A Question of Trust (Updated)

ByTrisidium

A Question of Trust (Updated)

by Auldheid for the Scottish Football Monitor

On these pages at least there is a mounting lack of trust that the Scottish Football Association can or will govern our game in a fair and honest manner that recognises the principle of sporting integrity as paramount.

This mistrust is equalled only by the frustration at being unable to do anything to change the attitude and action of those at the SFA (and Leagues) responsible for that governance, a frustration compounded by the reluctance of the mainstream media to focus on the very issues of trust and integrity that concern us.

Back in early 2010 Celtic supporters represented by the Celtic Trust, various Association groups and individuals felt the same frustration and found a way to make their voices heard at the SFA – by using their club as a channel of communication to articulate their concerns.

A resolution was agreed and passed to Celtic to convey to the SFA and it was heeded by the club. There is no reason in why a similar conduit cannot be used by supporters groups of all clubs.

The enormity of the task, to get the majority of trusts and associations of all clubs to support this approach and give it sufficient weight, should not be underestimated, but in the interests of amplifying our voice, it is worth the effort.

Based on that 2010 experience, and on the discussion that has taken place on TSFM we have arrived at a (now amended) resolution below under the auspices of TSFM and which has been sent to all representative club supporters groups.

We believe one of the reasons the SFA and SPL were able to mislead (or simply fail to provide leadership) was because of the lack of clarity surrounding who should take provide that leadership and what principles should have been paramount.

The SFA were as tied to the commercial impact of Rangers demise as the SPL and indeed had to be reminded by the supporters of the importance of that sporting integrity. In the aftermath of the Rangers implosion, both the SFA and Leagues on the face of it appear still too commercially oriented to act in a way that balances commercialism and sporting principles.

We have attempted to address this in the resolution below. It also contains additional points raised already on TSFM and elsewhere. It is designed to assist in the widening of accountability in the sport.

We are not wed to the draft or the language. It is there to be revised but we hope it contains enough food for thought to be acceptable to the supporters groups and the clubs.

As recently as today, the SFA has published a Fans Charter. We welcome this development, and although it does not address our specific concerns with respect to governance it is a step in the right direction (http://www.fanscharter.com/).

Some of the principles published are;

  • Challenge is to make a National Fans Charter known, accepted and influential
  • Getting fan involvement in drafting charter important to acceptance,  influence and growing awareness.

We think our resolution is an even bigger step in the direction of those principles.


DRAFT Proposal for Representative Supporter Groups e.g. Trusts or Associations to send to their club to convey to the SFA/SPL/SFL Boards.

We [Insert Association/Trust name here] and in association with fans’ groups of other clubs, ask [Insert Club name here] to convey the following to the Scottish Football Association, SPL and SFL on our behalf.

1         We believe that the commercial viability of Scottish football at the professional level depends absolutely on the belief by supporters that sporting integrity is at the heart of all competition, and that those governing them and the rules by which they exercise governance, must hold sporting integrity as paramount above ALL other concerns. This belief can be summed up in the one word “trust” Without trust in those responsible for governing Scottish Football, commercial viability will suffer, to eventual ruin of our game.

2         There is a perception (accompanied by some dismay and anger) among football supporters throughout Scotland that those who were charged with upholding the rules of the SFA and SPL/SFL, only did so partially – and even then only because of the threat of supporter action if they did not.
3         There appears to be no distinction or order of hierarchy between those governing the game (the SFA) for whom we believe preservation of sporting integrity should be the prime purpose, and the leagues (SPL/SFL) for whom commercial aspects are (understandably) uppermost. As a result sporting integrity lost its primacy and it was left to supporters to insist on it.

4         Consequently many Scottish football supporters have lost confidence that the Scottish Football Association will fulfil their purpose of safeguarding the sport. Indeed their silence following the revelation of a 5 way agreement last summer on the future of the liquidated Glasgow Rangers has exacerbated this loss of confidence in the SFA’s ability to administer professional football in Scotland in a manner that reflects their duty of care to all aspects of the game and everyone who takes part in it.

5         Decisions and deals have been taken by the SFA, SPL, and SFL without any public scrutiny. The operations and decisions of those bodies lack transparency and they are not accountable in any recognisable form to the football supporters throughout the land, without whom there is no professional association.


6         In our view this loss of trust can only begin to be restored by the SFA publically committing  itself to:

(i)                  The production of an unequivocal “mission” statement of purpose/intent which will state (in whatever form they may exist) that maintaining sporting integrity is and will always be their prime goal. The statement will also describe how they intend to ensure this principle is followed in their interactions with Leagues and Clubs, particularly when commercial decisions that might undermine sporting integrity are implemented by the Leagues. (e.g. In the case of TV contracts, sponsorship or any significant league reconstruction).

(ii)                Further: in recognition of the inability of some individuals to provide leadership during the past year simply because of conflicts of interest, take steps to remove any such conflict, and in doing so enable the organisation and its office bearers to function unhindered.

(iii)               In the interests of transparency, publish the “five point agreement” that allowed The Rangers entry into SFL and SFA, provide a supporting rationale for entering into the agreement, and confirm that the terms have been or are being complied with.

Along with other trust restoring measures (see attached Annex) these steps should mark the end of the continuing lack of trust in the authorities.

7.         We appreciate that it may be the start of next season before there is any visible evidence of our concerns being addressed although the statement of purpose/intent by the SFA (i) and action at (ii) can be readily put in place – would be a welcome early development.

8.         All club’s supporters groups will be watching closely for signs of progress before advising our members and our other supporters if we feel the necessary trust restoring steps are being taken and advise that they can purchase their season books for 2013/14 knowing that sporting integrity is once more absolutely paramount in Scottish football to the betterment of our game.

Signed __________________________ on behalf of

[Insert supporter trust/association name here]

Date ______________

Annex to resolution.

The following is a list of other measures that the SFA should take in order to satisfy supporters that they should be entrusted with the job of governing Scottish football.

  1. To increase transparency and accountability in a meaningful way – possibly via creation of an active supporter’s liaison group drawn from representative supporter groups of each club. Its remit, using an agreed consultative mechanism to generate dialogue, to hear supporters’ concerns and consider them before key decisions are made. In an industry that is totally interdependent it is folly to exclude a major stakeholder from key decision making.
  2. A tightening of and an annual and independent audit of the process for granting UEFA Club (FFP) and National Club licensing reporting to the representative supporter liaison group as well as other SFA members to ensure all clubs are living within their means.
  3. Introduction of a rule requiring all Scottish football club directors to declare any financial interest/shareholding in any club other than their own and to rule that disposition of those shares/interest should be a part of a fit and proper assessment of a person’s qualification to hold office at an association club.
  4. A feasibility review of Scottish refereeing to assess the potential for creating a professional service that the SFA provide to the leagues by recruiting and training referees, but where the leagues monitor and reward consistently good performances to an agreed standard. Given the sums dependent on referee decisions, the current system must change for everyone’s sake including the referees.
  5. A full explanation about the circumstances (including dates) surrounding the award of a UEFA Club licence to Rangers in spring/summer of 2011 when there was unpaid social tax that prime facie did not meet the conditions for deeming the granting of a licence acceptable under the UEFA FFP rules on unpaid tax (the wee tax bill).

The [Insert Club Name here] Trust/Supporters Association asks [Insert Club Name here] to convey our concerns above with their provenance to the appropriate authorities as they see fit viz:

    • Football Authority in Scotland (The SFA)
    • Europe (UEFA)
    • Scottish Government (on the issue of accountability to supporters and       proper checks and balance governance.)

About the author

Trisidium administrator

Trisidium is a Dunblane businessman with a keen interest in Scottish Football. He is a Celtic fan, although the demands of modern-day parenting have seen him less at games and more as a taxi service for his kids.

1,893 Comments so far

Humble PiePosted on6:03 pm - Jan 19, 2013


[Big Pink]…what have you done with TSFM ?

[Nuffin guv!]

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on6:27 pm - Jan 19, 2013


Auldheid has revised his original draft in consultation with us and with some external advisors. We have now sent the post above to all of the supporters groups in the country we have access to.

We await replies and hopefully we will see some action on the ground soon.

We’d like to thank Auldheid for his work on these documents and for the inspiration that gave rise to the action he took.

View Comment

paulsatimPosted on7:43 pm - Jan 19, 2013


Chick Young on shortbread this afternoon

Heard him on shortbread. He cant understand appointment of Mark McGhee as assistant manager, says its old pals act (irony alert). After all, he says, the cardigan appointed Tommy Burns to keep the other side happy!! Says WGS hasnt thought this through properly.

Where do you start with that???

View Comment

Des Dougan (@ddougan)Posted on7:48 pm - Jan 19, 2013


Auldheid,

A few typos notwithstanding, from this distance (western Canada), this is a very solid and clearly-presented piece of work. Thank you for your efforts in putting it together.

Good luck in bringing supporters’ associations onside with it – I think that could be a significant challenge.

View Comment

SeniorPosted on8:16 pm - Jan 19, 2013


Missing ye already!
__________________

TSFM, HP, Nawlite, jonnyod, raycharlez and other valuable posters who may have departed.
Let me throw my tuppence halfpenny into the mix.

From reading your posts here over the past months there are a couple of things that clearly emerge. A love of the beautiful game, the maintaining of standards and values, whatever the cost, the benefit of many years at the coalface of life are attributes that shine through. This blog is all the richer for those principles that are espoused by the aforementioned gentlemen on this site. What a sad day for Scottish football if, for whatever reason, we throw the baby out with the bath-water, and walk away.
You have much more in common than you realise, but perhaps have a different way of expressing those opinions.
I think that Monday last was considered the bleakest day of the year psychologically, and hence this week must be considered the meanest week of the year. That, coupled with the fact that there is very little happening at the moment on the football stage tends to make people edgy and irritable. I think this might be having an effect on us all, (apologise to ‘theglen’ in this regard) and might cause us to take offence when normally we would not bat an eyelid!
I ask you gentlemen to have a wee glass and to reconsider what are the real dangers to the game in Scotland. It is not TSFM, who, after-all is probably doing his nut in trying to keep up with this very active site/blog, and, if I might say so, doing a damn fine job to boot.
To finish let me repeat the President of the USA’s inspirational words “We Can, Yes We Can.
So come on lads, swallow your pride, get back in the ring, you still have a very important job to do.

View Comment

Humble PiePosted on8:24 pm - Jan 19, 2013


Hear hear Senior.

View Comment

SeniorPosted on8:26 pm - Jan 19, 2013


BTW
Auldheid and Big Pink, well done in progressing the case to the extent that a lot of supporters sites and clubs are in possession of the above missive charting the way forward for the Scottish game.
To the rest of us, let us play our part in this project and get the message to every unit and fan of the game. This is the first time you have been asked to be proactive, so get up off your ass and play your part. Send it to everybody you know that follow the game and even to those that don’t.

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on9:01 pm - Jan 19, 2013


Thanks for the support guys. For the record, apart from one very abusive and grammatically challenged poster, nobody is banned. There are a few people whose comments will be moderated until things cool down a bit, but we are determined to keep on topic.

I think the last three blogs, including Auldheid’s original Question of Trust have been completely ignored (embarrassingly for me since I solicited all of them) whilst people bang a drum that we’re (nearly) all marching in step to anyway. Trying to get people to give up their time to have us consider something different that they have to say will get more difficult if the thread stays focused on something that doesn’t need a blog at all.

Auldheid’s new stuff is far more pressing – and wide ranging in its scope. I hope we can concentrate at least to some extent on that.

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on9:04 pm - Jan 19, 2013


Flocculent Apoidea says:

Saturday, January 19, 2013 at 20:38(Edit)
_____________________________________________

Fair point FA and one I hadn’t considered! As Auldheid said in his outline though, we don’t need to be wedded to the wording, and I think your suggestion would be part of any fine tune.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on10:45 pm - Jan 19, 2013


Flocculent A

The thinking behind the call for the customer -The Leagues to monitor the performance of referees is that the cost to them of referee errors can be significant and so, as is the practice in lots of industry where a service is provided, the customer of the service, not the supplier decides if it is good enough.
Remember that whilst sporting integrity is paramount there are commercial tensions at play so we are not going to get absolute purity.
What we can get is a refereeing service that is itself accountable to a greater degree than present but in return they get professional training and pay. They also get freed of accusations of favouring one club if there pay is dependent on administrating sporting integrity for everyone on a consistent basis.
The draft was long enough and in shortening it the wrong impression may have been conveyed.
When Im back on line proper I’ll link to an article that makes the case not for referee monitoring but referee improvement that benefits everyone including refs themselves by changing the environment that leaves them open to accusations of working for just one side( whatever side anyone thinks that might be)

View Comment

troyblainPosted on11:06 pm - Jan 19, 2013


good luck auldheid

View Comment

thornlyboyPosted on12:20 am - Jan 20, 2013


testing…

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on1:06 am - Jan 20, 2013


Thank you Auldheid for voluntarily doing this: hopefully it will facilitate a unified approach on behalf of the paying customers across Scotland – and the authorities will be unable to ignore.

3 points jump out;

1) Mission Statement.
‘Absolutely’ agree that this is a fundamental SFA requirement – and it should clarify and reinforce the role of the SFA to protect sporting competition above commercial pressures.

2) The SFA Fans Charter.
In a word, ‘boll*x’.
Too little, too late for the SFA to try and pretend they are interested in the customers.

3) UEFA Club licence issued to RFC for 2011/12 season – in error?
Bravo Auldheid for not letting this go! You are like a dog with a bone! 😉
You have been banging on about this alleged, serious error by the SFA for well over a year now – and I presume you have not received any SFA response either?
To restore trust the SFA must address these outstanding issues, first and foremost.

I am genuinely embarrassed for the shambles of the organisation called the SFA.

Hopefully they will finally grasp that this could be their final chance to really engage the fans – and to avoid the ‘Armageddon waiting in the wings’ if Ogilvie, Regan et al continue to mismanage Scottish football.

Fingers crossed for your initiative Auldheid.

View Comment

barcabhoyPosted on2:08 am - Jan 20, 2013


I have posted on here more than once about Rangers being the same club or not the same club. As a matter of record, I couldn’t care less whether they are the same club or not. As a matter of record I have stated many times that I see it as a matter for the Rangers support.

What , however , does get under my skin a little is where Rangers supporters use falsehoods to justify their argument.

Any Rangers supporter who says to me, look 40,000 + are turning up at Ibrox to watch a team play in Rangers Blue , managed by the same incompetent who managed a team play in Rangers Blue in August 2011 , and claims on that basis that its their club and they view it as the same, will find no argument from me.

However try telling me that its the same club because Rangers appear in the UEFA rankings list , and you are beginning to insult my sense of being able to sniff out BS. When Rangers fans ignore the fact that RFC are only an associate member of the SFL, and maybe the SFA for all I know, then they really are expecting the rest of use to be fully paid up members of DENSA

Rangers , if it was the same club should be full members of the SFL and the SFA. Anything else would be ridiculous. The fact that they are only associate members, just as any other new club would be, tells you all you need to know .

However, back to the UEFA rankings , which were put forward by one particularly irate Rangers fans on Radio Clyde as PROOF that everyone else was wrong and it was the same club.

Let me take this opportunity to shred his argument and to suggest he reserves his ire for matters where he might have a chance of being correct.

Rebuttal One

Gretna FC

Ceased to exist in all forms in August 2008. The company was liquidated and the club ceased to play football……..yet

The official UEFA rankings for season 2010/11 show the following :

06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 Pts
213 Gretna FC SCO 1.350 2.050 0.375 0.533 0.720 5.028

http://www.uefa.com/memberassociations/uefarankings/club/season=2011/index.html

Couldn’t be clearer . Gretna have been awarded the Scottish country co-efficient points for the 2 seasons following their demise. It’s a quirk of UEFA’s ranking system. Dead clubs continue to earn points for a few seasons after they cease to be, which takes us to…….

Rebuttal Two

Unirea Urziceni, previously only famous for proving that Walter Smith really doesn’t deserve to be mentioned in the same bracket as top class Scottish Managers like Stein, Ferguson and McLean, or for that matter Strachan and Moyes.

08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12. 12/13. Pts
105 FC Unirea Urziceni ROU 1.528 11.216 2.133 0.866. 1.200 16.944

Unirea were dissolved as a company and ceased to exist as a club in the summer of 2011, having been relegated, the owner decided to call it a day. That didn’t stop the Uefa ranking system awarding them points in the following 2 season.

The reason……..you don’t have to be a live club to earn UEFA ranking points, you just need to have played in Europe in any of the 5 seasons before the club ceases to exist

So, do I want a Rangers in Scottish football……..yes

Would I prefer it to be the one who my club have a historic rivalry with…….yes

So if 40,000 go to Ibrox to support a Rangers, that’s good enough for me to class them as our historic rival………just don’t try and sell us a snake oil justification …….leave that to Green, it’s his “talent” , its why you pay him, even if its only Rangers fans who believe a single word that comes out of his mouth

And when Nimmo Smith reports, and IF he finds there is a serious breach and hands down the penalty I and many others believe is justified, then remember its still the same Rangers .

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on9:36 am - Jan 20, 2013


A Question of Trust (Updated)

SATURDAY, JANUARY 19, 2013 BY TSFM 738 COMMENTS
by Auldheid for the Scottish Football Monitor
On these pages at least there is a mounting lack of trust that the Scottish Football Association can or will govern our game in a fair and honest manner that recognises the principle of sporting integrity as paramount ….
——–

Bravo Auldheid. A few remaining typos, but otherwise good stuff that confronts the key issues head on. Hope this gets support.

PS I believe I heard SC say yesterday how tired he was of people on blogs taking the huff and storming off. I wonder what blog he’s been reading that upset him so?

View Comment

briggsbhoyPosted on11:05 am - Jan 20, 2013


a wage to slip to die for, how the other half live. Obscene really.

http://cdn.caughtoffside.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Tevez-payslip.jpg

View Comment

tomtomPosted on11:12 am - Jan 20, 2013


briggsbhoy says:

Sunday, January 20, 2013 at 11:05

a wage to slip to die for, how the other half live. Obscene really.

http://cdn.caughtoffside.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Tevez-payslip.jpg

====================================

FA fine £24 😀

View Comment

readceltPosted on12:50 pm - Jan 20, 2013


This may be tenuous but is anyone else seeing echoes in Lance Armstrong’s plea that he has effectively been punished enough and should have his lifetime ban lifted?

Systematically doping year, after year, after year. Bullying, threatening, intimidating anyone who dared to try and tell the truth. Using the press, the courts and a compliant media to push his story and shape the narrative, along with a governing body that was at best incompetent and at worst complicit in the cover up.

Last year, for the first time in a long time there was a clean winner (fingers crossed). Bradley Wiggins was able to win an event dogged by drug abuse.
It has taken a long time to get there.
I remember years ago when the stories of systematic doping broke in the Festina affair.
In 1998 (yes, 15 years ago) riders staged a sit down protest in reaction to the treatment brought about by police raids on team hotel rooms in the fall out from the Festina affair.

Looking back, this incident demonstrates how warped and corrupted the whole competition and the riders perceptions had become.
This was not a bunch of clean riders taking a stance against doping.
This was dirty riders complaining about having their routines disrupted by outsiders shining a light into the dark murky depths of what it was riding on the Tour.

Thinking about Armstrong’s story reminds me of a quote from Sean Connery’s character (Jimmy Malone) in the Untouchables. Malone takes Ness to a post office across from the police station. Ness can’t believe booze is in there. Malone says, “Mr. Ness, everybody knows where the booze is. The problem isn’t finding it, the problem is who wants to cross Capone.”

‘Truth’ can be subjective. It may take a long time but inevitably the truth will out and enough people decide to ‘cross Capone’.

View Comment

troyblainPosted on1:29 pm - Jan 20, 2013


This mistrust is equalled only by the frustration at being unable to do anything to change the attitude and action of those at the SFA (and Leagues) responsible for that governance, a frustration compounded by the reluctance of the mainstream media to focus on the very issues of trust and integrity that concern us.

————————————————

At some point you will have to document your reasons for mistrusting the SFA. What do people mistrust about the SFA ? I am confused as to what this blog mistrusts.

View Comment

Robert CoylePosted on2:11 pm - Jan 20, 2013


Think this may have been sneaked out by the S.F.L.

Have the S.P.L laid down the law?

SFL STATEMENT ON LEAGUE RECONSTRUCTION
« backall articles »
Thursday 17th January 2013

The SFL Board wish to inform member clubs and fans of our current position on the issue of League reconstruction.

We have agreed to examine the details behind the proposals which we now have and which are being circulated to clubs today. SFL clubs will meet later this month to discuss and share their views on how these proposals could improve the game. We will also discuss if and when these proposals could realistically be delivered.

We will do this in the spirit of working together for the good of the whole game and within the context of acknowledging the recently advised unanimous position of SPL clubs.

No votes will be cast at this meeting as this will be the first opportunity for all clubs to debate the details which are being circulated today. No agreement has been reached with any other body or external party.

The Scottish Football League’s position has consistently been clear, we have been advocates of change and we have supported the possibility of a larger top league but we recognise that this is unlikely to be deliverable in the current financial climate.

We do, however, support the fundamental principles which are crucial to the short and long-term future of the game we are so proud of.

David A. Longmuir
Chief Executive, SFL
17th January, 2013

http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/news/article/sfl-statement-on-league-reconstruction/

View Comment

paradisebhoyPosted on2:34 pm - Jan 20, 2013


briggsbhoy says:
Sunday, January 20, 2013 at 11:05
5 0 i
Rate This

a wage to slip to die for, how the other half live. Obscene really.

I don’t think we should be showing anyone’s National Insurance number on here . Ever heard of Identity Fraud ?

View Comment

billyj1Posted on3:49 pm - Jan 20, 2013


Is there any reason why I have suddenly received 72 messages in my in box with copies of posts lodged weeks ago

[Admin SNAFU wj – apologies – BP]

View Comment

SmugasPosted on3:51 pm - Jan 20, 2013


In Lance’s defence he has at no point claimed that he should be welcomed, nay applauded back to the starting line else Bradley Wiggins will have the Tour de France won by the edge of Paris!

Although equally it must be said at no point does he make any reference to any of the guys that came second, only that he didn’t deserve to come first – the first bit of which has distinct similarities right enough.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on3:56 pm - Jan 20, 2013


wjohnston1 says:
Sunday, January 20, 2013 at 15:49
0 1 Rate This
Is there any reason why I have suddenly received 72 messages in my in box with copies of posts lodged weeks ago
====
There is a link at the top of the page- “contact tsfm”. I think that is the correct place for your enquiry.

View Comment

briggsbhoyPosted on5:03 pm - Jan 20, 2013


I am no fan of conspiracy theories at the best of times and having refereed a game or two and stood almost every Saturday and Sunday morning listening to the utter nonsense that comes from the experts stood on the sidelines referees have my sympathies. I recall once getting so much abuse from a lady on the sidelines I asked if she would prefer to referee the game, I gave her my whistle and “said on you go dear and lets see how good you are”. She declined the offer and I never got a pip out her afterwards. They say the hand is quicker than the eye and that is often what happens and part of the problem is that most of the players on the park cheat, how often do they claim for shy’s or foul when they know fine well they touched the ball last or committed the foul. Claim for offside when they know they played the player on, shout for that corner when they know they touched the ball last. It goes on in every level of football and the addition of cameras still cause debate amongst TV panels. I’d like us to accept it as it is, flawed at the best of times and I certainly do not want it as a subject of debate on here.

View Comment

BrendaPosted on5:22 pm - Jan 20, 2013


Lol 🙂

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on5:24 pm - Jan 20, 2013


Please folks. We’ve had this discussion time and time again. No refereeing stuff. It is subjective, unverifiable and the stuff of fan sites.
Anyone has a problem with that, please mail us privately.

View Comment

bad capt madmanPosted on5:28 pm - Jan 20, 2013


Removed – OT

View Comment

ShooperbPosted on5:39 pm - Jan 20, 2013


Big Pink says:

Sunday, January 20, 2013 at 17:24

I understand the point you’re making, but can you blame people? It’s the topic of the day, it’s at the forefront of people’s minds, and no matter how much we try to keep on track, it will always sneak in in some form.

{It is not the topic of the day here. If it sneaks in it will be removed]

View Comment

Robert CoylePosted on5:45 pm - Jan 20, 2013


Anyone know what the result of this was as there is nothing on the sfa website?

Kilmarnock’s Kenny Shiels asked to explain Andrew Dallas remarks

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20773442

Notice of Complaint issued to Kenny Shiels
Tuesday, 18 December 2012

Principal Hearing Date: Thursday 10th January 2013

Mr Shiels has until Thursday 27th December to respond to the Notice of Complaint.

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=2566&newsCategoryID=1&newsID=11131

View Comment

BayviewGoldPosted on6:27 pm - Jan 20, 2013


A great update from Auldheid and a few good comments – esp from Senior. I want to add my tuppence worth into the great off topic debate, I don’t post very often but follow consistently. I too have noticed the tendency at times for the blog to veer off and fiddle while rome burns so to speak. It is disheartening while there is so much common ground, for us to resort to bickering over points which are somewhat arbitrary in the grand scheme of things. So I understand TSFM in their efforts to keep on topic. The manner did seem a bit heavy handed but I suppose they are frustrated in the constant tangents. I see the oldco/newco discussion as a deflection of the real issue – and that is the one of a flawed leadership and organisational structure of Scottish Football. Reconstruction of our governing bodies is what is critical – not the leagues. Focussing on Auldheids call to arms is what we should be doing and exerting communal pressure on the powers to be. To do this we need to avoid being painted as “anti rangers” – and to do this we may need to be a little less confrontational to the RFC posters on here than some would like. Some of which at face value seem reasonable. I for one do not want to see any football club die, but I understand the baggage that ALL carry at time with respect to bad behaviour and less than savoury past incidents. I am not implying here that all clubs are equal in this respect but we need to move beyond that and I am sure that all can agree that the governship of Scottish football in the last twelve months has been nothing less than farcical for all concerned. I hope all the posters who have left can come back – I enjoyed their valued contribution.

View Comment

BayviewGoldPosted on6:36 pm - Jan 20, 2013


Auldheid wrote “(iii) In the interests of transparency, publish the “five point agreement” that allowed The Rangers entry into SFL and SFA, provide a supporting rationale for entering into the agreement, and confirm that the terms have been or are being complied with.”

In the fear of getting a few TDs 🙂 I would suggest that the proposed document reword this clause. As written I believe it is to specific and can give the impression (wrongly I understand but true nonetheless) that this is purely a “rangers” problem. I think it can be made to be just as valuable but written in a generic manner without being anti one club.

For example:

“(iii) In the interests of transparency, publish all joint organisational agreements with member clubs, and that all special considerations for any single club be made public and provide a supporting rationale for entering into the agreement, and confirm that the terms have been or are being complied with.”

something like this would still result in the exposure of any 5 way agreement without it being a sole focus.

View Comment

paulsatimPosted on6:46 pm - Jan 20, 2013


Big Pink says:
Sunday, January 20, 2013 at 17:24
1 9 Rate This
Please folks. We’ve had this discussion time and time again. No refereeing stuff. It is subjective, unverifiable and the stuff of fan sites.
Anyone has a problem with that, please mail us privately.
=======================================================

Agree we have done the ref stuff to death, but surely this isnt the same thing. We are not talking about refs favouring sevco, but about SFA ensuring grade 1 refs for the sevco games.

Do we know if the grade 1s also ref non sevco games? If not, why not, [OT edit]

View Comment

coineanachantaighePosted on6:57 pm - Jan 20, 2013


bayviewgold says:
Sunday, January 20, 2013 at 18:36
=====================================

Seems reasonable to me: and if anyone was to say, anyway, “it’s obvious that clause is aimed specifically at Rangers even if you don’t mention their name”, the reply is, “you mean there’s only one club in the history of Scottish football that’s been given special consideration?”

View Comment

BayviewGoldPosted on6:58 pm - Jan 20, 2013


monsieurbunny said :”you mean there’s only one club in the history of Scottish football that’s been given special consideration?”

exactly 🙂

View Comment

angus1983Posted on7:36 pm - Jan 20, 2013


Bit confused as to what’s going on.

Blog seems very quiet, not sure whether to keep this chapter entirely on topic or not.

[OT edit]

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on8:03 pm - Jan 20, 2013


paulsatim says:

Sunday, January 20, 2013 at 18:46(Edit)

Do we know if the grade 1s also ref non sevco games?__________________________________________________________

Yes they do use grade 1 refs in other games.

View Comment

paulsatimPosted on8:04 pm - Jan 20, 2013


[Removed]

View Comment

paulsatimPosted on8:05 pm - Jan 20, 2013


Big Pink says:
Sunday, January 20, 2013 at 20:03

thanks BP

View Comment

borussiabeefburgPosted on8:18 pm - Jan 20, 2013


Re the referee discussion above, I’ve mentioned previously that the SFA appoint more experienced referees for matches on live telly, and also appoint a fourth official for them.

Matches which aren’t live televised involving NuRangers also have experienced officials, the explanation I’ve been given being that the SFA feel that these games require such guys, given the high profile accorded to the fixtures.

All matches in the SFL have Grade 1 officials appointed: I reckon posters are confusing terminology, and really mean “experienced” rather than Grade 1.

View Comment

liveinhopPosted on8:40 pm - Jan 20, 2013


i heard today rangers have sacked G4s and hired a new security firm “Garrison” security, this company is based in Sheffield, i bet you cant guess who owns them

looks like the saviour Chuck is syphoning even more money out of Sevco!

View Comment

goosyPosted on9:37 pm - Jan 20, 2013


liveinhop says:
Sunday, January 20, 2013 at 20:40

i heard today rangers have sacked G4s and hired a new security firm “Garrison” security, this company is based in Sheffield, i bet you cant guess who owns them

looks like the saviour Chuck is syphoning even more money out of Sevco!
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Big Pink
Is the above an example of the sort of topic that is no longer appropriate for the TSFM blog?

[ 😉 BP]

View Comment

liveinhopPosted on9:44 pm - Jan 20, 2013


if it is sorry

[TSFM – I suspect the question was facetious :-). Perfectly fine by us]

View Comment

ianagainPosted on9:45 pm - Jan 20, 2013


Goosy.

Good spot. Keep the profits in house. What what. Just the jinkies Look forward to meeting the new stewards.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on9:55 pm - Jan 20, 2013


I am not clear as to the meaning of para 3 of the annex, in particular the word “disposition”. Is it intended to convey that club directors must dispose of any shareholdings or other interests in any other clubs, in order to pass a “fit and proper” test? If so, why not just say that the rules should be changed to ensure that anyone having a financial interest in an SFA member club cannot be a director of any other SFA member club? Just seems simpler to me.

View Comment

tomtomPosted on10:50 pm - Jan 20, 2013


The security company is actually called Garrion and was set up last Sept with Green and stockbridge as the directors. Registered address is Ibrox.

Make sense to me from a purely cost control point of view. Why give G4S a profit when you can do the same job yourself with your own hired in staff.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on10:57 pm - Jan 20, 2013


Brenda says:
Sunday, January 20, 2013 at 22:38
0 0 Rate This
? It was a serious question!
====
Maybe the answer is that we can discuss anything we like that is relevant to Scottish football generally, but not those particular subjects we’ve been specifically asked not to discuss on this forum?

View Comment

ParanoidWellFanPosted on10:58 pm - Jan 20, 2013


Same as Protectevent Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiaty of Celtic plc

View Comment

ParanoidWellFanPosted on10:59 pm - Jan 20, 2013


subsidiary even!!

View Comment

BrendaPosted on11:02 pm - Jan 20, 2013


Thank you neepheid 🙂

View Comment

paulsatimPosted on11:17 pm - Jan 20, 2013


paranoidmotherwellfan says:
Sunday, January 20, 2013 at 22:58

Well there is a Deity at Celtic PLC!! LOL!

View Comment

goosyPosted on11:26 pm - Jan 20, 2013


liveinhop
Sunday, January 20, 2013 at 20:40
tomtomaswell says:
Sunday, January 20, 2013 at 22:50
The security company is actually called Garrion and was set up last Sept with Green and Stockbridge as the directors. Registered address is Ibrox.
Make sense to me from a purely cost control point of view. Why give G4S a profit when you can do the same job yourself with your own hired in staff.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
tomtomaswell
Not so
according to information provided to Companies House which is the source of “Company Check”
From Company Check
http://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC433635

“Garrion Security Services Limited is an Active business incorporated in Scotland on 28th September 2012. Their business activity has not been recorded. Garrion Security Services Limited is run by 2 current members. . It has no share capital. It is not part of a group. The company has not yet filed accounts. Garrion Security Services Limited’s Risk Score was amended on 02/10/2012.”

Directors

Brian Stockbridge Appointed 28 Sept 2012

Charles Alexander Green Appointed 28 Sept 2012

It looks like the very first cow has been coupled up for milking
By 28 Sept the Spivs had already decided that G4 were getting the boot and a new co with 2 Spiv Directors no shares and therefore no other shareholders will now provide Security for Ibrox
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Will Garrion get more milk from the cow than G4?
We will never know
It will be a minimum of 15 months before Garrion are legally obliged to file accounts
Just before their first accounts are due Garrion might have to be liquidated No reason has to be made public.
And
For those who think that TRFC will have the Garrion charges in their first accounts
(Assuming TRFC survive llong enough to publish accounts)
Don’t hold your breath
Spivs know more ways of covering up internal charges than top accountants

That’s how it`s done
What a wheeze !
Guys like this should be running the SFA
On second thoughts……
Maybe they are?

View Comment

briggsbhoyPosted on12:40 am - Jan 21, 2013


Tomtomaswell 11:12. Seems a ridiculous amount. Paradisbhoy: 14:34
I don’t disagree with your point. I’m not sure it is genuine and I did get it on an email on which everybody and his dog was on, so it’s out there already. Not sure how old slip was.

Brenda, was lol directed at my comment on refereeing ?

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on1:57 am - Jan 21, 2013


Firstly, can I say well done to Auldheed in putting together a document that should strike a chord with all fair-minded football fans in Scotland. I wish it every success in being adopted by supporter groups throughout the country.

For me, his opening two paragraphs sum up all that is wrong with our game:

On these pages at least there is a mounting lack of trust that the Scottish Football Association can or will govern our game in a fair and honest manner that recognises the principle of sporting integrity as paramount.

This mistrust is equalled only by the frustration at being unable to do anything to change the attitude and action of those at the SFA (and Leagues) responsible for that governance, a frustration compounded by the reluctance of the mainstream media to focus on the very issues of trust and integrity that concern us.

Regardless of which side of the fence you are on – in relation to the events surrounding the liquidation of Rangers Football Club – it is highly likely that you and your fellow supporters will feel immensely let down by the actions and inactions of our game’s administrators.

The SPL – essentially as a trade association – will correctly do what they can to maximise revenue for their members. It falls to the SFA – as the game’s regulators – to ensure that the SPL’s existing procedures, articles and rules are adhered to.

It is almost without dispute that the SPL have not functioned well in following protocol. The SFA have been incredibly weak in insisting that they do so. In fact the SFA – by being party to the 5-way agreement – are themselves seemingly complicit in going off-plan. Again, regardless of your own beliefs and agenda, the SPL (by their actions) and the SFA (by their inactions) are not TRUSTED to act as fair brokers.

Lord Nimmo Smith is due to reconvene his enquiry in just over a week’s time. When writing my previous (and quickly deleted) post earlier in the week, my mind was already moving towards (what I consider to be) the insurmountable difficulty the retired High Court judge will face in steering his commission to a logical conclusion.

In football parlance, I fear that the SPL have given him a “hospital pass” that will eventually leave him just as damaged as the game. I had already prepared an outline of why I think his enquiry will ultimately flounder; but, wonder if this topic too will fall foul of the new censorship policy on this blog.

As I think Lord Nimmo Smith’s remit is an important point that needs discussion – and out of respect to those people who have supported this blog as the spiritual successor of RTC – I will attempt to post my thoughts here first. If this post gets removed or doesn’t get past moderation, I’ll do as TSFM (Big Pink?) suggested earlier and find another, more open, forum to engage in.

I apologise in advance for the length of this post; but the points, I think, are fairly straightforward. Please do bear with me.

We should probably start at the SPL Press Release of 12th September 2012:
http://www.scotprem.com/content/default.asp?page=s2&newsid=11698&back=home

Independent Commission Preliminary Hearing
The Commission has considered all the preliminary issues raised in the list submitted by Newco and points raised in letters from solicitors acting for Newco and for Oldco. It has decided:

1. The Commission will proceed with its inquiry in the terms of the Notice of Commission and will now set a date for a hearing and give directions.

2. Oldco and Rangers FC, who are named in the Issues contained in the Notice of Commission and alleged to have been in breach of SPL rules, will continue to have the right to appear and be represented at all hearings of the Commission and to make such submissions as they think fit.

3. Newco, as the current owner and operator of Rangers FC, although not alleged by the SPL to have committed any breach of SPL Rules, will also have the right to appear and be represented at all hearings of the Commission and to make such submissions as it thinks fit.

4. Written reasons for this decision will be made available in due course.

Further to the decision made today the Commission make the following procedural orders:

1. We set a date for a hearing to commence on Tuesday 13 November 2012 with continuations from day to day as may be required until Friday 16 November 2012. We will also allocate Tuesday 20 and Wednesday 21 November 2012 as additional dates should any further continuation be required.

2. We direct that the solicitors for The Scottish Premier League Limited lodge any documents, additional to those already lodged, together with an outline argument and a list of witnesses by 4 pm on Friday 19 October 2012.

3. We direct that Oldco, Newco or any other person claiming an interest and wishing to appear and be represented at the hearing give intimation to that effect and lodge any documents together with an outline argument and a list of witnesses, all by 4 pm on Thursday 1 November 2012.

4. We direct that intimation of the aforesaid decision and of these directions be made to the solicitors for Oldco and Newco.

No further comment will be made.

Couple of points worth noting:
1. The Commission will proceed with its inquiry in the terms of the Notice of Commission and will now set a date for a hearing and give directions.

2. Oldco and Rangers FC, who are named in the Issues contained in the Notice of Commission and alleged to have been in breach of SPL rules

So it is clear here that Oldco and Rangers FC have, in the terms of the Notice of Commission, been described as separate entities. It is important to realise that this distinction is made before the commission has had any opportunity to consider the circumstances.

This is a non-negotiable “fact” – as supplied by the SPL – that LNS either accepts or stands aside. He has chosen to accept it.

This “fact” was later given reasoning by way of the Commission’s Statement of Reasons and carried the names of the Commission members:
http://www.scotprem.com/content/mediaassets/doc/SPL%20Commission%20reasons%20for%20decision%20of%2012%20September%202012.pdf

History
[3] Rangers Football Club was founded in 1872 as an association football club. It was incorporated in 1899 as The Rangers Football Club Limited. In recent years the company’s name was changed to The Rangers Football Club Plc, and it is now called RFC 2012 Plc (in administration). In line with the terminology used in the correspondence between the parties, we shall refer to this company as “Oldco”.
[4] The SPL was incorporated in 1998. Its share capital consists of sixteen shares of £1 each, of which twelve have been issued. Oldco was one of the founding members of the SPL, and remained a member until 3 August 2012 when the members of the SPL approved the registration of a transfer of its share in the SPL to The Dundee Football Club Limited. Each of the twelve members owns and operates an association football club which plays in the Scottish Premier League (“the League”). The club owned and operated by Oldco played in the League from 1998 until 2012 under the name of Rangers Football Club (“Rangers FC”).

[33] It is now necessary to quote some of the provisions of the Articles of the SPL. Article 2 contains definitions which, so far as relevant are:
“Club means the undertaking of an association football club which is, for the time being, entitled, in accordance with the Rules, to participate in the League

Company means The Scottish Premier League Limited

League means the combination of Clubs known as the Scottish Premier League operated by the Company in accordance with the Rules

Rules mean the Rules for the time being of the League

Share means a share of the Company and Share Capital and Shareholding”.

[37] It is also necessary to quote certain of the Rules. Rule I1 provides definitions of various terms in the Rules. Of these, we refer to the following:
Club means an association football club, other than a Candidate Club, which is, for the time being, eligible to participate in the League and, except where the context otherwise requires, includes the owner and operator of such club

[46] It will be recalled that in Article 2 “Club” is defined in terms of “the undertaking of an association football club”, and in Rule I1 it is defined in terms of an association football club which is, for the time being, eligible to participate in the League, and includes the owner and operator of such Club. Taking these definitions together, the SPL and its members have provided, by contract, that a Club is an undertaking which is capable of being owned and operated. While it no doubt depends on individual circumstances what exactly is comprised in the undertaking of any particular Club, it would at the least comprise its name, the contracts with its players, its manager and other staff, and its ground, even though these may change from time to time. In common speech a Club is treated as a recognisable entity which is capable of being owned and operated, and which continues in existence despite its transfer to another owner and operator. In legal terms, it appears to us to be no different from any other undertaking which is capable of being carried on, bought and sold. This is not to say that a Club has legal personality, separate from and additional to the legal personality of its owner and operator. We are satisfied that it does not, and Mr McKenzie did not seek to argue otherwise. So a Club cannot, lacking legal personality, enter into a contract by itself. But it can be affected by the contractual obligations of its owner and operator. It is the Club, not its owner and operator, which plays in the League. Under Rule A7.1.1 the Club is bound to comply with all relevant rules. The Rules clearly contemplate the imposition of sanctions upon a Club, in distinction to a sanction imposed upon the owner or operator. That power must continue to apply even if the owner and operator at the time of breach of the Rules has ceased to be a member of the SPL and its undertaking has been transferred to another owner and operator. While there can be no question of subjecting the new owner and operator to sanctions, there are sanctions which could be imposed in terms of the Rules which are capable of affecting the Club as a continuing entity (even though not an entity with legal personality), and which thus might affect the interest of the new owner and operator in it. For these reasons we reject the arguments advanced in paragraphs 2 and 6 of the list of preliminary issues.

Here we were introduced to a few new ideas:
1. That SPL members “own and operate” association football clubs
2. That “Rangers Football Club” was “owned and operated” by Oldco (Rangers Football Club plc).
3. Club means the undertaking of an association football club
4. An “undertaking” is “a recognisable entity which is capable of being owned and operated, and which continues in existence despite its transfer to another owner and operator. “
5. “A Club cannot, lacking legal personality, enter into a contract by itself. “
6. “A Club is an undertaking which is capable of being owned and operated.”

So, the principle, by which Lord Nimmo Smith, purports to connect Oldco and Newco is by the alleged transference of a non-corporate entity between the two owners and operators of the “Club”. The Club is the non-corporate entity he identified as the “undertaking” referred to in Article 2.

However, this is where he gets into some very serious difficulty. It is very strange that – when quoting the relevant articles – the retired High Court Judge did not notice or think the following did not have a part to play.
http://www.scotprem.com/content/mediaassets/doc/ARTICLES%20OF%20ASSOCIATION%20AS%20AT%2022%20OCTOBER%202012.pdf

2. In these Articles:-
2006 Act means the Companies Act 2006 including any statutory modification or re-enactments thereof for the time being in force;

4. Unless the context otherwise requires, words or expressions contained in these Articles bear the same meaning as in the 2006 Act but excluding any statutory modification thereof not in force when these Articles or the relevant parts thereof are adopted.

The SPL articles make specific reference to the Companies Act 2006. Specifically “words or expressions contained in these Articles bear the same meaning as in the 2006 Act”
So when the articles refer to “undertaking” we must refer to the 2006 Act to check what meaning we should apply. If we do so, we find:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/1161

1161Meaning of “undertaking” and related expressions

(1)In the Companies Acts “undertaking” means—
__(a)a body corporate or partnership, or
__(b)an unincorporated association carrying on a trade or business, with or without a view to profit.

(2)In the Companies Acts references to shares—
__(a)in relation to an undertaking with capital but no share capital, are to rights to share in the capital of the undertaking; and
__(b)in relation to an undertaking without capital, are to interests—
____(i)conferring any right to share in the profits or liability to contribute to the losses of the undertaking, or
____(ii)giving rise to an obligation to contribute to the debts or expenses of the undertaking in the event of a winding up.

(3)Other expressions appropriate to companies shall be construed, in relation to an undertaking which is not a company, as references to the corresponding persons, officers, documents or organs, as the case may be, appropriate to undertakings of that description.

This is subject to provision in any specific context providing for the translation of such expressions.

(4)References in the Companies Acts to “fellow subsidiary undertakings” are to undertakings which are subsidiary undertakings of the same parent undertaking but are not parent undertakings or subsidiary undertakings of each other.

(5)In the Companies Acts “group undertaking”, in relation to an undertaking, means an undertaking which is—
__(a)a parent undertaking or subsidiary undertaking of that undertaking, or
__(b)a subsidiary undertaking of any parent undertaking of that undertaking.

Everything that LNS uses to connect Newco to Oldco relies on a Club being a non-corporate entity. Without that interpretation, his original acceptance of the commissions remit would look very foolish. In my opinion, the commission’s statement of Reasons were always poorly framed

Using the 2006 Act – as it appears it is bound to do – I cannot see how any interpretation of “undertaking” can be used in the context of the SPL articles, other than “a body corporate”.

If I am correct and the correct interpretation of an undertaking in this context is “body corporate”, SPL Article 2, specifically (and quite clearly) states that a Club is the company. Since the Club that played in the SPL is in liquidation and the current version of Rangers has never been a member of the SPL, any attempt to sanction the new club for the sins of the old will be laughed out of court.

The real question – for me at least – is why has this ridiculous proposition has been put forward in the first place? Perhaps we can assume that the SPL chose to frame the commission’s remit in this way for purely commercial reasons; but, more worryingly, why have the SFA allowed it to progress?

View Comment

Madbhoy24941Posted on2:39 am - Jan 21, 2013


tomtomaswell says:

Sunday, January 20, 2013 at 22:50

Make sense to me from a purely cost control point of view. Why give G4S a profit when you can do the same job yourself with your own hired in staff.
————————————————————-

Rangers and most other clubs do not employ security staff, they have not done so for a very long time. I don’t see this changing with the nature of the business. It may end up being controlled by the same people but the security staff will not be Ibrox employees. It will also most likely be the same individuals who will just swap over to the new outsourced supplier….

View Comment

TallBoy Poppy (@TallBoyPoppy)Posted on4:11 am - Jan 21, 2013


goosygoosy says:
Sunday, January 20, 2013 at 23:26
========================================================================

According to their share offer document (Page 104 par. 8.2) Garrion Security Services is listed as a “subsidiary undertaking” of RIFC, yet according to your post (and duedil) it is a standalone company and not in the group.

Worth a closer look?

View Comment

valentinesclownPosted on7:26 am - Jan 21, 2013


HP great post yet again.

Last para regarding why SFA allowed this ridiculous proposition to be progressed should be addressed by Mr Ogilvie.

Do I trust this man with his connection to oldco, with his EBT at oldco and with his ( wifes shares ??) In oldco to be impartial and not be biased towards his old club. IMO I have no trust in this man. There in lies the problem in our game.

View Comment

BrendaPosted on8:02 am - Jan 21, 2013


briggsbhoy @ 00:40

No just the farce that is Scottish football 🙂 ………. You are very witty though 🙂

View Comment

manandboyPosted on8:11 am - Jan 21, 2013


HirsutePursuit says:
Monday, January 21, 2013 at 01:57

I apologise in advance for the length of this post
__________________________________________________________________________________

None needed, none whatsoever.

Consider not so much the obstacles in your path, as the support by your side.

View Comment

FinlochPosted on9:13 am - Jan 21, 2013


HirsutePursuit says at 01:57…..

Thank you.

– An incisive, fact-driven midnight-oil insight that suggests “insurance” was maybe put in place with an admirable sleight of hand by the Puppet Masters who set the agenda in those distant days.

Reminds me of two well known sayings/ truisms.

“He who pays the piper calls the tune”.

“Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!”

And another two also come to mind for LNS and his panel next week who might get cul-de-sac’d by technicalities, (just the the FTT).

“Its not a level playing field” – (and sadly never was)

and finally..

“The game’s a Bogey” – unless our voices get heard.

View Comment

DAVAD00Posted on9:34 am - Jan 21, 2013


Hirsute Pursuit
Monday, January 21, 2013 @0157.

I am certain, that like most other Lurkers and Posters, we welcome your Moniker at the top of another magnificent post. Your presence on this Blog is one of the main reasons for many people ‘Logging On.’ Although ‘Big Pink’s’ main aim is to have a credible Blog (which it is) I hope that the cream of our Posters are not chased away in some mad purge to enhance the Blogs reputation.

This Blog is the best that is going thanks to the Moderators and Administration, but perhaps the odd bit of slack would keep everybody happy.

Again, Hirsute Pursuit, and Auldheid, magnificent efforts to keep up our very high unequaled standard.

View Comment

billyj1Posted on9:51 am - Jan 21, 2013


HP. Excellent post which I admit to struggling with a little.
Could it be that in allowing this to progress, the SFA have given themselves enough room to uphold an appeal after the LNS decision is announced.
Wouldn’t put it past them.
They are no doubt avid readers of this blog and must be aware of this situation and have done nothing to correct it.

View Comment

ianagainPosted on9:58 am - Jan 21, 2013


Should any of the G4S staff (god forbid!) have the temerity not to TUPE across to Garrion I would hope we will give them our full support.

View Comment

briggsbhoyPosted on10:15 am - Jan 21, 2013


Brenda says:
Monday, January 21, 2013 at 08:02

In the words of my late father “a halfwit” 🙂

Re you Post HP, excellent and glad to see you back. I do agree that the folk in Hampden seem to have selected hearing defects and skin so thick it’s unbelievable.

View Comment

BrendaPosted on10:33 am - Jan 21, 2013


briggsbhoy 🙂 a lol for you!

View Comment

bad capt madmanPosted on10:38 am - Jan 21, 2013


Well researched & argued HP.

I wonder if there’s any chance of LNS & his panel getting a gander at your post.

IMO however the issue of newco being liable for any oldco issues,- unless voluntarily adopted by newco (as they appear to have done for the 5 way agreement, even if they now seem to be pulling back from some of it)- only serves to confuse the issue. That issue is of course what the oldco were up to all those years. That is what LNS should be focusing on and making known to all and sundry.

I am hoping that “three chords and the truth” will be enough, and that football stakeholders including fans and the MSM will have the opportunity to let the SFA know what they think of the facts as determined by LNS.

If there is deflection and deception by oldco allies / anyone else at the SFA (whether by trying to hobble LNS with a “hospital pass” or by a subsequent watering down of consequences or punishments), then that too will become transparent and open to judgement given the publication of the facts.

Of course newco and/or oldco may drag things out over the years through Court of Arbitration or law court routes, but that is really not the main concern right now. Lets just get the facts and a judgement. The sentence can wait, and should be informed by the responses from the footballing community (since there will be no precedent here for the scale or seriousness of the “charges” and no straightforward application of a specific punishment for a breach of a specific rule in this case).

We all deserve to know the facts, don’t we?, (Mr McCoist certainly does, he’s said so on several occasions).

View Comment

goosyPosted on11:58 am - Jan 21, 2013


HirsutePursuit says:
Monday, January 21, 2013 at 01:5

HP
Excellent post

I think the careful framing of the Notice of Commission was deliberately intended to get the SFA off the hook of having to “do” anything
i.e.
Leave enough wiggle room for TRFC to reject everything from LNS without the SFA having to “impose” the findings
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Meaning we end up with something like:
The SPL “note” the findings of LNS and declare they must be carefully “studied”
TRFC declare the SPL have no jurisdiction to apply the findings of LNS
The SFA say and do nothing as the “Appellate”
The MSM side-line the issue as expected
The SPL and SFL then merge and LNS findings are left behind as an “unresolved SPL issue”
SPL/SFA complicity in protecting TRFC is added to all the previous charges that brought them into disrepute
Eventually the SFA are “restructured” and a new set of TRFC friends take office with help from all the usual sources
With the LNS issue unresolved, the “status quo“ becomes the de facto SFA yardstick for dealing with awkward issues like names engraved on future trophies, claims for reassigned titles etc.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
In effect
The ball is passed to the aggrieved parties notably Celtic to claim re assignment of stripped titles. Any hint of this happening is whipped up by the MSM asserting that they will be “entirely responsible” for any civil disorder which ensues

The one consolation for the disgusted fans who remain is that they cannot be silenced
The TRFC support are destined to be needled incessantly at away grounds

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on12:27 pm - Jan 21, 2013


wjohnston1 says:
Monday, January 21, 2013 at 09:51
3 0 Rate This
HP. Excellent post which I admit to struggling with a little.
Could it be that in allowing this to progress, the SFA have given themselves enough room to uphold an appeal after the LNS decision is announced.
Wouldn’t put it past them.
They are no doubt avid readers of this blog and must be aware of this situation and have done nothing to correct it.
———————————-
The very short version is this:
The SPL articles state that its definitions and expressions need to be given the meanings as described in the Companies Act 2006.

The Companies Act 2006 says that an “undertaking” is “a body corporate” i.e. a company.

Lord Nimmo Smith has ignored this definition and instead accepted (or created) an alternative meaning for “undertaking” (as used in Article 2) which is fundamental to the concept of being able to separate Club from Company.

The principle of Club and company being distinct entities was expressly stated in the commissions terms of reference.

Lord Nimmo Smith has accepted the terms of reference as “facts”.

The SPL articles and rules apply to Clubs and to their “owners & operators”.

LNS asserts that the Club “Rangers FC” was owned & operated by Rangers Football Club plc.

He asserts that the Club “Rangers FC” transferred from Rangers Football Club plc to Sevco Scotland Ltd.

The Club (if found guilty) is still liable for the alleged breaches of SPL rules, even though the Club is no longer a member of the SPL.

He asserts that Sevco Scotland Ltd – as the new owner & operator of the Club – have a material interest in his commissions findings.

However…

Instead of his accepting LNS logic that allows the ethereal Club to be transferred between companies, the truth is – read in conjunction with the Companies Act 2006 – Article 2 really says that the Club is the “body corporate”. The Club is the Company.

The Club is Rangers Football Club plc. That Club is in liquidation.

Since Sevco Scotland Ltd did not purchase Rangers Football Club plc, Sevco Scotland did not buy the Club.

*On the simple basis of Sevco Scotland’s purchase of Rangers FC’s assets, the Commission cannot legally apply sanctions that would fall to Sevco Scotland for remedy.

This issue should have been fairly straightforward. We need to understand why it is not.

It is surprising to me that an experienced high court judge accepted the commission’s terms of reference without first checking its validity. It would be interesting to understand if the statement of reasons was really his own thoughts or a re-hash of the SPL legal advice that framed the commissions work.

It does not surprise me that the SPL have framed the commission in the way that they have. The “transferable Club” logic was first used to unsuccessfully argue that Newco should have Oldco’s share in the SPL. They are acting in their own commercial interest. Sporting Integrity has never been high on their agenda. We know what they are about.

It is hugely disappointing – but perhaps not surprising – that the SFA have not stepped in to clarify matters. Conflicted and/or incompetent probably best sums up its contribution.
————-

*I have one caveat to add to this.

We don’t know the exact details; but it is my understanding that Newco has agreed to settle all footballing debts relating to Oldco by virtue of the 5 way agreement.

You need to remember that one probable consequence of a guilty verdict from the commission is that Oldco would be ordered to repay SPL competition prize money. If it were to be repaid, this could be a very substantial pot (circa £15m?) for re-distribution to the league’s members and ex-members.

It appears that, having failed to get Newco into the SPL, the executive now believe that any Oldco fines and/or an order for prize money repayment would create a new football debt. This debt, in theory, could be enforceable against Newco.

Without seeing the actual document, I have no way of knowing just how financially exposed Newco are with respect to the commissions determinations. And, of course, depending on what Mr Green has signed, the ethereal club wheeze may no longer even be required for their purposes. In this context, the rush to get the share issue done perhaps makes more sense now than it did at the time.

However if, as I suspect it is, the 5 way agreement is based on the concept of a club called Rangers FC being a transferable non-corporate entity, the document would be so damaged as to be worthless.

View Comment

readceltPosted on12:43 pm - Jan 21, 2013


Think its worth posting this up if you want to see another example of systemic corruption in sport.

Apologies the link is from Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Italian_football_scandal

View Comment

neepheidPosted on1:11 pm - Jan 21, 2013


HirsutePursuit says:
Monday, January 21, 2013 at 12:27

======
I’m struggling here, please help.

You seem to overlook S1161(1)(b) of the Companies Act, which gives an alternative definition of an “undertaking” as an unincorporated association, which obviously (to me, anyway) is not a body corporate. Although there is a Taxes Act definition of an unincorporated association, there is no Companies Act definition that I can find. LNS is bound to follow CA definitions, but not the Taxes Acts. So surely it is open to LNS to determine that for the purposes of the SFA rules, an undertaking is an unincorporated association, and not a body corporate. And then choose his own interpretation of the term unincorporated association (based on legal precedent, no doubt)?

View Comment

jimlarkinPosted on1:17 pm - Jan 21, 2013


well done HP

i recall another poster on here, pointed out that even charities had to define if they were legal entities/body corporates.

it seems that the best way to legally wriggle out of potential court proceedings may well be to change the “name” of your charity [which would be registered as a charity] to have the word
“club” in the title. and… bingo.
no case to answer!

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/People/15300/charities/SCIOs

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on1:23 pm - Jan 21, 2013


GoosyGoosy

WRT the potential correction of results and re-assignment of titles, I don’t see how Newco can get involved.

They have been offered a place at the commission to state their case. If they do not attend and Oldco’s results are subsequently corrected, I can’t see how they could even make a case for appeal.

There is no dispute – as far as I know – over the commissions power to correct results and ultimately re-assign titles, should that be necessary. There is a dispute over what power the commission has with regard to Newco.

To be fair, Newco are in a difficult position. To make the case for retention of titles, Newco have to stand up and say “we are the same Club and these are our titles”. Actually, Charles Green is saying the opposite. He has already said that his club have never played in the SPL; therefore the commission has no jurisdiction over his club. They will not take part.

If there is a financial penalty for Newco, I expect Newco will simply stare them down and refuse to pay. If there is also “title reassignment” I expect he will attempt to appeal; but be refused leave to do so.

View Comment

bad capt madmanPosted on1:36 pm - Jan 21, 2013


Just wondered if there are any players, ex players, club directors, ex club directors etc posting here, or if its just us common or garden fans?

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on1:57 pm - Jan 21, 2013


neepheid says:
Monday, January 21, 2013 at 13:11
0 0 Rate This
HirsutePursuit says:
Monday, January 21, 2013 at 12:27

======
I’m struggling here, please help.

You seem to overlook S1161(1)(b) of the Companies Act, which gives an alternative definition of an “undertaking” as an unincorporated association, which obviously (to me, anyway) is not a body corporate. Although there is a Taxes Act definition of an unincorporated association, there is no Companies Act definition that I can find. LNS is bound to follow CA definitions, but not the Taxes Acts. So surely it is open to LNS to determine that for the purposes of the SFA rules, an undertaking is an unincorporated association, and not a body corporate. And then choose his own interpretation of the term unincorporated association (based on legal precedent, no doubt)?
==========================
The basis of any undertaking is that it is engaged in economic activity, that there is financial risk involved. It is an organisation which is not recognised in law as being something else (for example, an incorporated body or a partnership).

Rangers Football Club was an unincorporated association until its incorporation in 1899. At that point it became a “body corporate”.

Most amateur clubs will be unincorporated associations. Professional clubs are not.

As an unincorporated association has no legal personality, members of unincorporated associations have unlimited liability for contracts carried out in its name. Rangers FC members were its shareholders. Liability was limited to the nominal value of each members shareholding.

These may be useful:
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/ctmanual/ctm41305.htm

http://www.morton-fraser.com/publications/factsheets/2506_unincorporated_associations-the_facts

LNS did not argue that Rangers FC is an unincorporated association. He could and would not do so. He has simply missed or ignored the SPL article that says its words and expressions should be taken as those provided in the 2006 Act.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on1:59 pm - Jan 21, 2013


Debate of role of msm in reporting on Rangers at Napier with Mark Daly and Alex Thomson being covered by @Thomson_scott (not related) on Twitter.
Worth checking.

View Comment

Comments are closed.