A few weeks ago I published an article questioning the source of the letter Grant Russell, of STV, released which had ever so slightly different wording to the one received by the Resolution 12 guys, in response to their enquiry.
This letter, apparently, had come from UEFA direct to him.
The Resolution 12 guys had submitted, via their lawyers, a variety of detailed and direct questions to UEFA regarding the allegations of misgovernance at the SFA at the time, and they received an answer which , when summarised, included the “new club/company ” to explain the official UEFA stance on whatever entity is operating out of Ibrox.
The reply Grant Russell received, he claimed, was also in response to “lengthy and detailed ” questions. His reply was the same as the one given to the Resolution 12 guys, apart from the bit about the entity being a new club, which he then claimed had put the matter to rest.
Resolution 12, apparently, was dead in the water.
Yet Resolution 12 was never about the new club/old club debate…
A few weeks ago, on social media platform Twitter, I asked Grant what questions he had asked UEFA that had prompted their reply. I have the questions that the Resolution 12 guys asked, and they are detailed and complex.
I’ve yet to see Grant’s questions, and fair enough, if he doesn’t want to show them to me, or anyone else, thats up to him.
But it does seem a remarkable co-incidence that one lengthy set of detailed questions, compiled by lawyers, can elicit almost exactly the same reply to a set of detailed questions, sent over a period of time to a journalist.
Almost word for word, in fact.
That makes me suspicious.
Grant can still offer those questions if he wants, but I’ve a feeling that if he was going to do so, he’d have done it by now. Instead of hurling accusations about me accusing him of doctoring the reply.
The thing is, Resolution 12 , despite all claims to the contrary, is about the SFA.
Not Rangers, not Celtic, but the SFA.
There are suspicions of misgovernance, of collusion with the directors of one club in particular, which is now in liquidation, and even allegations of corruption.
Surely it suits all supporters of all clubs to get to the truth on this matter ?
If guys like Grant and I are arguing with each other, and others are taking sides, then it deflects from the real issue in play, that of the transparency and honesty of the people who run the game in Scotland, , and their somewhat unique way of doing so.
Which is just what the SFA want us to do. By asking questions of each other, it means we are not asking questions of them.
If two replies to two sets of questions are the same, then one must conclude that the questions were exactly the same, which i doubt very much indeed.
Grant Russel is one of the better journalists in Scotland, by a considerable distance, and he has the trust of many who are interested in the game. Thats why anything he releases, and claims to be from UEFA, will be taken seriously.
And rightly so.
But I’m not convinced, and at the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist-although events in Scottish football over the last few years have proved that we maybe weren’t paranoid enough-I’ve feeling that something isn’t quite right here.
I cannot believe that two sets of questions drawn up independently can be so similar as to elicit the same reply-bar one word-and so therefore, the reply issued by Grant Russell, in my opinion, did not come to him directly from UEFA.
I’d be more than delighted to be proved wrong, because it would show that we’ve all got nothing to worry about and the game is safe in the hands of those working diligently and honestly at their desks at Hampden.
The reply given to the Resolution 12 guys was also given to Celtic FC, and the SFA.
Celtic FC would not have released a slightly amended version of it to the press. It does not suit them in the slightest to do so.
The SFA, however, now what could they possibly gain by issuing a trusted journalist an official piece which not only backs up their own view that the current Ibrox entity is in fact the same as the one in liquidation?
Which presumably means they are in liquidation as well.
And what could the SFA gain from seeing the Resolution 12 matter dead in the water, or at least discredited in the eyes of the public ?
Resolution 12 is all about them, remember, every other club or company mentioned are merely those who have suffered as a result of their alleged misgovernance.
It means simply in my opinion that by releasing the statement via Grant Russell, the SFA have tried to put the matter to bed, and therefore Resolution 12 will go away.
It isn’t going to go away.
In fact, its going to be stepped up over the next few weeks.
Wait and see.