Tomorrow’s SPL meeting is something of a formality, albeit as dramatic as a formality can be. The main scheduled action of the week is underway at Hampden right now. We hear that after issuing threats to exclude 20 SFL clubs from future access to the top two divisions in Scottish football, SPL and SFA chief executives, Neil Doncaster and Stewart Regan, will face irate SFL chairmen.
In mitigation of the criticism coming his way, Mr Doncaster is offering your money, in perpetuity, to buy votes to allow Sevco to gain direct access to the First Division. If passed, they would probably enter the SPL next season, close to debt free, while Celtic carry peak debt of around £35m after playing by the rules and not qualifying for Champions League football during the last three seasons.
In short, if Mr Doncaster manages to persuade the SFL chairmen to back his plan, Sevco will become by far the strongest team in the SPL a year from now.
The plan has been rejected as wholly unacceptable by an impressive list of clubs with no association whatsoever with Celtic, many of whom exist hand-to-mouth and whose vote against will cost them considerable income.
Doncaster’s part in creating this shambles cannot be underestimated. He perpetuated the myth that “Rangers” should and would be in next season’s SPL, allowing people to invest in an undeliverable strategy, including Charles Green.
Mr Doncaster is an employee of the company Celtic are an equal-twelfth shareholder in. His actions are wholly incompatible with sporting meritocracy. As Celtic shareholders we call for his resignation and, if this is not forthcoming, demand he faces a confidence vote.
“Without fear or favour” was the promise from Stewart Regan when he told us he would apply the rules evenly as the Rangers saga unfolded. In advocating rules are torn up and replaced his words are laughable.
His assertion that the actions of Campbell Ogilvie over Rangers EBTs had been investigated and that Ogilvie was found to be without blame was misleading. It is our assertion that the actions of Mr Ogilvie were not investigated at all and that Mr Regan spoke to protect his ally, who remains in position despite being “heavily conflicted” according to Mr Regan, and the SFA being in desperate need of a strong and active president.
Mr Regan is now wholly compromised and must resign or also face a vote of confidence. Two years ago he joined a dysfunctional organisation. He had a great opportunity to make a name for himself as a successful troubleshooter. Instead he’s made matters worse!
1,440 Comments- Pages:
- «
- 1
- ...
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- ...
- 38
- »
midfield maestro,
canny believe you missed out Cat Cubie ;-)),
although who knows where she has disappeared to
deliasmith on 3 July, 2012 at 12:56 said:
Celtic is at least as unpopular as R@ngers.
Doubt if the people of Manchester would agree. I think you’re posting on the wrong site.
And Norwich..but YOU should know that Delia….”Let’s be ‘avin you!”
— On Tue, 3/7/12, lennybhoycfc@gmail.com wrote:
From: lennybhoycfc@gmail.com
Subject: RE: hamilton Races
To: “brian mclaughlin”
Date: Tuesday, 3 July, 2012, 15:46
King of Paradise, 3/1 in the third. Three-in-a-row.
They cannot “re-start” anywhere. What they can do is apply to join the SFL in Div3 nothing else is open to them. por cierto
Tim Malone\Bada…,
getting back to the original commet, its all the clubs fault for trying to keep unfair practices in place, even the escalation in the greed all stems from the original idea that player had no rights on their own registration. Had clubs evolved more equitable way forward none of this would be an issue, but they didint did they
I would agreee with delia that Celtic are as at least unpopular as the late Rangers.
Can you imagine the uproar if we’d done what they had done ? There would not be a mention of Scottish football needing Celtic.
ghordybhoy64
Forgot about her, was trying to type before wife got up aff her sunbed tae ask me wit a wis daen
Apparently Doncaster’s proposals to admit a newco into division 1 has been ‘badly received’ by the SFL chairmen.
alex thomson @alextomo
So no TV report on football – blog should be up soon however.
JAMES FORREST 1534
We said nothing,the diddy clubs got bullied-I posted last week about the plan to bully 20 clubs into either submission or extinction-and guess what?
The MSM did what they always have done,we kept quiet,and the diddy teams got bullied,and guess what?
The fans got told that A-L-L of their diddy clubs would die,the MSM did what they have always done,we kept quiet and the diddy teams got bullied.
And guess what?
It turned out that the diddy teams were run by men with balls,and in many cases a helluvalot of business acumen.
Men with steel to stand up when openly threatened.
We didn’t,and do not,have that luxury!
Anything we say will be taken down and used in evidence against us,James,spun against us,and will ramp up violence in the streets. That,I’m sure,you know.
The fact that those men have come out in defiance of the establishment is,IMO,far from accidental.
It means that everyone now knows what the majority of SCOTTISH FOOTBALL thinks of them.
Do you really,truly,honestly,believe that they would have followed that line had we espoused it?
From one of the bereavers of deadclub on deadclub media
===
One thing this has shown,lots of spl team are operating on a completely f*#*+d business model.
++++++
POT & BLACK but true :))))))
midfield maestro,aye got to be discreet,
my good lady wondered why i started watching BBC news all of a sudden,
she never realised Cat was doing the weather ;-))
So no news from Hampden as yet? I’ve seen a few tweets that the clubs aren’t too happy with the presentations – good.
Por Cierto on 3 July, 2012 at 15:50 said:
They cannot “re-start” anywhere. What they can do is apply to join the SFL in Div3 nothing else is open to them. por cierto
————————————————————-
I know that, you know that, even the huns know that, but the hun apologists in the SPL, SFA, SFL and MSM conveniently ignore that in the hope that a dead Rangers will still be a going concern with continuing history post liquidation
so james f, you’d like celtic to speak out against the huns
the big walk is next week
watched a prog on bbc 3 or 4 last night about philosophers/philosophy
i’m assuming you’re in the Kant camp.
(and thats not to be said with a cockney accent)
HH..
Hand back the AUDIs .. Lol..
What buses go to the local parks for training for Newco trialists..
Regan Donkeyasster Ogilve OUT now..
gordybhoy64
The news is another story. Sussanah, Sian, Catriona, Gillian, Kay etc etc
Chris McLaughlin tweeting that 16 out of the 30 SFL clubs are required to vote YES to ensure a hun newco is inserted into Division 1.
HT
Glad it was him that tweeted it.
My understanding that they were not having a vote today it was a meeting to discuss the proposals only ? H.H.
hamiltontim on 3 July, 2012 at 16:01 said:
He’s not the most accurate journalist on the planet, I thought it was 70%??
From AT – @Neiley83 careful – never said exclusive now – just some stuff some will know but many more should.
Say what you like about Scottish football, it certainly isn’t boring.
“River City” writers would struggle to come up with the kind of colourful characters and bizarre plot twists we’ve seen in football of late. (thumbsup)
Articles clearly state 22 from 29 – more MSM Orcery
James Forrest @15:34:
James
I think you’ve got this one wrong: IMHO, the moment Celtic issue a statement is the moment the whole dynamic of this situation will change.
While the whole Rangers package is and was detestable to a lot of Scots, and this is rightly seen by many provincial fans as a chance to ‘use the rules’ to humble that once towering presence, the Celtic brand is not universally liked. Indeed, although things continue to change for the better, there remains a deep-seated anti-Celtic/Irish/Catholic undercurrent in many parts of Scottish life; not least in footballing circles.
However ludicrous and infuriating this is for us, I think most fans of smaller clubs, who see themselves as taking a balanced view on this, still seem unable or unwilling to disconnect Celtic from Rangers.
On top of that, while I recognise that it may be partly to do with a lifetime of paranoia conditioning, I have little doubt that many club directors are men whose ‘second club’ was Rangers and who are or were masons, and are thereby torn between doing the right thing for their club/community and football-at-large, and the fraternal call of the brotherhood – albeit, they may no longer be sure who will benefit from their largesse (should they vote in favour of a soft landing for the new Foe Malign FC).
Whether by accident or design, Celtic keeping schtum is probably still the best course of inaction.
FF
canamalar-cant disagree,guys on 7 year contracts, sweeping chimneys on their days off,a happy medium was never reached.
I thought newco needed 22 votes to support entry to SFL1,
is this just more rule changing to help them out
PHILVISRETURNS
River City?
Does that not clash with the reruns of yer old fav,Jeeves and Wooster?
Multi-tasking again,eh,what are you like?
Section 6 Article 74 of SFL rules- A change to rules must get 66% approval of member clubs.
aw naw
;-)
CultsBhoy loves being 1st forever & ever on 3 July, 2012 at 14:22 said:
fair play to them
HH
bada..,
so have you changed your mind :o)
BOBBY MURDOCH’S CURLED-UP WINKLEPICKERS – Does that not clash with the reruns of yer old fav,Jeeves and Wooster?
Do keep up Robert.
Modern technology allows one to time-shift one’s viewing.
I have the latest Betamax VTR technology at my disposal in the Philcave. (thumbsup)
Potential conflicts of interest at the heart of Scottish footballTuesday 3 July 2012 4:10 pm
It all makes the clearest possible sense. Running one football club whilst having a financial interest in another is about the clearest potential conflict of interest possible in the business of sport.
Yet Channel 4 News can now reveal such possible potential conflicts are a commonplace within the game, involving key individuals, and it is allowed within the rules of the governing bodies as presently written.
Not only that. In one case this perceived conflict involves none other than the current president of the Scottish Football Association, Campbell Ogilvie, already described as “heavily conflicted” by his own chief executive and currently offering to stand aside if his presence in the job is a problem.
Offering – but not doing so.
Channel 4 News has a Companies House list of Rangers shareholders for 2008 and 2010. They prove, for instance, that the current Airdrie chairman and president of the Scottish Football League, James William Ballantyne, had 568 Rangers shares in 2008 when chairman of Airdrie.
Now, nobody is pretending these shares are worth very much money at all in the vast sea of Rangers shares. People will be interested in the principle of all this, though, not the money.
Let us consider some other high-profile figures – like Mr Ogilvie. He remains president of the Scottish FA, despite that “heavily conflicted” comment from his chief exec. In 2008 a Companies House report showed Mr Ogilvie held 3,505 Rangers shares whilst in senior management at Hearts. That year he became chief executive at Hearts and suddenly transferred his 3,505 Rangers shares to his wife Karolina, who already held 400 – thus giving her 3,905 shares.
And so to the one-time sectarian crooner Donald Findlay. Infamous for leading sectarian singing at an Ibrox function in 1999, he may have been forced out of Rangers over that unfortunate musical issue but he has not left Rangers in so many other ways. By 2010 Companies House records will tell you he held 9,900 Rangers shares whilst Chairman of Cowdenbeath FC.
No doubt there are other examples.
And so to the rulebook. Well, the Scottish Football Association rules state that:
“Except with the prior written consent of the Board, no Member, Associate Member or Official, may at one time either directly or indirectly:-
21.1.1 hold or seek to acquire beneficial ownership of or deal in the shares or securities of another club; or
21.1.2 be a member or shareholder of, or lender in any capacity to, more than one club…”
Along the corridor at Hampden Park, the Scottish Football Association handbook says pretty much the same things. And in the rules there is the rider that owning less than a 3 per cent total share value is OK.
We are talking about way less than 1 – let alone 3 – per cent in these cases.
The rules also state that having family members owning shares means they are treated as associates. That is, you’re all one in the eyes of the SFA and the SFL rulebook. Transferring shares from, say, Campbell Ogilvie to his wife would make no difference at all in law. Presumably Mr Ogilvie knew all this – he’s widely seen as an expert in football regulation.
So it’s a curious tale. What binds these people to their shares, since it cannot be the financial value? Emotion? It is far from clear. And what makes them hang on to them year after year, when doing so clearly suggests a potential conflict of interest to many, regardless of whether or not any rules have been broken?
Jim Ballantyne said everything had been declared to the boards, and in any case the share numbers are absolutely miniscule. He said:
“I see no problem here at all” and “I cleared everything with the boards” and “You are talking about the tiny fragment of one percent of ownership and this involves absolutely no influence whatsoever”.
We say that may well be true, but would it not be sensible to divest all shares in any other club when running a different one, let alone the SFL itself, just in order to avoid any perceived conflict of interest?
“No – not at all. It’s never been raised at any board meeting,” said Mr Ballantyne.
“Well, I’m raising it now’ I said.
“Well, you’re not in football,” he replied. I cannot seriously think that the president of the Scottish Football League believes only football directors can take a view on this – not the fans, not the public and not journalists. But that is what he told Channel 4 News.
And so to Donald Findlay. His case is perhaps the most curious of the lot. There is the perceived conflict of interest in running Cowdenbeath whilst owning almost 10,000 Rangers shares.
We asked Mr Findlay about the shares issue. We received the message back that he is not interested in answering, and a Cowdenbeath messenger said Mr Findlay says: “You can do what you want.” So the world must wait to know whether or not Mr Findlay regards his Rangers as a conflict of interest. If he does, he certainly does not want to talk to us about it.
At the end of the day, what you have here is another spotlight into the cosy, cronyish old world of Scottish Football, which has predictably lumbered into the 21st century only to come close to real collapse through lack of proper oversight and governance.
Many would simply say any sport which allows anyone a financial stake at all in one club whilst running another is a sport badly in need of urgent overhaul.
From these men today, no consideration or comment on the fans, the public, how this might look. Just the usual insouciance when faced with the concept that whether rules are actually broken or not, this hardly conveys a healthy impression of Scottish football
Right,beddiebyes for us night workers.
Pleasure as always,and remember-nae fa’in’ oot!
Alex Thomson’s blog now updated
they are making it up as they go along, since when could clubs apply for direct entry to SPL or SFL1 without having to work their way through lower divisions?
Cansomeone put AT’s link up please.
Thanks.
hamiltontim on 3 July, 2012 at 16:01 said:
Chris McLaughlin tweeting that 16 out of the 30 SFL clubs are required to vote YES to ensure a hun newco is inserted into Division 1.
——————
thats just over 50% !!!!!!!!!! seems a bit low
i thought it was 66%, 19 of the 30 clubs