Sweet Little Lies

1118
153623

Tell me all your sweet, sweet little lies
All about the dark places you hide
Tell me all your problems, make them mine
Tell me all your sweet, sweet little lies

The stridency of Scottish journalist/pundits, particularly coming from those on the BBC Sportsound platform from where they cry out for an investigation into what took place behind the scenes before and after the SPFL put forward a resolution to SPFL clubs, subsequently accepted by the majority, that allowed SPFL to pay out needed prize money to sides below the Premier level is, to quote an old saying, “the talk of the steamie”.

Whilst those cries are ostensibly in support of a demand led by The Rangers FC for a need to change the governance at the SPFL, it is not clear if they mean the way the SPFL conduct business or the way individuals inside the SPFL go about the conduct of that business.

During on-air interviews, questions are being put to clubs about the degree of confidence they have in individuals rather than the processes, systems and structures. This suggests it is individuals who are being placed under scrutiny, and not the dysfunctional processes and structures themselves. A pity, since there is little doubt the governance is dysfunctional.

SFM has long been asking questions about the system and processes of governance and in fact tried to elicit the help of a number of journalists (in 2014) after information which had not been made available to the then SPFL lawyers Harper MacLeod during or after the LNS inquiry had surfaced.

Information that had it been made available would have changed the charges of Old Rangers’ mis-registration of players contracts, and to the more recent and unresolved matter of their failing to act in good faith to fellow club members (which the SFA Compliance Officer made in June 2018 in respect of non-compliance with UEFA FFP regulations relating to tax overdue in 2011).

Following the last Celtic AGM a detailed independent investigation by an accountant was provided to Celtic who passed it to the SFA where the matter has been overtaken by world events but not forgotten. That report can be read here.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1NeNzADsUAXkcFQ6QtehK5QqNsFa6he8V

It only adds to the mountain of evidence on https://www.res12.uk that suggests the need for reform of both governance bodies, their structures, systems and process.

Instead the media have given us a narrow head hunt to remove individuals for reasons that can only be guessed. This from individuals in the media whose motivations are as questionable now as they were in 2014, when they and their organisations ignored stronger evidence of greater wrong doing than has so far been presented by those currently advocating change.

The current media clamour for heads on a plate carries with it more than a whiff of hypocrisy.

During week commencing 22 September 2014, some volunteer SFM readers posted a bundle of documents that had surfaced to a number of journalists. SFM had previously sent these documents to Harper MacLeod, the then SPL lawyers. These were important documents pertinent to Lord Nimmo Smith’s inquiry into Rangers use of EBTs, documents which had not been made available to Harper MacLeod by Rangers Administrators Duff and Phelps despite being requested in March 2012 as part of the commissioning of LNS.

Earlier SFM blogs provide the details of communications with Harper MacLeod and can be read from the same link(s) provided to 12 Scottish media journalists in the draft below.

Some of the addresses may have received more than one copy but apart from one for whom only an e mail address was known, they should have received at least one hard copy of what Harper MacLeod/SPFL had been provided with which the latter passed to the SFA Compliance Officer in September 2014 according to their last reply to SFM. It is unlikely none were received by the organisations they were addressed to.

The draft to the journalist which the volunteers were at liberty to amend said:

I am a reader of The Scottish Football Monitor web site and attach for your information a set of documents that Duff and Phelps, acting as Rangers Administrators in April 2012, failed to provide to the then Scottish Premier League solicitors Harper MacLeod, who were charged with gathering evidence to investigate the matter of incorrect player registrations from July 1998 involving concealed side letters and employee benefit trusts by Rangers FC as defined in the eventual Lord Nimmo Smith Commission.

The failure to supply the requested information in the form of the attached documents as clearly instructed resulted in incorrect terms of reference being drawn up by Harper Macleod and a consequent serious error of judgement by Lords Nimmo Smith in his Decision as regards sporting advantage.

The information in the attached was provided to Harper MacLeod and the SPL Board in Feb 2014 and it was pointed out in subsequent correspondence that SFA President Campbell Ogilvie had failed to make a distinction in his testimony to Lord Nimmo Smith between the already confirmed as irregular Discount Option Scheme EBTs paid to Craig Moore, Tor Andre Flo and Ronald De Boer from 1999 to 2002/03 under Rangers Employee Benefit Trust (REBT) and the later loan EBTsfrom 2002/03 onwards under the Murray Group Management Remuneration Trust (MGMRT), having initiated the first DOS EBT to Craig Moore (as shown in the attached) and being a beneficiary of a MGMRT EBT as widely reported in national press in March 2012 at the time investigations commenced.
The complete narrative was set out in a series of blogs on The Scottish Football Monitor Web Site that are accessible from

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6uWzxhblAt9dnVHSl9OU3RoWm8/view?usp=sharing
(Edit: The links to the original SFM blogs were listed but some have been lost but original sources have been uploaded to Google Drive accessible from the above link)

However in spite of the correspondence sent to Harper MacLeod, there has been no response from them or the SPFL, save their answer to the original letter. (Edit: There was subsequent correspondence with Harper Macleod after the package and this letter was sent to the journalists which can be read from the above index to the original blogs.)

These points suggests that the SPFL, Harper MacLeod and Lord Nimmo Smith were misled by Duff and Phelps failure to supply the attached documents as instructed as well as Campbell Ogilvie’s failure to correct Lord Nimmo Smiths decision to treat all EBTs as “regular” when the DOS EBTs are not, as the attached evidence clearly demonstrates.

You are one of a number of journalists to whom this letter and attachments is addressed either electronically or hard copy. We are hoping that some journalists will prove themselves worthy of the challenge and investigate the story, even if only to refute it and stop suspicion of a cover up.

A copy of this letter and responses from addressees (or failures) will be published on The Scottish Football Monitor web site for the Scottish football supporting public to note. The e mail address for your reply is press@sfm.scot and we hope that you will investigate what appears to have been the corruption of the very process set up to establish the truth or you will explain why you cannot.
Yours in Sport

Note: The letter above was drafted and distributed with the documentation before a reply from Harper MacLeod was received, but as the reply did not address the issue of the nature of the irregular DOS EBTs, the request to journalists to investigate was even more valid.
The following were the journalists to whom documentation was posted/delivered.

Mr Richard Gordon
Mr Richard Wilson
Mr Tom English all at the BBC.

Mr Grant Russell
Mr Peter A Smith. At STV

Mr Andrew Rennie Daily Record Sports Editor

Mr Paul Hutcheon
Mr Graham Speirs
Mr Gerry Braiden at The Herald

Mr Mathew Lindsay Evening Times (belatedly)

Mr Gerry McCulloch Radio Clyde

Ms Jane Hamilton Freelance ex-Sun Sunday Mail (by e mail)

Only three individuals showed an interest but it is inconceivable to think that the media outlets they worked for were ignorant of the information provided or that the Scottish media sports departments are unaware of the narrative and its implications which were subsequently picked up by The Offshore Game but drew no refuting comments with the exception of Tom English.

He opined that the TOG report was ‘flawed’ although he did not specify how he came to that conclusion.

Darren Cooney of the Daily Record did take an interest in November 2015 when he met an SFM representative, who explained the case then sent him a summary to give to his editor but The Daily Record did not publish the story nor give any reason why they didn’t.

Grant Russell was with STV at the time and a meeting with him was arranged with a fellow SFM contributor but he failed to show up.
He subsequently did show an interest when The Court of Session ruled the Big Tax Case unlawful in July 2017, when he was provided with the a note of the consequences for the LNS Commission. However Grant moved jobs to join Motherwell in late October 2017.

Why bring all this his up now?
Because currently, the existence of texts and e-mails and unsubstantiated claims of skullduggery appear to have energised a media (and BBC Sports Department in particular) that had ‘no appetite’ to investigate actual evidence presented to them in 2014. There seems to be little doubt that an agenda is being followed, but as the preceeding paragraphs demonstrate, it casts doubt that their motivation is reform of the governance of Scottish football, and raises a suspicion that replacement of individuals (whose steerage of the good ship Scottish Football into the RFC iceberg was deemed adequate a decade ago) is what is important. A meaningless powerplay. No more no less.

One may jump to the conclusion that the foregoing is a defence of the individuals at the centre of this controversy, and that it defends the SPFL position in respect of the requisitioners review of governance. That would be the wrong conclusion. The point is that a wide-ranging review of the SFA/SPFL governance is way overdue.

The time window covered by any review should the very least cover the tenure of those accused of malfeasance and mis-governance. The media, and the requisitioners are cherry-picking their poor governance. That is poor governance in itself.

1118 COMMENTS

1 14 15 16
 
  1. What iis it with our SMSM journalists and anything to do with TRFC?

    Can I be the only person who would like to know why someone like Andrew Smith of the 'Scotsman'  appears not to wonder how Sports Direct can claim (as Smith reports) that the new 'Rangers' kit would be sold exclusively in their stores, while the TRFC statement can say  "As is common practice in teamwear retail, Castore will form a number of wholesale supply arrangements with high street retailers in the UK and overseas because that is key to the global aspirations of Castore and 'Rangers' .." [my italics]

    Is Ashley telling porkies?

    Or is the TRFC statement's  use of the phrase  ' a number of …high street retailers' simply an attempt to conceal the fact that the only retailers may  be SD's retail outlets?

    Honest to God!  If I can ask that question, why doesn't  a journalist. The TRFC/Ashley story was a big story. If King and Co are still not free of him, that's a bigger story. Has a deal been struck to avoid having to fork out a huge lump sum in damages owing to Ashley by granting Ashley exclusivity   until enough kit has been sold to pay everything that Ashley is due? 

    [Scotsman editor, gie 's a job, gonny?]

  2. John Clark @ 1106hrs:

    I suspect that TRFC’s desire to sell kit via third parties in the ‘High St.’ is complicated by the apparent news that CFC’s new merchandise will be available ‘exclusively’ from that well-known ‘High St.’ retailer, JD Sports, which has shops in most reasonable-sized towns. However, in the TRFC mindset, that would immediately exclude that company as a possible retail partner.

    I can’t think which other companies have the sportswear-related, ‘High. St.’ retail reach & outlets for TRFC except SD. 

     

  3. John Clark 2nd July 2020 at 11:06

    Might it be that the merchandise will be sold through the Fraser Group of companies , eg Jack Willis , Sports Direct , Evans Cycles , House of Fraser ,etc ?

  4. Cluster One 1st July  at 19:28
    reasonablechap 1st July  at 18:02

    Robertson was on the board but I refer to what club actually hold real influence at the SPFL (Celtic).
    ………..
    And you know this how? Are you part of the SPFL board and know of first hand experiance or is it just hearsay on your part.
     

    ===============================

    You don't have to be on the SPFL board to know that Peter, on behalf of Celtic PLC, wields considerable influence. People like MacLennan, McKenzie (H&McL), Blair and Doncaster are on his side of the fence and have enjoyed his support during these omnishambolic times.

    Nor do you have to be on the board to know that Robertson and Rangers are on the outside.

    Don't let us forget the whatsup group messages that became public after the Good Friday vote. This is what Eric Drysdale (Dundee) sent:…: I’m imagining Neil will have been talking to Peter just after 5, and the SPFL not having received our vote, has led to further discussion with John of which I currently have no knowledge.

     

    It's the same at the SFA. Maxwell and Mulraney are friends of Peter, the most influential individual in the Scottish game.

    The SPFL would have run their ill-fated, omnishambolic plan past Peter in April to make sure he was happy with it before going ahead. Peter picks up the bat and hits resolution12 out of the park, because he can. The PLC has it's priorities and Peter needs his considerable bonus.

    Keeping track of Peter is easy #FollowtheMoney 

     

  5. What seems like a fairly comprehensive summary of Day 2 in Court from a poster on Jambos Kickback, David McCaig.

    Thank’s David !

     ===============

    Heart of Midlothian/Partick Thistle v SPFL: Day 2

     

    David Thomson QC – Hearts/Partick

     

    The effect of Section of 2010 Arbitration Act – the language is clear, unambiguous and speaks for itself.

     

    The court does not have a discretion to overlook this language.  This seems to be at odds with the position in England and is based on different historical context.

     

    Feels that the motion is ill-conceived and that the right to seek a sist depends on the applicant doing neither of the actions stated in 10(1d). To retain the right to seek a sist the respondents must not place substantive answers.

     

    Thomson disputed Borland’s argument that they had to give a substantive answer. There is no basis that this could be considered to be a 2-sided dispute.

     

    Motions for interim order argued daily without defences being lodged.

     

    Therefore argues that the right to seek arbitration has been lost.

     

    Any referral to arbitration would lead to valuable time being lost and more importantly the matters raised are of significant public interest and concern.

     

    Reference is made to the extraordinary communication made to clubs last week telling them that it was necessary for them to support the SPFL in order to see the papers.

     

    Lord Clark highlights that the email from Dundee was received at 4:48pm on the day on question.  Does this help in speeding things up.?

     

    DT refers to the debacle of the Dundee vote and the public interest in clearing this up.

     

    We are entitled to discover the truth of what happened in that episode.

     

    Lord Clark: Will evidence, afadavits and witness statements be required? Will witnesses be required to be led.

     

    DT – the focus of the petitioners is likely to be on documentary evidence, but cant say for certain there would be no need for cross-examination… particularly the conversations between John Nelms and Neil Doncaster.  There would also be an evidence requirement for any compensation demand.

     

    Lord Clark: A requirement for evidence and limited cross-examination.

     

    DT – Submission 2

     

    No valid arbitration clause is in play.  The starting point in any consideration should be the SPFL rules and these are not clear or definitive about arbitration

     

    Reliance about SFA disciplinary rule 78 by Moynihan to suggest agreement to arbitration process does no such thing.

     

    In the context of the present petition the arbitration provision of article 99 has not been incorporated.

     

    Lord Clark – Is there a members agreement amongst clubs to resolve disputes via arbitration.

     

    DT – Yes but only under article 99 and this petition is brought as shareholders within the SPFL Ltd. This why this is not a football dispute.

     

    Temporary break in proceedings due to Broaband Issues – court not in session

     

    No arbitration incorporation unless made clear.

     

    Submission 3 – is unfair prejudice arbitrable: Refers to the papers

     

    Submission 4  – Article 99.1 does not purport in any sense to refer all disputes to arbitration.  It only says certain disputes ie SFA or Football dispute.

     

    Is this a football dispute?  The SPFL is not in any way an associated person.

     

    Whilst in one way every dispute could be considered a football dispute, the problem with that argument is that the SPFL’s own rules only refer to disputes of a certain type.

     

    This is a company dispute of unfair prejudice brought by shareholders of a company against how the affairs of the limited company, the SPFL have been conducted.

     

    Reference again made to the articles involved in the Fulham case and how these are very different to article 99 by the SPFL.

     

    Lord Clark: No ruling on motions until he has heard both.

     

    Response from Garry Borland QC:

     

    DT has referred to article 99, provisions relative to nomination of arbiters, time period, choice of chair and how this may be conducted.  He said there might be significant delay.  DT has added nothing specific to this. He has given no substantive grounds that the arbitration agreement is incapable of being performed.

     

    He merely argues that arbitration is a less attractive option.  

     

    Article 99.1 provides in terms that it comprises an agreement by parties subject to it, to specified arbitration.  This article is explicitly and arbitration agreement.

     

    Article 99.15 the need for prior approval from SFA does not offend public interest, as it does not preclude any party from going to court and is reasonable for any parties seeking arbitration.

     

    Lord Clark – refers back to St Johnstone 1965 when a similar precondition existed.

     

    GB – similar but different as the SFA were more heavily involved and there was no independent arbitration tribunal.

     

    This is no different from other contractual obligations in business life.

     

    Therefore 99.15 is legal and enforceable.

     

    What would a public hearing achieve? Extensive written submissions already placed

     

    Lord Clark – Yesterday Mr Moynihan made reference to the SFA having the power to clubs ‘oot the gemme’ and said this consequence was something he had to consider.

     

    GB – Refers back to 10.1(d) of arbitration act and the precedence in English Law and that the respondents have not prejudiced their right to arbitration.  Substantive answers had to be lodged to show that there was a real dispute that fell within remit of arbitration.  The case highlighted by DT (Norwest/Holst) vouches that this is correct. Requirement to demonstrate there is a 2-sided dispute suitable for arbitration.

     

    Therefore it is entirely legitimate to provide answers.

     

    There is no compelling reason why this should not go to arbitration.

     

    On the issue of the clubs saying that they are sueing as shareholders of the SPFL.  Petitioners are contractually obliged to comply with the SPFL rules.

     

    Rule B4 of the SPFL rules contractually obliges petitioners to comply with the SFA articles.  The 3 clubs are seeking to enforce the provisions of the SPFL articles.

     

    Section 33 of Companies Act 2006, bind the members as if there were covenants on each member

     

    Reconvene at 10 tomorrow morning

  6. Court adjourned till 10.00 am tomorrow.

    One or two points that I am particularly interested in:

    Mr Thomson QC argued that the dispute is not a 'football dispute' in terms of the SFA's articles, but a shareholders' dispute with the company of which they  are shareholders; and that the mere reference in the SPFL's Articles to Arbitration did not imply that the Arbitration provisions in the SFA's Articles had been incorporated into the SPFL's articles as (apparently)they would need to have been if those provisions had to be complied with by members of the SPFL. 

    Mr Borland QC argued that the basis on which the parties are shareholders in the SPFL and members of the SFA is that they are members of the SPFL, and therefore bound to comply with the Articles of the SPFL, and those Articles require compliance with the SFA's Articles, because Section 33 of the Companies Act 2006 says that a Company's Articles bind the members of the company.

    And that the respondents (HoM and PT and the other 3 clubs) were also shareholders in the SPFL and members of the SFA and entitled to enforce the Articles of the SFA against fellow shareholders/members.

    A number of cases were cited , of course.

    Mr Borland will continue tomorrow, then Mr Moynihan, and then on to Mr Thomson for his motion on recovery of documents.

    Technically, things went generally well, although there were two briefish interruptions one lasting three or four minutes as far as I could estimate and the Judge halted proceedings while the techies sorted things.

     

  7. John Clark 2nd July 2020 at 11:06
    ……………..
    Reminds of the pop up shops and sell as much as you can before a court order comes through the door.

  8. reasonablechap 2nd July 2020 at 16:07
    You don’t have to be on the SPFL board to know that Peter, on behalf of Celtic PLC, wields considerable influence.
    ……
    I’m imagining Neil will have been talking to Peter just after 5,

    with John of which I currently have no knowledge

    …………..
    Words like I’m imagining and no knowledge are just hearsay not facts.
    ………
    The SPFL would have run their ill-fated, omnishambolic plan past Peter .
    And you know this how?
    Again all speculation on your part.

  9. Cluster 

    Your need for the complete factual story and absolutely no room for speculation is very much at odds with your stance on The Asterisk.

    The following sentence is factual.

    It is speculation that Celtic would have won the league had all teams completed their fixtures.

    *

     ps. Why do you think that Eric Drysdale (Dundee) would imagine that Neill would speak to Peter just after the 5pm deadline closed ?

    Arranging a game of golf, a chat about French wine or we may have a problem, so who do we need to speak to ?
     

  10. reasonablechap 2nd July 2020 at 17:48
    It is speculation that Celtic would have won the league had all teams completed their fixtures.
    ………………
    It is wishful thinking to believe that a team like celtic would have lost a 13 point lead ( A feat that has never happened before in The SPFL) and a 25 goal difference advantage, to a team who were beaten by two clubs at the bottom of the league.
    Was the reason why all clubs agreed that celtic were champions.
    ….
    Ps. Why do you think that Eric Drysdale (Dundee) would imagine that Neill would speak to Peter just after the 5pm deadline closed ?
    ……
    He could imagine Neil would speak to Peter and imagine that Neil would speak to anyone else on the SPFL Board.

  11. reasonablechap 2nd July 2020 at 18:18
    Celtic did complete the fixtures, the league was called to an end,and all clubs Agreed they be crowned champions.

  12. reasonablechap 2nd July 2020 at 18:18
    By your reconing, if there is an anomaly there should be an Asterisk.
    Do we add an asterisk if the league finishes on a thursday? do we add an asterisk for the scottish cup as it will take place months later than normal, do we add an asterisk to the european trophies as they will take place not in May?

  13. Cluster/RC

    Your game of ping pong is getting a bit tiresome. Can you not just agree to disagree? 

    Wiki has a note against the 2019/20 champions to the effect that a PPG basis was used to decide the CHAMPIONS due to the season being curtailed due to Covid 19. I think this is a reasonable point to record for posterity although maybe it should have added that Celtic (having played 30/38 matches were 13 points ahead of Rangers who had played 29/38 matches. It also notes that Rangers 54 includes 1 that was shared with Dumbarton. No notes against the EBT years though!

  14. bordersperson @18.57

    For what its worth, I have already opined that RC suffers from (what sadly could now be terminal) argumentative personality disorder – meaning that no one would ever be overturn  his 'closed mind' attitude. On that score – ye cannae win! He wid start a fight 'in an empty hoose'.

    Perhaps these words from a Bob Dylan song might help you accept this:-

    "you're right from your side and I'm right from mine …

    we're both one too many mornings an a thousand miles behind"

    … except, according to RC – he wouldn't be!

    For what its worth, I feel it would be in the best interests of all members of the SFM community if he were given a free transfer form this site as he seems to be 'dragging a lot of people down' (living 'rent free' in a lot of people's heads) by shifting the focus from genuine, honest and open minded discussion to … well whatever the anti social  'beehive in his bonnet' is.

  15. bordersdon 2nd July 2020 at 18:57

    Cluster/RC

    Your game of ping pong is getting a bit tiresome.
    Agreed.

  16. David Thomson QC, acting on behalf of the relegated clubs…;

    “It is a debacle.

    It is of significant public interest and concern.

    Given the legitimate public interest present in the case, the matter ought to be determined in a public forum like a court because it serves the public interest to do so.”

    ========

    Any sympathy I had for the complaining clubs evaporated with this plea “in the public interest”.

    In 2012, the SPL instigated the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission.  The SFA was the agreed appeals body.

    Despite the massive public interest – and concerns – then, I don’t seem to remember ANY club complaining – or demanding that a “public forum like a court” should be involved, e.g. to ensure fairness and transparency.

    The complaining clubs can’t just pick and choose when the public interest is relevant, for their own purposes.

    The 42 SPFL clubs have the dysfunctional, corrupt, incompetent governing bodies they ALL fully deserve.

  17. StevieBC 2nd July 2020 at 19:34

    ==============================

    Whilst I take your point, that's not really the fault of the petitioners. They are just doing the best they can to try to win. If they think they have a better chance of doing it in Court than at the SFA then they will clearly try to get the matter dealt with there.

    Clearly the club back in 2012 had more faith in Scottish football seeing things their way than a Court examining the evidence and looking after their interests. 

  18. StevieBC 2nd July 2020 at 19:34
    In 2012, the SPL instigated the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission. The SFA was the agreed appeals body.

    Despite the massive public interest – and concerns – then, I don’t seem to remember ANY club complaining – or demanding that a “public forum like a court” should be involved, e.g. to ensure fairness and transparency.
    ……………………
    Maybe they learned something from 2012

  19. I may be entirely wrong in this, but I don't think that going to Arbitration under the Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010 would mean that the case would be decided by a Judicial Panel set up under the SFA's Judicial Panel Protocol? 

    That would be like an in-house inquiry such as the LNS Inquiry, drawing on persons on the SFA's list.

    As a member of the public, I wouldn't be at all satisfied of the independence of such an 'Arbitration'.

     

  20. John Clark 3rd July 2020 at 09:58
    ……………
    I would ask the SFA and the SPL to release THE FIRST DRAFT of the five-way agreement put together by their lawyers to reveal all of the sanctions. Stripping of titles was definitely within that document.
    In terms of this commision, if the SPL agenda prevails then rangers will be found guilty and being found guilty we will lose five titles.
    What i said before is that this COMMISION IS NOT INDEPENDENT BECAUSE THE SPL HAVE SET IT UP. saying that they are not independent is not saying that they are not impartial.
    That is what i have an issue with and i will make these points when i go see the SFA.
    Alistair johnston Sep 18, 2012
    ………
    First point, you never hear him Asking that the final draft of the 5 way agreement be revealed.
    second point is that he was no longer at the ibrox club so what right has he to go to the SFA for anything.
    Rant over.
    ………..
    Only when the 5 way agreement was changed to there be no stripping of titles, the independance and impartiality of the commission was not called into question, move along nothing to see here kind of thing.
    Nothing is independant or impartial if the outcome has already been agreed, only when the outcome is agreed the question of independence and impartiality is not questioned.

  21. Court adjourned for lunch.

    Will reconvene at 2.00 pm when Lord Clark (no relation) will give his judgment.

  22. To late to edit.
    Something i just seen Is Alistair johnstone saying “Stripping of titles was definitely within that document”
    How did he know this?
    As a guy not involved at the ibrox club at the time of saying this, how did he know or not know what was in the first draft of the 5 way agreement.
    And if he is saying while not being involved with the ibrox club at this time that he has seen it, just how the hell can Peter Lawwell say he has not seen it.
    Maybe PL should have been asked have you seen ANY OF THE DRAFTS of the 5 way agreement.
    If you have? like Alister Johnstone may be saying here that, he has. Why then PL have you not seen the final draft?

  23. Cluster One 3rd July 2020 at 13:05

    Peter Lawwell say he has not seen it. Maybe PL should have been asked have you seen ANY OF THE DRAFTS of the 5 way agreement. If you have? like Alister Johnstone may be saying here that, he has. Why then PL have you not seen the final draft?

    ===========

    Lawwell has been the highly successful CFC CEO for the last 17 years.

    Partly, that will be because he knows EXACTLY what is going on across the game – and also what could be in the pipeline.

    He probably knows what everyone at Hampden has for breakfast!

    His 'daft laddie' routine WRT "I haven't seen the 5WA" just doesn't wash.

     

  24. John Clark 3rd July 2020 at 14:40

     

    Other key points.

    Hearts won petition to get access to key documents for use in Arbitration (or potentially any future court case).

    In the words of Lord Clark parties ‘need to put  their cards on the table’.

    Lord Clark stressed that Hearts/Partick Thistle were wholly correct in not seeking court action or arbitration while the potential for reconstruction was still a possibility.

    Hearts/Partick v the Three others clubs – expenses shared.

    Hearts/Partick v SPFL, petitioners to pay the cost of the SPFL case but only to the amount of 50%

    So far a 0-0 draw in the first leg.

  25. John/ Wottpi/ Anyone

     

    What happens if arbitration doesn't get a result or if Hearts Thistle or the three are unhappy with where it takes them to?

    Is there an appeal and court option for either side to pursue?

  26. Finloch 3rd July 2020 at 15:02

    Please rember its four not three. The SPFL are still very much the first respondent in all this despite QC Moynihan letting the other teams QC to the heavy lifting.

    They want this to be seen seen a club v club but its not really as they were the ones who put the clubs in this stupid position in the first place.

    There appeared to be mention of the possibility of being able to return to court after arbitration in the deliberations but I'd be more comfortable on JC or EJ possibly covering that as I may have misheard / misinterpreted.

  27. wottpi 3rd July 2020 at 14:52

    John Clark 3rd July 2020 at 14:40

    Other key points.

    Hearts won petition to get access to key documents for use in Arbitration (or potentially any future court case).
    ………………….
    Would that be key documents that Dellotie were given?

  28. StevieBC 3rd July 2020 at 13:39
    Partly, that will be because he knows EXACTLY what is going on across the game – and also what could be in the pipeline.

    He probably knows what everyone at Hampden has for breakfast!

    His ‘daft laddie’ routine WRT “I haven’t seen the 5WA” just doesn’t wash.
    ………………….
    Maybe i put that there for future reference;-)

  29. wottpi 3rd July 2020 at 15:15

    There appeared to be mention of the possibility of being able to return to court after arbitration in the deliberations but I'd be more comfortable on JC or EJ possibly covering that as I may have misheard / misinterpreted.

    ===============================

    I haven't looked at the Arbitration rules, but I suspect that the decision will be binding on both parties.

    I'm unsure whether or not the Arbitration panel has the power to impose any remedies sought, e.g. reinstatement or the level of damages claimed, should Hearts and Partick be successful.  The CoS case remains open with the CoS, although sisted, so I presume could be restarted to make such determinations.

  30. Cluster One 3rd July 2020 at 15:38

    Not sure what was on the list but from the arguments put forward by the SPFL and the other clubs they seemed worried. The Three clubs more due to concerns of commercial confidentiality etc but I assume the SPFL more concerned that Hearts & Partick would have full view of everything that went on. I'd assume the Deloitte report would be in there as there was much talk of the Dundee vote situation these past three days.

     

    Regards your earlier question Lord Clark said he was ruling on the petition being 'sisted pending the outcome arbitration'. So I think the petition still stands but nothing further happens until we see what the arbitration brings. That being said I think the matter can only go back to the court if the arbitration is in someway failing or incompetent in some major way.

     

     

  31. When the SFA put forward an independent panel. Will there be a call of “who are these people”?

  32. wottpi 3rd July 2020 at 15:15Finloch 3rd July 2020 at 15:02

    Please remember its four not three. 

    They want this to be seen seen a club v club but its not really as they were the ones who put the clubs in this stupid position in the first place.

    …………………….

    Agreed wottpi and well clarified.  I just think after arbitration if Hearts and Thistle don't win that it will head for the next option.

    Anyone know where that will be?

  33. Just my personal view on the proceedings. 

    I felt that Lord Clark was sympathetic to the Hearts/Partick pleadings in the substantive case, but was legally obliged to direct that the dispute should go through the arbitration process by dint of the provisions within the articles and rules of the SFA and SPFL. 

    It will be interesting to see who are appointed to the arbitration panel, and how quickly they meet.  Gerry Moynihan suggested that it should be possible for the panel to adjudicate within the same time scales as the court (proof before answer hearing provisionally scheduled for 14-16 July). We will find out soon enough if he was good to his words.

  34. wottpi 3rd July 2020 at 16:00
    Thanks for reply
    I believe like the (Flawed independent)LNS inquiry. findings will be final. All that will be left is what punishment will be delt for going down the court route.
    Transfer ban anyone.

  35. Cluster One 3rd July 2020 at 16:00

    One side picks one arbitrator from the list,  the other side pick the second.

    Then the two chosen pick the third. If I heard correctly the third arbitrator takes the chair and should always be a person with at least 10 years relevant standing in the legal community. Retired sheriffs Judges etc.

    Could be another LNS situation but it really depends on how matters are argued. 

    I suppose as the petition is only sisted, there is more pressure on the process being pristine as,  per EJ’s confirmation, there is an outside possibility of it going back to court if any hanky panky is at play or the process if seen as being flawed by one side or the other.

    In relation to the potential fines for taking a football matter to court  Lord Clark seemed very interested in that. He seemed to suggest they were totally within their rights to do what they were doing. I suspect if Hearts/PT were punished in a major way by the footballing authorities it would be challenged as being overly malicious.

    Again like EJ, from the bits I heard I thought Lord Clark would have been keen to preside over the case (maybe that’s my maroon tinted specs) but the interpretation of the law means it has to go to arbitration.

  36. As a footnote the footballing authorities have to get this arbitration right and started quickly because Lord Clark ends his ruling with the following offer:- 

     

    If for any reason, difficulties arise with whether the arbitration tribunal is able to deal with the issues in the time available and the parties change their minds and wish the court to deal with, time will be made available for that to happen.

  37. A 3-person arbitral tribunal is now likely to resolve the Scottish football dispute; from the existing @ScottishFA
    Tribunal Candidate List, the @spfl
    nominate an arbitrator; @JamTarts
    & @PartickThistle
    nominate an arbitrator; the 2 arbitrators then nominate a 3rd to act as chair
    It’s also possible within the rules that both parties agree to the appointment of a single arbitrator. Either way , the findings of the tribunal “shall be final and binding on the parties”.
    …………………..
    From twitter.
    Findings shall be final, that is what i thought earlier but happy to be corrected
    ………………..
    Edit. just read your post.wottpi 3rd July 2020 at 16:31

  38. wottpi 3rd July 2020 at 16:31
    In relation to the potential fines for taking a football matter to court Lord Clark seemed very interested in that. He seemed to suggest they were totally within their rights to do what they were doing. I suspect if Hearts/PT were punished in a major way by the footballing authorities it would be challenged as being overly malicious.
    ……………Felt sorry for them, but football rules are football rules.
    ……….
    I suspect if Hearts/PT were punished in a major way by the footballing authorities it would be challenged as being overly malicious.
    Transfer ban anyone.
    That is why i said that earlier. if Hearts/PT were punished in a major way, all they have to do is bring into focus the ibrox case and a transfer ban for years of cheating.

  39. wottpi 3rd July 2020 at 16:31

    '….. any hanky panky is at play'

    """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""

    Surely there won't be another person in the ranks of the SFA who will give us an opportunity to create a new  'ism' to describe a piece of fatuous nonsense, or Arbitration Panel chair and members ready to accept any nonsense argument from an 'expert' SFA witness? heart 

    I know that the  SFA is not a party in the dispute, but it is the body that has to give permission to approach the Courts. It cannot be right that a  board member of the SPFL which is party to the dispute sits on the SFA.

    In that arrangement  there is theoretical scope for hanky- panky influence to be brought when leave is applied for.

    Who can accept that state of affairs?

     

  40. Am I correct in saying, in simple terms, that basically the Judge said

     

    "You have signed up to the SFA rules, and this should be settled via arbitration. So you need to do that. However if that cannot be done in a reasonable time then I will deal with the matter"

  41. Homunculus3rd July 2020 at 18:47

    Yup that's a nice summation.

    I think Lord Clark was keen to get involved but president etc dictated arbitration.

    You still have to ask what kind of matter would actually allows clubs to go to the courts!?

  42. Homunculus 3rd July 2020 at 18:47

    '…Am I correct in saying, in simple terms, that basically the Judge said

    """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

    The Judge's very words would say you are indeed correct:

    '.If for any reason, difficulties arise with whether the arbitration tribunal is able to deal with the issues in the time available and the parties change their minds and wish the court to deal with, time will be made available for that to happen.' (para 28 of the judgment)

  43. Homunculus 3rd July 2020 at 18:47

    Am I correct in saying, in simple terms, that basically the Judge said

    “You have signed up to the SFA rules, and this should be settled via arbitration. So you need to do that. However if that cannot be done in a reasonable time then I will deal with the matter”
    ………………..
    The way i read it also.
    Meaning if the have no time to get a panel together or can’t agree on who to sit on the panel or if you get a panel together and someone falls ill or anything like that, the judge would be happy to step in.

  44. On the subject of Arbitration agreements which deny the right of access to the Courts in matters where huge punishments for going to court are able to be meted out for so doing , Lord Clark clearly sees the danger that that presents of unscrupulous majority shareholders  (God forbid that there should be any such!) screwing minority shareholders, who must surely be intimidated by such threat if they try to take on a corrupt board, and may therefore be reluctant to do so and thereby suffer loss.

    I make this observation on the basis of what he says in Para 7 of his judgment. 

    ‘In my opinion, questions may arise as to whether in that context a bar on raising legal proceedings without the permission of the Board of the SFA, subjecting a club which does so to the potentially extreme sanctions mentioned by senior counsel for the SPFL, can be viewed as contrary to public policy and hence unlawful. ‘

    To be refused permission to go to Court by the very people whom you believe to have shafted you  and who have power to hammer you for going to court without their permission is just plain nonsense, in my opinion.

    Good heavens, that means that if there were ever to be [God forbid!]a majority shareholder of a company who was a crook who disregarded the provisions of the Companies Act and acted with unfair prejudice against minority shareholders he would be free to do so with impunity if the Company’s articles of association had an Arbitration clause that forbade recourse to the Courts under severe penalty.

    That is the ‘public interest’ point. The law ought not to allow that kind of scenario where access to the courts is denied because you’ve signed up to an arbitration clause in good faith that the company will be run in good faith by people of integrity.
    I would have wished that Lord Clark had found a way to use his misgivings in order to get an appeal to the Inner House to try to get the nonsense of the present law addressed.

  45. Sorry JC but your “major shareholder of a company” analogy is not quite correct.  The SPFL is indeed a limited company.  They do have shareholders, 42 in fact, and all pretty normal up to that point.  The 42 shareholders hold an equal share; getting a bit unusual now, that are not available on the market and are not freely transferrable. They are completely interdependent with the other members and in their agreement to operate and compete within rules of an association; otherwise they are merely a group of clubs, companies or just people.    They all sign up to participating in a commercial and sporting enterprise within the rules of the limited company and, more importantly, the national and global associations of their sport. The rules of their particular association must be within the rules of the global (Europe and the world in our case) associations otherwise the whole thing doesn’t work.

    So if, for example, a member/shareholder club decides to pay separate remuneration to players under an undisclosed side contract it may be perfectly legal but it breaks the rules of the association and therefore the limited company League and they can be duly punished.  Relating that to the current situation, the side contract paying club could, of course, take it to court as they could with any issue.  Player tapping, transfers outwith window, playing a banned player, playing a ringer, slagging off the ref prior to a game etc etc.  None of which is illegal.

    Hearts (and Thistle) are in a bloody awful situation.  I have no time for Neil Doncaster.  The SPFL have been complicit with some of the worst crap I’ve seen in Scottish fitba since 2012.  But Hearts/PT needed to fail in the court.  We may disagree with any or all of the SPFL/SFA/UEFA/FIFA rules but not just when it suits us to do so or because we dinna like Doncaster.  Like the laws of the land there are ways to change the SPFL rules and it’s a helluva lot easier for an equal shareholder to get changes through, by dint of approval of resolution, especially when 42 shareholder voting is at the core of it.  Hearts and PT are actually founder members of the SPFL and have had the opportunity to propose resolutions and to vote on all the resolutions to date. They have had the protection of those rules to date.

     

     

  46. ernie 4th July 2020 at 09:50

    ‘.Sorry JC but your “major shareholder of a company” analogy is not quite correct.  The SPFL is indeed a limited company…..’

    “””””””””””””””””””””””””

    Yes, ernie, thank you, but I was not referring so much to the SPFL but to any plc, to which the Companies Act applies in respect of shareholders’ rights vis-a-vis the company. I should have made it clearer that my belief is that Lord Clark’s interest in the ‘public interest’ aspect was not  particularly in respect of the case in front of him, but more generally.

     

  47. ernie 4th July 2020 at 09:50

    I largely agree with your analysis of the interdependencies of regulations.

    The issue for the clubs seeking to avoid the governing bodies protocols is, and remains, one of trust. There is an inbuilt fear of bias in favour of the governing bodies, that a tribunal, panel, commission or other body will look at the issues from the viewpoint of footballing regulations, outcomes and expectations, rather than rely on legal aspects or natural justice arguments that might be heard in court.

    SFA/SPFL processes have moved on over the years, primarily due to clubs engaging QCs or other legal representatives to argue their case. It has forced the processes to be conducted on much more of a legal footing.  Arbitration is one such process, with at least the semblance of impartiality, although with each of the parties nominating a representative, their remains a risk of at least a perception of bias.  Neither party is able to set a Terms of Reference, as such, as the case should be arbitrated on the basis of the complaint made. It has to include consideration of matters of law as well as football rules and regulations. Confidentiality of proceedings also remains a concern.

    In contrast, the football authorities continue to be able to initiate (or decline) their own “internal” investigations or appoint commissions, inquiries, set terms of reference etc. There have been a couple of instances in the dispute about the “written resolution” and its aftermath, e.g, the internal Deloitte investigation and the rejection of the TRFC request for an independent inquiry.  We are all familliar with the LNS Commission as another example of poor governance that has generated so much distrust in the processes to this day.

    The invocation and independence of those discretionary investigations remain in need of revision.  

     

     

  48. Fair enough JC. Then there’s trust, now there’s an issue!

    I wouldn’t trust the SPFL or the SFA to draw a cup round. Neither would I trust Ms Budge to do what’s best for Scottish fitba rather than play to her club’s fans’ bank accounts. 

     

  49. Arbitration! There's a whole world out there of which I knew nothing. 

    There's the Arbitration(Scotland) Act 2010, containing the Scottish Arbitration Rules, and 

     there is a list of 'arbitral appointments referees'!

    It seems that if parties cannot agree who should be the arbitrators in their dispute , either of them can ask one of the 'list' to make the appointments.

    Who's on the list? 

    Agricultural Industries Confederation Limited(2)

    Chartered Institute of Arbitrators

    Dean of the Faculty of Advocates

    Institution of Civil Engineers

    Law Society of Scotland

    Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland

    Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors

    Scottish Agricultural Arbiters and Valuers Association(3)

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/cy/ssi/2010/196/made

    And it seems that although the decision of Arbitrators is 'final' there cab be some rights of review or appeal!

    And it seems the Arbitration Panel'spowers are full enough to 'reduce' (cancel) the SPFL's full decision, and not just award compensation to those affected adversely by that decision.

    Can any of us see that happening?

    I suspect they'll bugger about, and let the decision stand, and Hearts &Partick will walkaway with enough dosh in compensation to pay the fine the SFA will hit them with for daring to go the Courts, and a few bob left over!

    There's a lawyer chap  coming on 'Sportsound' to explain the arbitration process, which has nothing to do with the SFA, according to Richard Gordon.

    So it's not in the Judicial Panel Protocol, and doesn't involve the Compliance Officer. 

     

     

  50. I heard the QC on 'Sportsound' say that an Arbitration award is 'final'. 

    That made me have another look at the Scottish Arbitration rules in case I had to apologise for saying in my earlier post that there were some possibilities of appeal or review

    Rule 67

    67(1)A party may appeal to the Outer House against the tribunal's award on the ground that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to make the award (a “jurisdictional appeal”).

    Rule 68

    68(1)A party may appeal to the Outer House against the tribunal's award on the ground of serious irregularity (a “serious irregularity appeal”).

    Rule 69

    (1)A party may appeal to the Outer House against the tribunal's award on the ground that the tribunal erred on a point of Scots law (a “legal error appeal”).

    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2010/1/schedule/1?view=plain

    I would imagine of course that there must be very, very few ,if any Appeals under these rules, but nevertheless the possibility of Appeal is there in the Rules. 

     

  51. John Clark4th July 2020 at 15:50

    As always on SFM everyday is a school day.

    I think the problem with the word Arbitration is that many folk may think of union v company disputes where a compromise is reached through the Concilliation element offered by an organisation such as ACAS.

    The reality of the situation is what we now have a process that is one step below what would have happened in the CoS.

    Any mis-step in the process or the decision making being dodgy in terms of the law then it can all go back to the CoS.

    D Utd, Raith and Cove lost the call to dismiss.

    The SPFL could hardly argue not going to arbitration as it is the football way. So Hearts Partick lose but it's really the status quo.

    While commercial confidentiality issues are understood, SPFL D Utd Raith & Cove somehow feared information being made available. Hearts/Thistle win

    Arbitration will resolve the  issue but also be effectively the independent investigation the SPFL and some clubs were keen to avoid.

    So a win for football, albeit fans may not manage to see the full details of what shenanigans took place.

  52. wottpi 4th July 2020 at 17:37

    '.. on SFM everyday is a school day…

    …Arbitration will resolve the  issue but also be effectively the independent investigation the SPFL and some clubs were keen to avoid.'

    """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

    Yes, I have been introduced and educated in so many aspects of life by being prompted to research by many posts and reflections by people in whose life experience has been is different from mine.

    I was reassured when I read and heard the stuff about Arbitration, and especially by the answer the QC (Paul Reid) gave on 'Sportsound' to the question as to whether the Arbitration Tribunal might keep the 'wider picture' in mind (i.e. the 'inconvenience' that would be caused if it found that the SPFL's actions had been  unlawful) and decided on balance  in favour of the SPFL.

    Time will tell whether there was any hanky-panky or significant irregularity in the whole of the 'Written resolution' process and vote!

    The answer was that he couldn't imagine a Tribunal okaying something that it knew to be unlawful.

  53. Hello everybody,

    I have watched from afar for years and finally plucked up the courage to join the forum.

    Good to see supporters of many clubs on a forum, having healthy debate, save for a comment I read in the last week that said The Rangers International Football Club had been the most inconvenienced club in this Covid Pandemic that Scottish Football as a whole has contrived to make a sows ear of! A leap into the world of fantasy that was a step too far I’m afraid.

    Scottish Football in the last twenty five years has been run by rank amateurs with too many vested interests. It has seen the demise of a competitive international team, the biggest sporting scandal in British history and continues to choose the wrong option whenever it can. It should not be forgotten that the football authorities are there at the behest of the member clubs. They continually sign up for this circus, they provide the next in line for the rotational blazer wearers and first class cabin travellers. Only the clubs with a collective will for real change can reshape and modernise the football model in Scotland.

    In any other multi million pound enterprise one would expect the administration to be carried out by the best available qualified professional in each particular field. The fact that we have David McCallum (Maxwell – I couldn’t even tell you what he looks like, hence invisible man jibe) as CEO of The SFA is a classic example of this as did the appointment of Gordon Smith some years back. Absolutely no qualifications to be in such a position, well certainly not publicly which allows some to ask why?

    The real lifeblood of the game, the supporters, have been left out in the cold. They are turnstile fodder that are treated with contempt by the committees and some of their own clubs. One needs only look at the cynical marketing ploys to make fans feel compelled to part with their cash.

    The Scottish media are complicit in the ongoing shambles too. In the majority I find them to be sub standard and, in many cases, incompetent and have no basis of fact for any of their articles.

    They are particularly adept at convincing the largest demographic in the land that everything in the garden is rosy. They are complicit in the lies that lead to the pockets being picked of those supporters who are so starved of success they cling to these fabrications. It’s a shameful manipulation of the understandable desperation of the victims of these lies.

    So many things wrong, but by golly do I miss the noise, the smell, the taste of football. I hold out some hope that one day everyone will come to their senses and see the bigger picture to reinvigorate our national sport.

    I hope you are all safe and well during these unprecedented times. 

    Anyway………..hello!

  54. John Clark 4th July 2020 at 13:34
    I suspect they’ll bugger about, and let the decision stand, and Hearts &Partick will walkaway with enough dosh in compensation to pay the fine the SFA will hit them with for daring to go the Courts, and a few bob left over!
    ……………….
    The cost of going to court, is the ibrox club still picking up that tab? or was that just another sound bite.
    And if the ibrox club have shied away from that bill just who is picking it up?

  55. John Clark 4th July 2020 at 13:34
    Who’s on the list?
    ………
    Equally, an original vision of the SFA’s wholesale reforms last year(2011) was to provide an arm’s-length body to consider football disciplinary matters. The member clubs agreed, as the SFA has pointed out this

    week, to install a so-called ‘cab rank’ of legal, business and football experts to provide an on-demand adjudication service.
    …….
    SFA panel admits ‘rushed’ decision on Rangers
    ….
    As a matter of fact, they worked their socks off to get the job done.

    At which point Gary Allan QC, Eric Drysdale of Raith Rovers and Alistair Murning, erstwhile football commentator, discovered that their best intentions had paved the highway to hell. If you are a Rangers supporter you might well want to read that a few times – and reflect upon how much good it did them.

    After listening to four solid days of Lord Nimmo Smith’s summation of the evidence against Craig Whyte and Rangers, the three men sat down last Friday to consider the courses of action open to them. Had they been dealing with just about any other football club they would have been well within their rights to have told themselves: “Stuff this – we’ll start again Monday morning, OK?”

    Instead, they convened until 10.45 on Friday night. On Monday they again worked long into the evening hours. And for whose benefit, exactly? For Rangers – whose administrators had conveyed that they needed a verdict delivered with absolute urgency.

    As Eric Drysdale told this column: “The administrators were desperate for decisions in respect of prospective buyers and there was extreme keenness on the part of the panel members to deliver the judgments to them
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/9229029/SFA-panel-admits-rushed-decision-on-Rangers.html
    ……
    I see Lord Clark has given the SFA 28 DAYS to get it sorted, lets hope it is not another rush decision the last time the administrators were desperate for decisions in respect of prospective buyers.
    This time they are urged to take every possible step to ensure there is NO delay to the new season.

  56. wottpi 4th July 2020 at 17:37

    John Clark4th July 2020 at 15:50

    As always on SFM everyday is a school day.

    I think the problem with the word Arbitration is that many folk may think of union v company disputes where a compromise is reached through the Concilliation element offered by an organisation such as ACAS.

    ================================

    Yes, some people confuse arbitration with what is now more commonly known as "mediation".  In mediation both parties are encouraged through a mediator to find a compromise position that is acceptable to both.

    Arbitration is simply asking a third party to make a determination following the submission of arguments by both parties about the issue(s) in dispute. That determination may fully, partly, or fail meet the requests of either, both or neither party.

  57. Moya 4th July 2020 at 18:49 Edit

    Hello everybody,

    ===========

    Hello yersel.

    I listened to Sportsound today, some good input from SFSA on their survey seeking supporters views on impact of CoVid 19

    https://scottishfsa.org/survey-results-the-effect-of-covid-19-on-supporter-behaviour/ (more later I understand)

     a reasonable report on what will happen next on the Hearts/Partick Thistle v SPFL situation ( both will get relegated but with some form of solidarity compensation (as in Scottish football needs both) but when the pundits get on about financial aspects of CoVid 19 its funny they never advocate players taking a cut in contracted wages in case they upset their pals for at the end of the day its all an old pals act.   

  58. Auldheid 4th July 2020 at 22:19

    … but when the pundits get on about financial aspects of CoVid 19 its funny they never advocate players taking a cut in contracted wages in case they upset their pals for at the end of the day its all an old pals act.   

    =================================

    Why should they, I haven't.

    People seem to think that football players should work to different rules than everyone else. 

    Most footballers in Scotland don't earn a huge amount of money and their career in the game won't be that long so why should they take "a cut in contracted wages" any more than everyone else.

     

  59. This is the kind of thing that is a perfect example of the prostitution of journalism by the SMSM!

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/football/matt-polster-set-for-rangers-departure-as-mls-suitors-new-england-revolution-close-in-on-deal/ar-BB16l7D4?ocid=msedgntp

    I don't blame  Matt Polster, of course, (I'd never heard of him) but the trivial, nonsensical sh.te that Fraser Wilson ( of whom also I have never heard!) has written  is like an advertising puff for which someone might have been paid by a football club to boost its image as a club with claims to have world-cup-class players on its books!

    It is just such absolute journalistic crap!

    Honest to God, what are they like?

     

  60. Auldheid 4th July 2020 at 22:19

    " a reasonable report on what will happen next on the Hearts/Partick Thistle v SPFL situation ( both will get relegated but with some form of solidarity compensation (as in Scottish football needs both) .."

    """""""""""""""""""""""""""

    Not, Auldheid, a reasonable "report" but, I humbly submit,  mere speculation that the Arbitration Tribunal will conveniently find in favour of the SPFL.

    I admit that I too was ready to believe that 'Arbitration' was no more than 'mediation' where no point of principle is involved and folk can be talked into agreement and shake hands and move on

    But Arbitration , as eJ's post a little earlier explains, is no less a matter of application of law and legal principles than is a Court hearing!

    And the process is not in any way under the control or direction of the SFA ( in a way that some people believe the Judicial Panel Protocol may have been some years ago)

    On the ex-player 'pundits' , some of whom were EBT beneficiaries who owe the rest of us some money, and whom I despise and, in respect of their employment by the BBC, condemn BBC Radio Scotland for sliding them a few bob, I would not expect them to be anything other than protective of players, because they themselves bloody well needed protection!

    But Homunculus makes a fair point: the majority of  players in the SPFL are in no better position to take a cut in wages than the rest of workers in the same sort of wages/salary band.

     

  61. Homunculus

    The context was the cost of Covid19 and financial impact on clubs.

    Wages, especially football wages are a large part of the cost.

    If the club cannot pay them then Footballers have the choice as does everyone else, take home less pay or have no pay to take home.

    My point is  why no mention by ex players in the media that perhaps footballers might have to consider  the same factors  as those that ultimately pay them, the ability to keep paying? 

    It wasnt that they were all overpaid anyway. 

     

     

  62. John  Clark

    I should have made it clearer that the bit in brackets was my prediction of eventual outcome not what  was reported on Sportsound which was setting out the technicalities.

    I should also make it clearer is my prediction is based on cynicism having observed how SFA/SPFL always get the result they want by hook or by legal crook.

    Now if only the case  for revisiting LNS and concluding the 2011 UEFA licence could be put to arbitration but of course clubs weren’t interested.

  63. Seeing Auldheid on here today brought together an idea that was planted last week on reading of more layoffs at The Herald.

    Relatively regularly we see suggestions that the Res12 guys should take the whole thing to court privately. It is usually accompanied by suggestions of, and support for, crowd funding the case. It would of course fill the pockets of the legal profession and also run the risk that any outcome less than a 100% win would be regarded by the media as a 100% loss.

    So, how about this? Let's crowd fund purchasing The Herald and for once print the whole story truthfully. It would be a lot cheaper than legal fees and might even introduce a novel concept to reporting in this country – Print the facts!

    mail

  64. Mickey Edwards 5th July 2020 at 08:55

    '..So, how about this? Let's crowd fund purchasing The Herald ..'

    """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

    That led me on an entertaining wee search to find from whom the Res 12 would buy the 'Herald' if they were so minded.

    I think I knew already that it is owned by 'Newsquest' . 

    Yes.

    But 'Newsquest' was owned by Gannet Inc  until December 2019, when it was swallied up by New Media Investment Group Inc..(they say 'merged')

    https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/11/19/gannett-new-media-investment-group-merger-gatehouse-media/4203820002/

    and folk began to get chopped!

    https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2020-06-18/gannett-announces-elimination-of-the-ceo-position-for-the-operating-company-and-the-departure-of-paul-bascobert

    He, however, who was CEO of Newsquest Media , and therefore UK boss of the Herald  pre-merger with New Media Investment Group Inc ,still seems to be in post, as far as I can see, so maybe he's the one who would have to  be approached!

    I read about these things now in light of what I have learned about how our Football Authorities work. (Auldheid has nothing on me when it comes to cynicism!)

    And, frankly, I conclude that if piddling little associations of football clubs can sell out truth and integrity in sport (in feckin Sport!) in the way that the SFA and SPFL did in 2012  and the SPFL has done this year, I can only imagine what the boards of companies like New Media Investment Group Inc might be prepared to do, where the  filthy lucre  involved is incomparably greater!

    I still cannot believe that 41 football clubs, some of which have themselves  had the bitter experience of having to claw their way out of Administration, were and are happy to accept the Big Lie.

    They had courage enough to insist that Sevco, if admitted at all, should be admitted only as a new club, and into the bottommost league. 

    And then, whether corruptly or because they  did not have the 'cojones', failed  to follow through and tell the truth: that TRFC is not, and could not possibly be, the same RFC of 1872 that, even as I post, is still in Liquidation. 

    But instead  accepted the nonsense-speak that TRFC acquired the share in the SPL that RFC of 1872 had had but lost when it was Liquidated!

    Honest to God! How any of those men/women can look at themselves in the mirrror without shame!

    The pandemic is not, of course, any fault of Scottish Football.

    But if Scottish Football goes down the pan, hell mend any and all involved in the creation and fostering of the Big Lie.

    And in particular, may the gentlemen (and, possibly, some ladies) of the SMSM descend into the deepest pit of Dante's 'Inferno' , for their craven cowardice and abandonment of any and all 'journalistic principle'.

    Or , from a more earthbound perspective, who would give a toss if our 'sports journalists' got the heave? They have supported a devious, untrustworthy governance body and  two deceitful football clubs in the Big Lie.

    If New Media Investment Group Inc were to decide that the Herald was to be chopped I would shed no more tears than I would if BBC Radio Scotland Sports were to be axed.

     

1 14 15 16
 

Comments are closed.