Accountability via Transparency.

743
271283

Where transparency exists accountability inevitably follows.​


This is an extract from a post on SFM from 2015. The subject was Transparency and Slow Glass.

The message then was that football governance has to catch up in realising that football has to become more transparent in its dealing with supporters and so more accountable to them.
That transparency is already here via social media because of the ability to share, but the light of truth is constrained by Slow Glass.
Slow Glass from a short story by Bob Shaw slows down the light passing through it.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_of_Other_Days
In the story and others, you have Slow Glass of different thickness in terms of the time it takes for the light to emerge.
You have Glass a day thick/long to Glass ten years thick/long and more.

Resolution 12, if measured from the Celtic AGM in 2013 when it was tabled and adjourned, has taken 6 years for the light of truth to emerge, although it could have happened sooner had main stream media removed the dust of PR that slows the light, but light is inexorable and it is emerging at an archive of events since 2011 that can be read at

https://www.res12.uk/ 

It is in two parts.

Part One
relates to events in 2011/12 including a very interesting link between UEFA Licence 2011 and the commissioning of Lord Nimmo Smith to investigate use of EBTs with side letters by Rangers FC where non-disclosure benefited Rangers FC in 2011 AND 2012.


Part Two
concentrates SFA activity (or lack of it) from 2014 to date as result of the adjournment of Resolution 12 in November 2013 that provided shareholders with the authority to seek answers.
The archive has been constructed in chronological sequence to help readers understand better the detail and separate what took place in 2011/12 which is in the past, from the SFA handling of shareholders legitimate enquiries from 2014/15 to date, which remains current and is a mirror of SFA performance in respect of the national football team.
Many narratives will emerge as a result of the transparency, some Celtic related, but a system of governance, that is accountable in some way to supporters as stakeholders in the game, can only benefit the supporters of all clubs and they are encouraged to read through the archive.

As Phil Mac Giolla Bhain has written here in respect of Celtic and the SFA


https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2019/04/03/resolution-12-information-on-new-website/


accountability has to be the outcome of transparency to wipe the face and soul of Scottish football clean.

How that is achieved will be up to Scottish football supporters everywhere to take forward via their Associations and Trusts, in collaboration with the clubs they support, but it does seem to me, and I know others with more legal experience, that the SFA would find it difficult to resist a challenge to their refusal to engage with people (in this case minority shareholders of member clubs) who are affected by decisions that they make.

743 COMMENTS

1 5 6 7 8 9 11
 

  1. Ex Ludo 1st May 2019 at 18:05
    ……………….
    I think it will be Davie Moyes.
    You don’t get the camera to pan in on him at a recent SPFL game for nothing.

    View Comment

  2. Ex Ludo 1st May 2019 at 18:05

    '..

    JC@16.53

    Nope. Bruce Arena,…..'

    ***********

    I have to confess I had to look him up on wiki, and look up where the surname originated.

    And had a wee laugh at 

    The Arena Genealogy and Family Tree Page

    https://www.genealogytoday.com/surname/finder.mv

    where it says that the Arena surname is the 6666th thousandth most common name in the States.

    and of Southern Italian origins.

    Mind you, if the SFA can be regarded as the moral equivalent of the father of Lies, ….having a 6666 might feel comfortable!broken heart

    View Comment

  3. Bolton Wanderers: Relegated side's last game of season at Nottingham Forest to go ahead

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48127869

    Bolton's final Championship game of the season at Nottingham Forest will go ahead on Sunday after the club said its players would be available.

    The game was in doubt after last week's match against Brentford was postponed, with Bolton's players going on strike over unpaid wages for March and April.

    BBC Sport understands the PFA has agreed to loan the club money to cover some of the unpaid wages.

    Wanderers have already been relegated to League One.

    The club's long-term future remains uncertain after prospective new owner Laurence Bassini committed to providing the English Football League with proof he has the funds to take over the club within 48 hours on Tuesday.

    Bassini told BBC Radio Manchester he remains "hopeful" the deal will happen and his "priority is to save the club".

    Former Watford owner Bassini's intended purchase of the Championship club was originally announced on 17 April, but Bolton owner Ken Anderson released a statement on Saturday saying if Bassini did not provide proof of funds by Monday, he would explore other options.

    However, that deadline was extended to allow for Bassini's meeting with EFL chief executive Shaun Harvey.

    Meanwhile, the EFL Board will meet on Thursday to decide "what arrangements are to be put in place" for the postponed game against Brentford, with EFL regulations allowing for regular-season matches to be played up to four days after the end of the season.

    View Comment

  4. sannoffymesssoitizz 1st May 2019 at 21:10

    '…Bassini told BBC Radio Manchester he remains "hopeful" the deal will happen and his "priority is to save the club".

    **************

    In your opinion, somsii, would you say that Bassini is more a CG than a CW?  Or is there a CW act-alike in the background somewhere?

    It would be hard to  believe that there are no equivalents sniffing around examining the possibilities of a quick asset-purchase following (potential at the moment) Administration.

    It would be interesting to lob in a phone call to see if any provider of advance bulk-payment for discounted season-books for the next couple of seasons has been approached? 

    Or have they all been avid readers of the Scottish 'saga' and how that turned out? 

    And as far as I have read so far, the EFL has not covered itself in glory in dealing with a club that has just been a bloody nuisance hovering for ever on the cusp of Administration.

    And from what I have read of the reports by the BBC England and the Lancashire MSM, their reporters are as ignorant and/or unquestioning as any in the SMSM.

     

    View Comment

  5. From The Sun;

     

    "…However, they took to the Ibrox turf on Saturday in their grey second kit due to Allan McGregor's orange goalkeeping top.

    McInnes says he has never known a situation like it as he hit out at the decision.

    He said:

    "We were told we had to wear grey.  Rangers clearly don't like us in red and they insisted their goalkeeper wear orange.

    That is the reason.  I have never known it in all my years.

    But the SPFL backed Rangers and allowed them to wear the orange kit…"

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

    That just doesn't seem right, IMO.

     

    Sounds like simple 'gamesmanship' on TRFC's part.

    But, is it possibly yet another stoopid precedent being set: the home goalkeeper can dictate which strip the visiting team plays in?

     

    I'm sure this will come back to bite the SPFL / TRFC on the bum at a later date.

    View Comment

  6. To add to the Aberdeen away strip story…

     

    I wonder if other SPFL teams next season will adopt another, optional goalkeeping outfit…with a lot of blue in it…?

    broken heart

    View Comment

  7. StevieBC 2nd May 2019 at 09:18

     

    I'm sure this will come back to bite the SPFL / TRFC on the bum at a later date.

    Nah! It wullnae.

    ——————————————————————–

    StevieBC 2nd May 2019 at 09:36

     

    I wonder if other SPFL teams next season will adopt another, optional goalkeeping outfit…with a lot of blue in it…?

    Nah! They'll no bother.

    —————————————————–

    Apologies for my rather flippant remarks, pure exasperation on my part but… we all know that other clubs won't try similar tactics. They are fully aware that such snide moves only work for clubs operating out of Ibrox.

    View Comment

  8. AS we await the result of TRFC's latest joust with SDI , I was thinking that , should things go badly against them , that they could have an insolvency event and be deducted 15 points this season (and 5 next) and still end up in a EL qualifying position . But , then again , they normally win these things , or so we're told .

    View Comment

  9. Patrick Bamford: Leeds striker banned for two games for deceiving referee
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48140118

    Leeds striker Patrick Bamford has been banned for two matches by the Football Association after being found guilty of "successful deception of a match official" in the draw with Aston Villa.

    Bamford went down as though he had been hit in the face by Anwar El Ghazi after Leeds' controversial opening goal.

    Replays showed Villa's Dutch winger had made no contact with the head of the 25-year-old.

    El Ghazi was sent off but had the red card rescinded on Tuesday.

    Bamford will miss Sunday's Championship trip to Ipswich and the first leg of Leeds' play-off semi-final tie.

    Leeds said in a statement that although Bamford did not deny the charge they had requested a hearing to "contest the penalty imposed on the player".

    They added: "The club felt that given the circumstances surrounding the incident, including the extraordinary act of sportsmanship which saw our head coach Marcelo Bielsa demand our team to allow Aston Villa to score an uncontested equaliser, we could have a sensible discussion around the sanction.

    "We acknowledge that the FA panel did not feel that to be reasonable and the club therefore joins Patrick in accepting the two-match ban."

    The melee, in which the Bamford incident occurred, was sparked after Mateusz Klich scored for Leeds with Villa players appealing for the ball to be played out after Jonathan Kodjia had gone down injured in the centre circle.

    After clashes between the players and an exchange between the two benches, Leeds boss Bielsa ordered his team to allow Villa to walk in an equaliser from kick-off, which was scored by winger Albert Adomah. Sunday's game finished 1-1.

    On Tuesday both clubs were charged with failing to ensure their players conducted themselves in an orderly fashion in the aftermath of Leeds' goal. They have until 18:00 BST on Friday to respond to their respective charges.

    Leeds' failure to win saw Yorkshire rivals Sheffield United promoted to the Premier League and they will now feature alongside Villa in the play-offs.

    ————————————————————————-

    Any rumours of retrospective action on Katic and or Defoe?

    View Comment

  10. Celtic and Rangers fined £7,500 each for Old Firm derby brawl

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48140842

    Celtic and Rangers have each been fined £7,500 for a mass confrontation at the end of their Old Firm derby in March.

    Rangers pair Alfredo Morelos and Andy Halliday were shown red cards during their side's 2-1 defeat at Celtic Park.

    Trouble started on the pitch after the game as the reigning champions extended their Scottish Premiership lead.

    The Scottish FA last week decided no action would be taken against Celtic captain Scott Brown for an on-field gesture made following his side's win.

    But striker Morelos was given an automatic four-match suspension after he was sent off – for a fifth time this season – for elbowing Brown.

    • Celtic captain not punished for Old Firm celebration

    Full-back Halliday received a second yellow card for confronting Brown after the final whistle.

    Celtic defender Mikael Lustig and Rangers' substitute goalkeeper, Wes Foderingham, were booked for their part in the melee.

    Rangers manager Steven Gerrard accepted a one-match touchline suspension, with reports suggesting it relates to comments made towards referee Bobby Madden.

    Meanwhile, Rangers' Ryan Kent failed in an attempt to overturn a two-game ban handed to the on-loan Liverpool winger after video footage showed him lashing out at Brown after James Forrest's winner.

    View Comment

  11. Derek McInnes: Aberdeen boss banned for Celtic fans gesture

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48133223

    Aberdeen manager Derek McInnes has been banned for one match for gesturing to Celtic fans who were singing a sectarian song at him.

    McInnes has also been given a further one-game ban – suspended until the end of next term – for reacting during his side's Scottish Cup semi-final defeat.

    The Pittodrie boss had said he hoped a Scottish FA misconduct hearing on Thursday would take into account "mitigating circumstances".

    But the charge against him was upheld.

    He will be banned from the touchline for Saturday's visit of Celtic.

    The hearing was been brought forward a day because McInnes wants to attend the funeral of former Celtic captain and manager Billy McNeill on Friday.

    "I wish I hadn't responded but I also feel there were a lot of real mitigating circumstances," he said at his media conference earlier on Thursday.

    "Hopefully, that gets looked at. I'm just keen to get it resolved."

    View Comment

  12. ‘How would favouring one team help referees’ careers?’ – Bobby Madden on bias claims, abuse, Celtic v Rangers and social media

    https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/celtic/how-would-favouring-one-team-help-referees-careers-bobby-madden-on-bias-claims-abuse-celtic-v-rangers-and-social-media-1-4919711
     

    Leading Scots referee Bobby Madden has given an insight into the pressures he faces as a top-flight whistler, in a wide-ranging radio interview

    The 40-year-old official has been the man in the middle of a number of big games – including two UEFA Champions League games, four World Cup qualifiers, 24 Europa League games and 161 Scottish Premiership matches in just under nine years.

    Madden has also taken charge of several Old Firm clashes – including March’s powder-keg clash at Parkhead that saw Rangers striker Alfredo Morelos receive his fifth red card of the season, Gers winger Ryan Kent punch Scott Brown and Light Blues utility man Andy Halliday dismissed after the final whistle following a post-match brawl involving players and staff from both teams.

    Madden has, like many of his colleagues, been subjected to horrific abuse on social media, and accusations of favouring certain teams.

    Speaking exclusively to Clyde 1’s Superscoreboard programme, Madden addressed a number of issues, including the Morelos red card, abuse suffered by referees, social media and the Scottish FA’s Judicial Panel.

    He said: “TV footage shows I had absolutely no view of the [Morelos] incident. Alan [Mulvanny, assistant referee] was in line with the second last defender – that’s his responsibility.

    “So I was following the ball up the field of play and I heard a roar so, naturally, I looked round and saw a player on the ground.

    “Immediately the communication from Alan was ‘red card, red card, red card’ and that’s why it was dealt with so quickly.

    “I think in that environment and under that pressure for Alan to pick up the incident then communicate it so clearly was a real positive.”

    Following the Old Firm clash in December, which Rangers won 1-0 at Ibrox, referee John Beaton was subjected to abusive messages on social media and hasn’t refereed a match involving Celtic since.

    Madden, who was on fourth-official duties at the match, continued: “I thought John had a very good game. That was the feeling at the side of the pitch.

    “Then you get these incidents that have happened with individuals and it’s difficult to think what is going through these people’s minds.

    “But it is good to see the police have taken the strongest action and one person has already appeared in court on the back of those allegations.”

     
    Like most referees, Madden has been accused of bias and favouring certain teams, which he admitted was “frustrating”.

    “When one player who played for a club plays against them for another, does it affect his performance? We’ve seen players move between [Celtic and Rangers], does it affect their performance?

    “What would [revealing what team you support] give? I think the majority of match officials are from the Central Belt. Would there be a benefit? I think it would just increase the scrutiny.

    “There is a ridiculous level [of scrutiny] on match officials as it is. We are there to officiate a match, that’s all we’re there to do.

    “If someone has supported a team, does that change? No. We’re judged on every performance by the SFA and by independent observers. We all want to recive the next big match, the cup final.

    “We apply ourselves to try and get as much out of the game as we can, so why would we show any benefit to one team? Would it make them win one match? Get a point or three points? What is that going to do for our careers?

    “Nobody is going to go down that road. In this area, the majority of people support two teams and you are going to get people who cast aspersions over what team you supported, what school you went to. You can’t control that.

    “What is frustrating is people who know me know that I worked in a warehouse in Bellshill for twelve years. Everyone in that warehouse knows I ran and then I played football, three matches each weekend.

    “I didn’t have time to be a season ticket holder at any particular club, whatever allegations may suggest. And what’s frustrating is when these people make a comment on social media to try and support these ridiculous allegations.

    Madden isn’t on Twitter, and believes none of his refereeing colleagues have active social media accounts either – because, he says, it would just give people an opportunity to contact him.

    “The scrutiny on match officials is more intense in the current era given there are more cameras at matches, more platforms, more channels, more people talking.

    “So it comes with the territory of being a match official. I don’t know of any referee who will actively monitor conversations on social media. I don’t think any of us have active accounts.

    “I don’t think it would be a great idea for me to have a Twitter account or a Facebook or anything of that ilk. It would just give people an opportunity to contact me.”

    Madden’s last remarks concerned the Judicial Panel, as he rubbished the belief that referees spend hours poring over match reports in a bid to highlight incidents for the attention of Compliance Officer Clare Whyte.

    However, the reality is very different.

    “People always think we submit a match report where we are sitting for hours at night going over every incident. Quite simply, we don’t,” Madden insisted.

    “We record what sanctions we administer in a drop-down box with the offence, and if anything arises on the back of that the Compliance Officer will write to us asking if we saw the incident.

    “Then we will describe what we saw and it’s up to the Compliance Officer at that stage to decide whether to take that forward.”     

    View Comment

  13. sannoffymesssoitizz 2nd May 2019 at 20:13

    '…Madden addressed a number of issues, including the Morelos red card, abuse suffered by referees, social media and the Scottish FA’s Judicial Panel.'

    **********

    Am I right in thinking that that's the first time a serving referee has spoken to the Media about his reason for a decision in a game? 

    I don't think I remember any such thing before?

    View Comment

  14. Just where would Scottish football be without…

     

    • dodgy refs who are openly derided by the fans

     

    • corrupt governance provided by the SFA & SPFL

     

    • a corrupt club, pretending to be a dead, corrupt club

     

    • a pathetic SMSM producing daily doses of misinformation?

     

    Scottish football deserves better.

    The paying supporters deserve much, much better.

    View Comment

  15. paddy malarkey 2nd May 2019 at 19:25

    '…they could have an insolvency event and be deducted 15 points this season (and 5 next) and still end up in a EL qualifying position . '

    *************

    Will they stump up the £7,500 fine immediately-or will they be given time to pay?broken heart

    Seriously, though, if they are hit with a really substantial damages payment round about now, without a Court-agreed payment-by-instalment plan, they might very well have an 'insolvency' event!

    They would probably have to rely on their generous directors to shove in a few million more quid of 'loans' to keep the show on the road.

     

    View Comment

  16.  

    My post of 21.30 refers.

    I wrote "Am I right in thinking that that's the first time a serving referee has spoken to the Media about his reason for a decision in a game? "

    for 'his reason' substitute 'the reason'.  

    Madden was the fourth official, of course, so it wasn't his decision.

    But I think my question is still valid: has any officiating referee, whether linesman, fourth official, or fifth or sixth goal line official , ever spoken to the press about decisions made in any game of which he was one of  the officials?

     

    View Comment

  17. “If a Company Voluntary Arrangement is not possible for any particular reason, any buyer of the Club and its assets would complete that purchase through a sale by the Administrators allowing the Football Club to continue to operate with the old company then being placed into liquidation prior to dissolution. 

    https://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/administrators-statement-on-europe/

    That's where, in my opinion, D&P crossed the line, implying that even if the club was not bought out of Administration by a new owner (and therefore went into Liquidation), it would survive if somebody merely bought the assets but not the debts!

    I am not surprised that Lord Hodge questioned Whitehouse and Clark.

    I am, frankly, disappointed that they got away with that fiction. How they did so has yet to be explained.

     

     

    View Comment

  18. “What would [revealing what team you support] give? I think the majority of match officials are from the Central Belt. Would there be a benefit? I think it would just increase the scrutiny."

    "In this area, the majority of people support two teams and you are going to get people who cast aspersions over what team you supported, what school you went to. You can’t control that."

    And thus Madden sums up the tomfoolery of Scottish football.

    Can anyone please tell me where in the central belt where this 'supporting two teams' starts. 

    I am sure I have heard Sandy Clark mention similar once when talking about being brought up in Airdrie (IIRC).

    Personally I've never met anyone from east of Bathgate who gave any inclination of supporting 'two teams'.  

    I know plenty folk who, for various reasons, definitely turned their back on the their local teams in favour of one of Celtic and Rangers/T'Rangers, but that's a different matter.

    Is there some kind of border for this phenomenon? Perhaps it is linked to the one where 'salt n sauce' on your fish supper becomes 'salt n vinegar'?

    View Comment

  19. Well, I've 'thrown the bones' this morning & they tell me that the Bobby Madden interview is part of preparing him for promotion & the Head of Referees at the SFA may or may not find his blazer is on a shoogly peg in the near future, leading to his retirement with the usual panegyrics. (Usual psychic disclaimers apply, of course!)

     

     

    Why is the song ‘Won’t Get Fooled Again’ rattling through my head? It can’t be for the ‘Meet the new boss, same as the old boss’ lyric, surely?

    View Comment

  20. McInnes's touchline ban for reacting to sectarian abuse.

    Who is the winner in this situation? The reputation or integrity of the game? What exactly was McInnes punished for?

    Remarkable that Celtic don't seem to be too bothered about the behaviour of a bigoted section of their fans that exclusively led to a victim of abuse being punished.

    View Comment

  21. wottpi 3rd May 2019 at 10:11

     

    “What would [revealing what team you support] give? I think the majority of match officials are from the Central Belt. Would there be a benefit? I think it would just increase the scrutiny."

    "In this area, the majority of people support two teams and you are going to get people who cast aspersions over what team you supported, what school you went to. You can’t control that."

    ____________________

     

    What an incredibly self-defeating (of the point he was making) 'argument' he makes in these two paragraphs. The obvious response to what he says being, 'why then don't you ensure that the majority of referees come from an area not blighted by this phenomenon?' But, of course, a PR piece like this doesn't include awkward questions of the type that really need asked.

    There is also another, even more obvious, question that needs to be asked. 'Why is it that these referees, from an area where the majority support one of two teams, the vast majority of our referees support only one of those two teams?' Again, only in a PR exercise would such questions not be asked.

    View Comment

  22. Angus1983 3rd May 2019 at 12:02
    Remarkable that Celtic don’t seem to be too bothered about the behaviour of a bigoted section of their fans that exclusively led to a victim of abuse being punished.
    ……………………..
    But Scottish Football Assocation Compliance Officer Clare Whyte is not expected to take action against Celtic over the incident, according to the Evening Times – because the Hoops can prove they took “all reasonably practicable steps” to prevent misconduct from their fans at the high-profile cup tie.

    Celtic chiefs are understood to have met with representatives from the club’s ultras in the lead-up to the last four clash to discuss a range of topics including their conduct at matches and use of pyrotechnic devices. Smoke bombs and flares have been used at many Celtic games this term, including at Sunday’s semi-final.

    The SFA will likely accept that Celtic’s meeting with the Green Brigade, along with other preventative measures, shows that the Parkhead side are “committed to ensuring a safe and family-friendly environment for spectators”.

    Celtic also issued a statement earlier this week condemning the chanting, but questioning the behaviour of Aberdeen fans during the match.

    “Chanting of this nature should have no place in football and we condemn this wholeheartedly. 
“We hope the authorities also take the same interest in offensive chanting directed at Celtic Football Club and our supporters at yesterday’s match and other games”, a spokesperson for the club said.
    Celtic have previously taken action against their ultras, closing their safe-standing section for two matches in 2017 following flashpoints during games against Hearts and Linfield
    And earlier this month, Celtic chief executive Peter Lawwell was forced to issue a statement after St Mirren goalkeeper Vaclav Hladky needed treatment after a firework thrown by visiting fans landed near him during a Scottish Premiership match in Paisley.

    Lawwell said: “There have a been a number of incidents across many clubs this season, with a range of items, including pyrotechnics, being thrown on to pitches.

    “We need to do all we can to remove this from our game. 
“The club does not want it, our players do not want it, our manager does not want it and our supporters do not want it.”
    https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/celtic/in-full/celtic-set-to-escape-sfa-action-over-sectarian-chants-at-aberdeen-cup-semi-final-1-4908883
    ……………………
    Remarkable that Celtic do seem to be bothered about the behaviour of a section of their fans

    View Comment

  23. Any truth in the rumour, [started by myself], that the new range of TRFC kits for next season…

     

    includes a green goalkeeper's outfit?

     

    broken heart

    View Comment

  24. Angus1983 3rd May 2019 at 12:02

    The message the SFA are giving McInnes is basically the same one you're getting on SFM: "Suck it up and haud yer wheest".

    View Comment

  25. ernie 4th May 2019 at 09:01
    5 12 Rate This

    Angus1983 3rd May 2019 at 12:02
    the same one you’re getting on SFM: “Suck it up and haud yer wheest”.
    ………………….
    I fail to see that message on SFM.

    View Comment

  26. Extraordinarily quiet on SFM tonight!

    I've been forced to go retrospective, and re-read the Gary Allan QC report of the Judicial Panel's judgment in the case against CW , when the utter ineffectiveness ( or , as some would suggest, the self-serving cowardice of RFC board members under SDM ) allowed the feckin eejits to accept the sale of the club to Whyte.

    It is a fascinating story, of how guys who believed that  there was something not quite right chickened out, and did nothing in the face of what they plainly saw as being utterly, utterly suspicious.

    And among those guys was our Dave! He had his suspicions all right. 

    And, perhaps, had his own hopes of how to profit from the calamitous series of events that resulted in the death of a then 140-something year old club.

     

     

     

    View Comment

  27. JC@23,46 yesterday 

    Yes indeed. The part SDM played in the downfall of RFC has been carefully whitewashed (or blue rinsed if you will) He (SDM) has maintained a relatively low profile since selling RFC and is quietly building up a new set of businesses. Another character from those turbulent times keeping a relatively low profile is the BBC’s Mark Daly who brought us “The Men Who Sold The Jerseys”. It might be time for the BBC to commission a “where are they now “ documentary for old time’s sake. Perhaps it’s too much to expect as the dark forces referred to by Jim Spence in a tweet a few days ago might not want that to happen and will quietly ensure no old coals are raked over. 

    View Comment

  28. Ex Ludo 5th May 2019 at 09:21
    It might be time for the BBC to commission a “where are they now “ documentary for old time’s sake.
    ………………….
    There is enough boycott’s of the BBC from the ibrox club without adding anymore

    View Comment

  29. Continuing on my little trip down memory lane, I have reminded myself of the little oddity that caught my eye the first time I read the judgment in the appeal of CG against Lord Doherty's opinion that he was not entitled to have his legal costs paid by TRFC Ltd. 

    Have a look at this extract from the judgment and see if you can spot what I'm referring to as an oddity.

    [4]        The Rangers Football Club plc (“Oldco”) was placed in administration on 14 February 2012.  In May 2012 Sevco 5088 Limited, a company of which the reclaimer was the only director, paid the joint administrators £200,000 for an “exclusivity” option to purchase the assets.  A proposed sale agreement was concluded subject to approval of a creditors voluntary arrangement (“CVA”), which was not forthcoming. 

    [5]        On 14 June 2012 the administrators sold the business and assets of the company to Sevco Scotland Limited, incorporated on 29 May 2012 (“Newco”).  On 31 July 2012 Newco changed its name to The Rangers Football Club Limited.  Oldco went into liquidation.  It changed its name to RFC 2012 plc. 

    The full judgment can be found at 

    https://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2017/%5B2017%5DCSIH37.html

    View Comment

  30. John Clark 5th May 2019 at 13:00
    31 July 2012 Newco changed its name to The Rangers Football Club Limited. Oldco went into liquidation. It changed its name to RFC 2012 plc.
    ……………………………………….
    On the 31 july 2012 sevco scotland ltd changed it’s name to The Rangers Football club limited.

    View Comment

  31. Cluster One 5th May 2019 at 15:03

    '…On the 31 july 2012 sevco scotland ltd ..'

    ***********

    It did indeed, but that's not quite the oddity I had in mind .Have another gobroken heart

    View Comment

  32. John Clark 5th May 2019 at 13:00
    ………………..
    Sorry for late response.
    ……………….
    paid the joint administrators £200,000 for an “exclusivity” option to purchase the assets.
    ………….
    On 14 June 2012 the administrators sold the business and assets
    …………..
    The word Business was added. There was no “Business” left to be sold after the (“CVA”), was not forthcoming.

    View Comment

  33. Cluster One 5th May 2019 at 20:14

    '..In May Craig whyte was also a director of sevco 5088 ltd.'

    *******************

    Cluster One, that's brilliant!

    I wish I had had that in mind.

    Honesty compels me to tell the truth, though.

    I had merely thought it was odd that their Lordships/Ladyship hadn't made more of a point that it was not Sevco5088 that bought the assets, given that ownership was disputed and the story was that Sevco 5088's name was on the sale and purchase agreement , but that a quick deed of novation transferred ownership to SevcoScotland!

    I can't remember where that novation idea came from? 

     

    View Comment

  34. John Clark 5th May 2019 at 21:02
    I can’t remember where that novation idea came from?
    ……………….
    Around about the time my first recollection of the word Novation was heard from a caller on the radio.And if i am correct? one who has sadly passed away was well informed on the concept of Novation.

    View Comment

  35. I have just checked on  https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/current-business/court-notices/contempt-of-court-orders 

    and satisfied myself that only the under-listed  cases touching on the 'saga' are not to be reported upon. 

    Orders and Directions made under Section 4(2) and or Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981

    The Rangers FC Group Ltd re Adjudication of Claim, Court of Session, Edinburgh, 15 March 2016

    Charles Green v Rangers International Football Club Plc, Court of Session, Edinburgh, 12 November 2015

    HMA v Craig Thomas Whyte, Gary Martyn Withey, David Henry Grier, David John Whitehouse, Paul John Clark , Charles Alexander Green and Sheik Imran Ahmad known as Imran Ahmad, High Court of Justiciary, Edinburgh, 16 October 2015

    HMA for restraint order re Craig Whyte, Court of Session, Edinburgh, 11 September 2015

    I am therefore free to put on the blog my (barely intelligible ,even to me) notes of some hearings I attended, which were at the time not permitted to be reported.[ I found yesterday a memory stick I had misplaced, and discovered that I had these notes at the time, but couldn't use them, and sort of forgot about them]

    First:

    Court of Session 11th May 2016

    Before Lord Menzies

    Court of Session Thursday 23rd June 2016

    P1140/15 Note HMA for order re failure to comply re Craig Whyte

    ( I went to attend this, but it appeared that it was postponed?)

    Tuesday 5th July 2016 and 3 ensuing days Lord Glennie

    P1140/15 Note HMA for Order re failure to comply re Craig Whyte

    For Petitioner(HMA)                                 For Respondent, Mr Dewar QC

    Mr Mure QC, M/s Hughes

    Mr Dan Byrne (Mr Kavanagh, solicitor)

    (Crown Agent instructing)

    Court sat at 10.30 a.m.

    Mr Mure: There are a couple of points re the Bundle of productions:

    Series of documents in (Marsh?March?), para 68 of Whyte's affidavit “…. Marsh conflict in this case” Is Ticketus decision suspect or not?

    Email from Martin,

    Marsh April 2013 “ I was partner of Collyer Bristow..”

    Part 5 Press article 15/4/13 “ reports about Marsh being a Collyer Bristow partner bearing on this case “..This document doesn't exist

    This document from Mr Marsh confirms that that statement is inaccurate…

    It's fair to say Mr Whyte raised the matter with the Court of Appeal in a letter to  Mr Justice Floyd of the Court of Appeal. In the penultimate para he raises the point of conflict.

    [And that was all that I could scribble. The rest was too indistinct, or just too referential to papers and documents that I had no knowledge of, so stopped trying to make sense of things]

    Second:

    At the last hearing, Counsel were asked to go away and talk to each other and get as much agreement as they could, and submit any further Note of position.

    They did so on last Friday and again on Tuesday, according to Mr Mure. And matters not agreed had been encapsulated.

    He referred to the '£5 000 or more' limit mentioned in the Order..(I missed the point he made about it) and the Judge asked whether there had been agreement ( on whatever the point was). Yes, there had.

    The Judge asked about " to or for the benefit of the respondent"- didn't this possibly present ambiguities? The respondent's father? ( he went on to talk about PayPal bills being paid by respondent's partner as an example of possible ambiguity arising ) The Judge said that if this wording had been agreed he was not going to argue, he just wanted to be sure .

    Findlay then observed 'we are where we are. What my Lord sees is a substantial body of agreement.

    [He then addressed what I took to be the amended texts of argument]In relation to (1) he said he had no difficulty with 'salary' being 'income'- but to a layman, would 'an interest free loan' be considered as 'income'?

    And the period does trouble me, he said.  It's too long. A period of 12 months or so would in his submission be sufficient, say 6/4/13 to 30/11/14, eighteen months. But that's for My lord to decide.

    As far as (3) and (4) are concerned [the original (9) and (10) ]  ..  £5 000 across the board was a misreading ..

    (This was agreed by the Judge)

    Tracing back £250 ? who in business could track down that small sum.

    And I would accept an amendment to ' the sole benefit of respondent'

    The Judge asked , coming back to the definition of income, would you accept  'benefit in loans or in kind'?

    Findlay : benefits in kind are different.. Rent of flat

    Judge: 'income or receipts of any kind whatsoever'—- would that cover it?Para 1 of today's Note?

    Findlay then went on about minutiae such as , say, £20 borrowed for the taxi fare home, and such like.

    The judge asked " Would loans be covered by revised version of Para 3?

    Findlay said Yes, but benefits in kind are different

    The Judge addressed Mr Mure: Para 1 of note– the view I take is that other forms of income would not include loans, but covered by Para 3

    Mure: Yes.

    Judge: So no problem on (1)…… I take it that the reference to 'today's date' means the date of the original order?

    Mure: Yes.

    Judge: and no problem with Para (2)?

    Mure: No, that was just evidence.

    Judge : As regards the period, I will order that that be 2011-2014

    I will not change to 'sole'

    and leave the value at£5000.

    In respect of Para 2 , the Crown already have some information. You will explain what you have, to preclude the need for the respondent to provide the same information.

    I will vary the order at para 3, adding para 3(a).

    I will require compliance by 21st September.

    Can we come back shortly after that date

    Thursday 6th October, 9.00 a.m

    ( And Findlay referred to the criminal hearing recommencing on 3rd October, and asked that nothing from this court be made public. Judge agreed.

     

     

     

    Court of Session 9.00 a m 6th October 2016

    Court 10

    P1140/15 Note: HMA for Order re failure to comply re Craig Whyte

    Before Lord Glennie

    Mr Mure QC for the Petitioner Mr D Findlay QC for the Respondent

    Crown Office staff (4) Mr Dan Byrne

    Mr Kavanagh (solicitor)

    Also present in the body of the court: One police officer, Mr Whyte, one journalist, one slip of a girl solicitor (on the pubic benches) and me.

     

    Mr Mure: Good morning, my Lord. Your Lordship will have my note….

    Lord Glennie: I have your Note, but not the Affidavit it refers to….

    Mr Mure: (pauses)… I have my own copy here…it's heavily annotated ,I'm afraid….but there's a summary page..My learned Junior is going to fetch a copy of the affidavit..

    Lord G: Your Note makes certain criticisms….doesn't yet confirm..

    Mr M: ..the affidavit bears fruit……

    Lord G: What are you suggesting..?

    Mr M: ..that the Court should issue its opinion in final form..

    Lord G: are you looking for the information in the affidavit to be approved..?

    Mr M:…( missed a bit of garbled speech)… matters may be continued.

    Lord G: …an important matter in connection with penalties will be the extent of further compliance..You've still got some way to go with enquiries. We would need to see them finalised before we could consider fixing a period of custody. But you have gone down the route of more time, you don't think you have yet got the full picture.

    Mr M: I accept that, my Lord. The respondent has had ample time.( more garble).. perhaps another 3 weeks..?

    Lord G: A line has to be drawn somewhere….

    Mr M: ….or .perhaps in 4 weeks time….?

    Judge G: we would then be in position to deal with the question of penalties at that time?

    Mr M: Yes. Maybe 7 days before that time for comments ..?

    Judge G: Yes.

    [the learned Junior returns with a copy of the affidavit, which is handed to the Judge]

    We should hear from Mr Findlay.

    Mr Findlay: I would first like to make it clear, my Lord, that prior to recent events the Respondent had apologised sincerely over his non-compliance with the original Order.I make no comment on how matters were handled before, but I have tried to right the ship as best I can.

    The material supplied to date is the best that could have been gathered.

    Judge G: ..We are where we are. You had three weeks from the date of the last Hearing.I get the impression that there are a number of leads unresolved?

    Mr F:.. I've looked with great care: there is some nitpicking, some substance.. If more details can be obtained or explanations given as to why they can't be obtained…..

    Judge G: As I understand it certain accounts can't be obtained , there's a hint that there is reluctance on the part of banks..

    Mr F: If Banks can't communicate I'll try to satisfy the Petitioner.

    Judge G: You want the opportunity of completing the information, chasing the contacts that you have had no response from?

    Mr F: ..Can I just park that question for the moment, my Lord. As your Lordship knows, the original Indictment (in the criminal case) was reduced to 2 charges- the £1 fraud charge, and the proceeds of crime charge. My position is that one irrelevant indictment has been replaced by another irrelevant indictment. I invite the Court to abandon the 'proceeds of crime' procedures.That being so, I will nevertheless do my best to get the information.

    Judge G: What time do you think before your final position?

    Mr F: 6 weeks might make sense. Lord Bannatyne might dismiss the whole case.

    Judge G: But it might have an impact on the proceeds of crime..

    Mr F: I will ask the Crown to abandon proceeds of crime.If they won't, then 6 weeks.

    Judge G: If at 6 weeks it is still uncertain if the proceeds of crime continues…I need to be informed of parallel matters on the procedures of crime matter.

    Mr F: It is inevitable that in 6 weeks down the road…… we can accept or not.

    Judge G: First 4 weeks to get any further compliance with the order of 1st September, then 2 weeks after that notes in and other things…By Order ?

    Mr M: That's all right by me.

    Judge G: Maybe at that time I will be dealing with penalty, while matters are up in the air.

    I shall make an order 1) appointing respondent within 4 weeks and by 3rd November to lodge any further affidavit in response to the order made on 1st September, -para

    2) Noter to intimate by 10th November any note in response

    3)Hearing to continue on 17th November at 9.00 a.m, when it may be that I will deal with penalties in contempt.

    Mr M: But if my Learned friend submits a 'recall' motion…………

    Lord G: “Rules of court” will deal with that.

     

    Court rose at about 9.40 a.m.

     

    Craig Whyte was sitting immediately in front of me. At one point, he was faintly but discernibly trembling, and swallowing hard.

    From what I can make of things, Findlay is going to try to get the second criminal charge ( the proceeds -of- crime -related charge) thrown out. And of course, if that happens, then there would be no continuing grounds on which the Crown could make an order for disclosure of resources , or forbid Whyte from moving money etc. So the 'failure to comply' order would be ( retrospectively) invalid, and so the contempt charge would fall.

     

    But, as I have frequently said, what do I know?

     

    JC , 6th October 2016

     

    Make of that what you will, folks!

    And I do encourage you ( who have not ever been in Court in any capacity) to take a wander in for an hour or two one day, just to get a sense of what is happening and how utterly important it is not just to the people involved, but to the rest of us.

    View Comment

  36. John C
    Excellent reportage. Reporting restrictions have often given MSM an excuse to remain silent in Rangers saga. Subsequent removal of restriction also removes that excuse.

    View Comment

  37. Morning all.

    wrt the Whyte/Green switcheroo,I have always believed that Greens very public admission that he stiffed White was not a mistake but a deliberate action to place in the public domain,evidence that would support any future claim by  Whyte or anyone representing either him or future owners of the fixed charge claim.

    They were(maybe still are) partners,after all.

    View Comment

  38. As the BBC calls it, "McGregor's kung fu kick" ;

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/football/48172663

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

     

    Looks pretty much clear cut: a straight red all day long.

     

    The question is: will a blatant, violent act from a player be supported by a blatant act of bad faith by his club?

     

    Will TRFC appeal the red card – simply to allow McGregor to play against CFC on Sunday?

    View Comment

  39. torrejohnbhoy 6th May 2019 at 10:27

    '…Greens very public admission that he stiffed White was not a mistake but a deliberate action to place in the public domain,evidence that would support any future claim by  Whyte or anyone representing either him or future owners of the fixed charge claim…'

    ******************

    And the fact that BDO were thinking of reaching an agreement with Henderson &Jones surely would indicate that the latter have some evidence to support their claim, which BDO had already spent money trying to resist.

    View Comment

  40. torrejohnbhoy6th May 2019 at 10:27
    My take on this is that the switcheroo was necessary for the benefit of the SFA because it had been brought to their attention that Whyte was behind Sevco 5088 Ltd.

    View Comment

  41. Bogs Dollox 6th May 2019 at 16:05

    torrejohnbhoy6th May 2019 at 10:27
    My take on this is that the switcheroo was necessary for the benefit of the SFA because it had been brought to their attention that Whyte was behind Sevco 5088 Ltd.

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

    I think you'll find that the SFA put their collective fingers in their ears, closed their eyes, while singing la la la la la, as a club known as Rangers was resurrected.

    The SFA's eyebrows were only raised to the possibility of Whyte still being involved maybe 9 months after the switcheroo.

    That led to the SFA allowing TRFC to seek an independent inquiry into themselves. The inquiry was conducted by Pinsent Mason during April/May 2013. That report has never seen the light of day, other than an extract that was published by TRFC to the effect that there was no connection between Whyte and TRFC (Sevco Scotland), which was self evident from day one.  That was enough for the SFA to say "Aye, OK that's good enough for us. Keep calm and carry on"

    Who knows what other information about Sevco 5088 and the switcheroo was uncovered in the investigation that remains confidential.

    View Comment

  42. Ex Ludo 6th May 2019 at 20:51

    That'll never do ! There's mention there of  –

     The SFL have already agreed to place Rangers in Division Three after the club's attempts to replace the old club in the SPL and First Division were unsuccessful.

    and

    Several players contracted to the old Rangers refused to join the new club but others allowed their registration to be transferred and SFA membership would likely give manager Ally McCoist the green light to make new signings.

    Any reason why James Forrest is getting it tight for not attending the SPFA awards – is being away with his club not an acceptable excuse ? He wouldn't have been my choice anyway , but I vaguely recall a photograph of the empty seats at an awards ceremony that were meant to be filled by TRFC players, and there was barely a mention .

    View Comment

  43. easyJambo 6th May 2019 at 18:43
    That led to the SFA allowing TRFC to seek an independent inquiry into themselves. The inquiry was conducted by Pinsent Mason during April/May 2013. That report has never seen the light of day, other than an extract that was published by TRFC to the effect that there was no connection between Whyte and TRFC (Sevco Scotland),
    …………….
    A couple of reminders.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1125504415719464961?p=v
    ………………
    https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1125504539233267714?p=v

    View Comment

  44. SFA probe Green links to whyte April 11, 2013
    9 days later Green had walked away only to walk back in August 3rd as a consultant,then walk away again on Aug 8th

    View Comment

  45. Ex Ludo 6th May 2019 at 20:51

    '…a BBC article from 2012 which is remarkably honest ..'

    'Agreement between five parties – old Rangers, new Rangers, the SFA, SPL and Scottish Football League – is required for the relaunched club to inherit old Rangers' SFA membership, '

    *****************

    Well, I think McLaughlin was under an editorial hammer to make sure he did not use terms like 'the new club'!

    McLaughlin's piece , like many another piece at the time, uses words like 'inherited' , 'relaunched', new 'company', to try to bolster the myth that the new Rangers are one and the same as the old Rangers. 

    And as for 'Rangers insistence that they are not punished' McLaughlin should have exposed that for the legal nonsense that it was: there was no way the SFA could legally  or equitably punish a brand new club that had not been guilty of any breach of Football rules! 

    Green was at the madam, and so were the SFA , each being desperate to lie about the true status of the new club and the death of RFC and its 140-odd years of football achievements.

    And McLaughlin failed as a journalist , by not walking away from the BBC rather than be compliant with their editorial policy, which was and is,  to adopt the propagation of the Big Lie and spread and foster it and bar any discussion of it on air.

    ( I take it, incidentally, that , since yesterday's game at Ibrox was commentated on  from Ibrox stadium ,BBC Scotland have kissed and made up with the Ibrox board?  The price of which being what? Removing the possibility that McLaughlin will ever be sent to Ibrox? Did I miss some big announcement of the reconciliation?)

     

     

    View Comment

  46. Cluster One 6th May 2019 at 21:59

    '….https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1125504539233267714?p=v'

    *******************

    That is a good link to the newspaper report. 

    I enjoyed in particular this bit:

    " ….Rangers earlier issued a statement to the London Stock Exchange…….It added that Green was a director of Sevco 5088, which was used to buy the assets and business of the Liquidation-bound club….The assets were transferred to another new company , SevcoScotland, days after the £5.5 million purchase…"

    (And I'm reinforced in my view that it was odd that their Lordships/Ladyship did not make some kind of mention of that 'fact' , having mentioned Sevco 5088 at all! ( my post of 5th May at 13.00 refers))

     

     

     

    View Comment

  47. Comparing football fans (un)forgiving nature but maybe slightly off message ? Whoops

     

    Matthew Lindsay in The herald…

     

    "Yet, the rebels were, it was subsequently shown, perfectly entitled legally to take such a course of action. Their misgivings about the new club hierarchy, “

     

     

    see the full article

     

    https://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/17620160.matthew-lindsay-rangers-contract-rebels-return-shows-brendan-rodgers-can-make-a-celtic-comeback/

    View Comment

  48. On the Pinsent Mason 'investigation',  there is this 

    https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/403676/Rangers-No-Whyte-investment

    I love this wee bit " The Investigation Committee is satisfied that a thorough investigation was conducted despite the inherent limitations of a private inquiry."

    I have referred on this blog ( geez, a bloody age ago!) to the staff appraisal report, in which the Reporting Officer writes" Mr X has performed all his duties entirely to his own satisfaction".

    'Thoroughness' and 'inherent limitations' are not quite comfortable bedfellows, wouldn't you say?

    Honest to God. 

     

    View Comment

  49. easyJambo 6th May 2019 at 18:43

     

    Bogs Dollox 6th May 2019 at 16:05

    torrejohnbhoy6th May 2019 at 10:27
    My take on this is that the switcheroo was necessary for the benefit of the SFA because it had been brought to their attention that Whyte was behind Sevco 5088 Ltd.

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

    I think you'll find that the SFA put their collective fingers in their ears, closed their eyes, while singing la la la la la, as a club known as Rangers was resurrected.

    The SFA's eyebrows were only raised to the possibility of Whyte still being involved maybe 9 months after the switcheroo.

    That led to the SFA allowing TRFC to seek an independent inquiry into themselves. The inquiry was conducted by Pinsent Mason during April/May 2013. That report has never seen the light of day, other than an extract that was published by TRFC to the effect that there was no connection between Whyte and TRFC (Sevco Scotland), which was self evident from day one.  That was enough for the SFA to say "Aye, OK that's good enough for us. Keep calm and carry on"

    Who knows what other information about Sevco 5088 and the switcheroo was uncovered in the investigation that remains confidential.

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

    The SFA did the opposite of putting their fingers in their ears and shouting Lalafukinla. They facilitated the process of letting a club back into the league that under any laws of the game in any other country they would have been Sine die. Such was the scale of their cheating.

    Not convinced the SFA didn't know Whyte was Sevco 5088 at the time. Why the switcheroo –  followed by a public confession that Green had shafted Whyte?

    If Whyte was involved 9 months after the switcheroo when the SFA raised an eyebrow then he was in on the switcheroo. No?

    What made them raise an eyebrow? (look at the money being invested in Sevco 5088 Ltd – it was all switched to Sevco Scotland Ltd. Whose money was it? Why did they allow it to be switched?). Was he about to be declared personna non grata in Scottish football. A timeline would be useful here.

    I spoke to a PM partner at the time. His opinion was that their report was a whitewash and even though they were paid handsomely he wishes they had never been appointed.

    Lawyers Eh? Always seeking justice?

    View Comment

  50. John Clark 6th May 2019 at 23:10

     

    On the Pinsent Mason 'investigation',  there is this 

    https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/403676/Rangers-No-Whyte-investment

    I love this wee bit " The Investigation Committee is satisfied that a thorough investigation was conducted despite the inherent limitations of a private inquiry."

    I have referred on this blog ( geez, a bloody age ago!) to the staff appraisal report, in which the Reporting Officer writes" Mr X has performed all his duties entirely to his own satisfaction".

    'Thoroughness' and 'inherent limitations' are not quite comfortable bedfellows, wouldn't you say?

    Honest to God.

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

     

    The point being of course that Sevco were allowed to "whitewash" themselves by appointing a firm to report to them first and not to the SFA direct. Why? (I know we know the answer but our clubs don't appear to care).

    Like I said above I spoke to a PM partner at the time who was less than impressed by his firms output. But pay the piper call the tune.

     

     

     

    View Comment

  51. Bogs Dollox 6th May 2019 at 23:12

    '..They facilitated the process of letting a club back into the league that..'

    Steady, Bogs Dollox!  They admitted a new club into Scottish Football.

    The fact that some of the same rotten spivs who had been connected with the club that was put into liquidation were now connected with the new club does not change the fact that it was/is a new club.

    RFC of 1872 ceased to exist. A club of yesteryear.

    They were not 'let back in'. Some rotten sods of spivs in cahoots with another rotten lot of 'governance' people created a lie, a myth. 

    The club in liquidation should, of course, have been stripped of all honours and titles won when teams fielded over many years had ineligible players playing 

    And the record books should have been corrected. And the new club should have been prohibited from trading on the name that was once 'honourable' and from falsely claiming to be that once honourable club.

    Those were the correct actions that should have been taken by the SFA. 

    That they were not taken is an affront to truth and to Sport.

    Simples.

    View Comment

  52. John Clark 6th May 2019 at 23:39

     

    Bogs Dollox 6th May 2019 at 23:12

    '..They facilitated the process of letting a club back into the league that..'

    Steady, Bogs Dollox!  They admitted a new club into Scottish Football.

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

    Correct.

    View Comment

  53. “Several players contracted to the old Rangers refused to join the new club but others allowed their registration to be transferred and SFA membership would likely give manager Ally McCoist the green light to make new signings.”

    This is the second last paragraph from the 2012 BBC article (the italics are mine) 

    View Comment

  54. Is the SFA still in hibernation?

    Have they managed to press gang another unemployable, unfortunate into the Scotland manager's job?

    Mibbees they have… and just not bothered to tell the fans yet?

     

    Or perhaps they're having a marathon dominoes session down in the bunker, and just forgotten about the appointment? Easily done.

    indecision

    View Comment
1 5 6 7 8 9 11
 

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