The recent revelations of a potential winding up order being served on Rangers Newco certainly does have a sense of “deja vu all over again” for the average reader of this blog.
It reminds me of an episode of the excellent Western series Alias Smith & Jones. The episode was called The Posse That Wouldn’t Quit. In the story, the eponymous anti-heroes were being tracked by a particularly dogged group of law-men whom they just couldn’t shake off – and they spent the entire episode trying to do just that. In a famous quote, Thaddeus Jones, worn out from running, says to Joshua Smith, “We’ve got to get out of this business!”
The SFM has been trying since its inception to widen the scope and remit of the discussion and debate on the blog. Unsuccessfully. Like the posse that wouldn’t quit, Rangers are refusing to go away as a story. With the latest revelations, I confided in my fellow mods that perhaps we too should get out of this business. I suspect that, even if we did, this story would doggedly trail our paths until it wears us all down.
The fact that the latest episode of the Rangers saga has sparked off debate on this blog may even confirm the notion subscribed to by Rangers fans that TSFM is obsessed with their club. However even they must agree that the situation with regard to Rangers would be of interest to anyone with a stake in Scottish Football; and that they themselves must be concerned by the pattern of events which started over a decade ago and saw the old club fall into decline on a trajectory which ended in liquidation.
But let me enter into a wee discussion which doesn’t merely trot out the notion of damage done to others or sins against the greater good, but which enters the realm of the damage done to one of the great institutions of world sport, Rangers themselves.
David Murray was regarded by Rangers fans as a hero. His bluster, hubris and (as some see it) arrogant contempt for his competitors afforded him a status as a champion of the cause as long as it was underpinned by on-field success.
The huge pot of goodwill he possessed was filled and topped-up by a dripping tap of GIRUY-ness for many years beyond the loss of total ascendency that his spending (in pursuit of European success) had achieved, and only began to bottom out around the time the club was sold to Craig Whyte. In retrospect, it can be seen that the damage that was done to the club’s reputation by the Murray ethos (not so much a Rangers ethos as a Thatcherite one) and reckless financial practice is now well known.
Notwithstanding the massive blemish on its character due to its employment policies, the (pre-Murray) Rangers ethos portrayed a particularly Scottish, perhaps even Presbyterian stoicism. It was that of a conservative, establishment orientated, God-fearing and law-abiding institution that played by the rules. It was of a club that would pay its dues, applied thrift and honesty in its business dealings, and was first to congratulate rivals on successes (witness the quiet dignity of John Lawrence at the foot of the aircraft steps with an outstretched hand to Bob Kelly when Celtic returned from Lisbon).
If Murray had dug a hole for that Rangers, Craig Whyte set himself up to fill it in. No neo-bourgeois shirking of responsibilities and duty to the public for him; his signature was more pre-war ghetto, hiding behind the couch until the rent man moved along to the next door. Whyte just didn’t pay any bills and with-held money that was due to be passed along to the treasury to fund the ever more diminished public purse. Where Murray’s Rangers had been regarded by the establishment and others as merely distasteful, Whyte’s was now regarded as a circus act, and almost every day of his tenure brought more bizarre and ridiculous news which had Rangers fans cringing, the rest laughing up their sleeve, and Bill Struth birling in his grave.
The pattern was now developing in plain sight. Murray promised Rangers fans he would only sell to someone who could take the club on, but he sold it – for a pound – to a guy whose reputation did not survive the most cursory of inspection. Whyte protested that season tickets had not been sold in advance, that he used his own money to buy the club. Both complete fabrications. Yet until the very end of Whyte’s time with the club, he, like Murray still, was regarded as hero by a fan-base which badly wanted to believe that the approaching car-crash could be avoided.
Enter Charles Green. Having been bitten twice already, the fans’ first instincts were to be suspicious of his motives. Yet in one of history’s greatest ironic turnarounds, he saw off the challenge of real Rangers-minded folk (like John Brown and Paul Murray) and their warnings, and by appealing to what many regard as the baser instincts of the fan-base became the third hero to emerge in the boardroom in as many years. The irony of course is that Green himself shouldn’t really pass any kind of Rangers sniff-test; personal, sporting, business or cultural; and yet there he is the spokesman for 140 years of the aspirations of a quarter of the country’s fans.
To be fair though, what else could Rangers fans do? Green had managed (and shame on the administration process and football authorities for this) to pick up the assets of the club for less (nett) than Craig Whyte and still maintained a presence in the major leagues.
If they hadn’t backed him only the certainty of doom lay before them. It was Green’s way or the highway in other words – and speaking of words, his sounded mighty fine. But do the real Rangers minded people really buy into it all?
First consider McCoist. I do not challenge his credentials as a Rangers minded man, and his compelling need to be an effective if often ineloquent spokesman for the fans. However, according to James Traynor (who was then acting as an unofficial PR advisor to the Rangers manager), McCoist was ready to walk in July (no pun intended) because he did not trust Green. The story was deliberately leaked, to undermine Green, by both Traynor and McCoist. McCoist also refused for a long period of time to endorse the uptake of season books by Rangers fans, even went as far as to say he couldn’t recommend it.
So what changed? Was it a Damascene conversion to the ways of Green, or was it the 250,000 shares in the new venture that he acquired. Nothing improper or unethical – but is it idealism? Is it fighting for the cause?
Now think Traynor. I realise that can be unpleasant, but bear with me.
Firstly, when he wrote that story on McCoist’s resignation, (and later backed it up on radio claiming he had spoken to Ally before printing the story), he was helping McCoist to twist Green’s arm a little. Now, and I’m guessing that Charles didn’t take this view when he saw the story in question, Green thinks that Traynor is a “media visionary”?
Traynor also very publicly, in a Daily Record leader, took the “New Club line” and was simultaneously contemptuous of Green.
What happened to change both their minds about each other? Could it have been (for Green) the PR success of having JT on board and close enough to control, and (for Traynor) an escape route for a man who had lost the battle with own internal social media demons?
Or, given both McCoist’s and Traynor’s past allegiance to David Murray, is it something else altogether?
Whatever it is, both Traynor and McCoist have started to sing from a totally different hymn sheet to Charles Green since the winding up order story became public. McCoist’s expert étude in equivocation at last Friday’s press conference would have had the Porter in Macbeth slamming down the portcullis (now there’s an irony). He carefully distanced himself from his chairman and ensured that his hands are clean. Traynor has been telling one story, “we have an agreement on the bill”, and Green another, “we are not paying it”.
And what of Walter Smith? At first, very anti-Charles Green, he even talked about Green’s “new club”. Then a period of silence followed by his being co-opted to the board and a “same club” statement. Now in the face of the damaging WUP story, more silence. Hardly a stamp of approval on Green’s credentials is it?
Rangers fans would be right to be suspicious of any non-Rangers people extrapolating from this story to their own version of Armageddon, but shouldn’t they also reserve some of that scepticism for Green and Traynor (neither are Rangers men, and both with only a financial interest in the club) when they say “all is well” whilst the real Rangers man (McCoist) is only willing to say “as far as I have been told everything is well”
As a Celtic fan, it may be a fair charge to say that I don’t have Rangers best interests at heart, but I do not wish for their extinction, nor do I believe that one should ignore a quarter of the potential audience for our national game. Never thought I’d hear myself say this, but apart from one (admittedly mightily significant) character defect, I can look at the Rangers of Struth and Simon, Gillick and Morton, Henderson and Baxter, and Waddell and Lawrence (and God help me even Jock Wallace) with fondness and a degree of nostalgia.
I suspect most Rangers fans are deeply unhappy about how profoundly their club has changed. To be fair, my own club no longer enchants me in the manner of old. As sport has undergone globalisation, everything has changed. Our relationship to our clubs has altered, the business models have shifted, and the aspirations of clubs is different from that of a generation ago. It has turned most football clubs into different propositions from the institutions people of my generation grew up supporting, but Rangers are virtually unrecognisable.
The challenge right now for Rangers fans is this. How much more damage will be done to the club’s legacy before this saga comes to an end?
And by then will it be too late to do anything about it?
Most people on this blog know my views about the name of Green’s club. I really don’t give a damn because for me it is not important. I do know, like Craig Whyte said, that in the fullness of time there will be a team called Rangers, playing football in a blue strip at Ibrox, and in the top division in the country.
I understand that this may be controversial to many of our contributors, but I hope that this incarnation of Rangers is closer to that of Lawrence and Simon than to Murray and Souness.
greenockjack says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 20:05
——————————————————
The case for the defence ? What case?
Who said that no questions were asked ?,do you remember who was at the SFA during the period we’re talking about.Peat, Smith and now Ogilvie,each and every one deaf to any misdeeds commited by rangers (IL).The only questions these 3 worthies would have asked would have been about free tickets for their mates.
The shady deals were collusion between two corrupt bodies that agreed that the future of rangers (IL) and Sevco were more important than the future of Scottish football.
the media ignored the problem,they did not cause it.They exacerbated the problem.
Well i have considered the case for the defence and found them guilty.
if the argument is you can’t simply recalculate the league table awarding 3-0 against rangers for every game with an ineligible player because “they would have been relegated” after one season and that it affects more than just celtic but all of the scottish game
then, the 1st title can be stripped and awarded to Celtic (i assume they were runners up that year)
then as RFC would have been relegated, every other one can be left as a blank
but then, i would suggest if the crime was so severe as to corrupt every team and league in scotland, then surely the only fitting punishment is expulsion/suspension
no club called Rangers can be allowed back into the league unless every thin dime of the prize money and uefa money they received is repaid
I’d be happy with that.
prohibby
Fully agree, I made the same point last night, there are too many incalculable permutations.
I’m a celtic fan but I don’t follow the logic that over a ten year period, Celtic would have picked up the titles during those years. Then there’s the cup competitions and europe, and european qualification.
It’s not as cut and dried as a cycling race or sprint where 2nd place gets the victory.
I also share the view that the record books recording no winner will serve as a permanent reminder of the serious wrongdoing commited by Rangers FC.
I don’t want those titles, but I want to see them stripped from the club who broke the rules in order to take them
If Rangers are found guilty by LNS surely Ogilvie will step down.
scapaflow14 says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 20:15
=========================
To me it reads more like, everyone else did it, not us. We are actually the victims here not the offenders.
Stealing lying and cheating and still blaming other people for your problems is actually quite pathetic.
chipsandblog says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 20:55
1 0 i
Rate This
If Rangers are found guilty by LNS surely Ogilvie will step down.
________________________________________________________________
You would have thought that not being able to carry out your primary function for 12 months might prompt the thought to stand aside.
But not for the bold Campbell. No, he is putting himself ack in the race for another term.
No doubt a guilty verdict from LNS will steel him with the determination that he is the only man fit to clean up the game
chipsandblog says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 18:10
the transfer of SFA membership is irrelevant. It was transfered from one club to another. The club RFC in division 3 is a different club to the club RFC that played in the SPL last season.
——————————————————–
I think the membership was transferred from one club to a new firm of property owners. One with a pretty good works team, having played just a couple of bounce matches. Surely their first world record?
Henry Clarson says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 19:12
——————————————
Great post Henry. It should have been the wording for the fabled 5-way agreement. 😉 I have often quoted more intelligent folk than myself about the whole, ‘when you get caught stealing the telly you don’t just hand the telly back and say, oops and get told to ski-daddle’. You hand the TV back and then you are punished. Your name is tarnished and you pay the price for not living within the laws of the land (read game).
However … on the re-allocation of titles! I personally think that a black mark, possibly even a small asterix beside Rangers FC 1872 to show that these titles were removed from said deceased club due to cheating (with reference to the total amount of trophies won prior to the timeline ending) would have as much impact, if not more, than the re-distribution of monies and/or titles – far too messy. I agree that ‘A’ fear of consequences are a driver here but I also think that we have to be realistic.
look back over the way the game has been managed and administrated over the last couple of years. is there any semblance of fair play, fair application of the rules of the game, or dare say, have the administrators shown any integrity sporting or otherwise?
do you honestly and truthfully expect them to sanction the removal of league titles from the original rangers?
really? this is the organisation with campbell ogilvie as president. don’t male me laugh. rangers were not spartans.
I’m sure people on here know that fielding an improperly registered player results in a 0-3 loss. That’s the rules. Now I see comment from people recommending not following the rules with some cock-eyed logic attached.
Apply the rules, without fear or favour. Is that what we advocate on this site? If Rangers are found guilty, the titles MUST be awarded to other teams.
forweonlyknow says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 21:14
_________________________________________________
I think that stripping of titles deals with the “fear of consequences”. This is what the bears are most concerned with, so if it happens then its done, and I’m not sure that whether said titles get allocated elsewhere becomes more of a consequence to be feared or not? I think the much celebrated “54” means too much to them.
If the requisite fortitude is there to strip the ill gained trophies I will be satisfied, but I remain sceptical. I would also expect to see a bit more than a black mark or small asterisk!
beatipacificiscotia says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 21:28
I dont agree. Too many “well what if”… scenarios. It would be cock eyed logic to just reverse results and award titles, prize money etc on that basis, over an extended period. The whole landscape would have been different year after year.
Yes punish them – take the ill gotten gains off them, but lets just push on and drag the game out of this mess
FWIW:
Would I be correct in saying that Green is tied in for 6/12 months whatever but due to the double speak surrounding this fiasco,he makes it sound that he’s tied to TRFC.a 3rd div club which may or may not have any money,when what he’s actually tied to is a holding company,RIFC that may be cash rich,with no material outlay(TRFC are paying the wages,costs etc),and own property assets in G51 and Milngavie with an estimated value of,say £20m?.
Cheating is cheating, if found guilty, strip the titles, ban the guilty players and be done with this heap of sh** this has dragged on far too long 🙂
neepheid says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 17:40
9 1 Rate This
thespecialswon says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 17:28
“but, in the case of Rangers, “transfer of membership” was invented, to create the facade of continuity”
=====
Sorry, but that is incorrect. Transfer of membership was provided for in the SFA rules well before RFC became insolvent. The same provision was used by Airdrie to acquire Clydebank’s SFA membership by transfer in 2002.
—————————————————————————————
What transfer of membership?
Sadly, it was not to be and Clydebank will now join Third Lanark and, more recently Airdrieonians, in the obituary pages of Scottish football history.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/scotland/2118528.stm
bailemeanach says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 21:28
————————————————
True. I remain sceptical as well.
I see we are falling into that trap of stripping and re-allocation of titles as the punishment again? 😉
With regards to the 0-3’s … Pretty sure there are no rules in the SPL rulebook which states this? Does that mean they have the call on that, one or does the SFA rulebok come into play?
bailemeanach says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 21:28
5 0 Rate This
forweonlyknow says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 21:14
_________________________________________________
I think that stripping of titles deals with the “fear of
consequences”. This is what the bears are most concerned with, so if it happens then its done, and I’m not sure that whether said titles get allocated elsewhere becomes more of a consequence to be feared or not? I think the much celebrated “54″ means too much to them.
If the requisite fortitude is there to strip the ill gained trophies I will be satisfied, but I remain sceptical. I would also expect to see a bit more than a black mark or small asterisk!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Neon….FLASHING neon
Robert Coyle says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 21:54
0 0 Rate This
neepheid says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 17:40
9 1 Rate This
thespecialswon says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 17:28
“but, in the case of Rangers, “transfer of membership” was invented, to create the facade of continuity”
=====
Sorry, but that is incorrect. Transfer of membership was provided for in the SFA rules well before RFC became insolvent. The same provision was used by Airdrie to acquire Clydebank’s SFA membership by transfer in 2002.
—————————————————————————————
What transfer of membership?
Sadly, it was not to be and Clydebank will now join Third Lanark and, more recently Airdrieonians, in the obituary pages of Scottish football history.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/scotland/2118528.stm
================
I’m sorry if I haven’t made myself clear. I am talking about the transfer of SFA membership from Clydebank to Airdrie. Just like Sevco, Airdrie were a new company, had no accounts, and couldn’t satisfy the requirements for a new member of the SFA. They couldn’t acquire Airdrieonians SFA membership because that was extinguished when Airdrieonians were liquidated. So they bought Clydebank’s assets, and the SFA consented to the transfer of Clydebank’s SFA membership to Airdrie. Just as with RFC and Sevco. Perhaps you are confusing Airdrie with Airdrieonians? If I’ve got it wrong, just let me know.
neepheid says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 17:40
8 0 Rate This
thespecialswon says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 17:28
“but, in the case of Rangers, “transfer of membership” was invented, to create the facade of continuity”
=====
Sorry, but that is incorrect. Transfer of membership was provided for in the SFA rules well before RFC became insolvent. The same provision was used by Airdrie to acquire Clydebank’s SFA membership by transfer in 2002.
========================================
There was no transfer of membership with regards to Airdrie.
Clydebank FC simply changed their name to Airdrie Utd (whose brand name has recently changed again to Airdrie FC) and relocated the club to the empty New Broomfield stadium.
http://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC042250
In 2002 the SFA Articles of Association specifically prohibited transfer of membership outside its own corporate group. This is the relevant article from the 2003/04 handbook:
http://web.archive.org/petabox/20031208015730/http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/publications/handbook0304/handbook0304.pdf
It was around 2009 that the Articles were re-written, so that “Any other application for transfer of membership will be reviewed by the Board, which will have complete discretion to reject or to grant such application on such terms and conditions as the Board may think fit.”
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/ScottishFAPublications2012-13/SFA_HANDBOOK_53-136_Articles_of_Association.pdf
It takes careful reading to realize that the meaning was totally transformed. Who realized at the time that from “Prohibition on Transfer of Membership”, it should have been retitled “Procedure for Transfer of Membership”.
A cynical person may think that whoever instigated this rule change may have had the current situation in mind. It was after all, I think, 2008 when Rangers were first served with the big tax bill.
Bailemeanach, if you lack the courage and conviction to follow rules and see the consequences through to conclusion, maybe you should consider a career in football administration?
This is not the time for cowardice and weak liberal thinking.
so the rules were changed in 2008 by whom and for what reason. It seems convenient that the SFA changed the rules and we brought in a couple of novices to run the SFA and SPL.
HirsutePursuit says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 22:12
Thanks for a very clear explanation- I stand corrected.
Neon….FLASHING neon
Your lordship, perhaps it could warrant one of those public information broadcasts from the 70’s – graphic portrayal of fearsome consequences brought about by not following the laws or abiding by common sense
HirsutePursuit says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 22:12
It takes careful reading to realize that the meaning was totally transformed. Who realized at the time that from “Prohibition on Transfer of Membership”, it should have been retitled “Procedure for Transfer of Membership”.
A cynical person may think that whoever instigated this rule change may have had the current situation in mind. It was after all, I think, 2008 when Rangers were first served with the big tax bill.
————————————————————
The bestest administrator in the world?
beatipacificiscotia says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 21:28
I’m sure people on here know that fielding an improperly registered player results in a 0-3 loss. That’s the rules. Now I see comment from people recommending not following the rules with some cock-eyed logic attached.
Apply the rules, without fear or favour. Is that what we advocate on this site? If Rangers are found guilty, the titles MUST be awarded to other teams.
——
I haven’t seen anyone advocating that rules aren’t followed. The rules say 0-3. No-one’s arguing with that.
However, your last sentence lets you down.
Why in the name of Dog would Celtic fans want those titles anyway? It would forever give their rivals an excuse to deploy words like “tainted”, “joke” and “stolen”.
I believe the only way to force Rangers to confront their guilt (if so found) via the consequence of losing titles is to clearly show that those titles have been removed from Rangers FC – and not that they’ve been re-assigned. It has to be high-contrast black and white for TRFC and its admirers to be unable to deflect attention.
As has been mentioned above, there seems to be a recently increasing call from a section of CFC fans to claim titles which currently still belong to Rangers – with the odd display of near desperation that brings Gollum to mind.
No other club’s fans have displayed such behaviour although I believe Aberdeen, for example, would be up for a Treble somewhere along the line. Yes, it’s been discussed on other forums – but only in a “oh, we could have had a Treble” kind of way.
It has been notable that CFC fans have displayed a previously unknown reasonableness over the past year, no doubt boosted by their possession of the moral higher ground over their historic rivals and an assurance of an unchallenged SPL win this year.
This reasonable attitude has greatly boosted the sense of inclusiveness which has been evident this season. It would be a shame to lose that.
beatipacificiscotia says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 22:12
0 1 i
Rate This
Bailemeanach, if you lack the courage and conviction to follow rules and see the consequences through to conclusion, maybe you should consider a career in football administration?
This is not the time for cowardice and weak liberal thinking.
____________________________________________________________________
Title stripping is as far as it can go in my book. Nothing cowardly about that. And since whenis liberal thinking “weak”? (unless you refer to lib dems, in which case apologies)
I work as a data analyst so you will have to forgive my geekdom, but it simply wont work to reverse fixtures and retrospectively award new winners. I’d love to see you have a go at it and get back to me. It’s simply a non starter
orweonlyknow says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 22:05
With regards to the 0-3′s … Pretty sure there are no rules in the SPL rulebook which states this? Does that mean they have the call on that, one or does the SFA rulebok come into play?
G6.1.7
https://twitter.com/rangerstaxcase/status/252777400428007425
Robert Coyle says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 22:23
1 0 Rate This
HirsutePursuit says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 22:12
It takes careful reading to realize that the meaning was totally transformed. Who realized at the time that from “Prohibition on Transfer of Membership”, it should have been retitled “Procedure for Transfer of Membership”.
A cynical person may think that whoever instigated this rule change may have had the current situation in mind. It was after all, I think, 2008 when Rangers were first served with the big tax bill.
————————————————————
The bestest administrator in the world?
=================================
He was vice-president at the time the articles were “updated”. George Peat was President.
Funny though that Gordon Smith was appointed SFA Chief Exec in 2007. Surely just coincidence that he became Rangers Director of Football in 2011 under Craig Whyte’s regime?
There wouldn’t have been many people who realized that it was possible to transfer Rangers SFA membership to a new club. Gordon Smith certainly should have known.
Why in the name of Dog would Celtic fans want those titles anyway? It would forever give their rivals an excuse to deploy words like “tainted”, “joke” and “stolen”.
___________________________________________________________
angus1983
I’ve avoided this side of the argument because it’s not really relevant to title reassignment per se. But it’s a very good point – I wouldn’t want any unclean titles
No rompin stompin statement tonight from Mr Traynor about the latest “malicious” stories in the press about trouble in Ibrox, funny that, wasn’t he going chase down these people wherever they were?
Sir Humphrey may be right, perhaps the ship of state is the only ship that leaks from the top…..
Brenda says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 21:48
12 0 Rate This
Cheating is cheating, if found guilty, strip the titles, ban the guilty players and be done with this heap of sh** this has dragged on far too long
==========================================================================
brenda, even if by some stretch of the imagination LNS enquiry decides that the dead rangers were very naughty boys indeed, the sfa and spl will go through hoops(sic) to avoid handing out any punishment whatsoever. look at the way the authorities tried every way possible to avoid applying the rules to oldco last season. the authorities are not only spineless but they have connived and been complicit in avoiding the application of their own rules and they are responsible for the mess that scottish football finds itself in. yes I agree that this has dragged on for far too long now. this should and could have been cleared, dusted and dealt with within a couple of months had the authorities accepted their responsibilities and applied their own rules only there was no political will to do so. we will never know the discussions and agreements that have been reached between the oldco and the authorities that run the game up here. I have no faith in oldco newco sevco or whatever they are called this week being treated appropriately. it’ll never happen.
neepheid says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 22:15
4 0 i
Rate This
HirsutePursuit says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 22:12
Thanks for a very clear explanation- I stand corrected
________________________________________________________________
A great advert for this blog – people listen to each other and acknowledge that they may have held an incorrect opinion
Frank Forrest @ 22:51
I know, I agree wholeheartedly with you, very few of us have faith in anything fair being done but just p***ed off with the farce that is Scottish football…….. If I said what I really felt I’d have to wash my mouth out with carbolic 🙂 let’s hope fan power can prevent them escaping with a slap on the wrist. I personally did not renew my SB, but I alone cannot make a difference 🙂
What is the point of the LNS enquiry ?
Why are we bothering to investigate a liquidated clubs financial arrangements. Why did a new company agree to pay a liquidated companies football debts ?
award each game 0-3, suspend the new club, fine the new club all the prize money for the last 10 years.
all nonsense, why are we having this enquiry ? Who will benefit ?
it staring you all in the face. A cynic might say its another step in the attempt to tangle new club with old club. It serves no other purpose. A complete waste of time that will achieve nothing.
It is possible that the Landlords that are in charge of our game know that they have or will have a punishment to hand out when the LNS decision is announced it could be that this decision will be as controversial as any decision ever handed out in world football , one that the Landlords will have to step down from their lofty positions unfortunately this decision will be no where near what it should be to match the crime[s] that will be judged on but thats what we are going to have to face ,one final insult to the rest of scottish football from these people .
bailemeanach says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 22:21
1 0 Rate This
Neon….FLASHING neon
Your lordship, perhaps it could warrant one of those public
information broadcasts from the 70′s – graphic portrayal of
fearsome consequences brought about by not following the laws or abiding by common sense
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Charlie says
“Those titles are mine, not oldco’s. I bought them, they’re part of newco and they’re staying in newco.
“If someone wants to take them, steal them or buy them they are not for sale. They are going nowhere. You’ll not see Charles Green at Hampden for the tribunal. No chance.
“My position is unchanged. There is no jurisdiction over newco.
Newco has never been a member of the SPL. We wanted to be but were refused. If you’re thrown out you don’t go back.”
Follow the Green very cross code
Wobbly
Brilliant!
He looked, he listened, but he never stopped
Celtic Underground @celticrumours 3h
Hearing rumours that Celtic are considering lowering the price
of the season tickets for next season. That’s right – “lowering”
“My position is unchanged. There is no jurisdiction over newco.
Newco has never been a member of the SPL. We wanted to be but were refused. If you’re thrown out you don’t go back.”
……………………………………………………..
Never been a member….so how do get thrown out?
beatipacificiscotia says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 22:12
Bailemeanach, if you lack the courage and conviction to follow rules and see the consequences through to conclusion, maybe you should consider a career in football administration?
This is not the time for cowardice and weak liberal thinking.
……………………………………………………….
Cowardice?…Liberal thinking?
We don’t need or want titles that were won buy a club that cheated…what is required is the removal of any trophy in any competition that was awarded to that club as a result of cheating….nothing more nothing less…
Now stop this nonsense about cowardice…I grew up in Glasgow…and faced the sharp end of their consequences on numerous occasions..
paulmac2 says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 23:54
0
0
Rate This
“My position is unchanged. There is no jurisdiction over newco.
Newco has never been a member of the SPL. We wanted to be but were refused. If you’re thrown out you don’t go back.”
……………………………………………………..
Never been a member….so how do get thrown out?
————————————————————————————————————————-
A typical Green oxymoron that goes unquestioned by the MSM
paulmac2 says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 23:54
0 0 Rate This
“My position is unchanged. There is no jurisdiction over newco.
Newco has never been a member of the SPL. We wanted to be but were refused. If you’re thrown out you don’t go back.”
……………………………………………………..
Never been a member….so how do get thrown out?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Or go back?
Does Charlie wear a Fez when he gets interviewed?
stop bumping your gums about LNS. It is designed to reel you in and muddy the old club new club debate, and its fooled you lot, hook, line and sinker.
Lord Wobbly says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 23:42
And not before time.
What clubs need to work on is an ideal figure for income per game/season and tie the costs to achieving a near full stadium, ideally full of ‘home’ fans.
No real advantage in sporting terms of getting your required income from a half full stadium.
And I would argue that there is no long term business advantage from pricing your customenrs out of the market.
Has orlit been paid? Rapid Vienna? Hearts? Charity from money made at boycotted game at tannadice or anyone else for that matter? Did sevco reserves get the biggest crowd in Scotland tonight?……… 🙂
I notice a lot of talk about title stripping has been going on.
Given many a poster’s dissapointment at the FTTT result can we just let LNS provide us with a verdict before getting carried away with potential punishments.
wottpi says:
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 00:27
Very good point.
Many posters have suggested what is going to happen as RFC(IL) are guilty. But I’m not aware that LNS has issued his judgement as yet. Although that day is coming soon and perhaps everyone is right.
Brenda makes a point regarding the RFC reserves – apparently they have won the the SFL Div 3 Title. I have no idea if there is a trophy awarded for such an honour, but it will be interesting to see which name goes on the honours list. I would suggest to Messrs Green and McCoist that they dump the first team and play the reserves – save money and be successful.
Brenda also asks the question as to who has been paid as regards transfer fees and where the ticket money has gone from the ridiculous boycotted SC game – perhaps it’s best to ask the teams involved? I suspect no one on the SFM knows with any certainty.
smiley……..
The commission could simply apply rule G6.1.12 withdraw or withhold the award of a title or award; This, applied on its own, would not change the points totals in the league tables, so no other club could be declared the “Champion Club”. For what it’s worth, from my reading of the powers of the commission, this appears to be the only option to remove titles and not re-assign them to another club. However, I cannot see how this option could be taken.
If we assume that Rangers are found guilty of not properly registering players, we can also assume that whatever sanctions are applied will be applied with equal effect for each transgression. The commission obviously cannot “withdraw or withhold the award of a title or award” in the years when Rangers did not actually win the title.
So what will they do? Realistically, they have to apply a sanction that will have the effect of changing the position that Rangers finished in the league.
Either:
G6.1.6 impose a deduction of points; – applying a flat rate deduction of say 40 points for each season that improperly registered players are known to have participated.
or,
G6.1.7 award an Official Match (with such deemed score as it thinks appropriate) to a Club; – apply the usual 0-3 scoreline to each match that improperly registered players are known to have participated.
Either option, of course, will retrospectively change the league tables and the normal determination would have to be made:
If the result of the requisite points deduction should have resulted in Rangers relegation from the SPL, the commission may then feel that it is appropriate to apply rule G6.1.13 order any Club, Club Official or Player to pay compensation to any Club, Player, person or party; – order that the offending Club pay the club that actually was relegated a substantial compensatory payment. The commission may not feel the need to make any specific order on the repayment of prize-money. Instead they may simply leave the SPL to invoice the Club for repayment. All payments, of course, to be made by the new club,subject to the terms of the infamous 5-way agreement.
If, once the league tables have been corrected, the commission (or indeed the SPL Board) decrees that the club that ultimately finishes with the highest number of points is not the “Champion Club”. the SPL (it appears to me) can only do so as a sanction on that winning club.
Indeed, it seems to me that the “award” of the title to the club with the most points is a completely neutral position for the SPL. To choose to do otherwise is not.
The feelings of the ultimately title winning club (or their fans) has no relevance to the commissions determination. Only that sporting integrity is paramount.
HP I was with you all the way until your last sentence.
It is the SFA/ SPL/SFL we are talking about here and they have no care for integrity, sporting or otherwise.
HirsutePursuit says:
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 01:21
The feelings of the ultimately title winning club (or their fans) has no relevance to the commissions determination. Only that sporting integrity is paramount.
“”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
Have the runners-up not suffered enough?
Glasgow Herald
Rangers chairman Malcolm Murray asked to leave ‘in best interests of club’
Clyde ‘sports news’ reporting he’s been asked to leave/step down due to his conduct???
Malcolm Murray has been asked to step down as Rangers chairman after concerns were raised about his suitability for the role.
It is understood that Ibrox directors have received complaints from supporters about Murray’s personal conduct.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2281420/Malcolm-Murray-urged-quit-Rangers-chairman.html
Later in The Mail piece…
However, Green was understood to be dismayed by certain details reaching the public domain on Tuesday.
???? Have I missed something????
Malcolm reportedly asked for a meeting with Dermot Desmond and has been also the only official from TRFC to apologise on behalf of RFC-1872 prior to the SPL meeting where his presentation bombed.
Other than that, have not seen any major crimes against humanity that he may have done…..
Maybe he got drunk and leaked the WUO information in a pillow talking session………….who knows!
Somehow I don’t see him muddying his brogues with this much of a successful enterprise on-going with all the success and money coming to him………….unless its not as successful as some others are saying……………..
Isn’t it strange how the one man TRFC fans might reasonably expect to tell the truth is getting hounded out of the club? The one man who’s business accumen, methods and integrity have never been questioned now finds, alledgedly, there are TRFC fans complaining about his ‘personal conduct’. I suspect anything he has said, in private, or public, could only be harmfull because it was the truth, something people like Charles Green find very hard to deal with. One thing we can all be certain of is, that if we ever hear the truth about what is actually happening between Green and Murray, it will come from the mouth of the latter, though I suspect, out of love for a team called Rangers, or fear for his own safety, we might never hear his side of the story. He is probably the only potential ‘whistleblower’ with access to what’s really happening in the Ibrox boardroom, and once he’s gone…
bailemeanach says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 22:29
I think you are making something that is logistically quite simple into something very difficult. If Rangers are found to have broken the rules, then STOP PRESS – the titles are tainted whatever you do with them. The idea that awarded titles to the runners up will make them tainted is simply nonsense.
I’ve heard people on here talk about how impossible to correct the league results because Rangers should have been relegated, etc. This is nonsense. You cannot create new timelines or re-run history to find out what would have happened. All you can do is deal with the results that are in the books. A simple recalculation will spit out a new winner. No Data Analysis required.
Cup results are simpler still to re-arrange You cannot re-run the competition for the benefit of those knocked out in earlier rounds. There are no medals for earlier rounds, just the final. Cups won by Rangers become cups won by the runners up. My personal view is that there will be no runners up for that year recorded. You cannot ask the losing semi-finalists to play off for that spot. The only alternative I can see if you give the spot to the team Rangers beat in the semis, but I don’t really see the value in that.
Celtic fans do not speak with one voice. As a Celtic fan, I’ve had disagreements with other Celtic fans on this board and we have taken complete opposite views on things. I want those title for Celtic, any other result is unacceptable. I might be a lonely voice on this, but I doubt it. As I’ve said in a previous post, the 04/05 season was the one that decided it for me. A dozen players were signed with EBTs that year with the express purpose of stopping Celtic. I want that title, and you want one you have to want them all.
This is not having a go at you, bailemeanach, it is always good to have different opinions. I just think you are misguided. If a winner is disqualified, the next question should be if there is a reason NOT to award it to the 2nd place. People have used Juventus and Lance Armstrong as examples of titles not be re-assigned – but there was good reason for not re-assigning those titles as I have mentioned in previous posts. If Celtic have done nothing wrong, the titles should be theirs. Similarly, if the cup runners up did nothing wrong, the cups should be theirs.
Some people are talking about massive fines and more. I don’t hold with that. I think the use of EBTs is a single matter. You cannot claim Rangers broke the rules 100’s of times because they played in 100’s of games. The use of EBTs was a single decision. Clawing back prize money and fines for each and every game is a bridge too far for me. Nor do I want to see suspension or termination of memberships. A single fine may be appropriate for the single offence of using EBTs. I would go no further.
The well known saying “He who pays the piper calls the tune” will influence the scope of the LNS report and outcome and leave our community angry and Scottish Football in an even darker place.
We already know the power brokers in Scottish football had cobbled together the disgraceful 5 way agreement and then failed to deliver to Sevco the promise of a place in the SPL or at worst to the SFL1 to Sevco.
Thanks to us the internet fans and the heroes from the ranks of the Diddy clubs that didn’t happen.
So these same powerful people (sic) now owe their friends who are not just the public faces we see in the MSM each day. They also owe the people behind the scenes entrusted with transitioning Rangers from an indebted status to their rightful position as once again dominant.
They owe them big time and they will deliver some of this with the delayed LNS findings.
So while Henry Clarson is absolutely, and non vindictively, correct when he says every game should be revisited and scored 0 -3 and the ramifications worked through I don’t believe that can ever happen.
It would be their equivalent of “washing dirty linen in public” and that would not help the careers of Doncaster, Regan, Ogilvie and Longmuir.
Or the club people on their all powerful national committees.
But don’t think for a minute that these people have gone soft on rules and discipline.
Scottish Football has fine administrators who miss no indiscretions from their other wayward members.
When Spartans don’t put two dates on a form, or when Annan don’t register some young lads properly they and other members will feel the weight of SFA righteousness.
And these administrators have the measure of the wayward managers of Hibernian and Kilmarnock too, because they know who these people are.
When the LNS fudge is announced next week there will be a storm in an internet teacup for a day or two but the MSM know where their bread is buttered and they will trumpet any good news.
There will be the usual coordinated bombardment ahead of the findings being made public.
“Piper Nimmo Smith, “Do you know the tune for “Slap on the wrist” “!
Well, what a hoot!
It will be fascinating to see whether token “Rangers man” Murray does walking away, or whether he plans to fight back with some juicy titbits regarding the Green regime. He surely must say something, because that article in the Mail is a real hatchet job if ever I saw one. One thing’s for sure- this is a major falling out. Maybe Murray’s “crime” was to tell someone the truth about the financial side? As a serious businessman with a reputation to protect, Murray can’t have been happy with Green’s recent statements on financial matters during his world tour.
What’s really funny, though, is Charles “motormouth” Green criticising the quiet and unassuming Murray for talking too much.
He may have suggested paying some bills?? I know, I know I’ll go find my clock. what is the timer on now? Answers on a postcard please 🙂
beatipacificiscotia on Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 08:54
——-
So if I only commit one type illegitimate act and no matter how often I knowingly commit that illegal act, it is only one wrong act and I should not face the full level of punishment?
Really?
beatipacificiscotia says:
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 08:54
Some people are talking about massive fines and more. I don’t hold with that. I think the use of EBTs is a single matter. You cannot claim Rangers broke the rules 100’s of times because they played in 100’s of games. The use of EBTs was a single decision. Clawing back prize money and fines for each and every game is a bridge too far for me. Nor do I want to see suspension or termination of memberships. A single fine may be appropriate for the single offence of using EBTs. I would go no further.
—————————————————-
so what you are saying, essentially, is NO PUNISHMENT for ra gers?
the removal of titles (if guilty) is NOT a punishment, it is simply a consequence of their cheating.
If Rangers are stripped of any titles & trophies will Mr Charles demand a refund on the money he paid for the history. I’m damn sure if I paid for 54 titles and found out there were only 49 in the box I’d want some money back 😀
beatipacificiscotia says:
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 08:54
Cup results are simpler still to re-arrange You cannot re-run the competition for the benefit of those knocked out in earlier rounds. There are no medals for earlier rounds, just the final. Cups won by Rangers become cups won by the runners up.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
League cup final 21 March 2010 Rangers 1 St.Mirren 0
…so could St.Mirren do the ‘ League cup double ‘ this year 😉
beatipacificiscotia says:
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 08:54
Some people are talking about massive fines and more. I don’t hold with that. I think the use of EBTs is a single matter. You cannot claim Rangers broke the rules 100’s of times because they played in 100’s of games.
==================
Except that it really has nothing to do with EBTs as such. What LNS must decide is whether Rangers had in their team players who were not properly registered. If he finds that one or more players were not properly registered, because the full terms of their contracts were not disclosed to the SFA/SPL , then it is quite straightforward. Every game where Rangers fielded an improperly registered player must be awarded 3-0 to the opposing team. That’s just a consequence of fielding improperly registered players. That’s what has happened to other clubs. Why do you think Rangers should be treated differently?
The Gentleman v The Spiv
Anybody noticed anything significant about news reports on the Green Murray spat?
Yep
All the information is coming from the Green side
Exactly what you would expect
Gentlemen don`t speak to the gutter press
nowoldandgrumpy says:
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 09:05
beatipacificiscotia on Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 08:54
——-
So if I only commit one type illegitimate act and no matter how often I knowingly commit that illegal act, it is only one wrong act and I should not face the full level of punishment?
Really?
++++++++++++++++++++
Yes, really. I’ve give you an example. I buy a greasy burger van and decide to sell some burgers. I sell 100 a day for a week, good business. I find out I should have a licence to sell hot food, but I don’t. Have I committed 700 offences for the 700 burgers? Or the single offence of not having a licence?
You many think that I should have known better, or maybe I did know better, but if I don’t admit it you can’t prove it.
“The Rangers board of directors have asked the chairman, Malcolm Murray, to stand down over concerns about his personal conduct.”
Nothing explained about this conduct in any of the press stories, which I might assume come with the prompting of Mr Traynor, Ibrox Director of Communications.
Any time I’ve seen Malcolm Murray interviewed, he has appeared uncomfortable, whether that is due to his nature or the position he acquired at Ibrox, I’m unsure.
Anyway, the stories in today’s media suggest Murray is to be shunted out due to his leaking information, although it isn’t too specific in detail. Just a wee bit like one of Traynor’s final stories less than a week prior to departing the Daily Record, where Stephen Thompson left the spl board following finger pointing that he was ‘leaking information’. His alleged fall out was with Ralph Topping, who (like Malcolm Murray) was a Strathclyde University student in the early 1970’s.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/dundee-united-chief-stephen-thompson-1460684
The Traynor tale of late November doesn’t specify which details were being leaked, just as today’s Murray accounts lack essential particulars.
allyjambo says:
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 08:45
Isn’t it strange how the one man TRFC fans might reasonably expect to tell the truth is getting hounded out of the club? The one man who’s business accumen, methods and integrity have never been questioned now finds, alledgedly, there are TRFC fans complaining about his ‘personal conduct’.
——
There is some confuision over at RM about this, strangely enough. No-one there is aware of any complaints about Mr Murray’s behaviour – although there is mention that he may have over-indulged at an IPO and started slagging Mr Green.
There is a degree of concern that Mr Murray is their best representative on the Board, and an acknowledgement that the information appearing in the press has the odour of a blatant smear campaign about it.
The Herald piece mentions “a” complaint from “a” supporter, and then a further single complaint from “a” supporter. This seems quite a flimsy reason for asking the guy to step down, although I guess if “a” supporter could show gross misconduct then it’s reasonable.
It does look like the Bears’ blind allegiance to the Green Machine is faltering – they’re starting to ask questions. There’s hope for them yet, however belated.
IF it is decided that Rangers are guilty and cups/titles are to be stripped, they should be stripped.
IF it can be shown beyond ANY doubt that a team should have won that cup/title then it should be awarded. For the avoidance of doubt, the almost certainty that Celtic would have won most if not all titles (let’s face it, we’d have had little chance in the cups 🙁 ) does not constitute ‘beyond any doubt’.
As a Celtic fan, I don’t want to be handed any titles that we’re not 100% entitled to.
Unresolved titles/cups should be withheld.
neepheid says:
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 09:20
beatipacificiscotia says:
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 08:54
Some people are talking about massive fines and more. I don’t hold with that. I think the use of EBTs is a single matter. You cannot claim Rangers broke the rules 100’s of times because they played in 100’s of games.
==================
Except that it really has nothing to do with EBTs as such. What LNS must decide is whether Rangers had in their team players who were not properly registered. If he finds that one or more players were not properly registered, because the full terms of their contracts were not disclosed to the SFA/SPL , then it is quite straightforward. Every game where Rangers fielded an improperly registered player must be awarded 3-0 to the opposing team. That’s just a consequence of fielding improperly registered players. That’s what has happened to other clubs. Why do you think Rangers should be treated differently?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It is everything to do with EBTs. It is the EBT payments that are the issue and them not being recorded in the players’ contracts.
No, I’ve been arguing the very same thing. The results should be changed to 0-3 exactly as you suggest, and titles awarded to the rightful winners. I’m not suggesting Rangers should be treated differently from anyone else. Stripping of titles – yes. £millions in fines and/or termination or suspension – no. I see the decision to use EBTs as a single decision and therefore a single error, though this effected 100’s of games.
beatipacificiscotia says:
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 09:31
Have I committed 700 offences for the 700 burgers? Or the single offence of not having a licence?
You may think that I should have known better, or maybe I did know better, but if I don’t admit it you can’t prove it.
——
You’re right – in that scenario it’s a licensing offence. The PF would have to prove that you sold burgers without a licence. Single offence.
Proof would be easy enough to come by, because investigating officers would have gone out to see you doing it, taken photographs, then interviewed you under caution and got witness statements from customers. If collected properly, this evidence would constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. If you denied it, the sheriff would exact a higher penalty within guidelines available to him.
Speaking of proving it, I asked whether the “Not Proven” verdict was available to LNS. If it is, would anyone be surprised if that was returned?
beatipacificiscotia, Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 09:31:
I buy a greasy burger van and decide to sell some burgers. I sell 100 a day for a week, good business. I find out I should have a licence to sell hot food, but I don’t. Have I committed 700 offences for the 700 burgers? Or the single offence of not having a licence?
———————-
If you were aware that your burgers were contained contaminated horsemeat, and 700 customers fall ill with food poison, would you expect to face one charge or 700 charges?
And would you expect to be sued for damages by one customer or 700?
beatipacificiscotia says:
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 09:31
0 2 Rate Down
nowoldandgrumpy says:
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 09:05
beatipacificiscotia on Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 08:54
——-
So if I only commit one type illegitimate act and no matter how often I knowingly commit that illegal act, it is only one wrong act and I should not face the full level of punishment?
Really?
++++++++++++++++++++
Yes, really. I’ve give you an example. I buy a greasy burger van and decide to sell some burgers. I sell 100 a day for a week, good business. I find out I should have a licence to sell hot food, but I don’t. Have I committed 700 offences for the 700 burgers? Or the single offence of not having a licence?
You many think that I should have known better, or maybe I did know better, but if I don’t admit it you can’t prove it.
==========================
i shoot one person dead on monday
1 on tuesday
1 on wednesday
175 on thursday
have i committed a single offence?