Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond

946
115589

Celtic Shareholders who put forward a resolution to the Celtic AGM in 2013 are preparing for the 2019 AGM tomorrow and some of their conclusions are reproduced below. Celtic are planning to vote the current resolution of 2019 down after several years of kicking the can down the road after an agreement to adjourn the 2013 motion was agreed at that AGM.

Given the weight of evidence, and the prevarication that has gone on for this extended period of time, you don’t have to be a student of politics to infer that Celtic are failing their own shareholders over this.

There appears to have been, at best, a failure of SFA governance over this issue. At worst? Well that doesn’t really bear thinking about. That Celtic (and other clubs too) have been in possession of the evidence outlined below but have failed to act on it is a damning indictment of the quality of people running our clubs. Peter Lawwell’s words from 2008 about the integrity of competition seem hollow coming from the same lips as the man who has failed to pursue any kind of sporting integrity over upholding the rules of the game.

Of course we are talking about a fundamental difference in how people see the game. There are those of us who (some say naively) consider that upholding the aspects of fair play and competition are paramount, and those who see the commercial aspects of the game as the foremost consideration. A pragmatist might find a way to accommodate both, but there are apparently no pragmatists in boardrooms all over Scotland – just financial accountants.

It would be unfair to categorise the latter constituency as suffering from some kind of character defect of course. Doesn’t make you a bad person because short term financial gain is your thing.

But it puts you at odds with the paying punters – or at least some of them. As a Celtic fan myself, I’m not so sure that I can take any real joy from my own club’s success if I have come to the conclusion that they themselves are happy with a rigged competition. I am not so sure I can credibly throw stones at anyone who is caught cheating when I see that serious evidence of malpractice is being ignored and hidden under the rug by my own club.

I am sure there are those who feel the same as I do. Are there enough of us? Probably not, but the effect of it all from a personal perspective, is that it disconnects me from the process where common goals and objectives are shared between fans, players and clubs. That’s what clubs are for after all isn’t it?

In short, if the game is rigged, there is no common objective.

And consequently, many of us, deprived of that shared mission, that bond broken, will be forced to re-evaluate their relationship with their clubs.

We all have our own thoughts, but the urge to walk away forever is strong with me.

The Resolution 12 Story

In 2012, Celtic shareholders brought a resolution before the Celtic PLC AGM which asked the Celtic Board to refer certain matters to UEFA because they felt that the Scottish Football Association was compromised, no longer fit for purpose in relation to these matters, at least, and had failed Celtic and all the other football clubs in Scotland and in its duty as a Governing body, and it has separately failed UEFA as the Licensing Authority appointed by UEFA to grant licences to play in European Football in relation to Scottish teams.
The actual wording used was as follows;

“This AGM requests the Board exercise the provision contained in the Procedural Rules Governing the UEFA Club Financial Control Body Article 10 with jurisdiction and investigation responsibilities identified in articles 3 & 11 (Note 1), by referring/bringing to the attention of the UEFA Club Financial Control Body (CFCB), the licensing administration practices of the Scottish Football Association (SFA), requesting the CFCB undertake a review and investigate the SFA’s implementation of UEFA & SFA license compliance requirements, with regard to qualification, administration and granting of licenses to compete in football competitions under both SFA and UEFA jurisdiction, since the implementation of the Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations of 2010.”

The response of the Celtic Board was to argue that this resolution was NOT NECESSARY because the board itself had already recognised that there had been failings within the SFA Licensing process, and they were already in correspondence with the SFA in relation to much the same issue.

The difference between the board and the Resolutioners was that the board wanted to continue corresponding with the SFA rather than refer the matter to UEFA or anyone else, whereas the Resolutioners argued that the SFA were hopelessly compromised, were unfit for purpose, could not of themselves remedy the situation they had created, and so wanted to refer the matter to UEFA as an independent and overseeing body whose rules had been flaunted, broken, ignored and to be frank, completely manipulated as a result of SFA inaction and inactivity.

After much discussion between the board and the Resolutioners, it was reluctantly agreed that the resolution should be adjourned and to allow the SFA to be given the opportunity to demonstrate that they could operate as a proper Governing body should and to answer all and any questions put to them via the Celtic PLC board and , where appropriate, the Resolutioners and ,if necessary, their solicitors.
In the interim period, it has become clear to the Resolutioners that the SFA are not fit for purpose, just as they originally argued, and that they are not, and never could have been, the appropriate body to consider and determine the failings in the licensing system that the Resolutioners had complained of.

This is not merely opinion on the part of the Resolutioners but is the determination and judgement of a formally constituted judicial panel appointed by the SFA itself.
The Resolutioners complain that the SFA have failed, and continue to fail in the following areas;

  • They failed to oversee a fair and robust European Licence application process before and after March 2011 in respect of the appropriate season.
    They had failed to mount any sort of investigation despite being contacted by HMRC from 2006 onwards in relation to the unlawful activities of a member club – they should have had a watching brief and requested regular updates from HMRC directly but didn’t.
  • They failed to properly apply the necessary tests demanded by UEFA in considering licence applications, and subsequently, through their then CEO, sought to justify their licensing process and the grant of certain licences on a number of different contradictory grounds – none of which stood scrutiny.
  • They failed to monitor, update their records or make specific enquiries between 30th March 2011 and Mid May 2011 when the list of application grants was formally intimated to UEFA – and by which time there was widespread public rumour and speculation about the state of the tax affairs of a member club together with specific legal documents which outlined that there was indeed a tax bills due which would have disqualified that club from being granted a UEFA licence – had the rules been applied properly.
  • They failed to grasp the situation between March 2011 and August 2011 when the Sheriff Officers were seen arriving at the same club and had still made no enquiry.
  • They failed to carry out any monitoring duties at all post the grant of the licence, with then CEO Reagan telling Celtic that once a European licence was granted – which it was in April 2011 – all further compliance monitoring and any necessary action was the province of UEFA. This was later contradicted by UEFA themselves.
  • They failed to monitor through the June 30th and September 30th, two key datelines specified with the UEFA regulations, and there exists a damning e-mail from one SFA officer to the offending club which effectively says that he hopes UEFA will be too busy to notice the deficiencies in the latest submissions sent by the SFA to UEFA in respect of the club concerned.

Throughout, the SFA denied that there were any failures in their procedures, that licences had been correctly granted, there had been no breaches of the rules and maintained that their procedures had been audited and approved by UEFA during the period.

According to the official UEFA website, no such Audit actually took place with the same website confirming which Football Associations were in fact audited at the relevant time. There is no mention of any SFA Audit.

The SFA claimed that not only was there nothing wrong with the grant of the licence, but that there was nothing for them to report during the post grant period as it was not their responsibility – and then added that even if something had been wrong, or was later found to be wrong with the grant, they could not report the matter to UEFA and could take no action because they were time barred from doing so.
Post the Craig Whyte Trial, where long held evidence was publicly noted and commented upon, Celtic and the SPFL publicly called for there to be a full independent Legal inquiry into all that had transpired during “the EBT years” and all aspects of how what had occurred, impacted on football Governance in Scotland.

The SFA rejected those calls and instead insisted on their own internal inquiry into the UEFA licence process for 2011/2012 – despite previously insisting that there had never been anything to investigate or report to UEFA who had entrusted them with the administration of their Licensing process.

The SFA wrote to every club in Scotland to say they were undertaking that investigation and later publicly announced that as a result of that investigation they had uncovered sufficient evidence to justify bringing formal charges alleging breaches of both SFA and UEFA rules.

This despite denying for a number of years that there had been any need for an investigation and despite reassuring Celtic that their licensing process was robust, had been conducted properly, and had not resulted in any incorrect grant of a licence.

The SFA appointed a judicial panel to hear those charges, determine whether they had been proven or not and then to hand out an appropriate punishment.

That Judicial panel have ruled that legally they (the SFA appointed panel) and the SFA itself cannot bring, hear, determine and act on those charges, nor consider the activities of the football club concerned in any judicial forum, because apparently the SFA had previously decided and formally entered into a contract which says that the SFA will not, and cannot, administer their normal Governmental and Judicial function (which would normally apply to any other club in Scotland and at any other time in the history of the SFA or UEFA) in relation to the acts concerned and the specific football club in question.
Instead, the Panel ruled that the charges concerned should be considered by the Court of Arbitration for Sport as a matter of contract and law – and could not be considered by an SFA appointed panel.
In other words, it has been judicially determined that the SFA cannot as a matter of law enforce its own rules or those of UEFA in relation to one club, and have signed away their entire right to oversee proper football Governance and the implementation of SFA and UEFA rules in this instance.

Further, that contract must have been known to all the appropriate SFA officers who decided and took part in the inquiry that led to the SFA bringing the disciplinary charges – Stuart Reagan, Andrew MacKinlay and Tony McGlennan – and when the SFA rejected Celtic’s call for a fully independent inquiry.

In effect, those same officers mounted their own internal inquiry and brought proceedings which they knew, or ought reasonably to have known, which would end in a legal dead end.
Such a course of action amounts to professional incompetence on a monumental scale – at best!

Further, subsequent SFA officials, assured the officers of Celtic Football Club that following the decision of the Independent Judicial Panel there was no reason why the SFA would not take the matter to CAS and in turn used the officials of Celtic Football Club to relay that message to the Resolutioners in the knowledge, and with the intention, that Celtic PLC shareholders would rely on those assurances and would act accordingly. Those actions and those assurances should now be the subject of a wholly separate inquiry.

Since those assurances were made to Celtic officials, Solicitors acting on behalf of shareholders have written to the SFA on no less than three occasions requesting clarification on what the SFA is doing, whether or not the decision from the independent tribunal advising that the matter should go to CAS will be implemented, and requesting a proposed timetable when this will happen. All such letters have been ignored or avoided by the SFA.
Subsequently, the current CEO of the SFA has stated that whether or not the matter should go to CAS will only be determined prior to Christmas 2019 – some 18 months after the ruling by the independent judicial panel.
This position is a complete volte face from what the SFA told Celtic officials immediately after the 2018 panel hearing.

The conclusion to all of this can only be that the SFA is not fit for purpose and that the governance of Scottish football is so bad, so broken and so far removed from normal judicial and corporate business practice that it must be looked at by an independent body if the matter is not referred to CAS.

Further, all of this must be made public, must be out in the open and must be properly disclosed otherwise any future investment in any club whether by private individuals, stock market listed entities, banks, loan houses, credit houses or whatever is predicated on the wholly fraudulent notion that the SFA will consistently apply its own rules or those of UEFA.

Celtic, as a respected member of UEFA, should not and cannot, stand back and allow this shambolic governance to continue unchecked and without external examination as to do so would be doing a total disservice to UEFA, and such a course of action would potentially make Celtic a party to the entire shambolic administration we have seen thus far.

The resolutioners have stated consistently since 2012 that SFA governance is not fit for purpose and have requested that this entire matter should be referred to UEFA as the overall governing body for European football and as a footballing authority who has entrusted the SFA to oversee the fair application of its rules in Scotland.

Despite what is now accepted as continued and regular SFA failure, that request has met with obfuscation and resistance.

However persistence beats resistance and no matter what the outcome of the 2019 Celtic AGM this is an issue which will not go away and is worthy of consideration and determination in a more formal legal forum.

946 COMMENTS

1 8 9 10 11 12 14
 

  1. The dying of the light .

    The site must be making a fortune by my inadvertant clicking on adverts !

     


  2. macfurgly 4th January 2020 at 00:47 easyJambo 3rd January 2020 at 22:59 ooooo Thank you. I revert to my initial thoughts. ooooo Auldheid 3rd January 2020 at 21:10 "If Johnson wants TRFC to be recognised as same club as RFC and keep its history, then he and his club will have to admit to dishonesty on a massive scale was part of it and surrender the dishonestly won titles , but perhaps that is not in his or their mentality". ooooo Clearly it is not in his or their mentality, and nor is it in their mentality to admit that the Rangers that they grew up with is being liquidated in its entirety; but the thing is they know it all to be true, and choose to live with that knowledge, and with their own insincerity and dishonesty. None of them would buy a car off himself.

    ———————-

    And something that proves that to be the case, and that it bothers them – a great deal, is also the reason why we don't need an answer to the question – 'Why now?' The answer is there for us all to see, for the reason they continue to argue that they are the same club is because it really does bother them! It really is important to them what we all think of them! Not only do they know within their hearts that the current Rangers is not the same as the infinitely more successful Rangers of old, they know that the current Rangers would collapse if the truth was ever universally acknowledged (assuming, of course, that financial mismanagement doesn't take care of that first)!

    _______

    On the narrower meaning of the question 'Why now?', as in 'why at this current time?', no answer is currently obvious, but it is rather curious (to say the least) that an old internet based proponent of the OC argument should come on here, after a very lengthy absence, pushing his self-produced theories, just a matter of days before someone steeped in all that is wrong at Ibrox has come out of the blue with a 'because we won an Old Firm Derby match' reasoning (if it could possibly be described as 'reasoning') suggesting there is something wrong with the mentality of any Celtic supporter who doesn't see things the same way as this cheating charlatan does.

    While this OC narrative awakening might well be connected to some upcoming insolvency event at Ibrox, I think it's more likely to be linked to the inevitable Blue Room musical chairs that will start once King has officially left the building, with Johnston starting his PR over a New Year drink (I hope for his sake it was said after consuming more than one very large, strong alcohol based beverage). I also wonder if he (Johnston) had (indirectly) contacted various Rangers bloggers and requested/instructed them to re-open the 'debate' in time for his own pronouncement.

    _______________

    I wonder why Johnston, with his undoubted inside track on all things 'Rangers', didn't use Eastwood's OC argument? After all, if what Eastwood claims is, indeed, what happened to keep 'the club alive', then Johnston is bound to know this and would use it rather than come out with this nonsensical rant.

    Anyone care to try and explain this? Eastwood?


  3. paddy malarkey 4th January 2020 at 02:58

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

    if A.J and all the other liquidation deniers really are so sure Rangers* are the same club, why do they have to protest so loudly about it? 

    In my view you are right about the supremacy thing though, and it is all related to the peculiarly Scottish nature of a certain fraternal organisation, which doesn't seem to be linked to similar attitudes anywhere else it exists in the world.  

    As always though my bugbear is the media. They have handed this guy a free unchallenged platform to spread his propaganda, and to speak of Celtic fans in a derogatory tone. As Michael Stewart said on Twitter, just imagine the sheer outrage were anyone associated with Celtic to speak of Rangers fans in this way. 

    I have a friend whose relative came from outside Scotland to take up a position with a very prominent media outlet. He is a Catholic, although not a Celtic fan. He is simply gobsmacked at the levels of pro-Rangers and anti-Celtic bias he has witnessed within influential people in the Scottish media, and sometimes there is a more sinister element to it. Even Graham Spiers, seemingly one of the more objective writers, speaks today in the Times of the 'tribalism' among fans regarding the racism debate around Morelos. What Spiers avoids of course is that it was Rangers themselves who kicked this off, that as yet there is no evidence to support it, that Celtic and their fans are being demonised because of it, and that the media are giving it their full support. 

    I am not going to be stupid enough to deny there could be racist attitudes among the Celtic support. The Mark Walters incident, albeit from a different era, remains a shameful stain on our history that can't be eradicated. However, the notion that Morelos in this present day is subjected to more racism than any other black player is preposterous, and there is zero evidence to support it. As always though a lie will go around the world six times before the truth even gets a chance. 

    God only knows how vicious the reaction is going to be if Rangers actually win the league. 


  4. I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments UTH, although I feel the seemingly more objective Speirs is merely deflecting, along with the triumphalists like Rae and Boyd, from the vile and abominable actions of 'Cut Throat Jake' Morelos.

    Also, could you imagine the apoplectic SMSM reaction if Leigh Griffiths ( who was roundly chastised for waving a Celtic scarf at Ibrox a while back) had performed the equally abhorrent gun firing gesture from Ryan Kent?

    I'm afraid we'll see more 'Fake News' and cheerleaders for TRFC wheeled out as the season progresses – aimed at undermining CFC.

    Whilst it is frustrating to be faced with injustice with regard to fair coverage and reporting, I know what my team are up against here (no need to spell it out) but will continue to 'keep the faith' in the hope that justice in the form of a 9th successive title will materialise this year.

    On a lighter note, I quite enjoy the ramblings of the Eastwoods and Steerpikes on this site – they are clearly deluded.


  5. Allyjambo 4th January 2020 at 08:35
    ………………….
    The Alistair Johnston one is a strange one.( I think it’s more likely to be linked to the inevitable Blue Room musical chairs that will start once King has officially left the building,)
    If i remember correctly, did king not mention at the last AGM that RIFC would be wound down or something.(happy to be corrected, as i don’t have the time this morning to look it up)
    Now we know Mr Johnstone is a person of significant control in TRIFC, If the TRIFC is to become no more where does that leave Mr Johnston as for the last some what three years he has still not been passed as a person fit and proper enough to get a place on the TRFC board.
    Mr Johnstons ramblings and last rally call may just be his last before he is moved on.
    Jesus when you think about it two crackpot chairmen who were on the last ibrox board when it died can’t get passed as fit and proper to have a place on this ibrox board, yet the media give them all the air time they want to protest it is the same club when both were part of the problem that saw the old club die.
    I will tell you something that ibrox crowd do hold onto the past and even if you did something to the club it is ok as you will be forgiven as you were part of the club when it was cheating to win everything.


  6. Anybody know why BBC Sport have listed FA Cup kick of times as 12.31 , 15.01 or 17.31 ? .And maybe mad people like following mad people .


  7. upthehoops 4th January 2020 at 10:57

    "The Mark Walters incident…remains a shameful stain on our history that can't be eradicated."

    I was recently having a similar discussion with someone who pointed out something that I had previously been unaware of or I had simply missed at the time.

    I was referred to the documentary with the "previously unseen footage" of the dressing room at Ibrox post-match. The YouTube listing gives a clue to the content; Mo Johnston, a Catholic & ex-Celtic player singing The Billy Boys.

    I vaguely recalled the attendance and participation of Graeme Souness, Chic Young, Jimmy Bell, Terry Butcher, Richard Gough, John Brown and others but I had to have it pointed out to me that in the middle of the group singing "Fuck your Pope and the Vatican" with gusto was the said Mark Walters who was being as enthusiastic (or bigoted, if you prefer) as the rest.

    Racist behaviour should be condemned but on the "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone" basis Mark Walters might not be the best or the most credible witness.


  8. paddy malarkey 4th January 2020 at 12:18

    Anybody know why BBC Sport have listed FA Cup kick of times as 12.31 , 15.01 or 17.31 ? .And maybe mad people like following mad people .

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

    It's to promote mental health awareness. All games are kicking of 1 minute “late”.


  9. Aren't TRFC awaiting a possible  EL sanction for their fans' vocal support ? Noticed that the home leg ticket prices have been announced , with sale dates .They've oviously been told there will be no stand closure.


  10. At the acknowledged risk of reigniting the OC/NC debate, I read Auldheid’s link above to a 2012 BBC article about Sir David Murray’s part in the demise of Rangers with interest, not least because Craig Whyte’s purchase of the club was accurately described in terms of the Craig Whyte-led consortium buying Murray's 85% share-holding for £1.

    Leaving aside the symbolic, if somewhat comical nature of the sum involved, it is readily apparent that the purchase of the club, Rangers Football Club, indeed any incorporated football club, involves the purchase of shares in what history rewriters might describe as the operating company, which they assure us is a separate entity to the club – despite the patently obvious flaw that if they’ve merely bought shares in a company, then they clearly haven’t purchased the immortal, ethereal, metaphysical ‘idea’ that is the club, since it apparently isn’t part of the company entity that was purchased, according to their own theory.

    Anybody who has read Ian Murray’s book, ‘This Is Our Story’ about the financial collapse, administration, near-death, and subsequent rebuilding of Heart of Midlothian FC, will know only too well how long and difficult a task administrator Bryan Jackson had in obtaining the club’s share-holding from Lithuania in order to preserve the history of the club and avoid going down the newco route, something which he miraculously achieved at the eleventh hour.  

    All of which begs the question, why would anyone buy shares in order to take control of a seemingly meaningless, expendable company which isn’t the club? Why did David Murray buy Lawrence Marlborough’s majority share-holding in 1988 if he was purchasing a company, not a club? Of course, Charles Green didn’t purchase a share-holding in Rangers in 2012, because Rangers was heading for liquidation, which is why he bought some assets before successfully deluding the gullible into believing that the world is flat.

    Finally, supporters of the club currently playing out of Ibrox (indeed supporters of any club) should read the aforementioned ‘This Is Our Story’, where they would discover the grim reality of a club at death’s door and the subsequent mass mobilisation of a Hearts support prepared to invest millions of pounds to save the club they love.


  11. In the absence of any further details, I guess 'Tunnelgate' didn't actually happen then, after the Glasgow derby?  Curious.

     

    Today's copy/paste instructions to the SMSM included the latest club 'connected' with Morelos: allegedly Bologna this time.

    It would indeed set the cat amongst the pigeons if TRFC did receive a significant bid from any club, whether it was £10M, £20M or whatever, [or the rumoured Release Clause value.]

     

    Gerrard wants to keep his best players to keep his title – and SC – challenge alive.

    RIFC needs the cash.

    And IF Morelos was sold this month, would Gerrard get to see any of the transfer fee deposit to fund a replacement?

     

    Realistically, I don't think Morelos will leave this month.

    Additionally, the temperamental player could become unsettled – if an unacceptable bid(s) was rejected by TRFC…

    Which would be nice. no


  12. LUGOSI 4th January 2020 at 12:25

    I vaguely recalled the attendance and participation of Graeme Souness, Chic Young, Jimmy Bell, Terry Butcher, Richard Gough, John Brown and others but I had to have it pointed out to me that in the middle of the group singing "Fuck your Pope and the Vatican" with gusto was the said Mark Walters who was being as enthusiastic (or bigoted, if you prefer) as the rest.

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

    I get that, but the racism against Walters was a shocking event in my view. 

     


  13. Walking through the park this morning and paused to watch a local game between what appeared to be under 14's.It was well attended spectator wise but I was shocked..hmm no not shocked but annoyed and irritated by the abuse the referee was subjected to. The referee has given up his time and energy to support and foster the future of the game, some of the abuse from all quarters of the sidelines bordered on threatening, it was constant and foul. I have no comment on the competence of the official but after ten minutes of listening I moved on . The SAFA have guidlines issued to members but from what I witnessed today it wouldn't go amiss to remind members regularly via players and parents that such abuse is counterproductive and on a human level plainly wrong. 

     

    Standards of Behaviour

     

     

    The following is provided as general guidance for behaviour at games. This guidance will be further developed to form a full "Code of Conduct" which players, officials, clubs and supporters are expected to adhere to as a "Gold Standard".

     

    1. The Scottish Amateur Football Association will not condone the drinking of alcohol at any games held under its jurisdiction.

     

     2. Club officials are reminded that they are responsible for the conduct of spectators at their home matches, and visiting clubs are expected to co – operate with any reasonable requests made to them in this context. The Executive Committee will take action against any club reported to them in this regard.

     

    3. Since most of our games are played on public pitches, players and officials should control the use of foul and abusive language. Quite apart from any instructions laid down by the football authorities, it is important that the Association/League creates a good public image, and everyone involved in Scottish amateur football has a duty to ensure that the existing high standards are maintained at all times.

     

    4. Members of the Executive, especially the Office-Bearers, are available to assist clubs and officials at all times

     


  14. I tried to post this earlier and it's in moderation , because of one word , I think . If this is acceptable , could the Mods bin the first draft ? 

    Since we're away to Alloa and the trains through there are gubbed , I'm stuck here with a shopping list and am between excursions . On the racism thing , I remember in the olden days going to Hampden to see a Old Firm cup final , when anybody could stoat up and pay at the gate . Me and my mates were in the enclosure , with the baying hordes to our left and our right . Paul Wilson was playing , and the racial abuse he got from one side whenever he touched the ball or dared to go near the sidelines was horrendous . Then the CFC supporters started singing "Oh , I'd rather be a darkie than a H*n ". Bet that cheered him up . He scored a cracking goal though , before we left to avoid the inevitable confrontations . 

    And I know it's inadvertent not inadvertant . My spelling is gtting atroshus .


  15. Article from today's Herald regarding the SFA and the 2011 licence application.

    https://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/18138440.sfa-remain-quiet-rangers-uefa-licence-charges/

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

    Almost 20 months since the SFA’s compliance officer hit Rangers with two charges concerning their application for a licence to play in Europe in 2011/12, the ruling body continues to do nothing to take matters forward.

    The last act of Clare Whyte’s predecessor, Tony McGlennan, was – following an eight-month investigation – to issue the charges against Rangers in June 2018 after sworn statements made in court during the trial of former owner Craig Whyte revealed that the board at Ibrox had been made aware in January, 2011, of money owed to HMRC regarding what became known as the Wee Tax Case, when payments were made to several players under the Discounted Option Scheme in an attempt to dodge tax.

    UEFA insists that all clubs taking part in their competitions must declare overdue tax payable. However, Rangers claimed in their submission for a licence in 2011 that they had no overdue payables and that they were “in discussions” over a disputed tax bill.

    However, Rangers directors testified during the Whyte trial that the club knew the tax bill was overdue in November, 2010. As a result of their application being granted, Rangers were allowed to compete in the qualifying rounds of the Champions League (where they were eliminated by Malmo) and the Europa League (where they lost out to Maribor); had their application been rejected – as it should have been – then Celtic, runners-up in the SPL in 2011, would have taken their place in the Champions League.

    That alleged obfuscation formed the basis of the first charge, as was revealed in a letter sent by the SFA to all member clubs in September, 2017, which also explained the second charge by explaining that Rangers did not observe the rules that: "All members shall:- (a) observe the principles of loyalty, integrity and sportsmanship in accordance with the rules of fair play; (b) be subject to and comply with the articles and any statutes, regulations, directives, codes, decisions and international match calendar promulgated by the board, the Professional Game Board, the Non-Professional Game Board, the Judicial Panel Protocol, a committee or sub-committee, FIFA, UEFA or the Court of Arbitration for Sport; (f) behave towards the Scottish FA and other members with the utmost good faith."

    Sanctions available for the latter breach range from a £1,000 fine up to "£5,000,000 and/or ejection from the Scottish Cup and/or exclusion from the Scottish Cup and/or any player registration restrictions and/or suspension and/or termination of membership and/or any sanction or disposal not expressly provided above".

    Rangers immediately argued that the SFA, as a result of the secret Five-Way Agreement they and the SPFL signed in 2012 following the descent into liquidation of the old club, had no jurisdiction in this case and that the matter could only be heard by the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Switzerland, an opinion upheld by the SFA’s own judicial panel in June, 2018. Since then, nothing.

    When I pressed him on the matter in June of last year, SFA chief executive Ian Maxwell said: “I would expect that to come back to the board in the not too distant future.

    “It [going to CAS] is still under consideration. We’ll come back on that in due course. I wouldn’t want to put a timescale on it . . . but I don’t think we would let it go for ever.”

    We asked the SFA on Tuesday whether a decision had been arrived at concerning the next step in this procedure. They said they would get back to us but there has yet to be a response from them.

    Alastair Johnston, a director of Rangers International Football Club, this week gave an interview in which he taunted Celtic supporters who claim that the current Rangers is a separate entity from the club which imploded in 2012.

    "You know what?” he asked. “If that was the end of Rangers and Celtic and if that was the end of the big game that started in 1888 [the first Old Firm meeting] all the way to 2012 – we won that game.

    "The way you determine it by the number of times (54) we won the top division. We were ahead in February, 2012 and in head-to-head victories, we were ahead of Celtic in 2012.

    "So if you wanted to say the old Rangers of 1872 died – we beat you 2-0 and when the game started again in 2012, it will be 120 years or so before you can tie with us.”

    Mr Johnston was removed from the board at Ibrox by Whyte in 2011, but not before he declared in the club’s interim accounts that year that the Wee Tax Bill was a “potential” liability rather than an actual, overdue one.

    It’s understood that it is his signature which appears on the UEFA application which the SFA now believes was consequently awarded in error. Curiously, though, they seem reluctant to proceed with their charges.


  16. UTH @ 11.09

    "following the descent into liquidation of the old club."

    I wonder how long those words will remain before a 'correction' is made, following vociferous protests from the Propaganda Loyal?

    At least the Herald is belatedly holding the SFA to account on this protracted issue, even if it is only one solitary article on the subject.

    The problem the football authorities have is one of their own making. They've voluntarily signed up to a legally binding five-way agreement not to punish Charles Green's creation in any way for the sins of its deceased predecessor, while otherwise guaranteeing to treat the new club as if it was the former. In doing so, they've ensured that Rangers* are treated entirely differently to all other Scottish clubs, not least in terms of misdemeanours and (lack of) punishment.

    Realistically of course, there is no logical reason why the new club should pay for the sins of the dead one, but it's obvious that the SFA wants to avoid any discussion which endangers or casts doubt on their 'club continuity' policy, so I can foresee an outcome of 'no need for raking over old coals' advice from their pet QC.

    Of course the football authorities tying themselves in legal knots back in 2012 was all done "for the good of Scottish football", so that's alright.

     


  17. Highlander 5th January 2020 at 12:19

    "following the descent into liquidation of the old club."

    I wonder how long those words will remain before a 'correction' is made, following vociferous protests from the Propaganda Loyal?

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

    I have already seen protests on one Rangers fans forum about the wording. More interestingly there is one poster claiming to know for a fact the SFA view the matter as closed, and are just working out how to deal with the fallout. 


  18. On Thursday we had Alastair Johnston talking mince in the SMSM about 'continuity Rangers' – whilst nonchalantly dropping in derogatory comments about CFC supporters. Playing to the Ibrox gallery.

    We have speculated on the timing and motivation.

     

    Now, we learn that The Herald asked questions of the SFA about the disputed UEFA Licence – on Tuesday.

     

    Is Johnston responding to this media attention of the original Rangers, directed at Hampden?

    More interesting, IMO: The Herald has been just as inept / complicit when reporting on all things Ibrox.  The paper is not known for any form of 'investigative journalism' – especially WRT mere football matters.

    So, WHO prodded The Herald to approach the SFA with a very unwelcome query on the progress of the UEFA Licence complaint?

    Mibbees I'm being too cynical, but this UEFA Licence query has appeared off the back of another controversial Glasgow derby…

    indecision


  19. StevieBC 5th January 2020 at 13:36

    '…UEFA Licence query has appeared off the back of another controversial Glasgow derby…'

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

    Are you thinking that there may be a 'tunnelgate' story that is of greater concern to TRFC?

    If so, I wonder what it might be that's got the Herald ready to step in with what is a significant deflection ?

    Or is something happening on the Res 12 front?

    I wish we had a newspaper that we could trust!


  20. Highlander 5th January 2020 at 12:19

    "following the descent into liquidation of the old club."

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

    Whatever else they are, the 'deniers' of the end result of 'Liquidation' are quite inventive in their use of language. I like the phrase

     '…..before going through liquidation…….' to ' emerge'…' . as used in Johnson's  'statement' of the other day.

    Trouble is that RFC of 1872 has not emerged from anything: it still languishes[ under  a different name deliberately designed to mislead] in shameful liquidation, huge debts unpaid, creditors stiffed, with no shareholding in the SPFL, and no membership of the SFA.

     


  21. JC, as per, I don't have a Scooby what's really going on!

    It's just the sudden urgency which seems weird.

     

    The SFA has been sitting on the UEFA Licence charge for almost 2 years now.

    And then – on Hogmanay of all days – The Herald has a desperate urge to contact the SFA for an immediate, progress update…?

    Come to think of it: where there any SFA blazers actually snoozing inside the Hampden offices on Tuesday anyway?

    Confused.com


  22. Interesting, AJ.

    So, on the face of it perhaps, the Res.12 update is personalizing the UEFA Licence charge, and with further proof?

    i.e. "It woz Johnston wot dunnit ?"

     

    To counter this: Johnston has appealed indirectly to the bears for their 'support', by reinforcing his commitment to the Ibrox cause via his recent witterings in the SMSM?

     

    i.e. any action / attack on Johnston is an attack on 'Rangers'… followed by the usual threats, complaints, online polls, etc.

    Mibbees?


  23. StevieBC 5th January 2020 at 17:44

    '..i.e. any action / attack on Johnston is an attack on 'Rangers'… followed by the usual threats, complaints, online polls, etc.'

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

    As far as I understand matters, StevieBC, it is important to note that the principal thrust of the Res 12 Requisitioners is against the SFA, and not against RIFC plc or TRFC Ltd.

    The basic allegation is that RFC of 1872 lied to the SFA Licensing Committee, which in turn, passed on ( possibly in collusion) untruthful information to UEFA, and that on the basis of an untruth the Licensing Committee abused their delegated powers to award a licence that ought not to have been awarded, with the possible knowledge and collusion of the SFA Board as a whole.

    Neither TRFC nor RIFC plc   was, or could have been, involved in any possible fiddle to do with the awarding of a UEFA Competitions licence to RFC of 1872 in 2011, for the very obvious reason that neither was  in existence at the time. 

    Only individual persons at RIFC plc/TRFC Ltd who were directors of RFC of 1872 at the material time  could conceivably be alleged to have been party (under the collective liability of directors) to any potential fiddle!

    It's clearly of far greater importance to investigate the question of whether the very Governance body was, is, guilty of what would be a shocking abuse of office than to worry about the potential cheating and lying of a single club which is now in Liquidation.

    If there was lying on the part of RFC of 1872, then of course, some sanction such as retrospective expulsion would have to be applied to RFC of 1872 and to any and/or all of its directors in office at the time.

    In other words, Res12 is not, except very indirectly, an attack on TRFC/RIFC: it is an attempt to have the possibility that there might have been  collusive corruption by the Governance body in a monstrous act of deception involving one member club and several millions of pounds.

    The allegations with good prima facie grounds for them are out there, and simply must be investigated by an independent , external body that itself could not be accused of partiality or partisanship.

    For the sake of Scottish Football and the integrity of sport, not for the sake of 'Rangers bashing'

     

     

     

     


  24. @John Clark 5th January 2020 at 16:36

     

    I prefer this one the truth, '…..before going through liquidation”  (coma)” …….' to ' (never ) merge'…' . alas there was no CVA life support switched on, 8 minutes was all it took for the oxygen to leave the brain dead; starved of willing donors who never arrived when needed most.


  25. I've just read a valid point about the UEFA Licence issue on another site. If it is decided that Rangers weren't entitled to that licence in 2011, would the resulting loss of European income suffered by Celtic constitute a football debt to be paid by Rangers* as per the terms of the five-way agreement? 


  26. Highlander, that is a good point.

    And, I suppose it could be argued that this football debt to CFC simply hadn't actually 'crystallised' at the time of the 5WA approval… but is still valid / payable?

    crying


  27. I appears that any mention of the article in The Herald has been purged from the Ibrox fans's sites . No threats , no denials . Self-imposed purdah ?


  28. Corrupt official 6th January 2020 at 08:02 

    RES12 http://etims.net/?p=15121

    =========

    It's good timing: immediately after the holiday break has ended – and towards the beginning of the winter break.

    So, no local SPL footy to distract from whatever the Res.12 guys release to the public over the next couple of weeks?

    Now, this could get very awkward for the Hampden numpties…
    I hope!


  29. StevieBC 6th January 2020 at 10:38 Corrupt official 6th January 2020 at 08:02 RES12 http://etims.net/?p=15121 ========= It's good timing: immediately after the holiday break has ended – and towards the beginning of the winter break. So, no local SPL footy to distract from whatever the Res.12 guys release to the public over the next couple of weeks? Now, this could get very awkward for the Hampden numpties… I hope! 

    ______________________

    It certainly should be made very awkward for them, if as we expect, revelations during this week are too big to be ignored/washed over by the SMSM. But, even with no football to write about, and, so far, very little transfer movement, watch out for an increase in the Ibrox 'signing target' stories and drooling articles about Gerrard and anything else they can pad their pages out with to avoid touching on one of the biggest scandals ever known in Scottish football. Strangely enough, all of the biggest scandals in Scottish football centre around the clubs whose home ground is/was Ibrox. 


  30. AllyJambo @12.02

    “Strangely enough, all of the biggest scandals in Scottish football centre around the clubs whose home ground is/was Ibrox.”

    I’m sure a perfectly reasonable explanation will be forthcoming. Nothing to see here, let’s all move on for the good of Scottish football etc, etc, etc.


  31. Ryan Christie's two game "bawgate" ban has apparently been upheld.

    I should be quite surprised by the decision, but nothing that the C.O. and the SFA's tribunals do these days surprises me.


  32. easyJambo 6th January 2020 at 17:29

    Just need to wait to see if Messers Morelos and Kent are cited for their gestures to opposition supporters ,or if she deems them to be acceptable for all players to mimic .


  33.  

    Paddy 

    Don't hold your breath on this issue, and I'm prepared to 'eat humble pie' if I'm proved wrong…

    … but I don't think Morelos and/or Kent will be cited.

    It will be a shocking dereliction of duty by the SFA (given the vile actions), and I'm astonished that CFC have not responded by immediately calling this out via a challenging and powerful statement.

    How can they let their supporters down with such a pathetic, passive response ("We will be writing to the SFA" – and saying what?) and apparent ineptitude?


  34. Back from the pub , and was in a mixed group of friends . Two TRFC supporters (male) reckon that Christie only got "done" to mitigate the sh*te that's about to fall about their heads . The CFC lady was "incensed", because it looks like different strokes for different folks (shown my age and our taste in music) . The way I see it is that he ( Snr Morelos )  is toxic for Scottish football  , regardless which club he plays for . I look at him in the same way as I look at Louis Suarez , and wouldn't want him near my team , even National . I see him as a third rate Neymar da Silva Santos Júnior , but reckon that might be one of his role models .

    Kent is just a daft boy caught up in the adulation – he'll never get that anywhere else . And obviously , since the statement of reprimand from his manager and his club (cough) , he won't be doing it again as it goes against their principles of honesty and dignity . Or so I'm told . ( How much are they paying for their PR p*sh ? That was free . Might need a replacement 8 button soon though !


  35. I cannot be alone in thinking that Peter Lawwell is absolutely delighted to have the DR  speak about " seething Celtic " , and the Herald reporting Celtic's call for " a fair and consistent' system , and glad to have the SMSM help him in deflecting discussion away from the Res 12 issue.

    If the Celtic board had insisted, absolutely insisted, on a full independent investigation 7 years ago into the allegations of corruption over governance issues more important that the individual on-field crimes of football players, Scottish Football might well have been set on a proper basis of consistent fairness and general sporting integrity.

    Calling for a rescission of red cards when your shareholders might have been ripped off a good few million quid …….. ! 

    I ask you, where is there any sense in that? Red cards will happily be rescinded if that avoids any push for investigation into more serious matters.


  36. The red card and the getures issues sum up our corrupt SFA.  These issues like all issues involving this new club are controversial.  Since 2011 the SFA have proved they are not fit for any purpose. EBTs were declared earnings by SC which meant over 50 players were registered illegally with the SFA. No action taken to this day.  DOS bill was crystallised before 31 March and at Craig Whyte trial Mr Murray and other directors accepted this under oath,  no action taken. All involved in the SFA during this period should be taken to task. ALL  involved in 5 Way  Agreement should also be taken to task. In fact why do we not exactly know what it contained.  No punishment for this level of cheating is unacceptable. Our smsm are not only not fit for purpose but are openly abetting this issue. As fans we are more or less told to ignore all this by SFA and smsm and advised to move on. If we accept this then like the movie "you get what you f****** deserve" This could only happen in Scotland and its sad to say but we all know why. 


  37. I'm thinking that the CFC Board is either stoopid or deceitful.

     

    A year ago we had the controversial Glasgow derby, which resulted in supporters being thoroughly confused at the referee's performance – and the disciplinary process.

    CFC made some noises at that time and the end result was a wee sit down for the SPL managers in Perth in February.

    This 'Referees Summit' ended without any stated actions/deadlines.  VAR got a mention.

    Shortly after this meeting, TRFC was awarded a 'world record' 4 [four] penalties in a game against St.Mirren. 

     

    Does anybody think that the refereeing has improved this season?

     

    Then last week the Glasgow derby created similar controversies and confusion – even down to a similar, groin grabbing foul.

    Again, CFC has made noises.

     

    So, why the hell should the CFC Board expect ANYTHING different to happen this time?

    And the CFC Board doesn't normally come across as being stoopid… 

    indecision


  38. 'bect67 6th January 2020 at 22:29

    …Don't hold your breath on this issue, and I'm prepared to 'eat humble pie' if I'm proved wrong…

    … but I don't think Morelos and/or Kent will be cited…'

    ############################

    Upon reflection, I assume that the gestures made by Kent after scoring, and not acted-upon (missed?) by the referee at the time, can only have been judged as a yellow card offence & therefore not subject to retrospective action from the Compliance Officer.

    The Morelos one is interesting. I don't think there's a procedure whereby a player can receive a third yellow card when leaving the pitch after receiving a second caution & a red card. It should have been a straight red on the day under IFAB Law 12, ‘using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures’ (but wasn't), and therefore subject to retrospective action by the Compliance Officer under JPP Rules 202, 203 or 204, shouldn't it?


  39. Phil's latest blog is an eye-opener.

    Feels like the winds around Parkhead could soon start blowing in another direction – IF true…


  40. Jingo.Jimsie

    I bow to your superior knowledge of the relevant laws, but my view is that Morelos deserved a second red card. Kent behaviour also deserved a red card.

    Could you perhaps clarify that this could not have been done retrospectively for their inciteful actions?

    I accept that my view is clouded by my disgust for such thugs – but can Christie'n misdemeanour really be considered as more serious that their's.

    Surely there must be a mechanism whereby Morelos and Kent can be held to account. The inaction by the SFA to date is beyond my ken at least.

     


  41. @ bect67:

    My post of 1556 is badly-worded, even by my usual standards!

    Firstly, I don't know if the actions of Morelos & Kent were reviewed by the CO.

    Secondly, it is my understanding that gestures (as an offence) have, in general, been downgraded to yellow-card status. (Morelos' red-card at Motherwell was a second booking for gesturing at the fans, I recall.) It would have to be deemed to be an incredibly violent or aggressive gesture to warrant a straight red- card, although that is provided for in Law 12. Kent's gesture has not been deemed, by the referee or the CO, to meet the criteria for a red-card. On the day, for whatever reason, Mr. Clancy decided to take no action. Had he produced a card, it would likely have been only a yellow.

    Morelos is different. He was sent off for two bookable offences. Whilst leaving the field he committed what appeared to be another (at least) yellow-card offence. He can't be booked again; the referee's only sanction is a second, straight red-card. The referee chose to ignore it (or he may not have seen the gesture, but the assistant & fourth official should have). The CO has grounds for retrospective action, but seems loath to proceed.


  42. bect67 7th January 2020 at 16:35

    I don't think that either should necessarily get a ban for their gestures , but both should be hauled before the authorities and publicly reprimanded . Otherwise the game decends to gutter level .


  43. If us mere mortals / paying punters do something stoopid at work, whether intentional or not, the sensible, professional -and expected – thing to do is to apologise.

     

    In the absence of any punishment – or further punishment – then Christie, Morelos and Kent should be publicly apologising for their on field behaviour.

    …and actively discouraging young players from copying their misbehaviour.

     

    Despite the confounded SFA Disciplinary processes;

    individuals can still accept responsibility for their actions and hold their hands up when they're wrong…


  44. paddy malarkey 7th January 2020 at 17:00

    '..both should be hauled before the authorities and publicly reprimanded .'

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

    But by whom, or by what 'authority', pm?

    By a body which many of us believe 'interfered' with its  own Judicial Panel by introducing a farcical ridiculous notion that an ineligible player is eligible until he is later found to have been ineligible but cannot be deemed to have been ineligible for the period before the mistake/deception is discovered, or a body that refuses to acknowledge that there are serious questions about it that can only be properly investigated by a investigatory team completely independent from it?

    At present, for the SPFL or the SFA to imagine that they have any moral authority whatsoever to discipline 'workers' for work-place offences  when the Boards of those bodies are believed to be rotten to the core is like a Mafia chief claiming the moral high ground over against  the driver of a delivery truck who helps himself to a bottle of bootleg hooch!

     


  45. John Clark 7th January 2020 at 19:02

    JC , I think they know that that there are serious questions about them that can only be properly investigated by a investigatory team completely independent from it , and that is why they decline to do it . Leave aside the shenanigans about what what constitutes a club , or secret agreements , and let them do the bits they can and should be doing . These two players should be dealt with for bringing the Scottish game into disrepute , pour encourager les atres , regardless of the moral standing of those who do it . 


  46. Ok. Who remembers this one?
    He said: “A player manhandling a referee and only getting a fine? I think that is outrageous. It comes down to the SFA as the employers to look after their employees.
    ………..
    Ok. Another clue.
    It’s understood Murray did not feel the actions were of an aggressive nature but Miller insists it has still broken one of the game’s golden rules.
    …….
    Remember now?
    That time when you can manhandle a referee when you are getting sent off, but because the referee does not feel the actions were of an aggressive nature (even though it is against the rules a fine will do.
    ……………………
    If the SFA think a player manhandling a ref is worthy of just a fine then our officials have no chance.
    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/if-the-sfa-think-a-player-manhandling-a-ref-1100321
    ………………
    Sorry for turning that post into a quiz.


  47. Some of you may have noticed some different behaviour on the site in the last couple of days.

    We have moved the site to a test location with a new configuration and we hope to be able to decide whether or not the experience has been satisfactory.

    Any observations, please let us know.


  48. paddy malarkey 7th January 2020 at 19:46

    '..These two players should be dealt with..'

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

    You'll appreciate that I wasn't so much suggesting that they should not be dealt with, just underlining the fact that the sins of their 'judges' may be blacker and infinitely more heinous than footballing offences on the pitch.broken heart


  49. Big Pink 7th January 2020 at 21:15

    '..observations, please let us know…'

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

    I don't know whether it is connected with what you mention, BP, but I'm certainly pleased that we can again get back to previous posts by scrolling up or down to the nearest 'older posts' thingies as we used to be able to do, instead of being limited to scrolling in one direction only. 

    Or was it only me who sometimes found it a pain having to go backwards for pages before you could find the option to click on an earlier page?


  50. Big Pink 7th January 2020 at 21:15
    ………
    Keep getting woild you like to recieve notification from this site.
    Click on not now it appears moments later anyway.


  51. John Clark 7th January 2020 at 21:38

     the sins of their 'judges' may be blacker and infinitely more heinous

    Nothing new there , JC , that's how it rolls in this benighted wee country . 


  52. Big Pink 7th January 2020 at 21:15

    Sometimes I click once to post a comment , sometimes twice , then sometimes after I've clicked twice , it tells me it's a duplicate comment . Confused ? Not arf !


  53. Cluster One 7th January 2020 at 21:11

    Are our referees not employees of a company contracted by the SFA to supply a service ? Asking for an auld guy who thought that was how it worked .


  54. The Herald's piece on the lack of action on the CAS situation has ironically brought – again – Celtic's role into stark relief.

    The attendant statement by the Celtic board at the AGM – that Celtic did not have sight of the 5WA – is also in the mix, not only because that statement was untrue, but because the proof of their having known about it (and there most certainly is) begs further questions about what they agreed to, why they agreed to it, and why the thing has to remain a secret from shareholders.

    Despite the rush to victim-hood at Ibrox by fans of all Rangerses, the whole affair rather highlights the claims of the Res 12 folk that the real villains of the piece here are the authorities, the boards of the SFA, SPL and SFL (all of whom had sight of the 5WA), and the ridiculous current ‘head in the sand’ practitioners at Hampden.

    As ever, the sin of the cover up grows larger every day, whilst the initial crime remains as it was.

    There is as much chance of the SFA going to CAS as there is of a Donald Trump state visit to Teheran.

    Persistence is required, and crucially, recognition of the WHOLE truth is required of fans.


  55. paddy malarkey 8th January 2020 at 00:53

    '..Are our referees not employees of a company ..'

    ++++++++++

    The judgment in Stephen Conroy's Employment Appeal tribunal might be of interest, pm, in that the decision was that he was NOT and employee of the SFA within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

    Conroy ( a referee) was claiming unfair dismissal. The SFA denied that he was an employee. Conroy lost his appeal.

    The case is reported in the BAILLII at

    https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKEAT/2013/0024_13_1212.html&query=(scottish)+AND+(football)+AND+(association)


  56. John Clark 8th January 2020 at 10:30

     Cheers , John . I thought they were part of a group rather than individual service provoders .


  57. Regarding Celtic's recent condemnation of Ryan Christie's ban as a result of 'testiclegate', can anyone explain why they have conveniently forgotten that Steven MacLean of Hearts was given a two match ban following a similar incident involving Celtic's Eboue Kouassi just over a year ago? Asking for a friend who is concerned that the two clubs with the largest supports are involved in yet another squalid tit-for-tat squabble designed to appease their fans, all to the constant embarrassment of the rest of Scottish football.


  58. Providers !

    An interesting read , that , JC .

    £213,000 per season is not a bad wee lift .

    And nice to know that none of them are season ticket holders for any club , nor are they shareholders , lenders or investors in any member club of the SFA . I can sleep a bit easier now .


  59. Highlander 8th January 2020 at 13:00

    Its a cheap shot to compare the SFA treatment of Celtic and TRFC as some sort of old firm cheeks nonsense. I accept the commercial comparison of ugly sisters but certainly not the sporting one.


  60. Big Pink 8th January 2020 at 09:28

    ——————————–

    Have you had sight of the recent Independently produced report the Resolution 12 guys have had written?


  61. gunnerb 8th January 2020 at 20:46

    With all due respect, you mentioned “old firm cheeks nonsense”, I certainly didn't.

    I read several interviews in recent articles where various representatives of Celtic, including John Kennedy, made clear both before and after the Compliance Officer's decision that the charge and subsequent ban Christie faced were ridiculous and unwarranted, a stance which was completely at odds with Celtic's (and this forum's) opinion when Steven MacLean faced precisely the same charge and received precisely the same ban following a match against Celtic. It seems to me impossible to reconcile those two sets of circumstances without conceding that your own club affiliation has affected your judgement, but good luck in trying.

    For the avoidance of doubt, I agree that MacLean's punishment was fully warranted, but that means so too was Christie's. 

    For the further avoidance of doubt, when Morelos stamped, kicked and clutched the groin of Celtic players and no action was taken because the referee claimed he saw each instance and deemed them not to be offences – however ridiculous that may seem – it is an entirely different matter to MacLean and Christie's, aside from which two wrongs don't make a right.

    I don't have a great deal of respect for BBC journalist Tom English, but his recent article on the subject of the tit-for-tat war of words between Rangers* and Celtic hit the nail on the head. These two clubs constantly whinge and moan about decisions that go against them when in reality they suffer just a tiny fraction of bad decisions compared to the other clubs who play against them, clubs who know it's pointless complaining because only the two best supported clubs appear to matter. The constant sniping between the two clubs, all to appease their own supporters, would rightly have other lesser clubs up on charges of bringing the game into disrepute, yet these two clubs have a set of rules of their own.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51022782


  62. Highlander 8th January 2020 at 22:51

    With respect Highlander, I apologise for interpreting your original post as somehow criticizing both TRFC and Celtic equally in regard to disciplinary matters. I was obviously wrong and my shorthand two cheeks remark was misleading and unforgiveable.


  63. Highlander

    You have manged to completely miss the point.

    I seem to remember a certain goalkeeper being cautioned by the police for genuflecting at a football match.

    At the recent Celtic Sevco match, two away team players made obnoxious gestures at opposing fans. One, who has a history of violently assault on the football field, fires imaginary bullets and another gives a cut throat gesture. Many people were left in amazement that the only player cited was Christie.

    That, is the point.

    If you remember, the SFA has a history of alleged conspiracy to commit fraud against a particular business based in the east end of Glasgow. Jim Farry? Hugh Dallas? Do you really expect Celtic supporters to blindly accept that the SFA does not have an agenda?

    I'm not sure how you arrive at the 'tiny fraction' of bad decisions going against Celtic compared to the teams that play against them. I don't see how that is possible unless you have studied every match and counted them up.

    But maybe you are 'whingeing and moaning' about your own team's misfortunes against Celtic?

    As for MacLean? That was a sleekit and nasty attempt to genuinely injure a fellow professional. It was cold and calculated.

1 8 9 10 11 12 14
 

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.