Comment on We’re Gonny Need Another Baw. by Auldheid.




    This excellent article by Fanswithoutscraves  is well worth drawing attention to in terms of SFA Reform..



    My general comment is that the system of regulation in place was a tick box one that depended on trusting clubs would act honestly and in good faith.

    That trust was broken in 1999 by Sir David Murray and there is a cost to replacing the system  with a more rigorous one  which arguably, if it is ever done, would  make Scottish football another  creditor of Rangers FC if a figure were put on it.


    Auldheid Also Commented

    We’re Gonny Need Another Baw.
    Homunculus 12 .46

    The vicious circle. How to increase attendance to watch lesser quality players as result of reducing the wage bill that impacts on going for anything?

    Perhaps acting like Killie or Aberdeen or Hearts etc might provide a clue.

    Stop acting Billy Big Baws  and join the same league on the same sustainable basis as everyone else.

    The risk of TRFC''s "business model", where a tap is more than a jersey, is the danger of collateral damage to the other clubs in the league.

    At what point do they agree to domestic version of financial fair play that protects all clubs?

    They are derelict in their duty to themselves and each other. Hell mend them.

    We’re Gonny Need Another Baw.

    I would have to check the latest rules but there is a points deduction for entering administration. 

    The principle behind points deduction is that a club cannot benefit in sporting terms from paying money to players it should have paid to creditors, especially if all other clubs were paying creditors what is owed at expense of footballer quality.

    Of course we can never rule out a Brysonesque interpretation that says as long as the administration is unnoticed then until it is, the club going into administration  is eligible to keep the points until an administration event takes place.

    That is as absurd as the ruling on player eligibility so it could happen again if rules aren't clear. 



    We’re Gonny Need Another Baw.
    John Clark 13.18

    Only two possibilities exist:

    Either the licence of March 2011 to RFC  was correctly granted under ALL of UEFA FFP articles or it wasn't.

    Why it has taken over 5 years to establish which applies is for the SFA to answer and consequently in the absence of a decision we cannot rule out that the licence was correctly granted.

    However the time taken to address the issue suggests the last thing the SFA (and possibly Celtic) want is a decision that it wasn't correctly granted because the consequences put the SFA in the dock much more than the new club/ company (to use Traverso's justification for not applying sanctions to RFC in 2012) who took the place of RFC in Scottish football. 

    Why TRFC are asking the matter go to CAS (as we understand it) is a mystery. It has nothing to do with TRFC as a new football club/company  that replaced RFC, although some of the same individuals employed in 2011 by RFC are still there. 

    The narrative will show that the whole Compliance Officer regime under the Judicial Panel Protocol is worthless when it comes to providing justice and there has to be independent oversight of the SFA and SPFL that forces accountability to restore any semblance of trust in the SFA as a governing body responsible for policing and enforcing  the rules. 

    Accountability  is the last thing ALLclubs want as it will take away their comfort zone, hence the resistance and so the need for persistence. 


    Recent Comments by Auldheid

    Celtic’s Questions to Answer
    For an in depth expose of the "RFC were victims of HMRC" myth I recommend


    Lots of detail but informative and balanced as are the other articles by the same author on his web site.

    Parts One, Two and Three already up. Part Four on its way.

    Celtic’s Questions to Answer
    The Times article set loose this thought.

    "selling key players would have been one option open to the Ibrox management to meet the liability”

    The idea being that had the bill been smaller RFC could have settled the BTC making them more attractive to potential buyers.

    Well the core bill (£24m) was possibly manageable and had payment been made instead of player trading at £28.2m*  in August 2008 with the individual determinations of tax owed already on the desk at Ibrox from Feb to April 2008  then the blockage to sell would have been removed.

    Arguably it would have made Rangers a more attractive financial proposition with no debt and an affordable lower player wage bill to build a sustainable  future on.

    However the decision was taken by Sir David Murray  and Walter Smith  to try and trade their way out of trouble by guaranteeing access to the CL groups as title winners and the player trading money was spent instead  on players who won 3iar

    That dependency on CL money for survival started to end with the unforeseen bank crash in Oct 2008 when Lloyds took over from Halifax but finally  ended in Malmo and Maribor in 2011.

    * This angle with others  is covered by Phil Mac Giolla Bhain  at

    A thundering squirrel

    but it is just one part of a truthful narrative avoided by Scottish Main Stream Media because it exposes  the "victim" narrative for what it is – Fake News.

    The cause of Rangers downfall was SDM/WS who placed the insatiable appetite of their support ( who never gave a thought to where the money was coming from)  to be top dog in Scottish Football above the well being of not just Rangers FC, but as time is showing, of the well being  of the other Scottish football clubs.



    In Whose Interests
    It's all so obvious now looking back  so why is a sham being allowed to continue to stigmatise Scottish football?

    Whose interests is it really in to sustain  a myth at the expense of whatever future Scottish has?




    In Whose Interests
    Cluster One 4th November 2019 at 18:50 


    Auldheid 4th November 2019 at 16:56
    I hope when this is concluded the Res 12 guys get back every penny spent.



    It is a thought……

    In Whose Interests

    The Res12 Archive has been updated to cover Celtic’s response to the most recent Resolution to bring Res12 of 2013 AGM to a conclusion. If you are not a shareholder it explains what was proposed & why and what Celtic actually oppose. All at 25th October date.