The “Lawwell Letter” is trending everywhere this week. To elucidate, it is email sent to (among others) Peter Lawwell and Eric Riley of Celtic on 26 July 2012 by SPL CEO Neil Doncaster.
The email came with an attached copy of the Five Way Agreement (hereafter “5WA”, the deal between Sevco, Rangers, the SFA, the SPL and the SFL). Now that it has been made public, it seems safe to speak openly about what it all means for us as folk who believe in sporting integrity.
I would preface my comments with a caveat though. On the face of it, the Celtic Chief Executive appears to have misled the gathering at the recent Celtic AGM. He was asked by a shareholder if Celtic were involved in the Five Way Agreement. Lawwell replied, “No”, and gave same “No” response to the follow up question, “have you seen it?”
Given that a copy of that email was in the possession of a few folk before that AGM, I have to admit to being surprised by that answer – although even more surprised at the apparent lack of due diligence implied by the lack of knowledge of its content.
We have attempted to contact Mr Lawwell to ask him if he would like to comment on the apparent discrepancy between the evidence and his answer (and I am sure we are not the only ones to have done so). To date, we have received no response. Given the complete lack of acknowledgement of the existence of this anomaly in the MSM, we should perhaps assume that none will be forthcoming.
Perhaps there is an explanation (yes I know), but Celtic should know, like Rangers old and new have come to realise, that silence on these matters breeds deep suspicion and distrust.
Assuming for the minute that Occam’s Razor applies here, there may be an uncomfortable truth emerging for Celtic fans – that Rangers (old and new) do not have a monopoly on dishonesty. There is also an uncomfortable truth that should emerge for Rangers fans too – that as we have said all along, this has never been about just Rangers, but about the governance of the game.
If the Celtic CEO did lie to the AGM a few weeks ago what are the consequences? He broke no laws as far as I can see. One insider I spoke to said simply this,
“So he lied. So what? What happens now? It’s irrelevant”
That is of course absolutely true. As long as controlling shareholders are happy that Resolution 12 is buried, and that no deep inquiry into governance is held into the workings of the game in Scotland, the lie is nonpunishable, though it would be a mistake to believe that accountability is confined only to the corporate rules governing Boards and shareholders; the corporate veil of “I was only following company policy” can be readily challenged in the court of public opinion, which has no statute of limitations.
What all this demonstrates of course is that Celtic have been saying one thing to their fans and shareholders, nodding agreement in private meetings about how appalling Rangers behaviour was, tut-tutting over how amateurish the authorities were, and wringing their hands in frustration at what a sham the LNS inquiry turned out to be.
At the same time, they have done nothing, allowed small shareholders to spend not inconsiderable suns progressing the matter, and quietly hoped that the “appetite” for justice would diminish so they could get back to whatever it is they and the rest do when subject to little or no scrutiny.
Whilst ten in a row is on the table of course, they can get away with it. To Celtic fans right now, understandably, nothing else matters. But what if TIAR is derailed? Not a stretch to imagine that the Parkhead kitchen could get uncontrollably hot in that circumstance. And when the TIAR squirrel finally ends its scurry, in either success or failure, where will the fans attention be diverted?
Perhaps the arrogance that permits making (allegedly) false statements to a general meeting, and (allegedly) misleading shareholders over Res 12 is borne of the knowledge that the parachutes are ready to be deployed when either of the above scenarios come to pass? If TIAR is achieved or goes south, are they already prepared for an emergency exit?
Celtic have two major shareholders whose combined holding is over 50% of the club’s shares. Dermot Desmond and Nick Train. Desmond is now in his eighth decade and Train is reportedly having some business difficulties. Both may well be moved to get out anyway, but fan unrest would make their decision a whole lot easier.
And Lawwell himself is – if you believe the MSM – on the wanted list of nearly as many top clubs as Alfredo Morelos.
The foregoing of course is extremely “Old Firm” centric, and as the two biggest clubs in the country they certainly have the biggest impact on the game, culturally, socially and financially. However there is no get-out clause here for others.
We KNOW there is evidence of fraud surrounding the licencing issue in 2012. We KNOW there is evidence of a cover up over that, and the EBT-related registration issues for Old Rangers. We KNOW that the Five Way Agreement was signed by football authorities in the knowledge that it would rob their own rules of judicial authority with regard to compliance by RFC prior to 2012.
We also know that NOT ONE club has taken a meaningful stand against any of it.
Clubs are saying one thing to supporters and doing their best to derail those supporters’ efforts on the other. We can also infer (not unreasonably) that the folk who run the clubs think that we as fans have no right to interfere in how they run their operations.
As I said earlier, Celtic can do what they like whilst TIAR is live, but afterwards, however it ends, the fans and shareholders involved in Res 12 will still be asking questions. Celtic in particular know how fatal it can be to alienate their own fan base – a fan base that has flexed its muscles with devastating effect for the boardroom in the past. And it is the wrath of the fans of all clubs that will eventually see the charlatans get their just desserts.
Our job as fans is to continue to hold those who care little for the honour and beauty of football to account, to continue to press them on their refusal to deal with arguably the biggest sporting scandal in Scottish history.
The bottom line (which is of course what the folk in boardrooms care about) is this. They need us far more than we need them. As fans of different clubs, the sensibility of those of us at SFM recognises that the real battle, the real war, is not between rival fans or rival clubs, but between the arrogant, self-entitled clique who run our game; who lie for fun, who cheat and belittle the sport; and the good folk who make it possible for the game to prosper.
Resolution 12 is not just about Rangers – nor is it just about Celtic. It deserves to be embraced by every true football fan in the country. The Res 12 franchise needs to widened
Sooner or later the fans will demonstrate their unhappiness with the money men. They did it in 2012, and they will inevitably do so again.
Does anyone know what connection there may be between Sportscotland monies, Auchenhowie, and the SFA?
Some kind of public monies involved in a wee tie-up with referee training and such like? and bugger all to do with 'community' access?
Does anyone believe that Sportscotland will tell us?
Do I?
Short answer?
No, I distrust anything that any public agency had to do with what had been SDM's football club, and now has to do with TRFC.
That's what happens when erstwhile First Ministers defend cheating sports clubs.
God Almighty! The implications that a sports governance body should be in bed with a corrupt member supposedly subject to its discipline!
Oh, my word!
And honest to God!
watcher 20th February 2020 at 16:44 Edit
When you approach Offcom you might want to point out that the SPFL and SFA are bound by their articles to observe and be subject to UEFA Regulations, which will include UEFA FFP and specifically Article 12 that defines an applicant for a UEFA licence.
It starts with an applicant can only be a CLUB, that is a legal entity who can apply and then goes on to define both a club as an applicant or a company with a written contract to operate a club as an applicant. I'll post it in full next after this comment.
You might want to ask Offcom
a) Given SFA/SPFL subservience to UEFA rules who is the ultimate FOOTBALL authority of what constitutes a club eligible to apply for a UEFA license and did the BBC approach UEFA for their view, if not why not? Comment from UEFA is noticeable by its absence in their reply.
b) Have the BBC seen the response of 8th June 2016 to Celtic shareholder solicitors at
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6uWzxhblAt9ckdxNTU4bFIyNFU/view?usp=sharing
that sets out the view of UEFA Head of Club Licensing that the current applicant for a UEFA Licence is a NEW club/company (where a written contract between RFC and RIFC may or may not exist, but in either instance, club or a company with a contract to operate a club is NEW and so cannot be the same club (under Article 12) that applied for a UEFA Licence in 2012 and previous years and in fact were told by UEFA they were ineligible to apply for a licence until attaining 3 years membership of the SFA, precisely because they were new under UEFA rules.
(RFC were denied their application for 2012/13 because they had no audited accounts. TRFC/RIFC were denied applying until 2016 under Article 12.
c) Did the BBC establish if Doncaster got approval from UEFA for his view that conflicts with the integrity protecting intent of Article 12 of UEFA FFP when establishing the 5 Way Agreement?
d) Did the BBC establish if a written contract existed between RFC and whoever went into liquidation and if so who or what exactly went into liquidation if no contract existed?
e) Are BBC aware that Doncaster used a change in SFA rules in 2005 introducing the concept of a separation of owner and club to deal with Romanov of Hearts and so the concept that became a rule was not around when RFC were founded and its introduction in 2005 did not suddenly separate all Scottish clubs from companies in whose name they were registered.
In brief the BBC response is not based on the final European football authority on what constitutes a club seeking a club licence and the BBC dependence on lower and even non footballing authorities to justify their response lacks the balance that the BBC say they observed.
At the very least UEFA should have been approached before replying to you and asked why they did not treat TRFC/RIFC as the same club as RFC from 2012. They will point out one of the purposes of Article 12 is to uphold the integrity of UEFA competitions, something that Doncaster's view conflicts with and so totally undermines the integrity of Scottish football.
He was not alone in his endeavours.
Duplicate comment removed
Watcher.
The rules UEFA FFP is from 2011 and apply in 2012. SPFL rules 2017, SFA 2014/15 but much the same in other periods.
UEFA FFP.
Chapter 2: Licence Applicant and Licence
Article 12 – Definition of licence applicant
1 A licence applicant may only be a football club, i.e. a legal entity fully responsible
for a football team participating in national and international competitions which
either:
a) is a registered member of a UEFA member association and/or its affiliated
league (hereinafter: registered member); or
b) has a contractual relationship with a registered member (hereinafter: football
company).
2 The membership and the contractual relationship (if any) must have lasted – at
the start of the licence season – for at least three consecutive years. Any
alteration to the club’s legal form or company structure (including, for example,
changing its headquarters, name or club colours, or transferring stakeholdings
between different clubs) during this period in order to facilitate its qualification on
sporting merit and/or its receipt of a licence to the detriment of the integrity of a
competition is deemed as an interruption of membership or contractual
relationship (if any) within the meaning of this provision.
SPFL Rules
Agreement on Compliance with Applicable Rules, Statutes and Regulations
B4 Membership of the League shall constitute an agreement between the Company and each Club, and between each of the Clubs, to be bound by and to comply with:
B4.1 these Rules and the Articles;
B4.2 Regulations made from time to time by the Board as authorised by the Articles;
B4.3 the Scottish FA Articles and the statutes and regulations of UEFA and FIFA;
B4.4 the Laws of the Game; and
B4.5 the terms of the agreements entered into between the SPL and the SFL in 2013 for the purposes of constituting, forming and organising the SPFL insofar as such terms apply from time to time to the members of the League.
THE SCOTTISH FA AND ITS MEMBERSHIP (2015)
3. The Scottish FA
The Scottish FA is a member of FIFA and UEFA. Accordingly, it is itself obliged to:-
(a) observe the principles of loyalty, integrity and sportsmanship in accordance
with the principles of fair play;
(b) comply with the statutes, regulations, directives, codes and decisions and the
International Match Calendar of FIFA, UEFA and the Court of Arbitration for
Sport, and the Laws of the Game;
(c) recognise and submit to the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport
as specified in the relevant provisions of the FIFA Statutes and the UEFA
Statutes;
(d) use its best endeavours, to the extent legally permissible, to procure that
in the final instance any dispute arising under these Articles (and which is
referred to it) is determined by arbitration pursuant to Article 99; and
(e) use its best endeavours to ensure that the leagues, clubs, players, officials,
matches and Players’ Agents under its jurisdiction (through their statutes,
licences, regulations or any other written document) acknowledge and
accept all the above mentioned obligations and agree to be bound by and
observe these Articles.
https://www.scribd.com/document/214043163/SFL-Constitution-Rules
It is interesting that the BBC quote Neil Doncaster's opinions on Sevco's status.
Interesting, but those opinions should be largely irrelevant.
Sevco Scotland Ltd began its existence as a SFL club – Mr Doncaster as the SPL's CEO had no locus in offering an opinion on another league's member club.
Only association football clubs could apply to become associate members of the SFL.
Sevco Scotland Ltd could only apply for associate membership of the SFL because it presented itself as an association football club.
Members (including associate members) of the SFL were recognised as having legal form – Sevco Scotland Ltd is of course, a corporate body.
No-one could read the SFL's Rules & Constitution and not consider Sevco Scotland Ltd to be an association football club.
Sevco Scotland Ltd is not, of course, The Rangers Football Club PLC.
It really is that simple.
Incidentally, there is nothing in the SFL's Rules and Constitution that would have allowed the Committee (Board) to sanction a change in these rules without a vote by the members.
Whoever signed up to the 5WA (which treats a specific association club as a metaphysical construct) on behalf of the SFL would not (imo) have had the legal authority to do so.
"watcher 20th February 2020 at 16:44
Just to let everyone who is interested know, this is the Final response from the BBC to a complaint I had lodged with them. ….. I will be sending a further appeal to Ofcom. I will post the outcome."
——————————————————————————————–
IMHO this response from the BBC is an excellent development. I'm not sure I recall seeing anything this detailed previously. This provides a possibly unique opportunity to address the arguments put forward in a similarly detailed fashion.
Could I suggest that Watcher liaises with the various SFM authorities on this subject to draft an appropriate response to the BBC and copy it to Ofcom? The fact that Ofcom is the next step should mean that the BBC will have to properly address refuting arguments and the potential exists to force them to acknowledge the truth rather than fall back on what is in many ways unreliable hearsay (I'm talking about you Doncaster).
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
Some more thoughts on the BBC response to Watcher.
They seem to love their quotes, but have proven themselves to be more than a little selective in whose words they quote by avoiding any that point to the opposite argument, such as the judge (can't recall his name) who laughed the notion of the same club out of court, or, as Auldheid referred to previously, the quote from the UEFA Head of Club Licensing, Andrea Traverso, that stated UEFA's position and why they could take no action against the club now calling itself 'Rangers'.
Now, as I've said previously, what someone, that's anyone, says does not make anything true, only the facts make something true, and if the BBC can't find one fact to back up its stance, on anything, then it's a safe assumption that those facts don't exists – and the BBC, along with the whole of the SMSM, has had 8 long years to come up with one single fact, yet they have not. They hide behind the quotes of conflicted people. They even ignore the words (spoken through his legal counsel in a court of law, not some loaded tribunal held under a (paid for by one conflicted party) retired judge) of the man most central of all to the participants in the creation of TRFC, the very man who changed the name of Sevco to The Rangers Football Club Ltd to facilitate its membership of the SFA and the SFL, Charles Green, who stated quite clearly that he did not buy a football club (Rangers), he bought a basket of assets.
Those words of Charles Green, upheld by the judge, proved that, under the law of the land, it is a legal fact that TRFC is not a continuation of RFC, it is a new club, but not one character from any of the quoted people or associations has even attempted to argue against it, for to do so would require some evidence to show that football is not subject to the laws of the land. But not only is football subject to the laws of the land, even if it wasn't it would require documents that would show the separation of club from company that Doncaster claimed to exist. As I've previously said, if any such documents existed we know, beyond doubt, that they would have been published long before now.
Now here's a thing. I don't know what procedures and forms are required to achieve membership of the SFA and SFL etc, but I do know that some forms have to be signed. So who signed those forms, and in what capacity did they sign? Now I don't know the answer, never having seen the required documents, but if they have been signed with the designation 'director' or 'CEO' or 'for The Rangers Football Club Limited' etc, then it is beyond doubt that the member is a limited company, and nothing else. On the other hand, if it has been signed with different designations that may indicate some body other than a limited company, such as an association or unincorporated club, then there would also have to be articles of association of that club in existence, with copies held by the governing bodies, for the registration to be legal.
So it's really quite simple, and the OCNC debate could be ended in a flash, if only Neil Doncaster had the gumption to publish the documents that prove what he said is true.
Now when Neil Doncaster said the following it was pretty unequivocal, as though he was speaking a provable fact and giving much more than just his opinion. It was as though he thought his position and perceived (by himself) gravitas lent an authority to his words that would go unquestioned. Well he was right as far as the whole of the SMSM was concerned, but his lack of evidence offered can only leave the questioning mind with the opinion that no such evidence exists, and his words, therefor, are untrue.
"Neil Doncaster: The member club is the entity that participates in our league and we have 42 member clubs. Those clubs may be owned by a company, sometimes it’s a Private Limited Company, sometimes it’s a PLC, but ultimately, the company is a legal entity in its own right, which owns a member club that participates in the league."
Again, this in bold has to be an out and out lie, for you cannot 'own' something that doesn't exist in a sellable form. This is the problem when trying to convince people of something that is a nonsense, for there is no words to use that do not, in themselves, prove that it is a nonsense.
Sorry, this post just keeps getting longer, but.
If there is even the least possibility that what Doncaster said holds even a modicum of truth, then there has to be a paper trail. There has to be documents lodged with the SFA/SFL/SPFL in the name of separate clubs, AND, documents that show the separate clubs are owned by some separate entity, such as a limited company. As I say, it would be so easy to prove that the clubs that are registered with the SFA and league are not limited companies.
When I read all this I can't help wishing this whole malarkey was taken to court to settle it once and for all. Either the CAS or the Court of Session. Blatant lies are being nourished in the media on a daily basis. The public are being misled.
And that's aside from the fraud involved with Res. 12 issues.
While reading the reports from the States about Roger Stone getting 40 moons in the pokey for lying, obstruction and witness tampering and the immediate not so subtle hints from POTUS that Mr Stone might not have to serve even one night in jail I had an uncomfortable thought. If words like "exoneration" are being bandied about without a hint of a blush in Mr Stone's case what, if any, are the limits?
Just because previous office holders have not done so is there anything to stop SFA President Rod Petrie granting a Presidential Pardon? (I know; rules, schmules, see Sandy Bryson, he'll give you the script.)
A Pardon to who/for what? Well, T'Rangers, obviously. And Rangers. Better include Sevco. Both of them. David Murray. (Is he still a "Sir"? Fred Goodwin'll be raging.) All the EBT beneficiaries (Save time; Pardon in BBC staff canteen). All of SMSM. Dave King (Let Courts in South Africa know they're clueless.) BFDJ? Alex Rage? (Doubt they'll follow but why not?).
For what? Everything, Anything.
Previous Presidential Pardons were not possible as the last President wasn't a real one; as our own John Clark was told President Alan McRae served under Darryl "I Am The SFA" Broadfoot. If you go back further, to 2011 (I'm sure something happened then, can't recall what) President Campbell Ogilvie could have granted the Presidential Pardon but it might have been seen as a bit rum to grant a Pardon to, inter alia, yourself. Even The Donald would draw a line there.
I see from the Wikipedia entry for the SFA its name in Scots Gaelic is:-
Comann Ball-coise na h-Alba.
You don't have to be an anagram genius to see where the first word comes from.
https://thecelticstar.com/read-former-celtic-director-willie-haugheys-grovelling-apology-from-craig-whyte/
LUGOSI 21st February 2020 at 09:36
…
Just because previous office holders have not done so is there anything to stop SFA President Rod Petrie granting a Presidential Pardon? (I know; rules, schmules, see Sandy Bryson, he’ll give you the script.)
…
=======================
Well that’s the kicker Lugosi.
The – apparently – main architect of the disgraceful, secretive 5WA is now the de facto, ‘Executive President’ of the SFA.
An uncontested promotion for a job well done?
And there have been so many ‘unprecedented’ decisions made by the SFA since 2012, that a [secretive] ‘Presidential type’ football pardon or exemption/allowed exception(s) would seem like small beer to what Petrie has delivered in the past on behalf of the blazers – and on behalf of ALL the clubs.
tony 21st February 2020 at 10:11
https://thecelticstar.com/read-former-celtic-director-willie-haugheys-grovelling-apology-from-craig-whyte/
==========================
I was surprised when reading the book that Whyte claimed that there had been some formal discussions with Haughey about a deal.
However, I do recall Haughey’s name coming up as a potential financial backer on RTC around that time. If I recall correctly, he was first identified by someone “in the know” with a clue of him having made his money in refrigeration.
If there was an easy way of searching the RTC archive I would do it.
"Scottish FA shown 'lack of ambition' in meeting 2020 targets, says Henry McLeish"
By Alasdair Lamont
BBC Scotland
…
"How do we hold to account the SFA president, vice-president and the board members?"
…
BBC Scotland approached the SFA for an interview with chief executive Ian Maxwell or performance director Malky Mackay, but this has not been provided.
========
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51416943
Perhaps pardons have already been granted – drawing a line and moving on. No need to inform pesky supporters….
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
Some more thoughts on the BBC response to Watcher.
Unfortunately, I don't retain any "archive" of the various documents regarding Green's takeover. However, if my memory serves me correctly, there was no mention of "history" in the "bill of sale" although some suggested it would be included in the "goodwill" or other item.
As many people agreed in 2012, the very concept of buying "history" as an item in a sale is a nonsense. An example I gave at the time, (while the OC/NC debate is re-opened), if Sir Chris Hoy fell on hard times, (god forbid) and was declared in sequestration. As part of a sale of his assets, I buy his racing bike, his GB Olympic lycra cycling suit, and one of his many gold medals, would I then be an Olympic Champion?
Of course not, utter nonsense.
Let's assume I then approach the IOC with a request to have the record books changed to show me as the winner of the relevant race and holder of the gold medal, do you think they would go all SFA'ish on me and grant me said title???? Of course not.
The BBC's response to watcher appears to have been produced by a group of employees, (extra staunch people) with an agenda to find every quote/opinion they can, supporting their position of pro-TRFC (2angers) bias, without as has been said above one shred of factual evidence. Shame on them!
If further correspondence is to take place with them, perhaps we could ask them to explain away a number of facts, contradictory to their dignified beliefs. Mine would be;
If only clubs can be members of the SFA and 2angers are the same club as RFC PLC, why was there a need to transfer the membership?
I'm not going all EPL this that and the other on you all. Goodness knows the BBC's response being discussed makes me want to. And we need no reminder as to the power of PR particularly when maliciously applied to something in which we hold an emotional attachment.
But having said all that, I give you….
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-foyle-west-51580401
(Not sure if the link works – search for the story on Jurgen Klopp's response by letter to the young ManU fan's letter of complaint (that Liverpool were winning and ManU werent
) and be sure to read the letter itself.))
Bluster is thankfully temporary but class is permanent.
Smugas 21st February 2020 at 13:57
While the TVs in the bar we were sitting in, The American Indian in Puerto del Carmen, Lanzarote, were showing Liverpool's amazing win against Barcelona in the Champions League semi-final, my wife started talking to an Irish lady at the next table. I paid little attention to their conversation but afterwards my wife told me that the lady was a friend of Jurgen Klopp, having met him through her husband who was German goalkeeper and had almost signed for Liverpool but was currently with a club in Germany. Typical of my wife she didn't think to ask for names or get any other details. Jings! Still, the lady didn't appear to be any sort of BS spouter and my wife certainly took her to be genuine (besides, her 2 teenage daughters were with her and it's unlikely she'd BS in front of them).
Anyway, my wife said the lady was full of praise for him as a friend and human being and described him as an extremely intelligent and caring man. That letter seems to confirm this opinion of him.
Never heard him use the words, 'sick as a parrot', 'over the moon' etc…so he's certainly a breath of fresh air for the English language as used by most managers in British football
Stevie BC.
It's a pity McLeish or BBC did not comment on one of the aims of the 20 20 Vision that the SFA should now be measured against was to be an organisation that can be trusted. I'm on mobile so cannot paste actual words but if ever there was an area of massive fail in the SFA vision it is in that single objective.
It is key to being a SPORTING body yet they are not trustworthy.
In that respect I take issue with McLeish's view that the SFA should be the dictator of the services they provide to Scottish football and SPFL should have less say as the customer of those services.
I fail to understand how a body no one trusts because they are unaccountable should be given more power rather than less unless accountability is built in to the system and that supporters should be part of the body to whom they are accountable.
Lack of transparency and accountability is the structural problem and whatever takes the place of the current unfit for purpose organisations has to have those two factors built into the foundations.
Can I thank everyone for the help in putting forward my appeal to Ofcom.
I will be working on it over the weekend.
Auldheid, AJ, JC. Thank you for the information.
I will be using all the help I can get.
redlichtie, your thoughts are taken on board.
Scottish football needs Honesty,Respect and Truth, as well as a strong Arbroath
.
I did smile at the response, as it arrived just after the owner of the previous Club
had said in a BBC interview…….
Question by BBC are Rangers a new club?
Answer by previous owner Craig White. YES Obviously they are.
I concur with the previous owner of the OLD CLUB.
For anyone interested the response was signed by Colin Tregear.
BBC Complaints Director.
Auldheid
Why can't you paste words on mobile? I do it most days
Smugas 21st February 2020 at 13:57
'..class is permanent…'
++++++++++++++
Thanks for drawing that superbly marvellous letter to our attention.
Aren't we glad TRFC /King are utterly psychologically incapable of adopting such an approach, and even less capable grammatically of composing such a letter, in their PR/statement approaches!
Interesting article posted on CQN this afternoon. Hummel and Elite have made a statement regarding Rangers breach of contract and yet another court case for the Rangers to fend off…….never ending !! Also the host Paul67 saying that The rangers shouldnt get too excited about a possible 2 Champions league spots next season . I disagree with Paul67 on a few things Celtic but he is trust worthy and usually on the money. Worth a read
Looks like somebody’s been telling lies. ?
Hummel UK and The Elite Group issued a statement today noting they were rescinding their agreement with Rangers FC with immediate effect, “due to the club being in material breach of contract.” They add that they have commenced legal proceedings against the club.
The statement reads:
Original statement, where?
https://hummel.co.uk/about-hummel/press
EJ
https://hummel.co.uk/about-hummel/press
Big Pink 21st February 2020 at 15:24
Looks like somebody’s been telling lies. ? Hummel UK and The Elite Group issued a statement today noting they were rescinding their agreement with Rangers FC with immediate effect…
===========
So…
IF TRFC was to reach the SC Final – or even the EL Final – does that mean the team's players won't be wearing a personalised 'Cup Final 2020' strip to wear on the day?
It would be a wee shame.
roddybhoy 21st February 2020 at 15:23
'…Hummel and Elite have made a statement
Big Pink 21st February 2020 at 15:24
'..Looks like somebody’s been telling lies.Looks like somebody’s been telling lies."
______________________
"…..despite being given warranties and assurances by the Rangers board that the club was free to enter into their arrangement.."
Well, that clears Hummel of the charge I levelled against them of not doing due diligence !They ask, and are lied to!
King really is the limit, seeming to have lost all common sense and balance. Already 'cold shouldered' by the TOP , he allows his company to be caught out in lies in their dealings with another company and invites trouble on himself by then suing them for 'debts owed'!
Betrays a very, very sick mind , in my judgment, and his credibility in the business world must be zero.
What an absolute liability he has proven himself to be.
Big Pink 21st February 2020 at 15:33
EJ
https://hummel.co.uk/about-hummel/press
==============================
I don't see it there, only the announcement of the original agreement.
Looks like Hummel story has disappeared. Got it from two sources, and CQN also reporting it before us.
Odd
Big Pink 21st February 2020 at 16:07
Looks like Hummel story has disappeared. Got it from two sources, and CQN also reporting it before us.
Odd
============================
Did you actually see it on the Hummel site, even for a short time? If so, then the story must have originated from Hummel.
If it came from some other source, then I'd question its provenance, at least for now.
Tony
I can cut and paste thanks, it was finding the 20 20 Vision and copying the relevant bit I didnt have time to do on mobile.
Looks like we have been taken for mugs here. Hummel telephone line is down. There's no direct PR number, and they aint answering their tweets.
Was sent a link which was bogus, and I believed it. When I went to the Hummel website, first thing I saw was "Hummel Cancel agreement".
So we owe an apology to Rangers and to Hummel. First time for everything I suppose, but not a mistake I will ever make again. Perhaps it will emerge that Hummel will counter-sue Rangers. Not a leap to come to that conclusion, but given my distaste for the relentless kite-flying that goes on over Scottish Football issues, there is more than a bit of irony in my cock-up today.
Apologies to all of you guys too. You have reason to expect that SFM will be more circumspect. I let you down today.
easyJambo 21st February 2020 at 10:29
“If there was an easy way of searching the RTC archive I would do it.”
I naively mused a few days ago that with Rangers apparently in financial traction and Celtic in possession of a burgeoning war chest then perhaps the team from the East end of Glasgow might rescue their historic brand partners and thus ensure a brighter financial outlook.
Of course such a manoeuvre would undermine all manner of sporting integrity principles and would infringe football regulations designed to avoid such potential conflicts of interest.
Might this explain Lord Haughey’s vociferous defence of his character since even though his financial intervention would not have provided an immediate conflict (especially with Sir Walter fronting this ‘mythical’ bid), it might have muddied the waters of this festering rivalry in a manner that threatened to take the edge off the competition.
It just goes to show that even the most astute legal advice that Whyte could engage was liable to be found wanting in at least one significant area.
Big Pink
I don't think I would be in a hurry with an apology.
To T'Rangers? I think we've all got enough lies/honest mistakes in the bank.
To Hummel? Time will tell but if I could see problems hitching up with GASH then so should they.
Things are obviously fine.
Whenever I'm getting on fine with someone I always take them to Court and release a widely publicised Statement announcing I'm looking for a new pal.
Auldheid
Wasn't meant in a bad way mate, some phones are a pain to copy/paste, was going to suggest the galaxy note series as the pen works brilliantly, again, apologies ?
Dear o dear lads and lasses.
Surely you realised that was a hoax when it contained the classic, oft repeated error; that Hummel/Elite had entered into an agreement with "the club."
Yours sincerely
Mr N Doncaster
Looks like another football organisation is touting for a new sponsorship deal.
William Hill is terminating its sponsorship of the Scottish Cup at the end of this season. That means that the SFA will need a new sponsor, as will the SPFL after Ladbrokes announced that their sponsorship is also ending.
BigPink@16.44
Mibbees aye. Mibbees naw. Time will tell.
I found myself listening to Radio 4’s programme ‘Feedback’ this afternoon, already in a bit of a mood thinking about that idiotic response ‘watcher’ received from Mr Colin Tregear of the BBC.
Some high heid yin was being asked about the threat to the BBC through having to make huge cuts, and the Tory readiness to scrap the BBC altogether and so on, and she wittered on about the independence of the BBC and its balance and how much it is envied world-wide…..
And I promptly dashed off this email in a fit of bloody annoyance. Unconnectedly of course, but coincidentally, an expression I use has been used four or five times on Sportsound a few minutes ago!
to:feedback@bbc.co.uk
Fri, 21 Feb at 17:26
Dear feedback,
BBC Radio Scotland Sports department persists in propagating the myth that Glasgow Rangers football Club of 1872 was bought by Charles Green in 2012, and that the new club set up by Charles Green and newly admitted as a new club into Scottish Football in 2012 is the very identical Glasgow Rangers of 1872, which, of course, under the name RFC 2012plc is languishing in Liquidation.
The Rangers of 1872 went into Administration . It was not bought out of Administration but entered Liquidation. On account of its insolvency it lost its ‘share’ in the then Scottish premier League, and in consequence lost its entitlement to membership of the Scottish FA.
The SFA cobbled up the lie that the new club which they themselves admitted into football for the first time is the Rangers Football Club that was founded in 1872.
BBC Radio Scotland has a de facto ban on any open discussion of the lie, and has on occasion disciplined a presenter for an ‘incautious’ observation.
The most wittering nonsense comes from BBC Executive Complaints Department in defence of the Lie.
This experience of the readiness of the BBC to lie in a matter of Sport makes me wonder just what other lies they would support in matters of more vital import.
I am therefore inclining to the view that the BBC has outlived its usefulness as a bastion of truth.
The absurd nonsense that a football club that is currently in liquidation is somehow the same club as the club that created in 2012 is a straw too much to carry, on top of all the baggage about political bias and cover-ups of which the BBC is justifiably accused.
Yours in something of contempt for BBC Radio Scotland and its Controller and senior management for their broadcasting dishonesty and cowardice.
John Clark
Looks like Hummel and Elite have taken out legal proceedings today against Ibrox club for breach of contract.
Auldheid 21st February 2020 at 16:27
6
0
Rate This
Tony
I can cut and paste thanks,
………………
tony 21st February 2020 at 17:12
6
0
Rate This
Auldheid
Wasn’t meant in a bad way mate, some phones are a pain to copy/paste,
………….
Copy and paste inventor Larry Tesler dies aged 74
https://news.sky.com/story/copy-and-paste-inventor-larry-tesler-dies-aged-74-11938327
……………
Sometimes you can raise a smile even at the saddest of times.
John Clark, thank God for folk like you.
Not sure if the Hummel / Elite legal proceedings have been confirmed but 1 week ago the LBJ (Elite) Director tweeted that "All will become clear very soon" so I wouldn't be surprised if action will be taken . In fact I'd be more surprised if they weren't
https://twitter.com/UnferwoodMark/status/1228390588220833794
TimTim
Perhaps Paul Brennan knows something we don’t. I note he hasn’t recanted like we did, so he’s maybe confident it’s true.
Cluster One
Wasn’t meant in a bad way mate, some phones are a pain to copy/paste,
………….
Copy and paste inventor Larry Tesler dies aged 74 https://news.sky.com/story/copy-and-paste-inventor-larry-tesler-dies-aged-74-11938327
……………
Sometimes you can raise a smile even at the saddest of times.
========
It's reported that Mr.Tesler is going to be buried in California…
and in NYC…and in London…and in Paris…etc…
StevieBC
StevieBC
Copy and paste stevie, not coffin and place ?
Who said that email was quicker than snail mail?
I received an email at 2.01am this morning from Companies House, advising me that RFC (2012) P.L.C. (SC004276) was newly incorporated on 27 May 1899 (as "The Rangers Football Club Limited").
That must be a record for the late delivery of an email, approaching 121 years.
Previous company names
Name THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB P.L.C.
Period 27 May 1899 – 31 Jul 2012
—————————————————————-
Always helpful for the hard of thinking to have Companies House state categorically that The Rangers Football Club PLC, born 1899, is now RFC 2012 PLC and in liquidation.
And that THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED, Company number SC425159 (and displayed as such on rangers.co.uk) was incorporated (born) on 29 May 2012.
Facts are chiels that winna ding,/An downa be disputed.
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
Tae think that Chuckles could have chosen any name for his new club. The Bear Naekit Wanderers. The Lacka Academicals. The Masonic Fiddlers. The High Court Harriers. The Cheating Chest Beaters, etc.
His final choice really lacked imagination, and originality IMO.
Hopefully Turkish Market Stalls Direct, will come up with a better name for Minty's Park.
easyJambo 22nd February 2020 at 09:11
'…I received an email at 2.01am this morning from Companies House….'
___________________________
As a matter of interest, eJ, yesterday I was trying to find the entry in the CH RFC 2012 pages relating to the Memorandum and Articles of Association.
It had gone! The issue of the certificate of Incorpoariofact of Incorporation (1 Jan 1900) was the first entry ( entered twice, in fact)…. The next recorded business was shown as being in 1976!
I assumed that there would maybe be point when really old data might be removed to save space or whatever, but was suspicious enough to fire off a wee message ( using the 'is there anything wrong with this page' link)
And , lo and behold, the full pdf 33 pages are back on the page in an entry dated 27 May 1899, with the Memorandum and Articles of Association.
What I had been fiddling about with was attempting to associate the memoranda and Articles of Association of SevcoScotland/TRFC and RIFC plc with Moses and the other young men of the Clyde who founded the RFC of 1872.
There is, of course, no such continuity link!
BigPink@21.22 yesterday
Just read PMGB’s latest. He’s on the same page as CQN re Hummel. Shirts vs Skins next season at Ibrox?
Corrupt official 22nd February 2020 at 11:04
'…His final choice really lacked imagination, and originality IMO. '
++++++++++++++++
Perhaps: but it signalled the intention to deceive the investing public into thinking that TRFC was the original RFC that had simply changed hands, and made it easier for the lying hacks in the SMSM /BBC pass off that deceit as the truth.
And I come back to the question? Why did the BBC business journalists not flag up that deceit: they of all people must have known that Green did not , could not have, bought the very club that was to be liquidated, because if he had been able to , Liquidation would not have happened!
And they would have known that on its change of status from a Limited company to a Public company no other entity was created: it was RFC plc that held the share in the SPL, and had the certificate of membership in the SFA, and lost both when it became insolvent.
Mine of 11.48 this morning:
‘Incorpoariofact’…… geez, that was a right Stanley Unwin-ism!
Sorry about that!
According to Tam, Maxwell is to speak on Sportsound about the Keating appeal after 2.00 pm
John Clark 22nd February 2020 at 11:48
The 1899 Memorandum of Association certainly shows the continuity of the committee run 1872/73 club through its incorporation into “The Rangers Football Club Limited”.
As you say, there is no corresponding record from 2012 that shows any disincorporation that allowed the football club to be separated from its incorporated form. It was only a basket of assets that was acquired by Charles Green.
JC and EJ
Your chat over the process by which Rangers became incorporated is exactly in line with the Rules and Constitution of the erstwhile SFL.
…and again, only association football clubs could be members of the SFL.
…and Sevco Scotland Ltd (as was) is not The Rangers Football Club PLC (now known as RFC 2012 PLC)
…also, and I hadn’t spotted this previously…
In July 2012 we were all amused/bemused/shocked at the SFA’s “conditional membership” that it said was necessary for Sevco’s match against Brechin to go ahead.
I remember having some discussion with Auldheid as I couldn’t see any SFA regulation that would have prevented the match going ahead.
At the time Sevco were already a member of the SFA by dint of its admittance/membership of the SFL.
The real problem was that at the time the SFA had two members with a claim to the name “Rangers”.
The real “Rangers” remained a Full and Registered member of the SFA until the 3rd August 2012.
The problem was that Sevco wanted SFA board approval to use the name of an existing member when it played it’s game against Brechin on the 29th July.
Bizarrely, the relevant SFA regulation relating to the name of its members comes under the heading of Ground Registration.
It seems that Rod McKenzie was highlighting this as far back as October 2011.
Many very interesting contributions on TRFC's birth/status over the past day or so. An awful lot of factual information to put to the BBC and Ofcom and contrast with the ill-informed comment from some of those quoted in the BBC response.
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
A couple on momentous decisions today on the use or otherwise of VAR.
First the VAR in the Chelsea v Spurs game admitted thay got a decision wrong. How that happened I haven’t a clue.
Second the SFA has decided to reconvene the James Keatings tribunal.
https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/news/scottish-fa-statement-james-keatings/?rid=13929
Obviously, the SFA monitors SFM for ideas…
the lesser spotted CEO Maxwell has indeed stepped in to have Keating’s red card set aside / reviewed.
The SFA applying common sense…?!
Good!
[And it COULD have the makings of a long overdue showdown with The Scottish Referees’ Association…]
(Edit)
Oops. What eJ said.
John Clark 22nd February 2020 at 12:06
9
0
Rate This
Corrupt official 22nd February 2020 at 11:04
‘…His final choice really lacked imagination, and originality IMO. ‘
…………………….
https://twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1231254781919989765/photo/1
https://twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1231255171193352193/photo/1
While it is good to see the SFA finally admit a shambolic mistake in their disciplinary process, we are entitled to ask how many other baffling decisions were arrived at without following due process. As long as the secretive nature of the process with anonymous judges continues, it is fair to assume that personal prejudice may play a part in the decision making process.
easyJambo 22nd February 2020 at 14:55
'..the SFA has decided to reconvene the James Keatings tribunal. '
+++++++++++++++
What we don't know is whether the other two members of the Panel which made the decision actually acknowledge now that not all the evidence had been considered
If they have acknowledged that fact, the safest route would have been for all parties to have agreed that an approach should be made to the Courts asking that the decision be set aside, and the matter referred to a fresh Panel operating not as an appeal panel against the appeal Panel but as an appeal panel of first (and final) instance.
I'm sure such an approach by agreement would not have required any kind of extensive, expensive formal hearing: a Judge could simply accept a joint submission that a fundamental error was made, annul the appeal panel's decision, and refer the matter to freshly constituted panel.
If the other two members have not agreed that they erred, then an unhelpful precedent is being set, if the 'executive' can over-rule a 'judicial' finding in an appeal when , legally, it has no power to do so!
The SFA seem to create enormous problems for themselves. If they arrogate to themselves (as interested party in a disciplinary matter) the power to over-rule their own 'judicial panel' , who can have faith that they will not misuse their office if and when it may suit?
[I'm personally very happy for Keatings and ICT, I should add.]
John Clark 22nd February 2020 at 12:06
Corrupt official 22nd February 2020 at 11:04 '…His final choice really lacked imagination, and originality IMO. ' ++++++++++++++++ Perhaps: but it signalled the intention to deceive the investing public into thinking that TRFC was the original RFC that had simply changed hands, and made it easier for the lying hacks in the SMSM /BBC pass off that deceit as the truth. And I come back to the question? Why did the BBC business journalists not flag up that deceit: they of all people must have known that Green did not , could not have, bought the very club that was to be liquidated, because if he had been able to , Liquidation would not have happened! And they would have known that on its change of status from a Limited company to a Public company no other entity was created: it was RFC plc that held the share in the SPL, and had the certificate of membership in the SFA, and lost both when it became insolvent.
_____________________
No wonder the BBC continue to keep their ranks closed over the continuation lie. They stood back and stayed silent while Charles Green promoted his IPO as an investment in a previously deceased football club. Wouldn't look good, even with those with no interest in Scottish football's integrity, if they suddenly 'discovered' the truth now. It's possible, I suppose, that the BBC, as a whole, has taken a decision to continue with the lie, as seen in the reply to Watcher, in the hope that it all, one day, disappears.
If this is the case, no wonder they were so keen to shut up Michael Stewart. With Whyte's book about to be released the last thing they needed was one of their own pointing at one of the leading architects of the lie!
What I'm suggesting is that rather than just protecting the BBC's favourite Scottish football club, the BBC is now having to also protect itself from possible claims of misleading the public in the lead up to an IPO.
John Clark 22nd February 2020 at 12:06
Corrupt official 22nd February 2020 at 11:04 '
…His final choice really lacked imagination, and originality IMO. '
++++++++++++++++
Perhaps: but it signalled the intention to deceive the investing public into thinking that TRFC was the original RFC that had simply changed hands, and made it easier for the lying hacks in the SMSM /BBC pass off that deceit as the truth.
————————————————-
Indeed John, and I was being intentionally flippant as to the absurdity of the same club myth. However the fact remains that at the time of Sevco Scotland's debut v Brechin, no such organisation bearing the name "The Rangers Football Club", existed,….anywhere !, except in the imaginations of the deceivers.
Who would have thunk, that a wonky imagination was such a highly contagious inkborne disease?.
Frankly……It isn't !.
Charlie Chuckles had no need to purchase "The Club" from D & P, BDO, or wee Craigy……It was a, "gift", from the SFA. ….How they, (the SFA), came to be in possession of "The extinct Club", is anybody's guess.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2012/jul/27/rangers-relaunched-brechin
CO
Just for the sake of being pedantic…
https://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/name-change-meeting/
Rangers retained its original name until 31st July 2012. It remained a member of the SPL and SFA until 3rd August.
Sevco's game (trading as the newco "Rangers FC") against Brechin was 29th July.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/19032245
Further to the latest SFA own goal ……
How many times previously and affecting which games/clubs/players have panel members not carried out their obligations?
Should all previous decisions now be reviewed for compliance with the protocol (not just those in which Panel member X has participated)?
…as I mentioned in my previous post, the “conditional” membership was a complete squirrel.
It provided cover for the SFA board to sanction Sevco’s use of another member’s name prior to the Brechin game.
Sevco were already a SFA (registered) member and did not require further membership approval before the game took place. It was enough that Sevco had applied for a transfer of Rangers full membership. There was no time limit for a response. If it had wished to do so, the SFA could have taken a year to consider that application.
However, without prior SFA board approval, Sevco could not have used the Rangers FC trading name for the Brechin game.
The illusion of continuity would have been shattered from the beginning.
There was too much to lose to allow that to happen….
I should add…
The 5WA was the document that contractually bound the signatories to the idea that "Rangers FC" could continue as the same Club – despite the demise of The Rangers Football Club PLC.
I do not believe that the signatories from the SPL, SFA and SFA had the legal authority to agree to the new construct without formal agreement from each of their members in duly authorised meetings. No such meetings took place.
Board approval would not have sufficed.
If I am right, the 5WA should be investigated fully as it appears to constitute an actual fraud.
Think TV money, IPOs, season ticket sales etc.
What were the financial consequences of the 'big lie'?
Who has truly been duped?
Sorry, while I'm on a roll…
I think BBC Scotland, in general, (with a few exceptions) played a straight bat to begin with.
Initially, there was no question that Sevco was anything but a new club. A spiritual successor to the old club; but technically, a brand new association football club.
The BBC Scotland hierarchy appeared to resist the call to take on the 'big lie' – but were overruled by their masters in London.
My sense is that it was the BBC Trustees(?) that were unduly influenced by the 'guardians' of Scottish Football ànd simply took the SFA and SPL at their word.
I strongly doubt that they had any understanding of the issues beyond what they were fed by those who had a vested interest in propagating the lie.
More fools them!
HirsutePursuit 22nd February 2020 at 18:44
I was going to suggest trying here until I saw the bit about Police Scotland . I wonder why .
https://www.actionfraud.police.uk/reporting-fraud-and-cyber-crime
As far as I am aware, these tribunals operate on a 'majority' basis: that is the three members vote & its verdict is a 3:0 or 2:1 either for or against. Unanimity is not required.
Is Maxwell indicating that the Keatings' panel was split 2:1 to uphold the booking & the member who claims that he was not au fait with all the evidence voted as part of the '2' not to change the outcome? If the panel's vote had been a unanimous 3:0 then we're in 'nothing to see' territory, because 2:1 is sufficient to carry the day.
Stranger & stranger: but it is the SFA, after all…