Campbell Ogilvie’s appointment as president of the SFA was always controversial. As general secretary and director of Rangers, Ogilvie was the club’s chief administrator during the final 11-year period they refused to employ Catholic footballers. In many other walks of life, this background would make him an embarrassing relic of a former era, but in Scottish football it was enough to see him promoted to the ultimate honour position.
He remained in position at Rangers long after the new regime of Sir David Murray arrived and set aside the decades-old sectarian employment policy but left the club in 2005, joining Hearts as operations director two months later. All of this puts the SFA president in central position regarding the on-going tax tribunal, which is charged with deciding if Rangers illegally evaded tax from a period starting in 2000 and going on well beyond Ogilvie’s departure.
If the First Tier Tribunal finds against Rangers the SFA must ask for Ogilvie’s immediate resignation. The association cannot have a president embroiled in a tax evasion scam which, even before a verdict has been decided, has already caused untold harm to his former club and the reputation Scottish football. The scale of the damage to public finances has yet to be definitively established but it will not make good reading.
The SFA has just embarked on its first proper investigation into whether directors of a football club, in this instance Rangers, are fit and proper persons to hold such a position. Office holders at the association cannot exercise power over the game if they are not subject to the same standards they demand from clubs. Pending this investigation, and the outcome of the tax tribunal, Ogilvie should temporarily step aside. Scotland is not yet a banana republic, public bodies must have robust ethics and must not allow the shadow of contagion to be cast over the body charged with ensuring legal and moral standards are adhered to.
The SFA has some enormously important months ahead. Its president is currently in a position to influence which course it takes and, if the tribunal verdict falls against Rangers, could be implicated in the scandal which precipitated the crisis. While I am sure Campbell Ogilvie will be shown to have acted with impeccable ethical standards, the SFA must quickly establish a structure clear of contagion.
If you would like to read CQN Magazine online (for free), click here. You can download a pdf of the magazine using the button at the top of the page, second from the right. Click on the link below to order a hard copy of the magazine.
You can support the online edition by making a discretionary donation here.
[calameo code=000390171c1ea04287bcd page=38 lang=en width=100% height=500]
917 Comments- Pages:
- «
- 1
- ...
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- ...
- 25
- »
JF
Who benefits?
IMO everybody.
The person who is unemployed either gets training or a sense of satisfaction at contributing to their community.
The country gets a prospective tax payer free training. (free in the sense that it isn’t costing anymore money)
The companies who they work for get a paid for trial of prospective employees.
The community gets cleaned up.
Of course we could forget all that and just pay people to do nothing, who in turn teach their children that they don’t have to work hard to try and make a better life for themselves, who in turn teach their children that they don’t have to work hard to try and make a better life for themselves!
Oh wait, that what we have done!!!!
playfusbal4dguilders says:
21 February, 2012 at 15:14
is tomorrow nights game on sky?
p
………………….
No
phil – disagree with you almost entirely
JF – agree with you almost entirely
Paul67 – Jelly & Ice Cream, PLEASE!
greenjedi says:
21 February, 2012 at 15:03
IMO
Everybody who claims unemployment benefit should have to do something to earn it. Now that could be getting work experience with a company, it could scrubbing grafitti of the walls, cleaning river banks etc etc, but nobody who is fit and able to work should be given money to sit on their fat lazy bahookies.
That is one of the reasons the country is in the mess its in. Its crazy that when the government try to cap the maximum benefits a person can get at the same level as the take home pay of someone earning £35k they get criticised for it.
Having Sky is not a human right, neither is having a phone etc etc.
You want them go and earn the money for them!
share
Agree 100% greenjedi. If this financial crisis has highlighted anything it is that the poor and unemployed are to blame for their own predicament. A good old dose of daily humiliation should encourage them to find work. And benefits should be for food only. There are plenty of good second hand clothes stores. Cleaning grafiti is great idea, but lifting dog dirt from pavements and parks is is the best one for me.
Malarkey says:
21 February, 2012 at 15:17
Exactly what I have been trying to say, but better said.
If this policy is seriously designed to get more people into work, let’s wait and see how much of a success it is. I predict a spectacular failure.
I suspect it is an ideological sop to the pompous and egotistical, who think anyone who is unemployed is a malingerer. If that is the aim of the policy, then judging by some of the posts on here, it’s right on the mark.
Following on from my previous post from der hunship site – I believe we can expect many more attempts to drag our name down with them. As always, I will attempt to get my ticket for the bigot dome, however IF we are to win the title there, things will turn very ugly IMO
I likes it bestest when Sallasdair says – I very, very absolutely honestly believe that totally 100 percent without a word of a lie…
U
The Battered Bunnet:
People here and elsewhere have talked endlessly about the example of Gretna. I think it instructive to look at exactly what happened with Gretna in the context of what you just wrote.
Now, as I understand it, Gretna were relegated to Division 1 where they became subject to SFL rules. The SFL were trying to negotiate their own sponsorship deals etc at the time, and they asked Gretna straight up if they could guarentee being able to complete a domestic league campaign. As they could not, the SFL took the decision that, in the interests of commerce, and for the purpose of protecting the integrity of the league, in the absence of Gretna being wound up, they had only one choice … relegation to the third tier, so that, in event of Gretna going out of business mid-season, the disruption would be as limited as was practicable, with the impact felt only in the lowest tier.
Gretna of course protested that such a stance would doom them to probable extinction, but as that could not be ruled out either way, the SFL pressed ahead and relegated them anyway, which of course did finish them off.
If this case is likely to drag on, if we’re waiting for the outcome of criminal charges before anyone can proceed, if Whyte can’t be compelled to sell and no further income can come in until he does, doesn’t it make the insolvency almost certain? Because surely the SPL and the SFA cannot simply wait to see what happens indefinitely? Like with Gretna, they have to consider the possibility that Rangers cannot complete their fixture list next season, if things remain uncertain – as with a court battle they would.
Now, a liquidation and a phoenix resurrection, could remove a lot of that uncertainty – and to my mind it is the only thing that can. But it would need to be quick.
This really is a shambles, on multiple levels. Those in the press etc who are hoping for a quick end are quite mad. This could take years to fully sort out.
philvisreturns says:
21 February, 2012 at 15:09
lionroars67 – I wonder if Brother Walfrid would identify with some pf our contributors current views on the unemployed struggling to find work in these difficult economic times, certainly not Celtic men as i would understand
You think Brother Walfrid would be against people being asked to do a little bit of work in exchange for their benefits? (thumbsup)
Lets take a case of a man who has been previously been working for lets say 20 years and has paid his tax and NI contributions during his working life, he also has a family to keep, he then finds himself made redundant, is he is not rightly entitled to that benefit support as the rules exist, i certainly understand his confidence and self worth has taken a severe dent to say the least, he should not then be subjected on the whim of extreme right wing politicians to work for the pals of the tory party who will exploit and use him to boost their profits, lets treat people with dignity
During the Thatcher years once heard an MD connected to the Guinness family tell a manager i was working with to get those 25 quid a week job experience lads from the dole, manager rightly asked what will i do with them all? cant train them properly, give them a good work experience or start them learning the trade, MD points to the machines in the workshop and says use them to block up the machines
Im looking forward to the emotions and passions i will experience at Celtic park tomorrow night, without feelings and emotions how do we know we are alive, im looking forward to being alive tomorrow night, people matter
neveralone says:
21 February, 2012 at 15:19
Haha! Fair play better do some work then or wind my neck in.
The Battered Bunnet says:
21 February, 2012 at 15:15
‘Looks like ticketus have been sold a right pup’
I don’t see it like that. They’ll have security and will get their money back. They made a commercial decision to get involved and should have been aware of the risks.
btw, re: the Celtic Football and Athletic Company post on RM, am I right in saying we have had the same company registration since 1897?
At it’s core the premise behind the policy has merit IMO. If it had been implemented fairly a Company could have had a new staff member for less than it would normally cost AND the government could have raised money from it via a reduction (not an elimination) of what they pay them AND starting to recoup tax. The person would have then actually taken in more money than they had at the moment AND had the bonus of getting into employment. Business saves money. Government makes money. Person makes money.
The fact they have went the whole hog and allowed large companies to get access to free workforce is a worry. Now, government the same. Person the same. Business makes money.
I don’t think many could argue a middle ground would have benefited all parties.
greenjedi says:
21 February, 2012 at 15:20
Ok. Let’s say that happened to me, a web developer, and I’ve been caught out by a company liquidation before so it could easily happen. How would that benefit me? If it did happen my first steps while looking for more work would be to try and get my own company off the ground. How do I do that while being forced to do work that isn’t relevant to my qualifications or career?
Or do we introduce a two tier system? If you’re educated and employable, you have leeway. If you’re not, then you don’t.
How about we force people to move to where there are perceived to be more vacancies, should we do that too?
James F, TBB
If the SFA had acted responsibly from the beginning rather than being in on St. David Murray’s criminal dealings all of this mess would not have happened. The SFA are solely to blame here.
Hail Hail
Saint Stivs @ 15:13,
“Greek Bailout for 130b euros goes ahead…….Rangers ask for a loan.”
It got me thinking of an observation an American Economist last year with regard to unsustainable debts that lead to the credit Ca’runch – Portugal, Ireland and Greece – amongst others were – ladled the PIGS – Now the Greek people have been rioted (causing carnage and death), their premise they hadn’t run up the debt and they shouldn’t pay it!
In Ireland there seemed to be a realisation that during the Celtic Tiger phase they had been profligate when they should have been more diligent – sure there was vociferous protesting, something had to be done but an overwhelming sense of collective responsibility this is our problem and we need to sort it.
The observation our American saw, was that problem Greek debt was manly National debt, Bonds issued by the Greek Government and the Greeks had lived high on the hog with these funds.
Now the problem Irish debt was mainly Bank debt i.e. the responsibility of each Banks stakeholders – the Government had certain obligations by way of guarantor but these were limited and as the businesses were private Corporations there was no legal (and some may say moral) responsibility of the Irish folk as a collective.
The Greeks have squirmed, cogitated, prevaricated to the point that some of their debt has been written off and they’ve had to borrow to pay off the rest, the Irish have got their heads down and worked away at cause of the problem taking the pain with stoic determination.
Now it’s interesting that R@ngers wanted the British government to swallow their debt, they wanted the Scottish Government to pay their debts, they are looking for anybody to come up with the cash and pick up the tab for their greed – I saw a banner @ Ibrox on Saturday stating that it was Murray’s debt.
The fact is that Celtic 18 years ago took their liabilities and resposibilities on board and dealt with them. If R@ngers squirm enough maybe some will swallow part of the debt, maybe some will stomp up some cash but until they take on-board their liabilities and resposibilities they will languish in a footballing ether.
Glenbuck
So somebody who cannot be bothered to work should be given money to do so paid by people who do work hard and in some case earn less than they get on benefits?
Aye right!!!
Rogueleader:
The policy you describe is the one the previous government had in place.
greenjedi says:
21 February, 2012 at 15:30
‘So somebody who cannot be bothered to work should be given money to do so paid by people who do work hard and in some case earn less than they get on benefits?’
Are there jobs currently available for all of the unemployed?
Philvis
“And having the address & phone no. of our finest,you must be very familiar with them….one way or another.”
Yeah, bet you’re that guy Jardine who took over from Taggart, prior to the most recent guy who took over from Taggart.
It remains to be seen if Ticketus have security. I didn’t think the Ticketus statement sounded that confident but there could be reasons for that. They did state it wasn’t a loan but that they’d purchased the tickets. You can get security on a loan but do you get security on a purchase ?
greenjedi
If people are getting real training and a chance of a job ….brilliant!
I’ve worked in supermarkets though, it takes precisely 5mins of training and all these people doing workfare are just saving Tescos cash.
I think Tesco said it employs something like 1 in 10 (or similar) at the end. In which case they are just displacing 90% real workers.
I’m not sure whether this is an attempt to fiddle the youth unemployment figures, a corporate backhander, or just the return of the ‘nasty party’.
James Forest
Love your writing and your passion
But Slavery do me a favour
By your logic Income Tax is also slavery – indentured labour
gerryguk7 – that’s why I should stick to my “don’t discuss politics” rule. That is what happens when I break it….
weeminger
If you are trying to set up your own company and can prove it, I’d give you the time to do so.
Whats wrong with people moving to find work? My Grandparents came over from Donegal initially to Glasgow and in my Grannys case on then to Edinburgh for a time as a scullery maid. They did that to provide for their family, but I guess to many people today can’t be bothered to do that.
Ernie
They bought ‘goods’. The only security they have is ‘return’. Then what?
jock steins celtic says:
21 February, 2012 at 15:33
Ticketus will have a security. It’s about the only thing in the whole affair that I’m certain of.
greenjedi
thanks
p
greenjedi:
Let’s do this one bit at a time.
“Who benefits?
IMO everybody.”
Not true. As I’ve already said, the person working for free does not benefit, nor does any person who otherwise might have been able to take that job. If Tesco needs staff it should hire them. It should pay them. If someone works, whatever they do, they should get paid.
“The person who is unemployed either gets training or a sense of satisfaction at contributing to their community.”
Training? In stacking shelves? In using a price gun? That’ll come in really handy to someone who has a degree. As to a sense of satisfaction at contributing … I believe the girl in question was already contributing to her community, in doing voluntary work. Which is being ignored by those who talk about her as “work shy.” Any number of the people being railroaded onto these schemes contribute to their community … such as the single parents who are being pushed onto it. Or do you not think providing a stable, loving and fun background for a child makes a proper contribution to society?
Further to feeling satisfaction, what these people will get instead is ridicule from the people they work alongside, those who are being paid for it, even the most gormless, low-order floor mopper, who will see his/herself as senior to someone with twice their education, but none of their wages. You are creating a new low rung on the ladder … and putting these people on it. I can’t see much satisfaction in it.
“The country gets a prospective tax payer free training. (free in the sense that it isn’t costing anymore money)”
Excuse me? What the Hell does that even mean? Every person out of work and looking for a job is a “prospective tax payer.” And you mention training again … I’ll remind you, we are talking here about low-order jobs, as you said, cleaning river banks etc … none of these people will be taken on by Price Waterhouse Coopers to work for free … it provides NO benefit to the country at all.
“The companies who they work for get a paid for trial of prospective employees.”
Balderdash. The companies get free labour – slaves, by any other definition. These are not “prospective employees.” Why would Tesco need to hire any of them? They are getting them for free. Why would they need to hire anyone for low priority positions when they can get them for free?
“The community gets cleaned up.”
By having someone stack shelves? Even in the case of the river bank cleaner, I refer you to a previous answer. That job does need done, but if it’s a priority then the government needs to create a post for it, take applications and hire people, and pay them a good wage. But that’s exactly what this government will NOT do, and so the community can go to Hell.
“Of course we could forget all that and just pay people to do nothing, who in turn teach their children that they don’t have to work hard to try and make a better life for themselves, who in turn teach their children that they don’t have to work hard to try and make a better life for themselves!”
Was I suggesting paying people to do nothing? I accuse the Scottish media of that every single night, so if you think I’m in favour of it you’re barking up the wrong tree. I am in favour of people who work being paid for doing so, and your efforts to link that with people getting paid for dnot working is a smokescreen. This is about forcing people to work unpaid … and that is wrong.
TBB – “They bought ‘goods’. The only security they have is ‘return’. Then what?”
Break legs?
Oops sorry that was Whyte’s other associates wasn’t it?
the fascist scum lead the argument with unemployed scroungers, the simple response is, increase job opportunities at the HMRC corporate tax investigation division rather than reducing staff, will pay off the national debt in a couple of years.
stupid fascist scum
Why can banks be bailed out when they are directly responsible for peoples hardships but the people cant ?
Hail Hail
Chairbhoy says:
21 February, 2012 at 15:30
good point well made
James forrest:
I really believe that some of the more extreme & utterly bizarre far right “reactionary” economic paradigms that dominate come from a lazy misintrepretation of Smiths wealth of nations. The legacy of the invisible hand has strangled western civilization. Von hayek is the father of all these basket case theories- ie the theory of spontaneous order… these organic theories might exist in nature but an economic model is not a natural system. Its man made. Without some sort of direction all you getis chaos. The fallacy of self regulation has become part of mainstream thinking…we take it as fact. Itis merely an operational fiction. I cannot stress the fiction part strongly enough.
Then we have friedman. Chicago school economics. Thatcherism…reganism…rand…they all share a basic abandonment of rigorous common sense. Theories abstracted from reality. Roosevelt introduced brakes & levers to “regulate” the market after the greatdepression. Common sense & true consensus politics. The depression was caused by a few robberbarons privately controlling the banks. We got respite from such extremes until regan came on the scene. Von hayek & his ilk were once seen as loonies but propoganda has made them into something heroic. If history has taught us anything at all your free market capitalism leads to is corporate fascism…i know marx went out of fashion but his visionary critique of capitalism is second to none- in saying that he is not without his faults. His “dictatorship of the proletariat” & his premacy of the state were why the anarcho-syndicalists (particularly BAkunin) rejected his conclusions. This doesn’t detract from his perspicacity as capitalisms arch commentator.
PS political beliefscare normally a reflection of an individual personality- neither you or philvisreturns can change each others views any more than you can alter each others DNA
Whats happened to the football chat?
Feck…whit am i saying i’m meant to be writing a novel
Sorry for ipod typos better get back to work
greenjedi says:
21 February, 2012 at 15:36
Yes, but it was their choice. I’m not denying the economic reality at the time may have forced their hand but it was still their decision. Which brings me onto another thing.
Nothing is done to make it easy for people on benefits to move for work. How is somebody with no ability to save supposed to get new accommodation if they choose to move to try and get work. Bearing in mind that it’s nearly impossible for a single male to get social housing. If I was in that situation I’d need my deposit and 1st months rent in advance while I waited for housing benefit, or my first salary making it near impossible for those on benefits to relocate to find work. Unless of course the Govt was to provide free accommodation in those instance in the form of a camp or something. A camp for workers. A work camp.
lionroars67 says:
21 February, 2012 at 15:26
Im looking forward to the emotions and passions i will experience at Celtic park tomorrow night, without feelings and emotions how do we know we are alive, im looking forward to being alive tomorrow night, people matter
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well said that mhan.
greenjedi,
scullery maid,
great idea, lets embrace dickensian standards, get the kids up chimneys, and down the pits, bring back the work house
fascist scum is fascist scum
“Agree 100% greenjedi. If this financial crisis has highlighted anything it is that the poor and unemployed are to blame for their own predicament”
Sorry, but that is utter BS and you know it. I sincerely hope that was a tongue in cheek comment.
It wasn’t the poor and unemployed that were gambling with other peoples money only for those asses in government and the banks to go and lose it all; yet people want to turn around and blame the poor and unemployed? Mental, considering that the biggest benefit junkies are the people who got the country into this situation in the first place; i.e the bankers and politicians.
Some of the comments towards the unemployed on here are disgusting, think a few folk read the Daily Mail too much. I can assure you, being unemployed is terrible, I am at the moment, as where I live there are 40-50 people applying for a single vacancy and thats just for bar work, waiting etc etc. I don’t deny that in any welfare system they’ll be cheats but it is a bit rich for people like politicians and bankers to lecture the unemployed about being “scroungers”. Besides if your on the JSA the most you ll ever ever is £2400 a year; thats hardly 35k eh? But lets not let facts get in the way of some “scrounger” bashing. I suppose the same folk on here who seem to have a visceral hatred of unemployed people resent Paul67 making the CQ Magazine free?
And these unpaid work “experience” things are a sham; its just an excuse for companies to take on free labour; think about it, wouldnt a company like tesco not rather have a high turnover of “free” workers rather than a low one of actual paid workers? Such schemes wouldn’t be so bad if you were guaranteed a full time PAID job at the end of it but the fact is 99% of the time, once your 2 months are up theyll say “sorry, no jobs, see you later” without so much as a thank you.