With the introduction of VAR to Scottish football our football media, exposure to the on line, audio and print world has been akin to living in Plato’s Cave where debate/discussion concentrates on the shadows reflected on the wall by the light of a fire: (PLATO ON: The Allegory of the Cave – YouTube )
The shadows take the following shapes.</p?
- Was it handball?
- What is handball?
- Was it a penalty?
- Was it offside?
- What are offside rules anyway?
- Do referees know them?
- Do they apply them with any degree of consistency?
All are of interest as they are scrutinised, dissected and disputed, but they all ignoring the biggest shadow of the biggest animal in the cave:- that of the elephant called ” trust”.
In the context of Scottish football, ever since the game became professional, referees in Scotland have never been trusted because of the demographic peculiarities of Scotland, a peculiarity created as a by-product of historical events in Scotland and its near neighbours Ireland and England.
With such a diverse populace tribal distrust of the other is a fertile breeding ground to grow and take life, like unattended weeds choke a garden.
In the Plato’s Cave allegory the commentator suggests the way out of the cave is by philosophical education and if you watch the video, one description of his guidance on such education is “dialogue.”
So what is dialogue?
“ Dialogue is a conversation on a common subject between two or more persons with differing views, the primary purpose of which is for each participant to learn from the other so that s/he can change and grow. This very definition of dialogue embodies the first commandment of dialogue.
If we approach another party to either defeat them or to learn about them so as to deal more effectively with her or him, or at best to negotiate with him or her. If we face each other at all in confrontation–sometimes more openly polemically, sometimes more subtly so, but always with the ultimate goal of defeating the other, because we are convinced that we alone have the absolute truth, we are indulging in debate and not dialogue.
But dialogue is not debate. In dialogue each party must listen to the other as openly and sympathetically as s/he can in an attempt to understand the other’s position as precisely and, as it were, as much from within, as possible. Such an attitude automatically includes the assumption that at any point we might find the other party’s position so persuasive that, if we would act with integrity, we would have to change, and change can be disturbing.
The parties must be prepared to come to the dialogue as persons ready to put aside their own needs and wants, at least for a time. They must be ready to listen, without judgement, to the thoughts and feelings as expressed by the other person in the exchange. The parties must be prepared to accept that reaching agreement may not be achieved, although that might occur, but dialogue will lead to both parties, through a better understanding of the others’ needs and wants, to being able to live amicably with their differences.”
How, then, can Scottish football supporters as key stakeholders in the game via their own club supporter organisations and the likes of The Scottish Football Supporters Association (SFSA)? How can the clubs themselves effectively engage in a meaningful dialogue?
There are 10 “Commandments in the Original Dialogue Decalogue by Leonard Swidler that can be read at
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iGs5NDx08g1O5A1PdUjBCfTN6foSHmk0hifUwO3-Djc/edit
but the following two are particularly apt in terms of acknowledging the presence of the particular elephant in our own Scottish football cave in order to drag it out and into the light?
SEVENTH COMMANDMENT: Dialogue can take place only between equals. Both must come to learn from each other. Therefore, if, for example, one party views the other as inferior, or if one party views the other as superior, there will be no dialogue. If authentic relationship dialogue is to occur between the parties, then both must come mainly to learn from each other; only then will it be “equal with equal,”. This rule also indicates that there can be no such thing as a one-way dialogue.
EIGHTH COMMANDMENT: Dialogue can take place only on the basis of mutual trust, which must be built. A dialogue among persons can be built only on personal trust. Hence it is wise not to tackle the most difficult problems in the beginning, but rather to approach first those issues most likely to provide some common ground, thereby establishing the basis of trust. Then, gradually, as this personal trust deepens and expands, the more thorny matters can be undertaken. Thus, as in learning we move from the known to the unknown. So in dialogue we proceed from commonly held matters, which, given our mutual ignorance resulting from possibly years of misunderstanding and possibly hostility in the relationship, may take us quite some time to discover fully–to discuss matters of disagreement.
Philosophy/dialogue is all very well but what can it do to bring about the required level of trust?
The advice above is via small steps and one small step but with huge benefits would be the introduction of transparency to the VAR process. This could be done in the reasonable short term by making conversation between referees and VAR assistant audible to all.
It is a technical approach but with behaviour changing consequences because observed behaviour changes that of those being observed. It need not be live during a game but at very least released within half an hour of a match ending. It brings in transparency which is the forerunner to accountability and would be a game changer.
Longer term strategy for culture change to improve professionalism of referees, which the proposal by Sentinel Celts Calling Out Scottish Referees – SENTINELCELTS sets out should be part of a longer terms strategy for changing the culture of the referee service with the ultimate aim of making refereeing a very rewarding professional career and be fertile territory for dialogue between all stakeholders, not least referees themselves.
Paradisebhoy
7th March 2023 at 15:27
‘..There seems to be a distinct lack of MSM coverage of the Ahmad v Lord Advocate case..’
+++++++++
Indeed, considering that if Ahmad wins then another good few million quid of taxpayers’ money will be added the millions already spent in consequence of what can only be described as the fecked up (perhaps suspiciously so?) attempt at prosecuting some other folk.
Sadly, I myself have not been free to attend since the first morning of the hearing.
Meanwhile, and unconnectedly ,there is this from today’s issue of the Court of Session rolls:
“LORD RICHARDSON – C Scott, Clerk
Parliament House
Thursday 9th March
Continued Procedural Hearing
between 9.00am and 10.00am
COS/CA104-22 ATP Investments Ltd v Rangers International Football Club Plc
COS/CA105-22 Norne Anstalt v Rangers International Football Club Plc
(this is a about the shareholders blocked by RIFC plc)
Paradisebhoy 07/03 15.44.
Just to be clear pb, Nick Walsh doesn’t train the Rangers youngsters at Boclair Academy. He is also a Celtic fan, not that it matters.
@Albertz11 – I was trying to be careful with my words as Nick Walsh’s exact relationship with the Ibrox youngsters has not been made public . But as a PE teacher at the academy, I think my statement that he “helps to train “ is accurate.
It does matter if he is a Celtic fan – he should not be allowed to officiate at any of their fixtures.
Well VAR has been operating for long enough now to have ironed out any ‘teething’ and so clubs should feel confident enough to assess its efficacy and value for money. Remember it is the clubs that are paying for this service and as such I suggest they should have the greatest influence on it’s development and continued use. At the outset I was of the opinion that it would be more cost effective and reliable to contract out to an established system already in use such as in England. The advantages are unquestionable neutrality in observation and an immediate accuracy and professionalism negating for the most part the tedious ear fingering delays we have experienced thus far. Scottish football is right to value it’s independence and international standing but I don’t believe striving for a level of excellence should preclude sourcing assistance from outside of the usual gene pool. If clubs are happy to continue with the current sham and pay for it as it stands then fine but ultimately it may cost one or two members in terms of European qualification and domestic success.
Paradisebhoy 07/03 18.44
The football part of the youngsters education is provided by the clubs own coaches with NW playing no part in it.
I would have no problem with him refereeeing any future OF games irrespective of which club he supported in the past. He is, imo, the best official in the country and was excellent in the recent LCF.
Albertz11 07/03 21.48
Thanks for that explanation of Nick Walsh’s position.
Of course , it will be impossible for him to referee any “ future OF games” as these are things of the past – but that’s another topic altogether.
What’s all this talk about the OF? To continue using this obsolete ‘descriptor’ is a narrative and agenda driven nonsense.
As so accurately described by the ‘sage’ Leigh “Yir club’s deid mate!” Griffiths when referring to the liquidation of Rangers (1872 – 2012), this previously accepted term can only accurately be used to describe the Celtic/Rangers ‘relationship’ in historical terms (i.e prior to 2012).
Thereafter, a newly formed (replacement?) Govan mob arrived on the scene (Sevco/TRFC or whatever) then, lo and behold, the term OF was, farcically, re-introduced!
(n.b. TRFC was a new club with no history!)
Although, in fairness, the fledgling outfit has done well by winning 2 major domestic trophies in 11 years (as against 22 by CFC and 3 by St Johnstone), all liquidation deniers and ‘airbrushers’ out there should note that …
There ain’t no OF! (mibbee it could, in time, be a New Firm – ah dunno!).
bect67 08/03 16.39
Leigh Griffiths has been called many four letter words throught the years but ‘sage’ has never been one of them.
To be fair one of the two major trophies won in the past 11 years was rather important don’t you think?
bect67
8th March 2023 at 16:39
‘What’s all this talk about the ‘OF’?..’
++++++++
Yes, bect67.
Albertz11’s otherwise entirely reasonable post of 7th March 2023 at 21:48 was vitiated by his reference to the ‘OF’
Because for as long as TRFC is allowed to claim to be RFC of 1872, there is no possibility of Truth in Scottish Football and Scottish Football governance!
Everybody in Scottish Football KNOWS, as James Taylor so signally did at the time, that RFC of 1872 was as dead and gone as a football club as Third Lanark when no buyer prepared to pay its huge debts could be found and it was consequently liquidated.
And knows that ‘team 13’ was a lying construct by the SFA/SPL/SFL at the time,
and knows that CG’s SevcoScotland had to seek entry into Scottish football as a new club, with absolutely no footballing history but lying in its teeth that it was RFC of 1872!
A lie so gross as to render those who created it and those who propagate it unfit to be operating in any field of professional Sport!
Honest to God!
Just in the passing can I say that I attended the afternoon session of today’s proceedings in the Imran Ahmad action v the Lord Advocate.
I’ll try to decipher my notes and give some idea of what I heard.
I can say that interest seems to have waned, because only about 20 seats in Court 6 were occupied!
John Clark 08/03 23.22
My opinion differs from yours John. I alongwith the vast majority of people still use the term when discussing the game. A few refer to it as RAN V CEL or CEL V RAN, no-one i know mentions the Glasgow Derby prior to the match i’m afraid.
I was able to attend the Wednesday 8th March afternoon session (2.00-4.00) of the Imran Ahmad case.
Interest in it seems to have waned somewhat, for only about 20 seats were occupied, [Counsel for both parties sat at the clerk’s table, immediately below the bench, and the row normally used by Counsel was occupied by three ‘expert’ witnesses, Mr Andrews, Mr Constantino and a Mr [Curten?] These are ‘experts’ in the world of corporate finance, who [I assume] had been giving evidence about Ahmad’s career and abilities to earn monies in the world of raising capital investment and share purchasing etc. and able to assess his future earnings potential and value of loss of earnings.
Apart from Counsel, there were 6 legals on the Lord Advocate’s side, and I think 7 on Ahmad’s side. Ahmad himself was present.
The afternoon session began with Lord Keen KC concluding his examination of Mr Andrews. He referred to reckoning the total value of losses sustained by Mr Ahmad, and to page 118 section 5.1. This related to a report which included the following “the move from Rangers would have provided monies and [while there] is no evidence of specific opportunities arising from Proton Partners, Ahmad was in a strong position”.
Mr Andrews agreed that the statement (as amended earlier) was correct and reliable.
Lord Keen then asked Mr Curten[?} to look at his own statement. and asked if the report in 2022 was made by him? Mr Curten agreed that it was. He was asked if he adhered to his declaration to the Court in 2022. The answer was ‘yes’ And did he accept the Joint Statement? Yes, he did.
Lord Keen asked whether Mr Curten relied on Mr Andrews? Yes, he did.
That was the end of Lord Keen’s examination.
Mr Moynihan KC had to sit in the witness box (because of a faulty microphone) and quipped about role reversal)
He began by asking Mr ? to look at the report at Joint Bundle 707[ or 747?], and asked: you contributed to your colleague in [producing] the Joint Statement?
Yes.
Moynihan: There was some correction to the report (he referred to P 2909, app III (c).6 ‘tax calculations had to be revised”
Witness: yes
Moynihan: Corrected version at 2916 to be used?
A: 2921
Moynihan: make change to 2922 as well?
Witness: Yes
Moynihan: That is a Schroeder report on the valuation of Proton…correct?
W: Yes.
Moynihan: I have some questions to ask about your CV which I will leave till tomorrow, but I have a couple of points now.
First, refer to page 796 para 5.22 of your report. This is the Calculation of commission, £3.9 million, and after some deductions, a net figure of £2.55 million.That ,divided by 3, equals £850,000. He was paid £631,000. Is that included in the £850,000?
W: Yes
Moynihan: When were you first instructed?
W: Late July 2022.
Moynihan: .late July to beginning of December?
W: had no time to have a vacation..
M: How many colleagues had you?
W: 3 to 5
Moynihan: Any particulr challenges?
W: I struggled with the consistency of the information, trouble defining….
Judge (intervening) 3 to 5 colleagues? .. did that involve you delegating ?
W: Not all the time.. Every week there were I or 2 colleagues, some weeks all 5.
Moynihan: Other companies ..Para 4, page 781 ‘background of legl entities involved’ Was this a significant piece of work?
W: Yes. It was hard to find information..
Moynihan: [he mentioned a company name that sounded like ‘ Albin Capital Ltd]?
W: Yes
Moynihan: Albin Partners?
W: Yes
Moynihan:’Albin Partners general trading’ ?
W: Yes
Moynihan: para 4.16, page 783..”Albin Partners, Albin General Traders, Albin Capital Ltd.’…thse were all separate legal entities?
W: Yes
Moynihan: P 784- ‘Tota Partners international’, Abu Dhabi? A separate entity?
W: Yes
Moynihan: Then at P.785 ‘Albin General Traders LLP?
W: Yes
Moynihan: An entity called “Singulanta”[ ed: that’s what it sounded like!]
W: Yes
Moynihan: [ed: he said another name that sounded like ‘Cruse’ ?
W: I found nothing on that
Moynihan: [ed: my scribble looks like “ Lianasut Albin partners’ ?- Made enquiries into?
W: Couldn’t find anything without a Court order
Moynihan: ‘Flanigs’ [ ed: that’s how my scribble reads!]-a Cypriot company?
W: You can see it online, but you have to go personally.
Moynihan: A flavour of how difficult it was?
W; Yes
Moynihan: Page 995. Have you set out the link to some of these entities in trying to track the transfer of shares?
W: Yes
Moynihan: Info about ‘Singulanta’?
W; The name Charles Green came up.
Moynihan: “Cruse? Did you hear any info about Cruse during other evidence ?
W: Yes
Moynihan: So your sum of knoedge about Cruse is wht you herd from other people’s evidence?
W: yes.
Moynihan: Page 6503… This is an analyisis of Mr Ahmad’s bank transactions in current aaccount. Got a lot, but not all. Example, line 28 “ 20 August 21…..£500 000”
W: We have the receipt
Judge: [ed: he asked a question which I didn’t hear]
Witness: We hd a lot of bank statements.
Judge: [the Court ws looking at the screen on which the document referred to was being shown, and Lord Harrower was seeking clarification on what it was showing} What is the request being made, and wht is the response?
W: [ explained the layout]
Moynihan: P. 263: blue colour entries are the information requested and the red entries are the replies.”Question 5:povide receipts and invoive received by Ahmad”?
W: Yes
Moynihan: P6650 …further request for information [in blue] , red (?) column spredsheet “ Can Mr Ahad tel us how (?) ws calculated?” “Mr Ahmad cannot provide further information”
email from E Smith , more uestions from you? Have you seen these?
W: Yes
Moynihan: Confirmation of tax residency “ ..our client lives in Dubai” “Our client left for Pakistan..” How dependent on [ ed: missed the question]…?
W: [ed: missed any answer]
Moynihan: What degree of understandingdid you hve of Mr Ahmad’s losses?
W: Still unknown.
Moynihan: You’ve been here in court and heard about Allenby documents ?
W: Yes, last week, Thursday?
Moynihan: You’re unclear?
W: The documents we saw yesterday I had not seen before
Moynihan: The Supplement to the Joint Bundle, p.201 3rd February….?
W: I haven’t seen before
Moynihan: Yesterday annd today’s informtion , p.73, ‘Invoice £220 000 Ali Shar’ When did you first see that?
W: yesterday
Moynihan: Joint Bundle..376 two statements. I take you to p.3722. , para 5.2.7- trying to work out what Mr Ahmad’s career might hve to do with you and ZAI in 2004.. would you follow up?
W: Yes
Moynihan: Why?
W: to see possible extension of career
[ At this point , 3.00 pm, Mr Moynihan suggested that it might be a good time for a short adjournment. { I think it was for practical reasons to do with making sure that the Court and witnesses were all on the same page when documents were being referred to because one ‘expert’ witness had appeared not to and hadn’t asked for clarification]
On resumption at about 3.15 or so, Mr Moynihan continued his cross-examination of Mr Andrews:
He asked about the length of time and work Andrews had expeneded on his work, and when he was first instructed.
W: February till April 2022.
Moynihan: Full-time?
W: No
Moynihan: [?]
W: About 45 hours work
Moynihan: Did you have to ask for work?
W: No
Moynihan: You were here this morning?
W: Yes
Moynihan: Was that the first time you had heard of [ ed: missed it!]
W: My gut reaction..[ ed: missed the rest]
Moynihan : p. 2292 of statement. “ 5A Set out VCE generated by Andews for the purposes of his report ..
Ahmad ‘Venture Capital European’
if [ed: ‘it’?] had said ZAI, what would you say?
W: Corporate Finance
Moynihan: ‘NOMAD’ etc ?
W: Yes
Moynihan: If his intention was to work with ZAI you might call him a NOMAD?
W: Correct.
Moynihan: Exactly. Comes out of Rangers into ZAI
[ed: I missed the first bit of what was said] …….if he had to lie to the FCA..
by January 2015 ZAI was a route into Allenby which to be quite difficult?
W: Yes
Moynihan: Your report: engagement letter 2014…in Albans Capital…entitlement to 5%?
W: Yes
( My heid’s done in trying to decipher my notes. I’ll continue tomorrow)
My post of 9th March at 22.42 refers
This is the continuation of my notes
“Moynihan: You weren’t told that it was a variation-were you not told that the fee was 3%
W: [ed: didn’t catch his reply]
Moynihan: .para 325 , 5% is mentioned?
W: [ed: the witness referred to high level operations, and verbal agreements subsequent to written contract . I lost the thread of what he was saying]
Moynihan : [ed: I think he referred to a paragraph number, and said ‘ the writing of the IPO was £58 million’?
W: [ ed: seemed to say something bou that figure being smaller]
Moynihan: 2% of £50 million equals £800 000.To what extent is your dependent on what you are told?
W: It’s very subjecive.
Moynihan: Page 97,31.10—Rangers shares,2.2 million shares, £946,000..= 43p per share, £899,000 gain..
The [ed: ‘Holyrood’??]report, page 6674, para 3.24 ….On 21 August 2013 “Ahmad no longer held an interest…£899.000 capital gain… Share price August 2013 share price 43p per share. That’s what you relied on. The sum received was closer to £902,000….41p per share. Ahmad did not tell you what he received for the Rangers shares?
W: I may be at fault, I apologise if so.
Moynihan: Were you told that Ahmad did not pay rax on a capital gain?
W: Not to my recollection
Moynihan:Is it relevant that tax not paid might be relevant to an application for Financial Conduct Authority approval?
W:[ed: don’t know if there was a reply efore Mr Moynihan asked his next question
Moynihan: If someone had asked you to send a letter of approval ..?
W: It’s very hard to say ,Moynihan the key word being [ed: my scribble might be ‘evasion’]
Moynihan: 14.6.12 , hyperlink to RIFC plc’s Interim results. This was given to you in 2022. Full results of Rangers Football Club Ltd, p. 4902, balance sheet of RFC Ltd, June 2013 On this sheet “ current assets less debtors” cash of £10.25 million. Rangers blew £25 million in 13 months.
W: [ed: not sure whether Witness made any reply]
Moynihan: page 4895 , Board of RIFCplc, investigation into Green and Ahmad.. is it in line with trading [ed; missed the next bit, hearing only “ a letter before claim” then
“Did Mr Ahmad tell you that he had dealings with Mr Whyte
W: No
Moynihan: Did Ahmad tell you he got £137500 from Whyte? The evidence we hve is that that money was put into his mother’s account?
W: No
Moynihan:Same document, p 446. the 2012 acquisition of Stagecoach. Mr Ahmad was not an ‘Adviser’ Were you aware?
W: No
Moynihan: To bea NOMAD Mr Ahmad has to be employe by a NOMAD
carried out a number of ‘qualified transactions’. By 2015 his last transaction , Stagecoach, he was short of the 3 years?
W: Yes and no [ ed: there was then a some kind of explanation that I could not follow]
Moynihan: Page 109 of the Joint Bundle, para 5.4.5 “the most important fact….he would have 2 successful..”
{ed:if Witness replied, I missed his reply]
Moynihan: Having heard what I have said, wold you stick by ..
W: No, that would not have been a successful career.
Moynihan: Is it acceptable for a company to keep that quiet?
W: No
Moynihan: You would feel obliged to report this to the FCA
W: Yes
Moynihan: Even ifnthe fault was Allenby Capital’s?
W: [ed: couldn’t make out what witness said, except the word ‘reference’ was used. The Judge intervened to to make it clear that the ‘reference’ was not just a job reference but a formal reference to the FCA for approval]
Moynihan: CENKOS observed that Rngers had been an unmitigated disaster for them.Cenkos advised Ahmad that he should not be a director of RIFC plc.
Is that a successful career
W: [ed: not sure if there was a reply}
And that was the end of the session, Court adjourned until next day.
Barca now .
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/64918604
From the Rolls of Court today
“OUTER HOUSE ROLLS
Adjustment in the undernoted cases commenced on Wednesday 8th March 2023 and in the absence of any court order to the contrary the records therein will, without further publication in the rolls, close on Wednesday 3rd May 2023.
1. ……..
2 A272/21 Craig Whyte v Chief Constable Iain Livingstone &c
3……..
I don’t know what that means. Anybody?
rom the Rolls of Court today
“OUTER HOUSE ROLLS
Adjustment in the undernoted cases commenced on Wednesday 8th March 2023 and in the absence of any court order to the contrary the records therein will, without further publication in the rolls, close on Wednesday 3rd May 2023.
1. ……..
2 A272/21 Craig Whyte v Chief Constable Iain Livingstone &c
3……..
I don’t know what that means. Anybody?
Don’t worry John I’m sure it will be explained in great detail by our hard working truth seeking journalists. 🙂
I’ve just been reading today’s email from the SFSA, and had a wee laugh of agreement at reading this in ‘Andy’s -sting-in-the-tail ‘
‘… because Deloitte are not the source of anything other than expensive guesswork for expensive fees.’
No harm to Deloitte but having recently heard in Court some ‘fee’ figures for people ‘advising’ on finance matters I am inclined to have the same opinion as he about ‘financial advisers’, whether they are approved by the FCA or not!
Mind you, I have a very low opinion of the FCA as being any kind of regulatory body. They did not see (because in my opinion they did not look!) anything questionable about RIFC plc’s IPO, with its strong suggestion to potential investors that RIFC plc is the holding company of the liquidated RFC of 1872!
Which, of course, it is not!
It is the holding company of a football club first admitted into Scottish Football in 2012.
As the BBC knows to be the case, and as the SMSM generally knows to be the case.
May they live uncomfortably in the knowledge that in essence they are propagandists of untruth-in a mere matter of so-called Sport- and that we assume that they would readily be propagandists of any untruth in more fundamental life and death matters to save their wretched skins!
Ballyargus
10th March 2023 at 23:28
‘..Don’t worry John I’m sure it will be explained in great detail by our hard working truth seeking journalists. 🙂’
+++++++
Ha ha! Would I believe what they might say? [ see my post of 23.30 above]
To be fair to the Courts’ administration body the stuff on their website is aimed principally at legals to keep them up to the minute with administrative matters relating to their work, not at Joe Public.
I make no criticism of them.
paddy malarkey
10th March 2023 at 17:28
‘Barca now ‘
++++++++
The thing about the Barcelona allegations is that it is about one football club’s alleged arrangements with an allegedly crooked official in charge of referees.
Our wee Scottish problem is that our football GOVERNANCE body sold its soul (allegedly) in creating the LIE that a football club that they themselves admitted into Scottish football as a new club in 2012 is the Rangers of 1872!
One allegedly cheating club and/or bent refereeing supervisory body are as NOTHING compared with an allegedly bent national ‘governance’ body’s fabrication of the lie that TRFC are RFC of 1872.
There’s something in me that just loved watching the Falkirk v Ayr United game tonight.
I can openly say that I was a smidgeon biased in favour of Falkirk: a cousin’s husband, [sadly deceased some years ago, as is my cousin], who was generous and entertaining company on our visits to my cousin and him, was an avid supporter of Falkirk!
I miss them both.
I smile to myself as I wonder whether the ‘Sun’ has already anticipated a Celtic v Falkirk final. and is working on a headline as (objectively measured in newspaper terms!) as brilliant as the ‘supercaley go ballistic.’ one.
Or an equally stinging but amusing headline if the final is between a losing TRFC and Falkirk/ICT.