BOGS DOLLOXJUNE 19, 2017 at 00:11 This is something that shows – The Scottish Football Monitor

BOGS DOLLOXJUNE 19, 2017 at 00:11 This is something that shows …

Comment on Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns by Allyjambo.

BOGS DOLLOXJUNE 19, 2017 at 00:11

This is something that shows me that, at the very least, Regan has something to fear from either the Murray or the Whyte administrations, something he feels will be revealed by one, or both, administrations should he speak out over this undoubted peice of football ‘fraud’. For why wouldn’t he, at the very least, make a statement to the effect that the Rangers board, at both reporting dates, lied to the SFA to obtain a European licence? Why isn’t he trying to distance himself, and the SFA, from this blatant, deliberate, deception?

It is as plain as the nose on his face that he was either in cahoots with them, or they made a ‘fraudulent’ application for the licence, and it has to be both administrations who made the ‘fraudulent’ claims, with Whyte innocent of the original lie at 31 March!

If Regan has only just realised, as a result of the evidence given in the Whyte case, that he (the SFA) was undoubtedly duped, then any honest and decent man would be spitting bullets, determined that the blame should be publicly placed at the door of the perpetrators of that deception, regardless of whether or not it’s too late to exact retribution on those perpetrators.

Funny how he’s so quick to condemn Whyte, and Whyte alone, on other matters!

Just a wee thought on why there is this silence over this major crime against Scottish football: could Regan be afraid of the impact it might have on the big lie?

Allyjambo Also Commented

Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
John ClarkJuly 20, 2017 at 18:23

Another very welcome update from you, John, keeping us up to speed on what could, and should, be done by the media – that’s the paid for media, though one does wonder why..

It’s amazing the amount of water that’s gone under thon bridge since D&P first entered the annals of Scottish football, and here’s another round of investigations still taking place. With D&P involved, I am left wondering if there’s more to come on the sale to Sevco, or if BDO are solely concerned with how D&P conducted other matters and looking to sue them to recover some monies, or whatever.

Anyway John, you’ve now added Parliamentary Correspondent to Court Reporter on your burgeoning CV. Well done, and thank you.


Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
A tweet from Strip the Titles, linked to the above survey/the SFSA. Apparently the SFSA had an audience at Holyrood today, this tweet suggests it was fruitful.

‘Very positive day at Holyrood.We raised your concerns publicly.
Thanks to @scottishfsa for the invite.
More to follow’

Note to Auldheid, I’m now a bit more enthusiastic about the SFSA, particularly if they continue with the positive action I am seeing today 04


Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
The survey that Portbhoy mentioned earlier is included within the text of the Press Release but is quite difficult to spot at first. Well worth the effort to find it though, about half-way down but not in the usual blue of a link. I’ve included the link to the article here:

SFSA Benchmark 2017 Survey Results Announced!

and the link direct to the survey here:

https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/sfsa-benchmark-2017

The good news is, it lets you register your displeasure11, quite strongly, with those organisations we at SFM are all very displeased with, which is really quite pleasing 04

I feel better already19


Recent Comments by Allyjambo

To Comply or not to Comply ?
upthehoopsJuly 19, 2018 at 20:25

Is all of the above really so far fetched?
_____________________

Sadly, it’s all too likely.


To Comply or not to Comply ?
macfurglyJuly 19, 2018 at 19:18 
StevieBCJuly 19, 2018 at 19:11———Precisely. Iirc, according to Bryson, if the misregistration is not known at the time the player plays, then he is imperfectly registered but eligible to play, because at the time no-one knew he wasn’t.With one bound Hearts are free.
________________

Not quite, MacF. Bryson didn’t say ‘not known’; I think, from memory, it was ‘not discovered’, as some of the disqualification cases were, I believe, known by the SFA registration department, but hadn’t been communicated to the clubs prior to the match involved taking place. Bryson invented a distinction between an error being discovered (and therefor known to the SFA) before the game in question, and rule breaking not discovered for some considerable time after the games were over.


To Comply or not to Comply ?
All I can ask when Hearts’ case is heard, is that they are dealt with within the rules of the SPFL, and if the rules say they lose the points, then so be it. I would imagine, though, that the rules have been tinkered with in the past half dozen years or so, and that a fine, in line with the two examples given in EJ’s post, will be the outcome. To do otherwise releases worms that the SPFL, and the SFA, would rather stay in the can, even if Hearts accept that fate without complaint.

In all honesty, Hearts should lose the points, not as a punishment (for it’s clearly a genuine mistake), but as a deterrent to any club that might see value in playing an ineligible player to give a better chance of progress in the competition. I can see the possibility that a dishonourable club might very well deliberately play ineligible players, just because they know they can get away with it.


To Comply or not to Comply ?
Just don’t get it.

There has to be evidence of some wrongdoing by Rangers, or the JDPT would have come out and said otherwise. It must be quite serious, too, for again, if it was a mere technicality over dates etc, and consequently no big deal, they’d just censure ‘the club’ and got on with it. Control would be maintained by the people with most to lose.

Instead it may well be ‘sent upstairs’ to the CAS where it will be out of the control of ‘Friends of Rangers’. Unless there’s some ruse at play to create a situation where it is out of the SFA’s hands, but not of a nature to be dealt with by the CSA, meaning it just increases the lump in the Hampden carpet, I can’t see the benefit to either the SFA, Rangers, or TRFC to have it heard by what one might hope is a neutral, and very just, court.

As I said previously, the call to send it to the CAS by TRFC/King could well just be grandstanding, a sort of ‘well sue me’ moment, but could it be that the SFA are very much implicated (as we all suspect) and King is hoping to pressure them into dropping it like a hot potato as his last stand?

The only other scenario that makes sense to me is that TRFC have been presented with the evidence, and RFC are bang to rights leaving no option but to hand out a hefty fine, which, if the SFA say must be met by TRFC (to maintain the lie) will be too much for TRFC to bear. TRFC are not prepared/able to pay such a fine, but don’t want an end to the big lie (which would get them off the hook with the fine, but create another problem) so hope that they can avoid the ‘same club’ issue at the CAS, who might rule that the terms of the 5 Way Agreement lets TRFC off the hook.


To Comply or not to Comply ?
easyJamboJuly 19, 2018 at 16:12

I find it hard to fathom out how anyone on the RFC side (TRFC are, I’d imagine, on the RFC side) would want to get the CAS involved, other than as a way to kick the can further on down the road. Other than that, could it be the case that the SFA have told everyone involved, ‘we’ve found xyz and there’s no way we can avoid finding RFC guilty on all counts’ and the hope is that the CAS will look on it differently, or take the onus off the SFA to say TRFC are not the same club as RFC? At the same time, it clears TRFC from any penalty while leaving King to blame others for a ruling that bursts the same club bubble.

On the other hand, the TRFC/King call to take it to the CAS could just be grandstanding in a, ‘we’ve got nothing to hide’ kind of way.


SSL Certificates