We’re Gonny Need Another Baw.


Some of us are old enough to remember the days when we played football in the streets with lamp posts for goals. The “baw” in my day was a plastic “Hampden Frido” (with wee studs that left yer forehead looking like a golf ball when heading it – see picture) and a “Wembley Mettoy”.

Cue memories of MouldMasters and days of pain and glory

But I digress.

The plastic ball was prone to bursting and on a good day or evening a replacement was secured by the original version of crowd funding.; However, the Calton then was a poor neighbourhood and sometimes the “baw” depended on the generosity of a single provider.

This came with risks because generous folk can still be bad losers and if the provider’s team of rags, taigs and bluenoses (remember when that didn’t matter)  was getting  a drubbing or a high shot was deemed a goal but he protested because he was only 4 feet 6  tall and ,with no crossbar ,height is but a subjective perspective, hence argumentative, or perhaps the goal that created a 10 goal  gap occasionally saw the baw ,metaphorical if not physically, land on the slates, at which point the provider and now owner, out of his sense of entitlement as owner, grab the baw and threatened to storm off in the huff.

As long as the game was everything and in the Calton then EVERYTHING was fitbaw, the bawless plebs were only too willing to reduce the imaginary cross bar height or take their foot off the gas, hence the derogatory saying of those who capitulate too easily “they hivnae any baws”.

Memories! Wit are they like and what is the connection to modern day Scottish professional football?

I’m indebted to this article by The Battered Bunnet first posted on CQN on 30 June 2012 at  https://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/abject-failure-of-leadership/comment-page-2/#comment-1479329  since reproduced on other blogs including SFM but worth reproducing here:

“Senior Hampden source tells ch4news cannot see how RFC were allowed to play lastseason at all. Doesn’t believe they met finance criteria…”

Alex Thomson – Twitter

Alex Thomson’s tweets yesterday re ‘senior Hampden source’ casting doubt on Rangers’ eligibility to obtain a Club Licence last year were rather intriguing.

We have by now a clearer picture of the failure of governance at Rangers through the David Murray/ John McClelland/ Alastair Johnston/ Craig Whyte years, albeit we await further definitive details from the judgement of the Tax Tribunal. Essentially, over a period spanning 2 decades, the means that Rangers used to sustain its football operation utterly disregarded the requirements of both corporate governance and football regulation. While the scandal related solely to payments and procedures within Rangers, we could hope that it was contained internally.

However, the revelation that Rangers paid former manager Souness via EBT while he was manager at Blackburn Rovers confirmed for the first time that the scandal had become external. I understand that RangersTaxCase and Alex Thomson have further information on the extent of payments to Souness and also to Walter Smith, and look forward to the details being revealed, but it is now clear that the Rangers ‘toxin’ had leached out of the club by 2001.

The compelling question now is: How far did the toxin spread?

Was it contained within the ‘outer circle’ of former Rangers employees, however inexplicable such payments may appear? Or did it extend beyond that outer circle, and contaminate senior figures in the Game in Scotland. The contamination does not relate solely to payments from Rangers’offshore trust, but more subtly perhaps, the behaviour of individuals in positions of influence.

We know that Rangers’ Executive Chairman JohnMcClelland was an SPL Board member during the startling ramp up of EBT use from 2003 to 2005, and was himself a beneficiary of the scheme.

We know that Rangers’ Chief Executive Martin Bain was an SPL Board member 2008 to 2011, coinciding with the receipt by Rangers of the HMRC assessments on the EBT scheme, of which he was himself a beneficiary.

We know that current SFA President Campbell Ogilvie was simultaneously an SFA Director and Executive Director and Company Secretary of Rangers, and was a beneficiary of the scheme.

These parallel functions of course present a profound conflict of interest for each man, at once implementing a scam on the Game to disguise a fraud on the Revenue, while owing specific legal duties of care to the Game being scammed.

So far, so shabby.

Thomson’s tweets yesterday indicate a doubt on the part of a ‘senior Hampden source’ that Rangers were eligible to hold a Club Licence last season, thus disqualifying them from participating in European competition, and perhaps Scottish Football too. Is this doubt grounded in a retrospective review of the licence qualifying criteria given what has emerged recently? Or was there a ‘blind eye’ turned by the SFA’s Licensing Committee to information in the public domain at the time of the Licence application? In this respect the ‘Wee Tax Case’ represented a fundamental failure against at least one Licence criterion.

The proposals to the SFL clubs this week make it plain that should the SFA conclude the outstanding Disciplinary issues against Rangers with either suspension or expulsion of Rangers from the SFA(perhaps the only sanctions remaining available to the SFA following Lord Glennie’s Judicial Review) that the Game will face ‘financial meltdown’.

Concurrently, the SPL has adjudged Rangers to have a prima facie case to answer in respect of SPL rule breaches on player registration, the outcome of which will confirm that the club fielded ineligible players in upwards of 400 SPL matches. The only possible disciplinary outcome given such a sustained breach of SPL rules, corrupting the completion as it did from its inception in 1999 to 2011, is expulsion from theSPL.

As a consequence, the SFA, as the authority responsible for implementing FIFA’s Rules on the Registration of Players, will be required to act on these breaches of FIFA rules. Again, expulsion for what amounts to Championship fixing is inevitable.

Curiously, the SFL, this week asking its members to vote to admit the Sevco Rangers club into their top tier, has the same issue given that its League Cup competition featured dozens of ineligible Rangers players through the years, and further claims by Hugh Adam that its‘Premier Division’ competition during the 1990s was similarly bent through the use of ‘off the books’ payments to players by Rangers.

The scale of it all is breath-taking and were the rules of the Game to be applied, Rangers FC would be expelled from each Governing body in turn, before we even consider the extraordinary breaches of faith and duties by co-serving Directors.

But according to the SFL/SFA/SPL circular to clubs, “Rangers Terminated or Suspended’ will cause “Financial Meltdown”.

To avoid this meltdown, it is proposed by the Executives of the combined SFL/SFA/SPL that the rules of the Game are not applied to Rangers, and that the clubs effectively rewrite the rule book to permit what remains of the club to compete at the top of the SFL.

In effect, according to the Governing Bodies,the Rules of the Game CANNOT be applied to Rangers or the Game’s finances will‘meltdown’.

The corollary question this raises is: For how long have the Governing bodies been so unable to apply the Rules of the Game to Rangers? Is this a new epiphany, or a longer standing recognition?

When Rangers submitted their allegedly ineligible application for a Club Licence in 2011, did the SFA recognise that Rangers failing to participate in Europe would cause the club to fail, as it subsequently did? Were the Rules ignored to avoid ‘financial meltdown’ then?

How far did the toxin spread?

Did this recognition extend back to the period following the disintegration of Murray International, hitherto Rangers’ source of continuing funding? Was the season of ‘Honest Mistakes’ some absurd, dutiful reaction to the recognition that should Rangers fail, Scottish Football would melt down?

Was the ineligible status of so many of Rangers’ first team players noticed prior to the SPL’s Inquiry commencing on 5th March? Was it noticed in an Audit as part of the SFA’s Club Licensing process some years ago? Was it noticed by the recent SFA Chief Executive Gordon Smith, who as an Agent had represented players on Rangers’ books through his Directorship of Prostar Management and other Agencies?

Beyond the duplicity of Ogilvie, McClelland and Bain, were Rangers’ irregular practices known to others at the SFA and SPL,others who chose not to address the matter, thus further contaminated the Governing Bodies with the Rangers toxin?

It is heartening that the Liquidators of Rangers plc will be instructed to examine all of the circumstances surrounding the failure of Rangers as a corporate entity. Equally, perhaps the detail contained in the Tax Tribunal judgement will reveal further connections,hitherto unknown.

What is likely to remain hidden from view though, is the full extent to which key influencers at the Governing Bodies were aware of Rangers’ conduct and circumstances, and how this affected their behaviour and their decision making in applying the rules of the Game to that club.

What we can say with certainty now though is that the people holding office at the Governing Bodies are unable or unwilling to apply the Rules of the Game to Rangers, despite the breaches being fundamentally and profoundly corrupt. The SFA and SPL, despite having outstanding disciplinary cases against Rangers that will, in all other circumstances see the club expelled from the Game, are intent to delete the cases provided the SFL clubs accept the Sevco Rangers into the SFL’s top division.

The Rules of the Game cannot be applied to Rangers.

When the rules cannot be applied, the Game itself is broken, and we can say now with some certainty that the Rangers toxin has spread beyond the club, its former employees and Directors of the Governing Bodies, and contaminated the very Game itself. The Office Bearers of the SFA,whose FIFA mandate requires them to “protect and foster the Game” in Scotland,and “protect it from abuses”, have contrived to do the contrary, to the point where the Game is stricken.

It is for this reason that a thorough clear out of the Office Bearers in the Governing Bodies is now a prerequisite to the Game recovering from the poison inflicted upon it by Rangers. The dissolution of the Governing Bodies is perhaps appropriate.

Clear your desk Gentlemen, the bus to ignominy departs shortly.

The position that the SFA and then SPL found themselves in is perfectly clear from the foregoing. Desperately keen for commercial reasons to hold onto the “baw” they changed the rules, but never took ownership of the baw from the owner and so are still beholden to him.

Hence the blog title “We Are Going To Need Another Baw “ because the one currently in play is burst, stuffed with £14M worth of share vouchers.

What was done in 2012 was understandably commercially necessary, but the price to be paid was twofold:

  1. Not just to the integrity of our game then but the ongoing price now, where all energies are directed at continuing to pretend that the rules are followed without fear of favour.
  2. The idea that the Scottish game cannot survive without a “ Rangers”  is one that most folk would accept but the danger arising, which is unacceptable, is that because of it “Rangers” think they can do as they please as a result which requires rules to be reinforced. And seen to be reinforced.

They clearly aren’t under the SFA’s own rule enforcing process called the Judicial Panel Protocol  https://www.sfm.scot/jpp-perverting-justice/   not to mention Club Licensing processes that have so far manged to avoid the scrutiny that, had Resolution 12 been acted upon in 2013,  would have resulted in changes that would protect the game from all those who think it is still their baw.

The general perception of supporters is that lessons have not been learned from past behaviour.

Until there is evidence that they have, for example: the Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal investigating at snail’s pace the process followed in 2011 that allowed a UEFA licence to be granted to Rangers FC without question, coming to conclusion or providing reasons why it cannot by the spring, the perception will continue to be   “Its all about Rangers”  followed by what is the point?.

Is it not about time now that the fear that drove thinking in 2012 was faced and recognised by all clubs as unfounded and a new integrity filled baw was used?

What is there to fear now from restoring integrity to its rightful place, unless of course you were party to the thinking that kicked the integrity of our game to death in 2012 and are still in a position of influence?


  1. Fisiani & Nawlite:


    I'd suggest that 2 x 12 team leagues would be sufficient for the SPFL in Scotland. 33 league matches, with the top six teams of the previous season getting the additional home matches as a reward for achieving that position. One automatic promotion/relegation place & one play-off between eleventh in the top league & second in the second division. One automatic relegation place in the second division.


    A proper pyramid system beneath, where the top 'Junior' teams, split North/South or East/West, play in two qualifying leagues, the winners of each to take part in a play-off to access the second division.


    I'd also like to see a commitment to a fixed number of home-developed players in each match-day squad, or a commitment to number of 'residence-qualified' players. There are (IMO) too many average-at-best non-Scots playing in Scotland.


    It's all pie-in-the sky, though. Too radical for Doncaster & his committee-members.

    View Comment

  2. Shug on the 10th @18.56


    many thanks for the reply. I am not having a go at you but how can he book a player then say he didn't have a 100% view of the incident. Also, the challenge happened right under the nose of the linesman who would have had a clear, uninterrupted view. Surely he would have been able to advise the ref on what card, if any, was required? Seems to me they are making it up as they go.

    View Comment

  3. Fisiani and Jingso.Jimsie: the number of Junior teams in the Scottish game has vastly diminished in the past two years, apart from in the West of Scotland, with quite a few clubs there planning to move to the Seniors in the near future. 


    The vast majority in the east are now within the senior pyramid system, which was set up initially following a promise to several clubs in exchange for them not kicking up a fuss at Green's Sevco getting a step up into the four league system.


    In any case it would be interesting to learn what you think the likes of Albion Rovers take away from the overall Scottish game. Most clubs at the lower levels now run very valuable community set-ups which provide a focus not only encouraging young activity but also providing opportunities for the woman's game, disabled groups, fitness for the obese and so on. 


    To an extent I agree with Jingso.Jimsie that a restructuring could be beneficial: unfortunately, Neil Doncaster, encouraged by Chris McCart at Celtic and Craig Mulholland at Ibrox, wants a fifth division organised with colt sides playing against the top three from each of the Lowland and Highland Leagues. Of course, six games in the Highlands each season, and eight against Ibrox and Celtic Park colts, is unpalatable and financially prohibitive for the likes of East Kibride, BSC Glasgow and Kelty Hearts, the present top three in the Lowland League, and similarly unattractive for Brora, Cove and Fraserburgh.


    However, one aspect on which I totally concur: try to cut down on the players who aren't Scots in teams if we want to see an overall improvement to the Scottish football profile.

    View Comment

  4. 'borussiabeefburg 11th February 2019 at 18:08


    Fisiani and Jingso.Jimsie: the number of Junior teams in the Scottish game has vastly diminished in the past two years, apart from in the West of Scotland, with quite a few clubs there planning to move to the Seniors in the near future. 


    In any case it would be interesting to learn what you think the likes of Albion Rovers take away from the overall Scottish game. Most clubs at the lower levels now run very valuable community set-ups which provide a focus not only encouraging young activity but also providing opportunities for the woman's game, disabled groups, fitness for the obese and so on.'



    1. I have used the term 'Junior' to denote 'not Senior', ie below the SPFL structure. On reflection, it's easy to misconstrue & for that I apologise. I also should have made clear that I would expect the eighteen teams displaced from the SPFL would continue in a lower grade of football.


    2. I don't think that clubs like eg Albion Rovers 'take away' anything from the Senior game in Scotland. It's that they don't add much (IMO). The community involvement is to be applauded, but how would that really change if they weren't an SPFL team? 


    Please note that I'm not being reactionary for the sake of it.

    View Comment

  5. neebs67 11th February 2019 at 18:04

    Shug on the 10th @18.56


    many thanks for the reply. I am not having a go at you but how can he book a player then say he didn't have a 100% view of the incident. Also, the challenge happened right under the nose of the linesman who would have had a clear, uninterrupted view. Surely he would have been able to advise the ref on what card, if any, was required? Seems to me they are making it up as they go.


    I think that you're correct regarding making it up as they go as that in my opinion is exactly what they have been doing since they overturned the first morelos red card against aberdeen. They decided that his side kick on mckenna was not brutality or excessively violent try getting off with the same thing in the street and see how far you get.

    This will be the reasoning behind us appealing the johnson booking I'm not saying it's right but what's good for the goose so to speak 

    View Comment

  6. Just my opinion of course but I think there's no real ambition amongst most of the clubs in Scottish Football.It's like a cosy wee cartel where nearly every club is happy to tread water.If it was up to me I'd have a top division of 18 with 3 automatically relegated,2 regional divisions below this with the 2 champions automatically promoted and the 2nd & 3rd of both divisions playing off for the 3rd promotion place.If the game is to progress,we must find a way to allow ambitious clubs to climb the ladder.Follow the pattern with regional leagues below these.

    Find a way to distibute any cash raised by centrally organised contracts more evenly.Give a lump sum to each division and split it evenly between all clubs.Although the clubs are rivals on the field,they are also inter dependent on each other.TV deals etc are negotiated on a league basis so divide the cash equally.

    Of course this could be tweeked but the overriding principle is one of making sure ambitious clubs get a better chance to succeed.

    View Comment

  7. I jetted in from Brisbane via Singapore and Dubai , arriving at Glasow Airport at 7.00 p.m , travelling by taxi thence to Buchanan St bus station, and bussing it from there to St Andrews Square, Edinburgh, and from there by cab to the sou'side of that city. We arrived home at 10.15 pm.

    Since then, we have unpacked, have had something to eat, attended to some email traffic, did this and that, and now ,wide-aneffin-wake, I have now logged in to the SFM blog.

    Appalled to learn that the most brilliant, insightful, post I ever made, the one made on Saturday,has been lost!angry

    As if!

    But it's good to be back home .
    I think



    View Comment

  8. Welcome back John , incredible that with 3 Championship clubs guaranteed to be in the last 8 that none of them ended up with an away trip to Ibrox , maybe the hot balls conspiracy is actually bunkum . Nice to know that at least one of them will be in a semi final spot . My greatest concern over restructuring is we see the demise of some of our clubs that have been part of our national sport for well over a century . In particular I worry that Queen's Park will slip into obscurity , already threatened with losing the right to play at Hampden, they could, in an off season go the way of East Stirlingshire and struggle to ever regain senior status. In this day and age of multi million £ contracts for very average talent I believe the motto  ludere causa ludendi has never been more important . Scottish football does need a strong Arbroath and it certainly needs to keep sight of what this game is actually all about. One of this seasons most enjoyable moments was watching Auchinleck beat Ayr in the cup, that to me is what the game is about , more passion in one wee corner of Ayrshire than an entire weekend in the EPL . The Goliaths are all very well but without the Davids we don't have much of a story.

    View Comment

  9. “The Scottish FA should follow the lead of the FA in England and invest more money into their disciplinary department in order to quell the growing unrest over retrospective punishments in the wake of some high-profile controversies.

    That was the advice from Graham Bean, the FA’s first ever compliance officer and a football consultant who advises Premier League clubs, managers and players down south on disciplinary matters, yesterday.”

    The above is a direct quote from Graham Lindsay’s article in the Herald. On the face of it supports the view that more money should be spent on compliance by the SFA. He does reveal his hand somewhat by arguing that there is growing unrest over retrospective punishments. I would suggest that he is looking into the wrong end of the telescope as the discontent was a result of the lack of retrospective punishments following some egregious examples of bad behaviour by certain players not dealt with or simply ignored by certain referees.

    View Comment

  10. "Jetted in", ​​​​JC… did ye aye?  


    And Level42 has now wheeeled out Weir to give the DR a breathtaking "EXCLUSIVE" in defence of MacGregor.

    His BS angle was – in effect – nobody can prove what was going on in the keeper's head, WRT 'intent'.

    Extending that logic then nobody should ever receive a red card in future…or mibbees even a yellow.

    Pathetic attempt to put pressure on the CO, IMO.

    And, it's an even more pathetic attempt to crank up the bears to expect the keeper to get off with the ban.

    So, if it is upheld the bears and the SMSM can rage about the injustice of losing a key player for TRFC.


    Anyone who has played footy at ANY level, IMO, would regard the keeper's deliberate, high, studs up slide tackle as a straight red.

    No doubt.

    No discussion.

    A red card, all day long.

    Regardless of whatever p!sh is peddled in the SMSM. 


    And let's not forget: Ferguson was incredibly lucky not to be seriously injured in that reckless tackle.

    View Comment

  11. DR online article today states "SFA compliance officer Clare Whyte will review the footage on Wednesday and decide whether the ban should be upheld." This protocol for retrospective review gets more confusing; dangerous and secretive every time I read about it. My understanding is that the CO looks at incidents she becomes aware of. This in itself is confusing/dangerous raising the question of how she decides what to review. Last weekend, for example, TRFC fans raged that TV (especially) tries to get their players retrospectively banned. CFC fans rage that their players were reviewed purely to balance the books. On the face of it, the process does seem skewed toward penalising the Premier division teams whose games are more often broadcast, though I guess if a club requested a review that would be done?

    Once the CO has decided which incidents to review, my understanding now is that the referee involved is then asked to comment. If he states he saw the whole incident and is happy with his decision(s), no review will take place as the SFA does not want to be seen to undermine the authority of referees. This is confusing/dangerous/secretive as a sensitive/biased referee could prevent the opportunity of a decision being reviewed. As far as I can tell, there is no process to allow a review if the referee's decision and subsequent claim that he is happy with his decision EVEN IF it is clearly wrong. I'm now not sure on this, given the recent apparent change to allow a review of yellow card decisions though this may have been because the referee involved may not have stood by his original decision.

    Once an incident has been approved for review, the CO passes the matter to an independent panel of 3 ex-referees. This is understandable, so not confusing, but still dangerous/secretive as this anonymous panel can be scuppered by one individual (with an agenda?) as the panel decision must be unanimous as I understand it. I'm not sure how to improve this as it may be just the lack of trust/feelings of bias that prevent fans being happy with panel decisions. Is that a solely Scotland issue with the two-team mentality? Could it be improved by UEFA agreeing that reviews are carried out by panels of non-connected referee associations, so Ireland reviews for England; England reviews for Scotland, Scotland for Wales etc? 

    Finally, once a retrospective ban is agreed, the club/player can appeal it. It is at this stage I was surprised and started this post. At the appeal (according to the Record, at least), the CO then decides on her own whether the panel's decision should be upheld or overturned. I can't imagine a circumstance where a  non-football CO (the last two have been lawyers) would/should be able to overturn the decision of 3 ex-referees, so is this an unnecessary step or is it in place solely to give the impression that the panel's verdict is not the final word?

    Having laid this out (correctly I hope, but feel free to point at errors), it should be such a simple step by step flowchart yet the SFA seem to complicate it so much with their usual making changes as they go along and vague discretion when it suits. We really need a fit for purpose body to oversee the game. Without wanting to merge with the FA, what would be the problem with overthrowing the SFA and asking the FA to look after our game – economies of scale; better business minds; knowledge of marketing etc etc. Okay, we might lose votes/power within UEFA without our own national organisation, but currently it feels like the SFA use that only for all the wrong reasons!!

    Apologies for the long rant!

    View Comment

  12. In the light of the draw for the Scottish Cup quarter finals can we expect some debate about the strips which will be worn.

    I assume The Children Of Charles will hounour his Founding Father status by continuing his tradition of taking to the field in the replay against Kilmarnock again wearing the staunch, dignified Orange strip which no doubt is a hat tip to Seville although to be strictly accurate at the time of Celtic v Porto game the oranges were green. Still a respectful acknowledgment of where the power lay.

    Should The Boiler Room Subsidiary Holding Company Works Team get past Kilmarnock the away tie to Aberdeen could prove to be a bit more contentious.

    The Chidren Of Charles; together with other vigilante groups such as The Sons Of Struth; The Weans Of Walter; The Aliment Avoiders Of Ally and the Bell Brotherhood Of Bigotry will be primed to rage and attack Aberdeen if they have the gall and insensitivity to wear their normal all red strip.

    Do these Dons have no decency and feelings for a respectful, decent club who only wish to make friends on The Journey?

    Firstly. although the red socks may actually be acceptable, referencing The Peeple's much sung about wish to be up to their knees in Fenian blood, Aberdeen might not be the best location for this wish; aimed as it is, no doubt, as a staunch support for the Blood Transference Service.

    The real problem will come from the red shorts and tops.

    This is obviosly a subliminal message to the officials to brandish red cards willy nilly and a more immediate reminder to El Guffalo that private parts are so called for a reason. Kicking, stamping and grabbing said parts are red card offences. At Aberdeen they assist by clothing the relevant no-go area in a 'danger' red colour. They also colour code other parts of a player's body which should not be kicked, stamped or barged into.

    El Guffalo is being painted as an innocent abroad being picked on for his temperant.

    I can agree with one of these factors: he's abroad.

    Innocent parties don't fling themselves to the ground rolling around but still have the presence of mind to take a sneaky peek through their fingers to see what way the land is lying.

    Innocent people don't get through the game on 29th December unscathed and then have a litany of 3/4 stick on Red Cards discussed.

    There may a point about El Guffalo being picked on for his temperant.

    Without getting too scientific and using medical jargon, his temperant stinks.

    His attitude, temper tantrums. needless, pointless barging opponents off the ball, his lash outs for no reason. his regular moaning at officials and his perpetual chip on the shoulder mentality can only have a negative impact on his pertormance as a player.

    So, as far as I am concerned, keep up the good work El Guffalo.

    View Comment

  13. Re : Gordon Banks

    Just watched his save from the Pele header in the Mexico World Cup game – it was a moment in football history owing much to the technique of firstly Jairzinho's wing play then Pele's "hanging" in the air header & finally Banks' save – even now after all this time a hairs on the back of your neck moment .


    View Comment

  14. Coming late to the discussion on the best format for Scottish football, I agree that a restructuring of the leagues is the way we should be going. If ever we can get away from the Old Firm cash cow of 4 televised games a season, I would like to see us move to a 20 team Scottish Premiership, and a 20 team Championship. The bottom 2 teams from the PL would be relegated and the top 2 in the championship would be promoted. Third bottom would go into play offs with 3rd,4th and 5th in the championship. Beneath the two professional leagues would be the regional leagues where play offs would take place every year between the two lowest professional clubs, and the winners of each of the regional leagues.

    I would love to see the rule introduced that a starting 11 must contain at least 5 home grown and club developed players but I worry that will never be possible when the lower leagues in England can poach our best players to rot in the reserves. Until the bubble bursts in the EPL I can't see our national game improving enough sadly.

    View Comment

  15. naegreetin, was worried you were going to mention '1966' there!  indecision

    Agreed though, that save in ’70 was – and still is – just incredible.

    A moment in time that is still celebrated almost half a century later… and celebrated by Scottish fans as well.

    Everyone acknowledges great moments in sport like that – and in such a high profile game.

    And Banks always came across as a decent, humble gentleman.

    Mibbees goalies today could still learn a thing or two from the English keeper…?

    View Comment

  16. from NAWLITE in SFM 12/2/19 at 10:45

    From my understanding, can I respond on this para by para ?

    DR online article today states "SFA compliance officer …..

    Para 1 – I believe the original plan of the JPP (Judicial Panel Protocol) was that the referee observers could bring a matter to the CO's attention; this has evolved over time and I think anyone (eg. having watched BBC Sportscene) can try to bring a matter to the CO.  If the DR states something, you can be 90% sure it's incorrect – they have an agenda – currently it is very anti-CO.

    Once the CO has decided …..

    Para 2 – Quite correct, if the referee maintains he saw the incident fully and acted upon it, then the CO has no leeway to act.

    Once an incident has been approved …..

    Para 3 – Not sure if the referee panel looks at the incident before the referee is asked for comment, but quite correct in that the referee panel decision must be unanimous.  If it is unanimous, I guess the CO "offers" a suspension or a fine or whatever.

    Finally, once a retrospective ban is …..

    Para 4 – if the "offered" penalty is appealed, it goes to a Judicial Panel – the CO presents the prosecution case, as it were, and the player/club puts up the defence case.  The JP makes the decision!  The current CO is also a professional lawyer – having spent quite a number of years as a Procurator Fiscal in addition to other experience, none in football, which is probably a positive !!

    Having laid this out ….. 

    Para 5 – yes, it is quite confusing and I also think it is evolving.  All of the clubs agreed the protocol – it is legalese but just about readable.  You can download the document at https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish-fa/football-governance/disciplinary/disciplinary-updates/


    View Comment

  17. Tx Jimmy Bones

    Para 1 – Would you agree then that the awareness raised by Sportscene etc means that the whole process is unfair on clubs who feature most i.e Premier league clubs? Especially when you consider how partisan some of the people involved are, be it TV, radio or newspaper.

    Para 2 – Still seems unfair that a referee can derail the correct referral/decision just by saying "I still believe I'm right", don't you think?

    Para 4 – Who is the JP? Another group of ex-referees?

    Despite the fact that "all of the clubs agreed the protocol", it still seems a total Dogs B****x. Do you have any view on improving it at all?


    View Comment

  18. Re : Compliance Officer


    I notice Chris Sutton sounding off on twitter re the latest judgements made by the CO – I must admit I was astonished McGinn of St Mirren got off with what looked to me like a forearm smash on the DUFC player last weekend – if it had happened in the street an assault charge would have been looming .

    It is the inconsistency which is now verging on the ridiculous & leads to the situation where no one knows where they stand – a complete review by an independent body (away from the SFA) of the refereeing up here is now a necessity as trust in the SFA is at level zero but it is down to the clubs to push for that (will they?) .

    View Comment

  19. re. NAWLITE at 16:20

    Para 1 – yes, there will be more scrutiny but the process overall should be fair.

    Para 2 – yes, but after 29th December game and the 4 penalty game there are maybe some signs that the referees are aware that they cannot get away with this.

    Para 4 – sorry, by the JP I meant the Tribunal appointed by the Judicial Panel Secretary from the SFA's list of Panel Members – see Part 3 of the JPP at the link in my last message.  I think one of the tribunal members must be an experienced lawyer who chairs that particular panel. 

    I think the protocol is revised at the beginning of each season – as I said it's a bit legalese for me.  

    The biggest improvement needed is for the SMSM particularly to understand and accept the protocol – there have been press briefings to them this season – and stop misrepresenting the CO's actions for their own ends. 

    I guess the SFA should also explain their decisions around the protocol better, for example, what, if anything, happened to the 2 high profile suggestions for citing (Alan Power + Paul McGinn) this week ?


    View Comment

  20. And none arrested for sectatian singing and abusive chanting . 

    See how this goes if TRFC get through –

    Sgt Ross Geddes said: "I would like to thank those who brought their concerns to our attention and to those who assisted with our investigation.

    "Offensive behaviour of any kind will not be tolerated and anyone who becomes involved in disorder will be dealt with robustly."


    View Comment

  21. Re : Compliance Officer – naegreetin at 17:13

    "I notice Chris Sutton sounding off on twitter re the latest judgements made by the CO – I must admit I was astonished McGinn of St Mirren got off with what looked to me like a forearm smash on the DUFC player last weekend – if it had happened in the street an assault charge would have been looming."

    I don't disagree but the CO can only act if (a) the referee has not dealt with the incident and (b) the panel of 3 x ex-referees agree unanimously that it is a red card.  I believe the protocol & therefore the CO, is careful not to "re-referee" games in case it upsets FIFA.  As mentioned above, if the CO did look at this, it would be great if the SFA could indicate no citing because …., but perhaps there is a good reason why they cannot do that ?

    View Comment

  22. I see hibs lost their appeal in the johnson case but it looks as though the sevco appeal has been put back if that's true then we seem to be getting into the real brown stuff.

    Forgot to add a forearm smash and a kick in the head are fine as well.

    View Comment

  23. Jimmy Bones, it's being reported (I know, I know) that there will be "no action" on the McGinn and Power incidents because "…there was not enough evidence for the compliance officer to raise a fast-track notice of complaint." The SFA should be much more transparent than this and it would save all the anger/headscratching. That 'reason' could mean many different things, I believe. 1. The CO viewed the incidents and did not think the referee had made an obvious incorrect decision 2. The CO took the view that the decision may be wrong; asked the referee for comment and he stood by his decision 3. The referee on being asked by the CO admitted he may have made a mistake, but when the ex-referees panel reviewed the incident, one or more of them decided against further punishment. I can see no reason why the SFA would not communicate the stage at which the possibility of further punishment fell down.

    View Comment

  24. StevieBC 12th February 2019 at 09:46
    26 7 Rate This

    “Jetted in”, ​​​​JC… did ye aye?

    And Level42 has now wheeeled out Weir to give the DR a breathtaking “EXCLUSIVE” in defence of MacGregor.
    First Warburton then weir. Not heard from both for a while the next thing they are the go to guys.
    Has a confidentiality clause been lifted? Do both feel free to talk to the smsm after all this time?
    Have they both been paid in full and are now happy to talk to the smsm? Did anyone from the smsm ask for clarification if both had resigned or sacked?

    View Comment

  25. shug 12th February 2019 at 17:30
    3 0 Rate This

    I see hibs lost their appeal in the johnson case but it looks as though the sevco appeal has been put back if that’s true then we seem to be getting into the real brown stuff.
    Why has it been put back?
    was it a busy day for her?

    View Comment

  26. No idea maybe because sevco asked for it to be will know the outcome by tomorrow.If he gets a ban it might be them working out what games he is banned for. Of course they will be able to cite these other incidents that have been ignored so they might win the appeal.

    View Comment

  27. As the rows rage on over the SFA disciplinary process it seems inescapable to me that the media have only sat up and taken notice after Morelos and McGregor were finally punished after several previous offences went unpunished. 

    They do themselves no favours at all, and quite simply some of them are acting like a bunch of fans in a pub. 

    View Comment

  28. shug 12th February 2019 at 17:30

    '..but it looks as though the sevco appeal has been put back..'

    Cluster One 12th February 2019 at 20:17

    Why has it been put back?
    was it a busy day for her?


    I may be quite wrong, of course, and perhaps a bit addle-brained, but isn't the DR report incorrect in referring to Mcgregor's 'appeal'? He has not yet been 'sentenced'.

    As I understand things, he has been issued with a Fast Track notice of complaint, and has intimated that he disputes it ( and presumably has submitted 'evidence')  The Judicial Panel Secretary therefore appointed a date  for principal hearing, to determine for the first time whether the CO's complaint is correct. 

    The date for a Fast Track  Hearing is to be determined under section 13.6 of the protocol:

    " Time  and date of Principal Hearing:  As stated on the Notice of Complaint. The Fast Track Principal Hearing will be as soon as reasonably possible after the 3rd Working Day following match. Generally the Fast Track Principal Hearing will be on the 4th Working Day following match. "

    So there is provision for a later date, or a change in date.

    So far, so in accordance with the Protocol.

    What I don't know is whether the DR is right in suggesting that McGregor's date was to have been today, but was changed to tomorrow?

    And any stupid s.d of a hack who uses 'poured' rather than 'pored' is instantly suspect of being a dolt, and a stirrer-upper of a dolt, at that!

    I am , of course, prepared to believe that if there were to be any advantage to McGregor in moving his case to tomorrow, the machinery would be used to achieve that advantage. 

    The only possible advantage might lie in the possibility that McGregor objected to one or other of the members of the panel, in the hope of securing the services of a 'Rangers' sympathiser as a replacement.

    A judgment against him tomorrow , as much as if made today, will still see him miss important games

    [And , as an aside, I doubt if I have ever heard such a useless bunch of semi-articulate tossers discussing McGregor as I did tonight on 'Sportsound' ]



    View Comment

  29. From Bankier's statement in the "Celtic plc interim report" published yesterday:

    "….In putting this important information into the public domain, we seek to encourage the Scottish Government, Glasgow City Council and other public agencies to recognise the contribution of football in general and Celtic in particular."


    Perhaps Nicola might write something  which includes words that her mentor Alex used in relation to another, now dead, football club, that died owing millions of pounds of debt to the rest of us. Expressions such as 'part of the fabric of society'..? broken heart

    Wouldn't bet on it, of course.

    View Comment

  30. John Clark 13th February 2019 at 00:56


    When Celtic were pushing for outline planning permission for the hotel at Celtic Park, they eventually had to go public to state that one of the hold ups was GCC were reluctant because they couldn't give anything to Rangers. Personally I'd have preferred that GCC were chasing the unpaid rates Rangers still owe them, however the very least they can do is treat everything on its merits. Celtic going public on that occasion had an impact, but it shouldn't have to get to that. 

    On a wider note I find the attitude of national and local Government, and the SNP in particular towards football to be utterly appalling. No other sport generates as much interest or brings a bigger boost to local economies, but the SNP treat football like something it wiped off its shoe. Perhaps the secret is to withhold tens of millions in tax, because it's the only time I've ever known the SNP to talk about a football club in gushing terms. 

    View Comment

  31. There appears to be further controversy / inconsistency with the SFA Disciplinary Process, with other players not being cited.

    Starting to lose track now of all the incidents.


    But, whether you support a Glasgow club or any other senior club…it seems reasonable to surmise that the majority of the fans / paying customers are totally confused, and not at all happy.


    To get back to the root cause: all we need – and expect – is an acceptable standard of refereeing. It's that simple.

    With competent refereeing comes a reduced need for CO or Refs' Panel involvement.

    Yes, mistakes will still be made, but there also has to be a transparent review process, whereby the Refs are helped to learn from their mistakes.  One too many mistakes though and they are demoted.

    [And the demographics of Cat 1 refs has to be widened.]


    It's not rocket science.

    And it proves – yet again – that the SFA numpties don't have a Scooby about how to run Scottish football in a professional, competent manner.

    [And if MacGregor somehow escapes a ban for his reckless tackle, then we have further proof that the SFA is STILL a thoroughly corrupt organisation.]

    View Comment

  32. StevieBC 13th February 2019 at 07:55

    '..It's not rocket science.

    And it proves – yet again – that the SFA numpties don't have a Scooby about how to run Scottish football in a professional, competent manner.'


    I believe the real problem, StevieBC, is not so much 'incompetence' but deep-rooted corruption.

    Since at least 2011, there have been people in the SFA who have been ready to perjure themselves to try to prevent the death of Rangers of 1872, who failed in their attempt but went on to manufacture the Big Lie that somehow Rangers 1872 is still alive by allowing a new club to claim falsely to be that Rangers of 1872. 

    They have since then been desperate to  ensure  the survival of that new club by  any means whatsoever.

    Survival depends of course on success on the field of play, and the SFA bad guys will try to ensure that the new club will be able always to field its strongest team, and to hell with disciplinary rules that might get in the way.

    And the bad guys have had the tacit support of any good guys that there might still be, and the full-blooded support of the SMSM in their abandonment of any principles of honour and clean sport.

    The SFA is presiding over the longest act of suicide that any governance body  has ever committed.


    View Comment

  33. It seems that the SFA Fast Track Hearing re McGregor was moved to today (Wednesday) as the TRFC lawyer, Mr. Blair, was in court yesterday dealing with some RIFC/Orlit-related business.


    I note that one paper states that Mr. Blair was 'unavailable' for the FTH, but fails to explain why; the 'why' is a better story than the delayed FTH, IMO.

    View Comment

  34. I see that JJ is reporting that TRFC has agreed to pay Orlit £292k for services rendered in respect of fundraising.

    It looks like the end of that particular case. 

    View Comment

  35. Easyjambo @11.48

    That’s a sizeable quantum for a club where money’s too tight to mention but I wonder if that included Orlit’s costs? No doubt the BBC will be all over the story when the new channel goes to air.🤨

    View Comment

  36. On Sunday, after having read the latest SFSA newsletter (not to be confused with the SFA's Supporters Direct Scotland), I sent a pretty direct email to them saying that questionning FIFA and UEFA about transparency is one thing, but this begins at home. I specifically mentioned the 2011/12 TRFC licence issue and recent confusion over the refereeing / CO / Panel / Review process.

    Within 24 hours I had a detailed reply from Paul Goodwin reflecting many of the concerns expressed on here about the governance of Scottish football and an invitation to call him to discuss specific issues. I would reproduce the text of that reply here, but it contains some personal observations which I would rather not put into the public domain.

    Credit where it is due: the SFSA are working with few resources but seem to be doggedly taking these issues to the SFA and SPFL and pursuing them for answers, which I gather are not always readily forthcoming. I certainly did not doubt the sincerity of the conversation I have had.

    It is frequently expressed as a frustration that there is no organisation to coordinate fans. I can only say fair play to them for engaging with one ordinary supporter of no particular importance and that on that basis they are worth a visit at http://www.scottishfsa.org 

    View Comment

  37. shug 13th February 2019 at 14:23

    I was always under the impression that if you appealed and lost the appeal the sanction was increased to try and avoid clubs abusing the process?

    View Comment

  38. borderman67 13th February 2019 at 14:33


    shug 13th February 2019 at 14:23

    I was always under the impression that if you appealed and lost the appeal the sanction was increased to try and avoid clubs abusing the process?




    If we use a commonsense approach he didn't get a red card whereas more-or-less did he was automatically banned and appealed that the extra 1 game ban could be the penalty for appealing the red. However your guess is as good as mine I'm afraid.

    View Comment

  39. As has been pointed out here and elsewhere t’Rangers finished the match at Pitttodrie with 10 men and took all 3 points. Justice finally caught up with Alan McGregor today but the result of the match still stands. Do t’Rangers view these retrospective bans as simply the price of doing business?

    View Comment

  40. So, McGregor's ban is upheld then.

    Now he is free of any restrictions, he could be the bigger man and apologise to Lewis Ferguson.

    I know…


    But it is indeed surprising, IMO.

    Morelos and McGregor, arguably TRFC's two best players, are suspended – and despite plenty of Level42 copy/paste instructions being given to the SMSM.

    [And to avoid publishing incriminating photos, before McGregor was cited.]

    But, does anybody know: has something happened at Hampden?

    This breakout of honest disciplinary action WRT TRFC is to be welcomed…but based on the last 7 years…it's very, very strange behaviour for the SFA!

    View Comment

  41. I actually agree with Rangers that the disciplinary system requires reform. However, they cared not a jot when Morelos and McGregor were let off with a string of offences by the same process, so their words are pretty hollow. 

    View Comment

  42. Jingso.Jimsie 13th February 2019 at 11:34
    28 0 Rate This

    It seems that the SFA Fast Track Hearing re McGregor was moved to today (Wednesday) as the TRFC lawyer, Mr. Blair, was in court yesterday dealing with some RIFC/Orlit-related business.
    From Feb 8, 2013.
    RANGERS will fight any legal action taken against them over a disputed £400,000 bill.

    Singapore financial services firm Orlit Enterprises are considering raising a winding-up order against the company who run Rangers within the next 10 days, if the row continues.

    Rangers are disputing the amount owed.

    A statement on the club website said: “Not all of the invoices submitted with regard to this bill are
    legitimate. There is no threat of this club being closed. That is malicious and ludicrous.

    “If Orlit wish to instruct their lawyers to go to court then we will defend our position vigorously.

    “We are convinced we’d win but we did think it would be better to avoid giving our detractors another bar to beat us with.

    “That’s why we made an offer to settle but we now find we are still being harassed. The thought process seems to be that if we have £22million from the recent share offering we should just pay up. Why should we?

    “The money belongs to Rangers and we will not give it out to anyone who comes along with invented invoices.

    “We do pay our bills on time and we’ve always been prepared to pay this one.”

    Orlit Enterprises are run by Chan Fook Meng, a former business associate of Rangers chief executive Charles Green.

    View Comment

  43. Ex Ludo 13th February 2019 at 13:37
    13 0 Rate This

    Easyjambo @11.48

    That’s a sizeable quantum for a club where money’s too tight to mention but I wonder if that included Orlit’s costs?
    “The money belongs to Rangers and we will not give it out to anyone who comes along with invented invoices.

    “We do pay our bills on time and we’ve always been prepared to pay this one.”
    After 6 years, oh they do pay their bills on time.
    After 6 years i hope Orlit have added cost’s.
    If i remember correctly it was Alex Thomson of channel 4 who broke the winding up order.
    Happy to be corrected.

    View Comment

  44. easyJambo 13th February 2019 at 11:48

    I see that JJ is reporting that TRFC has agreed to pay Orlit £292k for services rendered in respect of fundraising.

    It looks like the end of that particular case.


    Does anyone have corroborating evidence of the judgement? It's not that I doubt the word of the website concerned but I just like corroboration.

    View Comment


    FEBRUARY 6, 2013 · 4:09 PM

    ↓ Jump to Comments

    Some More Info Re Orlit Enterprises’ Mr Chan’s Connections With Rangers’ Mr Green

    As well as the link identified in my last post, keen readers will have  noticed that another one of the companies where Mr Chan Fook Meng is listed as having an interest is Tricor PLC.

    Tricor PLC, at least in 2011, was represented and advised by Allenby Capital, and in particular by Brian Stockbridge, now of course one of the executive directors of RIFC PLC.

    You can see Allenby and Mr Stockbridge mentioned in this Stock Exchange announcement from 2011.

    Back in May 2012, when Mr Green emerged publicly, there were rumours that the acquisition of the football club would be by a combination of Tricor, Mr Green, Mr Chan and Nazim Khan.

    Mr Khan, as well as being one of the consortium, it was alleged, is also a director of Tricor.

    It definitely looks as if there has been a serious falling out between old friends, doesn’t it?

    Posted by Paul “Bloodhound” McConville

    The above is copy/pasted from Scotslawthoughts. The late Mr McConville certainly knew how to sniff out a story.

    View Comment

  46. paddy malarkey 13th February 2019 at 19:44
    How are judicial panels selected prior to appeals being heard? We understand there is a pool of around forty people to choose from but who decides which three of these forty sit on any given panel? Why is this process not transparent
    “Who are these people”

    View Comment

  47. Suppose the last straw to grasp onto at Ibrox, if they get punted out of the cup by Killie;


    It was all the SFA's fault!

    It's a stitch up!

    We wiz robbed!

    Where's the sporting integrity… ?! enlightened


    And guess that Level42 will be cranking up the gears, wheeling out assorted has beens  to recite all sort of BS to a slavering press to regurgitate.

    All the makings of a highly contentious run in to season end.

    View Comment

  48. Cluster One 13th February 2019 at 20:16

    I see your point ,but it's easy to publish the list of names and explain the taxi rank system to the uninitiated . Easy to make it more transparent without identifying the panel . Unless some on the list didn't want to be identified as being on it .




    View Comment

  49. A [TRFC] club spokesperson said: “…it is abundantly clear questions about the current disciplinary system, which we believe is flawed, must be posed…"


    Absolutely agree there are flaws, but not just in the disciplinary system.

    The demographics, structure, and diversity of the Cat 1 refs is also flawed: it must be in scope with any review.

    …or does TRFC just want to ignore that massive flaw, and dictate what should – and should not be – up for discussion?

    Decision making, generally, has been consistently poor at Ibrox in recent history.

    They themselves are stirring up a hornets' nest here, which might produce unexpected and unwanted outcomes…which could ultimately sting the new club in the @rse !

    View Comment

  50. paddy malarkey 13th February 2019 at 20:57
    0 0 Rate This

    Cluster One 13th February 2019 at 20:16

    I see your point ,but it’s easy to publish the list of names and explain the taxi rank system to the uninitiated . Easy to make it more transparent without identifying the panel . Unless some on the list didn’t want to be identified as being on it .
    Who would?
    They may end up talking to anti-terror cops if there identities are leaked online.

    View Comment

  51. I see the sevco fans have a petition going to get the co to resign. What is it with this lot that all they can see is everything and everyone is against them it was all giggles and laughs as they were sure more-or-less would get off and that the keeper would have the ban overturned. A couple of decisions go against them so it’s all out war every club fan ref and the sfa is out to get them are they injected with something at birth or what.

    Oh and Celtic run everything all are Celtic puppets ffs.

    View Comment

  52. borderman67 13th February 2019 at 14:33

    '…I was always under the impression that if you appealed and lost the appeal the sanction was increased to try and avoid clubs abusing the process?'


    That applies in cases where a player initiates a claim, borderman67, with no intention of arguing a case, but just to avoid 'conviction' and defer  penalty until important games have been played.

    "13.12.3 A Claimant who makes a Claim which is subsequently withdrawn in circumstances that suggest   an abuse of process and/or a delaying tactic for the sanction originally imposed, may be in breach   of the Disciplinary Rules and may be served with a Notice of Complaint"

    It would not be at all just or reasonable to penalise someone who had reasonable grounds for appeal but lost the appeal after  'legal' argument! Losing the case, and paying costs, is punishment enough.




    View Comment

  53. Billydug

    Unfortunately , they still wear the shroud of the victim – "what we've been through" . We do know , and also know it was self-inflicted . Their club got liquidated and they suffer from that , but only seem to think it was noticed by them and CFC supporters – the rest of us don't matter . I stand by my earlier post – transparency is a good thing . The cabal who control Scottish football are starting to realise that their grip is loosening and are firefighting , but also planning to retain control when/if things change . We should be asking for the referees' match reports to be published online to better understand how we wus robbed .

    View Comment

Comments are closed.