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

    Accountability via Transparency.
    John Clark

    Cluster One.

    SFM did something on those lines in 2014 when hard copy was sent to 13 or so journalists of HMRC letter that challenged LNS Decision re honesty.

    That number has been added to since.


    Accountability via Transparency.

    Good idea. Get cracking.angry.

    Seriously that is a  separate  project on it's own but if someone wants to take it on they can contact me for names.

    One I can name is David Conn. Check previous blog Who is Conning Whom for the story.

    Accountability via Transparency.

    Thanks for that information, it is good to know.

    When the Archive was being established the term False Pretence was suggested which covered one of the  narratives emerging from the archive perfectly.

    In parallel that content was put separately to an experienced criminal lawyer who advised that in his opinion false pretence had indeed occurred. 

    It was confirmation the narrative was on the right track based on content. Only something unknown can change it.

    I hesitate to define what false pretence means accurately from memory but fraud covers it.

    However hearsay argument apart,  what may not be clear from the Archive behind  slow glass 😉  is that under a Declaration all clubs sign under UEFA FFP, the SFA were given the authority in 2011  to approach other authorities inc HMRC  by the applicant club to confirm anything relating to the application.

    Hence even if there were statutory excuses or reasons to prevent evidence being considered, there was nothing to stop the SFA following our lawyers advice from 2015  to check out what SFA had been provided with by HMRC.

    The same power to seek evidence was also part of the UEFA Club Financial Control Body armoury which is why Res12 asked they get involved but for some reason there was reluctance by Celtic to involve them. 

    There may be a multiplicity of reasons but again Archive evidence is that either UEFA were not unsighted or were lied to by SFA, but in either case didn't want an investigation.

    This is key to the long grass tactics since 2013 for as long as the source of the evidence was questionable, (the word provenance came up often ) , then the accusation of fraud the Archive suggests took place could never have been reached.

    The debate would always have been did an overdue payable exist under UEFA FFP rather than was the licence gained under false pretence and without UEFA deciding one way or another progress was trapped in that never ending debate.

    The SFA have had more than enough info from June 2018 to reach a decision but fear of the consequences and the 5 Way gave them a way out ie CAS.

    In simple terms Res12 tells us the folk running our game are treating supporters like mugs with SMSM only too happy to ignore the seriousness of that conclusion or  to argue that is not the case and justify why.

    Accountability via Transparency.
    For succinct reasoning why Resolution 12 matters (if you care about  dishonesty and about restoring some semblance of integrity for a so called sport many pay large sums to follow)  have a read at the 200% article.


    Accountability via Transparency.
    Bogs Dollox 4th April 2019 at 13:32






    Rate This



    easyJambo 4th April 2019 at 11:29

    It is galling that those who were complicit are unlikely to face any sanction, but it is now more important that the website serves as a permanent record of what actually went on and that all the participants are named and shamed.


    Great work by the Res12 team.

    I share most peoples frustration at the lack of impact the process has had on the SFA in terms of them reforming themselves. I accept they are unlikely to reform themselves and maybe it will take another Rangers insolvency event to create the crisis necessary for them to change their ways.

    That said I have read through the Res12 site and there are clear grounds to investigate a potential fraud. Would it be appropriate to make a complaint to Police Scotland or better still the Serious Fraud Office.

    It appears they can be easily reached here: https://www.sfo.gov.uk/


    There are a number of narratives arising from the Res12 Archive as set out on CQN  at

    https://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/scott-brown-defence-pyro-problems-the-joy-of-ryan-christie/comment-page-2/#comment-3358696 above

    but the one that will make it difficult for Celtic not to address, is that the known evidence points to them being defrauded by Rangers FC in March 2011 and the SFA participated in covering it up from September 2011 to date.

    That evidence re March 2011 was presented to a lawyer expert in criminal law, who concurred with the heading in the Archive that the licence was granted on false pretence

    That is what the SFA have been trying hard to keep under wraps from 19th September 2011 if folk visit the archive at https://www.res12.uk/ and check for themselves  and what follows from 2015 on the archive supports the view SFA did not want that to come out.

    Now if that expert advice is wrong because of some unknown, the SFA only have to explain on what grounds, which is what Res12 would have delivered had it been passed.

    If however the advice is correct, shareholders have ever right to ask what Celtic intend to do about it.
    From the moment Res12 was adjourned in 2013 the issue was never going to go away, the police might be where it eventually lands as football law prevents justice..