 20:35 I’m one of those people.
IMO McGregor initiates the contact by running across the path of Rose, who was going for the ball.  McGregor does not run towards the ball. The moment there is contact, he hits the deck. He was looking for the contact and it was he who arguably committed a foul by obstructing Rose. 
=====================================

I have only seen the view from the link over the page. 

From what I see McGregor is going for the ball and get’s ahead of the defender. The defender then simply barges into him, bringing him down.

He commits a foul it is therefore a penalty. 

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on8:47 pm - Nov 30, 2017


UPTHEHOOPS
NOVEMBER 30, 2017 at 20:22
==============================

They really are their own worst enemies, the deference to their betters is astonishing.

Long may it continue.

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on9:02 pm - Nov 30, 2017


HOMUNCULUSNOVEMBER 30, 2017 at 20:47 

They really are their own worst enemies, the deference to their betters is astonishing.
Long may it continue.

————————————

Indeed, I guess I shouldn’t care. The more it goes on the less likely it is they will ever provide a genuine challenge. 

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on9:08 pm - Nov 30, 2017


Homunculus November 30, 2017 at 20:45
I have only seen the view from the link over the page.
From what I see McGregor is going for the ball and get’s ahead of the defender. The defender then simply barges into him, bringing him down.
He commits a foul it is therefore a penalty.
==============================
Try looking at the other angles from the link below and try pausing it frame by frame as best you can.

https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/936180957589237761

If McGregor had got in front of Rose and held his position for even a fraction of second, before being bundled over in the direction that Rose was travelling, then I would have some sympathy with your view.

However McGregor’s tumble (momentum) was in the same direction as his angled run. That and his instant collapse suggests to me that he was looking for any contact and to milk it as best he could.

I am friendly with a match official (he’s officiated at SC and LC finals), who also rates Collum highly. I will have a chat with him the next time I see him in my local and see what the views are among the refereeing fraternity.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on9:17 pm - Nov 30, 2017


jimboNovember 30, 2017 at 18:04 
*King not Kink
________________

And what a mistake to make, Jimbo, the Kinks were absolutely brilliant, though they did sing…’The taxman’s taken all my dough…’ 19 So maybe they knew a thing about King, even sang about him before the world knew he was among us.

PS, for those too young to know, it’s a line from ‘Sunny Afternoon’, if you ain’t heard it, do yourself a favour and google it, or better still, buy it 

View Comment

Avatar

HighlanderPosted on9:17 pm - Nov 30, 2017


Having arguably started the Sinclair penalty farce debate last weekend, I subsequently vowed to keep out of the debate thereafter.

However, I feel obliged to re-enter the debate on the subject of the McGregor penalty farce by agreeing with eJ that McGregor sought a penalty, just as Sinclair did at the weekend.

I only do so in response to the somewhat infuriating suggestion that the video clip evidence somehow proves conclusively that a penalty was indeed the correct award. Well, I beg to differ, as indeed I would suggest the vast majority of non-Celtic fans would agree.

Going back to Sinclair, if the hand on his arm had been either a tug or a push, then a penalty was the correct decision. It was neither in my opinion: Sinclair felt contact on his arm and dived. That is cheating.

McGregor ran back onto the pitch and deliberately cut across the face of the Motherwell defender then attempted to screech to a sudden halt so that contact was unavoidable. He caused the contact, not Rose. The dive that followed would not have been out of place in the Olympic pool. That is also cheating.    

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on9:20 pm - Nov 30, 2017


I could also highlight the blatant ‘penalty’ in the Ibrox game.  Player is running into the box, is clearly impeded and yet he doesn’t suddenly lose all power in his legs.  Result:  no penalty.  So presumably you have to consciously go down to force the ref to make a decision when you wouldn’t otherwise go down.  I.e. cheating.

and for anyone questioning the blinkers I’m talking about Taverner doing the attacking and Considine doing the pulling (2nd half, just before the (offside) 3rd).

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on9:37 pm - Nov 30, 2017


Last night was an amazing turnaround for TRFC, they won a game, that for non-football reasons they just had to win, and here we are, arguing about ‘it was a penalty, it wasn’t a penalty’ in a different match that will, in the end, have no bearing on what happens next, or at at the end of the season, matter much in Scottish football (OK, Motherwell might miss out on a Euro place, by one point, a place in Europe that would most likely lose them money, but all clubs have been there, and it aint gonna change). In the meantime, RIFC/TRFC’s AGM is not being much talked about. Last night’s football must be one of the biggest squirrels ever seen on SFM 05

Not had a chance to follow events at the AGM, or even catch up on the details, but it does seem short on the usual bluster and gung ho! There will be a reason for that. 

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on9:40 pm - Nov 30, 2017


EASYJAMBO
NOVEMBER 30, 2017 at 21:08
==============================

EJ, I respect your opinion, in relation to not just football issues but your knowledge of finance etc.

I would respect your right to hold an opinion contrary to mine even if that wan’t the case. 

We are just going to have to agree to disagree. I think people make too much out of how a player reacts. The foul is committed by the person who commits the foul, it is their actions which make it foul play. In my opinion McGregor got ahead of the defender who then breenged (great word) into him, that was a foul in my opinion. That makes it a penalty. 

View Comment

Avatar

fan of footballPosted on9:42 pm - Nov 30, 2017


Some peepil seem to think DK is some sort of genius who wins all his battles in business and in court .
Is this the genius who  invited Jim White from sky sports to bring cameras over the pond to show off his home in SA and then take him on a tour of his wine cellar ,which just happened to be full of wine he had hidden from the SA authorities ,only to have it confiscated when they saw the footage .

Unfortunately this was not the first time the business genius fell foul of the media .

Back in the day he also happened to feature in an article of an SA magazine with him bidding R1.76m for a Imra Stern painting whilst declaring income of only R60,000 per year .
IIRC That little faux pa cost Mr king a load of cash and a s##t load of trouble 
A genius ,yeah right 

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on9:46 pm - Nov 30, 2017


SMUGAS
NOVEMBER 30, 2017 at 21:20 I could also highlight the blatant ‘penalty’ in the Ibrox game.  Player is running into the box, is clearly impeded and yet he doesn’t suddenly lose all power in his legs.  Result:  no penalty.  So presumably you have to consciously go down to force the ref to make a decision when you wouldn’t otherwise go down.  I.e. cheating.
=================================

As I have said before, it is the action of the player committing the foul which makes it a foul, not the reaction of the player being fouled.

If Neymar is through past Lustig and Lustig puts his arms round his waist because he knows he is beaten, then Naymar stops running but doesn’t fall down. It is still a foul and a booking. 

Because Lustig fouled him, not because Neymar did, or didn’t, fall down. 

Is Lustig cheating in that scenario … yes he is, he has deliberately broken the rules. Is he penalised for it … yes he is, he loses the foul and gets booked. 

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on9:49 pm - Nov 30, 2017


Homunculus November 30, 2017 at 21:40
——————–
LOL – I ended up texting my friend who thinks it was a pen, but only after seeing the latest angle. He wasn’t sure before then.

View Comment

Avatar

fan of footballPosted on9:53 pm - Nov 30, 2017


EB as you seem to be on the blog later at night ,I hope you don’t mind me again asking you

I also do not know how to put the question any simpler   It really is very straight forward .

Do you (no one else ) believe that the EBT loans given to ragers players were loans or wages for playing for ragers fc .( ie kicking a football about a park ).
And I am sorry but you haven’t answered my question 

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on10:03 pm - Nov 30, 2017


Homunculus

so why doesn’t Taverner get the penalty?

View Comment

shug

shugPosted on10:11 pm - Nov 30, 2017


Looking from the other angle still a pen.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on10:16 pm - Nov 30, 2017


SMUGAS
NOVEMBER 30, 2017 at 22:03
============================

If you are talking about something that happened in the Rangers Aberdeen game I didn’t watch it so I have no idea, sorry.

View Comment

Avatar

fan of footballPosted on10:17 pm - Nov 30, 2017


I do not think the media in scotland are doing our game any good at all in not asking real question of the peepil running one of our biggest clubs .
They completely failed in their duty to ask those questions of the peepil running the old club and in doing so allowed those peepil to take that club to the point of no return .
If they had acted like real journalists back then , maybe the supporters could have been informed in time to prevent the death of their club .
They did not, and everything I see now points to the new clumpany suffering an insolvency event .
How many times are the same supporters going to pay for the peepil running their clubs deeds and the MSM lack of integrity 
 

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on10:19 pm - Nov 30, 2017


EASYJAMBO
NOVEMBER 30, 2017 at 21:49
=======================

LOL.

It’s all about opinions apparently.

View Comment

Avatar

Big PinkPosted on10:21 pm - Nov 30, 2017


The penalty incident last night proves for me that for every ten fans looking at incidents – often regardless of allegiance – there are ten different interpretations. For what it is worth, I think both penalties were penalties. I think on Saturday that Sinclair was clearly impeded, knocked slightly off his trajectory towards the ball. However I think that he did ‘buy’ the penalty by going down – possibly learning the lesson of staying on his feet in the Ambrose incident a few weeks ago at Celtic Park.

Still impeded though, so still a penalty IMO. Last night on first viewing, I thought the Motherwell defender was desperately unlucky and that it wasn’t a penalty. Having seen it from the new angle today, I don’t think there is much argument.

The defender was vulnerable in that situation. When you’ve just had a narrow escape you are so desperate to clear the ball that there can be a tendency to ‘dive’ in. I think he paid for his haste and lack of cool at that moment. When McGregor got across him he should have just pushed him away from goal, but he wanted it to be over quickly and went in too heavily. Can’t see how McGregor over-egged any of that – he simply clattered into him.

Perhaps my Celtic fan mentality wants to give the Celtic players the benefit of the doubt – a benefit I would perhaps not bestow upon players from different sides, but I am attempting to be objective. The same objectivity that brought me to the conclusion that GMS didn’t deserve the penalty I wanted him to have last night 🙂

The point is that objectivity and football seldom cohabit, which is why we are on to a loser having the debate – we will seldom achieve consensus. Not a problem though as long as people are temperate in the course of the disagreement 🙂

View Comment

Paradisebhoy

ParadisebhoyPosted on10:25 pm - Nov 30, 2017


AllyjamboNovember 30, 2017 at 21:17 jimboNovember 30, 2017 at 18:04  *King not Kink
PS, for those too young to know, it’s a line from ‘Sunny Afternoon’, if you ain’t heard it, do yourself a favour and google it, or better still, buy it 
———————————————————————————————-
PPS , Coincidently this song was one of Big Pink’s “Party Pieces” .( that and a mean rendition of Waterloo Sunset)

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on10:26 pm - Nov 30, 2017


Ally,  My favourite Kinks song ‘Days’ 
I like this version.  Think it might be Blackpool before Spain took over! (Not in a football sense!)

View Comment

Avatar

Big PinkPosted on10:30 pm - Nov 30, 2017


Jimbo

Kirsty McColl had a great cover of that song. Very heart-rending tune and lyrics. I think it’s about a parent or grandparent – not a burd 🙂

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on10:46 pm - Nov 30, 2017


I’m an eejit!  Apparently the footage is from the USA.  Oh well.  I was on a nostalgia trip about Blackpool  although to be fair I’m thinking of the early 70s a bit later than the clip.  I also remember going to the Tangerine Club in the 80s which was to do with Blackpool FC.

(Finally got a football connection for my post).  10

View Comment

Avatar

erniePosted on11:04 pm - Nov 30, 2017


Would it not be easier if we just accept that it’s a foul when our own team dives and despair at the unfairness when the opposition do?  Or to put it another way: shock horror as supporters defends own player diving.  A foul is a foul.  A dive is a dive.  The first is punished more often than not.  The second is not punished nearly enough, rather it is encouraged by award of fouls/penalties for inconsequential cut and thrust of a physical competition. It’s a pathetic part of our modern game.

View Comment

Avatar

Big PinkPosted on11:32 pm - Nov 30, 2017


Ernie,

You are correct. Trouble is that there are grey areas with the simulation thing. For instance what should be done in a situation where a player IS impeded (can be a foul without anyone going to ground), but the act of going to ground itself is affectatious?

Also, in real time it is often ‘clear’ that the situation is either a dive or not – only for a rerun to change your mind. Don’t know how often I’ve been convinced that a foul has been committed but a free kick not awarded – only to find that the ref was correct. Probably more often than the other way around.

Throw in the fans’ lack of objectivity, and you have a can of worms.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on11:45 pm - Nov 30, 2017


easyJamboNovember 30, 2017 at 18:00
‘… ask him to propose that “strict liability” be put into operation in the Scottish game.  ‘
_____________
That sent me to the Scottish Parliament web-site, eJ, to see where James Dornan MSP is with his proposed Bill.
I hadn’t been aware either that there was a  consultation process initiated by the MSP or that it had ended  in March of this year !
But ( and I’m not all that familiar with the parliament’s web-site, so I’m probably missing a link or something) I can’t find the end result of that consultation process, in the shape of an actual proposed Bill.
I did note that Regan’s contribution related to the danger that FIFA might see an Act of the Scottish Parliament forcing clubs to accept legal ‘strict liability’ as being an interference by the State in football governance, and therefore take action to chuck the SFA out!
( Or, at least, that’s how I read the stuff)
My own half-considered thoughts on the principle of ‘strict liability’ tended to the view that the football supporters /club relationship is not the same as the consumer/ manufacturer/retailer relationship, under which the a company is liable for the misdeeds of its staff and workers against the customer.
It’s a huge step , I think, to deem a football supporter to be a servant of the club, a servant over whom the club has the same kind of power and control as an employer is deemed to have over his employees or agents , who can be presumed to be responsible to their employer for their actions.
Half-considered thoughts, I say, based on the principle that criminal acts committed by ,say, someone know as ej, are in no way the fault of Anne Budge or of Heart of Midlothian Football Club, since said eJ is not, prior to his acts of vandalism,  in any way known to the club as a hooligan:because if he were, he would not be admitted into the ground. The club could not reasonably be held responsible. Of course, once he was lifted by the polis, the club would then have some kind of responsibility to make sure he never darkened their new stadium doors again!
And, in this wicked world, there is always the possibility that opposition fans would masquerade as fans of the home club to cause the home clubs problems.
Perhaps we might be moving to a ‘no away fans’ system, where every seat in a stadium is occupied by a ( verified, photo-identified) season book holder of the club, with no walk-ups on the day, no lettin someone else use your book……
I am entirely unsure, but my gut feeling is that ‘strict liability’ is maybe too great an imposition on businesses which are doing their best, at great expense,too deal with social problems that are really the business of the State, in terms of policing provision and effective police action.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on12:13 am - Dec 1, 2017


easyJamboNovember 30, 2017 at 21:49
‘.. my friend who thinks it was a pen, but only after seeing the latest angle. He wasn’t sure before then.’
___________
That gives me an opportunity to give credit where credit is due(even if it chokes me13)
On ‘Sportsound’ this evening, after a fairly lengthy discussion  during which the participants seemed to be broadly unanimous in their view that there was no penalty, Kenny MacIntyre received a text/email ( whatever) of a video of the incident, which he and at least one of the other pundits seemed not to have seen before.( I think it may have been the one posted on this blog, which I hadn’t seen before, either)
To their credit, there was a readiness on their part to begin to be not quite so definite as they had previously been that it was never a penalty.
And I do give credit to the producer and/or Kenny for broadcasting the fact of receiving that text, and making the others come round to watch the  bit film.

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on12:21 am - Dec 1, 2017


HighlanderNovember 30, 2017 at 21:17 (Edit) 
McGregor ran back onto the pitch and deliberately cut across the face of the Motherwell defender then attempted to screech to a sudden halt so that contact was unavoidable. He caused the contact, not Rose. The dive that followed would not have been out of place in the Olympic pool. That is also cheating.   
=================
Correct McGregor deliberately ran in front of the Motherwell player to get to the ball first, and so he should.
His eyes were on the ball and, being in front of his head, not on Rose. Yes he stopped to protect the ball and keep it in play and so he should.
Rose  hit McGregor with a degree of force neither of us know, so cannot  state as a fact McGregor dived. I’m not sure if it was arm, body or knee in the back that did propel McGregor forward but Collum decided one or all of them did making it a penalty.
https://twitter.com/CelticQuote/status/936292407733379072
The video and Rose’s statement conflict. I’m going with the video.

View Comment

Avatar

bigboab1916Posted on12:22 am - Dec 1, 2017


StanNovember 30, 2017 at 20:19
The video shows the Celtic penalty last night was 100% correct.

Stan why are you raking over old coals move on man.212121

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on1:58 am - Dec 1, 2017


John Clark December 1, 2017 at 00:13
To their credit, there was a readiness on their part to begin to be not quite so definite as they had previously been that it was never a penalty.And I do give credit to the producer and/or Kenny for broadcasting the fact of receiving that text, and making the others come round to watch the bit film.
=============================
You mean you missed my tweeted response to Kenny Mac, which he read out on air.
Even Alex Rae agreed with me.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on2:19 am - Dec 1, 2017


So Auldheid’s use of the term fraudulent is perfectly reasonable in the circumstances.

You will have to ask HMRC the reasons why they did not pursue criminal fraud charges against RFC/Murray Group. There certainly appears to be a prima face case for doing so.

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on2:23 am - Dec 1, 2017


cheattʃiːt/ verbgerund or present participle: cheating1.act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage.”she always cheats at cards”
========================
By failing to reveal use of side letters that had not been notified to SFA and SPL under SFA and SPL Articles on player contract registration , RFC acted dishonestly.
This dishonesty allowed them to dishonestly pay players more than rivals. Insolvency can come in many forms and is not necessarily of itself cheating under SFA rules.
See Gretna. No dodgy rule breaking involved just financial foolishness.
What makes the RFC case different is the deliberate concealment of documents that should have been registered with the SFA, an act which played its part in the demise of RFC.
LNS found them guilty of failing to adhere to SFA/SPL regs. What he did not find them guilty of was dishonesty because a) he was not asked if they had acted so and b) evidence showing such was not provided to him when requested.
In fact nothing that RFC did prior to the arrival of Craig Whyte apart from them not carrying out proper diligence when confirming him as fit and proper, has been looked at by the SFA through the lens of dishonesty. Especially the Judicial Panel that found CW had brought the game into disrepute,  straw men if ever there was two (CW AND the JP).
Even then it failed to look at CWs failure to pay the wee tax bill whose genesis began before his arrival and a matter which the SFA Compliance Officer is now supposed to be investigating. Perhaps its taking so long because it goes to the root of the dishonesty problem, some of whom are still running affairs at Ibrox.
I appreciate none of this will change your mind but there are others of a more open mind reading who might not know what is now being posted or have forgotten what the facts are.

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on2:38 am - Dec 1, 2017


easyJamboDecember 1, 2017 at 02:19 (Edit
So Auldheid’s use of the term fraudulent is perfectly reasonable in the circumstances.
You will have to ask HMRC the reasons why they did not pursue criminal fraud charges against RFC/Murray Group. There certainly appears to be a prima face case for doing so.
=================
To allow pursuit of repayment outside the time limit of 6 years HMRC had only to show negligence or fraud. As negligence was self evident and fraud would have cost the exchequer to pursue and delayed collection they took the pragmatic decision on negligence.
However as the RFC QC did not dispute HMRC’s case citing the concealment as a reason and is later evident from other documents from the supposed appeal of the Wee tax case, HMRC thought Rangers had acted fraudulently. This one is telling.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6uWzxhblAt9TDY1eHg0R2xvQTg/view?usp=sharing

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on2:48 am - Dec 1, 2017


tantamountˈtantəmaʊnt/ adjectiveadjective: tantamountequivalent in seriousness to; virtually the same as.”the resignations were tantamount to an admission of guilt”synonyms:equivalent to, equal to, amounting to, as good as, more or less, synonymous with, virtually the same as, much the same as, comparable to, on a par with, commensurate with, along the lines of, as serious as, identical to”not taking action would be tantamount to dereliction of duty”

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on7:18 am - Dec 1, 2017


AULDHEIDDECEMBER 1, 2017 at 02:23
I appreciate none of this will change your mind but there are others of a more open mind reading who might not know what is now being posted or have forgotten what the facts are.
————
It is always good to be reminded of the facts

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on7:46 am - Dec 1, 2017


Having had more of a chance to peruse the AGM papers and the scathing media coverage 01 I’m still seeing no acknowledgement of the TAP.  Rather there’s just a slightly patronising lecture (in the circumstances) from King about what they should think and what they do look for.  Now you can argue the toss about whether he’s right or not but I’m sure there’s rules about this sort of thing.  

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on8:09 am - Dec 1, 2017


Sorry.  Cut off the last bit by mistake.

specifically; rules about taking over 30% of a company and then using that stake to control the lot.  And secondly rules about this master plan, particularly by minority shareholders when compared to the rest whereby having gained control you then ‘speculate to accumulate’ in boom or bust fashion.

but then Ernest assures us that bust is discretionary.  A bit like honesty/fraudulence apparently.  So that’s nice.

View Comment

Avatar

erniePosted on9:47 am - Dec 1, 2017


BIG PINKNOVEMBER 30, 2017 at 23:32
Well that’s ok.  Referees awarding the foul because “contact” was made and booking the diver for simulation would be a good start in cutting out the cheating.  The only possible excuse we get for diving is that you need to do it or the ref won’t give the foul.  It’s basically justifying cheating on the basis that it works. c.f. Lance Armstrong, Rangers etc.  We’re not quite at World Cup, rolling around like a hooked salmon levels yet but, let’s face it, there are blatant examples every week.  Action is needed I suggest.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on10:12 am - Dec 1, 2017


SMUGASDECEMBER 1, 2017 at 08:09

‘but then Ernest assures us that bust is discretionary.  A bit like honesty/fraudulence apparently.  So that’s nice.’
______________

This ‘discretion’ business.

I wrote a couple of days ago that whenever the SFA/SPL/SPFL or any other type of governing body use ‘discretion’ they are, by the very fact they are using this discretion, forming a decision outside of their own rules. This means that they are acting outside of those rules, regardless of having previously installed the right to act with ‘discretion’ within the rules.

Discretion is only required when the desired result is not included within the rules, and would never need to be used when the desired result is achievable by adherance to the rules.

As I say, I wrote something similar a few days ago, and no one posted anything that told me I was wrong, and yet, someone holds onto this ‘discretion’ as though by exercising it, the SFA have managed to make black, white!

If anyone thinks I am wrong in what I say, please enlighten me, or else stop using the word ‘discretion’ as though it’s inclusion in the rules of Scottish football makes a decision, through it’s use, true and honest and within the spirit of football, or any sport.

I do wonder why the SFA choose not to exercise this ‘discretion’ when they discover some immaterial error, such as a missing date on a player’s contract, an occassion when the use of ‘discretion’ might appear to the man in the street to be wholly appropriate.

View Comment

Avatar

erniePosted on10:22 am - Dec 1, 2017


“I do wonder why the SFA choose not to exercise this ‘discretion’ when they discover some immaterial error, such as a missing date on a player’s contract, an occassion when the use of ‘discretion’ might appear to the man in the street to be wholly appropriate.”
That’s the gist of it AJ, and my supplementary question to the SFA is just how big do you have to be to justify discretion?  Is AFC big enough for example (other vested interests are available) we know Rangers were?  

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on10:28 am - Dec 1, 2017


I should have added to my post that, unless they find it possible to argue successfully against what I say here regarding ‘discretion’, any assertion they have made that relied on the SFA being within their rights to use discretion, should now be retracted despite the fact that their points have been discredited time and again anyway.

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on10:42 am - Dec 1, 2017


ALLYJAMBODECEMBER 1, 2017 at 10:12

There is nothing wrong with the use of discretion per se.

The problem comes when, as your rightly say, you fail to justify, or even explain, the discretionary choices made when there are other rules, guidance and options available to you.

I was going to make the point the EB the other day that the main problem with the T’Rangers issue is that the footballing authorities have chosen not to explain the decisions they have made.

The whole saga has developed because the footballing authorities can’t bear to say they made exceptional decisions because it was the club playing out of Ibrox.

If they had openly and honestly said they wanted to keep the Govan Mob alive in some form or another because of their previous standing in the game and the regular 40k plus of paying customers, people may not have liked it but it would have been understood why such a decision may have been taken.

Similarly if they had said to the Ibrox Loyal that they viewed Sevco as a new club in terms of the legal side of things  but the spirit of the old club lived on through the fans, the other side of the fence would probably have lived with that. 

The lack of honesty and transparency has just muddied the waters and done our game, as a whole, no good at all.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on10:58 am - Dec 1, 2017


Wottpi
December 1, 2017 at 10:42 

Similarly if they had said to the Ibrox Loyal that they viewed Sevco as a new club in terms of the legal side of things  but the spirit of the old club lived on through the fans, the other side of the fence would probably have lived with that. 
================================

I can more than live with that. I think it is a fair reflection on what has actually happened.

If the Rangers support feel that the spirit of their old club lives on in their new one I think that is absolutely fine. Who am I to say otherwise.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on11:53 am - Dec 1, 2017


wottpi December 1, 2017 at 10:42
‘…Similarly if they had said to the Ibrox Loyal that they viewed Sevco as a new club in terms of the legal side of things  ..’
HomunculusDecember 1, 2017 at 10:58
‘…if the Rangers support feel that the spirit of their old club lives on in their new one I think that is absolutely fine. 
____________
Provided always, of course, that the SFA  ensured that TRFC Ltd were not allowed to claim the honours and titles( even those honestly won)  of the liquidated club, and that RIFCplc was not allowed to market itself as being the the dead club, and that the record books showed the true state of affairs.

I could live with that.

[ I still want the SFA nailed for their illicit assistance to RFC(IL) in the matter of the UEFA competitions licence.

If the then SFA board members  had been nailed at that time, it’s possible  that their successors in office  would have been too feart to try to pull a stunt like the Big Lie, and we could all have been spared 5 years of hypocritical cant]

View Comment

Avatar

bordersdonPosted on12:01 pm - Dec 1, 2017


                       John ClarkDecember 1, 2017 at 11:53wottpi December 1, 2017 at 10:42‘…Similarly if they had said to the Ibrox Loyal that they viewed Sevco as a new club in terms of the legal side of things  ..’HomunculusDecember 1, 2017 at 10:58‘…if the Rangers support feel that the spirit of their old club lives on in their new one I think that is absolutely fine.  ____________ Provided always, of course, that the SFA  ensured that TRFC Ltd were not allowed to claim the honours and titles( even those honestly won)  of the liquidated club, and that RIFCplc was not allowed to market itself as being the the dead club, and that the record books showed the true state of affairs.
I could live with that.
———————————————————————-
Given JC’s important qualifications, I could happily live with that and “move on”. But only with the qualifications.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on12:11 pm - Dec 1, 2017


WOTTPIDECEMBER 1, 2017 at 10:42
ALLYJAMBODECEMBER 1, 2017 at 10:12
There is nothing wrong with the use of discretion per se.
__________

I agree with you that discretion, when used to prevent an outcome that is disproportionate to, say, a small error that did not benefit the perpetrator of that small error, would be the proper way to go.

The liquidation of a football club, however, is not the result of a small error, it is the result of years of mismanagement and disregard for the safety of the club in pursuit of trophies and hoped for millions. Rangers did not deserve the right to any ‘discretion’, whether explained publicly, or not. Still, Rangers didn’t actually get the advantage of the SFA’s discretion, it was Sevco that the game’s governors, not very discretely, forced the SFL to accept.

That, however, is not the point I was making. I was pointing out that whenever the SFA (or any other adjudicator of rules) uses discretion, they are stepping outside of the rules and bringing about a decision that is outside of those rules. Nothing in what the SFA have ever said has suggested that, within the rules of Scottish football, they view TRFC as the same club as RFC, but a certain poster seems to think that because they acted within the rules by using their discretion to transfer the SFA membership to Sevco, that the decision, itself, was within the rules. He also seems to think, though that notion has been repeatedly discredited, that a transfer of membership makes a new entity the same entity as the previous holder of that membership. To facilitate that very misguided notion, he feels he has to prove the SFA acted within it’s own rules.

A wee thought on that particular use of discretion. If it was a proper use of ‘discretion’ to provide an honest and just interpretation of the rules, why have the rules not been amended accordingly? What’s more, why hasn’t the route back into the Scottish league been mapped out within the rules of the SFA and SPFL/SPL in the event of a liquidated club seeking admission along the exact same lines as some people would have us believe happened in the case of Rangers?

Might I suggest the following reasons for the rules not being changed in accordance with what happened.

a) Any change would clearly show that it was not ‘the same club’ that entered the SFL.

b) What the SFA did was so wrong they wouldn’t dare map it out for all to see

c) Both of the above.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on12:38 pm - Dec 1, 2017


Not to be wandering too far off topic, there is a letter in today’s “The Scotsman” from Professor Tim Crook ( no, it’s not a spoof name) Chair of the Professional Practices Board of the Chartered Institute of Journalists (CIoJ).
The last paragraph of his longish letter ( about protecting journalistic sources in the context of ‘whistle-blowing’ circumstances) has the following as  its concluding  line 
  ” ..and our democracy depends on journalists being able to report truth to power from protected sources”
When one thinks of how far short the SMSM falls of reporting truth  about the Big Lie at the heart of a sport( not about corrupt Governments or Government agencies that might slap them into jail!), one wonders at the bare-faced audacity of our  Scottish sports and business PR hacks in claiming to be in any sense recognised ‘journalists’  of the type prepared to defend truth against power.
It is very hard to avoid concluding that our hacks are only too happy to run in concert with untruth when it suits them, as the German press ran with Nazi propaganda at a time when full investigation and analysis of the Nazi party in its early days might well have shaped public opinion in such way as to make it unelectable.
A cheating Sports Governance body is not, of course, to be equated with the Nazi party in terms of the consequences of its cheating. But the common thread is there, the readiness to cheat.
In my opinion.

View Comment

paddy malarkey

paddy malarkeyPosted on12:54 pm - Dec 1, 2017


Deary me . Still debating the logical and lexical semantics of the demise of a club five years after its death when we should be looking forward to the World Cup draw and being angered by the fact that we are not participants .

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on1:04 pm - Dec 1, 2017


Simple litmus test, if RFC had paid the tax owed would you have grounds for title stripping based solely on the hiding of side letters?

Not in my opinion.  There is a clear flouting of the games laws though which would merit consideration of the due penalty per the rules in place at the time.  I suppose Title Stripping could potentially be one of those penalties.  Paying the tax of course would guarantee continuation so there is no conflation as to whether whom you are penalising was the guilty party in the first place.

If RFC had not hid any side letters but still lost the BTC and went bust, is that cheating too?

    
Yes and No 10.  They went bust (which I take to mean liquidation for the absence of doubt).  They die.  Did they cheat?  I assume you mean by operating whilst insolvent and therefore using money to gain sporting advantage that they technically didn’t have or couldn’t source?  I suppose they did so technically one could strip them of the relevant points as a penalty at the relevant time that it applied to for having an event.  So you’re dead with a title or dead minus ten points raising the question should you have the title said points refer to.  Strikes me the more immediate concern is that you’re still dead either way? 

View Comment

paddy malarkey

paddy malarkeyPosted on1:08 pm - Dec 1, 2017


How CAS deals with cheats and governing bodies who try to assist them .
http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Media_Release_5320.pdf

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on1:14 pm - Dec 1, 2017


Sorry, to add to my post at 13.04 I should have added that in scenario 1 I’ve assumed there is no other debt outwith HMRC causing any problem hence to pay the tax was to guarantee continuation.

In Rangers case of course we know that wasn’t the case.  I wonder how helpful their public humiliation and 3 monkeys ‘tax strategy’ was in keeping the other creditors onside?

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on1:18 pm - Dec 1, 2017


John ClarkDecember 1, 2017 at 11:53 
wottpi December 1, 2017 at 10:42‘…Similarly if they had said to the Ibrox Loyal that they viewed Sevco as a new club in terms of the legal side of things  ..’HomunculusDecember 1, 2017 at 10:58‘…if the Rangers support feel that the spirit of their old club lives on in their new one I think that is absolutely fine.  ____________ Provided always, of course, that the SFA  ensured that TRFC Ltd were not allowed to claim the honours and titles( even those honestly won)  of the liquidated club, and that RIFCplc was not allowed to market itself as being the the dead club, and that the record books showed the true state of affairs.
============================

Absolutely, I thought that was a given. If they were ackowledged as the new club we all know they are it makes no sense for them to claim the honours of a different club.

Is the current “Airdrieonians” analogous. People may think of them “in spirit” as being the same club but everyone knows they aren’t really.

Airdrieonians Football Club are a Scottish professional football team based in Airdrie who are members of the Scottish Professional Football League (SPFL) and play in the SPFL Scottish League One. They were formed in 2002 as Airdrie United Football Club following the liquidation of the original club. The club’s official name was changed in 2013 with the approval of the SFA to the traditional name of Airdrieonians. As with the earlier team of the same name, this is often colloquially shortened to simply “Airdrie”.

For the 1878−2002 club, see Airdrieonians F.C. (1878).

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on1:49 pm - Dec 1, 2017


WottpiDecember 1, 2017 at 13:19 
This was deception on a large scale and wholly designed to keep both the footballing authorities and Hector in the dark because it was known that the side letters were the silver bullet in terms of making the whole thing goes tits up.
===========================

The bizarre thing, and the bit that Hector is so happy about is that the Supreme Court have effectively ruled that it didn’t even matter anyway.

Disguised remuneration is disguised remuneration. The contractual / discretionary part has effectively been taken away.

It is what drove the cheating and lying to the football authorities in the first place, absolutely. However at the end of the day from a tax perspective it hasn’t made any difference as I understand it.

Ther is a whole tax avoidance industry out there and a whole lot of tax avoiders who must cringe when they hear the name Rangers. A lot of them High Net Worth individuals I would have thought.

View Comment

Avatar

bluPosted on2:04 pm - Dec 1, 2017


HomunculusDecember 1, 2017 at 13:49
Maybe Sir David Murray is due another honour from the Queen for services to society by ensuring that a widely and mostly effective (for tax avoiders) loophole was damaged beyond all credibility through his operation of it at Rangers Football Club. Arise, Lord Murray of Auchenhowie, the tax collector’s champion.

View Comment

woodstein

woodsteinPosted on2:29 pm - Dec 1, 2017


blu
December 1, 2017 at 14:04
 04
 
Murray received his knighthood from Queen Elizabeth on 4 July 2007 at a ceremony at Holyrood Palace.
 
When he was kneeling in front of the queen, did this cross his mind?
 
26 November 1992: The Queen volunteers to pay income tax
 

View Comment

paddy malarkey

paddy malarkeyPosted on2:41 pm - Dec 1, 2017


Jimbo and the other CFC boys .
Any legs in the rumour that Celtic will be making a cheeky wee bid ,circa £500k plus add-ons, for McCrorie of TRFC ?

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on3:23 pm - Dec 1, 2017


PADDY MALARKEY
DECEMBER 1, 2017 at 14:41
Jimbo and the other CFC boys .Any legs in the rumour that Celtic will be making a cheeky wee bid ,circa £500k plus add-ons, for McCrorie of TRFC ?
================================
No idea PM.
But wouldn’t it be delightful if true ?!

Can’t remember when/if CFC has ever paid for a player directly from the old Rangers ?

But, if TRFC is desperate for cash, then it would be charitable of CFC to assist a struggling club…and it is almost Christmas.  16

Can just imagine the mental anguish King would suffer though: desperate to bite off Lawwell’s hand for the cash – but knowing that the bears will start foaming at the mouth if they sell the player.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on3:41 pm - Dec 1, 2017


Another angle on the McGregor penalty has emerged, this time from the Zapruder film taken from the grassy knoll. It again suggests to me that McGregor was looking for the foul by initiating contact.
https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/936302174279290880

View Comment

paddy malarkey

paddy malarkeyPosted on4:06 pm - Dec 1, 2017


STEVIEBCDECEMBER 1, 2017 at 15:23

My mate’s a bar manager and he heard some Bears referencing it -they hoped it was a Timmy wind-up .

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on4:19 pm - Dec 1, 2017


Res 11 passed, but closer than I thought it would be

For – 45,935,337 (78.3%)
Against – 12,758,306 (21.7%)

Total votes cast on the Resolution was 58,693,643. This represents 71.4% of the Company’s issued share capital.

https://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/agm-result-notice-3/

View Comment

Avatar

Jingso.JimsiePosted on4:23 pm - Dec 1, 2017


Isn’t the letter of the law on the McGregor incident that he left the field of play to seek an advantage (not be offside) & should have been cautioned upon re-entering?

As soon as he crosses the bye-line back on to the pitch & moves towards the ball, he’s active & offside anyway!

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on4:45 pm - Dec 1, 2017


Andy Newport‏Verified account @AndyNewportPA
Understand Rangers board hope to launch a “targeted share issue” next year, potentially as early as March, which will allow Dave King, Three Bears etc to convert much of their loans into shares

If I was being cynical, it will be timed in March to allow the club to conform to FFP requirements.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on4:48 pm - Dec 1, 2017


Jingso.Jimsie December 1, 2017 at 16:23 
Isn’t the letter of the law on the McGregor incident that he left the field of play to seek an advantage (not be offside) & should have been cautioned upon re-entering?
As soon as he crosses the bye-line back on to the pitch & moves towards the ball, he’s active & offside anyway!
=========================
Leaving the field because of your momentum isn’t an issue, nor is re-entering the play in that circumstance.

McGregor is never offside.  He was the last Celtic player to touch the ball and, in any event, play had moved onto a new phase when the keeper palmed the ball away from goal.

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on4:53 pm - Dec 1, 2017


EASYJAMBODECEMBER 1, 2017 at 15:41

Totally correct.
No attempt to play the ball he was running towards.
Stopped dead to obstruct /impede the opposing player as if a  ‘shepherding’ the ball out of play, expect the ball was never going out of play. Therefore no need or reason to stop his forward movement  whatsoever.
For me it has got nothing to do with who the players are.
My beef is that players these days are just going down to easy and trying to con the refs.

Sporting integrity and all that.

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on5:02 pm - Dec 1, 2017


wottpiDecember 1, 2017 at 16:53 (Edit) 
EASYJAMBODECEMBER 1, 2017 at 15:41
Totally correct. No attempt to play the ball he was running towards. Stopped dead to obstruct /impede the opposing player as if a  ‘shepherding’ the ball out of play, expect the ball was never going out of play. Therefore no need or reason to stop his forward movement  whatsoever. For me it has got nothing to do with who the players are. My beef is that players these days are just going down to easy and trying to con the refs.
Sporting integrity and all that.
===============
Had that been two cars and the driver of the car in front stopped for any reason and the car behind ran into him/her it would be the latter who is responsible for the crash.
Why the car in front stopped, the motivation for it is not considered.
In the case of McGregor was his motivation to get rear ended or protect the ball? I don’t know, none of us does and the traffic cop (Collum) blamed Rose on that basis. He should have kept his distance and protected his space from any cross McGregor might have made had he not been chewing grass.

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on5:07 pm - Dec 1, 2017


AllyjamboDecember 1, 2017 at 10:12 (Edit) 18 0 i Rate This
SMUGASDECEMBER 1, 2017 at 08:09
‘but then Ernest assures us that bust is discretionary.  A bit like honesty/fraudulence apparently.  So that’s nice.’______________
This ‘discretion’ business.

I do wonder why the SFA choose not to exercise this ‘discretion’ when they discover some immaterial error, such as a missing date on a player’s contract, an occassion when the use of ‘discretion’ might appear to the man in the street to be wholly appropriate.
===============
At least £196, 063.40 plus what was owed to other football creditors of reasons to exercise:  see my response to EB. 🙂

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on5:22 pm - Dec 1, 2017


Auldheid December 1, 2017 at 17:02
Had that been two cars and the driver of the car in front stopped for any reason and the car behind ran into him/her it would be the latter who is responsible for the crash.Why the car in front stopped, the motivation for it is not considered.In the case of McGregor was his motivation to get rear ended or protect the ball? I don’t know, none of us does and the traffic cop (Collum) blamed Rose on that basis. He should have kept his distance and protected his space from any cross McGregor might have made had he not been chewing grass.
======================
I think that’s a poor analogy Auldheid.  However, If a car (McGregor) overtakes you and cuts in sharply into your lane, slams on the anchors, then who is responsible or the collision?

If McGregor had really attempted to shield the ball, then you would have thought his somersault would have been in the same direction as Rose was heading, not out to the side in the same direction as McGregor was heading when he cut in front of Rose.

I think it’s pretty clear that his intention was to get his body in front of Rose, then hit the deck the moment he felt contact.

That’s the modern game for you.  He who is best at cheating, normally gets an advantage.

View Comment

Avatar

fan of footballPosted on5:46 pm - Dec 1, 2017


I am amazed as to how many of the sevco 2012 fans still seem to point the blame at CW for the demise of the old club .
Don’t get me wrong ,I realise if they are taking their info from the SMSM then no doubt many of them would be swayed .
But seriously ,how can so many of them be so blind .

There is only one man who saddled the old club with unpayable debts (forget the old £18m nonsense ) 
and it was not CW 

There is only one man who took them down the road of dishonesty that ensured the death of the club 
and it was not CW .
With a vicious circle of overspending and cheating there was only one place that club was going and it was straight down the pan .
Don’t get me wrong CW was no innocent in it all but IMO the damage was very much done before he came on the scene .

Think on this ,back then the banks (then us the tax payers ) covered the largesse of the peepil running the old club .Now with no bank backing it will be down to the supporters of sevco 2012 to come up with the money.

So be prepared bears the cap is coming your way and if I were in your shoes I would be looking for fellow fans to be mobilizing and making sure any money given was going to the club and be staying in the club . 

View Comment

Avatar

HighlanderPosted on6:18 pm - Dec 1, 2017


AULDHEID
DECEMBER 1, 2017 at 17:02

Had that been two cars and the driver of the car in front stopped for any reason and the car behind ran into him/her it would be the latter who is responsible for the crash.
Why the car in front stopped, motivation for it is not considered.

With respect, on the contrary, if the police and insurance assessors (referee and assistants?) had been doing their jobs, the motivation would be a primary consideration.

As I’m sure you’re aware, there is a multi million pound insurance scam in existence whereby the driver of a car deliberately, suddenly and inexplicably slams on the brakes in order for the following car to unavoidably smash into the scammer’s car, affording the scammer the opportunity to make a bogus insurance claim.

Hopefully the similarities to McGregor’s cheating need no further explanation.

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on6:27 pm - Dec 1, 2017


HighlanderDecember 1, 2017 at 18:18 (Edit)
Only if they had reason to suspect the driver in front slammed on his brakes for no reason.
Protecting the ball from an opponent is reasonable in football.
Had McGregor been more focussed on Rose than the ball, I might have thought there was case but it seemed to me retaining possession was paramount, particularly as that is part of Celtic’s game strategy and is drummed into players and McGregor was looking to where the ball was and not Rose position.
Rose got too close. 

View Comment

Comments are closed.