A spectre is haunting Scottish Football

From the TSFM Manifesto 🙂

A spectre is haunting Scottish Football — the spectre of Sporting Integrity. All the powers of the old firms have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Billy and Dan, Blazer and Cassock, Record and Sun, Balance Sheet and P&L.
Where is the football fan in opposition to these that has not been decried as a “sporting integrity bampot” by his opponents in power?

Two things result from this fact:

I. Sporting Integrity is already widely acknowledged to be itself a power for good.

II. It is high time that Lovers of Sport should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Sporting Integrity with a manifesto of fair play.

To this end, Lovers of Sport of various partisanship have assembled on TSFM and sketched their manifesto, to be published on tsfm.scot.

Those who love sport though are challenged not just by the taunts of the monosyllabic automatons in the MSM, but by the owners of our football clubs who have displayed an almost total disregard to our wish to have a fair competition played out in the spirit of friendly rivalry. In fact the clubs, who speak those fine words, are not nearly as outraged as we are by the damage done to the integrity of the sport in the past few years .

In fact the term Sporting Integrity has become, since the latter stages of the Rangers era, a term of abuse; a mocking soubriquet attached to those who want sport to be just that – sport.

Sporting integrity now lives in the same media pigeon-hole as words like Islam, left-wing, militant, Muslim – and a host of others; words which are threats to the established order now set up as in-jokes, in order to reduce the effectiveness of the idea.

In fact, a new terminology has evolved in the reporting of football by both club officials and The Succulent Lamb Chapel alike;

“.. Sporting Integrity but …”.

For example

“We all want sporting integrity, but finance is more important”

Says who exactly?

Stated in such a matter of fact way that the obvious question is headed off at the pass, it is sometimes difficult to re-frame the discussion – perhaps because crayon is so hard to erase?

This is the backdrop to The Scottish Football Monitor and the world in which we live. Often the levels of scrutiny employed by our contributors are far in excess of any scrutiny employed by the MSM. Indeed our ideas and theories are regularly plagiarised by those very same lazy journalists who lurk here, and cherry-pick material to suit their own agendas; regularly claiming exclusives for stories that TSFM and RTC before us had placed in the public domain weeks earlier.

This was going to lead into a discourse about the love of money versus the love of sport – of how the sacred cows of acquisitiveness, gate- retention and turnstile spinning is far more important to the heads of our football clubs (the Billys, Dans and Blazers of the intro) than maintaining the traditions of our sport.

However events of Friday 14th November have given me cause to leave that for another day. The biggest squirrel of all in this sorry saga has always been the sleight of hand employed instil a siege mentality in the Rangers fans. The press have time and again assisted people (with no love of football in general or Rangers in particular) to enrich themselves – legally or otherwise – and feed on the loyalty of Rangers fans.

A matter for Rangers fans may also be the identity of some of those who had their trust, but who also assisted the Whytes and Greens by their public statements of support.

Our contention has been that rules have been bent twisted or broken to accommodate those people, the real enemies of the Rangers fans – and fans everywhere.

Through our collective research and group-analysis of events, we have also wondered out loud about the legality of many aspects of the operating style of some of the main players in the affair. That suspicion has been shared most notably by Mark Daly and Alex Thompson, but crucially now appears to be shared by Law Enforcement.

I confess I am fed up with the self-styled “bampot” epithet. For the avoidance of doubt, the “bampots” in this affair are those who have greater resources than us, and access to the truth, but who have lacked either the will or the courage or the imagination to follow it through.

We are anything but bampots. Rather, we have demonstrated that the wisdom of the crowd is more effective by far than any remnants of wisdom in the press.

I have no doubt that the police investigation into this matter is proceeding in spite of great opposition in the MSM and the Scottish Football Authorities – all of whom conspired to expose Rangers to the custodianship of those for whom football is a foreign language.

I have no doubt that the constant exposition of wrong-doing on this blog, in particular the questions we have constantly raised, and anomalies we have pointed out, has assisted and enabled the law enforcement agencies in this process.

If we are to be consistent in this, our enabling of the authorities, we MUST show restraint at all times as this process is followed through. People who are charged with a crime deserve to be given a fair trial in the absence of rumour or innuendo. We must also, if we are to continue as the spectre which haunts the avaricious – and the real bampots – be seen to be better than they, and give them no cause to accuse us of irresponsibility.

This affair has now evolved way beyond one club gaining unfair advantage over others. For all the understandable Schadenfreude of many among us, the real enemy is not Rangers, it is about those who enabled and continue to enable the farce at Ibrox.

This is now about systematic cheating at the heart of the Scottish game (in the name of cash and in spite of lip service to sporting integrity), and how the greed of a bunch of ethically challenged officials allowed another group of ethically challenged businessmen free rein to enrich themselves at the expense of the fans.

Whether laws were broken or not, the players at Rangers have come and gone and are variables, but the malignant constant at the SFA and SPFL are still there. Last night, even after the news that four men had been arrested in connection with the takeover at Ibrox in 2011, they were gathered together at Celtic Park with their Irish counterparts, tucking into succulent lamb (perhaps) and fine wines, doing some back slapping, making jokes about the vulgarities of their fans, bragging about the ST money they have banked.

The revolution won’t be over until they are gone, and if they remain, it is Scottish Football that will be over.

 

 

This entry was posted in General by Trisidium. Bookmark the permalink.
Tom Byrne

About Trisidium

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.

4,164 thoughts on “A spectre is haunting Scottish Football


  1. andy graham66

    Just rattling very rough numbers around. 30k * 2 years = 60k original offer. 30k + VAT * 6 years (ish) equals 204k.

    Just as an aside, if you were Dundee United, would you pay it now in advance of their December payroll, or after it, as they are entitled to do? Just asking 😈


  2. Dundee United statement on Charlie Telfer tribunal decision

    Dundee United Chairman Stephen Thompson today issued a warning to parents of all young Scottish players to “choose their clubs very, very carefully”.

    Thompson was reacting to the decision by an SPFL Tribunal that compensation of £204,000 was due to Rangers Football Club following Charlie Telfer’s decision to leave the Ibrox club for Dundee United in the summer.

    His decision was influenced by the fact that he had made only one substitute appearance for Rangers in a competitive match; lasting only 20 minutes in League One when victory was already assured. However, with guidance and development received at Dundee United the player has broken through into the first team and was awarded the SPFL Young Player of the Month in a more senior league.

    The Dundee United Chairman said: “This judgement in our opinion will have a serious impact on the freedom of movement of some young players through no fault of their own.

    “Today’s decision protects clubs even in the event that those clubs are responsible for players’ careers being stifled at a critical stage in their development.

    “It will restrict the opportunities for some of our most promising young players to gain regular first team football and act as a deterrent to any Scottish football club which wishes to take such players on. Today’s decision is completely at odds with the stated aims of our football authorities in respect of encouraging our most promising young players to play first team football at the highest level.

    “It highlights the need for parents and young players to choose their clubs very, very carefully. Today’s judgement now sets a dangerous precedent that means some of our most promising young players will be deprived of the opportunity to secure a contract at a club where they have been offered a genuine first team opportunity and to improve their earnings purely because the compensation has been set at a ridiculously prohibitive level. The sum awarded to Rangers is almost seven times the amount offered to the player under the terms of his new contract with the Glasgow club. “

    In recent years Dundee United has successfully developed the careers of players such as Andy Robertson, Ryan Gauld, Stuart Armstrong, Gary Mackay-Steven, Craig Conway, Paul Dixon, Johnny Russell and David Goodwillie, all of whom benefitted from regular professional coaching and first team football at Dundee United and went on to play at full international or Under 21 level for Scotland.


  3. Smugas says:
    December 9, 2014 at 4:26 pm

    andy graham66

    Just rattling very rough numbers around. 30k * 2 years = 60k original offer. 30k + VAT * 6 years (ish) equals 204k.

    Just as an aside, if you were Dundee United, would you pay it now in advance of their December payroll, or after it, as they are entitled to do? Just asking 😈
    ============================================

    IIRC, did RFC not withhold monies due to DU from a Scottish Cup tie played at Ibrox shortly before or after admin in Feb 2012 ?

    Can’t remember if it was ever paid to DU either.

    If I had the chequebook at DU, I don’t think that particular payment due to TRFC would be top of my list ! And the cheque could get lost in all that Christmas mail… 🙄


  4. that statement reads to me that the original offer was nothing to do with sevco kidding on they were Rangers but that he thought it was a reasonable figure based on wages and playing time.

    thus the media have made it something that, to DUFC, it wasnt


  5. Will DU get the blame for Administration if they don`t pay up before the Dec payroll is due?


  6. I suppose since new Rangers are receving money on behalf of old Rangers they will also be able to pay that £250,000 fine that’s outstanding!

    Someone mentioned BDO and it does seem logical that the compensation will be split between oldco and newco.


  7. Utd Statement

    “Today’s decision protects clubs even in the event that those clubs are responsible for players’ careers being stifled at a critical stage in their development.”

    Double Ouch

    On the bright side Utd have a starting point of £170k plus VAT and upwards for anyone who comes sniffing around their youngsters which may work to their advantage in managing to keep a squad together.


  8. Martin says:
    December 9, 2014 at 4:11 pm

    STV Sport ‏@STVSport

    Correction: Dundee United told to pay Rangers £204,000 (£170k + VAT) for Charlie Telfer move http://bit.ly/1vA3xkI
    =============================================================
    So that’ll be two post dated cheques in the post with/without a stamp then 🙂 One for the balance of £170k to The Rangers Football Club Plc and one to HMRC for £34k.


  9. DP

    I understand BDO have one main responsibility and thats to the creditors, Sevco will not be on their radar for ‘compo’, they may be for gratuitous alienation though.

    Come on Mr Thomson pay Sevco the cash money and immediately take your case for a reduction in fee to CAS,the old Rangers have set the ground rules for you.


  10. And who gets the money — club or company? And since the club is a non-legal entity anyway, transcending space and time, might the dosh not just go straight to Normandy instead? Hard to believe Charles didn’t have some beneficial clauses inserted into contracts.


  11. DP,

    My correction, I get your point now, thunk!

    How can any person argue that it’s the same club and then that you pay part of a fee to its liquidation firm and another to its new firm, by doing that you would be arguing that there are two firms, which takes you back to paying BDO or Sevco. I think, almost reverted to a ‘who’s on first base sketch’ there.

    I’d like DUFC to take this to CAS to have a view from anywhere else bar this Scotland place of fearties.


  12. Rangers Statement:

    RANGERS has received today the decision of the SPFL Compensation Tribunal and are content with the fee Dundee United have been ordered to pay for the training and development of Charlie Telfer who was at the Club for a period of 10 years.

    The payment awarded, which was significantly higher than Dundee United’s final offer, vindicates the Club’s decision to take the matter to a Compensation Tribunal.
    Dundee United introduced a late argument stating Rangers should only be awarded compensation for the training and development of Charlie Telfer for 2 years instead of the 10 years that he was with the Club. They argued the Club in its current form has only existed for two years.
    It is disappointing Dundee United tried to pursue this tiresome, legally incorrect and provocative argument given that it has been repeatedly confirmed by the football authorities in Scotland and beyond that administration and liquidation of the companies that owned the Club did not break the continuity of the Club’s history or its record of honours won.


  13. I may have missed something in the Dundee United statement, but if that is what they built their case on, I am not surprised they lost. It seems to say that if a young player doesn’t get a reasonable crack of the whip at the club that has developed him, his new club should only pay a reduced compensation fee. It might be fairer on young players, but where does it say anything remotely like that in either the SFA or SPFL rules? There is nothing in the statement that I would see as justification for withholding money, and I can’t believe anyone would give themselves the trouble of going to a tribunal if that was their sole argument. In fact, I don’t believe that was United’s reasoning and argument, at all. Clearly, though, much water has passed under many bridges since Telfer signed for DUFC, and much time has elapsed in which pressure could be brought to bear. I note he’s not saying that this was their argument and it seems more like a deflection to prevent any suggestions that the matter should be taken further.


  14. Martin says:
    December 9, 2014 at 5:19 pm

    Rangers Statement:

    It is disappointing Dundee United tried to pursue this tiresome, legally incorrect and provocative argument given that it has been repeatedly confirmed by the football authorities in Scotland and beyond that administration and liquidation of the companies that owned the Club did not break the continuity of the Club’s history or its record of honours won.
    ===========================
    Spoke too soon yesterday that TRFC had held a ‘dignified silence’ since Ashley’s involvement.

    TRFC should have said nothing, IMO, and just taken the money.


  15. I’ve always been of the view that Dundee United would have to pay the full amount. Telfer has been developed for the six years that compensation is payable. The only question for me was whether or not a proportion of it was due to Oldco.

    We may or may not see the reasons for the decision, but I think it will come down to the purchase of player registrations in 2012 and the poor deal that D&P did for the creditors.


  16. Martin says:
    December 9, 2014 at 5:19 pm

    Well, after that statement, Dundee United would be somewhat daft to let the matter lie. It is the first time I can recall anyone involved state that it was ‘legally incorrect’ to pursue the OC/NC argument. I have also yet to hear the football authorities once, let alone repeatedly, confirm that liquidation didn’t break the continuity of the club. They just left it to the supporters to decide.

    Strange, that if the football authorities had repeatedly come down on the ‘same club’ side of the argument, that Dundee United were unaware of it and didn’t just pay up to begin with, or, if made aware at some later date, back down and pay up. Have the authorities connived with TRFC to go to a tribunal to make their point, while humiliating DUFC?


  17. Unfortunately Allyjambo you may well be spot on.

    Liquidation is the new Administration it seems, only in Scottish Football and for one ‘peepil’.

    Deary deary me, our game is stinking.

    This ‘stench’ of manipulation from Ogilvie and Doncaster will put more fans off the game than this Zombie team can bring in to the game, one eejit still believes in the ‘rangers global fanbase’ myth that their own Dir. Hugh Adam dismissed, the other is Sevco through and through.


  18. howiemac says:
    December 9, 2014 at 5:22 pm

    Absolute belter from Phil Mac

    http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/in-the-loop/
    ================================================
    Phil – please tell us that the reference to a fitting for ‘blazer and slacks’ was just your little joke ?! 😯


  19. Dundee United Chairman Stephen Thompson today issued a warning to parents of all young Scottish players to “choose their clubs very, very carefully”

    Usually it’s wise to engage the brain before opening your mouth especially if all you’re going to do is stick your foot in it.

    What a brilliant opportunity Thompson had and he blew it – I would recommend he hire a PR man immediately.

    What he should have said was: ‘We would have paid a million or more for young Charlie but of course Rangers forgot to resign him.

    ‘Still their loss is our gain and we will continue to develop our new young player and give him the opportunity of full time first team football that all ambitious youngsters strive for.

    ‘Mark my words Charlie Telfer is a name that will make football headlines and Dundee United is honoured that he chose to join us as we are always interested in developing players with his drive and talent and providing them a firm foundation to build a highly successful career.’

    All parents and grandparents – in many circumstances – should always be very careful when advising youngsters what club they should sign-up to. Often however the choice will be that of the youngster no matter what advice they receive and I’ve been there as a grandad.

    Obviously progressive clubs want to train and develop youngsters and hope that they unearth a gem for their top squad. All too often in Scotland having made it into a club’s top flight the young professional will be sold-on in a few years at a handsome profit and depending on age there will be training/development payments payable.

    But along the way many kids will fall-off the production line and be disposed of as sub-standard goods. Football is a hard-headed and hard-hearted business and I doubt if DU are any different from other clubs in this respect.

    Perhaps DU have been fighting for changes to the current system through which youngeters progress or get dumped. If they have then that’s great but I haven’t heard a cheep about it.

    I simply am not prepared to support any criticism of the rules on training compensation/development because DU apparently believes its ‘steal of the century’ isn’t quite as good as they expected it to be.

    If the club isn’t happy with the rules then change them. And if my club Celtic was in the same position as DU I would tell them exactly the same.


  20. The Rangers (2nd edition) statement:

    RANGERS has received today the decision of the SPFL Compensation Tribunal and are content with the fee Dundee United have been ordered to pay for the training and development of Charlie Telfer who was at the Club for a period of 10 years.

    The payment awarded, which was significantly higher than Dundee United’s final offer, vindicates the Club’s decision to take the matter to a Compensation Tribunal.

    Dundee United introduced a late argument stating Rangers should only be awarded compensation for the training and development of Charlie Telfer for 2 years instead of the 10 years that he was with the Club. They argued the Club in its current form has only existed for two years.

    It is disappointing Dundee United tried to pursue this tiresome, legally incorrect and provocative argument given that it has been repeatedly confirmed by the football authorities in Scotland and beyond that administration and liquidation of the companies that owned the Club did not break the continuity of the Club’s history or its record of honours won.

    ——————————————————————————–


  21. New NOMAD, New Broom

    Is RIFC plc’s fourth NOMAD cracking the whip? Well, probably not, since the AIM required website (Rule 26, AIM Rules for Companies) is in need of maintenance – to the extent of updating the name of the NOMAD – oh dear

    http://www.rangersinternationalfootballclub.com/shareholder-centre/advisers

    Other pages have inexactitudes of a similar scale:

    http://www.rangersinternationalfootballclub.com/shareholder-centre/business-overview

    http://www.rangersinternationalfootballclub.com/key-dates

    http://www.rangersinternationalfootballclub.com/board-management/board-of-directors


  22. Rangers Statement:

    It is disappointing Dundee United tried to pursue this tiresome, legally incorrect and provocative argument given that it has been repeatedly confirmed by the football authorities in Scotland and beyond that administration and liquidation of the companies that owned the Club did not break the continuity of the Club’s history or its record of honours won.
    ===============================================================

    Sad – that that’s all they have to rally the troops. Hope they ran it past Uncle Mike first – he’s probably got first dibs on the DU money if it all arrives before liquidation 😆

    You know I think I have just finally understood what ‘Dignity’ means and that statement proves one thing: Spivs have no Dignity and don’t even know the meaning of the word.


  23. BDO should leave Govan as no liquidation took place according to Statement from Ibrox.


  24. So which member of the SMDM will ask for hard copy evidence of the RIFC/TRFC “OC” continuity claim?

    This is the time to lance this boil.

    Scottish Football needs a strong Dundee United. (Just contact TSFM for all the supporting evidence you need)


  25. ecobhoy says:
    December 9, 2014 at 5:38 pm

    What a brilliant opportunity Thompson had and he blew it – I would recommend he hire a PR man immediately.
    =================================================
    Sad to say I have to agree with you here Eco.

    United end up coming over a bit bitter over the result.

    Also worth remembering that a club like United will themselves at some point face looking a young player to another club if they can’t re-sign them and doubtless United would be the first to complain if they felt the fee was to low.


  26. Just a thought on the decision by the tribunal today.

    Could it be that their decision was based on the SFA’s insistence that TRFC pay all the football debt of RFC?

    I suppose it could be considered only fair that a club, paying out for the football debts owed by a dead club for the right to that dead club’s clothes, should benefit from any football related asset’s value transferred from the dead club? I’m not saying it’s right, just that it might give the authorities the opportunity to facilitate the club they keep facilitating. The SAF/SPFL could be leaving it up to BDO to come after the money if they think it a worthwhile amount (more than the cost of pursuing it).

    The fact they’ve left it to the clubs to issue their own statements has left it to them to spin it however they like. TRFC obviously spinning it to their own advantage, while DUFC issue a very different statement in a less controversial tone than might have been expected.


  27. Feedback Can Seriously Damage Your Hearing

    It would seem that The Rangers operatives have absorbed and internalized the nebulous entity myths intended to placate the followers, leading to the over-amplification of some assertions that may prove arduous to defend. I’m sure a lamb-starved MSM chap will be along any moment to interrogate?

    “legally incorrect and provocative argument” – is that a quote or a daydream – has anyone meaningful actually said that – chapter and verse please.

    “repeatedly confirmed by the football authorities” – really, dates, names, ranks and serial numbers please.

    “in Scotland and beyond” – would you care to be more specific about “beyond”

    “administration and liquidation of the companies that owned the Club did not break the continuity of the Club’s history” – so these authorities, far and wide, must agree on the nature and definition of the prion-like “Club” entity. URLs please.

    So much betrayed in one small intemperate, hubristic paragraph.

    “It is disappointing Dundee United tried to pursue this tiresome, legally incorrect and provocative argument given that it has been repeatedly confirmed by the football authorities in Scotland and beyond that administration and liquidation of the companies that owned the Club did not break the continuity of the Club’s history or its record of honours won.”


  28. Is it not important now that we ask for evidence of where it has been ‘repeatedly confirmed’ that there is continuity of Rangers. I cannot recall a single explicit statement by either SFA or SPFL of this. I may of course have missed it


  29. Bawsman says:
    December 9, 2014 at 5:46 pm

    The Rangers (2nd edition) statement:

    It is disappointing Dundee United tried to pursue this tiresome, legally incorrect and provocative argument given that it has been repeatedly confirmed by the football authorities in Scotland and beyond that administration and liquidation of the companies that owned the Club did not break the continuity of the Club’s history or its record of honours won.
    ==================
    Ah well I suppose that taking the minority view on OC/NC on here was bound to end up coming back to haunt me sooner or later…. 😆

    Not entirely sure that “the football authorities” have “repeatedly” confirmed my position…not even sure they’ve done it publicly ❓

    Well if it was a factor in setting the fee I certainly can’t complain as I can’t have it both ways and as I suspect that Stephen Thompson will know the full details of the five way agreement and have been aware of its implications neither can he.


  30. mcfc says:
    December 9, 2014 at 6:30 pm

    …and if repeatedly confirmed, why would DUFC go ahead with their argument? They would be asking the people who had done the confirming to adjudicate against their own, ahem, confirmation!


  31. Allyjambo says:
    December 9, 2014 at 6:26 pm
    1 0 Rate This

    Just a thought on the decision by the tribunal today.

    Could it be that their decision was based on the SFA’s insistence that TRFC pay all the football debt of RFC?

    I suppose it could be considered only fair that a club, paying out for the football debts owed by a dead club for the right to that dead club’s clothes, should benefit from any football related asset’s value transferred from the dead club? I’m not saying it’s right, just that it might give the authorities the opportunity to facilitate the club they keep facilitating. The SAF/SPFL could be leaving it up to BDO to come after the money if they think it a worthwhile amount (more than the cost of pursuing it).

    The fact they’ve left it to the clubs to issue their own statements has left it to them to spin it however they like. TRFC obviously spinning it to their own advantage, while DUFC issue a very different statement in a less controversial tone than might have been expected.
    ————-

    Seems the paying of the debts facilitated the breaking of rules which has left Scottish fitba in a state. Of course, it could be in the 5-Way, but you’d never know, although we do know there are two Rangers who were part of the 5-Way. So which ne is the real one?

    Since Ibrox seems pretty certain that the authorities view Sevco as the same club they must have that in writing …


  32. Allyjambo says:
    December 9, 2014 at 6:26 pm

    The fact they’ve left it to the clubs to issue their own statements has left it to them to spin it however they like. TRFC obviously spinning it to their own advantage

    ==========================================================================
    As usual we don’t have a clue as to what took place. The statement released by Rangers has just been rejected on STV news with DU stating that they never introduced the OCNC argument before the tribunal today.

    It’s got to the stage that nothing can be believed – what a shambles Scottish Football has descended into and the SFA must carry the can.


  33. Allyjambo says:
    December 9, 2014 at 6:26 pm

    The fact they’ve left it to the clubs to issue their own statements has left it to them to spin it however they like. TRFC obviously spinning it to their own advantage
    ==============================================================
    Tactical genius or craven cowardise or silly question ?

    True corruption is when the corrupt make no effort to hide their corruption and indeed glory in it.


  34. ecobhoy says:
    December 9, 2014 at 6:35 pm

    As usual we don’t have a clue as to what took place. The statement released by Rangers has just been rejected on STV news with DU stating that they never introduced the OCNC argument before the tribunal today.
    =========================================
    The STV website gives it as “United deny using this line of argument in Tuesday’s hearing.”

    This makes me wonder if it’s been used in communications between the clubs prior to the tribunal


  35. Danish Pastry says:

    two Rangers who were part of the 5-Way. So which one is the real one?

    Schrodinger’s bear?


  36. So to believe that a football club should not be allowed to walk away from £100m-plus of debt and remain the same club with the same history is tiresome and provocative? Really?

    I think Sevco might just have overstepped the mark with that “tiresome, legally incorrect and provocative argument”.

    The sooner this loathsome club and its loathsome operators are washed from our game the better.


  37. I’m still baffled by how Telfer won young player of the month on the back of 2 league matches (good in one of those) and a cup game in which he was so ineffective he was hooked at half time, much to the benefit of the team.

    I’m still trying to work out of Mr Thompson has a point or not regarding youth development, or whether he is just lashing out endearingly again at That Club.


  38. At least this confirms that (in the eyes of the SFA/SPFL) the current club at Ibrox is the same one as before. So how many points off if they go into admin ?


  39. Alternatively, if every teenager carried over carried a value of £200k at the time then you get to £5.5m all the quicker. Just makes the dodgy transfer look even dodgier. Do BDO do negative equity?


  40. Berrty

    Careful. Completely separate arguement. Liquidation means new club period. Administration means old club continued. But administration for an owner/operator 2nd time round carries the higher penalty as a disincentive or am I a creamy piece?


  41. parttimearab says:
    December 9, 2014 at 6:16 pm
    ecobhoy says:
    December 9, 2014 at 5:38 pm

    What a brilliant opportunity Thompson had and he blew it – I would recommend he hire a PR man immediately.
    =================================================
    Sad to say I have to agree with you here Eco. United end up coming over a bit bitter over the result.

    Also worth remembering that a club like United will themselves at some point face looking a young player to another club if they can’t re-sign them and doubtless United would be the first to complain if they felt the fee was to low.
    ==============================================================================
    I think Thomson came across as a chiselling skinflint and it could have been oh so different. He could have walked away smelling of roses, praising his young player and giving Rangers a two-fingered salute by saying what a bargain buy they made because Rangers failed to resign him.

    Your last para says it all and as I commented earlier if the clubs ain’t happy with the training/development compensation rules and system then change it.

    Personally I think Thompson doth protest too much considering he has a bit of a history on paying compensation: http://www.thecourier.co.uk/sport/football/dundee-united/dundee-united-in-row-with-queen-s-park-over-youth-signings-compensation-1.94601

    And of course there was problems over compensation to Partick Thistle for Jackie’s move.

    I also have real problems in seeing what argument Dundee Utd actually had if they didn’t use the OCNC one. As I explained in my earlier post I don’t think that argument held water.

    But DU are saying they didn’t use it. So what did they use to claim that the existing rules shouldn’t be followed? I know in one of the Queen’s Park ones they avoided paying £40K because Thompson found a loophole wrt QP’s amateur status.

    I’m disappointed at the seeming knee-jerk reaction which seems to be taking place over this one. The rules are the rules for ALL teams and I have seen no argument to justify Rangers not being paid the compensation as set-out in the rule book for Telfer.

    Before we all disappear into the OCNC and 5-way Agreement territory can anyone enlighten me as to what basis, under the rule book, the DU Utd claim to pay reduced compensation is based on?


  42. What the Rangers statement really says!
    ” We couldn’t give a toss that we lose a super young player for the price of a good night out .what really really matters is. we can still say (and the authorities confirm ) we are the same club ”

    Meanwhile their real nuclear news of the day according to a fairly accurate well known wee birdie is ..their latest best new young star has effectively already gone to Newcastle for nothing …
    But hey ho!..we still have our history ..nothing else matters !


  43. Smugas says:
    December 9, 2014 at 6:55 pm

    Alternatively, if every teenager carried over carried a value of £200k at the time then you get to £5.5m all the quicker. Just makes the dodgy transfer look even dodgier. Do BDO do negative equity?
    —————————————————————-
    You make a good point and it must be asked whether BDO realise this other pot of gold that was included in the cut-price or should that be cut-throat sale of Rangers assets organised by D&P to Sevco Scotland.

    I wonder how many youngsters were included in the sale of assets and what their compensation is valued at. Hope you’re reading BDO as you reportedly appear to have some concerns about asset valuations down Ibrox Way 😈


  44. ecobhoy says:
    December 9, 2014 at 7:09 pm

    No idea what the going rate is but presumably Utd thought that what was being asked was over the top for a player from a lower league club who had managed 20 mins of first team football.

    I suppose the question, in relation to a level playing field, is would the same value had been placed on Telfer if he had say moved on from Cowdenbeath with the same years of development and only 20 mins worth of first team appearances?


  45. Tailothebank says:
    December 9, 2014 at 7:15 pm

    What the Rangers statement really says!
    ” We couldn’t give a toss that we lose a super young player for the price of a good night out .what really really matters is. we can still say (and the authorities confirm ) we are the same club ”

    Meanwhile their real nuclear news of the day according to a fairly accurate well known wee birdie is ..their latest best new young star has effectively already gone to Newcastle for nothing … But hey ho!..we still have our history ..nothing else matters !
    ————————————————————–
    But where does the compensation fee for traing and development go. Perhaps there are onerous contracts dealing with these as well?


  46. Of course, we must all remember, we all helped fund the development of young Mr Telfer…and Mr McLeod…and…


  47. wottpi says:
    December 9, 2014 at 7:24 pm
    ecobhoy says:
    December 9, 2014 at 7:09 pm

    No idea what the going rate is but presumably Utd thought that what was being asked was over the top for a player from a lower league club who had managed 20 mins of first team football.

    I suppose the question, in relation to a level playing field, is would the same value had been placed on Telfer if he had say moved on from Cowdenbeath with the same years of development and only 20 mins worth of first team appearances?
    ===========================================================================
    Unfortunately the rule book doesn’t differentiate as far as I remember and the calculation is based on age and time ranges.

    But I would assume – and I haven’t checked the detail – that a selling club can agree to an amount lower than the standard formula arrived at. That would make sense.

    But it also might make sense to take into account the amount of appearances and time played for the first team in competitive matches. Perhaps it does but I don’t remember seeing that.

    However perhaps clubs wouldn’t be too happy with that concept for obvious contradictory reasons 😎


  48. Danish Pastry says:
    December 9, 2014 at 7:31 pm

    Phil’s piece had me thinking to myself, ‘there must come a point when there’s no money in the coffers to pay those onerous contracts’. If TRFC/RIFC don’t have the money to pay the £300,000 due to the wifi company, they won’t have the £200,000 to pay Mr Onerous either! If Mike Ashley isn’t prepared to pay for these leeching contracts, other than his own, will this mean we see RIFC/TRFC back in court fighting Green’s mates, just like they did with Ahmad?


  49. crawford says:
    December 9, 2014 at 6:53 pm
    10 0 Rate This

    Schrodinger’s bear?
    ———-

    According to the Copenhagen interpretation, wan is deid!

    Quantum machanics is where it’s at when discussing OCNC.

    😮


  50. junglemike says:
    December 9, 2014 at 6:31 pm

    Is it not important now that we ask for evidence of where it has been ‘repeatedly confirmed’ that there is continuity of Rangers. I cannot recall a single explicit statement by either SFA or SPFL of this. I may of course have missed it
    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
    I don`t think you have missed anything
    The phrase that bests sums up SFA and SPFL on OCNC
    is
    Silence is golden
    On the other hand
    The phrase that bests sums up TRFC on OCNC
    is
    “The lady doth protest too much, Methinks”

    Or put another way
    If anybody needs hard evidence that OC is deid
    Don`t wait for the governing authorities to say anything
    Just listen to the noise from TRFC


  51. mcfc says:
    December 9, 2014 at 6:30 pm

    “in Scotland and beyond” – would you care to be more specific about “beyond”
    =========================================================
    That’ll be an e-mail from the Dallas Cowboys….

    Scottish Football needs the SMSM to act like proper journalists, ask the right questions and don’t stop until you get proper answers.


  52. junglemike says:
    December 9, 2014 at 6:31 pm
    22 0 Rate This

    Is it not important now that we ask for evidence of where it has been ‘repeatedly confirmed’ that there is continuity of Rangers. I cannot recall a single explicit statement by either SFA or SPFL of this. I may of course have missed itjunglemike says:
    December 9, 2014 at 6:31 pm

    Is it not important now that we ask for evidence of where it has been ‘repeatedly confirmed’ that there is continuity of Rangers. I cannot recall a single explicit statement by either SFA or SPFL of this. I may of course have missed it
    =========================

    There has never been such a statement. I recall Regan being asked once and he avoided a straight answer. Am I the only one thinking if TRFC had paperwork from the SFA which confirmed what they say it would have been aired publicly by now?


  53. So, after the high profile “Scottish FA Convention” last week, when we had amongst other presentations, the SFA Strategic vision, which includes ;

    – Transparency

    – Respected & Trusted to Lead

    We, yet again, have a member club telling big whoppers in public, whilst the SFA looks the other way…

    Pathetic.


  54. I wonder if Mr McCoist gets a bonus for having nurtured and developed the talented Mr Telfer? Would he also be in line for a similar bonus if Mr McLeod is also sold?

    RIFC/TRFC are blessed to have such a management team producing this conveyor belt of talent.

    Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.


  55. I see the statement on the Official Rangers website has now been amended to remove the football authorities/same club references. I wonder who decided on that?


  56. It is disappointing Dundee United tried to pursue this tiresome, legally incorrect and provocative argument given that it has been repeatedly confirmed by the football authorities in Scotland and beyond that administration and liquidation of the companies that owned the Club did not break the continuity of the Club’s history or its record of honours won.

    Fantastic legal news for Airdrieonians, Clydebank, Third Lanark and Gretna. They can find new companies and retain their football history. Current Airdrieonians can rename themselves The Clydebank to allow a fresh company to take over the mantle of Airdrieonians and reclaim their scottish cup win and european adventure. Huzzah!

    Makes me wonder why the hell Clyde bothered spending the last ten years paying off historic debt at the expense of the playing side and becoming debt free in October when we had this other legal course of action available.


  57. upthehoops says:
    December 9, 2014 at 8:01 pm

    There has never been such a statement. I recall Regan being asked once and he avoided a straight answer. Am I the only one thinking if TRFC had paperwork from the SFA which confirmed what they say it would have been aired publicly by now?
    ______________________________________________

    The only thing I can recall anyone from Hampden saying on the matter was from Regan, when he said he’d leave it to the supporters to decide. Complete silence on the subject, and most others, since then, and if there was something, anything, concrete, then TRFC would have it stitched onto the back of their shirt necklines!


  58. Danish Pastry says:
    December 9, 2014 at 8:06 pm
    Haud oan, statement revision. It’s no the same club.
    http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/8235-club-statement
    PS ‘Oh yes it is’
    PPS ‘Oh no it isn’t’
    =========================================================

    We don’t do backtracking (or something like that).

    Well actually they do……Is this MA pulling rank?

    Scottish Football deserves to be told! Phil, fit’s the news?


  59. Looks like DU complained either to TRFC – or the SFA ?

    I would bet on a direct complaint to TRFC: edit the statement or your cash will be a long time coming… 😉


  60. Regardless of the removal of that nonsense from the TRFC statement, there’ll be plenty of bears going around telling everyone that the SFA have repeatedly said the club continues! Just ask them to show you where it says that, then watch them panic as they try to find it on their phones 😆


  61. Since we are looking at young players this is an interesting link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangers_F.C._Reserve_and_Youth_squads

    On 20 April 2004, Rangers Football Club announced the creation of a new company which would oversee the development of the club’s youth players. The company, called Rangers Youth Development Limited, is entirely self-funding but completely owned by the club. It attracted four investors from outside Rangers who have invested £1 million, with the club also putting up an initial £2.5 million.

    This would leave Rangers F.C. in an unfamiliar position which would mean it has to buy its own youth players from Rangers Youth Development. The company will own the young players and the club will need to bid for them although it will have first option on all the players. If both sides cannot reach an agreement on a transfer fee then a FIFA transfer model will be used. Any profit made by the company will be divided between investors with the majority being invested to fund more youth players.[2]

    The main reasons for the formation of the new company is to offset the running costs of Murray Park. However, many of the Rangers fans were opposed to the formation of the new company.[3]

    Green arrived on the scene on 9 July 2012 as a director of Rangers Youth Development Limited along with Stockbridge and an application for the company’s voluntary liquidation was filed in December that year shortly after RIFC Plc floated.

    I was always puzzled by a quote made in Green’s early days when he referred to some money for an investment in his original consortium having been found ‘lying about the youth football department’ or similar. Must dig out my posts and refresh my memory.

    I’ve always wondered why that money didn’t go to D&P but instead ended-up as part of the money paid to D&P to buy the Rangers business and assets. I must have a closer look at this as its level of significance might be worth ascertaining.

    Anyone with info feel free to contribute – Such as who were the 4 investors who put £1 million into Rangers Youth Development Limited after it was incorporated in 18 November 2003?


  62. So, with the amended Club Statement removing the “OC” claim do we now effectively have a formal intimation from RIFC/TRFC that administration and liquidation of the companies that owned the Club did in fact “break the continuity of the Club’s history or its record of honours won.”?

    The implication clearly is that this is the case or why else remove what was a cast iron assertion?

    Scottish Football needs this finally put to bed.


  63. You can read too much into these things but it’s almost like the Utd statement wasn’t the one Sevco were expecting.


  64. redlichtie says:
    December 9, 2014 at 8:29 pm

    Sadly, I think we have to be a bit more cautious, certainly more so that whoever wrote the TRFC statement was, and accept that it was possibly because, and no doubt it will be claimed as being the reason for removal, that DUFC were correct in their assertion that no mention of OC/NC was made in the proceedings today. TRFC will then be able to say they stand by the rest of the original statement but it is now irrelevant to the outcome of the tribunal.


  65. redlichtie says:
    December 9, 2014 at 8:12 pm
    5 0 Rate This
    ———-

    They don’t don’t do walking backwards for Christmas?


  66. Follo to my post on Rangers new youth set-up circa 2004.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2377761/Supporters-mystified-by-Rangers-youth-plan.html

    The idea is that the subsidiary company should be self-financing rather than a drain on Rangers’ depleted resources. Young talent from throughout Europe, but predominantly Scotland, will be developed and then sold, either to Rangers or elsewhere. Four businessmen have contributed £1 million to kick-start the project but the rank and file have yet to be convinced of its worth.

    Part of the agreement with the new company is that Rangers must pay them compensation whenever a young player makes 10 first-team appearances. This decision to sub-contract the nurturing of future players to a separate entity has perplexed fans, who fail to understand why their club should now pay such a fee where previously none was required.

    A statement issued by the Trust yesterday said: “Following widespread, and often heated, debate among Rangers supporters (and not just Trust members) regarding this new venture, it seems that this looks like nothing more than an accounting trick to help minimize the club’s current cash-flow problems.”

    Could this be Onerous Contract Mark I ❓

    Apparently the 4 businessmen who contributed the £1 million were: Ian Russell, Paul Murray, Jim Whitelaw and Walter Nimmo with Rangers reportedly doubling that amount to fund the project. At odds with the wiki info that Rangers put in an initial £2.5 million on top of the 4 investors combined £1 million.


  67. ecobhoy says:
    December 9, 2014 at 8:25 pm
    1 0 Rate This

    Since we are looking at young players this is an interesting link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangers_F.C._Reserve_and_Youth_squads
    ======================================

    It sticks vividly in my mind that Gordon Smith, then a licence fee funded pundit, sat in a BBC studio and portrayed this particular scheme as another Murray masterstroke, indeed a model which all clubs would probably follow.


  68. Slightly OT, but a phrase caught my eye in an article.

    Looks like the right-hand man of Bernie Madoff could be a TSFM Bampot… 🙄
    He used the [S]DM defence of last resort in court.

    He got sentenced yesterday to 10 years for his part in the Ponzi scheme, and to jointly forfeit $155 Billion. [Yes, that’s billion, but is mainly symbolic].

    “…Bonventre has always denied involvement in the scheme, saying he was duped by Madoff like thousands of others…”

    And he claims to have been duped for 40 years, apparently.

    http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-12-08/madoff-ex-operations-chief-bonventre-given-10-years


  69. redlichtie says:
    December 9, 2014 at 8:29 pm

    Scottish Football needs this finally put to bed.
    ==================================================
    Ma heid needs put tae bed cos its birling 🙄

    I can only imagine someone at the SFA was alerted to the TRFCL statement and realised it could create all sorts of grief and demands for clarification from them.

    And I imagine Dundee would be claiming the statement wrongly brought them into disrepute if they hadn’t raised the OCNC argument at the tribunal today.

    What an utter shambles again ❗

    The last days of Rome or Pompei don’t have a look in when it comes to Glasgow’s longest running panto 😆

    I really can visualise Uncle Mike stalking Ibrox with a big very bloody axe tomorrow.

Comments are closed.