Enough is enough

By

Sevco Scotland (trading as Rangers FC) was admitted as an …

Comment on Enough is enough by HirsutePursuit.

Sevco Scotland (trading as Rangers FC) was admitted as an associate member of the SFL on 14th July 2012.

Membership of the SFL automatically conferred SFA membership. As does membership of the SPL/SPFL.

From this date, the new club became a registered member of the SFA and had 14 days to apply to that body for associate or full membership status.

It is important to note that there was no set timescale within in the rules of the SFL for the SFA to make this decision. Consequently, there was no direct impediment to Sevco Scotland playing its games whilst its application to the SFA (for associate or full membership status) was being considered. As long as Sevco had made its application within the 14 day limit, it was compliant. Only a later refusal (to grant associate or full SFA membership status) would have revoked Sevco Scotland’s then extant SFL membership.

For emphasise, the new club held valid memberships in both the SFL and SFA from 14th July 2012.

However, without SFA board approval, Sevco Scotland could not play under the Rangers FC name as there was an existing member club of that name. The team could, of course, have taken the field as “Sevco” had it chosen to do so.

Also, whilst Rangers continued to hold its share in the SPL, Dundee could not take its place in that league. Although strictly speaking, this was not Sevco Scotland’s problem.

There was a problem. The new club did not meet the criteria for SFA associate membership status as it lacked the financial history requirements. So, to meet its SFL obligation, its only viable option was to request a transfer of the full SFA membership status held by Rangers – which it did by asking the SFA board to use its powers under Article 14.

On the 27th July 2012, the SFA board gave Sevco Scotland conditional approval for the transfer of full membership status and permission to play its first game against Brechin using the Rangers name.

Sevco Scotland (using the name “Rangers”) played its first ever game on the 29th July 2012.

Again, it is important to note that Rangers Football Club remained a member of the SPL until 3rd August 2012 when, at that time, it transferred its SPL share to Dundee. The club’s status as a full member of the SFA was then transferred to Sevco Scotland and, having relinquished its SPL share, its registered membership of the SFA also lapsed.

Sevco Scotland’s registered membership of the SFA was unaffected (being itself a consequence of an existing membership of the SFL) – but, from the 3rd August 2012, it did then receive the status of full SFA membership – as had previously been held by Rangers.

So, to make it clear…

Sevco Scotland became a member of the SFA on 14th July 2012.

Rangers remained a member of the SFA until 3rd August 2012.

For almost three weeks these clubs coexisted as member clubs of the SFA.

The SFA used its powers under Article 14 to transfer the status of full membership from one member club to another.

Many SPL and (to a lesser extent, I think) SFA statements have since obfuscated and relayed half-truths in support of the continuity myth. Neil Doncaster, in particular, has painted himself into a corner – with “the big lie” built into the commissioning of the LNS enquiry.

It was very noticeable that Rod Mckenzie, in open court, strained himself to make the distinction between the normal everyday meaning of football club and the SPL/SPFL fantasy of “Club with a capital C”. That distinction was not provided to LNS.

To be clear, LNS did not decide on the continuity or otherwise of a “Club with a capital C”. The fiction was built into the commission’s terms of reference. As an adversarial process, he was bound to accept ideas that are not disputed by the competing parties. 

Leaving aside the nonsense from the SPL, as far as I am aware, at no time has anyone at the SFA ever said that the transfer of membership status under Article 14 transforms one member club into another.

 To me the idea is simply preposterous. But then again, I’m only looking at what the regulations allow.

HirsutePursuit Also Commented

Enough is enough

American psychiatrist Elisabeth Kubler-Ross proposed five stages of grief that are often worked through during the grieving process. These stages include denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. The bargaining stage may occur prior to loss as well as after loss, as an attempt to negotiate pain away.

Does this help explain the recent intervention?


Enough is enough
What will happen when Lord Bannatyne, as it seems he must, sets out an order that Mr King should make an offer for the shares in RIFC PLC that he and his concert party do not already own?

Will Mr King:
(a)  do walking away?
or
(b) make the offer?

If Mr King cannot or will not make the offer, is he then:
(a) likely to able or willing to continue to fund the new(ish) club on a day-to-day basis?
or
(b) likely to see a subsequent order from Lord Bannatyne that effectively freezes his assets?

If Mr King cannot or will not provide funding for day-to-day expenses, will:
(a) other “real Rangers men” step up to the plate?
or 
(b) an insolvency event for the Sevco Scotland version of Rangers be inevitable?

Would administration for TRFC and/or RIFC help either/both survive?

If costs were cut (players and staff made redundant, nonessential assets sold or mothballed) would the new club’s revenue (fans) do walking away?

There is a very real possibility (no more than that, at this stage) that the current version of Rangers will not see out this season. The closer this possibility comes to  transpiring, the more we will hear from those who rely of the myth of continuity.

For some, the continuity myth is simply an extension to an existing metaphysical imperialism. For others, it’s just about the money.

If they are needed, the stale lies will be dusted down and reused for the next production. However, I have a strong suspicion that “The Myth of Continuity II” would find an audience less willing/able to suspend its collective disbelief. It would be important to lay the groundwork early.

If I were a supporter of all things “Rangers” I too would (or at least I think I should) be feeling somewhat insecure at the moment. So, if someone really has the need to extol the myth of continuity at this stage, I assume that person was more than a little fragile.

The religious adherents of a metaphysical “Rangers” may have blind faith in its eternal existence. The rest of us saw it die in 2012.


Enough is enough
Relevant SFL Articles

6. CONDITION ON MEMBERSHIPFootball clubs or associations undertaking to provide Association Football according to the Laws of the Game as settled by the International Football  Association Board and these Rules may be admitted as members of the League in accordance with the provisions of these Rules.

7. ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP A club or association must initially join the League as an Associate Member.

8. APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP A club or association applying for Associate Membership shall complete an application form in such form as the Board shall specify from time to time, and submit same to the Chief Executive accompanied by payment of an application fee of £1,000 plus Value Added Tax at the standard rate applicable at the relevant time (or such application fee as shall be specified from time to time by a general meeting). For the avoidance of doubt, the application fee shall not be refundable in any circumstances.

9. ADMISSION AND EXPULSION The League in general meeting may upon such terms and conditions as it may think fit admit any club as an Associate Member or Member of the League and may expel any Member or Associate Member or terminate such membership or may accept the retirement of any Associate Member or Member, but subject always to Rule 126(Reversion of Transfer of Registration Rights). Upon admission as a Member or Associate Member, the club so admitted shall become bound by and be subject to these Rules and any other Rules or Bye-Laws made by the League for the time being in force.

10. ENTRANCE FEEUpon admission as an Associate Member, an entrance fee of £1,000 plus  Value Added Tax at the standard rate applicable at the date of admission shall become payable to the League and the Associate Member shall not be accorded any rights or privileges of membership until such fee is paid.

11. TRANSFER OF MEMBERSHIP CATEGORY If a Member Club finishes bottom of the Third (or lowest) Division in two successive seasons the Board may determine that the status of that Member Club be reduced to that of an Associate Member. In the event that the Member Club whose status is so reduced does not regain the status of Member Club by resolution of the Members at an Annual General Meeting or in general meeting called for that purpose before the end of the second successive season after the Board decision to reduce its status, then its membership of the League shall automatically terminate notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 12 (Notice to Resign Membership).

12. NOTICE TO RESIGN MEMBERSHIPNo Member shall resign, retire or otherwise cease to be a member of the League unless it shall have given not less than two full seasons prior written notice so to do, unless with the approval of not less than two-thirds (66%) of the votes cast at a general meeting of the League.

13. MEMBERSHIP NOT TRANSFERRABLEMembership of the League (whether full or associate) shall not be transferrable, save that (a) a Member wishing to change its legal form (whether from unincorporated association to corporate body or otherwise where the ownership and control of both bodies are or will be substantially identical); or (b) a transfer within the same administrative group for the purposes of a solvent reconstruction only; may be permitted by the Board upon prior written application for consent and giving such details of the proposed transfer as the Board may reasonably request for the purpose of considering such transfer. The Board may refuse such application or grant same upon such terms and conditions as it shall think fit.

14. INDEMNITY FOR BREACH OF RULES 12 AND 13 Any Member in breach of Rules 12 and 13 (resignation and transfer, above) shall upon demand indemnify the League and its Members and Associate Members against all losses, damages, liabilities, costs or expenses suffered or incurred by them or any of them which are directly or indirectly attributable to such breach including (without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing) any loss of income or profits from any sponsorship or other commercial agreement or arrangement entered into by the League or any of its Members or Associate Members.

15. RELEGATION FROM AND PROMOTION TO THE SCOTTISH PREMIER LEAGUE

15.1Notwithstanding any other provision in these Rules, any football club which is relegated, in terms of the Settlement Agreement between the League and The Scottish Premier League, from The Scottish Premier League, shall automatically be admitted to full membership of the League and shall in the season immediately following that relegation participate in the higher or highest Division of the League.

15.2Notwithstanding any other provision of these Rules, the membership of any football club promoted in accordance with Rule 92(Champion Clubs – Promotion and Relegation)to The Scottish Premier League (or otherwise admitted to The Scottish Premier League), in accordance with the Rules of  The Scottish Premier League, shall automatically terminate upon the admission of such club to The Scottish Premier League and such club shall not be obliged to give any notice of its cessation of membership of the League and shall be permitted to depart from the League and become a member of The Scottish Premier League (in accordance with the Rules of  The Scottish Premier League) without restriction

16. REGISTRATION WITH SFA A CONDITION OF MEMBERSHIP A Member or Associate Member who is not already a full or associate member of the Scottish Football Association must make application to become a full or associate member of the Scottish Football Association (as the case may be) within fourteen (14) days of being admitted to membership of the League failing which its membership of the League will lapse, and in the event that the application is unsuccessful, its membership will lapse upon that decision being intimated to the League.

17. TRANSFER FROM ASSOCIATE TO FULL MEMBERSHIPOn completing four successive years as an Associate Member, a club may be admitted to membership of the League by resolution of the Members and without payment of any further application fee.

18. LAPSE OF ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIPOn the expiry of five successive years as an Associate Member, without admission as a Member, Associate Membership will automatically lapse without compensation or other payment to the Associate Member at the close of the Annual General Meeting following upon the expiry of the fifth year of Associate Membership.

19. STATUS OF ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP An Associate Member shall have no financial interest in the assets of the League and shall not be accorded any voting rights. An Associate Member will be entitled to notice of general meetings of the League and to attend and speak at such meetings, and shall otherwise be bound by such membership by these Rules and all other Rules and Bye-Laws made by the League and for the time being in force


Recent Comments by HirsutePursuit

Questions, questions, questions
JC, I suppose there are two distinct (but interconnected) issues.

There is, as you detail so well, the personal responsibility that people have for telling the truth. Ultimately, it is up to each person to live with their conscience and decide which direction to take when faced with the dilemma of truth against personal interest. I wonder though, how invested must someone be in a truth (or a lie!) to decide to throw away a 30 year career? Is the particular truth in question so important (from their own perspective) that they would be prepared to make that self sacrifice?

That is the stark choice the staff at BBC Scotland are faced with. I certainly don’t condone their compliance in propagating falsehoods, but I do understand the challenge they face.

The greater sin, in my view, is not committed by the people who follow an instruction that, in all honesty, may not hold any great personal importance. My greater concern is the people who design and control the systems and structures that, for cultural/political reasons, seek to distort or flatly deny facts and circumstances that should be uncontroversial in the real world.


Questions, questions, questions
JC I agree with what you say. I would only make the point that BBC Scotland initially tried to tell the truth, but were compelled to adopt the alternative reality by a greater power.

As an aside, it is interesting that the chair of the BBC committee dealing with the complaints has subsequently gone onto a PR career, specialising in crisis management. Another committee member had spent 30 years as a journalist in Northern Ireland (including during the 1970’s). Another, the member for Scotland, is an engineer/businessman who was also on the Board of the British Transport Police Authority.

I am not questioning the integrity of any of these people, but I would find it surprising if the board, as a whole, did not recognise the cultural/political significance of the demise of Rangers.

They had the cover of the LNS sham enquiry which set out, in its terms of reference, the purported separation of club and company. The SFA and SPL had already sold their souls as signatories to the scandalous 5WA.

As part of the British establishment and understanding that an Independence referendum was imminent (the BBC Trustees decision came in 2013) realistically, what other decision could they make?

My point is that BBC Scotland has attempted to present the facts from a viewpoint that would be recognised by the majority of Scots as mainstream. The decision to present the more fantastical interpretation of the events at Ibrox did not come from Pacific Quay.


Questions, questions, questions
This is how I remember it:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-22951447


Questions, questions, questions
Upthehoops 22nd July 2022 At 10:09
30Rate This

I hope the forum doesn’t descend into an independence bandwagon.

….
Personally I see the BBC capitulation to Rangers as nothing other than the same old cultural bias towards Ibrox that we’ve had to put up with for decades. I seriously doubt it is part of a wider push against those who wish to see Scotland become independent.
……………….
……………….
Apologies UTH, if you thought my recent post was lowering the level of debate.

However, I think when the current political landscape impinges on the reportage of football matters, surely it is relevant to comment on it here.

When you talk about the ‘old cultural bias towards Ibrox’ do you believe that the attitudes within that culture are representative of Scotland’s people as a whole?

As an aside, I’m not sure, in this particular case, how cultural issues can be separated from politics.

In any case, I don’t think that particular culture is particularly widespread these days – and probably hasn’t been for 30 to 40 years. That is not to deny its existence – institutionally, it has persisted through many management structures and networks. But it can be argued that BBC Scotland (and STV to a lesser extent) has, since the mid 1990’s been much more culturally diverse than the equivalent service provided in other parts of the UK.

Would that ‘old cultural bias’ you mention have allowed a BBC employee to have reported on sectarian/racist behaviour within the confines of Ibrox in the past? Would it have provided support to that employee when they were targeted for simply doing their job?

Remember also that BBC Scotland argued that the original Rangers were liquidated. It was the BBC trustees in London who adopted the contrary position.

The BBC Scotland capitulation is important – firstly for purely football reasons. In its wake, can we trust anything the BBC tells us about Rangers* in the future – especially in relation to off-field matters?

But secondly, we should openly question where the recent decision originated. If, as I fear it has been, a London edict, the next question has to be why?


Questions, questions, questions
I read recently that around 75% of under 35’s in Scotland support Scottish independence. The same report states that for the over 55’s, it’s about 70% in favour of the Union.

What’s interesting about that, is that the younger generations are tending to move away from standard ‘linear’ TV viewing. If a young person watches BBC output, it is more likely binge-watching a drama series via the iPlayer. The same would be true for STV/ITV output. Consequently, the opportunity to be exposed to random news and current affairs output is much more limited than it has ever been in the past. With physical newspapers a thing of the past, Scotland’s young people have never had such an opportunity to make up their own minds – free of the influence of an inherently biased media.
The UK government knows who makes up the BBC’s audience. It is absolutely not the majority of the young people of this country.
It’s a large section of the older generation, desperately clinging to an idea of Britishness that, in my opinion, hasn’t really existed since the 1970’s.
The BBC in Scotland will be working even harder than usual over the next year to persuade as many people as it can that being British still means something.
It can’t do that if it has alienated the unionist leaning audience it is seeking to speak to.
As BP says, there is a much bigger game being played here.


About the author