Not fit for purpose: The only victory for Resolution 12 would be to disband the SFA

In 1873, one year after the foundation of a now-lost Glasgow club, the Scottish Football Association was formed, making it the sport's second oldest national association in the world.

The SFA is a remarkable organisation. While most of the world was still sleeping, in terms of football, Scotland was leading the way, having participated in the first ever international match – against England, of course – at the West of Scotland Cricket Club in 1872.

And yet famously, infamously, notoriously, the men's national team has, uniquely in the British Isles  failed to progress past the groups stages of any major international tournament in its history.

That is despite having been peppered with some of the greatest players in football, all the way up until the 1990s.

McGrory, Hibs' Famous Five, the Lisbon Lions, Baxter, Bremner, McLintock, McGrain, Dalglish, Jordan, Souness. For more than 100 years, the playing talent was abundant.

The Famous Five: 

In 1967, the Scottish champions were European champions, too, and the national team was good enough to humiliate the world champions on their own patch. But a sustained endeavour towards a major trophy or a final or a semi-final? Nope.

When we were kings: Billy McNeill

I refer to this purely for background and anecdotal evidence that there has been an apparent malaise at Park Gardens and Hampden Park, ever since – more-or-less – the SFA was founded.

But it's not good living in the past, especially when the evidence of contemporary failure is so abundant.

The most recent revelations surrounding Resolution 12 bring this into sharp focus. Those pursuing this deserve credit for their efforts in a thankless task, even if I, personally, believe that the strategy directing those efforts has sometimes been flawed.

Nonetheless, they have tried and no one should doubt their efforts.

On the other hand, I take reports of their “victory” with a  pinch of salt. They may have been vindicated by some of the language used in the letter they received from UEFA, seemingly acknowledging, at least implicitly, that the SFA failed in its duty of governance of the matter of Rangers' licence to play in European competition.

(And the essence of transparency is that information is widely disseminated, not held by trusted sources.)

They may even have written evidence pointing to malfeasance but the vindication of having someone in high office telling you what you already knew is some way short of a victory.

No, victory would be some measure of justice – appropriate punishment for the offenders and compensation for the injured parties.

We know Rangers can't be punished because they were last seen in 2012 and are now throwing hammers around that great field of dreams in the sky.

We know this. Fans of every club in Scotland know it, too, and yet the fact that the “established” media resolutely close ranks behind the Scottish football authorities to deny this patent truth leaves a sense that the injustices that began when Rangers started cheating through tax avoidance continue to the extent that the accompanying lies are inscribed in silver.

Celtic and other wronged clubs are unlikely to be compensated because they seem to have no interest in saying, “Let right be done”. There may be pragmatic reasons for that in terms of the practicality of recouping financial losses or lost potential earnings.

And if, as has been mooted, the appropriate penalty against the “member association” that is the SFA would mean all teams being banned from European competition, that would be too steep a price to pay for most – though not all – fans.

On the face of it, any “victory” that may be pursued could be described as pyrrhic, though that does not excuse an abject failure to lead by Celtic PLC and others.

But if the lessons of the past are to remain an open wound, it would surely be some kind of victory if they led to a better future.

One in which football was run for the fans and the good of the game itself; where fair play took precedence over financial imperatives.

Is that likely to be achieved in Scotland under the present structure?

Recent years saw the received wisdom of the nylon blazers challenged by two men, now both sadly departed.

The late Paul McBride QC, to put it politely, scared the bejaysus out of the SFA. When arguably the most formidable criminal lawyer of his time was railing against the heady mix of corruption and incompetence guiding the Scottish game, the SFA office-bearers were shown up, not so much as paper tigers as sleekit cowrin tim'rous beasties.

McBride threatened to rock the football establishment to its foundation and there appeared a genuine chance that he would almost single-handedly force a new, binding constitution for the modern age before his tragic death.

The other figure was, of course, the late Turnbull Hutton. The one-time “conscience of Scottish football”, who “stood up for the 'wee' clubs”, Hutton projected a moral force that, coupled with his executive-level experience at Diageo, was more than a match for patsies and yes-men occupying senior roles in Scottish football.

Turnbull Hutton and Paul McBride: Should fans need heroes?

These two men gave – pro-bono – their time and talents in pursuit of the greater good of the beautiful game.

And yet, it is entirely wrong that fans who wish to believe in football should be left waiting for heroes to emerge to fight their corner.

Fans should not have to fight the governing body; it should exist to fight for them.

And yet let's look at this organisation, in its own words.

The Scottish FA exists to promote, foster and develop the game at all levels in this country.
Founded in 1873, Scottish football’s governing body has recently undergone the most radical changes in its history, enabling us to lead the game into a new era. The launch of our strategic plan Scotland United: A 2020 Vision outlines the vision, values and goals that underpin the organisation and its many facets.
The plan encompasses four strategic pillars:
•    Perform and Win
•    Strong Quality Growth
•    Better financial returns
•    Respected and Trusted to Lead

Two things may immediately jump out from the above.

Firstly – and disgracefully – nowhere in those “four strategic pillars” is there any mention of fans.

Is it the fans who are expected to “respect and trust” the SFA or are they to be led by it? Or is the sole relevance of fans to the Scottish Football Association in relation to “better financial returns”?

The second point leads on from the first – that the SFA appears to fail on all of its stated key aims.

In fact, going back to 1873, when has the SFA ever achieved anything of note? The “golden era” of the Scottish national team consisted of qualifying for five consecutive world cup finals and going home at the earliest opportunity every time.

A simpler question would be: in what areas is the SFA actually a success?

I would argue that the answer is: none, ever.

And I would further argue that the SFA is inherently dysfunctional: structurally, institutionally, in terms of its personnel and its apparent inability to ever repair its standing in the eyes of the fans, without whom there can be no ticket sales and no domestic marketing opportunities.

The SFA has about as much chance of realistically aspiring to its “four pillars” as a Mafia-owned restaurant, run for years as a money-laundering joint, has of aspiring to a Michelin star.

And when that happens, what? As was once said in a famous film, “You bust the joint out – you light a match.”

In these sensitive times, I must quickly urge you to keep your pyros in your pocket. This bonfire must be a metaphorical one – of the vanities of the stuffed shirts, scoffing at the principles of fair play, good governance or even key performance indicators.

The Scottish Football Association is “not fit for purpose” and is beyond reform. Its office-bearers should be invited to a ceremony to be given thanks, a 9ct-gold-plated watch and a gentle boot out the door.

Only a completely new body – with new people – has any hope of bringing Scottish football back to a position of repute.

As a starting point, I'll offer my four “cornerstones”, to underpin the current pillars:

1. Football, without fans, is nothing. We exist to bring football to the fans of all clubs and of all our national teams. We listen to the fans; we respect the fans; we endeavour to meet the aspirations of the fans in all our activities.
2. We commit ourselves to excellence. We measure that excellence primarily on the success and quality of performance of every Scottish national and club team.
3. We are committed to supporting Scottish football at all levels, through providing support in the forms of facilities, coaching and best practice to nurture player development and a continued strengthening of both the quality and entertainment value of the game from grassroots-level to international competition.
4. We will work with fans, clubs, the media and commercial partners to strengthen Scottish football commercially in keeping with the ethos of financial fair play.

Okay, so my “four cornerstones” are cobbled-together ideas and I do not expect that they would form a framework for anything at all.

My point is that I don't believe a multi-million-pound study from a former East Fife player, who left his last political job under a cloud was needed to do a better job of defining what should be the aims of a body entrusted with the task of moving the game forward.

A new body should mean new personnel – from diverse professional backgrounds, including several from outside Scotland (preferably not simply replacing one club tie with another), who are unlikely to rely on “old certainties”.

People with fresh ideas, a willingness to engage and a track record of success.

And – who knows – maybe it would even be “respected and trusted to lead”?
Wouldn't that, in itself, be a victory?
--

For Celtic PLC, will Resolution 12 be their Labour Party IndyRef moment?

If you thought the above headline signalled a party political blogcast, rest easy – this is instead about a lesson from history.

For most of my lifetime, the Scottish political scene has been a two-horse race. There was a brief period before 1979 in which the Scottish National Party was securing around 30% of the vote but, for decades, Labour and the Conservatives had dominated the vote with the majority of seats going to Labour.

Having lived through the Margaret Thatcher years, I saw support for the Tories evaporate and Labour secure what seemed an unassailable position of political supremacy.

But the two graphics posted tell a remarkable story: from 56 Westminster MPs in 2001 to just one in 2015; from a party that was able to lead a Holyrood administration for the first eight years of the Scottish parliament to one facing predictions of a near wipe-out in just over six weeks time.

The details of Scotland's changing political landscape and the complex issues are various but one common accusation remains: that Labour thought Scotland would always vote Labour, regardless of its message or policies, because Scotland always HAD voted Labour.

Political allegiance is usually more complex than simply assessing lists of candidates and policies. For many, it is tribal, sentimental, to do with family traditions, even “in the blood”.

Many of those who abandoned Labour did so with a heavy heart. “I didn't leave Labour; Labour left me”, was a common defensive cry from those facing accusations of disloyalty – even treachery – giving succour to their political enemies. The very need to explain exposed a deep-felt sense of anguish – sometimes guilt – in abandoning the party that had once represented their parents' and grandparent's interests when no one else would.

But, for huge numbers of those who believed in a set of values, the party's shift to accommodate modernism and “new realities” represented a betrayal – and the rational conclusion that if the party no longer held true to its founding principles and ideals, then it was no longer worthy of support.

And yet this logical outcome was something that the party's leaders, political strategists and communications professionals apparently believed would never happen.

It beggars belief that a party that could be so strategically successful in its campaigning in the Scottish Independence Referendum could at the same time finally exhaust the patience of those who had long doubted their political integrity.

But the reality is as stark and sobering an example as it is possible to get of the folly of taking people for granted. Labour's tactics, communications and cooperation with parties it claimed to oppose was for many the final nail in its coffin.

Yet there is room for suspicion that Celtic's directors and chief executives are similarly complacent.

While many, if not most, Scottish football supporters deem the Scottish Football Association to be corrupt, flying in the face of its own rules and the principles of fair play in order to maintain an establishment club in the Premiership, Celtic have stood by.

As the team, players and fans were cheated, Celtic at no time formally complained or protested publicly.

As a new club was entered into the bottom division – one which did not meet SFA criteria for membership, depriving qualified applicants a place – Celtic approved. And, infamously, they took no part in preventing the Ibrox Newco being admitted to one of the top two divisions, leaving the fight for integrity to the laudable actions of Turnbull Hutton.

Raith Rovers leading the way where Celtic apparently feared to tread.

And now we have Resolution 12, which seems almost certain to fail, and on which the club could have acted years ago.

And, for all this, they expect continued support – primarily with cash – from supporters they no longer defend, appear to care for or even represent.

So what is Celtic? A club that plays in the same colours at the same ground as the one graced by Tully, Johnstone, McGrain, Burns and Larsson? Its continuity as the entity founded by Brother walfrid is in no more doubt than that of the Labour party of Keir Hardy.

But it's values can no longer be seen as being in any way consistent with those that once bonded together a “Celtic family”. Celtic fans are being asked to support a club that no longer values fair play, the communities from which it has gained its support or playing football for the fans in a way to thrill and inspire.

And without those values, does the name, strip and ground alone entitle the club to the continuing support of people who have agonised over its decline?

When Labour found common cause with Tories and LibDems to oppose Scottish independence, the sharing of a platform with a Tory-LibDem coalition, as well as some cynical tactics, were too much for even its most faithful supporters.

But you could easily replace Labour's Jim Murphy, John McTernan and Blair McDougall with Dermot Desmond, Ian Bankier and Peter Lawwell, standing with the SFA and the Ibrox regime, led by a convicted criminal.

It appears that they do so in the belief that a promise here, a discount there and a “heartfelt plea for unity” are all that are needed to keep the tills ringing for yet another season; employing naïve hope in the aftermath of crushing experience.

But when trust has been damaged beyond repair, can supporters Keep the Faith?

--

Celebrity mismatch: Paul McBride QC vs SFA. What happens next?

I read the statement from the SFA in response to Paul McBride's remarks with amusement and a degree of shock. I had intended to write a piece welcoming the rumour that the SFA were set to make a complaint to the Faculty of Advocates following the QCs castigation of Scottish football's governing body. That was before a stunning SFA statement, attributed to Chief Executive Stewart Regan, that could potentially be of historic significance.

Let's be clear - there were only three avenues open to the SFA following McBride's accusations. They could let the comments pass with no more than a denial; they could lodge a complaint with the Faculty of Advocates or they could sue him for defamation.

The first option might well be seen as an admission that the Association could not legally refute the claims of Scotland's leading QC. The second is their right; indeed it is the right of anyone to ask the Faculty of Advocates to consider the conduct of a QC, especially when they are directly affected. The last option - legal redress - is fraught with danger.

Defamation is notoriously hard to prove and, even if proven, there are public interest and "fair comment" defences that seemingly allow defeat to be snatched from the jaws of victory for any complainant. For every Tommy Sheridan, there must be two dozen people in Britain who have seen apparently sound legal cases founder in court through the complexity of the law, its interpretations and defences.

It is also invariably a hugely costly exercise and one that is, probably unjustly, normally the preserve of those with money enough to lose. Stewart Regan's recent plea for less litigious relationships between clubs and the SFA is hardly consistent with a brazen announcement that the association is considering "whether to sue just Paul McBride for damages or whether to also sue other parties". That is a crass statement designed to gag media outlets - mainstream or independent.

With the established media, legal counsel will be to take no chances and it will be a surprise if we see any further comments with the strength that Hugh MacDonald demonstrated in The Herald. Oh yes, the gag will be passed from lawyers to Chief Executives to editors to journalists. A few letters will also be fired off (which don't come free either, Mr Regan).

But will MacDonald or The Herald find themselves in court? Will a Rangers player be banned for manhandling a ref?

Reading the coarsely worded and intemperate statement from the SFA, it also seems that the association may have responded to the media before fully considering the legal advice that they have sought.

It should not be lost on them that in a defamation case, the burden of proof lies with the complainant. Yes, that's right. Paul McBride doesn't even have to prove the veracity of his statements to the media - the SFA must prove that what he said was untrue; that his comments were not in the public interest and that his remarks should not be deemed fair comment.

This is an organisation that is constantly in the public eye, with political and commercial interests affecting hundreds of thousands of Scots and businesses; an organisation that receives public money and officially represents the country domestically and on the international stage. Are remarks on the conduct of such a body in the public interest? Are criticisms fair comment? That would be for a court to decide.

It is, however, worth noting that a false claim of defamation could itself be actionable while malice on the part of either party - or an accusation of malice - would be seen as an aggravating factor.

For that reason, there are parts of the SFA statement that will not be repeated here, nor will there be a link to the statement. This small blog could barely be seen as impacting on the reputation of either party when such remarks have been so widely publicised but, nevertheless, it is bad practice to spread such remarks, if their accuracy is believed to be in doubt.

Suffice it to say that I will not be making or repeating insinuations that speculate on the motivations or professionalism of the QC and it would be wise for others with larger circulation publications to take a similar approach.

The formal complaint to the Faculty of Advocates is, in itself, not without risk, primarily to the SFA's reputation. As with a court case, the Faculty would request documents and hitherto unknown details of proceedings, the publication of which the SFA has been accused of resisting. McBride could also be reasonably expected to request the same documents for his defence.

This would be a time for stout hearts at the SFA. Remember that a complaint to the Faculty of Advocates would involved the finest legal minds in Scotland arguing over the conduct of one of its members - judgement of lawyers by lawyers for lawyers. And what would they do? They would do as lawyers do - pore over the minutiae of every dot and comma in every document; weigh every decision against ever other decision; statement against statement.

The result could be anything from the most complete vindication of the SFA, its office-bearers, its rules and practices to a dismantling of the same in forensic detail. Outsiders can only speculate as to where in the spectrum the final decision would lie.

Failure to fully cooperate with the Faculty would fatally undermine their case and invite questions as to why. Opening the doors to assist their complaint would bring the prospect of Glasnost and Perestroika the like of which Mikhail Gorbachev could only have dreamed of. In a court case, the stakes would be higher.

Oh, and for another twist, who do you think would represent McBride at his Faculty hearing? If I'm not mistaken a hot favourite would be one Donald Findlay QC, who McBride successfully defended at his own Faculty hearing some years ago. How about that for a headline!

Of course, at the heart of this is something even more clear than any allegations recently made against the SFA - mind-boggling incompetence. In Stewart Regan, the Association does seem to have someone with the background, skills and nous to tackle the job of Chief Executive of an organisation that is constantly in the public eye and with such a wide-ranging remit. But let's not forget that the appointment of his predecessor seemed to question the recruitment procedures at Hampden Park.

The same could be said of the role of Director of Communications. Such a position would be best suited to someone with at least ten years experience in a senior corporate communications role in the public sector or high-level business. It's a job for someone who can develop and implement a wide-ranging corporate communications strategy with a view to representing the SFA appropriately at all levels and to sense how the public, media and interested parties will react to what they see, hear or read.

It is not a job for a reporter who thinks that PR is a nod and a wink here, a bit of inside info there and the odd strident statement. That sort of person is used to having at least three pairs of eyes examine his output with any controversial statement "legalled" before publication. It would be remarkable if the SFA statement now so widely available in the public domain had been so scrutinised.

McBride is used to locking horns with fine legal minds in adversarial contest; prompting people to react to his questioning and verbal sparring in ways they did not plan; sometimes provoking them to make mistakes. With his strident statement to the BBC on Tuesday, he could scarcely have imagined that the response would be so intemperately worded or so ill-measured.

There will be many letters to and fro and cryptically worded statements when the legal teams are in place so a protracted battle may ensue. However, it really may be that the endgame is now in sight. --