Everything Has Changed

ByTrisidium

Everything Has Changed

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.

About the author

Trisidium administrator

Trisidium is a Dunblane businessman with a keen interest in Scottish Football. He is a Celtic fan, although the demands of modern-day parenting have seen him less at games and more as a taxi service for his kids.

4,442 Comments so far

Carfins Finest. (@edunne58)Posted on5:58 pm - Feb 27, 2013


Re the LNS enquiry.

1. Was it not decided by an investigation instigated by the SPL that there was indeed a case to answer? To my mind that means they initially found something nasty and had to have it formally investigated. Am I correct in assuming that had they found nothing that broke the rules at that point or if there was any doubt about the legality of what was going on then they would not have commissioned the LNS enquiry in the first place.

2. Would this be a good time to announce the new shirt sponsorship deal?

View Comment

ShooperbPosted on5:59 pm - Feb 27, 2013


smartbhoy says:
Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 17:46

I didn’t say that they weren’t guilty – I’m just pessimistically trying to find reasons why they could be let off. Like I said, it’s like the eve of the parachute vote. I think we all expected the worst, and then were pleasantly surprised. I’m fully expecting a whitewash, but hope to be proved wrong.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on6:02 pm - Feb 27, 2013


allyjambo says:
Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 17:42

The prospectus made it clear that it was ‘now’t to do with them’ and therefore any financial fallout would be limited. (see below)

Therefore I am guessing that even if they did know the result they don’t think they need to inform AIM or anyone else for that matter..

“If the Commission seeks to find grounds to impose sanctions which affect the Club retrospectively, such as stripping the Club of historic achievements such as title wins, the legal basis for any such sanctions would be strongly challenged by the RFCL Group or the Rangers Group. The Directors do not believe that a financial impact could arise, but it could result in management time and attention being diverted from the operation of the business of the RFCL Group and the Rangers Group.”

View Comment

ShooperbPosted on6:04 pm - Feb 27, 2013


smartbhoy says:
Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 17:46

Also I was taking the point of view that we all automatically assume that LNS must arrive at a guilty verdict because of the evidence in the public domain. I was just pointing out that there may be potential wriggle room if he doesn’t have to pay heed to anything in the public domain, as such.

I think you’ve misunderstood. I wasn’t saying that you expected a guilty verdict, just that I personally wouldn’t have put money on it! 🙂

View Comment

chipsandblogPosted on6:05 pm - Feb 27, 2013


why was LNS brought in for the RFC inquiry, why can’t the governing bodies apply their own rules.

Sudan’s 2-0 World Cup qualifying win over Zambia has been overturned by FIFA’s disciplinary committee and a 3-0 win awarded to the Zambians instead.

FIFA said in a statement that Sudan had fielded an ineligible player in the match on June 2.

The decision means that Sudan, who led African Group D with four points from two games, drop to third with one and Zambia go top with six points.

Just like SPL refs brought in for division 3 matches. Where is this rule documented.

apply the rules without fear or favour ,yeah, right.

View Comment

ShooperbPosted on6:07 pm - Feb 27, 2013


ratethisthenyabampots says:
Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 17:53

Was there not a similar case with Colin Hendry when he was on Scotland duty?

View Comment

jonnyodPosted on6:09 pm - Feb 27, 2013


I have to agree regards CG having some sort of crystal ball by naming the date of the findings .
If he indeed stated that the findings will be made known on 28/02/2013 two weeks ago .
I also fear the worst .
I have witnessed ragers run roughshod over nearly every rule in our game and I have yet to see any sanction for wrongdoing .
So forgive me if I don’t see anything changing now

View Comment

pau1mart1nPosted on6:17 pm - Feb 27, 2013


if you could bet on, it i’d go for a resounding victory to the glorious boys in blue, probably announced on bbc scotland tv by a dancing chic young.
hhhwill ww

View Comment

chipsandblogPosted on6:19 pm - Feb 27, 2013


i don’t know what percentage the EBTs were of a players salary. If it accounted for 20% as an example, then for every 5 players, RFC fielded, they could afford a sixth player.

i know the salaries varied but in general they could pay for and field additional players using the EBT route.

View Comment

arabest1Posted on6:23 pm - Feb 27, 2013


Whatever the judgement I anticipate an immediate appeal from Sevco, their attitude from the beginning has been one of petulant belligerence, if they read a single sentence that casts the slightest doubt upon their probity there will be aggressive retribution where ever they can manage it! Long way to go yet….

View Comment

ShooperbPosted on6:33 pm - Feb 27, 2013


arabest1 says:
Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 18:23

Now that would be interesting if Sevco did appeal, it may force the SFA into finally clarifying the same club/new club issue…..

View Comment

nowoldandgrumpyPosted on6:35 pm - Feb 27, 2013


Are we expected to believe that an organisation that lied, bullied, broke their own rules, created new rules all to save Sevco, are going to put them at risk, by dealing with their guilt properly, I think not.

View Comment

Cameron OrrPosted on6:36 pm - Feb 27, 2013


Wee Chic fairly foaming at the mouth in his defence of Ragers tonite…. “Some people just want to kick Rangers to death”…. Why has no one put an arm round his shoulder and smartened him up? Unfortunately, he is unable to differentiate between blind vengence and the need for justice. I am truly astounded he still collects a wage packet from the beeb. Ah well, here’s hoping for apoplexy tomorrow….

View Comment

smartbhoyPosted on6:37 pm - Feb 27, 2013


arabest1 says:
Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 18:23
2 0 Rate This
Whatever the judgement I anticipate an immediate appeal from Sevco, their attitude from the beginning has been one of petulant belligerence, if they read a single sentence that casts the slightest doubt upon their probity there will be aggressive retribution where ever they can manage it! Long way to go yet….
__________________________________________________________________________

What I’m curious about is……… can they appeal? It’s RFC.

Are the SFA recognising TRFC as the same club!?!?

We all know they’re not the same club………….

If TRFC appeal and the buffoons at the SFA recognise them as the same club, then any fine/title stripping/ suspension/expulsion would extend to them.

Green has already said he’s not recognising it, so how can he appeal if he doesn’t recognise it?

Will Green run the risk of fines/suspension/expulsion with the facade of RFC being the same club as TRFC?

If they’re found guilty, I can imagine Green telling the SFA/SPL to stick their enquiry and towing his party line of ” I BOUGHT the titles”.

Will the official records show that they have been stripped of those titles, yet Green refusing to recognise it and still claiming to have 54 titles???

It could get very very messy.

View Comment

jonnyodPosted on6:38 pm - Feb 27, 2013


If found guilty they will of course appeal and who will they appeal too
Yes you guessed it the SFA ,CO and all .
I think we all know where that will go

View Comment

angus1983Posted on6:45 pm - Feb 27, 2013


Carfins Finest. (@edunne58) says:
Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 17:58

1. Was it not decided by an investigation instigated by the SPL that there was indeed a case to answer?
——

Yes, but that was effectively only to establish whether there may be evidence of wrongdoing (that hadn’t been shredded yet) or whether the whole thing would be thrown out on the first day of any hearing because it was obviously above board.

Evidently, some doubt was cast – or LNS and his chums wouldn’t have been commissioned to investigate further.

That doesn’t mean Rangers FC are to be found guilty, though – only that further investigations were a reasonable step to take.

View Comment

arabest1Posted on6:47 pm - Feb 27, 2013


smartbhoy says:

As areyouaccusingmeofmendacity states above, it will open another can of worms to muddy the waters (can I squeeze in another metaphor?????………..naw that’s enough).

If my memory serves, Sevco refused to take part in the process, an inaction that would have closed the appeal route, then the RRRFFFSSCCC used their fighting fund to pay for some QC’s. This could yet prove a shrewd move, come to think of it, if the RRRRRRFFFFSSSSCCCC are the shrewd tacticians they really are in the soup. 😉

View Comment

angus1983Posted on6:48 pm - Feb 27, 2013


smartbhoy says:
Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 18:37

If TRFC appeal and the buffoons at the SFA recognise them as the same club …
——

Despite Hirsute’s eloquent arguing of the case otherwise, LNS is treating TRFC and RFC(IL) as the same club, via their ownership of Rangers FC.

This may well form part of Mr Green’s appeal (on grounds explained by Hirsute) if Rangers FC are found guilty – but he will then have to publicly admit that TRFC are not the same as the “old” Rangers FC.

View Comment

scapaflow14Posted on6:56 pm - Feb 27, 2013


angus1983 says:

Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 18:48

yeah, but looks a bit of a lose/lose proposition for Mr Green, not to mention the almost racing certainty of further inappropriate displays of traditional behaviour.

“Wink wink we’re the same club, this nudge nudge seperate club defence is only for the bozzos at the SFA wink wink, gie me yer season book money now please”

Dinnae think so

View Comment

tomahawkidPosted on7:05 pm - Feb 27, 2013


so the p*poe retires and rangers get stripped of titles on the same day. coincidence?
one lord giveth……another lord taketh away.

ill get my cassock…….

View Comment

csihampdenPosted on7:08 pm - Feb 27, 2013


A technicality that may be of interest (or not).
LNS has, within the SPL rules, the power to withdraw honours. However, also within those rules is the power to overturn/reverse results.
Bear with me……one is the direct removal of honours, the other is simply what it says, the overturning of results. The second one RESULTS in the loss of honours – but that is simply a side-effect of the actual redress, not the redress itself. In fact, it only results in loss of honours because in the seasons in question, Rangers did not win the league by sufficient points to avoid that result.
Keep bearing with me ……. so if LNS announces that the redress is simply overturning of results where players where illegally registered, it is THAT which Rangers would have to appeal against. In effect, they could not DIRECTLY appeal against “title stripping”.
So …… does this make an appeal by Rangers less likely to succeed? Appealing against overturning of results for ineligible players will be steeped in precedent by football authorities (admittedly not the SPL). Green can hardly say that he owns the results (like he is claiming he owns the titles because he bought them), so does that weaken his case? A direct appeal against a sanction of title-stripping may have been a stronger case on the grounds of “overkill” in a court of law?
And LNS – can he then wash his hands of “title stripping” accusations, because he didn’t actually do that, he simply applied a sanction of result-reversal which is used throughout football?

Tune in tomorrow.

View Comment

timalloy67Posted on7:10 pm - Feb 27, 2013


Listening to Dodds and Young on the radio tonight (I know I should know better)
Firstly Dodds and his “Sgt Schulchz” I know nothing defence.
But in the modern era players employ agents, lawyers and others to go over EVERY DETAIL of a contract. Signing on fee, basic wage, BONUSES, and pay off at end of contract.
These professionals then explain in MINUTE detail to the player just exactly, to the last penny, what he will earn including all the add ons. So “knowing nothing” is a very stupid defence.
Now on to Young and his “kicking a team to death” No, Chick all most decent fans of every club(well maybe not Sevco) want is a FAIR decision tomorrow. If cheating has been PROVEN, then punishments must be forthcoming. Nothing more, nothing less.

View Comment

Reilly1926Posted on7:13 pm - Feb 27, 2013


I fully expect LNS and his Panel to judge RFC(IL) guilty of breaking the rules but I also expect him to minimise the impact by asking if it’s of vital importance for the athourities to be made aware to the penny what clubs are paying players.

Forgetting to put a duplicate date on a form is trivial. Hiding payments to utillise a tax scam is pretty major and should be treated as such.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on7:17 pm - Feb 27, 2013


Yes, but flip it the other way. Once LNS puts a quantum (remember that!) on the penalty if any (and assuming that one is deserved) CG can then make a decision if its a worthwhile investment. Say its a 50k fine. If I was CG I’d have that paid by 5.00pm just to prove that they are indeed the same club giving the bearz the hero “that saved wur club” they’ve been desparate for. He hasn’t been able to do that yet simply because he was scared of the consequences – albeit I bet he never for a second thought that they would all fall for the I bought the titles and the club cloud thingy just came along with it nonsense.

View Comment

chipsandblogPosted on7:21 pm - Feb 27, 2013


if RFC and TRFC are the same club then settle all debts.

how can they be they same.when they both existed at the same time.

Also, if the club is an entity that can be swapped between companies with no legal status, why are they being punished.

The company sanctioned the players, the ebts, fines were paid by the company.

the company and club are the same.

View Comment

thespecialswonPosted on7:25 pm - Feb 27, 2013


Rangers might be found guilty, but you can almost guarantee that nothing at all will happen, ultimately. Everything has been done to keep them alive and it was only fan-power that saw the new club emerge in SFL3, not the SFL1/SPL. When you consider that Ogilvie is the man who was on both sides of the Registration fiasco AND how frightened everyone in authority is of the mob, then it’s inconceivable that anything meaningful will occur.

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on7:29 pm - Feb 27, 2013


csihampden says:
Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 19:08
2 0 Rate This
A technicality that may be of interest (or not).
LNS has, within the SPL rules, the power to withdraw honours. However, also within those rules is the power to overturn/reverse results…

…LNS – can he then wash his hands of “title stripping” accusations, because he didn’t actually do that, he simply applied a sanction of result-reversal which is used throughout football?
===============================
Absolutely. But therein lies the rub. Stripping titles (without overturning match results) does not provide the league with a new champion club.

If LNS simply removes the honour of being declared champion club, Rangers would keep all their match results and remain (in the winning years) the club with the most points.

As far as I can tell LNS does not have the power to “award” forfeited titles to any other club and the rules only allow the title to be given to the club with the most points.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on7:40 pm - Feb 27, 2013


Just to be annoying… 😉

What if LNS announces tomorrow…that there is no decision !

What if he does attempt to link a decision to the FTTT appeal, [I know], – and states that he cannot make a decision until he is in receipt of the fully written up appeal decision – and that he has also had sufficient time to review those findings in detail.

That could kick any LNS decision into the long grass for a good while…whilst we will be pulling our hair out in frustration…

View Comment

neepheidPosted on7:46 pm - Feb 27, 2013


thespecialswon says:
Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 19:25
3 0 Rate This
Rangers might be found guilty, but you can almost guarantee that nothing at all will happen, ultimately. Everything has been done to keep them alive and it was only fan-power that saw the new club emerge in SFL3, not the SFL1/SPL. When you consider that Ogilvie is the man who was on both sides of the Registration fiasco AND how frightened everyone in authority is of the mob, then it’s inconceivable that anything meaningful will occur.
===========================

Spot on.If what happens tomorrow is seen as any sort of defeat for “Rangers”, then Green will appeal to- the SFA. That organisation did everything in its power (and a few other things besides) last summer to keep a “Rangers” playing in senior football. They are not going to suddenly act impartially now. So to my simple way of thinking, the result of any appeal by or on behalf of “Rangers” to the SFA is a foregone conclusion.

The interesting question is whether Ogilvie is now confident enough to sit on the appeal panel in person, or whether he will act through an intermediary. However, apart from their famous “dignity”, the main characteristic of “Rangers men” is a neck of solid brass. So I guess he’ll chair the appeal panel. You really couldn’t make this stuff up.

View Comment

barcabhoyPosted on7:47 pm - Feb 27, 2013


Below from the April 2012 SFA independent hearing. Notice the language used to describe the verdict. “Balance of probabilities”

Should the SPL enquiry use similar criteria, then does this make LNS job easier ?

The Tribunal held that it was proven upon a balance of probabilities that Rangers FC were in breach of Disciplinary Rule 2 as specified in the complaint.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on7:50 pm - Feb 27, 2013


If ‘guilty’ tomorrow it will be interesting to see how the MSM treat the story and how it compares with the ‘not guilty’ verdict of the FTTT

View Comment

neepheidPosted on7:54 pm - Feb 27, 2013


barcabhoy says:
Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 19:47
0 0 Rate This
Below from the April 2012 SFA independent hearing. Notice the language used to describe the verdict. “Balance of probabilities”
================
That is the test in all civil proceedings, including tribunals. The higher evidential test of “beyond reasonable doubt” only applies to criminal proceedings.

View Comment

angus1983Posted on8:05 pm - Feb 27, 2013


timalloy67 says:
Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 19:10

Now on to Young and his “kicking a team to death” No, Chick all most decent fans of every club(well maybe not Sevco) want is a FAIR decision tomorrow. If cheating has been PROVEN, then punishments must be forthcoming. Nothing more, nothing less.
——

An estimable sentiment, with which I quite agree.

If cheating is proven, I vote the punishment is to kick the “club” to death, rather than the team. That would be a bit over the top.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on8:11 pm - Feb 27, 2013


barcabhoy says:
Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 19:47

Should the SPL enquiry use similar criteria, then does this make LNS job easier ?
The Tribunal held that it was proven upon a balance of probabilities that Rangers FC were in breach of Disciplinary Rule 2 as specified in the complaint
===============================================
Agreed in theory the lower threshold should make LNS’ job easier.
However, over the last year, ‘on the balance of probabilities’ a reasonable person would also conclude that both the SFA & SPL have displayed corrupt behaviour – allegedly – in the pursuit of protecting one member club.
The fact that Ogilvie is still SFA President, whilst the SFA itself would hear any appeal is just absurd.
LNS’ job ‘should’ be simple – but as we have observed, anything to do with TRFC and the Scottish football authorities is never straightforward.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on8:36 pm - Feb 27, 2013


I’ve no doubt heard about it but had forgotten that LNS was involved in the Lockerbie business of the al-Megrahi appeal.

From my reading of events, I’m not convinced Scots justice had its finest hour during the trial of the accused. But I’m sure LNS is a man of independent mind and cannot be leaned upon to make politically expedient decisions.

View Comment

nostarsandbarredPosted on8:39 pm - Feb 27, 2013


angus1983 says:
Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 18:45
0 0 Rate This
Carfins Finest. (@edunne58) says:
Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 17:58

1. Was it not decided by an investigation instigated by the SPL that there was indeed a case to answer?
——

Yes, but that was effectively only to establish whether there may be evidence of wrongdoing (that hadn’t been shredded yet) or whether the whole thing would be thrown out on the first day of any hearing because it was obviously above board.

Evidently, some doubt was cast – or LNS and his chums wouldn’t have been commissioned to investigate further.

That doesn’t mean Rangers FC are to be found guilty, though – only that further investigations were a reasonable step to take.

============================

I think its really clear.

Here’s the detail below on Prima Facie day for the SPL, June 18 2012, categorically advising that “Disciplinary charges will be brought when the future status of Rangers FC is clarified and prior to the start of season 2012/13.”

Full Statement

————–
Press Statement ~ Rangers FC
At its meeting earlier today, the SPL Board considered a number of issues relating to Rangers FC.

EBT Investigation

The SPL Board heard a report from its solicitors following the investigation into payments to, or for the benefit of, players allegedly made by Rangers FC outside of contract.

The delay in concluding the investigation was caused by an initial lack of co-operation from Rangers FC.

The investigation has now been completed and, in the view of the SPL, there is a prima facie case to answer in respect of its Rules.

Disciplinary charges will be brought when the future status of Rangers FC is clarified and prior to the start of season 2012/13.

————–
End of Statement

And then ? Delay, after delay, after delay, then announcing an Independent Inquiry – complete nonsense IMO.

View Comment

Carl31 (@C4rl31)Posted on8:40 pm - Feb 27, 2013


Hirsute,
Ive added bold and italics in addition to your bold…

D1.13 A Club must, as a condition of Registration and for a Player to be eligible to Play in Official Matches, deliver the executed originals of all Contracts of Service and amendments and/or extensions to Contracts of Service and all other agreements providing for payment, other than for reimbursement of expenses …

As I read it…
Not only contractual, but also, all other …

so LNS does not need to consider whether payments are contractual or not. Contractual and other agreements that provide for payment are all included under the rule.

I guess he might maybe be looking at whether the payments were between Club and Player – in my view, yes – despite them going via MIH Trust and sub-trust. I guess some case could be made that the payments were not for footballing activities – but thats a long shot.
But maybe its an open and shut case.

View Comment

barcabhoyPosted on8:43 pm - Feb 27, 2013


the FTTT judgement was made on Findings of Fact and Finding of Law.

Crucially there was a finding that 5 players had bonus’ referred to in side letters which were paid via an EBT. Rangers conceded these were contractual and the tribunal instructed that all 5 cases were taxable at the level assessed by HMRC

Rangers blogs have put forward that these were termination payments. That is a deliberate misrepresentation . They were contractual bonus’ in a side letter. Should this information be put in front of LNS it would seem to be beyond any doubt of proof of guilt.

The deliberately deceptive nature of these actions should lead to very significant sanctions.

In my view this all comes down to the evidence provided by the SPL. They have had a long time to collate this. They will be well aware that failure to provide information and evidence, which was readily available to another tribunal (FTTT) , will bring criticism of incompetence and worse.

I dont believe that a firm of the experience and substance of Harper McLeod would be guilty of such incompetence

View Comment

Bill1903Posted on8:49 pm - Feb 27, 2013


No reports of increased security at Hampden tomorrow ???

That may change if thousands on bears decide to protest tomorrow

View Comment

scapaflow14Posted on8:50 pm - Feb 27, 2013


barcabhoy says:

Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 20:43

Very well put, both Mr Green and the football authorities have painted themselves into corners. I don’t see Lord Nimmo Smith giving either a route out at the expense of his reputation. The first statement of reasons contained some pretty strong stuff, I see no reason for doubting that this one will be any different.

View Comment

justpedylanPosted on9:16 pm - Feb 27, 2013


Regarding punishments. What was the 5 way agreement set up to do? Was it to establish (among other things) what sanctions would be acceptable to TRFC and therefore are the options already limited?

I know LNS did make his famous “independent” statement but what is he independent of? Are the sanctions available under the control of the SPL or SFA?

View Comment

AllyJamboPosted on9:22 pm - Feb 27, 2013


wottpi says:
Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 18:02

TRFC and Green might see it that way but would LNS? Could you imagine the fallout for him if he had disclosed to Green the result and it was later discovered that Green, or others in his cabal, had sold forward, or bought forward, believing that the result could affect the price? The result might not have a direct result on TRFC, but it will on their support, and it’s the support, or size of it, that gives TRFC their only chance of being a viable business. If RFC are found guilty, Green will have to claim TRFC are not a continuation of the old club to try to avoid whatever sanctions are placed on ‘the club’. That is bound to have an effect on the brand, while if they escape scot-free, there will be a huge boost to the brand. Put it this way, if you were a Law Lord, would you trust your reputation to a man like Charles Green?

View Comment

Long Time LurkerPosted on9:29 pm - Feb 27, 2013


Tweet from Alex Tomo

Alex thomson‏@alextomo

#c4news – to Glasgow tomorrow for Lord Nimmo Smith report into Rangers FC player payments – exonerated or 14 trophies lost?

Where did AT get the figure 14 trophies lost from – educated guess, factual or flying a kite?

View Comment

dentarthurdent42Posted on9:39 pm - Feb 27, 2013


I think it is worth bearing in mind that there are effectively two decisions to be made

1, Did Rangers cheat the rest of Scottish football

and if they did

2, What consequences / sanctions should they face.

Currently I am really only interested in number 1, confirmation that they cheated every other Scottish club, and clubs across Europe for years. That they lied to the Scottish football authorities, fielded ineligible players and cheated everyone else.

I will become concerned with point 2, as and when 1, has been established.

Tomorrow is a seminal moment in Scottish football. It will establish whether or not one of the clubs systematically cheated for years. How they are dealt with if they are found to have done so will reflect well or badly on the footballing authorities. Not Rangers themselves.

In a sense both Rangers and the Scottish football authorities are “on trial” here.

View Comment

AllyJamboPosted on9:54 pm - Feb 27, 2013


A small thought as we all await the verdict with bated breath. If it’s an important next 24 hours for us, think how it must be to be a Rangers supporter tonight! For us it’s a bit like Xmas Eve, but we’re not sure Santa got our letter: for the bears, it’s more like waiting on death row to hear if your appeal has been successful.

View Comment

Long Time LurkerPosted on10:02 pm - Feb 27, 2013


With credit to KDS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twOUAUKurFw&feature=player_embedded#t=11s

Very witty.

View Comment

FIFAPosted on10:05 pm - Feb 27, 2013


I see UEFA are flexing their muscle giving out bans,fines etc for clubs that their fans among other charges have been inciting racial abuse at opposing teams,just in case their heads are still in the sand I wonder if our msm hacks will ask them their thoughts on this and what would they do if it was to happen on their patch,
Oh look ,a squirrel named Vincent

View Comment

billyj1Posted on10:05 pm - Feb 27, 2013


Like everyone on here I eagerly await the decision of the LNS enquiry.
Be assured that ways will be found to ensure that no meaningful punishment will come the way of RFC(IA).
They are after all the establishment club, and to date the establishment, whether it be the SFA,SPL,SFL,Lord Hodge, Duff and Phelps, 2 out of 3 members of the FTT, and not forgetting our own MSM, have all done as much as they can to ensure the continuation of the WATP Club and Company.
In this sad country of ours nothing changes. It is ingrained into our society.
The Establishment will ensure their safe survival.
Things could have been so different if prompt firm action had been taken by some if not all of the above.

View Comment

Reilly1926Posted on10:07 pm - Feb 27, 2013


allyjambo says:
Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 21:54
=================

You’re totally correct. This might equal my Johnny 7 Gun Christmas Eve for a lack of sleep. (One for the teenagers)

View Comment

nowoldandgrumpyPosted on10:08 pm - Feb 27, 2013


5starsorbehindbars says:
Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 20:39
5 0 Rate This
angus1983 says:
Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 18:45
0 0 Rate This
Carfins Finest. (@edunne58) says:
Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 17:58

Disciplinary charges will be brought when the future status of Rangers FC is clarified and prior to the start of season 2012/13.
===============

IMO this part of the statement was for one purpose only, and that was to ensure a RFC membership was still in place in order that Sevco could have it transferred to them.

A decision could have been made at that point and found them guilty with the possible punishment of removing their membership of the SFA.

The delay could be for no other reason.

View Comment

* (@enmac75)Posted on10:10 pm - Feb 27, 2013


in my mind, one minute rangers(the original) will be stripped of titles, the next it will be “you are free to go” time does that

but one thing I think is for certain tomorrow is, there will be no sanctions against the rangers (the analogue copies) tomorrow. it opens up to many questions. questions I don’t even expect Charles green to ask, as it will ultimately solve the new club/old club conundrum ( with the former being the winner)

anyway. we will find out soon enough

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on10:13 pm - Feb 27, 2013


I would not be surprised if Will Smith emerged from SPL Offices in a black suit tomorrow at noon holding of them “forget what you saw” gizmoos and by tomorrow night we are blogging about Rangers celebrating winning the CL after winning their 10th title in a row.

View Comment

Reilly1926Posted on10:20 pm - Feb 27, 2013


Auldheid (@Auldheid) says:
Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 22:13

==============

Now you bring it up who would Mr Charles have to negotiate with to procure that 1997 title ?

Wim, The Bunnett or would we have to involve Jock Brown ?

View Comment

dedeideoprofundisPosted on10:22 pm - Feb 27, 2013


So, when the inevitable happens as most are expecting, will this blog be wound up after the wake?

View Comment

angus1983Posted on10:24 pm - Feb 27, 2013


Just to recap, here’s a legal definition of “prima facie” … I’d taken it, in my schoolboy Latin kind of way, to mean “a quick look” to see if it was worth proceeding. Turns out it’s a little bit more than that …

I realise that this is not a “legal” case as such, but the use of the term suggests that the SPL had the evidence, and that it was then up to Rangers (whichever version you prefer) to counter that.

“Prima Facie”: [Latin, On the first appearance.] A fact presumed to be true unless it is disproved.

In common parlance the term prima facie is used to describe the apparent nature of something upon initial observation. In legal practice the term generally is used to describe two things: the presentation of sufficient evidence by a civil claimant to support the legal claim (a prima facie case), or a piece of evidence itself (prima facie evidence).

For most civil claims, a plaintiff must present a prima facie case to avoid dismissal of the case or an unfavorable directed verdict. The plaintiff must produce enough evidence on all elements of the claim to support the claim and shift the burden of evidence production to the respondent. If the plaintiff fails to make a prima facie case, the respondent may move for dismissal or a favorable directed verdict without presenting any evidence to rebut whatever evidence the plaintiff has presented. This is because the burden of persuading a judge or jury always rests with the plaintiff.

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on10:28 pm - Feb 27, 2013


Tell you what would be VERY interesting tomorrow regardless of the outcome, if LNS makes it perfectly clear under the rules that TRFC are a new club and are not a continuation of RFC (IL)

ending the same club/different club debate stone dead.

I think such a statement would make punishing any entity a lot easier and would be without risk of any comeback from Sevco – as they would not be punished in any way at all.

I think this would be a bigger blow to Sevco and their fans than having a few titles removed.

View Comment

douglas reynholmPosted on10:33 pm - Feb 27, 2013


This is a forlorn hope but just want it to be about football after tomorrow. Rangers have had way too much exposure as it is. Let’s face it, without all the nonsense they’ve got 2 1/2 years of tedium ahead of them (maybe less, depends on how CG is managing the finances). What interest is there in them otherwise, they looked good beating Alloa 3-0???? CG’s plan is to keep the soap Opera going, it’s good for business.

I know a lot of you have suspicions on here but I don’t think LNS will be swayed by the likes of the SFA. There is clear precedent here, Spartans got booted out for not dating a form correctly(have always thought there must be more to this.). Even if they go on the EBT’s that were conceded, given the points totals that must result in a few titles not being won at least.

I think there is enough knowledge and diligence on this forum for us to know the rules were broken. I’ve just got a feeling this won’t result is league titles being lost tho. Would be funny if they just it in such a way that Rangers would only be punished if it was determined they were the same club!

View Comment

Carl31 (@C4rl31)Posted on10:41 pm - Feb 27, 2013


angus1983 says:
Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 22:24
3 0 i Rate This

Just to recap, here’s a legal definition of “prima facie” … I’d taken it, in my schoolboy Latin kind of way, to mean “a quick look” to see if it was worth proceeding. Turns out it’s a little bit more than that …

I realise that this is not a “legal” case as such, but the use of the term suggests that the SPL had the evidence, and that it was then up to Rangers (whichever version you prefer) to counter that.

——————————-

This goes a ways towards explaining the decision by CG to simply refuse to recognise the SPLIC jurisdiction.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on10:47 pm - Feb 27, 2013


Haud the bus!…….the pre notified date….the supposed earth shattering press release….the expected win by the establishment over the peasantry….Its not an enquiry at all, its a honey trap for our very own RTC! Don’t go, don’t go I tell you.

Or have I just been watching too many Robin Hood movies?

Bed time for me, I’ve an afternoon’s work to get finished by 12 noon!

View Comment

ianagainPosted on10:47 pm - Feb 27, 2013


I go back to the central tenent of the RTC argument winning the FTT argument (however fleetingly) means ergo you lose the double contract one. Both cannot live in the same space.
Bound to be guilty, however no idea what the punishment may be. None.

View Comment

iamacantPosted on10:51 pm - Feb 27, 2013


neepheid says:
Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 13:34
13 0 i
Rate This

madbhoy24941 says:
Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 13:21

The latest figures I can find-

http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/2012/news/circulation-figures-fall-for-scottish-papers/

And I’m guessing that the figures haven’t improved over the last 6 months.

———————————————————————————————————————
ANOTHER month and another set of declining daily and Sunday newspaer sales figures in Scotland – according to the Audit Bureau of Circulation.

And says the auditing body, several newspapers have once again suffered double-digit percentage drops in their sales performance, this time between January last year and last month.

Elsewhere, The Scottish Sun on Sunday has no year-on-year figure, having been launched less than 12 months ago. Its January average was 201,988, up on the average 197,319 for December.

Meanwhile, there are no longer monthly ABCs for either The Herald or the Sunday Herald following a decision in August for the papers to be part of the twice-yearly regional newspapers sales survey.

In summary, the daily newspapers figures – issued at midday – concern sales in Scotland between January last year and last month and reveal the following:

Daily Mirror – 8.4 per cent drop = from 22,609 on average in January last year, to 20,710 last month;

Daily Record – 8.6 per drop = from 264,737 on average in January last year, to 242,012 last month;

Daily Star of Scotland – 15.9 per cent drop = 61,932 to 52,069;

The Scottish Sun – 11.3 cent drop = 319,864 to 283,865;

Scottish Daily Express – 9.1 per cent drop = 60,986 to 55,436;

Scottish Daily Mail – 5.7 per cent drop = 109,933 to 103,611;

Daily Telegraph – 4.4 per cent drop = 19,446 to 18,587;

Financial Times – 17.4 per cent drop = 3,292 to 2,718;

The Guardian – 11.3 per cent drop = 12,477 to 11,066;

i – 29.9 per cent up = 14,177 to 18,418;

Independent – 49.9 per cent drop = 6,225 to 3,119;

The Scotsman – 17.5 per cent drop = 38,844 to 32,035; and

The Times – 1.2 per cent drop = 18,842 to 18,618.

Meanwhile, the Sunday titles’ sales figures in Scotland were as follows:

Daily Star of Scotland – Sunday – 49.8 per cent down = 57,939 to 29,077;

Sunday Mail – 21.9 per cent down = 357,724 to 273,510;

Sunday Mirror – 50.1 per cent down = 40,993 to 20,442;

The People – 50.2 per cent down = 22,634 to 11,261;

Scottish Sunday Express – 19.8 per cent down = 39,845 to 31,948;

The Sunday Post – 19.3 per cent drop = 215,861 to 174,115;

Scottish Mail on Sunday – 8.4 per cent down = 98,710 to 90,458;

Independent on Sunday – 13 per cent down = 6,488 to 5,644;

The Observer – 13 per cent down = 16,699 to 14,521;

Scotland on Sunday – 24.4 per cent down = 48,388 to 36,597;

Sunday Telegraph – 3.6 cent down = 16,794 to 16,194; and

Sunday Times – 7.9 per cent down = 52,670 to 48,473.

http://www.allmediascotland.com/press/45844/another-month-and-another-set-of-declining-sales-among-daily-and-sunday-newspapers-in-scotland/

View Comment

barcabhoyPosted on10:55 pm - Feb 27, 2013


The detail below show precisely how the sham worked. In essence the outline offer to the player “Mr Newport” was for £10k a week plus bonus. A fax was produced at the FTTT to that effect. ≺b≻The contract that arrived at the SPL/ SFA showed a weekly wage of £5,192. What never arrived at the SFA was the side letter , which arranged for the shortfall to be paid via the EBT. ≺/b≻

The player wasn’t a beneficiary in as much as he got the same after tax as £10k would have given him. The beneficiary was Rangers FC who saved close to £200k by hiding the full details of the payments from the SFA/SPL

The supplementary statement relates the details of a facsimile
dated 31 March 2004 from Mr Scarlet on behalf of Rangers to Mr Gloucester,
Mr Newport’s agent.
The content of the facsimile is as follows:

‘… Further to discussion this morning, I can confirm to offer the
following terms and conditions.
 2 year contract 2004/05 and 2005/06
 £10,000 gross per week
 £5,000 gross per competitive match played
 Relocation expenses of £8,000
 5% of gross salary will be paid as agent’s fee
Please sign below to confirm your acceptance.’ (9/79/0)
.
The facsimile was in effect an offer of terms and stipulated the amount on which
the agent’s fee would be based. The offer was ‘translated’ into two documents: an
employment contract with Mr Newport signed on 1 July 2004, and a side-letter dated
the same (9/79/1-2).

The terms of the signed contract and the side-letter gave effect to
the equivalent of gross weekly total of £10,000 in the following manner:
(i) Gross salary at £270,000 per annum, which equates £5,192 per week;
(ii) Remuneration trust payments: £300,000 over the two-year period,
which equates £2,885 per week;
(iii) Trust weekly payments grossed up with tax at 40% equate £4,808 per
week;
(iv) Gross weekly salary of £5,192 plus grossed up trust weekly equivalent
of £4,808 to arrive at the gross weekly total of £10,000.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on11:11 pm - Feb 27, 2013


Not The Huddle Malcontent says:

this lad from KDS thinks as you do.

http://kerrydalestreet.co.uk/topic/8781404/371/

“At the end of the day, i’ll be perfectly happy if LNS simply makes it clear that under the rules TRFC and RFC are different clubs

RFC had won 54 Scottish cup titles and died
TRFC have won the SFL reserve league title and thats all

He can state that RFC incorrectly registered players and he can recommend a punishment that sees results overturned/titles stripped/fines to reclaim prize money, hell even compensation claims – all against RFC 2012 now in liquidation – it’ll matter not a jot financially to RFC 2012 anyway. He might even recommend expelling RFC 2012 from Scottish Football altogether….fine

He then states that TRFC are not liable for any of the wrong doing and won’t be punished in any way

For me that is the cleanest thing possible

RFC 2012 can’t/won’t appeal, history will be corrected to show 49 titles and huge bragging rights to every other club in the land – a permanent stain on their history.
TRFC won’t be able to do anything as they haven’t been punished at all

the SFA won’t have to worry about them appealing, being fined, going to court etc

the old club/new club argument will be settled

if this happens, i donj’t even want the spl to give the titles to Celtic, i’d be happy enough to leave them on 49 titles, a record Celtic should overturn when TRFC finally get back into the SPL

Celtic would be the 1st to 50 titles – which would sicken them

TRFC would have zero titles, never mind not being “the most successful club in the world” they would be a complete non entity

all LNS has to do is confirm that TRFC are a NEW CLUB.”

View Comment

barcabhoyPosted on11:14 pm - Feb 27, 2013


Auldheid,

LNS seems to have already stated they are the same club

View Comment

dreddybhoyPosted on11:19 pm - Feb 27, 2013


barcabhoy says:
Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 23:14
0 0 Rate This
Auldheid,

LNS seems to have already stated they are the same club

=======

no what he has said is that the club is an ethereal entity, an undertaking, that although it is not a legal entity is capable of being bought and sold, presumably by buying the assets and callin yourself rangers. what i think he is getting at is that any sins of the club are the responsibility of the owner and operator whoever that may be

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on11:25 pm - Feb 27, 2013


Auldheid……lets just say i also post elsewhere.

View Comment

onceabhoyPosted on11:32 pm - Feb 27, 2013


One of the most disappointing aspects of the wait for the LNS findings is the apparent distrust felt by the ordinary fans throughout the game in Scotland. It seems many if not most distrust the SFA, the SPL and even the legal process. What does that say about the fans experience in this country?

Experience has made many cynical……..surprise, surprise! How many on here and other fan sites were incredulous after the FTT findings were made public? I would imagine even the followers of 1872 were taken aback given the evidence that had been put forward. It seems that we the ordinary people just don’t understand how the system works.

Tomorrow, we hope/expect for clarification on what we see as a foregone conclusion (apart from the wee seeds of doubt given what has oft been the case with regards to the establishment club) and a clear and precise worded document laying before us a catalogue of misdeeds with no precedent. Most of us believe that the 1872 club will be found guilty and shown to be the biggest cheats in Scottish sporting history. What chance that this part of history wasn’t part of Charlie’s deal along with the financial history? Who would want to lay claim to such history?

If/When guilt is declared there will be a backlash from the followers of 1872, not the many decent ones who will feel a sense of shame even though they themselves are innocent, but the traditionalist core who continue to shame the 2012 incarnation. There will be a PR assault blaming all and sundry. Others will be accused of chasing the club to the ends of the earth for vengeance.

My hope is that there will be a realisation that if the 1872 club is found guilty, it was the custodians at the helm during the years when the crimes were committed who killed a club. Not RTC, not Phil, not the fly kickers. Not even Craig Whyte.

Then again maybe they are innocent. Time will tell eh.

View Comment

nowoldandgrumpyPosted on11:38 pm - Feb 27, 2013


Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 22:28
4 1 Rate This
===============

I agree, that LNS saying they are a new club is far worse for them, as it would mean them accepting they have zero titles or trophies.

View Comment

roddybhoyPosted on11:46 pm - Feb 27, 2013


Hi everyone, long time lurker first post. Im actually very nervous about tomorrows LNS verdict. I truly believe that we have now reached a crucial crossroads in scottish football a watershed moment if you like.Every one and their granny know Rangers cheated on a GRAND SCALE and if a not guilty verdict is returned or further fudging of the whole disgaceful debacle is returned I am out of scottish football. I will never spend one single penny again on scottish football and I suspect there will be many many like me with the same opinion. I will not be part of a truly corrupt game . It will break my heart but all I and I suspect every other decent person wants is a honest open sporting competition , Is that too much to ask for. Apparantly in Scotland the answer up to now is yes. Please please give an honest verdict and maybe ( I know its a huge ask) even Rangers can get back on track, face up to what they have done and truly move on. I may be a dreamer !!!!!

View Comment

forweonlyknowPosted on12:08 am - Feb 28, 2013


Tomorrow:

1: SPL accounts alongside a new SP(F)L sponsor with some new vision for the future.

2: SFA to announce that Rangers and the top end of the game is not their remit.

3: LNS decides that he cannot decide and calls a ‘Not Proven’ and blames the SPL for it’s lack of clarity and guidance on the rulebook. Changes must be implemented into …

… the new Scottish Professional Football League set of rules/

Right folks time to move along!

or

Points 1 and 2 stand and point 3 becomes….

LNS: Old Rangers FC did bend and therefore break the rules but he believes that ONLY the old club can take the punishment (TBC). NewCo/NewClub (we’ll all know by that point) must move on with their new journey.

Right folks time to move along!

View Comment

SchneebPosted on12:18 am - Feb 28, 2013


Auldheid (@Auldheid) says: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 23:11

Not The Huddle Malcontent says

This is the only scenario that makes any sense to me. It will suit Green financially as newco is not oldco. He will have to back down on the ‘I bought the history’ nonsense – the bears will be furious but the decent ones will know this is the right answer – maybe the deluded will walk away as a result and Rangers can start afresh.

The rest of us will be happy that the oldco/newco distinction is clear and the new Rangers biggest claim to fame is being the highest paid squad in fourth tier football in the world … ever.

Who loses? The creditors of oldco …. but I doubt Charlie will worry too much about that as he plans his escape.

View Comment

paulmac2Posted on12:21 am - Feb 28, 2013


barcabhoy says:
Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 23:14

Auldheid,

LNS seems to have already stated they are the same club
……………………………

And the Old clubs Lawyers Barca stated to LNS the old club ceased to exist and therefore where not the same club…with the aim I assume to try and create the illusion that the history Charlie thinks he bought could be shielded from any punishment the LNS report may indicate…

So on one hand we have LNS attempting to keep the link active in order for any punishment to given to Charlie…and Charlies lawyers making the case they are a different club…

Now will Charlie be brave enough to go to CoS and have it confirmed they ceased to exist and are a different club…but that they somehow bought something you cannot buy?

I await the outcome with interest.

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on12:49 am - Feb 28, 2013


Auldheid (@Auldheid) says:
Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 23:11
0 0 Rate This
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:

this lad from KDS thinks as you do.

http://kerrydalestreet.co.uk/topic/8781404/371/

“At the end of the day, i’ll be perfectly happy if LNS simply makes it clear that under the rules TRFC and RFC are different clubs
========================
Unfortunately LNS has accepted – within his commission’s terms of reference – the “facts” as set out in the infamous 5-way agreement.

The 5-way agreement stipulates (and he has accepted) that Rangers FC – the “Club” – was purchased by Sevco from Duff & Phelps.

It is important to know that a “Club” in the SPL Articles & Rules is defined as:

…the undertaking of an association football club which is, for the time being, entitled, in accordance with the Rules, to participate in the League;

http://www.scotprem.com/content/mediaassets/doc/ARTICLES%20OF%20ASSOCIATION%20AS%20AT%2022%20OCTOBER%202012.pdf
and

…an association football club, other than a Candidate Club, which is, for the time being, eligible to participate in the League and, except where the context otherwise requires, includes the owner and operator of such club;

http://www.scotprem.com/content/mediaassets/doc/RULES%20EFFECTIVE%203%20DECEMBER%202012.pdf

Essentially, LNS suggests three things:
1. The relevant undertaking equates to the assets that Duff & Phelps sold to Sevco.
2. Sevco purchased the
undertaking, therefore Sevco purchased the “Club”.
3. TRFC Ltd as the new “owner and operator” have inherited an interest in the result of his commission’s deliberation into the conduct of the “Club”.

The various “charges” are directed at Oldco (the owner & operator) and Rangers FC (the “Club”) as separate entities.

This wheeze may allow him to “punish” the owner & operator for their deceit and simply apply the consequences of fielding ineligible players on the Club. But, if the commission have decided to fine the “Club” – as well as or instead of the owner & operator – the new club could (by virtue of the 5-way agreement) be held liable for the new football debts he creates.

Now, you will know that I consider the “facts” LNS relies on to be simply and demonstrably false; but these “facts” frame the proposition he has accepted from the start.

The irony is that whilst the SPL have manufactured a line of continuity between the old club and the new, the appeal from Newco (should it come) will be arguing the opposite.

NB: For clarity (I hope), I believe the LNS proposition falls at the first hurdle.

2. In these Articles:-
2006 Act means the Companies Act 2006 including any statutory modification or re-enactments thereof for the time being in force;

4. Unless the context otherwise requires, words or expressions contained in these Articles bear the same meaning as in the 2006 Act but excluding any statutory modification thereof not in force when these Articles or the relevant parts thereof are adopted.

http://www.scotprem.com/content/mediaassets/doc/ARTICLES%20OF%20ASSOCIATION%20AS%20AT%2022%20OCTOBER%202012.pdf

1161 Meaning of “undertaking” and related expressions

(1)In the Companies Acts“undertaking” means—
(a) a body corporate or partnership, or
(b) an unincorporated association carrying on a trade or business, with or without a view to profit.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/part/38/crossheading/meaning-of-undertaking-and-related-expressions

So the SPL Articles say that: “words or expressions contained in these Articles bear the same meaning as in the 2006 Act”

Since TRFC plc was incorporated in 1899, the only possible definition from the 2006 Act is that the meaning of “undertaking” in the SPL Articles (as it relates to Rangers FC) is “a body corporate”.

LNS’s asserts that the “Club” is the “undertaking” – which he says is the assets of the club purchased by Sevco.

The truth is that the “undertaking” is the “body corporate”. The “undertaking” of Rangers FC – as it existed in the SPL – is simply The Rangers Football Club plc(IL).

View Comment

BunionPosted on1:11 am - Feb 28, 2013


Perhaps I’m in the minority but I don’t really care what the punishment is.

If they are found guilty (and let’s face it, with the evidence from the FTT, Alex Rae, Billy Dodds, Jean Alan Boumsong, et al it would be hard to substantiate otherwise!), that would be a stain forever embedded with any club wishing to claim the historical name of Rangers.

I don’t think it should be underestimated the damage the charge of cheating in itself would have on Rangers/TRFC/Sevco (delete as appropriate).

Major sponsors would run a mile to ensure they are not associated with cheating on such a grand scale.

Every competition won under such circumstances would forever be tainted.

Never again would they be able to associate themselves with the word ‘dignity’.

Their fanbase will forevermore be open to the charge of cheating – devastating for any fanbase predicated on a basis of righteousness.

They will never ……. ever ……. again be able to operate from the moral high ground.

Whataboutery will be shut down with the simple claim, “at least we weren’t found guilty of cheating!”

Furthermore, this will be a judgement on the SMSM – how many times did we hear the phrase, “sitting on a story that will rock Scottish football to the core” without ever seeing the story before the “internet bampots” broke it?

It would be very difficult for the SMSM to prove to the rest of the population that they didn’t know what was going on all along when one considers the amount of succulent lamb consumed.

The simple declaration that they were consistently cheating …… nuclear!

View Comment

SeniorPosted on1:19 am - Feb 28, 2013


Appealing a decision is not so simple, it is a risky strategy. It is irrelevant whether you are unhappy with the decision or not, what matters is, was the process carried out according to the laid down rules and terms. If the process has been expedited according to the rules laid down then the big danger for the appellant is a much greater punishment being imposed.

View Comment

Leave a Reply