The SPFL held it’s conference call yesterday, and it appears that those of us who were expecting the infamous “rangers ” revelations to be aired were disappointed.

According to reports, “peace ” broke out …and who better to consult for details than the intrepid Keith Jackson of the Record ?

Well, probably anyone, but i’m short of time this morning, so you’ll have to make do with his take on affairs.

Resigned ? Clubs ? Surely he means club ( singular ) or company , just to cover the waterfront.

The decision to remove the discussion of Rangers’ evidence from the agenda made today’s meeting much more constructive. 

Perhaps the meeting started with someone asking them to put up or shut up, and there was a decision made that involved someone  zipping his lips…

Scottish football’s raging civil war took a surprise twist today when peace broke out at emergency summit of the Premiership clubs. 

For a club/company with evidence of misgovernance, it seems strange that despite, in their view, the SPFL aren’t up to the job, they would allow them to continue in it without challenge.

Oh, and keep the wartime theme with the news that “peace broke out “…

Record Sport revealed yesterday that the top 12 had arranged a conference call to discuss how the game in this country can survive the coronavirus pandemic – and debate whatever evidence Rangers have in their ongoing battle against the man in charge of the SPFL. 

Except the evidence was not forthcoming, and so it wasn’t discussed. Draw your own conclusions.

But a plan to get to the bottom of the feud between Ibrox and Hampden’s sixth floor was scrubbed from the agenda before today’s meeting even began. 

Which “rangers ” went along with, despite ther earlier protestations (no need to bring religion into it -Ed )..”rangers ” did. which casts even more doubt on the validity of their claims.

Or even the existence of them.

And it’s understood that decision helped lessen the tensions and allowed for a serious conversation about how to cope with the existential threat to the professional game caused by the COVID-19 crisis. 

Who made that decision ? And how did it come about, considering it was on the agenda ?

A source said: “Right at the start of the talks it was made clear that the Rangers situation was not up for discussion. It was pointed out that there will now be an EGM involving all 42 clubs on May 12 so that is the appropriate time to address it or to ask questions.

“That allowed us to get on with the far more serious business of how football in this country can pull together and get through this pandemic. In other words – and I can hardly believe I’m saying this – it really did feel as if peace had suddenly broken out.” 

Roughly translated, that means someone asked them to put up or shit up, and it appears that silence did raineth upon the proceedings…

It’s also understood a growing number of the top flight clubs are now resigned to ending the current season and crowning Celtic champions  

There was only one that ever had an issue with that, but you won;t have that confirmed in the media.

Another strand of those who are paid to inform and entertain us are the BBC, and Tom English has embarked upon a crusade to flush out the corruption and lies within those who run Scottish football.

Far from me to criticise him for his efforts, and so I’m going to help him.

I’ll give him some evidence he can publish, and it really is something to get his teeth into….

evidence of corruption

He can thank me later, and I’ll be asking him , and I’d appreciate it if others did, what he will do with it.

In the meantime, he’s been focused on the revelation that some clubs have received advance payments on their prize money before, and wants to know why it couldn’t be done this time around.

SPFL: Accounts ‘shed light’ on payments to clubs

By Tom English

BBC Scotland  

Another day and more questions to answer for the SPFL as the league body face further controversy about their actions and words.

The vexed business of loans and advances has blown up again. A few weeks back the SPFL said they could not issue loans to cash-strapped clubs without final league placings being confirmed by way of a yes vote in the SPFL’s resolution to call the leagues.

A few days later, Ann Budge, chair of Hearts, contradicted the SPFL’s view on that. “I’ve sat on the SPFL board and I’ve approved a loan for another club,” she told BBC Scotland on 18 April.

“[It was] in my early days as a director. I genuinely can’t remember the club involved, but a club required an advance. We discussed it [as a board], it wasn’t contentious, everybody agreed and we moved on. It sticks in my mind. Can you give a loan to a club? Yes you can. And I know that for a fact.” 

Last week, SPFL chairman Murdoch MacLennan contradicted the contradiction in the mammoth Q&A with himself, stating no loan had been issued by the SPFL for more than seven years. SPFL chief executive Neil Doncaster reiterated that point later in the day in his round of media interviews.

“The suggestion of issuing loans is a red herring,” said MacLennan. “Loans have been made by the league to individual members in the past, but not for many years – and only where the board was able to satisfy itself that making a loan was in the best interests of the league as a whole. The last loan made by the SPL was more than seven years ago, in unique circumstances to a single member, secured against a personal guarantee given by a wealthy supporter.” 

Last week, SPFL chairman Murdoch MacLennan contradicted the contradiction in the mammoth Q&A with himself, stating no loan had been issued by the SPFL for more than seven years. SPFL chief executive Neil Doncaster reiterated that point later in the day in his round of media interviews.

“The suggestion of issuing loans is a red herring,” said MacLennan. “Loans have been made by the league to individual members in the past, but not for many years – and only where the board was able to satisfy itself that making a loan was in the best interests of the league as a whole. The last loan made by the SPL was more than seven years ago, in unique circumstances to a single member, secured against a personal guarantee given by a wealthy supporter.” 

Now there is further information. When you trawl through the SPFL’s accounts dated 31 May, 2017 you will eventually come to section 14 which details advances [some might call them loans] to two clubs during the year. “Two advances on club payments were made to SPFL clubs totalling £300,000,” the annual report says.

“An amount of £6,613 remained outstanding as of year end, which has since been repaid.”

These were the financial transactions that Budge was referring to when she pointed out that the SPFL was wrong to say that loans to cash-strapped clubs could not be made. Budge was on the SPFL board at the time the £300,000 was paid out.

MacLennan, soon-to-be SPFL chairman, was one of the people who names appears on the accounts. Neil Doncaster was the chief executive. Other directors whose names appear on those accounts detailing the release of £300,000 to struggling clubs were Ken Ferguson, Karyn McCluskey and Les Gray and Stewart Robertson.

The list of other directors and advisors on the accounts include Celtic chief executive Peter Lawwell, Scottish FA chief executive Ian Maxwell and Hibs chief executive Leeann Dempster. All three retired from the board in July 2017.

The SPFL denied on Friday evening that these figures were loans, but when is a loan not a loan? If, according to the accounts, a sum of £6,613 “remained outstanding” then does that not indicate it’s a loan, the very thing that MacLennan said midweek hadn’t happened in more than seven years?

All of this goes back to disquiet among certain clubs about the haste in which the SPFL’s resolution was held. Some feel that they were railroaded into voting to end the leagues because they were told that was the only way they could have end-of-season payments released.

A number of clubs say they will tell their stories, should Rangers’ call for an independent inquiry prove successful. The odds are hugely against it. Rangers will release whatever information they have to clubs sometime next week. Their so-called dossier will need to be explosive, or else the only detonation going on in the Scottish game, will be one that goes off in the face of the Rangers board.

Privately, in the days leading up to the SPFL’s resolution to end the leagues, some SPFL figures confirmed that the only way money could be released to clubs was for them to vote for the league’s resolution. 

In his Q&A, MacLennan asked himself a question about alternatives to loans being issued to troubled clubs. He never mentioned advances; he just said that no money could be forthcoming to clubs without a yes vote.

“What other options did the board look at? What other ways were explored to get cash in the pockets of clubs now?” he asked. The answer was emphatic. “There were simply no other viable options. We’ve already talked about loans. It is clear, that in the absence of any suggested alternative ways of providing money to clubs, no other practical and realistic way exists.”

So, the possibility of loans or advances – call it what you will – didn’t exist, according to the chairman. However, the accounts of 2017 suggest that the board did, indeed, have that latitude.

The SPFL have now sought to explain all of this. “During season 2016-17, earlier than usual fee payments were made to two clubs, totalling £300,000,” said a spokesman. “These were made following the promotion of Rangers FC to the Ladbroke Premiership. These fee payments followed complaints by three clubs that they had been disadvantaged in the fixturing for that season by not getting three visits from Celtic FC/Rangers FC.

“As a result of the negative impacts on their cash flow resulting from this fixturing anomaly, two of those three clubs requested earlier than normal fee payments totalling £300,000. These fee payments were not loans and were wholly within the amounts budgeted to be earned by those clubs, whatever final league placing was achieved by those clubs that season.”

n other words, they were advances against prize money that was due to the clubs. The SPFL spokesman even used the words “advance fee payments” in his statement on Friday.

Even if you accept that they were, indeed, advances and not loans, how does that tally with MacLennan’s view that “there were simply no other options”? A repeat of what they did for the two clubs back in 2016-17 wasn’t an option?

There also remains the mention of the repayment of an “outstanding amount” of £6,613. The SPFL spokesman came back: “At no point was there any loan to any Premiership club, indeed not to any SPFL club.”

A loan? An advance? The other day, the SPFL told us that none of these things were options. Their own accounts shed extra light on that.   

Perhaps he should ask if the SPFL require a glance at the accounts of any club seeking an “advance “, merely to allay fears that any request for financial help is purely down to covid, and not say, gross neglect and impending administration /liquidation…

Here’s hoping he goes down that path and lets us know what he finds.

If he does do the right thing, we’ll carry him shoulder high around the Hampden track at the next big game.

Another hack hot on the trail of the real story is Chris MacLaughlin, who revealed…

The aftermath, mind, not the actual “attack “-another early use of the war rhetoric…

Vandals have attacked Rangers shop in Glasgow city centre- daubing a pro-Celtic slogan in paint.

One of the front windows of the St Enoch Square store was almost totally covered by “CFC 1” written in green paint. 

“Attacked” ?

A sickened pensioner witnessed the aftermath of the attack on the way to get his morning shopping.  

Sickened ? Shouldn’t he have been self isolating ? Instead of rubber necking the scene of a devastating “attack ” ?

The man, who didn’t want to be named, said: “It is totally shocking that people think it is ok to do things like this, especially at this time with the lockdown on and everything. 

The lockdown that he is ignoring…

“I was just on my way to get my lottery ticket and messages when I saw what happened, there was paint all over the window.

“It’s just mindless, that will be a lot of work for someone to take off and for what? 

Shits and giggles, my friend,

“I think whoever did it it should be done and I hope the police get whoever it was.” 

Me too, and the poor fellow should be compensated for his ordeal, which may well mean he won;t be able to look at a shop window again without breaking into a cold sweat and suffering flashbacks.

Yesterday, we had this…

And credit to the reply…