|
The Board - general discussion (including Res 12); notes from the AGM
|
|
Topic Started: 15 Jul 2014, 12:03 AM (1,414,477 Views)
|
|
Hoops For Me All The Way
|
10 Sep 2017, 01:03 PM
Post #10881
|
You want equality? Consider if that person feels Equal.
- Posts:
- 14,859
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #29,046
- Joined:
- 13 July 2011
- Favourite all-time player
- Lemon, Jinky, Henke, Lubo
|
Sevco must desperate to issue a StAtement.
Wonder what is holding them back.
|
|
|
| |
|
bazzabhoy78
|
10 Sep 2017, 01:05 PM
Post #10882
|
- Posts:
- 819
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #11,939
- Joined:
- 9 November 2007
|
So apart from Aberdeen fans, any other supporters groups or clubs issued any statements?
|
|
|
| |
|
idyllwild
|
10 Sep 2017, 01:06 PM
Post #10883
|
- Posts:
- 49,492
- Group:
- Backroom Staff
- Member
- #3,097
- Joined:
- 16 February 2006
|
We've trashed a few posts containing specific criminal accusations. Please be careful how you word posts, please.
|
|
|
| |
|
Wee Ed KTF
|
10 Sep 2017, 01:18 PM
Post #10884
|
- Posts:
- 6,194
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #1,493
- Joined:
- 10 July 2005
|
- bazzabhoy78
- 10 Sep 2017, 01:05 PM
So apart from Aberdeen fans, any other supporters groups or clubs issued any statements? The Scottish Football Supporters Association (SFSA)
|
|
|
| |
|
Tubbytubthumper
|
10 Sep 2017, 01:23 PM
Post #10885
|
- Posts:
- 3,102
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #32,204
- Joined:
- 27 January 2013
- Favourite all-time player
- Chris Sutton
|
From the BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/scotland/41218625
Spoiler: click to toggle 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.
Stewart Regan and Neil Doncaster Regan (left) and Doncaster lead the SFA and SPFL - and were in charge during the period Celtic would like to see reviewed by an independent comission 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.
Aberdeen chairman Stewart Milne Aberdeen chairman Stewart Milne is one of the few to have publically voiced a view - saying he wants to look forward rather than examine the past 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.
|
|
|
| |
|
screwtop
|
10 Sep 2017, 01:40 PM
Post #10886
|
- Posts:
- 644
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #35,402
- Joined:
- 18 January 2017
- Favourite all-time player
- Henrik Larsson
|
- Tubbytubthumper
- 10 Sep 2017, 01:23 PM
From the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/scotland/41218625Spoiler: click to toggle 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.
Stewart Regan and Neil Doncaster Regan (left) and Doncaster lead the SFA and SPFL - and were in charge during the period Celtic would like to see reviewed by an independent comission 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.
Aberdeen chairman Stewart Milne Aberdeen chairman Stewart Milne is one of the few to have publically voiced a view - saying he wants to look forward rather than examine the past 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. An maith leat do anraith Tom?
|
|
|
| |
|
Broadly Equivalent Bhoy
|
10 Sep 2017, 02:11 PM
Post #10887
|
Everyone's Fantasy Football first pick
- Posts:
- 2,079
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #33,576
- Joined:
- 11 June 2014
- Favourite all-time player
- Billy McNeill
|
- Tubbytubthumper
- 10 Sep 2017, 01:23 PM
From the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/scotland/41218625Spoiler: click to toggle 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.
Stewart Regan and Neil Doncaster Regan (left) and Doncaster lead the SFA and SPFL - and were in charge during the period Celtic would like to see reviewed by an independent comission 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.
Aberdeen chairman Stewart Milne Aberdeen chairman Stewart Milne is one of the few to have publically voiced a view - saying he wants to look forward rather than examine the past 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. What a load of pretentious twaddle. The documents on scribd show that English was working in collusion with Craig Whyte and his people.
I am guessing that this wasn't in a prominent position on his cv when he applied for a job at the BBC.
|
|
|
| |
|
rightsaidted
|
10 Sep 2017, 02:46 PM
Post #10888
|
- Posts:
- 1,058
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #33,487
- Joined:
- 11 May 2014
- Favourite all-time player
- Pat Stanton
|
- bazzabhoy78
- 10 Sep 2017, 01:05 PM
So apart from Aberdeen fans, any other supporters groups or clubs issued any statements? Yesterday on a Hearts forum fans were asking Hearts fans group to make a statement similar to Aberdeen fans' one.
|
|
|
| |
|
Ipswichbhoy
|
10 Sep 2017, 02:57 PM
Post #10889
|
- Posts:
- 159
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #34,793
- Joined:
- 20 April 2016
- Favourite all-time player
- Wee Bertie
|
- Wee Ed KTF
- 10 Sep 2017, 12:13 PM
- Ipswichbhoy
- 10 Sep 2017, 11:56 AM
I know next to nowt about politics in Scotland but it would be good to have a politician or two pressing for an enquiry. What I do know is that functionaries hate political involvement coz they cannot control it and they know politico's have a lot of buttons they can press. Let's hope this the beginning of the end of this sorry saga and that Scottish football can move forward with transparency and fairness. (Perhaps I ask to much).
foreverhopefulandnotyettotallycynical.csc
I believe politicians will not want to touch this scandal with a bargepole. It's a vote loser as it would incur the wrath of the SMSM and the Klan FFS, there were reports in 2012 that Salmond personally approached HMRC in London to go easy on Rangers (IL) As I said, I know very little about Scottish politics. I fully understand the Celtic/Rangers/Ireland/Loyalism/RC/Prod stuff etc etc is a factor in football terms and socially & politically but it is sad to think that a fan base that wants fairness and tranparency does not exist across all clubs and that that cannot be represented by an equally honest politician.
|
|
|
| |
|
Ipswichbhoy
|
10 Sep 2017, 03:03 PM
Post #10890
|
- Posts:
- 159
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #34,793
- Joined:
- 20 April 2016
- Favourite all-time player
- Wee Bertie
|
- Broadly Equivalent Bhoy
- 10 Sep 2017, 12:58 PM
- Wee Ed KTF
- 10 Sep 2017, 12:13 PM
- Ipswichbhoy
- 10 Sep 2017, 11:56 AM
I know next to nowt about politics in Scotland but it would be good to have a politician or two pressing for an enquiry. What I do know is that functionaries hate political involvement coz they cannot control it and they know politico's have a lot of buttons they can press. Let's hope this the beginning of the end of this sorry saga and that Scottish football can move forward with transparency and fairness. (Perhaps I ask to much).
foreverhopefulandnotyettotallycynical.csc
I believe politicians will not want to touch this scandal with a bargepole. It's a vote loser as it would incur the wrath of the SMSM and the Klan FFS, there were reports in 2012 that Salmond personally approached HMRC in London to go easy on Rangers (IL) Article on Salmond and HMRC from the late Paul McConville Incredible. Thanks for that.
|
|
|
| |
|
lenobhoy
|
10 Sep 2017, 03:03 PM
Post #10891
|
Catch some light and it'll be alright
- Posts:
- 26,056
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #333
- Joined:
- 4 November 2004
|
- Auldyin
- 9 Sep 2017, 11:55 PM
Reading back a couple of points need a response.
First Murphio and others made some complimentary comments about myself which I will pass on to the other Requisitioners all of whom played a significant part in keeping the issue alive. Thank you.
JJ has set out how things unfolded on Res12 since the last Celtic AGM in 2016 and since then Celtic have shown that once the constraints that bound them had gone (frustrating as that was for the Requisitioners who knew what was likely to emerge at the CW trial) Celtic have acted strongly to try and restore trust in the integrity of Scottish Football.
On the Reggan e mail of 7th December it is authentic and it reveals, as does an earlier one of Sept 2011 that the SFA are not in the clear as regards their part in both the granting then monitoring stages during 2011.
We are aware that SFA may attempt to pin all the blame on RFC but there is still enough in the locker to cover the part the SFA played not just in 2011 but subsequent years.
If I've missed anything I'll look in at some point later to answer. Just want to reiterate Murphio's thanks for all you and everyone elses work on this Auldyin. More, power to ye.
|
|
|
| |
|
lenobhoy
|
10 Sep 2017, 03:09 PM
Post #10892
|
Catch some light and it'll be alright
- Posts:
- 26,056
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #333
- Joined:
- 4 November 2004
|
- Butters
- 10 Sep 2017, 08:32 AM
- kewlcelt
- 9 Sep 2017, 09:14 PM
- Otis B Driftwood
- 9 Sep 2017, 07:41 PM
How millions did Souness put their way in his stints at Blackburn, Liverpool and Newcastle? I reckon at least 20: the fees paid for Ferguson, Tugay, Walters, Boumsong easily surpass that.
Khisansvilli too?
Souness was manager of Newcastle when Blackburn signed Khizanishvilli He signed that tit Amoruso for Blackburn I always thought Hutton going Spurs for £9m a bit dodgy. Just seem beyond stupid.
|
|
|
| |
|
Pussyfoot
|
10 Sep 2017, 03:10 PM
Post #10893
|
- Posts:
- 13,323
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #22,774
- Joined:
- 12 January 2009
- Favourite all-time player
- Paul McStay
|
- lenobhoy
- 10 Sep 2017, 03:03 PM
- Auldyin
- 9 Sep 2017, 11:55 PM
Reading back a couple of points need a response.
First Murphio and others made some complimentary comments about myself which I will pass on to the other Requisitioners all of whom played a significant part in keeping the issue alive. Thank you.
JJ has set out how things unfolded on Res12 since the last Celtic AGM in 2016 and since then Celtic have shown that once the constraints that bound them had gone (frustrating as that was for the Requisitioners who knew what was likely to emerge at the CW trial) Celtic have acted strongly to try and restore trust in the integrity of Scottish Football.
On the Reggan e mail of 7th December it is authentic and it reveals, as does an earlier one of Sept 2011 that the SFA are not in the clear as regards their part in both the granting then monitoring stages during 2011.
We are aware that SFA may attempt to pin all the blame on RFC but there is still enough in the locker to cover the part the SFA played not just in 2011 but subsequent years.
If I've missed anything I'll look in at some point later to answer.
Just want to reiterate Murphio's thanks for all you and everyone elses work on this Auldyin. More, power to ye. Absolutely, you are doing a fantastic job and it's appreciated.
|
|
|
| |
|
shugmc
|
10 Sep 2017, 03:19 PM
Post #10894
|
- Posts:
- 33,547
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #2,142
- Joined:
- 11 October 2005
|
- Tubbytubthumper
- 10 Sep 2017, 01:23 PM
From the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/scotland/41218625Move along, Declan 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.
Stewart Regan and Neil Doncaster Regan (left) and Doncaster lead the SFA and SPFL - and were in charge during the period Celtic would like to see reviewed by an independent comission 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.
Aberdeen chairman Stewart Milne Aberdeen chairman Stewart Milne is one of the few to have publically voiced a view - saying he wants to look forward rather than examine the past 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. There's a complete absence of journalistic integrity in that rubbish.
Then I saw it was Tom English, and remembered the carrot doesn't have any
|
|
|
| |
|
rightsaidted
|
10 Sep 2017, 03:27 PM
Post #10895
|
- Posts:
- 1,058
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #33,487
- Joined:
- 11 May 2014
- Favourite all-time player
- Pat Stanton
|
- Tubbytubthumper
- 10 Sep 2017, 01:23 PM
From the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/scotland/41218625Spoiler: click to toggle 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.
Stewart Regan and Neil Doncaster Regan (left) and Doncaster lead the SFA and SPFL - and were in charge during the period Celtic would like to see reviewed by an independent comission 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.
Aberdeen chairman Stewart Milne Aberdeen chairman Stewart Milne is one of the few to have publically voiced a view - saying he wants to look forward rather than examine the past 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. Wasn't Tom only recently on radio moaning that he's so tired of all this and we should all just move on?
I would have thought that a more obvious comparison to The Mousetrap would have been that in spite of deflection, deception, lying, collusion, threats, intimidation and even violence, the truth outs in the end.
And one distinction, in The Mousetrap the audience do not know who the perpetrator is. We, on the other hand, know exactly who is to blame for this farce. Including you, Tom.
|
|
|
| |
|
weebaldy
|
10 Sep 2017, 03:31 PM
Post #10896
|
We Won the Big One-They Never Will!
- Posts:
- 2,229
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #28,009
- Joined:
- 22 February 2011
|
How can these feckers genuinely call themselves reporters when they fail to tackle one of the biggest cover ups in Scottish football?
|
|
|
| |
|
Broadsword
|
10 Sep 2017, 03:42 PM
Post #10897
|
Can I have 12 bottles of bleach please?
- Posts:
- 12,648
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #520
- Joined:
- 17 January 2005
- Twitter Name
- Broadsword31
|
Given the developments over the weekend the key word is survival. A lot of people involved in Scottish football will now be working on, if not enhancing, their prospects for remaining in their current position. Regan and Doncaster are two well paid men who will not be overly keen on seeing their post become available. Tom English and other journalists are going to find it tricky to remain credible (if they ever were) if it is to be shown that they were happy to be the mouthpieces for an underhand (at best) regime at Ibrox. Even Peter Lawwell has to go for it now as the Celtic support in general will not stand for any appeasement now. Other chief executives will be in a similar position. Andrew Dickson et al must realise that they are going to be put under the microscope in a way which will make them uncomfortable to say the least.
The appetite is clearly there, I think a feeding frenzy is upon us.
|
|
|
| |
|
TheGloryYears
|
10 Sep 2017, 03:44 PM
Post #10898
|
Retired and now a BT Sports pundit
- Posts:
- 10,031
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #29,276
- Joined:
- 20 August 2011
- Favourite all-time player
- Frank McAvennie
|
- bazzabhoy78
- 10 Sep 2017, 01:05 PM
So apart from Aberdeen fans, any other supporters groups or clubs issued any statements? Saw this online earlier
http://hibscomebackison.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/scottish-footballs-shame.html?m=1
|
|
|
| |
|
JTH
|
10 Sep 2017, 03:53 PM
Post #10899
|
- Posts:
- 5,405
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #3,429
- Joined:
- 21 March 2006
|
With the Rec12 group being so close to the truth and the subsequent actions of the Celtic board , it shows the amount of professionalism within the company that no one took aside any of the Rec12 members and gave the nod over the future actions of the board . PL must have been highly aware of what, at the time, seemed a fairly damming contempt the board were being held in by "internet bampots" . It would have been easy to drop a "between the lines" chat and watched the ripples calm. IMHO We have a board that really puts the club first.
|
|
|
| |
|
Broadsword
|
10 Sep 2017, 03:55 PM
Post #10900
|
Can I have 12 bottles of bleach please?
- Posts:
- 12,648
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #520
- Joined:
- 17 January 2005
- Twitter Name
- Broadsword31
|
- JTH
- 10 Sep 2017, 03:53 PM
With the Rec12 group being so close to the truth and the subsequent actions of the Celtic board , it shows the amount of professionalism within the company that no one took aside any of the Rec12 members and gave the nod over the future actions of the board . PL must have been highly aware of what, at the time, seemed a fairly damming contempt the board were being held in by "internet bampots" . It would have been easy to drop a "between the lines" chat and watched the ripples calm. IMHO We have a board that really puts the club first. Lawwell has met with 'bampots'. He's been well aware of the issues and concerns.
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|