Sunday, April 11, 2021

Is Regan a DIDDY?

Is Stewart Regan,  Chief Executive Officer of the Scottish Football Association a DIDDY?

Disingenuous: Incompetent: Dishonest: Duped? You decide.

Ladies and gentlemen of the Scottish Football Monitor sorority/fraternity jury, who want an honest game, honestly governed, are invited to pass judgement on Stewart Regan, the CEO of the SFA.

The main stream media are finally asking questions of Regan’s performance in that role, but based on a rather shallow (by comparison to what he has presided over) single issue of the recruitment of a national team coach, and not his character.

Maybe we can help the three monkeys media men (you know who they are) push for change at the SFA. How? By highlighting for them the appropriate response to Regan’s performance on the basis of what follows if he really is a  DIDDY.

Disingenuous is defined as:

not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.

Evidence of such can be found in the written exchanges with the SFA that Celtic initiated on 27th July, and continued on 18 August, 21 August, 4th September and 7th September 2017; and published on the Celtic web site with SFA agreement at  http://cdn.celticfc.net/assets/downloads/SFA_Correspondence.pdf

This from the SFA letter of 18th August 2017:

Comment: the statements are not alleged, they are a matter of court record and if untrue represent perjury.

 

…. And then this from subsequent SFA letter of 4th September 2017

Both paras give the impression that the SFA were unaware that Rangers had accepted the liability without question before 31st March 2011. Yet the SFA’s attention was drawn to this fact in July 2015 by lawyers acting on behalf of Celtic shareholders as follows:

  • Our information in respect of this £2.8M in unpaid tax is that Rangers PLC had been alerted in November 2010 by HMRC that they would be pursuing payment of this exact sum.
  • From that date onwards, the Directors of Rangers PLC should have known there was a potential liability to HMRC for back taxes specifically relating to payments made to Tore Andre Flo and Ronald De Boer. These sums became an accepted liability in March 2011.
  • Matters had been brought to a head on 23 February 2011 when HMRC presented Rangers with a written case for payment of back tax owed in respect of Flo and De Boer.   As your department may well be aware, that case for payment involved hitherto undisclosed side letters which were found to be an adjunct to their declared and disclosed contracts of employment.
  • Those contracts of employment were, of course, disclosed to the Scottish Football authorities (including the SFA) as part of the necessary compliance procedures followed by all clubs and demanded by both the SFA and UEFA.
  • Additionally when replying to the initial enquiries by HMRC in 2005 regarding these alleged side letters and ancillary agreements, the then Group Tax Manager of Murray International Holdings (MIH)  acting for Rangers PLC on tax matters, apparently advised HMRC that no such agreements or side letters existed.
  • It ultimately proved that these representations to HMRC were completely untrue and without foundation. The tax Inspectors concerned in turn saw these false misrepresentations as being an attempt to simply hide the true financial position and an attempt to avoid paying the taxes which were lawfully due on the contracts of the players concerned.
  • As mentioned earlier, Rangers PLC accepted liability on 21st March 2011 for unpaid tax having taken legal advice on the matter.
  • In turn, HMRC then chose to formally pursue payment of the back taxes and penalties in relation to these two players, all in terms of HMRC’s debt recovery procedures under what is known as regulation 80.
  • Prior to 31st March 2011, there was clear knowledge within Rangers Football Club of the liability to make payment for these back taxes and, as can be seen from the attached documentation, by 20th May 2011 HMRC had served formal assessments and demands on Rangers PLC for the sums concerned.

The impression given by Regan’s reply to Celtic is that the first time the SFA were aware there might be an issue on granting was in June 2017 as result of testimony at the Craig Whyte trial. This is clearly not the case and the only explanation that would clear Regan of being disingenuous is a that he was incompetent as in not knowing what the SFA already had in their possession, however a bit more on being disingenuous before looking at incompetency.

The above extract of the exchange of 4th September where Regan mentions Celtic being satisfied on the UEFA Licence 2011 issue was challenged by Celtic on 7th September 2017 as follows:

“on the matter of the Licensing Decision in 2011 it is not accurate to describe Celtic as having been “satisfied” at any stage. Like everyone else we were in a position of responding on the basis of information available to us. In correspondence, Celtic raised continuing concerns as did a number of Celtic shareholders.”

 

In dealing with the Celtic shareholders the SFA and Regan appeared keen to welcome from the early days of correspondence that only the process after granting i.e. the monitoring phase of June and September was being questioned and not the granting itself.  That was the case initially but as new information emerged in respect of what UEFA judged to be an overdue payable, upheld by the Court of Arbitration on Sport in 2013, focus swung back in 2016 to the significance of what the SFA had been told by the Res 12 lawyer in July 2015. However the emphasis the SFA put on shareholders accepting the grant was in order was puzzling at the time. The suspicion since is that the SFA did not want the circumstances around the granting investigated and the SFA and Regan were being disingenuous in their attempts to keep that aspect under wraps. especially when their defence of not acting as required  in 2011 was based around when the SFA responsibilities on granting ended and UEFA’s on monitoring began. (for more on that read the Incompetence charge)

In response to a separate point in Regan’s  letter of  18th August about the QC advice on there not being a rule in place at the time to use to sanction Rangers or the limited sanctions available to  a Judicial Panel, Peter Lawwell responded on 21st August to Regan’s disingenuousness as follows:

” In your letter you refer to advice from Senior Counsel that;

‘there was very little chance of the Scottish FA succeeding in relation to any compliant regarding this matter and that, even if successful, any sanctions available to a Judicial Panel would be very limited in their scope.’

As I said in my last letter Celtic considers that this misses the point. The fact that disciplinary sanctions may not be secured is in our view not a reason for Scottish football to ignore the opportunity to review and possibly learn lessons from the events in question.”

 

Although they didn’t refer to it in that reply of 21st August, Celtic could have pointed out the following catch all rule in existence in 2011 (and presumably earlier) under Article 5 in SFA handbook.

5.   Obligations and duties of Members (where all members shall)

5.1 Observe the principles of loyalty, integrity and sportsmanship in accordance with the rules of fair play.

This Article could have been used to demonstrate sporting dishonesty by Rangers FC. However by recognising this Regan would be on a collision course with an issue that he wanted to avoid at all costs;

whom to sanction? Rangers FC? The Rangers FC? Those currently at The Rangers FC who were officials or on the Board of Rangers FC in 2011?

Consequently, the SFA chose to hide behind QC advice – but to protect whom? Not the integrity of the game. Here is a suggestion to restore it:

That the Rangers FC admit that the trophies won in the EBT years were won as a result of clear wrongdoing (the wrongdoing Regan was so desperate to say never occurred – see later), and that The Rangers  give them up. Surrendering them is not being defeated, it is simply the right thing to do for the game AND for Rangers to restore some integrity to themselves.

If they want to lay claim to their history, lay claim to all of it, just be honourable and act with dignity and we can all move on.

In summary then, Regan is being disingenuous by pretending to know a lot less than he does – and on that note the case of disingenuousness ends.

 

Incompetence: is defined as;

lack of ability to do something successfully or as it should be done:

Whilst a CEO would not be expected to know the minutiae of any process, he would be expected to seek such information before going public to defend the SFA’s position.

On 23 October 2013, Stewart Regan had an interview with Richard Gordon on BBC Sportsound. Excerpts from it can be heard at http://www.bbc.com/sport/scotland/24685973 .  Interestingly or strangely,  the following excerpt regarding the lines of responsibility between the SFA and UEFA fell on the BBC cutting room floor.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6uWzxhblAt9YktGc0kwWjJCY1E/view?usp=sharing

In it Regan is saying that the 31st March is a key date and AFTER that date, the SFA having granted the licence on evidence provided to the SFA (now under Compliance Officer investigation) have no more responsibility in the matter. Richard Gordon asks Regan to confirm that after 31st March there is no other course of action the SFA could have taken. To which Regan answers “Correct”.

This understanding however does not stand up when compared to the information supplied to the Res 12 Lawyer on 8th June 2016 by Andrea Traverso, Head of UEFA Club Licensing and so ultimate authority on the matter.

That letter (more famous for its new club/company designation of the current incumbents at Ibrox), confirmed that the UEFA Licence was not granted until the 19th April 2011, so Regan was wrong on his dates, but even more significantly UEFA stated that the list of clubs granted a licence was not submitted to them until 26th May 2011.

This raises the obvious question (though not so obviously to Regan);

” how can UEFA start monitoring until they know who to monitor?”

More significantly, and one for the SFA Compliance chap to consider, should the licence have been granted, irrespective of what “evidence” the SFA Licensing Committee acted on in March 2011 , when it was obvious from a HMRC Letter of 20th May 2011 to Rangers, that HMRC were pursuing payment of a tax liability which could no longer by dint of being pursued, be described as “potential” which was the justification for granting at 31st March/19th April?

Here ends the case of incompetence.

Dishonesty;

lack of honesty or integrity: defined as disposition to defraud or deceive.

The line between incompetence and dishonesty is a thin one and so difficult to judge, however some discernment is possible from observation over time.

On 29 March 2012 Stewart Regan was interviewed by Alex Thomson of Channel Four news, a transcript of which with comments can be found on a previous SFM blog of 8th March 2015 at

https://www.sfm.scot/did-stewart-regan-ken-then-wit-we-ken-noo/

It is a long article, but two points emerge from it.

Stewart Regan bases his defence of SFA inaction on the fact that at the time of the interview no wrongdoing had occurred . Regan emphasises this rather a lot. Had he been an honest man, he would have confessed that this defence fell when the Supreme Court ruled that wrong doing in respect of Rangers’ use of EBTs had occurred.

This extract from Regan’s letter of 4th September 2017  beggars  belief in light of his position on wrongdoing during interview with Alex Thomson.

” The reality is that the final decision in “The Big Tax Case” signalled closure for many involved in the game. It is hard to believe that a “wide review” no matter how well intentioned and how wide ranging could ever bring closure in the minds of every Scottish football fan and stakeholder.”

How on earth did the Supreme Court decision signal closure to Regan given his emphasis on no wrong doing?

Had Regan (in response to Celtic in August and September 2017) acknowledged that wrongdoing had taken place, then that at least would have been honest, but the defence of not acting was on the grounds that admitting dishonesty would be raking over old coals. An honest man would have accepted that the situation had changed, and some form of enquiry was necessary, but instead Regan fell back on unpublished advice from a QC.

The second point is a new one. Regan was asked by Alex Thomson in March 2012

AT:   But did anybody at any stage at the SFA say to you I have a concern that we need an independent body, that the SPL can’t and shouldn’t handle this?

SR:   Well under the governance of football the SPL run the competition

AT:   I’m not asking, I’m saying did anybody come to you at any stage and say that to you. Anybody?

SR:   No they didn’t as far as the SPL’s processes is concerned. The SPL ,

AT:   Never?

At time of interview in March 2012 this was true but 2 months later on 25th May 2012 the issue of a Judicial review WAS raised by Celtic

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/celtic-still-pressing-sfa-for-inquiry-8p25q8wbb

for the same reasons that Regan had ignored in 2011 as the LNS Commissioning proceeded apace and Regan continued to ignore in the 2017 correspondence.  An honest man would have recognised that his truth to Thomson in March was no longer true in May 2012 and acted. He didn’t.

These do not appear to be acts of an honest man, rather they appear to represent the behaviour of a man who is being dishonest with himself; although perhaps Regan was simply duped?

Duped is defined as;

“ If a person dupes you, they trick you into doing something or into believing something which is not true.”

In his e mail of 7th December to Ali Russell, then Rangers CEO , after a discussion on the 6th December 2011 with Andrew Dickson, Rangers Football Administrator and SFA License Committee member in 2011, Regan set out the basis on which the SFA granted a UEFA License in 2011.

This was a letter from Ranger’s auditors Grant Thornton describing the wee tax liability of £2.8m as a potential one with the implication that it was subject to dispute, an implication carried into the Interim Accounts of 1st April 2011 signed by Rangers FC Chairman Alistair Johnson.

The true status of the liability and the veracity of statements made that justified the UEFA License being granted are under investigation by the SFA Compliance Officer.

However Regan’s belief that the liability was disputed and therefore hadn’t crystalized, is supported more or less by his Tweets at

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6uWzxhblAt9NG5CNXcwLW9RZjQ/view?usp=sharing

The case that Regan was duped is a plausible one, at least up to 2015, but I would contend that the SFA responses to Res 12 lawyers after July 2015 suggest that whilst the SFA may have been duped initially, they subsequently appeared more concerned with keeping events beyond public scrutiny (like the effect on the licence issue of HMRC sending in Sheriff’s Officers to collect a £2.8m tax liability in August 2011).

 

At this point, based on the foregoing –

You the SFM jury are asked to decide: Is Stewart Regan a DIDDY?

 

 

 

Copy paste this link for GUILTY:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejizOV-IQEM

And this for NOT GUILTY: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwXGdgFZmNk

 

The Sin of Omission by Margaret Sangster ends:

And it’s not the things you do, dear,
It’s the things you leave undone,
Which gives you a bit of heartache
At the setting of the sun.

 

Auldheid
Celtic fan from Glasgow living mostly in Spain. A contributor to several websites, discussion groups and blogs, and a member of the Resolution 12 Celtic shareholders' group. Committed to sporting integrity, good governance, and the idea that football is interdependent. We all need each other in the game.

Related Articles

1595 COMMENTS


  1. Hi everyone,
    I’m an avid reader but have never posted before. First of all I want to thank you for all the insight and knowledge you have shared on the blog (and also the people who run the site.) I’m a Celtic fan – just – as I am very close to walking away from the corrupt shambles that is Scottish football.
    Highlander has made some good points about the colts idea (which I am against) but at the same time I can’t help but think that Celtic has been the only club who have wanted justice in this whole sordid affair.  Is it any surprise that when the rest of Scottish football (the clubs not the fans!) are happy to degrade themselves to Sevco that Celtic PLC only think of themselves?
    If the Celtic board had released the ‘move on’ statements a la Aberdeen/Hibs I would never have visited Celtic Park again (no matter how much it hurt.) Actually, if they had been silent like every other club in Scotland I wouldn’t have given them another penny. Get angry about the colts idea if you want but that is small fry to the real corruption in the game – and so far Celtic are the only team to even pretend to have any integrity.


  2. STANJANUARY 28, 2018
    Would highlander and his fellow cohorts be advocating the return of the dirty Champions league money received for doing sweet FA, or is that ‘dirty money’ acceptable ?
    ………………………………….
    it should only be deemed unacceptable as it is payment for acting as cannon fodder for the further glorification of one of the Old Firm who, without having the other clubs to play in competition ( though not on a financially level playing field), would have no stepping stones to reach their dirty Champions League.
    Also, it is also unacceptable as it is too small a slice of that dirty pie…  And doesn’t trickle down to every part of the league.


  3. In other news the Hibernian Chief Executive reveals in yesterday’s Times she was a Rangers season ticket holder for 20 years.  No wonder she doesn’t want anyone raking over any coals and spoiling all her happy memories.

    Paranoid? Not nearly enough it would seem!


  4. EASYJAMBOJANUARY 27, 2018 at 23:09

    @JCThere are other active trade marks owned by the clubs that still use “Old Firm”https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/page/Results/1/UK00002264673
    The one that is “Dead” only relates to one specific class of goods. I think that class of goods is covered by the one above anyway.
    ———–
    And after the liquidation of rangers 1872, Celtic are now the sole registered owner of the old firm trademark i believe.
    Celtic fans hate the tag old firm


  5. HOMUNCULUSJANUARY 27, 2018 at 23:44
    ERNIEJANUARY 27, 2018 at 23:20
    I realise I’m being a pain in the neck but not only is someone making a few bob being no good reason to bias the game towards the old firm* but also a “democratic” vote doesn’t make it right either.  If this was the case we’ve been wasting our time alll these years arguing the toss about the democratic treatment of the old and new Rangers in general. ====================================
    Democratically the SPL (as was) voted that the new club could not get into that league.
    Democratically the SFL (as was) voted that the new club could join that league, in the bottom division.
    Whilst I disagree with the SFL decision I fully support their right to make that decision.
    __________________

    But, from memory, it wasn’t a democratic vote to welcome TRFC into the SFL, for if my memory is correct, they were given no choice in the final vote, having been threatened with a new league set up, that would have seen most of them frozen out, if they did not agree to the new club’s inclusion into the bottom tier.

    I have to admit, though, that I feel this whole colts business is more to do with an easing in of a return of the Old Firm cartel, with an offer (bribe) that wouldn’t make up for the loss of integrity and shape to the lower leagues, than a proposal put forward with any real thought of success, with the news that both club’s had applied, at the same time, to the SFA to use their grounds in upcoming internationals within a couple of days of the colts announcement. Again, the words Old Firm were not used, but could be seen in the context of the report.

    The media may not have used that despised term this time round, but we can be sure they are only waiting for the word from a large PR man to bring it back into use as further proof that TRFC really are the dead club. They will all be wetting themselves in excitement whenever that order is given.


  6. Incredilbleadamspark: you say you haven’t heard anyone down south complain about how “Rangers” does business? Allow me to enlighten you with a recent example from the chairman of Accrington Stanley:
    “What I am saying is that it was all over the Scottish press and I was being contacted by agents telling me that they were going to Rangers long before the window opened as we were trying to secure contracts.”
    Holt added: “What I’m saying is that Rangers sent me a letter on Jan 3rd stating they wanted to talk to players, when I knew all that was left to do was the medical. That’s what p****d me off. It’s a bit like asking permission off someone to sh*g his wife when he knows you’re already at it.”


  7. RUPERTRIGSBYJANUARY 28, 2018 at 01:31
    Hi everyone,I’m an avid reader but have never posted before. First of all I want to thank you for all the insight and knowledge you have shared on the blog (and also the people who run the site.) I’m a Celtic fan – just – as I am very close to walking away from the corrupt shambles that is Scottish football.Highlander has made some good points about the colts idea (which I am against) but at the same time I can’t help but think that Celtic has been the only club who have wanted justice in this whole sordid affair.  Is it any surprise that when the rest of Scottish football (the clubs not the fans!) are happy to degrade themselves to Sevco that Celtic PLC only think of themselves?If the Celtic board had released the ‘move on’ statements a la Aberdeen/Hibs I would never have visited Celtic Park again (no matter how much it hurt.) Actually, if they had been silent like every other club in Scotland I wouldn’t have given them another penny. Get angry about the colts idea if you want but that is small fry to the real corruption in the game – and so far Celtic are the only team to even pretend to have any integrity.
    ___________

    How quickly Turnbull Hutton has been forgotten, though his words were far too forceful for his integrity to possibly be ‘pretend’.

    Anyway, welcome, Rupert, to SFM, hopefully you will continue to contribute to our discussions.


  8. From The Sunday Mail – for what it’s worth:

    “Celtic and Rangers colts bid set to fail after fan backlash….
    MailSport’s exclusive on the two-year pilot plan which would see the two clubs parachuted into the fourth tier to gain experience for the country’s top kids sparked uproar last week….
    Speaking to MailSport as part of a full examination of the plan’s benefits and flaws, McCart said: “Obviously we’re disappointed with the fans’ reaction but this is going to happen at some stage so we need to get the issues addressed and let the clubs know this isn’t about Celtic and Rangers, this is about working for Scottish football.”

    Seems they have been sent homeward to think again.


  9. There’s a surprisingly good article by Gordon Waddell in the Record berating the clubs for not getting rid of Stewart Regan & co after seven and a half years of abject failure. There is an increasingly obvious media demand for Regan to go, albeit belatedly.

    If only Mr Waddell and his fellow so-called journalists had heeded what the internet bampots have been complaining about for five or six years now, we wouldn’t need this conversation.

     https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/sfa-board-needs-independent-thinkers-11923674


  10. Wouldn’t it be ironic if Regan lost his job over something like the Scotland manager’s vacancy or the nonsensical jaunt to South/ central? America when he has done much worse.

    Having said that I would love to see him go under any circumstance.

    Maybe we could get a proper investigation without him on the scene.


  11. STAN
    JANUARY 28, 2018 at 00:32
    Would highlander and his fellow cohorts be advocating the return of the dirty Champions league money received for doing sweet FA, or is that ‘dirty money’ acceptable?

    Stan, I can’t help but feel that I’ve annoyed you in some way. Earlier you entirely misrepresented my view by claiming I’ll only support something if it harms Celtic and Rangers.

    STAN
    JANUARY 27, 2018 at 19:28
    Highlanders position seems to be he will only ever support something in Scottish football if it is detrimental to Celtic and Rangers. all I am asking is if you disagree fine but bring something sensible to the table rather than just being seen to have a chip on your shoulder.

    How you make the quantum leap from me insisting on equal treatment for all equating to harming your club is frankly absurd. I was simply asking the question, why just Rangers and Celtic colts and not Aberdeen, Hibs, Hearts, Kilmarnock, Motherwell etc?

    To answer your CL money question, as far as I’m aware, and feel free to correct me, the money is paid by UEFA to the Scottish football authorities, not the individual clubs. They then trickle that money down through some, but not all, of the clubs.

    I’m sure if your club had a bad season and finished only fifth in the league, they would not turn down the solidarity payment made the following season on the basis that whoever finished in the European slots couldn’t have participated in a league without opposition clubs such as yours to compete against. 


  12. For most of her reign Thatcher thought she was invincible.  But her day came.  She got her comeuppance.

    All it takes is for some rumblings in the background to gather a head of steam.

    Regan’s days are numbered.  Doncaster will fall soon after.

    The big question is who will replace them?  More suits of the same ilk?


  13. JIMBOJANUARY 28, 2018 at 11:41
    0
    0 Rate This
    Wouldn’t it be ironic if Regan lost his job over something like the Scotland manager’s vacancy or the nonsensical jaunt to South/ central? America when he has done much worse.
    —————
    The call for Regan to go now,rather than calls for him to go before,looks to me anyway as let’s get him out the door before the compliance officers report comes out.If he is still in power when that happens things will look much worse if he is still at the top.All hell should break loose for Regan,and just how bad would the SMSM and any investigative journalists look if he is found to be corrupt yet still in charge.


  14. McCart of Celtic colts fame (from the record).

    “Obviously we’re disappointed with the fans’ reaction but this is going to happen at some stage so we need to get the issues addressed and let the clubs know this isn’t about Celtic and Rangers, this is about working for Scottish football.”

    i assume “this” is the fans reaction, not the proposal or a variation thereof (I.e. more money) else he might be justifiably accused of railroading might he not?


  15. Jimbo, the problem, as the article rightly hints at, is that it’ll make little difference if only the figurehead is removed as they’ve already planned a successor in Rod Petrie. Ongoing policy would remain unchanged unless the entire parcel of rogues is removed.


  16. Cluster One

    Ive always viewed Regans continuance as the contingency.

    Compliance officer issues damning report, Regan goes as a result and we all glibly think the jobs a good un not noticing that we are just back to where we should have been in 2012 but with all guilt and blame suitably erased. Let’s move on n’that!


  17. ALLYJAMBOJANUARY 28, 2018 at 10:00
    But, from memory, it wasn’t a democratic vote to welcome TRFC into the SFL, for if my memory is correct, they were given no choice in the final vote, having been threatened with a new league set up, that would have seen most of them frozen out, if they did not agree to the new club’s inclusion into the bottom tier.
    ———–
    https://stv.tv/sport/football/clubs/rangers/108463-in-full-document-sent-to-sfl-clubs-to-put-rangers-into-the-first-division/


  18. SMUGASJANUARY 28, 2018 at 12:03
    1
    0 Rate This
    Cluster One
    Ive always viewed Regans continuance as the contingency.
    Compliance officer issues damning report, Regan goes as a result
    —————
    But if that happens there should/would be calls for some of the SMSM and sports reporters to go aswell as they sat on their hands as it was going on, on their watch. 
    Don’t forget these journalists have been handed the res 12 and did nothing


  19. In the end it always comes down to the clubs themselves.  Regan & Doncaster and all the other decision makers are only there by virtue of the clubs representatives.

    Where is the hunger for transparency, integrity and fair treatment?

    The suits of all denominations have a mind set.  And it does not centre on football.  Just them, individually and alone.  Selfishness, greasy poles.  So called status.

    The only time they did anything of merit was when ordinary fans threatened a boycott.


  20. SMUGASJANUARY 28, 2018 at 12:27
    0
    0 Rate This
    Ok so you sniff blood, want blood now here’s Stewart’s blood now can we please all move on…?
    Let’s get to the heart of it,the right juicy bits.A little blood letting and a sticky plaster to cover it is not enough.


  21.   Cluster One

     No arguement from me.  I’m just saying the response you’ll get to take it further will be a shrug of the shoulders and “ah that was Stewart and he’s gone.  Can we move along please?”


  22. On the SFL vote

    29 of the 30 clubs voted for Rangers to be admitted to the League.

    25 of the 30 voted that they would not go straight into the 1st division


  23. HOMUNCULUSJANUARY 28, 2018 at 13:02
    On the SFL vote
    29 of the 30 clubs voted for Rangers to be admitted to the League.
    25 of the 30 voted that they would not go straight into the 1st division
    ____________

    Unless my memory of what the SFL clubs were presented with is wrong, then that was not a democratic vote, or not what I consider to represent a democratic vote. They were put under severe pressure to, at the very least, vote for TRFC to enter the SFL in the bottom tier.


  24. “According to the report in the Daily Record Regan arranged the matches without consulting the SFA’s Professional Game Board.
    The report suggests that the matches were arranged unilaterally by Regan and will earn the SFA the sum of £250,000 with the flight from Lima to Mexico City taking five hours before a match at high altitude.
    Each Premiership club will collect £365,000 in August from Celtic reaching the group stage of this season’s Champions League.
    Five months after referring the issue of Rangers (IL) being given a UEFA licence for season 2011/12 to their Compliance Officer the SFA have still to publish their findings. It is not a complex issue.”

    (Joe McHugh)


  25. GUILTY:
    And must answer for his guilt,not just removed from his job because he failed to appoint a scotland manager.


  26. SmugasJanuary 28, 2018 at 12:03 (Edit)
    4
    0 i
    Rate This
    Cluster One
    Ive always viewed Regans continuance as the contingency.
    Compliance officer issues damning report, Regan goes as a result and we all glibly think the jobs a good un not noticing that we are just back to where we should have been in 2012 but with all guilt and blame suitably erased. Let’s move on n’that!
    ================
    I think it would be better to wait for the Compliance Officer report first.
    Read the Celtic letters and what they have requested and why.
    Regan’s involvement is a barrier to that and his removal does nothing to address the issue of the assurances required from their clubs and SFA that supporters are watching fair play. Regan can give no such credible assurance.
    That is why this is on SFM and not a Celtic blog, because honest governance affects us all, even TRFC who would not find themselves in the position they are in had it been in place since 2000 at least.
    Another plausible interpretation is that word is out on smsm that Regan’s tea is oot and they want him hung as a lamb and not a sheep, i.e covering up the real reasons and the real issues why he has to go.
    Now they can have no excuse for not covering all the reasons.


  27. SMUGASJANUARY 28, 2018 at 12:59
    I’m just saying the response you’ll get to take it further will be a shrug of the shoulders and “ah that was Stewart and he’s gone.  Can we move along please?”
    —————
    But it was not only stewart. when you cut off the head of a snake the rest will wriggle.
    Let there be no wriggle room for all who knew,only then can we all start the process to move along.


  28. Yes these Hampden CEOs don’t operate in a vacuum.  Over the EBT years they were very chummy with some Rangers officials who were in the know.  For instance It’s believed that Dickson took over the bulk of the player registration work from Campbell Ogilvie, working closely with the SFA and SPL while players were being handed EBT’s that went undeclared to the football authorities.

    It is incredulous that we should be asked to believe the EBTs and side letters were not common knowledge at Hampden. From the top down.

    We are not idiots.


  29. What an excellent blog by Auldheid. As the media line up to castigate Regan for failing to land a managerial target they continue to ignore this huge story which was made fully available to them years ago. 

    Clearly questions can’t be asked by the media of the SFA if:

    – They may have acted improperly to the benefit of Rangers
    – They may acted improperly to the disadvantage of Celtic, and some other clubs. 

    Let’s be honest. If this situation was reversed the media would have created such a fuss it would have been dealt with years ago, with Regan and others history as far as the SFA is concerned. 


  30. Good blog Auldheid.
    Guessing the title is a rhetorical question.

    Diddy…absolutely!
    And perhaps even more so: a useful idiot.

    Regan is STILL at Hampden only because the clubs choose to keep him in position.
    And the fans’ opinion / complaints about him are simply ignored.

    And as the Bampots have discussed before, it’s a total restructuring and rebranding of the SFA that is required.

    Getting shot of Regan would be a welcome start.
    But it has to be only the start of thorough organisation and cultural change at the SFA.

    And agree that the expectation could be that offering up Regan would be promoted by the SFA / MSM as the change that was needed…so let’s all move on for the good of Scottish football.

    Predictable PR p!sh aimed at preserving the blazers’ boys club and attached perks and privileges.


  31. JIMBOJANUARY 28, 2018 at 11:53

    Regan’s days are numbered.  Doncaster will fall soon after.

    The big question is who will replace them?  More suits of the same ilk?

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

    Absolutely it will be people of the same ilk, which will continue until there is complete root and branch reform with regulation put in place. 

    Regan has more to worry about than Doncaster IMO. Doncaster was quite happy for a review to take place, while Regan was not. I think that tells us who would have most to worry about.


  32. I don’t know what the answer is to how football governance is improved.  To get to the point that all football fans want.

    Integrity, Honesty, Transparency and Equal treatment for all.   Better communication too would help.

    One thing is for sure, I wouldn’t trust anyone who has held a position at Hampden in the past ten years.  Unless I could be convinced otherwise by, for instance, a declaration of voting history on all issues voted on in the past decade.  On all boards and committees.

    Government oversight is a no no with UEFA.  I have lost all respect for ex judges or QCs to have any say in the running of our game.  Lord Nimmo Smith has a lot to answer for.  If he was half a man he would come out and admit his disgraceful handling of the commission.  And out the conspirators.

    So as far as I can see it has to be with meaningful fan representation on all levels.  Not just one token rep.  Several of them everywhere.  They should not be given ties. No VIP seats. No hospitality.  No jaunts around the world.  People who do it part time voluntary for the love of the game.  People who keep a good distance from the possibly corrupt suits.

    How these folk would be chosen is for others to suggest.  I’m not sure.


  33. JIMBOJANUARY 28, 2018 at 18:37

    Government oversight is a no no with UEFA.

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

    Cast your mind back to 2012 and the Scottish First Minister was trying to cut Rangers a deal with HMRC, who of course gave him short shrift. He then declared Rangers to be ‘part of the fabric of Scottish society’ after they had stiffed the public purse for tens of millions in unpaid tax.  Payment of tax in full and on time hugely underpins our democratic society.

    Government oversight!!!!!!!


  34. Walter Smith was  appointed manager of Rangers for a second time after quitting his post as Scotland head coach to return to the job he gave up in 1998. He has signed a three-year contract and will be assisted by his erstwhile Scotland No2, Ally McCoist, and coach Kenny McDowall, who took the Rangers squad for training this morning.
    However, the Scottish Football Association has confirmed its intention to take legal action against Smith “for breach of contract” and against Rangers “for inducement to breach the contract
    Despite the SFA’s pledge to take legal action – they refused Smith permission to leave on Monday – Rangers chairman David Murray was delighted to land his No1 target. “It is a great pleasure to welcome Walter and Ally back to Rangers,” he said. “I have great respect for both men and their achievements and I am convinced they will take the club forward.”
    Faced with the spectre of court action, Murray expressed his hope that a compensation deal for Smith could be reached with the SFA. “The SFA rejected our offer [of compensation] and then came in with a figure that was totally unrealistic,” he said. “Thankfully they’ve dropped the crossbar a bit since then and hopefully we can sort it out over the next few days. If not, we’ll be in a dispute that we don’t wish.”
    ————-
    Was a compensation deal for Smith ever reached with the SFA? how much of the crossbar was dropped if a compensation deal was reached?
    —————
    The Scottish Football Association is suing former Rangers owner Craig Whyte over a £200,000 unpaid fine for bringing the game into disrepute.
    Whyte, who was banned for life from any involvement in Scottish football, has ignored requests to pay the penalty that was imposed in April.
    He had failed to notify the SFA that he had been disqualified as a director for seven years in 2000.
    The 41-year-old is considering counter-suing the SFA.
    He was initially fined £50,000 by the governing body, with three identical penalties added.
    The additional fines were for separate counts of failing to follow directions from an SFA tribunal, while a charge of acting in an improper manner and against the interests of football was not proven.
    At the time of the verdict, Whyte dismissed the fine as “a joke” and said any notion of him being impelled to pay up was “farcical”.
    And he has previously suggested taking legal action against the SFA on the issue.
    —————
    I Take it the SFA never did get the money.
    just some more incompetence from the SFA
    Add to that the LNS fine of£250,000 that they took years to not collect but got it by holding back prize money in the end.


  35. Apparently Dave King was spotted at the BBC offices on Friday. If this is to resolve the long running dispute between Rangers and BBC I shudder to think how biased the BBC will be towards Rangers if a resolution is found, considering just how bad it is already.  


  36. UPTHEHOOPSJANUARY 28, 2018 at 21:18
    6
    0 Rate This
    Apparently Dave King was spotted at the BBC offices on Friday. If this is to resolve the long running dispute between Rangers and BBC I shudder to think how biased the BBC will be towards Rangers if a resolution is found, considering just how bad it is already.  
    —————
    8) What has the club done to attempt to resolve the ongoing issues with BBC Scotland wherethey refuse to cover our games despite their duty to us as licence payers? Does the club feel it has done enough to inform supporters and the rest of Scottish society that it is BBC Scotlandwho are refusing to cover Rangers and not Rangers who have banned BBC Scotland?
    —The Club has been and continues to be in dialogue with senior members of BBC’smanagement to explore ways in which the dispute can be resolved to the satisfaction of the Club and the supporters.
    ————–
    Well Dave was in town


  37. Thanks Auldheid. 

    I have a question for you.

    Do you think Regan was ever off piste and acting on his own in any of this. 


  38. HighlanderJanuary 28, 2018 at 11:08
    ‘…There’s a surprisingly good article by Gordon Waddell in the Record ……if only Mr Waddell and his fellow so-called journalists had heeded ..’
    ______________________
    Your post inspired me to email Mr Waddell as follows:
    “Toreporters@dailyrecord.co.uk Today at 22:22 Can I address this to Mr Waddell, personally, please?
    “Dear Mr Waddell,
    Your piece in today’s issue of the ‘Daily Record’ is to be welcomed.
    You observe that ” It’s time to be clear where the failure of the Scottish Football Association lies. Its governance”
    You are perfectly right in making that observation.
    Indeed, if I may say so, many, many people believe that you would have been right had you made that observation some 6 years ago. Many further believe that you should be condemned for your failure to make such an observation when the governance of Scottish Football was given a free ride, and supported in that ride by the SMSM, to create the myth that the Rangers Football Club, founded by the honest four on Glasgow Green in 1872, somehow survived the mortal blow of Liquidation.
    I do not recall you personally standing up for sound ,honest, transparent, competent Governance in accordance with the rules ( rules that were rigidly enforced against other clubs which lost their entitlement to participate in professional League football through the final insolvency event of Liquidation) when they were not applied in the case of the Liquidation of RFC of 1872.
    No, I think that you are art and part guilty of helping to foster a basic untruth, namely that RFC of 1872 was somehow bought and brought out of Administration ( as Heart of Midlothian Football Club was), and that somehow, without clearing its massive debts, survived intact as the same club! [ As Hearts were honourably enough able to do through the honest endeavours of its Chairwoman, Board and supporters-without a lot of support from the SFA or the SMSM, as I recall]
    Of a certainty, it seems to me, you must know that Liquidation spelled the end of RFC 1872, in that it lost its membership of a league, and therefore its entitlement to membership of the SFA
    TRFC Ltd – formerly SevcoScotland- was newly created as a football club. As a new creation it had to apply for membership of a League, before it could gain first-time membership of the SFA.
    The untruth that the new club, by being granted membership of the SFA, had somehow become the Rangers FC of 1872 is simply dishonest nonsense, a corruption of truth which, unless recognised and dealt with, will continue to make our game reek not only of incompetent , but of dishonest, governance.
    Had you, and your sports journalist counterparts, had the courage at the time to ask searching questions of Regan about the whole dishonestly ‘creative’ myth-making approach to saving ‘Rangers’ , then perhaps we might have had by now a more open, transparent, and listening governance board.
    Perhaps the present difficulties which you ably address ( the ‘colts’ idea, and national team friendlies in far parts of the world, and the shambles of an effort to find a manager for the national team) might not have happened.
    They have happened, of course, and there is undoubtedly a level of headless-chicken incompetence which had to be pointed up and dealt with, and you have done that.
    But incompetence is less destructive than dishonesty, and no where near being as fundamentally damaging to the very concept of sporting competition as the ‘same club’ fabrication has been, and continues to be.
    If you are successful in unseating Regan, well and good.
    But it will be job only half done, until the sporting record book is put right:
    TRFC Ltd’s claim to be Rangers 1872 must be officially rejected,
    their claim even to the legitimately won honours and titles of RFC 1872 must be rejected.
    And a full open investigation into the ‘Res 12’ issue must be undertaken.
    Get your journalistic gnashers into those matters, and what you say about mere ‘ incompetence’ will be seen as having some serious and well-intentioned aim to get our football governance back on the path of integrity, sincerity, openness to ideas from its paying customers, and the pursuit of honourable sporting success for our national team, and honest , just and fair governance of our game.
    Yours in Sporting Integrity, old fashioned honour, and disappointment at our dismal national record on the international football scene.
    John Clark.”


  39. FinlochJanuary 28, 2018 at 22:17′.Do you think Regan was ever off piste and acting on his own in any of this. ‘___________
    Not to butt in, Finloch, or answer a question not addressed to me.

    But, having posted something about cricket, and a CEO of a cricket club some wee while ago, the subject of ‘off-piste’ behaviour intrigues me.

    It intrigues me because I believe the Articles of Association of the SFA give enormous powers to the SFA board.

    And historically, the former ‘Secretaries’ of the SFA , now called the CEO, seemed to wield huge power, power that they could use, and , it seems, frequently did use without reference to the Board, almost autocratically, merely informing the Board after the event of the decisions they hade taken -and ensuring that they got retrospective endorsement if questions ( ha Ha! as if!) were asked.

    ( Fergus kind of put a kind of put half an end to that, I suppose).

    But CEOs are quite capable of pursuing ends , and of using means to ends, that have not been pre-agreed by their Boards, hoping to obtain retrospective approval by their boards.

    Some of those ends might, conceivably, hypothetically, theoretically,  incidentally be aimed at personal advantage as well as securing advantage for their company.

    Not saying anything new here, of course. It’s just in the nature of corporate life.


  40. Cluster OneJanuary 28, 2018 at 19:41
    ‘…just some more incompetence from the SFA…’
    ______________
    First time, C1, that I’ve seen   ‘determined policy’ used as a synonym for ‘incompetence’ !19


  41. FINLOCH JANUARY 28, 2018 at 22:17 (EDIT) 4 0 Rate This Thanks Auldheid. I have a question for you. Do you think Regan was ever off piste and acting on his own in any of this.
    =%==%===
    I doubt he conferred with the SFA Board treating the issue as a complex one no one would not grasp and that would fade away.
    I don’t think he acted totally on his own. Darryl Broadfoot consistently mocked ideas of skullduggery. See Who Conned Whom.
    That takes a me to John Clark and Regan being untrustworthy.
    Did Regan not tell JC that even if he got evidence of skullduggery he would not act on it?
    Wonder what changed his mind?


  42. More on whether the PR emanating from Ibrox works.

    Yesterday there was a pitch invasion at Ross County to celebrate a goal against the team at the bottom. It was a deflected effort scored by a loanee who can’t get a game for Nottingham Forest. Looks like the positive PR the media has facilitated has raised expectation levels way above what is practical.  


  43. UPTHEHOOPS, who knows why fans behave in certain ways. Maybe some of them are getting that ‘Old Firm’ swagger back?With Celtic and Rangers joining up to host internationals, cup finals and colt teams it’s exciting times ahead.

    I’m sure fans in the lower divisions will be delighted with some extra weekly Irish history lessons, and most other fans pleased to be still traveling to Glasgow for the big games whilst lining Celtic and Rangers pockets with even more money.

    Looks like the hope of a game not in service to two particular clubs is being slowly eroded. Maybe our expectation levels on that happening were way above what was practical? Of course, it’s all for the good of the game.


  44. UPTHEHOOPSJANUARY 29, 2018 at 07:07Posted about PR at Ibrox and got a reply from INCREDIBLEADAMSPARK which brought Celtic into the discussion. Just what has Celtic got to do with a pitch invasion at Dingwall is beyond me unless trying to use the old “one’s a bad as the other” argument. 


  45. This morning I must applaud the restraint of the Ross County fans for not responding to obvious taunting and attempt to attack players and officials 07


  46. Pitch invasion prompts Ibrox security man to have nightmares
    Pitch invasion prompts Ibrox chairman to daydream about milking machines.

    Joking apart Ballyargus whilst I realise Adam’s post had his entire body in his cheek I felt the point was a valid one.  You seem determined your club are going to distance themselves from this “renovated collective thinking.”  Im not seeing any evidence of it.


  47. BallyargusJanuary 29, 2018 at 08:37
    0
    1 Rate This
    UPTHEHOOPSJANUARY 29, 2018 at 07:07Posted about PR at Ibrox and got a reply from INCREDIBLEADAMSPARK which brought Celtic into the discussion. Just what has Celtic got to do with a pitch invasion at Dingwall is beyond me unless trying to use the old “one’s a bad as the other” argument. 

    Ballyargus, I don’t know about incredibleadamspark but I get a bit weary of the regularity of comments that present everything from the perspective of Celtic only. I can say that that the reports on Celtic matches or the finger pointing at Rangers fans misdemeanours don’t pique my interest when set beside pieces like the current article written by Auldheid – analytical and factual, focused on the (im)proper governance of Scottish football and of an interest to all who care about fair play. John Clarke’s incessant focus on this misgovernance falls into the same category. incredibleadamspark’s concerns about the return (was it ever gone?) of the duopoly seem fair comment to me.


  48. BLU, agree with your comment 100%. I could have perhaps dialled down my sarcasm but hope the point I was trying to make, one which you have made way more eloquently, was not lost. 


  49. Below is Chris McLaughlin’s twitter response to questions about why he made no mention of the sectarian singing at the TRFC game with Ross County. Seems more concerned about excusing himself than to condemn the actions of vile bigots. Apart from anything else, what a sad indictment of the SMSM that this is the best a trained media ‘man of words’ can come up with in a twitter exchange with people his ilk so often look down on, and take pleasure in ridiculing mercilessly whenever the oportunity arises.

    A wee tip to Chris McLaughlin. When someone picks up on your omission to highlight wrongdoing, it’s best to take the opportunity to rectify that omission rather than to excuse it with some not so clever put down. For that more often than not makes you appear to be on the side of the wrongdoer, and, in cases like this, a sympathiser with bigots.

    He tweeted:

    “You may have had your ear pressed to the TV but I was watching and working. Question though: would you like sports journalists to highlight every offensive song sung at a game?”

    Lastly, in reply to his question, the simple answer for all right thinking people would be ‘Yes’, and most vociferously, ‘Yes’, if the alternative is to say nothing at all. He might then become a part of the solution, rather than of the problem.


  50. Let’s take a step back here. UTH commented on a pitch invasion at Dingwall and I questioned why INCREDIBLEADAMSPARK brought Celtic into the discussion. Now I’m the one being criticised for asking why they were mentioned at all. Smugas says,”You seem determined your club are going to distance themselves from this “renovated collective thinking.” Where did I do that? I repeat, all I did was ask why Celtic were brought into an incident at Dingwall, please explain.


  51. “You may have had your ear pressed to the TV but I was watching and working. Question though: would you like sports journalists to highlight every offensive song sung at a game?”
    ————————————————————————————————-
    Chris, 
    In your senior position at the BBC a publicly funded organisation that is a disgraceful wee insight into how you and maybe the BBC think.

    Offensive singing as part of our inherent football related bigotry issue has been in the news as recently as last week because of some bad legislation coming out of Holyrood.
    It is sports news.
    It is also national news.
    I’d have expected any journalist to mention it in whatever they were covering.

    I’d also now expect any journalist not on the muppetry back pages to follow up such a stupid comment from “senior” football reporters and asking Chris and others why they don’t think this is worth reporting.


  52. And my point was that that exuberance was, I suspect, borne partly of what they see as a swiftly returning duopoly. 

    And for what its worth since its topical said deviations are also borne partly of simple base hubris because they know journalists like McLaughlin are not going to call them out for it, invasions, singing or whatever because they seek the simple life.

    McLaughlin’s threat to highlight offensive singing?  Who do you think he has in mind?  Celtic to promote the “ones as bad as the other” idea (possibly, but that is as far as it would go, just like the old days in fact which is kind of the point) or a smaller club that they’ll be more willing to tackle head on such as the Dean Shiels incident the other week (and that’s not to defend in any way shape or form the perpetrators of that incident either). Tom English said as much in the ensuing radio debate about that particular incident incidentally.


  53. “You may have had your ear pressed to the TV but I was watching and working. Question though: would you like sports journalists to highlight every offensive song sung at a game?”
    ===================================

    Yes please. I for one really would.

    Sectarianism, racism, homophobia etc are not acceptable and I would like people who indulge in it shamed. Whether it be at a game of football or anywhere else. Particularly when it is actually illegal and people have been imprisoned for it. Clearly the Scottish football authorities have decided to stop doing anything to prevent it as we hear it all the time nowadays.

    For anyone who chooses not to put “what about …” at the start of a reply, even if they mean it anyway, I include supporters of all clubs in that. I would like to think that the right thinking no more want their own support to behave in such a manner as they want to hear it coming from others.

    I would also like journalist to stop using deliberately antagonistic language aimed at demeaning people in order to try to diminish their point. It is unlikely that anyone actually had their “ear pressed to the TV” so why say it. The mocking tone says more about you than the person you were replying to.


  54. McLaughlin, even if we accept his excuse of not being able to hear the vile bigotted songs, has no excuse for not condemning them once he was made aware that they had been sung. Even an ‘it makes me sad’ would have made a difference, though such a weak response isn’t enough.
    Just as with apartheid, it will not end until it is called out at every turn. Ignoring hatred is never the way forward, and only those who embrace hate don’t realise that fact.


  55. I could be wrong but is there not a type of Index list of prohibited songs?

    If so, then why not enforce broadcasters, both TV & Radio, to apologise every time one is heard?  Not just one all encompassing apology per match but every incidence.

    ‘We apologise to our audience who can hear the offensive songs/chants in the background’

    ‘We once again apologise…….’

    Everyone would get fed up hearing it.  Chris McLaughlin et. al. would get fed up saying it.

    But importantly it would force the world to confront this. By strict liability – whatever.

    For the whitabooteries, they could have fun keeping a score sheet of offences per team.


  56. INCREDIBLEADAMSPARKJANUARY 29, 2018 at 07:57

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

    Or they have simply been convinced by unquestioning media coverage that they have signed a bunch of Galacticos. I wonder what the media would have said had Celtic signed any of those players, who in my opinion would not even get a place on the bench. 

    I guess I shouldn’t really care though. League tables and audited accounts do not live in a media driven fantasy world, and both suggest any return to a ‘duopoly’ is nothing other than a wild dream.


  57. AJ,  I too have my doubts about whether Chris McLaughlin couldn’t hear the offensive stuff.  He was watching and working!  So he is not able to listen ?

    Maybe women have a point about men not being able to multi task.

    Besides I’m sure one of the army of producers, directors etc. could pass a message to him on his headphones.


  58. The way to stop the silly songs is to introduce Strict Liability – but we all know there’s no danger the SFA will do that unless they are forced.


  59. jimboJanuary 29, 2018 at 12:22
    I could be wrong but is there not a type of Index list of prohibited songs?

    Simplistically you’re right Jimbo but then you get into the argument about lyrics.  The Billy Boys tune was sung by Killie fans on Saturday and I’m sure Dundee did likewise.  You can’t ban a tune as far as Im aware, only the lyrics within it.

    There’s two key issues however.  If a song (containing the banned lyrics) is supposed to be banned then its banned.  It doesn’t matter if 2 sing it or 20,000.  Its banned.  Period.  By all means vary the punishment to reflect the situation (the hibs fans pitch invasion in the cup final being the perfect example) but don’t just pretend something doesn’t happen and then expect to uphold the same rule the following week.

    There is a developing hubris (even more!) within the Ibrox following.  Part of their confidence in that is, and has always been, their strength in numbers. 

    The second issue uses Sevco and I apologise to Adam for apparently singling them out which is not my intention (nor to pick specifically on Hibs Rangers ties for that matter). 

    There was a big grudge fixture (I forget the situation, cup or league playoff maybe?) where we had the ridiculous tweet post match from the Graham lad about the mass choral society changing the lyrics to “up to knees in EBT’s” or similar?  Fine I take that point on board.  I even appreciate their efforts if that was the case. But I also expect the media to ask Graham to expand on his thoughts for a large proportion of Ibrox singing “sad F B” at Hibs coach Alan Stubbs in the same game.  But they didn’t (to my knowledge).  Again we are just supposed to pretend it didn’t happen.

    Call it out for what it is in every situation.


  60. The Steed,  If I remember correctly, it was the clubs who were against Strict Liability.  Just like it was the clubs who were against Financial Fair Play in Scotland. (In addition to the UEFA one).  As I said yesterday the clubs are often compliant with SFA suits and have a lot to answer for themselves.


  61. upthehoops
    January 29, 2018 at 12:31

    I guess I shouldn’t really care though. League tables and audited accounts do not live in a media driven fantasy world, and both suggest any return to a ‘duopoly’ is nothing other than a wild dream.
    ===============================

    Indeed, it really is an interesting take on the concept of a duopoly when one of the pair has made losses in every year of it’s existence, is predicting losses this year and also next year. Oh and has never won any major trophy in the country. Whilst the other won a treble last year, has won the league cup this year, is comfortably top of the league, has been posting profits for the last couple of years and will do the same this year.

    As I have said before, if people want to talk about a duoploy in Scottish football then going by both on field and off field results it’s Aberdeen and Celtic.


  62. SMUGAS, as usual I’m in complete agreement with you. Single out any club you like. Fans who engage in ridiculous behaviour, of any kind, should be called out for it.  

    Financial penalties, points deductions or stadium bans. I’d love to see all that happen as a consequence. 


  63. With respect, a duopoly in the context of football has absolutely nothing to do with two clubs winning all the titles and trophies between them.

    It is about two competing businesses controlling a market (think colts teams exclusivity and stadium rental exclusivity for example), allowing them to collude between themselves to provide all the advantages of a monopoly. 

    I’ll leave it to others to decide whether that description accurately reflects the current relationship between our two largest supported clubs.


  64. AllyjamboJanuary 29, 2018 at 10:46
    “You may have had your ear pressed to the TV but I was watching and working. Question though: would you like sports journalists to highlight every offensive song sung at a game?”
    ———-
    Relentlessly.


  65. Thank you Adam.  I see a decent fist of the unwillingness to deal with the problem has been posted by Phil.


  66. Wrt the pitch invasion, what was to stop the Police and stewards keeping the miscreants on the pitch and leading them off in handcuffs ? Apart from cowardice ? It would have taken 10 minutes and it would never happen again .

Comments are closed.

Stay Connected

257FansLike
7,394FollowersFollow

Latest Articles

About SFM

SFM is a community of football fans who want to see the game in Scotland run fairly and in a manner that befits true sporting endeavour