The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.

[IveSeenTheLight]

All the abuse I get and actually I should blame myself for 'chiding others'. ...... really

 

 

Glad however to see that you deem it a reasonable position to take...only another 199 other posters to convince

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but you have yet to provide any convincing argument that results in regaining integrity to Scottish football.

[Rick Grimes]

All the abuse I get and actually I should blame myself for 'chiding others'. ...... really

 

 

Glad however to see that you deem it a reasonable position to take...only another 199 other posters to convince

If you're going to call others out, better be whiter than white yourself. You've been just as abusive as anyone else, just in a different way.

 

As for your argument, it's a reasonable one. Doesn't mean it's necessarily correct.

[269miles]

 

Celtic-minded post warning!

 

Rangers Tax-Case? @rangerstaxcase 10m10 minutes ago

Judicial Review funding update. The 'button has been pushed' on this process. Keep your money at hand. We hope it will be needed soon.

 

   

 

You're a very naughty boy.

 

Good news week tho - Cathro gone and no doubt some stained trousers in Glasgow currently. 

[Unknown user]

I think someone needs their Nat King

[I P Knightley]

 

...The inability to discuss...

Laughable

[reaths17]

If you're going to call others out, better be whiter than white yourself. You've been just as abusive as anyone else, just in a different way.

 

As for your argument, it's a reasonable one. Doesn't mean it's necessarily correct.

what argument ?

 

he joins in no discussion, he slavers his blinkered opinion but provides no evidence to back this up.

 

as you find it reasonable perhaps you can supply some facts to back up why we should sweep it under the carpet and let the cheats continue as if nowt happened, while at the same time punish teams for failing to double date a form.

[GMEdinburgh]

I appreciate it may not be as simple as this but my understanding is that newco only got their SPFL licence if they took the responsibility of oldco regarding footballing debt etc. Forget the EBT's and tax case for the moment but as oldco held back the side letters and was less than transparent to the footballing authorities is this enough for them to pulled up

[The Treasurer]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but you have yet to provide any convincing argument that results in regaining integrity to Scottish football.

Can't "regain" something that's never existed

[IveSeenTheLight]

Can't "regain" something that's never existed

Ok, but there is an opportunity to start and clean up the mess that it is.

Sweeping it under the carpet and desiring to move on as if nothing happened insinuates a propensity for the corruption to be acceptable.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

I appreciate it may not be as simple as this but my understanding is that newco only got their SPFL licence if they took the responsibility of oldco regarding footballing debt etc. Forget the EBT's and tax case for the moment but as oldco held back the side letters and was less than transparent to the footballing authorities is this enough for them to pulled up

 

For anybody else it would be, but as it's The Rangers, sweep sweep sweep.

[Boris]

Ok, but there is an opportunity to start and clean up the mess that it is.

Sweeping it under the carpet and desiring to move on as if nothing happened insinuates a propensity for the corruption to be acceptable.

 

Correct, and, as has been mentioned, if this was any other club you just know that the full weight of the "law" would have come down on them.

 

What was previously a conspiracy theory (!) regarding the SFA/footballing authorities and their preference for the Govanites can now be seen to be true.

 

Regardless of what has been adjudged before, it has to be seen through this lens.  

[reaths17]

I appreciate it may not be as simple as this but my understanding is that newco only got their SPFL licence if they took the responsibility of oldco regarding footballing debt etc. Forget the EBT's and tax case for the moment but as oldco held back the side letters and was less than transparent to the footballing authorities is this enough for them to pulled up

a team only dated their team sheet once instead of twice and were thrown out the cup, what do you think the penalty should be for deliberately with holding the facts regarding umpteen player registrations over a number of years

[269miles]

I appreciate it may not be as simple as this but my understanding is that newco only got their SPFL licence if they took the responsibility of oldco regarding footballing debt etc. Forget the EBT's and tax case for the moment but as oldco held back the side letters and was less than transparent to the footballing authorities is this enough for them to pulled up

That's partially true , as I understand it. The 5 way agreement did allegedly include title stripping from the start but it seems Green wouldn't sign up to this - FF posted one copy of it just recently.  If you think about it, they all wanted the continuity myth to be maintained but they could hardly do so if the clubs weren't going to paid what they were owed (and we were owed a LOT). After all, everyone knows a football club has to pay "it's" football debts as a matter of priority. The fans of other clubs were already in uproar and telling them that "Rangers" weren't going to be paying their football debts wasn't going to go down well. 

 

A win win for everyone (Doncaster & Green) , although how Donacster managed to get Green to pay off debts that were nothing to do with Sevco is actually quite a feat - the price he had to pay for Doncaster's silence   on the new club question ? 

 

Allegedly the deal was , pay the football debts and you can stay in the top division then watered down to the first division (due to fans protests) but ultimately Donacster caved in , Sevco went into the bottom tier and Green refused to consider title stripping as a result. 

[davieholt]

That's partially true , as I understand it. The 5 way agreement did allegedly include title stripping from the start but it seems Green wouldn't sign up to this - FF posted one copy of it just recently.  If you think about it, they all wanted the continuity myth to be maintained but they could hardly do so if the clubs weren't going to paid what they were owed (and we were owed a LOT). After all, everyone knows a football club has to pay "it's" football debts as a matter of priority. The fans of other clubs were already in uproar and telling them that "Rangers" weren't going to be paying their football debts wasn't going to go down well. 

 

A win win for everyone (Doncaster & Green) , although how Donacster managed to get Green to pay off debts that were nothing to do with Sevco is actually quite a feat - the price he had to pay for Doncaster's silence   on the new club question ? 

 

Allegedly the deal was , pay the football debts and you can stay in the top division then watered down to the first division (due to fans protests) but ultimately Donacster caved in , Sevco went into the bottom tier and Green refused to consider title stripping as a result.

 

Green refused to consider title stripping? What aces did he hold which allowed him to 'refuse to consider'?

[IveSeenTheLight]

Green refused to consider title stripping? What aces did he hold which allowed him to 'refuse to consider'?

It was going to be Armageddon remember.

It was a blissful 4 years without them in the league.

[Footballfirst]

Green refused to consider title stripping? What aces did he hold which allowed him to 'refuse to consider'?

My view of it would be that Green held the blue pound.  The threat of a "Rangers" sitting out a league season may have invalidated the TV contracts, leading to the loss of several ?M in revenue, plus Doncaster's/Regan's real belief in the armageddon scenario and "social unrest" was too much of a risk to take, so a compromise was agreed.

Edited August 2, 2017 by Footballfirst

[reaths17]

see this 5 year agreement contract thingy that's used as an excuse to do nothing is utter bullshit.

 

any business agreement can be legally reviewed with proper backing, it is not set in stone, though it would be those that agreed to it in the 1st place and are still there that would have to push for its review. it's just another company document, it's never been legally ratified as gospel and I would say that the football association/league rules signed up to by all clubs, would legally supersede it as all associated clubs wont have voted on this arrangement.

[Mikey1874]

My view of it would be that Green held the blue pound. The threat of a "Rangers" sitting out a league season may have invalidated the TV contracts, leading to the loss of several ?M in revenue, plus Doncaster's/Regan's real belief in the armageddon scenario and "social unrest" was too much of a risk to take, so a compromise was agreed.

And there is something about being an experienced negotiator. You just have more strength and ability to get what you want. Balls and mental toughness.

[Rick Grimes]

what argument ?

 

he joins in no discussion, he slavers his blinkered opinion but provides no evidence to back this up.

 

as you find it reasonable perhaps you can supply some facts to back up why we should sweep it under the carpet and let the cheats continue as if nowt happened, while at the same time punish teams for failing to double date a form.

On the post I'd been quoting he actually put together a position for a change instead of the usual sniping and condescension. It's basically taking the SPFL position at face value and accepting that there was only one footballing rule broken (failure to properly register players) and that the LNS commission has already dealt with it so legally nothing can be done, even if you want more to happen. I think it's fair to say that that is a reasonable, or reasoned at least, position to take.

 

Personally I don't buy the SPFL's argument wholesale - I don't understand which laws the SPFL would be breaking (that could be challenged in court) if they did revisit it and I think the original commission was based on incorrect information and is thus invalidated.

 

I'd also like to see them nailed to the wall and set on fire if possible

[reaths17]

On the post I'd been quoting he actually put together a position for a change instead of the usual sniping and condescension. It's basically taking the SPFL position at face value and accepting that there was only one footballing rule broken (failure to properly register players) and that the LNS commission has already dealt with it so legally nothing can be done, even if you want more to happen. I think it's fair to say that that is a reasonable, or reasoned at least, position to take.

 

Personally I don't buy the SPFL's argument wholesale - I don't understand which laws the SPFL would be breaking (that could be challenged in court) if they did revisit it and I think the original commission was based on incorrect information and is thus invalidated.

 

I'd also like to see them nailed to the wall and set on fire if possible

the splf have went out their way to find and explain why they cant, they could put a few people together and find why they can. on reading most of their ramblings I see no legal reasoning why it cant be revisited. it's hard to accept that as they try to sweep this away, they are still punishing others by the book and that is inexcusable and in no way is that reasonable or acceptable and if he had an sense of decency he would stop slavering about the poor huns. theres nothing reasonable about his love in for the cheats.

[kingdannyb]

Sevco bam shouts at Griffiths in the airport. STV says:

 

"The person appeared to shout an obscenity and Griffiths was heard to say "your team's deid mate, beat it."

 

https://stv.tv/sport/football/1394815-celtic-to-review-travel-plans-after-airport-abuse/

[Footballfirst]

Some guidance on the Judicial Review process from Tony McKelvie

 

Tony McKelvie ? @TonyMcKelvie

2nd Aug 2017 from TwitLonger

 

Judicial Review: A Dummies Guide

I see that moves are afoot to seek a Judicial Review of certain matters in Scottish Football, and thought it might be worthwhile sketching out the process for those who may be interested in but unfamiliar with the process.

This is not presented as, and is not intended to be, any sort of definitive description of the Judicial Review process in Scotland. Rather, it's an outline of the challenges facing anyone considering using the Judicial Review process, written by a Dummy for other Dummies. An extensive and authoritative guide can be found here: http://www.parliament.scot/ResearchBriefingsAndFactsheets/S5/SB_16-62_Judicial_Review.pdf

First up, let's get one thing straight: In Judicial Review, you can't simply rock up to court and insist the judge finds the other guys bang to rights. This is not a matter of civil dispute between two parties over the placing of a fence between their properties. Moreover, the courts are often reluctant to intervene at all.

Judicial Review is a process of supervising the decisions of public bodies, and in Scotland, this supervision extends in some circumstances to the decisions made by private organisations.

In this context, are the decisions of SFA and/or SPFL subject to the supervision of the courts in Scotland? Resoundingly: Yes.

Now we've got that out of the way, attention turns to consider quite what it is that one might ask the court to review. Judicial Review is, in effect, a challenge to the legal validity of a given decision. The bases for the challenge are variously:

1) That the decision maker acted unlawfully;
2) That the decision was made using an unfair procedure;
3) That the decision was so unreasonable as to be irrational.

Interestingly from the perspective of those seeking to review recent decisions of SFA and SPFL, Judicial Review also applies to decisions not to act.

First base then is defining the "decision" that the court will be asked to review. This is subject to a time bar, such that any application for review needs to be made within three months of the decision being made. [it's worthwhile noting here that the decision of the SPL's Commission headed by Lord Nimmo Smith was made in 2013].

Once the decision subject to a proposed review has been defined, there is a formal process of "petition" to undertake before the court will agree to its review. The petition process has three tests which the 'petitioners' require to pass before a petition for Review is granted, being:

1) That the Petitioners have 'sufficient interest' in the matter at hand;
2) That the application has a real prospect of success, and;
3) Either - (i) the application raises an important point of principle or practice, or (ii) there is some other compelling reason for allowing the application to proceed

Only once the court is satisfied that the petition meets all three tests, is the petition granted, and a Judicial Review undertaken.

In the mooted suggestion to seek Judicial Review of a decision(s) by SFA and/or SPFL, the matter of the 'sufficient interest' of the petitioners represents a considerable hurdle. Let's assume that the petitioners do not include any member clubs of either SFA or SPFL. In such circumstances, the courts are careful to prevent 'busybodies' interfering with the properly-taken decisions of organisations to which the petitioner has no direct association.

In this light, it's worth noting that Football is the National Game in Scotland, and as such, subject of considerable public interest. A 'body' of petitioners reflecting the status and public interest of the Game *might* be considered to have 'sufficient interest' in the matter to meet the test of standing. It is wholly unlikely though that an individual or group of individuals acting in isolation would meet the test.

The second test - That the application has a real prospect of success - is bound up in the merits of the third test. In these regards, it will be for Counsel to the petitioners to determine what legal point of principle or practice to challenge, and thereafter to advise on the prospects of success.

News this morning that Counsel has been retained implies that such advice has yet to be provided. If in the coming weeks news arrives that a petition for Judicial Review is to be raised, it can be reasonably assumed that Counsel has confidence that the circumstances of the case meet the three tests.

On which point, it's worth noting SPFL Chairman Ralph Topping's recently published view that the SPFL "is ready" for any such challenge, and confident that it will be able to sustain any such scrutiny. Indeed, SPFL recently published advice received from its own Senior Counsel on the matter to this effect.

Finally, the costs of a Judicial Review are considerable. Judicial Reviews are undertaken at the Court of Session, and arguments made by Advocates, often Queen's Counsel, acting on instructions received by a solicitor. That's a lot of time from a lot of well paid professionals. The costs of obtaining advice, preparing the case and presenting a petition typically run to six figures, at which point the outcome merely secures a "day in court" to argue the case.

Taken in the round, Judicial Review is fraught, encompassing a set of challenging standards in a complex process led by legal experts. Those seeking to challenge the decisions of SFA and SPFL are going to need all the support you can muster.

I hope that's helpful.

Edited August 2, 2017 by Footballfirst

[Hearts First]

This soap opera has lasted longer than a few that were on TV. Eldorado anyone?

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

On the post I'd been quoting he actually put together a position for a change instead of the usual sniping and condescension. It's basically taking the SPFL position at face value and accepting that there was only one footballing rule broken (failure to properly register players) and that the LNS commission has already dealt with it so legally nothing can be done, even if you want more to happen. I think it's fair to say that that is a reasonable, or reasoned at least, position to take.

 

Personally I don't buy the SPFL's argument wholesale - I don't understand which laws the SPFL would be breaking (that could be challenged in court) if they did revisit it and I think the original commission was based on incorrect information and is thus invalidated.

 

I'd also like to see them nailed to the wall and set on fire if possible

Is there not a rule that says making payments outside of registered contracts is prohibited? Regardless of whether or not Rangers registered their players in an acceptable manner, the payments made by EBTs were not registered payments. So, the registration issue has been examined, and ludicrously adjudged to be imperfect but somehow acceptable, it's time Rangers were charged with making secret payments, outside of their registered contracts, to players - perhaps, even, as inducements to sign for Rangers ahead of other, rule respecting, clubs (not just Scottish clubs)! Would it not break the rules if a club was discovered to have made payments to offshore accounts of it's players, outwith their registered contracts, or even just handed them cash? Just because the club designated them as loans (now proven not to be) doesn't make the EBT payments any different from any other method of payment, and should be treated exactly the same.

[reaths17]

Some guidance on the Judicial Review process from Tony McKelvie

 

Tony McKelvie ? @TonyMcKelvie

2nd Aug 2017 from TwitLonger

 

Judicial Review: A Dummies Guide

I see that moves are afoot to seek a Judicial Review of certain matters in Scottish Football, and thought it might be worthwhile sketching out the process for those who may be interested in but unfamiliar with the process.

 

This is not presented as, and is not intended to be, any sort of definitive description of the Judicial Review process in Scotland. Rather, it's an outline of the challenges facing anyone considering using the Judicial Review process, written by a Dummy for other Dummies. An extensive and authoritative guide can be found here: http://www.parliament.scot/ResearchBriefingsAndFactsheets/S5/SB_16-62_Judicial_Review.pdf

 

First up, let's get one thing straight: In Judicial Review, you can't simply rock up to court and insist the judge finds the other guys bang to rights. This is not a matter of civil dispute between two parties over the placing of a fence between their properties. Moreover, the courts are often reluctant to intervene at all.

 

Judicial Review is a process of supervising the decisions of public bodies, and in Scotland, this supervision extends in some circumstances to the decisions made by private organisations.

 

In this context, are the decisions of SFA and/or SPFL subject to the supervision of the courts in Scotland? Resoundingly: Yes.

 

Now we've got that out of the way, attention turns to consider quite what it is that one might ask the court to review. Judicial Review is, in effect, a challenge to the legal validity of a given decision. The bases for the challenge are variously:

 

1) That the decision maker acted unlawfully;

2) That the decision was made using an unfair procedure;

3) That the decision was so unreasonable as to be irrational.

 

Interestingly from the perspective of those seeking to review recent decisions of SFA and SPFL, Judicial Review also applies to decisions not to act.

 

First base then is defining the "decision" that the court will be asked to review. This is subject to a time bar, such that any application for review needs to be made within three months of the decision being made. [it's worthwhile noting here that the decision of the SPL's Commission headed by Lord Nimmo Smith was made in 2013].

 

Once the decision subject to a proposed review has been defined, there is a formal process of "petition" to undertake before the court will agree to its review. The petition process has three tests which the 'petitioners' require to pass before a petition for Review is granted, being:

 

1) That the Petitioners have 'sufficient interest' in the matter at hand;

2) That the application has a real prospect of success, and;

3) Either - (i) the application raises an important point of principle or practice, or (ii) there is some other compelling reason for allowing the application to proceed

 

Only once the court is satisfied that the petition meets all three tests, is the petition granted, and a Judicial Review undertaken.

 

In the mooted suggestion to seek Judicial Review of a decision(s) by SFA and/or SPFL, the matter of the 'sufficient interest' of the petitioners represents a considerable hurdle. Let's assume that the petitioners do not include any member clubs of either SFA or SPFL. In such circumstances, the courts are careful to prevent 'busybodies' interfering with the properly-taken decisions of organisations to which the petitioner has no direct association.

 

In this light, it's worth noting that Football is the National Game in Scotland, and as such, subject of considerable public interest. A 'body' of petitioners reflecting the status and public interest of the Game *might* be considered to have 'sufficient interest' in the matter to meet the test of standing. It is wholly unlikely though that an individual or group of individuals acting in isolation would meet the test.

 

The second test - That the application has a real prospect of success - is bound up in the merits of the third test. In these regards, it will be for Counsel to the petitioners to determine what legal point of principle or practice to challenge, and thereafter to advise on the prospects of success.

 

News this morning that Counsel has been retained implies that such advice has yet to be provided. If in the coming weeks news arrives that a petition for Judicial Review is to be raised, it can be reasonably assumed that Counsel has confidence that the circumstances of the case meet the three tests.

 

On which point, it's worth noting SPFL Chairman Ralph Topping's recently published view that the SPFL "is ready" for any such challenge, and confident that it will be able to sustain any such scrutiny. Indeed, SPFL recently published advice received from its own Senior Counsel on the matter to this effect.

 

Finally, the costs of a Judicial Review are considerable. Judicial Reviews are undertaken at the Court of Session, and arguments made by Advocates, often Queen's Counsel, acting on instructions received by a solicitor. That's a lot of time from a lot of well paid professionals. The costs of obtaining advice, preparing the case and presenting a petition typically run to six figures, at which point the outcome merely secures a "day in court" to argue the case.

 

Taken in the round, Judicial Review is fraught, encompassing a set of challenging standards in a complex process led by legal experts. Those seeking to challenge the decisions of SFA and SPFL are going to need all the support you can muster.

 

I hope that's helpful.

this was set up with numerous restraints regarding the evidence and surely has to be dismissed as an accurate reflection of....well anything.

I cant see how this could be held up as set in stone. so many things have also changed since then.

 

surely this is deserving of a review.

 

why cant the clubs themselves demand a new review, they are after all running this charade and the nimmo smith carry on  was not a legal court. I don't see why it has to go through a legal process of any kind.

 

the football establishment really need removed, despite what this lot proclaim, its the supporters that pay for football and not them. the behaviour of the clubs in Scotland is appalling, fans really need to stand up to these charlatans, feeding us this crap they pass off as sport.

[jambovambo]

This soap opera has lasted longer than a few that were on TV. Eldorado anyone?

Even better (/worse?):

 

[Hearts First]

Even better (/worse?):

 

I remember that. And Albion Market.

[jambovambo]

Fair comment from Phil.

 

Ann B gets a mention :

 

https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2017/08/02/hasta-la-vista-fitba/

[Hearts First]

Fair comment from Phil.

 

Ann B gets a mention :

 

https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2017/08/02/hasta-la-vista-fitba/

You still reading that crackpots ramblings?

[Rick Grimes]

the splf have went out their way to find and explain why they cant, they could put a few people together and find why they can. on reading most of their ramblings I see no legal reasoning why it cant be revisited. it's hard to accept that as they try to sweep this away, they are still punishing others by the book and that is inexcusable and in no way is that reasonable or acceptable and if he had an sense of decency he would stop slavering about the poor huns. theres nothing reasonable about his love in for the cheats.

I was responding to his rare attempt to take a position, not his overall behaviour on the thread. He's entitled to an opinion and it would be better if he made it more often rather than just winding people up.

[jambovambo]

You still reading that crackpots ramblings?

Evidently.

 

Meanwhile :

 

"Great to see Scottish football fans of all colours taking the action needed against cheating. SPFL board also wants action. SFA lost cause."

[jambovambo]

You still reading that crackpots ramblings?

You disagree with what he said here?

[JamboJen]

Twohundredpercent hits the mark once again.

 

http://twohundredpercent.net/rangers-story-really-begins/

That's a really good read. Just wish there were some independent bloggers (non-Celtic fans, no matter now impartial their reporting) covering this. What's Alex Thomson doing atm?

 

I can only - maybe optimistically - see this heading to an independent enquiry with some serious ramifications for some of the heads and former heads of Scottish football and hopefully a full shake up of Scottish football governance.

[Hearts First]

You disagree with what he said here?

I don't click links to read the mutterings of an obsessed looney.

[jambovambo]

What's Alex Thomson doing atm?

 

 

Defending himself well on twitter today...

[Swanyl]

Fair comment from Phil.

 

Ann B gets a mention :

 

https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2017/08/02/hasta-la-vista-fitba/

 

Decent article and he's entirely right.  games a bogey unless the titles are stripped.

[buzzbomb1958]

I'm afraid the deid cheats won't be punished they have got away with it with the help of Dungmiester and Regan both crooks who are complicit in the deid cheats crimes

[JamboAl]

Someone from Australia talking about 'comprehensible English'...good one Geoff

 

Perhaps you could remember your posts as you told us all Levein was overruled in the keep Cathro vote by the board....you have no clue what was said yet tell us all you know...rubbish and you know it

Sorry but had to laugh at that.

He is not from Australia.  He lives/works there and his English is comparable with anyone on this forum.

[trotter]

Too easy for me to answer but when answering one word would not suffice.........given I have already answered it in previous posts perhaps he could do his homework first for it would have saved him the time it took to frame such a question.

 

All he (and you ) have to do is read the posts and all will be revealed

If it's so easy why did you use 40 words to avoid using yes and/or no?

[Bring Back Paulo Sergio]

"Yer teams deid mate, beat it."

 

[Unknown user]

If it's so easy why did you use 40 words to avoid using yes and/or no?

Mate, it might have been an easy answer but do you have any idea how hard it is to be a condescending tosser with a simple Yes or No?

[jambovambo]

Mate, it might have been an easy answer but do you have any idea how hard it is to be a condescending tosser with a simple Yes or No?

Oh, that's good.

[Jambojamie91]

Skip to last page

[jamboz]

What ever happened to the bread mans court case? Cant remember if that was all settled or not

[Don Dan]

What ever happened to the bread mans court case? Cant remember if that was all settled or not

Good question.

[Yipeekaiyay]

Also any date on the King "cold shoulder" issue??

 

Sent from my GT-I9195I using Tapatalk

[buzzbomb1958]

No one finds out anything about the deid cheats anymore,if it's not good news about them the Glasgow press don't print it anymore for fear of banishment

[Fandango]

.

[Cairneyhill Jambo]

A statement from the Pars chairman issued tonight regarding the Rangers tax case.

 

CHAIRMAN`S STATEMENT

Tuesday, 8th Aug 2017

Club Chairman, Ross McArthur, would like to make the following statement.

 

?I am extremely disappointed to have to release the following statement, particularly as the subject matter below has proven to be an unnecessary distraction today on the eve of a very important cup match at Ibrox Stadium tomorrow evening. However, as ever I wish our own supporters to be fully aware of the facts, and put to bed some of the ludicrous accusations that have been put to me today by the wider media.

 

Like most other SPFL Clubs, we were contacted a couple of weeks ago by a number of supporters asking for our club to make a public statement following the review of the recent Rangers Tax Case. Myself and my fellow Board members took the decision not to do so, as our business practice since taking over the club from the administrators, has always been not to comment on any matters that do not adversely affect Dunfermline Athletic Football Club today. As a club, we still have a lot of bridges to rebuild. However, out of courtesy I believe you should always take the time to respond to someone who has written to our club. Therefore, I liaised with my fellow Board member (and Supporter Liaison Officer), Drew Main and we individually responded to each person who wrote to us. Most of the emails we received were from DAFC supporters, some were not.

 

In our reply, we tried to be honest as we could and to make the point that we felt it would be entirely hypocritical of us to try and make any mileage by commenting on another Scottish football club, as our own club had itself already brought Scottish football into disrepute, when it went into administration in 2013, and we had to be mindful we were in no position to take the moral high ground. Without spelling that out, clearly if DAFC could not pay its own staff, players, other clubs and HMRC then most reasonable people would understand that you have brought the game into disrepute.

 

Last week I was then contacted by the SFA, as one of the recipients of the email had clearly not been satisfied with our reply, or was attempting to create an issue, and had asked our governing body to investigate further. I can confirm that the SFA sent me one email, which I fully responded to the same day, explaining that the recipient was either attempting to make mileage in some way, or had taken our reply out of context. There has been no further dialogue between DAFC and the SFA.

 

I can also confirm that there was never at any time, reference to former managers, other clubs or previous matches ? this is totally spurious.

 

There are a lot of positive things happening in Scottish football, and there a lot of good people within our respective clubs and at our governing bodies who are working very hard to promote and showcase our national game, and it is disappointing that everyone cannot focus their energy into looking forward, rather than trying to constantly undermine the credibility of our game?.

 

Ross McArthur

Chairman

[Beast Boy]

Catching up. Sorry.