From the TSFM Manifesto š
A spectre is haunting Scottish Football ā 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 ofĀ 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, butĀ 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 playersĀ 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 orĀ theĀ courage or the imagination to follow it through.
We are anything but bampots. Rather, weĀ 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 businessmenĀ free rein to enrich themselves at the expense of the fans.
Whether laws were broken or not, theĀ 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 someĀ back slapping, makingĀ 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.
At the AGM last December McCoist sat on the podium along with the Board.
[Remember…when it opened with sustained jeering and catcalls from the audience!]
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl-lower-divisions/rangers-board-secure-landslide-victory-at-agm-1-3239433
If McCoist is still manager on Monday, would he be expected to be on the podium again ?
Would he want to sit alongside the Board this time ?
Or, as a shareholder he could sit in the audience.
Carfins Finest says:
December 16, 2014 at 8:50 pm
The problem these guys fail to understand is that the rules are actually there to help clubs and stop them either becoming conflicted with a club from another association or being used as a feeder club again for a club in another association.
As far as I remember these rules were brought in away back in the day when Partick Thistle were taken over by Ken Bates.
Rules are there for a reason not just to pad out a book.
The main problem I have with the rule book is that there is the caveat of ‘at the discretion of the board’. That is a nonsense that only muddies the waters and is open to charges of possible bias. This should immediately be removed.
The journalists advocating for an abandonment of the rule book are doing so, not because it will solve the ills of Scottish football, but simply because it will make life easier for them.
These people lost their moral compass a long time ago. They don’t pay to enter a football ground, and haven’t done in years, yet none of them can find anything positive to say about our sport. They are parasites of our sport as much as Whyte, and Green and co have been parasites of RFC/’The Rangers’.
There wish for an abandonment of the rule book will also allow them the luxury of blaming all and sundry if this latest venture goes Pete Tong. Oh yes they will whinge that no one was there to protect ‘The Rangers’ in their time of need. They will then dissect the very rule book, that they dismissed, to prove their point.
There is also a delicious irony in BDO asking for a share of the Telfer cash as well as Alexander winning his case. How can the SFA, as the appellant body, reject Alexander’s claim while still saying RFC and ‘The Rangers’ are the same club will be a new twist in the tale. Perhaps they will say that Alan MacGregor was not transferred but vanished into the nevisphere only to re-appear in Turkey.
After being up Ā£204k last Friday today they maybe break even and yet they still have Ally to settle with.
Oh well the good lord giveth and the good lord taketh away!!!
WRT Telfer money. I don’t think BDO will get anything directly nor from a fee from any other Youth players developed at Murray Park, Telfers playing registration was held by a subsidiary of RFC(IL) and was sold as an asset to Sevco. Its the owner of the registration that commands any transfer fee, As I’ve said before though this does open up an even bigger question as to whether D&P got a fair price for all the assets they sold to Sevco.
The Alexander case intrigues me. Did he really have a contract that named McGregor as the first choice keeper? If so would he have been due the additional money had McGregor left and been replaced by someone else as first choice? More likely I would have thought is that the increase was due if Alexander became first choice regardless of the circumstances that led to it. Alexander was first choice in Sevco’s first season of that there is no doubt.
Allyjambo says:
December 16, 2014 at 9:09 pm
‘..BDO will, we hope, put in a claim and take it all the way. They will have a better idea than TRFC (can they afford lawyers who will be expert in this specialist area?) of the likely outcome and would be most likely, I think, to win. ‘
—————–
On the face of it, BDO must legally be on an absolute winner.And they’re just the very chaps to know it.
I think RIFC plc will have to agree to the appropriate split, or risk legal action-which BDO would be legally obliged to take( given what would appear to be the open-and-shut nature of the case) in the interests of the creditors of RFC(IL).
And there is no way RIFC plc would be ready to run the risk of an action which they would certainly lose, and have to meet the legal expenses as well as pay out the appropriate share.
(There’s bound to be a stack of precedents, where the legal distinction between a liquidated entity and a new entity pretending to be the old entity has been made abundantly clear.CG would not have been unique in the business world!)
We are talking to ourselves too much. We so appreciate each others remarks on Rangers, Scottish Football, SFA etc. We need somehow to develop a strategy that gets beyond this blog.
There are a number of truths that are indisputable
1 The original Rangers do not exist anymore
2 The Scottish media are afraid to say this but it is legally watertight
3 The SFA have done their best to avoid this truth and are running out of room to manoeuvre
4 Scottish Premier league clubs have adapted to this already and should be lavished with praise for their nimble response
5 There is no room in football for sentiment; look at the famous names in England that are now in the Championship/First division and once were at the top. Why should it be any different for Rangers, Hearts and Hibs. After all Renton were once one of the greatest Scottish Clubs? Who are they
6 How do we break out of our own bubble and get this message out there? :slamb:
Two thoughts on the Tonev appeal announcement:
1. “Mr. OāDonnell…reminded us that the appropriate standard of proof was on the balance of probabilities. Whilst accepting that the tribunal would be entitled to uphold the complaint solely on the evidence on Mr Logan, he strongly urged the tribunal not to find it proved”. So, even Tonev’s lawyer accepted that the tribunal could find the case proved on the basis of “one man’s word against another”, if they believed one and not the other. And, well, they did believe one and not the other. Let’s not hear any more argument that the decision is somehow flawed in that respect.
2. However, I did think it was interesting the way that this announcement of the (delayed) Tonev appeal was so nearly concurrent with the (surprise) Ashley charge. You could almost imagine the SFA, cognisant of (further) imminent criticism from both the Celtic and Rangers sides, choreographing this news in an effort to be seen not to be favouring either. It wouldn’t be a terribly mature way of running Scottish football, but hey, they’ve hardly got much of a track record in that respect in recent years.
tykebhoy says: December 16, 2014 at 9:47 pm
WRT Telfer money. I donāt think BDO will get anything directly nor from a fee from any other Youth players developed at Murray Park, Telfers playing registration was held by a subsidiary of RFC(IL) and was sold as an asset to Sevco. Its the owner of the registration that commands any transfer fee, As Iāve said before though this does open up an even bigger question as to whether D&P got a fair price for all the assets they sold to Sevco.
============================
I think the Rangers Youth subsidiary is a red herring. It would be used as an internal accounting exercise within RFC to move funds from the “club” to its subsidiary that had responsibility for running the academy.
To the best of my knowledge players can only be registered to play with a football club. In Telfer’s case it was Rangers Football Club PLC. This is backed up by one of the CF leaks which listed all the RFC PLC players which would be allowed to play for Sevco Scotland against Brechin in July 2012. Charlie Telfer was on that list.
Billy Davies The Chosen One, according to the Record front page tomorrow
To be fair he is very good in the Championship
junglemike says:
December 16, 2014 at 10:00 pm
‘… How do we break out of our own bubble and get this message out there? :slamb:’
———-
This question has been asked several times over the last couple of years.
The answer would lie in the blog- TSFM- becoming established as a physical’ rather than an ‘internet’ entity. That cannot come about without some kind of readiness on the part of those of us who ‘are’ the blog to renounce a degree of the protection that anonymity gives us.That is, we would need to be in some way registered as a body of some kind, with office-holders and some kind of democratic constitution and (verifiable) membership and elections and so on, if we wanted the blog to be ‘recognised’ as a representative body, able when necessary to speak on behalf of the majority of the membership, and issue leaflets, posters, ‘official’ letters to Press……
Can that nut be cracked?
iceman63 says:
December 16, 2014 at 9:47 pm
Has Shay Logan crossed a threshold with his tweet tonight, He clearly states that Tonev has committed a crime. As far as I know, no criminal complaint was made.
===============================================================
It’s really up to Aberdeen to decide whether he has crossed a threshhold or not. A complaint doesn’t need to be made to the police for them to take action and it has been stated they are aware of the incident.
I would think it unlikely on the evidence which has now been revealed that any criminal charge or prosecution would follow. But it is interesting that Logasn appears to view the matter as a ‘crime’ and of course that has always been the knub of this case.
Is it correct that an incident which is a criminal matter should be dealt with in under civil law and not criminal especially in view of the different standards of evidence required.
However Celtic, Arsenal and the Bulgarian FA all have things to consider as does Tonev and no doubt they will be weighing-up their options.
I genuinely believe if we are to get serious about eradicating racism in football then incidents have to be referred to the police and the matter dealt with in the criminal courts. I simply think it’s too serious a matter to be dealt with by an SFA Tribunal.
John Clark says:
December 16, 2014 at 10:14 pm
junglemike says:
December 16, 2014 at 10:00 pm
āā¦ How do we break out of our own bubble and get this message out there? :slamb:ā
================================================
We will need a dress code of course and as the blazer colour could be a problem why not go for TSFM tartan made-up of every colour used by Scottish Professional teams. Brogues would obviously be black.
Does this add up?
Ashley is a top feeding Spiv
RIFC shareholders are mostly bottom feeding Spivs
Ashley doesnāt have Rangeritis
RIFC shareholders don`t have Rangeritis
Ashley has at least one onerous contract
Ashley would like more onerous contracts
Some bottom feeding Spivs have onerous contracts
These people need to be outvoted to kill their contracts
Onerous contracts are cancelled by Liquidation
Bottom feeding Spivs will vote against Liquidation
Liquidation can follow a Prepack Administration
Liquidation leads to an asset sale
An asset sale will go to the preferred bidder
The preferred bidder can be decided if a Prepack Administrator orchestrates a failed CVA
The preferred bidder can form a Newco
A Newco could restructure onerous contracts to favour Ashley
,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Summary
The most likely next step is a Prepack Administration favouring Ashley which deliberately fails because of a contrived Creditor vote
Then we get Liquidation where the assets are bought by an Ashley nominee who forms a Newco
The Newco enables Ashley to recreate the onerous contracts in favour of offshore cos which belong to Ashley or onshore cos who have a quid pro quo arrangement favouring Ashley
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
If So
All we are witnessing at present are the machinations affecting the icing on the cake
i.e.
What other PR benefits can Ashley and Co squeeze out of a TRFC Jan Administration that leads to Liquidation ?
Like
Is it better to blame Ally or the SFA?
Aleksandar Tonev Appellate Tribunal Outcome
Tuesday, 16 December 2014
An Appellate Tribunal convened in accordance with the Judicial Panel Protocol has considered the following case:
Appellant: Aleksandar Tonev (Celtic FC)
Match: Celtic v Aberdeen (SPFL Premiership) – 13th September 2014
Disciplinary Rule(s) allegedly breached:
Disciplinary Rule 202: Excessive Misconduct by the use of offensive, insulting and abusive language of a racist nature.
Outcome: The appeal has been rejected and an immediate seven-match suspension will be applied (with one match having already been served).
Having read through the decisions given, firstly the initial hearing and latterly at the appellate tribunal I think itās worth noting that the decisions taken and the reasons for them have been made public.
We have The Right Honourable Lord Bonomy to thank for that and his reasons for doing so in a postscript to the appellate tribunal decision are worth noting.
āThere has inevitably been ill-informed speculation about the reasons for the Disciplinary Tribunal deciding to uphold the complaint and impose a seven match suspension. Against that background the Appellate Tribunal consider that it would be in the interests of the parties, in the interests of the wider football community and in the general public interest to publish this decision and the terms of the original Disciplinary Tribunal decision, thus ensuring that any debate is informed.ā
I have no firsthand experience of the evidence given or any knowledge of Aleksander Tonev as a person but I am persuaded that those who passed judgement at the hearings did so fairly having considered the matter within the terms that the rules provide.
The suspension from playing football for seven matches also seems appropriate and within the rules.
Perhaps the Right Honourable Lord Bonomy had Twitter in mind when he wrote his postscript.
Immediately after the Appellate decision had been made all manner of opinion apppeared.
Polls were being conducted and questions raised.
Should Aleksander Tonev be sacked? Are the SFA equipped or appropriate in dealing with issues of racism? Itās wrong to convict someone of racism on no more that the evidence of his accuser?
Iām paraphrasing but you get the idea.
Going back to the original judgement itās worth taking a look at the complaint in question.
Disciplinary Rule 202: Excessive Misconduct by the use of offensive, insulting and abusive language of a racist nature.
The result of the tribunal is damning in its conclusion, there is no place for this kind of abusive language in football and the penalty imposed is appropriate.
The question of whether or not Aleksander Tonev is a racist is not one that was asked of the judicial panel nor should it have been.
The judgement given and supported at appeal is limited to Disciplinary Rule 202 and applicable penalties.
If anyone wants a wider judgement on this the SFA is not the place to go. Those who have given their time and experience to the case have completed their task, thoughtfully and incisively.
If you apply their answer to a different question you are likely to run in to problems.
Iām not sure TSFM is the place for me to comment further on this. So Iāll leave it at that.
junglemike says:
December 16, 2014 at 10:00 pm
5 1 Rate This
———-
Fair point. It is preaching to the converted, in one sense, but the fact that the blog exists to highlight and monitor is still of great value.
How to engage the fans en masse? Good question. There are a few in the media who engage with fans seriously via twitter. But the BBC as the national/ state broadcaster is pretty poor on this story. I see the new media as one way. Many non-commercial podcasts are putting out some good stuff (The Terrace, The Final Whistle, among others) that certainly don’t merely repeat press releases. The new ezines, plus the new National paper offer possibilities for a new journalism.
ecobhoy says:
December 16, 2014 at 10:15 pm
‘..I genuinely believe if we are to get serious about eradicating racism in football then incidents have to be referred to the police and the matter dealt with in the criminal courts. I simply think itās too serious a matter to be dealt with by an SFA Tribunal.’
———
I agree.
And I think the pundits on Sportsound this evening -English, Wilson, and Michael Stewart- all missed the point in their general eagerness to have a go at Celtic’s ‘support’ for Tonev.
They all referred to the fact that the clubs, including Celtic, had all signed up to the Judicial Tribunal concept that ‘balance of probabilities’ would be the bench mark in arriving at decisions.The pundits were very critical of the fact that Celtic were happy enough to sign up to that, but not happy when decisions based on that ‘balance of probabilities’ go against them.
I suspect that the reality is that Celtic have realised that new ‘on pitch’ football offences are also criminal offences carrying severe penalties under the law.
And are suggesting that, that being the case, maybe the SFA should re-consider the basis on which the Judicial Tribunal should handle cases where the football offence is also a criminal offence.
Perhaps the basis should be the same as that which applies in the criminal courts of law- corroborative,hard evidence proving the case beyond reasonable doubt.
The Judicial Tribunal balance of probabilities is fine as far as it goes( provided of course that all relevant and available evidence is actually provided to them by parties in a dispute!)
But the crime of racism is way beyond the normal football offence.
In my opinion.
easyJambo says:
December 16, 2014 at 10:08 pm
I think the Rangers Youth subsidiary is a red herring. It would be used as an internal accounting exercise within RFC to move funds from the āclubā to its subsidiary that had responsibility for running the academy.
========================================================================
I have been working away at Rangers Youth Development and sadly it has become a bit of a red herring but I’ll post on what I’ve come across over the next few days. Accounts are not my thing and there’s a few things that have my brain scrambled but I think I’m getting the picture.
Problem is that the RYD accounts only go up until 30 June 2010 just as things start to get interesting š
It’s also made difficult because a wholly owned subsidiary of a group not having to disclose transactions with other group companies and the accounts are prepared under the small companies provisions.
It may well have been thought that RYD could shoulder a lot more of the financial burden of Murray Park but that just didn’t happen.
ecobhoy says:
December 16, 2014 at 10:21 pm
‘… as the blazer colour could be a problem ..’
——
Oh, there can be no question of ‘blazers’.
It would have to be a tweed sports jacket a la Montford, perhaps, indeed, in the Montfort tartan! I don’t think I ever saw Arthur’s footwear, though.
TSFM- thank you for your observations added at the end of my 10.14 pm post. You’re clearly ahead of the hunt. And more power to your elbow, and I’m sure you have considered matters in depth.
TSFM please note: the following is not an argument about OCNC.
I posted a few days ago that I thought the OCNC debate was not applicable wrt the Telfer compensation claim. Although Rangers Youth Development Ltd was liquidated in 2013, it had changed hands. Originally a subsidiary of Rangers (RFC plc), it was sold to Sevco Scotland Ltd by administrators Duff and Phelps in 2012.
My view was that without having to even consider OCNC, the tribunal could take the view that the rights to training compensation held by RYD Ltd effectively passed from RFC plc to TRFC Ltd.
However, on reflection, this may not quite be the full story.
I think for the foregoing to be held true, TRFC Ltd would have to show that the right to compensation was actually held by the subsidiary and not RFC plc.
After giving this some thought, I’m not sure it could do that.
It seems to me that the “Club’s” right to compensation is a simple a matter of contract between members of the SPL/SPFL. As LNS said – “a Club cannot, lacking legal personality, enter into a contract by itself. But it can be affected by the contractual obligations of its owner and operator.”
During the majority of Telfer’s stay at “Rangers FC” the legal entity contracted to the SPL’s compensation scheme was the “Club’s” former owner and operator RFC plc.
It seems therefore that the LNS decision points to the persisting claim of the “Club’s” original owner and operator to compensation payments arising from Dundee Utd’s signing of Charlie Telfer.
If I am correct, I’m sure BDO will be extremely grateful for TRFC’s assistance.
I too heard the rule bending nonsense on SSB tonight.
My view, let it go ahead and then pray for an Ashley controlled T”Rangers to be drawn against an Ashley controlled Newcastle and watch folk eat themselves when someone points out that a good run in Europe for Newcastle at a certain clubs expense might be just what is needed for the owner to improve buyer interest.
John Clark says:
December 16, 2014 at 10:45 pm
ecobhoy says:
December 16, 2014 at 10:15 pm
===============================================
I don’t think that any club actually considered the Tonev/Logan situation would have arisen. It appears to me that it had simply been thought that if any racist incident took place there would be plenty of corroborative evidence.
I really don’t think it was anticipated we could have a situation where there was no independent evidence and it ended-up as one person’s word against another on a very serious allegation with very serious potential consequences.
I think we have a real problem here in so many ways and I wonder what happens if we get another uncorroborated racist allegation. I also feel very uneasy at a non native English speaker’s credibility being destroyed simply because they didn’t appear to put forward a strong confident joined-up explanation.
It really doesn’t surprise in the least me that the native English speaker came across much better.
I have now read the SFA’s release on the evidence and decision and it’s very shoddy IMO. I doubt if the SFA will listen to Celtic so perhaps we’ll need to wait until another incident takes place.
I have always said I haven’t a clue what happened that day and I’m possibly more confused having now read the ‘evidence’.
OK Tonev has been punished but what now for Logan – I wonder how many players might be whispering in his ear to wind him up and will he actually be able to do anything about it? Can he come forward with another uncorroborated complaint.
From Day 1 I said there would be no winners here and I am still of that opinion and I also think we might have taken a big backward step in actually eradicating racism in football.
PS and Lewis McLeod scores the winner š
HirsutePursuit says:
December 16, 2014 at 11:11 pm
I posted a few days ago that I thought the OCNC debate was not applicable wrt the Telfer compensation claim. Although Rangers Youth Development Ltd was liquidated in 2013, it had changed hands.
——————————————————————–
Yes but it changed hands thrice – firstly to Whyte and then to D&P in admin and then to Green. I could be wrong in counting the admin bit as an ownership change but it was certainly a change of ‘control’.
Obviously RYD’s group it was a subsidiary of remained the same viz Rangers FC Plc but its holding company changed from MIH to Wavetower or some other Whyte creation which I’m sure you’ll know the name of – I’ve forgotten š³
I’m certain there was an intention to introduce third party ownership through RYD and that’s the bit I’m still unclear about as to who held the youth players’ Registrations?
HirsutePursuit says:
December 16, 2014 at 11:11 pm
I posted a few days ago that I thought the OCNC debate was not applicable wrt the Telfer compensation claim. Although Rangers Youth Development Ltd was liquidated in 2013, it had changed hands.
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
Yes but it changed hands thrice ā firstly to Whyte and then to D&P in admin and then to Green. I could be wrong in counting the admin bit as an ownership change but it was certainly a change of ācontrolā.
Obviously RYDās group it was a subsidiary of remained the same viz Rangers FC Plc but its holding company changed from MIH to Wavetower or some other Whyte creation which Iām sure youāll know the name of ā Iāve forgotten š³
Iām certain there was an intention to introduce third party ownership through RYD and thatās the bit Iām still unclear about as to who held the youth playersā Registrations?
=================================================================
I think our minds have been heading in the same direction on this.
However, unless RYD Ltd held separate SFA membership they could not have registered any players. We are already aware of the duel ownership issues, so I think it is safe to assume that RYD Ltd did not hold the registration.
Your comment about internal accounting processes is probably bang on the money.
There was probably some tax advantage in it. š
On the Logan/Tonev thing. We can’t allow posters to rush to judgement on either player on here. That is the stuff of conjecture – and in the light of the gravity of the situation, dangerous conjecture.
There are different points of view here, and we need to be in a place where we can disagree respectfully without attacking the holder of the alternative opinion.
No one here is promoting the idea that racism only exists if there is corroboration. Defending Tonev does not imply a condoning of racism, and defence of Logan does not imply an anti-Celtic stance.
If you can’t disagree with someone without having a go and playing the man, you need to toddle off to a fansite where your views will be validated.
Anything outside that will be removed. We will not allow TSFM to turn into a reciprocal terracing insult-fest. This is too important to become a partisan discussion. Some of the people involved are the usual suspects, but some are folk we thought knew better.
Everyone needs to grow up. Now.
John Clark says:
December 16, 2014 at 10:00 pm
==================
Indeed John…and one only has to look at the cease and desist instruction BDO issued…which was expeditly complied with by the club playing at Ibrox…which indicates BDO know the ground they stand on is solid…otherwise the said club at Ibrox would have told them where to go…but they didn’t…which speaks volumes…
BDO know the Telfer case is stacked in their favour.
TSFM says:
December 17, 2014 at 12:10 am
Yes, everyone needs to grow up. Now.
HirsutePursuit says:
December 16, 2014 at 11:44 pm
5
0
Rate This
HirsutePursuit says:
December 16, 2014 at 11:11 pm
I posted a few days ago that I thought the OCNC debate was not applicable wrt the Telfer compensation claim. Although Rangers Youth Development Ltd was liquidated in 2013, it had changed hands.
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
Yes but it changed hands thrice ā firstly to Whyte and then to D&P in admin and then to Green. I could be wrong in counting the admin bit as an ownership change but it was certainly a change of ācontrolā.
Obviously RYDās group it was a subsidiary of remained the same viz Rangers FC Plc but its holding company changed from MIH to Wavetower or some other Whyte creation which Iām sure youāll know the name of ā Iāve forgotten š³
Iām certain there was an intention to introduce third party ownership through RYD and thatās the bit Iām still unclear about as to who held the youth playersā Registrations?
=================================================================
I think our minds have been heading in the same direction on this.
____________________________________________________
Ah but… RYD didn’t have a club by which to hold any SFA licence, and couldn’t therefore ‘hold’ player registrations, shurely.?
It may have been the vehicle by which wages were paid ( a la TRFC vs RIFC), and it may even have been the ‘beneficial’ owner ?- But it is not uncommon for companies to have subsidiaries in common, into one of which are parked most of the assets and into the other most of the liabilities (with money being drip fed from one to the other on an as needed basis) , but in this case I suspect RYD would be the latter rather than the former… (… in a financial rather than footballing sense, I mean :twisted:, obviously )
So assuming RYD can’t hold a players registration, then nor can they be due any compo for his development.
Otherwise there are a few dad’s up and down the country now due to be compensated handsomely for developing their kids talent prior to professional registration, I reckon.
Bottom line… if the registration was with oldco, and the ruling is that this element of the player development is appropriate for compensation at the time of regsitration (which can’t have been with RYD) , then that compensation can logically only be due to oldco.
So to my mind, the money either stays at Den’s or goes towards the benefit of the victims of the First Ibrox omnishambles (IbO1)*. I would expect that BDO are similarly disposed.
(* from a historians perspective, I suspect we will soon all be talking in terms of IbO1 and IbO2** ( (c) claimed ) to conveniently distinguish between successive, separate Ibrox omnishambles, with the second caused by a failure to learn the lessons of History from the first.)
** hmmm IbO2… this could make a suitably enigmatic yet catchy title for your next ‘downfall’ instalment, Phil. (hereby offered free and gratis for your unhindered use, should you wish, without obligation)
I’m sure Dundee’s near neighbours would want to have a say in that RLD. :irony:
Looks like Darryl at the SFA has given a copy/paste job to a succulent churnalist at the DR – one David McCarthy. :slamb:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/mike-ashley-hauled-up-before-4816866
A few notable excerpts;
“Mike Ashley will be hauled before the SFA…” (boll*x)
“Ashley…risks a Ā£10,000 fine…” (and your point is caller? !)
“…Ashley risks (sic) having any future attempts to increase his shareholding blocked.”
(Boll*x. Since when did the Hampden idiots control the AIM or the free market? )
The SFA treating their customers with contempt, again? š
John Clark says:
December 16, 2014 at 10:45 pm
I agree.
And I think the pundits on Sportsound this evening -English, Wilson, and Michael Stewart- all missed the point in their general eagerness to have a go at Celticās āsupportā for Tonev.
================================
I’m not getting involved in the Tonev debate but your words here outline the media stance that they’d rather blame Celtic for signing up to something than consider whether that something is actually right, or fully explained at the time. That brings us to Mike Ashley, who signed an undertaking regarding influence at Ibrox. Of the three you mention, Wilson and English have both basically stated the SFA can whistle in the wind regarding Ashley, so I wonder where the principled stance of signing up to something has gone now. Shouldn’t they be urging the SFA to use all powers available to them?
To think they are supposed to be respectable journalists as well. Into the bargain they receive their salary from the public purse and do not even attempt to be balanced.
Two RNS messages this morning. One that they will fight the SFA charges and the other that the SPFL want the Ā£250k fine on RFC Plc paid by TRFC
Yep eJ. Language of the latter interesting for OCNC devotees – lots of Club but little Company…
“17 December 2014
Rangers International Football Club plc
(“Rangers” or the “Company”)
Scottish Professional Football League Limited (“SPFL”) Claim.
The board of the SPFL has determined that Rangers Football Club Limited (the “Club”) is liable to pay the EBT Commission fine of Ā£250,000 levied on RFC 2012 PLC (previously The Rangers Football Club plc) (in liquidation) The SPFL has also decided that this sum will be recovered from the Club by the SPFL withholding broadcasting money and other sums due to the Club but which are paid in the first instance to the SPFL. An appeal has been lodged with the Judicial Panel of the Scottish FA which has confirmed that the decision of the SPFL is suspended pending the outcome of the appeal subject to the SPFL’s right to object. The Board is advised that the sum is not due to SPFL and the appeal will be pursued vigorously.
For further information please contact:”
Is all this stuff the price Ashley has to pay for permission to pretend it’s still RFC? He’s not that daft, surely. He must know what liquidation is.
And aren’t the SFA & SPFL on sticky a wicket demanding things of a club that doesn’t exist? Perhaps Ibrox will now argue it’s not the same club. I can hear it now ā ‘LNS was wrong! We’re Sevco!’
Looks like the SPFL claim may get some answers re oldco/noewco or the 5 way agreement. If of course the SFA process is open and transparent????
So Ally and his pals compensation package, a fine resulting in loss of income, Ashley owed Ā£3m. How much of this Ā£8m the plc may not raise will be left?
The board of the SPFL has determined that Rangers Football Club Limited (the āClubā) is liable to pay the EBT Commission fine of Ā£250,000 levied on RFC 2012 PLC (previously The Rangers Football Club plc) (in liquidation)
Maybe it’s too early in the morning for me or they are being sued by guys who make wrought iron gates, but I thought it was the other way round.
wottpi says:
December 17, 2014 at 7:53 am
2 0 Rate This
Looks like the SPFL claim may get some answers re oldco/noewco or the 5 way agreement. If of course the SFA process is open and transparent????
So Ally and his pals compensation package, a fine resulting in loss of income, Ashley owed Ā£3m. How much of this Ā£8m the plc may not raise will be left?
———–
Every day a pantomime. And the list of issues grows. Shut doon and start again must be looking very appealing.
Are bills surfacing just because Ashley is loaded?
Morning all. First ever post on your excellent site
.
I broke the habit of a lifetime last night and actually tuned into SSB where I heard a fan of Rangers argue the case for Mike Ashley being allowed dual ownership of Newcastle and his own club. If drawn together in European competition the solution was easy…..Mike could decide which team qualified and which didnt!! I couldn’t believe my ears, more so when neither of the studio experts(!) thought there was anything wrong with this suggestion. It could be worth implementing this for the fallout when Mike decides the Magpies should be the team to qualify to the next š round!!
Like andygraham.66, I’m sure TRFC’s statement to the AIM is indeed incorrect. It would seem that even the Ibrox Board is totally confused by this OC/NC farce.
TSFM 12:10
Agree. I’d love just the tone to change a little and that people show some acceptance that the SFA might just be correct. I don’t know if they are correct, but they have now run 2 investigations, both coming to the same conclusion. Yet the tone of many here would suggest that they will not accept that Tonev may indeed have said something he shouldn’t have (and I have no doubt regrets).
The language debate is a red herring. He had an interpreter present an it seems he chose not to use him, he also had John Collins present throughout. Had language been the problem I’m sure that would have been brought to the attention of the committee (and failing that I’m sure it would have been mentioned in the statement made by Celtic). Yes, dealing in a second language makes things more difficult. My reading of the outcome doesn’t make it sound like it is a major factor here – short of perhaps some debate as to whether he was aware of the strength of the C word used (which itself is a red herring as the other word was the important one, I’m sure every footballer in this country receives the C word far more frequently that should be accepted!).
For the record, I think Logans tweet is a mistake, he should have held silence as he has thus far. That said, given the statements that have been directed in support of Tonev you can only understand how frustrated he must be with the process. Doesn’t make it correct though.
Danish Pastry says:
December 17, 2014 at 8:16 am
Yes did wonder if a sugar daddy on the scene resulted in the old fine being resurrected.
With regards to pantomimes T’Rangers are in the King’s Theatre. Meanwhile a lesser production including managers risigning, financial woes and directors suing the club is being played out in a small community theatre in Livingston. However I hear no calls for the rules to be bent or any special considerations to be given in that situation.
Now here’s a theory.
All of this proper corporate governance coming out of the bunker at Hampden could be deflection technique.
Make all of the right noises and correct moves as laid out in the SFA/SPFL rules.
The fines, and charges make Mike Ashley think twice about investing more of his cheeky into the black hole and of course the OC/NC debate is out in the open for all to see.
The best case is (depending on which way you view it) Mike Ashley rides off into the night back to Geordie land.
The Rangers implode with no investment and fines atributed to them, with the SFA/SPFL having the excuse that The Rangers were not really Rangers, or they really are but cannot pay the fines levied and therefore are liquidated or go into adminstration.
Points deducted and another year or two in the Championship under the guise of The Rangers of Govan (just made up name), with no association with the past, debt free and all former blue noses welcome.
SFA/SPFL have saved face, applied the rules and can blame rightly, other forces for the demise and rise of another entity.
This could be a new adventure for Professor Leyton on Nintendo DS.
It could be called “Professor Leyton and the Celestial Entity”
Tongue firmly in cheek. Afterall it is nearly Christmas unless you are one of those that believes he was born in September, but hey, lets not go there š
EKBhoy – Sounds like you won’t be surprised when I tell you my one and only experience of jury duty thus far led to a “guilty” charge then (he really, really was though!) š
The compliance officer thing is tricky, alas with Celtic being on TV more than anyone else, that club is perhaps going to suffer more trial by TV jury than anyone else. I don’t think you can get round that one, short of making TV exposure equal for all clubs. Sounds nice, but then I like my games at 3pm on a Saturday so there is much to be said for not being on TV (seriously how Celtic esp. (& certain EPL) fans live with that is beyond me!).
Also there is the whole big club v “diddy” club mentality. We are frequently told that us diddy clubs like to knock down the big boys, raise our game, yadda yadda. Human nature I guess means allied to that more complaints will come the way of Celtic from fans.
I personally don’t think Celtic should pursue this horrible case any further. 2 investigations, 2 guilty conclusions. The probability clause is there for a reason, and all clubs signed up to it. I think one thing we all agree with is that it is not perfect, and by it’s definition it never will be perfect. But, things happen on the football pitch that can’t just be ignored, there has to be some way to deal with them.
I understand what people are saying regards it being too serious for the SFA to deal with, but I doubt any police action would be forthcoming in such an incident, they simply don’t have the time and resources. So, does that then mean we just ignore the incident? I don’t think we can, and while this system is imperfect, until all players carry microphones and everything is recorded it is the best system that is available. Clubs of course should support their players, and fair play to Celtic, I might disagree with some of their tactics, but they have done everything they can to help the guy. He was however still found guilty and we can only hope the committee have done there job properly (I don’t feel there is any reason to doubt that they gave the issue the thought and care required) and that their decision is indeed the correct one.
It is a horrible mess, a winnerless situation, in fact everyone involved is a loser. I have one hope that at the very least this will send out a strong warning to all other players in Scotland that racism has to be stamped out.
Back on matters sevco, the BDO story this morning reminds me that I never understood why Charlie agreed to the oldco football fines bit at the 5WA. Legally, he was under no compunction whatsoever to pay those and he didn’t strike me even then as the generous type. It goes without saying that they (SFA/SPL/SPFL) were never ever going to let him walk out the door.
The only reason I can think of is that he saw it as an affordable cost (no laughing) to maintain the old club argument. In fact, in view of the other profligacy, I’m actually surprised that one wasn’t paid.
CQN stating that the SPFL action re the Ā£250000 fine was triggered by Sevco’s (subsequently withdrawn) rant re Telfer compensation.
I was assuming they were anticipating an insolvency event in the near future.
Do I recall correctly that the LNS decision recognised that the fine would result in lower payouts for the creditors? And am I right to assume that newco paying all oldco debts trumps this?
tayred says:
December 17, 2014 at 8:41 am
TSFM 12:10
Agree. Iād love just the tone to change a little and that people show some acceptance that the SFA might just be correct. I donāt know if they are correct, but they have now run 2 investigations, both coming to the same conclusion.
===================================================================
I think we have to be very careful about what we state as fact. There was only one ‘investigation’ and that was by the first tribunal who heard the evidence as it was given.
The second appeal hearing was there to deal with the grounds of appeal on legal grounds and to ensure the first tribunal hadn’t exceeded its authority; had operated within the SFA Rules and hadn’t dropped a legal clanger somewhere. It also had to decide whether the punishment was appropriate.
It wasn’t there to decide for itself who was the more credible witness because it hadn’t heard the evidence given. It was there to look at the reasons the first tribunal gave for assessing credibility to check that legally they were acceptable.
But it was never there job to make the credibility decision themself as they simply couldn’t.
The first tribunal might be correct but it might be wrong – I simply don’t know. The second tribunal might be right in terms of its legal decisions but show me one lawyer stating a fact and I’ll show a hundred arguing the opposite all based on legal precedent.
However my main argument remains that if we really want to deal effectively with racism in Scottish Football then on-field incidents should be dealt with by the police and criminal courts.
A small matter but was John Collins at the first hearing or any Celtic rep? I had the distinct impression that Tonev was there as an individual and represented by his own lawyer.
I cannot disagree on the language issue being a ‘red herring’. It might be but I don’t know because I have never spoken to him and there’s a big difference between a player speaking a few words after a match to an interviewer and dealing with quasi-judicial proceedings.
That shouldn’t be taken as a defence of Tonev as it isn’t and tbh the ‘C’ word is a classic example which reveals a weakness in language skills. It could well be that Tonev recognised it as a derogatory term as he will have heard it used as such numerous times since coming to the UK.
However I very much doubt if he understands the etymology of ‘c*ant’ as it’s extremely complex and I would think most posters here – including myself – wouldn’t have a clue. See: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ba1_1295203335
The word in itself wasn’t the most important used but could be a useful indicator to Tonev being confused and hesitant over its use and meaning when giving evidence.
Words of insult aren’t universal and all languages have their own selection. As to Tonev deciding to speak in English perhaps he thought it was better to show that he knew what ‘black’ meant and that it could be racist by giving his evidence in English as ‘proof’ he wouldn’t use it.
As I’ve posted before that was a mistake because this type of issue isn’t simply come down to a language comprehension issue but much deeper cultural issues.
As I say it’s important not to state or accept things as ‘fact’ when you don’t know whether they are or not and especially on something as important as this for both Tonev and Logan and their footballing careers.
Smugas says:
December 17, 2014 at 10:18 am
‘…The only reason I can think of is that he saw it as an affordable cost (no laughing) to maintain the old club argument.’
———
The most dishonourable deal ever done in Scottish Football was predicated on the fact that CG’s mob was being illicitly accommodated on condition that they would have to accept some (legally unjustified) responsibility dor the football (and only the football!) debts of the liquidated entity they were desperate to claim to be.
Shabby men, distrustful of one another, and ready to renege at a moment’s notice.
The fact that, apparently, Doncaster’s people (the now SPFL) are looking for the big fine to paid to them is clearly a sign that the unholy alliance is breaking up.They want the dosh while there is dosh available, or at least, want to be in among the creditors when RIFC plc goes bust.
The alternative reading ( that the SPFL may consciously be trying to strengthen the claim that newco is oldco) is maybe a bit too fanciful.
But , as with the bandits all holed up in a box canyon,and all operating on a ‘me first, last and all the time’ basis, who can tell?
(I wouldn’t be surprised if this claim is part of Doncaster’s revenge on Regan of the SFA, for getting the Barry boy to rip him off so badly at the SFA Convention!)
Let the ‘thieves’ fall out and destroy themselves for the greater good of the Scottish game.
Eco – fair cop (no pun intended, or in the “red herring” comment in my original post, never even occurred to me until I read your posting!) on my 2 investigations comment.
One full investigation and a second to check that the decision of the first was legally sound.
From my reading John Collins was present at the first hearing throughout the evidence being given by Tonev at least (perhaps not through the AFC representatives though?).
Last year I had to investigate a far more serious than racism allegation against a member of staff. There were many similarities with the Tonev-Logan case:
One person’s word against another and no corroboration.
Potential motivation of accused more apparent than accuser’s.
Accuser’s first language English, accused’s not.
Even allowing for language and nerves, accuser definitely more credible although accused not disbelievable.
On the balance of probabilities burden of proof required. (There was a separate police investigation.)
I suppose the main difference was that there was no possibility of this being two different perceptions of the same incident. The two versions of events were unrecognisable. One of them was lying.
I suspect most of us have the same belief about what happened between the two players but do not want to state it. I was in the same position with my member of staff but ultimately my own sense of justice meant that I could only reach a ‘not proven’ verdict. Essentially unless Tonev turned up, for example, wearing a T shirt with a racist slogan, I am deeply uncomfortable with this verdict and that is in no way influenced by being a Celtic fan.
There is nothing in Tonev’s past that has come to light and he apparently has the full support of his team mates, several of whom are black. Am I the only one who believes his nationality may have gone against him and all the ironies that would imply? At least a distinction was made between using racist language and being a racist, because ‘in the heat of battle’ the two don’t automatically go together although clearly can.
I wonder
Has there been a ā Lance the boil and stop Ashleyā moment at the SFA and SPFL?
Arguments For
If the SFA donāt stop Ashley now they face years of humiliation in dealing with him
And
Celtic would prefer King to Ashley at Ibrox. They donāt want to deal with Ashley either
And
The governing bodies need the Spivs out of Ibrox before the court cases compromise their authority to take a tough line
And
There is a True Blue Saviour acceptable to the support waiting off stage. i.e. DK and co
And
TRFC won`t get relegated if they get a points penalty. So the rules could be bent to enable the Newco to remain in the Championship. The only loser is the applicant for the vacancy at the bottom of the pyramid (probably Spartans)
And
The last Ranger left standing has given up.
With McCoists resignation there is nobody in management at TRFC around which the support can bury their differences and fight the SFA. There are thousands of fans desperate for āsomething to be doneā This greatly simplifies the PR strategy
And
Administration/Liquidation can be assured if a tough line is taken with Ashley .This would provide real Rangers men with the opportunity to buy the assets and start a Newco
Arguments Against
Ashley could announce a āmegabucks investment to comeā if the SFA and SPFL play ball
SFA and SPFL could become embroiled in a costly legal battle
SFA and SPFL could be blamed for Liquidation
I’ve had my say on the Tonev much earlier and at the end of the day, the football authorities have made their call on this and based on prior examples, we can be fairly sure they will not overturn their own decision.
So to other matters and the possibly the definitive answer to the “OC/NC” debate. I am sitting here with a metaphorical bucket of popcorn and “big gulp” sized cola looking forward to the contortions, convulsions and confusion that arises from celebrating being recognised as instrumental in the “club’s” development of a player at the same time as refusing to accept the actions of the very same “club” over the same period….
Terrific sport. š š š
GoosyGoosy says:
December 17, 2014 at 11:21 am
‘.Has there been a ā Lance the boil and stop Ashleyā moment at the SFA and SPFL?
Arguments For
If the SFA donāt stop Ashley now they face years of humiliation in dealing with him…’
————-
I suppose there MIGHT be some theoretical difference between the eager self-abasement they displayed before the mighty SDM and any forced, unwilling thraldom under a MA.
Same result, though, for the rest of us!
That it should have come to this! Where so many of us are ready to believe that, in one way or another, our Football Authorities may again be ‘bribed’, blackmailed or otherwise coerced into ‘slavery’ to one failing, disreputable club!
One time was enough.
Let’s not have a repeat.
Tayred/Eco
Whilst agreeing that there are no winners in this case, I would say that the language issue is important and,IMO, not a red herring.
Translation involves more than just word for word.
Try one of those online translation devices and you’ll see the rubbish that can come out in English when you click the button.
I speak two other languages fairly well but in another lifetime, when I had to conduct a formal interview with a non English speaker, I always had to use an accredited interpreter.
I was once interviewing a Romanian guy and told him he was ‘back to square one’ (we all know what that means) and explained that he had landed on the snake’s head on square 99 and had now ended up back at the start on square 1.
I asked my excellent interpreter to translate.
Silence.
She told me she couldn’t do it.
When I asked why, she explained that snakes and ladders didn’t exist in Romania as under Ceausescu’s regime children did not have any games such as this so the concept would be unknown to the man and therefore not translatable.
So it’s not just translating word for word.
There’s a lot more to it that that.
Come oan, get aff….. anyone??
ecobhoy says:
December 17, 2014 at 10:30 am
All nice intellectual babbling but lets get to the point.
Football amongst all sports has a very poor reputation with regard to players verbally abusing each other, officials and opposition managers, coaches etc.
Dress it up anyway you want but the type of name calling in football, whether it be racist in nature or the use of strong swear words such as the ‘C’ word should really be deemed unacceptable.
It may be that Tonev and Logan are unfortunate casualties or collateral damage in this particular instance but IMHO, the adoption of penalties such as Rugby’s moving the ball forward for verbals and if a few more hefty bans were the order of the day then maybe we could actually get somewhere with civilising the game and getting some high paid prima donnas to grow up.
Smugas says:
December 17, 2014 at 10:18 am
13 0 Rate This
Back on matters sevco, the BDO story this morning reminds me that I never understood why Charlie agreed to the oldco football fines bit at the 5WA. Legally, he was under no compunction whatsoever to pay those and he didnāt strike me even then as the generous type. It goes without saying that they (SFA/SPL/SPFL) were never ever going to let him walk out the door.
The only reason I can think of is that he saw it as an affordable cost (no laughing) to maintain the old club argument. In fact, in view of the other profligacy, Iām actually surprised that one wasnāt paid.
——–
Have a heart, Charlie has many hungry mouths chomping at the bit. Then there’s those rooms to heat, it’s not all feet up and slippers at the chateau! And there’s transporting the equine beasties. Jetting horses around France ā even those struck with a wealth of Rangersitis ā costs more a few penny shares.
If he called one of his horses TRFC and endowed that history he bought on the creature, would it win the league at a canter?
Steff Gelling says:
December 17, 2014 at 12:00
—
Thanks for moving on the discussion ….. if you can’t spot the difference between how the rules are applied in the case of head butting (Boyd) , simulation (Boreggiter, and Laws – oops Compliance officer missed that one) and a crime then perhaps you could reflect on this and let some fresh air in š
Re: SPFL, BDO, Alexander
Thereās an old joke in Texas that there are only two states in the United States of America: thereās Texas and thereās TAFT.
TAFT = This aināt feckin Texas.
Looks like the chaps on the sixth floor have heard the joke, but the chaps at the top of the marble stairs havenāt heard it yet!
TAFR =
Steff
What were Deila, Brown and the club supposed to say? What would your club’s manager have said? As has been said on this site several times, there were never going to be any winners with this. My only criticism of Deila is that ‘completely believe’ would have been a better choice of words than ‘know’, although I suspect he may have actually been implying the former. And in case you want my personal view see 10:50 am above.
Another appointment at Ibrox!! A Mr Wood…
Bryce – they could have taken the AFC approach, said virtually nothing and waited for the legal bods to do their job without fear or favour.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30510599
tayred – I’m not sure they had that luxury. Logan has not been accused of anything so there was no need for Aberdeen to comment. Celtic either backed him or sacked him. Had they said virtually nothing where would they be placed this morning, assuming they believe their player?
From Companies House today :
RIFC : AP03 16/12/2014 SECRETARY APPOINTED MR MATTHEW WOOD
TRFC : AP04 16/12/2014 CORPORATE SECRETARY APPOINTED CMS ADVISORY GROUP LIMITED
There should also be an AP04 for RIFC and an AP03 for TRFC according to the monitoring service but these are not showing yet. Crighton going?
The two secretarial appointments appear to be connected as Matt Wood works for CMS.
http://www.cms-ag.com/team/matt-wood/
I notice that his specialities include Secondary Fundraisings and Corporate Restructuring.
Now where could those skills be required? š
Scottish Football needs a lot of popcorn.
wottpi.
I was merely comparing football crimes ( which my first examples noted , which appear a bit of a lottery as to who gets nicked ) and real crimes.
The fact that Nicky Law can swallow dive with impunity and Kris Boyd can make a forward with his head to an opponent with similarly impunity , we can put down to business as usual for Scottish football: a group drawn from the same panel judging a crime where there is a clear dispute is leaving the door open for this to be abused.
I had no doubt that Tonev would be found guilty , absolutely 10000% certain, just like Dutchmen dive, Scotsmen felt contact and went down …. Nothing to see.
As I stated earlier, disciplinary proceedings are much improved since Regan revamped them but there is still room I suspect for greater clarity and fine-tuning. Celtic will follow up on this regard.
Well put it this way. Its not Secondary fundraisings!
SPFL statement today :
“In February 2013, an independent SPL commission, chaired by the Rt. Hon. Lord Nimmo Smith, fined RFC 2012 PLC (previously The Rangers Football Club plc) (in liquidation)) (“Rangers Oldco”) the sum of Ā£250,000 in respect of multiple breaches of SPL and Scottish FA Rules.
The Rangers Football Club Limited (āRangers Newcoā) signed an agreement under which they would be liable for sums such as this. The Chairman of Rangers FC, David Somers, and on one occasion the clubās then Chief Executive Graham Wallace, engaged in individual discussions with the majority of current SPFL Board members several months ago acknowledging the liability and suggesting ways of paying the sums due.
Following such discussions, it was only when no sums actually arrived from Rangers FC that the SPFL Board decided to offset this liability against future sums payable to the Club.”
http://spfl.co.uk/news/article/spfl-statement-62/?
Scottish Football really does need lots of popcorn.
Bryce
They could easily have taken a different approach. Something along the lines of “one of our players is facing charges from the SFA relating to accusations regarding on-field behaviour. We have spoken to the player concerned and will assist the authorities in their investigation. We will not be making any further comments at this time.”
Job done.
EKbhoy – every fan of every club believes that they are hard done by when it comes to authorities picking on their players for things. Whataboutery never adds to an argument.
Steff
That’s not what I was suggesting at all.
I have no doubt Celtic carried out some form of preliminary informal investigation, fact finding if you like. This would determine whether a formal investigation was required. The was no corroboration and they believed their player, hence this never happened. Had there been corroboration or had they not believed their player or had there been genuine doubt, the course of action you are suggesting is appropriate.
And drop the personal insults please.
redlichtie says:
December 17, 2014 at 1:16 pm
A but does the SPFL have a tape of the the now Executive (but not for long) Chairman owing up to such acknowledgements and agreements?
Surely they will need such evidence given the company which appointed the ‘Chairman of Rangers FC’ (is he really) has said they would dispute this.
Mine’s is a salted big bucket thanks.
wottpi says:
December 17, 2014 at 12:51 pm
========================================
‘Therefore what has changed?’
Well it would be helpful if you were comparing like with like but you aren’t.
On the one hand we have highly audible racist chants from the crowd and all of the players walking off the field with the game abandoned and in the other a single alleged racist remark that one person claims took place and the person accused denies making it and no one walked off the park.
That, quite simply, is the difference. It isn’t a question IMO that posters here have changed their attitude towards racism but more to do with an unhappiness with the quality of the evidence, a total absence of corroboration, and for some – including myself – the belief that the issue is too serious to be dealt with by the SFA.
Can the legal minds clarify what ‘on the balance of probabilities’ actually means. I’ve always assumed it was not meant literally (ie more likely than not) but rather allowed for reasonable doubt.
If I’m wrong then Tonev was up against it from the start. If you believe (as I do) that footballers making racist comments to opponents is more common than footballers wrongly (deliberately or inadvertently) accusing opponents of making racist comments, then before any evidence has been heard at all it is perhaps 80% likely that Tonev is guilty, 10% likely that Logan is lying leaving a 10% lost-in-translation possibility. We can debate the precise figures, but Tonev is going to have to appear extra reliable and credible to get that down to 50-50.
Just a wee joke there Derek, no offence, eh, just a bit of fun, you can take a joke can you not ?
Sandy sports a red and black striped tie as he enters Ibrox this morning – what a wag – bet he’s a lauugh a minute at the meeting.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/ally-mccoist-expected-ibrox-board-4827186
A couple of quick comments, in the pursuit of accuracy.
Regarding the vacancy at the “foot of the pyramid”. As far as I am aware, the feet of the pyramid are the Lowland and Highland leagues.
At the end of the season there will be a two-legged play-off between the team that finishes 42nd in the SPFL (i.e. bottom of the 2nd), and the candidate club, which is the winner of a competition amongst non-SPFL clubs. I believe this latter is currently designed as being a play-off between the winners of the Lowland and Highland leagues. Spartans are currently 3rd in the latter, 10 points behind Edinburgh City having played a game more. I expect Brora Rangers to win the HFL, and further expect them to beat whichever team wins the LL (without getting involved in the NC/OC debate surrounding Edinburgh City).
Geography will determine into which league any club relegated from the SPFL falls. So were Brora to take the place of Clyde for example, (apologies Bully Wee fans – using you as an example but I suspect Elgin is more likely to fall through the trap-door) the HFL would become one short, and there would be no relocation of Stirling Uni, which is I think the most northerly Lowland side.
Both feeder leagues can be joined direct, rather than going through other leagues like the EoSL, SoSL or NCL.
One thing to watch is an SPFL club being punished by being placed last (rather than being expelled, in which case I imagine the candidate club would automatically enter the SPFL) I think this is just about possible.
My second point is a request for a (free!) legal view. As far as I can see there is no capacity for a “not proven” verdict under Scots Civil Law (a verdict I suspect is misunderstood in any case). In a case where the burden of proof is on the balance of probabilities and no corroborating evidence, that suggests the jury has to decide one way or the other, without being sure.
[Edit – I see Bryce has asked more or less the same question.]
wottpi says:
December 17, 2014 at 11:49 am
ecobhoy says:
December 17, 2014 at 10:30 am
All nice intellectual babbling but lets get to the point.
========================================================
Charming!
In the interests of further accuracy, “latter” should be read as “former” in my post above – Spartans are 3rd in the Lowland League, of course.
Red Lichtie 1.16pm
I know this is just another chapter in the ongoing saga about RFCS use of ebts and I did wonder what prompted the SPFL to finally try and impose the only sanction placed on RFC for 10 years plus of ebt use (excluding of course the illegal ebts used in 1999, 2000 to 2003 that, like the war, gets no mention in German company, gets no mention by SPFL or SFA. The same ebts of which HMRC declared in this extract in bold
http://kerrydalestreet.co.uk/single/?p=13318010&t=9208558
were ā fraudulentā
The SPFL know by now that their Commission investigating ebts was misled and that they were lied to in 2012. They have been lied to by RIFC since, who appear to have no intention of doing anything honourable.
The BIG issue here is not the money, the big issue is how can Scottish football continue to allow a club who have consistently lied to the rest of the game to be part of that game?
There is no possibility of restoring trust in Scottish football as long as RIFC are being pandered to or being seen to be pandered to.
It is high time RFC/ RIFC were called out.
The evidence so far on wtc ebts, BTC ebts and UEFA 2011 licence is that they operate through deception, but like a battered wife refusing to call a halt to her abuse, Scottish football still allows that abuse to continue.
I doubt there is a plan as such for a Third Rangers but donāt discount it could happen by circumstance. However whether itās Third Rangers or Ashley Rangers they must be made to act honestly by the rest of Scottish football rejecting them until they provide signs that they will.
With more clubs in improved financial circumstances there is not a better time to force the issue. Tell RIFC or Third Rangers āIf you want to play in Scottish football, play by the same rules other clubs do or sod offā