govan_derriere

An excellent, well balanced article.

An excellent article, well written and balanced - sadly something professional hacks appear not to be able to emulate.

Hibs, Kilmarnock, Aberdeen & Ross County have made it known that they do not back the SPFL's call for a further inquiry into the EBT years. I suspect many of the lower league clubs do not back the Celtic/SPFL stance either. On Wednesday 26th July, I sent the email below to every Scottish senior club indicating that their club logo was displayed on the website dedicated to stripthetitles. I used the email addresses listed on the SPFL website. Five addresses have probably been updated from this site as emails were bounced back from Motherwell, Forfar, Albion Rovers, Berwick Rangers & Raith Rovers. Email to Scottish Clubs Subject: Club Intellectual Property Rights. Dear Sir/Madam, Club Intellectual Property Rights. On the following website, a copy of your club logo is prominently displayed. https://twitter.com/1stripthetitles?lang=en I wish to draw this matter to your attention and ask the following two questions. Has permission been granted to use your official club logo? Does the appearance of your logo on this website indicate that your club endorses the view presented on this site? Both internationally and at club level the future of the Scottish game looks bleak. Engagement in a form of open civil war within the Scottish game seems, to me, to serve no purpose. Yours faithfully G_d Four replies were received within a couple of days. Stirling Albion, Brechin City, Montrose & Dumbarton. I don't expect to receive any others now. The responses shared below suggest that SPFL does not enjoy universal support from lower league clubs. Reply 1 On 26 Jul 2017, at 16:45, Stirling Albion <office@stirlingalbionfc.co.uk> wrote: G_d Many thanks for drawing this matter to my attention. Clearly there is no endorsement or indeed permission given to carry our logo. In the first instance I have forwarded to our governing body, the SPFL to ask them to address the matter centrally. I will keep you apprised of developments. Kind regards Xxxxxxx Chairman & Ops Director SAFC Reply 2 On 26 Jul 2017, at 16:54, Xxxxxxx wrote: On behalf of Brechin City FC I can confirm that we have not given permission for the use of our Club logo for this post and that we do not as a Club hold the views presented therein. Regards. Xxxxxxxxxx Chairman Brechin City FC. Reply 3 On 27 Jul 2017, at 10:43, Montrose wrote: Hi G_d Thanks for bringing this to our attention. We did not give permission for our logo to be used and we will now be taking action to have it removed. Many thanks. Regards, Xxxxxxxxx Club Secretary Montrose FC Reply 4 Dear G_d Thank you for bringing this to our attention. For the avoidance of doubt Dumbarton Football Club has not and will not give permission for the use of the Club logo for the purpose stated on this website, nor do we endorse the view presented. It is our view that this is a matter for the football authorities to address in accordance with SPFL and SFA Rules. Yours sincerely Xxxxxxxxxx Chief Executive Dumbarton Football Club

I made a complaint after the "Hun" banner displayed at the cup semi-final last season. I am still in dialogue with Police Scotland about this but they have, so far, failed to respond in an adequate manner. I have been promised a response by traditional letter soon! I will share the contents of this response if/when it arrives.

A link for the Big Mike show, starting at 10:00 am today. http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/a870989f-3119-4e2a-9ea7-e6ab094e77d1

I suspect Police Scotland is pushing this agenda. I have been in contact (several times) with a senior member of Strathclyde's finest in relation to my complaint about the Banner displayed at the semi-final. I have submitted a series of questions that have been referred to their legal dept re use of the term 'Hun'. I wanted to know what progress had been made. He is awaiting a response to my questions. I spoke to this officer on the Monday after the final. He explained that he was very busy in relation to events connected to the final. Two days after the event, he offered the view that 'strict liability' needed to be introduced. I mentioned that clubs had visited this before but decided against it. I did not pursue this line of conversation any further.

Rangers' Supporters Clubs will also be given an allocation.

Response received from Police Scotland. Interesting that the use of the word Hun is not an offence! "I can confirm that there was a substantial policing and stewarding operation at the turnstiles, to prevent both sets of supporters getting access to the stadium with offensive banners and pyrotechnics. That said, it is simply not possible to search every single supporter and it was clear that both sets of supporters had pyrotechnics and banners which were offensive to some people. The banners you refer to are likely to have been wrapped round individuals, underneath their clothing, and thereafter brought into the stadium. When this display was shown it formed part of several banners. The use of the word Hun in itself is not an offence, that said, we have CCTV footage of the stadium and retrospective enquiries through this footage are ongoing to identify any individuals who did commit offences at the stadium. Whilst it is disappointing that there are individuals who are intent on bringing offensive banners and pyrotechnics into a football stadium, I hope you would understand the practical difficulties of searching every single person prior to entry."

I have submitted a complaint to Police Scotland about this. Not expecting any action but if we don't express our displeasure there are few who will come to our assistance. https://www.scotland.police.uk/secureforms/hate-crime/

SEASON TICKET HOLDER INFORMATION William Hill Scottish Cup Semi – Final Hampden Park Sunday 17 April 2016 – Kick Off 12 noon Rangers v Celtic Ticket prices – South & North Stands £28 for adults and £12 for concessions and West stand adults are £18 and £7 for concessions. A very limited priority sale to Season Ticket holders who have purchased a full price season ticket will be communicated in due course once the Club receives its ticket allocation. All season ticket holders enrolled in the Semi-Final and Final & the Semi-Final Family schemes will be allocated a ticket for this fixture. Payment and posting/collection dates will be communicated in due course. http://rangers.co.uk/tickets/ticket-information/

I emailed Louise Brittain yesterday. FAO Louise Brittain. On 25th November it was reported in the Scottish press that you were appointed to carry out an investigation into the financial affairs of Craig Whyte. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/ex-rangers-owner-craig-whytes-6897749#Wy2TpCG6J1wLqtKI.97 Today the Sunday Post has a front page story concerning Mr Whyte that may be of interest to you. As a shareholder in The Rangers Football Club, I have an interest in this matter. Yours faithfully, GD Response received today. Dear Mr GD, Thank you for your email. We are reviewing the reports and will action accordingly. Thank you for your assistance Yours sincerely Louise Brittain Trustee in Bankruptcy Louise Brittain R&R Partner For and on behalf of Wilkins Kennedy LLP London

@STVGrant Derek Llambias says he fell out with Ashley in June 2013. In October '14, he was invited to come and review situation at RFC by David Somers Llambias says he had no football-related conversations at all with Ashley during his tenure at Rangers. David Somers witness statement says until facility agreement signed, relationship with MASH was handled by Wallace and Nash. Somers says he spoke to Ashley and Barnes and one of them suggested inviting Llambias to come and work as a consultant. Somers says Llambias invited Leach to assist. Somers says Wallace had brought in a lot of temporary staff which increased costs. Somers, as only exec director on board at time, appointed Llambias as a non-exec director. Justin Barnes says Paul Shackleton, then Rangers' NOMAD, called about drawdown of funds and asked for the two nominations to the plc board. Barnes told Shackleton asked if Llambias should be considered. Barnes said he was happy to treat Llambias as MASH's first nominee to plc. MASH waived its nomination of a second director to allow drawdown of funds. MASH, says Barnes, had no involvement in Llambias bring CEO

First part of pm proceedings. Court resumes. Ashley's lawyer continues his argument. Court now has copy of the credit facility agreement between MASH and Rangers. Says lender has "right" to appoint two directors to RFCL board The credit facility agreement is signed "for or on behalf of MASH Holdings", the lender, by Mike Ashley Ashley QC questions why no attempt made by SFA to amend charge to make it clearer that it was MASH, of which Ashley is ultimate beneficiary. Ashley QC says the SFA charge says: "You Mike Ashley entered a credit facility with Rangers". Ashley answer was "No I didn't, MASH did". Ashley QC again states SFA charge says "you Mike Ashley entered into a credit agreement with Rangers". The signal gods are defeating the reporting of this case. Will keep trying to plug away. Ashley QC says there are many ways it could be said the charge "could" have been written. But we are here to discuss how it "was" written. Lord Brodie, speaking hypothetically, says compliance officer may have been saying "you as controlling party of MASH entered into agreement"

Mike Ashley takes on @scottishfa at Court of Session this morning. Seeking judicial review of decision to fine him over dual interest breach A summary of Tweets by @STVGrant in the morning court session. Lord Brodie allows tweeting from Sports Direct v @Scottishfa. And we are off and running. Ashley lawyer outlines case refers to his client breaching SFA rule on dual interest. Court now to hear that rule recited in full. Rule on dual interest read out detailing that a person cannot influence management of a club when directly involved in another. SFA Article 13.1 also being read out. Ashley lawyer says same matters are set out in this article. Ashley lawyer reads out original note of complaint. States that credit facility led to MASH nominating Llambias to Rangers board. Lord Brodie: As I understand the name Rangers comes at us from a number of directions. Ashley lawyer points out this refers to RFCLtd. SFA Lawyer interrupts. Says Rangers FC in this matter is the "club, the entity, it is not a synonym for RFC Ltd." The limited company and plc are manifestations of the club, says SFA QC. Ashley QC states that RIFC plc is not a member of the SFA. Says Ashley is not a shareholder in RFC Ltd, which is the member. Ashley QC says MASH held a minority stake in RIFC plc at time of complaint. Ashley QC says there is jurisdiction in this court to entertain the complaint by means of judicial review process. Ashley QC now explaining to Lord Brodie how the SFA's judicial panel protocol works. Ashley QC says this is a private law judicial review and they have no dispute over that. I tweeted earlier this is Sports Direct v @scottishfa. Of course, it isn't. It's Mike Ashley v @ScottishFA. Ashley QC points out SFA article which doesn't permit members to go to court of law. Argues Ashley is not an SFA "member" as per definition Ashley QC going through precedents and elements of the SFA articles. Court now look at letter from Ashley to SFA in 2012 telling them in full of his role at Newcastle United Ashley letter also says he agrees to abide by SFA rules for as long as he is shareholder of RFC Ltd 2012 Ashley letter to SFA also tells them of his intention to become a shareholder of RFC Ltd, which owns and operates Rangers. QC continuing to outline argument Ashley is not a "member" of SFA as per their definitions, with regard to ability to bring this to court Ashley QC then points out by Nov/Dec 2014 he was no longer shareholder of RFC Ltd. Instead MASH was shareholder in RIFC plc Current Ashley argument revolves entirely around his capability to take this matter to court, despite SFA rules on doing so. QC says Ashley never agreed to become a member of the SFA or to be treated as a member of the SFA in 2012 letter. Some mild commotion and shaking of heads from the SFA side when it is repeated that RFC Ltd is the member. Clarification later, perhaps. Ashley QC says we are here to determine whether the manner of the jurisdiction of the panel was within the limits of their powers. Ashley QC says we are here to determine whether the manner of the jurisdiction of the panel was within the limits of their powers. Ashley QC continuing to go through SFA articles which he says do not apply to his client, should the SFA go on to say they do. Ashley QC says he will go on to explain position that SFA panel made decision without any clear evidence. Ashley QC continuing to refer to precedent on ability of court to deal with this matter by means of judicial review. Ashley QC says SFA assert that Ashley is using this as another means of appeal. Ashley QC says that is not the case. Ashley QC says he is not asking the court to rehear the substantive issues dealt with. Ashley QC says court is being asked to perform a different function than the SFA panel or appellate tribunal. Ashley QC says if a player had acted violently, it would be difficult to come here and argue a panel decision couldn't have been arrived at Lord Brodie asks if it is a legitimate question as to who was on the disciplinary panel. Ashley QC also calls into question how it can be decided Llambias being on board gave Ashley power to influence management of Rangers. Ashley QC says he fails to see how anyone in "the football business" would have any insight into how Llambias came to be on Rangers board Ashley QC setting out argument that the notice of complaint was solely against Mike Ashley, the individual. Ashley QC says it wasn't Ashley who entered into credit facility with Rangers, it was MASH Holdings Limited. Ashley QC says when such a specific charge is levied on breach of a particular rule, the scope of punishment should be limited solely to it. Ashley QC says the charge is clear. That Ashley entered into a credit facility with Rangers. His answer to the panel was clear: no I didn't. Ashley says he signed the credit facility solely as an agent of MASH. And it was MASH who entered into the agreement with Rangers. Ashley QC argues charge could have said you Mr Ashley caused MASH to enter facility with Rangers. Lord Brodie questions the fact Ashley's holding in Newcastle is through MASH. Ashley QC questions how MASH being a "creditor" of Rangers would then give him power to influence the management of the club. Lord Brodie says the question will ultimately come down to what "distinction" there is between MASH and Mike Ashley. Ashley QC repeats that the charge is a direct accusation that Ashley entered into credit facility with Rangers, not MASH. Ashley QC states there was no copy of the credit agreement. To which Lord Brodie replies: "I shouldn't be surprised". As we break for lunch I'd like to pay particular tribute to @ThreeUK for the sudden lack of signal inside most buildings over the last week.

Account of morning proceedings in Ashley v SFA. Reported by @STVGrant Mike Ashley takes on @scottishfa at Court of Session this morning. Seeking judicial review of decision to fine him over dual interest breach Lord Brodie allows tweeting from Sports Direct v @Scottishfa. And we are off and running. Ashley lawyer outlines case refers to his client breaching SFA rule on dual interest. Court now to hear that rule recited in full. Rule on dual interest read out detailing that a person cannot influence management of a club when directly involved in another. SFA Article 13.1 also being read out. Ashley lawyer says same matters are set out in this article. Ashley lawyer reads out original note of complaint. States that credit facility led to MASH nominating Llambias to Rangers board. Lord Brodie: As I understand the name Rangers comes at us from a number of directions. Ashley lawyer points out this refers to RFCLtd. SFA Lawyer interrupts. Says Rangers FC in this matter is the "club, the entity, it is not a synonym for RFC Ltd." The limited company and plc are manifestations of the club, says SFA QC. Ashley QC states that RIFC plc is not a member of the SFA. Says Ashley is not a shareholder in RFC Ltd, which is the member. Ashley QC says MASH held a minority stake in RIFC plc at time of complaint. Ashley QC says there is jurisdiction in this court to entertain the complaint by means of judicial review process. Ashley QC now explaining to Lord Brodie how the SFA's judicial panel protocol works. Ashley QC says this is a private law judicial review and they have no dispute over that. I tweeted earlier this is Sports Direct v @scottishfa. Of course, it isn't. It's Mike Ashley v @ScottishFA. Ashley QC points out SFA article which doesn't permit members to go to court of law. Argues Ashley is not an SFA "member" as per definition Ashley QC going through precedents and elements of the SFA articles. Court now look at letter from Ashley to SFA in 2012 telling them in full of his role at Newcastle United Ashley letter also says he agrees to abide by SFA rules for as long as he is shareholder of RFC Ltd 2012 Ashley letter to SFA also tells them of his intention to become a shareholder of RFC Ltd, which owns and operates Rangers. QC continuing to outline argument Ashley is not a "member" of SFA as per their definitions, with regard to ability to bring this to court Ashley QC then points out by Nov/Dec 2014 he was no longer shareholder of RFC Ltd. Instead MASH was shareholder in RIFC plc Current Ashley argument revolves entirely around his capability to take this matter to court, despite SFA rules on doing so. QC says Ashley never agreed to become a member of the SFA or to be treated as a member of the SFA in 2012 letter. Some mild commotion and shaking of heads from the SFA side when it is repeated that RFC Ltd is the member. Clarification later, perhaps. Ashley QC says we are here to determine whether the manner of the jurisdiction of the panel was within the limits of their powers. Ashley QC says we are here to determine whether the manner of the jurisdiction of the panel was within the limits of their powers. Ashley QC continuing to go through SFA articles which he says do not apply to his client, should the SFA go on to say they do. Ashley QC says he will go on to explain position that SFA panel made decision without any clear evidence. Ashley QC continuing to refer to precedent on ability of court to deal with this matter by means of judicial review. Ashley QC says SFA assert that Ashley is using this as another means of appeal. Ashley QC says that is not the case. Ashley QC says he is not asking the court to rehear the substantive issues dealt with. Ashley QC says court is being asked to perform a different function than the SFA panel or appellate tribunal. Ashley QC says if a player had acted violently, it would be difficult to come here and argue a panel decision couldn't have been arrived at Lord Brodie asks if it is a legitimate question as to who was on the disciplinary panel. Ashley QC also calls into question how it can be decided Llambias being on board gave Ashley power to influence management of Rangers. Ashley QC says he fails to see how anyone in "the football business" would have any insight into how Llambias came to be on Rangers board Ashley QC setting out argument that the notice of complaint was solely against Mike Ashley, the individual. Ashley QC says it wasn't Ashley who entered into credit facility with Rangers, it was MASH Holdings Limited. Ashley QC says when such a specific charge is levied on breach of a particular rule, the scope of punishment should be limited solely to it. Ashley QC says the charge is clear. That Ashley entered into a credit facility with Rangers. His answer to the panel was clear: no I didn't. Ashley says he signed the credit facility solely as an agent of MASH. And it was MASH who entered into the agreement with Rangers. Ashley QC argues charge could have said you Mr Ashley caused MASH to enter facility with Rangers. Lord Brodie questions the fact Ashley's holding in Newcastle is through MASH. Ashley QC questions how MASH being a "creditor" of Rangers would then give him power to influence the management of the club. Lord Brodie says the question will ultimately come down to what "distinction" there is between MASH and Mike Ashley. Ashley QC repeats that the charge is a direct accusation that Ashley entered into credit facility with Rangers, not MASH. Ashley QC states there was no copy of the credit agreement. To which Lord Brodie replies: "I shouldn't be surprised". As we break for lunch I'd like to pay particular tribute to @ThreeUK for the sudden lack of signal inside most buildings over the last week.