bluebear54

I've been trying to get my head around this league title-stripping issue for months. Now I can understand why the average yahoo would want us stripped of - say 5 or 6 titles - and even more so, I understand why the average yahoo would be petulant enough to want them awarded to Celtic and feel proud of "having won them." But I can't for the life of me understand why business people like Liewell and Riley (both with Desmond's approval) and Reid, if sources are to be believed, keep hammering away at this issue. I also, can't for the life of me understand why - apparently - stripping League Cups and Scottish Cups has been dropped. Unless, of course, that the league title-stripping issue is precursor. First they take the league titles, then Celtic want full compensation from us for what Rangers earned in Europe in those years. All, of course, in the interests of the hackneyed sporting integrity. Perhaps they would want to foreclose us. Perhaps they would want us to pay it off in full - with interest - over the next 20 to 30 years. Don't write me off as a box of frogs. There was a time when "the Old Firm" meant something, and there was an understanding that - despite the rivalry - we were extremely good business for each other. That's all changed. New neighbours have moved in, and - in my opinion - they're very much in the business of burning our house down. So that means - again in my opinion - that we will always have to be wary with these snakes. This has turned into a game of PR and spin. So far Celtic are streets ahead. However, there are 4 or 5 SPL clubs who are teetering on the brink of insolvency if the TV deal doesn't go through. There are 30 Clubs in the SFL who are looking forward to 3 years of the benefits that we can bring them. There are 3 Clubs who don't know if they are promoted or not. I wonder how they would look upon Celtic if they knew that the SPL is being driven by them in order to purely benefit Celtic - to the detriment of all the Clubs mentioned above. Once again - this has all been about spin, and it's about time we got some savvy souls on board. It's going to be a long voyage and we're going to need them.

Yes, but if it ends up as being a trade off for TV rights, it doesn't half leave us on the moral high ground when the tide washes all this shite away. And let's not forget that.

Fair enough Calscot I stand corrected.

Good article and sentiments I agree with. We had a thread along the same lines recently.

It wasn't the fault of HMRC. It was CW. The administration was precipitated by his decision to withold PAYE amongst other things.

Back to my post on coercion/blackmail (#9). I note that M. Murray's recent statement made mention of "under duress." Given that in law, "coercion is codified as the duress crime", am I reading too much into his statement, or is it just a coincidence?

Perhaps, someone more savvy can enlighten us? Are the SFA not in contempt of Court? Should our future income be prejudiced by that contempt, do we not have a cast iron case to sue?

Woof. I'm gradually developing a lot of respect for Longmuir. Mind you, he'll also play hardball with us IF we end up in SPL 3.

To use a parallel - if you had a dispute about the height of your hedge with your neighbours, would you be happy about them getting together to decide if it was too high and deciding your punishment? No? Neither would I, but this is exactly what's been happening to us. The SPL - in our absence - is nothing but a corrupt self-interested organisation consisting of our business competitors. Petrie has recently stated that his previous role within the SPL was to look after the interests of Hibs. He's now Nr 3 at the SFA. Are we to believe he has seen the light and he has now become a dedicated SFA man who puts the good of Scottish football before his Club's interests?

Great idea. However, it may be outwith the remit of a UK Parliamentary Committee. That would make it within the remit of the Health and Sports Committee up here. Personally, I think a full blown independent Inquiry would be a better route.

While looking up the coercion/blackmail definition on Wiki, I came across this, which is an interesting reminder of how grossly inept SPL chairmen have been historically. Obviously at present they're attempting to better their previous depths of chronic incompetence. Between season 1998â??99 and season 2001â??02, exclusive television rights for live Scottish Premier League matches were held by Sky Sports, with a highlights package both held by BBC Scotland's Sportscene and STV's Scotsport. After Sky Sports withdrew their interest in the SPL when their offer for £45m to continue ownership of the live TV rights were declined by the SPL on the grounds of not being substantial enough, discussions began in 2002 for a new pay-per-view satellite television channel, dubbed "SPL TV". Discussions broke down in April 2002, however, when the Old Firm clubs, Rangers and Celtic, utilised the 11â??1 voting system to veto the proposals. This caused discontent among the remaining 10 SPL clubs who subsequently announced their intention to resign from the league. Despite a two-year television deal being agreed with BBC Scotland in July 2002 (for a significant amount less than the money previously offered by Sky Sports), the 10 non-Old Firm clubs confirmed their resignation from the SPL in August 2002, citing discontent with the league's 11â??1 voting procedure which effectively gave the Old Firm clubs a veto over attempts to change SPL rules. The ten clubs withdrew their resignations in January 2003 after an agreement was reached to change the voting procedures and to change the distribution of TV revenue. With BBC Scotland's television contract due to expire after the 2003â??04 season, the SPL agreed a new television deal with Irish broadcaster Setanta Sports in February 2004 in a four-year deal worth £54m. In June 2008, it was announced that a further four-year deal would commence for the 2010/11 season, with the deal worth £125m. Setanta lost the rights to show live SPL games in the United Kingdom as they were unable to pay the £3 million they owed to the SPL. The SPL then agreed a deal with ESPN and Sky Sports worth £13 million per season to the clubs. This is comparable to the deal which Setanta previously had in place, but it was around half of the amount that Setanta would have been paying from 2010. The Old Firm criticised the decision of nine of the other SPL clubs to accept that offer from Setanta, instead of taking an alternative package from Sky that would have been worth significantly more than the deal signed after Setanta went into administration. In 2009, Sky and ESPN agreed a five-year deal with the SPL where they would pay a total of £65m for the rights to show 30 matches each per season. In November 2011, it was announced that a five-year extension to the contract would take place starting from the 2012-13 season. This would see an increase in the total amount paid from £65m to £80m over the five years. BBC Scotland's Sportscene currently own the rights to broadcast highlights of each game first on terrestrial TV. The BBC also holds the rights to show on-line internet highlights to UK users for one week after each game. BBC Alba, launched in September 2008, show one full SPL game every Saturday evening for two seasons. The games are broadcast three hours after the game has ended. The SPL is broadcast in Australia by Setanta Sports Australia, in Canada by Sportsnet World and in the USA by Fox Soccer Channel & Fox Soccer Plus.

My good friend Prof Wiki informs me that: Coercion is the practice of forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats or intimidation or some other form of pressure or force. In law, coercion is codified as the duress crime. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in the desired way. Blackmail, in common usage, is a crime involving unjustified threats to make a gain or cause loss to another unless a demand is met. It may be defined as coercion involving threats of physical harm, threat of criminal prosecution, or threats for the purposes of taking the person's money or property. Blackmail may also be considered a form of extortion. Although the two are generally synonymous, extortion is the taking of personal property by threat of future harm. It is the use of threats to prevent another from engaging in a lawful occupation and writing libellous letters or letters that tend to provoke a breach of the peace, as well as use of intimidation for purposes of collecting an unpaid debt. So they're widely similar concepts, and either could be used in the context of the SPL/SFA.

Responsibility is one question. But that's a question of how much the Club were responsible and how much individuals were. The SFA and the SFL have not addressed this. Also this "bringing the game into disrepute" charge. What a load of unadulterated pish. What does it mean? How is it defined? It's merely a catch-all for certain individuals to trump up punishment. There are more than a few in Scotland who would say that Lennon, Hearts, Regan, Doncaster and the corporate governing bodies could be deemed to have brought the game into disrepute. I would like to see all of these allegations determined by a TRULY independent entity. That's the only way there will be clarity. Trial by a biased and sales hungry media, or by competitors is not a fair process. Nor is one dictated by greed and self interest. Time to put all this to bed once and for all.

Well said BM. However, I fear that consensus amongst us about what to do will not automatically lead to making that the course of action from the Club. It certainly hasn't to date. But I agree that we've reached a watershed and something must be done to sort this mess out before these silly bassas destroy the game up here.

May be SKY flexing their muscle. Blackmail if you like. The SPL will fully understand that concept.

IF we are playing next season, and IF there IS a season, we had better be squeaky clean - in all respects. Anyone who hasn't noticed the vitriolic desire to bury us - particularly from the media - needs to wake up and smell the coffee.

House of cards? If the SPL are late in making payments to the SFL, and perhaps are behind in their PAYE contributions, have they brought the game into disrepute? What sort of punishment might be expected?

This is also how I'm reading it, in between the lines. I think the titles are a red herring and the real reason is the wonga. The SFA hold one ace - and that's the registration - but I think it's the SPL who are panicking and playing hardball Do they both really dare destroy everything, because that's what will happen if they don't allow our registration. But maybe the SPL don't see an alternative because they're looking into the abyss. The amount of spin throughout this whole charade has been a disgrace. In my book, there are many who should be called to account. There was never any need for us to go into administration. There was never any need for any of the subsequent events. Everything could have been controlled rationally. But, unfortunately, it's been a shambles driven by self interest and greed - and not from our side may I add. The lies, deceit and subterfuge has been despicable. I don't see any winners out of this. It will all come out some day

As I've said before, we all know where Leggo's heart is, but a lot of his blogs aren't all that balanced or researched. For this Bear, it's all taken with a pinch of salt, and it's not the first place I look for reliable information.

Ian, by virtue of the fact that it's arbitration, it implies that all parties must agree to the process and the deliberation. I may be wrong, but think that's the case. If not, the RSF/RFFF would be a good move.

Great find Gordy. I for one would be quite happy to abide by any of their decisions. This whole shambolic saga is crying out for an independent determination. It would lay to rest a lot of media-spawned myths. Only problem I foresee is that it takes two to tango. I don't think the SFA and the SPL are in the business of anything telling them they are wrong, and I don't see them either going along with this or abiding by any decisions.

Thank you Steve Davis - he wasn't going to stay, and he could have done what the others did. Surprised that Lafferty and Naismith didn't do the same. What about Greegs?

If I recall correctly, we can register any amount of under 18s - who would then be 20 by the time we hit Div 1 (hopefully) and 21 by the time we hit what's left of the SPL (also hopefully) Remember Gennaro anyone?

You've got to laugh. It almost sounds like Regan has triumphed in negotiating Rangers taking their place in Div 3. I'm off to get a bottle of Irn Bru. What's the bet that some timmy-smart-arse will propose an Irn Bru ban now.

Of course - I stand corrected. Looking forward to filling that place. That would be a hoot.