Dear Mr Bankier

630
162117

Readers may be aware that the group Fans Without Scarves have written to Celtic urging them to seek a review of Scottish football (See here)
On the back of that laudible effort, I have been persuaded to publish a letter I sent to that same board over a week ago (on 8 November)
At the time of publication, I have received no acknowledgment.  Some organisations are like that, of course. (I put it down to the inferior quality of the social upbringing of their boards rather than concern for their postage bill)

The following is the text of that communication;

Mr I Bankier,
Chairman,
Celtic Football Club plc
Celtic Park, Glasgow G40 3RE

08/11/2018

Dear Mr Bankier,

“Resolution 12”

You will, of course, recall as clearly as I that, at the Celtic plc AGM in 2013, the Resolution bearing number 12 on the agenda was not formally debated and voted upon, but was adjourned indefinitely.

I understand that over the intervening years (!) a number of conversations and discussions have taken place between the Board and the immediate proposers of Resolution 12 (among whom, I should perhaps say, I was not numbered in 2013 and am not now numbered).

As an eventual outcome of those discussions and conversations, as again you will recall, Celtic plc in September 2017, shortly before that year’s AGM, entrusted to the Scottish Football Association [SFA] the task of undertaking a thorough investigation into the circumstances under which the Union of European Football Associations [UEFA] granted a UEFA-competitions licence to the then Rangers Football Club in 2011.

Unfathomably, it was not until May of this year that the Compliance Officer of the SFA referred the matter to the Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal [JPDT]

In that same month of May 2018, evidence emerged that appeared to cast serious doubts on the legitimacy of the award of the UEFA licence to Rangers Football Club in 2011.

In late June 2018, and following careful consideration of that evidence, the legal representative of what is known as the ‘Res.12 Group’ informed both the SFA and Celtic plc of these doubts, passing to those bodies copies of the evidence which gave rise to those doubts.

In July 2018, The Rangers Football Club Ltd challenged the reference to the JPDT, arguing that the appropriate authority to which any such reference ought to have been made is the Court of Arbitration for Sport [CAS]

This challenge has apparently and inexplicably frozen all action by the JPDT.

To my eye, as a small shareholder, it appears that the Board of Celtic plc have been and continue to be at the very least dilatory and lukewarm if not yet totally remiss in looking after the interests of their shareholders.

It is now November: the reference by Celtic plc to the SFA was made over one year ago. Even by reference to the civil Courts let alone to the internal disciplinary body of a not very large sports governance body such as the SFA, that is an unconscionably long time for a reference not to have been acted upon. I now feel obliged to ask the following questions:

  1. Have the Celtic Board pressed the SFA to say what action they have taken vis-vis the challengemade to the legal powers of the JPDT to investigate the circumstances surrounding the award of the licence ?
  2. If they have not done so, would they care to give their reasons why not?
  3. If the response from the SFA was that the matter of the jurisdiction of the JPDT has been referred elsewhere (to UEFA or to the CAS), are the Celtic Board content with that response and prepared to take such subsequent monitoring action as may be necessary?
  4. If the SFA have not referred the question of jurisdiction elsewhere, have the Celtic Board ascertained at what stage the JPDT’s investigation is at, or even whether it has yet begun?
  5. If the Board have been told that the JPDT has stalled, perhaps indefinitely, what does the Celtic Board propose doing to ensure that the investigation that they were assured would be undertaken will indeed be undertaken by the JPDT as a matter of priority, with a timetable for completion?
  6. Does the Celtic Board actually trust the SFA/JPDT to investigate thoroughly, honestly and deliver true judgement? Is it not time that a vote was taken to pass ‘Res 12’, based on what is now known by Celtic plc, and the matter formally referred by Celtic plc to UEFA to investigate as thoroughly as was done in the recently reported cases of the Albanian, Serbian and Kazakhstan national associations?

The Celtic Board must keep in mind their obligations to shareholders. This would be especially so where there may be grounds for suspecting chicanery on the part of others, in consequence of which Celtic plc might have been denied an actual, defined sum of money and the opportunity potentially to compete for much more in ‘prize’ money.

In such circumstances it would not be at all for the Board on its own authority simply to ignore the possibility of chicanery and dismiss the matter.

There are sufficient grounds for me to believe that the award of a UEFA licence to the then Rangers Football Club in 2011 may have been made in the knowledge that that club was absolutely not entitled to that award.

In my opinion, the granting of a UEFA licence to the then Rangers FC in 2011 is not merely a ‘sporting’ matter, but one which might conceivably, in the absence of acceptable responses from the SFA/JPDT, require reference to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

The failure to date of Celtic plc to insist that the SFA take urgent action to fulfil the commitment they made that a thorough, independent investigation would be undertaken urges me to make such reference on my own initiative as a citizen who suspects that a crime may have been committed.

However, before taking such a step, I think I will await your replies to the questions above if you would be good enough to provide such.

Yours sincerely,

name and address

630 COMMENTS


  1. Smugas 24th November 2018 at 20:15
    ”given where we’ve been would you consider spending £14m of someone else’s money to get through euro groups, domestically 2nd and within two wins of 1st as money well spent?”

    And make no mistake a significant proportion in the room will agree.
    ……………………….
    Any soundbite that makes them within touching distance of celtic will be applauded, but soundbites do not alter the reality of a situation.

    View Comment

  2. John Clark 24th November 2018 @ 18:34
    ——————————————————————————

    Just so I’m clear on this, are you referring to me in this paragraph?

    “Naturally, someone  who (as far as I can make out) claims that TRFC Ltd is the Glasgow Rangers Football Club founded in 1872, is hardly likely to be bothered with that level of incompetence in the matter of player discipline.”

    Please do respond. A simple yes or no will suffice.

    View Comment

  3. incredibleadamspark 24th November 2018 at 20:38

    '…Just so I’m clear on this, are you referring to me in this paragraph?'
    %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

    "If the cap fits, wear it…." is perhaps an appropriate response. 

    I read your posts as I read them: broadly in support of the 'same club' nonsense; anxious to see the dead 'Rangers' treated as though still alive(absolved of any guilt  for anything); ready to accept that there was no playing of ineligible players; that somehow Craig Whyte's 'Rangers of 1872'  did not cease to exist as a recognised football club in Scottish football; that somehow there is both a RFC 2012 with 140+ years of history which is simultaneously The Rangers Football Club founded in 2012……… and so on. 

    It follows therefore that I view any defence of  what I believe to be unacceptable behaviour by the SFA as being at least implicit support for the SFA ,  for the SMSM Liquidation deniers ,and for the BB C pundits who block any discussion of the 'Lie', in relation to anything related to the dead club and  its former managers and players (particularly EBT recipients) !

    If I am completely misreading your posts, and you are not a denier of the consequences of RFC 1872's Liquidation and of the ineligibility of those players etc etc etc, then I am very glad. 

    But really, you  might make it a little clearer in your posts that you are on the side of right.

    View Comment

  4. John, not only have you misread my posts you might have me completely mixed up with another poster?

    This paragraph:

    “I read your posts as I read them: broadly in support of the ‘same club’ nonsense; anxious to see the dead ‘Rangers’ treated as though still alive(absolved of any guilt  for anything); ready to accept that there was no playing of ineligible players; that somehow Craig Whyte’s ‘Rangers of 1872’  did not cease to exist as a recognised football club in Scottish football; that somehow there is both a RFC 2012 with 140+ years of history which is simultaneously The Rangers Football Club founded in 2012……… and so on.”

    I have posted none of the above. I enjoy this site and I’m genuinely puzzled by your response. I have no problem admitting when I have got something wrong and I would hope you would do the same on this occasion.

    View Comment

  5. incredibleadamspark 24th November 2018 at 22:54

    '…I have no problem admitting when I have got something wrong and I would hope you would do the same on this occasion.'
    %%%%%%%%%%%%
    No one is more ready than I to admit that I can get things wrong, mis-read, misinterpret, get names wrong, mis-click on the mouse, and generally make an arse of myself. 

    But, for my ease of mind afore I go to bed: will you post that you believe that TRFC Ltd is

    not entitled to advertise itself as being the self-same football club as the Rangers of 1872?

    that it falsely claims to be so?

    that it is a new football club founded in 2012?

    and that Rangers FC of 1872 fielded ineligible players (by reason of serious breach of SFA/SPL rules about disclosure of emoluments being paid to players?)

    I will most willingly apologise to you if I have wholly misunderstood your fundamental orientation and,  in consequence, your posts on this blog. 

     

     

     

    View Comment

  6. John, I have been on SFM since the very beginning and have posted on all of those topics a number of times. I also believe I've been pretty consistent in my opinions on those topics. 

    I will repeat my puzzlement at how you could so misrepresent my posts but I'm happy to put your mind at ease on these topics. 

    Rangers are a new club formed in 2012, should not claim the records of the old one, which is currently being liquidated and was at it with their use of EBTs. To put it mildly.

     

     

     

    View Comment

  7. Darkbeforedawn 23rd November 2018 at 19:44

    EJ, I often think the SFA aren’t actually corrupt but are just completely inept. I’m not convinced anyone there has the intelligence for a cover up! 

    UEFA are a different animal, it has always been known that them and FIFA are two of the most corrupt bodies in the world of any walk of life. The UEFA draws that always keep the teams they want apart until later stages in tournaments, and the recent revelations over Man City and Monaco are examples of the corruption conspiracies. However they blatantly rig the game (UEFA and FIFA) without even trying to hide it by ensuring the rich and powerful stay rich and powerful, the choice of venues or host countries are the best financially for them regardless of the fans or players (Qatar!) and the cream of the crop like PSG Barca and Real Madrid will always get the benefit of the doubt with regards to disciplinary processes. They truly are a corrupt bunch. Which is what I find ironic at the fact the Resolution 12 bunch hold their great hopes of perceived justice in those very bodies?

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

    UEFA involvement was always suspected based on events on 19 Sept 2011. The link is to an e mail that tells us that the SFA and UEFA must have been in discussion in order for UEFA to verbally accept the monitoring  submission made by RFC under Art 66 at 30 June 2011.

    How did the SFA explain the status of “postponed” given to the liability to UEFA in the Art 66 submission, given that any "postponement" we now know was a lie ?

    What explanation did the SFA give UEFA that UEFA were happy to verbally accept the submission of 30th June, with the result that future financial forecasts were not required just four and a half months before RFC entered administration prior to liquidation?

    The tone of the SFA advice to RFC to meet Article 67 requirement is remarkable in that it suggests UEFA would not be picking up the issue.  

    Who influenced UEFA and what factors cane into play?

    Was one that RFC were out of Europe

    Did the SFA know by September that the proof for granting was bullshit?

    What exactly were UEFA told by the SFA who by 30 June should have been supplied with letters from HMRC of 5th May and 20th May demonstrating that the liability was anything but postponed and the submission was in fact more or less a repeat of what the RFC told the SFA to get the licence in the first place? Its all at 

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6uWzxhblAt9cGJVMlBFZTViWUE/view

    This was known when the resolution was being drafted and one of the possibilities, given that the aim of Res12 was SFA reform, was that it was the SFA who lied to UEFA in that conversation.

    That is what an investigation would have established so now you know why every attempt is being made to bury it.

    Another reason for placing  Res12 was to confirm that Rangers lied/cheated in June 2011 and the September submission was a lie also .

    The SFA and TRFC are pulling out all the judicial stops to avoid not just getting confirmation of the above, but that the lie began just before the end of March.

    All Res12 asked was for UEFA CFCB to carry out their role and the expectation, with good reason at the time,  was that Celtic would be right behind it and take it to UEFA, but we can hardly be blamed for thinking Celtic weren't corrupt, but I can assure you the SFA are, as time will tell.

    Go back and read Who is Conning Whom SFM Blog to see how Darryl Broadfoot told David Conn of The Guardian that RFC held an HMRC letter that justified the licence being granted or JPP Perverting Justice or Is Regan a DIDDY?

    Mr Conn to this day, even although he has since been shown in October evidence that set out the true position has declined to investigate.

    I mean we knew corruption  was bad but f f s.

     

     

     

    View Comment

  8. Cluster One 24th November 2018 at 20:02

    It never did start. the same will be heard at this years AGM. Soundbites with no media or shareholders asking questions only it is ok king has a plan.
    Don’t get me wrong king’s plans have led them down the wrong path, and may it continue

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

    There will be many intelligent people at the AGM, but I have no doubt that for some reason they will be as willing to accept everything King tells them without challenge as anyone. What I expect is stuff along the lines of:

    1. Rangers are in an enviable position.
    2. Cheap digs at Celtic.
    3. Once we are playing in the Champions League Groups our business model will really take off.
    4. We have had bids for several players worth huge transfer fees but we are not in the business of selling. 
    5. We will continue our pursuit of justice regarding the SPFL Chair and his links to Celtic.
    6. The court cases with Ashley mean nothing and we will make millions from merchandise. 
    7. We are a far bigger contributor to the Scottish economy than Celtic – because we just are. 

    Then the assembled media will write a report which could be narrowed down simply to the classic end line from children's stories '…and they all lived happily ever after'. 

    View Comment

  9. …and to back up my earlier point about the media I see King will 'Jet in' for the AGM and 'discuss signing targets' with Gerrard before the meeting. A club which has just lost £14m, with an admission of more external finance required, and the media can't even ask how these signings will be financed. 

    Oh…there is also the matter of UEFA FFP to consider before applying to the SFA for a European licence. Right, I've taken things too far, because some things are just pure fantasy and I have to realise that!

    View Comment

  10. Steven Gerrard has warned he’s prepared to fall out with his Ibrox paymasters if they consider selling on-fire hitman Alfredo Morelos.
    ………………..
    First for that to happen he would need someone to be interested in buying him first.Is this another slant on the no bid £15 million?
    Oh! upthehoops.
    I see King will ‘Jet in’ for the AGM and ‘discuss signing targets’
    King at said AGM I will not sell, big smiles from SG round of applause from the gallery…sorted.
    There will be many intelligent people at the AGM, but I have no doubt that for some reason they will be as willing to accept everything King tells them without challenge.HAS ANYONE PUT ENQUIRIES IN OR ASKED ABOUT HIS AVAILABILITY, MR KING!
    asked no one from the gallery.

    View Comment

  11. Suppose it's not McGregor's problem whether his ban has been lifted or not, simply forgotten about or just ignored at Hampden.

    It's just further proof – if any was needed – that the SFA incompetents are asleep at the wheel.

    …at per…  smiley

     

    View Comment

  12. incredibleadamspark 25th November 2018 at 00:32 

    '.I will repeat my puzzlement at how you could so misrepresent my posts .'

    _____________________

    On the basis of what you say in your present post, ias , then I've clearly mis-identified you as a 'denier' and supporter of the 'let's forget all the cheating and chicanery and simply move on' lobby.

    I am heartily sorry for so doing, of course: I would not for worlds deliberately and falsely tag someone with that epithet, which in context is about the worst thing I could say about anyone!

    Apologies.

    View Comment

  13. StevieBC 

    25th November 2018 at 12:12

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

    That's the point.

    Its not about the player, or the manager, or anyone else.

    Its about the SFA banning a player for life, then allowing him to be selected again, without lifting the ban and explaining why

    Its about the media who covered the life ban, then said little or nothing when he was selected and played again.

    Its about them making it up as they go along, treating the support like idiots and the media being compliant with that, rather than reporting the truth and demanding explanations.

    There is no conspiracy theory, there is no need. Its there for everyone to see.

    View Comment

  14. Its about the media who covered the life ban, then said little or nothing when he was selected and played again.

    It was so long ago are we sure that it wasn’t reported? Also the fact he didn’t play in Scotland at the time would suggest it probably wasn’t as new worthy. 

    View Comment

  15. Last week eJ alerted us to the fact that Lady Wolffe will 'Hear' the 'Proof before Answer' in the case of King's alleged 'contempt of Court' 

    I had to look up what ' proof before answer' is, and it is, apparently, a hearing to establish the 'facts' of the matter in dispute, prior to any consideration of how the relevant legislation is to be applied to those facts.

    I am consumed with curiosity as to what will be presented as the 'facts' by each party to the proceedings. Are we to expect the Hearing to last only a few minutes, or half a morning? a full morning? a whole day? Two days?heart

    I've found it difficult to find out anything much about the procedures relating to 'contempt' actions. We know that the Lord Advocate's concurrence was not required in the present case: there is no criminal charge so no one has been arrested  and there's no trial by jury. Yet , from what I've read, it seems that -since a 'conviction' can bring a prison sentence as penalty- the standard of 'proof' has to be at the 'beyond reasonable doubt' level, not just 'on the balance of probabilities'. And, as far as I can ascertain, the defender in the action doesn't  need to be present in person.

    All very interesting: and actually quite, quite serious. I think it might be the case that if the law as applied to the agreed facts works against the defender, then simply now complying fully would not purge the contempt: he'd have to be 'punished' over and above for the 'contempt'.

    But what do I know, other than that in these matters, one is required to keep an open mind.

     

     

    View Comment

  16. Darkbeforedawn 

    25th November 2018 at 14:13

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

    Show me any report you can find, you will be doing better than me.

    The SFA allowing a banned (for life) player to play is news worthy. Whether he is playing his domestic football  in Scotland or not. 

    View Comment

  17. I always keep an open mind when Dave King or TRFC are going to court.  The legacy of Nimmo Smith is long lasting.  Even if he and his distinguished friends were not sitting in a court of law. Nimmo Smith was supposed to bring gravitas to the commission as a ‘judge’.

     

    Likewise the First Tier Tax Tribunal.  Thank goodness Heidi Poon could see through the smoke and mirrors.

    View Comment

  18. Darkbeforedawn 25th November 2018 at 14:13

    It was so long ago are we sure that it wasn’t reported? Also the fact he didn’t play in Scotland at the time would suggest it probably wasn’t as new worthy. 

    —-

    He actually returned when playing in Scotland. A brief timeline of the reporting is:

    3rd April 09 – SFA statement "In light of the events of the past 48 hours and following further discussions between the national team manager and the chief executive, it has been decided that Barry Ferguson and Allan McGregor will no longer be considered for international selection by Scotland."

    9th April 09 – SFA go against a 'for life' reading of "no longer be considered" following a board meeting

    https://www.theguardian.com/football/2009/apr/09/barry-ferguson-allan-mcgregor-scotland

    November 09 – Burley sacked. SFA confirm that a new manager could select Ferguson/McGregor

    https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/international/disgraced-scotland-duo-free-to-return-1822799.html

    December 09 – Levein appointed and says he would welcome back Ferguson, McGregor (and Boyd)

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/scotland/6880716/Craig-Levein-defends-plans-to-bring-back-Ferguson-McGregor-and-Boyd.html

    Also got some coverage in February 2010 when Levein didn't select McGregor due to injury. "I'm looking for certainty. It doesn't look like he's going to be fit so it's nice and simple. Once this game is out of the way, he will be considered for the next match."

    In August 2010 in the build up to McGregor's return against Sweden.

    "Allan was desperate to come back. He’s held his hands up and knows he made a silly mistake but he wants to play for Scotland.

    "Everybody makes mistakes. Both Allan and Barry Ferguson have accepted they were wrong. It wasn’t a terrible thing they did, it was just stupid.

    "When I took the job I wanted everyone available because we don’t have a massive amount of top quality players and Allan’s one of those. And with what’s happened with Craig Gordon it’s a blessing that he’s back in the squad."

    And here on SFM, nine and a half years (and 38 caps) on from the Cameron House/V-sign incidents. 

    View Comment

  19. Dr Mo 

    25th November 2018 at 16:09

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

    Some interesting "snapshot" / "interpretations" of the actual quotes in those articles you have provided links to.

    For example – "9th April 09 – SFA go against a 'for life' reading of "no longer be considered" following a board meeting"

    The word "board" appears three times in the actual article. It doesn't appear to relate to what you said above. 

    1. – Gordon Smith, the chief executive of the Scottish FA, has refused to rule out a return to international football for the nation's deposed captain Barry Ferguson and his Rangers team-mate Allan McGregor. Smith, speaking immediately after the Scotland manager George Burley reported to the SFA board over circumstances which led to the duo being banned from Scotland duty on Friday, was pressed on three separate occasions on whether or not those sanctions could be lifted if, for example, a new manager was in place.

    2. – Ambiguity remains the order of the day in this affair. Last Thursday, Smith said the matter was closed as far as the SFA were concerned. Less than 24 hours later, bans had been issued with George Peat, the president, insisting Burley reported events in full at today's board gathering. It is, in truth, tricky to decipher who is undermining who.

    3. – Burley, along with four players who had been in Ferguson and McGregor's company for at least some of their drinking time, was cleared of any wrongdoing by the SFA board. A set of rules, however, will be put in place for future international gatherings and distributed to squad members.

     

    It strikes me that what was happening in that article is that Gordon Smith personally was equivocating, and you are reading that to be the entire SFA. However let me quote an entire paragraph.

    "In reality, that statement was more unequivocal than he has suggested. It was subsequently put to Smith that a new manager, for instance, may want to select the shamed pair. "There are many circumstances that can arise," he added. "I can't say that. The situation is that at the moment the ban is in place and they will not be chosen for the international team. You can speculate on that."

    View Comment

  20. John Clark 25th November @ 12:37
    ——————————————————————————

    No problem, John. Happy we were able to resolve this. I might not agree with everything that’s posted on here and not everyone will agree with what I post but that’s fine. It makes SFM an informative and lively place where we can have debates and disagreements in a civilised way.

    View Comment

  21. Bottom line what has been posted supports the position that the SFA never actually "lifted the ban".

    Gordon Smith basically said, in the paper, that in spite of the ban a subsequent manager might want to play the players anyway. Who can guess why the former Rangers players and executive would have done that. 

    Craig Levein said that he needed them. 

    The SFA never stuck by its life ban, however they never actually lifted it either.

    They were and are cowards as well as everything else. 

    View Comment

  22. At the end of the day, I was utterly embarrassed and furious with McGreggor at the time, but I am glad the ban was lifted as he’s single handedly gained points for Scotland over the years. I’d feel the same no matter his club allegiances – at the end of the day success for the national team should come first. 

    View Comment

  23. Homunculus 25th November 2018 at 16:40

    Some interesting "snapshot" / "interpretations" of the actual quotes in those articles you have provided links to.

    For example – "9th April 09 – SFA go against a 'for life' reading of "no longer be considered" following a board meeting"

    The word "board" appears three times in the actual article. It doesn't appear to relate to what you said above. 


     

    It strikes me that what was happening in that article is that Gordon Smith personally was equivocating, and you are reading that to be the entire SFA. However let me quote an entire paragraph.

    —-

    I'm not particularly keen to get into a semantic debate on a side issue here: my contribution was simply to show that any claim that there was no/limited reporting on this at the time was plainly false. 

    That said, I think you've unfairly characterised my contribution, so I'll bite. 

    The context around the April 9th article is: (i) there was a SFA board meeting that day (ii)  there was a press conference after that meeting (iii) Gordon Smith was SFA chief exec (iv) Gordon Smith was available for questioning at that press conference.

    My position is that he represented the SFA/SFA position at that and subsequent press conferences. I think that's pretty much the only reasonable interpretation.

    Your take on that is that Gordon Smith basically said, in the paper, that in spite of the ban a subsequent manager might want to play the players anyway

    I think stating he said it 'in the paper' is disingenuous. Similarly, the idea Smith was at that press conference in a personal capacity strikes me as fanciful. 

    Still stand by that press conference being a clarification/row back from the idea that "no longer considered" meant indefinitely rather than "for the moment" (as you quoted) e.g. the language from SFA CEO Smith, speaking at a SFA press conference, here:

    "What happened on Sunday was a yellow card; what happened on Wednesday night was another yellow card. That results in a red card and that's what's happened here. The first incident could be regarded as a yellow-card incident and, therefore, nobody gets sent off for that."

    Suggests to me that the SFA position (certainly by 9th April) was to treat this as more of a suspension than a life ban. Hopefully that sates your interest in my interpretation. 

    View Comment

  24. I see it is being suggested that the disruption of the second leg of the Copa Libertadores final could have been caused by criminal elements , who attacked the Boca Juniors bus in retaliation for the authorities clampdown on the very lucrative touting and forging match tickets . Strict liability ?

    View Comment

  25. John Clark 25th November 2018 at 14:26

    Last week eJ alerted us to the fact that Lady Wolffe will 'Hear' the 'Proof before Answer' in the case of King's alleged 'contempt of Court' 

    I had to look up what ' proof before answer' is, and it is, apparently, a hearing to establish the 'facts' of the matter in dispute, prior to any consideration of how the relevant legislation is to be applied to those facts.

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

    If I understood Lord Malcolm correctly in an unrelated hearing when discussing a "proof before answer", he asked both counsels to tell him what was the point in law that he was being asked to answer.

    My take would therefore be that a "proof" is a trial of the evidence in a civil action. A "proof before answer", would be a similar trial, but with a legal issue attached, which also needs to be answered..

    In King's case, it will not be enough for Lady Wolffe just to be satisfied that she favours the evidence of the TOP over that of King in order to determine his contempt.

    As we have heard previously in this case, the burden of proof needs to be "beyond a reasonable doubt", rather than "balance of probabilities" and also that TOP needs to show "mens rea" (guilty mind), i.e. that King knew that what he did or didn't do would constitute a crime.

    It could be those legal thresholds that Lady Wolffe will have to "answer" when coming to her decision(s). 

     

    View Comment

  26. Dr Mo 25th November 2018 at 17:38

    Homunculus 25th November 2018 at 16:40

    Some interesting "snapshot" / "interpretations" of the actual quotes in those articles you have provided links to.

    For example – "9th April 09 – SFA go against a 'for life' reading of "no longer be considered" following a board meeting"

    The word "board" appears three times in the actual article. It doesn't appear to relate to what you said above. 


     

    It strikes me that what was happening in that article is that Gordon Smith personally was equivocating, and you are reading that to be the entire SFA. However let me quote an entire paragraph.

    —-

    I'm not particularly keen to get into a semantic debate on a side issue here: my contribution was simply to show that any claim that there was no/limited reporting on this at the time was plainly false. 

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

    Another person not wanting to get into a semantic debate, wow that's a coincidence.

    In any case, what was being discussed was the SFA "lifting the ban" and the lack of that being reported.

    You have produced links, presumably claiming that is what was being reported.

    It really wasn't, unless one wants to try to spin some mealy mouthed comments made by one of its employees as the SFA lifting a lifetime ban. 

    View Comment

  27. Darkbeforedawn 25th November 2018 at 17:38
    2 9 Rate This

    At the end of the day, I was utterly embarrassed and furious with McGreggor at the time, but I am glad the ban was lifted as he’s single handedly gained points for Scotland over the years. I’d feel the same no matter his club allegiances – at the end of the day success for the national team should come first.
    ……………….
    I have read your post several times now, and the part- at the end of the day success for the national team should come first.
    Are you stating that no matter what a person has done or did, at the end of the day if it gets results and success on the pitch, that is all that matters?

    View Comment

  28. Just to be clear, here's what the players thought.

    Scotland captain Barry Ferguson (left) and Allan McGregor

    Ferguson, who was Scotland captain and has been capped 45 times, told Rangers' website: "I deeply regret what happened last weekend and the events during the last week and apologise wholeheartedly for the embarrassment caused to Scotland, Rangers, both sets of supporters and my friends and family.

    "I have always considered playing for Rangers and Scotland an honour and a privilege and nothing will change that and I am bitterly disappointed by the announcement that I will not be selected for Scotland again."

    McGregor, who had made his fourth international appearance in Amsterdam after deposing Sunderland's Craig Gordon, was also contrite.

    "We all make mistakes in life and I am very disappointed to have let Rangers, Scotland, my family and all the fans down," he said.

    "I am also desperately disappointed that I will not be selected again for Scotland at this stage in my career."

    View Comment

  29. easyJambo 25th November 2018 at 18:37

    '..it will not be enough for Lady Wolffe just to be satisfied that she favours the evidence of the TOP over that of King in order to determine his contempt.'

    _______________________________

    I'm looking forward to hearing whatever Mr King's QC has to say about his client's efforts to comply. I wonder whether King will think it beneficial if he makes a personal appearance and perhaps make a personal statement to the Court?

    I wonder also whether the public  will get turfed out if King's finances might fall to be discussed?heart

    View Comment

  30. Homunculus 

    On your first post:

    In any case, what was being discussed was the SFA "lifting the ban" and the lack of that being reported.

    You have produced links, presumably claiming that is what was being reported.

    It really wasn't, unless one wants to try to spin some mealy mouthed comments made by one of its employees as the SFA lifting a lifetime ban.

    Starting to be reminded of that Stewart Lee sketch about a taxi driver and "you can prove anything with facts" broken heart

    Anyway, another link, another fact (and oddly another bit of media reporting contra your post @ 13:22)

    Smith said the media had wrongly indicated the players had received life bans, and the chief executive was keen to clarify the situation.

    "It wasn't a life ban," Smith told BBC Radio Scotland's Sportsound programme. 
    "The press came out with the terminology 'life ban'. They're not being chosen at the moment, but that could change.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/8087319.stm

    I think that's as straightforward as it gets?

    On the player comments, there's some grey in the McGregor statement (specifically, the bit you didn't bold) but I don't think is an issue for my position either way. My view is that by the SFA press conference on the 9th April it wasn't being considered a life ban.

    I think it's unclear between the SFA statement on 3rd April and that press conference. I'd speculate that given how coordinated the press coverage was with "banned for life", that someone was briefing that off the record before it was decided on officially.    

    Doesn't seem like it was Burley: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2009/apr/12/george-burley-scotland-barry-ferguson-allan-mcgregor

    Could be one of a dozen directors (though probably not Gordon Smith) or someone from the coaching staff etc. That said, I'm agnostic about any official position in that first week. 

    As you've tried, it's possible to force in some ambiguity after that press conference but it is undeniably clear by Smith's statement above in June 09. That is, I think it is coherent to argue there was never a life ban, or there was one (of sorts) that lasted at most two months.

    I don't want this to drag on, so to return to the original claims

    Its about the SFA banning a player for life, then allowing him to be selected again, without lifting the ban and explaining why

    Its about the media who covered the life ban, then said little or nothing when he was selected and played again.

    There was (at least) the SFA press conference the week after the initial statement, an interview with Burley discussing the ban the week after that, an interview with SFA CEO Gordon Smith two months after the incident saying "not a life ban", confirmation that the next manager could make a choice about Ferguson/McGregor in the press conference after Burley was sacked, an indication from Levein that he would consider them for selection after his appointment, an explanation from Levein that he would have selected McGregor in February 2010 if he wasn't injured and then interviews with Levein about McGregor's return in the build-up to Sweden. 

    Hopefully that's sufficient evidence to have changed your mind from the above?

    View Comment

  31. Mibbes the players were told something along the lines of "we'll intimate to the media that you're banned for life but once the noise dies down , it's business as usual . You're Rangers men , after all ."

     

    Or mibbes not.

    View Comment

  32. Dr Mo 25th November 2018 at 21:33

    'Homunculus…….'

    Please, Dr Mo! Remember that not everyone is reading the same  posts at the same time and that one person's post in response to another's posts might be separated by hours or even days and perhaps several scores of posts relating to quite different matters!

    The general usage on this blog is that a poster refers to the particular post to which he is responding by name date and time (just as I have referred to your post)

    That way, the rest of us can check (if particularly interested in doing so) how the response relates to the points made by the first poster.

    Simply to name a poster by name without specifying the date and time of his post is (unintentionally,  of course) unhelpful. Particularly when the poster is a frequent poster: scrolling back can take some time, if there is no indication of date and time.

    I know from experience that in the time it takes to write a short post in immediate response to another post(allowing for editing time) there can be a whole barra-full of posts, on different topics, posted!broken heart

     

     

    View Comment

  33. Dr Mo 

    25th November 2018 at 21:33

     

    Hopefully that's sufficient evidence to have changed your mind from the above?

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

    A long post full of revisionism and basically spin is not in any way evidence for me to have changed my mind.

    They were given a lifetime ban, it was reported widely, from what the SFA had said.  At no point did the SFA correct anyone with regard that interpretation. Even the players acknowledged it as being a lifetime ban. 

    I am, as they say, done. 

    Enough squirrels for now. Plenty of them to come on Tuesday.

    View Comment

  34. Not at all CO, there are certain things for which a player should never be allowed to play again. Of course certain crimes should never be forgiven. But in this case he acted as a silly boy and I think a suspension was the right outcome. A badly worded comment by me, so apologies. I can see why you questioned it. For what it’s worth I hate the fact we have a convicted wife beater at our club and were I manager he would not be anywhere near my club.

    View Comment

  35. paddy malarkey 25th November 2018 at 21:44
     

    Mibbes the players were told something along the lines of "we'll intimate to the media that you're banned for life but once the noise dies down , it's business as usual . You're Rangers men , after all ."

    Or mibbes not.

     

    —-

    Turns out they did the intimating to the media without the talking to the players bit:

    https://www.scotsman.com/sport/ferguson-and-mcgregor-found-out-they-d-been-banned-from-radio-1-1351473

    John Clark 25th November 2018 at 22:10

    Cheers for the reminder. Had meant to add the times for the separate posts as I went, but seem to have forgot while dredging up events from 9.5 years ago. In case of any doubt, it was the posts today at 20:12 and 20:20. 

    Will try to be less forgetful

    Homunculus 25th November 2018 at 22:28

    They were given a lifetime ban, it was reported widely, from what the SFA had said.  At no point did the SFA correct anyone with regard that interpretation. Even the players acknowledged it as being a lifetime ban. 

    Per my link to paddy malarkey earlier in this post, the player statements were responding to the media interpretation rather than from a SFA statement. And the SFA CEO's response was that the immediate media reporting embellished their statement.

    I'll just note that it's a slightly curious standard for evidence you have: on the one hand the SFA saying nothing for 6 days is tacit endorsement for the 'life ban' persisting 9.5 years later; on the other, the Chief Executive of the SFA saying "It wasn't a life ban" or "That's why I said at the time it was wrong to call it a 'lifetime' ban." doesn't constitute correcting anyone calling it a lifetime ban. 

    As I said, I'm agnostic about whether there actually was a lifetime ban in the first place/week. You're obviously invested in that idea so running with that you've got a choice of (at least) 7 dates for it being overturned. 

    Of course, that's assuming you weren't just trolling here: https://www.sfm.scot/dear-mr-bankier/?cid=22173
     

    View Comment

  36. Earlier this morning, Mrs C ( more attuned than I to the personal lives and the happenings therein of her friends and acquaintances and people in the broader local community circles ) told me that a mutual acquaintance who had recently had a heart pace-maker inserted, had gone on holiday, had taken ill, and had discovered that the pacemaker was itself the source and cause of infection!

    He had to have it removed and replaced and, happily, is recovering well.

    At 17.39 today, I received an email from the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (the ICIJ) with the report of their investigation into the medical equipment companies who make and sell the 'stuff' that is used worldwide for implants, hip-replacements, pace-makers, etc., and their findings that there is a serious  lack of government regulation, world-wide, regarding the safety testing of all that stuff. 

    I appreciate that that piece of information may seem to be well OT and in no way relevant to this blog.

    But of course, there is a very relevant connection. 

    How? because while the ICIJ is not afraid to investigate, to ask questions of people and organisations wealthy and powerful enough to have individual  journalists murdered in order to shut them up if they felt it necessary, we here in Scotland have 'journalists' and broadcasters who tremble at the thought of taking on a piddling little Sports governance body, and refuse even to ask questions of that body!

    ..even when that body ,in spite of being the  very body that 6 years ago allowed the application of new club to become a member, tries to tell the world and his wife that that new club is actually 140-something years old and has a fabulous history of sporting success!

    Oh, how ill-served we are by our SMSM!

    How utterly are we betrayed by those who take money to purvey untruths…. in such a relatively unimportant matter as football!

    What would they do to Truth when, say,  the government of the day would jail or kill them for reporting the truth?

    Aye, you've got it in one!

    Jawohl, mein Fuhrer!

    Isn't it just so disgustingly primitive?

     

     

     

     

    View Comment

  37. Dr Mo 25th November 2018 at 21:33

    "I don't want this to drag on…"

    Couple of points.

    a) This does not equate with the usual modus operandi. Or reality as it turns out.

    b) If true why do so?

    Given his return after his most recent visit I am assuming Mo MD (Medical Denier) is not subject to a ban, lifetime or otherwise.

    Can anyone confirm the ban, lifetime or otherwise, status of Spoutpish, Niall Walker, Ernest Becker, Lawman2 etc.?

    Are these bans transferable? Can they be purchased? Can they be included in a basket of assets? Can the ban apply to a Holding Person but not apply to an Operating Person?

    I, for one, do not need these distractions when in twenty four hours Santa King's sleigh will be jetting in to his Govan Gazebo Grotto to tell the Good Little Bears and Bearettes that, of course, he will bring them an Orange Unicorn or a Red, White and Blue Mermaid.

    And don't think you can con him.

    Santa King has a Little Helper; Chris (tmas) Graham, who's been making Ze List; he's been checking it twice; he's going to find out who's naughty or nice; or staunch.

    Out of deference to the Little Baby Jabba no reference should be made to "He knows if you've been bad or good, So be good for goodness sake."

    Santa King Is Coming To Town.

    This year's Panto will be at its usual venue, the Court of Session. 

    View Comment

  38. StevieBC 26th November 2018 at 09:05 Edit

    "….JC, did you receive a reply – or even just an acknowledgement – from Bankier?"

    ____________________________

    Sadly, but unsurprisingly, not a dickie bird, StevieBC.

    Interestingly, though, when my AGM attendance card was scanned a message popped up on the girl's screen. She turned to her colleague and asked if she had ever seen a message like it. She hadn't, so the girl summoned over one of the supervisor chaps, who looked at the message very gravely, looked banefully at me, told the girl to carry on, and walked purposefully away!

    I confess that for a moment I thought "Surely I cannot be banned from attending an AGM?" and had a quick look round to see if any heavies were bearing down on me! 

    But of course, whatever the message on the screen was it did not result in any such action, so I assume it had nothing to do with noting whether the letter writer was attending the AGM, with a view to inviting him for a work-over in the treatment room!broken heartAs if!

     

     

    View Comment

  39. easyJambo 26th November 2018 at 11:55 

    "I see that the Herald is reporting today that Close Leasing's security has been released on various TRFC assets. Given that this actually happened six weeks ago,……."

    _______________________________-

    You've probably noted already, eJ, that the charge shown on the TRFC Ltd Companies House entry with code SC42 5159 0013 , which seems to be over the assets mentioned by the 'Herald' (the wi-fi, catering outlets, big screens) is still showing as being Outstanding.  

    Did no one think to tell CH over the last 6 weeks? angry

    View Comment

  40. easyJambo 26th November 2018 at 11:55
    I see that the Herald is reporting today that Close Leasing’s security has been released on various TRFC assets. Given that this actually happened six weeks ago, I’m inclined to suspect that there is some news management going on, in advance of tomorrow’s RIFC AGM.
    ……………..
    “Look the debt secured by the charge has been satisfied in whole in full.The property including WiFi and TV screens released after £3m debt facility is cleared, no one has security except ourselves”
    Big cheer…..
    And maybe even before the shareholders are out the door someone will be on the phone to Close Leasing asking about another loan.

    View Comment

  41. John Clark 26th November 2018 at 11:33
    Interestingly, though, when my AGM attendance card was scanned a message popped up on the girl’s screen. She turned to her colleague and asked if she had ever seen a message like it.
    ………………..
    Last week it was the QC’s in court looking in your direction JC now you are lighting up screens.

    View Comment

  42. Cluster One 26th November 2018 at 18:09

    “Look the debt secured by the charge has been satisfied in whole in full.The property including WiFi and TV screens released after £3m debt facility is cleared, no one has security except ourselves”

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

    The question to the AGM about the loan repayment, is why the liability does not appear in the accounts (or at least to my untrained eye), unless it has been included under "Trade Creditors" which would be unusual for a term loan.

    View Comment

  43. LUGOSI 26th November 2018 at 08:01

    Couple of points.

    a) This does not equate with the usual modus operandi. Or reality as it turns out.

    b) If true why do so?

    Don't think that's a fair characterisation LUGOSI. 

    After the drag on comment you have quoted, I asked one question then noted the tension between Homunculus' opening position (what appeared to be a question asked in good faith) and his closing one (that he has an established view of this issue independent of any evidential basis). 
    Leaving aside the other merits of doing so, resolving that tension might save some time in the future.

    If you think I dragged the issue out before that, I just detailed some of the SFA discussion and media reporting around McGregor's return from his ban. I don't think I can be blamed for how extensive that coverage was. 

    That said, I am genuinely sorry to have distracted you from your fantasies on AGM Eve. 

    View Comment

  44. As the witching hour approaches ( how quickly time flies!) and I finish mopping up the kitchen floor after knocking over the bowl of warm water in which I was steeping my feet, my thoughts turn to those unfortunates in Scottish Football who must have a sense of impending doom hanging over them. 

    You know, guys who abused their office, told wee porkies to get a few bob, or turned a blind eye when others told a few porkies to get a couple of million quid….

    They cannot be entirely sure ( although .!.) that they are home and dry and safe from any criminal charges.

    There will be that little niggly fear that there might very well be hard evidence that they had indeed been naughty. The indiscreet email,perhaps, or the occcasional note of  meeting…..

    You and I can go to bed without the least worry about possibly being done for criminal conspiracy to obtain monies by deceitful means.

    There are those who cannot, bluster though they may!broken heart

    View Comment

  45. The planted questions for the RIFC AGM

    Club 1872 open the Q&A on Sports Direct

    Three questions from the club’s second biggest shareholder:

    1. Ongoing issues with Sports Direct have led to a number of court cases which have gone against the club. Are you concerned with the cost of litigation and are the figures quoted accurate?

    King responds by saying Sports Direct is of some concern to the club who are spending legal fees but it’s litigation from Sports Direct and Rangers have to oppose it. There are hundreds of thousands of pounds against us but I’m confident we can get them overturned when they’re fully ventilated in court The alternative is to back down and give SD what they want and we’ll never going to do that.

     

    What about Ibrox footprint development?

    Next from Club 1872:

    What about the Ibrox footprint development ahead of the 150th anniversary in 2022? A number of Glasgow City Councillors seem determined to de-rail the process after the recent Fan Zone application was rejected. Could they block developments ahead of 2022?

    Stewart Robertson takes this one. The MD says at officer level GCC are working very closely with Rangers and have had very positive dialogue. “I’m very hopeful the plans we will put forward won’t have any problems with the council or planning. We’re looking at better retail space, conference facilities and a museum. Hopeully in the next 12-18 months you’ll see a real upgrade to the facilities around the stadium, as well as facilities for disabled supporters which are currently not fit for purpose.”

     

    What about the BBC?

    Club 1872 also ask the AGM if Rangers are concerned with BBC Scotland’s failure to refuse to attend games and the attitude of pundits. It appears to have taken a hostile manner, they say. “Do you agree this is something supporters should not have to accept?”

    Stewart Robertson again takes this one. He says Rangers have regular dialogue with the BBC. “They have chosen not to cover our games. We sit down with them once a quarter but are no closer to resolving it now than 12 months ago.”

    Robertson adds that he doesn’t think there is a policy decision to talk the club down but a series of incidents have arisen over the last three years. “We’ll keep the dialogue going to see if we can get it resolved. There is no desire for us not to get involved but they need to come to the table.”

    View Comment

  46. easyJambo 27th November 2018 at 11:04

    I understand that BBC Scotland decline to send journalists to Ibrox in support of one who has been excluded , but does this apply to other grounds ? Do you know if Mr Gerrard will have to present himself for media duties after the game at Tynie ?

    View Comment

  47. easyJambo

    27th November 2018 at 11:04

     

    What about the Ibrox footprint development ahead of the 150th anniversary in 2022?

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

    I suppose the old club is still alive strictly speaking as the liquidation is ongoing and the winding up hasn't been finalised.

    It does seem a bit morbid though.

    View Comment

  48. "The Herald understands that the move relates to a fixed term loan that was repaid."

    " I didn't say it was true, I said I understood it to be true,I may have misunderstood"

    ahhh these misunderstandings……… yes Minister.

    View Comment

  49. http://club1872.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/AGM-2017-QA.pdf
    ……………
    From last year.
    2) What are the board’s plans to grow the retail aspect of the business in future? The sports direct
    deal runs until the end of the season, but is it wise to enter negotiations with Sports Direct or is
    there a better alternative on the horizon, that would be more beneficial to Rangers?
    The intention is to maximise the revenue which the Club generates from retail. Commercial
    confidentiality dictates that no more can be said at this time in a public forum
    ……………
    From today.
    1. Ongoing issues with Sports Direct have led to a number of court cases which have gone against the club. Are you concerned with the cost of litigation and are the figures quoted accurate?

    King responds by saying Sports Direct is of some concern to the club who are spending legal fees but it’s litigation from Sports Direct and Rangers have to oppose it. There are hundreds of thousands of pounds against us but I’m confident we can get them overturned when they’re fully ventilated in court The alternative is to back down and give SD what they want and we’ll never going to do that.

    View Comment

  50. From last year.
    8) What has the club done to attempt to resolve the ongoing issues with BBC Scotland where
    they refuse to cover our games despite their duty to us as licence payers? Does the club feel it
    has done enough to inform supporters and the rest of Scottish society that it is BBC Scotland
    who are refusing to cover Rangers and not Rangers who have banned BBC Scotland?
    The Club has been and continues to be in dialogue with senior members of BBC’s
    management to explore ways in which the dispute can be resolved to the satisfaction of the
    Club and the supporters.
    ……………
    From today.
    What about the BBC?

    Club 1872 also ask the AGM if Rangers are concerned with BBC Scotland’s failure to refuse to attend games and the attitude of pundits. It appears to have taken a hostile manner, they say. “Do you agree this is something supporters should not have to accept?”

    Stewart Robertson again takes this one. He says Rangers have regular dialogue with the BBC. “They have chosen not to cover our games. We sit down with them once a quarter but are no closer to resolving it now than 12 months ago.”

    Robertson adds that he doesn’t think there is a policy decision to talk the club down but a series of incidents have arisen over the last three years. “We’ll keep the dialogue going to see if we can get it resolved. There is no desire for us not to get involved but they need to come to the table.”

    View Comment

  51. From last year.
    13) What are the club’s plans to improve the facilities at Ibrox and the area surrounding the
    stadium? With particular reference to disabled facilities, toilet facilities and an improvement in the
    entire match day experience. Little progress seems to have been made in this area since the
    question was asked at the last AGM.
    There are numerous projects ongoing to improve facilities at Ibrox which will be announced
    over the coming months. These will deal with all of the aspects mentioned above. A
    programme of toilet improvements commenced with the renewal of the toilets at the east
    section of the upper tier of the Sandy Jardine stand in November and over time this will be
    rolled out across the full stadium
    From today.
    What about the Ibrox footprint development ahead of the 150th anniversary in 2022? A number of Glasgow City Councillors seem determined to de-rail the process after the recent Fan Zone application was rejected. Could they block developments ahead of 2022?

    Stewart Robertson takes this one. The MD says at officer level GCC are working very closely with Rangers and have had very positive dialogue. “I’m very hopeful the plans we will put forward won’t have any problems with the council or planning. We’re looking at better retail space, conference facilities and a museum. Hopeully in the next 12-18 months you’ll see a real upgrade to the facilities around the stadium, as well as facilities for disabled supporters which are currently not fit for purpose.”

    View Comment

  52. 14) Can the board update shareholders as to the position of the litigation against former Directors
    regarding the entering of the retail partnership with Sports Direct?
    We will have more to say on the conduct of previous directors of RIFC in due course. This
    does not relate to Sports Direct or our relationship with them.
    …………………
    Was there any update on this today?

    View Comment

  53. From last year.
    17) If Resolution 11 is passed has the board considered when they will hold a share issue and will
    Club 1872 be able to participate in such an issue to allow it to maintain or increase its percentage
    shareholding in RIFC?
    As a result of Resolution 11 being passed at the AGM, the Board are currently considering
    the timing of a share issue. Club 1872 will have the opportunity to participate in the issue.
    ……………..

    View Comment

  54. Graeme Murty must have relinquished his tarrier status , judging by  the words of praise from the chairman of the holding company who wholly own the company who runs the club he works for .

    View Comment

  55. easyJambo 27th November 2018 at 18:51
    1 0 Rate This

    More info from King on the future in his video interview
    ………………
    He may not be around in the near future

    View Comment

Comments are closed.