Enough is enough

718
12613

As Celtic prepare to take on one of the Champions league big boys again, a warning to the commentators and pundits.

Like most Scots, I was sad to see Celtic so comprehensively thumped by PSG and Bayern recently. But something about those nights made me angry as well.

Not the players, their effort, or even the schoolboy defending. Not the semi-ritualistic way these games are presented on TV or the ludicrous hype that is generated by the media.

I blame Celtic for their own failings and the executive branch of Scottish football for facilitating that failure. And I think it is the result of a long-term strategy that has clearly failed.

What offends me is the casual referencing of the weakness of the game and players in Scotland as a key reason why Celtic struggle against the best teams, and the implicit suggestion that if only their domestic opponents were more skillful, Celtic’s Champions League training friendlies schedule, aka the SPFL Premiership, might prepare them better for these big games.

Pat Bonner said it outright in his commentary of the Bayern game. The weakness of the SPFL is the problem. Several others made the point that Celtic defenders never get the chance to play against top strikers in their own league and are, therefore, somehow unable to cope with it when they do. Others claim that Celtic are so used to being in possession of the ball and winning games easily at home, that when they face a top-quality opponent, they are suddenly caught like a rabbit in headlights without the faintest clue what to do.

I don’t know enough about the tactics of modern football, or the language used to describe systems of play, to critique that in footballing terms, but I do have a reasonable grasp of what constitutes bullshit. And so much of what our journalists, TV commentators, and pundits say, on occasions like this, is, definitely, it.

I blame Celtic for their own failings and the executive branch of Scottish football for facilitating that failure. And I think it is the result of a long-term strategy that has clearly failed.

Here’s how I think it went. Professional football in Scotland looks like it has been organised around a single goal. To generate Scottish success in the Champions League. A good way to achieve that is to ensure that Scottish teams get plenty exposure to that league. The best way to ensure that is to make sure that the same team, or teams, gain regular entry into it. The way to make that happen is to organise the league such that it is unthinkable that any other team could win it.

How might you do that without making it obvious what your intentions are?

Well, first, you lay the financial ground. Allow teams to keep their home gate receipts. That way, clubs are kept in their place, the big two stay big, the middle six to eight, not so big, and the rest, remain almost irrelevant.

To further entrench the financial status quo, you need to ensure that income from domestic sources (particularly TV money) is kept low enough to stop any other club paying for a team above their station, but not so low that mid-sized clubs go out of business.

It is our fault because we are not brave enough. Not brave enough to stand up to the powers running our game and put a stop to this madness.

Next, you would have to ensure that the rules stay in place long enough for the plan to work. Give the two big clubs the right of veto over rule changes. The masterminds of the plan have to be kept in office for as long as possible and committee members must be carefully selected. A generous portion of executives from the big two, and a fair sprinkling of others too afraid of their own clubs going to the wall to bother about grand generation-long master-plans, should guarantee no one rocks the boat too much. Allow a rogue committee member to challenge things every now and again to make it look good for the punters, safe in the knowledge that no permanent damage can be done to the plan.

But what if something unexpected happened to one of the big clubs? That could be tricky, right? The whole plan could be put in jeopardy. On the other hand, what is there to worry about when you have ensured that the decision makers are either on message or too concerned about their own teams’ survival to get in the way of a stitch up. Sure, we lost a few years, but it’ll soon get back on track.

Journalists would get wind of this surely, or even be able to work it out for themselves, right? Well, in a profession that seems to have lost most of its towering intellects to be replaced by either agenda driven zealots or barely literate fan bloggers (like me, I suppose), we might be asking a little too much of them. In any case, the overwhelming coverage of the big two in the national media and the simple fact that promoting Celtic and Rangers sells advertising space means that they are, more or less, complicit, even if they don’t always realise it.

I hope this sounds like the ramblings of a mad conspiracy theorist, but if any of the above rings true (and it does to me), then there might just be some truth on it.

Pat Bonner and those other pundits and commentators are right of course. Celtic’s failure against the big teams is the fault of the rest of Scottish football. Our players and teams aren’t good enough. But fault is a convoluted thing. It is not our fault because we are not good enough. It is our fault because we are not brave enough. Not brave enough to stand up to the powers running our game and put a stop to this madness.

I have absolutely no evidence that there is such a master-plan, or that anyone at the SFA or SPFL has even considered any of these points or the consequences that might flow from them. I even have serious doubts that any of the current leadership have the intellectual capacity to dream up such a Machiavellian plot, let alone execute it. But one thing I do know is that Scottish football is not in a healthy place. Not even a Celtic victory tonight, even if they gave some of their CL win bonus to Kilmarnock, you know, for giving them such a good run out on Saturday, would fix it.

How glorious would it be for the other Scottish teams to be credited for Celtic’s CL victories (especially the big ones)? I imagine the words would get stuck in plenty of throats. Celtic win CL games despite Scottish Football and lose them because of it. That, in a nutshell, is where we are right now. All that is likely to change any time soon is that Rangers will join them again. Something has to change, if only because my TV won’t survive another shoe being thrown at it when some Celtic minded blowhard tells the world that my team is partly to blame for Celtic’s defence not being good enough to stop Neymar or Lewandowski.

This article was first published in the unofficial Dundee Fans Forum https://www.thedarkblues.co.uk/news/scottish-football/enough-is-enough-r542/ on 23 October 2017. Reproduced, in slightly amended form, with their kind permission.

718 COMMENTS


  1. It’s now on my clock midnight plus 30

    It’s been a long sad/happy day- travelling through to what Edinburghers call ‘the West’- for the funeral of a classmate of the 1950s’/60s.

    The kind of classmate that was so fundamentally decent and honourable and level-headed that he was a kind of bench mark of standards of behaviour that the rest of us could measure ourselves by.

    He was not a particular friend  of mine in the sense of being my everyday pal at school.

    But he had a kind of ‘I wish I could be like him’ effect – gifted, humerous, kind, reflective,and humble.

    He was ( no fault of his) a rugby guy, and couldnae play football to save his life.

    But he tried mightily, and I think I was brain-damaged by his tackles, as I tried to to do my Charlie Tully bit on the left  wing .

    Happy 1950s days.

    God be with him.

    And isn’t it wonderful how on these occasions you meet guys that you knew at school yonks ago and haven’t seen for x  numbers of years- and they’re still them! Bald,ancient, bus pass holders, who are still 16 years old in attitude!

    Wonderful, because it relates to Truth.

    Or, at least,to the examination of our personal truth and understanding of ourselves.

    Which , sadly, seems to be a concept alien to those on the Boards of TRFC Ltd and RIFC plc.

    And, by exension, to those on the Boards of the SFA and SPFL.

    View Comment

  2. Sergio Biscuits  November 13, 2017 at 22:33
    http://etims.net/?p=12184
    Interesting article regarding Politechnica Timisoara FC and how the CAS dealt with their claim of being the same club after liquidation. The similarities between that club and Sevco are striking to say the least.
    =============================
    Here is the full ruling from the CAS database

    View Comment

  3. Big PinkNovember 12, 2017 at 16:48 
    TWM makes a return
    David Low on those accounts PLUS the search for a sponsor!
    ====================
    One of the questions that was asked was how could TRFC’s accounts be UEFA compliant?
    This from the UEFA page explaining FFP is one of the areas that must be in dount.
    http://www.uefa.com/community/news/newsid=2064391.html
    17) How does financial fair play deal with debt?
    Manageable debt geared towards the long-term development (stadium, academy, infrastructure etc) of the club is efficient for financial planning and is standard practice in most industries. Debt taken on board, including the monetisation of future income, to fund day-to-day operating activity such as wages and transfer fees or to fund short-term cash flow shortfalls can create problems and must be managed effectively.
    Financial fair play through the requirement of clubs to meet their financial obligations and to break even prevents the accumulation of losses leading to unmanageable debt.
    Last updated: 18.20CET, 30/06/2015
    The phrase in bold suggests an area of concern and identifying that area is covered in Article 52 of FFP 2015:
    Article 52 – Future financial information
    1 The licence applicant must prepare and submit future financial information in order
    to demonstrate to the licensor its ability to continue as a going concern until the
    end of the licence season if it has breached any of the indicators defined in
    paragraph 2 below.
    2 If a licence applicant exhibits any of the conditions described by indicator 1 or 2,
    it is considered in breach of the indicator:
    a) Indicator 1: Going concern
    The auditor’s report in respect of the annual or interim financial statements
    submitted in accordance with Articles 47 and 48 includes an emphasis of
    matter or a qualified opinion/conclusion in respect of going concern.
    b) Indicator 2: Negative equity
    The annual financial statements (including, where required, the supplementary
    information) submitted in accordance with Article 47 disclose a net liabilities
    position (negative equity) that has deteriorated relative to the comparative
    figure contained in the previous year’s annual financial statements, or the
    interim financial statements submitted in accordance with Article 48 (including,
    where required, the supplementary information) disclose a net liabilities
    position (negative equity) that has deteriorated relative to the comparative
    figure at the preceding statutory closing date.
    3 Future financial information must cover the period commencing immediately after
    the later of the statutory closing date of the annual financial statements or, if
    applicable, the balance sheet date of the interim financial statements, and it must
    cover at least the entire licence season.
    4 Future financial information consists of:
    a) a budgeted profit and loss account, with comparative figures for the
    immediately preceding financial year and interim period (if applicable);
    b) a budgeted cash flow, with comparative figures for the immediately preceding
    financial year and interim period (if applicable);
    c) explanatory notes, including a brief description of each of the significant
    assumptions (with reference to the relevant aspects of historic financial and
    other information) that have been used to prepare the budgeted profit and loss
    account and cash flow statement, as well as of the key risks that may affect
    the future financial results.
    5 Future financial information must be prepared, as a minimum, on a quarterly basis.
    6 Future financial information must be prepared on a consistent basis with the
    audited annual financial statements and follow the same accounting policies as
    those applied for the preparation of the annual financial statements, except for
    accounting policy changes made after the date of the most recent annual financial
    statements that are to be reflected in the next annual financial statements – in
    which case details must be disclosed.
    7 Future financial information must meet the minimum disclosure requirements as
    set out in Annex VI. Additional line items or notes must be included if they provide
    clarification or if their omission would make the future financial information
    misleading.
    8 Future financial information with the assumptions upon which they are based must
    be approved by management and this must be evidenced by way of a brief
    statement and signature on behalf of the executive body of the reporting entity.
    It would seem from the foregoing that UEFA will be probing whatever the SFA accept because of Indicator 1.
    This does not mean a licence will be refused but it would be start of a process by which UEFA order TRFC to get their house in order, which is perhaps something the SFA are quite happy to see happen on a “it wiznae us” basis.
    Any other light that those with accountancy experience can shed on the rules is welcome.

    View Comment

  4. AULDHEID
    NOVEMBER 14, 2017 at 01:40
    =========================

    The same questions were being asked last season and a SFA ‘source’ chose the favoured media outlets of STV and the Daily Record to get the message out that a licence would be awarded, but that UEFA would then put Rangers on a ‘break even monitoring period’. The questions for me are:

    1. Would the SFA actually have to tell UEFA there is a need to enter the monitoring period?

    2. If the answer is yes to the above, did the SFA tell UEFA?

    3. If the answer to the above is yes, how can Rangers be classed as having broken even when losses have been increased and a further £4m in loans is needed to see out the season?

    Personally, I have serious doubts as to whether there is any monitoring at all of Rangers financial position by UEFA.  As long as the current SFA remain in place, and the mainstream media look the other way, I don’t believe there ever will be. 

    View Comment

  5. On the awaited Lord Bannatyne TOP decision.

    How ironic, in a most ludicrous way, would it be if a man, who only escaped forty odd jail sentences because he had the wherewithal to pay tens of millions of pounds in fines and unpaid taxes, should then escape the full might of the law because he doesn’t (allegedly) have circa eleven million pounds at his disposal?

    I do have a sneaking suspicion, though, that we are about to witness another Rangers Tax Case type saga, that ends up with the only decision that made sense all along, but kills off, in an irreversible way, one more avenue – and all it’s loopholes – for King style shysters to make a killing at the expense of unwitting investors.

    View Comment

  6. AllyjamboNovember 14, 2017 at 09:13
    On the awaited Lord Bannatyne TOP decision.
    ———————————————————-
    Do we know when it is due to be announced?

    View Comment

  7. John Clark
    November 13, 2017 at 23:22
    ==========================

    My guess, and it is purely a guess, is that they don’t think that the “cold shoulder” treatment is enough in this case. Bearing in mind the actual ruling, the comments of the appeal board, and the evidence that he was told by others that what he was doing was likely to breach the rules.

    He totally dismissed the panel, he was totally non compliant with them, and he effectively treated them as if they had no power over him or his actions. Like he does with most things to be fair. It was an exercise in GIRUY to the regulator.

    I think, and it is like I said no more than a guess, that they want to force him to make the offer and to suffer the consequences (more serious than the “cold shoulder”) if he does not. As I have said elsewhere, even a ban as a director in the UK would surely cause serious problems for RIFC PLC and contempt of Court could be much more serious than that.

    There was a reason HMRC got BDO to appeal to the Supreme Court (in a case they had already won). They had bigger fish to fry. I think this may be similar, on two frontts. 1, Give King the treatment he deserves after his behaviour both during the takeover and after when they were investigating him. 2, Send out a message to others “We are not toothless tigers”.

    100% speculation on my part.

    View Comment

  8. HomunculusNovember 14, 2017 at 11:06
    ‘….My guess, and it is purely a guess, is that they don’t think that the “cold shoulder” treatment is enough in this case..’
    _____________
    I’m inclined to believe that your analysis  is very probably correct!

    View Comment

  9. Apologies to those who follow JJ and won’t hear a word said against him. However I think it might be worth clearing something up.

    He starts his latest piece with

    “Liam Murphy is one of two Procurator Fiscals who run COPFS (the other being Anthony McGeehan).”

    He really isn’t.

    This is how it works, well as I understand it.

    The Lord Advocate – Head of COPFS
    Solicitor General – The Lord Advocate’s Deputy
    Crown Agent – Chief Executive of COPFS
    Deputy Crown Agents – There are four sections but one person has two roles just now

    DCA High Court Function
    DCA Local Court Function
    DCA Operational Support Function
    DCA Specialist Casework Function

    Neither of the men named holds any of those posts. Both manage the Local Court Function, under the control of the Deputy Crown Agent. Though that isn’t really relevant as it deals with the Sheriff Court, not the High Court or complex casework.

    Liam Murphy is also the national manager for Specialist Casework, which I imagine is what JJ is talking about. His boss is the DCA in charge of that Function.

    He is certainly not “one of two Procurator Fiscals who run COPFS “.

    This is not an exclusive, it is public knowledge.

    View Comment

  10. HOMUNCULUSNOVEMBER 14, 2017 at 11:45

    I know I should’t bite but I see we’re gettin’ it in the neck again. I bet inside his hoose is just wan big mirror.  I really don’t know where he gets the time to run a blog what with trying to catch a glimpse of himself all day. Anyway, i’m away to style myself an offshoot doon the auld men’s club. That’s if I can remember where it is !!!!

    View Comment

  11. I suspect that the may Lord Bannatyne is wrestling wwas put into the act to give discretion if there was egregious misconduct by the TOP at previous stages in their processes.
    D King reminds me of another D King of whom it was said by Earnie Shavers “if he offers you a million make sure it isn’t snowballs he is talking about”
    Penniless and Randless might be distinguished if one were unscrupulous. 
    I see that JJ is basing one of his blogs on the David Low podcast without acknowledging its provenance. cut paste plagiarise give me lots of money repeat ad infinitum, as it were.

    View Comment

  12. Christyboy
    November 14, 2017 at 13:42
    ==============================

    I think the irony is that he wrote a piece in which he discussed a Podcast by David Low. I believe it was yesterday.

    I have bastardised his lyrics to introduce this piece which is derived from a podcast in which David Low opined on the financial turpitude at Rangers Lite.

    Would that be the recent SFM Podcast

    Big Pink
    November 12, 2017 at 18:50
    TWM makes a return
    David Low on those accounts PLUS the search for a sponsor!

    Maybe it’s just a coincidence, I haven’t actually listened to the podcast.

    Then makes the comment today

    “The SFM – still asking questions that no-one is prepared to answer – like to style themselves as an offshoot of The Rangers Tax Case blogger. However it was instructive to note that the Orwell Prize winner did not mention any of the members of this old men’s club by name when giving thanks. They will no doubt send a representative who will tell us nothing. One might ask what is the point and extend this question to include the SFM.”

    A fantasist trying to make himself relevant. I wonder if he will be having a “virtual table” at this years football blogging awards. And sending a virtual friend up to collect an award for him. I suppose with that many virtual readers there’s every prospect.

    View Comment

  13. I was watching the golf at the weekend from South Africa and was amused to see that the major sponsor was  Nedbank. I can’t think of a more appropriate bank for Dave to deposit the family millions!!

    View Comment

  14. upthehoopsNovember 14, 2017 at 07:15
    Did the phrase “Going Concern” appear in the last set of TRFC accounts? I’m not sure it did.
    I think it appears in the latest set so even the Pharisees at the SFA, who work to the letter of the law as opposed to its spirit, will have a job not justifying flagging it to UEFA or set their own conditions on TRFC for granting.
    We probably will not know until next April after the licensing legwork has been done.

    View Comment

  15. I caught a bit of Superscoreboard this evening as I was preparing my Horlicks prior to an early night (not being a young man any more). Much to my astonishment there was a discussion concerning DK’s over investment in his Club/Company. It was a shame BDJ wasn’t in the studio to hear it. I had to prepare 2 cups to calm down. No doubt I’ll have to get up in middle of the night now.

    View Comment

  16. HOMUNCULUSNOVEMBER 14, 2017 at 14:54
    “The SFM – still asking questions that no-one is prepared to answer – like to style themselves as an offshoot of The Rangers Tax Case blogger. However it was instructive to note that the Orwell Prize winner did not mention any of the members of this old men’s club by name when giving thanks.
    ————-
    As a late addition to SFM can i ask a question?
    Was SFM formed after The Rangers Tax Case blogger.won the  Orwell Prize? and if it was why would TRTCB give them a mention.
    And as i’m sure The Rangers Tax Blogger knows his stuff,he would know not too mention anyone by name.

    View Comment

  17. AuldheidNovember 14, 2017 at 19:46
    ‘….Did the phrase “Going Concern” appear in the last set of TRFC accounts? I’m not sure it did.’
    _____________
    If you have a look at Companies House records, Auldheid, you will find the TRFC Ltd accounts for year ended 30/06/15.   [The CH stuff is ‘padlocked’ so I can’t copy and paste]
    Here is what the Directors’ report says (page 7):
     GOING CONCERN
    …In turn, the ultimate parent company(  Rangers International football club plc) has provided the company with written  representation that it will not call in the intercompany balances due, and will continue to provide financial support  for at least twelve months from the date of the report.
    The Board acknowledge that had these assurances and funding not been secured then a material uncertainty would exist which may cast doubt over the company’s ability to continue as  going concern………….The Board is delighted this uncertainty has been removed and the appropriate assurances obtained,”
    That report was signed on 31st January 2016
    The Auditor’s Report has this:
    “EMPHASIS OF MATTER- GOING CONCERN
    In order to continue operations for the next 12 months the company is dependent on its ultimate parent entity raising additional finance and continuing to provide support to the company.Failure to secure additional funding by the ultimate parent entity would result in the existence of a material uncertainty which may cast significant doubt as to the the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. The financial statements do not include the adjustments that would result if the company ws unable to continue as  going concern”
    That was signed on 1st February 2016

    The most recent Accounts signed off for year ended 30th June 2016 have a similar reports by the Directors and the Independent auditor.( Just noticed Homunculus’ post!)

    View Comment

  18. EX LUDO
    NOVEMBER 14, 2017 at 20:21
    ——————————————————-

    Has Dave King “invested” anything in Rangers.

    He bought shares, but that wan’t during an offering, so they were bought from other people and no money went to Rangers.

    New Oasis has provided the PLC with loans, so that’s not really an investment.

    You could argue that if /when those loans are converted to equity, paying off the loans, then New Oasis will have invested in the PLC. However that hasn’t happened yet. 

    So as it stands, to the best of my knowledge, Dave King has not “invested” bean one in the PLC.  Unless someone can tell me he did actually buy shares at the IPO.

    View Comment

  19. Homunculus
    That was the very point the caller made. He was even allowed to accuse DK of being economical with the truth re the statements which were made when he got control. He also posited (c. JJ) that the lack of questions from the Ibrox fans was puzzling. 
    Back to bed now.

    View Comment

  20. Cluster OneNovember 14, 2017 at 20:49
    ‘..Was SFM formed after The Rangers Tax Case blogger.won the Orwell Prize? ‘
    _____________
    Yes. I think the prize is usually awarded about June of the year.

    There is a blog on 08/08/12 ( not quite his last)  in which he indicates that any comments to be made about should be made to TSFM ,which had started up in a little bit of confusion about the date that RTC would sign off. He would already have received the award by that time.

    See https://rangerstaxcase.wordpress.com/2012/08/

    (All his blogs are available , and you can find them on the panel adjacent to the text of the one in the link)

    When I have a read at the material I still get a surge of rage that the cheating SDM and his club were sooooo looked after and protected by (at least!) the SMSM and the Football Authorities, instead of being instantly brought to book and summarily expelled.

    For what they did was truly shocking and utterly indefensible.

    View Comment

  21. It’s late of an evening, or early of a morning.

    But I just had to send the email below, and it took me longer than I had anticipated.

    It’s to the Takeover Panel person who replied to my email to them about King.

    “Dear Theresa Scott,
    Thank you for your very helpful response on 8th November to my email of 6th.

    I wonder if I may, through you, draw the attention of the Takeover Panel to the fact that the way in which paragraph 17  of the report of the Hearing has been written is very misleading and clearly based on a misunderstanding of what actually happened.

    It  suggests that ‘Rangers Football Club’ was in some  way bought out of Administration as a going concern, and that the new club founded by Charles Green as ‘SevcoScotland’ is the very same  Rangers Football Club which is languishing in Liquidation even as I write!

    It is not, and could not possibly be the same football club, whether under  statute law or under the rules  of Scottish football administration.

    Charles Green bought some of the assets of the historic Rangers Football Club.

    He did not, could not, buy the Football Club. That club went into Liquidation, and it is still there.

    SevcoScotland changed its name ( possibly to deceive potential investors when its planned  parent company made its IPO) to ‘The Rangers Football Club Ltd’, and is a quite different beast entirely to the liquidated Rangers Football Club.

    For the Takeover Panel to suggest that it is the same ‘Rangers’ that was in any way the same club of which Celtic had long been an arch-rival is quite wrong , and misleading.

    The Rangers Football Club Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of The Rangers International Football Club plc-the chairman of which,Mr David Cunningham King, is currently not complying with the Takeover Appeal Board’s decision-has only a five year history as a football club, and is not at all to be considered as being the same football entity as the Rangers Football Club that was founded in 1872.

    I would be most grateful if you were to draw this to the attention of the Takeover Panel so that in any further references they may have to make to the Chairman of Rangers International Football Club plc or to The Rangers Football Club Ltd, they do not make the mistake of thinking that either of those entities is the historic Rangers Football Club of 1872.

    Yours in the interests of truth, especially in sporting matters!
    (me)

    View Comment

  22. 31/01/2012 2,532 COMMENTSThe facts behind today’s Daily Record story will come as no surprise to the readers of this blog. It will come as even less of a surprise to the blog participants whose sterling work uncovered the Companies House filings and refined the analysis on which today’s story is based. In the local vernacular, “chapeaux” to all concerned, but especially to: Don Dionisio; JohnBhoy; PaulieWalnuts; Onandonandon; and so many others. (I feel like an Oscar winner who has left out the names of several key people in an acceptance speech. Forgive me for the many omissions, but we will find a way to recognise other outstanding contributors in another post).
    ———–
    Not shy to give a hat tip i see

    View Comment

  23. From the Celtic AGM, as reported by the BBC

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/38002509

    All 12 of the resolutions put to shareholders were passed – including the re-election of all board members and the proposal by the Celtic Trust to establish a formal supporters forum, to enhance communication between the club and fans’ representatives.

    Chairman Ian Bankier also revealed the club would meet with representatives of shareholders who complained to the Scottish Football Association and Uefa about Rangers being granted a licence in season 2011-12 to play in Europe.

    “This came from the AGM in 2013, relating to SFA licensing procedures,” Bankier said. “The shareholders, having taken further legal advice, continue to have concerns.

    “The club is meeting next week with shareholder representatives to understand their concerns.”

    View Comment

  24. Celtic AGM from Celticrumours twitter feed
    Q2 – From @Auldheid about Res 12
    Michael Nicholson – Club continue to work with #Res12 people on various matters. Over 4 yrs club have written to SFA on behalf of Res12 #ticagm
    Following conclusion of court proceedings club wrote to @ScottishFA asking for a review but were refused #Res12 SFA have referred license matter to compliance officer and club and Res12 welcome this

    View Comment

  25. HOMUNCULUSNOVEMBER 15, 2017 at 12:20 8 0 Rate This
    From the Celtic AGM, as reported by the BBC
    And so it goes on.
    Living in England I used to be quite miffed that I could never get to the AGM. However after moving back to Scotland in 2013, and keen to see/hear the response to Resolution 12 I duly made my way that year only to hear that the resolution had been adjourned.
    Anticipating some further update this year I had fully intended going once more but thought the better of it. Good decision.
    FFS what is the hold up now?
    I forget how long ago it was since the whole Rangers scam was declared illegal, all the various documents were released, the SFA refused an inquiry and palmed it off to the compliance officer.
    Every time I think that the campaign for justice has moved a couple of steps forward it lurches back 10.

    View Comment

  26. I’d be interested to find out from the guys in the know where they are with the possibility of seeking a Judicial Review.  I know it was funded to the stage of finding out whether or not it was a goer, but we have heard nothing for several weeks.  Are they waiting to see the outcome of compliance officer’s investigations into the 2011 Licence submissions?

    View Comment

  27. After following a couple of twitter links I came across this post on the Hibees Bounce forum, which I believe was made by Tracy Smith, one of the supporters representatives on the Hibs Board.

    The post, from a couple of days ago, raises a number of questions about the information that the club (Rod Petrie?) has about what went on in 2011/12 and the Hibs Board to come out in favour of “moving on”.

    There is also a petition that has been started seeking more information from the Hibs Board, that I, as a Jambo, have already signed.
    https://www.change.org/p/ceo-hibernian-football-club-release-information-related-to-rangers-football-club-2012

    Here is the question posed and the answer given by Tracy on the thread below:
    http://www.hibeesbounce.com/showthread.php?124106-Questions-for-fans-rep&p=1596197&viewfull=1#post1596197

    Originally Posted by hibadelic

    Hi Tracey,
    I don’t feel that you or Frank have put across your reasons for voting with the rest of the board. Having voted for you on the basis that I felt you were genuine and appeared to be a good communicator, I’m surprised that this has been the case. I’m sure that many people on here will want to know why their opinion, and the opinion of most Hibs fans, was ignored? Rich
    ——————————-
    Hi Rich,

    I appreciate that you voted for me and it does bother me that yourself and other supporters feel let down by Frank and myself over the statement.

    The whole process started when it was clear that the feeling on the forums was that some supporters were looking for a Statement from the club following the ruling on the HMRC Tax Case. This is something we really pushed for. We then had agreement from the board that a statement should be released which then led into the further discussions regarding the statement. They were very long discussions and over 2 board meetings. No one voted, it was a decision we all took and one we all agreed on. No one forced us to make that decision either. Anyone who knows me knows I will not do something I am not comfortable with.

    During the discussions, we learned information that is not widely known. I actually learned a lot. As you are aware board meetings are confidential for obvious reasons. We did our best to reflect the views of supporters we had spoken to, and to reflect the views that we had seen on forums and elsewhere. It’s a highly sensitive issue and therefore we were well aware of how angered and passionate some supporters feel about it. It was also clear that there were – and are – varying opinions about what any review might look at and what might be achieved. We also had supporters who didn’t want to pursue it. As well as being Fans representatives we are also Non-Executive Directors for the club, and we have a legal responsibility to ensure that we act within the club’s best interests. This wasn’t an easy decision by any means.

    It’s not just about what happened in the past, it’s how as a club we work towards ensuring something like this doesn’t happen again. The Club is working quietly with like-minded clubs to try to ensure there can be no repetition of such matters in future. This for me was important and something which I think is important for our game.

    So, the decision was based on the information I had in front of me, the different views and opinions from supporters and how we move forward ensuring it doesn’t happen again.

    Since the statement I have had a lot of communication with supporters via email, social media messages, messages from members on here and from speaking with supporters at matches and events. The response from everyone has been very mixed but very constructive.

    We will be having a Surgery on Saturday before the St. Johnstone game and welcome anyone along that wishes to discuss this or any other issues they may have. If before a game doesn’t suit and you wish to meet at another time convenient to you, I’m happy to do that too. The Hibs Supporters Club will be compiling a report following the Q&A on Thursday also.

    It’s clear that most are angered with the fact that there wasn’t a direct supporters consultation. It is difficult to consult every single supporter but we do need to look at how we consult and on a wider basis. This is something we will be looking at.

    I am currently away just now so as I said before, responses will be delayed but I will be back on at some point either this evening or tomorrow evening when back.

    View Comment

  28. A BBC report on today’s proceedings at the CoS re David Whitehouse v Police Scotland and the Lord Advocate.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-42003889

    A former administrator at Rangers FC, arrested during the probe into the club, is suing Scotland’s chief constable and most senior prosecutor.

    David Whitehouse, 51, is seeking £9m from Police Scotland’s Philip Gormley and Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC.

    The charges against the Cheshire businessman and his colleague Paul Clark were later dropped.

    Mr Gormley and Mr Wolffe claim police and prosecutors acted in accordance with correct legal procedure.

    Police arrested and charged Mr Whitehouse and Mr Clark during the investigation into businessman Craig Whyte’s takeover of the club in 2011.

    Charges were dropped following a court hearing before judge Lord Bannatyne in June 2016.

    Lawyers acting for Mr Whitehouse claimed their client was “unlawfully detained” by detectives in November 2014.

    Loss of earnings
    They also said that throughout the period of detention, there was no reasonable grounds to suspect that Mr Whitehouse had broken the law.

    Mr Whitehouse also claimed that police obtained evidence without following proper legal procedure.

    An indictment against Mr Whitehouse was issued without any “evidential basis”, his lawyers said.

    The actions of police and prosecutors are said to have damaged his reputation of being a first-class financial professional and led to a £1.75m loss in earnings.

    On Wednesday, lawyers acting for Mr Whitehouse appeared during a short procedural hearing at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.

    It emerged during proceedings that Mr Whitehouse’s colleague Mr Clark is also suing the chief constable and Lord Advocate.

    Judge Lord Arthurson arranged for a four-day hearing into the legal issues surrounding the case to take place at a later date.
    Lawyers are examining whether the two actions should be rolled into a single case.

    The case has emerged from the circumstances surrounding Mr Whyte’s takeover of Rangers in 2011.

    Mr Whitehouse and Mr Clark worked for Duff & Phelps and were appointed as administrators of the club in February 2012.

    Four months later, the company’s business and assets were sold to a consortium led by Charles Green for £5.5m.

    Police Scotland launched an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the takeover.

    Mr Whyte was cleared of any wrongdoing by a jury in 2017.

    Mr Whitehouse believes that his human rights were breached as a consequence of the actions of the police and prosecutors.

    The chief constable and the Lord Advocate claim that police and prosecutors acted in accordance with correct legal procedure.

    They claim that Mr Whitehouse’s human rights were not breached and that he did not suffer any loss or injury as a consequence of the actions taken by the police and prosecutors.

    They also believe the case should be dismissed because the Lord Advocate is exempt from civil action from people who were the subject of a legal investigation.

    View Comment

  29. I didn’t go along to the CoS today for what was always going to be a short hearing, but I will attend what I can of the planned four day substantive hearing.

    View Comment

  30. Here is the statement in full from Celtic with regard to Resolution 12 adjourned at 2013 AGM and the response to it.
    Statement re Resolution 12 (2013 AGM) at Celtic 2017 AGM.
     
    In the past year the Club has continued to work with shareholder representatives to seek to achieve a satisfactory solution to the concerns raised by both the board and shareholders regarding issues of football governance. Shareholders raised their initial concerns via Resolution 12 from our AGM in 2013, relating to Scottish FA licensing procedures in 2011.  At that meeting a vote was taken to adjourn the resolution indefinitely to allow further enquiries to be made of the SFA and if necessary UEFA. 
    Having raised the matter with the Scottish FA in 2011 and 2012, the Club had received assurances as to the process followed.  Following the concerns raised by shareholders, over the last four years the Club has continued to work with shareholder representatives to seek further clarification on various matters, and the matter was, and continues to be reviewed, by the Board on a regular basis. 
    Over those four years, the Club has corresponded with the Scottish FA, and independent solicitors instructed by the shareholders have also corresponded with the Scottish FA, providing them with information for consideration and asked further questions regarding governance procedures.  The responses received thus far did not address the concerns raised.
    At the same time, court proceedings which related to the issues raised in correspondence were progressing in the Scottish courts.  The Club and shareholders agreed to await the outcome of those proceedings.
    Following the conclusion of those court proceedings, the Club called upon the Scottish FA to hold an independent review of all matters, including the licensing processes followed in 2011, which are of importance to the governance of football in Scotland.  The SPFL also called for a review.
    Regrettably, the SFA declined to hold such a review.  The Club remains of the view that an independent review established by the Scottish FA and SPFL presents the best opportunity to allow lessons to be learned and recommendations made to ensure effective governance moving forward so that such events cannot happen again.
    However, the Board and shareholders welcomed the SFA’s decision to refer the specific issue of UEFA licensing procedures in season 2011/2012 to the SFA Compliance Officer for him to review.
    The Club awaits the outcome of that review with keen interest and will review matters with shareholder representatives at that stage. 
    The Board will take appropriate steps to promote and protect the interests of the Club and will continue to work closely with the shareholders’ representatives.
     
    In response, I would like to say:
     
    Thank you Michael for stating where matters now stand.
     
    As a spokesperson for all shareholders who supported Resolution 12,  I would like to say that we strongly share Celtic’s disappointment at the SFA declining to hold an independent enquiry.
     
    However, supporters of many clubs, not just Celtic, see the SFA Compliance Officer investigation as a step towards restoring integrity and a degree of trust in the proper governance of Scottish football
    I would like to add that as
    First: A Football supporter and lover of the game in Scotland.
     
    Second: A Celtic football supporter who loves the way we play the game –  on and off the park
     
    and
     
    Third: A Celtic shareholder
     
    That I hope this great opportunity towards restoring trust in football governance will not be spurned by those responsible for its safekeeping.
    =================
    Interesting that Hibernian fans share the same concerns and if they want further reason to then it is in this Compliance Officer investigation because of what it would prove if properly done a based on the evidence presented to them by Celtic which will be bolstered by all the correspondence between the Res12 lawyers, the SFA and UEFA.
    Ultimately this matter of integrity and trust will be settled by supporters of football in Scotland and not by the guilty parties.

    View Comment

  31. easyJamboNovember 15, 2017 at 18:00
    ‘…I didn’t go along to the CoS today..’
    ______________
    I had another engagement , otherwise I might have toddled along.
    Was a date fixed for the substantive hearing, do you know? I hope it’s into the new Year, because I’ll be in Pennsylvania over Christmas and till 8th January.

    View Comment

  32. A deathly silence descended on the Sportsound studio tonight when Kris Commons pointed out that Rangers simply don’t have the money to attract a Manager who would require a large salary as well as compensation to buy out his contract.  There was then a further moment when Chris McLaughlin was giving an update on today’s Celtic AGM. Peter Lawwell had said he believed the Europa League is going to be expanded, to which McLaughlin said ‘…this expansion will of course benefit Scottish teams other than just Celtic and…eh…well…eh, just Celtic I suppose’.

    View Comment

  33. AuldheidNovember 15, 2017 at 19:05
    ‘…Here is the statement in full from Celtic with regard to Resolution 12 ..’
    __________________
    Looking at the Celtic plc website, Auldheid, I don’t see any reference in the the AGM agenda to the possibility of there being a statement about ‘progress’ on the res 12 issue.

    What prompted the statement, and how was it received?

    And is the Board really taking the matter seriously, or just taking the proverbial? Four years is a long time to wait before taking strong action to establish whether shareholders were bilked out of a few million quid by the SFA!

    View Comment

  34. Anyone else know why Arthur Numan was given some column inches in todays papers?
    Numan has hailed Dick Advocaat for dragging rangers into the modern era.
    —-
    Is being dragged into the modern era putting then onto the road to liquidation?
    —–
    And Numan who was signed by DA from PSV for £4.5 million said DA revolutioned-ised ibrox.
    he signed players like Van Bronckorst,Andrei kanchelskis, and Claudio Rayna.
    ————
    What AN does not add was that he himself was signed with an EBT £510,000 . Dutch full-back arrived at Rangers from PSV Eindhoven in 1998 for £4.5million. Played 118 times.
    Andrei Kanchelskis £145,000 . Russian winger arrived from Fiorentina in 1998 for £5.5million.
    And Dick Advocaat £1.5million . Rangers manager from 1998-2002. Spent almost £74million to win five trophies, including two titles.
    Yes £74 million not to dragg rangers into the modern era.But £74 million to slide them towards Liquidation.

    View Comment

  35. After the way they behaved during the administration, and most importantly ignoring the best interests of the creditors when the CVA was rejected. Selling Charles Green the assets at such a ridiculously low price, just to ensure A Rangers were able to play out of Ibrox. It kind of sticks in the craw that one of them is having the audacity to sue anyone. 

    View Comment

  36. easyJambo November 15, 2017 at 17:48
    The BBC Scotland report:

    “Four months later, the company’s business and assets were sold to a consortium led by Charles Green for £5.5m.”

    Perhaps our friends at Pacific Quay could explain that for the sake of us simple mortals who are under the impression it was merely the surviving assets that Charles de Normande acquired. 

    View Comment

  37. John ClarkNovember 15, 2017 at 19:39 9 0 i Rate This
    AuldheidNovember 15, 2017 at 19:05‘…Here is the statement in full from Celtic with regard to Resolution 12 ..’__________________Looking at the Celtic plc website, Auldheid, I don’t see any reference in the the AGM agenda to the possibility of there being a statement about ‘progress’ on the res 12 issue.
    What prompted the statement, and how was it received?
    And is the Board really taking the matter seriously, or just taking the proverbial? Four years is a long time to wait before taking strong action to establish whether shareholders were bilked out of a few million quid by the SFA!
    ================
    Its there JC, but you are not the only one who missed it.
    It wasn’t named but it was covered.
     “Shareholders were then invited to ask questions, with a variety of issues raised, including an update following the club’s call for the SFA to conduct an independent review into Scottish football and its licensing procedures. The SFA Compliance Officer is currently conducting an investigation into the granting of UEFA licences specific to the 2011/12 season, and the club are awaiting the results of that investigation.”
    If you follow this from KDS it might answer your other questions.
    http://kerrydalestreet.co.uk/single/?p=30636888&t=9124931

    View Comment

  38. Billy BoyceNovember 15, 2017 at 20:56
    ‘…Perhaps our friends at Pacific Quay could explain that for the sake of us simple mortals who are under the impression it was merely the surviving assets that Charles de Normande acquired.’
    ____________
    They cannot, because they are thirled to the Big Lie that Rangers Football Club  was kind of bought ,or brought,out of Administration’ like Hearts was.
    It wasn’t. It was put into Liquidation and when that process is finally completed, it will be dissolved.
    That BIG LIE is  the most damnably wicked evidence of the extent to which our SMSM sports hacks (and their editors) are like wee pieces of saft s’ite  on the shoes of real journalists, and that our game is corrupt at its very core.

    View Comment

  39. Billy Boyce November 15, 2017 at 20:56
    easyJambo November 15, 2017 at 17:48 The BBC Scotland report:
    “Four months later, the company’s business and assets were sold to a consortium led by Charles Green for £5.5m.”
    Perhaps our friends at Pacific Quay could explain that for the sake of us simple mortals who are under the impression it was merely the surviving assets that Charles de Normande acquired. 
    =========================
    To be fair to the Beeb, it was D&P that first pedalled that line in the CVA proposal dated 29th May 2012.

    In the event that either this CVA is not approved, or the other Conditions of the loan are not satisfied or waived by 23 July 2012, Sevco is contractually obliged to purchase the business and assets of the Company for £5,500,000 by 30 July 2012. All further terms of that sale have been agreed in advance and are confidential.

    At least some legal minds have correctly described the “sale” in court proceedings as being the sale of  “a basket of assets” and a “trading style”.  As only selected assets and liabilities were acquired and no shares, it could hardly be described as buying a “business” as a going concern.

    The analogy I would give would be if a chain of shoe shops called “Brown Brogues” was heading into liquidation. Another chain of shoe shops called “Brothel Creepers” then offered to buy only the 20 stores that were profitable, their staff, and the “Brown Brogues” brand from the administrators.  The rest of the “Brown Brogues” shops were consigned to closure.  “Brothel Creepers” wanted to run their new shops under the same “Brown Brogues” brand name in order to attract the same customers, but also to siphon off the profits then progressively replacing “Brown Brogues” products with “Brothel Creepers”.  Does that now make the business “Brown Brogues” or “Brothel Creepers”?  

    View Comment

  40. EASYJAMBO
    NOVEMBER 15, 2017 at 22:53 

    In the event that either this CVA is not approved, or the other Conditions of the loan are not satisfied or waived by 23 July 2012, Sevco is contractually obliged to purchase the business and assets of the Company for £5,500,000 by 30 July 2012. All further terms of that sale have been agreed in advance and are confidential.

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

    Was it Sevco 5088 Ltd or Sevco Scotland Ltd though. The contract was with the former but they sold the assets to the latter. With nothing to show why the right / obligation to do it moved from one to the other. 

    Sevco 5088 Ltd still exists, with that name. Sevco Scotland is now called The Rangers Football Club Ltd. 

    And the chancers who orchestrated this are suing people. 

    View Comment

  41. Homunculus November 15, 2017 at 23:09
    Was it Sevco 5088 Ltd or Sevco Scotland Ltd though. The contract was with the former but they sold the assets to the latter. With nothing to show why the right / obligation to do it moved from one to the other.
    Sevco 5088 Ltd still exists, with that name. Sevco Scotland is now called The Rangers Football Club Ltd.
    And the chancers who orchestrated this are suing people.
    ============================
    In that document dated 29 May 2012 it was Sevco 5088.

    Offer of Loan to Company
    4.17 Following the extensive marketing of the Company and the extensive sale process, an offer was made by Sevco 5088 Limited (“Sevco” to make a loan on certain terms (explained below) in conjunction with the purchase by Sevco of the Group Shares.

    The name Sevco Scotland first appeared in a document dated 20 June 2012, submitted to the Court of Session by D&P, outlining the results of the Creditors meeting which voted on the CVA Proposal.

    The next creditors report dated 10 July 2012 continued to use Sevco Scotland and contained the following statement:

    The continuation of trading operations enabled the Joint Administrators to put the CVA Proposal to the creditors of the Company and after the CVA Proposal was rejected by creditors, the Joint Administrators were able to secure a going concern sale of the business, history and assets of the Company to Sevco

    I hope that the respondents (Police and the Lord Advocate), in the latest CoS case, will present evidence of such a change to the “buyer” of the assets, potentially being illegal and therefore worthy of police investigation of D&P’s actions in relation to that transaction and other activities during the administration period.    

    View Comment

  42. EASYJAMBO
    NOVEMBER 15, 2017 at 23:41

    The continuation of trading operations enabled the Joint Administrators to put the CVA Proposal to the creditors of the Company and after the CVA Proposal was rejected by creditors, the Joint Administrators were able to secure a going concern sale of the business, history and assets of the Company to Sevco

    There are several anomalies in that creditors report that don’t stand up to scrutiny.

    How on God’s green earth could the business be conceivably described as ‘a going concern’ when that business was in debt to the tune of many millions of pounds and was mired in the process of insolvency which would ultimately result in liquidation?

    Notwithstanding that, the statement clearly states that the Administrators secured the sale of the history of the Company. How awkward for those who tell us that company and club were separate, since it is obvious that only the history of the company was preserved, not the history of the club. 

    View Comment

  43. easyJambo
    November 15, 2017 at 23:41 
    I hope that the respondents (Police and the Lord Advocate), in the latest CoS case, will present evidence of such a change to the “buyer” of the assets, potentially being illegal and therefore worthy of police investigation of D&P’s actions in relation to that transaction and other activities during the administration period.  
    =======================================

    I would find it extraordinary that they hadn’t already done so. For the administrator to make a contractual obligation to sell the assets to one company, then to sell them to an entirely different company, there has to be something like a deed of novation to justify that. Particularly when it was such a “sweet deal”. They sold assets at a price which later generated a “negative goodwill” figure in the audited accounts of the buyer. That is effectively them, and their auditor claiming that the assets were worth c£20m more than the price they paid for them.

    For me the Sevco 5088 / Sevco Scotland / c£5.5m / c£20m negative goodwill thing is the most glaringly corrupt part of the whole mess. It’s not even based on secret tapes or leaked memos. It’s all there for anyone to look at should they choose to. We have been talking about it for years.

    Now who would one call as a witness re the initial contract / novation of the obligation to another party. A representative of Sevco 5088 one would have thought. One who is already claiming they lost out when this happened perhaps.

    View Comment

  44. Contrary to the CVA Proposal of 29th May 2012, the “business and assets” were sold to Sevco Scotland, as noted by Homunculus & others. The assets were listed as follows.

    4.11 The assets of the Company, listed at Schedule 6, currently consist of:

    Ibrox; Murray Park; The other heritable properties and leasehold interests of the Company; The Player Contracts; The SFA Membership; The Company‘s share in the SPL; The Goodwill and intellectual property rights; Stock, plant and equipment and cash at bank; Amounts owed to the Company (other than the Player Transfer Fees); The High Court Proceedings; and The Player Transfer Fees.

    Nowhere in the CVA are the terms trophies and titles mentioned.

    How is it that:

    (1) The silverware and other artifacts in the trophy room were sold without any value being considered.

    (2) I would imagine that the selling of “titles” would be forbidden. How is it that footballing authorities have allowed their titles to be sold or passed on to another entity.

    Consulting my Wee Red Book, I see that the re-named Airdrieonians honours only start in 2003. Airdrie United didn’t claim the titles and trophies of the 1878-2002 club, nor of Clydebank. I wonder where the trophies of the two defunct clubs ended up?

    Has there been any official comment or discussion on the selling of titles to Sevco Scotland, or is this buried in the 5-way agreement?

    View Comment

  45. Ernie B.
    “I must return you from spurious analogy to simple reality,do the rules enable a membership transfer,if no then you have a case,if yes then you have a delusion.”

    Can’t be bothered chasing squirrels back several pages…. But IIRC, in reality did the rules allow Dundee to take the DEID club’s membership of the top division…?  
    They did.   🙂

    So ye’re right, Ernie.  There WAS a membership transfer.

    Then the Scottish fitba authorities spurned all their “rules” and let an iffy new club into the bottom division despite it having no history or three years worth of accounts.

    It’s a funnily corrupt old game…

    View Comment

  46. AllyjamboNovember 16, 2017 at 13:08
    Hi Ernest,
    Not sure if this is your first day of posting on SFM, but if it is, welcome.
    ———————————————————————
    Well he is certainly providing a deflection from debate on the non event that was yesterday’s AGM where certain things were kicked in to the long grass (or at least down the road again)!

    View Comment

Comments are closed.