I wonder who the 'one unnamed club' who was given the opportunity to contribute to the investigation could have been?

Rangers unhappy and making statements about it and demanding investigations

who'd a thunk it

No one likes us we don't care except every single time

comment by Call Sign (U3627)
posted 3 minutes ago
Rangers unhappy and making statements about it and demanding investigations

who'd a thunk it

No one likes us we don't care except every single time
----------------------------------------------------------------------

So what are their concerns?

comment by Timmy (U14278)
posted 3 minutes ago
So what are their concerns?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
its say in the OP

So not just Celtic fans who are unhappy with Lawwell

comment by Humble Hamish (U21959)
posted 1 hour, 16 minutes ago
I wonder who the 'one unnamed club' who was given the opportunity to contribute to the investigation could have been?


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aberdeen according to other outlets.

‘ Despite several requests from the clubs, the report has yet to be released to any of the member clubs despite the clubs footing the bill for its creation.’

If no one has seen the report, then how does anyone know what’s in it?

comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 36 seconds ago
‘ Despite several requests from the clubs, the report has yet to be released to any of the member clubs despite the clubs footing the bill for its creation.’

If no one has seen the report, then how does anyone know what’s in it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
missing the point completely

comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided... (U10636)
posted 2 minutes ago
‘ Despite several requests from the clubs, the report has yet to be released to any of the member clubs despite the clubs footing the bill for its creation.’

If no one has seen the report, then how does anyone know what’s in it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The issue seems to have gone over your head

There’s a lot of points in the statement-I just commented on one of them.

Is there only one in particular we have to discuss? If so-which one is it?

comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 37 seconds ago
There’s a lot of points in the statement-I just commented on one of them.

Is there only one in particular we have to discuss? If so-which one is it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
no one has raised the contents of the report as one of their concerns .... yet.

Its all in the OP

comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 37 seconds ago
There’s a lot of points in the statement-I just commented on one of them.

Is there only one in particular we have to discuss? If so-which one is it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
no one has raised the contents of the report as one of their concerns .... yet.

Its all in the OP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
‘In conjunction with a draft report being made available to the SPFL Board, SPFL Chairman Murdoch McLennan hastily released a statement that did not reflect the full findings of the report.’

That suggests they have.

comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 48 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 37 seconds ago
There’s a lot of points in the statement-I just commented on one of them.

Is there only one in particular we have to discuss? If so-which one is it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
no one has raised the contents of the report as one of their concerns .... yet.

Its all in the OP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
‘In conjunction with a draft report being made available to the SPFL Board, SPFL Chairman Murdoch McLennan hastily released a statement that did not reflect the full findings of the report.’

That suggests they have.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 48 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 37 seconds ago
There’s a lot of points in the statement-I just commented on one of them.

Is there only one in particular we have to discuss? If so-which one is it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
no one has raised the contents of the report as one of their concerns .... yet.

Its all in the OP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
‘In conjunction with a draft report being made available to the SPFL Board, SPFL Chairman Murdoch McLennan hastily released a statement that did not reflect the full findings of the report.’

That suggests they have.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The clubs hold serious concerns regarding the report's independence, transparency, and the overall governance of the SPFL."

like I said it explains in the OP.

stop acting like a moron.

its was an INDEPENDENT review that the CLUBS paid for. members of the SPFL have been accused of changing the report before it has been released to the clubs, and despite the clubs making many requests to view the report have not been given it. Some bosses in the SPFL have had access to it the clubs dont. its says so in the part you quoted.

Calm yer jets, wee man. I only raised a point, that for whatever reason you don’t want to address. There’s a number of concerns raised that I agree with-I only pointed out something that didn’t seem right.

There looks like a slight flaw in the statement by the clubs-that’s what I was asking about. Sorry I’m not toeing the line you want to discuss…

comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 40 seconds ago
Calm yer jets, wee man. I only raised a point, that for whatever reason you don’t want to address. There’s a number of concerns raised that I agree with-I only pointed out something that didn’t seem right.

There looks like a slight flaw in the statement by the clubs-that’s what I was asking about. Sorry I’m not toeing the line you want to discuss…
----------------------------------------------------------------------
i did address it.

nowhere does it say that the clubs are disputing the contents of the report.

comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 40 seconds ago
Calm yer jets, wee man. I only raised a point, that for whatever reason you don’t want to address. There’s a number of concerns raised that I agree with-I only pointed out something that didn’t seem right.

There looks like a slight flaw in the statement by the clubs-that’s what I was asking about. Sorry I’m not toeing the line you want to discuss…
----------------------------------------------------------------------
i did address it.

nowhere does it say that the clubs are disputing the contents of the report.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, they are really-if they’re questioning its independence and that there were changes made from the draft report to the final report, then that’s questioning it? And if they didn’t have concerns about the contents, then why question its independence?

In any case, that wasn’t the point I made. The point was if they’re saying that they’ve not seen the report, then how do they know that McLennan’s statement didn’t reflect the full findings of the report?

comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 40 seconds ago


In any case, that wasn’t the point I made. The point was if they’re saying that they’ve not seen the report, then how do they know that McLennan’s statement didn’t reflect the full findings of the report?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
they dont, but once again thats not where their concerns lie.

they are concerned regarding the report's independence, transparency, and the overall governance of the SPFL. its all in the OP.

comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided... (U10636)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 40 seconds ago
Calm yer jets, wee man. I only raised a point, that for whatever reason you don’t want to address. There’s a number of concerns raised that I agree with-I only pointed out something that didn’t seem right.

There looks like a slight flaw in the statement by the clubs-that’s what I was asking about. Sorry I’m not toeing the line you want to discuss…
----------------------------------------------------------------------
i did address it.

nowhere does it say that the clubs are disputing the contents of the report.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, they are really-if they’re questioning its independence and that there were changes made from the draft report to the final report, then that’s questioning it? And if they didn’t have concerns about the contents, then why question its independence?

In any case, that wasn’t the point I made. The point was if they’re saying that they’ve not seen the report, then how do they know that McLennan’s statement didn’t reflect the full findings of the report?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair point. Who knows, you’d like to think they knew the objectives of the report or they’d have received some sort of update on findings at some stage given they paid for this

comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 40 seconds ago


In any case, that wasn’t the point I made. The point was if they’re saying that they’ve not seen the report, then how do they know that McLennan’s statement didn’t reflect the full findings of the report?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
they dont, but once again thats not where their concerns lie.

they are concerned regarding the report's independence, transparency, and the overall governance of the SPFL. its all in the OP.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
So, if they’re concerned about its independence, then they must be concerned about the contents? That seems logical?!

And it must be a concern if they’ve put it in their statement as one of their points-which is logical as well.

You would probably have been as well saying that they have seen the draft and final reports, and that someone must have leaked them. It’s the only plausible rationale.

comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 29 seconds ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided... (U10636)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 40 seconds ago
Calm yer jets, wee man. I only raised a point, that for whatever reason you don’t want to address. There’s a number of concerns raised that I agree with-I only pointed out something that didn’t seem right.

There looks like a slight flaw in the statement by the clubs-that’s what I was asking about. Sorry I’m not toeing the line you want to discuss…
----------------------------------------------------------------------
i did address it.

nowhere does it say that the clubs are disputing the contents of the report.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, they are really-if they’re questioning its independence and that there were changes made from the draft report to the final report, then that’s questioning it? And if they didn’t have concerns about the contents, then why question its independence?

In any case, that wasn’t the point I made. The point was if they’re saying that they’ve not seen the report, then how do they know that McLennan’s statement didn’t reflect the full findings of the report?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair point. Who knows, you’d like to think they knew the objectives of the report or they’d have received some sort of update on findings at some stage given they paid for this
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At least someone gets the point I’ve made.

come back 'Good guy of the week '

all is forgiven

comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 43 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 40 seconds ago


In any case, that wasn’t the point I made. The point was if they’re saying that they’ve not seen the report, then how do they know that McLennan’s statement didn’t reflect the full findings of the report?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
they dont, but once again thats not where their concerns lie.

they are concerned regarding the report's independence, transparency, and the overall governance of the SPFL. its all in the OP.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
So, if they’re concerned about its independence, then they must be concerned about the contents? That seems logical?!

And it must be a concern if they’ve put it in their statement as one of their points-which is logical as well.

You would probably have been as well saying that they have seen the draft and final reports, and that someone must have leaked them. It’s the only plausible rationale.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
might be, we will see once the clubs that paid for the report get to see it.

many reasons, one because the independent report paid by the clubs on the organisation was given to the organisation and not them. 2 one of the clubs complaining could have been the club that helped with investigations therefore will know some content.

The first reason is good enough to be concerned.

" The letter seeks full clarity on numerous issues so that the clubs, as shareholders of the SPFL, can determine if further action is necessary"

like I said its all in the OP

Yeah, I read the OP. The question I asked isn’t answered by anything in the OP. In fact, the statement is contradictory.

I wasn’t disputing any of their claims.

comment by CelticTornado (U4316)
posted 19 minutes ago
come back 'Good guy of the week '

all is forgiven
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m watching you