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.
So we now have 4 eminent experts saying EBT was a payment scheme versus 2 who said it was a loan scheme
Bunion
I would suggest that you may have this back to front.
The only time a ‘correct’ decision was taken recently by football was when the ‘smaller’ clubs fans exercised their football pound option and threatened to withdrawn it , and their chairmen took fright.
2 or 3,000 off the Celtic gate will not harm the club , 1,000 off the Motherwell season book sales or Dundee United will threaten their existence as a reasonably competitive club and will make the league an under-21 league.
If Celtic shout then we become the story and the DNA in Scotland kicks in, it is desperately disappointing that Dundee Utd come to Parkhead and ship 6 goals , what will happen in 2 to 3 years. The lack of vision in the SFA is killing the game , no one will plough money into the game with the current quality of SFA management , by saving Rangers they will drain support and the league will be in a slow burn collapse……… It is only the majority of the full time clubs that can sort this, it is fantasy to lay the problem / solution at Celtic’s door.
Today’s verdict. Guilty. Punishments non existent.
Rangers FC as they were always seemed to be the establishment club and always seemed to be favoured on and off the field by the MSM. The SFA seemed to also have a soft spot for them more than any other club. A reason for this may be due to the amount of ex rangers directors who had were employed at the SFA in high positions. The term paranoia was born. All other fans thought that sporting integrity would always prevail but still had a wee niggling feeling that Rangers were somehow treated more favourably than other teams.
I think of Rangers like the Mafia. The mafia in their early days were petty criminals who were outside the law. They grew and over time became very powerful. As their power grew they hired the best lawyers in the land and eventually their business became legal (Vegas as an example).
Rangers have followed a similar path. They had powerful ex members in the SFA and they seemed to have control of the MSM. So anyone question any thing against the club would be labelled paranoid.
Over the past 20 years Rangers grew in power and became the established club. Then the term EBT raised it’s ugly head (due to internet bambots) and the club were suddenly under pressure and scrutiny outwith the MSM.
But over the past 12 months and especially today has just confirmed all our paranoia has substance. Rangers like the Mafia are outwith the law and are IMO legally corrupt and are virtually untouchable.
We as fans held our own in the summer but now I am not sure what we can do. There was a term used in the past which became a book called “Scotland’s Hidden Shame”.
Today it is Scotland’s shame and it is not hidden.
I, like many others here, am in a state of shock.
I do have enough savvy left to make a small suggestionette if I may.
There are plenty on here who have, or are threatening to give up ST’s, sell shares, cancel subscriptions etc, myself included.
I think that these actions, whilst honourable, are futile unless it is made clear to the clubs and organisatons concerned exactly why you have decided upon this action.
The reasons must be made absolutely clear that the strength of feeling in the fan bases around the country is something that needs to be recognised.
I am sure that Celtic (eg) will be concerned if fans like Bawsbustedanatha and his son (29 years worth of ST’s) alongside the likes of Ismellafix (26 years) withdraw that revenue.
I am equally sure that they will be mortified when informed of the reason why.
Make them aware is my simple request.
Maybe then………….
Bunion says:
Thursday, February 28, 2013 at 23:21
Tank you Bunion. A decent response to my diatribe.
You suppose that your 40 years following Killie is ‘weighty’. I was at my first Celtic game in 1973, so I clock that milestone too. Kenny Dalglish played that day – where are his ilk?
Celtic have been a perennial whipping boy for the SFA/SL/SFL/ UEFA & FIFA, you name them ,we have challenged injustice. We were cheated in bright floodlight by rapid vienna and rangers and lost the challenge! What more can Celtic do. You need to tell your chairman to explain how he can have financial investments in one club and argue your case at court when that might be at odds with his investments!
Celtic are what they are. Beset of but deserving of a huge support ( smaller than Sevco of course) They were chastened themselves by near extinction and have, for the better part of the last 20 years operated within ever stricter financial controls. We have all seen, very recently how Celtic’s financial health ocillates around European competition.The current situation is not something Celtic, or their fans can do anything about. Perhaps, if the game here was more transparent, maybe if your Chairman was trully behind his own team would others invest in it. Leave Celtic alone.
I do not think checks and balances can ever be brought in, there is only one club that Ogilvie and co are intreseted in.
You would need to replace all 20 to 30 senior SFA and SPL management positions with a fans forum. You would need a mission statement that all clubs signed up to that banned bullying, threats , sectarian language.
If you went back 2 years it felt that every club was being hauled in front of the SFA when a manager or club representative said anything the governing body disagreed with. In the last year , silence, no matter what was said, sung, intimated.
how long are regan and doncasters contracts for ?
achillesacronym says:
Thursday, February 28, 2013 at 23:46
“The current situation is not something Celtic, or their fans can do anything about”
Ah, I get it, its a totally different Peter Liewell and Eric Riley who sit on the boards that Messers Doncaster, Ogilvy and Regan are responsible to. These doppelgangers are totally different from the Peter Liewell and Eric Riley of CFC.
Glad you cleared that up for me, FFS, Mr Liewell and Mr Riley are not solely responsible, but they, along with their fellow bord members st the SPL and the SFA have to shoulder some of the responsibility for this shambles.
ekbhoy says:
Thursday, February 28, 2013 at 23:41
Would, under normal circumstances, agree but it is now clearly evident that we aren’t operating under normal circumstances.
As you say, during the summer, it was the actions of the supporters which influenced matters with regards to TRFCs entrance level.
It has made no difference however to the power players such as CO, SR, ND, DL or JB.
For any real change to be affected these people have to go.
They can only survive with the tacit support of Celtic, and other clubs, representatives.
If you believe the other club reps will move without the full support of the Celtic reps, I would say you’re reaching for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
It’s simple, either Celtic (the club) want to affect change or they don’t.
Can you highlight anything that suggests the latter to be the case?
Barcabhoy. One word answer please. Is the nuclear info still relevant and damaging to RFC?
achillesacronym says:
Thursday, February 28, 2013 at 23:46
Perhaps I gave the impression that I was having a pop at Celtic the club, I wasn’t.
I was simply trying to highlight that they are currently the biggest game in town and, with that comes leverage. Leverage that isn’t available to any other club at the moment.
Be assured, there will be no change of governing bodies unless Celtic push for it.
As for Michael Johnstone, you have to believe me, he is as welcome at Rugby Park as Stephen Thompson is at Ibrox. The support is doing their utmost to oust him primarily as a result of his stance during the summer.
Funny thing is, it wasn’t the Killie fans who appointed him to the SPL board …… now who would have done that I wonder? Pretty sure some guy called Riley was involved!?
Still struggling with LNS’s view on the elligibility issue.
In his decision he states
“There may be extreme cases in which there is such a fundamental defect that the registration of a player must be treated as having been invalid from the outset.”
So if not declaring a third of your players salaries isn’t a fundamental defect or an extreme case then what the hell is?
“Over the years, the EBT payments disclosed in Oldco’s accounts were very substantial; at their height, during the year to 30 June 2006, they amounted to more than £9 million, against £16.7 million being that year’s figure for wages and salaries.”
As the law likes to deal in precidents then is not dating a second copy of a form and then having the postie fail to deliver a letter informing you of the error an extreme case?
The SFA appears to believe this was such an extreme case with a fundemental defect and ruled the Spartans player’ registration invalid at the outset.
However LNS says that as the defect of not declaring was not identified at the initial registration then the registration must be valid until revoked.
But I am still waiting for anyone to provide evidence there is actually a rule or process to deal with revocation of player registration at both SFA and SPL.
Until I see that then I hold LNS’s argument to be spurious and that SPL rule D1.11 and SFA article 12.3 still apply. In other words if there is not rule,or process to deal with revokng regisrations then the spirit of rule D1.11 and article 12.3 must take precidence as they are rules that actually exisit as opposed ot ones people may hope exist.
If anyone can find the revocation rule I would be most obliged.
Scapa
Where is the sense in what you are saying? Liewell who is he? Do you mean Celtic’s CEO Peter Lawell, ‘cos he is well known for having shares in St Mirren? And Eric Riley? Yip, worldwide finance dood with chips in ICT?? Is that what you are trying to argue? I’m a Celtic fan not an apologist. We have always been the club that are at odds with those and such as hose. Look at what our manager has gone through in recent times? Go and speak to your own club – get them sorted and square. Be honest, then come and tell Celtic what to do.
And while we are at it guys, mission accomplished for the GERS. We are now debating who we are instead of who they are and why they are here. Job done.
Bunion
Good points , your inference is that the Celtic board will sit tight until the OF brand returns
Celtic will longer term I believe want to move but I believe the current board want to shore up Scottish football not undermine it. At a sporting level , Celtic will want to wipe the floor with every record Rangers are claiming , so they will want Rangers weakened and to be honest cracking open the champagne every other Saturday in the boardroom at their demise, be in no doubt about that.
I agree that Celtic need to support a clear out but the fundamental problem is that the other clubs are happy to go along for the ride and have a strategy of feeding off scraps ……. There is a lack of vision , we are a backwater with our main sport being subject to ancient rules ….. those rules prevent Celtic taking the lead ,every fibre of the Celtic board and support will demand change but others will need to grow a pair …
Assertions I know , not possible to prove but hey I’m sure LNS could come up with something to fine us!
Final thought for tonight.
Despite Brenda having to stop her clock was the new kit deal not supposed to be announced at a time of the sponsors choosing so it would have an ‘impact’.
Today seems to be the day to bury bad news – like the kit deal it isn’t worth that much and is again probably tied into Mike Ashley who seems to have Charles by the short and curlies when it comes to negotiating commercial deals.
If it was for substantial cash then surely the time to announce it would be next week once the LNS chat had died down and two fingers could have been stuck up to one and all?
Afterall Charles knew LNS was going to publish today and the kit deal has been ‘good to go’ for the last few weeks. So why sneak out an announcement for a deal with an undisclosed sum earlier this evening?
Bunion says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 00:08
Celtic know where we stand Bunion and that has historicaly meant nothing. We also have the consumate capacity – to which all left wing working class scum are entitled – to get on a high horse with low aspirations from time to time. We play into their hands.
Celtic have no leverage. If you think we do you have fell for the one lie they always wanted you to fall for – we have power and we need to be watched. If we ever had any would the SFA have shafted us with Rapid Vienna, Jorge Cadette et-al- and got away with it, what about Dougie MacDonald?. How strong can Celtic be, when the establishment club has just walked away from £100M wrongdoings, inluding lawbreaking and rule breaking with a fine that no-one can pay. How worried were the SFA about Celtic’s reaction to that – they do not give a f***.
achillesacronym says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 00:14
Bloddy hell, spelling is definitely getting worse, of course I mean Mr Lawell. Both Mr Lawell and Mr Riley have done outstanding work at Celtic, however, their performance on the SFA and SPL boards has been less than stellar. I do respect your and other fellow celtic fans position that the right way is to be even stronger supporters of the club. I’m sorry, I can’t, despite following the team through thick and some pretty thin times since the early 1970s. To think that Messers Doncaster, Ogilvy and Regan, are a group of rogue operators, who hold their boards prisoner while they rampage about is an insult to my intelligence.
I am afraid that while Celtic have undeniably suffered on occaision, we are very much part of the system that has allowed, and to a large degree, engineered the current crisis. You may disagree, thats fine, but wholescale change there has to be, that ain’t going to happen as long the current incumbents sit comfortably around the tables in the Hampden board rooms
Achilles……
Brutally put, but nonetheless cuts to the chase.
Scapa.
I do believe you have been domesticated.
Nae luck. Some of us still feel the buzz in the gut at Millerston Rd.
You need to remember why you are a fan of Scottish Football at all – as opposed to an observer.
Scapa….
Tomorrow’s headline , “Celtic Board win full support and radically reform Scottish football” , I believe you are being toooooo logical, in much the same way that well known posters were praising LNS prior to todays establishment whitewash…
Nite all
Needed to be said Ekbhoy.
achillesacronym says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 00:29
Again not seeking to have a pop but, isn’t that a defeatist attitude?
Effectively you’re advocating the continuance of the status quo even though the status quo adversely affects your own club.
Change CAN be affected but ONLY if Celtic lead the way. ekbhoy is right to state that others need to show some courage and work alongside Celtic however, ONLY Celtic can lead that process.
If, as you say, Celtic are powerless then you are basically accepting that the game is Rangers to do with as they please.
Is this really what should be settled for?
5stars then – oh well, there’s always the UTT – I feel that I have to sign off on this blog name however 🙁
As a parting shot, I’d like to say that I am proud of the SYFA for upholding their rules and applying the appropriate punishment to a team where a single minor administrative error was made for one player, by banning the whole team from 2 competitions, and considering the docking of league points – an outstanding achievement. If only that club were in a position to ask for an “independent” inquiry into the affair… you never know what the outcome might be. As it is, justice is seen to be done… aye, right.
Thanks to RTC and TSFM for all the efforts, and the numerous contributors – its been an education for me – best regards to all
Oh, and its NoStars from now on…. the Old Club have been fined £250k… that will be the Old Club that won those titles then.. the New Club don’t have any… isn’t that right ?
I am the least able Celtic fan to get all ‘rebelious’ as it where. Scottish Football needs to be honest in the first instance.
Celtic have been shafted far too any times already – at least another 5 today, another world record for Sevco if they want it! Too many people watched and laughed – the broken crest, 9 hours from death – not this garbage that they have had, we were going to be foreclosed! No-one piped up.Celtic are too self sufficient to worry now – open your eyes, everyone thought they had got Celtic under the screw, they backed SDM and his policies. Sevco hit the deck, Celtic are left standing and oh, now we have to go back and sort it all out while your Chairmen are burning old share certs??
Settle for what you will – I would suggest the best place for that to start is to go back and ask the SFA to reconsider this Sevco malarky!
barcabhoy says:
Thursday, February 28, 2013 at 23:39
Reading this excerpt of his decison
“The relevant SPL Rules were designed to promote sporting integrity, by mitigating the risk of IRREGULAR payments to players. Although the payments in this case were NOT themselves irregular and were not in breach of SPL or SFA Rules, the scale and extent of the proven contraventions of the disclosure rules require a substantial penalty to be imposed.”
it seems to me LNS appears to have accepted the FTT ruling that payments were not “irregular” but has imposed a fine for non disclosure of what must then be “regular” payments.
If on appeal the payments are deemed irregular, does that negate basis of LNS’s judgement and revive the charge that Rangers did in fact cheat HMRC and Scottish Football?
If linkage to the FTT exists through LNS judgement then the cheating allegation still depends on the final outcome at UTT.
When I say depends I mean as a counter argument to those that say officially no cheating took place, the same folk who say ebts were not and are not illegal after the FTT ruled and ignore the UTT.
achillesacronym says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 01:11
” Scottish Football needs to be honest in the first instance.”
Wholeheartedly agreed.
But it currently isn’t. And to lay the blame for that at the door of all other clubs is unfair.
Teaching grannies (grandad maybe?) to suck eggs here I know but, the founding basis of Celtic was very much one of inclusion, leadership and brotherhood.
Characteristics that are very much required for the Scottish game to heal itself.
Your club’s time has come ….. the time for silence has passed. Either the club abides by it’s founding principles or it knuckles down under Rangers control of the game?
I’m truly sorry to have to say that but that’s the current reality that we all face.
I honestly wish it were not so.
Bunion says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 00:58
By and large I think it fair to say that no club can now ask their supporters to pay to watch a competition where governance is no longer trusted and there is no faith in the integrity of the competitions. This argument has equal weight for all clubs including The Rangers. Celtic though, with the biggest support in the SPL have the biggest problem but also the greatest leverage.
They were on the point once in 2010 of asking for an independent/judicial review (or a similar term) of the SFA (around Dougiegate time) but elected not to do so and instead made a deal with Regan that to be fair he delivered on in terms of a new disciplinary process and removal (although through circumstance) of Dallas.
The goodwill the SFA earned from those changes has gone and now would be a good time to demand an enquiry into the purpose and fitness of structures for that purpose of the SFA as well as removal of Ogilvie, Regan and Doncaster.
A statement of no confidence in the SFA from all clubs, but particularly Celtic could not be ignored.
Scottish football can never move on until those in charge of its direction know in which direction to take it.
Bunion says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 01:28
I don’t imagine Celtic would have a problem with that, but, how do you get the ball rolling. It will only succeed if the other clubs say what is what and start pushing. Remember why this conversation is happening.
Auldheid (@Auldheid) says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 01:16
Auldheid, a bit of pedantry I know but, EBTs were never illegal. It was the administration of the EBTs that was in question.
If the EBTs could be found to be subject to anything other than non-contractual, discretionary payments then they become illegal.
With LNS now having confirmed the funds set out within the side letters as ‘payments’ primarily associated with, and for, footballing services, well ….. kinda undermines the majority FTTT decision which deemed them to be discretionary loans.
SDM’s rapid response seems to recognise this also.
Could yet be a sting in the tale for RFC (IL). No impact on the new club TRFC mind you 😉
Auldheid (@Auldheid) says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 01:33
achillesacronym says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 01:33
Very happy to agree with you both here. Would also predict that the solidarity shown last summer is still simmering under the surface.
Love him or loathe him Charles Green has shown leadership in defence of TRFCs position throughout these last few months. Can the same be said of those on the other side of the coin?
If we are to succeed in the quest for true justice there needs to be a figurehead with comparable exposure to that of Charles Green.
We must first establish who that would be and hope, thereafter, that they accept the challenge.
Any candidates?
Perhaps following the LNS decision we should adapt the TSFM website – to follow a more ‘honest’ sport?
A suggestion could be ‘The Scottish Harlem Globetrotters Monitor’, or ‘The Scottish WWF Monitor’? At least we would know exactly what we are getting, what we are paying for – and what the results will be.
On a slightly more serious note, IMO, the whole TRFC/SFA/SPL debacle is abhorrent to the typical footie fan because we still have a deep seated sense of ‘fair play’ in British sport.
That is why we wince when we watch truly talented players – like Drogba and Suarez – fall about at the slightest contact. We are embarrassed for them.
Regardless of the legal/tax law/SFA/SPL rules and regulations most observers would say that there is a distinctly bad smell wrt how TRFC has been dealt with in the last year. The LNS decision is just another, even lower point in Scottish football.
The SFA/SPL was viewed with mistrust by most – even before LNS announced his ‘interpretation’.
It is arguable that attendances would be falling anyway across Scotland due to the economic climate. The SFA – as supposed protector and developer of football in Scotland – is simply accelerating the decline via its own incompetence.
…and Ogilvie is STILL SFA President.
achillesacronym says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 01:33
Bunion says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 01:28
I don’t imagine Celtic would have a problem with that, but, how do you get the ball rolling. It will only succeed if the other clubs say what is what and start pushing. Remember why this conversation is happening.
Charles Green got the response required from his fans by simply mentyioning the word ‘Bogitry’
Maybe if Peter Lawell were to mention the word ‘Corruption’ then this may have the desired effect.
A £250K fine for poor administration, is that correct ?
If so
1. If the company Rangers1872 is in liquidation who pays the fine, is is Rangers 2012 ?
2. What are the consequences if it’s not paid ? If it’s Oldco it surely cannot be paid
3. The chap was was responsible for the poor admin is he not currently responsible for the poor admin at the SFA?
Green now claiming he didn’t sign the 5way agreement? And Ally is so pleased that they have been vindicated??? They were found guilty weren’t they, even though the got off as the peepil are saying…… Pathetic. Ogilvie/ Doncaster/Regan/Longmuir out. They got their wish with something else yesterday too…… But he will be back!,,, 🙂
Bunion
Yep. Perhaps irregular is a better term than illegal but has LNS left his findings a hostage to UTT fortune is my question.
Not that it will matter when that process is complete, fans on both sides have made up their minds.
What matters now is an enquiry into the workings and structures of the SFA to identify where they failed.
If the SFA say they depend on trust then by not disclosing the side contracts Rangers broke that trust and with it the trust system.
What safeguards will SFA introduce to cover themselves and is £250k fine a big enough deterrent to disuade clubs from taking the risk?
The Bryson evidence. Does it remind anyone of the introduction of “evidence” by Callum Murray in defense of serious charges against Diouf and Bougherra when their prolonged absence would have put Rangers at a sporting disadvantage?
Does the Bryson evidence align with FIFA rules or do local associations have discretion to change FIFA rules or they more guidelines than rules?
briggsbhoy
7:05
Presumably the fine will be added to the pot to be distributed among creditors, repaid at 4p in the pound or whatever, so in effect a combination of (mostly) written off and (the rest) paid by the creditors. Please someone tell me that’s not the case
Today’s weather forecast – bright in the west for a short period, gloomy in the east with the cloud lifting slowly as the depression moves back again to the west.
shield2012 says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 07:32
On one hand people are saying TRFC should have been treated the same way as Spartans, but on the other, they are saying how it was a disgrace that Spartans were expelled from the Scottish Cup. Also, nobody is calling Spartans cheats.
Could that be considered a contradiction?
………………………………………………………………
No, more like
a precedent,
one rule for one, one rule for others
taking decisions without “frear or favour” (against the mighty spartans)
It just goes to prove they are a shower of cowards and not fit for the job WE employ them in, if this had been any other team in the country there would never have been an independant enquiry in the first place.
They were terrified to follow their own rules and use precedent, thats why it was passed over the the so called independant panel, who with limited information and no precedents to consider found it easy to again let Rangers do “walking away”
shield2012 says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 07:32
0 0 Rate This
paulmac2 says:
Thursday, February 28, 2013 at 22:08
27 1 i
Rate This
shield2012 says:
Thursday, February 28, 2013 at 17:22
paulmac2 says:
Thursday, February 28, 2013 at 17:14
shield2012 says:
Thursday, February 28, 2013 at 16:52
timalloy67 says:
Thursday, February 28, 2013 at 16:18
” But LNS confirmed in writing RFC DID CHEAT”
————–
No they didn’t!
………………
What is your definition of deliberatly witholding details of
contractual payments to a player when the regulations that
govern world football clearly states they must be declared before the player is eligable to play professional football for the club in question?
————-
I think it’s been well documented – it was an administrative
error. Cheating is acting dishonestly to gain an advantage. They might have acted dishonestly but there was no advantage.
………………………………………………………………
You contradict yourself dear chap in your stretching efforts to
condone Rangers Football Clubs dishonest efforts to conceal
player payments…
As you state…’they might have acted dishonestly’….dishonesty in sport?….it’s known as cheating to anyone with an ounce of
honesty!
LNS may have delivered the verdict he was guided to by the SFA…
BUT ITS CHEATING…YOU KNOW IT AND I KNOW…and the SFA had an industrial size mess to deal with if LNS had removed titles….I guess that will explain their guidance to LNS..
Administrative error?…makes no difference it still does not
comply with the regulations as set out by FIFA…the players were ineligable…the SFA are in breach of the FIFA regulations…
————–
On one hand people are saying TRFC should have been treated the same way as Spartans, but on the other, they are saying how it was a disgrace that Spartans were expelled from the Scottish Cup.
Also, nobody is calling Spartans cheats.
Could that be considered a contradiction?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Spartans are not being called cheats because theirs really was an administrative ERROR with NO INTENTION TO DECEIVE.
Rangers DELIBERATELY pursued a course of action that was DESIGNED with the INTENTION TO DECEIVE.
The only contradiction is the different way the two clubs have been dealt with.
Good piece this:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/michael-grant-on-rangers-verdict.20381009
From this position, the SFA have only one choice – dig deeper or resign.
Either way, it’s only a matter of time.
Advice? Be patient. By itself, it will suffice.
Why don’t NHS Scotland put their whole budget into an off-shore trust and pay their staff through an EBT ? Be upfront about it, tell them they’ll pay part of their salary through a loan scheme, you don’t pay as much tax, no secondary authorities you need to register with, no-one is losing out ( except the treasury but no worries there they really are sheep in sheep’s clothing , unless your a small business whereby they turn into great feckin monster, awe teeth and claws and stuff ), your not gaining any advantage over anybody else cause everyone is being paid the same way. I am reminded of a song over thirty years ago but I cant rember the exact name of the song, The Stranglers I believe, I think it was called No More Morals Any More.
Posted this on CQN but wish to repeat it here as I know that there are a few people who I consider appropriate who read this site.
Mr Bryson’s effectively said to the tribunal “It doesn’t matter what you do as we have already decided to let them off when they appeal”
Is there absolutely no-one in any position of influence prepared to challenge this?
Danish Pastry says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 07:58
0 0 i
Rate This
Good piece this:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/michael-grant-on-rangers-verdict.20381009
______________________________________________________________________________
Thank you DP
Michael Grant’s other piece in todays Herald is also well worth reading, as is also the article by his colleague, Hugh McDonald.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/murray-culpable-as-club-found-guilty-of-non-compliance.20383098
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/hugh-macdonald-on-rangers-verdict.20383018
shield2012 says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 07:32
On one hand people are saying TRFC should have been treated the same way as Spartans, but on the other, they are saying how it was a disgrace that Spartans were expelled from the Scottish Cup. Also, nobody is calling Spartans cheats.
Could that be considered a contradiction?
………………………………………………………………
Not really. Rangers are analagous to Lance Armstrong – systemic, deliberate contravention of the rules, know in every (other) sport as cheating. Spartans are more like Alain Baxter – an accidental error put them outside the rules, and they had to take the consequences.
Lord Wobbly says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 07:55
2 0 Rate This
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Spartans are not being called cheats because theirs really was an administrative ERROR with NO INTENTION TO DECEIVE.
Rangers DELIBERATELY pursued a course of action that was DESIGNED with the INTENTION TO DECEIVE.
The only contradiction is the different way the two clubs have been dealt with.
————
Indeed M’Lud, well put.
Be interesting to find cases where clubs have been dealt with leniently. There must be others, surely? In recent years though, all we’ve heard about is clubs being given the bum’s rush.
On another subject the 12-team Danish Superliga starts tonight after a long winter break. And some financial jiggery-pokery making the headlines here today via Brondby and FC Nordsjælland. Brondby’s director is demanding the names and faces of supposed new investors, after recent financial turmoil. And FC Nordsjaelland’s current owner, who pays himself £220,000 a year, is in the middle of a court case where the prosecution wants his purchase of the club to be reversed because they believe it was sold drastically under market value. It’s also suggested that last year’s CL money be used to pay off creditors from the previous bankruptcy. He ‘bought’ the club at a knock-down £50,000. However, since he seems to have sold it to himself via another company, his purchase can be viewed as a ‘gift’ to himself and that’s a no-no. It’s hoped to reverse the purchase and put the club’s shareholding on the open market. The wheels of justice move slowly though.
Spartans are not being called cheats because theirs really was an administrative ERROR with NO INTENTION TO DECEIVE.
Rangers DELIBERATELY pursued a course of action that was DESIGNED with the INTENTION TO DECEIVE.
The only contradiction is the different way the two clubs have been dealt with.
——————–
Perhaps you can explain why RFC would want to deliberately deceive the SFA? What they were doing wasn’t wrong or as far as we’re aware anyway.
Comparisons to Lance Armstrong are absurd btw.
Can I just say, I was willing to accept the ruling if they were to be stripped of titles why is nobody willing to accept it in reverse?
The mantra from the dark side – Time to move on.
Like the guy next door who rapes your sister and who gets off in court, then knocks on your door and says ‘Time to move on’.
To them I say, you can move on if you like, you might even want to move away.
Just don’t think for a minute the old order is back in place.
It has gone forever.
Slavery to the ‘establishment’ has been abolished – forever
“Lord Nimmo-Smith’s judgement is so extraordinary and bizarre it simply can’t pass without comment.”
View of Wings Over Scotland
http://wingsland.podgamer.com/nimmo-smith-for-dummies/#more-30268
shield2012 says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 08:45
Spartans are not being called cheats because theirs really was an administrative ERROR with NO INTENTION TO DECEIVE.
Rangers DELIBERATELY pursued a course of action that was DESIGNED with the INTENTION TO DECEIVE.
The only contradiction is the different way the two clubs have been dealt with.
——————–
Perhaps you can explain why RFC would want to deliberately deceive the SFA? What they were doing wasn’t wrong or as far as we’re aware anyway.
Comparisons to Lance Armstrong are absurd btw.
Can I just say, I was willing to accept the ruling if they were to be stripped of titles why is nobody willing to accept it in reverse?
__________________________________
I don’t think ‘nobody’ is willing to accept the decision: as I’ve said before, it appears LNS could come to no other outcome given the advice offered.
Oldclub did try to deceive the SFA: LNS also outlines this, thus I can’t understand why you ask your initial question.
Anyway, the way out is perhaps this: that other clubs and supporters continue to emphasise that Green’s team is a new team, one which actually doesn’t hold all the history of the Oldclub which played out of Govan. In truth, Green is selective on what history he wants to claim anyway, as I’ve not seen him jumping forward to pay the quarter of a million fine. Get rid of the oldco/newco nonsense, it’s a new club playing at Ibrox, and we should be concentrating on that, and on removing Doncaster, Regan, Ogilvie and Longmuir from their positions of power (abuse).
is the 250k not now a “football debt” and therefor has to be paid by CG because of the 5way agreement which involved the many versions of rangers
Shield, the difference between you and other and you see getting away with it as innocent.
you see no moral issues in not paying tax.
RFC have not been punished at all, they were/are being liquidated.
You have a new club called The rangers in division 3 , be thankful that you now should have a debt free new club.
The fall in attendances is not because your new club is not in the SPL, it is the disgust at the way our authorities have failed to govern.
shield2012 says:
Perhaps you can explain why RFC would want to deliberately deceive the SFA? What they were doing wasn’t wrong or as far as we’re aware anyway.
Comparisons to Lance Armstrong are absurd btw.
Can I just say, I was willing to accept the ruling if they were to be stripped of titles why is nobody willing to accept it in reverse?
More nonsense from a Sevco Fan who clearly hasn’t read the finding see below
there was a blatant attempt to deceive as they were concerned about the legality of their tax wheeze , see below
The evidence of
Mr Odam (cited at paragraph [43] above) clearly indicates a view amongst the management of
Oldco that it might have been detrimental to the desired tax treatment of the payments being
made by Oldco to have disclosed the existence of the side-letters to the football authorities.
[108] Given the seriousness, extent and duration of the non-disclosure, we have concluded that
nothing less than a substantial financial penalty on Oldco will suffice
shield2012 says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 08:45
The reference to Armstrong was an analogy, not a comparison. Analogy is useful to understand and explain by reference, it isn’t supposed to prove or demonstrate anything. If it’s not useful to your understanding of why there is a difference between the two cases, then discard it.
The factual part of my point – systemic, sustained and deliberate versus unique and accidental – remains.
shield2012 says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 08:45
Can I just say, I was willing to accept the ruling if they were to be stripped of titles why is nobody willing to accept it in reverse?
First, some posters here are willing to accept it – they have used words like reasoned and balanced. Not many, though. There were some posters who said, on Wednesday evening, that LNS was a fine upstanding judge who could be trusted to do the right thing. You could address that question to them. Those of us who gave an cynical laugh at that ludicrous notion, really don’t have to accept his bad, dishonest, corrupt judgement.
All a figment of our imaginations apparently. They were found guilty of rule breaking and withholding information, only debating point what was sort of punishment could be legally applied to them…..but yeah appart from that completely innocent and victimsed. Lets see how many sponsors want to be associated with this new whiter then white Rangers….
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/keith-jackson-neil-doncaster-stewart-1736864
shield2012 says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 08:45
Spartans are not being called cheats because theirs really was an administrative ERROR with NO INTENTION TO DECEIVE.
Rangers DELIBERATELY pursued a course of action that was DESIGNED with the INTENTION TO DECEIVE.
The only contradiction is the different way the two clubs have been dealt with.
——————–
Perhaps you can explain why RFC would want to deliberately deceive the SFA? What they were doing wasn’t wrong or as far as we’re aware anyway.
Comparisons to Lance Armstrong are absurd btw.
Can I just say, I was willing to accept the ruling if they were to be stripped of titles why is nobody willing to accept it in reverse?
———————————————–
Why is it so difficult for you to accept that in real terms Rangers (in both the tribunal and the FTTT) “got away with it” on a technicality. By all means do a Chris Graham and go round with a smile like a Cheshire cat but don’t try and insult our intelligence with this “Rangers are innocent” guff. Any sane person looking at the evidence would come to the conclusion that Rangers were guilty. This whole farrago just proves that our laws are not fit for purpose.
manandboy says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 08:19
1 0 Rate This
Thank you DP
Michael Grant’s other piece in todays Herald is also well worth reading, as is also the article by his colleague, Hugh McDonald.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/murray-culpable-as-club-found-guilty-of-non-compliance.20383098
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/hugh-macdonald-on-rangers-verdict.20383018
————
Cheers manandboy,
It’s a ‘help-ma-boab’ moment when a sporting organisation would seek to defend obvious rule infringements by this type interpretation. The logic must be that if the SFA rubber stamps an incorrect registration, even one achieved through deliberate deception, then it becomes automatically correct for all eternity! Pure magic.
“It had been widely suggested that failure to disclose all payments to a player would mean he was incorrectly registered, potentially invalidating dozens or potentially hundreds of Rangers results. But the SFA head of registrations, Sandy Bryson, gave evidence to the hearing which clarified that any player, once registered with the SFA, remained so until that registration was revoked. Even if a player continued to play while payments to him were undisclosed, his registration was not regarded as invalid.”
Just as well the SFA disnae rule in cases of bigamy 😀
EKbhoy
The tribunal panel were and are above reproach. The issue rested solely on the evidence of Bryson.
His evidence categorically said in laymen’s terms, “it’s too late, we can’t do anything about the registrations now”
He said, again in laymen’s terms ” once you accept a registration, it’s accepted . Finding out you broke the rules to get the registration in the first place, isn’t a reason to take action now”
That is the only reason that Rangers still have their titles today. The evidence of one individual, an “expert witness” , superseded mountains of evidence of rule breaking .
The fact that this witness was an SFA official with previous involvement in a regIstration scandal which cost an SFA CEO his job because of bias against Celtic is maybe coincidental.
However, the fact that the SPL lawyers didn’t have their own expert witness from UEFA to provide the higher authority view, as in the Sion case, seems to lack preparation.
I believe if an expert witness had said ” of course it’s possible to take retrospective action, as happened in the case of Sion having their players accepted to play in the Swiss Championship and Europa League initially, and then having a 0-3 result ordered after it was confirmed the registration broke rules” then LNS and his colleagues would have issued Sporting Sanctions
Having spent a working life working with many, many very well-educated, well-qualified people, I often found that a large proportion of them hadn’t an ounce of common sense. This view was somewhat consolidated yesterday on reading the woefully wacky judgement that came out of the LNS Comission. I fail to understand how such a well-qualified triumvirate couldn’t cobble together a more sensible decision, since the one they made seemed more fit for the Wonderland inhabited Alice and her friends. How could such well-educated, experienced people come to such a bizarre decision? The question is, of course, rhetorical.
This morning I have awoken in a more phlegmatic but charitable frame of mind re yesterday’s goings on. Two questions spring to mind as I muddle through my breakfast……’Will or can the SPL actually accept or ratify the ludicrous LNS Comission’s decision?’ and ‘Will the good ship UTT sail in like the cavalry and blow all this nonsense out of the water?’ Unfortunately, I only hold out hope for the latter.
Danish, a commendation to you for all your observations from afar on all that has happened with regard to the Rangers saga.
We now have in Scottish football a severely toxic landscape which the authorities have created through dreadful decision making.
The fall out will continue for years and it is far from pleasant.
As a young lad too many years ago I used to have faith in adults. By and large I expected them to act as, what would generally be considered in current parlance, forces for good. There were bad adults of course. The name Harry Roberts for example would send a chill down my young spine, a bogeyman as evil as any villain in fiction, who in my worse nightmares was breaking into our house as I lay in bed at night (this notorious murderer has been in in prison since 1966). But by and large adults were the good guys, whether politicians, policeman, judges, doctors, you get the picture.
Developing a certain world weary cynicism seems to be one of the less attractive facets of adult life. I can’t provide a definitive order in which the scales fell from my eyes. Politicians… where do you start when supposedly upright figures turn out to have feet of clay. Maybe the Jeremy Thorpe / Norman Scott trial lampooned by Peter Cook? Any number of scandals since with the ultimate perhaps the MPs expenses scandal, but whatever all politicians were pretty damned in my eyes over the years, any original noble intentions to better the common good all too easily diverted into self interest and career advancement as they climbed the greasy pole. Leading business figures? Big banks turned out to be led by those with serious psychological flaws that made them both more likely to succeed to the top and to make serious mistakes once there, as their runaway egos countenanced no dissent, however wise it may have been.
So this sorry tale goes on. Doctors could surely be trusted… Dr Shipman is ready to see you now. Leading church figures, Journalists. I now refer to a Frank Bough moment. Bough was for me a man who had oozed integrity, the uncle figure who you would trust right until you found out he was snorting cocaine and visiting brothels.
So too with justice. It should be done and seen to be done, is that nor right? Or not. Take O J Simpson. Was the verdict about innocence or guilt or about how having enough money could ensure the “right” verdict.
I think of sport as one area where we still like to think there is an opportunity for a pure form of human nobility to shine, integrity and honest endeavour untainted by the grubbier world of corruption, cheating, political mendacity that seems to be an unavoidable companion in so many other areas of our life, thus leading to even greater disappointment if we find the truth is to the contrary.
When we sit at a football match supporting our team, to me it harks back to childhood days, to a simpler world, where the objective is relatively simple and achieved by skill and ability. But if there is a sense that all that we seek to escape, politics, corruption, rule bending and breaking is in fact an unwelcome feature of our sport after all, then it undermines the whole essence of sporting endeavour and what we look to enjoy with it. We start to wonder, in the words of Craig Levein after the McCurry game, what is the point in turning up?
Page after page of well written legal decisions going through a forest of trees, complexity, legal nuances, can easily lead one to lose sight of the great big wood that is actually there. With the FTT decision a focus on form, on the nominal rules around the “loans” made, led to the absurd majority decision that these were actually loans which could be repaid, a process assisted by a highly skillful and highly paid QC, Andrew Thornhill, when common sense, as documented in the minority decision clear led to the opposite conclusion, that loans that have not been repaid and where there is no intention to repay them are not loans!
Yesterday we had another ludicrous form over substance decision, that if a document was lodged to register a player and all parties accepted that the player was validly registered then the player was in fact validly registered unless and until that registration was revoked, even though there were no rules in the SPL rule book for such a revocation. If there was a fundamental defect in the registration at the outset (presumably a missing signature for example?) that would be a problem but not a failure to lodge a document concerning irregular payments to a player. Yet in the evidence we hear that:
“Mr McKenzie explained to us that SPL Rule D1.13 had hitherto been understood to mean
that if, at the time of registration, a document was not lodged as required, the consequence was
that a condition of registration was broken and the player automatically became ineligible to play
in terms of SPL Rule D1.11. ”
IF that was what the rule was understood to mean and that was consistent with the lack of a revocation provision in the SPL provisions, why did the LNS feel obliged to come to a different interpretation that no one had held before?
[88] In our opinion, this was a correct decision by Mr McKenzie. There is every reason why
the rules of the SFA and the SPL relating to registration should be construed and applied
consistently with each other.
Common sense would say that their decision renders the rule on registration as good as useless so far as “irregular payments” are concerned. If the SPL happened, by sheer chance, to stumble across the existence of these payments, then drafted new rules for revocation of registrations in these circumstances and followed through on them, then presumably the club concerned could declare them immediately before the revocation to render it irrelevant? Or, if the players concerned had already left the club, well then the registration was valid for all the time they played for them anyway so who cares?
Another finding in minutiae that flies in the face of common sense and the accepted interpretation of the rules rightly invites ridicule and a perception that justice being done and seen to be done, as a concept, is as dead as a very dead parrot. All I am left wondering is why and just what does this say for Scotland in 2013?
I’m only intending token contribution from now on (which is more that the football authorities and higher tier clubs are going to get) but I did think Michael Grants quote beow was worthy of highlighting.
“…The findings gloss over the complaint held by rival fans that only by using EBTs and saving on tax could Rangers afford all the big-name players who helped win them so many trophies in the first place…”
A massive statement that our, OUR authorities dismissed out of hand right from the very start.
SR, ND, CO et al to go? Why? They’ve served their purpose anyhow.
areyouaccusingmeofmendacity says:
Thursday, February 28, 2013 at 22:23
32 6 i
Rate This
achillesacronym says:
Thursday, February 28, 2013 at 22:00
======================================================
Thanks for that areyouaccusing.
ratethisthenyabampots: 23:56
Barcabhoy. One word answer please. Is the nuclear info still relevant and damaging to RFC?
—————————————————————————————————————————
It either never existed or the description “nuclear” might see Barcabhoy receive an offer of employment from The Sun.
shield2012 says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 08:45
Perhaps you can explain why RFC would want to deliberately deceive the SFA? What they were doing wasn’t wrong or as far as we’re aware anyway.
Comparisons to Lance Armstrong are absurd btw.
Can I just say, I was willing to accept the ruling if they were to be stripped of titles why is nobody willing to accept it in reverse?
—————————————————————————————————————————-
Agree it is difficult to draw direct comparisons with Lance Armstrong but lets throw in a hypothetical.
The UCI asks cyclists to declare all the substances they are taking in a drugs amnesty.
However Lance is taking special drugs, that he is claiming tax relief on, as he has them down for tax purposes as ‘legal’ medication.
If he fesses up to the UCI he endangers blowing his tax benefit.
If he doesn’t fess up to the UCI but then gets found out that he was taking drugs at a point after the amnesty then he is a cheat who didn’t take the chance to man up because he was also greedy for cash.
And that is it in a nutshell.
Rangers were saling so close to the wind that they were fearful that both football and tax authorities would nail them. They were so fearful that they couldn’t even ask for advice or guidance from both Hector or the SFA.
They have got away with it on subtle technicalities in the law and interpretations of footballing rules.
The laugh is that if they actually had the courage to face up to the issues with all the honest stoutness that is implied as being a ‘tradition’ at the club then the matter could have been dealt with years ago and Whyte would have got nowhere near the club.
The fact remains that despite what the technicalities of the law and rules say in most people eyes outwith Ibrox they were a bunch of obstructive cowardly conniving cheats.
I now see why CG settled his football debts over the previous two weeks and could announce the exact date of the release of LNS report. Why he kept silent for two weeks – he knew the contents of this report at least two weeks ago.
There was some hope for the game if LNS done the obvious and asked the simple question ‘why did they employ the smoke and mirrors system of registration in the first place’. ‘Why did they they go down the road of EBTs to pay their players’. Most ten year olds’ and upwards would know the answer, but not LNS and his mates. He and his mates sought the needle in the haystack, and found it, thus exonerating the guilty club, and in turn, contributing to the greatest football scandal in British football history.
There is no hope for the game now. It is a matter of time before the game as we know it dies.
Of course an anaemic shadow of the game will limp on, with crowds greatly reduced and every title laughed at.
There is but one chance to prevent the above happening and that is Black Saturday/Sunday 9th/10th of March. Let not one decent fan turn up for any game on that weekend. That will show the football world, that at least decent fans were not taken in by or were part of this unprecedented scandal.
P.S.
One thing in the report stuck out like a sore finger.
How could these learned gentlemen insert the clause ” they gained no footballing advantage”
Me thinks there was some coaching going on here!!!I
Is there not now a case for al the clubs to refuse to pay for registering their players with the SPL as long as they have an irrevocable licence to play registered with the SFA. Seems to be logical. No?
When you come down to it is there any real difference between the low lifes who polluted the air in Berwick last Saturday with their vile songs and the eminent gentlemen who went to extraordinary lengths to pollute terms like sporting advantage and fair play to end up giving their establishment team a meaningless fine for 1o years of cheating. No doubt the head honcho at the SFA continues to draw his salary.
Taysider says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 09:35
I am gald I am not the only one stumped by the Bryson / MacKenzie evidence in relation to eligible players.
Bryson seems to say what the SFA position is in realtion to registrations staying valid until revoked but there is no reference as to where the revocation process (or offenses that may lead to a registration being revoked) is included in the SFA Articles and Rules.
If the SPL don’t have a rule in place to retrospectively terminate the registration of a player, then where exactly does it exist in the SFA other than in the mind of Mr Bryson?
Why was this article or rule not highlighted in the LNS report as the one that took precedence.
If such an article or rule isn’t written down then how can it take precedence over rules that do exist as Bryson’s evidence is then merely an opinion not backed up by hard facts.
I keep hoping people will put me right and this has been explained in the LNS report or point me to the relevant sections of the SFA Articles and Rules but I am still waiting!!!
The tribunal panel were and are above reproach. The issue rested solely on the evidence of Bryson.
His evidence categorically said in laymen’s terms, “it’s too late, we can’t do anything about the registrations now”
————————————
why did they have this charade when they could have asked for Sandy Brysons interpretation at the outset ?
ratethisthenyabampots says:
Thursday, February 28, 2013 at 23:56
17 3 Rate This
Barcabhoy. One word answer please. Is the nuclear info still relevant and damaging to RFC?
——————————————————-
What i was told is not relevant to Sevco and therefore wouldn’t damage RFC in its current incarnation
OK Barcabhoy. Much appreciated.
Barcabhoy
Given when you broke the (non) story it would obviously apply to Oldco, who received the 250K fine yesterday and are therefore still relevant.
So can you answer the posters question ?
ratethisthenyabampots says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 10:22
0 0 Rate This
OK Barcabhoy. Much appreciated.
———————
You’re welcome
Taysider says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 09:35
12 0 Rate This
As a young lad too many years ago I used to have faith in adults …
——-
@Taysider Don’t let the bastards grind ye doon! Big match up your way this weekend. Get oot and support yer team!
@rantinrobin Thanks mate, only anecdotes and moral support from me really.
Sometimes you do wonder what UEFA would make of all this – if they really knew what went on. After all, it has affected European clubs too.