|
The Board - general discussion (including Res 12); notes from the AGM
|
|
Topic Started: 15 Jul 2014, 12:03 AM (1,414,454 Views)
|
|
k3vkr
|
12 Sep 2017, 01:34 PM
Post #11341
|
The weather is fine in Majorca
- Posts:
- 6,454
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #13,749
- Joined:
- 7 January 2008
- Favourite all-time player
- The King of Kings
- Twitter Name
- @k3vkr
|

That article is tinsoldieresque
|
|
|
| |
|
johnny88
|
12 Sep 2017, 01:36 PM
Post #11342
|
- Posts:
- 1,144
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #34,248
- Joined:
- 23 June 2015
- Favourite all-time player
- Henke
|
I don't care one jot whether or not their is an appetite for it or not, rules were broken (on so many levels) en masse and should be punished according to their own rule book.
Edited by johnny88, 12 Sep 2017, 01:36 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Lobey Dosser
|
12 Sep 2017, 01:45 PM
Post #11343
|
- Posts:
- 7,450
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #3,394
- Joined:
- 17 March 2006
|
- Torquemada
- 12 Sep 2017, 12:57 PM
- weebaldy
- 12 Sep 2017, 10:23 AM
- timbojon
- 12 Sep 2017, 10:07 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Yep, unlike the Kelly regime, the bunnett wasn't afraid to take on those cheating carrots at the SFA  The wee man should have a statue for what he did for our club
Very unfair to Bob Kelly. He faced down the bigoted bastards over the flag issue in 1952, when they tried to push us out of Scottish football unless we capitulated. Having won that battle, he waited a few years and then nailed Sir George Graham on a ticket scam in much the way that Fergus nailed Farry. Exclude Bob Kelly, who had his faults admittedly, from the calumny deservedly heaped on the Kelly trough snouts who followed him. Good shout Torq. too often we tar all previous Celtic governance as incompetent.
|
|
|
| |
|
paulfg42
|
12 Sep 2017, 01:45 PM
Post #11344
|
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
- Posts:
- 42,390
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #42
- Joined:
- 31 August 2004
|
I'm not even going to quote that piece of lickspittle journalism.
|
|
|
| |
|
Hoops For Me All The Way
|
12 Sep 2017, 01:46 PM
Post #11345
|
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
|
- Harris Tottle
- 12 Sep 2017, 01:02 PM
I've said it elsewhere on this forum, even if we can step aside from the cheating issue, the real stinker here is one of governance.
Reagan yesterday made the frankly absurd statement that EBT Ogilvie "excused himself" when these matters were discussed. Really, Stu? So, to be clear, you have Messrs Ogilvie and Dickson, both of them neck deep in this, both strangely forgetful in the witness box, and the best you can come up with is "we didn't speak about it in front of honest Campbell". I'd have thought you'd have both gentlemen in a room for a solid grilling followed by a resignation statement. For all else we are asked to stomach, the continued presence of EBT recipients, both in the SFA and as media commentators (and bizarrely people who are never asked about their EBTs), really is a further kick in the stones.
The SFA has regulary and consistently bent the narrative, I am sure inspired by the notion that the ba' is burst in Scottish football unless Rangers are there. In that attitude, that "too big to fail" nonsense that pollutes the business world, you essentially give the opportunistic every chance to extract the urine. I don't even need to go back raking over the coals of the SFA's shabby history that includes tolerating sectarian signing policies, trying to ban the Irish Flag, ridiculous non selection of players like Jinky, the Cadete affair, Jim Farry etc. In the last 5 years, the SFA, cos its ra Gers, have passed solid gold individuals like Whyte, Green and King as fit and proper. Even better, the likes of King, Johnson and Potless Murray had ringside seats when Minty was essentially running/ruining Scottish football. The idea that "lessons have been learned" is frankly ridiculous. No matter what the Govan club does, no matter how many confrontational and bile filled statements are made by Club 1690, guys like Reagan are hard wired into the notion that no Rangers equates to some form of social and economic calamity on the game.
The acid test of how much has changed is what happens when Sevco falls over. I think we all know how that movie will play out. I might be wrong on this, and of course, I can be.
But I understand he exited from the final signing of the 5WA leaving his hands off that.
Others, wire in, please, if I'm wrong as looking for confirmation.
|
|
|
| |
|
paulfg42
|
12 Sep 2017, 01:54 PM
Post #11346
|
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
- Posts:
- 42,390
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #42
- Joined:
- 31 August 2004
|
- Hoops For Me All The Way
- 12 Sep 2017, 01:46 PM
- Harris Tottle
- 12 Sep 2017, 01:02 PM
I've said it elsewhere on this forum, even if we can step aside from the cheating issue, the real stinker here is one of governance.
Reagan yesterday made the frankly absurd statement that EBT Ogilvie "excused himself" when these matters were discussed. Really, Stu? So, to be clear, you have Messrs Ogilvie and Dickson, both of them neck deep in this, both strangely forgetful in the witness box, and the best you can come up with is "we didn't speak about it in front of honest Campbell". I'd have thought you'd have both gentlemen in a room for a solid grilling followed by a resignation statement. For all else we are asked to stomach, the continued presence of EBT recipients, both in the SFA and as media commentators (and bizarrely people who are never asked about their EBTs), really is a further kick in the stones.
The SFA has regulary and consistently bent the narrative, I am sure inspired by the notion that the ba' is burst in Scottish football unless Rangers are there. In that attitude, that "too big to fail" nonsense that pollutes the business world, you essentially give the opportunistic every chance to extract the urine. I don't even need to go back raking over the coals of the SFA's shabby history that includes tolerating sectarian signing policies, trying to ban the Irish Flag, ridiculous non selection of players like Jinky, the Cadete affair, Jim Farry etc. In the last 5 years, the SFA, cos its ra Gers, have passed solid gold individuals like Whyte, Green and King as fit and proper. Even better, the likes of King, Johnson and Potless Murray had ringside seats when Minty was essentially running/ruining Scottish football. The idea that "lessons have been learned" is frankly ridiculous. No matter what the Govan club does, no matter how many confrontational and bile filled statements are made by Club 1690, guys like Reagan are hard wired into the notion that no Rangers equates to some form of social and economic calamity on the game.
The acid test of how much has changed is what happens when Sevco falls over. I think we all know how that movie will play out.
I might be wrong on this, and of course, I can be. But I understand he exited from the final signing of the 5WA leaving his hands off that. Others, wire in, please, if I'm wrong as looking for confirmation. Are we supposed to believe that he at no point discussed it informally with other SFA officers? Patently absurd.
|
|
|
| |
|
FunkyMonk
|
12 Sep 2017, 01:59 PM
Post #11347
|
- Posts:
- 473
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #35,870
- Joined:
- 17 August 2017
|
It's hard to have any enthusiasm for the Scottish national team when it's ran by this shower of winkers.
|
|
|
| |
|
Wailer
|
12 Sep 2017, 02:03 PM
Post #11348
|
- Posts:
- 57,396
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #625
- Joined:
- 9 February 2005
- Favourite all-time player
- Larsson
|
- FunkyMonk
- 12 Sep 2017, 01:59 PM
It's hard to have any enthusiasm for the Scottish national team when it's ran by this shower of winkers. It was forever thus. The only thing missing from the SFA offices is a lodge number above the door
|
|
|
| |
|
Ned Rise
|
12 Sep 2017, 02:08 PM
Post #11349
|
These boots were made for hunbustin'
- Posts:
- 9,160
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #30,170
- Joined:
- 12 January 2012
|
East Stirling kicked out of Scottish Cup over ineligible player (2011)
Dunfermline kicked out of Scottish Cup for 'breaches of competition rules' (two ineligible players - 2010)
Spartans thrown out of Scottish Cup over ineligible player mistake (2011)
Albion Rovers thrown out of cup for ineligible player (2017)
Brechin booted out of Scottish Cup (two ineligible players, 2008)
Did the SFA require emails or phone calls from any members clubs, never mind the majority of them, before they felt obliged to act in any of the above cases?
They haven't done their job, so they are obliged to answer our concerns, as their failure affects us.
If that means having to do uncomfortable interviews (Don Vincenzo Coccotti would have had a field day) then that's tough luck.
We beat them over the great flag flutter, the Jorge Cadete incident, the Dougiegate scandal and we'll beat them over this. They're in the wrong and they know it.
Edited by Ned Rise, 12 Sep 2017, 02:08 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
shugmc
|
12 Sep 2017, 02:08 PM
Post #11350
|
- Posts:
- 33,547
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #2,142
- Joined:
- 11 October 2005
|
- Fortune Teller
- 12 Sep 2017, 01:13 PM
Link- Quote:
-
The Rangers row threatening to drown out all else in Scottish football A silent majority no longer care about the Rangers affair but dare to suggest this topic has little relevance in 2017 and you are accused of being part of the problem Ewan Murray Pish @mrewanmurray
Tuesday 12 September 2017 12.51 BST
If the Scottish Football Association is anxious regarding the latest, stinging criticism of its governance then such fear is well hidden. By close of business on another of Scottish football’s manic Mondays, focus had firmly shifted towards another of the game’s legislators.
The SFA’s chief executive, Stewart Regan, met the media in reply to an insistence from the Scottish Professional Football League that a “fully independent review” must be held to investigate football governance issues surrounding the 2012 liquidation of Rangers and the club’s use of Employee Benefit Trusts.
The issue has gained significant public traction as letters from Celtic’s chief executive, Peter Lawwell, urging the SFA to agree to such a review, entered the public domain. The undertone is that Scottish football’s ruling body was at best negligent as the Rangers saga played out.
Regan is adamant no such project need be undertaken. He looks and sounds comfortable with his position. The EBT scenario flew back into public consciousness as a supreme court judgment assessed that tax was payable by those Rangers players and officials who earned via the scheme between 2001 and 2010. Regan believes any review would be pointless and that those with a grievance relating to the SFA’s handling of all things Rangers will never be placated.
“Since 2011 the board have relied heavily on advice from four QCs and three law lords, supporting us on that journey,” said Regan of legislative steps and punishments implemented in relation to Rangers. “We also have two independent directors on our board. Independence has been at the heart of everything we have done.
“I think it would be really difficult to convince those who believe in conspiracies that there isn’t a conspiracy at play. My pushback to them is do we really think that four QCs, three law lords, all the club execs, all the independent panel members are all part of some huge conspiracy?
“We have to be able to move on. We won’t get closure in the eyes of some parts of Scottish football – some fans, some stakeholders – we won’t ever get closure. This will be one of those topics that will be talked about for years and years to come. There isn’t a right or a wrong answer; it’s a judgment call and a group of guys around the boardroom table with independent legal scrutiny have come to the conclusion that this is where we draw a line.”
The SFA has, it must be noted, opted to take a closer look at the award of a European licence to Rangers in 2011 after information was revealed during the trial of the club’s former owner Craig Whyte. If it is proven that Rangers misled the SFA in an attempt to earn that Champions League qualifying place, the sanction should be serious. Should, though, is the operative term; the SFA did not even have it within its power to penalise clubs for a mass on-field riot at the conclusion of the 2016 Scottish Cup final.
Lawwell finds himself in an invidious position. A noisy element of the Celtic support refuse to let the issue of Rangers and their demise go away. That group, naturally, would be seriously disappointed if the chief executive of their own club refused to fight on their behalf. If Lawwell believes an investigation is now his best hope of delivering something tangible, his attitude is understandable. He can at the very least say he tried.
“I have a lot of respect for Peter Lawwell,” Regan said. “I was with him at the Champions League draw a couple of weeks ago and we have a very good relationship. I’d do exactly the same in his position – he is looking out for the best interests of Celtic Football Club.”
The notion that fans across Scotland remain enraged by Rangers’ antics and by the approach of officialdom towards that issue is continually overplayed. The reality, one people refuse to accept, is that a silent majority of those who attend matches week on week no longer care about this affair. They grew tired of it long ago, after chuckling as Rangers played domestic fixtures at Albion Rovers and Cowdenbeath. But dare to suggest this topic has little relevance in 2017 and you are accused of being part of the problem.
Rangers’ current fury is towards the SPFL’s chief executive, Neil Doncaster, who penned a letter to the SFA under the title: “Independent review of use of tax avoidance schemes at Rangers FC and actions of Scottish football authorities.”
The Ibrox club are adamant the SPFL board, upon which their managing director Stewart Robertson sits, agreed to undertake no such thing. A process of how circumstances even remotely similar to 2012 would be handled in future, yes, but not essentially another investigation into the EBT years. Semantics, perhaps, but important ones.
The SPFL’s 42 members were referenced in Lawwell’s correspondence; the 42 are also members of the SFA. Aberdeen’s chairman, Stewart Milne, has been consistently vocal with his belief that reviews would do more harm than good. Billy Bowie, Kilmarnock’s majority shareholder, has offered the same message.
“We haven’t had a single email, phone call or letter – other than from Celtic – asking us to have a look at this,” added Regan. “I thought it would be worthwhile to go back out and ask our members: ‘Are you sure … is there anything you want looked at?’ I told them the rationale to our decision in a letter last week. I haven’t had a single response asking for clarification.”
Hibernian’s chairman, Rod Petrie, is also a vice-president of the SFA, which is perhaps pertinent in respect of their statement distancing themselves from the SPFL’s stance by Monday evening. That said, the basic notion of “independence” in the context of an inquiry is arguably undermined by Regan and Petrie – such prominent SFA figures – being in position to veto.
Suddenly, Doncaster’s letter looked a curious piece of work. Why on earth did the SPFL’s chief executive pen it when member clubs, and prominent ones at that, would be immediately willing to take an alternative stance? In a statement on Monday evening the SPFL pointed only to its board approving the call for an inquiry. For such an important issue, surely all 42 clubs should have been consulted to avoid what has regressed into a public relations disaster.
The SPFL itself did not reply to a direct question as to how many clubs actually support a call for a fully independent review. And yet, it seems at best bizarre that Doncaster would approach the SFA without sufficient backing. Perhaps, given Celtic’s size and status, they have every right to push on their own. By very definition, they were the club most affected by Rangers’ EBT use. Maybe Doncaster was seeking to put the focus on the SFA when, in reality, the consequence has been altogether different.
On Tuesday evening Celtic will host Paris Saint-Germain against the inevitable backdrop of an almighty din. It is a noise matched elsewhere.

State of that
|
|
|
| |
|
DICEMAN
|
12 Sep 2017, 02:10 PM
Post #11351
|
Everyone's Fantasy Football first pick
- Posts:
- 1,950
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #20,128
- Joined:
- 20 June 2008
- Favourite all-time player
- Lionel Messi
|
- stevie21
- 12 Sep 2017, 12:31 PM
This might sound like I'm asking the same question twice, but if the SFA etc. just keep refusing to look into this, is there a way of going over their heads? My last post on this asked what outcome people expect, and I expect it to be brushed under the carpet if the SFA can get away with doing so. Is there a way of pushing this into the Court of Arbitration for Sport or something similar? Thats what I want to know.
CAS wont be tainted with huns sitting in judgement
|
|
|
| |
|
tomtheleedstim
|
12 Sep 2017, 02:10 PM
Post #11352
|
- Posts:
- 2,428
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #27,080
- Joined:
- 14 October 2010
|
- johnny88
- 12 Sep 2017, 01:36 PM
I don't care one jot whether or not their is an appetite for it or not, rules were broken (on so many levels) en masse and should be punished according to their own rule book. I cannot find the bits in the SFA rule book where punishment for breaking rules is only administered if "there is an appetite for it" .
|
|
|
| |
|
DG145
|
12 Sep 2017, 02:15 PM
Post #11353
|
- Posts:
- 964
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #3,082
- Joined:
- 15 February 2006
|
- tomtheleedstim
- 12 Sep 2017, 02:10 PM
- johnny88
- 12 Sep 2017, 01:36 PM
I don't care one jot whether or not their is an appetite for it or not, rules were broken (on so many levels) en masse and should be punished according to their own rule book. I cannot find the bits in the SFA rule book where punishment for breaking rules is only administered if "there is an appetite for it" . They may as well asterisk the rulebook with 'None of the above applies in the case of any manifestation of Rangers'.
It's effectively what is happening.
|
|
|
| |
|
Lobey Dosser
|
12 Sep 2017, 02:17 PM
Post #11354
|
- Posts:
- 7,450
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #3,394
- Joined:
- 17 March 2006
|
- shugmc
- 12 Sep 2017, 02:08 PM
- Fortune Teller
- 12 Sep 2017, 01:13 PM
Link- Quote:
-
The Rangers row threatening to drown out all else in Scottish football A silent majority no longer care about the Rangers affair but dare to suggest this topic has little relevance in 2017 and you are accused of being part of the problem Ewan Murray Pish @mrewanmurray
Tuesday 12 September 2017 12.51 BST
If the Scottish Football Association is anxious regarding the latest, stinging criticism of its governance then such fear is well hidden. By close of business on another of Scottish football’s manic Mondays, focus had firmly shifted towards another of the game’s legislators.
The SFA’s chief executive, Stewart Regan, met the media in reply to an insistence from the Scottish Professional Football League that a “fully independent review” must be held to investigate football governance issues surrounding the 2012 liquidation of Rangers and the club’s use of Employee Benefit Trusts.
The issue has gained significant public traction as letters from Celtic’s chief executive, Peter Lawwell, urging the SFA to agree to such a review, entered the public domain. The undertone is that Scottish football’s ruling body was at best negligent as the Rangers saga played out.
Regan is adamant no such project need be undertaken. He looks and sounds comfortable with his position. The EBT scenario flew back into public consciousness as a supreme court judgment assessed that tax was payable by those Rangers players and officials who earned via the scheme between 2001 and 2010. Regan believes any review would be pointless and that those with a grievance relating to the SFA’s handling of all things Rangers will never be placated.
“Since 2011 the board have relied heavily on advice from four QCs and three law lords, supporting us on that journey,” said Regan of legislative steps and punishments implemented in relation to Rangers. “We also have two independent directors on our board. Independence has been at the heart of everything we have done.
“I think it would be really difficult to convince those who believe in conspiracies that there isn’t a conspiracy at play. My pushback to them is do we really think that four QCs, three law lords, all the club execs, all the independent panel members are all part of some huge conspiracy?
“We have to be able to move on. We won’t get closure in the eyes of some parts of Scottish football – some fans, some stakeholders – we won’t ever get closure. This will be one of those topics that will be talked about for years and years to come. There isn’t a right or a wrong answer; it’s a judgment call and a group of guys around the boardroom table with independent legal scrutiny have come to the conclusion that this is where we draw a line.”
The SFA has, it must be noted, opted to take a closer look at the award of a European licence to Rangers in 2011 after information was revealed during the trial of the club’s former owner Craig Whyte. If it is proven that Rangers misled the SFA in an attempt to earn that Champions League qualifying place, the sanction should be serious. Should, though, is the operative term; the SFA did not even have it within its power to penalise clubs for a mass on-field riot at the conclusion of the 2016 Scottish Cup final.
Lawwell finds himself in an invidious position. A noisy element of the Celtic support refuse to let the issue of Rangers and their demise go away. That group, naturally, would be seriously disappointed if the chief executive of their own club refused to fight on their behalf. If Lawwell believes an investigation is now his best hope of delivering something tangible, his attitude is understandable. He can at the very least say he tried.
“I have a lot of respect for Peter Lawwell,” Regan said. “I was with him at the Champions League draw a couple of weeks ago and we have a very good relationship. I’d do exactly the same in his position – he is looking out for the best interests of Celtic Football Club.”
The notion that fans across Scotland remain enraged by Rangers’ antics and by the approach of officialdom towards that issue is continually overplayed. The reality, one people refuse to accept, is that a silent majority of those who attend matches week on week no longer care about this affair. They grew tired of it long ago, after chuckling as Rangers played domestic fixtures at Albion Rovers and Cowdenbeath. But dare to suggest this topic has little relevance in 2017 and you are accused of being part of the problem.
Rangers’ current fury is towards the SPFL’s chief executive, Neil Doncaster, who penned a letter to the SFA under the title: “Independent review of use of tax avoidance schemes at Rangers FC and actions of Scottish football authorities.”
The Ibrox club are adamant the SPFL board, upon which their managing director Stewart Robertson sits, agreed to undertake no such thing. A process of how circumstances even remotely similar to 2012 would be handled in future, yes, but not essentially another investigation into the EBT years. Semantics, perhaps, but important ones.
The SPFL’s 42 members were referenced in Lawwell’s correspondence; the 42 are also members of the SFA. Aberdeen’s chairman, Stewart Milne, has been consistently vocal with his belief that reviews would do more harm than good. Billy Bowie, Kilmarnock’s majority shareholder, has offered the same message.
“We haven’t had a single email, phone call or letter – other than from Celtic – asking us to have a look at this,” added Regan. “I thought it would be worthwhile to go back out and ask our members: ‘Are you sure … is there anything you want looked at?’ I told them the rationale to our decision in a letter last week. I haven’t had a single response asking for clarification.”
Hibernian’s chairman, Rod Petrie, is also a vice-president of the SFA, which is perhaps pertinent in respect of their statement distancing themselves from the SPFL’s stance by Monday evening. That said, the basic notion of “independence” in the context of an inquiry is arguably undermined by Regan and Petrie – such prominent SFA figures – being in position to veto.
Suddenly, Doncaster’s letter looked a curious piece of work. Why on earth did the SPFL’s chief executive pen it when member clubs, and prominent ones at that, would be immediately willing to take an alternative stance? In a statement on Monday evening the SPFL pointed only to its board approving the call for an inquiry. For such an important issue, surely all 42 clubs should have been consulted to avoid what has regressed into a public relations disaster.
The SPFL itself did not reply to a direct question as to how many clubs actually support a call for a fully independent review. And yet, it seems at best bizarre that Doncaster would approach the SFA without sufficient backing. Perhaps, given Celtic’s size and status, they have every right to push on their own. By very definition, they were the club most affected by Rangers’ EBT use. Maybe Doncaster was seeking to put the focus on the SFA when, in reality, the consequence has been altogether different.
On Tuesday evening Celtic will host Paris Saint-Germain against the inevitable backdrop of an almighty din. It is a noise matched elsewhere.
 State of that  Fekk sake hide that before the weans get on the computer or it'll frighten them to death.
|
|
|
| |
|
echohead
|
12 Sep 2017, 02:26 PM
Post #11355
|
- Posts:
- 726
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #20,848
- Joined:
- 22 July 2008
|
- johnny88
- 12 Sep 2017, 01:36 PM
I don't care one jot whether or not their is an appetite for it or not, rules were broken (on so many levels) en masse and should be punished according to their own rule book. Yup. It becomes confusing when enforcement of the rules is characterized as dependent on "appetite". Regan's "one club" comment should only re-enforce Celtic's determination to make sure this whole sorry episode is thoroughly exposed; raked over until the last sordid scrap of corruption is exposed to the clearest of sunlight.
|
|
|
| |
|
tarff26
|
12 Sep 2017, 02:30 PM
Post #11356
|
- Posts:
- 19,151
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #23,403
- Joined:
- 11 May 2009
|
- shugmc
- 12 Sep 2017, 02:08 PM
- Fortune Teller
- 12 Sep 2017, 01:13 PM
Link- Quote:
-
The Rangers row threatening to drown out all else in Scottish football A silent majority no longer care about the Rangers affair but dare to suggest this topic has little relevance in 2017 and you are accused of being part of the problem Ewan Murray Pish @mrewanmurray
Tuesday 12 September 2017 12.51 BST
If the Scottish Football Association is anxious regarding the latest, stinging criticism of its governance then such fear is well hidden. By close of business on another of Scottish football’s manic Mondays, focus had firmly shifted towards another of the game’s legislators.
The SFA’s chief executive, Stewart Regan, met the media in reply to an insistence from the Scottish Professional Football League that a “fully independent review” must be held to investigate football governance issues surrounding the 2012 liquidation of Rangers and the club’s use of Employee Benefit Trusts.
The issue has gained significant public traction as letters from Celtic’s chief executive, Peter Lawwell, urging the SFA to agree to such a review, entered the public domain. The undertone is that Scottish football’s ruling body was at best negligent as the Rangers saga played out.
Regan is adamant no such project need be undertaken. He looks and sounds comfortable with his position. The EBT scenario flew back into public consciousness as a supreme court judgment assessed that tax was payable by those Rangers players and officials who earned via the scheme between 2001 and 2010. Regan believes any review would be pointless and that those with a grievance relating to the SFA’s handling of all things Rangers will never be placated.
“Since 2011 the board have relied heavily on advice from four QCs and three law lords, supporting us on that journey,” said Regan of legislative steps and punishments implemented in relation to Rangers. “We also have two independent directors on our board. Independence has been at the heart of everything we have done.
“I think it would be really difficult to convince those who believe in conspiracies that there isn’t a conspiracy at play. My pushback to them is do we really think that four QCs, three law lords, all the club execs, all the independent panel members are all part of some huge conspiracy?
“We have to be able to move on. We won’t get closure in the eyes of some parts of Scottish football – some fans, some stakeholders – we won’t ever get closure. This will be one of those topics that will be talked about for years and years to come. There isn’t a right or a wrong answer; it’s a judgment call and a group of guys around the boardroom table with independent legal scrutiny have come to the conclusion that this is where we draw a line.”
The SFA has, it must be noted, opted to take a closer look at the award of a European licence to Rangers in 2011 after information was revealed during the trial of the club’s former owner Craig Whyte. If it is proven that Rangers misled the SFA in an attempt to earn that Champions League qualifying place, the sanction should be serious. Should, though, is the operative term; the SFA did not even have it within its power to penalise clubs for a mass on-field riot at the conclusion of the 2016 Scottish Cup final.
Lawwell finds himself in an invidious position. A noisy element of the Celtic support refuse to let the issue of Rangers and their demise go away. That group, naturally, would be seriously disappointed if the chief executive of their own club refused to fight on their behalf. If Lawwell believes an investigation is now his best hope of delivering something tangible, his attitude is understandable. He can at the very least say he tried.
“I have a lot of respect for Peter Lawwell,” Regan said. “I was with him at the Champions League draw a couple of weeks ago and we have a very good relationship. I’d do exactly the same in his position – he is looking out for the best interests of Celtic Football Club.”
The notion that fans across Scotland remain enraged by Rangers’ antics and by the approach of officialdom towards that issue is continually overplayed. The reality, one people refuse to accept, is that a silent majority of those who attend matches week on week no longer care about this affair. They grew tired of it long ago, after chuckling as Rangers played domestic fixtures at Albion Rovers and Cowdenbeath. But dare to suggest this topic has little relevance in 2017 and you are accused of being part of the problem.
Rangers’ current fury is towards the SPFL’s chief executive, Neil Doncaster, who penned a letter to the SFA under the title: “Independent review of use of tax avoidance schemes at Rangers FC and actions of Scottish football authorities.”
The Ibrox club are adamant the SPFL board, upon which their managing director Stewart Robertson sits, agreed to undertake no such thing. A process of how circumstances even remotely similar to 2012 would be handled in future, yes, but not essentially another investigation into the EBT years. Semantics, perhaps, but important ones.
The SPFL’s 42 members were referenced in Lawwell’s correspondence; the 42 are also members of the SFA. Aberdeen’s chairman, Stewart Milne, has been consistently vocal with his belief that reviews would do more harm than good. Billy Bowie, Kilmarnock’s majority shareholder, has offered the same message.
“We haven’t had a single email, phone call or letter – other than from Celtic – asking us to have a look at this,” added Regan. “I thought it would be worthwhile to go back out and ask our members: ‘Are you sure … is there anything you want looked at?’ I told them the rationale to our decision in a letter last week. I haven’t had a single response asking for clarification.”
Hibernian’s chairman, Rod Petrie, is also a vice-president of the SFA, which is perhaps pertinent in respect of their statement distancing themselves from the SPFL’s stance by Monday evening. That said, the basic notion of “independence” in the context of an inquiry is arguably undermined by Regan and Petrie – such prominent SFA figures – being in position to veto.
Suddenly, Doncaster’s letter looked a curious piece of work. Why on earth did the SPFL’s chief executive pen it when member clubs, and prominent ones at that, would be immediately willing to take an alternative stance? In a statement on Monday evening the SPFL pointed only to its board approving the call for an inquiry. For such an important issue, surely all 42 clubs should have been consulted to avoid what has regressed into a public relations disaster.
The SPFL itself did not reply to a direct question as to how many clubs actually support a call for a fully independent review. And yet, it seems at best bizarre that Doncaster would approach the SFA without sufficient backing. Perhaps, given Celtic’s size and status, they have every right to push on their own. By very definition, they were the club most affected by Rangers’ EBT use. Maybe Doncaster was seeking to put the focus on the SFA when, in reality, the consequence has been altogether different.
On Tuesday evening Celtic will host Paris Saint-Germain against the inevitable backdrop of an almighty din. It is a noise matched elsewhere.
 State of that  And that's the best photo they got of him
|
|
|
| |
|
BardseyCelt
|
12 Sep 2017, 02:31 PM
Post #11357
|
- Posts:
- 17,480
- Group:
- Poster of the Month
- Member
- #2,250
- Joined:
- 2 November 2005
- Favourite all-time player
- The Evil Genius
|
Face like his wife has caught him trying on her pants.
|
|
|
| |
|
ronny_is_not_da_man
|
12 Sep 2017, 02:33 PM
Post #11358
|
Off treasure hunting in Holland
- Posts:
- 12,151
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #34,169
- Joined:
- 14 May 2015
- Favourite all-time player
- Henke
|
- BardseyCelt
- 12 Sep 2017, 02:31 PM
Face like his wife has caught him trying on her pants. Spoken like a true expert
|
|
|
| |
|
Wailer
|
12 Sep 2017, 02:34 PM
Post #11359
|
- Posts:
- 57,396
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #625
- Joined:
- 9 February 2005
- Favourite all-time player
- Larsson
|
- tarff26
- 12 Sep 2017, 02:30 PM
- shugmc
- 12 Sep 2017, 02:08 PM
- Fortune Teller
- 12 Sep 2017, 01:13 PM
LinkQuoting limited to 3 levels deep Pish @mrewanmurray
Tuesday 12 September 2017 12.51 BST
If the Scottish Football Association is anxious regarding the latest, stinging criticism of its governance then such fear is well hidden. By close of business on another of Scottish football’s manic Mondays, focus had firmly shifted towards another of the game’s legislators.
The SFA’s chief executive, Stewart Regan, met the media in reply to an insistence from the Scottish Professional Football League that a “fully independent review” must be held to investigate football governance issues surrounding the 2012 liquidation of Rangers and the club’s use of Employee Benefit Trusts.
The issue has gained significant public traction as letters from Celtic’s chief executive, Peter Lawwell, urging the SFA to agree to such a review, entered the public domain. The undertone is that Scottish football’s ruling body was at best negligent as the Rangers saga played out.
Regan is adamant no such project need be undertaken. He looks and sounds comfortable with his position. The EBT scenario flew back into public consciousness as a supreme court judgment assessed that tax was payable by those Rangers players and officials who earned via the scheme between 2001 and 2010. Regan believes any review would be pointless and that those with a grievance relating to the SFA’s handling of all things Rangers will never be placated.
“Since 2011 the board have relied heavily on advice from four QCs and three law lords, supporting us on that journey,” said Regan of legislative steps and punishments implemented in relation to Rangers. “We also have two independent directors on our board. Independence has been at the heart of everything we have done.
“I think it would be really difficult to convince those who believe in conspiracies that there isn’t a conspiracy at play. My pushback to them is do we really think that four QCs, three law lords, all the club execs, all the independent panel members are all part of some huge conspiracy?
“We have to be able to move on. We won’t get closure in the eyes of some parts of Scottish football – some fans, some stakeholders – we won’t ever get closure. This will be one of those topics that will be talked about for years and years to come. There isn’t a right or a wrong answer; it’s a judgment call and a group of guys around the boardroom table with independent legal scrutiny have come to the conclusion that this is where we draw a line.”
The SFA has, it must be noted, opted to take a closer look at the award of a European licence to Rangers in 2011 after information was revealed during the trial of the club’s former owner Craig Whyte. If it is proven that Rangers misled the SFA in an attempt to earn that Champions League qualifying place, the sanction should be serious. Should, though, is the operative term; the SFA did not even have it within its power to penalise clubs for a mass on-field riot at the conclusion of the 2016 Scottish Cup final.
Lawwell finds himself in an invidious position. A noisy element of the Celtic support refuse to let the issue of Rangers and their demise go away. That group, naturally, would be seriously disappointed if the chief executive of their own club refused to fight on their behalf. If Lawwell believes an investigation is now his best hope of delivering something tangible, his attitude is understandable. He can at the very least say he tried.
“I have a lot of respect for Peter Lawwell,” Regan said. “I was with him at the Champions League draw a couple of weeks ago and we have a very good relationship. I’d do exactly the same in his position – he is looking out for the best interests of Celtic Football Club.”
The notion that fans across Scotland remain enraged by Rangers’ antics and by the approach of officialdom towards that issue is continually overplayed. The reality, one people refuse to accept, is that a silent majority of those who attend matches week on week no longer care about this affair. They grew tired of it long ago, after chuckling as Rangers played domestic fixtures at Albion Rovers and Cowdenbeath. But dare to suggest this topic has little relevance in 2017 and you are accused of being part of the problem.
Rangers’ current fury is towards the SPFL’s chief executive, Neil Doncaster, who penned a letter to the SFA under the title: “Independent review of use of tax avoidance schemes at Rangers FC and actions of Scottish football authorities.”
The Ibrox club are adamant the SPFL board, upon which their managing director Stewart Robertson sits, agreed to undertake no such thing. A process of how circumstances even remotely similar to 2012 would be handled in future, yes, but not essentially another investigation into the EBT years. Semantics, perhaps, but important ones.
The SPFL’s 42 members were referenced in Lawwell’s correspondence; the 42 are also members of the SFA. Aberdeen’s chairman, Stewart Milne, has been consistently vocal with his belief that reviews would do more harm than good. Billy Bowie, Kilmarnock’s majority shareholder, has offered the same message.
“We haven’t had a single email, phone call or letter – other than from Celtic – asking us to have a look at this,” added Regan. “I thought it would be worthwhile to go back out and ask our members: ‘Are you sure … is there anything you want looked at?’ I told them the rationale to our decision in a letter last week. I haven’t had a single response asking for clarification.”
Hibernian’s chairman, Rod Petrie, is also a vice-president of the SFA, which is perhaps pertinent in respect of their statement distancing themselves from the SPFL’s stance by Monday evening. That said, the basic notion of “independence” in the context of an inquiry is arguably undermined by Regan and Petrie – such prominent SFA figures – being in position to veto.
Suddenly, Doncaster’s letter looked a curious piece of work. Why on earth did the SPFL’s chief executive pen it when member clubs, and prominent ones at that, would be immediately willing to take an alternative stance? In a statement on Monday evening the SPFL pointed only to its board approving the call for an inquiry. For such an important issue, surely all 42 clubs should have been consulted to avoid what has regressed into a public relations disaster.
The SPFL itself did not reply to a direct question as to how many clubs actually support a call for a fully independent review. And yet, it seems at best bizarre that Doncaster would approach the SFA without sufficient backing. Perhaps, given Celtic’s size and status, they have every right to push on their own. By very definition, they were the club most affected by Rangers’ EBT use. Maybe Doncaster was seeking to put the focus on the SFA when, in reality, the consequence has been altogether different.
On Tuesday evening Celtic will host Paris Saint-Germain against the inevitable backdrop of an almighty din. It is a noise matched elsewhere.
 State of that 
And that's the best photo they got of him Looks like he's just been dragged out of a microwave
|
|
|
| |
|
BardseyCelt
|
12 Sep 2017, 02:34 PM
Post #11360
|
- Posts:
- 17,480
- Group:
- Poster of the Month
- Member
- #2,250
- Joined:
- 2 November 2005
- Favourite all-time player
- The Evil Genius
|
- ronny_is_not_da_man
- 12 Sep 2017, 02:33 PM
- BardseyCelt
- 12 Sep 2017, 02:31 PM
Face like his wife has caught him trying on her pants.
Spoken like a true expert Joke's on you, we're not married.
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|