Walterbear

It's still not clear to me what the scope and terms of reference for a review would be and what are good outcomes for Scottish football. It's all very vague other than a clear attempt at yet more Rangers bashing. If it wasn't for the Res 11 people (who are out and out haters) Lawell wouldn't have gone near this. You then see 70% of Aberdeens 'biggest' supporters group want one and you learn after some research that that is 1400 fans (from the supporters base which hates us as much as Celtic). You hear so much from journalists and others who haven't grasped some of the basics about tax legality and the court of session or how as just one example Nimmo Smith and 2 QCs explicitly confirmed that we are the same club by interpreting SFA and SPL rules simply either because it's not what they want to hear or they don't have the brains to understand it or are too lazy to research it. Words and sentences are misquoted and misrepresented so why would we have faith that journalists and fans wouldn't do the same to yet another set of statements in a report?There has been so much water under the bridge and so much complexity that if it is if wider scope then it will be expensive, time consuming and divisive at a time when our actual game (the thing we are supposed to be worried about) is the laughing stock of Europe at club level and a catalogue of failure at international level. The SFA should have acted when the EBTs first appeared openly on our balance sheet but didn't. That was 20 years ago when they were a widespread tax avoidance tool. If the scope is wider then how wide? Can we look at Romanov, other potential criminal activity or disreputable behaviour or is it just anything to do with Rangers? Surely what would satisfy normal people would be if the SFA listed what they thought they did wrong and how they have changed their policies, processes and operating model and how they would deal with it next time. Present that ti the SPFL Board and seek feedback and agree any amendments for the good of Scottish football and publish it. The reason they (Celtic) are not wanting anything other than a full independent inquiry is because they want to further debilitate Rangers with the SFA quite frankly considered as collateral damage. To what end are Celtic trying to get to wanting a full independent inquiry re 2011 licence when it is something that can be done fairly simply and UEFA have already said the subsequent liquidation events render it irrelevant? No club can gain financial compensation other than from Oldco. If the scope is much wider how do you incorporate all the statements in various legal cases, all the opinions in previous independent inquiries such as LNS and all the learned judgements that firstly said EBTs were legal (twice) then said they weren't (twice) and incorporate all of that into the context at the time the EBTs were used and the judgements made, in a manner that is not going to consume Scottish football even more? How do you reassess punishments (and that will soon be the next part of the farce and clamour) already given against punishments they would like to give (but have no legal basis to do so). It's ridiculous and serves no good purpose and will have no good outcome. Why doesn't the SPFL if it wants transparency, firstly get an independent review of itself as they signed off the 5 way agreement (under SPL)? If they want transparency then have an open vote on who wants an independent inquiry and who doesn't and publish the result. The more you think about it the more stupid it is. Any grown up football country would have moved on but for us it's all tied up in a kind of existential hatred mainly from Celtic. Some may have wanted more punishments, some may have wanted our extinction but no one can reasonably argue we have not been substantially punished already. And by the way the punishment has been for our fans. The ****s have mostly walked away with satchels of loot. The first thing our board needs to do apart from anything else is return Celtics Old Firm ticket allocation and stick them in the corner and make it clear that until Celtic adopt a more conciliatory approach their fans are not welcome in our stadium. In fact the police should now insist on no away fans st either venue. I've never known such a level of hatred between the clubs and thats saying something.

Funny how Lawell goes on about transparency in his letters but writes in secret to the SFA on behalf of Celtic on Celtic headed paper claiming to represent all 42 clubs in Scotland by virtue of an SPFL board meeting. Amuses me Regan asked to make the note public. I suspect Lawell was surprised by that. Shows Regan is no fool. I hope Regan has a good response to him and we can align with it. It does go to show that having a presence on these boards is extremely important and we cannot just cut ourselves off from the other clubs. Hopefully we can isolate Lawell for what is a brazen attempt to go for titles under the auspices of transparency prior to a Celtic AGM.

I often saw the relatives of Hillsborough in Warrington and you could see the pain and grief etched on their faces 20 years after the event. They all looked as if they had been suffering for every second and many to be frank didn't look particularly well. To compare their noble struggle for justice and their self-sacrifice in the name of their loved ones to the punitive sekf-serving behaviour of Celtic requisitioners and the fan bases of some Scottish clubs shows him up as a sheltered, deluded, misguided and unworldly fool.

Worth a refresher in the context of Lawell, the media and the assorted haters witch hunt. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/is-the-nimmo-smith-commission-decision-binding-on-the-spl/amp/

Lawells statement should read; "Despite the fact that we at Celtic knowingly employed tax cheats and introduced our employees to such schemes we are concerned that Rangers football club may have got a competitive advantage from similar tax avoidance schemes."

Lawell and Regan agreed to publish them it's in the full exchange between them. In fairness to Regan he's saying it's all been dealt with and the only outstanding issue is UEFA licence 2011.

Whilst Dundee fans will give us the usual 'your not Rangers..,' in fairness they also sing 'one in a row' to the Tims ?

I think you have to revamp the SFA governance and scope for sanctions. Whether 'state aid' was part of that would be up for discussion. One thing they cannot do is insist on further retrospective penalties against Rangers by retrospective rule change and retrospective changes in policies and standards or rectify historical administrative incompetence in the case of Rangers, whilst at the same time not look at a greater scope of misdemeanours to fall within the power of the SFA sanctioning and not also applying retrospective powers to that increase in scope. Otherwise it does just become a continuation of the witch hunt of one club and does not address the sporting integrity of football in Scotland and a desire for improved administration. Rangers could start to take the initiative.

The SFA are caught in the middle of their own incompetence and celtics extreme aggressive behaviour. They (SFA) have to do something and if I were in charge of Rangers I'd join the chorus for a review but insist the terms of reference and scope were much wider than the transgressions of one club. After all these organisations who want a review are surely interested in covering all bases to ensure future integrity and trust. Rangers could get on the front foot here. It would be a perfectly reasonable stance to take and if the SFA didn't take it and certain other clubs opppssed it we could then have a proper assessment of the desire of Scottish supporters groups and clubs like Celtic for accountability, integrity and reform. Let's face it the way we have been trashed over the last few years means we don't have anything more to lose. Bring it on but influence the scope and remit with strong statements from the Board and an insistence to be fully involved in scoping and reviewing of the process.

I don't think anyone would object to a review of SFA governance so long as it is a review of their organisation, operating model, rule book, policies and procedures, commercial and financial competence, and capability, and that such a review contributed to an improvement in our game. If the remit for such a review accepted the integrity of decisions previously made and accepted that Rangers has been severely punished already for past trangressions I would support it. If it focuses on Rangers whilst reviewing its competence (and it can't not review some of the events and the action or inaction of the SFA) it would also have to look at other clubs and the role of the SFA in their affairs. Dundee and Hearts to name but two managed to avoid appropriate scrutiny of owners and appropriate levels of punishment (Hearts brushed £30m of debt under the carpet without the SFA saying or doing anything). A review should also look at whether the SFA is fit for purpose with its policies and sanctions and powers of scrutiny over club appointments where for example clubs knowingly employ people convicted of serious criminal offences such as child sex offences. The review should also consider the appropriate level of authority and sanction the SFA has over any club knowingly covering up sex offenders in their employment such as the allegations made against Hibs in the Mark Daly documentary. It should also consider whether owners and financial backers who are under suspicion of money laundering or tax evasion in other countries should be allowed to fund clubs and if subsequently found guilty of such offences and having financed a club then determine what level of sanction should the SFA have. Etc. Bring it on.

Sums up the situation perfectly. UEFA will do nothing even if SFA compliance officer refers it to them. The action by Lawell is to appease his fans and in the process damage our reputation. I suspect in all honesty he would rather be focussing on the positives in his club rather than being distracted by this. We will have to deal with it however and it is yet more distracting bad publicity for us. With respect to Celtic fans crowdfunding a judicial review re EBTs I personally don't think they're complaint qualifies for one based on criteria for a judicial review. Celtic officials are beginning to look as foolish as some of their fans now.

Agree with CB comment. Not sure I'd like to go to any combo of Bates, Wilson, Cardoso.

Leckie's article looks like it was written by a 10 year old.

Full back for 4-4-2, attacking midfielder / number 10, and additional striker as Morelos will dry up at some time.

The statement in itself is not constructive dismissal. They (BBC) refuse to attend Ibrox because their reporter was biased and they sit on the sidelines constantly taking ignorant potshots. The arrogance is breathtaking.

Nail on head.

McKay had loads of natural talent except the ability to cross a ball. I don't know why that wasn't worked on more but he was past the age of 'prodigy'. He did not have that many assists. I'd rather have kept him but he wouldn't be in my first XI.

Exactly. We should not be afraid to play our most expensive signing. If we are afraid to test him properly then that is just as bad as if he's unfit.

Exactly. The two are allowed to talk to each other ?

I would agree with that approach. It's worrying however that he isn't even put in the lower teams. I suspect someone (I assume mark Allen) way want to look at his training stats and medical/physiological stats, his training regime, and sit down with PC to see what is going on based on hard data and decide what to do because the other side of that data is $s. Not sure if DoF remit covers that but the Board may well be asking for an 'independent' view and it would make sense to me. Not to undermine PC but to help him.

You've answered your own question Stu. He's been here 2.5 months and looks like a sack of tatties. He also has a reputation which precedes his time here and which he appears to be living up to hence he 'looks' like a dud. We have spent 2.5m on him excluding wages and he isn't fit. A pro athlete should be training hard at the very least and showing commitment and earning his money. The tea lady earns her money as do the groundsmen. Everyone has to do the same. I look fitter than him and I'm 30 years older. He is costing a lot of money every single day he is here and we are getting no return. That is not an acceptable standard. If he plays tries and he's shiite I would at least know more than I or you do now. You're defending the indefensible mate - were not a charity for hard luck stories.

Look fine with blue shorts and blue socks.

We never looked like getting beaten imo but the players need to show more creativity. That can take time as understanding develops but we need to see it soon. The defence is much more solid by and large but still needs strengthened as we don't have good enough for a back 3 when required and are a full back short of a solid back 4. Pena appears a dud and NK isn't going to do it and these are 2 players who PC was perhaps relying on. That is the area PC is most under pressure. No idea if there are funds to fix it.

Mcleish gave us some god awful football but I would trust him to get a good record against the rest of the spfl and he might grind something out against the other mob. We would be closer than it looks like now. Still think PC needs to be given the first 1/4 of the season and potential switch before Xmas transfer period.

Agree with all that. The need to say something is leading to us saying the wrong things at the wrong time and often saying too much. Re Lennon we could have very easily put the authorities on the spot yesterday and today by saying the club was not being supported in its attempts to stamp out bad behaviour because officials were not seen to be acting appropriately. That would have headed off the subsequent (and inevitable) Lennon threats at the pass in terms of how they reflect on the club. A simple statement requesting a meeting with the SFA to discuss Saturdays refereeing performance (which they are probably speaking to them about anyway) would have reassured the fans and also set down a marker. I am not clear who is running PR at the club but the board need to sort it out as it's not good and a lot if the work done by King and others on other areas is being undermined. I assume Stewart Robertson has a leadership role somewhere in this.