Good Evening,
Whilst it is understandable that the continuing events at Ibrox remain a hot topic among all Scottish Football Fans — especially given the views of some sections of the press on such events– the never ending rush down the marble staircase is certainly not the only show in town.
The other morning we were treated to the “scoop” that Alistair Johnstone is afraid that Craig Whyte– the once proclaimed Multi Billionaire from Motherwell- may well still be pulling all the strings at Ibrox! This is a fear which is shared by those who walk the corridors of Hampden Park as they, too, are terrified of the prospect of Whyte returning in some shape or form and coming back to haunt them, especially as he has been deemed unfit and proper, banned sine die, and generally ridiculed for his past actions.
However, the Hampden jackets know fine well that their realm only stretches so far and that if by means of the proper application of company law, contract or some other piece of paper Whyte controls the shareholding of the self proclaimed “parent company” to the football club then they are in a fix. In fact, I will wager that they just would not know how to deal with such a situation as after all RIFC PLC neither holds a licence to play football nor is a member of the SFA and so, on the face of it, who owns it has nothing to do with them.
At this juncture, no one in authority knows who Blue Pitch Holdings are and, strangely, no one in authority knows who Margarita Holdings are either! Yet these two “holdings” whoever they may be, may well hold all the power down Govan way…… with the SFA completely powerless to find out who they are let alone get into any dialogue with them. All the SFA can do is talk to the appointed Directors and officers of The Rangers Football Club Ltd.
This, is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs.
Meanwhile, they will have no difficulty in finding out who the new shareholders of Dunfermline Athletic are. Those shareholders will come from the fanbase and will be clearly registered at Companies House, with the result that ultimately those fans/shareholders will appoint Directors who will then attend meetings and speak and opine on their behalf and in essence be the ” Voice of Dunfermline” at Hampden.
Perhaps, similar will follow from Heart of Midlothian?
However, those at Hampden — if they have any sense at all– will be most wary of events happening in the east end of Glasgow come November.
In the middle of the month, Celtic PLC will hold its AGM and amidst the items on the agenda is the fan driven notion that the Club— through its Directors—- should go further in holding the SFA to account and enquire into the granting of club licences, and in particular how it granted Rangers a club licence that allowed entry to the Champions League in 2011 when the small tax case was outstanding.
The Celtic board have deemed this motion as “Unnecessary” and in support of that contention have released documentation showing that they raised this very issue with the SFA on behalf of the shareholders and fans. Further– and here is the rub— The Directors reveal that they were not satisfied with the SFA response and have disclosed that they took the matter further and wrote to UEFA.
Ultimately, UEFA also provided a reply, which backed the SFA approach and which Celtic had little option but to accept in the absence of admissible contradicting evidence..
It is on this basis, that Peter Lawell and Co say the AGM motion is not necessary. Note that saying that the motion is not necessary, is not at all the same thing as saying that what the motion seeks to achieve is not necessary or does not have the support of the board!
There will be those at Hampden who severely hope that the Celtic Board are successful in voting this measure down as obviously they deem their original reply sufficient and would like to end the discussion there.
However, my own view, is that whether the motion is successful or not, there are those within the SFA who will recognise there is trouble staring them in the face here. Real Trouble!
Let’s recap for a moment and draw some threads together.
Celtic’s past Chairman, Dr John Reid, said only a couple of years ago that the SFA was clearly not fit for purpose. He did so in the context of events surrounding Neil Lennon and other matters, but was unshakably robust in his condemnation of an institutionalised uselessness which he saw pervaded the Hampden ranks.
Prior to that, Henry McLeish produced a report which stated that he too had concerns about the Governance of Scottish Football and called for openness and transparency.
In the intervening period, we have seen Mr David Longmuir, former Chief Executive of the Scottish Football League, find himelf without a position following reconstruction– and this partly as a result of club chairmen being apparently kept in the dark about his payment, bonuses and expenes. I understand that there was considerable anger from some at the way in which they had been treated by Mr Longmuir.
Then there is Mr Campbell Ogilvie, El Presidente, who himself benefited from a Rangers EBT and who held sway at Ibrox during a period of time when Rangers– by their own admission— made unlawful and illegal payments to three high profile players in breach of tax laws and SFA/SPL rules. It is these breaches and the consequent Wee Tax Bill which has caused all the angst among Celtic fans and has lead to the highly regulated legal step of tabling a motion at the club’s AGM.
Basically, the position seems to be, that as at the due date when the appropriate documents and declarations were made for a Euro Licence by Rangers for 2011, the wee tax bill was outstanding and due. If it was overdue, then the SFA could not and should not have granted them a licence……. and potentially Celtic should then have been put forward as Scotland’s representatives in the Champion’s League.
However, that did not happen, and Ranger’s were granted a licence– something that the Celtic Directors clearly felt was not correct.
They may have disagreed with the awarding of the licence because there were those at Rangers at the time who declared that a payment to account had been made to the tax office– allegedly £500,000– and that they had entered into an agreement to make payment of the balance by instalments. Had that been so, then all would have been hunky dory and no more would have been said.
Alas, however, no such payment appears to have been made at all, and no such agreement was entered into and so, on that basis, the tax bill was overdue and outstanding as at 30th June in terms of Article 66 and as such no Euro Licence should have been granted.
However, the argument does not end there.
Auldheid, has posted frequently on these pages about the ins and outs of the licensing provisions and the mechanism and so I will leave that detail to him as he is far more expert in these areas than me.
Now, one of the SFA functions is to have an auditor– someone who can check books, contracts, paper work and so on, and it is part of the SFA licensing function to be satisfied that all the paperwork is of course correct and in proper fashion before they issue any licence.
In this case, it is alleged that the SFA did not perform their function properly.
In relation to the wee tax case, it is said that either they did not make sufficient enquiry of Rangers re the payment to account or the agreement which they were told was in place. At the time it was mooted in the press that no such agreement was in place as at the relevant date ( June 30th ) and a simple check with the revenue would have shown the truth of the matter.
Yet, for whatever reason, no such check appears to have been made, and if you recall a Radio Scotland interview with Alistair Johnstone, Rangers submitted the forms, the SFA replied with one or two enquiries about the BIG tax case which were answered, and thereafter the Licence appears to have simply dropped through the letter box without further ado.
You will also recall that the existence of the wee tax case became known BEFORE Craig Whyte bought David Murray’s shareholding in May 2011. In fact it was the subject of News Paper headlines weeks before the deal was completed, and so the fact that there was a wee tax bill was well and truly in the public domain.
When it came to filling in the appropriate forms,either, the SFA were mislead by those then at Rangers with regard to that tax bill, OR, they simply failed to do the requisite checks and make reasonable enquiries before they issued the licence.
However, the uncomfortable fact also remains, that one of the chaps who must have been in the know re the admittedly unlawful and offending side letters, contracts and payments to the three players concerned was Campbell Ogilivie who was on the Rangers Board at the relevant time when the contracts and irregular payments were made under the Discount Options Scheme from 1999 to 2002/3. Indeed he may even have initiated the first payment to Craig Moore in 1999. I reiterate that no one has ever contested that this was an unlawful scheme, and the irregular payments and paperwork are not denied in relation to that scheme.
There are Celtic shareholders who believe, rightly or wrongly, that when it came to the granting of the Euro Licence, the SFA did not play them fair on this occasion and that the wheels within Hampden were oiled in such a way that Rangers were favoured and Celtic were disadvantaged. It is a point that looks to have already been considered by the Celtic Directors in 2011, with the result that they concluded that they should formally write to the SFA and seek clarification.
However, we now have the prospect of those same directors having to go back to Hampden and say ” Sorry, but I am forced to bring this up by my shareholders. I have a legal duty to them to enquire further”. Even if the motion is refused, the point has been made– there are shareholders who are demanding answers– just as shareholders of other clubs demand answers about the ever so secret 5 way agreement and other matters which have hitherto been not for public consumption.
The SFA have nothing to fear of course as they can simply repeat their previous answers,demonstrate that all was above board, and rest easy in their beds.
Except that answer did not satisfy the Celtic Directors on a previous occasion as they decided to take the matter to UEFA, and it would appear that some Celtic shareholders remain dissatisfied with the known stance of the SFA and so they want the Directors of the club to delve further. Without wishing to point out the obvious, if it turns out that the 2011 Licensing process was somehow fudged and not conducted rigorously or that those at Hampden were in any way economical with the truth or omitted certain details from the previous explanation, or covered up a failure in procedures—- well such omissions have a habit of becoming public these days whether that be through the internet or otherwise.
The point here is that the actions of Hampden officials are coming under organised, legal and planned corporate scrutiny over which they have no control. The Blazer and club mentality that was once so widespread within the governing bodies is under increasing attack and is being rendered a thing of the past.
In short, the move by Celtic shareholders, is making it plain that they will demand proper corporate governance from their club in ensuring that any alleged failure in corporate governance by the SFA or SPFL is properly investigated and reported on.
Of course, if it turns out that the 2011 Licensing process was somehow fudged and not conducted properly for whatever reason, then it could be argued that Celtic were disadvantaged in monetary terms along with other clubs who may have been awarded Europa League licences, then the consequences could be cataclysmic. Hence a tendency to circle the wagons rather than admit to failures in the process that need addressing.
It is this reluctance to come out and accept that the licensing process appears to have failed, say at what point the process failed and what needs to be done to address those failures that in many ways has driven the resolution. It is clear to all that something is amiss but the SFA will not admit it, probably from fear of the consequences of doing so? Perhaps some form of indemnity, a lessons learned enquiry with no prejudice might help?
It would come as no surprise to me at all if there were those at Hampden who live in dreaded fear of admitting that their processes were flawed and that a grave mistake was made. Under these circumstances, there may well be those at Hampden who simply wish that Celtic and their fans would just go away!
PhilMacGiollaBhain says: (167)
November 16, 2013 at 12:34 pm
1 0 Rate This
@upthehoops
The media in Scotland are also intimidated when it comes to matters Ibrox.
==============================================================
Indeed. A couple of months back I was talking to someone who is close to Mark Daly. I made the point there was surely enough material for yet another documentary on the club from Ibrox. I was told that Mark Daly will not be making any more documentaries due to the hassle he received the last time.
PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
===============================
There are other clear comparisons with the WATP attitude, the feelings of supremacy over others, the idea that one group is an under-class. They actually talk of a certain element of society being in “their country” and use words like “infiltrating” politics, banking and the law.
The likes of Fullerton forming links with the klan is entirely logical.
RyanGosling says: (89)
November 16, 2013 at 12:07 pm
Ryan, if the history in some people’s eyes is lost/broken how will you treat a top flight title win?
If your team make it to the top flight and triumph over a season will that be your team’s 55th or 1st?
Dearie me, Ryan G
You say you accept that Rangers were liquidated and then go onto qualify your stance on this with ‘Rangers were liquidated and a new club was started, therefore the liquidation is just an event in the history of “Rangers”.’
Liquidation means your club is a gonner. Ceased to exist. Is not alive anymore. Dead. Therefore, the history died with it. It terminated too. What on earth is so difficult to understand about that?
PL and the joke.
Here is the joke, we cannot speak the truth about the real liquidation of one club. Why? Because the club in question is the so called fabric of society and has been protected all of its existence by it’s friends in the media, SFA and other external entities. To tell the truth could release the beast that Mr Regan/Doncaster call Social Unrest. That is where the joke ends. Fear is the key. This is how sad things are in our country we may as demonstrate and change the meaning of the word liquidation in fact erase it kill it off.
Well done PL. I will go one further Rangers as I knew them all my life are dead, no more, gone. I did not make that up, it is an actual fact. Here is the joke I read it in the papers like;
The Sun June 13 2012 front page Rangers officially died yesterday
The DR June 13 2012 front page RIP Rangers
The Herald June 13 2012 Rangers FC Born 1872, died 2012.
I only know of one person who they say rose from the dead over 2000 years ago. We still debate that event to this day. But to say a whole team, company, club, institution rose from the dead. I for one find that hard to swallow.
I think I know who you mean, but what about Lazarus?
v
Joethebookie says: (26)
November 16, 2013 at 12:56 pm
RyanGosling says: (89)
November 16, 2013 at 12:07 pm
Ryan, if the history in some people’s eyes is lost/broken how will you treat a top flight title win?
If your team make it to the top flight and triumph over a season will that be your team’s 55th or 1st?
======================
Joe, are you taking bets on this ?.
I think I know who you mean, but what about Lazarus?
—————————————————————————–
Did he also play for Rangers?
Peter Lawwell has offered to apologise, however he wants to know which of the clubs he has to give the apology to.
Possibly the original ones. 🙂
Resin I actually had a good laugh at your “joke”, top notch banter.
Phil. Fullerton was a fascist. Stop calling me a member of the klan.
Joethebookie, very pertinent question. I can only speak for myself obviously, but I would – and this also allows me to address Spivco’s point (it isn’t hard to understand btw, you are not understanding what I’m saying) – consider it both. 55th in terms of “Rangers” history and 1st since the dawn of the new company / club. Spivco, the reason I put Rangers in inverted commas in both recent posts was due to what I said earlier; the fact that people refer to old and new Rangers means that there is a clear continuation, for want of a better word, of the perception. I think Alex Thomson actually summed it up pretty well in one of his blogs that while a legal entity may cease and another one started in its place, there will certainly continue to be an emotional attachment for people.
I know exactly what I’m trying to say and I’m not doing it very well, apologies for that. I’m pretty sure I’m on the same page as you Spivco, I may just be inarticulate enough to sound as if I’m not.
So who knew PL did a line in stand up as well?
As for the reaction? Deary me.
I think it is fair to say that any, and I mean ANY, incarnation of a football club that assumes the mantle of RFC is going to find itself pilloried by fans of all of the other clubs that have a legitimate grievance with the oldco.
And that basically means everyone.
We are, after all, talking about non-payment of massive amounts of social taxes, never mind all of the football-related cheating.
So let them complain until they are blue in the face about the Sevco, Zombies, Pretendygers etc etc We will always know the truth about their history – and their shame will follow them like a ball and chain wherever they go.
I was going to say that if they are lucky, the current mob will enter a liquidation event that might allow for some sort of new beginning – as should have happened when the original club died. But to be honest, the entire brand is now so toxic that it is hard to see what aspect of the original club they could claim to represent that would not incur the disdain of other fans.
There really is nothing there to salvage in my opinion.
And I note that my position on this has hardened as events have unfolded in this saga. I doubt I am alone in that.
Finally, amidst the comedy gold from the AGM yesterday, I have to say I was really disappointed (though not too surprised) that the Living Wage motion was unsuccessful. The rationale offered by the board was contemptible and I hope the motion is returned as often as is possible / necessary so that in the end they are shamed into doing the right thing.
I would rather be respected as a force for good and a great football team than simply feared as being “unstoppable”.
We should leave all that global domination guff to others. No pointing fingers now…
Ryan, sorry, I did use the term “Hordes” this morning.
If you are one of the rare breed at Ibrox who don’t partake in anything supremacist or sectarian, I fully
understand you taking offence.
PS, you would be the first one I have known in my life.
yakutsuki I’m pleased to be the first one you’ve known in your life. I know many.
And I accept your apology.
With regard to Peter Lawwell’s quip yesterday. Has’nt he, in a sense “apologised” in saying that it was a “joke”, rather than a statement of fact, as we on TSFM recognise the situation.
RyanGosling says: (91)
November 16, 2013 at 2:14 pm
A new club was always likely to emerge from the ashes and always likely to attract supporters of the club that went into liquidation. The difficulty here is that a lot of those supporters don’t appear to want to support the new club. By insisting on the same name, same kit, same history, same number of stars, same songs and same culture, they are pledging ongoing support for the club that went into liquidation, which is to pretend that it didn’t go into liquidation or, by some miracle, managed to survive liquidation. This is the big lie.
If they go about threatening Peter Lawwell, Jim Spence, Montrose FC and anyone else who has the temerity to say the new club is not the old club, it’s inevitable that the lie will be reinforced and in time grow to the size it is today, when Peter Lawwell’s Rory Bremner crack sparks a formal complaint.
Supporters of the new club are bound to be a bit fed up with the rest of us continually insisting on the distinction, I understand that. I look forward to the day when it is no longer necessary.
Tic 6709 says: (552)
November 16, 2013 at 1:35 pm
I wouldn’t until I knew who was providing the official result 😆
If it’s the SFA then the books closed I’m afraid.
As always there are loads of facets to this.
It’s a shame that the two most prominent comments from Lawwel since the deid club were declared terminal have been the Jelavic comment and the Rory Bremner one. I’d like to hear what so many in the game REALLY want to say.
I have always thought it incredible that the siege mentality (with the emphasis on mental) has always been so uber prominent amongst sevconians. I mean if you fart and the noise resembles ‘deid club’ you’re liable for a jelly nose. However after everything that’s gone on since the dawn of RTC til now – not a single Sevconian has seen past the messenger and looked at the message.
Just absolutely incredible.
No one is asking them to support Celtic or (in my case) one of the diddy clubs. The information has been unearthed and thrown out there for them to digest and act upon.
Like I say it’s always intrigued & baffled me, very early days you could always argue that the info was a bit out there – but when the info from the same sources just continues time after time after time to be true you’d think that just one of them would pick it up.
Will a Sevconian EVER convert to bampottery?
RyanGosling says: (91)
November 16, 2013 at 1:43 pm
Ryan, there is no continuation. The clue is in ‘new’ club.
I can buy Mo Farah’s medals, change my name, move into his house and pretend all I like.
I am still not an Olympic champion.
valentinesclown says: (272)
November 16, 2013 at 1:37 pm
I think I know who you mean, but what about Lazarus?
—————————————————————————–
Did he also play for Rangers?
Possibly the original ones. 🙂
——————————————————————–
We need to put this to bed
Ryan,
I do understand the point about ‘perception’. You refer to your emotional attachment. That fans were happy to cling to any NEW club calling itself RFC. However, non RFC fans are dealing with reality, not perception, as they have no emotional attachment and consider your club legally, factually dead. No one objects to you supporting the new club, of course not, be it Sevco 5088, Sevco Scotland, The Rangers or whatever. But they do object to you claiming the title and history for various reasons:
a) you can’t cherry pick – keep the titles/history but ditch the debt. They are inseparable if you are the same club.
b) even if you did agree to accept both you can’t. You have been liquidated. Titles are gone, the total reached by the dead club frozen in perpetuity.
c) football leagues evolve around competition. Hence sporting regulations to ensure all clubs abide by the same rules, that there is no sporting advantage, that titles and cups are won fairly. As RFC is dead (that is what liquidated means) the new team offering a spiritual sanctuary to its homeless fans has no titles except the one it won last year. Sure they have the fans – and (perhaps) the ground and training ground of the old club. But they do not have the titles. Or the history.
In essence, what you are really saying is we (the new club) have the same fans, some of the same players, some of the same management, and the same sporting facilities as the liquidated club RFC. And despite the facts, despite the legal definitions of liquidation, we are claiming the history as ours anyway and will become ultra defensive if anyone points out the unpalatable truth by claiming otherwise.
Apologies if this has been mentioned already today (party last night = a tad fragile today) is this not PL’s way of forcing the SFA’s hand (so to speak) into discussing the oldco/newco history, membership, licence, ’embargo’ ( that never was ) etc etc and clarifying what is really going on?? Maybe it’s going to come out anyway?? This way they’ve got someone to blame …… Just the way they like it …… No? maybe I’m just cynical 😕 can’t think why, now back to sleep 😉
Just throwing this out but what if Hearts were to be liquidated and the new club at Tynecastle emerged with a new name, lets say………..The Edinburgh Rangers……..how would the Rory Bremners react to that? 😈
RyanGosling says: (90)
November 16, 2013 at 1:43 pm
4
8
Rate This
I have to say I was really disappointed (though not too surprised) that the Living Wage motion was unsuccessful
______________________________________
As footballing neutral, it paints an interesting and contrasting political picture of the 2 largest footballing traditions in Glasgow:
One set of fans aggressively shouting down all cries of dissent and steadfastly supporting successive dodgy club administrations while these conspired to illegally avoid social taxes and pocket millions for personal gain and fatally imperilled the existence of their club, while having a significant detrimental effect on wider society.
Another set of fans nodding sagely along with their detractors and berating their financially scrupulous executive for – totally legally and entirely in keeping with social norms – failing to show adequate leadership, ambition and incisiveness on what is a voluntary socially progressive idea, aimed at creating a fairer society through financial sacrifice of the wealthiest in favour of the low paid.
I have to say that – one is to be admired, the other pitied I am afraid.
I would like to think that a great many bears would – privately at least – support and respect the Celtic fans ambitions here.
I no longer have the intellectual capacity required to recall a multitude of facts (if, indeed, I ever did), so whenever the topic of old club/new club raises it’s head, I refresh my memory by re-reading my two go-to pieces on the subject.
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/the-death-of-rangers-fc-guest-post-by-johnbhoy
and
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/05/06/guest-poster-stephen-explains-to-cam-why-new-rangers-is-not-old-rangers
I would suggest that directing any doubters of your acquaintance to these URLs is much easier than trying to convince them verbally. Opinions can be disputed or dismissed, facts cannot (unless you’re BFDJ, apparently).
Angusloon says: (33)
November 16, 2013 at 2:45 pm
0
0
Rate This
Just throwing this out but what if Hearts were to be liquidated and the new club at Tynecastle emerged with a new name, lets say………..The Edinburgh Rangers……..how would the Rory Bremners react to that? 😈
_________________
How would the bears react?
Knee jerk apoplectic rage probably.*
Now what was the question?
*(This is what psychics investigators call a ‘cold reading’)
If Peter Lawwell wants corroboration for his comments, not that this is necessary, he need look no further than the decision of Judge Bishopp in the directions hearing in July preparatory to the full UTT hearing on the liquidated Rangers’ tax case early next year.
He wrote :-
“As is well known, RFC collapsed into administration in March 2012, followed by liquidation in October 2012. It has been re-named RFC 2012 plc. The greater part of its business, and with it most of its assets, were purchased from the administrators in June 2012 by Sevco Scotland Ltd, which has since been re-named The Rangers Football Club Ltd.
Although the professional football team known as Rangers had played in the Scottish Premier League until 2012, the collapse led to the ejection of the team from that league, and a team known as Rangers now plays in the Scottish Third Division. ”
There you have it – “a team known as Rangers” – not “Rangers”, not “The Rangers”, not “the most successful club in the world….”.
The business was bought, the assets were bought – just like any other fire sale on a liquidation. The club died, the company died, end of.
Rangers are dead, once everyone accepts that, we can move on.
upthehoops says: (652)
November 16, 2013 at 12:43 pm
UTH, you may well have been told that, I don’t doubt it. My information is different and time will tell which of us is right.
.
slimshady61 says:
=======================
Indeed
This really is an argument that the SFA will not want to have, certainly not in public.
In essence if they do then Peter Lawwell will be entitled to defend himself. When he does the SFA will have to act, and how they act will make it clear what their position is.
slimshady61 says: (299)
UTH, you may well have been told that, I don’t doubt it. My information is different and time will tell which of us is right.
=============================================
Slim, I sincerely hope it is you who is right on this one.
Brenda says: (707)
November 16, 2013 at 2:45 pm
Apologies if this has been mentioned already today (party last night = a tad fragile today) is this not PL’s way of forcing the SFA’s hand (so to speak) into discussing the oldco/newco history, membership, licence, ‘embargo’ ( that never was ) etc etc and clarifying what is really going on?? Maybe it’s going to come out anyway?? This way they’ve got someone to blame …… Just the way they like it …… No? maybe I’m just cynical 😕 can’t think why, now back to sleep 😉
=======================================================
IMO, we won’t hear anymore about this from TRFC as they really wouldn’t want to force PL to expand further.
I think PL had a ‘Mourinho’ moment : you know, when Mourinho comes away with a controversial comment, knowing full well it will create a media frenzy – but it distracts attention away from his team which is what he wanted anyway.
PL’s comment – and the bonus of a naive response from TRFC – has filled plenty of column inches which could otherwise have been spent on e.g. the AGM resolution left open. And the MSM do have previous on reporting inaccuracies, wild speculation, dreamt up stuff…
Well played PL.
[Edit: you get no sympathy for a hangover Brenda… 🙄 ]
Spivco@2:45pm
‘Titles are gone,the total reached by the dead club frozen in perpetuity’. Mmm. I like the sound of that.
If another joke from PL leads to two more days of Newco/Oldco debate on this forum, I will commit hari-kari, possibly using Jonathan Aitken’s sword.
This argument is nearly two years old and has been done to death on here several times over. Leave it to the fans from Govan to take any perceived offence they like – we on here know better.
smartie1947 on November 16, 2013 at 3:34 pm
—————————-
I’m with you on that point. I always see it as a sign of inertia when discussion slips again to oldco/newco or when there is a little too much bear bating.
No news is bad news as far as meandering or repetitive topics are concerned. Although, has it been a slow news day, or does nothing surprise us anymore?
I can see ‘The Rangers’ stating that they are going to report Peter Lawwell to the SFA but I would be surprised if they did. It’s a bit like RFC stating it was going to take legal action against various people and then not following it up. They really don’t want to go down this road but they are in so deep with the lie now that they cannot not say something. To continue the myth and keep their support onside they have to say something.
Someone made a very good point last night:
If the history belongs to the club and the club is still the same entity, why did Charles Green have to buy the history?
It would seem that he bought ‘the history’ from the club and then handed it back to the same entity. Knowing Chas as we do there was probably a hefty handling fee involved!!!
Now if the history belonged to the holding company then the club has actually never won any trophy at all.
I wonder if HMRC are keeping a file on the amount of times directors of ‘The Rangers’ state they are the same club as RFC?
If they are it won’t be long before there is a chap at the door with a large invoice for unpaid tax and NI regardless of which way the UTT goes.
It was clear that the players were employed by the club.
That income tax was withheld by the club.
That NI was withheld by the club.
That will be £20M plus penalties!
Problem is for the latest brand of Rangerism, they are still maintaining the WATP stance. It is hard for a club to be the establishment club when they are not at the top to be feted like the powerhouse and relevant headliner they all have the illusions they are.
If they would only come out with We Were The People and make a break with the old – confirm that they have now learned that supremacy and rule bending are things the new club do not aspire to along with outdated things like sectarianism and racism, then it would be the new start we all had hoped would happen – given that our first wish that they would be hidden like a boat load of plutonium fresh from Windscale did not or could not happen.
Oh – and a resignation from Campbell Ogilvie would not go amiss!
We Were The Peepil – could catch on hopefully!
I heard the SFA’s referee development man – john Fleming, on bbc shortbread today.
He was talking about the ICT ‘goal’ from the corner, which was subsequently ”disallowed”.
Fleming said something along the lines of…the corner was ”against the spirit of the game”
WTF ?
Not the rules of the game now, but the ”spirit” of the game !!
The SFA too.
Was EBT’s and dual contracts and unpaid tax, no against the spirit of the game, as well as bogherra manhandling referee’s?
More twists and turns from the 6th floor!?
And, why is what peter Lawwell said, classed as ‘a joke’?
It’s no joke
It’s THE TRUTH !
Following administration and with liquidation looming, most people of a Rangers persuasion accepted that their 140-year-old club would die. Lord Cardigan said it, the tabloids told the nation so and even the Ibrox fans acknowledged it with their “show the red card to liquidation” public demonstration.
Along came Yorkshire’s own Arthur Daly and somehow convinced the fans that their club had eternal life, regardless of its commercial overcoat being consigned to the dustbin. That straw was clutched by not only the former RFC support but also by those ‘bluenoses’ in the MSM. The failure of the football authorities to so much as issue a simple statement clarifying the true position has merely added fuel to the fire.
I believe this “same club” lie has boxed the Sevconians into a corner as they become more and more obsessed with the argument. Perhaps Lawwell-gate has now brought matters to a head. Whereas 18 months ago supporters may have resigned themselves to following a club in blue through the leagues, now it looks as if nothing less than a fully resurrected R FC will do. Will traditional Ibrox fans fervently follow-follow, knowing that it is only Bremner FC and not the real Tony Blair? I very much doubt it. I can see this having a severe impact on any attempts at re-financing of the new club should it be finally ruled that the 1873 outfit and its history have gone forever.
I’d like to commend St Johnstone for getting player and manager of the month. A modest, well-run club.
jimlarkin says: (625)
November 16, 2013 at 4:08 pm
As much as I don’t like the SFA I do have to agree with him in this instance.
When I saw this the player puts the ball down, touches it and then speaks to the linesman. In my mind this is him letting the linesman know that he has effectively taken the corner.
When the Partick player comes out with the player who eventually touches the ball twice, in my mind the linesman should have shouted that the ball was in play. He did not but gave the impression that the corner had not been taken. He denied Partick the opportunity to effectively defend the corner.
If the Partick player had walked over and kicked the ball out of the park he would have probably been booked as the Inverness players claim that the corner had not been taken.
In my mind the officials have a duty to be impartial. In this instance the linesman gave the impression, unintentionally I’m sure, that the corner kick had not been taken. I don’t think that is fair or within the spirit of the game.
This is a far cry from a player fouling a player and the officials not seeing it, we could all give examples of that. In my mind this is an official not allowing a team to defend a situation by not letting them know that the ball was in play.
I may now also be nit picking but I don’t think the ref had blown for the corner to be taken.
Since this incident I’ve watched corners being taken and some refs seem to blow to signal the game to restart and some don’t. Can a resident ref let us know should the whistle be blown to restart from a corner?
Were there no administration or liquidation laws in 1994 ? Jim “Back me up on this Hugh” Delahunt, who has I understand a Business Degree, appears to be of the belief that the bank was literally going to close the entire Celtic business within hours of Fergus arriving on the scene.
His infantile performance on last night’s SSB was an all time low for a Radio Clyde presenter and that’s saying something considering Richard “Ibrox” Park used to sit on his seat.
Oh, nearly forgot.
Big Eck was on as well.
Said something along the lines of – when he was at ibrokes, he needed to slash the costs to save the ”club” , which he did !
Then Eck skimmed over the recent ”problems” and coisty has had no money to spend and the reason for that
– to save the ”club” , this time round AGAIN !!?
FFS
justshatered says: (251)
November 16, 2013 at 4:27 pm
1 1 Rate This
jimlarkin says: (625)
November 16, 2013 at 4:08 pm
As much as I don’t like the SFA I do have to agree with him in this instance.
When I saw this the player puts the ball down, touches it and then speaks to the linesman. In my mind this is him letting the linesman know that he has effectively taken the corner.
When the Partick player comes out with the player who eventually touches the ball twice, in my mind the linesman should have shouted that the ball was in play. He did not but gave the impression that the corner had not been taken. He denied Partick the opportunity to effectively defend the corner.
If the Partick player had walked over and kicked the ball out of the park he would have probably been booked as the Inverness players claim that the corner had not been taken.
In my mind the officials have a duty to be impartial. In this instance the linesman gave the impression, unintentionally I’m sure, that the corner kick had not been taken. I don’t think that is fair or within the spirit of the game.
This is a far cry from a player fouling a player and the officials not seeing it, we could all give examples of that. In my mind this is an official not allowing a team to defend a situation by not letting them know that the ball was in play.
I may now also be nit picking but I don’t think the ref had blown for the corner to be taken.
Since this incident I’ve watched corners being taken and some refs seem to blow to signal the game to restart and some don’t. Can a resident ref let us know should the whistle be blown to restart from a corner?
======================================
We were always taught, play the whistle,
And at free kicks and corners, as long as the ball had stopped moving before it was kicked, it was ok.
jimlarkin says: (628)
November 16, 2013 at 4:53 pm
Yes I agree play to the whistle but does the whistle also have to sound to start the game from a corner?
How many free kicks have you and I seen that have been pulled back because the ref didn’t blow the whistle?
In fact it is now common place for a ref to walk up to the player taking a free kick and make a signal that it cannot be taken until he blows the whistle.
I honestly don’t know if the ref has to blow the whistle prior to a corner being taken or not.
I just think that in this instance Inverness exploited the rules but in doing so denied Partick the opportunity to defend the corner and more importantly involved the linesman in the deceit that the corner had not been taken when in actual fact it had.
I also thought big Eck was priceless today on the radio talking about losing quality players. These were the dodgily registered players.
《blockquote》
RyanGosling on November 16, 2013 at 12:07 pm 43 12 Rate ThisFair play on your last sentence Resin, thanks.As to your previous point, I have never insisted that the club was saved from liquidation. And I have a dictionary, which I was given when in primary school, but to be honest hasn’t been used since the dawn of the internet. I find it easier to Google a word if necessary rather than get off my ass and go get a book, which is a bit out of date now anyway. But I digress.I’m pretty sure I know what you’re looking for, so I will just state my opinion on the matter. As I am not mentally challenged, I know fine well that Rangers were not saved from liquidation. They are also not dead; only living things can die, not corporate entities. But the company is gone, sure. The club / company being separate is something I heard for the first time after the liquidation of Rangers was confirmed. Personally, I continue to support Rangers. I don’t really care if the history is unbroken / lost etc. I don’t really care if the fact that the history is broken / lost brings joy to some people and pain to others.The new company is a new club.The new club was born from the ashes of the old club. In light of that, they are the team that have my support. I consider the history to be attached to the new club in the sense that Rangers were liquidated and a new club was started, therefore the liquidation is just an event in the history of “Rangers”. But I know it happened and am not and have never denied that fact.
《/blockquote》
I’m sorry, but disingenuous gibberish, no matter how diplomatically, how delicately, how inoffensively couched, is still disingenuous gibberish.
Rangers 1872, with all its destructive, appalling, poisonous history, died. Sevco Scotland’s use of the name and claim of that appalling, cheating history, founded as it is on a disgusting, sectarian, racist employment policy, is a great deal more offensive to decent people than offensive though accurate epithets like “zombies” or the Klan” should be to you.
Support whom you like, Ryan, but don’t call them Rangers and expect “understanding” from those of us whom your dead club derided, scoffed at and cheated for most of its history. No offence, mate.
So, I take it by the amount of Bear Baiting and ongoing discussion of the Lawwell one-liner from yesterday, that we have no sign or leak of the rumoured BDO report?
If the history of Rangers FC was so important to the fans of the Club – why then did no ‘Rangers men’ step up to the plate to save the history?
The Club was a financial basket case – not one ‘Rangers man’ was willing to put up the money required to secure a CVA that HMRC could accept. Not one.
It was easier for the ‘Rangers men’ to walk away – happy to live with the myth that it was the Company and not the Club that died. What dignity.
I remember an old car sticker – going on about the only constant in life – Death and Taxes. Rangers could not pay their taxes and other debts and died. Simple. That’s why such rules exist – to ensure that companies and people pay their debts.
What I cannot understand is why the fans of the club let it die? It appeared that the fan base were always waiting for someone else (with deeper pockets) to come to the rescue? Dave King being the most recent example.
Again, if the history of the club was so important – why did no one put their hand in their pockets to secure that history.
Before we leave the topic of new and old club, there is a point to be made that needs emphasized here.
No one at Ibrokes was the creator of this fable – they all said it was new/old co and then changed their minds because they saw that they were allowed to go with it and seized it with both hands due to the need to sell STs since they had to start in SFL3 – not SPL/SFL1 as promised.
Neil Doncaster was the first person to come out with the bizarre theory that a club could use the shedding of debt process and still be the same club.
No one at SFA nor SPL have tried to subsequently bring Charles to heel for saying then, now and forever.
In fact SFA changed rules to allow the former Clydebank club renamed Airdrie Utd become Airdrie again – something they had denied them for years – until the last few months!
SFA also did away with associate memberships in order to allow TRFC have voting rights.
When all is said and done the SFA/SPL created this monster – and have bent over backwards in every way to accommodate it.
I laugh when I see the photo by Wuillie Vass of the following banner is taken at every away game for last 2 years – however seems that these TRFC fans don’t realise that the corruption they are complaining about was actually in their favour!
http://willievass.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/261013-East-Fife-v-Rangers/G00003ZmJ_kxO8es/I0000t5W1IeyYVzI/C00003cSEmSnc7rM
We should not forget the part SPL and SFA played in all of this – they are the ones who should eventually be called to answer the questions. The SMSM and TRFC/RIFC were all allowed to peddle the myth by SFA/SPFL/SFL/SPL – as Ally would say – I have no doubt about that!
Edit to add
PS if it was the same club it would be the 4 Way Agreement surely!
http://willievass.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/261013-East-Fife-v-Rangers/G00003ZmJ_kxO8es/I0000t5W1IeyYVzI/C00003cSEmSnc7rM
Isn’t that Neil Patey at the Sevco game erm, I mean, match
Dear all..
As a very long time lurker here from the RTC days and someone who has used this site and its predecessor as a “true” speaker of the truth tiday has prompted me to register and write some comments
So you all can establish who I am, I am Celtic fan, was at the Dundee game during the Centenary season (80+ thousand there ), every home home match 87 to 91 when I lived in Glasgow, had the crap kicked out of me by certain rival supporters after the “Gary Stevens passback” cup final…So I’m a Tim ok…
BUT can certain people drop the “klan” nonsense, we all know who this is but this, while historically correct and BF was a sad fascist who died in destitude due to this. This “name” is every bit as stupid as “WATP” and associated nonsense. STOP IT please your not big and you are definitely not clever.
The club formerly known as “Tony Blair” has many, many issues they need to confront and its only their own fans who can change things for the better, so the use of a “klan” ain’t gonna help that process…
MadScientist in Sweden
Folks. This is not the forum for discussion of the social and cultural background of Rangers or any other team. This is certainly not a place where mass generalisations of group of people are common, and can I make it totally clear that references which stylise one group of fans in terms of racist or right wing metaphors are not on – historical shoe-horning or not.
Ryan Gosling has stated his opinion in what I believe to be reasonable terms. The outpouring of finger-wagging and lectern-banging in response is very sad – and an indication yet again that some people actually do believe, erroneously, that this is a forum singularly possessed of an anti-Rangers agenda. Ryan is entitled to his view, and others are entitled to differ, but the baiting of a valuable member of this community has to stop.
Did JI write the script for this edition of Sportsound?
In which Sevco are asserted to be the old Rangers because the SFA say so!
No understanding that the SFA is so mired in deviousness and sporting corruption and dodgy connections with the dead club stretching back over many years that their word on the subject is worthless.
[TSFM – John, I am surprised]
Araminta Moonbeam QC says: (21)
So, I take it by the amount of Bear Baiting and ongoing discussion of the Lawwell one-liner from yesterday, that we have no sign or leak of the rumoured BDO report?
________________________________________________________________________________
Exactly. I also think that Tom English has a point about Lawwell’s remarks. Fair enough, it is a wee joke, but it seems to me that the joke was the bone which was tossed in the direction of the supporters of Auldheid’s motion at the Celtic AGM to compensate for the successful burying of their motion.
The Celtic board said nothing of any substance whilst an oily wee joke has the fans hoisting Peter Lawwell on their shoulders because it was at Rangers’ expense? My God, what a blow he struck for sporting integrity there.
If I want to hear a joke I can always watch a Richard Pryor movie. From the people who run our football clubs, I expect serious commentary and open discussion. If they are too spineless to actually stand up and be counted and tell us what they actually THINK, maybe they should resist the temptation to take a classless swipe and quickly pretend that it was only a joke.
Is it really a surprise that Auldheid’s motion was sat on? That’s the real joke.
On bbcsportsound the question was asked old club or new club. I could smell the scent of excrement of fear emanating from my radio during a little pause. Mr Spiers agreed with insolvency laws and technically new club. Mr English passed wind and stated same club.
Jangles SFA said same club with all history. All agreed SFA have final say. Fear remains, well I hope it is fear anything else would really kill our game completely. Maybe PL can ask CO over coffee on Monday.
Keith Jackson has clearly never read the Daily Record.
Or like Jim Traynor has had some epiphanic experience.
Big Pink – please read Auldheid and Brogans posting of the background on earlier post and also Twitter TLs – neither say it was buried so that portion is inaccurate.
http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/?p=14148&cpage=8#comment-1995697
Also Phil’s blog today may help you.
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/history-in-the-making/
Also the fans hoisting anyone on shoulders – the living wage being voted down is not sitting well. Not sure your conclusions are entirely accurate. Only person making a fuss on this Rory Bremner stuff was Jack Irvine – as I posted on here last night, if he was smart he would have left us to get angry about the living wage vote.
Disappointed to the TD’s about my previous comment. We an only remove the nonsense from the Ibrokes if we react in a different way than they do…
Sad to see that even here the old lines are drawn and even if I am part of them in some ways, I do think we shouldd move on and encourage the new club in the SPFL tp leave their past and that THEY should move on..
Ryan G, can’t stand your club but I hear what you say and understand why you are angry over the “klan” nonsense. Others need to grow up…
Exiled Celt says: (784)
November 16, 2013 at 6:44 pmBig Pink – please read Auldheid and Brogans posting of the background on earlier post and also Twitter TLs – neither say it was buried so that portion is inaccurate.
Also the fans hoisting anyone on shoulders – the living wage being voted down is not sitting well. Not sure your conclusions are entirely accurate. Only person making a fuss on this Rory Bremner stuff was Jack Irvine – as I posted on here last night, if he was smart he would have left us to get angry about the living wage vote.
________________________________________________________________________________
Exiled Celt.
I hope you are correct that there is no universal acclaim for Lawwell’s behaviour, and I am encouraged by the reaction to the living wage vote. However, despite having great admiration for both BRTH and Auldheid (whose contributions I have read), I am not at all satisfied that the matter is still alive. I think the Celtic board have done what was predicted they would do – buy themselves some time in the hope that the support that Auldheid and his colleagues had mustered would dwindle.
I really do hope I am wrong, but my conviction is that Celtic have no desire to see justice being done in this matter – because they see a far greater evil ahead as a consequence of that justice being served. Not quite in the Jim Larkin camp yet mind you,, but
That aside, Lawwell’s joke was cheap – and definitely not becoming of the CEO of my club. All the whatabboutery in the world won’t change that. I agree with you that it served Jack Irvine well. But it also served the Celtic board well in deflecting the licensing issue.
Can I ask, and this is not meant to demean anyone’s argument or position. I just want to make sure I understand it properly.
As I understand it the actual policy relates to people working in certain parts of the public sector in Scotland, and the Scottish Government has suggested that other people in the rest of the public sector, and in the private sector use the same level.
Basically there is the National Minimum wage in the UK which is (for most people) £6.31. The Scottish Government have set a different level in areas they control. They call it the Scottish Living wage and it is at £7.45.
Is that about the size of it.
MadScientist says: (2)
November 16, 2013 at 6:52 pmDisappointed to the TD’s about my previous comment. We an only remove the nonsense from the Ibrokes if we react in a different way than they do…
Sad to see that even here the old lines are drawn and even if I am part of them in some ways, I do think we shouldd move on and encourage the new club in the SPFL tp leave their past and that THEY should move on..
Ryan G, can’t stand your club but I hear what you say and understand why you are angry over the “klan” nonsense. Others need to grow up…
___________________________________________________________________________
You got a TU from me 🙂 Please don’t pay any attention the TU/TDs. Respond to the points. There are exponentially more ratings than there are posts. I also think the main moderator appears to agree with you as well 🙂
I understood that Airdireonians could not use that name whilst the original club was still going through the liquidation process. It was only once that was complete that the name became ‘available’ (Remember Jim Traynor tried to buy the name but would have had to repay the debts to get it). I’m not sure any rules were changed by the SFA to accomodate the change.
Many thanks Big Pink!
Just a bit disappointed that others can’t grasp the idea! All that happens is the WATP attitude continues..
I was no angel in the late 80’s early 90’s but I grew up (still can’t stand the “Rories” but want to see the National team back where we belong…Qualifying then knocked out in the first round!! 😀 😀 And that can only happen if we get over the Ragers situation…
MadS
Tif Finn says: (860)
November 16, 2013 at 6:58 pm
It’s not actually a Scottish Government initiative, though they do seem to be in favour. Many local authorities, of differing political hues are also implementing it. But, it is a UK wide campaign, which even, shock, horror, Boris Johnson supports…
http://www.livingwage.org.uk/
scapaflow says:
========================
Thanks for that.
In essence it’s an organisation which tries to get people to volunteer to pay a rate higher than the national minimum wage.
scapaflow says: (1112)
November 16, 2013 at 7:14 pm
i suppose that would be one, slightly mean spirited, way of looking at it. Maybe if the minimum wage had been uprated, instead of being allowed to depreciate, then the campaign wouldn’t be necessary. IIRC in Celtic’s case the board were baulking at the additional £50k or so in revenue costs, which gets lost in the rounding errors when you consider what the talent on the park get paid……
Re res 12, what about the case of Atletico Madrid. By 2011, they owed the Spanish tax man £176m. The tax authorities had refused to sign off their accounts from the previous four years. The Spanish FA continued to licence them and UEFA turned a blind eye…and remembering in 2011-12 they knocked Celtic out of Europe before going on to win the Europa League. Supposedly, they reached a repayment agreement on the tax, but what do you know, they fell behind in the schedule.
UEFA withheld their prize money from 2011-12, but there was no suggestion they should have their licence revoked. If they did that, people might say what about the £40m in back taxes Barcelona have yet to pay…and what about…and what about…………..
ScottC – not related to the liquidation being completed if Jim Ballantyne’s words are accurate
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/airdrie-united/227884-airdrie-united-to-change-name-to-airdrieonians-following-sfa-approval/
Airdrie United have changed their name to that of their predecessors Airdrieonians.
The club, relegated from the First Division this season, will see the name change come into effect for the 2013/14 season after being given permission by the Scottish FA.
Airdrieonians were liquidated in 2002, leading to the creation of Airdrie United in an attempt to keep senior football in the town.
“When the old company went into liquidation, it was in a different football environment and the use of the name was not possible at that time,” Airdrie chairman Jim Ballantyne said in a statement.
“With all the recent changes however, and subsequent rulings, it paved the way for us to make the move and therefore we set the wheels in motion.
“It was actually raised at a fans meeting a few months ago but we could not give too much away as there was still much work to be done.
“However with the support of last year’s club sponsors. E & A Heating Ltd, we were able to progress matters to a conclusion.
“Formal SFA clearance was finally granted at the recent meeting of the Professional Game Board”.
Following Airdrieonians’ liquidation, the new club were unsuccessful in gaining entry to the Third Division, with Gretna being given the place instead.
Airdrie United were then given permission to purchase ailing Clydebank, inheriting their Scottish FA membership and changing the club’s name.
Big Pink says: (144)
November 16, 2013 at 6:29 pm
8
15
Rate This
_____________________________________
Extract from the Comments from BRTH piece on CQN from the man himself:
Apologies for the length:
________________________________________
Evening all.
I will prepare a fairly detailed post on Res 12 — but right now I am knackered.
However, can I just clarify a couple of things some of which will be a repeat of Auldheid’s comments and others won’t.
First– it became clear that Celtic PLC had questioned various things as far back as 2011.
Second— these concerns were taken up with the SFA and it was clearly explained that the board were asking questions as a result of enquiries and concerns which came from shareholders.
Third. — The nature of the enquiries were not confined to those matters which were raised by the resolution. Celtic questioned other matters altogether some of which are now of no relevance but others which are not.
Fourth— The SFA replied and provided various answers. To my knowledge, Celtic at no time said that they were satisfied with that answer and chose to simply remain silent.
Fifth— Later, as a result of further prompting from shareholders and further information, The Celtic Board made further enquiries– this time on a slightly different point and a different tack– of the SFA.
Sixth — Once again the SFA responded.
Seventh—- The board initially took the view that this procedure rendered the resolution unnecessary.
Eighth — following meetings with some of the requisitioners the Board:
a) Withdrew from their position that the resolution was unnecssary
b) Took the view that they would formally continue dialogue and have further meetings with the requisitioners.
c) Agreed to keep the entire matter “live” by adjourning the resolution rather than simply voting against the resolution as they had previously intimated.
d) Agreed to open a formal line of communication with the requisitioners through the Company Secretary– who is legally qualified– and to formally announce that line of communication to the AGM.
e) Further to publicly and formally commit to further dialogue and communication with the requistioners on the issues raised within the resolution.
In turn the requistioners were publicly allowed to formally accept the board’s invitation to engage in further discussion ( and that was noted in the formal minutes ) and to formally acknowledge that some of the steps which had already been taken by the board satisfied some of the concerns of the requisitioners— but not all.
The wording of the chairman and the requistioners was agreed and adjusted late yesterday as the dialogue was ongoing throughout last week.
The effect of all of this is that resolution 12 is most definitely a live issue.
Of key importance is that it has been formally adjourned in public meeting.
Now there are a whole host of key benefits to this not least of which the board were persuaded to depart from their initial negative position.
They acknowledged that there was merit in at least some of what the requisitioners were about and that the entire issue was worthy of further discussion and examination.
In addition maintaining a discussion with the requisitioners was in the interest of the club and its supporters.
If I can add another point just now.
Of key importance here was getting into a position where the board accepted that they should stop and consider the arguments and points raised by people like Auldheid with regard to compliance and regulation governance.
That has been achieved.
They may ultimately not agree or they may ultimately disagree on how to take such an argument forward in terms of a next step. But at least it can be discussed, suggestions made, and a next step agreed.
However, as far as the SFA and all other football fans are concerned, what happened today was that a group of fans took a formal route asking a member club to hold the SFA to account. The Club concerned, after consideration, decided not simply dispose of that proposal by rejecting it and instead allowed the matter to remain live.
With regard to secrecy and all that:
All I can say is this. The main movers of the motion were party to the discussions and documentation was produced which demonstrated all that has been said above.
A preference was expressed that the documents concerned not be placed in the public domain. Note that it was a request and not an order from on high.
The benefit of acceding to such a request?
To be honest, some of the matters raised by the club and the responses, may be germane to legal processes that are still ongoing and possibly yet to start. Nothing in the documents would tend to suggest that Celtic were failing to pursue the SFA for answers to their questions, or failing to represent the interests of the supporters.
Further– how can I put this?
When there is a written confidential record of certain matters, I can understand a protective reluctance to make that record public so that others can adjust their stance and position to suit their own ends.
There are those who have nothing to do with Celtic Football Club who could use such records for their own purposes and try to stir trouble for the club, its shareholders and its fans.
Best to leave them in the dark.
Lastly all negotiations and discussions are about achieving the art of the possible. It is not possible to say that this issue is at an end, or has been voted against by Celtic PLC, and it is possible to say that the SFA and their practices formally remain under scrutiny by the shareholders of CELTIC PLC.
By the way— that was the only vote in the hall today that was truly unanimous!!!!!
Fifth— Later,
minimum wage is legislated, i.e. an employer can not pay an employee less than the amount stated.
living wage is where groups (trade unions, anti-poverty, political parties) have agreed (working a basic week) is what the average person needs to meet their financial requirements.
that is my take on it.
When the pundits say the SFA say they are the same club perhaps they should be asking them why they are the same club?
It was clearly the club that went into administration because if it was not then they would not have been docked ten points. Remember Hearts holding company went into administration in March but the club was not deducted points. It was only after the season ended that Hearts, the club went into administration, and this resulted in a 15 point deduction.
So there we have it. It was the club that went into administration and subsequently liquidation regardless of the nonsense being spouted by the media spin.
The question should really be asked of the SFA to justify THEIR belief that it is the same club when it flies in the face of all logic.
The media, if they truly believe ‘The Rangers’ to be the same club as RFC, should be hounding the SFA as to why a club was demoted THREE LEAGUES after finishing second in the SPL. Why the same club was forced to begin each cup at the earliest round. It is for the media to do THEIR job to uncover WHY the SFA insist they are the same club and yet treat them administratively as a new club.
Why did the SFA haggle with the same club up until the eve of the football season to grant the club, that already held a licence, a licence to play football.
I repeat, it is for the media to question the SFA and get them to justify their stance and answer the anomalies highlighted above.
All it requires is for the media to remove either their thumb from their backside or the lamb from their mouths and ask the hard questions but we know they are incapable of doing either.
john clarke says: (1361)
November 16, 2013 at 6:28 pm
‘[TSFM – John, I am surprised]]
——
I am surprised that you are surprised, TSFM!
I have long been of the view that the major sin was that of the SFA in setting aside their rules ( for whatever reason-on grounds of finance, or of physical or moral fear, of partisanship or supreme incompetence – any or all of these, it doesn’t really matter which).
They, and the MSM purveyors of mistruth, half-lies, black propaganda at every turn, and even those who, like Speirs, now appear to be prepared to acknowledge the truth while astonishingly denying that any harm comes from propagating the’ Big Llie’ , are the ones who have done the greater damage.
I was rendered speechless at the brazenness , and the concerted nature of the attempt by all participants to somehow make PL the focus-a man guilty of no crime but that of summarising in eight words, and with humour, what the whole world knows: RIFC are no more entitled by the corrupt decision of the SFA to the titles and honours won by a deceased club than Rory Bremner is entitled to live in 10 Downing St or at Chequers.
Thank you for not deleting my post, though. I appreciate that you share the fundamentals with me, namely that it is the football authorities who really have to be told to come clean now, and behave scrupulously honestly in the future.
All else is irrelevant, if they but apply the rules as they should have been applied, and apologise to us all for the incredible mess they permitted to develope and which may yet engulf them in another mess.
http://chrisechris.hubpages.com/hub/UEFA-Financial_Fair_Play-Regulations
Rangers PLC liquidation
During the close season, Scottish football was warned that it faced ‘financial armageddon’ following the liquidation of the company that ran Rangers, one of the big two SPL clubs. After forcing Rangers into administration, HM Revenue & Customs claimed that Rangers had been underpaying tax for at least 10 years following years of stagnant growth in Scottish football revenue by using (then legal) Employment Benefit Trusts to pay staff. When the news broke, fans of fierce rivals Celtic complained that Rangers had effectively received an unfair advantage over their own club and should be stripped of the numerous trophies they had won over the previous decade
Rangers financial position had already been so bad that it had been sold in May 2011 for the token price of £1 (one pound sterling), however new owner Craig Whyte later admitted that he had borrowed £24.4 million against the next four years worth of season tickets sales to offset an annual deficit of £10 million in running costs This turned out to be less than the whole story; Whyte, who had previously been banned from being a company director for 7 years had actually used the money to finance his own takeover, and was subsequently banned for life from Scottish football.
On 5 April 2012, the administrators Duff and Phelps revealed that total debts could top £134m. On top of the £93m now being claimed by HMRC in various taxes, unpaid VAT and PAYE which has now been reduced to approx 10 Million after the old company won the big tax case, there were various amounts owing to 276 separate businesses, individuals and public bodies including £26.7m due to the ticket agency Ticketus, £7.7m to fans who had purchased debentures in the club, £2.3m to twelve football clubs throughout Europe and liabilities to playing staff and employees who temporarily accepted up to 75% reduced wages in order to keep the company afloat during administration. Despite being taken over by another new owner, Charles Green, the company running the club were finally consigned to eventual liquidation on 12 June 2012, and later attempts to relaunch Rangers as a SPL club were frustrated by chairmen of the other clubs who voted against the transfer of the existing playing licence on the basis of ‘sporting integrity’. SPL chief executive Neil Doncaster immediately warned that the decision would cost the game about £16million in annual income due to the substantially lower gate receipts from the additional fans who traditionally attended for glamorous Celtic / Rangers fixtures.
After Rangers received a conditional licence to play in the fourth tier of Scottish football, (Scottish Third Division) on 27 July 2012, Rangers manager Ally McCoist bitterly accused the other chairmen of adopting “as hostile an agenda as possible towards his club, though many others – including some of their own fans – maintained that Rangers downfall had been due entirely to their own financial recklessness.
RyanGosling says: (91)
November 16, 2013 at 1:43 pm
“I know exactly what I’m trying to say and I’m not doing it very well, apologies for that. I’m pretty sure I’m on the same page as you Spivco, I may just be inarticulate enough to sound as if I’m not.”
—————————
I have to chip in here. I don’t like to see someone taking a beating irrespective of the reasoning.
You’re taking one for the team Ryan and I think that is commendable. It’s the spirit I suspect many TSFM’ers would find admirable. Its the kind of spirit that will ensure your team survives and in time prospers. These matters are complex and I for one forgive you for being unable to sum it up in a few sentences or a paragraph.
Ryan has a right to support his team as much as anyone else. Lets not allow ourselves to become the mirror image of the mob we have grown to detest. Rangers may be dead but if Ryan wants to support a team playing in blue out of Ibrox then that’s fine for me. Surely one of the lessons of this saga is the need to learn tolerance. Inevitably lone voices will attract attention and possibly suspicion but we’re better than that.
justshatered says: (253) November 16, 2013 at 8:06 pm
It was clearly the club that went into administration because if it was not then they would not have been docked ten points. Remember Hearts holding company went into administration in March but the club was not deducted points. It was only after the season ended that Hearts, the club went into administration, and this resulted in a 15 point deduction.
———————————————————-
For the avoidance of doubt, Hearts holding company is UBIG, whose administration was only confirmed by the Lithuanian courts in the past week. It was Ukio Bankas who entered administration in February. Ukio Bankas does hold a significant proportion of debt and a security over Tynecastle, but only holds a minority shareholding. UBIG is the major shareholder and parent company of Hearts.
slimshady61 says: (299)
November 16, 2013 at 2:56 pm
54
0
Rate This
——————
I couldn’t let the above rating pass without comment.