An open email to the SFA

To: George Peat; Campbell Ogilive

Sent: 12 April 2011; 15:01

Dear George and Campbell,

Could you please advise us as to when you will be commenting officially on allegations that a culture either does or has existed within the Scottish Football Association that is hostile to one of its member clubs? This has, I am sure you will agree, become more pertinent in the light of recent reporting that an email detailing the remuneration of a former player from a member club was sent by an office-bearer to senior figures within the SFA, with an appended note directly insulting Celtic.

I trust you recognise the seriousness of the allegations and, given the "tiresome" activities of the club in question in continually embarrassing an organisation that appears to be institutionally dysfunctional, I'm sure you would not allow such rumours to go unchallenged if untrue. That would have the undesirable effect of strengthening the suspicion in some quarters that the impartiality of the SFA cannot be presumed.

Indeed, it would be dangerous to the standing of the game in Scotland as well as the the SFA to allow malicious comment to spread when it seems to call into question your individual integrity and ability to remain in office or for the SFA as a body to administer the game.

Note, for example, the decision today not to ban two Rangers players who had been charged with misconduct, one of whom was guilty of laying hands on a referee in an attempt to physically prevent him from doing his job. Contrast that with the SFA's recent statement "regretting" that the Association's lawyers had advised it that punishing the Celtic manager Neil Lennon in breach of the Association's own rules was "legally unenforceable", indicating a preference to penalise the Celtic manager in excess of allowable standards. This is the sort of area that would come under increased scrutiny, should allegations of members circulating emails amongst senior office-bearers mocking a member club without comment or censure.

I understand from SFA sources close to that most erudite of journalists, Hugh Keevins, that you have been taking legal advice. I would urge you to launch a full investigation, which given the allegations involved, must necessarily be independent, and to publish its findings in full.

Should the allegations prove false, you can be sure of the same fair-minded and unbiased backing from the Celtic support that you have extended to our club.
--

Rangers chairman's loose tongue causes more problems

Jim Traynor says it didn't happen - but Chick Young was there!

--

The curious case of The Herald's low-key Rangers exclusive

Newspapers exist to deliver the news. That is a simple truism. Throughout the industry, there is an unending competition to beat rivals to the punch - to be "first with the news". And what newspapers or any news media crave most of all is the exclusive - the story that no one else has.

So you might think that when a newspaper gets first sniff of a story relating to an event that is to be the subject of a parliamentary debate that day, that they could be relied on to "big it up" - to shout it from the rooftops.

It is curious, then, that Tuesday, 8 March saw just such a story appearing in a paper but delivered in such a low-key manner as to almost send it flying below the Scottish football radar. In fact, if it wasn't for Celtic cyberspace, you might have missed it altogether. Other papers have yet to run with it, presumably because they can't establish the facts.

With the "shame game" still vexing pundits and politicians alike, days after the Chief Executive of the SFA had cited specific instances of unacceptable behaviour from Rangers players El Hadj Diouf and Madjid Bougherra, and with Celtic and Rangers set to discuss the events at Holyrood, The Herald almost apologetically whispered that they "understood" the players were in the clear with the SFA.

The Herald had information that no other paper seemed to have and yet chose to devote a mere 162 words to relaying the potentially explosive news that the abuse of the referee and inflammatory behaviour referred to by the SFA's Stewart Regan was considered a closed case with referee Calum Murray "reporting 'no additional misconduct' in his paperwork, the referee, at least, is content that both players were dealt with sufficiently at the time".

Equally intriguing is the name of the reporter, Martin McMillan. You may have read Martin's name on many a low-key match report and minor story. What a scoop for a reporter whose work is otherwise mundane. But you won't see McMillan on TV or hear him on radio.

Why? Because he doesn't exist. The name Martin McMillan is what is known as a house byline, a name of convenience added to stories, usually supplied by outside agencies or taken straight off the wires (streamed agency reports), to make it appear to readers that actual reporters are delivering news. It is a common practice in the industry and almost every title has them.

But if a news agency had such an exclusive, you would be reading about it first on the back page of one of the better-paying tabloids such as the Sun or the Daily Record. So we can rule them out as a source.

That leads us to speculate as to why the paper might deliver such a story without inviting full attention to it. Any journalist on the sports desk would want to put their name to that particular scoop, claiming the kudos for their investigative work.

Of course, it could be that the story is couched in such ambiguous terms, using terms like "Herald Sport understands" because they can't "stand the story up" - in layman's terms, verify it. But printing a story that just might be true doesn't sound like the approach of the Herald.

Could there be another reason? Could they be sacrificing the splash to protect the source who had presumably delivered the details of the referee's report in breach of his or her contract at the SFA?

Who could possibly be in the inner sanctum of the SFA with a strong connection to the Herald Sports desk?

• SFA Communications team

--