Comment on Does Money Indeed Ruin Football? by easyJambo.

    Just for context, a list of EPL arrests for pitch incursions, over the last 5 completed seasons.

    I think that points deductions for at least the top five might encourage some idiots to stop and think again.


    easyJambo Also Commented

    Does Money Indeed Ruin Football?
    paddy malarkey 11th March 2019 at 15:45

    Can anybody point me to he sanctions taken against clubs whose fans have entered the field of play this season ,or statements of condemnation from politicians of the clubs/fans ? Struggling to find much.

    paddy malarkey 11th March 2019 at 18:33

    easyJambo 11th March 2019 at 16:05

    Cheers , EJ , but  I omitted to put "Scottish" in the post .


    The answer to your original question is none, in respect of this season.

    The answer in respect of the last 10 seasons is one, Motherwell following the play-off game against Rangers at Fir Park in 2015 when they were put on probation for 18 months after security failures.




    The ironic thing about the Strict Liability discussion is that the SFA and SPFL already adopt Strict Liability.

    They do so for clubs who breach their rules on player registrations and eligibility (barring one infamous decision published in 2013). Just ask Clyde or Hearts for their experiences this season, or multiple clubs who have been thrown out of competitions in the past.

    It is only SFA/SPFL rules on unacceptable conduct that need to be put in place.


    Does Money Indeed Ruin Football?
    John Clark 11th March 2019 at 20:36

    Meantime, the Liquidation process of the Rangers Football Club of my grandfather's era (that is, of 1872 vintage), the football club of the four young men on Glasgow Green, continues on its inevitable ending in 'dissolution'. 

    There is some piece of routine action in Court tomorrow notified as a further  'unstarred' motion 

    "..P115/17 Note: RFC 2012 Plc for Orders under Para 75"  before Lord Doherty.

    No appearance of Counsel required, so there is nothing to be argued about, merely some judicial rubber-stamping of some procedural arrangement.  ( Who knows, though: perhaps Henderson and Jones reached an agreed settlement, with BDO happy to avoid a court battle?)


    That case is BDO's action against the administrators (competence/negligence).

    The case no. for the H&J action is P997/17

    Does Money Indeed Ruin Football?
    paddy malarkey 11th March 2019 at 18:33

    easyJambo 11th March 2019 at 16:05

    Cheers , EJ , but  I omitted to put "Scottish" in the post .


    It's OK. I wasn't specifically responding to your post, just adding information on the scale of the "individual" fan issue to the general debate on strict liability.

    Recent Comments by easyJambo

    Bad Money?
    upthehoops 17th July 2019 at 14:35


    Interesting article today by John James on the construct of Rangers European squad and their eligibility under homegrown player rules. If what he says is accurate it is surely worth a challenge by Rangers next opponents or even the ones they will eliminate on Thursday night.  Also, if what he says is accurate then it is shameful by the SFA if they are knowingly allowing it. 


    The fact that Rangers squad is limited to 23 instead of the allowed 25 is an admission that they don't have sufficient club-trained players, although they do have a full quota of association trained players.

    A "club-trained player" is a player who, between the age of 15 (or the start of the season during which he turns 15) and 21 (or the end of the season during which he turns 21), and irrespective of his nationality and age, has been registered with his current club for a period, continuous or not, of three entire seasons (i.e. a period starting with the first official match of the relevant national championship and ending with the last official match of that relevant national championship) or of 36 months. In the context of this paragraph, the season immediately preceding a player’s 15th birthday may be counted if his birthday is after the last match of the relevant national championship but before or on 30 June (winter championships) or 31 December (summer championships), and the season immediately following his 21st birthday may be counted if his birthday is on or after 1 July (winter championships) or 1 January (summer championships) but before the first match of the relevant national championship.

    The final squad sizes are dependent on the numbers of club and association trained players as per Annex H of the attached document.


    A squad size of 23 suggests that they have claimed two club trained and four association trained players to make up their squad.  The question is who are the two club trained players.  I would guess that McGregor will be one, notwithstanding the old/new club argument. If JJ is correct about the dates and ages of players when they were with the old/new club, then they don't have a second club trained player, so their squad size should be limited to 22.

    The sort of sanction the UEFA would place on the club would be a further restriction on squad size for a future game rather than expulsion.


    Bad Money?
    John Clark 15th July 2019 at 20:46

    BL-2018-002250 DESMOND v Whyte and another "

    Please someone tell me that these are not Dermot Desmond , majority shareholder and Board member of Celtic ,  and Craig Whyte last owner of the original Rangers Football Club of 1872?

    That really would be a coincidence!


    RES 12 finally sees some real action 

    If only. blushsurpriseangel

    Bad Money?
    It was remiss of me to forget to keep an eye on the latest BDO Report to Ceditors for RFC 2012 plc (IL). The document was published just over a month ago, and covers the period up to the end of April 2019.


    There isn't much new information to be had. BDO continue to rack up their own and their lawyers fees, although no further dividends have been paid to creditors.

    However, there is an update on the litigation with HJL on behalf of Wavetower (TRFCG) which may be of interest to JC and others.

    The previous reports dated 5 December 2017, 8 June 2018 and 7 December 2018 set out the circumstances under which various claims have been submitted by Wavetower, and how on each occasion these had been rejected by the Joint Liquidators, most recently a revised claim of £2.8m. In September 2018, HJL had intimated that Wavetower would seek to increase its claim to £18m and consider appointing receivers over the Company. The Joint Liquidators took steps to avoid such an eventuality and obtained an interim interdict in favour of the Company which precluded Wavetower from making a receivership appointment.

    This matter remained a focus of the Joint Liquidators’ attention during the course of the period, and it has continued to progress in accordance with the Court procedure.

    In parallel with the Court procedure, and in order to attempt to reach a consensual resolution of the dispute without further recourse to the Court, the Joint Liquidators agreed to a mediation which took place on 12 November 2018. The mediation occurred following it being agreed between the parties that the proceedings in Scotland, in respect of Wavetower’s appeal of the Joint Liquidators’ decision to reject its claim, would be sisted for a period of 3 months, such period to expire on 13 November 2018 (the day after the mediation date).

    Whilst the mediation did not result in an agreement being reached between the parties, it was agreed that the discussions would continue outside of the formal mediation process, and the parties agreed to continue to sist the Court process. As at the date of this report, the discussions are ongoing, but the Joint Liquidators hope to be able to provide a substantive update in the next report to creditors.

    …. and

    All creditors should note that the quantum and timing of future dividends is unknown and will be dependent on the outcome of the Wavetower claim. Once this is resolved, it would be the intention of the Joint Liquidators to pay a further dividend as soon as possible. 

    Bad Money?
    Rather than let a full day pass without a post, I'll put out the possibility of a "new club" participating in the Lowland, South of Scotland and U20 leagues this season.

    The club will be known by an americanised title of "Caledonian Braves", not that they are American influenced. It is proposed to be the new name for teams that previously played under the banner of Edusport Academy, which predominately featured French students.

    Apparently they have already asked the SFA to allow the name change some months ago.

    However, I will be interested to see how the SFA handle this change. I say that because a new company was incorporated on 8 July 2019, called Caledonian Braves Ltd, according to Companies House.  

    A google search on "Caledonian Braves" offers an interesting insight.

    Caledonian Braves FC est.2019

    Is Edusport seeking to transfer its SFA membership to a new club/company? Will the SFA authorise the transfer of assets to the newco, and/or seek financial assurances from the newco?  Going by the above link, is Caledonian Braves seeking to lose any history and links to Edusport?


    Bad Money?
    Ex Ludo 13th June 2019 at 17:12

    An SFA tweet appeared this afternoon suggesting a new definition of a club viz  “an entity that can command an audience “ The tweet has since been deleted. Anyone had sight of this?


    Going back to your question from the previous blog, the changes to the SFA's Articles have now been lodged with Companies House.

    There are changes to the definition and rights of an "associate member", (tier 6 or below), but nothing about the definition of a club.  It's an issue for the newly licensed clubs, who would appear to have only been granted "associate member" status although, ironically, Bonnyrigg will be deemed a full member with voting rights because they are now in the Lowland League (tier 5).


    Check the resolutions document for the changes.