Why We Need to Change

By

Not The Huddle Malcontent says: Member: …

Comment on Why We Need to Change by Auldheid.

Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Member: (6 comments)

July 16, 2015 at 10:46 pm

I could have written much the same myself. Totally agree on concept, safeguards and aims.

Auldheid Also Commented

Why We Need to Change
Interesting article on proposed FIFA reform.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuters/article-3201364/FIFA-official-proposes-abolishing-executive-committee-reform-plan.html

A start but I’d prefer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESy-Z8vqMrE


Why We Need to Change
Smugas says:
Member: (903 comments)

August 14, 2015 at 9:38 am

Up until now the self certification approach to this has, by and large, worked. But I think its highly optimistic, not least given the CL money stakes now on offer, to assume that it was a one-off if matters are to go entirely unchecked.

====================
You have no idea how spot on you are with this.

Not wanting to change the self certification process that all evidence suggests was breached in 2011, is one of the reasons the SFA are unwilling to allow examination of the process that year.

To do so would be to admit self certification no longer works in modern professional football, when the temptation to lie by the licensee club and not check fully by the licensor national association is too great to resist.


Why We Need to Change
John Clark says:
Member: (1098 comments)

August 14, 2015 at 11:35 am

Who do you think said this:”We know that FIFA needs reform.There needs to be transparency and openness around how decisions are made”?

Would you believe it was none other than the CEO of the SFA? ( as quoted in ‘The Scotsman’ today).
========================
AS long as its not probing questions from Res12 solicitors asking how decisions were made, Regan is all for transparency.

His hypocrisy knows no bounds.


Recent Comments by Auldheid

Here we go again
Cluster One
Hirsute Pursuit

Thanks for the clarification.

I can see how the Brechin reason and Romanov reason got conflated back then so we can drop Romanov from the underlying issue to look at which is:

What was the argument in support of the change in SPL rules introducing owner and operator and if it was solely to deal with a potential problem in respect of Brechin having no “owner” of a share, how did that rule change in 2005 transform Rangers from being an incorporated single Public Limited Liability Company (PLC) earning its revenue from football to a Public Limited Liability Company (PLC) that overnight owned a club earning the same income from the same source?

In terms of conforming with UEFA FFP before 2012 was it Rangers FC PLC that applied for a UEFA Licence or Rangers FC as a stand alone club or was it Rangers PLC whom Rangers Football Club had a written contract with to be their operators? The application template suggests it was Rangers Football Club only.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/0B6uWzxhblAt9VnptRTJBR01RTEE/edit

Post 2012 if its not the current club (Rangers FC Ltd) applying for a UEFA licence but the football Company (Rangers International Football Club PLC) they have a written contract with and the football company’s (RIFC) main source of revenue is from the club activities, then how can a Company go bust unless the club ceases to be able to provide that revenue?

Now had UEFA seen the 5 Way Agreement there would be the satisfaction of knowing they were OK with it.

As it stands UEFA did what their rules told them to do, Waited 3 years to allow the club that had undergone a terminal change in its legal structure to satisfy UEFA requirements in respect of historical membership of the SFA before being eligible to apply to play in UEFA competitions in circumstances that were not to the detriment of the integrity of those competitions.

After 3 years, whichever club ie legal entity that applied for a UEFA Licence, it was not the Rangers Football Club (PLC) that last applied in 2012 (which was rejected because they had no audited accounts and the wee tax bill of 2011 was admitted , unlike March 2011 when described as a potential liability, as a payable that as the world and its wean knew in 2012 was outstanding.)


Here we go again
HirsutePursuit 13th March 2021 At 21:31
3 0 Rate This

Auldheid…

On the subject of a franchise…

At the very least the possibility that the 5 Way Agreement has turned Scottish Football into a franchise should be explored by UEFA just in case.

On McDonalds I remember reading McDonalds Behind The Arches many years ago and one of the fascinating things to come out is that their wealth was not based on burgers but on the land and buildings owned . Kind of fits your point to your family member.


Here we go again
UptheHoops

On exclusions zones because supporters might turn up for invented reasons I think recognition of “knuckleheadessness ” as an all pervading human condition is necessary.

Knuckleheads.

I think it is an American term.

I quite like it, kind of onomatopoeic quality to it. Not so much sounds like but looks like.

Anyhoo it is a denial of reality that the support of Celtic and “Rangers” do not have their share of knuckleheads and they recognise each other.

The knuckle in the head stops the consequences of the emotions reaching the brain.

It’s a condition that most grow out of but it’s also one that we grow into before we grow out of it. A human condition.

So best not deny it and deal with it free from judgment of which support has the most knuckleheads or which kind of knucklehead is worse than the other.

Just say that anyone turning up at CP will be taken as evidence of knuckleheadedness to become huckleheads into a police van.

Set a perimeter around the ground and any one approaching without valid reason to do so will be huckled.

HuckleberryTim or HuckleberryHun.


Here we go again
Upthehoops 13th March 2021 At 18:45
0 0 Rate This

Auldheid 13th March 2021 At 16:15

It is the huge incentive that CL money provides that in my opinion is the creator of an incentive to cheat to get at it, PARTICULARLY if the ability repay the debt depends on getting the CL money.

+++++++++++++++++++++

Absolutely agree with that. Financial Fair Play in Scotland post 2012 would have been a good move, although the new Rangers would have suffered more than anyone because of it in my view.

And there you have it. Canny have rules that hinder Rangers business model .

If the 5 Way created a franchise like McDonalds but selling hateburgers then sectarianism is only the sauce that goes on the otherwise tasteless moneyburger to make it tasty.


Here we go again
Hirsute Pursuit

Thanks for your response useful as ever.

If the intent was to create a franchise is that not questionable of itself?

If it wasnt then SPFL misused it.

Either way the SPL appear het, it’s just from when?


About the author