As most of you will be aware, the Guardian recently agreed to and accepted payment from CQN for an advertisement which was intended to raise awareness of the Resolution 12 issue, an issue pursued determinedly by Celtic shareholders for the last three years. Subsequently, and citing the thinnest of excuses, they decided not to run the ad. This developed hard on the heels of the Herald actually soliciting the business from the advertisers for their own paper, and then without even seeing the copy, refusing to move forward. (See CQN story here)
A troubling aspect of GuardianGate is that CQN were lied to. They were initially advised that the ad was to be removed after editorial scrutiny. Subsequently they were advised that the decision came from an intervention by senior officials.
We are now focused on a media conspiracy to impose censorship in favour of a multi-million pound industry – to the detriment of its small investors and paying customers.
So which was true – and which was the lie?
Here’s a thing about the truth; it is seldom complicated, which is why the failure by the Guardian and the Herald to deliver a straightforward answer implies that there may be more to this nonsense than any of us first imagined.
At this point, it is worth noting that the Guardian is currently running an ad campaign by Toyota, a company who have admitted lying to environmental regulatory bodies for years about emissions from their cars (the Guardian professes to be a major campaigner on environmental issues), but won’t accept a paying ad that asks some polite and important questions about the conduct of a multi-million pound industry.
The denial of the Res 12 guys’ right to ask questions (no accusations – just bloody questions) via the once assumed to be pluralist and free press, should be ringing alarm bells all over the country, and the substantive issue has become largely irrelevant as a consequence. We are now focused on a media conspiracy to impose censorship in favour of a multi-million pound industry – to the detriment of its small investors and paying customers.
Two so-called quality newspapers, have mysteriously, after touting for advertising business, refused that very same business, and have given no good reason for doing so. If the Guardian refuse to accept an ad, I don’t believe that is censorship in itself, but when the dwindling number of newspaper proprietors in this country conspire to arrange an effective blackout of ideas, that is quite clearly censorship.
And for something so relatively inconsequential as football, I can only assume that we have all stumbled on to something far more serious.
Given the recent media rhetoric about Russia Today and their forthright coverage of Chilcot and Tory Election Fraud, it seems that like so many of the players in this saga, the irony circuit in the collective press brain is now as devolved as a human tail.
There are dark forces at work in our country, and they are running riot with basic freedoms. However it is important to put the football issue into the proper perspective; if the media can go to these corrupt lengths for a game of football, what will they do to protect the capital interests of arms manufacturers, food producers and media dictatorships?
They may have lost the war, but through fix after fix at the SFA and the SPL, in the press and in the media, the authorities are winning the peace – basically by denying that any peace is possible until we all accept the notion that black is white, right is left, and wrong is right
Migrant fruit-pickers
© Scotsman
Back in soccer La-La-Land’s Mount Florida Fruit Factory, the football authorities most definitely lost the recent war. RFC went out of business and failed the fundamental task of any football club – to sustain itself. In allowing that to happen on their watch, the authorities failed in their most fundamental role – to keep RFC alive.
However through fix after fix, at the SFA and the SPL, in the press and in the media, they are winning the peace – basically by denying that any peace is possible until we all accept the notion that black is white, right is left, and wrong is right.
And still, even in this atmosphere, the major shareholders at all of our clubs sit and do nothing. Are they part of the problem, an integral part of the conspiracy? Or are they scared witless of the forces that may line up against them if they dare to grow a pair, like the Resolution 12 guys?
Sporting integrity has taken a back seat recently. Season ticket sales are up all over the place; Celtic provided a marquee manager; the red tops are ablaze about the ‘return’ of the Rangers; Hearts and Aberdeen are newly emerged from financial difficulty, and now enjoy the realistic prospect of new eras of success; and another competitive and exciting year beckons in the Championship.
In normal circumstances this would be fantastic news. But all of it is based on a Lie – the Lie that the game is run according to the rules, and for the benefit of all clubs. When the euphoria at Parkhead dies down; when TRFC are reinstalled (actually it will need to be with a shoehorn, but it will be done) as part of the old duopoly that sees the vital contribution made by the likes of Hearts and Aberdeen and others as insignificant; when the next major ‘bending’ of the regulations becomes necessary; all we will be left with is that Big Lie.
The clubs will eventually have to deal with that – and the complicit roles they played in ramming it down each and every one of our throats.
I hope we make them pay.
Another thing about the truth though is this;
Everyone with skin in this game, with the exception of the mentally deficient, know exactly what the truth is;
- RFC cheated;
- RFC evaded, avoided, and deliberately withheld payment of tax;
- RFC failed to register players properly over (at least) a decade;
- RFC lied to the SFA, the SPL and LNS;
- Whilst all the above was happening, RFC won over a dozen on-field prizes;
- The SFA rewrote the terms of LNS to better tailor their preferred outcome;
- RFC were punished by way of a £250k fine. No other penalties were suffered by RFC;
- RFC entered liquidation and a new club, which co-existed with RFC, began playing in competition BEFORE RFC’s SFA/SPL membership lapsed;
- That club (TRFC for differentiation purposes) just achieved promotion to the Premiership;
As long as we keep reminding everyone of those truths, as long as we continue to give them a voice, they won’t go away.
And what if, next time, it is Hearts or Aberdeen or Celtic, who make a desperate attempt to get an edge over their rivals (an emergent TRFC perhaps)?
The irony (and I exclude the TRFC fans who frequent this site) is that TRFC, despite having the weight of the football and press establishments behind them, are being done no favours at all.
The increasing pariah status of their club is a sad but inevitable consequence of the wrong-doing by the old club, because the fans (understandably to be fair) seek to side with their own partisan interests in the face of outside hostility.
But think of this. If the initial-ism ‘RFC’ above was replaced by the name of any other club in the country, wouldn’t TRFC fans be complaining as loudly as the rest of us?
And what if, next time, it is Hearts or Aberdeen or Celtic, who make a desperate attempt to get an edge over their rivals (an emergent TRFC perhaps)?
What if they run roughshod over the same rules that were broken before but remain unfixed? What if, as a consequence, a compliant TRFC are denied an opportunity to play in Europe, or compete in a final, or win a league?
Will we then still be ‘Rangers haters’ if we protest about that or merely Hearts or Dons or Celtic haters?
This is not about revenge – it never has been – and no amount of wishful thinking will make it so. For most of us on SFM, there is no RFC to have our revenge on anyway, so the accusation makes no sense.
What we are about, what we are all about, is weeding out the clucken wort in Scotland’s football garden on level six at Hampden.
And it appears that some extraordinarily powerful individual or group, with enough muscle to bend the fourth estate to their will, wants to keep us all away from that garden..
AllyjamboJuly 7, 2016 at 19:48
‘…I think the least negative thing for their club is that, in a situation where four people were chasing three positions, TRFC have been given a hint that, in three 45 minute games14, they are the losers. ..’
_______
Possibly the fact that the three other candidates are Lawwell, Budge and Maxwell was the ‘hint’ that the Robertson took.
The u-turn shows a decided weakness in judgment, based perhaps on a very misplaced sense of automatic entitlement and confidence that he would be elected.
Not good, in a CEO.
Looks like linbrand have removed their HFH range from the website, unsurprisingly, still not a peep out of our stalwarts at smsm.
Re Robertson’s withdrawal from the vote .
A quick look on a sevco 2012 forum and it gives you a little insight to the legacy left to ALL the other Scottish football supporters by allowing the BIG LIE to continue .
I does not bode well IMO.
This victim myth has stoked fires that may take a decade or more to put out .
Ah this will be what the half million from rst is for lol.
Oguchi Onyewu has walked away from contract talks with Sevco.
The former AC Milan ace, who never played a single minute in Serie A, joined Mark Warburton’s squad for their training camp in South Carolina before playing in the 2-1 win over Charleston Bakery.
Onyewu is available as a free agent but his personal terms have proved too steep for the former city trader who will now look elsewhere for back-up to 37-year-old Clint Hill.
Putting a brave face on his transfer ‘budget’ Warbo told the Daily Record: “We have been linked to so many strikers and that’s good because the real targets have not been mentioned.
“The one we want is one the media haven’t dug up yet, but I have no doubt you will keep on digging.
“It’s not simple sometimes. Clubs want £2million, you are prepared to pay £500,000 and you try to meet somewhere in the middle.
“We might spend money or we might not. The trick is to get the work done under the radar, as Frank McParland has been doing.”
Speaking about the 69 times capped defender after his first day in training Warbo said: “He’s in great shape and he has a great pedigree. It’s a position we are looking to strengthen.
“If you’ve got three centre-backs then you’re always vulnerable so we need a fourth player there to cater for those situations.
“I will look at him for ten days and then say ‘thanks very much’ and see what happens. If he does well then, fantastic. We are looking for another two players including another striker.”
Kilgore TroutJuly 7, 2016 at 22:57
….. And, rather marvellously, I have tomorrow evening all to myself!
_______________________
No you won’t, I suspect you’ll have rather a lot of company on here, myself included if my mate can’t make pub tonight, assuming the news is as big as the trailer might suggest
– kinda hoping he can’t make it tonight now, but maybe tomorrow night instead
Latest on CQN announcement as notified by Kilgore Trout yesterday. Is it so damning that it’s this that’s put the kybosh on Stewart Robertson’s chances of gaining a seat on the SPFL board?
“CQN at 6pm this evening will publish an official and hugely significant update on Resolution 12.
Read it carefully.
The Celtic blogger James Forrest has had advance viewing of this update and at 6.45pm he will provide a detailed analysis which sets out the achievements of the four Resolution 12 Bhoys and what it all means for Scottish football.
He will tell you to “forget everything you’ve heard about this case in the media. Ignore the spin from the SFA. UEFA’s verdict was always the only one that mattered, and it is damning.”
The intention is for everyone to read the official update on Resolution 12, then go over to The Celtic Blog at 6.45pm to read James Forrest’s analysis before heading back to CQN at 7pm where we will be hosting a Q&A session on Resolution 12.
CQN has a final batch of our Persistence Beats Res12tance T shirts available in medium, large, XL and XXL. The profit from these shirts has been used to fund the legal bills incurred in taking the submission to UEFA.
More will be needed to take matters even further – more on that this evening.
We are grateful to those who ‘spiked’ our recent planned advertisement in the Guardian. They managed to get us ten times the publicity together with a 100% refund on the cost of the advertisement!
This money can now be used to support the Res12stance.
We have only 50 Persistence Beats Res12tance t-shirts available and this will be the last batch of these. If you want to order one head over to www.cqnbookstore.com
See you all at 6pm”
Whatever, I suspect that we are soon to read about either the end of Resolution 12, or a new beginning!
Bartin on twitter saying it’s his ‘understanding’ it includes UEFA confirming that some club or other is new…whatever that might mean
ALLYJAMBO
JULY 8, 2016 at 13:41
Latest on CQN announcement as notified by Kilgore Trout yesterday. Is it so damning that it’s this that’s put the kybosh on Stewart Robertson’s chances of gaining a seat on the SPFL board?…
========================================
That sounds like a reasonable guess – the timing is rather coincidental ?
Looking forward to the CQN update: but will the SMSM / SFA / SPFL continue to strain to look the other way, as per ?
Hope it’s of such significance that the sports hacks are compelled to report on it – and mibbees forced to grudgingly pose a couple of questions to the blazers at Hampden ?
I know…
StevieBCJuly 8, 2016 at 14:11
I’m sure the Offshore Game will do an update, and possibly the Guardian might feel shamed into writing something if it’s as damning as we expect.
If this ‘damning’ information is from UEFA, then it will be, almost, impossible for even the SMSM to ignore it, as it will undoubtedly go viral online and be red hot on every Scottish Football Club fan website. I suspect the SMSM will take it’s orders from Level5 who will want the story belittled, but once it’s out of the box…
I have noticed that the usual suspects on twitter, Jackson, Grant etc, are conspicuous by their absence. All on holiday at the same time?
ALLYJAMBOJULY 8, 2016 at 14:49…
I have noticed that the usual suspects on twitter, Jackson, Grant etc, are conspicuous by their absence. All on holiday at the same time?
===============
Could they have joined Regan et al – holed up in the Hampden bunker – awaiting the ‘incoming’ ?!
We have had many false hopes raised in the past: fingers crossed that this CQN update will at least provide some vindication of Auldheid & co’s tenacious efforts to date.
Strange story, this one. Two players with still 2 years of their contract left, haven’t signed new contracts. Maybe TRFC would like them to extend them, but hardly earth shattering if they don’t with at least next season to go before it’s a problem. Perhaps, though, a precursor to them leaving? A ‘not our fault, we tried our best, but you can’t buy loyalty’, kind of PR excuses in early piece. Still, confirming Warburton hasn’t signed a new contract!
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/jul/08/martyn-waghorn-james-tavernier-reject-rangers-contract-offer?CMP=share_btn_tw
http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/resolution-12-persistence-beats-res12tance/
So really unless cfc do their bit which they seem reluctant to do then this appears dead.
I don’t think the update in itself adds much to what we already knew from previous posts. The only item of note was the quote “new club/company”. It may a notable point but without seeing it in the context of the letter from UEFA, it is hardly going to change minds. The new club / old club argument wasn’t the purpose of Res 12 anyway.
Let’s hope that future updates and publication of material can provide the level of detail and confirmation that we and the Res 12 guys have been seeking for so long.
http://thecelticblog.com/2016/07/blogs/resolution-12-the-verdict-and-the-victory-that-restores-truth-to-scottish-football/?
Is there a reason why the full text of the UEFA letter hasn’t been published? Surely if extracts can be quoted verbatim, then the complete text of the letter could and should be put in the public domain?
NEEPHEIDJULY 8, 2016 at 20:08
Is there a reason why the full text of the UEFA letter hasn’t been published? Surely if extracts can be quoted verbatim, then the complete text of the letter could and should be put in the public domain?
—————————————————————————————————————————–
I have read that the letter (in full) will be made available to a London based media. I think we are in the realms of strategy. Although it was nice of UEFA to confirm what we all know, namely that Sevco are not Rangers(I.L.), I see it more of a wee snippet. You buy one, You get one free !
Res 12 is about SFA governance. That appears still to be in the hands of lawyers. Remember, this is just an update. Not the final whistle. One of my favourite Clash albums (much under-rated) is “Give ’em enough rope”
“Following upon the administration of the club
– a “new club/company” was formed which was ineligible to apply for a licence to participate in UEFA competitions for three seasons and which
– sought entry into the fourth tier of Scottish Football and this “new club/company” would not, and could not in any event, qualify to play in European competition for the next three years.”
If these are direct quotes from UEFA (rather than someone’s interpretation of UEFA’s words) then I agree with James Forrest that this is a seismic event which confirms that UEFA’s view of Rangers continuity is the polar opposite of the views of the TRFC fans.
If UEFA viewed TRFC as the same club as RFC, there would be no need to include the extraneous word ‘club‘ in the phrase new club/company, which is repeated twice. Furthermore, the wording confirms that the new club/company sought entry into the fourth tier of Scottish football, which again is the polar opposite of what TRFC fans would have us believe with their ludicrous relegated/demoted/sent there nonsense.
Although that does appear to be vindication of the Resolutioners’ persistence, I don’t know if this is now something that the SMSM or SFA/SPFL will pick up on.
If they did, then we would be quickly into the same club / new club debate – which nobody at Hampden or media wants to address.
And UEFA was aware of both RFC’s & SFA’s failings – but UEFA did nothing then, and plans to do nothing now ?
The Level42 spin could be that the matter was ‘so trivial’ that UEFA just didn’t think it was worth their while to investigate further ? TRFC will carry on without much thought on the subject, IMO.
However, the SFA as a governing body, is further ‘branded’ as incompetent by another source: will they rebuff UEFA’s assertions, or will Regan just stay in the bunker…?
The Clumpany has a new blog up…must be back from holiday
Sorry, I meant to include in my previous post the fact that UEFA specified that it was the club that went into administration (and thus also subsequently liquidation), not just the company, as TRFC fans would have us believe.
HIGHLANDERJULY 8, 2016 at 20:58
“Following upon the administration of the club
———————————————————————–
100% Highlander. UEFA have called out Sevco as a new club. The trick is to get the SFA to admit it.
What a can of worms that will be explaining how they can claim a trophy haul, and boast of owning someone else’s history when UEFA clearly state Sevco cannot be punished for Rangers (I.L.) crimes.
I think the Res 12 Bhoys either want, or have the relevant dates.
3. At an unspecified date during the course of season 2011/2012 it became apparent to the SFA/UEFA that Rangers Football Club ceased to meet the criteria for holding a UEFA Licence.
James Forrest’s blog on the update puts some of the contents of the correspondence into context. It is mainly a restatement of James’ own blog following the previous CQN update.
That said, James’s interpretation of events largely concurs with my own. Personally, I would now like the Res 12 guys to make the letters public in order to stop the likely response from the SMSM (none) and Rangers minded bloggers.
On the wider point of why this has taken do long, I do think that much of the blame lies with the Celtic Board.
Phil reporting that TRFC will need external funding of between GBP6M & GBP8M simply to complete next season – and that’s before any stadium related repairs.
Does King know any more ‘Real Rangers Men’ living in Hong Kong…?
Another full shift in Court 12 today.
Yesterday’s witness still in the box for a further ten/15 minutes.
Another witness took us up to a break 12.15 or so for 15 minutes , then same witness on stand until about 12.30, when Judge spoke to Counsel for Pursuer, to ask could he produce at least his principal arguments for 2.30. He wants to finish on Monday., and both Counsel agreed to bend every effort to achieve that.. Court rose for lunch at about 12.30.
Reconvened at 2.35. Finished at 4.00 pm, to resume on Monday.
HighlanderJuly 8, 2016 at 21:13
‘..the fact that UEFA specified that it was the club that went into administration (and thus also subsequently liquidation), not just the company, ‘
Corrupt officialJuly 8, 2016 at 21:24
‘..UEFA have called out Sevco as a new club. The trick is to get the SFA to admit it. ‘
___________
Yes.
UEFA recognises that what happened was not that a living club merely changed hands ( as many clubs have done, and continue to do), but that a once live club ceased to exist, both in terms of civil commercial law, and in terms of ‘Football Governance law”, and that a new, never-before existing club was permitted to enter and join the professional game in Scotland.
The fact that the new club has attracted many followers of the dead club cannot resurrect the dead club. The SFA will simply have to recognise this fact, face up to it, and discharge their full and proper DUTY to the Sport and to the various sportingly- and financially-cheated clubs and fans,and set the sporting records straight.
It will have to happen. And it will happen. ( Even if only when the new club itself dies, as some predict may happen)
John Clark
Listen carefully I’ll say this only once.
A repeat of my last word from CQN.
Maybe I’m too negative, but why allow some ambiguity to remain with the ” club/company” reference?
They’ve never denied it was a new company. This wording leaves wriggle room in my opinion. ================================
The ambiguity is from an misunderstanding (deliberate?) of UEFA Article 12.
Chapter 2: Licence Applicant and Licence
Article 12 – Definition of licence applicant
1 A licence applicant may ONLY be a football CLUB, i.e. a legal entity fully responsible for a football team participating in national and international competitions which either:
a) is a registered member of a UEFA member association and/or its affiliated league (hereinafter: registered member); or
b) has a contractual relationship with a registered member (hereinafter: football company).
2 The membership and the contractual relationship (if any) must have lasted – at the start of the licence season – for at least three consecutive years. Any alteration to the club’s legal form or company structure (including, for example, changing its headquarters, name or club colours, or transferring stakeholdings between different clubs) during this period in order to facilitate its qualification on sporting merit and/or its receipt of a licence to the detriment of the integrity of a competition is deemed as an interruption of membership or contractual relationship (if any) within the meaning of this provision =================
In Europe clubs can be a) or b) and at present the club operating from Ibrox looks like its b) if RIFC have a contractual relationship with TRFC.
RIFC do not have a contractual relationship with RFC 1872 so if they apply they are a new club/company under b)
If TRFC apply they are a new club under a).
UEFA had to cover the current construct in their reply to make the point neither a) nor b) would face sanctions because to UEFA they are “new”.
If they are not “new” UEFA would have sanctioned them in 2012 for breaches in 2011.
RFC 1872 were not sanctioned and TRFC/RIFC were not eligible for three years because they are new.
I’ll say no more on this use of the term “company” to mean anything other than what UEFA intend for its not what Res12 was about. An unforeseen consequence, a question that was never asked and what UEFA volunteered by way of explaining no sanction in 2011.
easyJamboJuly 8, 2016 at 21:26
‘….On the wider point of why this has taken do long, I do think that much of the blame lies with the Celtic Board. ..’
__________
I agree that the Celtic Board had the muscle to accept and discharge their legal obligations to shareholders,as soon as practicable after Resolution 12 had been carried. On the face of it, they appear to have lacked the will.
I myself was one who , for quite a long time, took very seriously the need for CFC to refrain from publicly leading from the front, in order to avoid giving the SMSM and others an opportunity to turn the serious issue of Scottish Football governance failure into a mere bun-fight between two rival clubs (as even an otherwise respected academic considered it to be) and thus diverting attention from allegedly very serious misconduct by the governing body into potential headline copy about street violence between rival fans.
However, as time passed, and it began to appear that considerations other than truth and sporting integrity might have lain behind their reluctance to raise the issue at all, never mind publicly, and to ( apparently) resort to fabian tactics to thwart those who were anxious to call the SFA to account, I began to question the integrity of the Celtic Board.
Not the least of my reasons for so questioning the Board, was the concerted trotting out of player after player who yearned for the return of ‘rangers’, who were ‘glad to see them back where they belong’ who spoke of the joys of having the ‘Old Firm’ back again etc etc etc etc etc et bloody cetera.
The apportioning of blame for the whole sorry saga, has to be carefully graduated: the cheating SDM is the root and branch cause, the SFA is complicit art and part , the SPL and SFL were complicit after the fact, and Celtic FC derelict in their duty to their shareholders, and, more widely, to their supporters, and, even more widely, to Scotttish Football – as were other clubs by their willing turning of blind eyes.
I have to hope, and expect, that things will be righted- and the real bad guys brought to book.
( ps, eJ-I have PMd on another matter)
living downunder and have been overjoyed with the latest news, no matter how they dress this up,it’s not going away a truth is a truth.man it it feel’s good to be vindicated.
[quote]I try to deny myself any illusions or delusions, and I think that this perhaps entitles me to try and deny the same to others, at least as long as they refuse to keep their fantasies to themselves. christopher hitchens.
a big thank you to the resolution 12 folk, now let’s get the SFA in the dock.
good morning sfm.https://youtu.be/ZD052ZUqNpE
I think one of the best bits is this:
“sought entry into the fourth tier of Scottish Football and this “new club/company” would not, and could not in any event, qualify to play in European competition for the next three years.”
‘Entry’ not ‘demotion’.
‘New club/company’ covers both bases and it is NEW!
I know this outcome was not the main driver for the Res12 guys, but there is an acceptance that:
“At an unspecified date during the course of season 2011/2012 it became apparent to the SFA/UEFA that Rangers Football Club ceased to meet the criteria for holding a UEFA Licence.”
They were ineligible.
There remains a lot to be done to nail those responsible. The process was this,
Rangers – SFA – UEFA
At what point did the lying take place? and by whom?
BTW, when I say ineligible I mean they were ineligible from the outset. As I understand it when a club is found to be at fault at ANY stage in the monitoring process, they are deemed to be ineligible from the beginning (31 March?)
Much respect and gratitude to the RES 12 guys. Now, will the board of CFC do their bit or will they keep silent?
Sevco have now been given a “get out clause” regarding the LNS fine. They are not Rangers (I.L.), and it is ratified by UEFA. Go on Sevco……….Give ’em both barrels.
Corrupt official
Sevco have now been given a “get out clause” regarding the LNS fine. They are not Rangers (I.L.), and it is ratified by UEFA. Go on Sevco……….Give ’em both barrels.
__________________________
Ah; but the 5 way agreement states that the new club will pay the debts of the old club does it not? The SFA/SPL covered their ar*es with this one.
given UEFA stance on sevco being a new club I think whoever has access to said letter should contact uefa to explain this http://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/club=50121/domestic/
Carfins Finest 9/7/16 @ 11:08 “……… the SFA covered their arses with this one”. I don’t think the governing bodies would want all the machiavellian machinations, or the corrupt convoluted construct of the 5WA in the public domain. No, if King feels like it, a private deal will be struck. if not the SFA/SPFL and ALL THE MEMBER CLUBS will just accept it!
The taxman cometh
Does that web site not ask peepil to contribute to the updating of the said site
Check the last updated date
how lucky was that ,even luckier was that a sevconian spotted it within a matter of hours and was encouraging bloggers to pass it on all their forums .
Makes you wonder if there was some bad news in the pipeline to expose the BIG LIE
Carfins FinestJuly 9, 2016 at 11:08
‘..Ah; but the 5 way agreement states that the new club will pay the debts of the old club does it not.’
_______
It does indeed. But it would be a very weak board that would accept that it was any more bound by charlatan Green’s agreement to pay that debt than they were bound to pay his legal fees! If I were ( God spare me from such a fate) DK, I’d take the matter to litigation as being an absurd piece of nonsense by the SFA, trying to make the payment of another club’s debts a condition of being granted membership!
CARFINS FINESTJULY 9, 2016 at 11:08
Corrupt official
Sevco have now been given a “get out clause” regarding the LNS fine. They are not Rangers (I.L.), and it is ratified by UEFA. Go on Sevco……….Give ’em both barrels.__________________________Ah; but the 5 way agreement states that the new club will pay the debts of the old club does it not? The SFA/SPL covered their ar*es with this one.
=======================================================================
We won’t know until we see it, but side letters to it, basically render any party referring to. or revealling it, in breech of it. (Possibly causing void…..Another can of worms)
However it is mooted they be responsible for fitba’ debts. If this fine for cheating, is a fitba debt, then surely so are any fines attached to non-payment of social taxes, as that is outlawed by UEFA, as well as the law of the land?.
They have dug one almighty hole for themselves using the shovel of contradictions.
Guess we all just need to suck it up
Corrupt officialJuly 9, 2016 at 12:43
‘… They have dug one almighty hole for themselves using the shovel of contradictions. ‘
__________
Exactly!
There is not a lawyer in the country who can get them cleanly out of this unholy tangle. They simply have to admit that their panicky desire to protect “Rangers” ( or, their fear of ‘backlash’) caused them to abandon any and all notion of principle, and led them into absurdities.
The sooner they admit this, and abrogate the idiotic 5-Way ( to which Eric Riley was, apparently, a signatory) the better their chance of redeeming Scottish Football from the stain which currently blots its escutcheon.
fan of footballJuly 9, 2016 at 12:23
The taxman cometh Does that web site not ask peepil to contribute to the updating of the said site Check the last updated date how lucky was that ,even luckier was that a sevconian spotted it within a matter of hours and was encouraging bloggers to pass it on all their forums . Makes you wonder if there was some bad news in the pipeline to expose the BIG LIE
_______________________
Good spot… but regardless, I doubt there is any link between the department that produces these statistics and the people charged with overseeing fair play or the legal standing of clubs within their jurisdiction. One’s a department charged with ensuring Financial Fair Play and the compliance of rules and laws, and will be staffed by people with knowledge in that field; the other is charged with putting together a nice wee site, and will be staffed with techy guys. I am certain that these pages will be put together from information given by the respective FAs, and, just like the FFP regulations, they will be expecting the FAs to ensure the honesty and accuracy of the information given!
Now, does anyone think that an FA that can let a club blatantly lie about outstanding payables, whether by design or incompetence, will have the will to ensure only correct information is put up about a club they are doing everything to gerrymander to the top of Scottish football?
JC, Didn’t know Eric Riley was a signatory to the 5 way agreement. That would certainly explain Celtic’s silence on it!
I notice on that UEFA site it gives, under profile, the club’s ranking as 269. Does anyone know how that compares with how it would be if Rangers still existed? I know there were figures banded about a month or so ago of what it would be if they’d continued compared to what was shown as their anticipated points in the event they’d won the cup.
ALLYJAMBOJULY 9, 2016 at 13:06
fan of footballJuly 9, 2016 at 12:23 The taxman cometh Does that web site not ask peepil to contribute to the updating of the said site Check the last updated date how lucky was that ,even luckier was that a sevconian spotted it within a matter of hours and was encouraging bloggers to pass it on all their forums . Makes you wonder if there was some bad news in the pipeline to expose the BIG LIE_______________________
Good spot… but regardless, I doubt there is any link between the department that produces these statistics and the people charged with overseeing fair play or the legal standing of clubs within their jurisdiction.
====================================================================
Ally, I doubt there is anybody remotely connected to UEFA updating Sevco’s data at 10 past 2 on a Friday night/Saturday morning the day before a Euro final. (Assuming its GMT, that is 03:10 Swiss time)
To fit into normal working hours, that would need to be done during the USA “tour” world clock time.
Corrupt officialJuly 9, 2016 at 13:34
I agree, but the important factor is that there will be no connect between the people running the site and the people making the important decisions. The information on the site is more for the benefit of interested fans than a definitive go to place for the legal standing of member clubs. And, if as you point out, anyone can make amendments, a la Wikipedia, then it’s value is zero!
jimboJuly 9, 2016 at 13:08
‘…Didn’t know Eric Riley was a signatory to the 5 way agreement..’
_______
Perhaps I should have said that I do not know from personal knowledge that that is true: but I am truthfully reporting what was said to me by one who I know for certain knows the ‘deal’ intimately. ( He might, of course, have been spinning me a line, or flying a kite, or even misleading me.)
( See this sitting in Court listening to witnesses? Disnae half make you careful in how you use language!)
JC, regardless, he was in the upper echelons of the SFA at the time. I would eat my hat if he was not involved if even just to give it the nod. After consulting with Peter Lawwell of course. I’ve always felt there was something fishy about all of this.
In my better moods I think Celtic didn’t want it to be seen as a Celtic out to get Rangers thing. The reaction of the Establishment. Kicking a club when they are down if not in peril. Social unrest, Celtic staff safety etc.
But in my bad days, I tend to be very suspicious. The maintenance of the ‘Old Firm’
the taxman cometh, July 9, 2016 at 11:29
fan of football, July 9, 2016 at 12:23
Corrupt official, July 9, 2016 at 13:34
Allyjambo, July 9, 2016 at 13:58
I fully agree with the points raised about the disconnect between the various UEFA departments and the undeniable truth of the demise of RFC(IL), but these UEFA web pages, especially this one:
http://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/club=50121/profile/history/index.html
will continue to be seized upon by supporters of the team currently playing out of Ibrox as evidence that they are regarded by UEFA as the same club. To be honest, it does make for a very compelling, evidence-based, argument.
The problem is that we are currently being presented with two opposing versions of reality, both emanating from, effectively, the same source.
I know which one I believe, and it’s not the one that “the people who are” will rely upon to argue their case, especially since my preferred version is currently only referenced in a letter reported to have been received by lawyers representing a group of Celtic shareholders but, as yet, not in the public domain while their preferred version appears on the European governing body’s website.
If, as Fan of Football suggests, these pages can be edited Wiki-style then someone with the appropriate skills need to get on that straight away. Alternatively, The Taxman Cometh’s original suggestion that clarification needs to be sought from UEFA needs followed up ASAP.
“Waggie and Jamsie have just signed new contracts” Keef Jockson, DR, I minute ago.
I’m not a Celtic shareholder or a fan as most if you know.
But I read something a few posts above that if true disturbed me a little but in reality only sort of confirmed what I knew.
It’s about Eric Riley and his penmanship in 2012 and also the dealings between the Celtic club between the Hotel du Vin dinner in 2011 and the Brechin game in 2012.
If I was a Celtic fan and especially if I was a shareholder I’d be asking one question and maybe two or three depending on the answers.
The first would be
Was Eric Riley a signature to the 5 way agreement?
If the answer was yes my second would be
Was this ever discussed and how did the club feel about that then?
The third would be
How do the club feel about that now?
Finloch,
You would need to visit Celtic web sites as often as I do to understand the deep deep mistrust of PL & the Celtic board by our fans. Sure they run things financially well. But on just about every other issue including their silence of the cheating years, it is profound how much they are hated.
They know this. It is why Brendan Rodgers was appointed, to take the heat off them. Forget the sell out at Celtic Park this coming season being due to the emergence of a team from Ibrox, it is because the Celtic board were facing a mass abandonment of renewals. Dermot Desmond realised this and then was insulted with neddish behaviour of the Ibrox board at the SC semi final. Enough was enough.
Just registered with UEFA.com so I could ask them to liaise with their CFCB to confirm the FACT that TRFC is a new club with the required result being that the old club’s history should be removed from the current club’s page.
This web site is the most reliable web site for uefa coefficients
http://kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl/bert/uefa/data/method4/trank2017.html
You our will see that The Rangers are not listed this season as no team named rangers has gained any points in last five seasons.
last season the old team were positioned 267 due to points won in season 2011-12 season.
the only reason the old team gained points in the last four seasons is that they are given Scotland’s base number of points, even though the team was in liquidation.
all databases with regard to uefa coefficients never remove data from old clubs until they are the same as the nations base coefficient
Forgive me but why would Eric Riley sign the five way agreement.
It was between the SFA, the SPL, the SFL, Rangers PLC and Sevco Ltd.
Who was Eric Riley signing for.
I’m not saying he didn’t, he may well have, but I’m not sure why.
nawliteJuly 9, 2016 at 19:51
Just registered with UEFA.com so I could ask them to liaise with their CFCB to confirm the FACT that TRFC is a new club with the required result being that the old club’s history should be removed from the current club’s page.
_______________________
Snap
HomunculusJuly 9, 2016 at 21:03
Forgive me but why would Eric Riley sign the five way agreement.
It was between the SFA, the SPL, the SFL, Rangers PLC and Sevco Ltd.
Who was Eric Riley signing for.
I’m not saying he didn’t, he may well have, but I’m not sure why.
______________________
When I read about this, I just presumed he was a member of one of the governing boards, so was signing on behalf of either the SFA or SFL. I don’t know if this is the case, or even if he did sign it.
Maybe he was chosen to act on behalf of whichever board to tie him, and therefor Celtic, to the agreement! A bit Machiavellian, maybe, but stranger things have happened in the Rangers Scandal.
HomunculusJuly 9, 2016 at 21:03
Forgive me but why would Eric Riley sign the five way agreement.
=========
At the relevant time, Riley was a member of the SPL Board- consisting of Ralph Topping (Chairman), Neil Doncaster (CEO), Eric Riley, Stephen Thompson, Derek Weir and Steven Brown.
The obvious signatory for the SPL would have been either Doncaster or Topping. I suppose that any Board member could have validly signed, but I would have thought that Riley would have left this task to others, given the sensitivities.
Has anyone got a link to the CF version of the 5WA? Maybe that will identify the signatories? From memory, Charles Green signed twice, once for Sevco, and as authourised (by Duff & Phelps) for RFC. But it all seems a long time ago, and memories fade.
HomunculusJuly 9, 2016 at 21:03
‘,,,, why would Eric Riley sign the five way agreement.’
_________
Wasn’t he on the SPL board at the material time?
( Sorry, just noticed this fact was just posted)
neepheidJuly 9, 2016 at 21:28
‘..but I would have thought that Riley would have left this task to others, given the sensitivities.’
________
Can I suggest that it was precisely the ‘sensitivities’ that made Doncaster make damned sure that Celtic were on board!
Whatever else about your man Doncaster, he would not have been willing to sign anything as explosive just as a mere employee! He would want to be able to divert any flak on to the broadest shoulders, the shoulders of Celtic!
Like Wullie S, he is ” but mad north-north-west. When the wind is southerly, [he knows] a hawk from a handsaw. ”
(And now that I think about him, where is Shakespeare-hating Essex Beancounter these days?)
As a former regular attendee of McDiarmid park I often wondered why Steve Brown baled out in July 2012 along with Motherwell’s Derek Weir. Maybe it was just they saw the approaching mayhem, maybe it was something else.
Stephen Thomson lasted until around November the same year before jumping ship. My ageing memory needs refreshing so I’ve just had a quick look back at this snippet re the 5-way from the late Paul McConville’s archives.
https://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/how-can-the-terms-of-the-sfasplrangers-5-way-agreement-be-discovered/
Dunno what’s happened to my avatar but I’m no going through that Gravatar process again.
I’m bloody sick of all these shennanigans. Did Eric Riley sign this f***ing thing or not?
The CFC Board are out of the whole Resolution 12 situation anyway so lets have the truth.
nawliteJuly 9, 2016 at 19:51
‘…Just registered with UEFA.com..’
________
Could you explain to an auld geezer how to do that? I went into the site , couldn’t navigate( is that the word?) and then got caught up reading about the changes in the football laws that were introduced in the Euros, and was diverted. I haven’t the energy to go in again to try to find how to register.
As regards the changes in the rules, I must confess that I hadn’t read anything about them before the event, nor did I hear any of the commentators ( and I watched most of the games) mention them.
For what my opinion is worth, the thinking behind the ball not having to move the length of its circumference into the opposing side’s half from the kick-off , but can be passed in any direction, backwards, sideways or whatever, is indicative of an unchivalric view of sporting challenge! The symbolic movement of the ball into enemy territory heralded an attacking movement, and offered the enemy an early opportunity to engage manfully in combat. A sneaky pass-back as one’s opening move is symbolically a bit, well, sneaky, what?
AllyjamboJuly 9, 2016 at 21:14 14 0 i Rate This
nawliteJuly 9, 2016 at 19:51 Just registered with UEFA.com so I could ask them to liaise with their CFCB to confirm the FACT that TRFC is a new club with the required result being that the old club’s history should be removed from the current club’s page. _______________________
Snap
==============
Chaps
The guy who volunteered the new club/company information by way of explaining that no sanctions would be made on RFC (completely missing the point that it was the SFA Res12 wants investigated) was the Head of The Club Licensing & Financial Fair Play (CL&FFP) Department.
Referring the Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) should get the same result but it is the licensing department who define an applicant for a UEFA Licence and where the ultimate authority lies.
jean7brodieJuly 9, 2016 at 22:35
‘..The CFC Board are out of the whole Resolution 12 situation anyway so lets have the truth.’
_______
I meant to try to inform myself on what shareholders can do when the Board of a company does not do what a shareholder resolution passed at an AGM requires them to do. Are they free to disregard such a resolution, to exercise their discretion in the matter? I do not know, but I think I must try to find out.
I have pm’d you.
Even if Eric Riley signed the Five Way Agreement he would have been doing so as a then SPL official not a Celtic representative.
Given how that could be misconstrued as Celtic approving the 5 Way (se this topic) I seriously doubt that even Celtic were not far sighted enough to realise that construction and so decline.
What I do know is that when the LNS Decision was discussed over teleconference a week after the Decision was announced Riley was absent from the discussion on holiday I think.
The SPL never did make an official statement re their position on LNS. It was left to the Dundee Utd guy Stephen Thomson to face the media.
Whilst Celtic’s position on LNS is to leave it until a final decision is reached on the BTC ebts my view is that LNS Commission is already sufficiently discredited that it should be struck from the record regardless of the BTC outcome.
Here is a suggestion I made on JJ site.
Logically there is actually an argument that the UEFA response might rule out title stripping if the SFA were to follow the UEFA rules in terms of UEFA’s treatment of the current club and treat them as a new club?
Applying UEFA logic the titles belong to RFC (1872) and TRFC/RIFC as a new club/company cannot be sanctioned for behaviour of RFC 1872.
The LNS Commission, given that RFC 1872 failed to provide the relevant documentation should also be set aside as fundamentally flawed regardless of the final outcome of the BTC and what to do with titles won using those ebts, if finally ruled illegal, could then be viewed from a totally different perspective of not belonging to the current club.
But when was football ever logical?
John ClarkJuly 9, 2016 at 23:24
It was adjourned remember. It then becomes a judgement about whether it should finally be passed or lost, but when and how I am unsure as in does a decision have to be formally raised and made at a later AGM based on events since?
I have no idea if Riley signed anything, but if he did, he never did it wearing a CFC hat. Whether that is a form of plausible deniability or not, until we get eyes on the 5wa, is for the individual to make their own assumptions about.
However in legal terms, it has nothing to do with CFC, and IF he signed, should have had no influence from CFC, other than their input from amongst any collective consultations that may, or may not have taken place. If a vote was held, he could easily have been hypothetically signing against the wishes of CFC. ???? We do not know.
I am not putting forward a prosecution or defence for anybody, but merely pointing out that CFC were not party to the 5wa, under any legal definitions. Neither would CFC be able to hold anything against him, relating to his performance in his other job.
AuldheidJuly 9, 2016 at 23:41
‘..It was adjourned remember…’
________
I defer, of course, to your greater knowledge of events since the Resolution was first put before the Celtic plc AGM, when , as was reported, the Board acknowledged there was an issue, and successfully persuaded the meeting to accept their suggestion of further discussions etc etc.
But was there not a definitive point in a subsequent AGM where the clear will of the shareholders was expressed? Followed by temporising and the putting-on-the-long-finger by the Board?
I might be completely wrong, but I certainly got the impression that the Resolution had, at some point, been carried, and was therefore binding on the Board, shilly-shally as they might in order to reach the time-bar.
I am persuaded in my view by the fact that if the Resolution had NOT been passed, Celtic plc could simply have stated as much long ago, and the issue, as far expectations that they would do something, would have died.
Corrupt officialJuly 10, 2016 at 00:01
‘……. However in legal terms, it has nothing to do with CFC, and IF he signed, should have had no influence from CFC,.’
__________
I agree.
But what we then would have would be a man who, as a director of Celtic, was essentially of the same stamp as the Greens, Whytes, Kings and other less than desirable people: that is, unprincipled and completely lacking in any notion of sporting integrity, motivated only by SPL financial considerations.
In my opinion.
JOHN CLARKJULY 10, 2016 at 00:22
“I agree.But what we then would have would be a man who, as a director of Celtic, was essentially of the same stamp as the Greens, Whytes, Kings and other less than desirable people: that is, unprincipled and completely lacking in any notion of sporting integrity, motivated only by SPL financial considerations.In my opinion.”
=================================================================
I realise that John, but whoever signed on behalf of the SPL, He did so on behalf of ALL the SPL. It does not necessarily follow that it was in line with CFC wishes. It may even have been contrary to his own wishes, but he thought it better to be on the train p*ssing out the window, than standing on the platform.
It would be just as easy to suggest CFC were the only club who spoke, or voted against it, and they were over-ruled. It would also be equally as groundless. . All I am saying is it’s a long hoof of the ba’ to rope CFC in, without including every other club in the same lasso.
Res 12 is different, as that is purely a CFC issue. I wish they were more mouthy on that, and the 12-ers have offered them some gentle persuasion to join the fray, but also indicated that CFC have been very helpful. I don’t doubt them.
We might know a lot, but it is one convoluted plate of spaghetti to untangle in the dark wearing boxing gloves. We should remember that CFC is a fitba’ club and not the Pinkerton feckin’ detective agency, the mounties, and the Lone Ranger rolled into one.
Have the other clubs not got a mooth?
I am not trying to be pro CFC. I never renewed, and told them I won’t be until I see public support for the 12-ers, but they can’t carry the can for everything. Especially for a board that isn’t theirs.
If the secret 5 WA was just an ordinary 5 WA, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. That’s were the problem lies. The secrecy. Take that away from them and they will have no option but to be honest and above board.
Free the agreement 5..
Corrupt officialJuly 10, 2016 at 01:15
‘..whoever signed on behalf of the SPL, He did so on behalf of ALL the SPL.’
______________________
I entirely accept that point ( even if the ‘agreement’ had been made without the express knowledge of the general membership of either the SPL and SFL , that membership rubber-stamped it by their silent acceptance of it!), and I have repeatedly insisted that it was NOT up to Celtic to lead the assault while the rest stood by in guilty idleness.
Some years have passed now, and the ‘helpfulness’ of Celtic in the matter of the Res 12 issue ( which again, is an issue that affected and affects the whole of the professional game , and the non-professional game as well) appears to have been very, very limited.
That might conceivably be because Celtic are playing, or have to play, a long football-politics game. We don’t know whether they have been quietly talking to other clubs over the years to build up a body of support for a move to return to the path of righteousness . (Indeed, perhaps Mr Robertson’s u-turn might be an indication that the spirit of Integrity is beginning to blow in the corridors of the 6th Floor!)
BUT, the very clear and obvious signs are that Celtic are simply keen to ‘move on’, beef up the ‘Old Firm’ crap to increase Season-book sales, and shut their eyes to the enormity of the damage done while incidentally reaping reward on the back of the cheating and the acceptance of that cheating by the whole body of their fellow members of the SPFL.
Not good, not good at all.
John Clark
I’m fuzzy on the technical detail under Company Law but suffice to say the status of Res12 is still adjourned, but in view of the reply from UEFA and after we have asked for clarification of CFCB it will have run its course.
How that is covered by next AGM will depend I suspect on the further response if any from UEFA.
John ClarkJuly 9, 2016 at 22:49
nawliteJuly 9, 2016 at 19:51‘…Just registered with UEFA.com..’________Could you explain to an auld geezer how to do that? I went into the site , couldn’t navigate( is that the word?) and then got caught up reading about the changes in the football laws that were introduced in the Euros, and was diverted. I haven’t the energy to go in again to try to find how to register. As regards the changes in the rules, I must confess that I hadn’t read anything about them before the event, nor did I hear any of the commentators ( and I watched most of the games) mention them. For what my opinion is worth, the thinking behind the ball not having to move the length of its circumference into the opposing side’s half from the kick-off , but can be passed in any direction, backwards, sideways or whatever, is indicative of an unchivalric view of sporting challenge! The symbolic movement of the ball into enemy territory heralded an attacking movement, and offered the enemy an early opportunity to engage manfully in combat. A sneaky pass-back as one’s opening move is symbolically a bit, well, sneaky, what?
_________________________________
I have to admit, John, I was gobsmacked when I saw, for the first time, the passback from kick-off, it looked somewhat cowardly
, what’s more, it’s not so long since they stopped the passback to the keeper, because it was seen as too negative, and yet, here they are, starting the game off with that negative move! I suppose it will suit the advocates of ‘tiki taka’ football, to start the game with the sole intent of protecting the ball, rather than with the, symbolic, at least, forward movement!
On how to register with UEFA: when I sent a message to them, on clicking send, I was diverted to a ‘register with UEFA’ page. I didn’t register but I did get the option.
Like you, I find it all a bit much, all this techy stuff, and can’t even remember how I found the ‘button’ that gave me the option to contact UEFA
AuldheidJuly 9, 2016 at 23:18
AllyjamboJuly 9, 2016 at 21:14 14 0 i Rate This nawliteJuly 9, 2016 at 19:51 Just registered with UEFA.com so I could ask them to liaise with their CFCB to confirm the FACT that TRFC is a new club with the required result being that the old club’s history should be removed from the current club’s page. _______________________ Snap ============== Chaps
The guy who volunteered the new club/company information by way of explaining that no sanctions would be made on RFC (completely missing the point that it was the SFA Res12 wants investigated) was the Head of The Club Licensing & Financial Fair Play (CL&FFP) Department. Referring the Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) should get the same result but it is the licensing department who define an applicant for a UEFA Licence and where the ultimate authority lies.
___________________________
Thanks for the update on that, Auldheid, hopefully it won’t cause a problem (as if they’ll spend much time over my correspondence pointing out they’ve made an error), but if they should get back to me I’ll be able to give a more accurate place for them to make their enquiries!
I am of the opinion that someone has received the details of TRFC, probably from the SFA, and, not being at all bothered about their accuracy, or expecting the details given by an FA to be precise, just added them to the page of ‘Rangers FC’. No doubt the SFA showed their usual level of integrity and are in no way responsible for the mistake
John ClarkJuly 10, 2016 at 00:22
Corrupt officialJuly 10, 2016 at 00:01‘……. However in legal terms, it has nothing to do with CFC, and IF he signed, should have had no influence from CFC,.’__________I agree. But what we then would have would be a man who, as a director of Celtic, was essentially of the same stamp as the Greens, Whytes, Kings and other less than desirable people: that is, unprincipled and completely lacking in any notion of sporting integrity, motivated only by SPL financial considerations. In my opinion.
__________________
Bit hard on Mr Riley, John, to lump him in with Green, Whyte and King. He may not show the level of sporting integrity that we here would expect from those running our clubs, but I doubt he’s as unscrupulous as any of those three.
While what Corrupt Official says is true, it’s not the legal standing of how Riley’s signature might connect to Celtic (if he has, indeed, signed the document) that matters in Scottish football, but how it might be perceived in a country who’s media only refer to the law when it suits their particular agenda. I’m sure, regardless of the legal position, that, should the 5 way agreement get a public airing one day, Riley’s signature would be used as tacit evidence of the Celtic hand on the agreement. Other than issuing denials, there is not much the Celtic board could do to prove they hadn’t agreed to it, and I’m sure, you, John, would be one of the hardest to please in that regard