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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.)
New Blog up by Alex Thomson
http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/scottish-football-sport-business/3882
Forgot to mention on last post, well done Auldhied and TSFM for getting Alex’s attention.
HP – Excellent summary
I think that the fundamental flaw in the SPL/SFA position is that their rules should not have allowed the newco to participate in any league this season.(period)
The fudges, new interpretations of rules, unheard of membership status, 5 way agreements, footballing debt payments etc., were simply the means of keeping the “club” alive. Having done that, then the oldco’s footballing history automatically followed the “club”, but left the SFA/SPL in a quandary of how to follow-up on the unregistered payments made by the “club”. As a result, LNS has been forced to make yet another fudge of his own re sanctioning the “club” as a separate entity from its owner. I’m pretty sure that the SFA/SPL heid yins now feel that they have gone too far down that road to turn back and restore some credibility and sensibility into their decision making
Had the SFA & SPL been open and transparent back in June, stating that it was necessary for a “Rangers” to survive in the long term interests of the game (potential for 40K supporters and associated financial clout), then much of the recent machinations could have been avoided. A new “Rangers” would have joined SFL Div 3 with special dispensation due to the strength of their business case, ahead of Spartans, Cove, or Gala.
The history would have been gone (other than in the minds of their supporters), but so would any threat of sanctions together with the costs of tribunals or other court actions.
well done getting this off the ground. Surely the SFA, SPL and SFL will have to comment sooner rather than later.
I’ll play devils advocate here slightly.
I am in complete agreement with Easyjambo per the above, apart from one minor detail. I don’t believe that ‘scottish football’ could have coped with a complete exemption, whatever the theoretical justification. The decision (in the same way that fighting against lots of scarey lions and tigers was the Gladiators ‘decision’) to put them in the 3rd division was, eventually, the correct one and indeed one that would have been unthinkable 6 months previously. Without the efforts of RTC it would still have been unthinkable today. I just wish they had presented it for what it was, not what they wanted all of us to meekly accept it was.
TOMOBLOG SCOTTISH FOOTBALL:
http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/scottish-football-sport-business/3882
Although you could just read Auldheids Piece above! Well done folks. ;
Is TSFM broke? Some posts not visible? Apologies for the reposting of Alex Thomsons blog …
easyJambo says:
Monday, January 21, 2013 at 14:29
Had the SFA & SPL been open and transparent back in June, stating that it was necessary for a “Rangers” to survive in the long term interests of the game (potential for 40K supporters and associated financial clout), then much of the recent machinations could have been avoided.
=====================
As soon as you accept that, then the game is finished, except as some USA style franchise operation. “Rangers” should be nowhere near the SFL right now- that is the truth. If we start applying the rules differentially, just because RFC have 50,000 (or is that 50 million?) supporters, whereas poor old Spartans get a right good kicking because they’re a “wee” club, then at that point I’m no longer interested. Rules apply to all, or they aren’t rules at all. It’s that simple.
A big well done to Aulheid and TSFM for all their hard work and of course for getting the attention of Alex Thomson.
Maybe Stuart Cosgrove can also give this Tommo blog a mention. Get it out there where it belongs.
Well done Auldheid.
neepheid says:
Monday, January 21, 2013 at 15:22
What is with you Neepheid it is 500 million!
neepheid says:
Monday, January 21, 2013 at 15:22
7 0 i
Rate This
easyJambo says:
Monday, January 21, 2013 at 14:29
Had the SFA & SPL been open and transparent back in June, stating that it was necessary for a “Rangers” to survive in the long term interests of the game (potential for 40K supporters and associated financial clout), then much of the recent machinations could have been avoided.
=====================
As soon as you accept that, then the game is finished, except as some USA style franchise operation. “Rangers” should be nowhere near the SFL right now- that is the truth. If we start applying the rules differentially, just because RFC have 50,000 (or is that 50 million?) supporters, whereas poor old Spartans get a right good kicking because they’re a “wee” club, then at that point I’m no longer interested. Rules apply to all, or they aren’t rules at all. It’s that simple.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And thus we go back to Auldheid’s missives regarding sporting integrity v commercialism.
If fans cannot see that it is all about the bucks then they do not understand the enemy.
Unlike some sports Football has always been run (from Fifa downwards) on the philosophy that if you start at the bottom of the pyramid you should have a chance to make it to the top.
However in recent years with alterations to the way tournaments are structured and the seedings systems everything is geared up to helping the big nations/clubs get to where the people in power want them to be to ensure the sponsors and TV cash keeps flowing through their coffers.
To play that game you need lots of money and a big fan base.
I have said before I can see where Mr Charles is coming from with regard to a Euro league. If the big clubs want it it will happen and no amount of gnashing of teeth from fans will prevent it. And in anyones language in a franchise system the possibility of a stadium full of 50k fans per home game is not to be sniffed at.
I tend to agree with both posters, in that if the footballing authorities just came out and said they really wanted franchise systems in place for the select few then so be it. At least we would know were we stand. Either that or we recognise that the pyramid system is not sustainable for some clubs as they could go bust as they try to get to the top.
Therefore you either accept that and play by those rules or say it how it really is, which in my view is for the top clubs is:-
– We want a closed shop of a franchise league for those and such as those which will only expand if the members want it to.
neepheid says: Monday, January 21, 2013 at 15:22
There was a precedent, of sorts, with Livingston’s demotion to SFL Div 3 in 2009 for what was described as a breach of insolvency rules.
Livingston financial state should have meant them losing their league status, with Spartans or someone else taking their position, but were given what I recall as preferential treatment in retaining their league place.
The decision was taken in early August 2009, thus the SFL was up against the wire because of the start of the season. They chose to allow Livingston to remain in the league set up rather than seek the late admission of another club or risk running with one team less for season 2009/10.
HirsutePursuit says:
Monday, January 21, 2013 at 12:27
There is a line in the book Soccernomics that says “as oil is to the oil industry, so stupidity is to football.”
I wonder if that is the case in the instance of the commissiong of LNS? i.e that at the time no one could predict the twist and turns and what was written just failed to cover all the bases?
I’m just not sure and am keeping an open mind.
There is a debate on Paul McConvilles blog about LNS and the outcome where I have posed a question as yet unanswered (unless I’ve missed it) that basically says why does the registration rule Rangers are accused of breaching exist in the first place?
What is its intent and what is the spirit behind it, a spirit that can be lost when it becomes petrified in words? Has the msm to anyone’s knowledge asked this question?
From memory I think H Poon made a reference in her findings about MIH taking the decision not to reveal ebts in registration to the SFA.
If this is so should they have done so or if it was Rangers should they have done so? Surely as it was a football rule the football authority should have been asked to check and allow or deny at the time? I’d be interested in your thoughts if I remembered the thrust of Poons argument correctly although maybe just respond on Paul’s blog and link to keep this one tidy for any feedback from trusts to the letter sent..
wottpi says:
Monday, January 21, 2013 at 16:21
…
I tend to agree with both posters, in that if the footballing authorities just came out and said they really wanted franchise systems in place for the select few then so be it. At least we would know were we stand. Either that or we recognise that the pyramid system is not sustainable for some clubs as they could go bust as they try to get to the top…
=============================================
Must admit that I had thought that the EPL would have become a franchise before now. There is just too much ‘business risk’ for the likes of ManU or Chelsea to have the possibility of relegation each season, even if it seems unlikely.
For Scottish football, it would seem that ultimately the SFA has decided that there is too much commercial risk without a ‘Rangers’ in the Leagues.
But you’re right: you can’t have a commercially biased SFA trying at the same time to promote a ‘pyramid’ system based on merit.
Back to the original point: “What is the SFA’s purpose ?”
The fans seems to have a clear idea what the SFA role should be, but the SFA management seems reluctant to clarify its role. Deliberately ?
Well done, Auldheid, on getting the attention of AT. Hopefully some other journalists will pick up on this too.
Is there anything we should be doing to try and influence all the supporter groups to make sure the communication is put to their club? I’m sure on here there must be supporters of most clubs.
Auldheid (@Auldheid) says:
Monday, January 21, 2013 at 16:45
……………………………………………………….
Just so I am on the correct page Auldheid….what registration rule are you referring to? and if we are on the same page I will provide an answer to the question.
Auldheid 16.45. This stirs my long standing worries. This is going to be hard to write. I wish that all the TDs would change what I am about to write. I hope that I am wildly wrong!
The rules and regulations which govern football were not written with High Court Judges in mind. The legal brain will find what is written too imprecise. The Tribunal will not be able to deliver a definitive verdict. They know that it will be scutinised by experts for weaknesses. Remember what happened when Rangers sought a legal intervention last year. They will fudge, find a passage from the Gospel according to Sir Humphrey. I suspect that by this time next month the only worry in Govan will be that BDO could decide that The Administrators acted wrongly – which is unlikely to happen. Even if it did, they would conclude that the Oldco (being liquidated) were not to blame for the errors of the Administrators. The Administrators would be scolded and fined. The club, Rangers formed a hundred and forty years ago, would be recognised officially as the team now in Div.3 with its history and trophies intact. The Tribunal might risk stretching itself to remove some of the silver while accepting that Rangers are Rangers are Rangers as they seem to be accepted by the media throughout the football world in general. (Repeat a lie often enough ..). The acceptance would not extend to this blog but there will be little that we can do. By removing silverware from the Newco (which they shouldn’t have), they will be annointing Rangers as the de facto unboken line for 140 years.
As many of us said many moons ago – those who can will do what is necessary to keep Govan happy. Some of them may genuinely believe that this is what is best for Scottish Football.
The Gloating will be horrendous. We have won the argument on this site but without power it is as the sounding brass in biblical terms.
If LNS finds ragers 1872 guilty of wrong doing then IMO the sanctions handed down are immaterial
Who believes they will hand down any meaningful sanction anyway .
None should be given against sevco 2012 but if LNS finds against ragers 1872 then that will be official confirmation that ragers 1872 cheated to gain an advantage to win titles for a 10 yr period and everyone will know it ..Of course it will be appealed and that appeal will land at the door of the SFA and lets face it we all know what will happen then .
On a different topic all together why is Mr good night out still in his job ,maybe we will find out pretty soon
Tom English, in his back page Sports section piece in SoS yesterday, had a right go at Oprah Winfrey for not following up questions to Lance Armstrong regarding his cheatery. She, apparently, let him off the hook on numerous occasions, and failed to nail down lies and half-truths he was telling.
Seems to me that Mr English did not need to get this kind of material from America. He could have looked a lot closer to home for a very similar story.
Bill McMurdo Blog.
Hard to believe but sounds like someone is beginning to come to their senses somewhat.
http://www.thecoplandroad.org/2013/01/the-uncomfortable-truth.html
The Uncomfortable Truth
By Bill McMurdo | CRO Editor-at-large
When the truth becomes your enemy, it is evidence you are on the wrong side.
This brutal fact of life has become evident to me in recent times when listening to some Rangers fans speaking in relation to the club’s trials of late.
Like most bluenoses, I celebrated in euphoric glee when the verdict of the First Tier Tax Tribunal was made public. It was one in the eye to all those Rangers-haters out there, particularly people like the BBC’s Mark Daly, winner of the tainted BAFTA award for metafiction masquerading as investigative journalism.
In the ongoing propaganda wars that form the backdrop to life in Scotland, it was a momentous victory for the Rangers family, so mercilessly maligned and persecuted by the wolf pack that is spread across various sectors of society.
The problem with the FTT verdict is it gave so many Gers supporters a false notion that the club had no wrongdoings to answer for, that all accusations against Rangers are ill-founded and thus wrong.
The uncomfortable truth is that this is not the case.
The FTT verdict did, indeed, absolve Rangers of guilt in respect of the use of EBTs as it pertains to the club’s dealings with HMRC.
What it did not do was address the wider problem that Rangers had in terms of compliance with both SPL and SFA rules i.e. did Rangers have side letters or agreements in writing that were not revealed to the SPL? Did these documents refer to payments to players for playing services outwith the players’ registered contracts?
The issue for the SPL panel investigating Rangers is not about the legality of EBTS – it is about documentation that constitutes an agreement by Rangers FC to pay players over and above what their officially registered contract detailed.
As I have said all along, the real question is not: “Are Rangers guilty of off-book payments?” The real question is: “Who else is?”
Arguing Rangers’ innocence is not where the defence is to be made. If other clubs are proven to have paid players “off-book” then those clubs should also be punished for any wrongdoing.
I have made valid arguments why title-stripping simply cannot happen so anyone who believes I am backing the SPL’s kangaroo court is on the wrong track. However, that is not the same as saying Rangers are innocent of all charges.
The notion that Rangers can do no wrong is dangerous but one which I have seen creeping in to the mindset of some. The fact is, Rangers under David Murray became an increasingly obnoxious presence in the Scottish game. The “No-one likes us, we don’t care” mentality unsurprisingly didn’t endear people from other clubs to us. Calling everyone who agreed with the not liking bit a fenian bastard also didn’t help.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m not coming out of the handwringing closet here. And I doubt I’ll ever get to write for the blazers and brown brogue bloggers over at The Rangers Standard. But sometimes we just have to accept as bluenoses that the worst obstacle we often have to overcome is our own arrogance and stubbornness.
The fact is that Rangers under David Murray ceased to be the good guys of Scottish football. Rangers were moulded by “Sir” David into his own image and became a pompous, conceited parody of the fine, proud institution we once were. Murray’s abrasive manner and sharp practices cut us adrift till we had no friends in the game. It doesn’t matter that the other clubs are all bams anyway – we helped them to become more determined in their bammery.
Yes, I am determined that leaving the fetid atmosphere of Scottish football is the right way forward for the Gers – another idea I believe is frowned upon by the guys at TRS. But I am in no doubt that among our many enemies in Scottish football, we ourselves are often the worst.
The problem is, no matter how far we go, we will always take that enemy with us.
Interesting recent blog by “Young” Bill McMurdo. This hasn’t gone down well with his fellow Berrs.
http://www.thecoplan…able-truth.html
Just read that Humble Pie very daring and of course getting the usual short shrift from most on that board. Could there be light at the end of the tunnel?
Andrew Woods says:
Monday, January 21, 2013 at 19:05
Snap!
Humble Pie says:
Monday, January 21, 2013 at 19:02
The Uncomfortable Truth
By Bill McMurdo | CRO Editor-at-large
…
The fact is, Rangers under David Murray became an increasingly obnoxious presence in the Scottish game.
============
He’s obviously been frapped by RTC… 😉
But I’m struggling to put dates around the period when RFC where ‘the good guys’.
“…The fact is that Rangers under David Murray ceased to be the good guys of Scottish football…”
After that ‘interesting’ blog, McMurdo should ask Ogilvie if there is space in his SFA bunker for one more…
StevieBC says:
Monday, January 21, 2013 at 19:22
0 0 Rate This
Humble Pie says:
Monday, January 21, 2013 at 19:02
The Uncomfortable Truth
By Bill McMurdo | CRO Editor-at-large
…
The fact is, Rangers under David Murray became an increasingly obnoxious presence in the Scottish game.
—————————————————————————————————————–
This is a big step in the right direction which is a real suprise coming from Mr McMurdo.
Always suspicious tho, why now? Is there something on the horizon that Mr McMurdo knows about ( or am I given him to much credit?)
I very much doubt Bill McMurdo has suddenly ‘seen sense’. It’s more likely that, like most of their supporters who have a reasonable intelligence, he’s privately accepted Rangers’ guilt all along while following the ‘party line’ in the hope that it would all work out as expected. Now, I suspect, he’s aware that some, at least, of the dirty truth will be confirmed by LNS and he wants to be seen as being ahead of the game in the eyes of his ‘public’. I also see his piece as more of a rallying call to change tactics and call for an investigation into all, or a select few, of the other SPL clubs in the hope they might turn up some dirt that can be used to sway support for TRFC within the SPL, while, at the same time, promoting sympathy for their cause if it’s taken up by the MSM. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if this change of direction in their ‘point the finger and deflect’ campaign doesn’t have Mr Traynor’s hand in it!
Sorry, should have said ‘HAS Mr Traynors hand in it’
allyjambo says:
Monday, January 21, 2013 at 19:44
You may well be right allyjambo, I would not be surprised in the least. Interesting change of tack nonetheless.
As I have said all along, the real question is not: “Are Rangers guilty of off-book payments?” The real question is: “Who else is?”
——
What a shame he had to get this irrelevant whataboutery into the middle of that piece. The real question, Mr McMurdo, is indeed “Are Rangers guilty of off-book payments?”. This is the question LNS is asking.
Otherwise that piece would have been a damn good start along the right road, Traynor-influenced or not.
HP,
I’m sure Green, or his advisors, are aware that much badness is about to be revealed regarding DM’s part in Rangers’ history and they want to distance themselves from that, and also, at the same time, make themselves even more the ‘good guys’ in the eyes of TRFC’s support. It would be a good tactic to leave it someone more of a true ‘bluenose’ to start any anti-Murray propoganda while leaving themselves free to appear innocent should it go wrong.
I, of course, have no knowledge of Mr McMurdo’s motivations but I am naturally sceptical of anyone who moves so spectacularly their point of view when nothing has yet been revealed, publicly at least, to cause this change.
dear bill, if i remember correctly the sfa asked every club that question.
i found it very suspect at the time. i assumed they were carrying out their pre emptive whitabootery.
anyone ever ask regan what the responses turned up ?? did jim ??
Humble Pie says:
Monday, January 21, 2013 at 19:00
4 1 Rate This
Bill McMurdo Blog.
Hard to believe but sounds like someone is beginning to come to their senses somewhat.
http://www.thecoplandroad.org/2013/01/the-uncomfortable-
truth.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The last couple of years have seen deep divisions in Scottish Football. In essence this boiled down to Rangers supporters against everyone else.
Now, there is definitely a sense that some sections of both camps want to reach agreement. For Scottish Football, this MUST come to pass. We cannot go on with the constant animosity. But how?
There has to be a meeting of minds. But how can this be achieved when one side insists that Rangers died and the other demands that it lives?
On the one hand, there is no doubt that Rangers died. On the other, it is irrefutable that Rangers exists.
The question is ‘where did one die and the other begin?’. Or is it? Did Rangers die? Was it reborn?
This is the crux of everything that has occurred over the last two years.
For my money, there is no doubt Rangers died. Charles bought the assets but could not achieve SPL membership nor SFA membership. Then, in early August, the new Rangers were granted associate membership of the SFA. Full membership was not available to a new club.
Now, in 2013, Scottish football must move on. Rangers must acknowledge its status as a new club. The rest of Scottish football must then stop trying to persecute the Ibrox club.
McMordors piece is still littered with the delusional sevco 2012 mindset ,my bet is that he knows the damning comments in the FTT hearing leaves 1872 in up to their neck ,so lets start digging to see if anyone else has been at it .
More of a muddying of the waters in the face of overwhelming guilt than any reality check IMO
pau1mart1n says:
Monday, January 21, 2013 at 20:35
dear bill, if i remember correctly the sfa asked every club that question.
i found it very suspect at the time. i assumed they were carrying out their pre emptive whitabootery.
anyone ever ask regan what the responses turned up ?? did jim ??
————————————————————————————-
You are correct, Paul, in March 2012 the SFA gave clubs four weeks to confirm or deny whether they had made undisclosed payments to their players. All 93 member clubs were sent the contract query, and I recall that 92 responded, stating they had complied with the rules.
On deadline day in April, though, this information was pushed off the sports pages by ongoing Ibrox news.
Lord Wobbly says:
Monday, January 21, 2013 at 21:01
For my money, there is no doubt Rangers died. Charles bought the assets but could not achieve SPL membership nor SFA membership. Then, in early August, the new Rangers were granted associate membership of the SFA. Full membership was not available to a new club.
====
Is it not the case that the RFC membership of the SFA (a full membership) was transferred to Sevco as a result of the 5 way agreement?
I understand, however, that they became associate members of the SFL on 13 July, following a vote by the SFL clubs, since they had no normal route to entry of SFL3.
HirsutePursuit says:
Monday, January 21, 2013 at 13:23
WRT the potential correction of results and re-assignment of titles, I don’t see how Newco can get involved.
,,,,,,,,,,,
HP
I agree Green can`t fight against sanctions or title stripping from any standpoint that is remotely legal.
But I don`t think that`s his intention
He has ample evidence that the governing bodies respond in the desired manner when they are verbally and physically intimidated by him and the loonies he attracts to his newco
This is a PR war with the gloves off
Spivs versus Cowards
I would not rule out any action that applies psychological or physical pressure on those with the ability to ignore LNS findings. I`m pretty sure the Cowards at the SPL and SFA expect this to happen. Fear will drive them to delay their response until they have left office
And as for Green`s true feelings about owning the history?
He is on tape on You Tube saying RFC history dies if a CVA is rejected.
So his real motivation is money,
All that matters is maximising ST income so the Spivs can milk it with umpteen wheezes. Nothing else matters.
Any wheeze that sounds too good to be true will be untrue.
The Spivs will be gone before any accounts are ever published by any of the newcos set up to milk TRFC
It’s how Spivs operate
Lord Wobbly says:
Monday, January 21, 2013 at 21:01
The last couple of years have seen deep divisions in Scottish Football. In essence this boiled down to Rangers supporters against everyone else.
Now, there is definitely a sense that some sections of both camps want to reach agreement. For Scottish Football, this MUST come to pass. We cannot go on with the constant animosity. But how?
There has to be a meeting of minds. But how can this be achieved when one side insists that Rangers died and the other demands that it lives?
On the one hand, there is no doubt that Rangers died. On the other, it is irrefutable that Rangers exists.
The question is ‘where did one die and the other begin?’. Or is it? Did Rangers die? Was it reborn?
This is the crux of everything that has occurred over the last two years.
For my money, there is no doubt Rangers died. Charles bought the assets but could not achieve SPL membership nor SFA membership. Then, in early August, the new Rangers were granted associate membership of the SFA. Full membership was not available to a new club.
Now, in 2013, Scottish football must move on. Rangers must acknowledge its status as a new club. The rest of Scottish football must then stop trying to persecute the Ibrox club.
——
Lord Wobbly – there have been many longer and more intricate (and largely unread) posts on this blog. Unlike our cap-doffing section, I am not usually given to blowing smoke up anyone’s arse (I may make an exception for Stevie Nicks if required), but I have to say that was one of the most refreshing and sensible comments I’ve read here.
—
Perhaps the simplest question to ask of anyone claiming TRFC to be RFC(IL) would be “Why are they not in the SPL this season?”. They were not relegated, nor were they consigned to the SFL as any form of punishment.
Quite ignoring the jiggerypokery that got them there, why exactly do they find themselves in the bottom league?
Can a journalist ask Mr Green, please, and follow up the questioning if/when he initially gives an incorrect answer?
Once the “intelligent design” rather than “evolution” of TRFC is admitted and accepted – and it has to be if TRFC are to remain in Scotland – then I believe some manner of reconciliation will gather speed in exponential fashion.
does anyone know
1 – did HMRC get to appeal and get it in on time
2 – what is the SFA doing about the fact mr.green/sevco/oldco went to the Court of Session
and broke the SFA/UEFA/FIFA rules
madbhoy24941 says:
Monday, January 21, 2013 at 02:39
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….
Refer back to my post yesterday. Celtic do exactly that through a wholly owned subsidiary company called Protectevent Ltd. It’s not unusual in any way, and makes complete sense financially, as the company can undertake work for other events too, thus contributing a profit to the group.
paulmac2 says:
Monday, January 21, 2013 at 17:42
You probably missed my question amongst all the others. The rule in question is actually from SPL rules not SFA from registration procedures at
http://www.scotprem.com/content/mediaassets/doc/RULES%20EFFECTIVE%203%20DECEMBER%202012.pdf where it states:
D1.13 A Club must, as a condition of Registration and for a Player to be eligible to Play in Official Matches, deliver the executed originals of ALL Contracts of Service and amendments and/or extensions to Contracts of Service and ALL other agreements providing for payment, other than for reimbursement of expenses actually incurred, between that Club and Player, to the Secretary, within fourteen days of such Contract of Service or other agreement being entered into, amended and/or, as the case may be, extended.
My question is why is this rule necessary, what was it intended to do when introduced?
I have had a look for what the SFA equivalent is but am struggling to find it. They seem to defer to Article 8 of FIFA rules
Article 8 Application for Registration
The application for registration of a professional must be submitted together
with a copy of the player’s contract. The relevant decision-making body has
discretion to take account of any contractual amendments or additional
agreements that have not been duly submitted to it
but their section on Registration procedures at http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/ScottishFAPublications2012-13/SFA_HANDBOOK_201-280_Registration_Procedures.pdf
seems under 4. Agreement Between Club and Player
4.1 General Provisions
4.1.1 Other than Rule 4.1, the provisions of this Rule 4 do NOT apply to Clubs in membership
of the Scottish Premier League or the Scottish Football League.
without saying specifically what does. Maybe you can find out what registration rules the SFA have or are they covered by the SPL.
Regardless why is it necessary to have a rule to report all payments and did Rangers swerve the intent by not asking the SPL or SFA if ebts were not payments in the SPL’s eyes which was H Poons point I think.
Jimlarkin at 21.57. 1. HMRC did get their appeal in before the deadline. 2. The SFA will do Sweet Fanny Adams about Sevco/COS/Fifa rules being breached as Glennie ruled against them.
“…The fact is that Rangers under David Murray ceased to be the good guys of Scottish football…”
—————————————————————————————————————————
Probably a reference to the signing of Mojo 😉
paranoidmotherwellfan says:
Monday, January 21, 2013 at 22:17
madbhoy24941 says:
Monday, January 21, 2013 at 02:39
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….
Refer back to my post yesterday. Celtic do exactly that through a wholly owned subsidiary company called Protectevent Ltd. It’s not unusual in any way, and makes complete sense financially, as the company can undertake work for other events too, thus contributing a profit to the group.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
paranoidmotherwellfan
The facts are clear
TRFC have switched their Security contract to a newly created co called Garrion Security Services Limited
And
According to information provided to Companies House which is the source of “Company Check”
From
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 is a known fact that the RIFC share raising document claimed that Garrion were a “subsidiary undertaking” of RIFC i.e. a co controlled by RIFC
Meaning Garrion have to roll up their accounts into RIFC accounts
But
This claim is contradicted by Companies House
So who do you believe?
A bunch of Spivs ?
Or Companies House?
Goosey
Interesting contradiction there ,wonder what would lead to such confusion of such a seemingly simple situation .
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
From Twitterland:
@mdkster: Interesting comments from @markdaly2 today about Lord Hodge and the BBC’s evidence of Duff & Phelps’ conflict of interest.
@mdkster: Not a lot to report, but @markdaly2 did reveal (under questioning from yours truly) that Lord Hodge ordered the BBC to disclose its evidence
@mdkster: The BBC then supplied LH with crystal clear evidence that D&P were conflicted and had lied. Apparently LH has decided to wait until the IPA>
If D&P were officers of the court, why is LH waiting on the IPA investigation before reaching a decision on his own?
Is he looking for an escape route?
Aussie outfit Central Coast Mariners have rubbished claims by Rangers chief executive Charles Green that the two sides are in discussions over a Rangers academy partnership down under.
Green had claimed last week: “I am going to meet the directors of Central Coast Mariners on the back of conversations we have had.
“Australia is producing and has produced good footballers and one of the things we are looking at is putting an academy together with Mariners and its something w have exchanged emails on and something we would like to take forward.”
Greens comments came on the same day that city rivals Celtic signed Central Coast Mariners midfielder Tom Rogic for a reported £400,000. The discussions in relation to the Academy proposal was part of the Ibrox side’s enquiry over taking keeper Matt Ryan to the club on trial, however Ryan rejected the advances of Ally McCoist’s side citing uncertainty over the league situation.
But despite Green’s statement – before he ventures down under to meet Rangers fans in Australia – a Mariners spokesperson stated that they will not entertain any idea of partnering up with the club
Speaking exclusively to , a club spokesperson said: “At this stage Central Coast Mariners FC is fully focused on developing its own Academy pathway.
“We are open to the idea of collaboration with various professionals and professional clubs, however there is as you are aware, uncertainty with the level of football Rangers will play at for the foreseeable future.
“We would not entertain the prospect of acting as a feeder club or Academy partner with a club currently playing in the lower echelons of Scottish football.”
There was some good news for Rangers though, with the A-league club willing to consider any future proposal when Rangers situation changes.
The Mariners spokesperson added: “If/when Rangers situation changes, we would look to an Academy proposal more seriously.”
liveinhop says:
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 07:46
” … putting an academy together with Mariners and its something we have exchanged emails on and something we would like to take forward.”
——
Something “we” would like to take forward. “We” as in TRFC, not as in “both TRFC and the Mariners”, obviously. 🙂
Do these Australian upstart dags not realise they’re dealing with a club second in standing only to Manchester United?
Most amusing.
Excuse me? Since did ManU overtake them?
Serious question, what/whos IPA?
Since when, when, when I say. Note to self. Must proof read better.
IPA – insolvency practitioners association (“governing” body of administrators like D&P)
So, to the subject of the current Blog.
It is a fantastic bit of work by Auldheid.
I was hugely disheartened by the response to it when 1st published – and since that time, my participation in this blog has dropped off somewhat.
It would be great to get some feedback from the supporters associations that this has been sent to.
Do supporters associations (in general) agree with it, will they put it to their members to discuss and will they be putting it to their clubs?
I honestly believe the clubs need sight of this document with their own supporters associations endorsement ASAP, we are about to pass the LNS enquiry and after that, there is NOTHING going on that can highlight the financial vandalism and sporting injustice carried out by the dead club.
If LNS is a lame duck and there is no meaningful punishment/sanction/consequence to the history of RFC, they will be vindicated for their (in some cases – WTC, PAYE/NI withheld last year and the 5 EBT players in the BTC) admitted cheating.
This will see the clubs/leagues return to the status quo.
that will be wrong for 2 reasons….1. The SPL has been a disaster for the game in Scotland. 2. Fans will start to ask “what is the point”
if the league is set up purely for the benefit of 2 members and everyone else is simply a hanger on, then it is only a matter of time before the continued arrogance and anger from 1 club will drive the rest of the fans away from the game as they tire of the growing injustices.
personally, that bridge has been crossed for me, despite having been a long term season ticket holder at Celtic (even in the bad years pre fergus) I no longer have a season ticket, i don’t have sky/espn, and despite having the technological know how, i don’t even watch online feeds of games – the beeb highlights will do for me. I packed in going to Scotland games several years ago as well – having travelled abroad regularly and to every home game.
I had plans to watch a couple of my local clubs – between livingston, falkirk and Linlithgow rose, depending on the game that day.
but the truth is, what is the point? it’s a fixed game. the rules of a game don’t apply.
Anything short of a suspension or expulsion of TRFC followed with the departures of at least ogilvie, but probably regan, doncaster and longmuir as well means i’ll never be back to another scottish game at any level. I don’t expect any of the above to happen, so the game is as good as dead to me.
i don’t even want to rip the pi5h out of sevconians i know for their “troubles” anymore, fact is, it’s an injustice they have made it this far in their current format.
So, the only hope for me, and for the scottish game, is that supporters associations put this proposal to their clubs and that their clubs heed it.
So, in summary…..WHICH SUPPORTERS ASSOCIATIONS HAVE ENDORSED THIS AND WILL BE PUTTING IT TO THEIR CLUBS?
NotTheHuddleBoard
Thanks for that aknowledgement but it has been a collaberative effort as the original was worked and reworked to get a version that could be considered to have captured the thoughts and feelings of the blog over a period of time. I had every confidence in the talents of contributors that something worthwhile would emerge and I was not disappointed.
You are spot on in terms of supporters groups responses as that will tell us if we are (as Alex Thomson rightly asks) representative of the Scottish football support or simply mavericks. I understand 2 Trusts are to raise the issue at their AGMs but I’m sure TSFM will keep us up to date as others respond.
I think we owe it to a game that has given us much enjoyment both pain and pleasure during our lives to protect it from itself and lets hope that our concerns do not fall on deaf ears.
Auldheid says:
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 10:42
ok, congratulations to ALL who contributed.
NTHM,
I think all the comments about Auldheid’s blog were all positive, give or take one or two suggestions, but as it received almost universal approval (even amongst those who didn’t comment) it hasn’t been discussed at the length it undoubtedly deserves. If there had been a few dissenters we might have had much more discussion on it, but the few regular Gers fans who write here, and even the trolls, couldn’t find much to fault in it to spark further debate. I suppose that bears out RTC’s point that blogs like this need the Adam’s etc to help us focus.
In an effort to try to find out if any of the Hearts supporters organisations have taken up the draft proposal I’ve just posted the following on Jamboskickback:
___________________________________
‘Does anyone know if any of the Hearts supporters groups are acting on this suggestion by Auldheid on TSFM to lobby the SPL, SFA or SFL to try to produce better, more accountable governance of football in Scotland. In my oppinion it’s an excellent effort and worthy of the backing of all supporters clubs and representatives. Efforts have been made to prevent it being a Rangers knocking exercise and it is merely an attempt to get these bodies sorted out and to respect sporting integrity. Alex Thomson, of Channel 4 News, has featured it in his most recent blog.
I’ve attached a link for anyone who hasn’t read it yet, my appologies if it doesn’t work, I’m not great at these things, but if it doesn’t, and you’re interested, get on over to The Scottish Football Monitor and read it there.
As far as I’m concerned there’s no point in supporters moaning about the decisions/actions/non-actions etc of these governing bodies if nothing is done when an opportunity presents itself.’
_____________________________________
I hope I find a positive response and will let you know. If others think this a good idea then please do similar on your team’s forums and let us know the result 🙂
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 10:10
So, in summary…..WHICH SUPPORTERS ASSOCIATIONS HAVE ENDORSED THIS AND WILL BE PUTTING IT TO THEIR CLUBS?
================
A great post, which sums up my own feelings of despair regarding the future of our game. I fear that the future, as planned by the authorities, will simply be a rerun of the past. The imaginations of the highly paid individuals charged with running the game simply cannot contemplate a future without their pet club, which is why everything that could be done, was done, to ensure the survival of a “Rangers” in Scottish football.
Your final question is a good one, but perhaps this question is even more critical for the future of the game—
WHICH CLUBS WILL TAKE ANY REAL NOTICE OF WHAT THEIR SUPPORTERS SAY?
I have no hopes at all on that front. The clubs (most of them, anyway) were fully complicit in the shennanigans of last summer. When Sevco can be shoehorned into the SFL ahead of worthier candidates, then I’m afraid that I have no further interest in such a corrupt game.
There are some who post on here who don’t have a problem with that, on the pragmatic basis that TRFC have 50,000 paying customers. To which I would say, where does that sort of “pragmatism” stop? As we can now see, it doesn’t stop, because the rule breaking, bending and twisting required to achieve the pragmatic result has fatally compromised all of those involved, who can now never,ever say no to Charles Green. That is where that sort of “pragmatism” takes you, and there is no way back for those involved, I’m afraid.
As for LNS, what a waste of time that is. The evidence of player registration offences already in the public domain is both overwhelming and conclusive. So what’s the hold up? All this delay is simply designed to let memories fade, everyone loses interest, it all becomes ancient history, and the whole business can be swept under the rug as quietly and discreetly as possible. I have no doubt that there will be plenty who in due course applaud that as a “pragmatic outcome”, for the greater good of the game, blah, blah, blah. It will be a game without me as a paying customer, though, and I doubt I’ll be the only one who does walking away.
allyjambo says:
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 10:56
0 0 Rate This
NTHM,
I think all the comments about Auldheid’s blog were all positive
=====================================
i didn’t mean the approval/disapproval of the piece itself….i meant the lack of a next step, no call to arms, in Celtic parlance there was no cries of “to the car park”
since it was published, IMO, it was a direct call for supporters action…..we all seem to be looking at our shoes and shuffling our feet and looking a bit sheepish.
and then we are back to oldco/newco arguments and simply….like the gutter press and dear departed rangers fans waiting for the next bill miller/bill ng/blue knights etc. to save them….done nothing
I am more guilty than most on this front, as frankly, my interest in the game is fast waning…indeed…i am simply waiting to see if the people involved in the game have the wherewithal to save it or if they are indeed simply happy with their snouts in the ever diminishing trough who will eventually starve themselves through inaction.
I’ve already decided I owe the game nothing, it is now time for the game to show me it wants me back. but i know not everyone is at that stage yet and they might be more proactive in trying to save it.
NTHM,
‘….i meant the lack of a next step, no call to arms, in Celtic parlance there was no cries of “to the car park” ‘
Unfortunately, what you say is spot on. I think due to the fact that supporters have always been expected to turn up regardless, because they do, they have never been listened to by the clubs or the governing bodies (with one or two notable exceptions, in exceptional circumstances) and have become all too ready to accept ‘there’s nothing we can do’. Celtic fans, and Hibs fans, were able to galvanise themselves into action when the time came because they were all 100% of the same mind and knew that they couldn’t leave it to somebody else to sort out the mess. Unfortunately, while most of us on here are of a similar mind, regardless of which team we support, the majority of fans see the governance as boring and are happy to leave it to somebody else, and to moan about it all over a pint. In truth, all the supporters organisations should be taking heed of Auldheid’s proposal, grasping the nettle, and, after adjusting the draft if they wish, or even writing one entirely of their own, doing something that will benefit the whole of Scottish football, (though it might make Regan et al’s positions less cosy) as well as their own club.
Bit of light relief
INSOLVENCY PRACTITIONERS ASSOCIATION
CERTIFICATE OF PROFICIENCY IN INSOLVENCY
Examination Friday 8th June 2007 P.M.
Question 26
A partner of your firm has been appointed Administrator of Rangers Limited a manufacturing company. The supplier of lease manufacturing equipment has arrived on the premises threatening to distrain. (= legally take something in place of a debt payment)
What is the legal position of the lease creditor and the Administrator and what action should you take?
(4 marks)
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Mmmm…..
Whoever chose the name “Rangers” for this innocuous exam question had great foresight .
One month later the infamous Boumsong raid on Ibrox took place. Some of the records seized by Scotland Yard found their way to HMRC and kicked off the tax investigation which led to the death of the club
NotTheHuddleboard
Remember to include yourself as the original draft only came about because of all the contribution, even those not used, since the TSFM blog started. 🙂
Neepheid
Allyjambo
NTHB
A couple of sayings that I fall back on when nothing seems to be happening.
Infinite patience produces immediate results.
Time has a purpose you know, it stops everything happening all at once.
Having said that what supporters are trying do is get the SFA to realise they cannot continue to proceed on a business as usual lines and there is another avenue we can try if this initiative falls on deaf ears.
But no rush to push the river at the mo.
No fawning from Jim Mcinally
McInally blasts Rangers as Division Three flops
Peterhead boss unimpressed with Glasgow side
By Ben Holme
Published: 22/01/2013
Bookmark with: Share on linkedinShare on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on gmailShare on stumbleuponShare on favoritesMore Sharing Services
More Pictures
NO WAY THROUGH: Peterhead’s Jamie Redman, left, and David Cox (No7) crowd out Rangers’ David Templeton.PETERHEAD manager Jim McInally today blasted Rangers as flops, despite the Glasgow giants running away with the Third Division title.
The Blue Toon boss was highly unimpressed with how the Gers performed during their 1-0 win at Balmoor.
McInally insisted that Rangers should be doing a lot more against the sides of Scotland’s bottom tier due to the amount of money at their disposal.
He said: “Rangers have been praised for being professional for beating us 1-0, but they should be doing a lot more with their multi-million pound budget.
“They should be wiping the floor with every team in the Third Division.
“A lot of their players are on several thousand pounds a week.
“They certainly didn’t look any fitter than us for a full-time team.
“They shouldn’t be getting any praise – the game really should have been a no-contest.”
For more on this story, pick up a copy of today’s Evening Express or read our digital edition now
Auldheid (@Auldheid) says:
Monday, January 21, 2013 at 22:27
13 0 Rate This
paulmac2 says:
Monday, January 21, 2013 at 17:42
You probably missed my question amongst all the others. The rule in question is actually from SPL rules not SFA from registration procedures at
http://www.scotprem.com/content/mediaassets/doc/RULES%20EFFECTIVE%203%20DECEMBER%202012.pdf where it states:
D1.13 A Club must, as a condition of Registration and for a Player to be eligible to Play in Official Matches, deliver the executed originals of ALL Contracts of Service and amendments and/or extensions to Contracts of Service and ALL other agreements providing for payment, other than for reimbursement of expenses actually incurred, between that Club and Player, to the Secretary, within fourteen days of such Contract of Service or other agreement being entered into, amended and/or, as the case may be, extended.
My question is why is this rule necessary, what was it intended to do when introduced?
I have had a look for what the SFA equivalent is but am struggling to find it. They seem to defer to Article 8 of FIFA rules
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Thanks for that…
In essence Auldheid…the rules on clarification on payments stem from FIFA having to try and deal with match fixing over the past decades..
In order to be accepted into the FIFA family…UEFA must adhere…and so on and so forth for national associations to members of FIFA and UEFA..
There needs to be clarity on WHO is paying a player and for what purpose…if there is nothing to hide there is nothing to fear..
Going back to the 50’s and 60’s it was not unusual for players to receive payment in envelopes in their shoes after a game…there were games where blatently obvious own goals where being scored…money was changing hands outwith the control of the club..
The bottom line is…if a player is receiving remuniration from a third party who may or may not have a financial or business interest in another club…then to all concerned there is the opportunity to influence the outcome of a match or competition.
Lets say the above rule does not exist and I play for Aberdeen (goalkeeper) and I am payed a grand a week…but I also receive a sponsorship payment every month of 5 grand from a company whose owner is a major shareholder in another SPL club…and come the end of the season the shareholders club has the chance to qualify for Europe if they beat my club…or lets say the odds are favourable for a bet to be placed that could recoup the 5 grand a week I have been getting payed….knowing who is paying me becomes important…I believe this drifts back to certain games that took place back in the 60’s in England…
This is where FIFA decided there must be rules that clearly established and defined how a player should be paid and by who. This in itself won’t stop match fixing..but it did provide a starting point for the football authorities.
To sum up…the rule defines the player as professional…who is paying him and within the contract how much…this is as far as the authorities can go to try and overcome a conflict of interest payments from a third party.
neepheid says:
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 11:07
……………………………………………………….
You may find the hold up is awaiting the next big major news event/disaster to occur to over shadow the results being slipped out in the hope the big story gives little column space to the LNS conclusion.
I’m slightly perturbed by the silence down Govan way, wrt LNS.
A week to go and no grandstanding from Charlie – who has never knowingly missed an opportunity in the past to play to the hordes.
So why is it so quiet now, when they were gnashing their teeth loudly not so long ago that ‘their titles would never be stripped from them’ ?
Does Charlie know something the Internet Bampots don’t about the LNS Inquiry ?
Or is it a deliberate change in strategy to a more conciliatory approach ?
Getting confused again ! 😉
PaulMac
Many thanks for that. Would it therefore be fair to say that the fundamental purpose of the rule was to protect the integrity of football by removing as far as possible the ways that clubs could fall victim of non footballing influences using payments as an inducement to put integrity last?
If that is so and payments were not registered surely given the sums and regularity involved it is difficult to accept a technical oversight took place if indeed LNS finds full financial info was not disclosed in the player contract for service.
If my memory serves me correctly from Poon the decision not to disclose was made by MIH who were in charge of the ebt arrangement across the MIH business spectrum.
Given that there is an argument that ebts might be construed as 3rd party payments because of the way payments were made, is this not a possible reason why the SFA were never asked for guidance, a point I think Poon made. Alternatively was it the fear that the SFA might say ebts had to be registered or might ask HMRC for guidance and rule out their use that influenced MIH not to seek clarification and so not disclose in full?
Rangers or MIH, regardless of who and why took the decision that ebts need not be disclosed, and so were taking a decision on a football rule that was not in their competence to take/make and that for me makes it more than a techical oversight.
That is not to say the consequences will be particularly severe, damage limitation being order of the day, but the idea that full details not being disclosed was an unintended action, almost a clerical/administrative error, is going to need a very hard sell to convince me Rangers did not know exactly what they were doing and why.
I suspect I will not be alone.
Auldheid at 15:51,
re the SPLIC,
The fact is a lot easier to show than the intent.
Establishing that event(s) did or did not happen is one thing, but proving who might have intended them to happen, or other related explanations for the event, is another. A muddle or a fiddle?
Questions around intent of those that could be responsible will say something about their integrity and honesty, which is at another level from questions simply over competency.
I think that there would be a heavier burden of proof.
Auldheid says:
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 15:51
You are not alone! Only a fool, or someone with an interest in seeing a whitewash, could possibly imagine the non-disclosure to the SFA of the EBTs was anything other than a deliberate ploy to keep their true use, by Rangers, a secret. It would be a huge stretch of the imagination even if they had only used them for one season, but we know it lasted for 10 years. If it is true that they only came to light because of the Boumsong investigation ie by accident, then the ploy to keep them secret was very effective and so might never have been discovered. Such brilliant, long term, deceptions rarely, if ever, come about by accident!
allyjambo says:
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 16:24
0 0 Rate This
Auldheid says:
===========
Not forgetting the admission of shredding evidence mentioned in a e-mail.
David McCloy says:
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 16:16
0 0 Rate This
Auldheid at 15:51,
re the SPLIC,
The fact is a lot easier to show than the intent.
====
I agree. Which might explain the basis for this-http://www.glasgowwired.co.uk/news.php/201156-Contract-error-costs-Spartans-Scottish-Cup-place
I look forward to witnessing the fearless impartiality with which our highly esteemed authorities deal with any minor oversights which RFC may (or may not, we mustn’t prejudge) have inadvertently been responsible for. In fact I can hardly wait.
David McCloy says:
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 16:16
The LNS enquiry is into the breaking of rules and, if it is found that rules were broken, it would then be up to Rangers to prove it was done in error, which could prove problematical when documents have been shredded. D&P’s reluctance to provide the paperwork requested, and the fact documents were missing that were required at the FTTT, also point towards deliberate deception. It has been stated, and was uncontested, at the FTTT that they were not included in the player registration documents deliberately so even the judges there, who found in the EBTs not illegal, agreed on this. Pretty difficult for the LNS enquiry to find otherwise! Add to that that this is not a criminal court, and therefor absolute proof is not required, will make the defence, ‘oops we made a mistake, sorry’ pretty hard to swallow.
StevieBC on Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 15:26
4 0 Rate This
I’m slightly perturbed by the silence down Govan way, wrt LNS.
A week to go and no grandstanding from Charlie – who has never knowingly missed an opportunity in the past to play to the hordes.
So why is it so quiet now, when they were gnashing their teeth loudly not so long ago that ‘their titles would never be stripped from them’ ?
Does Charlie know something the Internet Bampots don’t about the LNS Inquiry ?
Or is it a deliberate change in strategy to a more conciliatory approach ?
Getting confused again !
———————————————
Maybe Mr Charles will be using the “we’re not the same club” defence!
Now that his investors/creditors been paid back?
Or have they?
Auldheid says:
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 15:51
With regard to whether or not MIH should have taken advice from the footballing authorities and/or HMRC with regard to the EBT loans.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/eimanual/eim26110.htm
“Loan made by a third party – employee benefit trust
It is not uncommon for a third party, such as an employee benefit trust (EBT), to make a loan to a beneficiary who is also an employee of the employer which is associated with the EBT. It is sometimes suggested that the loan is not an “employment-related loan” (EIM26113) because the definition of that term does not include a loan provided by a third party.
Whilst it is true that the definition includes no reference to a third party loan provider, HMRC does not accept that the loan is not an employment-related loan. The definition of “employment-related loan” includes a loan made by an employee’s employer. As “making” a loan includes “in any way facilitating” a loan, if the employer provides the money to fund the EBT, the employer is regarded as making the loan.
Consequently for the purposes of the loan benefit rules, the EBT is ignored and the loan is treated as made directly by the employer to the employee. It follows that the loan is an employment-related loan.”
I have banged on about this before. In looking at the above HMRC do not see the EBT loan as a third party payment/loan as the trust is merely a ‘middle man’ or facilitator. (whether they are right in terms of legal opinion may be another matter!!!)
I may be wrong but I would expect that the footballing authorities would take the same view/guidance as HMRC and that would then end (with some relief on their part?) the discussions on third parties being involved.
Of course it does not remove the question of whether or not these loan payments needed to be included on paperwork submitted to the footballing authorities.
The FTTT verdict seems to say that they were indeed loans. The question is therefore where, in the footballing rules, does it say that such loans need to be declared on a players paperwork.
This has always been my fear in that there will be legal wriggle room to get out of it because the rules will not have been written to deal with such an occurance.
In my view SDM and MIH kept quiet because they were worning on the basis of “If you don;t think you’ll like the answer, don’t ask the question”.
wottpi says:
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 16:45
I think this is where the side letters will come into play. They were, I believe, an undertaking to pay money, by way of an EBT, as an inducement to sign and play for Rangers, as the players’ wages are. Remember too, that the FTTT only found in Rangers/MIH favour because HMRC didn’t claim the loans were scams, and the fact that they were remunerations was never disputed.
I also know that HMRC view low interest loans to employees as benefits in kind and that tax is payable on the difference between the rate paid and a notional rate of interest, and they got their’s for free, with no repayments made to date! (Could it be that HMRC will now go after recipients of EBTs on these grounds?) So if the LNS tribunal take HMRC guidelines on benefits in kind into consideration they must also find the EBTs as benefits in kind and, therefor, that they should appear on a player’s registration. It wouldn’t have been hard to include in the registration papers something along the lines of ‘xxx will receive an interest free loan during the course of each season, amount to be advised after drawdown.’ In fact, it would make perfect sense to do so, especially if they weren’t sure if it was required or not; unless, of course, they had some reason not to make them public or available to HMRC inspectors!
It all depends on whether or not the SPL/SFA want a just verdict, or a convenient verdict, and I suppose there is leeway in there for them to use.
Probably already known on here but I thought I would post it anyway.
http://thedemiseofrangersinpictures.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/charles-greens-hold-over-sfl.html?spref=tw