Any organisation’s plan for a top-down review of development would ordinarily be welcome news. Self evaluation, or even better independent evaluation is an ongoing process amongst professionals, individually and collectively alike. In the case of the SFA however a healthy scepticism is required. We are after all dealing with people who are the poster boys for self-interest and short-termism.
The SFA had previously commissioned a thorough review of the game (decades ago) by Rinus Michels, the inventor of “Total Football” and his report was largely ignored, partly because it implied criticism of the then current regime, and partly because it would cost money. A “Total Shambles”.
Henry McLeish also famously recommended (again after being commissioned to do so by the SFA) a more balanced approach to governance between the SFA and SPFL. This would have required a blazer or two having less say in the running of the game – and was therefore ignored.
Mark Wotte, the prominent Dutch coach hired as performance director at Hampden also suggested during his tenure that, in order to improve technique, more ball time should be provided for players in games.
He recommended seven a side competitions as the norm for u-15s (less players – more participation).
To accommodate this, club infrastructures would have required expensive upgrading, and coaches in clubs, not responsive to new ideas lobbied hard for the status quo.
The upshot is that we carried on with the same eleven-a-side games where many players hardly got a kick.
And in this classic Einsteinean definition of insanity, no overall improvements were to be found in the national team’s fortunes.
No wonder Wotte fled the scene in 2014 after three years.
Of course the details are debatable and subjective, but experience tells us;
Anything that
a) costs money or
b) upsets old boys’ networks
has a tendency to be hidden out of sight.
The recent “announcement” is merely a reaction to a couple of poor results, caused in part by inaction in the wake of previous reports’ recommendations.
An increasing number of observers of our game refer to an inferior mindset amongst players in Scotland, that we accept losing as the norm.
Hardly surprising that such a mindset is prevalent amongst professionals.
They must despair at the chronic self-interest, ineptitude and fecklessness of the “leaders” of our sport – an organisation that appointed Gordon Smith as CE (think about that for a minute) based on who his pals were, where McGregor and Petrie can become senior officers – “because it’s his turn!” – despite being unqualified squares in a round ball game, and where fairy-tales take precedence over reality.
As long as the blazers have a seat on the SFA bus, nothing will change.
I don't see any comment on how having a permit to play in the SPL is transferable to play in the EPL as far as I am aware the EPL has its own requirements and Morelos doesn't meet them .
John Clark 12th November 2019 at 07:52
Corrupt official 12th November 2019 at 04:31 ',,, In law, that was also registered into Sevco "ownership", after a long unexplained delay. '
+++++++++++++
I posted about this some time ago, expressing the view that Sport Scotland seemed suddenly to realise that the legal entity to which they had given a good few quid of our money had ceased to exist except as an entity in liquidation, and therefore that thee was no legal obligation on TRFC Ltd to pay any heed to the conditions that had been imposed.
————————————–
I recall your post John,which was really what got me thinking. (Initially I just thought, "Dirty sleekit Barstewards).
I think we all agree that Sevco would have welshed on the funding agreement with Sports Scotland if they had the chance. The numerous on-going court cases of contract dodging tends to support that belief. However, Sports Scotland appear to have won a lollipop in this episode.
It may be a similar legal scenario that crossed over, and bound CFC PLC, to the old IP arrangement with the deid club, to the new club. Given that Sevco are not above monetising plastic ducks, CFC PLC may be the only obstacle preventing a raft of "O** F*** tat lining the shelves of their pop-up stores.
I'm not saying it is, nor isn't, but it certainly looks like it is not an IP that CFC PLC intend to capitalise from,via its use.
I am as wary as the next man regarding CFC PLC involvement in dubious activity, but will not be holding my breath expecting an explanation from them………..
And yet that is all they have to do to avoid being tarred.
CFC PLC are too quiet on too many fronts for my liking. Silence naturally breeds suspicion, and in a game where there is very little trust left, (if any), a dangerous game to play.
There is very clearly not going to be any, "benefit of doubt", given, and quite understandably so.
Big Pink 12th November 2019 at 07:30
'..The Res12 fiasco, SIX years of kicking things into the long grass, is proof enough for me that our sport is corrupted terminally.'
++++++++++++++++
As I understand it, BP, there are a number of quite separate elements in the allegations of corruption made against our Football Governance bodies and some of our clubs.
There is the allegation that RFC of 1872 lied to the Licensing Committee of the SFA about their tax indebtedness as at 31 March 2011;
there is the allegation that the Licensing Committee either colluded in that lie or, through carelessness and incompetence, simply accepted what RFC of 1872 told them , and passed that on to UEFA without any check as to its truthfulness and accuracy. The result of that was that RFC of 1872 was awarded a UEFA Competitions Licence to which, under the strict rules, they were not entitled.
The SFA has thus far refused to open up an independent investigation into all that was involved in the application made for that licence.
That refusal raised and continues to raise suspicions that the SFA has something to hide. [ RFC of 1872 is in Liquidation, and TRFC are quite a different legal entity so are not involved and can legitimately say 'nothing to do with us, Squire!'.. except, of course that some of the personnel involved in TRFC were also involved with RFC of 1872…at the material time.
As a football matter, until there is a full, independent investigation into the Licence matter, then the SFA is under a cloud of suspicion, and so are the then members of the Licensing Committee.
And as a football matter, the resistance by Celtic FC to the request that they insist on a full independent investigation being carried out within the football context is indicative of an unwillingness , rather than an inability, to do so. And that puts Celtic FC under suspicion of underhand complicity in a dirty football cheating arrangement.
And since no other club has raised any hue and cry about dirty work at the footballing crossroads [and the late Turnbull Hutton must have been sickened at their supine rolling-over], they all are under suspicion of consenting to dirty deeds destructive of the very essence of what their businesses are predicated upon being done in their name.
Taking the matter out of the football context and into the world of corporate business, there is the allegation that the Sports Governance body may knowingly and with deliberation colluded in fraud to obtain money by falsely representing to UEFA on behalf of a member club (RFC of 1872) that that club was entitled to a Licence to participate in a competition the mere participation in which would guarantee a financial gain for that club of £xM, with the possibility of £x+M more if the club achieved any kind of sporting success in the competition.
The consequence of any such alleged false representation was that the properly entitled club was denied such a Licence, and therefore was, in effect, cheated out of at least £xM.
Since that properly entitled club is a PLC, the Board of that club are required, required, by law to protect the interests of its shareholders.
It is not for the Board of Celtic plc to decide that the loss, in circumstances where there are prima facie grounds for suspecting that there may have been fraud and deceit [or even incompetence] involving some millions of pounds, should not be investigated.
It is not for the Celtic Board to try to kick a shareholders' requisitioned resolution at an AGM into touch indefinitely without explanation, debate, and a vote.
It is failure by the Celtic Board to give adequate and justified and sufficient reasons as to why they have not insisted on such investigation that arouses suspicion in the mind of shareholders ,to whom they are accountable, that they too have something to hide.
This whole UEFA licence matter cannot be dismissed and corrected and put right until full investigation of the allegations is made, resulting in a proper assessment as to the truth or otherwise of the allegations.
The other allegation of corruption , namely that a huge lie was manufactured to try to have a brand new club regarded as being one and the same as the RFC of 1872 , and as being entitled to the sporting achievements of that failed club which currently exists as a liquidated football club, can be fixed almost overnight!
All the SFA has to do is renounce that part of a very dubious, highly secretive (and possibly illegal in itself) binding agreement under which it exceeded its legitimate Governance powers by awarding sporting honours and entitlements to a club that had not existed long enough to earn any one of them on the sports field.!
In doing so the SFA Board made a farcical mockery of the very idea of sporting competition and of their role as guardians of the Sport.
Let the SFA state publicly and with suitable apology that they gravely erred in so doing, and that the record books of the SFA (and the SPFL in consequence) will show that the Liquidated RFC ceased to be able to add to their impressive list of such honours and titles on the day they died as a football club.
Doing that will not, of course, save anyone from possible criminal investigation in relation to the Res 12 matter if that matter has to be referred to Police Scotland, but it would enable some kind of return to sane and proper and honest sports governance.
I will add one other remark. I have been posting for seven years or thereabouts about the cheating RFC of SDM and CW, and of the (what I believe to have been ) underlying dishonesty of the RIFC IPO prospectus and the blindness of the SMSM.
I would be some kind of hypocritical liar if I were to attempt to excuse or turn a blind eye to the possibility that the Celtic Board have questions to answer.
I think they do have questions to answer, but have shown a marked reluctance to do so.
And, as both a shareholder and supporter, I object to that.
Finloch
I agree. A new post now up