The Rangers Observer - Lawwell wrote to SFA in July demanding further action against

[cooponthewing 1,139]

Not worth further investigation at all coop. Institutional bondholders is a very common term in the investment world. Basically means companies, pension funds, municipals etc providing funding to the company for interest returns

 

Thanks for the lesson Craig lol. Is it easy enough (and sorry for the phrase but "transparent" enough) to find out where the money is coming from and whom?

[Walterbear 557]

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

[ian1964 10,431]

By Tom English

 

Agatha Christie's The Mousetrap opened in London's West End in 1952, played to tens of thousands of people up to Christie's death in 1976 and has played to tens of thousands of people ever since. It's the longest running theatre show in history, thriving after many of the people who have acted in it on the stage and who have watched it from the stalls have passed away.

 

The governance of Scottish football in the time of Rangers' implosion in 2012 is our own Mousetrap, a seemingly unending story, a commotion that can never have a conclusion to satisfy everyone. Christie's play takes all sorts of twists and turns but at least there's an understanding in the endgame. There's clarity when the curtain falls.

 

That's not going to happen here.

 

There are compelling reasons now to have an independent review of the way the game was governed back then, not just by Stewart Regan's Scottish FA but by Neil Doncaster's Scottish Premier League.

 

Strip away the ugly dogmatism, obsession and hysteria that is so commonplace on social media. Mystery remains about what went down. There's been conflicting testimony.

 

There's been new claims, the veracity of which need to be tested.

 

Celtic accuse SFA of 'failure in leadership'

 

SFA will not participate in any independent review

 

No EBT sanctions against Rangers - SPFL

 

Maybe there is nothing that should trouble us, but until you lift the bonnet and have a look then how does anybody know for sure?

 

The SFA have, of course, said no to the SPFL's request for a full independent review of their own governance in the Rangers saga. They say no good will come of raking over the coals. To those who want a review, 'raking over the coals' sounds terribly like 'brushing under the carpet'.

 

One side - the SFA - argue that fans will never be satisfied no matter the outcome of any review and that only harm will be done to the game if people don't move on.

 

The other side - championed by Celtic - say that this is not about satisfying people, it's about trying to mine fact from fiction and about learning lessons, if lessons are there to be learned.

 

There is a third side in all of this - a huge number of football fans around the country who see this purely as a political battle between Celtic and the SFA fuelled by a desire for the stripping of Rangers' titles in their EBT years. Those people switched off to this long ago. They don't see that it has anything to do with them. They couldn't care less.

 

An agenda for regime change?

 

The now published exchange of emails between Peter Lawwell, chief executive of Celtic, and Stewart Regan, his counterpart at the SFA, shine a light on what's been going on.

 

Through his words, Lawwell reads like a man who will continue to hold the SFA's feet to the fire until he gets an independent review of all that went down in that era.

 

In his correspondence with Regan, Lawwell repeatedly says this is not so much about what Rangers did, or didn't do, but what the football authorities did, or didn't do, at that time.

 

There is no mention of title-stripping. His guns are firmly trained on the SFA. He says that this call for a review is for the good of the game, not for the good of Celtic. Given that Scottish football is a leading capital of suspicion and cynicism, people will have their own views of that.

 

Lawwell argues that unless the SFA agree to examine their governance then they will be accused of lacking "transparency, accountability and leadership." In that regard, he's talking directly about Regan and the decision-makers at Hampden.

 

Reading the material you get to wonder if regime change is his target here.

 

Celtic reject the view that this is little more than a Celtic versus Rangers issue that has precious little to do with anybody else. They argue that this thing is bigger than that. There is support among other clubs for that view, but how much support?

 

It's hard to tell. Celtic know that they have no legal recourse against the SFA's decision to turn down the invitation for an independent review, so the only avenue available to them is to try to galvanise the rest of Scottish football into piling the pressure on the SFA to do a U-turn.

 

They've got a mighty job on their hands.

 

This is a Scottish football spectacle and, as such, the plot is complex. Lawwell says that the SPFL request for an independent review of football governance in 2012 is "on behalf of the 42 professional clubs in Scotland". But is it? Do the clubs really want it?

 

Yes, it is the view of the SPFL board, who represent the clubs, that there should be a review, but all 42 professional clubs have not been asked for their thoughts. Some of those that have been asked by the media have said they don't agree with the call for a review.

 

'Why not throw open the files?'

 

They feel that the game could eat itself if it carries on like this forever. That rather undermines the mandate of the SPFL board.

 

One of the biggest clubs in the country, Aberdeen, are firmly against revisiting old ground and examining new ground. Kilmarnock , too. There are many others who don't back a review but who are unprepared to go public with their reasons why.

 

Celtic don't have sufficient allies to take this much further.

 

There is another point to be made here. The SFA won't have a review, but if the SPFL are so insistent that one is required then why not instigate an examination of the way their forerunner, the SPL, did their business in that period? If transparency is what they are about then let them call in the examiners.

 

All sides agree on two points. The first area of common ground is that there needs to be closure. The second is that not everyone is going to get to that point.

 

By turning down the request for a review, the SFA inevitably invite suspicion about why, exactly, they don't want football governance in that era examined by a properly independent review panel. If nothing untoward went on, then why not throw open the files?

 

That's a question that will be asked for as long as this story rumbles, which brings us back to Mousetrap. The blessed Agatha wasn't the only one who knew a thing or two about eternal dramas.

[craig 5,199]

Thanks for the lesson Craig lol. Is it easy enough (and sorry for the phrase but "transparent" enough) to find out where the money is coming from and whom?

 

It depends coop. Shareholders and bondholders are two different groups. Every company is, I believe, duty bound to keep a shareholder register and as a shareholder you can request sight of that register (though you still have issues such as proxy holdings, holdings in blind trusts etc). Bondholders are a different group, they are creditors, they hold debt, not equity. If you have a public offering of debt then you probably can get sight of who the bondholders are. If, however, the offering is a private offering then there is no need for the company to present who holds the debt.

[26th of foot 5,846]

By Tom English

 

Agatha Christie's The Mousetrap opened in London's West End in 1952, played to tens of thousands of people up to Christie's death in 1976 and has played to tens of thousands of people ever since. It's the longest running theatre show in history, thriving after many of the people who have acted in it on the stage and who have watched it from the stalls have passed away.

 

The governance of Scottish football in the time of Rangers' implosion in 2012 is our own Mousetrap, a seemingly unending story, a commotion that can never have a conclusion to satisfy everyone. Christie's play takes all sorts of twists and turns but at least there's an understanding in the endgame. There's clarity when the curtain falls.

 

That's not going to happen here.

 

There are compelling reasons now to have an independent review of the way the game was governed back then, not just by Stewart Regan's Scottish FA but by Neil Doncaster's Scottish Premier League.

 

Strip away the ugly dogmatism, obsession and hysteria that is so commonplace on social media. Mystery remains about what went down. There's been conflicting testimony.

 

There's been new claims, the veracity of which need to be tested.

 

Celtic accuse SFA of 'failure in leadership'

 

SFA will not participate in any independent review

 

No EBT sanctions against Rangers - SPFL

 

Maybe there is nothing that should trouble us, but until you lift the bonnet and have a look then how does anybody know for sure?

 

The SFA have, of course, said no to the SPFL's request for a full independent review of their own governance in the Rangers saga. They say no good will come of raking over the coals. To those who want a review, 'raking over the coals' sounds terribly like 'brushing under the carpet'.

 

One side - the SFA - argue that fans will never be satisfied no matter the outcome of any review and that only harm will be done to the game if people don't move on.

 

The other side - championed by Celtic - say that this is not about satisfying people, it's about trying to mine fact from fiction and about learning lessons, if lessons are there to be learned.

 

There is a third side in all of this - a huge number of football fans around the country who see this purely as a political battle between Celtic and the SFA fuelled by a desire for the stripping of Rangers' titles in their EBT years. Those people switched off to this long ago. They don't see that it has anything to do with them. They couldn't care less.

 

An agenda for regime change?

 

The now published exchange of emails between Peter Lawwell, chief executive of Celtic, and Stewart Regan, his counterpart at the SFA, shine a light on what's been going on.

 

Through his words, Lawwell reads like a man who will continue to hold the SFA's feet to the fire until he gets an independent review of all that went down in that era.

 

In his correspondence with Regan, Lawwell repeatedly says this is not so much about what Rangers did, or didn't do, but what the football authorities did, or didn't do, at that time.

 

There is no mention of title-stripping. His guns are firmly trained on the SFA. He says that this call for a review is for the good of the game, not for the good of Celtic. Given that Scottish football is a leading capital of suspicion and cynicism, people will have their own views of that.

 

Lawwell argues that unless the SFA agree to examine their governance then they will be accused of lacking "transparency, accountability and leadership." In that regard, he's talking directly about Regan and the decision-makers at Hampden.

 

Reading the material you get to wonder if regime change is his target here.

 

Celtic reject the view that this is little more than a Celtic versus Rangers issue that has precious little to do with anybody else. They argue that this thing is bigger than that. There is support among other clubs for that view, but how much support?

 

It's hard to tell. Celtic know that they have no legal recourse against the SFA's decision to turn down the invitation for an independent review, so the only avenue available to them is to try to galvanise the rest of Scottish football into piling the pressure on the SFA to do a U-turn.

 

They've got a mighty job on their hands.

 

This is a Scottish football spectacle and, as such, the plot is complex. Lawwell says that the SPFL request for an independent review of football governance in 2012 is "on behalf of the 42 professional clubs in Scotland". But is it? Do the clubs really want it?

 

Yes, it is the view of the SPFL board, who represent the clubs, that there should be a review, but all 42 professional clubs have not been asked for their thoughts. Some of those that have been asked by the media have said they don't agree with the call for a review.

 

'Why not throw open the files?'

 

They feel that the game could eat itself if it carries on like this forever. That rather undermines the mandate of the SPFL board.

 

One of the biggest clubs in the country, Aberdeen, are firmly against revisiting old ground and examining new ground. Kilmarnock , too. There are many others who don't back a review but who are unprepared to go public with their reasons why.

 

Celtic don't have sufficient allies to take this much further.

 

There is another point to be made here. The SFA won't have a review, but if the SPFL are so insistent that one is required then why not instigate an examination of the way their forerunner, the SPL, did their business in that period? If transparency is what they are about then let them call in the examiners.

 

All sides agree on two points. The first area of common ground is that there needs to be closure. The second is that not everyone is going to get to that point.

 

By turning down the request for a review, the SFA inevitably invite suspicion about why, exactly, they don't want football governance in that era examined by a properly independent review panel. If nothing untoward went on, then why not throw open the files?

 

That's a question that will be asked for as long as this story rumbles, which brings us back to Mousetrap. The blessed Agatha wasn't the only one who knew a thing or two about eternal dramas.

 

Although, still in Galicia; I listened to BBC Radio Scotland yesterday and the above by Tom English is pretty much a precis of commentary from the usual suspects.

 

Fair play to Tam Cowan, when Chris McLaughlin began, "this is not about Rangers .....". Cowan intervened and said, "it'a all about Rangers". Later Sportsnews began with Gollum starting with, "Scottish football governance .....". Cosgrove referenced the 70,000 supporters who have signed the petition and backed McLaughlin's, "this is not about Rangers". Why don't we begin another opposite petition and Cosgrove will support the supporters' voices? Cowan did not back down, he claimed none of his 'Well supporting mates are interested, let alone continually discuss the topic. Cosgrove sounded disgusted with this intervention, his mates discuss nothing other.

 

At two O'Clock, Richard Gordon led a full thirty minute discussion involving Tom English, Michael Stewart, and Chris McLaughlin; a balanced panel I'm sure you will agree? There was full backing for Lawwell's robust language, Regan is incompetent(who appointed his old work mate from Coors), and the SPFL should go ahead and hold their own inquiry anyways. Tom English ended with, "Celtic are showing leadership and it's up to fan pressure to ensure other clubs follow that lead". McLaughlin then revealed there was NO appetite among any of the other clubs to revisit the topic, although he claimed they were all incandescent at Regan's usage "no desire to rake over old coals".

 

Rangers and Rangers supporters sensitivities were not represented. Chick Young was covering yesterday's game at Ibrox(ie watching Rangers TV), he echoed Tam Cowan's earlier contributions and told Tom English that smaller clubs would want to know how much such an independent review would cost? Tom did not answer. Further, he asked English, "would this be an end to it"? Again, Tom was more interested in rallying the troops, a phrase he uttered.Once again, where is Richard Wilson?

 

In the coming week, Rangers should respond to Lawwell's robust language by agreeing to a review when ra Sellik embark on their much hyped post season tour of Japan.

[chilledbear 16]

Thanks 26th o f, glad it's you that listens and not me.

 

Yes, Richard Wilson is a strange one, but then perhaps not.

[cooponthewing 1,139]

I heard Cowan say that too 26th. I was walking along the PR pre match with the radio on talkSPORT. I flicked over to listen to how severe the blitz was. I wasn't disappointed! Cosgrove was incandescent with bitterness.

 

After Cowan pointed out that nobody else gives a monkeys I remember Cosgrove foaming while correcting him.

Words to the effect of Motherwell fans don't have a grasp on the feeling in Scottish football.

What he really meant was it's only his beloved Selik and their subordinate followers that matter. I listened for less than two minutes (if that) I honestly can't stomach them. So listened to my coupon going down the pan when Liverpool had a man sent off.....Then I had 3-0 Bears and Morelos FGS. I wasn't happy when the fourth went it!

Edited September 10, 2017 by cooponthewing

[the gunslinger 3,366]

No one mention celtcs ebt and that they have never been punished for it?

 

 

[RANGERRAB 3,292]

The SFA are soon going to have to investigate Celtic for something much worse than EBT's as I'm sure we're all aware of.

[craig 5,199]

I heard Cowan say that too 26th. I was walking along the PR pre match with the radio on talkSPORT. I flicked over to listen to how severe the blitz was. I wasn't disappointed! Cosgrove was incandescent with bitterness.

 

After Cowan pointed out that nobody else gives a monkeys I remember Cosgrove foaming while correcting him.

Words to the effect of Motherwell fans don't have a grasp on the feeling in Scottish football.

What he really meant was it's only his beloved Selik and their subordinate followers that matter. I listened for less than two minutes (if that) I honestly can't stomach them. So listened to my coupon going down the pan when Liverpool had a man sent off.....Then I had 3-0 Bears and Morelos FGS. I wasn't happy when the fourth went it!

 

Arsenal, Chesea & Spurson treble yesterday....

Leeds, Middlesbrough & Wolves treble too

Edited September 10, 2017 by craig