Resolution 12: Why The SFA And The Media Are Silent

Resolution 12: Why The SFA And The Media Are Silent

Despite the biggest sporting scandal of all time taking place right under their noses, bith the SFa and the Scottish Mainstream Media have remained reluctant to comment, reluctant to investigate and sadly, reluctant to sort it all out so we can all move on and get Scottish football back as a legitimate sporting contest with a level playing field.

Recently, a letter from the Head of Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play outlined beyond all doubt that the entity currently playing out of Ibrox Stadium is not the same one that started there in 1872. Despite the huge promotional campaign that they are going for 55, they are, in fact, making their debut season at this level, and surely any promotion, designed to bring in cash at the tills, should be along those lines, and not based on a fraudulent claim ?

What happens when if they do win the league, and UEFA, who are fairly uncompromising on their stance, refuse to credit them with 55. Can supporters, not the first to be duped round kinning Park way, claim their money back ?

The most improtant thing here is that the man on the street prefers to argue about this. The new club/old club argument, despite being settled by UEFA, and the finger pointed at the SFA , they are in charge of the game here after all, to sort this mess out, no-one, anywhere, is pushing them for their comments.

Stewart Regan, Neil Doncaster and all those involved in the sham have said nothing. But then again, no-one is asking them anything.

The media are convinced that the “Old Firm ” is absolutely essential to the well being of the game in Scotland, despite the top league coping perfectly well since its absence, and despite the shennanigans that caused the fall of the club from Ibrox, we should all just move along and be happy that they’re back.

Except, of course, they are not back.

They could come back. They are not dead yet, a popular line from Celtic fans, because in actual fact they are still in liquidation-which is why UEFA still list them as a club, and not the new entity, and all it will take to bring them back is the payment of monies owed by them.

Perhaps that is why the consortium over at Ibrox isn’t investing in the new club. They’re saving the money to rescue the old club.

Thats unlikely, but still a possibility. In theory, at least.

So Rangers are not dead, they’re still around, albeit not overly healthy and there’slittle sign of a recovery any time soon.

The new club, the so called same club, are not doing as well as hoped, but are in better shape than the other one, which kind of points to a flaw in the same club argument in itself.

However, thats bye the bye.

The real issue here is that the SFA, in denial and deflection, have moved the argument away from them, and left the supporters to fight it out between themselves, and as a result, UEFA letter apart, there is little to confirm anything either one way or another.

When word of the exisitence of such a letter reached the internet, one newspaper tried to limit the damage by producing its own answer from UEFA, although as to what the question was, they are slightly more guarded, in that they haven’t told us what it was.

The Resolution 12 guys then produced their letter, and were acused in some quarters of making the issue all about Rangers, prompting claims of obsession and latterly child abuse, always the default position of Ibrox diehards when they lack substance in their argument.

The press, or the Herald and STV, through Grant Stewart, released this letter, which had one or two words different from the Resolution 12 reply;

In an article on the STV website,  June 20, 2016  under the headline June 20, 2016

UEFA won’t investigate ‘Resolution 12’ Rangers Euro licence claims

Russell quoted a statement from UEFA

 “As a consequence of decisions taken against Rangers FC in 2012 as well as the administration of the club and the events and measures that followed (including the club being ineligible to apply for a licence to participate in UEFA competitions for three seasons), there is no need for UEFA to investigate this matter any further since the club was not granted a licence to participate in the 2012/13 UEFA club competitions, the club entered the fourth tier of Scottish football and it was not able to play in UEFA competitions for the next three years in any event.” 

Eerily similar to the reply given to the Resoution 12 guys, with one crucial difference.

Image result for stv uefa letter

The club entered the fourth tier, as opposed to the new club/company.

The deflection here is that UEFA, claim STV, are not investigating because the club was banned from UEFA competition, as oppsed to being ineligible due to being in liquidation. Which kind of limits the chance of particpation.

The article then continues…

STV asked the governing body for further clarification on whether an investigation took place, and on whether they were satisfied the correct procedure was followed. UEFA replied that they had no further comment to make. 

Who at UEFA did they speak to ? Russell has since claimed it was the PR depertment, yet I’d like the name of the guy, if its not too much trouble.

Claiming to have conversed with a spokesman has all the credibility of an “un-named source, or ”  a source close to the organisation “. Or a bloke who writes on a celtic website, to be fair.

Which is why I tend to check the facts.

We don’t even know what Russell asked the “spokesman ” in order to elicit the reply he published, and why this “spokesman ” apopears to have simply edited the rely the head of licensing sent to the Resolution 12 guys.

One might argue that was done to suit an agenda which is not quite going to allow the truth to escape. I say escape because there seems to have been a campaign. for the imprisonment of veracity in the SMSM.

So, back in June, what did STV ask UEFA ?

Who at UEFA did they speak to ?

His name, not the department he works at, although both would be nice.

You see, the SFA, the media, written and spoken , are all happy for the man in the street to discuss this, as it saves them from dong their jobs.

And when we get too close to the truth, we are simply shouted down.

This is not going to go away.

In order to provoke discussion, and to get to the truth, we need to know who told STV what they published and what they asked him.

In the interests of fair play, and also to remove any doubt that this issue is all about Rangers, having had access to the letter sent by the guys to UEFA, I’m able to clarify that this is about the SFA, and not Rangers.

At this stage, you’ll have to trust me on this. There is a reason for it.

Its about how they did not fully carry out their duty, and apply the proper laws of governance when they should have back in the days of the old club.

That was the information sought, and the reply, which included the statement about the “new club/company ” was part of the answer.

The bit the media chose to edit.

At no time in the REs 12 letter do they ask for clarification about whether or not they are the same club, a new club or even a golf club.

It was irrelevant to the information requested. As it is where the whole issue is concerned.

Hence the claim that the statement was a “bonus “.

Now that we have that out of the way, now that we know where they stand, isn’t it time for the media to ask the SFA where they stand ?

After all, they are the bad guys here.

But they’d rather we’d all fight amongst ourselves.

We’re not going to do that anymore, though, are we ?