Jump to content

 

 

Mad Joe met Neil Doncaster and Rod McKenzie on Monday evening


Recommended Posts

I and Association President John Andrews met with Neil Doncaster and Rod McKenzie on Monday night. The reason for the meeting which incidentally was at the request of Mr Doncaster, was for them to explain their position with regards to the Lord Nimmo Smith (LNS) Inquiry.

 

From the outset they both made it clear that they thought that the SPL did everything by the book and that they had no further part to play in accordance with the advice they got from a Senior Counsel.

 

They also stated that they, the SPFL, were happy to have an Independent Review of Scottish Football as stated about three weeks ago after they elected their new Board. The problem with that is, no Independent Review is worth having unless it also agreed by the SFA, and so far Mr Regan and his cronies have not agreed to a Review.

 

Mr Doncaster made it very clear that the decision taken by LNS cannot be revisited, the decision to fine Sevco £250,000 is final. Mr McKenzie stressed that all the information held by the SPL was put before LNS, which included the proof of about 51 side letters. But what they cannot answer is, did the SFA act honestly with regards to LNS.

 

Mr Doncaster also agreed with us that the Five Way Agreement (FWA) was a barrier to Title stripping. That is the FWA that no-one outside if the signatories has actually seen. McKenzie and Doncaster actually admitted that in one of the early drafts of the agreement Title Stripping was one of the avenues that could be used as punishment to Sevco, not surprisingly Green, and apparently more so McCoist strongly opposed that route, so that clause was taken out.

 

That’s akin to a High Court Judge telling a convicted criminal that he could face twenty years in jail and the criminal saying I’m not having that. So the Judge says, well ok what about a fine of £250? That will be fine (excuse the pun) your honour.

 

You have to wonder, if the FWA was good for Scottish Football as a whole, why has it not been made public? According to McKenzie the five signatories would have to agree to that, and he said that wouldn’t happen, but he never told us just exactly who would be opposed to going public, I think they would all oppose it to protect themselves.

 

Interestingly the SPFL Board backed the call for an Independent Review as proposed by Peter Lawwell at Celtic Football Club, but not one club came out publically and supported Peter Lawwell before the Board went public, which was about three weeks after Peter’s statement.

 

McKenzie said that club chairmen were backing Celtic, but not in public. I think that proves the point the Bullying and Intimidation by the Sevco Support is actually working, I also think the comments from Ann Budge and Stewart Milne prove that too.

 

So where do we go from here? Well we’re not beaten yet. We have to force the SFA to back the Independent Review. The only way that can be done is by supporters putting pressure on their own clubs to call for it.

 

Doncaster claims that the SPFL do not have the power within their rules to strip titles, but the SFA do have that power. So honest supporters throughout the whole of Scottish Football must stand up to the Bullies and Intimidators and force action from your own club’s. This is not a Celtic v Rangers issue, this is Honest and Integrity v Bullies and Intimidators issue. Football has to win, but it can only win if the honest decent supporters unite to make it happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, they will have met the CSA all right. After all Doncaster has been at pains throughout to invite meetings RE: trying to find new ways to punish Rangers.

Edited by Frankie
Link to post
Share on other sites

There's something very wrong about the League's governing body meeting with the supporters of one club to discuss the possibilities for punishing another club. The job of the SPFL is to represent and govern the clubs in its membership. The SPFL should NOT be talking directly to supporters of any of its clubs, except through the clubs themselves. That the SPFL chose to do so is in itself reason for deep suspicion regarding its integrity and impartiality.

 

In my view, the board of Rangers should be issuing a very public complaint to the SPFL and the SFA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's something very wrong about the League's governing body meeting with the supporters of one club to discuss the possibilities for punishing another club. The job of the SPFL is to represent and govern the clubs in its membership. The SPFL should NOT be talking directly to supporters of any of its clubs, except through the clubs themselves. That the SPFL chose to do so is in itself reason for deep suspicion regarding its integrity and impartiality.

 

In my view, the board of Rangers should be issuing a very public complaint to the SPFL and the SFA.

 

This has been going on for years though, the problem we have is no other club will question this!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone think Doncaster and co would have met them without seeking permission or guidance from Celtic first? So either Celtic want the supporter's group to keep the issue live and in the public realm but at arm's length from the club, or else the club want nothing to do with it and asked Doncaster and co to meet with their idiot wing in the hope of bringing the issue to a close.

 

Whatever the reason it does read like as far as the SPFL are concerned the matter is closed, reluctantly or not. I expect the SFA can expect petitions and emails a plenty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • 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.