buster.

I think the fans groups already merit a seat at the boardroom table but now they have started a process (joint venture), they need to show themselves capable of bringing it to a conclusion and moving on from there. As for choosing an individual, a process should be put in place and carried out. There are obvious limits to transparency and information flow....commercial confidentiality, legal gagging orders, contingencies/the legal process/sub-judice, etc....... but it's important to remember that there are already fans in the boardroom who seem to have the best interests of the club as a priority and the type of vigilance required and lacking/ineffective in the recent past won't be as extreme. That said, I'd like to see a responsible and competent, Independent fans group director on the RIFC board as soon as possible. edit The board didn't waste anytime in actually giving a prominent member of one of the fan groups a seat at the table but that didn't go well. So there was a will on the part of the board but in hindsight perhaps would have been better advised to have taken their time and made a more careful choice (everything considered).

We've been through a lot and past regimes seem to have left a complicated legal and commercial 'mess' that isn't simple or straightforward to put right and get on an even keel. The fans groups seem to be in the midst of re-organisation and if/when that is achieved they should be in a stronger position regards keeping an eye on things and why not a seat on the RIFC board.

IIRC King has said that there is. Further clarity for that and beyond would be welcome at the AGM but I'd imagine they might be adapting plans as they go, dependent on circumstances as they arise. One of the issues other than the court cases are the retail and commercial contracts with MASH/RRL/SD and the board have been legally gagged in this respect.

I'd add to Calscot's excellent post that there will shortly be a set of audited accounts and an AGM which will illuminate some of the issues being talked about and give a chance for the board to comment and detail the way forward. Given the circumstances, the main issue that I see is short to medium term finance.

Ya seen one, ya seen 'em all.................

I don't know when the list is released but I see the man who cannot see or is scared to make decisions, Andrew Dallas has a top flight game and the money that goes with that. Whilst Willie Collum goes from the CL in Istanbul to the C.I. Direct Stadium in Dumbarton.

Maybe but I think the more viable and salient issue is an improvement within the existing set-up. An improvement that encourages the development of technical footballers and harshly punishes those who seek to reduce the effectiveness by premeditated violence. Many dismiss Spanish referees who often blow for all kinds of contact and enjoy a ref who 'lets things go'. The upside to the former is that it encourages teams to develop footballers and in Spain, for a technical footballing culture to emerge. The 'Butcher from Bilbao' type player no longer gets a game beacuse they wouldn't spend much time on the park. Spain are now miles ahead of all other nations in the club co-efficient table and have won 3 major championships of late.

Scottish football should be spending it's scarce resources in the development of talented footballers. Referees need to up their game and implement the rules. It's one thing making a mistake on something you didn't see properly but failing to implement the rules (eg. OBVIOUS red card) is inexcusable. By bringing in another layer of costly officialdom you won't eliminate mistakes/failure to implement rules. You want to protect footballers and encourage technical development in Scotland ? You don't do it by having Gibbons and Faria elegible to play this weekend after their midweek assaults, ie. change the CO rules/scope to discourage managers from playing the 'Tokely card'.

Has experience and probably contacts in the Dutch game.

Gibbons or Dallas ?

Finance has a lot to do with it but it doesn't answer why eg. Sweden, Norway and Denmark are all in the Euro play-offs or why those three countries are all above Scotland in the co-efficient table when back in the 60's & 70's Scottish teams would routinely go and beat their club sides. From 2000 during which Scotland haven't been to a major final:- - Sweden have reached 6 population: 9.5M WC best: Runners-up (x1) and 3rd place (x2) Euros best: Semi-final - Denmark 5 population: 5.6M WC best: Quarter-Finals Euros best: Winners - Norway 1 population: 5.1M WC best: Round of 16........ (guess who finished below them in group with 1 point) Euros best: Group Stage -Scotland 0 population: 5.3M WC best: Group Stage Euros best: Group Stage Now the those Scandinavian Leagues haven't got stacks of cash, nor are their winters kinder. Note that 'WC/Euros best' reflects the full history of the competitions. ------------------------------------------------------------------ edit. Found a much more comprehensive document regards comparisons which is on the STV website. http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/aberdeen/1331176-the-real-state-of-the-scottish-game-how-our-top-flight-compares-to-europe/

Scottish football........................ the Land that Time Forgot - Come to mention it the World Cup and the European Championships have forgotten aswell. - Couldn't get into the top 28 of Europe (24+4 losing play off teams) and with little young talent to speak of - Currently 25th in the co-efficient club table and steadily sinking But get feckin intaethem and ask the ref to go easy, it's the way to go...................

The SFA needs to make sure that it's officials protects footballers from the hammerthrowers and thereby encourages managers to use/develop footballers and not hammerthrowers. It will partly address a longterm and much debated problem (groundhog/annual discussion on what can we do with Scottish fitbaw) and it won't cost anything other than using the usual channels of communication and it entails nothing other than fully implementing the rules of the game within the full 90 minutes (first whistle until last). ps. and it needs the Compliance Officer to act on all issues that arise rather than pick and choose what he fancies, eg. Hugo Faria (Baldy of Livingston) should be offered a 6 match suspension for an offence that if caught doing on the street, he'd be up on a criminal charge.

It was D,... all of them and tbh it's partly made-up for a a. Bain,... well for many years he was rumoured to have taken up kneeling positions to Sir Duped. b. Irvine,... here's hoping that there will be at least metaphorical 'collatoral damage' coming his way that may yet have him regretting knowing Sir Duped. c. Johnson,... you were right in that he is the man to actually come out on the record and pointedly talk about "Murray" as more or less having played a less than honourable role.

Just keep feeding the fat loathsome bastard fry-ups and lard sandwiches.

Who allegedly said that 'Sir Duped leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.'? a. Martin Bain b. Jack Irvine c. Alastair Johnson

For the judge to allocate as much as two days for the 'debate' suggests there is quite a few shades of grey up for legal discussion. It also throws cold water on the suggestions coming from the usual suspects that it is already a slam dunk in favour of Green. The truth is we don't know and will have to wait for a ruling.

In the hypothetical case of a Rangers v Peterhead final, I'd agree because of the capacity it affords. Easter Road or Hampden.

The general ambience at the time was ripe for the exploiting and the general supporter opinion was relatively easy 'to steer' by those who could be perceived as defenders of the club.

Squad as per 5/10/15 http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=2986&newsCategoryID=6&newsID=15435 Ryan Fulton (Liverpool) Jack Hamilton (Heart of Midlothian) Jonathan Henly (Ipswich Town) Stuart Findlay (Celtic – on loan at Kilmarnock) Marcus Fraser (Ross County) Dominic Hyam (Reading) Stephen Kingsley (Swansea City - on loan to Crewe Alexandria) Donald Love (Manchester United - on loan at Wigan Athletic) Jordan McGhee (Heart of Midlothian) Callum Paterson (Heart of Midlothian) Jay Fulton (Swansea City – on loan at Oldham Athletic) John McGinn (Hibernian) Craig Slater (Kilmarnock) John Souttar (Dundee United) Charlie Telfer (Dundee United) Ryan Christie (Celtic – on loan at Inverness Caledonian Thistle) Jason Cummings (Hibernian) Ryan Fraser (Bournemouth – on loan at Ipswich Town) Ryan Gauld (Sporting Clube de Portugal) Billy King (Heart of Midlothian) Declan McManus (Fleetwood Town) Sam Nicholson (Heart of Midlothian) Lawrence Shankland (Aberdeen – on loan at St Mirren)

Scotland weren't technically good enough to carry out their game plan in Georgia. They were set out by Strachan to play through the Georgians with a precise passing game and against well organised and compact defensive lines (Georgian defence & midfield)..... in the last third we simply didn't have the speed of touch, movement and/or thought neccessary. It exposed an on-field lack of quality and management that didn't adapt to what was in front of them. It was no fluke and playing the same way in the same situation would probably yield a similar result. Against better teams we have enjoyed more space to play in up front and have done very well in converting this into goals. Hence decent results against the likes of Poland, Ireland and even 3 goals against Germany. In fact we scored more goals against each of the top three than the one OG we got against Georgia in the 180 minutes.

My answers in quotes and bold text. I expect if you were put under house arrest for 4 years and your health suffered as a result, and you were then found innocent in three trials for the same crime, you'd expect compensation. That option might not exist but perhaps it should. If we win, then the current system is obviously highly flawed and not fit for purpose. As I said, tax is a delicate matter and innocent people and companies should not suffer badly in its hands. HMRC should be designed to sort it out quickly and decisively. They should put their case together as quickly as possible and withdraw when they lose - unless there are very exceptional circumstance where the public would greatly benefit. In this case they severely wounded a national institution and the collateral of severely wounding the national sport. What they have done has been horrendous and it looks like they didn't have good reason to do so. The game will take massive amount of time to recover, if ever, and there has been extensive cultural schism highly exaccerbated which will only get worse, once we are back in top flight. The ill thought out HMRC actions, have had a massive negative impact on our nation. People say SDM played hard and fast with the fate of our club, but at least he was pretty much in the right. HMRC have done the same and also played hard and fast with our fragile national sport and by extension, national pride, and they seem to be totally in the wrong - and using an unfair and possibly immoral ethos as mentioned above. Murray is a boisterous schoolboy in comparison. I think people are really missing how irresponsible that a government institution has been. If ever there was ever a time to play a softer game to protect the good of the nation, this was it. I can imagine a bit of sweeping under the carpet and the more that is done, the more likely that corruption and malevolence is at the core. In fact there is already a lot of smoke in that respect, with refusals to investigate the leaks and to provide the tally of the cost of the action. In fact I think the RFFF should offer to pay the costs of counting this tally and see if they still refuse. I suspect that the cost excuse is erroneous and disingenuous. HMRC have not acted in an obviously open way that suggests innocence - not in the slightest. I realise shiftiness doesn't prove guilt but it highly raises the suspicions. I can't see how it can be ignored in the context of a hidden agenda and as I say again, the tax system not only should BE fair, it needs to be SEEN to be fair. In that respect HMRC are plain as day guilty as charged. My answers in quotes and bold text.

Incidently, when Scottish Police searched SD HQ not so long back in connection with our case, I'm sure it was Forsey that they wanted to talk to. Edit.....Link and story below. Also seems like D&P UK are building and developing a reputation of sorts.

HMRC official I made reference to in the previous post was Dave Hartnett "Deloitte appoints official criticised over 'sweetheart' tax deals" http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/may/27/deloitte-appoints-dave-hartnett-tax

HMRC have used the process in place and their legal counsel must have advised them that they thought they had a chance of winning. HMRC may have thought it worth their time and money (or rather the taxpayers) balanced against what they may have stood to gain (EBT precedent). "Innocence" isn't established until the fat lady sings so I see no legal recourse for oldco, unless perhaps if you could prove 'ulterior motives' which you seem to allude to. I personaly very much doubt this can be done or in fact, that they exist. IIRC a 'high' judicial authority (can't remember exactly what) had to grant HMRC leave for this latest appeal, having to be satisfied that what HMRC were bringing to the new party justified a further appeal. This was obviously granted. In the case of a further defeat for HMRC then it would certainly be a particular process that they should review from their side, learn from and if individuals are found to be incompetent, foolhardy or whatever. Then they should be made to take responsibility for and made accountable. I can't remember the guys name but there was a senior HMRC employee who seemed to have behaved 'dubiously' when making 'deals' with certain corporate giants. My guess is that he didn't have to bear full responsibility or accountability and is doing very well for himself elsewhere..........and this unfortunately seems typical of the corporate and political sectors today. ----------------------------- I'm no expert on tax matters and would invite any advice on errors above.