Search the Community

BARRY FERGUSON vents his anger at the sentence passed down to Gunning for flicking a boot at Celtic’s Virgil van Dijk, and says it is a common occurrence during matches. 20 Sep 2013 07:22 Vincent Lunny.Vincent Lunny. I DON’T care much for the SFA. I’m unlikely to get a job offer from them any time soon, that’s for sure. And this column won’t help my relationship with them either because I find it impossible to discuss the people in charge of our game without working myself into an angry rant. Here’s the problem. This should be a positive period for the Scottish game. The national team is on the way back under Gordon Strachan and Celtic were a credit to the country in the San Siro. As much as it might stick in my throat as a Rangers man, Neil Lennon and his side were excellent against AC Milan. They were the better team for 75 minutes and didn’t deserve to lose. So that’s all good. We should be feeling better about ourselves again. I should be able to look guys in the eye in the dressing room at Blackpool again and say: “You see, I told you Scottish football isn’t as bad as you lot make out.” But then the SFA go and do something stupid and you’re left to wonder why you bother. The people who run the game in this country seem hellbent on turning us all into a bad joke. And I’m sick of it. For the last week I’ve had guys down here laughing at the Ian Black betting case and asking me: “What the hell is going on up there? Can you guys not get anything right?” And there’s nothing I can say in Scotland’s defence. Down here it’s a different story. The game is run with total transparency, clear rules and disciplinary procedures that are set in stone. Everyone knows where they stand. Cameron Jerome? He broke the rules on betting and got a 50 grand fine. It was all done and dusted in a matter of days. But how long was the Black saga allowed to rumble on for? It dragged from one week to the next, one meeting to another. Even when he was finally hauled to Hampden the SFA kept everyone waiting for the decision. They hummed and hawed but said nothing for hours. And when they did, they refused to give out the details. Would it have been so difficult for chief executive Stewart Regan to come out and explain exactly what had gone on? To give details of the games in which Black had bet against his team and the reasons behind his punishment? Why would he NOT want to get the facts out there? I just don’t get it. I’ve had my say on Black. If he was in my dressing room I wouldn’t be happy with him. But I’ve also been in trouble so many times at Rangers that I know the club’s disciplinary procedures inside out. They get you in, it’s done and dusted within an hour or two then they make a statement. Why do the SFA find it so hard to act as decisively? There’s another thing that annoys me. Can anyone tell me what Vincent Lunny does? Does anyone know his remit or on what basis he decides which player he’s going to ban next? Does he sit in his house with his feet up and glass of red wine on a Sunday night watching the highlights on the BBC? And if he sees some incident replayed in slow motion, is that when he takes it upon himself to act? Because that would be a disgrace. I’ve been playing top-team football for going on 18 years. In that time there must have been about 10 incidents in every game which could have led to a player being slapped on the wrists or fined. It happens all the time. If Vincent wants to apply the rules fairly and across the board he should be watching every minute of every game or, if that’s too much, employ people to watch them for him. There are plenty of ex-pros out there looking for work. But all the games should be reviewed by someone. Anything less is just not right. Look at Gavin Gunning at Dundee United, who was banned for three matches for flicking a boot at Celtic’s Virgil van Dijk. I must flick out a leg three or four times in every game I play. Now Lunny is giving three-game bans for it? Is that what Scottish football has become? On my Rangers debut at Tynecastle, Neil Pointon nearly took my head off 10 minutes in. He smashed me in the face with his shoulder, elbow and fist all in one go. And I thought to myself: “Welcome to first-team football.” I was so dazed I hardly knew where I was. But it was a great lesson for a young player. I knew I was in a man’s game. And that’s the way football should be. Look, if there’s some bampot running around charging into tackles that can break legs or end careers, Lunny should throw the book at him. But three games for flicking out a leg? Come on. I like to see a wee ding-dong out there. Players who are fired up and getting in a few faces. That’s what it’s about in the heat of battle. But I guess Lunny wouldn’t know that. So let me give him some advice, from the front line straight to office desk. The fans love to see these flashpoints too. It’s called passion, Vinny. It’s what this game is built on – and the more you stamp it out the less people will turn up to watch. They don’t want some faceless guy at Hampden making decisions on a random basis that can harm their team. It’s the same for the players. How do you think Gunning would feel if he was sitting suspended and saw a player doing the exact same thing as he did ... and then finds out Lunny hasn’t spotted it on TV? Would that be fair? Look, I get that the whole idea about this compliance officer was to try to modernise the Scottish game. But please, make it fair. It’s the same for Black. He’ll know plenty of players who have been betting on football matches. And yet he’s the only one who gets done for it. I can’t help feel if you’re at Rangers or even Celtic the chances are they will be all over you like a rash. That’s the way I felt when the SFA were dealing with me. And the treatment Black has received shows that, despite their talk of modernising the game, nothing much has changed.

I see there is a thread over on FF about this, does anyone think the SFA would apply for special permission for Rangers if we were to win the Scottish Cup,as per UEFA article 15 below?. It would be nice to be in a position to ask the SFA for this!. Article 15 – Special permission 1 If a club qualifies for a UEFA club competition on sporting merit but has not undergone any licensing process at all or has undergone a licensing process which is lesser/not equivalent to t he one applicable for top division clubs, because it belongs to a division other t han the top division, the UEFA member association of the club concerned may – on behalf of such a club – request an extraordinary application of the club licensing system in accordance with Annex IV. 2 Based on such an extraordinary application, UEFA may grant special permission to the club to enter the corresponding UEFA club competition. Such an extraordinary application applies only to th e specific club and for the season in question. http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/uefaorg/Clublicensing/01/50/09/12/1500912_DOWNLOAD.pdf

STV - 12 September 2013 00:01 BST Rangers midfielder Ian Black will go before a Scottish Football Association committee on Thursday to answer accusations of betting against his own club on three occasions. The former Inverness CT and Hearts player is accused of putting money on his team to not win matches between March 4, 2006 and July 28, 2013. Black is also accused of betting on a further ten games in which the club he was playing for were involved in, as well as betting on a further 147 games not involving his team. It is not known which specific fixtures he is accused of placing bets on which involved the clubs he was registered with. The Scottish FA have stated that there is no evidence to suggest the player acted in a manner or influenced proceedings during a game which led to him making money. STV understands the most recent match Black bet upon was Rangers' tie with Albion Rovers in the Ramsdens Cup on July 28, 2013. Rangers won the game 4-0. It is also understood that the player's actions came to light through his use of a Ladbrokes phone account. Footballers registered in Scotland are prohibited by the Scottish FA from betting on any football match. If found guilty, players can be fined from £500 to £1,000,000 and can be either suspended or expelled from playing professional football. They are also not allowed to "behave in a manner, during or in connection with a match in which the party has participated or has any influence, either direct or indirect, which could give rise to an event in which they or any third party benefits financially through betting". The Scottish FA however have made clear there is "no evidence" to suggest Black has breached the second rule. When the allegations were first made, a Rangers spokesperson said: "The club is aware of the SFA's notice of complaint and are currently investigating the matter." http://news.stv.tv/west-central/239202-rangers-ian-black-to-go-before-sfa-committee-over-betting-claims/

http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/4989-club-statement

From the DR: from the BBC: So the fine for repeat offences actually goes down???? Given the number of charges that have been raised against us for "offensive" singing/chanting.....UEFA must be paying us now....

Haven't seen this on RM or here but according to the Daily Mail today McColl's gang tried to bring back McClelland as the chairman. Absolutely frightful stuff if true. A real return to the old days when he was Murray's puppet and presided over record levels of debt. I'm neither here nor there with the current board and prospective future board. To me they all remind of the South Park episode where a douche and a turd compete with each other. But it's absolutely disparaging that our prospective leaders want a return of one of our past failures.

http://sport.stv.tv/football/238344-celtic-chief-executive-peter-lawwell-appointed-to-board-of-scottish-fa/ Celtic chief executive Peter Lawwell has been appointed to the board of the Scottish Football Association. The 54-year-old has been nominated as the representative of the Professional Game Board, which contributes to the running of football in Scotland. Lawwell joins the Scottish FA's chief Executive Stewart Regan, president Campbell Ogilvie, Alan McRae, Rod Petrie and Barrie Jackson on the board.

http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/164607084

McColl statement: "Over the last couple of days we have been approached by members of the Rangers board seeking to explore whether there may be scope for a negotiation on the composition of the Rangers board which would avoid the need for a general meeting. "These discussions were conducted in good faith but unfortunately the board was unable to deliver the changes sought by the shareholders who have requisitioned the general meeting. "We are aware that the company is due to have its first AGM in October and so, in the interests of saving the club expense and time, we have discussed with the board a proposal to combine proceedings with the resolutions we sought as part of a general meeting being followed by the 'normal' business of the AGM. "To allow time to deal with the mechanics of combining the resolutions which would otherwise have come up at two separate meetings, we have agreed to give the company until close of business on Tuesday 27 August to agree the terms of the legal paperwork. "In the meantime we would encourage the board to make the changes that we believe are being demanded by the majority of stakeholders in the club."

Analysis: is Blue Knight Paul Murray fighting a losing battle? Hugh Macdonald Wednesday 21 August 201 THE shifting quicksands of the Rangers saga have consumed a variety of personalities. Charles Green, the bluff Yorkshireman from central casting, joined the ranks yet again of those who have been banished from the drama on the south side but a more significant character now has a leading role in what will happen at Ibrox. The name of Paul Murray was absent from a Rangers statement in the wake of the dismissal of Green as a consultant but it does not require the combined skills of Interpol to deduce that he forms a block to any immediate resolution to the boardroom problems. To summarise the plot so far, if somewhat crudely: there is a move from outside the boardroom to remove Brian Stockbridge, Craig Mather and Bryan Smart and replace them with Frank Blin and Murray. A club statement last night read: "This board has been working tirelessly to find an intelligent solution to the request for a general meeting and all of the directors are open to sensible and reasonable additions. For instance, the board are not against Frank Blin becoming a director but do have reservations about other proposals.'' When it comes to Murray, some on the board have more reservations than the Apaches. There was a feeling of relief that Green had gone, a belief among his opponents that a metaphorical stake had finally been placed through the heart of the significant shareholder, but there was also an anxiety about his almost diabolical powers of recovery. The most pressing difficulty for Rangers, however, centres on Murray. The opposition group could make a compromise by suggesting Blin, former executive chairman of PricewaterhouseCoopers Scotland, is joined on the board by A.N Other. Jim McColl, part of the outside group, would not consider such a role but the more intriguing aspect is the willingness or otherwise of Murray to relinquish his attempt to join a board that needs stability. The indications last night were surprising concrete given the fluidity of events at Ibrox. First, it seems there exists a strong aversion to bringing in Murray from among existing board members. Second, there was no sign of Murray issuing any sort of statement saying he would fall on his sword to facilitate peace, at least for the present. The objections are believed to be both personal and on matters of business. The accountant was part of the board before Craig Whyte bought the club and is seen by some as part of the problem rather than part of the solution. One City source said: "Murray had his chance to influence matters when he was on the board and then had his chance with the Blue Knights. There is no mood among some on the board to bring him back into the fold.'' The private concerns are shrouded in claim and counter claim. The Rangers story has been extraordinarily messy with dirt thrown in all directions. Information has leaked steadily. Murray, rightly or wrongly, has been suspected as one of those who have used media outlets to his advantage. If true, he would stand in a crowded dock as the briefings have come from almost every source, every faction. However, the fog of war has cleared just a little over Ibrox. Green has been sacked, disposed of by an increasingly frustrated and determined Mather. There is now an opportunity for compromise and even, heaven forfend, resolution of the boardroom struggle. This could come in a variety of forms. Two options are most likely. The first is Murray stands down and the McColl group is allowed to bring in Blin and an unspecified ally. The second is that Murray, backed by McColl, stands his ground and maintains his attempt to come on to the board. This eventuality would be fast-tracked by the approval of a vote at the extraordinary general meeting. The crux of the matter is this: if the McColl group is sure of the support of a group of shareholders, it will feel it has no need to sacrifice the candidature of Murray. McColl and his cohorts will flex their muscle and the Blue Room will undergo yet another change of cast. Mather, it must be presumed, would not wait to be pushed and Stockbridge and Smart would face a limited future. There are a couple of possible twists, of course. This is a Rangers story, after all. The first is Murray could step aside temporarily, peace could break out and he could then be brought on board at a later stage. The second is that the present board finds enough support to win any vote. There is also the possibility of hearing the less than dulcet tones of Green joining the increasingly raucous debate. He may be gone but no one will be surprised at another scene-stealing interruption from the former chief executive. However, the narrative is now about Murray. Will he walk away or will he pursue his ambition to be on the board? History suggests it be latter option. The arithmetic will decide whether the erstwhile Blue Knight finally lands his prize. http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/analysis-is-blue-knight-paul-murray-fighting-a-losing-battle.1377061992

Great post http://themanthebheastscanttame.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/always-bet-on-black/

Excellent article submitted by der Berliner A view from afar â?? The Reconstruction Lie? A little more than a year ago, Rangers FC went into administration. In the process of the club being handed over into the hands of a new company, the SPL board went out of their way to hand responsibility about its member's â?? i.e. Rangers' â?? future into the hands of their supporters. Those people at the board simply declining to do their job, or even contemplating that Rangers might have been led into administration by a criminal â?? as has been confirmed over the course of last year (and you hardly find a journalist north of Hadrian's Wall to say so). So off it went to the impartial fans of all the other SPL teams and had e.g. Bayern Munich been in a similar position and faced a vote from the BL fans, they would have played Bundesliga 2 football for a year or so too. A farce from top to bottom. Not that this was unexpected by the SPL bosses, who obviously assumed that the challenge for silverware and European places would be greater, people would come back to watch their teams in the new one-horse race in droves. Those same fans who cried blood-and-vengeance at their clubs, should they not vote Rangers out of the SPL. Those same fans who apparently developed a greater liking to gardening, video-gaming, or curling during the course of the season. It did not take the SPL board long to resume its powers after that, urging (to say the least) the SFL to place Rangers not into the lowest tier (according to the SFL rules), but into the First Division. For anything else would imperil the SPL's TV deals, constructed neatly around 4 to 6 Old Firm games per season. The SFA jumped in and told the SFL that for the greater good of the game, that was the way to do it. The â?? naughty and unruly - SFL stuck to their own rules though â?? as well as the opinion of their chairmen and fans. Rangers were included in the set-up like any new team, in the lowest tier. The SPL quickly got back into stride after that stumble and coerced the SFL into accepting a TV deal that included the screaming of the SFL's Rangers, much to the benefit of the SPL clubs. That did not help the state of affairs of the SPL though. Facts and figures show that its income has dropped, attendances went down at an alarming rate, despite what the SPL's boss Doncaster tries to tell the audience. With the SPL facing various legal bills now, a TV deal only known to Doncaster and possibly his close ally Lawwell, and many SPL clubs hardly able to sustain themselves, does anyone actually think that this same body is actually able to keep up with the financial backing of the SFL, the back-up they proposed alongside their 12-12-18 reconstruction? A recent survey was clearly telling that the football supporters were opposed to the 12-12-18 plan the SPL tries to sell as the last-possible option (why?). SFL clubs were asking their supporters about this and while they all agreed that change was required, there was a clear understanding that 12-12-18 was not the format to move forward, nor was it required straight after this season. But this time, the SPL bosses â?? along with those at the SFA â?? seem to disregard the opinion of the clubs' supporters, not least those of the SFL. Selective democracy? Rather on the contrary, the chairmen of Dundee United and Aberdeen show great endeavour to discredit other chairmen like those of St. Mirren and Ross County, who appear to stand firm in their critique of the proposed changes. Those who were fore-runners of fan-power and the call for â??sporting integrityâ?? - which essentially ignored that fact that Rangers FC on the park were indeed the same Rangers FC as before, despite new owners (â??not guilty until provenâ? springs to mind) â?? now deny this very same right to their fellow chairmen and supporters? And in fact blame them for being self-interested and not looking for the greater good of the game? These people certainly don't do irony! Last season, the whole lot of them acted purely out of self-interest when voting Rangers out of the SPL, looking for greater gains and more money than ever before, not least the likes of the New Firm, Aberdeen and Dundee United. How could they have envisaged that they will end â?? again â?? up in mid-table of a weakened SPL, crowds dwindling, quality dropping? How could they have envisaged that the likes of Inverness Caledonian Thistle or Ross County put up a more sterner challenge to the league race than their own distinguished teams? So why the urgency in the reconstruction, a reconstruction lead and essentially forced through by the SPL, a reconstruction that is being tauted as â??now or neverâ??? Casting aside the rather convoluted split system that does not help Scottish football develop or being any more attractive than it is now â?? not least for those teams in the 18-league. There is only one real reason why the SPL teams need their way here, the reconstruction under their terms: the plight of the SPL. It faces up to law cases with regards to money owed to a pub-owner (1.7m), prize money owed to Rangers FC (2.3m, oldco or newco does not matter), and face the legal bills of their very own EBT-case chase from Harper McLeod. Apart from the TV deals that only Doncaster and probably Lawwell have seen, TV deals that should help them pay the SFL teams after the reconstruction? TV deals that are not yet signed and delivered? You wonder why no-one in the media has ever had the audacity to ask the SPL about their financing programme? Or shall I say moonbeams? And with those Doncaster and Co. run about and try to bully their fellow SPL chairmen and those of the SFL into agreeing to their deal? You wonder if they actually check their accounts every now and then? Let's make no mistake here. The SPL is walking on empty and if the reconstruction is not being pressed through this year, there might not be a SPL left in 6 months time. Which in turn leaves a dozen teams without a league and facing the prospect of asking their way back into the Scottish game via the SFL and â?¦ the Rangers route. The SFL teams should be very aware of this. They hold nigh all the aces after the SPL dug their own grave last summer. They may actually start to invite the likes of St. Mirren and Ross County into the SFL under their terms of reconstruction. There's nothing that should stop the SFL taking over the reigns of all four divisions in Scotland again this summer, keeping the current format, but under a hierarchical structure â?? again. And while the TV deals et al are being utilized by one body for all, learned people can start to create a model better suited for the Scottish game as such, in time for the season after next. The SPL and a cabal of chairmen have ruined the whole Scottish set-up, mainly out of self-interest. It is time that they are removed from the game, for the better of the game. In that respect, stand firm Ross County, stand firm SFL! Fan Survey