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.
I agree with easyJambo and suggest that this should just be the start for the SFA. There have been strange decisions by the independent panel before so all should be investigated by an independent body to make sure that proper practice has been followed.
It would seem nobody reviewed any evidence, it was just dismissed as a matter of course and they all went down the pub. Not until it blew up did they actually look at the incident then came out with this gobbledeygook nonsense to attempt to save face. Now while that is quite disturbing , the alternative that they did review it and saw nothing untoward is even more disturbing. Can they never admit that a referee made a wrong decision , was the fact it was a decision that favoured a Rangers* team influence the decision . Of course now that they have shown that decisions can be reviewed when not all the evidence has been seen has opened another can of Lord Nimmo Smith Worms . Issue statement – realise mistake – return to bunker – close the blinds . All this on top of the Man City situation , the chickens are coming home to roost.
HirsutePursuit 22nd February 2020 at 18:44
'…If I am right, the 5WA should be investigated fully as it appears to constitute an actual fraud.'
++++++++++++++
The possibility clearly exists that there may have been two frauds, separate but necessarily connected:
one, a fraud involving the false attribution to a new football club of the sporting history, honours and titles of a club that had not earned them and never could add to them
two, a fraud involving deception of the Stock Market by the issue of a misleading IPO which implied to the investor that what was to be invested in was a 140 year old, wonderfully successful record breaking football club, and not a new club that had not kicked a ball as a football team!
I'm of the view that there are sufficient grounds for the FCA to open an enquiry into the RIFC plc launch and the IPO issued in respect of that, and for Police Scotland to examine the extent to which the SFA , by the 5-Way Agreement, was knowingly made in order to help the new club's false claim to be the Rangers of 1872 when it came to launching RIFC plc.
I'm not, of course, making any allegations at this point: merely suggesting that there are questions to be asked by agencies which have the power to really ask, rather than by 'internet bampots' such as I.
Questions to which the answers might make the Keatings' red card incident look like very small beer, indeed.
Jingso.Jimsie 22nd February 2020 at 19:27
'…If the panel's vote had been a unanimous 3:0 then we're in 'nothing to see' territory, '
++++++++++++++++
Jingo.Jmsie, I remember mentioning before ( while 'reporting' to SFM on the Court of Session EBT decision ) Lord Drummond Young making the remark that even private organisations , not just public bodies exercising statutory functions, can be subject to Judicial Review by the Courts.
This could be when ,say, a tennis club management team blatantly disregarded the rules of natural justice ( eg refusing to listen to explanations, or not specifying the 'charges', or ignoring important evidence, ) when arriving at even a unanimous decision to expel a member for some alleged breach of the club's rules.
So I suppose that that could apply in the Keatings case: if all three panel members were in agreement that the camera evidence did not show a barge/shove on Keatings, they would be so plainly wrong in a matter of fact that natural justice would require the decision to be reviewed.
The Courts very naturally would be reluctant to get involved in a dispute about the 'facts found'- but if the parties involved all agreed that an error had been made, there would be no difficulty for the Court in accepting the 'true' facts and remitting to another panel for determination on the 'true facts'.
Or is that fo'c'sle law??
Discuss in no more than 500 words.
I assume we have all noted the tortuous explanation for revisiting Keatingsgate is somewhat Brysonesque.
SFA, simply not fit for purpose.
HirsutePursuit 22nd February 2020 at 19:03
'..My sense is that it was the BBC Trustees..'
+++++++++++++++
Yes, HP, under the BBC's Royal Charter a number of the 'great and good' were constituted as 'the Trustees', who had , it seems, the final say as regards editorial control.
I have previously credited BBC Scotland for initially using the words 'new club', but then had to criticise them for meekly 'obeying' a ridiculous 'order' which they, had they had the guts to do so, could have challenged more strongly on the grounds that the order required them to lie, because the facts were that a football had gone into Liquidation, and a new club ( not a 'resuscitated ' ailing club) had been created .
When the Trustees were abolished, their ruling ought to have died with them, and I blame BBC Scotland for continuing with the so obviously challengeable affront to Truth. That smacks not of 'obedience to orders' but of willingness to comply with morally unacceptable orders.
Not quite in the same league of immorality of Nazi orders to kill innocent people, of course, but abuse of authority of any extent has to be condemned.
JC
I agree, however…
If there was one, who perpetrated the IPO fraud?
Each party to the 5WA provided a warranty that they were empowered to deliver on what was promised.
Sevco can, probably correctly, claim that it could only be the game’s governing bodies that could – through their respective rules, articles and constitutions define the true nature of an association football club. It is not for Sevco to interpret those organisations’ statutes.
Sevco has a document from all of the governing bodies that says, in effect, that it is the original Rangers FC. If it transpires that the warranties provided were false, the IPO investors are likely to have a claim against the SFA and SPL – not Sevco.
Remember DCK “threatening” the SFA with the 5WA when the licencing issue was raised? Remember how it has backed off?
It certainly was a strong card to play.
paddy malarkey 22nd February 2020 at 19:24
'…I was going to suggest trying here until I saw the bit about Police Scotland . I wonder why .'
++++++++++++++
I think , paddymalarkey, it's possibly because the Fraud Act 2006 doesn't apply in Scotland , except in part! Unified, central action over the general range of 'fraud' is maybe seen as actually impracticable. I don't reckon there's anything sinister….
Remember also that Sevco purchased the previous season’s prize money – from Rangers administrators.
£2.8m if I remember correctly.
It gave up its claim to the prize money as the price of being acknowledged as the original Rangers FC.
It paid the outstanding football debts on the same basis.
Again, if the SFA and SPL were to declare Sevco a new club, it would (rightly) claim for breach of contract.
The financial elements mean that the SFA and SPL are hopelessly conflicted on the matter.
HirsutePursuit 22nd February 2020 at 22:16
'…If there was one, who perpetrated the IPO fraud?'
+++++++++++++++++
The Board of a private company is collectively responsible for the truth and accuracy of the information of its IPO prospectus submitted to the FCA when it decides to go public.
If , in providing information that is misleading it had sought the complicity of another 'official' body in lying about the historical commercial standing and market status and value of what would be its principal source of revenue and future market value, then I would imagine that that other 'official body' might conceivably be deemed to be art and part of a conspiracy to defraud.
I speak in the abstract of course.
John Clark22nd February 2020 at 22:26
2
0
Rate This
paddy malarkey 22nd February 2020 at 19:24
‘…I was going to suggest trying here until I saw the bit about Police Scotland . I wonder why .’
I think , paddymalarkey, it’s possibly because the Fraud Act 2006 doesn’t apply in Scotland , except in part! Unified, central action over the general range of ‘fraud’ is maybe seen as actually impracticable. I don’t reckon there’s anything sinister….
…………………………….
I’m not sure how it would work; but I wonder – because the IPO was part of the PLC’s AIM listing – if the City of London Police would have some sort of jurisdiction.
Not sure…
HirsutePursuit 22nd February 2020 at 22:36
'…Again, if the SFA and SPL were to declare Sevco a new club, it would (rightly) claim for breach of contract.'
++++++++++
Not too sure about your (rightly), HP.
If the SFA and SPL officials had no legal authority [not having been authorised by their membership] to enter into such a contract , the contract would be null and void, and Sevco could go whistle in the wind.
Just as Dave King can go whistle in the wind as regards getting any money from his 'contract' with Hummel/Elite.
John Clark22nd February 2020 at 23:15
0
0
Rate This
HirsutePursuit 22nd February 2020 at 22:16
'…If there was one, who perpetrated the IPO fraud?'
+++++++++++++++++
The Board of a private company is collectively responsible for the truth and accuracy of the information of its IPO prospectus submitted to the FCA when it decides to go public.
If , in providing information that is misleading it had sought the complicity of another 'official' body in lying about the historical commercial standing and market status and value of what would be its principal source of revenue and future market value, then I would imagine that that other 'official body' might conceivably be deemed to be art and part of a conspiracy to defraud.
I speak in the abstract of course.
……………..
If it could be proven (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the plc knew, or that ought to have known, the representations made by the 3rd parties could not be relied upon, then yes, it could conceivably be caught up as an active party in a conspiracy to defraud.
It would probably take an incriminating email or letter from the SPL and/or SFA to put Sevco in the frame. Without that, my feeling is that Sevco probably have a defendable position. But, as ever, the devil will be in the detail.
Was absolutely astounded to hear on Sportsound that 2 of the 3 of the panel are NOT experienced in football ! I can’t think of any other industry where you we would use non experienced ‘experts’ to judge on what is effectively a technical issue. How did these people get selected and what was the criteria ? Just use 3 refs from different foreign FAs for Gods sake ! And there is still at least one person on the panel who still believes it was a dive !!
However the cynic in me thinks that the reason given was made up as this was the least embarrassing technicality they could come up with to allow the panel to reconvene
HirsutePursuit 22nd February 2020 at 23:16
'…because the IPO was part of the PLC’s AIM listing – if the City of London Police would have some sort of jurisdiction.'
+++++++++++++++
I would hope that that would be so.
The fact of this statement
"Please be advised that we no longer take reports for Police Scotland as it has decided to handle all reports of fraud and cyber-crime in its area. Wherever you may live, in Scotland or elsewhere, if the fraud or cyber-crime you are reporting has occurred in or from Scotland then you will need to report it to Police Scotland via the 101 telephone service. In an emergency always call 999."
surely relates only to the point at which a report is made. Police Scotland would no doubt pass on to London any report of a suspected crime of fraud that fell within the provisions of the Fraud Act that applied to Scotland.
There might be a wee bit of 'territoriality' dispute here, but the message seems clear enough: report to Police Scotland in the first instance, and they will deal with it if it falls within Scots law, and pass it on to London if it is a matter of UK law.
John Clark22nd February 2020 at 23:27
0
0
Rate This
HirsutePursuit 22nd February 2020 at 22:36
'…Again, if the SFA and SPL were to declare Sevco a new club, it would (rightly) claim for breach of contract.'
++++++++++
Not too sure about your (rightly), HP.
If the SFA and SPL officials had no legal authority [not having been authorised by their membership] to enter into such a contract , the contract would be null and void, and Sevco could go whistle in the wind.
Just as Dave King can go whistle in the wind as regards getting any money from his 'contract' with Hummel/Elite.
………………
It is a good point and it is possible that a judge might consider that the entire contract turns on that point alone.
However, the agreement is fairly complex and I believe that the signatories would have been fully authorised to agree to many of its other elements.
Either way,
If the entire agreement is deemed to be void
Sevco would have a claim on the outstanding prize money it had given up and seek to reclaim the Rangers football debts.
If the contract stands – but the SFA and SPL are forced to accept they had/have no power to treat Sevco as Rangers of old
Sevco can claim breach of contract and claim/reclaim the same amounts.
Menace 22nd February 2020 at 23:39
'…I can’t think of any other industry where you we would use non experienced ‘experts’ to judge on what is effectively a technical issue. '
++++++++++++
I rather got the impression that the film evidence had not been viewed, such was the nature of the appallingly badly inadequate statement!
God, it's difficult when a sports body cannot explain itself !
Was the film evidence viewed at all? and if so were the panel members told that they were being asked a simple question: was one player physically bundled, shoved, pushed, nudged , by another?
Nothing technical in that, even if the panellist was from Mars or from Rugby Union!
HirsutePursuit 23rd February 2020 at 00:02
'.Sevco would have a claim on the outstanding prize money it had given up and seek to reclaim the Rangers football debts.'
++++++++++
You've lost me here, HP..
What prize money did Sevco lose?
Sevco did not exist prior to 2012.
How could it have prize money due to it or give up?
It hadn't kicked a ball in any football competition.
JC
Sevco purchased the rights to the outstandingt Rangers SPL prize money (for season 2011/12) from Duff and Phelps.
It was sold as part of the basket of assets.
https://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/08/25/for-sevcos-5-5m-it-bought-all-rangers-players-fixed-assets-goodwill-and-2-67m-prize-money/
HirsutePursuit 23rd February 2020 at 00:24
'…It was sold as part of the basket of assets.'
++++++++++++
Of course! Silly me to think for a moment that you might have been suggesting that there was an element of 'continuity'!
Forgive me, please.
JC
Just one last thing for context…
The Italian FA allows, what it calls, the 'Sporting Title' of a bankrupt club to be sold to another club in the area.
The club taking on that 'Sporting Title' claims the historical sporting achievement of the recently deceased club.
It is all nonsense, of course, but it is, at least ,clearly written into that country's regulations and uefa accept (with the 3 year 'interuption of membership' ban) the idea that the original club continues in a new form.
In England, the transfer of the 'Golden Share' allows Newco's to take the name and league position of old clubs that are being liquidated. Leeds Utd are a notable example.
What I am saying is that there is clear precedent for what the SFA and SPL were trying to achieve with Rangers and Sevco. Their problem was that there were/are no competent regulations in this country that could make it happen.
They just made it up as they went along and hoped no-one would notice.
From the CVA proposal document (the SPL monies are Sevco's to use)
5.10 The Excluded Assets will be excluded from the CVA, as they are required to be utilised by the Company for the purpose of continued trading of the Company.
5.11 For the avoidance of doubt, the proceeds of all sums due from the SPL together with any broadcasting monies payable to the Company will be payable to the Company but for the benefit of Sevco (in the event that this Proposal is approved and the Loan drawn down) and shall be Excluded Assets.
From draft 6 of the 5WA (the price of Sevco's continuity with RFC)
2.3.2 RFC, Sevco and Rangers FC irrevocably renounce, waive, release and discharge any right and/or entitlement to any unpaid Fees and any other sums due or to become due howsoever arising, including without prejudice to the foregoing generality, in respect of or related to season 2011/12 and earlier seasons and whether under and in terms of the SPL Articles and/or SPL Rules or otherwise, by the SPL to RFC, Sevco and/or Rangers FC and hereby agree that the SPL shall retain all such Fees and other sums due to use and apply as the SPL shall in its sole discretion think fit.
I first heard the excitement of the “Breaking News” with the SFA statement read out loud at the end of the Off the Ball show yesterday.”
I was in the car with Mrs Finloch LLB and she listened too.
We both said at the end “Who wrote that”?
A badly written piece of quasi legalistic trying to tiptoe round a constitutional mess in response to rightful indignation on an unnecessary own goal.
And in the poece three names are listed to show solidarity at the wonderful institution that controls our game, viz meesrs Petrie, Mulrainey and Maxwell.
Mrs Finloch said something like “Whoever wrote that didn’t want it to be understood by normal fans”.
So where are we.
Keatings and ICT have to go through the nonsense of another panel rather than the SFA just throwing out the second caution which John Robertson eloquently stated on Friday night had been consigned to the dustbin by 1.4 million people.
So not a decision.
A decision that someone else can make a decision.
The SFA had already leaked out the original panel was a split 2-1 vote.
They now have also leaked through the usual sources that only 1 of the three on the panel was a Football person.
This is nonsense and misleading.
We are all football people and I can guarantee that Mr Maxwell didn’t just pick two random punters from the phonebook.
But fair play at least they have rescinded the nonsensical outcome of the panel and this is a small positive in a week where Henry McLeish rightly and in a statesmanlike fashion branded the whole SFA management (and by implication SPFL too) as not fit for purpose.
Good luck James Keatings.
I hope you make the final.
Good luck to ICT and Raith Rovers for the final at McDiarmid Park on Saturday 28th March kick off 4.10pm.
(Although I’ll be there and hope they will not be “Dancing in the streets of Raith afterwards)
Henry McLeish is right.
Our governance is really not fit for purpose.
If you haven’t read what The SFA put out its copied below courtesy of the nice people at the Daily Record with a photo of the incident.
……………………………………………….
………………………………………………..
The Scottish FA’s Chief Executive, Ian Maxwell, has received notification that the tribunal convened to hear the Claim for Wrongful Caution raised by Inverness Caledonian Thistle on behalf of James Keatings failed to implement its duties as per the Judicial Panel Protocol.
“Specifically, one of the panel members has advised that, despite raising no concerns throughout the process, they did not undertake their obligations with respect to the consideration of all the available evidence.
(Image: SNS Group)
“While the Fast Track Claims process is by definition an appeal, and therefore not open to further consideration, none the less the Chief Executive and Presidential team, Rod Petrie and Mike Mulraney, are unanimous that the tribunal outcome cannot be considered competent in light of the disclosure from the panel member and that the input from that panel member must be withdrawn.
“With that in mind, and only in extremis based on the information provided by the panel member, the determination cannot be considered valid. Therefore, the Judicial Panel Secretary has been instructed to convene a new tribunal and a fresh date will be set in due course.
READ MORE
“The initial outcome is rendered invalid by the acknowledgement of a panel member of their failure to dispose of their duties in respect of section 13.13.4 of the Judicial Panel Protocol and, in particular, the following paragraph:
“The Determination of the Claim shall be made by the Fast Track Tribunal by examining and deliberating upon: (ii) all of the evidence and submissions delivered by the Claimant in support of the Notice of Claim.
“The Scottish FA upholds the independence of the Judicial Panel Protocol but cannot in this instance consider the tribunal verdict competent, based on the admitted failure of a panel member to adhere to the process as outlined.
“The panel member in question has subsequently been withdrawn from the pool of potential panel members for all future tribunals.”
From the DR today;
"OPINION SFA have surpassed themselves with their incompetence and Ian Maxwell's promises haven't materialised – Gordon Parks
…
I genuinely believe SFA chief executive Ian Maxwell to be a talented and forward-thinking administrator. We’ve been friends for years…
President Rod Petrie is an unpleasant presence hovering above Maxwell and, in truth, pulling far too many strings for someone whose [sic] promotion should have been vetoed and this vanity role expunged from the SFA committee structure…"
===============
Well, well, well.
The worm has turned?
Looks like Maxwell is manoeuvring to ditch Petrie.
…and who is providing Maxwell with the required support to go against the SFA President…?
Interesting.
easyJambo 23rd February 2020 at 02:01 From the CVA proposal document (the SPL monies are Sevco's to use) 5.10 The Excluded Assets will be excluded from the CVA, as they are required to be utilised by the Company for the purpose of continued trading of the Company. 5.11 For the avoidance of doubt, the proceeds of all sums due from the SPL together with any broadcasting monies payable to the Company will be payable to the Company but for the benefit of Sevco (in the event that this Proposal is approved and the Loan drawn down) and shall be Excluded Assets.
From draft 6 of the 5WA (the price of Sevco's continuity with RFC) 2.3.2 RFC, Sevco and Rangers FC irrevocably renounce, waive, release and discharge any right and/or entitlement to any unpaid Fees and any other sums due or to become due howsoever arising, including without prejudice to the foregoing generality, in respect of or related to season 2011/12 and earlier seasons and whether under and in terms of the SPL Articles and/or SPL Rules or otherwise, by the SPL to RFC, Sevco and/or Rangers FC and hereby agree that the SPL shall retain all such Fees and other sums due to use and apply as the SPL shall in its sole discretion think fit.
—————————-
I may be wrong, and, of course, this is only an excerpt from the full CVA, but as the CVA was rejected then surely anything written within in it is of absolutely no consequence! In fact, the wording of it seems to make it clear that the fees would go to the Company for the purpose of continued trading of the Company in the event that the CVA was agreed.
It does seem strange to me that with the CVA having failed, that monies earned by an insolvent company during its lifetime should somehow be 'sold' at no apparent cost (how do you 'sell' the rights to £2.8m for anything other than £2,8m? Why not just drop the selling price of the company assets by that amount? I suppose, all part of the eyewash to make the selling price of the assets appear more realistic. And also, I reckon, to add gloss to the big lie by giving the appearance that the prize money followed the 'Club', and not the 'Company' – into liquidation.).
Anyway, regardless of the OCNC question, the CVA makes it extremely clear that the monies that were earned on the football field, by the Club, were owed to/owned by the Company. We all know why that should be.
that sfa statement stinks,my problem with it is
1.we don't know panel members
2.how do we really know 1 has been removed
3.have they caved in to people power and just pretend to remove one of the brethern
no one has to answer any of this as it's just things i thought of this morning,need a coffee 🙂
At the very least, the other panel member who voted against the appeal should have resigned as soon as it became clear he/she had hugely messed up. Failing that, that person should be sacked too.
The recent shambles at the SFA only strengthens the view that they are completely unfit for purpose. High time for a full review by someone like Henry McLeish on the understanding that his findings will be fully implemented.
Allyjambo 23rd February 2020 at 10:02
Anyway, regardless of the OCNC question, the CVA makes it extremely clear that the monies that were earned on the football field, by the Club, were owed to/owned by the Company. We all know why that should be.
============================
Your observation is correct of course. Following the failure to achieve a CVA, the SPL cash due to the club should have gone into the RFC plc (Oldco) coffers for the benefit of the creditors.
As the 5WA shows, the construct that was agreed to create the illusion of continuity was dependent on the Oldco's creditors losing out of the £2.8m to the benefit of the SPL.
It was indeed the price paid, not by Sevco, but by the Oldco's creditors to keep a club called Rangers in the SFL.
Sevco also paid its own price for the continuity construct by being required to pay off the Oldco's football creditors.
As far as D&P was concerned, the continuity construct of the 5WA allowed them to forego the £2.8m in SPL cash in return for switching a number of football creditor claims of around £3m from the Oldco to Sevco. That arrangement was not in the best interests of the rest of the Oldco's creditors as the £2.8m would have boosted the dividend payable to all creditors.
Finloch @ 08.16 23 Feb
Re : SFA Statement on ICT's appeal
I'm with Mrs Finloch ! I have read Maxwell's statement 3/4 times & I still don't understand it – it raises more questions than answers & only underlines the mediocrity/duplicity of the administration .
Following the failure to save the old club via a CVA, the exact terms of the asset sale were meant to be kept confidential.
It's only through a reading of the 5WA and the liquidators reports that we became aware that Duff and Phelps had passed on the ultimate right to the outstanding prize money to Sevco.
As EJ has pointed out this arrangement benefited the football creditors – who were paid 100% of what they were owed. Sevco paid these in full.
The remaining creditors got nothing from that £2.67m prize money.
tony 23rd February 2020 at 10:09
18
1
Rate This
that sfa statement stinks,my problem with it is
1.we don’t know panel members
2.how do we really know 1 has been removed
3.have they caved in to people power and just pretend to remove one of the brethern
no one has to answer any of this as it’s just things i thought of this morning,need a coffee ?
…………………..
“Who are these people” someone once said, but he already knew.
You gotta laugh ( or you would cry ) At the Lawyer speak of the SFA regarding their latest statement. If you did nt know what the "keatings" case was all about you would presume their statement was referring to a very complex issue .
You could show that video to 3 Primary school kids who play for their school team and 30 seconds later the 3 of them would agree it was never a booking, thats how simple this case is . . SFA Never in a million years fit for purpose
“EXCLUSIVE
I know lots of Liverpool fans want me back as boss one day… but the owners have to think I’m good enough first’:
Steven Gerrard on the possibility of an Anfield return, life at Rangers and Jordan Henderson lifting the title
Steven Gerrard has spoken exclusively to former team-mate Danny Murphy
The Liverpool legend says Gerard Houllier revolutionised standards at Liverpool
The former England captain wants to be fully prepared before returning as boss
Gerrard admitted he would like to have a managerial rivalry with Frank Lampard
By DANNY MURPHY FOR THE MAIL ON SUNDAY…”
======
A current club manager, (nevermind an Ibrox manager), talking about managing another club…?
It’s just not done, is it?
It’s poor form and highly disrespectful to both his employers and to the club’s fans.
[Doesn’t matter either that he’s talking moonbeams about managing LFC.]
…unless Gerrard doesn’t give a monkey’s anymore about what people will think about him voicing his managerial aspirations – and via the English media…?
On Keatinggate.
Wouldn't it have made a great deal of sense if, after receiving what they must have known was a ridiculous verdict, the Hampden bods had just passed it back to the tribunal and said, 'think again, lads', before making the decision public? By 'think again, lads' I mean 'explain yourselves, you fee thieves!'
Stevie BC,
I'd imagine far from being seen as disrespectful to his employers, in the topsy turvy world of TRFC, that article will most likely have been published with the board's blessing. The supporters will love it, too, as no one is saying similar things about Neil Lennon.
Cluster One
Exactly what I thought of
It's all coming to a head for Rangers* this week . Wednesday sees the return leg in Braga and then it's off to Tynecastle for the Scottish Cup fixture . After today's results which saw Celtic stretch their lead by another 2 pts (and 2 goals) Gerrard needs to pull a rabbit out the hat to stop a total implosion. Hearts will smell blood and should have enough confidence after already beating them at home just recently.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2866824-steven-gerrard-signs-contract-extension-at-rangers-until-2024
The cost of sacking Gerrard and his 8 member backroom staff would be frightening , however keeping hold of him if he ends up trophyless this season may be even worse. There is no cash to strengthen and his £120m squad would be lucky to raise 20m with their current form . Gerrard therefore has a dilemma , does he walk , does he get resigned , or does he stay and risk reputational damage. Where would Rangers* go from there? Would the fans turn up if Grahame Murty was installed ? (his stats are actually better than Gerrard and Pedro) P. MacG's recent blog has hinted at some tricky terms and conditions attached to King's latest loan which wouldn't be a surprise but it doesn't bode well for the future . If King is departing then he will want his pound of flesh first . The only thing I see of any value is the stadium and assuming they have now found the deeds then it wouldn't surpise me to see King with some kind of claim to it . Personally I can see him going into administration and flogging the Whyte elephant to Tesco before heading for Costa Rica. A week can be a long time in politics it can be an eternity in football. Tune in this time next week for the next instalment of the Banter Years.
Timtim, yes it is getting more interesting.
I take it that the external auditors hadn’t actually caught ‘Rangersitis’ during their audit – so are not compelled to tell fibs on a regular basis – like “you need £10M just to see out this season”.
It has been awfully quiet on that front: no money making, transfers out, no new shares issue, no new sugar daddy donating to the Ibrox coffers…
I suppose Lambogate and Translationgate – whilst hugely embarrassing/entertaining – did at least distract from questions about Ibrox finances – for a while.
All the indications are ominous for RIFC/TRFC currently.
But, as others have mentioned before, this Ibrox mob – somehow – always seems to be able to keep kicking that battered, old can along the road just that little bit more – yet again.
However…
The RIFC interims for the 6 months period up to 31st December were released last year on Monday, 25th February 2019.
If they are consistent, I would expect the Interims to be released tomorrow/Monday 24th.
Remembering that these are UNAUDITED numbers, King has some leeway to draft up any old rubbish.
But this year, he maybe struggling to ‘conjure up a profit number’ to keep the headlines positive?
Regardless: mibbees these Interims could be the event which triggers a domino effect at Ibrox…?
[I know.]
One bonus for the coming week is the interim accounts are due out , unfortunately they are unaudited and will give King some scope to wax lyrical . If he has decided it’s the end of the road then I doubt he will bother producing any . I would say it all hinges on the result in Portugal as that is the last opportunity to make reasonable money and get players exposure to the Summer transfer window.
Just read Stevie BC post , will be an interesting week.
RIFC posted an overall profit for the corresponding period last season of £5.2m (operating profit £6.7m before amortisation or £3.8m afterwards). Those are the best numbers to use for comparison with the first half of this season.
The number of competitive home and neutral venue games played this season is three down on last year, but they played additional friendlies to bridge the gap. Europa League income will be up on last year due to better results and qualification for the knock out stages.
I would expect something similar in terms of their stated profits this time round. If its less then it's indicative of their cost base going up significantly (mainly wages and player registrations)
They will lose money over the 2nd half of the season. How much is anyone's guess.
Will these interims include the 3m for Helander and the 7m for Kent ? If so it may just tip the scales to negative .
Timtim 23rd February 2020 at 21:15
Will these interims include the 3m for Helander and the 7m for Kent ? If so it may just tip the scales to negative .
===========================
They should include any up front payments for the pair, plus any other installments due on prior transfers. Those will be offset to some extent by receipts from any corresponding outgoing transfers.
easyJambo 23rd February 2020 at 11:37
‘…It was indeed the price paid, not by Sevco, but by the Oldco’s creditors to keep a club called Rangers in the SFL.’
%%%%%%%%%%%%%
D&P as Administrators were, of course, present at the 5-Way Agreement meeting(s). They must have agreed the signing over to the SPL/SFL of the circa £2.8M ,on foot of the ‘expected'(?) CVA.
But when the CVA did not happen, why did they not rescind that offer, so that the pot they could hand over to BDO, the Liquidators, would be greater?
I wonder whether this was the issue which caused Lord Hodge to delay discharging D&P until he had the actions of D&P investigated by their ‘trade’ Association.
There may be a wee story in there among the bigger stories of lies and iniquities behind the secret Agreement and the Non-disclosure commitment attaching to that agreement
JC
BDO are still looking at D&P's conduct during the administration period.
https://www.bdo.co.uk/getmedia/a0db76ac-535d-461c-bd2b-5de4d18467d3/RFC-2012-Plc-annual-progress-report-to-30-October-2019.pdf.aspx
There is a definite sense of dèja vu this week which will increase as we approach Wednesday. Everything from here on in depends on *Rangers performance in Europe. The manger’s credibility, the current finances and the season ticket sales for 2020/21. Exit from the EL will also have a knock on effect on morale for the cup tie at Tynecastle.
Ive also noted a bit of chat on Twitter concerning the trip to Dubai. Has there been an Emiratigate story which is yet to break?
AvatarJohn Clark 23rd February 2020 at 22:25 This easyJambo 23rd February 2020 at 11:37 ‘…It was indeed the price paid, not by Sevco, but by the Oldco’s creditors to keep a club called Rangers in the SFL.’ %%%%%%%%%%%%% D&P as Administrators were, of course, present at the 5-Way Agreement meeting(s). They must have agreed the signing over to the SPL/SFL of the circa £2.8M ,on foot of the ‘expected'(?) CVA. But when the CVA did not happen, why did they not rescind that offer, so that the pot they could hand over to BDO, the Liquidators, would be greater? I wonder whether this was the issue which caused Lord Hodge to delay discharging D&P until he had the actions of D&P investigated by their ‘trade’ Association. There may be a wee story in there among the bigger stories of lies and iniquities behind the secret Agreement and the Non-disclosure commitment attaching to that agreement
________________
John, as ever, my memory is none too reliable, but I am certain that as one of the many ludicrous events surrounding the whole 5Way Agreement farce, D&P gave Charles Green the authority to negotiate with the football authorities on behalf of RFC (IL), including the right to sign off on any agreement reached. I seem to have a distinct memory of the discussions on RTC and elsewhere about Green's dual role of representing two separate entities in this way.
If I am correct, then it is unlikely that D&P were a party to the 5WA, giving themselves the comfort blanket of plausible deniability. Whether they had a legal right to give Green this power may well be up for question, though, as Green's own best interests must surely have clashed with those of the old club's creditors.
D&P doing a Regan* to ensure their paw prints weren't on something so heinous it had to be kept secret, perhaps?
*He'd shot off on holiday a few hours before the agreement was signed.
easy 23rd February 2020 at 21:36
===========================
They should include any up front payments for the pair, plus any other installments due on prior transfers. Those will be offset to some extent by receipts from any corresponding outgoing transfers.
===========================
The accounts only reflect the write down in value of the player transfer fees over the life of the contracts. It won’t highlight the cash flow crunch that the last 2 years of player purchases has brought on.
In the 18/19 accounts for last June, Rangers had £9.6 million payable by 30th June 2020 for player purchases. They only had £0.4 million receivable for players sold. In the notes to the accounts, they disclosed that they had added a further £11.5 million in player purchases (Kent, Helander, Edmundson). We don’t know when that is payable, but on an average contract of 4 years, say another £3 million for the new comers. Than means they needed to find about £12 million in the current year to fund player purchases alone.
I have no idea how much they may already have paid back, but I would expect that payment schedules would be negotiated around season ticket cash, so probably the bulk of that £12 million needs to be found in the next 4 months.
Mr Ashley may want to “ring fence” his potential claim.
As always, in business, cash is King.
Ex Ludo 23rd February 2020 at 23:28
People keep mentioning a potential drop in season ticket sales but given the last few seasons I can’t see it myself, regardless of what happens this week or the next.
With Real Rangers men still in the Blue Room the fans will remain loyal and pay their cash. Even more so next year as the aim will be to stop Celtic gaining 10IAR. Regardless of what T’Rangers put out on the pitch their fans will want to play a part in trying to stop Celtic’s aim for a record breaking season.
The club from Ibrox will have benefited from additional gate receipts from domestic and euro cup runs for additional income has been brought in this season. However the issue is, as always, are they spending more than they bring in and how long can the friendly loans last.
People seem to keep hoping Ashley will sink the ship but I think he will be happy to string them along and keep dripping them dry as they have become nothing more than his play thing.
If they can survive until his contractual grip on the club ends then they can perhaps up their income from merchandising etc.
Until then they are paying handsome sums to the likes of Defoe who hasn’t kicked a ball in anger since injury. Morelos isn’t performing in the big games and is a liability in terms of spending a good deal of time suspended or in the huff. His sell on value, as with others, is questionable.
I suspect they may still be on the financial tightrope for a bit longer.
Thinking ahead to next season…
On the face of it: it would seem more than likely, that with the financial constraints severely restricting an Ibrox club title challenge next season,
CFC could be making moves to have a ‘VAR-lite’ system in place for next season.
As we know, other less affluent Euro leagues have a cheaper version of VAR – including Portugal and even Cyprus, [whose FA is planning to introduce VAR from next season].
A significant risk, IMO, to both CFC – and to the integrity of the SPL
– is unacceptably poor refereeing standards.
In the absence of a serious title challenge next season – from Ibrox, or Aberdeen, or Edinburgh – would there be a statistically abnormal abundance of ‘honest officiating mistakes’ and which also generated a statistically abnormal, negative impact to one SPL club in particular?
Everybody has criticisms of VAR, but the bottom line is, it’s here to stay.
So, why wait?
CFC could/should already be lobbying to have VAR from next season – to try to ensure that the 20/21 title is fairly decided on an – arguably – significantly more level playing field.
IMO.
HirsutePursuit 23rd February 2020 at 23:15
‘…BDO are still looking at D&P’s conduct during the administration period.’
%%%%%%%%%%
Thanks for that, HP. I can’t remember now whether I had got round to reading the BDO December 2019 update! If I looked at it at all I must not have noticed the reference to legal action v the Administrators.
It gives some comfort to know that we (or I) are not being ridiculously fanciful in some of our speculations!
I would hope that the FCA would at least signal that they had looked or are looking seriously at their role in authorising the RIFC plc IPO. My assessment may be wildly incorrect and everything might indeed be absolutely all square and the FCA may have acted properly and can show why there was nothing misleading in the IPO.
I would be happy to believe them, if their explanation was better based than BBC Complaints’ response to ‘watcher’ about same club!
(well, when I say ‘happy’….)
StevieBC 24th February 2020 at 10:54
"…Until then they are paying handsome sums to the likes of Defoe who hasn’t kicked a ball in anger since injury…."
****************
I have wondered occasionally , StevieBC, about the nature of footballers' contracts in relation to payment of salary when injured/unfit to play.
Do clubs and/or players cover themselves with Insurance against long-term injury?
Or are salaries based on £x grand a week if you play, £x-y when you don't play because of sickness/injury, and £x-z if you don't play because you're dropped ?
And while I'm on, are players on salary during the close season?
Anyone with first-hand knowledge?
JC
I have wondered if the FCA's reluctance to respond to you in positive terms is related to BDO's current investigation.
Perhaps your points are too close to the heart of the matter and a full and honest response would put that investigation at risk?
As someone said…
"It'll aw come oot in the wash."
HirsutePursuit 24th February 2020 at 12:17
'…I have wondered if the FCA's reluctance to respond to you in positive terms is related to BDO's current investigation.'
**************
Possibly, HP.
But they seem to be as inept at PR as anyone at Ibrox!
They pissed me off by 'losing' my original posted letters, then losing my emailed copies. As a result of that, I sent a copy of everything to a financial journalist at the FT who had just written critically about the FCA's delays in dealing with correspondence !
As it happens, the journalist in question has not (as far as I know) made anything of it. But she might have done, and no public agency wants any kind of damaging press.
The bods in the FCA correspondence unit should be aware that a cardinal rule in dealing with an individual member of the public is not to delay and bugger about, but to acknowledge and get a reply out as soon as possible, so as to minimise the risk of the 'complainer' getting hacked off and going to his MP or the Press or, nowadays, going on to social media to express his anger/frustration/pissed-offness.
I know from personal experience in the public service what a pain in the ar.e it is to get an MP's letter not because someone down the line made a mistake, but because they ignored or tried to bury the mistake when the person affected tried to have the mistake rectified.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/celtics-sky-sports-complaint-thrown-21566443
tony 24th February 2020 at 14:53
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/celtics-sky-sports-complaint-thrown-21566443
=============================
Headline:
Celtic's Sky Sports complaint thrown out as Ofcom make decision over Alfredo Morelos mistranslation
From the article:
"As the section of the interview with the incorrect translation was shown only on Sky’s website and on-demand platforms and not on its broadcast television channel, we have no grounds to pursue this matter under the Broadcasting Code."
————————————————
So "complaint thrown out" is actually OFCOM stating that they have no powers to investigate the matter, as the relevant part of the interview was not broadcast on TV.
Wottpi@09.29
JohnJames(I think) seemed to be suggesting that Stevie Gerrard was brought in with a view to sell season tickets. If the wheels do come off and the manager walks before the end of the season then that might affect sales.
Ex Ludo 24th February 2020 at 15:38
Wottpi@09.29 JohnJames(I think) seemed to be suggesting that Stevie Gerrard was brought in with a view to sell season tickets. If the wheels do come off and the manager walks before the end of the season then that might affect sales.
================
And that's another dilemma TRFC has WRT the eventual replacement of the rookie manager.
Who can they bring in as manager who could give Ibrox a similar uplift, buzz, ST sales, higher media profile, access to EPL loanees, etc. that Gerrard brought ?
A sensible, experienced, 'safe pair of hands' – and much cheaper – managerial option is just not going to cut it.
Makes sense for Gerrard to bide his time and try to win the SC – and then choose to swiftly 'do walking away' from Ibrox as a 'winning' manager…
easyJambo 24th February 2020 at 15:34
‘…So “complaint thrown out” is actually OFCOM stating that they have no powers to investigate the matter,’
That’s the DR for you, eJ.
They couldn’t tell the truth to save their rotten lives!
[ One would have thought that any lawyer could have found out in minutes whether OFCOM’s powers included the kind of complaint in question? Does nobody in football think with their heads, and have courses of action thoroughly thought out?]
John Clark 24th February 2020 at 16:58 easyJambo 24th February 2020 at 15:34 ‘…So “complaint thrown out” is actually OFCOM stating that they have no powers to investigate the matter,’ That’s the DR for you, eJ. They couldn’t tell the truth to save their rotten lives! [ One would have thought that any lawyer could have found out in minutes whether OFCOM’s powers included the kind of complaint in question? Does nobody in football think with their heads, and have courses of action thoroughly thought out?]
________________________
I think it's more of a concern that it would appear that dodgy media types have been handed a platform where they are free to say whatever they like about people and institutions without fear of repercussions from any watchdog.
Fair dos: as if to demonstrate the point I was making at 14.27 today, this appeared in my inbox
"<bbc_complaints_website@contact.bbc.co.uk>
To:[me]
24 Feb at 17:05
We are contacting you to apologise that we’ve not been able to reply to your complaint within the time period we aim for. Although we manage this for most complaints, we regret it’s not been possible so far because we are dealing with a higher than normal volume of cases.
If you wish to refer this delay and the substance of your complaint to the BBC’s regulator Ofcom, you can do so online at https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/how-to-report-a-complaint/bbc-tv-channel-radio-station-bbciplayer or by post to: Ofcom, Riverside House, 2a Southwark Bridge Road, London SE1 9HA. Please include for Ofcom your latest correspondence from and to the BBC and any BBC case reference numbers which you have been given. …."
That kind of (even automated) response works wonders.
I won't mind waiting another week, or two, or perhaps even longer (if they give me an update to let me know that my complaint will be dealt with and not ignored.
Ex Ludo 24th February 2020 at 15:38
7
1
Rate This
Wottpi@09.29
JohnJames(I think) seemed to be suggesting that Stevie Gerrard was brought in with a view to sell season tickets.
……………….
I Believe everyone and their granny knew that.
Hirsute Pursuit
John Clark
Ally Jambo
Easy Jambo
I’ve been following the discussion on the 5 Way Agreement and what it provided and what I’d like a view on is why Celtic have denied involvement?
What is thought to be the final version of the 5 Way is at:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aOnarhY1MTttAydwDALGMJSQeZJDCCTr/view?usp=sharing
(*)
and accompanying side letter version is at:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/129GG_Tn8-YsB2VTNaOF5CrS5FHOpjO6E/view?usp=sharing
To that mix we can now add the e mail from Doncaster to the SPL Board including Eric Riley of Celtic and direct to Peter Lawwell, which was published at
https://sentinelcelts.com/2020/01/25/that-5wa-e-mail-a-silver-bullet-or-a-smoking-gun/
Based on these what have Celtic got to hide?
A supplementary question is had the LNS Commission came up with a different answer resulting in the removal of ebt won titles as a result of all evidence of ebts, side letters and dishonesty been presented, would it really matter if the titles that the 5 Way allowed under the bargaining that the 5 Way involved, were recognised as part of a disreputable part of RFC/TRFC history and/or removed from the history of both?
In short is the problem not so much that the SFA treat TRFC as same club as RFC as that the SFA refuse to revisit the terms of reference of the Commission that the SPL were so keen to set up according to the Doncaster e mail in 2012 and after the Supreme Court deemed the use of ebts unlawful in 2017 as well as also ignoring the evidence of unlawful DOS ebts provided to the SPFL Board including Eric Riley in 2014?
Did the terms of the 5 Way in effect provide a pardon to “Rangers” for the crimes against Scottish football if Sevco paid for it and in accepting the 5 Way Agreement by not questioning it, were Celtic a part of that pardon or did Celtic expect a just outcome from LNS, in which case why did they they via Eric Riley not use the non disclosure of DOS EBT HMRC correspondence in 2014 from SFM to demand LNS be revisited?
(*) HP to note H in the 5 Way Recital is wrong imo.
Sevco were a Registered SFA Member on joining the SFL. They had to apply for Associate SFA membership as any new club would but instead applied for Full SFA Membership under the 5 Way bargaining process thus avoiding the normal application route for a new club which would have made any presentation of them as the same club impossible.
This required SFA to deploy the discretionary powers of Article 14 of SFA rules Prohibiting Transfer of Full SFA Membership. A transfer UEFA FFP did not recognise as conferring legal continuity under Article 12 of UEFA FFP designed to protect the integrity of UEFA competitions that the SFA put at risk domestically in the 5 Way.
UEFA might recognise sporting continuity where the domestic association rules allow it but as mentioned earlier that sporting continuity surely depends on titles etc being won by compliance with sporting rules that LNS deemed were not broken when the world and their wean knows that they were and LNS was misled and subsequently not corrected by Celtic’s representative on the SPL Board in 2014, who was also absent when that Board decided to accept LNS Decision in 2013 in spite of reservations of some members.
easyJambo 24th February 2020 at 15.34
"As the section of the interview with the incorrect translation was shown only on Sky’s website and on-demand platforms and not on its broadcast television channel, we have no grounds to pursue this matter under the Broadcasting Code."
I don't subscribe to Sky on any platform so shouldn't have seen it , but did see the offending interview online and in printed media . Obviously Sky can put all sorts of lies and confections on its website and on demand platforms with impunity , safe in the knowledge that there will be no reckoning should they be published/publicised elsewhere . And if it's not OFCOM's remit , whose is it ?
paddy malarkey 24th February 2020 at 20:40
'…safe in the knowledge that there will be no reckoning should they be published/publicised elsewhere . And if it's not OFCOM's remit , whose is it ?'
%%%%%%%%%%%
I reckon the ordinary laws of the land relating to (in Scotland) defamation, and in England ,libel and slander can be resorted to personally by the victim.
Celtic and Morelos both could probably sue Sky Sport website and win handsomely!
Auldheid 24th February 2020 at 20:27
"….what I’d like a view on is why Celtic have denied involvement?.."
%%%%%%%%%%%
I can only speculate that they didn't want to be seen to have supported such a lying fix even though they were as anxious as the rest (Turnbull Hutton excepted) that such a fix should be made to safeguard their own future revenues longer term.
I believe Celtic allowed themselves to be swept up in, perhaps even helped generate ,the panic occasioned by the prospect of a 'Rangersless' football , and put monies before principle, and know that they behaved shamefully and cannot square up to the truth and come clean.
They have blotted their consciences every bit as much as any of the principals in the disgraceful saga .
In the same way, they have not come clean about the Res 12 UEFA licence matter but indulged in all kinds of buggering about with specious 'reasons' and half-promises, spinning out the years in the hope that the Requisitioners would disappear.
Whatever the manifold faults of earlier generations of Celtic directors and major shareholders, deception and abandonment of principle in a fundamental matter was not one.
As at time of posting, not a peep about the RIFC Interims on the 'Rangers FC' website.
If they're not released this week, then will we see them at all?
And if they don't appear at all, then is there any sanction applicable? It's not as though RIFC could be delisted…
And a Cold Shouldered Chairman probably wouldn't give a monkey's about the obligations of communicating with fellow shareholders.
Auldheid 24th February 2020 at 20:27
"Did the terms of the 5 Way in effect provide a pardon to “Rangers” for the crimes against Scottish football if Sevco paid for it and in accepting the 5 Way Agreement by not questioning it, were Celtic a part of that pardon or did Celtic expect a just outcome from LNS…"
%%%%%%%%%%
This for me is the crux of the matter. A detailed OC/NC knowledge may illustrate to the sporting authorities that they haven't got away with it and better not try the same trick again but the average punter will struggle to grasp the nuance. The big picture is drawn with a crayon and not a stylus.
Title stripping would have sent a clear message but perhaps it risked opening up a spectrum of unknowns that may have proven difficult to marshal.
That title stripping could not be countenanced in certain quarters is unfortunate since surely this is only a game and should not be subject to intransigent boundaries; for that would make it politics or warfare.
Such intransigence tells of a deep underlying social psychology that I suspect all of us are blind to.
The 'take home' is that if you infringe the rules to the point that you overwhelm the available sanctions then you get no sanction at all, bar a disproportionately pitiful £250,000 fine. This is not a very good look.
StevieBC 24th February 2020 at 23:21
''….And if they don't appear at all, then is there any sanction applicable?'
%%%%%%%
I don't know about 'interim' accounts, but there's a piddling £7500 penalty for a plc that's 6 months late with its accounts reporting
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/life-of-a-company-annual-requirements/life-of-a-company-part-1-accounts#deadlines-for-filing-accounts
I am maybe a child of my generation, but the kid glove treatment of those in the world of business tends to get up my wick.
When one thinks of the likes of SDM, and that other cheat who was at least deprived of his 'knighthood'( the guys he upset must have lost a good few bob !) and the likes of CW and CG …….
cocking a snook at the rest of us with impunity, and laughing at the ease with which they can make money.
[Not to mention the parasite Lords (God Almighty, that we should still have such a concept!) who get their allowance for turning up for two minutes to sign the register and then bugger off): don't get me started!]
Auldheid,
I think the answer is at the end of the first paragraph of the email Peter Lawell claims he didn’t read.
On the same day as Rangers’ SPL share was transferred to Dundee – and everything fell into place to make the 5WA ‘work’ – ESPN announced a 5 year TV deal. Sky had made it’s announcement just 2 days earlier.
I believe the combined value was around £16m per year. From memory, I think the SFL received £1m from the SPL to allow a certain number of ‘Rangers’ games to be broadcast.
It seems that keeping Rangers ‘alive’ was the key to getting those TV deals over the line.
The 5WA is a legal contract, whereby the parties have agreed, amongst other things, that Rangers FC is a separate entity from The Rangers Football Club PLC.
The problem is that I cannot see how the signatories to the 5WA would have the legal authority to create this new construct – absent the appropriate AGM/EGMs and members passing suitable resolutions. It seems to me that the SPL’s contract with the TV companies is likely to have been built on this significant falsehood.
Weeks earlier, I think it was Lord Glennie who ruled that the SFA acted beyond its powers when seeking to impose a transfer ban.
What the 5WA appears to have done is commit the signatories to treat Sevco in a manner that was at odds with the Articles, Rules and Constitutions of the SFA, SPL and SFL.
I think this is what Turnbull Hutton described as ‘corrupt’.
It seems beyond credence, that the office bearers would not understand that they were acting beyond their powers. They would know – because it had just happened – that a properly constructed legal challenge would set aside such actions as void. The illusion that Rangers FC is separate from The Rangers Football Club PLC would simply fall away.
If I am correct and the office bearers did knowingly
act beyond their powers, the 5WA could constitute a serious fraud.
The TV money may have been the original motive; but the ongoing consequences are potentially even greater.
Would the RIFC IPO have performed differently if the investors had realised that Sevco was a new club? Would the current investors have a claim? What about those who have bought season tickets?
We are all looking at documents that may or may not be genuine. So we don’t know with any degree of certainty whether or not a crime has been committed.
Someone who has seen the actual documents – and has been on the boards of two of the bodies involved – would find it difficult to claim ignorance.
I can’t help thinking of Peter Lawell in the voice of Sgt Schultz…
“I know nothing…”
https://twitter.com/tedermeatballs/status/1232217505718001664?s=21
Don’t know what all the fuss was about, this article explains everything.
Not only has there been no movement on the Interim accts being released there seems to be no discussion on the share issue that was announced at Novembers AGM. King stated that the share issue would ensure the club* would be on a firm footing and he could then step down , he anticipated it would take around 4 months . The massive investment promised in January by Alex Rae hasn't happened , yet nobody questions why , the share issue is another mute point , nobody in the media asks if or when it is happening. I believe tomorrow is D-Day for them , the Europa is the only viable honey pot left . The extra gate money, tv and advertising , prize money and the chance to showcase some future sales is all the hope they have left to stay afloat . Failure in Portugal leaves them with difficult decisions to make and should that be the scuttling of SS Sevco then the interims will never see the light of day. If the lack of funds makes administration inevitable then the only choice is when , to attempt to kick the can to next season would be foolish when a point reduction can be taken now during a season their fans have already conceded.
Timtim 25th February 2020 at 10:05
‘….a point reduction can be taken now during a season their fans have already conceded.’
%%%%%%%%%
I’m very glad I’m not a creditor of the TRFC. I’d be spitting blood thinking about those guys deciding the best time for them to go into Administration, and to hell with their creditors and employees.
[I also have to say that I don’t think I know how to work out what the points deduction would be/]
Today the Scottish Chief Medical Officer has suggested the possibility of football matches being played behind closed doors in the event of a Coronavirus outbreak in Scotland. I wonder how many Scottish Clubs have the financial reserves/backing to cope with the possible loss of income?