SPFL Season declaration challenged legally (ongoing discussion)

[Gribz 743]

39 minutes ago, ian1964 said:

 

Balanced journalism as usual, I cant believe this plonker is still on the go. As soon as ridicule or words like "tosh" come in from a supposed neutral party you know its denial. 

 

Although at least he admits he needed half a day to go through it while other parties managed it within 2 hours.

Edited May 8, 2020 by Gribz

[Gribz 743]

23 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:

Nice to see the yahoo lapdogs are out in force. 

 

 

One of the best things about living overseas for 15 years has been avoiding Scottish punditry. For some reason a internet program The Football Show popped up on my recommended list on youtube with a bloke Peter Martin who Ive never heard of. I had a listen to that this morning and it may aswell be an unofficial CFC channel. He contradicted himself 3 times and on each occasion it was seconds after a supposed balance comment. 

That Tam Cowan was on it - Id forgotten about him! He was looking rough and of course came out with nonsense. It was utter scripted junk and there is no way they could have dissolved Rangers Dossier in that time.

[CammyF 6,782]

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-vs-spfl-verdict-4-21992864

[ian1964 10,415]

44 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:

Nice to see the yahoo lapdogs are out in force. 

 

 

 

[CammyF 6,782]

Decent article by Gary Ralston 

 

 

Scottish football could soon go cap in hand to the government for a bailout to avoid further financial carnage from coronavirus.

Nicola Sturgeon should do the decent thing and loosen the money belt for a national sport that means so much to so many.

But untying the strings on the public purse should come with a non-negotiable condition that our football authorities finally open the doors of Hampden sixth floor to accountability.

What an ugly democracy controls our game, as evidenced by the damning dossier produced by Rangers yesterday on the end-of-season resolution saga.

What arrogance and hubris underpins the executive of the SPFL, a pampered, privileged and well-feathered elite protected by a coterie of boardroom flunkeys determined to preserve a ruinous status quo.

No minutes signed off for the last 15 board meetings? Move along, nothing to see here

A chief executive releasing a briefing paper to clubs on the most contentious resolution in seasons without board approval? Come on, start walking.

Non-executive directors on the board being given less than 24 hours to review 118 pages of complex resolution documentation? Told you – scat.

The appalling corporate governance, including the omission of vital information on documents made available to clubs, should be enough to put Neil Doncaster and legal adviser Rod McKenzie in the Scottish football dock.

Give them another couple of days and they’ll probably start pinning it all on Carole Baskin from Tiger King.

Take this to the bank –Rangers will not garner enough support from member clubs to push through their calls for an independent inquiry into the whole resolution fiasco

In truth, they knew that all along, but reasoned compiling their dossier of wrongdoing and joining forces with Hearts and Stranraer was the only way to shine a light on the shadowy corners of our game.

Their hope, surely, has been to convince some of the bigger clubs in the country,
particularly Aberdeen and Hibs, the conduct of the SPFL at executive level is now beyond the pale because only then will heads start to roll and the healing begin.

Scottish football prides itself on the fact 43 per cent of their turnover comes from gate receipts. It seems the fans can spend £20 and £30 watching their teams every week but don’t dare throw in your tuppenceworth.

The SPFL apparently know the reconstruction talks are a sham, doomed to failure because a realignment of the leagues requires broadcaster support and a renegotiation of existing contracts, which would never be favourable.

Again, they didn’t tell the clubs. A £10million black hole as a result of cash clawbacks from Sky and BT Sport? The suggestion of handing the naming rights of the league, worth £1.5million a year, to Sky for buckshee? All information that was kept from clubs and, as a result, supporters.

There has been an indecent haste to end the season, perfectly portrayed in a letter to UEFA from the SPFL and SFA that should have given Doncaster and Ian Maxwell a red face to match their brass necks. Sent six days before the resolution was even voted upon, it claimed the “vast majority” of clubs wanted the season to end as it was the only way to access prize money.

It was as sinister as it was surprising, not least as clubs hadn’t been surveyed at that stage for their point of view by Hampden’s powerbrokers.

The biggest losers from the resolution have, of course, been Hearts, Partick Thistle,
Stranraer, Falkirk and a clutch of clubs who still held out hope of a play-off spot.

But Rangers are also left to count the cost financially as the rush to end the season ended their chance – slim but still a chance – of overtaking Celtic and banking a potential £25 million Champions League windfall.

The Parkhead club have also suffered – missing the chance to claim a historic ninth successive title on the field.

The reputational damage to the SPFL and, in turn, Scottish football has been severe. Rangers have done the game a favour by asking the biggest questions that, shamefully, could remain unanswered

Why, in light of their flip- flopping over the stance of loans and advances to Gretna, Motherwell and Partick Thistle, did the SPFL not explore all options to get money to clubs?

Why was McKenzie such a truculent, obstructive force as two members, Rangers and Hearts, sought to shape another resolution for clubs to consider?

What did Doncaster say to Dundee’s John Nelms on the afternoon of Friday, April 10 to persuade him to change his vote and why did it take until 8.30pm for the SPFL to check its own spam filter?

As long as valid questions are ignored, suspicions will always remain and bad blood will continue to coarse through Scottish football when it badly needs a period of calm.

Sturgeon would do our game the greatest favour if she wrote that cheque and demanded greater transparency as the price to pay.

Let’s see the SPFL and SFA subject to freedom of information requests and their committee meetings publicly minuted and live streamed.

Let’s allow Scottish football fans a greater insight into how the game is run and organised because just now? The view of their governance is pretty damn appalling

[blueflag 378]

They have as expected just brushed it aside. We will end up looking the wounded animal once again.

Social media is awash with articles and people just dismissing our dossier 

[blueflag 378]

Infact, it goes even deeper.

There is a hardcore element now starting petitions to have us charged with bringing the game into disrepute

Emailing uefa the Pope and any journalist that hates us.

[Gonzo79 13,621]

The game's a bogey.  Scotland is infested with that lot, from top to bottom and they will ensure our dossier is largely ignored.

 

I expect one of the high heid yins will take the bullet for the rest but the same mechanisms will remain in place and Rangers reputation will be sullied further.  

 

Our only hope is that external forces start taking a look but given the standing of Scottish football and the economic nature of the wider game, I doubt the likes of UEFA give a shit.

 

I do hope enough Bears are paying attention and think twice about funding clubs who don't want to tip the boat (ie. Facilitators of corruption) and decide to stop funding them but I also doubt that will happen to any effective degree.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Journalists can either show themselves up here or do their jobs. 

[Uilleam 5,429]

1 hour ago, ian1964 said:

 

All this demonstrates is that the Milky Bar Kid is neither clever enough, nor assiduous enough, nor industrious enough, to even attempt to refute Rangers' report, or any part of its content. 

 

Rangers' case resides, largely, in the document, and Robertson's responses to questioning cannot "derail" it, although it would be interesting to learn what "preposterous" "tosh" he actually uttered. 

 

By linking, to the document itself, an unproven, and likely indefensible, assertion that Robertson spoke garbage is a rather obvious manoevre to discredit and damn its content and import, without any analysis whatsoever. 

No doubt, also, that doing so, in his own small  mind, will absolve him of any responsibility or requirement to read the bloody thing, make sense of it, and gainsay even some small part of the whole.