Whatever Happened to the Nimmo Smith Report? – Crosspost from the Scottish Football Monitor

I am privileged to have had the chance to post a “guest” article on TSFM.

In this piece I look at what happened to the SFA commissioned “Nimmo Smith Report”.

The comments on the piece over at TSFM are well worth a look too.

Whatever Happened to the Nimmo Smith Report?

On 21st February 2012 the SFA announced that it had appointed retired judge Lord Nimmo Smith to chair an independent inquiry into Rangers FC. His panel comprised Professor Niall Lothian, Past President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland; Bob Downes, former Director of BT and now Deputy Chairman of the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, and Stewart Regan, CEO of the SFA.

The Inquiry was commissioned to investigate the potential breach of a number of SFA Articles of Association and to present its findings to the SFA Board within two weeks. Article 62.2 (q) of the SFA Articles of Association allows the SFA Board to appoint “a commission … to attend to and/or determine any matter(s) referred to it by the Board.”

Stewart Regan was quoted saying: “I am delighted Lord Nimmo Smith has agreed to Chair the Independent Inquiry. I am certain the experience contained within the panel will enable us to achieve more clarity on the situation regarding Rangers FC. There will be no further comment on the investigation until it is complete and its findings presented to the Board.”

Lord Nimmo Smith in relaxed mode

One wonders about the use of the word “independent”, bearing in mind that one of the members was the CEO of the commissioning body, and on the Board which would consider it once prepared.

On 2nd March Mr Regan had more to say, although the investigation was not yet complete.

“We are now in the final stages of our independent inquiry into the situation concerning Rangers FC. The report by The Right Honourable Lord Nimmo Smith is expected to be completed next week and will go to a Special Board Meeting for consideration. It would be inappropriate to make any further comment at this stage in relation to the details gleaned from the inquiry, the potential contents of the report or any possible sanctions.

On 8th March the Special Board Meeting took place to consider the Nimmo Smith Report. Mr Regan commented:-

“I can confirm that the Scottish FA convened a Special Board Meeting at Hampden Park today to discuss the findings of the Independent Inquiry into Rangers FC, prepared by the Chair, The Right Honourable Lord William Nimmo Smith. 

“Principally, it is the belief of the Board, taking into account the prima facie evidence presented today, that Mr Craig Whyte is not considered to be a Fit and Proper person to hold a position within Association Football.

“The report submitted by Lord Nimmo Smith, having been considered fully by the Board, highlights a number of other potential rule breaches by the club and its owner. The report will now be used as evidence and forwarded to a Judicial Panel for consideration and determination as per the protocol.

As such, the report’s contents will not be published at this time. Nevertheless, I can confirm that the club is facing a charge of bringing the game into disrepute.”

On 24th April Mr Regan, following the verdict of the Judicial Panel, said the following:-

“It was entirely right that the original inquiry into Rangers FC and Craig Whyte was conducted independently and chaired by the Right Honourable Lord Nimmo Smith. These findings were presented to the Judicial Panel Tribunal, who returned their verdict last night.”

That all seems clear. Lord Nimmo Smith, with the help of distinguished people like Mr Regan, carried out a quick but thorough investigation, and the results were put to the Judicial Panel for consideration.

However Gary Allan QC, who chaired the Panel, made the following comment on page 59 of the Panel’s written decision.

Gary Allan – one of the top Queen’s Counsel in Scotland and Chair of the SFA Judicial Panel which dealt with Mr Whyte and Rangers FC

“It is remarkable that throughout the Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal Process there has been repeated, and regrettably wholly misconceived reference to the Report of Lord Nimmo Smith. For the avoidance of any doubt, the Judicial Panel hearing this disciplinary matter was at no time presented with the report, as evidence or otherwise, nor was it presented with any of its findings. No member of the Tribunal has had sight of it. The report was not mentioned by any party at any time in the course of the proceedings. The determinations which were reached, therefore, were reached entirely independently of any view at which any other person, however senior or eminent, may have arrived in fulfilment of his remit prior to the disciplinary hearing.”

How can the Chair of the Panel deny having seen a document which, according to one of the people who sat on the independent committee, was presented to them?

The answer is two-fold.

Firstly, at pages 2 to 3 of the Judicial Panel decision, the procedural nuts and bolts of the case are discussed:-

“The Tribunal … directed that … it would proceed to hear the evidence and submissions and proceed to Determinations in relation to the complaints against both Rangers FC and Mr Whyte.

The Tribunal … noted that … it would proceed on the basis that there was an absolute denial on (Mr Whyte’s) part of each element of the alleged breach of the rules in all its particulars.

The Tribunal directed that accordingly, and notwithstanding the fact that in its written responses Rangers FC in substantial measure admitted the factual averments and a number of the alleged breaches of the rules, … the Tribunal would require to establish a clear factual basis for its Determination of both any alleged breaches and, if applicable, any sanction against either or both Rangers FC or Mr Whyte. … The commission and the circumstances of the alleged breaches would therefore require to be established by the leading of evidence before the Tribunal …

A discussion in relation to the procedure to be adopted took place. It was agreed that the Compliance Officer Mr Lunny would lead evidence ex parte by submission and reference to documentary material but would lead no witnesses, and would invite the Tribunal to accept the evidence in that form as provided in the Judicial Panel Protocol. Mr McLaughlin for Rangers FC, standing its position on the complaints contained in the written response previously submitted had neither issues with that proposal nor any other objection to the procedure which would be adopted. An opportunity would then be afforded to Rangers FC to lead evidence and make submissions as Mr McLaughlin on its behalf saw fit. Mr McLaughlin intimated that he would be likely to lead evidence from four witnesses previously intimated to the Compliance Officer and the Tribunal in terms of the Judicial Panel Protocol.”

At the hearing the positions of Rangers FC and of Mr Whyte were totally at odds. Mr Whyte did not appear nor lodge any substantive reply. He denied everything. On the other hand, Rangers FC “in substantial measure admitted the factual averments and a number of the alleged breaches of the rules”. As the Panel determined, they needed to be satisfied of the right verdict based on the evidence, but as the “prosecution case” was generally admitted, there was less rigour about this than if, for example, Mr Whyte had attended and denied the charges.

If Mr Whyte had appeared to deny the allegations, or if Rangers FC had disputed them, then evidence would have had to come from witnesses, who could have been cross-examined. In that event it would not have been sufficient to present the Nimmo Smith report, because, for all his experience, expertise and eminence, he is not guaranteed to be infallible.

One important principle in judicial and quasi-judicial procedure is the “Best Evidence rule”. If possible, original documents should be produced, rather than copies. Items of physical evidence should be brought to the court, rather than photographs of it. Witnesses should give evidence rather than having witness statements provided to the hearing.

This, I think, provides part of the explanation for the apparently mysterious absence of the Nimmo Smith Report.

The facts of the case had been admitted by the only party who attended the hearing, namely Rangers FC. Therefore Mr Lunny led “evidence ex parte by submission and reference to documentary material”. The Panel made 108 separate “findings in fact” derived from the evidence he put forward and that of Rangers FC.

Where Lord Nimmo Smith’s committee had, for example, analysed documents and offered a conclusion upon their import, the documents would be evidence but His Lordship’s conclusion would not. Similarly where a witness had been interviewed by the Nimmo Smith commission, or provided a statement, the former judge’s views on that would not be evidence, but the witness statement would be.

Mr Lunny, the Compliance Officer, was acting as prosecutor. Effectively Lord Nimmo Smith played the role of a senior detective co-ordinating an investigation, but not actually obtaining any evidence himself. In a criminal trial, where the officer in charge of the investigation has taken no part in the accumulation of the evidence, then their relevance as a witness is very small at best. It is up to the judge or the jury to decide what the totality of evidence means as far as guilt or innocence is concerned.

Therefore whilst I am sure that Lord Nimmo Smith’s report was on Mr Lunny’s table as he went through his presentation, ticking off the relevant parts as he led the primary evidence, the Report itself was not “relevant” evidence for the Panel. It is likely that, in discussion prior to the hearing, Mr Lunny and the solicitor for Rangers FC agreed whether the Nimmo Smith report would be used or not.

Mr Regan said prior to the Panel sitting The report will now be used as evidence and forwarded to a Judicial Panel for consideration and determination as per the protocol. The presentation of the case of course was independent of him, and whilst the Report would have formed the basis for the charges laid against Rangers FC and Mr Whyte, it was not evidence itself, as agreed between the parties.

The second aspect which accords with this explanation is the precise phrase used by Mr Regan. He said, after the decision, These findings were presented to the Judicial Panel Tribunal.”

He did not say that the report was presented, rather that the findings were. As the findings would form the basis for the “charges” admitted by Rangers FC, then to that extent the Nimmo Smith report played a part in the proceedings.

This issue has relevance now for the forthcoming SPL proceedings involving player payments and registrations which might have broken the rules. To great clamour and consternation from Ibrox direction, Harper MacLeod, the widely respected and highly rated form of solicitors, have carried out an investigation for the SPL into Rangers FC.

Mr Green has made clear that, as far as possible, the case will be fought, and no past titles will be stripped if he can do anything about it. Expect calls for the Harper MacLeod report to be produced.

However, it is in exactly the same position as the Nimmo Smith report was, except this time the accused is not accepting guilt. In that case, the relevant documents and witnesses will need to attend for scrutiny and examination.

On the basis that the First Tier Tax Tribunal, which looked at different but related issues, took many days to conclude, it is highly likely that the SPL case will not have a quick conclusion.

As a final aside, I must compliment Mr Green. All of the media speculation about punishment in the event that the independent commission find guilt on the part of Rangers repeats the mantra from Ibrox that the most severe penalty, namely stripping of titles, is the aim of the SPL.

I suspect that the SPL might believe that too now, on the basis that something which the club and the fans oppose so vigorously must be a draconian penalty.

But, of all of the various penalties listed, stripping titles would not cost the Rangers FC a single penny. The issue has already seen the supporters unite behind their team. Even if the commission finds the case proven, and as a result Rangers lose some of their historic titles, this will be seen by the Ibrox faithful as yet more treachery by the football authorities. Bearing in mind that the SPL rules allow various penalties, including the power to expel the club, impose unlimited fines and place a registration embargo on the club, altering the history books is the best thing for Rangers as a business, rather than a penalty which affects them just now.

Posted by Paul McConville



Filed under Football Governance, Rangers, SFA, The Scottish Football Monitor

26 responses to “Whatever Happened to the Nimmo Smith Report? – Crosspost from the Scottish Football Monitor

  1. Very well written again Paul with excellent analysis but in my humble opinion reaching a poor conclusion.
    Your piece however throws the spotlight on the imbecile Regan who if I have understood correctly has sought to justify the whole process by using the Nimmo Report when in fact the independant commitee had not seen it.
    It seems they were presented with the findings of his report.
    How? And by whom?
    Surely not by the Lunny as the suspicion would be that what was presented was his version of the report.
    If I was paranoid ( which I am not ) I would think that the Nimmo Report findings presented and the conclusions which were not perhaps differed from the actual.
    Furthermore that the conclusions in the Nimmo Report did not match Regan’s opinion on what punishment should befall Rangers.
    If Regan had any integrity he would have resigned by now but as this wont happen it is time for the SFA to look at his position and replace him with a competent person.

    • ecojon


      You say: ‘Furthermore that the conclusions in the Nimmo Report did not match Regan’s opinion on what punishment should befall Rangers.’

      I don’t think the report would have presented any ‘punishments’ as I understood it to be purely an evidence gathering exercise with the punishments decided by the Judicial Panel.

      • @ ecojohn

        My point ( and I apologise if badly put ) is that Messrs Regan and Doncaster have both publicly stated the level of punishment which could be administered before the Nimmo Report was completed and also before the Judicial Panel had even sat.
        The fact that the Nimmo Report in itself and it’s conclusions were not presented in their original form to the Judicial Panel ( which I believe was the original suggestion made by Regan ) might lead some to think that neither actually identified specific breaches by Rangers to merit such punishment.
        Others might be of the opinion that the bluster was simply a bargaining chip to get the TV deal closed.
        Whilst Paul has sought to explain what has happened after the report and its conclusions surely the contents of the report and the conclusions reached by Lord Nimmo could be released to allow people to see if justice is seen to be done.
        If there are indeed to be further penalties I suspect if people consider these to be too heavy further damage will be done to the credibilty of those who govern the game.
        And similarly if seen by some to be too light there will always be a vexation.

      • ecojon


        What is the problem about either Regan or Doncaster publicly stating what punishment could be applied as long at it was in their respective rule books? It is a matter of fact and even Rangers would be well aware of the range of punishments or sanctions available before the decision was taken.

        Personally I believe that no matter what form the Nimmo Report was presented or not presented, as the case may be, there would have still been people advancing contrary arguments. The question you have to ask yourself is whether the form that was chosen caused any legal detriment to the parties involved. If you think it did then you have to spell out exactly what that detriment was and I’m afraid a plea of: ‘The rozzers fitted me up M’lud’ just won’t cut it.

        And please believe me if Rangers or Whyte think detriment, in contravention of the rules, was caused then they would take the necessary steps without delay.

        I am intrigued about this amorphous mass of different people you talk about and how or how not they might react to one thing or another. Why don’t you just stick to telling us what you think and then we can have a debate instead of becoming entangled in a web of supposition and possible paranoia.

        I also think that your final thrust seems to be that penalties should never be imposed for any misdeeds as some people would think they are too light and yet others would think them too heavy.

        All that matters is whether the penalties fall within the relevant rule-book and that a mechanism for appeal exists if the recipient thinks they have been unjustly punished.

  2. ecojon

    One thing for sure the main objective being pursued by Green is an AIM Flotation so that he can get on his way with a bag o’ swag.

    I wonder if even the most rabid of Rangers Supporter believes that the guy is going to spend the next three years of his life wandering the exotic airts and pairts of Scotland to watch Rangers play.

    This was all meant to be a quick-in quick-out nice little earner as a tide-over until a real moneymaker came along. Instead Green has been engulfed by the scrutiny and passions that only the Old Firm can generate.

    There’s no doubt about it – he’s a street fighter in business terms but even he is confused. Some of the Rangers support hate him, otherd distruct him and the rest want him to crank-up the Prune Machine yet again.

    And on top of that he has a bunch of Celtic and non-aligned football club supporters being more troublesome than even Rangers fans in analysing and unpicking his business dealings: Past, Present and although he doesn’t know it yet: FUTURE 🙂

    • @ ecojon

      i agree totally with all your points.
      And if he can pull off a Fergus McCann type rescue I don’t think anyone could criticise him walking away with a substantial profit and leaving the club on a sound financial footing.
      However as you say he may not be moving in that direction but simply be a transient until bought out by the big money men we keep hearing about.
      But where are they?
      Who knows?
      The clock is ticking and only time will tell.

      • ecojon


        I fully recognise the realities of Capitalsism and other isms as well. I certainly wouldn’t have any quibbles if he had done what Fergus did. But there are glaring differences: Fergus had the money and he was totally transparent in what he would do and that he would walk away with a tidy profit.

        Green seems to have this obsession about an AIM Flotation and I haven’t a clue why as every club except Celtic and Arsenal ( which in reaility doesn’t trade share publicly) are the only two Plcs left from the flood of football clubs that joined the original raising capital through shares wave.

        Obviously I am well aware of what can be done because of light-touch (and that’s me being kind) self regulation in the AIM Market.

        To people with cash £1 million is chickenfeed but whether they are prepared to put it in year after year or up the ante is another matter and today’s result means it might not be a simple 3-year-progression out of the SFL.

  3. mick

    charlie bhoy green must be wondering what hes go him self in to under the glasgow spot light a bet some shady past deal comes out him being a wheeler dealer somethings bound to pop up

  4. TheBlackKnight TBK

    I’ve said it before and will say it again, if the Report implicated certain officials (past and present) within the corridors of power, it will never see the light of day……… Until the nuclear event of course 😉

    • @ mick

      Well what can anyone say to that.
      I personally cant take the article seriously but hey there will be people who will.
      Thats life – full of diverse opinion – and more than its fair share of bullshit.

      • Mick

        @clarkeng Hes mad gio he does rants on YouTube too he had shares in rangers and Dundee you can own shares in both due to conflict of intrest

  5. mick

    @every1 biily dodds and trevor stevens are giving big news on skysports1 at start 1 contract billy had lol 🙂 trevor said naithian will billy chirped away

  6. @ ecojon

    Re your last response to my post on Regan and Doncaster as I could not get the reply at the end of it my thoughts are here.

    The Nimmo Report was commissioned to investigate Rangers actions presumably to specifically identify breaches of the rules.
    The Judicial Panel was formed to judge upon and punish Rangers for those breaches of the rules. If the findings of the Nimmo Report were not given to the Judicial Panel to consider what was the point of the Nimmo Report?
    Regan and Doncaster cannot be prosecutor, judge and jury nor should they be seeking to influence the Judicial Panel in setting any punishment.
    There are other possible punishments allowable under the rules why were these not mentioned?
    The amorphous mass of different people you mention is not how I see things.
    Rather it is my contention things are split so radically that without clear unbiased actions on the part of the keepers of the rules the issue will continue to cause harm to football.
    With respect to my own opinion please note that I do not think Regan or Doncaster are competent in their positions and that they have compromised their positions by entering into the fray what the likely punishment will or could be.
    If that was because they needed leverage in the televison deal then they should both go or be sacked now.
    And no my final thrust was not that no punishment should be imposed but quite simply as you said yourself that any which are fall clearly within the rules and which are also proportionate having been decided upon in a reasonable and independant fashion.
    Right of appeal?? To whom??

    • ecojon


      I really am happy with Paul’s explanation and see no need to try and second-guess his conclusions. This is just one of these occasions where people have to agree to disagree.

      As to the competency issue I would agree that it has been lacking ion a number or occasions but, more importantly, so has leadership.

      You say: ‘my contention things are split so radically that without clear unbiased actions on the part of the keepers of the rules the issue will continue to cause harm to football’.

      My take is that the positions on the issue have become so entrenched that any action of the rule keepers will be seen as biased by at least one side.

      It will take a long time to recover from this impasse and indeed it might not be possible as there are a lot of bends in the road ahead which could result in further car crashes for Scottish Football.

      • @ ecojon

        Ditto on the leadership aspect.
        I am old enough to remember the days when clubs or fans would accept the actions and words of the SFA and SFL without question.
        They might not have agreed with them or liked what they said but in general terms it was accepted that decisions were made based on the rules even if they did seem to come from behind closed doors.
        It was also accepted that the decisions were taken based on fairness and proportionality which are tennets on which the rules are based.
        I could not imagine people like Ernie Walker at the SFA or David Will at the SFL putting themselves in a position where their integrity could be questioned – the status of their paternity perhaps – but never their integrity.
        But the causes of such disrespect for the current keepers of the rules are many and varied. And would never be likely to be agreed between anyone.
        Agreed on the entrenchment of both sides or maybe that should be all sides as there would seem to be more than two.
        Let us hope some form of recovery is possible.

      • ecojon


        As to recovery I’m beginning to hae ma doots. Watching the Olympics has really made me think about the attractiveness of football to coming generations.

        The almost inexorable rise in participation in the so-called ‘minority’ sports has been going on for years and but I think the attraction of a helluva lot of these sports to non-competitors is that they can also take part at a social non-competitive level and for things like health reasons which is of growing importance in this day and age.

        I think the ‘throwing money at players’ model is rapidly heading for the dustbin and I can see the English Game going the way of Scotland and because of the disparity of cash the fall could be a helluva lot harder.

        Billionaires who have bought football teams as a prestige bauble don’t want to see their club playing inferior opposition and I can’t help but feel the answer for them is to form Super Leagues in the various areas of the world comprised of the very best teams from each country.

        That’s where the huge amounts of sponsorship and TV money will go. Everything below will all de-gear. But that’s not to say there won’t be exciting games to be watched and fierce matches fought and I take this weekend’s match at Peterhead as a prime example of that.

        Some may think I paint a too gloomy scenario – I don’t think so. It might not happen but one thing for sure is that we can’t just continue on the path we are on as it’s going nowhere while I predict the other sports I speak of will keep growing, attracting the best of young athletes, particpating spectators, sponsorship and TV money and it is ideally suited to the medium of the internet as well.

  7. mick

    BBC website:

    “Rangers will be able to borrow as many as nine Newcastle players in a deal that will see Magpies owner Mike Ashley buy a share in the Ibrox club.
    The Scottish FA is ready to ratify the move on the condition that Ashley owns no more than 10% of Rangers and has no personal role in running the club.”

    SFL rulebook:

    “123.2.5 The Board shall not during a season approve more than four temporary transfers to any one club at any one time. Of these, no more than one such transfer at any one time shall involve a player who has reached the age of 21 years on 1st January of the appropriate year. The maximum number of temporary transfers allowed to any club in a season shall not exceed five, of which not more than two shall involve players who have reached the age of 21 years on 1st January of the appropriate year.”

    this is unreal if true more goal postshifting who do these people think they are do they think they can mug us of and dope div3 with top players so sevco come up quicker ?

  8. mick

    lets have a we look back at who we got to were we are today
    Motherwell Born Billionaire arrives
    Whyte being applauded into his seat by the blue order
    CW Interviews – “Ahhh..Ehh..Ehh..Ehh..Ahh..Ehh..Ahh..Ehh”
    Front loaded warchest
    Craig Whytes’….ahemmmm…..”bird”
    Out to Malmo in CL Qualifier
    Out to Maribor in EL Qualifier
    Out to Falkirk in League Cup
    BBC Documentary on Whyte proves he’s a shyster
    orcs protest at BBC for saying he’s a shyster
    League’s over comment from Jelavic
    Losing a 12 point lead to Timmy before new year
    Loving Cup with CW – “To the Queen”
    Selling Jelavic for a fraction of his value
    Signing Celik
    Seeing Celik play football
    Rangers file for Administration
    HMRC forcing them into Administration
    CW speech to a massively upset hun crowd of 34 people
    Revelation of Non-Tax payments
    Selling the Arsenal Shares….my god the Arsenal shares….the Arsenal shares
    “The Big Hoose Must Stay open”
    Hurting huns EVERYWHERE
    Explaining debt to a hun video
    Retiring number 12 for the fans
    The appointment of Duff & Phelps
    Realising you recognise that guy at D&P because he turned up with CW 6 months earlier
    Attempting to sign Cousin while in administration
    Celik effs off
    Wylde effs off
    The player’s taking a wage cut
    The initial Creditor’s list
    “Holy Smoke”
    Losing their place in Europe to Motherwell
    CW involved with the St Mirren takover
    The fake pledges from fake hun fans from their fake massive support
    The RFFF choosing to pay Dunfermline but not Dundee Utd – well played
    The RFFF having to pay for Weir’s retirement gift
    The RFFF paying to re-lay a pitch which might never be used
    The RFFF donations going to “Mr Custard the Bluenose Clown”
    The RFFF asking for pledges from “oversees”
    The Fighting Fund in general
    The red and black scarfs
    The karaoke fund raiser that will save the club
    “Pillared from batter to post”
    The Blue Knights
    The Bill Ng bid
    The Bill Miller “Incubator”
    Brian Kennedy
    Paul Murray
    “Yank go home” from the hordes
    The Chick v Jabba catfight
    The transfer embargo
    The transfer embargo upheld
    “Who are these people?” from Fat Sally
    The huns threaten to burn down the Raith Rover’s stands
    Alex Thomson and his general hunskelping
    The farewell Ibrox lap of honour to the loyal 500 who actually stayed
    Jelly and Ice Cream
    Having a Party when Rangers Die
    Doing the Conga When Rangers Die
    Terry Butcher loving his Ice Cream
    The Grim Reaper banner
    Passing the Coffin when Rangers Die
    “When Will We See You Again” after the last ever OF game
    Lennon lifts the League trophy
    The inception of the “Pacific Shelf Theory”
    We Don’t Do Walking Away
    The “We Don’t Do Walking Away” song
    Charles Green enters the story
    Red Card to Liquidation – good plan
    Dave King tells them not to buy season books – good plan
    Green says if CVA not agreed Rangers will lose their History
    CVA not agreed
    HMRC Skelp them into oblivion
    The BBC Documentary Part 2
    The porn star
    Prince Albert of Monaco
    Joanna Lumley
    The EBT 53 revealed
    Walter tries to buy assets an hour after they’re sold
    Walter Walks Away
    Walter Smith: “we wish the NEW Rangers Football Club every good fortune”
    The Hampden protest
    Unable to use Rangers name for newco until oldco is liquidated
    All Scottish Football Fans turn on the huns for their arrogance
    Turnbull Hutton
    Turnbull Hutton (deserves to be in twice!)
    Newco try to bypass all leagues and go straight into SPL
    Newco told to get to eff with their SPL application
    The presentation to the SPL revealed
    Offering to take the transfer ban at the same time as trying to sign Black
    Newco try to bypass all leagues and go straight into SFL1
    Newco told to get to eff with their SFL1 application
    Newco put into SFL3
    Return of the number 12 shirt
    Booted out by Subbuteo
    Booted out by Fifa 13 (maybe!)
    The execution of blow-up dolls
    Bomber Brown’s rant on the steps of Tesco
    “Show us the title deeds”
    “Yous buy the Pies!!!!!”
    Bomber Brown on the radio
    “Show us the title deeds”
    Bomber Brown on sky sports
    “Show us the title deeds”
    Bomber Brown meeting with the RFFF
    Everything Gordon Smith has said past, present and future
    Chris McLaughlin reveals Ally is not wearing a tie
    Naisy and Whitty Walk Away
    Everybody Walks Away
    Broadfoot Stays
    The hurting from Jabba
    The hurting from Chick
    The hurting from Hately
    sevco enter the Ramsden Cup
    Still no license to play football
    sevco compared to Kit-Kats
    The “conditional” membership
    Brechin taking them to extra time
    The Hedge
    Celebrating an extra time goal at Brechin like it was the effing Champions League
    The Hedge
    Ally’s pitch side “Churchill” look – in front of a van and wooden bench
    Did I mention the hedge?
    SPL signing a new TV deal with SKY/ESPN
    SPL sign a TV deal with YouTube
    Chucky Green blaims all sevco problems on, not themselves, but the bigotry of others
    sevco defending Green a month after saying they hated everything about him
    Billy Dodds admits to having an EBT
    Neil McCann admits to having an EBT
    David Murray says no rules were broken
    Murray hiding from the media’s questions
    RTC destroys Murray’s claims and makes him look like an complete idiot
    Needing a last minute goal to scrape a draw against Peterhead

  9. geddy Lee

    Would a FOI request force publication of this report?

  10. Pingback: The SPL Commission re the Rangers FC – Is It Truly Independent? | Random Thoughts Re Scots Law by Paul McConville

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s