Lord Nimmo Smith and the Hare and the Tortoise

Good Morning,

Many years ago– and it is more years than I care to remember– a Law Lecturer stood before myself and my class mates in a lecture theatre and tried to explain how a misapplication of the principles of law– or indeed the logical application of only selective parts of the law itself, when applied in relation to selected facts and circumstances — could lead to an illogical legal conclusion in any given situation and set of circumstances.

He added that when this phenomenon occurred then clearly the law had gone wrong and there had to be  a reappraisal of the legal principles and facts considered and applied– alternatively if no other conclusion could be reached other than one which produces and illogical result– then the law itself had to be changed.

To keep his lecture as simple as possible for us thickos in his class, he repeated the tale of the hare and the tortoise as told by a mathematician applying pure logic and a selected theory and law of mathematics.

The theory– which is perfectly logical— is that where you have one object which is stationary and another object which is travelling towards the stationary object, then after a certain period the moving object will have halved the original distance between it and the stationary object. After a further period of time, the intervening distance will have halved again and after yet a further period of time that distance will have halved yet again and so on ad infinitum.

In theory, the distance between the two objects will perpetually continue to be cut in half even down to the most infinitesimal distance.

However applying this theory alone— albeit that it is a mathematically proven theory based on a set of given numbers and proven formula— then the Tortoise never caught the Hare– he just got closer and closer and closer– and so in any race the Tortoise never ran past the Hare! In short, by this theory the Tortoise could never have won.

Yet, as we all know– despite this demonstration of clear logical thinking— The Hare got gubbed and the Tortoise was victorious.

It will come as no surprise to many that the tale of the Hare and the Tortoise with its illogical conclusion as told by the law lecturer came to mind when I came to consider the terms of– and more importantly the implications and consequences of—- the recent decision and report of Lord Nimmo Smith and his colleagues.

By this time there will have been many many far more learned commentaries on the detail of the decision than anything that I could come up with. However there are some points that just stick out for me which require further thought and clarification, and then I think there is a need to just stop and pause to take time to think about where this decision– if it is allowed to stand–leaves Scottish Football and those involved in, and those who support, it.

With respect to Lord Nimmo Smith– his report makes no sense in the bigger picture.

For example- take the position of Sandy Bryson. When it comes to any appeal of findings on any aspect of registration– Bryson is effectively the appeal body– so how can he give evidence at all?  In addition, unless I am mistaken, this inquiry was dealing with the application of the rules of the SPL whereas Mr Bryson is the head of registration for the SFA- an altogether different body– or so we are told. Accordingly quite why an employee of one body should be called upon to give weighted evidence on the internal workings of the rules of another body is more then curious.

Whatsmore Bryson is someone who has a potential conflict as it has long been thought that the registration process within the SFA– or perhaps those who administer it— have been caught with their trousers round their ankles when it comes to this whole debacle. After all he would be part of the body who has to look at club annual returns in respect of the SFA rules- which annual return is meant to contain all contractual details between club and players. Further, each year the SFA have to issue a UEFA licence which once again calls for all contracts and agreements to be disclosed and in addition to that thiose regulations call for someone within the SFA to carry out an annual audit of all documents and contracts between the club and all sorts of people- not just players– including managers, chief executives and so on– and this has to be completed and approved before a UEFA licence can be granted.

Yet despite all of these tests and requirements, inspections and compliance tests, Sandy Bryson’s department failed to uncover or have disclosed to them various contracts and agreements relating to payments to players– and presumably others such as managers, directors and the then CEO who, you may recall, went to the Court of Session where it was shown ( by Rangers PLC no less ) that he, in particular, had asked for his own contract to be placed in the shredder so no one could see it!

However, leaving potential ineptitude aside for the moment, Sandy Bryson gave his evidence and in one easy movement Lord Nimmo Smith dropped the ball completely. There appears to have been no examination of  Bryson’s logic at all, nor his interpretation of the rules of registration and so there is no potential contradiction or alternative view of his interpretation. As this is an inquiry, and a key area of that inquiry turns on Bryson’s interpretation I don’t think the job is complete if you simply accept the word of Bryson. An Inquiry is meant to…. enquire…… to ask questions.Yet it seems to me that Sandy Bryson and all he said was accepted with no enquiry whatsoever.

That is especially odd when you consider the all important clause on which his evidence turns which reads as follows:

Rule D1.13: A Club MUST, as a condition of Registration AND for a Player to be eligible to Play in Official Matches, deliver the executed originals of all Contracts of Service and amendments and/or extensions to Contracts of Service and all other agreements providing for payment, other than for reimbursement of expenses actually incurred, between that Club and Player, to the Secretary, within fourteen days of such Contract of Service or other agreement being entered into, amended and/or, as the case may be, extended.

By this time, everyone knows what Sandy Bryson said and how Lord Nimmo Smith relied on his interpretation in reaching his conclusions- so I won’t repeat all that.

What I will say is this. The regulation concerned uses the word “must”—- you MUST disclose all contracts and arrangements in order to validly register a player— Rangers clearly did not— they failed the “must” test– whether deliberately or accidentally does not matter. Failing the must test requires no sporting advantage or anything like it– must means must! If you haven’t complied with “must” then you have not de facto registered the player– even if you think you have and even if the SFA or the SPL think you have. In any legal rule or document ” Must” is a very carefully chosen word– it is chosen over and above “should”,  “shall”, “Is Obliged to” or any other similar word or phrase. The use of the word “Must” denotes the highest possible duty or obligation- and most importantly– the most drastic and catastrophic set of consequences for failure.

If it says you must– then you must– end of! And if you didn’t then everything that follows from the word “Must” in the clause just does not happen. It is clearly a holy prerequisite- an absolute with no wriggle room!

Yet Sandy Bryson was able to come up with a scenario and an interpretation which makes a total nonsense of any reasonable argument why the word “must” is at the very start of the rule concerned– and no one– not one of the learned panel appears to have questioned  him or his interpretation despite all logic telling you that he cannot possibly be correct.

Presumably, in Lord Nimmo Smith’s world— The hare beat the tortoise after all?

However, lets move on from there.  Taking Nimmo Smith to be correct in his application of the law and  his assessment of the evidence, he is still withering about the Rangers PLC board saying that they failed either through negligence or wrecklessness to disclose the payments to the football authorities. Further he clearly says they took no advice on whether they should or should not disclose for fear that they would be told plainly that any such disclosure would jeopardise the tax scheme the Directors Rangers PLC were so clearly hell bent in following.

In other words the choice to deliberately not disclose the contracts and documents  was a calculated one where they put the desire and need to preserve the tax benefits they envisaged before the football rules demanded by the SPL and the SFA— and as I have mentioned up above the key rule uses the word “must”.

What does that tell you about the attitude of the Directors running that company? What does it say about the desire to ensure that Rangers Football Club, its players and its fans were all properly represented when it came to matters involving Rangers PLC, the SPL and the SFA?

It tells you that these directors did not give a jot as long as their tax scam– legal or not– was not jeopardised. The Football Player, The Football Fan ( of any club ) and the Football Authorities and their rules could get stuffed– they did not count as much as the need to ensure that the tax was kept to a minimum by fair means or foul.

Now I have said all along that in my opinion there are a huge number of victims here– victims of this board and its, to be frank, cavalier attitude towards the rights, hopes and aspirations of others involved in football.

I have said on several occasions that both the Rangers Players and the Rangers Fans are among the innocent victims– but they did gain a benefit from the duplicitous actions of the board of Rangers PLC who are the guys who are really to blame for a whole host of calamities– not least the ultimate liquidation of Rangers PLC and the need for The Rangers to start again in the lower leagues.

Take a guy I have a bit of time for– Billy Dodds. Billy has repeatedly said on air that it would not be fair if any medals were taken away from him because he and all the other players did nothing wrong, never believed that they had done anything wrong and just tried their best.

I have no reason to disbelieve him at all— at any time when I have seen Billy Dodds play for anyone I have always thought he tried his socks off.

However, he was part of a team– and that team includes the backroom staff right up to board room level– and up there, the team members chose to play fast and loose with Billy’s heartfelt graft. By their decision not to risk or jeopardise their tax scheme, they decided to peril any medals or rewards Billy won in the blue shirt. They chose to break the rules in so far as they related to Billy and his team mates registration– and in so doing they sure as hell did not consult Billy– or anyone else on the pitch.

Now, if you are a member of an athletics relay team and one member drops the baton or runs outside of the lane, then despite your heartfelt efforts and your total sincerity you will be disqualified simply because the rules have been broken– even if there is no real sporting advantage. That is just the way it is.

Lord Nimmo Smith slates the old Rangers Board and says they bear a heavy responsibility. Heidi Poon slaughtered the same people in her dissenting judgement of some 80 pages in the FTT and the remaining two judges there chose not to demur.

However what should also be borne in mind is the evidence adduced in the case of Martin Bain v Rangers PLC where it was revealed to the court that Martin Bain had ordered the Shredding of his own contract and other documents for fear of leaving himself exposed to the rule of law. Then add to that, the fact that in another tribunal, another Director of the same club was banned from all involvement in football for conduct which was described as  as close to match fixing as you could get. That conduct was the deliberate non payment of tax in order to further and protect the trading viability of the football club.

Presumably, the players who played during the Craig Whyte regime also tried their socks off yet the panel described the off field activity as very close to match fixing.

Further remember, that while Mr Whyte was castigated for not disclosing his disqualification from being a director, there was no suggestion that he had shredded contracts, withheld documents relating to player registrations and payments and so on for a period exceeding a decade.

With all of that info available, and given that the Nimmo Smith inquiry was to be for the benefit of everyone in football– players, ex players, managers, ex managers, fans, officials etc why does Nimmo Smith not look in detail at  those directors who he so clearly criticised — their position within RFC and their experience in football and sports administration? Because one of the things he could have potentially done was recommend further sanction against  the directors themselves just like a previous panel did with Craig Whyte.

Yet he makes no mention of any possible sanction against the people involved.

So why not examine who did what or failed to do what? Why not for example sanction the individuals– as it appears that they have brought the game into disrepute— surely if you criticise a ref and that amounts to disrepute then failing to comply with rule registration for a decade in order to cover up a tax scheme merits at least a charge or a discussion about a charge of bringing the game into disrepute or more?

Failing to examine that possibility seems bizarre to me.

I would also want to ask some questions here. How do the former Rangers players feel about the fact that it now appears irrefutable that the then directors chose not to disclose all their contractual documentation? Would they trust those directors and officials again? If they have to have dealings with these same people in the future– as a manager or coach of another club, or as a players agent– what do they think about this past conduct where their playing papers were not perfect by design?

What do other managers and club directors think of that?

We know that Campbell Ogilvie, who was very much involved in all of this, is at the heart of the SFA– for all we know he was also at the heart of the attempted negotiations where a place in the SPL was to be given in return for some titles being taken away. What do Rangers fans and former players think on that topic?

Also– the head of football administration at Ibrox from 2003 was Andrew Dickson. Even allowing for a decade of “Administrative errors”, how do fans feel about the fact that he still performs that same role today apparently?

Re no sporting advantage on the field of play.—- I think Nimmo Smith takes a very narrow interpretation of what amounts to a sporting advantage and what does not. I think he sees that Rangers were able to field eleven players who they intimated would be their registered players over the course of any year, and that those players were registered ( albeit imperfectly if we accept Bryson at face value ) and so “eligible” to play.

 Well there is a strong argument to say that even if they were registered ( which is a real stretch of the relevant rule )  they were not eligible because key parts of their contract had not been disclosed and the clause says that to be registered AND eligible those contracts “must” be disclosed.

Well as we all know the side letters– which if I recall correctly certain former RFC Directors said did not exist at all— were not disclosed.

What Nimmo Smith appears to say is that by failing to disclose the contracts, Rangers gained no advantage on the field of play as it was still eleven versus eleven!

However, what Nimmo Smith does not take into account is the cumulative effect of his own findings namely that the side letters were not disclosed for fear of voiding the tax scheme, that this was a deliberate and prolonged breach of the rules, which enabled Rangers an off field financial advantage of £47M over a ten year period– which obviously enabled them to buy more and better players—- and which £47M may well not have been available to them had they disclosed and had to pay their taxes— and which £47M or any part of it— was not available to any other club in the same way because they had chosen to comply with the rules and had disclosed all payments made with the consequence that they were open and transparent about all financial arrangements.

And here I go back to Billy Dodds’ argument about he and his fellow players doing nothing other than trying their heart out and so it would be unfair to take away medals etc– as he wants to show them to his kids and grandkids etc.

Whilst I understand– and sympathise with that— every member of every other team in the league also tried their heats out and wanted to show their kids and grandkids winners medals. Billy Dodds is only able to do so because he played in a team with players that Rangers could not otherwise have afforded had they been forced to pay tax on their salaries– like every other team in the league. By the way– don’t take my word for that– that was the evidence of some of the MIH contingent before the FTT.

However it is only once you have been open and honest about all financial and contractual arrangements that your players and your team become eligible to take the field and get the chance to try their heart out against similarly registered and rule compliant opposition. Only then can your clever board directors and company lawyers and accountants seek to secure the maximum tax advantage in accordance with the law of the land as a result of people paying good money to see a game of association football played within the rules— and that is the off field rules and the on field rules.

Nimmo Smith does not start from that point and he should.

If Billy Dodds had played for a Dundee United team or an Aberdeen team which was financially enhanced by £47 Million over a ten year period then I wonder how many more medals he might have won?

Remember too that Nimmo Smith’s findings are only recommendations– so the SPL board have to consider the recommendations– but they need not do that in isolation. That board can look beyond the terms of the remit to Nimmo Smith– so they can look at the tax case and so on. So– If I were them I might just suspend all sentence– leave the whole thing standing in abeyance until after the UTT decision and I would seek clarification on the registration process from the SFA by way of official letter and if necessary from UEFA–as it would appear  that the registration interpretation of the SFA does not sit well with the arguments presented by UEFA re  FC Sion and by other authorities elsewhere such as in the case of Melbourne Roar FC.

Within the SFA rules it states clearly that the association, the clubs and the players will be bound by all rules and regulations of the SFA, UEFA, FIFA and by the findings of the court of arbitration for sport– which has previously ruled in terms which appear to say that Sandy Bryson has taken the wrong approach thus making the Nimmo Smith findings fatally flawed.

Further winning or coming high up in the SPL is the qualification standard to Champions League or European  football which, as mentioned above, requires further licensing provisions of an exacting standard. Looking at the SFA Handbook and the rules and regulations on their site, it is not only the players registrations that have to comply– check those parts where the clubs have to disclose all contracts for managers, coaches, youth coaches, physios, CEO’s and so on

— where does Nimmo Smith look at any of that?– the answer is nowhere.

So what are the SFA doing about their rules and the potential breaches of those rules? Given the statement made by the CEO yesterday are we just to forget about those rules and regulations as if they did not exist?

How does that serve football in Scotland and elsewhere?

In the wider picture we can see that there has been a flagrant and complete breach of administrative function within Scottish Football– no one on the terraces has any idea if they are watching a game that is properly administered, players that are properly registered, club officials that have complied with basic fair play duties, and all overseen by executives who have openly accepted that they would flush the rules down the toilet for the sake of expediency— all because of one club– and the desire not to simply implement rules for the sake of that one club.

There is no trust in the game at all any more– none whatsoever.

I’m afraid this is no longer about just the conduct of Rangers PLC over the decade examined by Nimmo Smith. It is about the absolute lack of governance and regulation by SFA the SPL and those who were in charge of those organisations and who were meant to be ensuring that all the rules were complied with before the players take the field.

In that regard Scottish Football has failed totally for over a decade or more– that is a straightforward and accepted fact.

At the very least Nimmo Smith is saying that a team of suits were able to breach those rules to protect their own vested interests and that the checks and balances within Scottish Football Governance were ill equipped to discover it or stop it despite there being two separate licensing functions and a supposed compliance audit each and every year.

What is the fan to make of that?

Reassessing fixtures, stripping titles and all that stuff is far less important than ensuring that those who were involved in creating this mess– and those who were involved in either covering it up, bargaining it away, or who simply failed to take the correct action for the sake of expediency are removed from football for good.

To ignore that notion is to effectively declare the hare as the winner of the race because in theory the tortoise was never going to be allowed to win as he could never have passed the hare no matter how hard he tried.

Celtic, Juventus, Kennedy and Camelot

Good Morning,

Prior to accepting the invitation to become Vice President of the United States of America, Lyndon Baines Johnson addressed the Democratic Party Convention in support of his own candidacy for the top job in the Whitehouse.

In the course of his address, he warned the party- and the rest of America- against the sheer act of folly of electing as President  a young man who had not the merest hint of a single grey hair on his head!

The respected Senator from Texas was of the view that such a lofty and important job could not be performed by a mere youth!

The party and the rest of America did not listen.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy’s ultimate election was seen as the turning of a new chapter. He was the first person born in the 20th century to serve as president. He was the only Catholic president, and is the only president to have won a Pulitzer Prize.  At the Democratic Convention, he gave his well-known “New Frontier” speech, saying: “For the problems are not all solved and the battles are not all won—and we stand today on the edge of a New Frontier … But the New Frontier of which I speak is not a set of promises—it is a set of challenges. It sums up not what I intend to offer the American people, but what I intend to ask of them.”

Johnson, was one of a number of big hitters in the Democratic party who all came together in an attempt to stop Kennedy- the others being Adlai Stevenson, Stuart Symington, and Hubert Humphrey. However, by the time Johnson had reluctantly entered the Presidential race, The Kennedy Campaign had gained a momentum and a self belief which meant that Kennedy’s nomination by the Democratic party was unstoppable– In short, the old guard were too slow to see the youth coming up on the blind side.

Years before,while Kennedy was gaining a name for himself in Washington DC as first a junior congressman and then as junior Senator, across the Atlantic a young man who was seven years Kennedy’s junior was making a name for himself. In the late forties he had began to garner a growing reputation without attaining stellar success, However 1951 was to see that change dramatically.

In that years season at Stratford on Avon a young actor took to the stage in Shakespeare’s Henry IV part 1 opposite Anthony Quayle as Falstaff. This young man had never had a formal acting lesson in his life and whilst his Shakespearean début was awaited with intrigue, no one was prepared for what was to take place on that début evening.

The leading Theatre Critic of the time, Kenneth Tynan, described that début performance and the reaction to it as follows:

“His playing of Prince Hal turned interested speculation to awe almost as soon as he started to speak; in the first intermission local critics stood agape in the lobbies.”

Richard Walter Jenkins– otherwise know as Richard Burton— had arrived.

Burton was born in a small village close to Port Talbot in Wales being the twelfth of thirteen children. Two years later his mother would die after giving birth to her thirteenth child and Burton was effectively raised by his sister in Port Talbot itself. However it was a former School master, Philip Burton, who would have the biggest influence on young Richard. He would later adopt the boy and it was he who helped him turn what was a Welsh Pit Pony of a voice into a deep Celtic thoroughbred of an instrument with which to make critics and public gasp and stand agog. He was in the vanguard of the new wave of theatre– full of young actors and playwrights who would bring a new energy to British Theatre.

The lives and images of Burton and Kennedy would become intermingled for a period of time— linked in time and place by a single word and the interpretation and feeling given to that word by a nation and a generation.

That word is……………. Camelot!

Camelot– the mythical and magical Kingdom of King Arthur where all sorts of magical things happen. Camelot– where there is a nobility, with knights of the round table who stand  for all that is good and right and just. Camelot– a word that has come to describe a special place with magical powers and Camelot– a term which came to describe the period of time during which Kennedy was in office— The Camelot Presidency.

Shortly after Kennedy rose to the Presidency, Richard Burton would open the Learner and Lowe musical Camelot on Broadway. It was a hugely difficult production, plagued by early  problems and would prove to be the co-authors last collaboration. In the run up, Learner was hospitalised with Ulcers, Lowe then suffered a heart attack and could not continue. The show was very long with the first production ( which was not on Broadway ) finishing at 20 minutes to one in the morning and so it had to be cut and cut again as at one time it was running for a marathon 5 hours plus per performance.

Yet at the heart of this troubled extravaganza was the magnetic but fiery Burton without whom there would undoubtedly have never been any sort of Camelot. He was not noted as a singer, although he had a good voice, but his choice as Arthur was inspired beyond all imagination– not just because the part called for a mixture of acting, dancing and singing, but because throughout all of the show’s preparation troubles, Burton’s sheer charisma, geniality and faith in the project kept Camelot on the rails.

Lerner wrote at the time: “God knows what would have happened had it not been for Richard Burton.” Accepting cuts and changes, he radiated a “faith and geniality” and calmed the fears of the cast. Eventually,the show opened to mixed reviews at best, with the famous Broadway critics being polite but not amazed.

However, the show was featured in a thirteen minute slot on the Ed Sullivan show where the American Public were treated to the sight of Burton singing and dancing with Julie Andrews as Guinevere — and delivering the highlight of Arthur’s roll—- the remembrance of Camelot towards the end of the show.

The following day, the queue for tickets went clean round the block and beyond! The show became a massive success and grew in stature with the public. That first production ended up winning 4 Tony’s. The album from the show featuring the original cast remained as America’s top selling LP  for an amazing 60 weeks!!

Accordingly, throughout the vast majority of the Kennedy Administration, the musical going public became incredibly familiar with the tones of Richard Burton telling them of ” Camelot”– a term that became synonymous with the new dawn and the new era promised by the young President.

The President and his wife had famously been taken with the show and had invited Burton to The  White House where that massive selling LP was considered favourite listening.

By the time that Kennedy was assassinated on 22nd November 1963, Camelot had closed on Broadway after 873 performances and the show was touring the country with a number of different productions and different actors in the lead role– although as I say above– the lead role had become indelibly connected with Burton because of the LP- further that role and the words spoken by Arthur were also associated with Kennedy.

These associations were so strong that a story is told about a production of Camelot which took place after the fatal events in Dallas. Towards the end of the show Arthur half sings and half talks in retrospection telling a young knight to remember the Magic that once was Camelot. It was this sequence as first performed by Burton that the Kennedy’s found so inspirational and much later Jackie Kennedy would reveal it was the President’s favourite speech beyond all others.

However, on this evening late in 1963, the lead actor got to those words already made famous by Burton when he was suddenly interrupted by a cry from the audience. It was not meant to be an interruption, but the audience member was so moved by the recent events and the words on stage that he or she literally let out all their grief for the newly dead President with a huge cry of anguish and sobbing. The effect of this outpouring of grief was instant– as one by one each and every member of the audience and cast began to cry and wail inconsolably — in the seats, on the balconies, in the aisles, on the stage and on the wings.

This lasted a full 5 minutes- after which the performance continued until the end.That evening is said to have made its way into the annals of Theatre folklore and legend— the night when the audience influenced the feeling and actions of the cast. The emotion and the feeling from the crowd had a direct baring on what was happening on stage—- as if—- by magic.

Camelot!!!

On Tueday night, the old lady of Italian football comes to visit what might be described as the European Footballing equivalent of…… Camelot.

While Arthur’s Camelot was a mythical place, the east end of Glasgow is very real indeed but on European nights is no less magical.Recently, Henrik Larsson gave an interview in which he described the effect of the crowd at Celtic Park on such a night. He said it made you run quicker, jump higher and last longer than you ever thought possible. Others have talked about the atmosphere making you feel like a player and a half.

Audience influencing the players on the stage—— Camelot!

Juventus are very much aware of the reputation of Celtic Park and have made several public comments about the special atmosphere that they expect to encounter. Pavel Nedved, their footballing director, said after his team’s recent beating of Fiorentina, that he knows all about Celtic Park as he has experienced that atmosphere personally and knows what it is like.

With the greatest respect to Nedved he is wrong. His experience at Celtic Park, whilst although undoubtedly special, was during the course of a Champion’s League group stage match– and even then, if I recall correctly, Juventus were assured in the knowledge that they would progress from the group.

That is as nothing in comparison to a night of knock out competition over two legs, where, as one Spanish magazine put it after the recent game against Barcelona, ” The Greatest Home advantage” in European Football will come into play.

When Nedved appeared at Celtic Park, he played the role of the charismatic and skilful Bull to Lobomir Moravcik’s ageing Matador.

It is a very different midfield and a very different Celtic that await the men from Turin on Tuesday.

This Celtic team are as young if not younger than any group who are left in this competition. Whilst they may not lay claim to being the best team in Europe, there is an argument that Lennon’s team are the best emergent team in the competition– with both performances and results against a number of teams from Iceland, Sweden, Russia, Portugal and Spain lending credence to that argument. If they continue to improve in this Theatre then they are a coming force.

Juventus are undoubtedly a quality team, but they are far from unbeatable, At the start of the season they had concerns about scoring goals and they have recently boosted their fire power by adding the ageing Anelka and the curious Bentdner to their forward line. Both are large men- both are experienced- both are very non Italian in their style of play.

Concerns have also been expressed at the back where a system of a back three is sometimes deployed to allow the genius that is Andrea Pirlo to conduct a five man midfield orchestra. However in at least one magazine I have read, concern has been expressed about how such a back three cope when the midfield five are pierced by speedy and quick forwards. Apparently, in Italy Pirlo is not pressed when on the ball and is not forced into quick release of the football.

In the summer they spent over 53 Million Euro on a team which so far this season has played before a maximum crowd of 40,562 when they faced Napoli.

Each and every one of Lennon’s team have grown in stature at Celtic Park on European nights and right through the spine of the time– from Foster to Hooper– that same group has added to their reputation and value in footballing terms. Their discipline and work rate as a collective unit have been as impressive as any other attribute and they have the makings of a formidable team in European terms.

If the these young men can waltz past the Old Lady of Turin and force her to sit out the remaining dances of the Champion’s League then their stature and that of the legendary ground they play in will be all the more enhanced.

Should that happen, it is not the who, but the what, that awaits them that is intriguing.

The Quarter Final Stages of the Champions League is achievable– and in that quarter final draw many formerly expected participants will be missing. There will be a few unexpected names in that draw signifying a new order perhaps when it comes to the Champions League later stages— a new frontier if you like who are making their way and creating inroads into where the old guard once stood prominent.

There is no reason whatsoever why this Celtic team cannot take their place in that company. While many clubs have relied on the old way of the chequebook, the Celtic management are in the vanguard of the new thinking where they harness and develop young talent from all across the world. As Financial fair play legislation takes effect, others who come from richer leagues will be forced to follow suit.

A young disciplined and talented Celtic, battle hardened before a very real but legendary crowd in their very own Camelot will not be overcome easily by anyone.

While Burton was at his zenith on Broadway with Camelot in the early sixties, and while Kennedy was blazing his own trail on the world political stage at the same time, other young men would make their mark in their fields of chosen expertise. One was a young Jock Stein who was in the early stages of garnering a footballing knowledge which was second to none at the time. His aura will be felt at Celtic Park on Tuesday.

However, for me, another man comes to mind. He would go on to have the magnetism of Burton and Kennedy combined. He could act, dance and play at Diplomacy and tactics with the best, overcoming seemingly impossible odds to achieve his goals at a very early age.

He is a quieter man these days and doesn’t say too much, but I believe that if he were asked to give advice to this Celtic team before facing the Old Lady in their Camelot cauldron then that advice would be short and simple.

“Impossible is nothing but an opinion—— Rumble Young men— Rumble!”

———————————————————————————————–

If you care to have a look on You Tube you will see a belated Burton Performance of the climatic tune from Camelot. He stands on a stage, no costume bar a dinner suit, hands in pockets and is just mesmeric even when he simply stops and looks out at his audience.

And he talks of Camelot

While Burton was obviously not present on the night when the entire theatre stopped and wept, it is said that his rendition of that particular number was instrumental in creating such an atmosphere as it was so well known.

It would not be the only time that a Burton rendition would play a part ( directly or indirectly ) in causing those who saw it or heard it to stop and gasp or do something strange there and then.

Like the time he was in Alaska filming the Ice Palace with Randolph Scott when he accepted a bet that he could get a pub full of hardened oil workers and hookers to appreciate Shakespeare. On that occasion the pub was full of people dancing to a jukebox when Burton allegedly pulled the plug from the wall, stood on a chair and started to recite ” To be or not to be” at the top of his voice. Initially, there were shouts of protests from the Dancers and others, but after a moment or two all was quiet as the entire place just stopped and stared in awe at the Welshman ….. and by the time he concluded there was a spontaneous round of applause with many whooping and hollering and shouting for more.

n 1964, on the set of Becket, whilst kneeling and reciting the final words of St Thomas a Becket, his performance was so mesmeric that some of the extras acting as alter Boys set themselves on fire by accident— they had all been holding candles and were so engrossed that they did not notice the flames burning their costumes.

In 1972 Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor would throw a party for Celtic fans in the Dunas Intercontinental Hotel in Budapest.

By the Rivers of Babylon and Fifty shades of Whyte

Good Morning,

According to legend, in the Sixth Century BC, a man by the name of Belshazzar– later sometimes called Balthazar– came to power and became King. Those of you who are historians or biblical scholars will recognise the name– as again legend and biblical account says Belshazzer  was the last King of Babylon.

All that remains of the original ancient famed city of Babylon today is a mound of broken mud-brick buildings and debris in the Mesopotamian plain between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers– The Rivers of Babylon. The ancient city itself was built upon the Euphrates, and divided in equal parts along its left and right banks, with steep embankments to contain the river’s seasonal floods. The site is actually about 55 miles south of Baghdad in modern day Iraq, and of course today it is nothing like the bustling city full of temptation and vice as portrayed in biblical epics a la Hollywood, in ancient histories and yes… even as referred to in the bible.

I am no biblical scholar at all, but the word Babylon conjures up images of  a great city and kingdom, which teemed with riches, big city riches, temptations, adventures and vices which ultimately lead to rack and ruin– both physically and spiritually.

All good and interesting stuff you may say, but ultimately if biblical history or the study of ancient history & myth is not your bag, then a discussion of Babylon and Babylonians in general could be dismissed as irrelevant and boring drivel– especially on a football forum.

Yet, such a view would be completely and utterly wrong, because the entire game of football– and indeed our everyday lives are in fact governed by the Babylonians and their practices– pratcices that have existed for more than 4000 years.

You see, the Babylonians gave us something other than a city full of vice and temptations. They provided the most advanced and practiced mathematical system of counting, calculating, measuring and so on. The system determined geometry, engineering and all sorts of everyday practical things.

For example the Babylonian scheme of counting was all calculated to a base of 60–as opposed to the decimal 10– and so it was they who started to divide the day into 24 separate hours, each in turn divided into 60 minutes with each in turn divided into 60 seconds. Accordingly, there is no modern sporting endeavor- and practically no modern activity of any kind — that is not in some way measured against or by Babylonian Mathematics and systems. A Football Match is meant to last precisely one and a half  Babylonian measures– divided equally into two segments or halves!

When it comes to any activity that involves a race against time then the winner is declared by measuring all the competitors against the Babylonian scale………. or does it?

Yesterday, one of the most lauded international sportsmen of all time was stripped of all sporting history, integrity and dignity despite– and indeed perhaps because of— his consistent ability to be the best when measured on the Babylonian timescale.

Lance Armstrong has ” no place in cycling ” according to Pat McQuaid of The International Cycling Union (UCI). Cycling’s governing body upheld the 1,000 page report from the US anti doping agency (USADA) and condemned Lance’s hitherto “hero” status to the dustbin. That report was based upon many personal statements and testimonies, and modern day scientific analysis of tests carried out on samples of Armstrong’s blood taken from past races. In short, Armstrong’s blood counts were abnormal on a number of occasions– as were those of his team mates– leading to the conclusion that such results can only have come about as a result of his having taken banned substances. To put it another way— despite being first over the line, despite being fastest round the course and having the best times when touring around France in the greatest cycle race in history, Lance lost out to another Babylonian type counting system. This is a system which can accurately measure your blood cells and reveal a true measure of whether you have doped or cheated or not, and at the end of the Babylonian day Lance lost out to the counting system. He succumbed to the vices and temptations of money and cheating and ultimately met his own doom and destruction just like the ancient city itself.

Yet this is far from the end of the Armstrong affair. It is only the end of the beginning so to speak. The decision yesterday was a disaster– albeit an inevitable disaster– for Armstrong.

He has already seen a complete reversal of policy by Nike who have now abandoned Armstrong despite years of defending their man in the face of drug and doping allegations. The sports company have released a statement saying that they were “betrayed and misled” by the man in the yellow jersey. They may well sue him.

Mind you, they may not have to bother themselves too much as Armstrong already faces a massive claim for damages from the US Postal Service who sponsored his team and pumped in millions on the basis that he was the “winner” of the Tour de France on successive occasions. What’s more, that sponsorship– from US Postal and others– became ever bigger on the back of Lance’s repeated anti doping declarations and his “clean” image becoming ever more prevalent with the resultant public perception of Lance the hero.

Contractually, Lance was rewarded financially– to the tune of millions– for every time he won the Tour de France.

Well, as of yesterday he did not win the Tour de France once let alone 7  times and he was unanimously declared unclean in the eyes of his sport with the result that his legal and technical defence to a claim for $120 Million has disappeared over the hill. Contratually, and now legally, Lance obtained that money on a false pretence.

However, it doesn’t end there. A few years back Lance took to the courts and gave evidence under oath in a variety of legal forums– where he was answering depositions or where he was pursuing former team mates and employees in an attempt to shut them up. Alas the problem with testimony given under oath is that if it turns out to be untrue– especially when the witness stands to gain by telling untruths— then there is a risk of being charged with perjury, and if convicted the result can often be an enforced stay within four walls with not an alp in sight for a very long time.

In totally condemning Armstrong yesterday, Pat McQuaid of the UCI took a bit of a gamble, because it is said that the UCI knew all along that Armstrong was cheating and did their best to cover it up or at least look the other way as often as they could. They did not want their big star taken down, they did not want the scandal and they did want the money that Armstrong brought to the sport– so he was allowed to get away with it.

The gamble from yesterday is that McQuaid came out and said all this was nonsense and that they knew nothing. He said that while they may have made the odd mistake, the UCI always acted with integrity and in the best interests of the sport. They did the best with the doping technology they had available and that they shouldn’t be criticized because Armstrong cheated and got away with it.

Almost immediately, David Walsh, the lead sports writer for the Sunday Times, branded McQuaid’s statement as a disgrace as it lacked any contrition, offered no solace to clean competitors like Christophe Bassons who was run out of the sport ( by the way the Bassons story deserves a post on its own as he was absolutely ruined by the entire Tour de France peloton and organisation who shirked all sporting integrity unlike the SFL clubs recently ) and which statement just failed to mention how the UCI knew that Armstrong was at best “dodgy” and that they failed to carry out any proper scrutiny and checks on their champion for fear of the consequences.

Of course the one person who can come out and make it plain that the UCI were complicit all along is Lance Armstrong– but if he comes clean now– or indeed ever– then he will be financially ruined and in all probability face a period of time in jail for perjury and possibly for other matters such as obtaining money under false pretences or similar. Call it fraud, call it embezzlement, call it what you will— not only will Lance not speak– Lance can’t afford to speak. Unless of course he comes clean and issues a full confession and names the names who knew– with the financial promise of a book deal and film rights to ease his financial pain?

In many ways Armstrong is in a similar position to Sir David Murray. No matter what the outcome and the detail of the FTT decision, Murray will never accept any wrongdoing and will hold to the line that he and MIH– and indeed Rangers– always acted in the belief that what they were doing was legal and that they had taken legal advice which steered them down that course.

The problem with legal advice is that lawyers– especially the big firms with big reputations– always want to cover their back ( rightly so ) and as a result any such advice is always explicit, caveated, and given against a background of facts as provided by the client. If the client omits salient facts or practices then the advice is as worthwhile as a chocolate watch on a hot day.

Murray will never admit that he was wrong for fear of being sued. In the same way that Lance rubbished the USADA report and always will, Murray will never accept an adverse judgement– he can’t.

He had a share release in 2004 and invited people to part with their cash in return for shares in a company which he ran. If he accepts that he periled that company by way of an illegal tax scheme then he may face a claim or two in the courts as any investment is now worthless. Remember too that the vast majority of the money “raised” on that share release came from MIH who in turn borrowed from HBOS (now Lloyds) and it might just be that the bank are not getting all their money back from MIH– so they may just take a wee interest in the detail of the FTT decision.

Richard Wilson suggests in this morning’s Herald that some players may be chased for unpaid tax. This may be the first time that a major newspaper has openly accepted that such a position is possible and many former players may be paying a visit to their lawyers to check the position.

Armstrong was condemned for his treatment of other US Postal team mates– forcing them and cajoling them to take EPO and other substances or lose their place on the team and the financial rewards that come with it. Even before the FTT decision– and remember that the tribunal heard evidence on each and every EBT under operation– we are already aware of players who have said that they were told that this was the way they were going to be paid if they wanted to play at Ibrox. If you were not prepared to accept that then you were on your bike. You could take it or leave it. That was the Murray way– not unlike Lance.

The reaction of the press to the recent statements of Craig Whyte also make for interesting reading. Jim Traynor dismisses Whyte as a fecund liar whose every statement is just to be treated as balderdash. Tom English stated on radio that Whyte threatened to sue anyone who suggested that Rangers PLC would go into Administration, and thus ( according to English ) he has to be lying when he said to Chris McLaughlin that Administration was always viewed as a possibility. With respect to Tom that argument doesn’t stack up. Whyte would threaten to sue anyone who was in danger of revealing the truth– that Administration loomed large and real— purely to hide and disguise the truth—again just like Armstrong.

The problem with Whyte is that he never releases a statement that is wholly untrue– there are always truths in there.

: Rangers PLC was unsalable and a financial basket case when he got it because of the Big Tax Case

: Rangers had dealt with Ticketus before– just not on his scale

: Rangers did have an operating hole of around £10 Million per year– later confirmed  by the Duff & Phelps figures.

: He appears to have believed that they could go into Administration and come out again within a few short weeks. Duff & Phelps said exactly the same thing at their very first press conference.

: Rangers PLC would have gone bust with or without Craig Whyte

And so on and on.

These are truths– but they get lost amongst the other nonsense that Whyte spouts so easily and carelessly.

That is the problem with the MBB– there are fifty shades of Whyte in any one set of statements and releases, and hitherto the Scottish Press have swallowed the lot and have been made to look foolish instead of standing back and questioning exactly what he says. I wonder how some journo’s and editors felt when Whyte said that he never put it about that he was a Billionaire with untold wealth? Was that why Jim Traynor was so angry– because his paper certainly championed that line at first. Remember he was going to front load Super Ally’s war chest!!! The reality was that he couldn’t front load a washing machine in a laundrette!

Yet with Murray, the papers still swallow every word without question. Last week it was announced that he met with Charles Green to agree the sale of Edmiston House at a favourable  price, so that green could turn it into an Hotel and Casino! For a start, the property is empty and has been on the market for ages so in this buyers market it is likely that the buyer will get a favourable price unless the seller knows that the buyer is desperate for some reason. Yet stop and think for a minute– who owns that building? Might it be MIH? If so, that company is no longer controlled by Murray– its controlled by Lloyds, so what exactly was Green doing talking to Murray because he does not have the power to sell he haw without the banks consent. If it is an MIH property then it is a bank decision– and not a Murray one. Oh and by the way– a Casino and Hotel? If you got the building for nothing do you know what it would cost to turn it into a Casino and Hotel? Bloody Fortunes. Mind you if you were prepared to spend the money on such a venture and not buy any players for say a decade then you might make  a few quid– if you think that is a good destination for a Casino and Hotel?

Whyte tells all sorts of Porkies but he is absolutely right when he says that Murray is the lead contributor to the downfall of Rangers. It was he who brought the club to ruin. It is he who faces ruin if the truth really comes out, and like the oft mentioned omerta that is used to describe the silence that surrounded Armstrong and the drug taking in cycling, the silence from all the participants and witnesses who gave evidence to the FTT will be difficult to maintain once the detail is released. It is he who for years attempted to disguise the fact that Rangers PLC was already ruined financially– long before the appearance of Craig Whyte.

Further, like the UCI, the sporting bodies– the blazers, office holders, hangers on and cow towers going back 20 years– will disown anybody who is clearly exposed as having blatantly broken the rules. They cannot afford the criticism that they should have done more, or that they slept while Murray and his fellow board members pulled the wool over their eyes. They certainly cannot afford to be seen to be shouldering any of the blame or suggestion that they looked the other way for fear of the consequences. The FTT and the Independent Tribunal decisions will see them run a mile from their former champions with the result that they will condemn and denounce the wrongdoers in the belief, and the hope, that those wrongdoers will not be too vocal or say anything which would implicate even worse wrongdoing for fear of the consequences– again just like Armstrong.

The evidence before the FTT will have been given under oath. It will have been recorded meticulously and in detail. It will be written on in detail and examined for veracity, accuracy an credibility. If what was said under oath doesn’t turn out to be quite the same as was said elsewhere– such as in a share prospectus, or in documents submitted to a bank or to the SFA or to the SPL or even in a newspaper, then there could be …. well….. consequences! Big Consequences.

As for the outcome of the FTT and the decision of the Independent Judicial Panel due to sit next month– and by that I don’t mean the ultimate decision alone– I mean the detail, the nitty gritty, the step by step explanation, the paper chase and the detailed facts of who signed what and submitted it where, when and to whom — well that all just takes me back the Belshazzar and the Babylonians.

The story goes that during a drunken feast, Belshazzar uses the holy golden and silver vessels, from Solomon’s Temple, to praise ‘the gods of gold and silver, brass, iron, wood, and stone’. Soon afterward, a hand appears and writes the following words on the wall of the royal palace:
Mene, Mene, Tekel u-Pharsin

Belshazzar calls his advisers and asks them to attempt to interpret the meaning. However, their conclusions are meaningless: “two minas, a shekel and two parts”. Belshazzar is left none the wiser.  As a result the King sends for Daniel, an exiled Israelite taken from Jerusalem, who had served in high office under Nebuchadnezzar.

The meaning that Daniel decrypts from these words is based on passive verbs corresponding to the measure names, “numbered, weighed, divided.”

According to Daniel, this is the writing that was inscribed:” mina, mina, shekel, half-mina”. This is the interpretation of the matter:

mina—– God has numbered the days of your kingdom and brought it to an end;

shekel—— you have been weighed on the scales and found wanting;

half-mina—– your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians.- Daniel 5:25-28

Although usually left untranslated in English translations of Daniel, these words are known Aramaic names of measures of currency: MENE, a mina (from the root meaning “to count”), TEKEL, a spelling of shekel (from the root meaning “to weigh”), PERES, half a mina (from the root meaning “to divide”, but additionally resembling the word for “Persia”). The last word (prs) he read as peres not parsin. His free choice of interpretation and decoding revealed the menacing subtext:

“Thou art weighed in the balance and art found wanting.”

The divine menace against the dissolute Belshazzar, whose kingdom was to be divided between the Medes and Persians, was swiftly realized. That very night King Belshazzar is slain, and Darius the Mede becomes King.

The Kingdom of Lance Armstrong had its days numbered from long ago. That Kingdom, his version of events, his legacy, his influence and all that flowed into it and from it, has been weighed and found wanting, and the resultant court cases may well see the spoils of his folly divided among his creditors.

All of that might sound a bit too biblical in its description but think on this.

It is the story of Belshazzar and Daniel, and Daniel’s subsequent interpretation of the words “Mene, Mene, Tekel u-Pharsin” that give us one of the most commonly used English phrases of all time.

A phrase that Lance Armstrong and David Murray ignored at their peril.

The phrase concerned?

THE WRITING’S ON THE WALL!