ZilchAugust 18, 2017 at 11:27 Excellent piece Zilch. I agree part – The Scottish Football Monitor

ZilchAugust 18, 2017 at 11:27 Excellent piece Zilch. I agree part …

Comment on On Grounds for Judicial Review by blu.

ZilchAugust 18, 2017 at 11:27
Excellent piece Zilch. I agree part that Celtic can’t be faulted for driving forward. They were happy though to ally with Rangers on the voting structure of the SPL, which effectively provided the two with a veto  on change. Why the others didn’t kick the door in when Rangers went bust is beyond me.

blu Also Commented

On Grounds for Judicial Review
There was some earlier discussion on Ewan  Murray’s article in the Guardian but there’s another article by Barney Ronay regarding an Inquiry initiated by Lewisham Council into the Compulsory Purchase Order placed on land, including Millwall FC’s Den, which may be of interest. The inquiry was called after a series of questions emerged over the process and due diligence behind the council’s plans to compulsorily purchase the land in Bermondsey and sell it on to an offshore‑registered developer.
The full article can be found here:https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/aug/17/millwall-inquiry-battle-den-lewisham-council

This extract may resonate:

The inquiry is expected to reveal its findings in a report before the end of the year. Witnesses are currently giving evidence.
At the end of which it is worth pointing out that the inquiry itself is a puzzling affair. Lord Dyson may be a hugely respected, impartial and dizzyingly able former master of the rolls. It is important to point out that this is not a public inquiry with judicial force.
This is in reality a report commissioned and paid for by the council’s executive, and operating within a strictly defined framework. It is a private inquiry.
The Dyson inquiry has no power to demand or seize documents. It cannot peer behind the veil of offshore secrecy. It will never tell us, for example, who really owns Renewal, or who Renewal’s ultimate beneficiaries are. All of the evidence involved will be heard privately and kept from the public gaze.


On Grounds for Judicial Review

FinlochAugust 18, 2017 at 08:22

Ah, some balance and perspective both from you and Ewan Murray on Scottish football competitiveness. Far too often discussion and decision making is about preserving the duopoly, on the basis that it’s not only good for the game but essential for its survival. The game survived 1950’s and 80’s when the two Glasgow behemoths didn’t absolutely dominate everything, winning only half the of the league championships in the 50’s and a mere 61% of all domestic trophies in the 80’s. In the last 32 seasons 100% of league titles have been won by either Celtic or Rangers, who would be a fan, owner or chairman of any other club that’s supposed to be involved in competition when you’ve no chance of winning?


On Grounds for Judicial Review
ThomTheThimAugust 16, 2017 at 12:52
Thom, we’re probably in agreement, along with with 99% of SFM posters and readers on the rights and wrongs of SPL/SPFL/SFA governance, and I’m sorry to keep going on about this – Celtic did not even publicly call for an independent review of RFC 2012’s use of EBT’s after the Supreme Court ruled in HMRC’s favour. Like you, I’ll give it up now.
Here’s the statement from Celtic’s website:

WE note today’s decision by the Supreme Court. Celtic’s position on this issue has been consistent – that this has always been a matter for the courts of law and also the Scottish football authorities, whose rules are intended to uphold sporting integrity.
In 2013, we expressed surprise – shared by many observers and supporters of the game – over the findings of the SPL Commission that no competitive or sporting advantage had resulted. Today’s decision only re-affirms that view.
We are sure now that the footballing authorities in Scotland will wish to review this matter. Celtic awaits the outcome of their review.


Recent Comments by blu

To Comply or not to Comply ?
What’s with the sexist, jokey support of the racist thug Terry?


To Comply or not to Comply ?

You have to laugh at the idea that Murray would just have borrowed the money if he had not used EBT’s.June 2004 the debt was £74 million.December 2004 £51 million is raised by a rights issue. The only trouble is, Murray paid for that. And where did the money come from?RBoS of course!So he borrowed and used EBT’s at the same time.That’s like Lance Armstrong not only cheating with drugs, but also using a motorbike.

8Wrong evil bank, I think.


Is it time for the Sin Bin?

I see the fans social media of the Ibrox team are positively excited about a new kit manufacturer to be announced. Not all the comments are positive with respect to the quality of the kit but all seem to be pleased with a payment of £15m to begin and £4m per annum thereafter. 

Is the Hummel deal being reported as worth 15 million? Roughly £1.75m when converted from Krona.


Is it time for the Sin Bin?

JIMBOAPRIL 12, 2018 at 15:50
Will Douglas Park be passed as fit & proper?
 I believe he is a shareholder at Hamilton Accies.  Maybe it’s not significant enough.

Jimbo, the club’s returns to Companies House show that Douglas Park has never been a director. He  holds 5,000 shares, 4,999 more than Sydney Devine and less than 1% of the number held by the largest shareholder, Edencrest Ltd. Three of the Edencrest directors are also HAFC directors.


Is it time for the Sin Bin?
Jockybhoy@9:06
The Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR) deals with over 24,000 charities and is unlikely to proactively investigate charity fundraising events. The governance issues investigated following the Milan game were the result of a complaint (I seem to remember that it was Corsica, who had a strong knowledge and interest in the charity sector, who notified OSCR).


SSL Certificates