On Grounds for Judicial Review

While the proposed Judicial Review of the LNS decision is to be welcomed it is a position that is fraught with legal difficulties such as the capacity to raise the proceedings, potential time bars and all sorts of other arguments.

It would be complete folly to base an argument here solely upon a judicial review of LNS as that would only leave one string to the bow.

Further, take the stated opinion or Mr Rod McKenzie that LNS only dealt with the issue of Player Registrations within the SPL/SPFL — and nothing else.

Any analysis of what is meant by that statement (and others made by Neil Doncaster) leads to the conclusion that there are other matters to be considered which were outwith the tight and narrow remit handed to LNS by the SPFL.

For me, the clearest consideration is this.

1. Craig Whyte has already been personally convicted by the SFA for deliberately failing to pay taxes as and when they fall due under article 5.1 of the SFA rules.

2. No such charge has ever been levied against RFC — just against their CEO.

3. Not only did RFC fail to pay taxes as and when they became due under Whyte’s watch, they deliberately failed to pay taxes for a 13 year period under the stewardship of Sir David Murray. They did this by deliberately entering into two unlawful tax aggressive tax avoidance schemes which even their advisers warned them could only be undertaken at considerable risk to the club as the schemes were never guaranteed to be successful.

4. Those schemes were entered into so that the club could buy players they would otherwise not have afforded.

5. In furtherance of those schemes, RFC chose to deliberately withhold the full details of their contractual arrangements with both players and managers from both the SFA and the SPL when submitting their applications to play under licence and in terms of the rules of both organisations.

6. In each of the years concerned, RFC had to apply for both domestic and European Licences to play football, and it is the granting of these licences which allows any football club to play in structured competition organised under the auspices of, or with the approval of, the SFA or UEFA.

7. Each and every licence application as submitted to the SFA in the knowledge that key financial and contractual information had been excluded in furtherance of tax avoidance purposes, and tax, which has since been declared to be legitimately due and payable from 1999 onwards, was unpaid and remains unpaid.

8. The above processes and procedures are no different, and indeed are considerably worse, breaches of article 5.1 under which Whyte was personally convicted and fined.

9. Further, as part of the HMRC investigations into the use of unlawful tax schemes, RFC deliberately lied to HMRC, SFA and SPL about the existence of side letters and other contractual documentation. This is particularly so in relation to the annual application for a playing licence.

On 20th May 2011, HMRC, in relation to one of the tax schemes, wrote to RFC and accused the club of “deliberate and fraudulent” behaviour in relation to the continued submission of false PAYE and NIC returns over a period of years.

10. It, therefore, follows that each and every application for a football licence made by RFC to the SFA from 2000 onwards (at least) was based on falsified financial, contractual and tax information and was designed to mislead the SFA with a view to persuading them to grant a licence on misrepresented grounds.

11. Not only is the above a breach of article 5.1 of the SFA handbook, but any licence obtained by misrepresentation has not been validly obtained as it has been obtained by way of false representation and deception.

12. It is a pre-requisite of entry into any league competition that the participating club holds a valid licence to play football.

13. In the event that a club did not or should not have held/hold a valid licence to play, that same club is not free to enter structured competition or register players to participate in such competition. It also follows that any declaration of a result of 0-3 in relation to any particular game as a result of a rule breach (such as fielding an ineligible player) is of no consequence because the club concerned was not eligible to participate at all.

14. The Court of Arbitration for Sport has already been invited by UEFA to hold that any application for a licence or any other compliance submission, which is devoid of all necessary financial and contractual information should be treated as null and void and as never having been received.

15. The same Court has also held that any title, championship, award, record, reward or other benefit which has been gained as a result of an improper or prohibited process should not be allowed to stand, the records of the award etc should be expunged and the sporting records corrected accordingly.

None of the above is dependent on a successful review of LNS but goes hand in hand with that process.

In the forthcoming review of Scottish Football recently announced by the SPFL, in conjunction with the SFA, all of the above should be under consideration.

LNS, under review, may determine that the players were in fact not eligible, but much more fundamental is the fact that there are clear facts and circumstances which should mean that the club itself was never eligible in terms of established legal jurisprudence.

As had been pointed out by Rod McKenzie, none of this has been considered by the SPFL as all matters concerning a licence are solely under the jurisdiction of the SFA.

Thus far, the SFA have taken no action against RFC or any of its officials as a result of the clubs involvement in, and cover up of, the Big Tax Case or the Wee Tax Case – both of which will be the subject of the forthcoming review demanded by Celtic and others.

broganrogantrevinoandhogan

broganrogantrevinoandhogan

Boot wearing football, sport & total nonsense fan-- Gourmet, Bon Viveur and eedgit! - Oh and I write a bit occasionally!

541 Comments
  1. StevieBC

    StevieBC


    EASYJAMBO
    AUGUST 22, 2017 at 13:47 
    I see that Supporters Direct have issued the results of their annual survey today.
    https://stv.tv/sport/football/1396165-scottish-football-fans-arent-getting-value-for-money/
    It will be interesting to see how the findings compare with those of the SFSA.
    ===========================
    Indeed, EJ!

    Extracted from the SD survey;

    “Value for money considered, “the biggest threat to the future of the game in the next five years”…”

    Really?!

    And this from the Hampden bunker;

    “Stewart Regan, Chief Executive at the Scottish FA, said:
    “This is an important survey for us and we use the findings to help us understand the issues affecting Scottish football and to review and measure fans’ attitudes from year to year…”
    &
    SPFL Chief Executive Neil Doncaster welcomed the input of supporters, saying:
    “The Scottish Football Supporters Survey is a very valuable, annual barometer of the issues most important to fans across the country. 

    If they are both ‘so keen’ to find out about fans’ opinions now… then they will both welcome the added feedback provided by the SFSA survey from a significant total of 16K supporters ?
    [And this is 2K larger response than the SD survey.]

    The SD survey is a feeble diversionary tactic supported by the SFA & SPFL.  20

    View Comment
  2. Cluster One

    Cluster One


    Chores all done.What a coincidence i had a day off today the same day as an early kick off game09

    View Comment
  3. justbecauseyoureparanoid


    CLUSTER ONEAUGUST 22, 2017 at 15:39

    And I bet there’s a fair bit of “working from home” as well. 
    Oh it’s good to be retired. 
    Mon the hoops. 

    View Comment
  4. bfbpuzzled


    Jimbo
    Some disabled folk categorise folk into two classes – disabled and tab. Tab is an acronym for “temporarily able bodied” on the logic that something comes to us all over time.
    The growing lack of empathy and civility in society is demonstrated by the increasing unpleasantness visited upon those who are disabled and this is worse for those whose disability is invisible “ye canny be blind ye look alright to me”. 
    There was a discussion recently on one of the TRFC forums about improving facilities for disabled people it was very unempathetic
    All you wage slaves back to work no time for the retired to attend to other matters

    View Comment
  5. Finloch


    You’ve already seen some of the stuff on the Supporters Direct survey.
    Here is the press release from the marketing agency who are managing us.
    It comes complete with quotes from Regan and Doncaster and others so no journo has the inconvenience of thinking up questions or phoning them for a wee chat.

    We are all being coralled and kettled.

    They are cynically making the lead headline about value for money which makes us all look at our clubs first and the SFA and SFPL second.

    I’d say that is a bit on the outrageous side.

    Enjoy and then compare who actually writes anything when you see it reported in tonights and tomorrows news

    Scottish Football Supporters Survey 2017 results revealed by Supporters Direct Scotland
    DATE: TUESDAY 22 AUGUST 2017
    Key headlines:
    Value for money considered, “the biggest threat to the future of the game in the next five years”Nearly 14,000 submissions to 2017 survey, in partnership with Scottish FA & SPFLResults presented to Scottish FA’s Professional Game Board, disseminated to all 42 pro clubsGoverning bodies have committed to listening and engaging with supportersTicket pricing, kick off times and the relationship fans have with their clubs considered to be the three most important factors in decision to attend a gameFans don’t believe Scottish football is committed to a high-quality fan experience (over 55% either disagree or strongly disagree)   
    Supporters Direct Scotland (SD Scotland) today reveals results of its 2017 Scottish Football Supporters Survey, in partnership with the Scottish FA and the SPFL.
    Amongst the key headlines from this year’s consultation, which engaged around 14,000 fans via almost every club in Scotland, are that supporters do not believe the admission price for games in Scotland represents value for money. “Your relationship with your club,” ranked third as a determinate around whether supporters would attend matches. And over 50% of supporters believe there should be more resources given to tackle and stamp out forms of unacceptable conduct, but there was not majority support for “strict liability”. A large majority (71%) were opposed to the Offensive Behaviour Act (OBA). SD Scotland has set out three core “asks” to football’s governing bodies in Scotland as a result of the findings namely: 
    ASKOUTCOMEChallenge clubs and the Scottish FA to examine how they improve the value for money including within ticket pricesSD Scotland to organise a national event for clubs on the issue of ticket pricing and the matchday experienceClubs to think best how they can further involve and engage fans within the governance and ownership of clubs, whether this be through “structured dialogue” or fan representation.SD Scotland to publish document around “structured dialogue” and how best clubs can engage with their supportersThat the Scottish Government review legislation that aims to curb unacceptable conduct, and that more resources are committed by stakeholders towards tackling unacceptable conductSD Scotland to facilitate a supporter led event on how best to tackle issues of unacceptable conduct with SPFL & Scottish FA involvement. The majority of Scottish fans believe the admission price for games in Scotland is either ‘very poor’ or ‘poor’ value for money according to the survey. Although this is the most significant concern for supporters, the number who considered value for money poor or very poor has reduced by 14% year on year. The issue of value for money is a theme throughout supporter responses with fans considering affordability of the game to be the biggest threat to the future of the game. and 55% of fans disagreeing with the idea that Scottish football is committed to a high-quality fan experience. Interestingly, 75% of supporters say that they don’t base their decisions on attending matches around live TV selections. Although 56% believe Scottish football doesn’t reflect good value for money, positively that statistic has dropped 5% from last year. Officially recognised as the lead supporters group in Scotland by the Scottish Professional Football League (SPFL) and the Scottish Football Association (Scottish FA), Supporters Direct Scotland has established a formal means to engage with the game’s key decision makers and represent fans’ views. This is achieved through the organisation’s place on the Scottish FA Congress as Supporter Representatives. Findings of this year’s survey have also been presented or shared with:
    Scottish FA’s Professional Game BoardSupporter Liaison Officer Network in ScotlandAll 42 SPFL clubsPolice ScotlandMinister for Sport & Mental HealthThe Scottish Government’s civil serviceOther key themes to arise from the survey include the supporter experience and fans’ involvement and relationship with their clubs.
    A majority of supporters do not want strict liability or were unsure about it (52%)Over 81% of fans think Scottish football has an issue with sectarianism50% of fans have been subjected to sectarianism in and around football stadia in Scotland18% of participants feel they’ve been subjected to physical abuse in and around Scottish football stadia71% of fans don’t believe the Offensive Behaviour Act (OBA) has been effective in preventing unacceptable conduct by supportersFans feel they should have partial ownership (including board representation) in their clubs over any other level of involvement – 63%88% of fans are in favour of safe standingDisabled fans think their club provide adequate facilities for disabled fansThe survey results come a time of significant change for Supporters Direct Scotland who will become an independent organisation from December 2017. Supporters Direct Scotland will also establish a new charity foundation to support ongoing work to promote community engagement. Head of Supporters Direct Scotland Andrew Jenkin says: “What we are seeing now is a really clear demand from supporters to see greater value for money around football. Supporters Direct Scotland appreciates the extremely challenging balance that our clubs face, and we want to support them. Addressing value for money might include looking at more pricing variation, and ways of delivering added value. Attendances are by-and-large an improving picture, but it’s absolutely critical we future-proof Scottish football by being on the front foot. “Once again, supporters also tell us they want to be engaged by their clubs. The relationship a supporter has with a club has a direct impact on their decision to attend games or spend money. That means there is a role for clubs to think really carefully about how they reflect the values of their club, not the other way around. To reflect the values of your supporters you need to know and talk to them, and we hope our forthcoming new guide on Structured Dialogue can be effective in providing examples of best practice. “Supporter experience is not rated highly, and part of that is dictated to by fan behaviour. Supporters continue to tell us there is a problem, and now there’s a real moving sense that the Offensive Behaviour Act, for its broad promises has delivered little. So we have a problem, but not the sort of solution that is necessary. In order to positively influence the future agenda here, we are asking the SPFL and the Scottish FA to work with us to deliver a supporter-led event on how we can bring about a change in culture needed to ensure that our grounds are bouncing with enthusiasm, but not unnecessarily aggressive. “We’re making these asks to Scottish football at a time when as an organisation we are making a genuine difference to the game in this country. Our Supporter Liaison Programme in partnership with the Scottish FA and supported by UEFA is providing training and development to the increasing number of SLOs across the country. “Our Club Development Scotland project has seen us work with a number of professional and community clubs providing financial, legal and practical advice around developing sustainable community led business models. “Colours of our Scarves, remains our flagship community programme promoting tolerance and equality in schools across the country. “We have also recently secured funding to explore the setting up of a “Fans Bank” or community fund, which would allow for Supporters Direct Scotland to potentially set up a social investment loan facility for clubs at all levels of the game to use the resource for social benefit. The funding from the Paul Hamlyn Foundation will be used to research, analyse and develop a robust model for the future. “Supporters can play a significant role in securing the brightest future for Scottish football. Our commitment is to work with those who govern the game – and the country – to ensure that the voice of supporters is heard, and acted upon.” 

    View Comment
  6. Finloch


    Part 2 

     
    Stewart Regan, Chief Executive at the Scottish FA, said: “This is an important survey for us and we use the findings to help us understand the issues affecting Scottish football and to review and measure fans’ attitudes from year to year. “Supporters Direct Scotland are part of our Congress and have a voice on that platform alongside club representatives, PFA Scotland, the media and other league and affiliate members. We will consider these findings within Congress and will also focus on some of the topics at our annual Convention. Our aim will be to share good practice and spark discussion around how Scottish football can do more to deliver value for money to supporters. “This is an area that we are working on with our Scotland Supporters Club. This campaign we’ve invested in a shuttle bus service to help supporters get to and from Hampden for Scotland international matches and we have also introduced fan zones at our home games. On top of this, we are in the middle of a separate research project looking at ways to improve the Scotland Supporters Club package. We’ve had 3,000 responses to our call for feedback which will help us shape the offer in the future. “Tackling unacceptable conduct also remains at the forefront of our minds and earlier this year we strengthened our guidance to our members with the clubs now accepting more responsibility in Scottish Cup matches to investigate and impose sanctions on those who have misbehaved at our games.” SPFL Chief Executive Neil Doncaster welcomed the input of supporters, saying: “The Scottish Football Supporters Survey is a very valuable, annual barometer of the issues most important to fans across the country. We thank each and every fan who took the time to complete the survey which again shows just how much Scottish football supporters care about the game.  “The SPFL recognises that value for money and ticket pricing are, and arguably always will be, top priorities for supporters while also acknowledging the considerable work clubs commit to in this area, which was an ‘ask’ of last year’s survey. Indeed a 14% reduction in those who deem ‘value for money’ as being poor or very poor is evidence that clubs are making some progress on this front. On pricing specifically, the most recent BBC Price of Football survey again provided considerable evidence of ticket prices either being frozen or reduced across all leagues, with the average price of the cheapest season ticket across all 12 Ladbrokes Premiership clubs down. Further, the SPFL’s own research last November revealed that the vast majority of clubs provide free tickets for community groups, charitable causes and others who would find it otherwise challenging to attend a game, with an estimated 84,000 given away in the season before last. There is always more work that can be done and we welcome the input of SD Scotland, working with the SPFL and Scottish FA, to proactively examine and identify further innovations in pricing as well as new ideas around value for money and added value which could be put forward for consideration by clubs. “On the subject of Unacceptable Conduct, we continue to work closely with Scottish Government, Scottish FA and our clubs. In January of this year the SPFL published updated and newly approved League-wide guidance on Unacceptable Conduct, applicable to all 42 member clubs. Recently, we also agreed to collate and share information with both the Scottish Government and Police Scotland regarding incidents of Unacceptable Conduct at SPFL matches at regular intervals throughout the current Scottish football season. This demonstrates the SPFL’s commitment to curbing Unacceptable Conduct in our stadia and we continue to work with the Scottish Government on this matter. It is important we all continue to work together to help make Scottish football as safe and welcoming an environment for fans as possible. “While the purpose of the survey is to identify areas for improvement, it is also worth highlighting some of Scottish football’s success stories, investments and opportunities, both recent and current. That 63% of supporters are in favour of the new format of the Betfred Cup is a real vindication of the brave decision of clubs to shake up the format – with the return to a pre-Christmas final particularly popular – and is reflected in a significantly enhanced live broadcast deal and record payouts to clubs competing. There has been major investment and innovation at some of our biggest clubs’ stadia to enhance matchday experience for supporters, Celtic Park’s safe standing area (the first in the UK) and the new Tynecastle Park main stand development being two great examples. Further, Aberdeen FC is presently campaigning for support for a new stadium development, which would be the biggest seen in this country for many years and includes supporter-friendly facilities such as a dedicated fan zone, community pavilion, museum, café and bar. Investment in current and new stadia, at all levels, can only further improve the quality of experience for fans of all ages. “We all share a common goal of wishing Scottish football to be in the very best health possible, both on the pitch and off it, for the benefit of supporters, players and all involved at our 42 clubs. Supporters Direct Scotland has an important role to play in representing the view of fans across Scotland and we look forward to working with Andrew Jenkin and his team to identify ways to further enhance the game for supporters in the year ahead.” ENDS For more information please contact:Andrew Jenkin, Head of SD Scotlandandrew.jenkin@supporters-direct.org / 07769 175 480 About SD Scotland
    SD Scotland help fans to set up democratic cooperatives to gain influence in the running and ownership of their clubs.SD and SD Scotland represent over 200 supporters’ trusts and similar organisations in England, Scotland and across Europe, with over 750,000 members.SD Scotland’s activities include running the Scottish Supporters Network, representing supporters on a wider scale within the Governance structures of Scottish football, assisting clubs with the Supporter Liaison Officer role, Colours of our Scarves, their equality in sport programme and Club Development Scotland, their consultancy service helping to facilitate community ownership of clubs and their growth.SD Scotland are the Supporter Representative body on the Scottish FA Congress
    Find out more http://www.supporters-direct.scotTwitter: @SuppDirectScot

    View Comment
  7. easyJambo


    Jimbo ……… you can come out from behind the sofa now.07

    View Comment
  8. StevieBC

    StevieBC


    To appease some in the SMSM…

    CFC should do the right thing, and politely decline being included in the CL group stage draw.

    If this club – with its renowned social conscience – has any consideration for Scottish football at all, it should walk away from the obscene riches of the CL.
    And their young players simply don’t need to be exposed to glamour ties against the best clubs – and best players – on the planet.

    Yes, we should listen to the SMSM, and urge CFC to do what’s best for Scottish football!  15
    Oh, and let’s all just ‘move on’ as well for the good of the game.

    222222

    View Comment
  9. jimbo

    jimbo


    Honestly, I have no nails left.  After going in 1-1 at half time I felt ok to go and do the dishes.  Then this and that.  Next thing my nephew is on the phone uncle Jim whit happened?  He was out working in the garage.  I came back into the living room, 4-1!!!
    The rest as they say is history.  It’s not easy supporting Celtic.

    I can’t believe it’s a year since the draw for the group stages.  I was sitting in the pub with a pal, and as the draw progressed I was saying to my pal no, no, no not Barcelona again.  But yes the group of death.  The Pope’s 11? don’t make me laugh, we are cursed.

    View Comment
  10. bordersdon


    jimboAugust 22, 2017 at 20:43
    It’s not easy supporting Celtic.
    —————————————————————————-
    You try supporting us Jimbo boy!

    View Comment
  11. jimbo

    jimbo


    Bordersdon, I got a bit of grief on here a few weeks ago for supporting you in Europe!

    View Comment
  12. John Clark


     I today received a reply ,from Mr Doncaster, on behalf of the new Chairman of the SPFL ( Mr MacLennan) to my letter of 12th July.(Mannerly of  Mr MacLennan to reply, doubly so if I did actually address him in my letter, as well as on the envelope,by the wrong name!)

    He encloses the SPFL’s media statement of 26th July, which contains  the written advice from Senior Counsel Gerry Moynihan Q.C., and the the SPFL’s support for the calls which  have been made for an independent review.

    We’ve all seen those already, so there’s nothing new.

    I will acknowledge receipt of the reply.

    And I will include in my reply a contradiction of what was put as a statement of fact in Question 4.2 of the list of questions on which the QC was asked to advise, namely, the statement that “in the case of Rangers FC, it was a member the of the SPL and it was owned and operated by Oldco until Rangerc FC became owned and operated by Newco”.

    I will remind him that there was never a  ‘holding club’ owning and operating Rangers FC of 1899. The only entity incorporated under that name was  the club founded on Glasgow Green.

    And it was  the club ( that very incorporated Rangers FC) that in 2012 lost its entitlement to a share in what by then had become the SPL by suffering the Insolvency Event of Liquidation: in consequence of which it ceased to be entitled to membership of the SFA, and ceased thereby to be a recognised professional football club in Scotland.

    It was not sold to a new ‘owner and operator’

    Some but not all of the assets of the football club were bought by an individual/consortium.

    This individual/consortium then set up a new club which had to apply for the first time for league membership.

    Only when that membership was granted ( finally, and with many objections) did it become entitled to membership  of the SFA.

    And it was much later before the new club, bearing its own brand new Companies House number was purchased by a ‘holding company’-which has its own Companies House number
    The holding company that is Rangers International Football Club plc is the parent company NOT of the Rangers FC of 1872/99, but of  SevcoScotland Ltd of 2012, renamed as The Rangers Football Club Ltd.

    And I shall add that the deceitful use of ‘Rangers FC’ to imply that two quite different entities are one and the same has been and remains  a hallmark of the deceitful and dishonest approach brought to the business of dealing with the most dreadful episode of sustained football cheating that Scotland has ever seen .

    I will assert that as long as that deceit lies at the heart of Scottish Football governance, Scottish Football will deserve to be regarded as no more than a shady , shabby and unsavoury business to be involved in.

    View Comment
  13. jimbo

    jimbo


    Me yesterday:
    “As for the likes of Campbell Ogilvie and Andrew Dickson et.al. why are they not treated as persona non grata?  Not yet exposed, officially, for any wrong doing but would any self respecting business or governing body want anything to do with them, even if it only for the corporate smell?”

    ‘Self respecting governing body’

    You today:
    “I will assert that as long as that deceit lies at the heart of Scottish Football governance, Scottish Football will deserve to be regarded as no more than a shady , shabby and unsavoury business to be involved in.”

    I think you have answered my question.

    They deserve each other.

    It will end in tears.

    View Comment
  14. John Clark


    Unconnectedly with my immediately previous post, I note* that Barclays bank has taken over as the sole banker for Murray Capital’s (yes, that SDM) day-to-day requirements following a Lloyds-owned Bank of Scotland relationship.

    SDM’s son, David DM, said ” The new banking arrangement with Barclays…….allows us more flexibility in our finances..’

    By geez, Barclays must be made of rubber if it can be more flexible than HBOS was!

    Should I move my account, I wonder?18
    * From today’s ‘Scotsman’, print edition, page 35.

    View Comment
  15. armchairsupporter


    JOHN CLARKAUGUST 22, 2017 at 21:20
    Put like that John, it’s really pretty straightforward! I think this captures it in the proverbial nutshell (no squirrels here). Why then do our media find it so hard to get their head around this? Why do the. BBC think that its audience is too thick to understand and therefore they must simplify the message to “there’ll always be a Rangers.” Why do folk like Jim Whyte on Talk Sport avoid the issue by saying stuff like, ‘I really don’t understand it.” Well it’s really pretty straightforward, Jim, as JC has just proven.

    View Comment
  16. jimbo

    jimbo


    18040517070404
    That is my report from tonight’s match.
    22

    View Comment
  17. Allyjambo

    Allyjambo


    While reading JC’s post I got to thinking, again, of the continuity myth (thanks John03, just what I needed) and came to realise that the Loch Ness Monster 20 (OK that’s a squirrel, but it’s the nearest we’ve got to a monster, so use your bloody imagination) had been mentioned, with some supporting evidence15 (maybe photos of a squirrel, by the loch, cunningly caught out of proportion) more often than the ‘club separate from the company’ thingy ever was prior to the club’s insolvency – by a ratio of, something like, 10 million to none, zero, zilch!

    Now, it seems to me, that the ‘continuation myth’ is not much different from the Loch Ness Monster one, in that it’s propagated by people just as desperate to believe in it, or to have other people believe in it, while knowing it doesn’t stand up to any intelligent examination by a mind not soaked in that brown liquid that’s distilled not far from the loch.

    As I’ve said before, I continually find it impossible to find a way of referencing whatever it is that they (the myth propagators) see the ‘thingy’ as – so I’m not going rack my brains, anymore, trying to find something to call it, I’m just going to call it a ‘Nessie’ from now on, because, while one mythical object might live in/under water, neither mythical entity actually holds any water, none at all, not one little drop!

    View Comment
  18. John Clark


     FinlochAugust 22, 2017 at 16:47
    ‘..You’ve already seen some of the stuff on the Supporters Direct survey……..Here is the press release from the marketing agency who are managing us.It comes complete with quotes from Regan and Doncaster
    They are cynically making the lead headline about value for money which makes us all look at our clubs first and the SFA and SFPL second.
    I’d say that is a bit on the outrageous side…’
    __________
    And you will not be alone, Finloch, in saying so.(And thanks for posting that material)

    Both cheeks of the arse of Scottish football Governance will, I think, get  skelped  when the Scottish Football Supporters Association’ , wholly independent , unsponsored by and not in any way under the control of the SFA/SPFL , with some 16000+ responses , produces its academically rigorous analysis of its survey.

    The ‘match-day’ experience can be improved to the nth degree, even,all things being equal,  to the equivalent of the wonderfully high standards of the cinema-going experience in,say, the ‘Dominion’ in Edinburgh ( there are other cinemas and cinema complexes!), but if you believe that ‘football competition’ is rigged, that the childhood cry that ‘cheats never win’ is unsoundly based in the context of Scottish Football, then the best ‘match-day’ experience turns to ashes in the mouth.

    All of us, bar none ,on this blog, have journeyed ,stood or sat cold, wet, paying over the odds for ‘pies’ and less-than-nectarian ( yes, that’s an ‘n’ ) beverages as part of our match-day experience.

    We did it it cheerfully enough, because we thought (in so far as we thought about it at all) that the games we watched were essentially true sporting events: generally, on the day, the players played ,luck, skill, and the occasional honest mistake,determined the outcome, more or less honestly- no drug-taking, no match-fixing, no selling of the jersey, no ‘nothing’ of the kind of troubles that bedevil other sports.

    And then we find that our Football authorities are as they are!

    And that our clubs are as they are when faced with having to stand up for sporting integrity!

    Who now is going to spend money even on the most luxurious ‘match-day experience’?

    Our Football Authorities are so perversely blind that they cannot, will not, see and understand the truth of what they have allowed to happen- the ( at this point in time)  triumph of Cheating over Integrity.

    Fiddling about with questions of how the clubs are to enhance the ‘match-day experience’ is, as you rightly say, Finloch, a cynical continuance of denial of the real problem:their own fundamental cheatery.

    View Comment
  19. jimbo

    jimbo


    HELP  !!!!    202020

    View Comment
  20. John Clark


    AllyjamboAugust 22, 2017 at 22:49
    ‘..While reading JC’s post I got to thinking, again, of the continuity myth (thanks John , just what I needed)’
    __________
    Your post  with the wee squirrell doubling as the Loch Ness Monster  made me smile!19
    But it also made me reflect on what a poster on this blog whose name now I can’t remember ( it was some years ago) said in the context of repetition being necessary because different, and new, people had to be informed.
    He reminded us of the Roman senator Cato whose political savvy was sharp enough to see where others couldn’t or wouldn’t see it, the danger, over years, that Carthage presented, and who ( it seems) ended every speech in the Senate with the words “Delenda est Carthago”- Carthage must be destroyed.
    He did so, to make sure that every ‘new boy’ Senator, and any Quisling or Chamberlain-like ‘appeasers’ were aware that there was at stake a matter fundamental to the continuing safety and welfare of the Roman republic’s existence.
    I think we can assume that the readership of this blog shifts and changes over time, and also that the blog is read by the occasional journalist and, perhaps, by lowly persons employed by the SFA and SPFL, maybe even occasionally by persons furth of Scotland.
    I am no Cato, of course, but I am conscious that new readers of the blog might be unaware of the basic facts; and that the propagandists of untruth might capitalise on that unawareness.
    Hence my fairly repetitious posts on the reasons why TRFC Ltd cannot possibly be the Rangers that my boyhood neighbours and fellow-street-footballers in the 1949s/1950s supported.
    Today what must be destroyed is not Carthage, but the deceit at the heart of Scottish Football.
    Sadly, I cannot put that into Latin!
    ( Would the ‘Cato’ poster care to remind me when he first posted the ‘Cato’ reference?)
     

    View Comment
  21. bigboab1916


    John ClarkAugust 22, 2017 at 23:51
    “Today what must be destroyed is not Carthage, but the deceit at the heart of Scottish Football.”
    Quae hodie est, non potest destrui Carthaginem sed dolo ab Scottish Football ad Cor.
    Hail Hail

    View Comment
  22. John Clark


    bigboab1916August 23, 2017 at 00:26
    ‘..Quae hodie est,…’
    _________
    Absolutely brilliant response! 
    I’m not scholar enough to be entirely sure that a Latinist might give you 10 out of 10 for grammatical accuracy, tamen
    Ave ave!

    View Comment
  23. Auldheid


    John Clark
    You might want to add to your reply that as revealed on here by Hirsute Pursute and extended by Easy Jambo there was no owner/operator construct in SPL rules until 2005. Before then there was only a club.
    Thus the QC is wrong to give the impression a construction of separation of  club from owner operator existed since 1872.
    As pointed out by H the earliest that construction could apply would be from 2005 but since the rule change was never introduced for that meaning to be applied then its application in that way is therefore questionable.
    You could also point out that UEFA don’t accept an abstract construct of operatimg or holding company in their rules in whilst recognising that a club can be operated by by a company.
    Such a construct must have a written agreement in place and if a company operating a club goes bust then to UEFA the club operating under such an arrangement loses its continuing membership of a national association.
    This is of course contained in the Traverso letter and is based on Art12 of UEFA FFP designed to protect the sporting integrity of UEFA competitions, something the SPFL seem to have overlooked.
    You might even ask Doncaster if UEFA were ever consulted by the SPFL or SFA in the process of crafting the 5 Way to ensure it did not conflict with UEFA regulations.
    I’ll e mail you the details.

    View Comment
  24. jean7brodie

    jean7brodie


    I seem to have the option of thumbs up and down again08 Have I missed something?

    View Comment
  25. Allyjambo

    Allyjambo


    FinlochAugust 22, 2017 at 16:47

    ‘Value for money considered, “the biggest threat to the future of the game in the next five years”Nearly 14,000 submissions to 2017 survey, in partnership with Scottish FA & SPFLResults presented to Scottish FA’s Professional Game Board, disseminated to all 42 pro clubsGoverning bodies have committed to listening and engaging with supportersTicket pricing, kick off times and the relationship fans have with their clubs considered to be the three most important factors in decision to attend a gameFans don’t believe Scottish football is committed to a high-quality fan experience (over 55% either disagree or strongly disagree)   Supporters Direct Scotland (SD Scotland) today reveals results of its 2017 Scottish Football Supporters Survey, in partnership with the Scottish FA and the SPFL.’
    ___________

    Thank you, Finloch, for posting that, it is not your fault that it is a load of keech! 

    The idea that ‘value for money’ is something that greatly bothers football supporters is risible, for if it did, then an awful lot more would have been lost to the game than have to date.

    The evidence is there for all to see, at the club most past SFA presidents (all? current?) now support and protect, for there can be little doubt that TRFC’s supporters have not been receiving ‘value for money’ since the new club first entered Scottish football. Year on year, for the past five, they’ve been promised great glory, have stumped up for that glory, and have never come close to achieving it. Yet they still believe the promises they are given, year on year, at season ticket time. Over forty thousand of them have for this season!

    There is much turns the Scottish football fan off the game, but it’s not value for money, and it is seldom discussed over that proverbial pint (or even the genuine pint). While some supporters might feel they are priced out of the game, they do not think in terms of ‘value for money’, but merely that they can’t afford the ticket. On the other hand, some might decide they are not going to watch that rubbish anymore, and so stop going, regardless of the cost (cheap or dear), for the pleasure of watching their team has gone. Again, it is not the case that they feel the game, itself, isn’t worth the price of admission, more that it isn’t worth their time or the effort to attend. 

    Football supporters complain, it’s a fact of life! There’ll even be Celtic supporters complaining about yesterday’s incredible game – if only every game matched the two games between those two clubs – and, if asked a leading question, like, ‘do you think Scottish football provides value for money?’ most will, probably, say ‘no’, but asked a follow up question, like, ‘ then why do you continue to go?’ they will probably just shrug their shoulders and give a multitude of different answers, one of which is very likely to be ‘because I love my club!’

    I honestly can’t remember if I completed the questionnaire, but I am certain that the questions would have been closed questions, like, ‘do you think Scottish football provides value for money?’ with a yes or no answer, rather than the much more revealing, open question, ‘what do you think is wrong with Scottish football?’ or, ‘what do you believe is the worst thing ever to have happened in our game?’ But, of course, these are not the type of questions any PR man would suggest including in any survey, for their results would be extremely difficult, impossible probably, to spin!

    View Comment
  26. Allyjambo

    Allyjambo


    jean7brodieAugust 23, 2017 at 10:00 

    Thanks for pointing that out, Jean04, I knew there was something different, but couldn’t put my finger, or thumb09, on it 10

    View Comment
  27. Allyjambo

    Allyjambo


    Oh, and on that ‘value for money’ idea, what is value in football terms? What is it that the football supporter values?

    Is it watching exciting, flowing football?

    Is it watching a winning team?

    Or is it knowing you are watching a sport honestly run, with no possibility of cheats prospering, or, at least, where the only cheating is visible to all, on the pitch?

    A thing to value, as I am sure Turnbull Hutton would have agreed, is sporting integrity, for without it, football has no value!

    For sure:

    Without sporting integrity, football has no value!

    View Comment
  28. Christyboy

    Christyboy


    Spot on AJ.

    “Lets go and watch a fiba match the day son”

    ” No thanks Da, Nae value for money ” !!!!!  05

    View Comment
  29. Allyjambo

    Allyjambo


    A couple of days ago I noticed, on twitter, some chatter about the ‘banners’ going up at Ibrox covering the glass in their ‘iconic’ stairwells. I wasn’t sure that the tweets were genuine, as what they said seemed a bit far-fetched, you know, the kind of thing a naughty mischief-making Celtic supporter might be a party to. But no, for that bastion of truth, the Daily Record, has now published the following:

    “Rangers* fans have hit out after the club supporters’ liaison officer revealed banners covering the iconic glass aren’t temporary.Fans had believed they were erected to cover up work being done on the glass. But when asked how long they would be in place the club’s SLO said: ‘No set time period on them. Sorry but they are not up due to repair works.’It led to fans taking to Twitter to slam the decision to cover up the glass, which is at the stairways leading up to the club deck.”

    For those who haven’t seen the ‘banners’, here is a photo to be gobsmacked by it’s beauty, a beauty that surely surpasses the, genuine, quality of the glasswork.

    Now, why might any business put up such a covering?

    There has been a suggestion on at least one bear site that it has been put up to prevent water leaking into the stairwell where it was proving dangerous, for obvious reasons. Rainwater is blamed, seeping in through the glasswork. With no other explanation coming forth from more official sources, this seems a viable explanation, and the cover does have a waterproof look about it. From the same source that broke the water ingress situation, it appears there’s circa £7m of repairs required to the stadium, whether that includes work to the roofs or not, is uncertain, but these are figures the bears, themselves, are now bandying about.

    As ever, we have no way of knowing the truth about this £7m figure, is it that big? is it bigger?

    But!

    They can’t even afford to repair the windaes…

    PS It would be interesting to hear, as more rain falls from the Govan skies, if the water causing concern for supporters’ safety re-appears, indicating a greater problem than leaky windaes!

    View Comment
  30. Allyjambo

    Allyjambo


    PMGB has a new blog up, also covering the…coverings!!! He also has some rather mind blowing figures for the Ibrox repairs!

    https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/

    View Comment
  31. stevo


    On the subject of the Ibrox banner, a quick search of the planning enforcement orders on the Glasgow City Council website shows a complaint about “attachment of banner to listed building” was submitted on August 4th and is under consideration.

    View Comment
  32. StevieBC

    StevieBC


    ALLYJAMBO
    AUGUST 23, 2017 at 14:15 
    A couple of days ago I noticed, on twitter, some chatter about the ‘banners’ going up at Ibrox covering the glass in their ‘iconic’ stairwells…
    =============================

    Will these banners covering the windows not increase the Ibrox ‘leccy bill?
    I think we should be told!

    And I suppose the bears should start to really worry when they notice the red, white and blue Duct Tape wrapped all around the stadium roofs / rooves ?

    09

    View Comment
  33. Homunculus

    Homunculus


    If these stories and figures are true it is massive. The club has no credit line or overdraft facilities and if repairs are required they will basically have to be paid for on a cash basis. Unless of course some firm is willing to do the work on a credit basis themselves. How likely is that.

    Why are the main stream media in Scotland not all over this, either covering the story or debunking it. Once again there is every prospect that the club is going to find a load of money (roughly equivalent to their entire turnover for the year ended June 2016) and they appear to be breaching the rules with regards their listed building. 

    If the roof story is true then we are talking potential health and safety issues as well.That has to be looked into.

    It is no wonder that people are paying less and less attention to them. They are not fit for purpose. 

    View Comment
  34. jimbo

    jimbo


    Allyjambo:

    “you know, the kind of thing a naughty mischief-making Celtic supporter might be a party to. ”
    07
    It wasn’t me!  After all my friendships with the Jambos on here I am hurt!

    Me, Naughty? I wish.

    View Comment
  35. upthehoops


    http://www.celticminded.com/threads/fans-meeting-with-neil-doncaster-and-rod-mckenzie-last-week.1419530/

    Lifted from a Celtic fans forum. A detailed account of a recent meeting between Celtic fans, Neil Doncaster, and Rod McKenzie
    —–
    In the meeting Neil Doncaster (ND) was more willing to engage than Rod McKenzie (RM), who we found to be obtrusive, pedantic and continually picking out where one word did not fit with his narrow, technical legal definitions. 
    He was most argumentative in those areas that would be up for debate and where it was felt they were not speaking from strong, justified position. At times McKenzie’s meandering answers seemed to take the question asked, towards his preferred answer.
    RM and ND insisted the legality of EBTs was irrelevant to the SPFL as prior to 2011 they had no specific rules on how clubs carried out their tax affairs. This excused the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission (LNS) from regarding the five cases of guilt accepted during FTT, or the accepted liability for the Wee Tax Case. The lawfulness of tax affairs had not been considered by the football authorities as the SPFL believed Rangers simply misunderstood their tax position, not that they were illegal.
    McKenzie said Rangers believed their tax should have been one figure; HMRC went to court to establish it should have been higher. He further added that many clubs have gone into administration without paying the full amount of due tax, so Rangers were not an exception. ND pointed out that Craig Whyte had been charged by the SFA for non-payment of taxes, yet no charge has ever been laid against RFC by the SFA for a much larger non payment of tax.
    The SPLs only interest was in player registration. LNS punished Rangers for this and for failure to pay tax on such a scale.
    The SPL set up an investigation from 1 July 1998; this was not the initial advertised date of the LNS Commission. McKenzie carried out the investigation but Rangers failed to provide documents asked for prior to November 2000, so he could only address the subsequent period to LNS. The administrators of Rangers said the earlier documents were held by Murray Group and that they were unable to acquire them. McKenzie prevaricated when asked what steps he took to acquire the documents.
    RM asserted that the WTC was dealt with in the LNS Commission as 3 players; Ronald De Boer, Flo and Moore were all addressed in the Commission. De Boer, Flo and Moore had both DOS and EBTs. The earliest was from 2000 during the operation of the Discounted Options Scheme. No distinction was drawn between the “Big” and “Wee” tax cases as ND & RM continually asserted that LNS was not about tax. It was all about the player registration. Those 5 EBT cases where guilt was admitted, were similarly not treated differently by LNS.
    Most of his (RM) information for the Commission was taken from the BBC documentary. Rangers only provided him with 29 almost identical documents, with names and other information redacted. He was given documents from another source but would not state what this was. It was only during the enquiry that Duff and Phelps confirmed the redacted documents. All initial enquiries were passed by them to MIH and their lawyers who would not forward the documents requested.
    RM pointed out that they were charged by LNS for non cooperation with the enquiry (Issue 4 addressed by LNS)). For this they were merely admonished. (For information the relevant part of the adjudication is below).
    “Failure to respond timeously to legitimate requests for the provision of information is a serious breach of the rules. If the football authorities are to perform their functions effectively, such requests by them must be met. In the present case, at the time that the initial request was made, and throughout the subsequent period, Oldco was in administration and the administrators were acting as its agents. The administrators had the responsibility of discharging Oldco’s obligations, including those to the football authorities. They did not do so, and thus caused Oldco to be in breach of the Rules. We have decided, however, without wishing to detract from the gravity of the breach, that no separate financial penalty should be imposed on Oldco in this regard. Instead, we shall impose an admonition.”
    They were asked if the SPFL would work against or block a Judicial Review. After a bit of conversation both said they wouldn’t be obstructive. When they were asked if they would be willing to have a preliminary meeting with counsel, at the same moment that Neil Doncaster said yes, McKenzie answered, “Depends on who it is”. On the subject of a Judicial Review, McKenzie was doubtful that it would get standing. Neil Doncaster said that would ultimately be a matter for the clubs to decide if the SPFL would contest the right of fans to have a review,
    McKenzie suggested a Judicial Review could only look at two items:
    1. The conclusion by the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission that Rangers did not play ineligible players.
    2. The level of penalty arrived at by the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission was insufficient.
    Point 1 goes to Sandy Bryson’s evidence. When it was stated that Sandy Bryson interpreted registration rules in a way that came as a surprise to most in Scottish Football, McKenzie commented – “It was an interpretation that came as a surprise to me too.”
    On more than one occasion an attempt was made to discuss LNS and the legality position but McKenzie adopted a defensive, argumentative position, saying that LNS did not and could not review the issue of non payment of tax, dismissing comments around the potential view of Nimmo Smith around the ultimate alternative opinion of the Supreme Court.
    McKenzie’s view was that LNS only looked into player registration and not tax. LNS decided that side contracts did not provide competitive advantage but were a breach of rules and therefore they imposed a £250,000 fine. (Nb they confirmed that the£250,000 LNS fine was ultimately deducted from money due to Newco. As well as this, costs were also deducted.)
    It was suggested in the meeting that one of the reasons RFC did not provide contracts was because they felt it COULD have had a bearing on whether these “loans” were classed as remuneration. Therefore using side letters helped to hide the payments from HMRC and allowing them to keep using the scheme, and potentially providing an advantage but McKenzie was adamant that the verdict of the Supreme Court or FTT had no bearing on LNS as the Commission was not looking at tax issues.
    They were also asked about the new club issue. RM said they were same club because ultimately they (the SPFL) wrote the rules. They were dismissive about even debating the issues “We’d never agree” and treated it as a debating point rather than a fundamental belief of many fans. When asked for a description that could be written down and would stand up in court, they talked about it being “a feel” an “emotional attachment”. When pointed out this “feeling” would not stand up in court, RM responded – “Anyway this is not really relevant to the discussion”
    ND repeated previous public assertions that he came from a “different football culture” where newcos were “normal” and “accepted”. RM gave a number of examples in Scottish football where tax liability was ditched e.g. Hearts, Dundee, Gretna. It was pointed out to RM that none of the other Scottish cases he cited, pointed to deliberate concealment of tax liability over a sustained period of time.
    ND cited the cases of Leeds, Bristol City etc. in England. It was put to him that despite the evidence that non payment of tax was on the increase both here and in England there was no explanation offered as to why this specific issue wasn’t in the SPL Rules prior to 2011(and before the time of Neil Doncaster).
    When asked when they were first made aware of the looming RFC admin RM responded,” the day before they filed for administration”. (February 2012). Both Neil Doncaster and Rod McKenzie denied specifically knowing any earlier than this beyond rumours in Scottish Football.
    They were specifically asked about the SPL board meeting of 31st October2011 and a reconvened board meeting in Mid/late November that year where the SPL/Fans TV deal being discussed. When it was suggested to Neil Doncaster that the exploration of an SPL TV deal was dropped due to “changed circumstances in Scottish football” he denied that this was because of meetings or contact with Rangers FC officials about their intention to enter administration. They continually denied any advance knowledge even when it was put to them that there are documents in the public domain which suggest the contrary.
    At one point ND asked, “Where are you going with this?”
    It was suggested to them that some in Scottish Football would want to lend a helping hand to RFC to prevent them from defaulting early in the Season (and ahead of the transfer window). An example was provided of Dunfermline who were one match away from being unable to meet their fixture obligations – (v Falkirk in 2013) and defaulting on their fixtures. Their case was treated very differently
    Neil Doncaster disputed this as a potential scenario, as an earlier Administration of RFC (less 3 months of PAYE/NI) would have meant HMRC not being the preferred creditor, able to block the CVA. It was commented on by those in the meeting, that he had an impressive grasp of these potential HMRC CVA blocking percentages from that period in late 2011 (prior to admin in 2012).
    When the prospect of SPFL board minutes being opened up to a transparent investigative enquiry were discussed, they expressed unhappiness at this given the nature of some of the sensitive (including commercial) discussions which take place. Where they to be asked for specific information they may provide it (potentially redacted) but there would be no willingness to provide general access to SPFL documents from that period. This again suggested the need to ask specific legal questions rather than provide full transparency. Those at the meeting were given the impression that the full transparency fans have asked for was in question even from the SPFL. There would potentially be no obligation of anyone to co-operate with an enquiry.
    A discussion also took place about the SFL. Both ND and RM asserted that the SFL’s record keeping was poor and would not provide much for an inquiry. When the issue of potential title stripping was discussed, it was revealed that the decision to recognise Newco’s claim to RFC’s titles, was taken by the SFL board including David Longmuir and Jim Ballantyne, when they decided to invite Newco into the SFL 3rd Division.
    When it was suggested to ND that Jim Ballantyne’s documented shareholding in Rangers RFC could have created a conflict of interest in this decision, ND agreed that this potentially could be looked at by an inquiry but that there would be no obligation by anyone including Jim Ballantyne to co-operate with the inquiry. He did not question our understanding that Ballantyne did have a shareholding in Rangers as documented by a Channel 4 investigation.
    https://www.channel4.com/news/by/al…al-conflicts-interest-heart-scottish-football
    Given their assertion that the SFL’s record keeping was poor, their view was that it was unlikely that a record or a minute of the decision to recognise Newco’s claim to Rangers historical titles, would be available however this issue could potentially be re-examined in the future by an enquiry. The SPFL bore no responsibility for this state of affairs of the organisation they merged with. Their view on the potential lack of co-operation by figures still active in Scottish football was noted.
    At the time of the meeting, there has been no response so far by the SFA to the SPFL call for an inquiry. Both ND and RM were of the view that the SFA needed time to consult the various stakeholders but it transpired that the SFA hasn’t been written to yet by the SPFL but that they have been sent a copy of the press release instead. ND agreed that a letter would be formally sent if no response received. They did not suggest a time frame for this.
    Some of those still active in Scottish football, who were directly involved in the administration of Rangers FC during the EBT years, were discussed, with a view to ascertaining the view on how suitable it was for them to be still intrinsically involved in the running of the game, including on SFA committees.
    They both seemed surprised that a Rangers official was on the Club Licensing Committee of the SFA in the year that Rangers were cleared to play in Europe despite their admitted tax liability in the Wee Tax Case. They were also unaware of the official’s current role at the SFA or even the workings of the SFA Committee he now serves on. RM was of the opinion that some officials were less important in the administration than others and made the point that it is the only the SFA who can rule on who is Fit and Proper. RM was also of the view that it is only Directors of a club/company (???) who can be charged with disrepute. They accepted that there were a number of directors of Newco this could potentially apply to.
    Both were also of the belief that David Murray would not be welcomed back into Scottish Football.
    The meeting concluded. It was initially requested for the purposes of accurate record keeping, not broadcast that a recording be made of the meeting. The SPFL representatives did not agree to this but stated that everything was “on the record” unless directed otherwise. No such direction was given.

    View Comment
  36. bigboab1916


    https://twitter.com/gibbygibbo1/status/900386795388628992
    Oh dear is this for real.

    View Comment
  37. neebs67

    neebs67


    John Clark, perhaps in your reply to Messrs Doncaster  / MacLennan you could ask when Rangers Football Club went into administration in 2012 who was docked the ten points, the club or the holding company? 

    View Comment
  38. Homunculus

    Homunculus


    The holding company was Waveower, I don’t think they suffered any sporting sanctions. Though to be fair they also didn’t go into administration. 

    View Comment
  39. Cluster One

    Cluster One


    ALLYJAMBOAUGUST 23, 2017 at 14:15
    it appears there’s circa £7m of repairs required to the stadium, whether that includes work to the roofs or not, is uncertain, but these are figures the bears, themselves, are now bandying about.
    As ever, we have no way of knowing the truth about this £7m figure, is it that big? is it bigger?
    But!
    They can’t even afford to repair the windaes…
    ————————
    £7 mill for repairs and to fix the windaes. The fans want safe standing first.
    What is the word i’m looking for?
    Ps. and if they are sitting mid table come christmas, a couple of mill spent to improve the squad.

    View Comment
  40. Auldheid


    A correction to my post of August 23, 2017 at 02:02 that said
    “Such a construct must have a written agreement in place and if a company operating a club goes bust then to UEFA the club operating under such an arrangement loses its continuing membership of a national association.”
    If a company with a written contract to operate a club for some reason went bust it would be the UEFA licence that would be withdrawn/ended  as such a company had been the applicant. It would not be transferable.
    If the club was still a going concern then it could apply for a licence in the next season either as a stand alone club or via  another operator if they contracted with one.
    If of course the club with the written contract found itself liquidated to pay debts then its membership of the national association would cease in UEFAS’s eyes.
    Since there is no evidence of a written contract between RFC and ?? up to 2012, then to UEFA their membership of the national association would have ended on entering liquidation, which is why the new club/company taking over was ineligible to play in Europe for three years.

    View Comment
  41. HirsutePursuit


    Just to add to Auldheid’s earlier post:
    LNS concluded that…

    It is the board of directors of Oldco as a company, as distinct from the football management or players of Rangers FC as a club, which appears to us to bear the responsibility for the breaches of the relevant rules. All the breaches which we have found were therefore clearly committed by Oldco. We see no room or need for separate findings of breaches by Rangers FC, which was not a separate legal entity and was then part (although clearly in football and financial terms the key part) of the undertaking of Oldco. Rangers FC is of course now owned and operated by Newco, which bears no responsibility for the matters with which we are concerned. For the reasons already given, we have decided against the imposition of a sporting sanction. In these circumstances the financial penalty lies only upon Oldco and does not affect Rangers FC as a football club under its new ownership.

    They could come to this outcome because they defined Rangers FC as:

    Rangers Football Club, Ibrox Stadium, 150 Edmiston Drive, Glasgow, G51 2XD

    And that:

    The Rangers Football Club Plc (now known as RFC 2012 Plc (in liquidation) and referred to in the decision as “Oldco”), the owner and operator of Rangers Football Club (“Rangers FC”)

    The rules of the SPL in 2012 stated:

    Club means a Football club, other than a Candidate Club, which is, for the time being, eligible to participate in the League and, except where the context otherwise requires, includes the owner and operator of such club;

    The issues under discussion were described thus:

    Issue 1: period from 23 November 2000 to 21 May 2002[56] The only Rule referred to in Issue 1 is SPL Rule D10.2.3, in effect prior to 23 May 2005. This provided:“The Contract of Service between the Player and the Club shall state the Player’s full financial entitlement from the Club, including signing-on fees, additional lump sum payments, remuneration, bonus payments, removal assistance and benefits in kind. In any dispute between the Player and the Club, the remuneration contained in the Contract of Service shall be deemed to be the Player’s complete entitlement. Any Club failing to detail a Player’s full financial entitlement in the Contract of Service shall be dealt with as the Board may decide.”
    Issue 2: period from 22 May 2002 to 22 May 2005[57] The Rules referred to in Issue 2 are SPL Rule D10.2.3, SPL Rule A7.1, SFA Article 12.3, SFA Procedures Rule 2.2.1 and SFA Procedures Rule 4. SPL Rule A7.1 and SPL Rule D10.2.3 are quoted above.
    [58] SFA Article 12.3, in effect from and including 22 May 2002 provides: “Furthermore, all payments, whether made by the club or otherwise, which are to be made to a player solely relating to his playing activities must be fully recorded within the relevant written agreement with the player prior to submission to the Scottish FA and/or the recognised football body of which his Club is in membership.”
    [59] SFA Procedures Rule 2.2.1, in effect from and including the season 2002/03, provides:“Unless lodged in accordance with Procedures Rule 2.13 a Non-Recreational Contract Player Registration Form will not be valid unless it is accompanied by the contract entered into between the club concerned and the player stating all the terms and conditions in conformity with the Procedures Rule 4.”
    [60] SFA Procedures Rule 4, in effect from and including the season 2002/03, provides:“All payments to be made to a player relating to his playing activities must be clearly recorded upon the relevant contract and/or agreement. No payments for his playing activities may be made to a player via a third party.”
    Issue 3: period from 23 May 2005 to 3 May 2011[61] The Rules referred to in Issue 3 are SPL Rule D9.3, SPL Rule D1.13, SPL Rule A7.1 SFA Article 12.3, SFA Procedures Rule 2.2.1 and SFA Procedures Rule 4. (Issue 3(c) also refers to SPL Rule D1.11, which we discuss below under a separate heading.) SPL Rule A7.1, SFA Article 12.3, SFA Procedures Rule 2.2.1 and SFA Procedures Rule 4 are quoted above.
    [62] SPL Rule D9.3, in effect from and including 23 May 2005, provides:“No Player may receive any payment of any description from or on behalf of a Club in respect of that Player’s participation in Association Football or in an activity connected with Association Football, other than in reimbursement of expenses actually incurred or to be actually incurred in playing or training for that Club, unless such payment is made in accordance with a Contract of Service between that Club and the Player concerned.”
    SPL Rule D1.13, in effect from and including 23 May 2005 provides:“A Club must, as a condition of Registration and for a Player to be eligible to Play in Official Matches, deliver the executed originals of all Contracts of Service and amendments and/or extensions to Contracts of Service and all other agreements providing for payment, other than for reimbursement of expenses actually incurred, between that Club and Player, to the Secretary [of the SPL], within fourteen days of such Contract of Service or other agreement being entered into, amended and/or, as the case may be, extended.”

    So, to bring this all together. The construct that separated Club (with a capital C) from its ‘owner & operator’ was used to find the operating company in breach and find that there was ‘…no room or need for separate findings of breaches by Rangers FC, which was not a separate legal entity and was then part (although clearly in football and financial terms the key part) of the undertaking of Oldco.’
    The problem with this interpretation is that issues 1 and 2 relate to periods before the rules and articles were amended to allow that construction.
    Prior to 23rd of May 2005, there was no ‘owner and operator’ to be in breach of the rules.
    The only determination LNS was entitled to make in relation to issues 1 and 2 was in relation to the club. It refused to do so on the grounds that the club’s ‘owner & operator’ bore responsibility for the rule breaches.
    LNS had no locus whatsoever  to consider Rangers FC as a separate entity from Rangers PLC prior to May 2005. It seriously misdirected itself in doing so.

    NB For the avoidance of doubt, I do believe the later construction is correct. I am simply pointing out that it did not exist until 2005.

    View Comment
  42. John Clark


    HirsutePursuitAugust 23, 2017 at 23:12
    ..’…….LNS had no locus whatsoever to consider Rangers FC as a separate entity from Rangers PLC prior to May 2005. It seriously misdirected itself in doing so.’
    _______________
    Yep, there was but one entity, the same entity that was born in 1872 and known as Rangers Football Club, and which was incorporated as a limited company in 1899, that became insolvent in 2012, lost its place as a recognised football club in any Scottish professional football league, and thereby lost its entitlement to membership of the SFA, and died the same kind of death as Third Lanark, and Gretna and….Well, there is only one kind of death. It’s called ‘death’!
    And Rangers Football Club of 1872 suffered that death -both in terms of actual legal law, and  in terms of commercial practice and the rules of Scottish Football.
    There can be absolutely no serious question about that fact.

    View Comment
  43. HirsutePursuit


    NB For the avoidance of doubt, I do NOT believe the later construction is correct. I am simply pointing out that it did not exist until 2005.
    DOH!

    View Comment
  44. John Clark


    HirsutePursuitAugust 23, 2017 at 23:46
    ‘…NB For the avoidance of doubt, I do NOT believe the later construction is correct. I am simply pointing out that it did not exist until 2005.’
    _________
    Never fear, I think we all saw the missing ‘not’.19

    View Comment
  45. Auldheid


    Hirsute Pursute
    Boy am I glad to see that clarification which is of course in line with your views on ND setting up a franchise. 19
    What I was going to ask but think I know the answer now is it safe to say that before 2005 there was only Rangers FC  as is the case after 2005 since nothing changed at Rangers, only the SPL rules for the reasons already discussed?

    View Comment
  46. HirsutePursuit


    JC
    The LNS commission is not free from criticism in how it was conducted, but we should always remember it was the terms of reference that set out its remit.

    It was within the terms of reference that the Club/company separation was defined.

    However, what is gobsmackingly surprising to me is that the various rule changes are all listed in the commissions report – but nothing is mentioned at all of the crucial 2005 amendment to the SPL articles that gave rise to the contention that Club and company could be treated as distinct entities.

    Rod McKenzie stated in court that no-one knew the SPL rules better than he. If this is true and he was involved in setting up the commission’s terms of reference, why did he not set out the difference between Club (post 2005) and club (pre 2005)?

    This difference was clearly not recognized by LNS. From the reasoning provided within the report, this confusion appears to by have resulted in a perverse penalty. That non-sporting penalty being applied to an entity which was actually a football club (lower case) – but which was dealt with as if it was simply the commercial ‘owner and operator’ of a Club.

    As grounds for Judicial Review (and there are many) this would rank as my No 1.

    View Comment
  47. HirsutePursuit


    Auldheid
    Under the current interpretation, association football clubs, including Rangers PLC, became the owners and operators of Franchises. 

    This is the effect of the Doncaster/McKenzie interpretation, but I do not believe it was the original intention.

    There is a reference in the current SPFL articles

    Nothing in these Articles shall relieve any Member of the Company from its obligations as a full member club of the Scottish FA to comply with the applicable articles of association of the Scottish FA for so long as such Member remains a member of the Scottish FA.

    So there a clear recognition that it is the owner and operator (i.e. Member of the Company) that is an association football club.

    The SPL articles were similarly worded – but had the same effect. 

    Of course this really only makes sense if, when a football club is a company, then there exists no division between ‘Club’ and its ‘owner and operator’ – since the club/Club simply owns and operates itself.

    The distinction can only ever apply if the football club is not incorporated and the club’s SPL share is held by a committee member or perhaps a shell company set up by the club’s committee members simply to hold that share.

    Only in that circumstance can the ‘owner and operator (defined as the holder of the SPL/SPFL share) be different from the football club/Club.

    View Comment
  48. HirsutePursuit


    According to the articles, a Club is the ‘undertaking of a football club’.

    ‘Undertaking’ should (according to the SPL/SPFL articles) be given the meaning ascribed to it in the Companies Act.

    A Club is therefore, depending on its form, the corporate body or unincorporated association that constitutes a football club that plays its football in the SPL/SPFL.

    In other words a Club is simply a club that is playing in the SPL/SPFL.

    Honestly, it really is that simple.

    View Comment
  49. Pat Byrne

    Pat Byrne


    The recent meeting between the Celtic Fans,  Doncaster and McKenzie raises so many issues that if  The SMSM continue to ignore them they themselves become part of the cover up and will ultimately pay the price, their silence ensures their complicity and sheer lack of moral integrity  that only they will have to learn to live with their cowardice. 
    When does it get to the stage when the accumulation of evidence makes it unsustainable to continue the lie? to me this point was passed a long time ago and their collective erses are having real issues controlling their collective sphincters.

    JJ pointed out a few highlights from the meeting which we should all be grateful for (the more of us that bring light on this conspiracy the better) I feel a tad peeved though that he failed to point out after the first comment left by fisiana that the main body of his blog 
    https://johnjamessite.com/2017/08/24/the-diamond-dog-of-the-sfl/
    was the work of others, I know he has broken down the constituent parts of thee statement into a well structured diagnosis and gave credit at the start of the piece to celticicminded.com, he should though inform those who are under the impression that the piece is on the whole is the work of others, credit where credit is due and all that.

    The way things are panning out, I am growing increasingly confident that this is now turning into an unstoppable freight train slowly gathering momentum and the balsa wood buffers will be mere splinters on the tracks, sadly it will be the supporters who will ultimately have to pick up the debris of what is left of our game, will it be worth it? your damn right it will.

    View Comment
  50. naegreetin


    Re : PB @ 08.44 24 Aug 2017
    I agree the SMSM is a big part of the “cover up” but if Mr Ballantyne is an example of the standard of management running smaller clubs in Scottish football it would not be surprising to understand the silence (Celtic apart) of all other clubs on the matter of Rangers FC – no wonder Turnbull Hutton came out with his exclaimation of “corruption” in the Scottish game when he was dealing with the likes of Ballantyne & Longmuir in the SFL .

    Incidentally , its maybe just as well JJ is offshore as I’m sure Mr Ballantyne will have been in contact with his lawyers regarding JJ’s comments re his (Ballantyne’s) social life !

    View Comment
  51. Allyjambo

    Allyjambo


    upthehoopsAugust 23, 2017 at 19:25

    Thanks for posting that, UTH, what an excellent job, on behalf of Scottish football, these guys from the CSA have done. We all owe them a huge debt of gratitude.

    From the meeting:
    “When the issue of potential title stripping was discussed, it was revealed that the decision to recognise Newco’s claim to RFC’s titles, was taken by the SFL board including David Longmuir and Jim Ballantyne, when they decided to invite Newco into the SFL 3rd Division.”

    So, if TRFC/Sevco were/are one and the same, just how on earth was it necessary for Longmuir and Ballantyne, on behalf of the SFL, to ‘recognise Newco’s claim to RFC’s titles’? That is tantamount to saying, ‘TRFC are not RFC, but we will allow them to claim the latter’s titles’. If that which is inexplicable (a ‘Nessie’) actually exists, then there would never be the need to make a decision on this claim of titles. There wouldn’t even be a ‘claim’ in the first place.

    Then there’s this:
    ‘They were also asked about the new club issue. RM said they were same club because ultimately they (the SPFL) wrote the rules.’ – No they are not (the same club because they (the SPFL) wrote the rules), the SPFL can write what the hell they like, it doesn’t change facts. The SPFL rules only apply to the SPFL, not to the reality of insolvency law and natural justice. As I’ve said before, anyway, at the vital moment, when CPR was being applied to the liquidating club, it was the SFL rules that counted, and they don’t even mention ‘liquidation’!

    ‘…They were dismissive about even debating the issues “We’d never agree” and treated it as a debating point rather than a fundamental belief of many fans. When asked for a description that could be written down and would stand up in court, they talked about it being “a feel” an “emotional attachment”. When pointed out this “feeling” would not stand up in court, RM responded – “Anyway this is not really relevant to the discussion” – What can we say about this? ‘a feel’ and an ’emotion’, then the solicitor runs away from the matter when pressed. Their inability to defend the ‘same club’ notion is proof enough in itself!

    Small points, really, but good examples of how stupid it is for an organisation to back a myth in the expectation that their word will be accepted as final. They will continually trip themselves up when trying to defend their position.

    Another point, and I’ve noted this before; no one, no defender of ‘Rangers’, ever says ‘Rangers didn’t cheat’, or, ‘there is no case to answer’, it’s never even stated as a personal opinion. In fact, the more Doncaster et al are pressed, the more it becomes clear that they know a proper inquiry, with no documents held back, and no refusals to give testimony, would prove, beyond doubt, that Rangers cheated, and that titles should be stripped. While McKenzie hides behind legalese, Doncaster, at times, seems almost regretful (my impression from some of his words) that things have worked out the way they have.

    One thing’s for certain, if ever an extensive, all powerful inquiry or review was set up, searching only for the truth, the whole farce that we’ve witnessed would be ridiculed, and Rangers would be found guilty of the most heinous of sporting crimes! 

    View Comment
  52. Auldheid


    Hirsute Pursuit
    It indeed really is that simple and a return to that simplicity is required. 
    On that note of simplicity:
    are McKenzie/Doncaster saying that had it been dicovered in 2011 that RFC had been paying players cash under the table in brown envelopes for 10 years, that the SFA/SPL/SPFL would be powerless to act because there is no rule to sanction such a practice?
    I was always under the impression that registration rules were part of a deterrent to such practices in the sense that if a club did pay players extra under the counter and it was discovered, that club would face sporting sanctions for playing a player getting secret payments.
    I thought the reasoning for registration rules provided to LNS (from memory) was weak on this aspect and the main point of the rules in terms of declaring all payments was not given enough emphasis.
    The idea that a club cannot be sanctioned because the rules did not specifically mention using tax schemes in an unlawful manner to pay a player secretly more than was registered,  is typical of the Pharisee thinking that manifests itself any time an accusation of wrong is made.
    In short if there is not a rule specifically saying it’s wrong then it’s not wrong.
    Risible but that is the mindset at play.

    View Comment
  53. Tincks

    Tincks


    Haven’t commented since the outcome of the Supreme Court appeal.  Two reasons really.

    Firstly, everything that needs saying about (what should be) the logical outcome of the decision, a review of LNS, title stripping, clear out of the complicit amongst the administrators and about the craven cowardice of the MSM is put far more eloquently than I can by stalwarts such as Auldheid, JC, BP, UTH the Jambos, BRTH and others. 

    Secondly, I am stunned, just stunned by the attitude of the MSM.  The attitude of the “the titles were on the pitch,” and “it’s time to move on” brigade fills me with rage and despair.  Do these people have no moral compass?   We are talking about industrial scale cheating for over a decade with the authorities complicit by turning a blind eye (that’s the generous interpretation of their action/inaction.)

    For sport to be truly sport it has to be played on a level field with the rules applied equally to all.  It’s not just that some in the MSM won’t acknowledge the rule breaking its that some seem to carry a knowing smirk on their faces. 

    Ready to chip a few quid into the judicial review pot as and when needed.  

    View Comment
  54. Seanthesheep


    Anyone any idea what this is all about? Seems to be portrayed in a positive way…
    http://www.scotzine.com/2017/08/massive-rangers-story/

    View Comment
  55. Homunculus

    Homunculus


    If you are looking for an “oh ffs” moment look no further than this item in the Evening Times. Never mind that it is little more than an advert for a book, consider how likely the actual scenario.

    This is what the Scottish press has become.

    http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/15493284.Glasgow_Chinese_restaurant_SNUBBED_Prince_Charles_so_they_could_feed_Rangers_team_instead/

    View Comment
  56. Allyjambo

    Allyjambo


    SeanthesheepAugust 24, 2017 at 11:44

    It’s a spoof that appeared on twitter yesterday. Quite a clever one and a fairly regular feature where someone mocks up a DR back page. Great humour!

    View Comment
  57. Allyjambo

    Allyjambo


    HomunculusAugust 24, 2017 at 11:59

    That must surely equate to another ‘Rangers World Record’!

    Might not actually go down well with some of the bears to suggest that their ‘future King’ was snubbed by a Chinese restaurant! Surely a true Rangers Loyal would have given up his seat for his monarch in waiting10

    Drum roll…

    God feed our gracious (future) King…

    View Comment
  58. theoldcourse


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41038340
    Hmm, seems the wee Rovers did not use the Bryson defence in this case. if they had then they would probably still be in the competition.

    In all seriousness though, the whole thing stinks to high heaven. One rule for some and a different rule for those who don’t pass the sniff test.

    View Comment
  59. Finloch


    THEOLDCOURSEAUGUST 24, 2017 at 12:42 
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41038340Hmm, seems the wee Rovers did not use the Bryson defence in this case. if they had then they would probably still be in the competition.
    In all seriousness though, the whole thing stinks to high heaven. One rule for some and a different rule for those who don’t pass the sniff test.

    —————————————————————————————————-
    The outcome i.e Albion Rovers getting thrown out was known last week when Edinburgh Council were involved in pre discussions for the game on the 2nd of September at Spartans home ground.
    Why it took till today to announce it is a question worth asking.

    View Comment
  60. Homunculus

    Homunculus


    ALLYJAMBO
    AUGUST 24, 2017 at 12:37
    =================================

    I think the best bit is the notion of the future King being at an event in Glasgow, decides that he is a bit peckish and asks one of his entourage to nip into a restaurant to see if they have any tables free. No room at the inn unfortunately, the Rangers team are having a meal. 

    I’m sure his bodyguards thought that was a wizard idea. 

    I wonder if they just nipped in and got him a fish supper once they go knocked back from the restaurant. 

    View Comment
  61. Christyboy

    Christyboy


    HOMUNCULUSAUGUST 24, 2017 at 11:59

         I was in that night, I near sh1t masel when who walks in but 007 Pierce Brosnan enquiring about a table. I was thinking whits he doing in the Moonbeams Palace but now it’s all fitten the gether.!!!!!! “The names Gullible, Jimmy Gullible”. 06

    View Comment
  62. bigboab1916


    Albion Rovers should appeal this and supporters clubs should crowdfund their appeal and bring out the debate on registration. Albion were cheated when Moshni scored after bundling the Albion keeper into the net and now this, two cups ties they have been unfairly dealt with. I am in favour of integrity so where is it in this case, if we are to go on same rules for all.
    The SFA are now showing their colours.Time to turn off and Boycott Scotland games fuck them.

    View Comment
  63. Cluster One

    Cluster One


    ALLYJAMBOAUGUST 24, 2017 at 11:15 20 2  Rate This
    From the meeting:“When the issue of potential title stripping was discussed, it was revealed that the decision to recognise Newco’s claim to RFC’s titles, was taken by the SFL board including David Longmuir and Jim Ballantyne, when they decided to invite Newco into the SFL 3rd Division.”
    ————–
    In this disscuion was it then asked if the SFL board including David Longmuir and Jim Ballantyne,if they recognise that a new club can claim an old club’s titles why then was the issue of potential title stripping not disscused further? these titles that have been passed on to a new club were still titles that were tainted and won by cheating. some of RFC’s titles were won by cheating just because they were passed on to a new club does not cancel out the fact that some titles are tainted. If newco can lay claim to rfc’s titles they can also lay claim to the cheated titles also.Even if  the SFL board recognise  Newco’s claim to RFC’s titles, they then must recognise some of these titles were won by cheating. You just can’t pass on titles and give them a clean bill of health before you hand them over.
    Anyway the SFL board recognise Newco’s claim to RFC’s titles,Why am i even typing piss like that.
    excuse the language

    View Comment
  64. upthehoops


    CLUSTER ONEAUGUST 24, 2017 at 18:56

    You just can’t pass on titles and give them a clean bill of health before you hand them over.

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

    Longmuir and Ballantyne are Rangers fans – that is no secret. As we have seen these past few years Rangers fans are more than happy to recognise titles no matter how they were won.  Longmuir and Ballantyne were in poll position to gerrymander a situation which suited them as Rangers fans.  However, that does not explain people like Doncaster and Regan, who are not traditional Rangers fans, being so desperate to back the gerrymandering and avoid any sort of scrutiny whatsoever. 

    View Comment
  65. wottpi


    UPTHEHOOPSAUGUST 23, 2017 at 19:25

    Point 1 goes to Sandy Bryson’s evidence. When it was stated that Sandy Bryson interpreted registration rules in a way that came as a surprise to most in Scottish Football, McKenzie commented – “It was an interpretation that came as a surprise to me too.”

    But even when given the opportunity to challenge it he meekly accepted the construction – which of course is just a lot of bollocks. 

    [86] Evidence was given by Alexander Bryson, Head of Registrations at the SFA, whodescribed the registration process. During the course of his evidence he explained that, once aplayer had been registered with the SFA, he remained registered unless and until his registrationwas revoked. Accordingly, even if there had been a breach of the SFA registration procedures,such as a breach of SFA Article 12.3, the registration of a player was not treated as being invalidfrom the outset, and stood unless and until it was revoked.
    [87] Mr McKenzie explained to us that SPL Rule D1.13 had hitherto been understood to meanthat if, at the time of registration, a document was not lodged as required, the consequence wasthat a condition of registration was broken and the player automatically became ineligible to playin terms of SPL Rule D1.11. He accepted however that there was scope for a differentconstruction of the rule, to the effect that, as the lodging of the document in question was acondition of registration, the registration of the player would be liable to revocation, with theconsequence that the player would thereafter become ineligible to play. He accepted that noprovision of the Rules enabled the Board of the SPL retrospectively to terminate the registrationof the player. It became apparent from his submissions that Mr McKenzie was not pressing for afinding that Issue 3(c), together with the concluding words of Issue 3(b), had been proved.[88] In our opinion, this was a correct decision by Mr McKenzie. There is every reason whythe rules of the SFA and the SPL relating to registration should be construed and appliedconsistently with each other. Mr Bryson’s evidence about the position of the SFA in this regardwas clear. In our view, the Rules of the SPL, which admit of a construction consistent with thoseof the SFA, should be given that construction. All parties concerned – clubs, players andfootballing authorities – should be able to proceed on the faith of an official register. This meansthat a player’s registration should generally be treated as standing unless and until revoked.

    View Comment
  66. Cluster One

    Cluster One


    UPTHEHOOPSAUGUST 24, 2017 at 19:19
    From my understanding.
    The SFA are top dogs, The SPL was next in line, then the SFL. are we lead to believe that the SFL was left with the power to act on recognising Newco’s claim to RFC’s titles,And for the SFL the less powerful of the 3 to have the authority to do so, is that what they are saying?

    View Comment
  67. Jingso.Jimsie

    Jingso.Jimsie


    Re the Harry Brady/CSA article:

    In almost any other country in the world, a journalist (or several of them) would have been on that faster than they’d have been on a sausage roll at a presser…

    …but they aren’t 181818 

    View Comment
  68. Cluster One

    Cluster One


    UPTHEHOOPSAUGUST 24, 2017 at 19:19
    Rangers fans are more than happy to recognise titles no matter how they were won.  
    ———————
    Only a deluded person would recognise titles no matter how they were won.If they were not won fair and square they were not won.Any sane person would or should wish to know the titles they hold so dear if their club cheated to achieve them or not

    View Comment
  69. Smugas


    On the newco thing I think it again comes down to that accession vote.  (Question 1 of 3).  Were the clubs being asked to recognise A club (lower case) as Rangers or were they being asked to recognise THE Club (upper case) as Rangers.  I’m guessing a straw poll of 31 chairmen wouldn’t be conclusive as it depends how you ask the question.  

    Question 1.  Would you mind recognising this Club as Rangers (the walks like a duck arguement)?

    Question 2.  Does anyone foresee any problems if we permit Clubs to isolate themselves from their clubs, specifically from their debts, but on the basic, unquantified, unsourced proviso that debt/money/investment are not intrinsically linked to success that said success should therefore magically be allowed to detach itself from the club for the sole purpose of staying with the, erm, Club.  

    What was was that about simplicity?

    btw just on the Albion Rovers thing.  Was it not the case there that the young lad in question wasn’t registered at all as opposed to imperfectly?  

    View Comment
  70. Allyjambo

    Allyjambo


    wottpiAugust 24, 2017 at 19:31

    I’ve always wanted the question to be asked, even rhetorically by the media, as it seems so obvious: ‘why did the ‘prosecution’ (the SPL) accept Bryson’s ‘evidence’ without question?’

    What could possibly make the evidence of a man who had just admitted his office did nothing to correct it’s errors once discovered, reliable? Why was the question, ‘can you give us documented examples of previous cases where newly discovered mis-registrations were treated in this manner’, not asked by the ‘prosecution’? What could possibly be the justification for accepting the evidence of the head of a department that he’d just told the tribunal was quite lax over registrations, without demanding proof of what he said? 

    The lack of such questions just shows how much of a sham the LNS tribunal was! 

    View Comment
  71. Allyjambo

    Allyjambo


    SmugasAugust 24, 2017 at 19:54

    btw just on the Albion Rovers thing.  Was it not the case there that the young lad in question wasn’t registered at all as opposed to imperfectly?  
    ___________________

    Was it not also the case that Rovers ‘gained no sporting advantage’, as he didn’t actually play (as an unused sub)? Perhaps it’s just the case, though, that ‘no sporting advantage’ only counts when the ‘error’ covers a number of players, over a great many years, and many titles are won09

    View Comment
  72. jimbo

    jimbo


    I miss that poster who used to sign off, cmon the Killie or something like that

    View Comment
  73. jimbo

    jimbo


    Just watch this, the lovely girl (Pink) is obviously a Jambo – look at the hair!-  The handsome guy a Tim.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_sDwUFQkt4

    09101814022022

    View Comment
  74. Cluster One

    Cluster One


    Publicly, the SFL will be required to do their dirty work in co-opting a new member, a new club.
    http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/rangers/carve-up-would-see-spl-clubs-say-no-to-newco-rangers-but-soften-the-blow-for-all-concerned-1-2373102
    ——————-
    The First Division compromises over a new Rangers would suit the ends of most clubs. We seem to be moving away from the principle at stake being that Green’s Rangers should be treated as would any smaller top-flight club that reformed post-liquidation, such lessers guaranteed to be sent to the Third Division to start again. If SPL members skirt around that then they can put the newco Rangers in the dock over the oldco’s malfeasance. Both in terms of the non-disclosure of payments to players charge that could see trophies won by Rangers between 2001 and 2011 rescinded
    ————-
    I don’t know how Scottish football would benefit if Rangers were put in the Third Division and there was a risk of losing the club’s massive support. We will need to see what is being offered to SFL clubs in return for changing the rulebook, but we must be careful not to sell our souls for an extra £50,000, or whatever.
    ————-
    They changed the rule book alright or made a new one that recognised Newco’s claim to RFC’s titles,

    View Comment
  75. Massive support from Clumpany Towers, which I know will be echoed everywhere. https://t.co/DYGVxqksu1

    "The words Jackson chose to write today could be potentially damaging to a very small charity like ours"

    https://t.co/9EAQs8CBNt

    50 Years Ago Today: Jinky sees red as poor run continues 23rd September 1967: Celtic v St Johnstone – League https://t.co/IUAcIl73XI

    In hide and seek terms, they have some way to go to beat your lack of comment on BTC outcome & whether there should be an independent review https://t.co/s5SPou4MFD

    Please share folks, especially with those who still don't get it.

    https://t.co/yLFe1ncPfQ

    Load More...

Comments are closed.

SSL Certificates