Sweet Little Lies

1118
153563

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 2 3 16
 
  1. SPFL arrange to have independent enquiry and set parameters with hired gun QC . Recover the costs from TRFC . To quote a stuffed toy , "simples ".

  2. bect67 11th May 2020 at 11:16

    For completeness here is what the ICT statement said:-

    Without going into the specifics at this time, please know that we will testify to the bullying and threats made against our club on Friday 10th by an SPFL Board member and the threats against others by the same SPFL Board member and how these threats were “reported back to the centre” and to the SPFL CEO directly on the day with evidence at any genuine independent investigation with the proper and appropriate scope, should there be one, or at any further subsequent action thereafter. These were threats and not robust conversations. 

    This is totally at odds to what Doncaster said yesterday on Radio Scotland. – It seems someone is lying.

    It may be ICT or it may be Doncaster. I honestly don't know.

    What I do know is that it is a shambles.

    Why is the bandwagon farcical? Because T'Rangers are involved?

    As discussed, I have no particular explanation why they are bumping their gums and leading the charge.

    They have little chance of convincing people that Celtic should not be awarded the title. While there a mathematical chance of Celtic being caught if football recommenced, all other clubs and true football fans surely agree they deserve it as being the best team in the league. The degree of disadvantage suffered by T'Rangers for being awarded second is minimal as in all probability that is where they would have ended up.

    The only logical reason I can see for T'Rangers sticking up a stink was that they were keen to get their hands on their prize money ASAP.

    Take the Ibrox club out of the equation and what is so wrong about people raising concerns that some clubs are being disadvantaged and there has only been a grudging acknowledgement of this and no steps to offer any type of compensation for 'taking one for the team'.

    The question often asked is, 'If it was Hamilton instead of Hearts in bottom slot would there be such a fuss?'

    My question is 'If Hamilton was in bottom slot and it was Hibs or Aberdeen, instead of T'Rangers, taking pot shots at the SPFL would others, in general, and Celtic fans in particular dismiss the issues so easily? Or would they be calling for the head of Doncaster and others on a stick,  given their past performance?

    After all its only two months since this damming article:-

    https://thecelticblog.com/2020/03/blogs/neil-doncaster-and-his-contempt-for-bt-shows-again-how-hes-unfit-for-this-job/

    In terms of securing the future of the game I'd respectively suggest we are not really any further on than when the vote was held a month ago. In fact there is now a degree of division and mistrust amongst members which does not bode well in terms of finding a way forward.

     

  3. We know the nature of the ‘threat’ made to ICT and to Dundee . It was included in the TRFC ‘dossier’ and evidenced by the WhatsApp screenshots.

    At its essence, the ‘threat’ was that if the resolution did not gain sufficient support and league positions finalised, the alternative – making the season null and void – would mean that the scheduled fee payments could not be paid.  If no fee payments could be made based on league positions, the only alternative would be an equal split of the total funds.

    Of course, that would be a ‘threat’ to ICT’s and Dundee’s budgeted revenues.

    But actually, that ‘threat’ only exists if the existing payment methodology was set aside by attempting to separate the (contractually bound) fee payments with final league positions.

    The perceived ‘threat’ was simply someone pointing out the natural consequences that would come from voting against the resolution.

    If I tell you that you risk killing yourself and others by driving at 70mph on the wrong side of the motorway, am I threatening to crash your car?

    Or am I simply pointing out the inherently suicidal nature of your own actions?

  4. Sorry, can’t C&P the statement directly from the club’s web page because of copyright.  But it’s in the web site, linked above.

  5. I currently live in Dunfermline and sort of trust them (as a fan-controlled club) more than I might other clubs. That may be naive, I don't know. Ross McArthur's statement linked above backs up HP's differentiation between a threat and merely pointing out a consequence, which I can see being the nub of that particular argument due to tthe filters applied by each side of the argument. 

    However, I have to say I can't easily understand exactly what he says in the paragraph about the different proposals and the 1/10th versus league placings-based payouts. Anyone got a clear view?

  6. @gunnerb 12;46

    With Douglas Park announcing that the funding gap of £10 million pounds for this year has been made good by current investors then I see no further charges against TRFC on companies house. Not that there is a lot left to secure loans against other than Ibrox stadium.No share issue either so it appears to be unsecured loans or gifts. Maybe the investors are acting like Ticketus and are understandably agitated by slow take up of season tickets.

    ———————————————————————————————————–

    There is always the possibility that Douglas Park is being economical with the truth. The 10m shortfall is equal to 10m in deferred wages over 3-4 months so atm there is no shortfall but when the deferment ends then that pesky debt is back. If  one of the current investors had indeed written a unsecured cheque for 10m then the MSM would have been trumpeting such a selfless act from the rooftops as proof positive they are backed to the hilt by people with the club's* best interest at heart. They say birds of a feather flock together well just a reminder that Douglas Park has been flying wing tip to wing tip with a glib and shameless liar for 5 years . 

  7. HirsutePursuit 11th May 2020 at 14:12

    Sorry but that was not the alternative.

    Doncaster has clearly said there have been no alternatives offered to the resolution.

    What you describe is a potential outcome if a new resolution, covering that scenario, had been presented to clubs.

    Null and void could only have been approved if presented in a resolution.

    Are you saying that, from what is on the Whats App chat,  some clubs favoured 'null and void' as their next best option?

  8. paddy malarkey 11th May 2020 at 12:48

    '..Recover the costs from TRFC '

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

    'recover?' 

    Get it upfront in hard cash, I would recommend!broken heart Some people can welsh on their debts.

  9. wottpi

    The 'threat' has nothing to do with Neil Doncaster – or any alternative that he was offering.

    You need to bear in mind that there were a number of competing self interests at play.

    Clubs are businesses and directors have a fiduciary duty to do what is in their own best interests.

    Obviously, the consequences of finalising league positions – promotion and relegation – set the agenda for those clubs who would gain benefit or be materially disadvantaged.

    Separately, TRFC perhaps have a marketing advantage in attempting to undermine the legitimacy of Celtic's 9th consecutive league title.

    Null and void was the alternative being proffered by those clubs who had/have a self interest in not finalising positions.

    Dundee by contrast, in the certain knowledge that no more games will be played, appeared to have less to lose by calling positions as final. It appeared to be attempting to block the resolution as a strategic step towards a form of reconstruction that would give it the greatest advantage. It is likely that the same motive would have driven ICT to vote against.

    Those quite disparate self interests coincided at a point of time to create a small cadre of clubs who felt that voting against the resolution was the best course of action. They were all entitled to do so.

    Dundee changed its mind. Perhaps realising quite quickly that reconstruction and fee payments could not be conflated in the way it had hoped. It was entitled to change its mind.

    Now that the resolution has passed:

    Relegated clubs are, understandably, still unhappy with their fate.

    TRFC still have season tickets to sell.

    It is less clear what self interest is driving ICT's actions now.

    The recent Scot Gardener statement was one of the most unprofessional pieces of corporate communications I have ever read. The spurious claims of bullying, the reference to the 'fake' 5:00pm deadline, etc was no more than an agenda laden diatribe. As such, one should ask for what, or perhaps for whose, benefit was it intended? Its own supporters?

    One last thing on null and void.

    It would have needed agreement, on the same 75% majority and the likelihood of achieving that was, as Dundee and ICT clearly understood, was highly, highly, unlikely.

    However, should the SPFL resolution have failed and null and void was the only other way for clubs to get hold of money from the SPFL, the likelihood would have become much greater.

    Null and void means no league placings and an equal share of SPFL cash.

    This was the nature of the 'threat' conveyed by Ross McArthur. 

  10. HirsutePursuit 11th May 2020 at 16:18

    '.You need to bear in mind that there were a number of competing self interests at play…'

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

    That was a masterly summary, HP, and I believe it to be wholly accurate.

    Nothing I have heard or read suggests to me that (unlike the Res 12 issue and the 5-Way Agreement where  in my opinion there was a great deal of skullduggery) the SPFL board has  on this occasion been anything other than cack-handed .

    On the contrary, it seems to me that the passing of the Directors' resolution was the only sensible thing in all the circumstances.

    I just regret that there was no apparent recognition that the circumstances were such that some mechanism for reducing the financial impact on the clubs that were to be relegated should have been found. 

    I can add that I am extremely grateful that I never in all my own  working life had to work with people of the same unpleasant hypocritical stamp and dog-in-manger attitude as some of the directors of the arrogantly boastful but penurious  club that is kicking up a slanderous fuss.

    Bad cess to them. And if the CEO of the SPFL were to take legal action against them, I would hope and expect that he would win.

     

  11. Good summary Auldheid. Time for an effort to have any enquiry also include 2012 and prior?

    Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.

  12. Earlier today I was at the point of taking time out from the social media and media discussion about Scottish football. The knowledge that a statement from Dunfermline was online made me delay my decision and I am pleased that I did. The interpretation of events by ICT has been disputed and the explanation is more in my own acknowledging once again my feelings regarding the team I see as "little Rangers". I know my local chairman would not be happy with my comments but others will share my thoughts. 

    HP has then produced a masterpiece comment – well done! 

    I stay around for a while more as a result.

     

     

  13. Great stuff Auldheid – selective SMSM amnesia right enough!

    I never thought I'd ever agree with SEVCO – but now I'm rootin' for an independent inquiry. Only mine is in line with many posters on SFM – no (historical) holds barred.

    Unlikely I know, but as with Res 12, I'll keep the faith.

     

  14. Brechin have put the cat amongst the pigeons at the 11th hour.

     

    Members and Supporters of Brechin City FC will doubtless have been concerned and indeed alarmed at the current tirade of negativity towards the Club, and in particular our Chairman Ken Ferguson. This challenges the integrity and reputation, both of our Club, and that of Ken personally. Having remained respectfully silent to date, the Management Committee now unanimously feel compelled to firmly rebuff these claims and set the record straight.

    In particular, in the recent dossier released in support of the EGM taking place at the SPFL tomorrow (Tuesday), there is an accusation which is pointed directly at our Chairman relating to his part in the run up to the SPFL vote which took place on Friday 10th April. This states, “It has also been alleged that Ken Ferguson (Brechin City Chairman and SPFL Board Director) called League 2 clubs and told them that Inverness had changed their vote to YES and, as a result, the Resolution was going to be approved and that there was no point in League 2 clubs voting NO.”

    This is categorically refuted. Unfortunately, this is feeding the current media frenzy and, by association, Brechin City FC and our Chairman are being subjected to un-necessary scrutiny and wholly unwarranted abuse. In addition to anecdotal evidence from all of the other League 2 clubs, we have in our possession verification from each club that no such call was made. Furthermore, each League 2 club is content to provide corroboration to this effect and has stressed that they are entirely relaxed (and in reality appreciative) of the integrity Ken displayed in his role as an SPFL Director in the lead up to the vote.

    The Management Committee will issue a further statement in comings days to fully address other allegations that have been directed towards the Club in the media and online in recent times.

  15. Playing the Scotsman and not the Scotsball is not the sole province of the Scottish media. This article from Private Eye the other week

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Kbkxt6S2Ao-D_NnCZT4l3S8e6MH-azUG/view?usp=sharing

    caused one long time PE subscriber to write to them to try and put balance into their article that reads as if it was penned by The Rangers PR department. Trial by media is bad enough but when they have already decided on their desired outcome , they are as guilty of trying to fix outcomes as the SPFL are  being basically accused of now,  although its turning into more of dog fight day by day.  

    To strobes at Private Eye

    Sir

    Long-time subscriber, first time correspondent.

    The Eye’s pathological hatred for Murdoch MacLennan has produced a very partial account of the undisputed mess that is Scottish football governance, a bùrach that goes back aeons before Shifty’s appointment as Chairman of the SPFL.

    I don’t want to bore the reader with the history and minutiae of all that, but for regular readers like me the Eye’s cheerleading for the club now known as The Rangers (to give it its proper post-liquidation title) is breath-taking and massively unresearched.

    In summary the Covid-19 crisis has inevitably produced chaos for the football industry the world over. In Scotland too the relegated or unpromoted are unhappy and understandably complaining. The real reason The Rangers remain incandescent however is that they do not want Celtic (who stand 13 points clear of them in the SPL) to be declared worthy Champions yet again. 

    The 200-page dossier produced by the Ibrox club alleging mis-governance by the SPFL and demanding an independent enquiry has been widely likened to an elephant labouring to bring forth a mouse. 

    The Rangers have been in the financial and legal mire since they were formed 8 years ago. In their own published accounts they admitted they would need £10m to see the season out, and that was before the plague struck. This is an unsuccessful club facing another extinction that is now dangerously creating enemies in order to sell season tickets for a season that might not happen.

    Tragically for journalism and truth there was indeed a real story in this area 8 years ago when massive tax-evasion and rule-breaking by Rangers (as they then were) led to their death. Around this time the club was improperly awarded a European licence by the SFA. 

    In addition, their EBT scheme (later to be judged illegal by the Supreme Court) which had allowed them to overpay players was exposed. Related and rule-breaking side-letters should have seen them automatically punished with retrospective trophy-stripping. A sham “enquiry” exonerated them on the pretext that the players were “imperfectly registered”.

    The story of how the new “Rangers” was shoehorned back into the Scottish league structure is another aspect of the most multi-faceted saga of corruption in the history of British sport. Institutional collusion underscored everything that happened then, not just by the football authorities but by the mainstream media also, and especially by the BBC.

    The only journalist who addressed this in any serious way was Alex Thomson of C4 News. There were a couple of fleeting references on your own pages, but the attempts of myself and others to get your organ to engage properly with one of the most "Private Eye" stories ever fell on deaf ears. 

    The Rangers now want an independent enquiry into the governance of Scottish football. The rest of us are very happy to see that happen, as long as it goes back fully 20 years.

    Yours aye

     

    "Minority Reporter"

     

    Name and address withheld for personal safety reasons

    Any SFM readers who wish to follow that example can e mail strobes@private-eye.co.uk

  16. Great article Auldheid

    This farce by RFC (IL) tribute act imo is to stop 9IAR even if it means bringing down our whole game and also to appease their raging  fans. That is it.

    SC verdict (among several other issues concerning oldco) has never been dicussed by our smsm and the implications of the level of cheating by RFC ( IL) over a period of 13 years. Fact. They totally ignored this because simply they can. This is Scotland's open biased shame. 

  17. Auldheid 11th May 2020 at 21:05

    '..their article that reads as if it was penned by The Rangers PR department.

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

    It might equally well have been written by the the chap who wrote 

    "SPFL EGM: What you need to know before the meeting" on the BBC Scotland Sport page 

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52615278

    His catty, insinuating use of a pejorative word rather than more ordinary words to describe a perfectly legitimate, within the allotted balloting time, change of vote by Dundee. 

    He writes "..It looked like the league's season-ending proposal would fail until Dundee belatedly – and decisively – reneged on their initial no vote.[my italics]" betrays him as a biased journalist working to his (or his editor's) agenda. 

    In the matter of football, the BBC was a blinkered, prejudiced, biased organisation in the 1950s. Not a lot has changed.

     

  18. Anybody know what TV channel the EGM is on tomorrow…?

    If the clubs and the SPFL wanted to – quickly – build some bridges with totally p!ssed off / disillusioned fans, then any/all meetings could be streamed online.

    Do they not understand that they will be wholly reliant on the goodwill of us paying punters to save the senior game?

    And they're not having a COBRA meeting tomorrow: it's only about bloody football…

  19. wottpi 11th May 2020 at 13:00 Edit

     

    After all its only two months since this damming article:-

    https://thecelticblog.com/2020/03/blogs/neil-doncaster-and-his-contempt-for-bt-shows-again-how-hes-unfit-for-this-job/

    In terms of securing the future of the game I'd respectively suggest we are not really any further on than when the vote was held a month ago. In fact there is now a degree of division and mistrust amongst members which does not bode well in terms of finding a way forward.

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

     A lot can happen in two months and this article suggests the author has taken cognisance of changing events this months.

    https://thecelticblog.com/2020/05/blogs/the-spfl-sevcos-dossier-neil-doncaster-celtic-and-the-ibrox-mouse-that-roared/?fbclid=IwAR1atRXwIrQDYZ3bIf8qma-6nEByq8LAJeuOx4gpFVpVhugbcbAN0YIumRk 

     

    Indeed that is the starting point in that blog. 

    I think the real problem was an unwillingness of everyone, not just football, to face up to the current reality that might continue for a much longer time for football than can be measured in weeks.

    I thought a quick  return unlikely which is why I was advocating the long spoon approach, call it solidarity payments, whereas in mid April clubs were only considering this season and I don't blame them for the reason given, too bloody fearful to imagine the end game, so they didn't.

    Perhaps after the vote tomorrow with the understanding of the full extent of the threat to our game, those around the SPFL table will stop using the long spoons to hit each other with and turn them to the job of keeping each club alive based on basic costs of each mothballing, a much bigger problem for clubs with high wage contracted players still on the books after the season is ended. 

     

  20. Just as Drummer would say, ‘picked it out of my arse,’ you know,” he said. “I mean, look, what we did was we basically said: ‘What is the amount we can securitize over the next six monthsAnd basically say to them: ‘Look our problem here is time, it’s not our ability to create the liquidity, the enemy is time here.’”

    Just for context:

    https://www.rt.com/news/irish-banker-bailout-arse-tapes-184/

    me thinks the newco are picking their arse too. 

     

  21. Auldheid 11th May 2020 at 22:45

    I refer you to my post earlier, in that, if T'Rangers had kept their silence and it was Hearts, Partick, ICT and now Aberdeen asking for an independent review there would have been no, I repeat no, celticblog article defending Doncaster. He would have still been the bogey man tied up in Res 12, The 5 Way Agreement etc and would have been roundly booed when at the next flag raising at Celtic Park.

    Yet some people would now have him up and others for a sainthood!!

    I wholly agree that there are major challenges ahead for Scottish Football and wish we weren't where we are.

    For the good of the game as a whole, unity was required.

    However regardless of the illogical grumblings from Ibrox, the manner in which the SPFL (as a corporate body, not just Doncaster)  have handled the situation has led us to a point where there is little trust between members and the chances of the membership doing the right thing, in unity,  when faced with an even bigger problem is probably unlikely. 

    As I said a few days back, the resolution was put forward to deal with one part of the problem, and typical of Scottish Football they did not have the vision to see beyond that.

    The result is that they have simply made dealing with the next phase of this situation twice as difficult for themselves and everyone else.

    It has been that way for years now and we shouldn't be surprised.

  22. wottpi 11th May 2020 at 23:35 Edit

     

    Auldheid 11th May 2020 at 22:45

    I refer you to my post earlier, in that, if T'Rangers had kept their silence and it was Hearts, Partick, ICT and now Aberdeen asking for an independent review there would have been no, I repeat no, celticblog article defending Doncaster. He would have still been the bogey man tied up in Res 12, The 5 Way Agreement etc and would have been roundly booed when at the next flag raising at Celtic Park.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I agree but had it been the clubs you named would the BBC and others been as strident and consistent in their support as they have been? 

    I listened to a Sportsound podcast last week where every guest and host had connections to The Rangers, pushing an agenda for reasons that are still unclear. I still don't know what dog The Rangers have in the fight.

    To make matters worse the motivation changes at some point from standing up to bullying  to wanting proper governance! 

    That coming from The Rangers, the biggest beneficiaries of Doncaster's talent for finding a way to justify via an interpretation of the rules,  an outcome that until this instance Rangers benefitted from?

    When your intelligence is being insulted in such  manner it is little wonder Celtic fans said wtf?

    Celtic supporters know that feeling of not getting a result they hoped for from SFA/SPFL, but this time the shoe was on the other foot, but at least now both sides of the green/blue divide agree an investigation is required, but its focus cannot be limited to what is in the dossier clubs will vote on today and it should be directed at examining  what has gone wrong since 2000 and how structures/processes enabled it and what changes are need to prevent a repeat.

    I say 2000 because had proper governance been in place then Rangers would have been prevented from committing financial suicide.

    As the current blog ends most fair minded supporters of all clubs would love to see a reform of both SFA/SPFL governance but not a man  hunt and this is what the whole business started from because Rangers asked for heads to roll.

  23. Auldheid 12th May 2020 at 01:31

    wottpi 11th May 2020 at 23:35 Edit

    I refer you to my post earlier, in that, if T'Rangers had kept their silence and it was Hearts, Partick, ICT and now Aberdeen asking for an independent review there would have been no, I repeat no, celticblog article defending Doncaster. He would have still been the bogey man tied up in Res 12, The 5 Way Agreement etc and would have been roundly booed when at the next flag raising at Celtic Park.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I agree but had it been the clubs you named would the BBC and others been as strident and consistent in their support as they have been? 

    I listened to a Sportsound podcast last week where every guest and host had connections to The Rangers, pushing an agenda for reasons that are still unclear. I still don't know what dog The Rangers have in the fight.

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

    What if, what if! What if Rangers had been 13 points clear. Would they have an issue with governance or would they have submitted a dossier? What if Hearts hadn't been so quick to tie their flag to Rangers mast without even knowing what Rangers 'evidence' was? Might they have had more support had they tried a more conciliatory approach on their own, rather than siding with a club lashing out everywhere for reasons that have never been made clear?

    I see the latest allegation today is that ICT wanted to kill the vote then propose a null and void for all four leagues, which would have cost them £175K. Murky? You bet it is, especially given the leanings of the ICT CEO. What of the ICT fans, what do they think? Are they happy their CEO appears willing to have cost the club financially as long as there were no Champions this season, and who was he being influenced by?

    In terms of what Rangers actually want my personal view is that governance is not the target, they just want rid of people who they perceive as Celtic minded, presumably to get people in who will be disposed to them. 

    I too would love to see a root and branch reform of football governance in Scotland, but I am damned if it should only be because of this. Far, far worse things have been ignored in the past twenty years, and the main beneficiaries every time has been 'Rangers'. Get everything on the table, and 'Rangers' will be left thinking they should have been very careful what they wished for. 

    It won't happen though. Rangers will get their wish as their smear campaign against certain individuals will continue, with the BBC providing an outlet for it. Then they can get their wish of honest people of the highest integrity in charge. I am sure Campbell Ogilvie and Gordon Smith may be willing to step in if required, even just to steady the ship. They are the type of people our game is missing. 

  24. We have reached a dark place at a particularly difficult and challenging time. The game needs to ensure it has the best possible governmental structure and individuals in place going forward.

    The ongoing omnishambles at the SPFL has found that same authroity badly wanting at a crucial time. Why would you trust them in the stormy waters ahead? 

    We need an Independent Inquiry to shine a light on all pertinent areas so whatever governmental faults, individual responsibilities, etc. that are found, can be addressed with an eye on the future.

    The SPFL mistakenly conflated issues within the resolution (infamous Good Friday Vote). Now I see this messageboard looking to conflate their resolution 12 campaign onto the current problems. I'd call the latter, tribal whataboutery

    By all means pursue whatever issues you want but this is seperate matter that needs immediate attention to give us a chance to future proof the game at a time of a real existential threat to Scottish fitbaw.

    Any talk of ...but this should of happened 8 years ago and we wouldn't have been in this mess is predictable but of no material use to the current situation, however you twist it.

     

     

     

     

     

  25. I have to laugh at this ridiculous assertion that BBC Scotland are somehow involved in a fiendish plot to help Rangers get what they want.

    It’s tinfoil level that only helps reflect a weak argument and doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

  26. Referring back to Auldheid's blog above, the depressing thought is that Scottish football governance hasn't progressed in the last 8 years.

    Back in 2012, and repeatedly since, the SFA, SPL/SPFL, the clubs – and supported by the SMSM – have all consistently displayed an inability and unwillingness to effect significant change and improvement to the governance of the senior game.

    Today's EGM is just a freak sideshow, IMO, in the never-ending Hampden circus.

    It seemed obvious back in 2012, as it still does today:

    any meaningful change to governance would need to be imposed via another source, whether it's from e.g. the fans, TV companies, the government, or even UEFA!

    But currently, there is absolutely nothing to give hope that governance standards are ever going to improve at Hampden.

  27. Auldheid 12th May 2020 at

    Celtic supporters know that feeling of not getting a result they hoped for from SFA/SPFL, but this time the shoe was on the other foot, but at least now both sides of the green/blue divide agree an investigation is required, but its focus cannot be limited to what is in the dossier clubs will vote on today and it should be directed at examining  what has gone wrong since 2000 and how structures/processes enabled it and what changes are need to prevent a repeat.

    I say 2000 because had proper governance been in place then Rangers would have been prevented from committing financial suicide.

    As the current blog ends most fair minded supporters of all clubs would love to see a reform of both SFA/SPFL governance but not a man  hunt and this is what the whole business started from because Rangers asked for heads to roll.

    Simple solution, given the current outcry, Celtic support the T’Rangers resolution with an additional request that the investigation goes back to 2000, as you suggest.

    Take it to the vote of the member clubs.

    My guess, voted down by a high percentage.

    The SPFL board wheel out Doncaster to say ‘move along now’.

    In that circumstance do you just have to ‘suck it up’ and say that’s the end of it?

    Them’s the rules after all, apparently.

     

  28. StevieBC 12th May 2020 at 09:40

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

    There is no chance of an independent review in Scotland. When Rangers stole tens of millions in illegally unpaid tax several politicians including the First Minister of the time demanded it be overlooked. What chance an independent investigation when those in the highest authority in the land adopt such a stance? The fact that taxes paid in full and on time underpin our democracy seemed lost on them.

    The last so called independent investigation was LNS, which had terms of reference clearly designed to get a specific outcome. LNS could only work with the TOR's he was given. Who would set the TOR's for the one Rangers want? 

    History shows Scottish football is in its happiest place when Rangers are at the top more often than not. If Rangers were well clear at the top right now there would be no issue. Was there an issue when the Bank of Scotland tried to get rid of Celtic while supporting Rangers to a level way beyond what they should have? Was there an issue while Rangers racked up trophies funded by money stolen from the public purse? No is the answer to both. The media rejoiced on both occasions. 

    'Independent' investigation in Scotland…jeez.

  29. So…

    ICT were willing to forego £175,000 to stop CFC’s 9IAR?

    What kind crazy economics is that from  their CEO (his decision basically right?) when the game in Scotland is going ‘doon the Suwannee’?

    And what, I wonder, do ICT fans think of such actions at a time when ‘every penny is a prisoner’!

    Not much I should think but then, they are but pawns in his agenda driven game.

    In other news, Barry Ferguson (graduate of the London School of Economics) suggested on PLZ Soccer that, in the interests of expediency, the SPFL pays just now for  the independent investigation – stating that it might be done done within within 14 days –  then wait for it, reclaim the money at a later date from monies due to SEVCO.

    Where do you start with that one?

    In fairness, Peter Martin did not respond.

    Finally, welcome back RC – back with water pistol fully loaded.

  30. For the record, Ewan Murray of The Guardian was also provided the same documents around the same time as the other journalists mentioned by Auldheid.

  31. wottpi 12th May 2020 at 09:52

    "..Simple solution, given the current outcry, Celtic support the T’Rangers resolution with an additional request that the investigation goes back to 2000, as you suggest…….

    The SPFL board wheel out Doncaster to say ‘move along now’.

    In that circumstance do you just have to ‘suck it up’ and say that’s the end of it?

    Them’s the rules after all, apparently."

    """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
    Forgive me if I am reading you wrongly, wottpi, but I read what you say as indicating that you are comparing the desire of many of us for a root and branch investigation into Res 12 and the 5-Way Agreement as being as dismissible as  TRFC's request for an inquiry into how the 'Directors' resolution' was handled?

    There is absolutely no valid comparison whatsoever.

    The SPL and the SFL(among others) in 2012 committed themselves to a monstrous lie, both to protect a club convicted of despicable cheating from the just punishment its crimes deserved and to favour a new club, newly admitted by themselves into football, by allowing that new club to claim absolutely falsely to be RFC of 1872 and to go to the financial markets on the basis of that claim in order to enhance their IPO prospectus!

    Monstrous offences, in my opinion.

    In contrast with the scale of such perverted badness, the strongest criticism that can justly be made about how the 'Directors' resolution' was handled is that it was handled cack-handedly under the pressure of urgency of time in a situation of real crisis (as opposed to the financial collapse and ruin of one club)

    It not helpful except to the enemies of sporting truth to suggest that that cack-handedness is any kind of equivalent to the  indication of corruption such as we witnessed in 2012.

  32. bect67

    Finally, welcome back RC – back with water pistol fully loaded.

    %%%%%%%%

    So there is nothing to see and all the unhappy clubs should just shut-up and go along with the status quo because the SPFL have shown themselves competent and deserving of trust at such a perilous time ?

    The water pistol is a more fitting description of the tribal whataboutery that underpins the arguments that I see being made on here featuring BBC Scotland plotting with Rangers on how to smear the SPFL and the conflation of the 8 year old issue through which everything on here is filtered. In the real world it is consigned to history and not even your own club is interested.

    If this community wants to remain faithful to it’s stated aims, then surely it has to be in agreement for an Independent Inquiry on the current omnishambles with no tribal and unrealistic conditional calls for scope to go back 8/20/120 years.

    Do it seperately by all means but don’t use it as tribal whataboutery for current events.

     

  33. The irony of all this is that after all the Rangers/Brechin/ICT/Dunfermline statements an independent inquiry might be a good thing!

    We don't really have time for one we just need to get this season finished and try and plan for next season

  34. Bill

    …an independent inquiry might be a good thing!

    %%%%%%

    It was interesting to see your new chairman opt to vote for an Independent Inquiry given Aberdeen aren’t involved in any relegation issue.

    Do you think he is involved in this masonic plot or perhaps that he just recognises the need for one?

  35. reasonablechap@11.02

    The BBC Scotland historical bias towards any team playing out of Ibrox would make an interesting discussion by itself. BBC Scotland in recent times has failed to support its own staff when any one of them dared to speak the truth and the ersatz ban on the BBC by The Rangers gave the organisation a free hand to continue reporting favourably “in the interests of balance” 

    In the meantime we are all wondering if football will re-emerge from this national emergency in any shape at all and I look forward to the results of the big meeting today with some hope.

  36. Ex Ludo

    The BBC Scotland historical bias towards any team playing out of Ibrox would make an interesting discussion by itself…

    %%%%%%%%%

    Only, the current conspirational discussion here is centered on Tom English and Brian McLaughlin, who are actually doing their jobs and towards the likes of Billy Dodds and Steven Thompson being political animals that actively push pro Rangers agendas.

    The one pundit on BBC Scotland who does push opinions/agendas in a sustained and political way is Michael Stewart and to him, Rangers are on the same shelf as Craig Levein. However even he sees the need for an Independent Inquiry (but at the same time takes aim at Rangers).

    The one journalist who almost always pushes a slant on the information he has come accross is Chris McLaughlin. The other McLaughlin, Brian, tends to offer more facts and less slant.

     

  37. reasonablechap 12th May 2020 at 08:17

    5

    We have reached a dark place at a particularly difficult and challenging time. The game needs to ensure it has the best possible governmental structure and individuals in place going forward.
    Any talk of …but this should of happened 8 years ago and we wouldn’t have been in this mess is predictable but of no material use to the current situation, however you twist it.
    …………….
    8 years ago, did you believe Doncaster and CO. where the best governmental structure and individuals in place going forward?
    And why if yes did you believe that and if yes, why do you not believe it now.

    We have reached a dark place at a particularly difficult and challenging time. The game needs to ensure it has the best possible governmental structure and individuals in place going forward.

  38. John Clark 12th May 2020 at 10:56

    The principles are the same.

    Rangers got a Euro License from the football authorities that meant Celtic and, let us not forget, the others in the relevant Euro Slots were disadvantaged.

    Rangers ran an EBT scheme for years, that was unquestioned by the football authorities, where all teams in domestic and European competition were disadvantaged.

    Via the 5WA, drawn up by the football authorities,  T’Rangers were voted into a slot in the bottom of the SFL/SPL structure to the disadvantage of others. I seem to recall plenty on the RTC blog and here pointing to how teams like Spartans were unfairly treated.

    Hearts, Partick and Stranraer have been disadvantaged by a poorly thought through resolution developed by the footballing authorities. Brechin for some reason have been saved. Brora and Kelty Hearts have been disadvantaged by scuppering the pyramid system.

    Little or no thought was given how to minimise the disadvantage to those teams or offer anything by way of compensation.

    As a last minute thought – if final positions were so important and linked to prize money, why did the resolution not include issuing prize money but holding back a percentage, say, 10% from the premiership, 7.5% from the championship and 5% from L1 & 2 to be distributed to those being relegated as at least a financial recognition they were ‘taking one for the team’ in unprecedented circumstances. 

    The trouble was, as usual the SPFL board were limited in their thinking and wanted a specific outcome.

    As pointed out previously,  the accusations of bullying and coercion were apparently fine and roundly applauded when they came from Turnbull Hutton’s mouth. Why were they not just accepted as just being ‘robust discussions’ in 2012?

    However, now when others (outwith the grumblings from Ibrox) are saying the same modus operandi was used by the footballing authorities, including some of the same operatives, in the recent resolution these are just simply dismissed as part of a T’Rangers conspiracy and anyone taking that stance are somehow viewed with a ‘blue tinge’.

    Like Easyjambo, I think I’ll head off to the chemist to look for the chill pills he was talking about a two days ago.

  39. Clubs meet today to discuss and debate the contents of Sevco's dossier. They will vote on it. 

        However the vote goes, it goes, but what has become clear is the need to investigate those who seek to undermine and influence fitba' governance using underhand means and tactics, deploying dubious and untruthful methods. 

        With the best will in the world, even the best governers struggle in such an environment. 

       A fart in the room eventually taints everyone's nostrils. The only hope of fresh air is a cork up the farters backside, or ejection from the room.. 

        Questions must be asked of who gave smelly breeks an invite in the first place.

        It must be got to the bottom of.  

  40. Wottpi

    However, now when others (outwith the grumblings from Ibrox) are saying the same modus operandi was used by the footballing authorities, including some of the same operatives, in the recent resolution these are just simply dismissed as part of a T’Rangers conspiracy and anyone taking that stance are somehow viewed with a ‘blue tinge’.

    Like Easyjambo, I think I’ll head off to the chemist to look for the chill pills he was talking about a two days ago.

    %%%%%%%%%%

    It’s tribal whataboutery pure and simple.

    What this episode clearly reveals on here, is that the supposed common purpose of this community regards holding the Scottish football authorities to account (and not Rangers in particular) isn’t really so, at least for the majority.

    The reality for most is that it’s first about Rangers and then comes the rest.

    Honourable exceptions like Easyjambo, who try to remain as objective as possible, are thin on the ground. 

  41. Cluster 

    Today is today, 8 years ago is whataboutery.

    (to answer your question, I thought Doncaster and Regan should have been binded back then)

  42. Auldheid 11th May 2020 at 21:05

    ————–

    email to the Eye sent. I didn't go into historical detail, simply pointing out that there is a subtext here that they really should address even handedly if they are going to comment at all, that their published comment was little more than PR from one side of a dispute and that I would not regard the DR as an independent and unbiased source. Shame, I have enjoyed and respected the Eye almost all of my life.

  43. Welcome back Reasonable Chap. Hope you had some nice thinking time for your next attack on the blog….and now it's time for the divide and conquer tactic?! Come on, you need to be better than that. 

  44. Nawlite

    It isn’t an attack, it is a valid observation of what is going on.
    Events are doing the dividing and won’t come from anything I have to say.

    Tell me what I was wrong about and why….
    That will be more difficult than a general comment.

  45. wottpi 12th May 2020 at 12:31

    '.The principles are the same.'

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

    No, with respect, there is at least prima facie evidence that deliberate mistruths were told either by RFC of 1872 Rangers of 1872 to the  SFA licensing committee or by the licensing committee to UEFA, involving perhaps a criminal attempt to obtain monies by false pretences.

    The disadvantage occasioned to other clubs came about deliberately by deception.

    Any disadvantage to clubs arising from the 'Directors' resolution' is a consequence of a conscientious  attempt to apply the existing rules in an unprecedented set of circumstances in the interests of the majority.

    Not one shred of evidence has been proferred in the 'dossier' to support the view that  the SPFL Board was acting maliciously or with intent to deceive, however cack-handedly and rashly they may have  acted.

    At best, there are grounds request for an inquiry into the efficiency and effectiveness of the SPL and its CEO .

    Let that be done, certainly. But also let there be a full inquiry into the possibility that actual crimes may have been committed by people in RFC of 1872 and/or people in football governance in 2011/ 2012.

    The liars of those years are still around, and still have undue influence.

    The manky stable has to be cleared out of 8 years of piled manure, and in the scale of things, the 'directors' resolution' is relatively minor.

  46. Reasonablechap 12th May 2020 at 13:03

    I agree with you about apples and oranges but that does not make both matters un-important. Lord Nimmo Smith on player registration rules breaches in 11 seasons saying "guilty, but you can keep the trophies" was and remains a travesty that must be dealt with at some point.

    Where is the clamour for a Scottish football re-start EGM / taskforce that would remove the needless finger-pointing, accusations and possible court cases that will serve no-one in the game, except of course those with no real stake in a re-start because they are out of the cup and very unlikely to win the Scottish or Europa league?

    Real football matters include those that are unarguably wrong. Lord Nimmo Smith was unarguably wrong. Partick Thistle, Stranraer and possibly Hearts being relegated without completing the season is wrong. Amiens SC in France have also been 'relegated'. They have declared this morning in a press conference that it is essential for them to pursue this to be overturned as a question of 'sporting ethics'. Who in all fairness can blame them? You can expect the same in England if the same arbitrary judgement is made for clubs in bottom of the league positions.

    European football must re-start and finish 2019-20. Even if it is in 2021.

  47. reasonablechap 12th May 2020 at 13:03

    What are the tribes , and which one should I be in ? (a list would suffice – I can investigate on my own , thanks ).

  48. reasonablechap @ 11.20

    ———————————————————————

    My reading of the AFC/Dave Cormack statement and decision to back an INDEPENDENT investigation is that he believes it  to be the only way to draw a line under the episode. (he is an innocent abroad in that case for to be sure it will not!). He specifically mentions the opportunity for Doncaster etc to be cleared of any misconduct. I have no idea if he is a mason (which apparently his predecessor is) or is part of a plot. I would like to think not but it is early days for him and the jury is still out for me.

    I don't agree with your quote at 11.02 regarding the 8 year old events (In the real world it is consigned to history and not even your own club is interested) is necessarily true. I agree that it has been established that the Celtic Board don't want to go there but supporters of many clubs, including notably Aberdeen, will never accept the Big Lie or that the current version of Rangers is not a new club. Whether we will ever be able to get that view accepted is regrettably, for me anyway, unlikely but that does not mean we should stop trying. My view is not dissimilar from many fans of Aberdeen and it should be remembered that we were very active in demonstrating against the Big Lie back in the day. Mr Milne wanted to move on not the fans. What have I said: A club Board not following the will of the fans? Celtic anybody?

  49. bordersdon 12th May 2020 at 13:49

          I agree that it has been established that the Celtic Board don't want to go there but supporters of many clubs, including notably Aberdeen, will never accept the Big Lie or that the current version of Rangers is not a new club. Whether we will ever be able to get that view accepted is regrettably, for me anyway, unlikely but that does not mean we should stop trying.

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

       I couldn't agree more BD, and I get your drift entirely, but its more than just a "View"……"Fact" would be a more appropriate replacement…….Otherwise a very brief but concise summary. laugh 

  50. Thank you bordersdon,  saved me typing it!

    what you’re missing RC is that you clearly believe we are back to where we were circa 2010, the Shankly inspired life and death comparison, a duopoly and a board trusted to oversee it.  We’re not.  What we’re all watching, and have watched for 8 years, is a freak show.  A rubbish puppet show with visible wires. As the ageing operators try ever more desperately to maintain the illusion so their efforts become all the more transparent.  Covid’s role in this?  Think of the black screen falling down behind the show leaving the operator, now scarcely believably looking even more ridiculous dressed fully in black against red brickwork all the while getting his puppets to say yes we do, no we don’t etc etc.  The Covid question is not, should never have been, which puppet do you support?  To apply that in any form is to completely miss the point.

  51. Today is today, 8 years ago is whataboutery.
    …..
    8 years ago is not whataboutery if no lessons have been learned, Today will be like any other day if lessons have not been learned.
    ….
    If this community wants to remain faithful to it’s stated aims, then surely it has to be in agreement for an dentnt Inquiry on the current omnishambles.
    ….
    This community has remained faithul to it’s stated aim, it has been in agreement for an Inquiry in to the running of scottish football, the problem now is it has taken 8 years for the rest of scottish football to catch up.
    …..
    (to answer your question, I thought Doncaster and Regan should have been binded back then)Why did you think that?
    ….
    The same cannot be said about an ibrox club who were very happy for Doncaster to remain back then but now during this current omnishambles they want rid of Doncaster now, why not a word in 8 years?
    If 8 years ago they, the ibrox club wanted rid of Doncaster and an investigation, this site would have been right behind them, but we are told to forget the last 8 years and stand behind the ibrox club during this current omnishambles that they in part created.

  52. CO

    ————————————————————–

    I entirely agree with your view that my view should have been a FACT.

  53. this current omnishambles is a fail then. One can only hope that the ibrox club have a new lease of life (again)
    And will call for an investigation into the running of scottish football these last 8 and more years, after all their sabre ratteling it would be a shame if one defeat held them back.

  54. Well, if TRFC has any decency it will now issue a statement along the lines of;

    “…due process was followed, so now it’s appropriate for all clubs to unite behind the SPFL – and focus on managing through this crisis, for the benefit of the Scottish game.”

    I know…  indecision

  55. https://spfl.co.uk/news/spfl-clubs-reject-call-for-inquiry
    “I have taken careful note of the concerns expressed by the minority of clubs which voted in favour and when we are back to playing football in a safe environment, I will bring clubs together to discuss the lessons learned.
    ……………
    Someone mentioned lessons learned. earlier,maybe we could go back 8 years and learn somemore.

  56. Initial reaction on the EGM vote:-

    1. Cue the next round of litigious statements 'going forward' to further (legal) action – led, as ever, by        SEVCO. The first one might even be out before I post this!

    2. SMSM will report the result (less than one third at around 30%) as a 'moral victory' for the Yes 'tribe', and as a 'pyrrhic victory' for the No 'tribe'

    3. Peter Lawell will now be in the 'firing line' for what has been described as a 'rousing speech' – details of which are a bit sketchy right now, but I wonder what his theme was!

     

     

  57. I confess I'm a little conflicted by today's result. Rangers fans are to my mind the worst winners ever, so I really didn't want them to perceive that they had won the vote, yet I really do want to see an inquiry that might lead to a wider look the failings of the SPFL as it was/is structured.

    Their lack of competence, lack of foresight, lack of progressiveness, lack of transparency, lack of ability/willingness to improve for the better and fear of anything other than a future totally based on the 2 big clubs and the attendant hatred as a selling point IS undoubtedly good reason for an inquiry.

    For today's meeting, I wonder how it was structured. We're told that a small number of club CEOs made speeches, but what really interested me was how much the non-involved clubs heard about the complaints about bullying and the denials of same. Were the reps of ICT, PT, DAFC, DFC brave enough to sit round a (virtual) table and clarify exactly what they said and what they heard to lead to the accusations of bullying so that the other club heads could make up their minds whether or not there was any bullying? That would allow them to decide in favour or against. Did that sort of exploration take place or did clubs just vote the way they did for some other reason? 

     

  58. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52631918

    Tom English observing that one third of the top flight want this examination to take place, which seems even less impressive than he infers it is when one considers that 2 of the 4 voting for were sponsors of the resolution. In fairness to him he does mention that the Championship was a wipeout for the resolutioners bar ICT.

    Repeat: Following their accusations of bullying etc.,ICT were the only Championship club to vote for. What were you saying Mr. Gardiner?

1 2 3 16
 

Comments are closed.