A Lie for a Lie


The “Lawwell Letter” is trending everywhere this week. To elucidate, it is email sent to (among others) Peter Lawwell and Eric Riley of Celtic on 26 July 2012 by SPL CEO Neil Doncaster.

The email came with an attached copy of the Five Way Agreement (hereafter “5WA”, the deal between Sevco, Rangers, the SFA, the SPL and the SFL). Now that it has been made public, it seems safe to speak openly about what it all means for us as folk who believe in sporting integrity.

I would preface my comments with a caveat though. On the face of it, the Celtic Chief Executive appears to have misled the gathering at the recent Celtic AGM. He was asked by a shareholder if Celtic were involved in the Five Way Agreement. Lawwell replied, “No”, and gave same “No” response to the follow up question, “have you seen it?”

Given that a copy of that email was in the possession of a few folk before that AGM, I have to admit to being surprised by that answer – although even more surprised at the apparent lack of due diligence implied by the lack of knowledge of its content.

We have attempted to contact Mr Lawwell to ask him if he would like to comment on the apparent discrepancy between the evidence and his answer (and I am sure we are not the only ones to have done so). To date, we have received no response. Given the complete lack of acknowledgement of the existence of this anomaly in the MSM, we should perhaps assume that none will be forthcoming.

Perhaps there is an explanation (yes I know), but Celtic should know, like Rangers old and new have come to realise, that silence on these matters breeds deep suspicion and distrust.

Assuming for the minute that Occam’s Razor applies here, there may be an uncomfortable truth emerging for Celtic fans – that Rangers (old and new) do not have a monopoly on dishonesty. There is also an uncomfortable truth that should emerge for Rangers fans too – that as we have said all along, this has never been about just Rangers, but about the governance of the game.

If the Celtic CEO did lie to the AGM a few weeks ago what are the consequences? He broke no laws as far as I can see. One insider I spoke to said simply this,

“So he lied. So what? What happens now? It’s irrelevant”

That is of course absolutely true. As long as controlling shareholders are happy that Resolution 12 is buried, and that no deep inquiry into governance is held into the workings of the game in Scotland, the lie is nonpunishable, though it would be a mistake to believe that accountability is confined only to the corporate rules governing Boards and shareholders; the corporate veil of “I was only following company policy” can be readily challenged in the court of public opinion, which has no statute of limitations.

What all this demonstrates of course is that Celtic have been saying one thing to their fans and shareholders, nodding agreement in private meetings about how appalling Rangers behaviour was, tut-tutting over how amateurish the authorities were, and wringing their hands in frustration at what a sham the LNS inquiry turned out to be.

At the same time, they have done nothing, allowed small shareholders to spend not inconsiderable suns progressing the matter, and quietly hoped that the “appetite” for justice would diminish so they could get back to whatever it is they and the rest do when subject to little or no scrutiny.

Whilst ten in a row is on the table of course, they can get away with it. To Celtic fans right now, understandably, nothing else matters. But what if TIAR is derailed? Not a stretch to imagine that the Parkhead kitchen could get uncontrollably hot in that circumstance. And when the TIAR squirrel finally ends its scurry, in either success or failure, where will the fans attention be diverted?

Perhaps the arrogance that permits making (allegedly) false statements to a general meeting, and (allegedly) misleading shareholders over Res 12 is borne of the knowledge that the parachutes are ready to be deployed when either of the above scenarios come to pass? If TIAR is achieved or goes south, are they already prepared for an emergency exit?

Celtic have two major shareholders whose combined holding is over 50% of the club’s shares. Dermot Desmond and Nick Train. Desmond is now in his eighth decade and Train is reportedly having some business difficulties. Both may well be moved to get out anyway, but fan unrest would make their decision a whole lot easier.

And Lawwell himself is – if you believe the MSM – on the wanted list of nearly as many top clubs as Alfredo Morelos.

The foregoing of course is extremely “Old Firm” centric, and as the two biggest clubs in the country they certainly have the biggest impact on the game, culturally, socially and financially. However there is no get-out clause here for others.

We KNOW there is evidence of fraud surrounding the licencing issue in 2012. We KNOW there is evidence of a cover up over that, and the EBT-related registration issues for Old Rangers. We KNOW that the Five Way Agreement was signed by football authorities in the knowledge that it would rob their own rules of judicial authority with regard to compliance by RFC prior to 2012.

We also know that NOT ONE club has taken a meaningful stand against any of it.

Clubs are saying one thing to supporters and doing their best to derail those supporters’ efforts on the other. We can also infer (not unreasonably) that the folk who run the clubs think that we as fans have no right to interfere in how they run their operations.

As I said earlier, Celtic can do what they like whilst TIAR is live, but afterwards, however it ends, the fans and shareholders involved in Res 12 will still be asking questions. Celtic in particular know how fatal it can be to alienate their own fan base – a fan base that has flexed its muscles with devastating effect for the boardroom in the past. And it is the wrath of the fans of all clubs that will eventually see the charlatans get their just desserts.

Our job as fans is to continue to hold those who care little for the honour and beauty of football to account, to continue to press them on their refusal to deal with arguably the biggest sporting scandal in Scottish history.

The bottom line (which is of course what the folk in boardrooms care about) is this. They need us far more than we need them. As fans of different clubs, the sensibility of those of us at SFM recognises that the real battle, the real war, is not between rival fans or rival clubs, but between the arrogant, self-entitled clique who run our game; who lie for fun, who cheat and belittle the sport; and the good folk who make it possible for the game to prosper.

Resolution 12 is not just about Rangers – nor is it just about Celtic. It deserves to be embraced by every true football fan in the country. The Res 12 franchise needs to widened

Sooner or later the fans will demonstrate their unhappiness with the money men. They did it in 2012, and they will inevitably do so again.


1 8 9 10 11 12 32

  1. Homunculus 19th February 2020 at 17:40

    This is going to be interesting, Rangers are looking for new retail partners for 20/21


    I wonder what SDI will be thinking about their "matching rights" for next season that were upheld by Justice Persey last year.

    Notwithstanding the SDI complication, I worder if TRFC is looking to engage with a new retail operator that with give them a substantial sum up front for a multi year deal, to help with their cash requirements, a la JJB Sports.

  2. Ex Ludo 19th February 2020 at 18:34


    They are still tied to Sports Direct.

    Elite are holding back £2.5m and there will be a Court case

    Clearly the relationship with Hummel has totally broken down.

    They have changed their facebook status from "in a relationship" to "single".

    I would be surprised if the large companies are going to be getting involved in a bidding war for the business. 


  3. From Justice Persey's ruling in July 2019.

    As to the first point, I am not satisfied that Rangers will lose significant revenues. It has already received the revenues due in respect of the 2018/2019 season and, given the limited nature of the injunctive relief now sought, will likely receive those due from Elite in the 2019/2020 season. It will also be entitled to receive revenues from SDIR in respect of the 2020/2021 season.

    It appears that Persey clearly envisaged SDI exercising their matching rights for season 2020/21.

  4. 'John Clark 19th February 2020 at 15:47

    Have we any idea  what 'Charge 1-proved under deletion' may mean?…'


    I am not a lawyer, but I suspect that since Hibs were found guilty of the 'other half' of a similar charge on 06.02.20 (which includes the phrase 'a hostile or argumentative situation with players and/or team staff from the opposing team') for the same incident during the match on 20.12.19, TRFC had no defence to their alleged offence & that their planned evidence of innocence/mitigation was invalid & impermissible (and thus deleted from proceedings). 

    I may be wrong: I often am!

  5. Homunculus 19th February 2020 at 18:35

    In other thoughts, what next for

    Murray Park … Auchenhowie … Hummel Training Centre … 


    …… Donnay Training Centre or Londsdale Training Centre might fit the bill.

  6. ICT isn’t very happy about the Keatings appeal being rejected.


    This decision has cost our player the chance to play in a national Cup Final, not something that comes along every week, to the detriment of the player, his team mates, the club and our fans. We believe it also damages the credibility of our governing body and brings the game into disrepute. The decision is plainly wrong and the dogs in the street know this. We have no right to appeal this final decision and it is painful to accept.

  7. easyJambo 19th February 2020 at 19:37
    Murray Park … Auchenhowie … Hummel Training Centre …
    Will now be called the no longer murray park, the no longer Auchenowie, the no longer called Hummel Training centre,Tranor HQ.

  8. Sad person that I am but due to tribal loyalties I normally am happy when ICT lose! However the decision made by the SFA today to turn down the yellow card appeal is such an injustice that I am have to agree with the statement they have issued. I will even contribute to any crowdfunding required if the SFA decide to punish them financially! 

  9. John Clark 19th February 2020 at 15:47



    Rate This

    easyJambo 19th February 2020 at 15:13

    ‘…….Further good news for TRFC is that £5,000 of the fine is suspended.

    Have we any idea what ‘Charge 1-proved under deletion’ may mean?

    From the SFA website ( which incidentally still seems to show Regan as CEO!):

    “Principal hearing date: Tuesday 18 February 2020


    Charge 1 – Proved under deletion

    Sanction – £5000 fine, £3000 immediate and £2000 suspended until End of Season 2019/20 …..”

    And is ‘suspension” conditional on good behaviour for the rest of the season?

    Or was there a plea that “we can only manage £10 000 of the £15 000 at the moment. Gi’e us some time to pay the rest, eh?
    The offset rule.

  10. Homunculus 19th February 2020 at 17:40     

     This is going to be interesting, Rangers are looking for new retail partners for 20/21.


          So the legal dispute with Uncle Mick is sorted now, is it?

          Sounds more tactical than actual H…..Maybe the Sevco SLO has been getting it tight regarding next season's kit, when the chances of reaching next season should be the question. (Haven't they realised Sevco are still £10m short of finishing this one?).

       I'm not buying a public announcement surrounding negotiations, which are generally conducted under a veil of secrecy until the "Big reveal"….

         Methinks it's merely something to settle the unsettled…….And it's doing the trick, judging by the excited chatter on Sevco medja…….They've forgotten all about tumbling down the league…….If only for a short while..  broken heart

  11.  eJ

    "…the decision is plainly wrong and the dogs in the street know this…"



    That's a classy deliverance of a swift kick to the SFA goolies!

    And, yet…

    if the SFA CEO Maxwell wasn't a useful, overpaid puppet [or marionette indecision ], 

    this could be an opportunity to establish his own credibility -and to show everyone that the SFA can indeed change.

    [Bear with me on this!]

    I'd guess as CEO, he must have some Executive privilege whereby he can – by exception – overrule or rescind an SFA sanctioned decision?

    In this example, what if Maxwell stepped in to have the decision set aside ?

    Of course, the blazers' heads might explode as they frantically reached for the rule book.

    But, it would send a powerful message – both to the SFA staff and to the long suffering, paying customers / supporters.

    (I know, wholly hypothetical…).

  12. To be fair on Rangers we should also probably consider the latest development in their Everyone Anyone campaign.



    “It is 2020, there is no place in football or indeed society for racism, homophobia or anti-social behaviour. Ibrox is a place where we can all come together, celebrate our diversity and enjoy the football.

    “We have achieved much since our launch, but we cannot become complacent and the campaign will evolve in the weeks and months ahead. The launch of the Fans Charter is the latest strand of this initiative and going forward any supporter buying a season ticket or match tickets will be expected to sign up for this new code of conduct.”

    The Everyone Anyone Fans Charter

    I pledge to play my part in the initiative by:

    • Acting as an ambassador for Rangers at all times by being respectful, tolerant and inclusive
    • Raising awareness of the Everyone Anyone diversity and inclusion campaign
    • Appreciating that despite our many differences, we are all united in our support for Rangers
    • Respecting supporters and groups who share contrary views and beliefs
    • Acknowledging we should all feel safe, welcome and wanted at Rangers matches
    • Recognising the barriers people may experience because of their identity
    • Standing up and being an ally for those who experience discrimination
    • Rejecting pre-conceived stereotypes about Rangers fans, players and staff and their identities
    • Assisting Rangers to showcase our varied fanbase by setting a positive example at matches
    • Accepting there is no place in society for bigotry, racism, sectarianism or homophobia
    • Reporting discriminatory language and behaviour whenever I witness or experience it
    • Being aware of how my behaviour and language might impact on others
    • Understanding there will be sanctions for discrimination and anti-social behaviour

  13. Jimmy Bones 19th February 2020 at 17:01

    '..you would find him guilty under deletion of the sub-heads he wasn’t involved in".'

    Grateful to you, JB. 

    It's puzzling , though.

    Why would there  be charges against a party if they could be deleted because he wasn't involved? Sounds like the 'charge' sheet was made up by the same PF who produced the charge sheet against the 'conspiracy' of the alleged conspirators  Green, Whyte and the others!broken heart

  14. Homunculus 19th February 2020 at 21:39

    ‘..To be fair on Rangers we should also probably consider the latest development in their Everyone Anyone campaign…’

    Sadly, Homunculus, the ‘Charter’ is missing one very important pledge:

    ” I pledge to play my part in the initiative by:telling the truth that TRFC, as a club newly admitted to Scottish Football in 2012,  is not Rangers football club of 1872  and is consequently telling an untruth and making false claims when it attempts to claim to be that club. In the interests of Sporting Integrity I  will uphold the self-evident truth that sporting titles and honours can only be claimed by the clubs that actually won them.”

    Without that, the ‘Charter’ is pointless and dishonest and simply a diversionary, hypocritical exercise.

    And there can be no moving on with unrepentant cheats.

  15. Extracted from the latest Ibrox statement, re: new kit supplier;


    "…Furthermore, Rangers will celebrate its landmark 150th year in 2022, which represents a unique opportunity for the successful partner to join the anniversary celebrations."


    Yet another reason to hope that the Ibrox club is dead – and buried – sooner, rather than later…  ​​​​​​

  16. StevieBC

    Agreed, my own club, celtic, facilitate it as well, that's why I no longer spend money in scottish football, its a laughing stock 

  17. The latest advertising for a kit manufacturer to bid for a deal for next season is an act of desperation or should I say another act of desperation. What it is telling us is nobody has approached them even though they will be well aware a deal is up for negotiation and any approaches made by Rangers* to encourage a deal have been rebuffed . Why would anyone waste their time and money preparing an offer that Ashley merely has to match in order to seal the deal .Why would a rival company prepare a deal that has to be shown to Ashley.  Their past is now coming back to haunt them , they are toxic , they cannot be trusted and King is still hiding behind the curtain . The man they all wanted , the man they sacrificed a real billionaire and successful businessman for , the man that everybody without blue tinted specs warned them about will be the man that condemns them to insolvency. 

  18. Timtim

    The Simmet and Pants Park

    I near died laughing.

    'Simmet and Pants of Argyle Street'

    Fine purveyors of footballing apparel since 2020


    James Bisgrove, Rangers’ Commercial and Marketing Director commented: “We’re delighted to announce that we shall be engaging with potential partners that can deliver an official Rangers kit supply and retail operation that mirrors the demand of the club’s global fan base.”

    I put that quote into google translate. It came up with the Spanish phrase 'estamos jodidos'.

  19. Re Rangers searching for a new kit manufacturer. I assume either Ashley will be able to move in and match any offer?

    On another note, how many clubs of the brand magnitude they claim to be ever have to publicly reach out to try and get a manufacturer? 


  20. StevieBC 19th February 2020 at 22:36

    '…, Rangers will celebrate its landmark 150th year in 2022….'


    If the 'Bismarck' hadn't been sunk on St Valentine's day in 1941, she would have been 81 last Friday, and if  the loathsome Adolf hadnae killed himself, he would be 133 in 2022.

    RFC of 1872 died on 31 October 2012 as finally and conclusively as both of the above.

    Shame on those who try to pervert the truth of that actual fact:they deserve nothing but our scorn and contempt.  



  21. My working assumption is that the original contract terms with SDI are still active.

    If so, I don't think there is a 'window' for TRFC to find new merchandising partners for next season.

    In these circumstances, it seems highly unlikely that any reputable  sportswear manufacturers and/or retailers would touch TRFC with someone else's bargepole.

    Is yesterday's announcement simply a prod to SDI to seek an injunction/interdict to enforce its existing rights for next season?

    There is no easy way out of this mess for TRFC. 

    Going back to the original SDI terms under a court order – rather than doing so voluntarily – might just be considered to be the least worst outcome.

  22. It is difficult, if not impossible, to work out the point or objective of the most recent Statement. I'm guessing Adidas, Nike et al have got commercial arms with things like phone numbers that T'Rangers could use to sort out the ever escalating bids to be a "Partner".

    One obvious challenge is that the successful bidder to ascend the marble staircase will be part of the celebrations of the landmark 150th year. How many companies are going to tender on the basis that the kit is still going to be around in 142 years time?

    The tenor of the Statement gives the impression of desperation with a touch of delusion. Why not mention the exciting prospect of a Joint Venture into the world of Trackside Marketing and Retail experience? As Homunculus has observed the lucky bidder could have their brand tied in to the former Murray Park, Auchenhowie, Hummel Training Centre with the grand opening of The Erzi Wrigley Spearmint And Yer Macaroon Bar Lodge Of Footballing Excellence.

    I think the most professional part of The Statement is the email address at the end. Most helpful if you can't figure out how to contact The Most Successful Club In The World. There are shades of the grand launch of Level 5; Blythswood Square location; champagne flowing, Walter Smith and Murdo McLeod (i.e. no bigotry here), proudly declaring that with zero PR experience this was the greatest PR outfit ever all ending with the website advising that the contact point was a mobile telephone number. Nothing says professionalism like a burner phone.

    I pity whoever has to plough through the email responses this morning and then have to take the results to the Blue Room. One consolation will be that unless PC World have new lines of credit (buy now; pay in 2690) they won't have to weed out tyre-kicking time wasters from South Africa.

  23. I think we should remember that RIFC/TRFC have continually confounded us by their ability to pull the wool over the eyes of businesses and businessmen we all tend to assume have a basic level of business acumen. The name 'Rangers' still seems to capture the imagination, or is it greed, of companies operating within, and on the fringes, of football, and with the one genuine claim to 'greatness' they possess, circa 50,000 at most matches, a sure-fire selling point when it comes to a merchandising lure, I'm pretty sure they will find some mug company that will give them a fairly lucrative contract. I doubt it will be as good as their most recent one, but they will get one. Whether that contract survives the litigation that will almost certainly follow is another matter altogether.

    I suspect, though, that TRFC will be looking for an upfront payment, probably in time for yesterday!


  24. The terms of the injunction appear to prevent TRFC using Hummel for next season's kit, so I can understand them seeking a new supplier. The original deal was for three years, but ran to season 2020/21.

    What I don't get is why they are also looking for someone to run their retail operation, when SDI was prepared to meet the "matching rights" of the Elite deal while Hummel remained the kit supplier.

    Under the terms of the agreement TRFC could only seek a new partner in the last six months of the end of the current deal, which would mean January 2021.  They are a year too early, in my view, and are likely to end up back in court in fairly short order.  

  25. Catching up here but just saw the James Keatings " crime" for the first time . That truly beggars belief, feel sorry for the player that he is now got to sit out a Cup Final because of the Clowns at the SFA . Firstly I have to blame the referee . ICT went out of their way in their statement to not blame the ref and to say their was nothing underhand going on with the panel who sat in Judgement. Well in my opinion it was nt a penalty but for a ref to not realise it was a " coming together" of 2 players is imcompetent at the very least.  For the SFA to then look at the video evidence and dismiss it is ASTOUNDING !!!!. I think ICT are on the button about people on the panels not understanding football but there is something way more sinister going on . The SFA have tied their selves up in knots over the past 8 years or so with everything regarding a certain blue team from Glasgow . The recent Morelos/ Kent  inaction being the latest . Its as if they now deliberately make wrong decisions to try and justify it isnt just Rangers decisions we get wrong ! Crazy as it sounds . When oh when are the club chairmen gonna finally say enough is enough and send them on their way…. a ( football) boy can dream

  26. roddybhoy 20th February 2020 at 11:03

    "Its as if they now deliberately make wrong decisions to try and justify it isnt just Rangers decisions we get wrong !"

    Mate, you missed the important part that links the ridiculous dismissal and panel review with the SFA's ongoing handling of Rangers*………..Keatings' dismissal came when ICT were drawing 1-1 with……. Rangers* !

    Admittedly only the Colts, but they had to be given the best chance of reaching a final, didn't they? The panel decision was just sour grapes, I imagine.

  27. What happens if nobody bids for the kit retail deal ? Can Ashley toss a £1 coin over the table and claim the lot ? Would King set up a bogus offer in the hope Ashley would match it ? Can Ashley just not bother which would be literally taking the shirt off their back. This is turning into an utter shambles created entirely  by Dave King . The pitch is infected, the retail deal is shambolic, the shortfall is lethal, the fans are toxic, the players are unsellable , the manager is unsackable , the bills are mounting and the Chairman is a criminal pariah that has been cold shouldered by the City. Who in their right mind would want to invest in this organisation and be associated with it. They are clinging on to the hope of a Europa League run to fund them in the short term , Braga can bring it all crashing down with a win tonight. 

  28. Timtim 20th February 2020 at 13:07

    What happens if nobody bids for the kit retail deal ? Can Ashley toss a £1 coin over the table and claim the lot ? Would King set up a bogus offer in the hope Ashley would match it ? Can Ashley just not bother which would be literally taking the shirt off their back. This is turning into an utter shambles created entirely  by Dave King . The pitch is infected, the retail deal is shambolic, the shortfall is lethal, the fans are toxic, the players are unsellable , the manager is unsackable , the bills are mounting and the Chairman is a criminal pariah that has been cold shouldered by the City. Who in their right mind would want to invest in this organisation and be associated with it. They are clinging on to the hope of a Europa League run to fund them in the short term , Braga can bring it all crashing down with a win tonight. 


    Go Braga!


  29. Just in the passing, I have received this from the FCA today

    "Thank you for your email on on 14 February 2020, which is receiving our attention.  We will contact you again shortly to set out how we are dealing with the matters raised.

    Further information on we handle complaints and the work of the Complaints Team can be found here.

    If you require any additional information in the meantime please contact us….."

    What's the betting that  a period of time will pass, I will send a reminder/request for update, and will get a message to the effect that they can find no trace of anything I have sent and will I please send copies……!?



  30. Yep, and with the additional rain since Sunday – and even just today – the Ibrox pitch is going to churn up tonight.

    It could be a 'scrappy' game against Braga, just like the Livi game. 

    …and if TRFC was to lose by 2 goals tonight… the torch and pitchfork mob could be venting their frustrations on Edmiston Drive after the game… 

    It never rains, but it pours at Ibrox these days! broken heart

  31. Auldheid 20th February 2020 at 12:19

    ..".I see Leane Dempster of Hibs is joining the ranks of the disaffected with the SFA Judicial Panel Protocol".


    The ICT statement,signed by their CEO and Countersigned by their Chairman ends with these words:

    "..there is clearly something wrong with the system, if it is not addressed, we are all responsible for the continuing denigration of our standards, our supporters view of the national game and sporting integrity in Scottish football."

    I would feel rather more sympathy with ICT (and with such other clubs and Chairmen who apparently have united in a show of support with them) if they had not allowed our game to be so perverted as to allow a new club to claim the titles and honours of a dead club!

    Letting a cheating club claim to be something that it is not has been extremely damaging.

    That was  an act of perversion of sports governance about which there can be no two legitimate opinions.

    And if that core of deceit and rottenness had been properly excised at the time, we might have had some chance of keeping high standards of sporting integrity and good, sensible and fair application of discipline in relation to ordinary players and on-field alleged offences.

    [I agree of course that the video evidence in the Keating case is clear that he has no case to answer and the refusal of his appeal is perverse in the extreme.

    I wonder whether there might not be justifiable reason for seeking Judicial Review of what to many appears to be decision based on complete disregard of filmed evidence?]



  32. Clashing court dates for next week.  You wait a few weeks with nothing, then along come a couple of cases scheduled at the same time.

    LORD DOHERTY – C Munn, Clerk

    Wednesday 26th February At 9.00am 

    Starred Motion

    CA86/19 David Grier v Chief Inspector Police Service of Scotland  –  Kennedys Scotland  –  Ledingham Chalmers LLP  –  A & WM Urquhart

    LADY WOLFFE – C Stark, Clerk

    Wednesday 26th February At 9.00am

    Pre-Proof By Order

    CA132/18 Memorial Walls Ltd v The Rangers Football Club Ltd  –  MacRoberts LLP  –  Anderson Strathern LLP

  33. Just to let everyone who is interested know, this is the Final response from the BBC to a complaint I had lodged with them. It came after I had gone through the whole appeals process;

     “HMRC drops further £5m from Rangers tax claim”, BBC News Website.


    I am writing to let you know the outcome of the Executive Complaints Unit’s investigation into your recent complaint about the above article on the BBC News website. I have understood you to say the opening sentence of the article was incorrect and misleading and, as a result, perpetuated “the lie that the present team who play out of Ibrox are the same club”. I have therefore considered your complaint in light of the standards for due accuracy which are set out in section 3 of the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines.

    I do not believe there are grounds to uphold your complaint but I hope I can explain the reasons why I have reached this conclusion.

    My understanding is Rangers FC, the football club, was owned and operated by The Rangers Football Club PLC and this company went into administration on 14 February 2012. The company’s “business, history and assets” (which included the football club) were subsequently transferred to Sevco Scotland Ltd on 14 June 2012 by the administrators, Duff and Phelps1. On 31 July 2012, Sevco Scotland Ltd changed its name to The Rangers Football Club Limited and The Rangers Football Club PLC (in administration) changed its name to RFC 2012 PLC. RFC 2012 PLC was placed into liquidation on 31 October 2012 with BDO LLP appointed as liquidators.

    The administrators of Rangers Football Club PLC (Duff and Phelps), the liquidators of RFC 2012 PLC (BDO LLP), and those representing the Scottish football authorities have all taken the view the football club was part of the “business and assets” purchased by Sevco Scotland Ltd/The Rangers Football Club Limited. For example, one of the joint administrators, Paul Clark, said on 12 June 2012:

    We have been informed by HMRC they will not support the proposal for a Company

     Voluntary Arrangement at the meeting of creditors on Thursday, June 14. As aresult of this decision, the Sale and Purchase Agreement in place with the consortium led by Charles Green will take effect and Rangers Football Club will continue within a new company structure…

    … HMRC has taken the view that the public interest will be better served with the liquidation of The Rangers Football Club plc as a corporate entity. The Club will continue to operate as it has always done but within a new company structure.

    In its interim report dated 10 July 2012, Duff & Phelps stated at paragraph 10.9:

    “The history and the spirit of the Club have been preserved by the sale which was completed on 14 June 2012 and it is now the responsibility of the new owners to secure its future.”

    One of the liquidators at BDO, Malcolm Cohen, said on 12 June 2012:

    It is important to understand that the appointment of liquidators will not mean the end of football at Ibrox – only the end of the company that ran the club.

    A statement from HMRC said on the same day2:

    Liquidation will enable a sale of the football assets to be made to a new company, thereby ensuring that football will continue at Ibrox. It also means that the new company will be free from claims or litigation in a way which would not be achievable with a CVA. Rangers can make a fresh start.

    In an interview with BBC Sport on 1 January 2015, the Chief Executive of the Scottish Premier League, Neil Doncaster, said:

    Neil Doncaster: The decision, very clearly from the commission, was that the club is the same, the club continues, albeit it is owned by a new company, but the club is the same.

    BBC Question: So the official take from the SPFL is that Rangers Football Club continues, it’s the same club?

    Neil Doncaster: Yes, it’s the same club, absolutely.

    He clarified the difference between a football club and a company in this context as follows:

    Neil Doncaster: The member club is the entity that participates in our league and we have 42 member clubs. Those clubs may be owned by a company, sometimes it’s a Private Limited Company, sometimes it’s a PLC, but ultimately, the company is a legal entity in its own right, which owns a member club that participates in the league.

    BBC Question: So, once and for all, the league is putting this to bed, it’s the sameclub? Neil Doncaster: It was put to bed by the Lord Nimmo Smith commission some while ago – it’s the same club.

    I appreciate you may disagree with the views cited above and the understanding of those I have quoted but the evidence appears to support the view it is RFC 2012 PLC, the company which previously owned Rangers FC, the football club, which is facing a claim for unpaid tax from HMRC. The football club was part of the “business, history and assets” sold to Sevco Scotland Ltd on 14 June 2012 and so it is widely recognised the football club is not involved in the HMRC action. In conclusion, I do not believe the article was inaccurate or misleading and so I do not have grounds to uphold your complaint. There is no provision for further appeal against this decision within the BBC but if you do wish to take the matter further, it is open to you to ask the broadcasting regulator, Ofcom, to consider your complaint. If Ofcom thinks your complaint raises a potentially substantive issue, it will give an opinion on whether the BBC has observed its editorial guidelines. Information about Ofcom’s role regarding BBC online material can be found here and information about lodging a complaint with Ofcom can be found here. You can also write to Ofcom at Riverside House, 2a Southwark Bridge Road, London SE1 9HA.  

    I will be sending a further appeal to Ofcom. I will post the outcome.

  34. watcher 20th February 2020 at 16:44

    Well done for eliciting some sort of reply, albeit a cowardly one totally lacking in any suggestion that any 'investigation' was carried out other than to search their archives for quotes, as if quotes are, in themselves, proof of anything.

    The following from Doncaster is worth a visit, I think, in that it is completely untrue, for we know that the 'club' registered with both the SFA and the SPL, as was, is, in fact, a limited company. It is also extremely wrong to suggest a 'club' can be owned, unless it has some corporate form, as in, you cannot own something that has no record of its existence, and if something such did exist we can be 100% sure we would all have had sight of it by now. Clearly, if the BBC had any wish to come up with the truth of the matter, they would have asked for sight of the membership documents of Rangers Football Club (as was) that show that the member of the SPL was, in fact, not the limited company. Unless I am completely wrong, and the members of the Scottish FA and Leagues are genuinely registered as 'clubs' and not limited companies, then if Neil Doncaster is accurately quoted, he lied. And if he had to lie..!

    "Neil Doncaster: The member club is the entity that participates in our league and we have 42 member clubs. Those clubs may be owned by a company, sometimes it’s a Private Limited Company, sometimes it’s a PLC, but ultimately, the company is a legal entity in its own right, which owns a member club that participates in the league."

    Something that I've been mulling over ever since CW re-opened the OCNC debate is the following question:

    If Sevco (Scotland) Limited hadn't changed its name to The Rangers Football Club Limited, would there now be any sort of 'Rangers' playing in the SPFL? Quite simply, Charles Green had to change the name of his company to be able to register his football club as 'The Rangers FC', and, again, if I am wrong about this, and it is not TRFC Ltd that is registered with the game's governors, we'd have seen the documentary proof quite some time ago.

    Again, and I apologise for repeating this, but, if there is any documentary proof of what Doncaster says in existence, then we would have seen it at the very outset of Charles Green's 'Rangers'. I also repeat that if there is no documentary evidence of what Doncaster says in existence then what he says is a lie and there has to be a reason that he had to lie, and that reason could only be that the club currently playing as Rangers is a new club.

  35. watcher 20th February 2020 at 16:44

    '…Just to let everyone who is interested know, this is the Final response from the BBC'


    You've done very well, watcher,in getting the BBC to show such clear evidence of being party to the propagation of deceit and lies , making ars.s of themselves in so doing!

    Aj has nicely made the points that need to be made. 

    The fundamental fact is that a new club was created and admitted into Scottish Football. Why would that have been necessary if the club that was owned by the plc had not gone into liquidation? Why would the new owner of club that was already in membership of the SFA have to set up a new club? 

    There was only one entity that was a member of the SFA : RFC plc of 1872. It lost that membership when it entered Liquidation. 

    And all the Donalda MacKinnons and BBC Executive Complaints Units personnel's repetition of 'evidence' from the parties most complicit in the Big Lie cannot change that fact. 

    I shall actively support the call for abolition of the BBC's special position, because while I wholly subscribe to freedom of opinion and freedom to express opinion, I could not in all rationality accept the propagation by a publicly funded broadcasting company of factual untruths as being expressions of 'opinion'.  

    And in this one disgusting little saga about a cheating football club, the BBC is propagating an untruth.

    May the liars whose wages we are paying pay in their turn for their betrayal of Truth and lie as uncomfortably in their beds as  Judas might have done if he hadn't hanged himself first!






  36. easyJambo 20th February 2020 at 16:12

    '..You wait a few weeks with nothing, then along come a couple of cases scheduled at the same time.'


    Isn't that just like the thing?broken heart

    And both beginning at nine. ( I wonder are the 'reforms' going so far as to make judges work 'nine till five' instead of 10 till 4?)

    I'm interested in both cases, of course, but I'll probably opt to attend the 'memorial walls' case since it is directly related to TRFC's finances and contract law, whereas the Grier matter is personal to Grier rather directly involving TRFC/

    That's if the distaff side let's me attend at all!

    Maybe see you in Court next week!



  37. Does anyone know what connection there may be between Sportscotland monies,  Auchenhowie, and the SFA?

    Some kind of public monies involved in a wee tie-up with referee training and such like? and bugger all to do with 'community' access?

    Does anyone believe that Sportscotland will tell us?

    Do I? 

    Short answer? 

    No, I distrust anything that any public agency had to do with what had been SDM's football club, and now has to do with TRFC.

    That's what happens when erstwhile First Ministers defend cheating sports clubs.

    God Almighty! The implications that a sports governance body should be in bed with a corrupt member supposedly subject to its discipline! 

    Oh, my word!

    And honest to God!



  38. watcher 20th February 2020 at 16:44 Edit

    When you approach Offcom you might want to point out that the SPFL and SFA are bound by their articles to observe and be subject to UEFA Regulations, which will include UEFA FFP and specifically Article 12 that defines an applicant for a UEFA licence. 

    It starts with an applicant can only be a CLUB, that is a legal entity who can apply and then goes on to define both a club as an applicant or a company with a written contract to operate a club as an applicant. I'll post it in full next after this comment.  

    You might want to ask Offcom

    a) Given SFA/SPFL subservience to UEFA rules who is the ultimate FOOTBALL authority of what constitutes a club eligible to apply for a UEFA license and did the BBC approach UEFA for their view, if not why not? Comment from UEFA is noticeable by its absence in their reply.

    b) Have the BBC seen the response of 8th June 2016 to Celtic shareholder solicitors at 


    that sets out the view of UEFA Head of Club Licensing that the current applicant for a UEFA Licence is a NEW club/company (where a written contract between RFC and RIFC may or may not exist, but in either instance, club or a company with a contract to operate a club is NEW and so cannot be the same club (under Article 12) that applied for a UEFA Licence in 2012 and previous years and in fact were told by UEFA  they were ineligible to apply for a licence until attaining 3 years membership of the SFA, precisely because they were new under UEFA rules.

    (RFC were denied their application for 2012/13 because they had no audited accounts. TRFC/RIFC were denied applying until 2016 under Article 12.

    c) Did the BBC establish if Doncaster got approval from UEFA for his view that conflicts with the integrity protecting intent of Article 12 of UEFA FFP when establishing the 5 Way Agreement?

    d) Did the BBC establish if a written contract existed between RFC and whoever went into liquidation and if so who or what exactly went into liquidation if no contract existed?

    e) Are BBC aware that Doncaster used a change in SFA rules in 2005 introducing the concept of a separation of owner and club to deal with Romanov of Hearts and so the concept that became a rule was not around when RFC were founded and its introduction in 2005 did not suddenly separate all Scottish clubs from companies in whose name they were registered.

    In brief the BBC response is not based on the final European football  authority on what constitutes a club seeking a club licence and the BBC dependence on lower  and even non footballing authorities to justify their response lacks the balance that the BBC say they observed.   

    At the very least UEFA should have been approached before replying to you and asked why they did not treat TRFC/RIFC as the same club as RFC from 2012. They will point out one of the purposes of Article 12 is to uphold the integrity of UEFA competitions, something that Doncaster's view conflicts with and so totally undermines the integrity of Scottish football.

    He was not alone in his endeavours.







  39. Watcher.

     The rules UEFA FFP is from 2011 and apply in 2012. SPFL rules 2017, SFA 2014/15 but much the same in other periods.


    Chapter 2: Licence Applicant and Licence

    Article 12 – Definition of licence applicant

    1 A licence applicant may only be a football club, i.e. a legal entity fully responsible
    for a football team participating in national and international competitions which
    a) is a registered member of a UEFA member association and/or its affiliated
    league (hereinafter: registered member); or
    b) has a contractual relationship with a registered member (hereinafter: football
    2 The membership and the contractual relationship (if any) must have lasted – at
    the start of the licence season – for at least three consecutive years. Any
    alteration to the club’s legal form or company structure (including, for example,
    changing its headquarters, name or club colours, or transferring stakeholdings
    between different clubs) during this period in order to facilitate its qualification on
    sporting merit and/or its receipt of a licence to the detriment of the integrity of a
    is deemed as an interruption of membership or contractual
    relationship (if any) within the meaning of this provision.

    SPFL Rules

    Agreement on Compliance with Applicable Rules, Statutes and Regulations

    B4 Membership of the League shall constitute an agreement between the Company and each Club, and between each of the Clubs, to be bound by and to comply with:
    B4.1 these Rules and the Articles;
    B4.2 Regulations made from time to time by the Board as authorised by the Articles;
    B4.3 the Scottish FA Articles and the statutes and regulations of UEFA and FIFA;
    B4.4 the Laws of the Game; and
    B4.5 the terms of the agreements entered into between the SPL and the SFL in 2013 for the purposes of constituting, forming and organising the SPFL insofar as such terms apply from time to time to the members of the League.

    3. The Scottish FA
    The Scottish FA is a member of FIFA and UEFA. Accordingly, it is itself obliged to:-
    (a) observe the principles of loyalty, integrity and sportsmanship in accordance
    with the principles of fair play;
    (b) comply with the statutes, regulations, directives, codes and decisions and the
    International Match Calendar of FIFA, UEFA and the Court of Arbitration for
    Sport, and the Laws of the Game;

    (c) recognise and submit to the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport
    as specified in the relevant provisions of the FIFA Statutes and the UEFA

    (d) use its best endeavours, to the extent legally permissible, to procure that
    in the final instance any dispute arising under these Articles (and which is
    referred to it) is determined by arbitration pursuant to Article 99; and
    (e) use its best endeavours to ensure that the leagues, clubs, players, officials,
    matches and Players’ Agents under its jurisdiction (through their statutes,
    licences, regulations or any other written document) acknowledge and
    accept all the above mentioned obligations and agree to be bound by and
    observe these Articles.

  40. https://www.scribd.com/document/214043163/SFL-Constitution-Rules

    It is interesting that the BBC quote Neil Doncaster's opinions on Sevco's status.

    Interesting, but those opinions should be largely irrelevant.

    Sevco Scotland Ltd began its existence as a SFL club – Mr Doncaster as the SPL's CEO had no locus in offering an opinion on another league's member club.

    Only association football clubs could apply to become associate members of the SFL.

    Sevco Scotland Ltd could only apply for associate membership of the SFL because it presented itself as an association football club.

    Members (including associate members) of the SFL were recognised as having legal form – Sevco Scotland Ltd is of course, a corporate body.


    In these Rules unless the context requires otherwise:- “Rules” means these Rules as adopted on 27 May 2010 and as amended from time to time;

    “Associate Member” means a football club however constituted which is admitted to the League pursuant to the provisions of Section 2 of these Rules;

    “Board” means the Committee of Management of the League as provided for in Section 3 of these Rules; “document” includes, unless otherwise specified, any document sent or supplied in electronic form;

    “electronic form” shall have the meaning attributed to that phrase in section 1168 of the Companies Act 2006; “hard copy form” shall have the meaning attributed to that phrase in section 1168 of the Companies Act 2006;

    Member or Member Clubmeans a football club however constituted which is a member of the League as provided for in Section 2 of these Rules and includes an Associate Member or Members where the context so allows or requires; 

    “Director”, “member” or “member of the Board” mean where the context so permits or requires persons (including the President and Vice-President) elected to the Board as provided for in Rules 28 to 33 and may include the Chief Executive of the League;

    “Official” shall mean any person having a function or duty or position involving authority or trust with a football club including without prejudice to the foregoing generality any person who is able to exercise control over the majority of the board or committee of any such club (whether or not such a person is himself intimated to the Registrar of Companies as holding the office of director or is otherwise held out to be a member of the committee of management of such a body if not incorporated);

    a reference to a “person” (unless the context otherwise requires) includes a natural person, firm, partnership, company, corporation, association, organisation, local or national governmental authority, state, foundation and trust (in each case whether or not having separate legal personality);

    “resolution” means the decision of a meeting of the Members in general meeting passed in accordance with the provisions of these Rules;

    “writing” means the representation or reproduction of words, symbols or other information in a visible form by any method or combination of methods, whether sent or supplied in electronic form or otherwise;

    “written” means a communication in the form of writing and may be in electronic form.

    The League shall be divided into three Divisions, with 10 (ten) Members or Associate Members forming each of the First, Second and Third Divisions respectively.

    Football clubs or  associations undertaking to provide Association Football 
    according to the Laws of the Game as settled by the International Football 
    Association Board and these Rules may be admitted as members of the League in accordance with the provisions of these Rules.

    A club or association must initially join the League as an Associate Member.

    A club or association applying for Associate Membership shall complete an application form in such form as the Board shall specify from time to time, 
    and submit same to the Chief Executive accompanied by payment of an application fee of £1,000 plus Value Added Tax at the standard rate applicable at the relevant time (or such application fee as shall be specified from time to time by a general meeting). For the avoidance of doubt, the application fee shall not be refundable in any circumstances.

    The League in general meeting may upon such terms and conditions as it may think fit admit any club as an Associate Member or Member of the League and may expel any Member or Associate Member or terminate such membership or may accept the retirement of any Associate Member or Member, but subject always to Rule 126 (Reversion of Transfer of Registration Rights). Upon admission as a Member or Associate Member, the club so admitted shall become bound by and be subject to these Rules and any other Rules or Bye-Laws made by the League for the time being in force.

    Membership of the League (whether full or associate) shall not be transferrable, save that (a) a Member wishing to change its legal form (whether from unincorporated association to corporate body or otherwise where the ownership and control of both bodies are or will be substantially identical); or (b) a transfer within the same administrative group for the purposes of a solvent reconstruction only; may be permitted by the Board 
    upon prior written application for consent and giving such details of the 
    proposed transfer as the Board may reasonably request for the purpose of 
    considering such transfer. The Board may refuse such application or grant same upon such terms and conditions as it shall think fit.

  41. No-one could read the SFL's Rules & Constitution and not consider Sevco Scotland Ltd to be an association football club.

    Sevco Scotland Ltd is not, of course, The Rangers Football Club PLC.

    It really is that simple.

  42. Incidentally, there is nothing in the SFL's Rules and Constitution that would have allowed the Committee (Board) to sanction a change in these rules without a vote by the members.

    Whoever signed up to the 5WA (which treats a specific association club as a metaphysical construct) on behalf of the SFL would not (imo) have had the legal authority to do so.

  43. "watcher 20th February 2020 at 16:44

    Just to let everyone who is interested know, this is the Final response from the BBC to a complaint I had lodged with them. ….. I will be sending a further appeal to Ofcom. I will post the outcome."


    IMHO this response from the BBC is an excellent development. I'm not sure I recall seeing anything this detailed previously. This provides a possibly unique opportunity to address the arguments put forward in a similarly detailed fashion.

    Could I suggest that Watcher liaises with the various SFM authorities on this subject to draft an appropriate response to the BBC and copy it to Ofcom? The fact that Ofcom is the next step should mean that the BBC will have to properly address refuting arguments and the potential exists to force them to acknowledge the truth rather than fall back on what is in many ways unreliable hearsay (I'm talking about you Doncaster).

    Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.


  44. Some more thoughts on the BBC response to Watcher.

    They seem to love their quotes, but have proven themselves to be more than a little selective in whose words they quote by avoiding any that point to the opposite argument, such as the judge (can't recall his name) who laughed the notion of the same club out of court, or, as Auldheid referred to previously, the quote from the UEFA Head of Club Licensing, Andrea Traverso, that stated UEFA's position and why they could take no action against the club now calling itself 'Rangers'.

    Now, as I've said previously, what someone, that's anyone, says does not make anything true, only the facts make something true, and if the BBC can't find one fact to back up its stance, on anything, then it's a safe assumption that those facts don't exists – and the BBC, along with the whole of the SMSM, has had 8 long years to come up with one single fact, yet they have not. They hide behind the quotes of conflicted people. They even ignore the words (spoken through his legal counsel in a court of law, not some loaded tribunal held under a (paid for by one conflicted party) retired judge) of the man most central of all to the participants in the creation of TRFC, the very man who changed the name of Sevco to The Rangers Football Club Ltd to facilitate its membership of the SFA and the SFL, Charles Green, who stated quite clearly that he did not buy a football club (Rangers), he bought a basket of assets.

    Those words of Charles Green, upheld by the judge, proved that, under the law of the land, it is a legal fact that TRFC is not a continuation of RFC, it is a new club, but not one character from any of the quoted people or associations has even attempted to argue against it, for to do so would require some evidence to show that football is not subject to the laws of the land. But not only is football subject to the laws of the land, even if it wasn't it would require documents that would show the separation of club from company that Doncaster claimed to exist. As I've previously said, if any such documents existed we know, beyond doubt, that they would have been published long before now.

    Now here's a thing. I don't know what procedures and forms are required to achieve membership of the SFA and SFL etc, but I do know that some forms have to be signed. So who signed those forms, and in what capacity did they sign? Now I don't know the answer, never having seen the required documents, but if they have been signed with the designation 'director' or 'CEO' or 'for The Rangers Football Club Limited' etc, then it is beyond doubt that the member is a limited company, and nothing else. On the other hand, if it has been signed with different designations that may indicate some body other than a limited company, such as an association or unincorporated club, then there would also have to be articles of association of that club in existence, with copies held by the governing bodies, for the registration to be legal.  

    So it's really quite simple, and the OCNC debate could be ended in a flash, if only Neil Doncaster had the gumption to publish the documents that prove what he said is true. 

    Now when Neil Doncaster said the following it was pretty unequivocal, as though he was speaking a provable fact and giving much more than just his opinion. It was as though he thought his position and perceived (by himself) gravitas lent an authority to his words that would go unquestioned. Well he was right as far as the whole of the SMSM was concerned, but his lack of evidence offered can only leave the questioning mind with the opinion that no such evidence exists, and his words, therefor, are untrue. 

    "Neil Doncaster: The member club is the entity that participates in our league and we have 42 member clubs. Those clubs may be owned by a company, sometimes it’s a Private Limited Company, sometimes it’s a PLC, but ultimately, the company is a legal entity in its own right, which owns a member club that participates in the league."

    Again, this in bold has to be an out and out lie, for you cannot 'own' something that doesn't exist in a sellable form. This is the problem when trying to convince people of something that is a nonsense, for there is no words to use that do not, in themselves, prove that it is a nonsense.

    Sorry, this post just keeps getting longer, but.

    If there is even the least possibility that what Doncaster said holds even a modicum of truth, then there has to be a paper trail. There has to be documents lodged with the SFA/SFL/SPFL in the name of separate clubs, AND, documents that show the separate clubs are owned by some separate entity, such as a limited company. As I say, it would be so easy to prove that the clubs that are registered with the SFA and league are not limited companies.

  45. When I read all this I can't help wishing this whole malarkey was taken to court to settle it once and for all.  Either the CAS or the Court of Session.   Blatant lies are being nourished in the media on a daily basis.  The public are being misled.


    And that's aside from the fraud involved with Res. 12 issues.

  46. While reading the reports from the States about Roger Stone getting 40 moons in the pokey for lying, obstruction and witness tampering and the immediate not so subtle hints from POTUS that Mr Stone might not have to serve even one night in jail I had an uncomfortable thought. If words like "exoneration" are being bandied about without a hint of a blush in Mr Stone's case what, if any, are the limits?

    Just because previous office holders have not done so is there anything to stop SFA President Rod Petrie granting a Presidential Pardon? (I know; rules, schmules, see Sandy Bryson, he'll give you the script.)

    A Pardon to who/for what? Well, T'Rangers, obviously. And Rangers. Better include Sevco. Both of them. David Murray. (Is he still a "Sir"? Fred Goodwin'll be raging.) All the EBT beneficiaries (Save time; Pardon in BBC staff canteen). All of SMSM. Dave King (Let Courts in South Africa know they're clueless.) BFDJ? Alex Rage? (Doubt they'll follow but why not?).

    For what? Everything, Anything.

    Previous Presidential Pardons were not possible as the last President wasn't a real one; as our own John Clark was told President Alan McRae served under Darryl "I Am The SFA" Broadfoot. If you go back further, to 2011 (I'm sure something happened then, can't recall what) President Campbell Ogilvie could have granted the Presidential Pardon but it might have been seen as a bit rum to grant a Pardon to, inter alia, yourself. Even The Donald would draw a line there.

    I see from the Wikipedia entry for the SFA its name in Scots Gaelic is:-

    Comann Ball-coise na h-Alba.

    You don't have to be an anagram genius to see where the first word comes from.

  47. LUGOSI 21st February 2020 at 09:36

    Just because previous office holders have not done so is there anything to stop SFA President Rod Petrie granting a Presidential Pardon? (I know; rules, schmules, see Sandy Bryson, he’ll give you the script.)


    Well that’s the kicker Lugosi.

    The – apparently – main architect of the disgraceful, secretive 5WA is now the de facto, ‘Executive President’ of the SFA. 

    An uncontested promotion for a job well done?

    And there have been so many ‘unprecedented’ decisions made by the SFA since 2012, that a [secretive] ‘Presidential type’ football pardon or exemption/allowed exception(s) would seem like small beer to what Petrie has delivered in the past on behalf of the blazers – and on behalf of ALL the clubs. 

  48. tony 21st February 2020 at 10:11



    I was surprised when reading the book that Whyte claimed that there had been some formal discussions with Haughey about a deal.

    However, I do recall Haughey’s name coming up as a potential financial backer on RTC around that time.  If I recall correctly, he was first identified by someone “in the know” with a clue of him having made his money in refrigeration. 

    If there was an easy way of searching the RTC archive I would do it.

  49. "Scottish FA shown 'lack of ambition' in meeting 2020 targets, says Henry McLeish"

    By Alasdair Lamont

    BBC Scotland

    "How do we hold to account the SFA president, vice-president and the board members?"

    BBC Scotland approached the SFA for an interview with chief executive Ian Maxwell or performance director Malky Mackay, but this has not been provided.



  50. Perhaps pardons have already been granted – drawing a line and moving on. No need to inform pesky supporters….

    Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.

  51. Some more thoughts on the BBC response to Watcher.

    Unfortunately, I don't retain any "archive" of the various documents regarding Green's takeover. However, if my memory serves me correctly, there was no mention of "history" in the "bill of sale" although some suggested it would be included in the "goodwill" or other item.


    As many people agreed in 2012, the very concept of buying "history" as an item in a sale is a nonsense. An example I gave at the time, (while the OC/NC debate is re-opened), if Sir Chris Hoy fell on hard times, (god forbid) and was declared in sequestration. As part of a sale of his assets, I buy his racing bike, his GB Olympic lycra cycling suit, and one of his many gold medals, would I then be an Olympic Champion?


    Of course not, utter nonsense.


    Let's assume I then approach the IOC with a request to have the record books changed to show me as the winner of the relevant race and holder of the gold medal, do you think they would go all SFA'ish on me and grant me said title????     Of course not. 


    The BBC's response to watcher appears to have been produced by a group of employees, (extra staunch people) with an agenda to find every quote/opinion they can, supporting their position of pro-TRFC (2angers) bias, without as has been said above one shred of factual evidence. Shame on them!


    If further correspondence is to take place with them, perhaps we could ask them to explain away a number of facts, contradictory to their dignified beliefs. Mine would be;

    If only clubs can be members of the SFA and 2angers are the same club as RFC PLC, why was there a need to transfer the membership?  

  52. I'm not going all EPL this that and the other on you all.  Goodness knows the BBC's response being discussed makes me want to.  And we need no reminder as to the power of PR particularly when maliciously applied to something in which we hold an emotional attachment.

    But having said all that, I give you….


    (Not sure if the link works – search for the story on Jurgen Klopp's response by letter to the young ManU fan's letter of complaint (that Liverpool were winning and ManU werentangry) and be sure to read the letter itself.)) 

    Bluster is thankfully temporary but class is permanent.

  53. Smugas 21st February 2020 at 13:57

    While the TVs in the bar we were sitting in, The American Indian in Puerto del Carmen, Lanzarote, were showing Liverpool's amazing win against Barcelona in the Champions League semi-final, my wife started talking to an Irish lady at the next table. I paid little attention to their conversation but afterwards my wife told me that the lady was a friend of Jurgen Klopp, having met him through her husband who was German goalkeeper and had almost signed for Liverpool but was currently with a club in Germany. Typical of my wife she didn't think to ask for names or get any other details. Jings! Still, the lady didn't appear to be any sort of BS spouter and my wife certainly took her to be genuine (besides, her 2 teenage daughters were with her and it's unlikely she'd BS in front of them).

    Anyway, my wife said the lady was full of praise for him as a friend and human being and described him as an extremely intelligent and caring man. That letter seems to confirm this opinion of him.

    Never heard him use the words, 'sick as a parrot', 'over the moon' etc…so he's certainly a breath of fresh air for the English language as used by most managers in British footballmail


  54. Stevie BC.

    It's a pity McLeish or BBC did not comment on one of the aims of the 20 20 Vision that the SFA should now be measured against was to be an organisation that can be trusted. I'm on mobile so cannot paste actual words but if ever there was an area of massive fail in the SFA vision it is in that single objective.

    It is key to being a SPORTING body yet they are not trustworthy.

    In that respect I take issue with McLeish's view that the SFA should be the dictator of the services they provide to Scottish football and SPFL should have less say as the customer of those services.

    I fail to understand how a body no one trusts because they are unaccountable should be given more power rather than less unless accountability is built in to the system and that supporters should be part of the body to whom they are accountable.

    Lack of transparency and accountability is the structural problem and whatever takes the place of the current unfit for purpose organisations has to have those two factors built into the foundations.

  55. Can I thank everyone for the help in putting forward my appeal to Ofcom.

    I will be working on it over the weekend.

    Auldheid,  AJ,  JC. Thank you for the information.

    I will be using all the help I can get.

    redlichtie, your thoughts are taken on board.

    Scottish football needs Honesty,Respect and Truth, as well as a strong Arbroathmail.

    I did smile at the response, as it arrived just after the owner of the previous Club

    had said in a BBC interview…….

    Question by BBC  are Rangers a new club?

    Answer by previous owner Craig White. YES Obviously they are.

    I concur with the previous owner of the OLD CLUB.
    For anyone interested the response was signed by Colin Tregear.
    BBC Complaints Director.

  56. Smugas 21st February 2020 at 13:57

    '..class is permanent…'


    Thanks for drawing that superbly marvellous letter to our attention.

    Aren't we glad TRFC /King are utterly psychologically incapable of adopting such an approach, and even less capable grammatically of composing such a letter, in their PR/statement approaches!

  57. Interesting article posted on CQN this afternoon. Hummel and Elite have made a statement regarding Rangers breach of contract and yet another court case for the Rangers to fend off…….never ending !! Also the host Paul67 saying that The rangers shouldnt get too excited about a possible 2 Champions league spots next season . I disagree with Paul67 on a few things Celtic but he is trust worthy and usually on the money. Worth a read

  58. Looks like somebody’s been telling lies. 😱

    Hummel UK and The Elite Group issued a statement today noting they were rescinding their agreement with Rangers FC with immediate effect, “due to the club being in material breach of contract.”  They add that they have commenced legal proceedings against the club.
    The statement reads:

    “Hummel UK & The Elite Group was proud to have entered into a supplier agreement with Rangers Football Club in good faith in March 2018.  We saw this as an opportunity to work together for the benefit of the club, its supporters and the Hummel brand.

    “However, despite being given warranties and assurances by the Rangers board that the club was free to enter into their arrangement, it transpired that Rangers had previously signed a conflicting agreement with a third party.

    “The club has therefore been unable to fulfil its obligations to Hummel & The Elite Group, which would have included the creation of a Hummel branded area within the Ibrox Megastore, along with crucial marketing activity such as perimeter advertising, player activations, and promotion on the Rangers FC website.

     “Hummel UK & The Elite Group has nonetheless made payments to Rangers totalling c. £2.5m and supplied kit worth approximately £1m.  Despite doing all of this in good faith, we are now facing some public statements from Rangers which are not correct.

    “We have been unable to find a way forward despite making repeated efforts to reach out to the club.  It is with regret that we have therefore rescinded our agreement with Rangers FC with immediate effect, due to the club being in material breach of contract.

    “We remain willing to try and resolve matters with Rangers FC on an amicable basis.   Contrary to reports, Rangers is not owed any further payments from Hummel UK & The Elite Group at this time and we are disappointed by Rangers’ decision to commence legal proceedings in respect of these issues.  Those proceedings will not result in any payment to Rangers and are an unwelcome and unnecessary distraction for the club, its fans and Hummel.

    “We have now begun our own legal proceedings against Rangers which we are very confident will result in a positive outcome so we can all move forward.”

1 8 9 10 11 12 32

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.