Jump to content

 

 

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'thomson'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Main Forums
    • Rangers Chat
    • General Football Chat
    • Bluenose Lounge
    • Forum Support and Feedback

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


About Me


Location


Interests


Occupation


Favourite Rangers Player


Twitter


Facebook


Skype

  1. Whilst I am very happy with the statements released tonight I do however have one major concern. That is the return of a certain Martin Edward Bain. This man in my opinion has done some serious damage to our great club, a lot of which has been hidden by the media and not discussed. This includes negotiating with Strathclyde's finest "not" to charge a certain manager of another club for racial and sectarian abuse. Allowing most media outlets to have a free for all against our club and its supporters without defending them once in a court of law. Vastly increasing his salary when our club had to downsize and reduce debt. Forcing the sale of certain players and lying to them personally about it. (Pedro Mendes being just one example). If Dave King returns there is a strong chance that this chancer will be making an appearance as well. Whilst Craig Mather may have put the nail in one coffin we must always be very aware of another return of the living dead. Please don't let this idiot ever get his feet under the table again.
  2. Posted by Roy Greenslade It will be interesting to see if any newspaper covers the fact that members of Britain's armed forces appeared to join in with Scottish football fans as they sang sectarian songs at a match yesterday. Initial reports suggest not. Some 400 uniformed soldiers, seamen and air force personnel attended an armed forces day at Ibrox, the Rangers ground. After a formal march and band music, a group of soldiers (they were in khaki) were filmed dancing, clapping and singing along with the crowd. Although it is difficult to make out the exact words on the video posted on YouTube, people have identified sectarian songs and chants celebrating the death of the IRA hunger striker Bobby Sands. Rival Celtic fans were quick to point to songs that are supposed to be banned from all Scottish football grounds under a new law passed by the Scottish parliament. One commenter to the YouTube site wrote of it being a "disgusting vile and tawdry spectacle". Another wrote: "Shocking stuff. I hope this vid is forwarded to the footballing and army authorities." Two media reports about the events that have been published - one here on the STV site and another here on the Daily Record site - make no reference to the soldiers' antics. The STV report mentioned that an army band "entertained fans" and quoted Major General Nick Eeles, general officer commanding Scotland, as saying it was hoped to make it into an annual event. The Record did write that "the match-day experience began in dramatic circumstances" but only because two marines "abseiled down the Govan stand ahead of kick-off, before delivering the match ball to the referee." How odd that both outlets missed the story? Or do their reporters think soldiers chanting jingoistic sectarian songs in unison with football fans is unworthy of comment? Incidentally, Saturday was not the official armed forces celebration day in Britain (that falls in the close season). The club, with the full approval of the military, decided to stage its own separate event. http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade
  3. LET me start with a confession: I like Monster Munch. In fact, I’m particularly fond of pickled onion. There you go, I just wanted to get that out in the open because something happened at Forfar at the weekend that made my mind drift back to one of the most controversial periods of my career. And, yes, I realise there were a few. But there was nothing quite like the time when Paul Le Guen told me I was finished at Rangers and people tried to make it out it was over a bag of crisps. For those who don’t remember, sit back and let me explain. We’ll start last Sunday at Station Park where Rangers struggled to a 1-0 win and got slaughtered for their display. I didn’t see it but by all accounts it was dire and a throwback to last season when Ally McCoist had a hard time of things in the Third Division. But there was one big difference between Sunday and the worst days of the previous campaign when so many points were dropped at places such as Peterhead, Stirling and Berwick. The difference was Rangers won. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying for a second there’s any excuse for a team like Rangers to be struggling to win at Forfar. There isn’t. What I am saying, however, is that even though they had a bad day at least they left the place with three points. That wasn’t always the case last season and, to me, it’s a sign some of the club’s old standards are on the way back. Standards that I was raised on. Standards that Rangers were built on. Standards that I thought might disappear for good during Le Guen’s time in charge seven years ago. A lot has been made about my relationship with the Frenchman. I know there are Rangers fans out there who still think I undermined him or stabbed him in the back. So I’d like to use this column to set a few things straight. First, you have to understand the way I was brought up as a kid working under John Brown and John McGregor. They kept things simple: At Rangers nothing less than three points is ever acceptable. Yes, they wanted us to play well and encouraged us to express ourselves but the most important lesson they taught us was that you’ll never cut it as a Rangers player if you pull that shirt on and think it’s OK to lose. That was driven into my head every day of my young life until it became a state of mind and a way of life. So yes, I’ll hold my hands up right now. To this day I am guilty of wanting to win every game I play. I know I run around with my wee face all screwed up, moaning at everyone and everything but it’s only because I care so much about winning. To me, that’s just the Rangers way – if you don’t care if you lose or draw then you’ve no business being there. And that’s was the root of my problem under Le Guen. The truth is, the longer it went on the more I was struggling to recognise the Rangers I had grown up with. Under Le Guen, it was becoming acceptable to drop points on a Saturday. In fact, it was becoming the norm. And I admit I just couldn’t get my head around it. Now, people have their own opinions about what went on between us. But I was there, I know what went on inside that dressing room and I’d challenge him to deny or contradict anything I’m about to tell you. Week after week I walked off the pitch to be told: “It’s OK, let’s stick together and just move on to the next game.” That’s alright after one bad game. Or maybe if a team is going through a wee sticky patch. But not EVERY week. After EVERY embarrassing result. It was a gradual build-up, over weeks and months. His shrug-of -the-shoulders attitude was eating away at me inside because this was the club I loved. I was the Rangers captain and these results were killing me. It was humiliating. And the worst bit of it was, I could see it rubbing off on others until there were players sitting in that dressing room who didn’t seem to care if we won, lost or drew. The standards I had grown up with were disappearing. I held my tongue as best I could but it was only a matter of time until I eventually snapped. That day came on December 27, 2006, at Inverness. We had been winning 1-0 but ended up losing 2-1. I think we slipped to fourth or fifth in the table. I mean, it was getting ridiculous. And what did I hear when I walked into that dressing room? “It’s OK. We must stick together.” That was it, I just couldn’t listen to it any more. So I said: “Aye, we must stick together. But it’s not f****** OK that we’ve lost another three points. What part of that don’t you get? This is Glasgow Rangers you are working for.” I admit I lost the head. I was just so angered by the lack of passion. I couldn’t look round any more at people who didn’t care if Rangers won or lost. Yes, maybe I was guilty of letting my emotions boil over. Maybe I lost my cool in that dressing room on that day. But I just couldn’t take any more of it. But that was it. It wasn’t as if I asked the guy outside for a square-go. I put my hand on my heart and say, I never caused that man one problem. I never once knocked down his door. Yes, OK I might have eaten the occasional packet of Monster Munch which might have been against his nutritional rules but come on? Listen, I’m all for players looking after themselves and eating well. But no one is going to tell me a packet of pickled onion now and again is going to take years off your career. It’s nonsense. Is that what people mean when they say I undermined him? Honestly, I don’t know where all that comes from and it makes me angry just thinking about it. It was all I read in the papers or heard on the phone-ins. I swear none of it was true. I was guilty of one thing – being passionate about my club and going a bit daft at Inverness. But I had no idea the price he wanted me to pay for it until I walked into Murray Park a few days later to prepare for an away game at Motherwell. His assistant, Yves Colleu, shouted for me and I went into the manager’s office and Le Guen began to speak to me like I was some sort of alien. I wasn’t even allowed to sit down. He just told me I’d never play for the club again and to leave the building. I was in a daze. I got my bag and walked to my car without saying anything to the other lads. I got a few hundred yards down the road before I pulled in and realised what had just happened. I was shattered. As things turned out, it was Le Guen’s Rangers career that was over. Very soon after that, Walter Smith was back in charge. And overnight Rangers got their standards back. That’s why the result at Forfar pleased me the other day. And put me right in the mood for a packet of my favourite crisps.
  4. 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.
  5. Scotland it would appear has a new form of immunity allowing persons to express an opinion with apparent impunity. All that is required is to precede whatever you have to say with the phrase "Some would say". The phrases' creator - BBC Scotland's Jim Spence - has overlooked one small detail however - his previous comments on the subject. A quick search through the BBC archives reveal that Jim Spence has previously alluded to Rangers having died or being no more. Therefore not only is he erroneous in with his use of this "get out clause" - he is also disingenuous. Perhaps the BBC Scotland investigation into this furore will consider this fact in it's conclusions. If it fails to, then their investigation will be deemed little more that a whitewash. In some ways it should come as no surprise to us that there is a movement to pronounce life extinct over Ibrox way. I say that, having recently re-visited American Psychologist Gordon Allport's Scale of Prejudice, where the conduct of these proponents that Rangers are dead display all the characteristics required of the prejudiced bigot. Allport's scale determines the following 5 stages :- Anti-locution – this would include jokes, negative stereotypes as well as hate speech Avoidance – the target is treated in such a way as to be effectively isolated Discrimination – Denial of opportunity, restriction of rights etc. Physical Attack – self explanatory. Extermination – the majority group seek extermination or removal of the minority group. Whilst often applied in situations which involves genocide, Allport's Scale is also used in modern day Britain as an industry standard in determining prejudice within the workplace. In such a setting the extermination stage manifests itself with the victim either leaving or being forced to leave the work place. For a Rangers support often referred to as “Huns”, likened to a “bunch of bigoted troglodytes, almost to a man”, and whose club were denied the fundamental principal of innocence until proven guilty, along with numerous other instances of unfair and unjust treatment, it should come as no surprise to us as we tick through the various stages that we would eventually end up at extermination. Of course that hatred and prejudice manifests itself daily on social media networks where Rangers supporters are no longer “Huns” or “Orange Bastards” instead they are “Zombies” or “Sevconians”. However this appears to be little more than a “wish-list” mentality, which requires “believers” to ignore considerable evidence, rulings and judgements to the contrary. I wont recount Lord Nimmo Smith's commentary regarding Rangers continuing as a footballing entity - it has been cited in many a previous discourse on this subject - suffice to say one of the most respected legal brains has passed his judgement on the matter. So too of course have the SFA, The European Clubs Association, UEFA and, perhaps as an indication of how desperate some are to confirm the death of Rangers, even the Advertising Standards Authority. Those proponents of “Zombies” and “Sevconians” appear more than happy to ignore the evidence in order that their wishes can be realised, in fact they give new meaning to the term “Ignorance is bliss”. Who said blind hatred was a bad thing ? But what of the Jim Spence's and Graham Spiers of this world, who, whilst not using the terms “zombies” or “sevconians”, continually repeat the mantra, that Rangers have died ? What separates them from the knuckle dragging element motivated by hatred bigotry and prejudice, who scream about “zombies” and “sevconians” ? The answer is – very little. For in arriving at such a conclusion they too have exercised the necessary exclusion of facts and chosen to ignore the authority and expertise of those previously cited. What is particularly interesting with both Spiers and Spence is that in making such assertions they refuse continually to mention or comment on Lord Nimmo Smith's ruling, the SFA Transfer of licence or the European Club's Association determination on Rangers. The real question for me is why they are doing this. Why are allegedly objective and impartial journalists choosing to ignore the considerable body of evidence available and arrive at conclusions which are at odds with that evidence ? Or do our journalists now have a right to deliberately mislead and misinform the public ? It is perhaps ironic that last week, Alex Thomson of Channel 4 News, who has a colourful history with the Rangers support released the following tweet :- “it's a pointless debate - you cannot "kill" an FC like Rangers. Isn't this obvious? And an FC is more than a PLC end of.” So over to you Messrs Spiers and Spence, the floor as they say is yours – explain to this Rangers support why you have arrived at the conclusion that Rangers are dead. It shouldn't be that hard for you – you have after all repeated it often enough. Tell us why Lord Nimmo Smith is wrong in his legal conclusions, why the SFA were misguided to transfer the licence and why the ECA have determined the situation incorrectly. Because at the moment their appears to be little to separate you from those whose motivations are based on prejudice, blind hatred and bigotry.
  6. http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/5104-ian-black-exclusive Does not wash with me.
  7. He's still a chunt though
  8. Scotland manager Gordon Strachan has called up four players ahead of their World Cup qualification double header. Craig Bryson, Chris Burke, Kevin Thomson and Lee Wallace have been added to the squad after West Brom's James Morrison and Graham Dorrans withdrew. Strachan's side host Belgium on Friday before a trip to Macedonia the following Tuesday. Morrison withdrew with a groin problem while Dorrans's injury has not been disclosed. West Brom midfielder Morrison, who scored in Scotland's 3-2 defeat by England, suffered a groin injury in Sunday's defeat by Swansea. "He felt a pain in his groin just before half-time, the last couple of minutes in the first half," said Albion boss Steve Clarke. "The medical people will assess it but I would imagine he is doubtful for the Scotland trip." Scotland currently sit in fifth place in qualifying Group A with five points from seven games.
  9. 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.
  10. Amidst his unsurprising defence of Jack Irvine, it's interesting that Bill is suggesting a deal to avoid an EGM is 'likely'... http://billmcmurdo.wordpress.com/2013/09/03/civil-war-stalemate/
  11. On Saturday, not long after the Stranraer match, the club published a statement entitled, “For the Avoidance of Doubt”. The article was written under the tag, ‘Rangers Football Club’, although almost everyone acknowledges that it was probably penned by the club’s Director of Communications, James Traynor. Although the statement was generally well received by Rangers fans, it was more noticeable for what it didn’t say, rather than what it actually did say. Whilst the statement is welcome, it is long overdue, and I doubt if it will have any substantive or meaningful impact on the serial Rangers haters who constantly misrepresent and malign our club. I suspect that most Rangers fans consider the statement to be much too terse, and would have preferred a more comprehensive, robust and forceful statement. Certainly given the nature and content of the statement, it is noticeable for its failure to comment on the serial offenders at Rangers who consistently utilise the local anti-Rangers media to further their own agendas, or censure those Rangers bloggers who are aligned with one side or another in the current Boardroom wars, and who often give interviews to the local rags, including the Daily Record. In fact it fails to confront the leaks that are clearly emanating from Ibrox, and it doesn’t ‘sit well’ with the fact that our board of directors, club officials and employees regularly utilise the local rags for their own ends. Fine words from James Traynor – but actions speak much louder than words! It is for that reason I have penned an alternative version of “For the Avoidance of Doubt”. For The Avoidance of Doubt (Alternative version) “Rangers Football Club is aware of wildly inaccurate stories circulating on various websites and would like fans to know that these flights of fancy will be monitored by our lawyers. Where it is considered necessary, we will instruct our lawyers to initiate legal action against the owners and administrators of any website, or any other media vehicle, that publishes (or disseminates by any other means) material that is inaccurate, libellous or misrepresents the club’s position in any way. The club will keep fans advised of any action initiated as a consequence of this monitoring process and will provide regular updates on the club’s official platforms. In particular, our lawyers are examining a malicious piece which seems to suggest that the club does not own its facilities. That suggestion is, of course, utter nonsense, and the club wishes to make it unequivocally clear that the club owns all of its facilities in their entirety. We urge Rangers fans to treat these idiotic and lumbering articles with the contempt they deserve. Better still, ignore them completely. However, we acknowledge that many fans may wish to analyse and assess them and, where appropriate, respond to their misrepresentations by means of their own websites and blogs. Indeed the club recognises the very practical assistance provided by the fans in monitoring these articles and responding in circumstances where the club is, either, unable or unwilling to do so. But we must also stress we cannot waste time responding publicly to every blog or ridiculous claim against the club, although we acknowledge the magnificent work that has been done by Rangers fans in challenging the reprehensible Rangers Tax Case blog; BBC Scotland’s consistent misrepresentations and its inaccurate and biased reporting; the vindictive and malign blogs of those such as Alex-Thomson of Channel 4, Phil Four Names, Paul McConville and, of course, those journalists in the mainstream media such as Graham Spiers, Tom English, Keith Jackson etc. who continually misrepresent, and unreasonably, attack our club. There is also a dangerous proliferation of anonymous obsessive’s on various social media sites and we will not give them any credence, although we will continue to monitor the material they publish and seek to identify the source of any leaks, particularly where specific material is proven to be genuine correspondence emanating from Rangers Football Club. In such circumstances we will take appropriate action against any director or officer of the club who is found responsible for leaking confidential information including, if necessary, precautionary suspension and summary dismissal. Nor can we react to every journalist and publication that appears to pursue an anti-Rangers agenda; publications such as the Daily Record which today boasts yet another headline which does not accurately reflect what manager Ally McCoist said in his press conference yesterday. The paper’s intent is clear, and we urge our fans to see it for what it is, as we urge those prominent bloggers who are closely aligned to the Club, and prepared to give interviews to the Daily Record, and provide them with information relating to the business of our board, its shareholders and the club’s operations, to desist forthwith. In this regard, the club will make every effort to ensure that no member of its board, any shareholder, club official or employee will provide information to, or give interviews to, the Daily Record or any of the other recognised anti- Rangers media. If Rangers fans want the truth they will find it only on the club’s official platforms, and we will make every effort to ensure that, from this point onward, there is substantive and meaningful information available to fans on the club’s platforms in relation to current anti-Rangers news stories, statements that misrepresent the club’s stated position and those that are causing significant concern to the fans. This is particularly relevant given the current boardroom upheavals. Finally, Jack Irvine of Media House does not speak for this Club, although we can confirm that he and Media House currently represent the interests of the Easdale brothers who are major shareholders in Rangers Football Club.”
  12. MYSTERY still surrounds just what sort of a dodgy deal disgraced former commercial director Imran Ahmad struck with the even more disgraced and totally discredited Craig Whyte in order to get his hands on the former owner’s Rangers shares. However, by the admission of Imran Ahmad’s front man, Charles Green, we do know that some sort of shady back street deal was struck between Imran Ahmad and Craig Whyte. We know it was more than just the “stringing Whyte along” tactic claimed by Ahmad and Green. We know because Charles Green revealed it in a letter to the Scottish Football Association in which he wrote that in July last year, after liquidation, Imran Ahmad was given the task of getting his hands on Craig Whyte’s shares. The reason, again according to Charles Green in the same letter, was that this was necessary in order that a name change could be effected from Sevco Scotland to incorporate the words, Rangers Football Club. What Charles Green insists Imran Ahmad did not do, again the Green claim is made in his letter to the SFA, was make any form of legal commitment in relation to remuneration or compensation for the shares. So, just how did he get them? For we know, according to the gospel of Charles Green, what Imran Ahmad did not do. What we do not know is just what sort of deal – which did not involve any form of legal negotiation – Imran Ahmad actually did cook up with fraudster Craig Whyte. And that is something which will surely thwart any outrageous plans Imran Ahmad may be making to return to Ibrox , despite the fact he has now sold almost all of his Rangers shares and made an obscene profit. And Charles Green’s close association with Imran Ahmad and his unwillingness to make the nature of the Imran Ahmad-Craig Whyte stitch up known, will also bar his way to the Blue Room. For the Scottish Football Association have already pounced on this latest gaping hole and inconsistency in the letter Charles Green sent to them in April when he was still chief executive. By the time the SFA replied to Rangers, Green had been booted out of that role, therefore the reply was sent to then chairman Malcolm Murray, now, of course, no longer on the board. In the letter, the SFA said they were a little bemused by the events of July 2012 in relation to securing Craig Whyte’s shares, as the understanding was by that time the Ahmad-Green Consortium had indicated to Whyte that he would not be part of the structure in the future and that once the asset transfer had gone through they had essentially severed their connections with him. The SFA further added that in that context it seemed curious Whyte was willing to co-operate with Ahmad to transfer shares and to facilitate the passing of name changing resolutions. Then, quite properly, the SFA asked what arrangements had been entered into at that point to procure Whyte’s co-operation. The SFA also pointed out that the Administrators had appeared to have insisted on the release of the debenture relating to shares earlier than July 2012. Finally, the SFA asked why this did not enable the Consortium to take control of the shares? Why indeed? It seems, once again, Charles Green has indulged in his old tactic of believing bullshit baffles brains. And once again been caught out. With still no real clarity as to what the real relationship, as late in post liquidation in July 2012, was between Imran Ahmad, Charles Green and Craig Whyte. ..... AND...... I am looking forward to meeting The People at a special dinner at Ibrox to launch the first ever biography of the great Bill Struth. The event, on Saturday September 7th, is being organised by Simon Leslie, the man behind the successful tribute dinner to Iron Curtain goalkeeper Bobby Brown which celebrated his 90th birthday last April. Further details of the Struth celebration are available on the Follow Follow site or by contacting Simon at sie1872@googlemail.com
  13. HEARTS star Craig Thomson has been arrested and charged over claims he preyed on a girl of 12. Thomson, 20, faces "historic" allegations of grooming behaviour on social networking sites. It's been claimed he tried to lure the youngster into meeting up with him more than two years ago. The girl, now aged 15 â?? who claims to have been targeted over a two year period â?? is understood to be from the Lothian area. Cops have now reported the footballer to the Crown Office. Last night a Lothian and Borders police spokeswoman said: "We can confirm that a 20-year-old man has been arrested and charged with an historic offence. "A report has been sent to the procurator fiscal." Thomson, from Bonnyrigg, Midlothian, has only recently returned to Scotland after a loan deal in Lithuania. Last night the player was not available for comment. And a spokesman for the Tynecastle side declined to comment. Thomson had been playing for Jambos owner Vladimir Romanov's other club Kaunas on loan. But with the Lithuanian team's season over Thomson returned to Scotland last month. He has not been training with the rest of the squad as uncertainty hangs over his future in the game. The right-back came through the youth system at Tynecastle and is contracted to Hearts until 2013. A Crown Office spokeswoman said: "We can confirm that the procurator fiscal at Edinburgh received a report concerning a man aged 20, in relation to an alleged incident on 11 April 2009. "The case remains under consideration." Hearts were rocked this week by supremo Romanov's plans to pull -out from the cash-strapped club. Read more: http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/3946043/Hearts-ace-preyed-on-girl-12.html#ixzz1e8cbUQ3C
  14. HEARTS pervert Craig Thomson sparked outrage last night as it emerged he could be back playing at the SPL club in weeks. Thomson, 20, was sent into exile by the Jambos in the summer after his sleazy online sex chats with underage girls disgusted fans. But insiders say he's now set to return to Tynecastle in a fortnight when his loan deal with Lithuanian side FBK Kaunas expires. A furious source told The Scottish Sun: "He's a devious predator and he's back for us to deal with again. "The loan deal was supposed to take him out of the spotlight â?? but it hasn't worked because people have long memories. "He is still a Hearts player so the odds are he will return to Scotland." And a source close to one of Thomson's traumatised young victims said: "If he is going to go back to playing football when he returns, it will be with Hearts. "Surely the club can't allow him back. He should be behind bars." Thomson, who is contracted to Hearts until 2013, has been playing for Jambos owner Vladimir Romanov's other club Kaunas since he was exposed as a slimy web predator. But Kaunas have just two games left in their season â?? with the final match on November 6. It will be up to Hearts bosses whether they keep him at Tynecastle, sell him or loan him out again. The deviant defender became an outcast after being convicted of online sex chats with two girls aged just 12 and 14. A court heard he pestered the youngest victim to strip off for a webcam. The disgraced star also told the older girl he wanted to have sex with her â?? and sent explicit pictures of himself. He was fined just £4,000 and put on the sex offenders' register at Edinburgh Sheriff Court in June. Last month the player sneaked back to his home in Bonnyrigg, Midlothian, to visit family. When we confronted him the snivelling coward blamed our coverage of his sickening crimes for "ruining" his life. Thomson â?? who's made 51 appearances for Hearts â?? is also facing a new police probe after a girl of 15 came forward and claimed he bombarded her with sleazy messages when she was only 12. No one from Hearts was available for comment last night. Read more: http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/3892525/Pervert-back-at-Hearts.html#ixzz1bmjTqOHG
  15. I think it's safe to say that regardless of how we feel about preseason friendly results, and performances, we are all united in pretty significant displeasure at our club's rather woefully inadequate performance in the transfer market this window. We have made just the one solitary signing, the promising looking Juanma, in the tricky slot of winger, so it's safe to say that Weiss has been replaced. But elsewhere we appear to be going sideways. We've failed to bring in any strikers at all, with failed attempts at getting Hemed and the on-going soap opera that is Goodwillie. Now we've turned our attention to Kenny Miller, which looks like the easy option. And I understand Ally has a personal friendship with Miller which may explain his interest in getting him back. This isn't the end of the world - we have the best SPL striker in Jelavic, the well-rated Naismith, the enigmatic Lafferty and the potentially effective SPL goal getter in Healy. Which isn't appalling. We also have Beattie too but best to gloss over that one eh? Midfield hasn't fared too well either, with links to Wanyama, Livermore, and Danns coming to nothing - leaving us looking like, bar Juanma, going into the new season with pretty much the same midfield as we had last year. This isn't a total travesty, because again, we're quite well endowed in this area - Ness, McCulloch, Edu, Davis - it's not Xavi and Iniesta but it's not bad. I guess the area we're all most worried about is defence, and it's clear Ally is too. At present we have Whittaker as a cert for right back, and it's becoming clear why Ally was so desperate to hold onto him - we wouldn't have been able to find an adequate replacement. In the middle we have the seasoned veterans Bougherra, Weir and Broadfoot - none of whom really inspire confidence despite being more or less ever present 3 seasons in a row. And at left back the honest but limited Papac, something of a cult figure but only because a really good wing back these days costs a bomb or requires a lucky find in some South American league *cough* Izzaguirre *cough*. It's for this reason we have been linked significantly to around 7 defenders - Cuellar, Wilson, Bartley, Rodriguez, Khomalo and Wallace. And appear no closer to signing any of them, having had an apparently paltry bid for Rodriguez rejected by his parent club Espanyol. Bids for Cuellar and Wallace were also dismissed out of hand and it's pretty clear that bringing in players is a hell of a lot harder than it used to be. It does help having money - Walter Smith during his second spell had to fix the side and was able to buy players like Naismith, Thomson, Whittaker, Davis et al - guys who cost 2M a pop easily. Nowadays, even under this new ownership and a new era, we simply don't seem to have the cash to splash out on players the club desperately need. It's not easy to sign a player - the negotiations can go on for a long time, other clubs can hijack deals, and ultimately a bid is rejected. But it's clear Smith, Ally and Whyte have to up the ante to bring in players otherwise this increasingly rusty team is going to break. Especially at the back - 7 defenders we are currently in negotiations over, which appears to be like a lucky dip - you take what you can get. Well we have to hope we get something good, and soon.
  16. Craig Thomson will leave Heart of Midlothian Football Club imminently. The club has considered all implications surrounding the issue and has decided to find a solution for the player to leave the club over the forthcoming days. http://www.heartsfc.co.uk/articles/20110710/craig-thomson_2241384_2389813
  17. HEARTS star Craig Thomson was put on the sex offenders' register yesterday for preying on two girls aged 12 and 14 over the internet. The 20-year-old right-back, who also plays for Scotland under-21s, will remain on the register for five years. He was also fined �£4000. Prosecutors told how Thomson swapped email addresses with the girls after asking them to be his friends on Facebook. The first girl was only 13 when Thomson approached her online. She had her age and birth date on her Facebook profile but Thomson still engaged her in sexual chat and asked about her body parts. Thomson He was in contact with the girl between May and August 2010. After she turned 14, he made her uncomfortable by telling her he wanted to have sex with her. Thomson then sent the girl a picture of naked male private parts. The second girl was only 12 at the time of the offence and had known Thomson since she was small. She accepted his Facebook friend request in January 2010. Claire Bottomley, prosecuting, told Edinburgh Sheriff Court: "Initially, their conversations were of a general nature." But she said Thomson then repeatedly discussed showing his private parts to the girl. She added: "He discussed sexual acts, made inappropriate comments about her body and asked her to expose herself online." The prosecutor said that on June 18 last year, during a chat on a webcam, Thomson asked the girl to expose her breasts and mentioned a sexual act. The girl told her mother and police were called. Thomson, of Bonnyrigg, Midlothian, was arrested in September last year. He admitted lewd, libidinous and indecent behaviour and has agreed to pay his fine at the rate of �£300 a month. His not guilty plea to a similar sex charge involving a third girl was accepted. Thomson said in January that he was concentrating on his football as he prepared to face court. He said: "Football is my life and I will focus on that before anything. This has been a learning curve. "The management and all the staff at Tynecastle have been different class with me. That has helped enormously." http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/2011/06/17/hearts-star-craig-thomson-put-on-sex-offenders-register-after-pestering-girls-aged-12-and-14-for-sex-on-facebook-86908-23207046/
  18. Just signed up for the site tonight so I thought I'd say hello. I've been a Copland road man for 25 years + now and counting during which we've seen more ups than downs thankfully. Here's to another 25 years of the same and some decent chat on here Reading tonight that the sale could go through. I really hope it does because after ten years of watching the decline under Murray we need a new direction really badly and this seems the only route available to break the link with MIH & the bank. Also noting with interest the appointment of Craig Thomson for the game on Sunday. Ain't it interesting how the press choose which stories are controversial? If C*ltic had a ref who had a comparable recent history with them (fat chance eh?) and he was appointed to Sundays game we would be hearing about nothing else all the way to the weekend. Instead we'll be faced with the "best man for the job" crap from the usual bias suspects.
  19. I hope he is not frightened into bending down to the tims as he was at that decision.
  20. hugh macdonald Share 13 Apr 2011 THERE are moments when the Scottish Football Association just takes the breath away. There was the one when a leading office-bearer described Celtic complaints as ââ?¬Å?tiresomeââ?¬Â when cases were under consideration. Two ââ?¬Å?tiresomeââ?¬Â complaints subsequently resulted in victory for Celtic, with Neil Lennonââ?¬â?¢s first ban for an incident at Tynecastle being deemed excessive by an independent hearing. His second ban was against the associationââ?¬â?¢s rules. When a QC pointed this out, the SFA took the huff, complaining of having to spend money on their QC to defend the indefensible. A simple keek at the rule book might have saved them, and our national game, money. Then we had the referee who gave Celtic a penalty, then rescinded it. Then lied to the match observer and to Neil Lennon. He was given a warning by an SFA committee before he had to be prised from his job. Then there was the referee who gave Rangers a penalty in an Old Firm match while looking the other way. Then last night there was the official who, from 10 yards, watched as Michael Duberry, presumably believing he had been fouled, used both hands to control the ball on the ground. No penalty. There have been other major instances of downright incompetence but all of the above may charitably ascribed to ââ?¬Å?the pressure of the gameââ?¬Â by sympathisers. After watching another referee give Rangers a penalty in a cup final then change his mind and book a player for diving without recourse to further evidence, my patience is exhausted. This referee ââ?¬â?? Craig Thomson ââ?¬â??incidentally gave Celtic a penalty in an Old Firm game; unfortunately this occurred 24 hours after the final whistle. The decisions by the disciplinary committee of the SFA yesterday, though, are the high point of the season in terms of absurdity. They are the Monty Python sketch in the comedy that this nationââ?¬â?¢s football has become. They also fly in the face of the policy to support referees. Whatever oneââ?¬â?¢s view on yesterdayââ?¬â?¢s deliberations, it was not a show of support for Calum Murray. One must wait for the ballot today when the referees, presumably enraged at the leniency of the sentences, take to the picket line. After all, Madjid Bougherra manhandled one of their members as he was about to book him. And then he did it again. Bougherra was fined and told not to do it again. Presumably, the naughty step was being used. Another Rangers player, El-Hadji Diouf, bumped into the Celtic physio, had a slanging match with Lennon, who was banned for his behaviour, then would not leave the field when advised to do so by the referee. He then ignored the intervention of a police officer and threw his jersey into the crowd. He was warned and fined. Lennon, who has served a ban for his part in incidents at Tynecastle and Celtic Park, was on the touchline last night. He watched as Iain Brines comically missed a penalty so obvious that the Celtic manager had to be forced into humour. ââ?¬Å?He just used the two hands,ââ?¬Â he said of Duberryââ?¬â?¢s intervention. He was strictly serious when addressing the sentences imposed on two Rangers players for, as the charges had it, misconduct of a significantly serious nature and the clearing of his counterpart Ally McCoist for their confrontation. ââ?¬Å?You have to write it. I canââ?¬â?¢t comment about a lot of things these days,ââ?¬Â said Lennon. ââ?¬Å?You have got to see it for what it is. If you have any media integrity, you will call it as it is.ââ?¬Â It is embarrassing, contrary to the interests of the game and to the rule of match officials, and shameful. We feel your pain shuggie:grin: http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/celtic/embarrassing-against-the-rules-and-shameful-1.1096025
  21. "He's given the penalty and for me he can't change his mind, I find that unacceptable." "I suppose you have to put it down to another honest mistake by the referee." "It was a very strange decision and we could have got a couple of other penalties as well." I think we can all guess the answer so I wonder if Scottish football's moral and integrity guardians will be asking for clarification on our behalf this week? Moreover, will they be pushing for Craig Thomson's resignation as well as the new Head of refereeing John Fleming who seems not not be saying much in respect of Thomson lying about not pointing to the spot (which he clearly did)? I'm also eager to hear Thomson's apology for his error(s) of judgement in Sunday's game given he was keen to say sorry to Celtic for alleged mistakes last season. I'm sure as ever the media will be clamouring for all the above and flamboyant QC Paul McBride will be poring over the rule-book to ensure no team is considered 2nd class in Scottish football.
  22. NEIL LENNON bounced and fidgeted in the main stand, a simmering ginger bundle of energy and frustration. He yelled. He cursed. He fed a non-stop stream of instructions to his sidekicks on the sidelines. Nothing the Celtic boss could say made a difference in the end. No amount of tinkering or yelling or substitutions could turn the tide of a game that always seemed destined to end in defeat. This time, when it was over, he couldn't even blame the ref. Let's be honest here - Craig Thomson got off the hook yesterday - big time. Had Rangers lost this titanic final, there would have been hell to pay for the two stonewall penalties he refused to give them. Instead? Well, Old Firm fans have better memories than an elephant who's spent six hours a day playing the Brain Training game on its Nintendo DS, so neither decision will be forgotten soon. At least history will boil them down to a side issue, a pub argument over what year it was that some diddy rubber-eared a kick in the knee and a blatant handball. Which, for the sake of a decent bloke, is a blessing. I've watched both those incidents over and over and still can't for the life of me understand why they weren't no-brainers for a man of Thomson's experience. Each time, he's in a perfect position. Each time, he could not have made the job easier for himself. Yet in the first half, when Thomas Rogne's boot clearly catches Nikica Jelavic, he gives the spot kick before changing his mind - presumably on the advice of linesman Graham Chambers 50 yards away. Then, when Mark Wilson sticks out his left arm to block Maurice Edu's flick on the hour mark, he has the best view in the stadium - yet waves appeals away. Someone said to me later that, to be fair, the guy got nothing else wrong all afternoon. What keeper ever got away with that excuse if he had a blinder only to throw one in ten seconds from time? Fact is, when it mattered most in a national cup final, Thomson got it absolutely wrong. Not once, but twice - three times if you count the call deep in extra-time when he only booked Charlie Mulgrew for hauling down Jelavic to prevent what would have been a clear goalscoring opportunity. These are the moments that can define careers. Scotland's No 1 referee is very lucky they won't stain his forever. As for Walter Smith? Well, he'll reckon - rightly - that justice was done in the end, because his team deserved this triumph, as he does himself as he heads towards the Ibrox exit door. On Thursday, he'd watched them go out of the Europa League to PSV Eindhoven thanks to a performance that simply wasn't good enough, brave enough or attacking enough. I wrote then that unless key men pulled their finger out at Hampden, they could kiss their chances of silverware goodbye for the season. One of those who needed to produce more than most was Steven Davis, missing in action against the Dutch. Well, he didn't half take a look at himself here. His goal capped a Man of the Match display, robbing the dozy Joe Ledley before driving on and shooting low beyond Frather Forthter's left hand - albeit a trundler in off the post - but his contribution was excellent, full of power, drive and desire. Davis was the catalyst for Rangers. Plenty others took the hint, none more so than Jelavic. His winning goal was maybe even scruffier than the first, hitting the left-hand post before spinning along the line and in. It's actually arguable whether any goals in an Old Firm final have taken so long to go in since Tam Forsyth - watching from the stands along with a cast of old-time stars - bobbled the winner in the 1973 Scottish Cup. do Rangers care? Don't be silly. They NEEDED this triumph - for their gaffer, for their fans, for their own battered self-esteem and they more than earned it. Celtic never came close to hitting the heights of the last few derbies, never knocked it around with anything like the swagger they've shown in recent months. In Beram Kayal, they had an outstanding midfielder, someone willing to scrap for everything and to constantly scope out the right pass. He was to Lennon's side what Davis was to Smith's but unlike Davis, he found few takers when he looked around him for handers. Georgios Samaras threatened to make an impact without ever delivering. Kris Commons and Gary Hooper had lost their spark. The best Joe Ledley can say is that his headed equaliser made amends for his part in selling the shirts earlier on. Forster never looked in command, Rogne and Mulgrew were suspect and - crucially - neither Wilson nor Emilio Izaguirre got to impose themselves going forward the way Rangers had let them in games gone by. By the time a limping Izaguirre saw a straight red for barging over substitute Vladimir Weiss, time was almost up and the game was too. Though just for once, a sending off and half-a-dozen bookings shouldn't be allowed to reflect badly on a meeting between these two, because both sets of players reacted admirably to all the warnings about the responsibility they carried towards the fans. No one over-reacted to tackles, they kissed and made up over tangles and, all in all, they produced a final that should be remembered for all the right reasons. Though to be fair, I'm writing this before they add up the final score in Glasgow's hospitals
  23. WALTER SMITH last night condemned as ââ?¬Å?dangerousââ?¬Â the decisions of the referee after Rangers won the Co-operative Insurance Cup final 2-1 at Hampden. A goal from Nikica Jelavic gave Smithââ?¬â?¢s side victory in extra time after Celticââ?¬â?¢s Joe Ledley had equalised Steven Davisââ?¬â?¢s opener, but the match included a major controversy when Craig Thomson, the match referee, awarded Rangers a penalty in the first half only to rescind it immediately. Thomson pointed straight away to the spot as Thomas Rogne, the Celtic defender, attempted to challenge Jelavic inside the box. Seconds later he had told players it was not a penalty and booked the Rangers striker for diving. Thomson also turned down a Celtic appeal for a penalty when Mark Wilson fell in the box under a challenge from Sasa Papac and another plea from Rangers when Wilson appeared to handle in the box. However, it was the decision to overturn the penalty that angered Smith. ââ?¬Å?It is dangerous for a referee to do that. Very dangerous. If it had been in the other penalty box, I donââ?¬â?¢t know . . .ââ?¬Â he said, referring to penalty controversies that have involved Celtic in recent seasons. ââ?¬Å?I felt a wee bit aggrieved that Jelavic got booked,ââ?¬Â said Smith. ââ?¬Å?Obviously, the referee must have thought himself there was something in the decision to give a penalty in the first place so therefore it was strange he booked him afterwards especially as there was a similar incident at the other end of the field.ââ?¬Â This was a reference to Wilsonââ?¬â?¢s fall under Papacââ?¬â?¢s challenge. Smith could not shed any light on Thomsonââ?¬â?¢s process of thought as he changed his mind immediately. But he insisted that incident was relevant, despite the result. ââ?¬Å?It matters. It matters, none the less. It was a strange one,ââ?¬Â he said. ââ?¬Å?I would prefer to talk about winning rather than refereeing, but that was a very strange one,ââ?¬Â he said. The Rangers manager added that when ââ?¬Å?Celtic were mounting their campaign at the start of the seasonââ?¬Â over referees he had put forward his own philosophy. ââ?¬Å?If your team is good enough then you will win. That is how I have always looked at it. Regardless of a refereeing decision in todayââ?¬â?¢s game, we have come out of it good enough to win.ââ?¬Â Of the match, he said: ââ?¬Å?It was a terrific game. I thought we slightly edged the game overall and deserved to win. But it could have gone either way. We played exceptionally well.ââ?¬Â He said of the match-winner: ââ?¬Å?Jelavic is getting somewhere near match sharpness for us and he played very well for us today. Although, I felt that Steven Davis was, by far, the man of the match.ââ?¬Â Smithââ?¬â?¢s pleasure at the victory was enhanced by the vindication of his side, who had gone into the final as underdogs after a run of four Old Firm matches without victory. ââ?¬Å?I think it was strange for them to find themselves in a position where they were almost written off for todayââ?¬â?¢s game,ââ?¬Â he said. ââ?¬Å?It was a nice little challenge for them and they accepted it very well. The boys here do not need to prove anything to anybody. They have given everything for the club and have played exceptionally well. ââ?¬Å?They have to keep winning and today they found quite a bit which is a testimony to their own professionalism, overall fitness and desire to win. The motivation has to come from within.ââ?¬Â Smith was pleased to lift the trophy on a personal level, saying: ââ?¬Å?It is a nice one. The last time when I was leaving [1998] we did not win anything.ââ?¬Â Johan Mjallby, the Celtic assistant manager, felt his side struggled to play to their capabilities defensively. He explained: ââ?¬Å?Itââ?¬â?¢s very disappointing. Itââ?¬â?¢s always hard to swallow when you lose a cup final, but all credit to Rangers who won it. ââ?¬Å?There wasnââ?¬â?¢t really much in it. From our aspect we were a bit disappointed the way we lost our two goals.ââ?¬Â He added that the substitution of Thomas Rogne with Glenn Loovens was for tactical reasons. ââ?¬Å?Jelavic was creating some problems for Thomas,ââ?¬Â he said. The Swede was succinct on the reasons for the defeat. ââ?¬Å?Maybe our passing game should have been a wee bit better,ââ?¬Â he said. ââ?¬Å?We didnââ?¬â?¢t really create as many chances as we hoped. But we still should have defended better for the goals we conceded.ââ?¬Â http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/rangers/rangers-manager-critical-of-referee-thomson-after-dangerous-decision-to-rescind-penalty-1.1091500
  24. Published Date: 18 March 2011 By Angus Wright NEIL Lennon's lawyer has urged the Celtic manager to defy the Scottish Football Association and enter the dug-out after he completes a five-match suspension, even if the game's governing body believes the ban is for eight games. Lennon has been hit with two separate four-match bans, which the SFA has indicated should be served consecutively. But the SFA rulebook states that a punishment begins 14 days after the offence, leading Celtic to believe the bans can be served concurrently, with the second ban kicking in after Lennon had served one match of the first ban - taking the total number of games missed to five. Lennon's lawyer, Paul McBride QC, last night said: "As a matter of law, there is no question in my mind, it is a four-match ban. "I have looked at the SFA rules in some detail. There is provision for players to serve consecutive bans. There is no provision for managers or club officials to serve consecutive bans at all. "The only dispute apparently in the minds of the SFA is whether it is consecutive or concurrent. Everyone who is sensible and who can read will see from the rules that ought to run from 16 March." McBride expects Lennon to return to the touchline for the Scottish Cup semi-final with Aberdeen, which will take place on 16 or 17 April. "He should enter the dugout and get on with the game," said McBride. "If the SFA believe it is an eight-match ban then the referee would go over and presumably attempt to send him to the stand. It may be, at that point, Celtic would consider their position about protective action in relation to their manager." The SFA's chief executive Stewart Regan refused to comment on the situation, as legal advice is sought over the matter. But their position is understood to be that the punishments will run consecutively, with the four-match suspension Lennon received for his clash with Rangers assistant manager Ally McCoist following the ban for dismissal against Hearts in November, which he is now halfway through. "I'm not able to talk about Neil Lennon or Celtic," Regan said. "We're in the middle of a live case and we're not able to get into it. There are legal implications on both sides." In a separate development yesterday, Lennon was fined �£5,000 by the SFA for his criticism of match officials following his team's 2-0 SPL defeat against Hearts at Tynecastle last November. The punishment, handed down by the SFA's general purposes committee at Hampden, is suspended until 30 June 2012 and will be set aside completely if Lennon does not commit a similar offence before then. Lennon branded the red card shown to Celtic midfielder Joe Ledley for a foul on Ian Black of Hearts as "scandalous" and also claimed referee Craig Thomson and his assistants "would probably have their story ready" when compiling their report into why he was sent from the technical area that night. For that dismissal and a subsequent report of excessive misconduct from Thomson, dealt with by the SFA's disciplinary committee, Lennon received the six-match touchline ban which was reduced to four games by an independent appeals board. Regan revealed yesterday that he has secured the backing of the SFA board to streamline and speed up the disciplinary process, with the aim being to implement change for the start of next season. He admitted he had identified failings in the SFA systems from his first day in the job in October and he is closing in on a major shake-up. He said: "The committee structure, whilst it has worked for many years, is very bureaucratic and laborious. "We need to have much slicker, more transparent, more up-front system where all clubs, players and officials know exactly what's happening and how long it takes for things to be dealt with. "I'm delighted to say that the board have backed the proposals and we will be taking them to the agm on 6 June." Regan revealed that the plans included restructuring the board, incorporating a professional and non-professional board and a main strategic board, with responsibility for financial and other major decisions. He also revealed that disciplinary procedures would be streamlined, pointing out that five committees currently deal with certain disciplinary matters. "We want to have one compliance or regulatory body which meets after each weekend's fixtures and tries to deal very promptly with what happens in those games. "If the charges are accepted by those involved they are actioned before the next game, in which case everyone can move on and there is an understanding of the disciplinary process." Regan hopes the proposed system will reduce the number of disputes such as the current disagreement with Celtic. "Nobody likes to see fallouts," he said. "We are all in the game of football and we are all trying to do the best for fans, for clubs, for the media, sponsors, everyone associated with the game. "It's disappointing when a lot of resources are being spent on fighting costly legal fees. It's a substantial amount of money. "It is something that is taking money out of the SFA. A substantial part of the SFA's resources, which could otherwise be invested in developing football and performance, is being spent on something that is not benefiting the game specifically or the development of the game." http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/football/Lawyer-tells-Neil-Lennon-to.6736121.jp
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.