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

t222derachaPosted on10:47 am - Mar 1, 2013


To paraphrase a certain other legal gentleman” Ibrox is a breeding ground for tax evasion!”

View Comment

barcabhoyPosted on10:48 am - Mar 1, 2013


http://www.kickitout.org/news.php/news_id/2899. Interesting

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on10:53 am - Mar 1, 2013


Unfortunately time is very precious at the moment; but there are a few points I wish to consider in some detail. I will comment later – at some length – on the following points:

Did the SPL give the LNS Commission a balanced remit?

Why, following publication of the result, did the SPL feel it necessary to issue the following statement:
“The SPL Board appointed the Independent Commission to consider all aspects of the above matter and at no point provided any direction to the Commission on any aspect of the case.”

How does that statement sit when it was the SPL’s duty to give legal instructions to the QC who was effectively acting as the commission’s “prosecutor”.

Did the adversarial nature of the commission (with SPL QC acting as prosecutor and the Oldco/Newco/Rangers FC QC acting for the defendants) limit the scope of their work?

Did the SPL’s prosecutor effectively “drop” the charge of fielding ineligible players?

Taking the SPL Articles & Rules together with the SFA registration procedures, can a player be registered with a club and still be ineligible to play in the SPL? Is the effective registration of a player & their eligibility to participate in a competition, one and the same thing?

Is the commission’s declaration of “no sporting advantage”, completely reliant on the UTT confirming the FTT(T)’s not guilty verdict in the BTC? If so, will the SPL re-present the charges if the UTT decide that the EBT scheme amounted to tax-evasion?

Is the commission’s £250k fine on OldCo legally enforceable? If so, is it a “footballing debt”? If so, will the new club be obliged to pay it as part of the 5-way agreement? If so, and the new club choose not to pay, what are the potential consequences?

View Comment

Johnbhoy75 (@Johnbhoy75)Posted on10:58 am - Mar 1, 2013


Basically it transpired that the nuclear info was essentially that Souness and (perhaps) Smith took multiple payments of EBTs while not in the employment of old Rangers (allegedly).

Now Harry Redknapp’s dog could have told you that this managers taking bungs is hardly a story these days.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on10:59 am - Mar 1, 2013


Is it only me or do others find both rulings from the FTT that a loan is not a payment and LNS that no sporting advantage was gained by having £40 odd million to spend on players an insult to our intelligence?

Do folk in charge think we are a nation of morons or are they simply addressing the morons in our midst?

One judgement -The FTT is already under official appeal, the other is still out to the jury of football opinion and they are the ultimate judges. LNS has found the technicality on which to make a judgement that protects Scottish football from compensation claims – job done in a legal sense.

The collaterall damage may cost more than the compensation saved.

View Comment

greenockjackPosted on10:59 am - Mar 1, 2013


Barcabhoy

(new edited version/ hopefully not to be deleted this time)

There are a lot of posters out there looking in that are dissappointed and confused with how things have panned out.

Many clung to your “nuclear info” like a comfort blanket.

You said the other day that you couldn´t betray the confidence of the person in the media who showed you the “nuclear info” but has apparently never went public with it either directly or via a leak elsewhere.

Now you say it isn´t relevant.

Posters can make up their own minds but surely the spirit of this website is to examine in detail important events or claims and look for some kind of accountability.
This applies to one and all.

Please don´t delete this time and I´ll leave it there and won´t pursue this issue any further.

View Comment

BrendaPosted on11:00 am - Mar 1, 2013


Barcabhoy @ 10:48

Appalling, but then again, does anything really surprise us about those who run scottish football any more? I can honestly say I hold out very little hope that ANYONE in authority tells the whole truth about ANYTHING …………. But let’s hope karma bites every one of them on the ass 🙂 at least she’s got a nice big target with ally ( what did he say to Lenny?)

Have a nice day everyone 🙂 🙂 🙂

View Comment

TaysiderPosted on11:03 am - Mar 1, 2013


wottpi says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 10:02
Danish Pastry says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 10:36

Wottpi Agreed, even if it comes down to a question of just how much the verdict should be viewed as “surprising” with little consequence beyond determining my level of weary cynicism at the decision.

Yet somewhere inside me there is still a spark of hope which is why I will be there on Sunday Danish, shouting on my team and looking to give an appropriate gesture of welcome from an Arab to John “Bomber” Brown.” 😉

View Comment

TartawulverPosted on11:04 am - Mar 1, 2013


Danish Pastry says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 10:36

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.
—————————————
I suspect that UEFA think it all ‘a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing’. Definitely not something they will even for a moment consider going to war over!

View Comment

barcabhoyPosted on11:06 am - Mar 1, 2013


Taken directly from the Scottish Football Associations articles of Association.

What say you now Mr Bryson

(8) It shall have power to enquire into all and any financial arrangements between recognised football bodies, clubs and players and to cancel any agreement between clubs and players contrary to the Articles and to publish in the public press or otherwise the findings of the Board in this regard and the substance of any and all evidence tendered in such enquiries.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on11:09 am - Mar 1, 2013


HP

I am encouraged by you asking the question has LNS made a ruling that is hostage to the UTT findings?

It seems to me that more important than keeping dodgy titles was the absolute need to avoid admitting any wrong doing by Rangers which is now being spun into them being wronged.

By the time the UTT rules events will have moved on but the fat lady has not yet sung.

View Comment

verselijkfcPosted on11:11 am - Mar 1, 2013


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.”’

You need look no further than the evidence given by Mr Odam on behalf of old-co-old-club, referred to in the Commission’s summary at para 105: ”Although it is clear to us from Mr Odam’s evidence that Oldco’s failure to disclose the side-letters to the SPL and the SFA was at least partly motivated by a wish not to risk prejudicing the tax advantages of the EBT scheme, we are unable to reach the conclusion that this led to any competitive advantage.”

The role of the Commission was not to judge the evidence in terms of “establishing competitive advantage”; it was to judge whether or not the rules, and the spirit of those rules in relation to sport, were breached. Yes, or No.

”’Comparisons to Lance Armstrong are absurd btw”’

Correct, after all, had the US Postal Service (effectively the team owner/operator) gotten into financial difficulties and been a purchased by private investor/investors, they would have zero say in the UCI’s decision to remove LA’s Tour titles. None whatsoever. At this point in time, LA is the cheat; not the US Postal Service.

View Comment

TartawulverPosted on11:12 am - Mar 1, 2013


greenockjack says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 10:59

Barcabhoy

There are a lot of posters out there looking in that are dissappointed and confused with how things have panned out.

Many clung to your “nuclear info” like a comfort blanket.
—————————————————–
I’m sure I speak for most people who have followed Rangers’ catastrophic decline over the past year when I say that, as we never knew what Barcaboy’s information was, we never really gave it any more weight than any of the other rumours swirling around. If something verifiable had come from it, that would have been a different matter. There have been enough truly striking facts to have come out, not least through the FTT and the LNS hearings, but also directly from the mouths of those in control at Ibrox at various stages of the unfolding disaster, that no one specific ‘comfort blanket’ has been needed to justify the outrage many of us feel about the current nature of Scottish football, and the contribution that Rangers have made to that.

View Comment

Robert CoylePosted on11:18 am - Mar 1, 2013


SPL Statement – Independent Commission

The SPL Board appointed the Independent Commission to consider all aspects of the above matter and at no point provided any direction to the Commission on any aspect of the case.

The SPL Board notes that the Commission has upheld a number of complaints against Rangers OldCo and that Rangers OldCo has been found to have breached SPL and Scottish FA Rules over an 11-year period in relation to the non-disclosure of financial arrangements involving many of its Players.

The SPL Board are assured by the integrity of the process followed and thank The Rt Hon Lord Nimmo Smith and his colleagues, Nicholas Stewart QC and Charles Flint QC, for their time and effort.

The Board wishes to give the detail of the decision further consideration at its next meeting.

——————————————————————————————————–
Can the spl add any additional punishments if it chose to do so?

View Comment

verselijkfcPosted on11:22 am - Mar 1, 2013


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.

You need look no further than the evidence given by Mr Odam on behalf of old-co-old-club, referred to in the Commission’s summary at para 105: ”Although it is clear to us from Mr Odam’s evidence that Oldco’s failure to disclose the side-letters to the SPL and the SFA was at least partly motivated by a wish not to risk prejudicing the tax advantages of the EBT scheme, we are unable to reach the conclusion that this led to any competitive advantage.”

The role of the Commission was not to judge the evidence in terms of “establishing competitive advantage”; it was to judge whether or not the rules, and the spirit of those rules in relation to sport, were breached. Yes, or No.

Comparisons to Lance Armstrong are absurd btw
Correct, after all, had the US Postal Service (effectively the team owner/operator) gotten into financial difficulties and been a purchased by private investor/investors, they would have zero say in the UCI’s decision to remove LA’s Tour titles. None whatsoever. At this point in time, LA is the cheat; not the US Postal Service.

View Comment

greenockjackPosted on11:23 am - Mar 1, 2013


TW
In answer to your post I´d say that the credibility that BB and who endorsed it, RTC obviously had on the then RTC blog, meant that the perceived status of “just another rumour” at the time isn´t really accurate.

View Comment

rantinrobinPosted on11:24 am - Mar 1, 2013


As we all try and reflect on the incidents and accidents which have befallen Scottish football over the last year ,I am minded to reflect on Alex Thomson’s interview with Turnbull Hutton on the terraces of Starks Park.

A man of virtue and dignity trying in normal circumstances to keep his club afloat and faced with the added threat of having his stadium burned to the ground.

Despite all this Turnbull Hutton is still there,and so is Starks Park. Turnbull Hutton faces out adversity with courage and dignity, and runs his club within the rules and spirit of the game.

Can other prominent people in Scottish football say the same thing?

View Comment

TartawulverPosted on11:30 am - Mar 1, 2013


greenockjack says:

TW
In answer to your post I´d say that the credibility that BB and who endorsed it, RTC obviously had on the then RTC blog, meant that the perceived status of “just another rumour” at the time isn´t really accurate.
—————————————
What I said above accurately reflects my thoughts on the matter.

Maybe you would like to broaden your contribution to the debates out from the single point you’ve been making? (No irony intended in that incdentally.)

View Comment

csihampdenPosted on11:35 am - Mar 1, 2013


As I have said all along, I never understood the reasoning behind it, and therefore never trusted the SFA’s decision that they would not lead this investigation. I think it is absolutely clear now that there was an ulterior motive for not doing so. It was dressed up as ” we can’t because we have to stand back in case there is an appeal”, but quite blatantly that was nonsense. Some people seemed to accept that position, but it always stuck in my throat as it was unprecedented in any other disciplinary matter. It simply was not questioned enough at the time.
From that day on, the fix was in – the motive for the position taken was protected.
The only remaning question for me is what that motive was?

Was it ” we’ve looked at our registration processes, and basically we won’t be able to defend them, so we cannot investigate this as it will expose us as fools?”

Was it ” we’ve looked at our registration processes, and because they are full of holes, we can let the SPL lead this safe in the knowledge that we can torpedo it if there is any risk of compensation claims if Rangers might be close to being found guilty?”

Was it “we’ve looked our registrations process, and because it is full of holes, we can torpedo this inquiry and make the SPL look stupid as we’ve never liked them since they have undermined the authority we used to have over Scottish Football”

There is no doubt in my mind the SFA asked themselves one of the above questions (maybe all three), and invented the “can’t be involved in case there is an appeal” bull**** as the public reason. And thereby confirming they are as corrupt and deceitful as they ever have been.

View Comment

Madbhoy24941Posted on11:38 am - Mar 1, 2013


greenockjack says:

Friday, March 1, 2013 at 10:59
___________________________

I think you will find most educated followers of the blog did not read too much into the nuclear info after the first couple of days as it was clearly stated at that time to not get too excited as it may not turn out the way it was expected. If you followed all posts as most of us did at that time, you will clearly see this.

You are right to question any individual who posts something normally heard from a taxi driver and also to question what others may see as fact when it most likely represents something different.

Unfortunately, this is not what I see for your posts regarding this subject. What I see is someone who is determined to derail the blog or pursue an individual for making the mistake of mentioning something that he quite quickly apologised for releasing without being able to expand on or release fully.

Why not do what most did at the time, drop it and be taken serious as valuable contributor or continue and be seen as a troll.

My opinion for what it’s worth.

View Comment

greenockjackPosted on11:41 am - Mar 1, 2013


TW
Fine, everyone is free to their opinion.

Thank´s for your suggestion but IMO accountability is important and I have simply pursued the matter so it brings the question/issue to the fore.

However I don´t think I´ll get any further so that is that, don´t worry

View Comment

wottpiPosted on11:43 am - Mar 1, 2013


barcabhoy says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 10:48
2 0 i Rate This

http://www.kickitout.org/news.php/news_id/2899. Interesting

————————————————————————————————————————

Very Interesting!!!

Seems like the Spartans guy had a touch of Nostradamus about him. 🙂

View Comment

saskya1888Posted on11:45 am - Mar 1, 2013


Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Baffle them with brilliance – befuddle them with bulls!@t seems to be the order of the day.

Now lets all play happy families and pretend none of this unsavoury business actually happened

View Comment

Robert CoylePosted on11:45 am - Mar 1, 2013


If the SPL takes the matter to CAS it will win.

http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/?p=11735&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

View Comment

manandboyPosted on11:46 am - Mar 1, 2013


I give you Mr Alexander ‘Sandy’ Bryson, Head of Registrations at the SFA.

Sandy has stepped into the spotlight of controversy and possibly, notoriety, following his game changing brand new evidence to LNS.

It was Sandy’s evidence which decided the ‘stripping of titles’ issue in favour of RFC at the LNS enquiry.

Sandy has been Head Of Registrations at the SFA for at least 17 years during which time,

[87] 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.

But then, Sandy, in his evidence to the enquiry says that this 17 year old rule (min), which he is an expert in, is open to a very different interpretation, one which in fact the SFA and the SPL prefers, albeit exclusively and for the first time, since they have only just thought of it, but just in the case of Rangers –

[86] Evidence was given by Alexander Bryson, Head of Registrations at the SFA, who
described the registration process. During the course of his evidence he explained that, once a
player had been registered with the SFA, he remained registered unless and until his registration
was revoked. Accordingly, even if there had been a breach of the SFA registration procedures,
such as a breach of SFA Article 12.3, the registration of a player was not treated as being invalid
from the outset, and stood unless and until it was revoked.

As a result, LNS declared all RFC players as eligible to play even though the side letters had not been included in their registration with the SFA.

The three stooges bought it, dismissed the ‘ineligible’ part of the case, and the whole country is left today scratching their heads and wondering how can that possibly be.

Jim Farry/Jorge Cadete fiasco? Peanuts.

Sandy Bryson trumps Jim Farry anyday.

Now what have I done with that dog lead?

View Comment

Johnbhoy75 (@Johnbhoy75)Posted on11:47 am - Mar 1, 2013


@greenockjack

I would agree that the “nuclear” info became a key article of faith on the old RTC board. That it was further endorsed by RTC himself lent more weight to it.

It emerged in the days following the second Mark Daly documentary when a partial list of EBT recipitants was released. I recall posters trying to coax it out of BB:

Were EBTs given to referees? No
Was RFC laundering money for Ulster paramilitiaries? No
Match fixing? No

Any of the above would have been truly nuclear.

No it turned out that the info was about payments to two, maybe three former managers who were no longer employed by the club, but allegedly received payments for “services” rendered, i.e. bungs for purchasing donkeys from RFC at rediculous prices.

Unfortunately in light of many scandals involving football managers and bungs, this story is hardly nuclear, and got little traction.

If this is not the essential nature of the “nuclear” info then please deny it, BB.

View Comment

tomtomPosted on11:52 am - Mar 1, 2013


Robert Coyle says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 11:45

If the SPL takes the matter to CAS it will win.
===============================

Why would the SPL takes the case to CAS? It got the result it wanted 😀

View Comment

barcabhoyPosted on11:52 am - Mar 1, 2013


The CQN article nails the issue of Bryson’s evidence. There have been many journalists not blinded by the tabloid version of yesterday’s judgement. The Herald, Telegraph, Mail and others have not been fooled into thinking yesterday was a victory for Rangers, they clearly read the entire judgement

Yesterday was a defeat for football. Hopefully they will follow up the CQN article and ask why Bryson’s view appears to be in direct conflict with the SFA’s own articles of association, given the absolutely vital nature of his evidence.

LNS might be wondering the same thing

View Comment

manandboyPosted on11:53 am - Mar 1, 2013


Ps To see Sandy in action at the SFA
http://www.talktalk.co.uk/video/9007#9007

View Comment

corsicacharityPosted on11:55 am - Mar 1, 2013


It is a con, pure and simple. We have all been cheated and are still being cheated. The ONLY solution is absolute reform with a complete regime change (including the underlings who cling to their masters wishes like lickspittle lapdogs) and due punishment to anyone who breaks the rules without fear or favour.

The only way this will come about is if we all take a stand now and boycott SPL, SFL, Cup and international matches until they listen. It worked with Celts for Change, it worked in the summer of 2012 and it will work again because they know they are nothing without the fans.

Yes, it will hurt our clubs, but that is short-term for long-term gain. If we continue as we are, we are simply putting short-term gain in front of the long-term benefit of all in Scottish football (even sevconians) and we will be no better than Murray, Ogilvie, Regan, Doncaster et al.

I will continue to pursue the charity angle because I have concrete, irrefutable evidence that Sevco, RFFF, the Rangers Charity Foundation and RFC have broken laws – not SFA regulations which can be manipulated by unscrupulous lawyers, spivs and cowards; Charities Act (Scotland), Companies Act and Licensing Regulations (Scotland). I’m still trying to work out which Act it comes under, but there is also concrete, irrefutable evidence of tax evasion linked to this.

Other than that, I will never personally put another penny into Scottish football until there is real change, truth, honesty and justice. I will always support and love Celtic and, by God, it will hurt; but I will no longer take part in this charade.

This afternoon, I will be posting my shares certificate to Peter Lawwell with the scarf I have had since 1976, to express my utter disgust. Thank God, Corsica did not live to see this.

It’s time to stand up. Stuart Cosgrove, if you’re reading this; you have the platform, use it for all our sakes.

View Comment

spanishceltPosted on12:01 pm - Mar 1, 2013


barcabhoy says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 09:26

The tribunal panel were and are above reproach. The issue rested solely on the evidence of Bryson.

………………………………………………………………
Im sorry Barcabhoy, I disagree with you that the panel are above reproach, it is just too convenient to have appointed an ” independent ” panel and then it produces exactly what you want.
Now I am not as well educated as a lot of the posters on this blog and nowhere near as articulate in expressing myself in writing but neither am I an fool and only an fool would believe that there was never an agenda being guided along with the evidence provided and if I can see that than these educated panel members could see it as well.
The panel did not need to accept the evidence of Bryson, they could and should have questioned it and looked for other conflicting evidence, especially as the entire judgement hung on it.
This is a total whitewash and the members of this panel are right at the centre of it, there were many ways of looking at the evidence but they chose to turn a blind eye to the facts to allow them to come up with this finding.

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on12:01 pm - Mar 1, 2013


wottpi says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 10:02
9 0 Rate This
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!!!
===============================================
Is the registration of a player the only factor in determining a player’s eligibility to take part in a competition?

D1.1 Subject to these Rules, to be eligible to Play for a Club a Player must first be Registered either as a Professional Player or as an Amateur Player.

Does this rule or any other rule or article, suggest that registration as a player automatically confers eligibility?

No! Player Registration is simply a first step towards eligibility to participate in any competition that the club enters. There are, of course, other competition-specific factors: he could be suspended, cup-tied or be subject to any number of matters that could affect eligibility to participate in a given match.

Let’s be absolutely clear about this. The status of a player’s registration is an utterly bogus issue here. The question is only about the eligibility of players to play for a club in specific SPL matches.

Whilst it is true that a void registration would make players ineligible that is not the point here.

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 actually incurred, between that Club and Player, to the Secretary, within fourteen days of such Contract of Service or other agreement being entered into, amended and/or, as the case may be, extended.

This rule cover registration AND eligibility. Even if the registration (though later found to be defective) cannot be revoked retrospectively, the eligibility of players to play in official matches is a separate matter.

The rules clearly envisage a situation were the non-eligibility of a player to play in an SPL match comes to light after a game is played:

D1.11 Any Club Playing an ineligible Player in an Official Match and the Player concerned shall be in breach of the Rules.

The rules DO NOT say that:
An incomplete contract renders the players registration void and therefore – as a consequence of the non-registration – the player becomes ineligible to play official matches.

The rules DO say:
An incomplete contract means the player is not properly registered AND is ineligible to play in official matches.

The commission was certainly entitled to consider the issue of registration and (perhaps) – on the evidence provided – come to the conclusion it did.

But the commission also had a duty to consider the issue of player eligibility as a stand-alone matter. That appears, in fact, to have been their remit.

Why it chose to fuse registration with eligibility I simply cannot fathom from the published decision.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on12:02 pm - Mar 1, 2013


http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/rangers-player-payments-not-cheating/4234

apols if posted already.

View Comment

BrendaPosted on12:04 pm - Mar 1, 2013


Well said Corsicacharity

View Comment

ekbhoyPosted on12:20 pm - Mar 1, 2013


Barcabhoy

I must admit to not having the mental strength to read all of the whitewash, however this expert witness stuff is pure guff. Full disclosure is I believe the point. I assume the SFA official was grilled on his expert testimony , your belief in the judiciary is tooooo logical, the truth is much , much simpler.

Still, I am not being wise after the event here, LNS was always going to be complicit with this farce, the only question was how it would be achieved, the huge long gap in bringing proceedings allowed the fix to be put in place.

Private Fraser future for Scottish football.

View Comment

Long Time LurkerPosted on12:20 pm - Mar 1, 2013


Robert Coyle says:

Friday, March 1, 2013 at 11:45

Should we have an organised campaign to write to our club chairmen asking that the SPL take this to the CAS?

Or can a club go to the CAS and ask for the LNS decision to be revisited?

Phil – if you are looking in – what have UEFA to say on this if anything? If I were one of the European teams that RFC played during a CL game – I would be pi$$ed off.

View Comment

Peter DPosted on12:31 pm - Mar 1, 2013


How can Lord Nimmo Smith and the two QC’s seriously come to the conclusion that no advantage was gained? This is not some convoluted legal argument here. This seems to be an opinion that is presented as fact. I am not aware of any supporting evidence to support this statement in the report? It is just presented as a fact.

He accepts that there was deliberate deception of the football authorities, A sustained plan carried out over 11 years. He states that this broke the rules and that Rangers knew it broke the rules. Therefore what exactly does our learned friend believe was the intention behind this deliberate deception if not to gain an advantage over others who were not breaking the rules.

Regardless, correct me if I am wrong but the purpose of the enquiry was to establish if Rangers broke the rules…yes?

Whether they gained an advantage or not is neither here nor there. Did anyone even stop to consider this matter when any of the teams who have previously fallen foul of the draconian rules of the SFA were dealt with? I am not aware that this was an issue either when deciding the punishment in these previous cases.

As for the frankly intelligence insulting reasoning on the registration issue…I am speechless….

However ….if I understand correctly this reasoning and reinterpretation of registration was provided to the enquiry by the SFA themselves…..?

I am quite frankly astounded at the brass neck of all of this…….disgusting….

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on12:33 pm - Mar 1, 2013


By “we” I mean all SPL Clubs. By place I mean SFA jurisdiction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxNEiZhpinY

We need to operate in a bigger more competitive market under more professional governance.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on12:33 pm - Mar 1, 2013


So it is Puma and Blackthorn Cider for T’Rangers announced under the cover of fall out from LNS.

However no figures mentioned in either of the deals.

What’s chance the deals are not for very much.

View Comment

greenockjackPosted on12:34 pm - Mar 1, 2013


LT Lurker

In general with very few exceptions, club chairmen will now just want to get on with it.

I don´t think that many supporters will want to start the route of threatening boycotts again, that there is a general feeling of tiredness with the ongoing issues and that they want to get back to talking & reading about football.

Obviously there will be some who remain determined in their beliefs and to do something about it but realistically, if it was ever going to produce “results” it would have already.

View Comment

pau1mart1nPosted on12:35 pm - Mar 1, 2013


I am quite frankly astounded that anyone is even mildly surprised.

View Comment

torrejohnbhoyPosted on12:37 pm - Mar 1, 2013


Just thinking out loud.
I read the LNS result to say that whilst the Oldco was liquidated,the club has continued with an unbroken timeline and is now operated by Newco.
My problem is:
If the club is still the same then it may be the case that Naismith,McGregor,Lafferty et al are probably in breach of contract.Something Green has been claiming all along.If he continues to pursue them(and LNS has seemingly backed him)then an employment tribunal will have to rule on whether the players were employed by club or corporate entity.

View Comment

majorcoverupPosted on12:40 pm - Mar 1, 2013


HirsutePursuit says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 12:01
___________________________

Exactly the point I made yesterday

majorcoverup says:
Thursday, February 28, 2013 at 15:05

Rule D1.13 is really quite clear:

“and” is the key word in that first phrase.

So it would not have been necessary to rescind the player registration as stated in this contrived judgement, as the rule clearly states that registration and eligibility to play are BOTH impacted by any failure to provide the required paperwork.

It would be quite possible (as in this case) for a player to be registered but still not eligible to play.

Someone needs to take them to task on this glaring error.
As the principal SPL member disadvantaged, Celtic clearly have that responsibilty.

View Comment

greenockjackPosted on12:47 pm - Mar 1, 2013


majorcoverup

Is it really in the longterm interests of Celtic PLC´s interests and it´s shareholders to take this matter further ?

Dependent on views, an arguement can be made either way but what is the realistic and probable one in 2013 ?

View Comment

Dike’s Muse (@DikesMuse)Posted on12:47 pm - Mar 1, 2013


Not withstanding any longer term, concentrated campaign by supporters against this perverse outcome I think Corsicacharity has hit upon a very simple and effective way of registering your immediate disaffection with your clubs silence on this…post them your scarf. Nothing else needed, no letter of explanation required, they will get the message. My returned scarf will say what I feel far more eloquently than any words I could pen.

View Comment

schottie59Posted on12:47 pm - Mar 1, 2013


Corsicacharity….that saddens me…give it a week …please….hail hail —there are good peeps out there…

View Comment

ekbhoyPosted on12:48 pm - Mar 1, 2013


Peterjung1

The reason LNS can find that there was no sporting advantage is that they simply look to the character under the microscope, Sir David Murray. How could a knight of the realm , entrepreneur, employing thousands of people, provider to charities , possibly be cheating, it is unthinkable.

Compare and contrast to benefit claimants 10 floors up in Possil!

The complicit corruption is in plain sight.

So let’s draw a line under the integrity of the judiciary.

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on12:50 pm - Mar 1, 2013


torrejohnbhoy says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 12:37
0 0 Rate This
Just thinking out loud.
I read the LNS result to say that whilst the Oldco was liquidated,the club has continued with an unbroken timeline and is now operated by Newco.
My problem is:
If the club is still the same then it may be the case that Naismith,McGregor,Lafferty et al are probably in breach of contract.Something Green has been claiming all along.If he continues to pursue them(and LNS has seemingly backed him)then an employment tribunal will have to rule on whether the players were employed by club or corporate entity.
=====================
How many of those players are now found to have defective registrations?

From my reading of it, LNS has ruled that any player who held a side letter is not properly registered. This will include players now playing with the new club too if the SPL and SFA recognise them as a continuance of the old.

They will all remain improperly registered until all side letters have been lodged.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on12:51 pm - Mar 1, 2013


http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/an-amoral-victory/

View Comment

wottpiPosted on12:53 pm - Mar 1, 2013


HirsutePursuit says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 12:01

Thanks for the input and yet once again my guess is that you to have failed to find anything in writing that supports Mr Bryson’s view that once the registration documents (incomplete) have been approved they cannot be revoked or challenged.

LNS and his pals had time to look into this but in the report fail to point to any rules, articles of precedent.

It appears on first look that the UEFA precedent is that the Swiss Association must have accepted registrations for the Sion Players when there was a point or gap in all the legal wrangling that they were able to do so. However retrospectively it was found that the registration process were flawed due to not complying with the earlier registration ban – therefore the players became ineligible.

The Rangers registrations were flawed as they did not contain all the required information, therefore the players were ineligible.

The Bryson evidence seems to have come out of left field with no-one, be that Harper McCleod, the SPL or the MSM, even giving a hint that players might be classed as eligible if it was agreed the documantation for registration was incomplete.

Frankly I’m not overly worried about title stripping but this aspect of the report just stinks to high heaven.

View Comment

majorcoverupPosted on12:55 pm - Mar 1, 2013


greenockjack says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 12:47

Is it really in the longterm interests of Celtic PLC´s interests and it´s shareholders to take this matter further ?

Dependent on views, an argument can be made either way but what is the realistic and probable one in 2013 ?
______________________________________________________________________

It’s about doing the right thing,

If someone cheated you out of millions of pounds in lost revenue (CL, etc) wouldn’t you challenge the subsequent coverup.

What would they have to lose ?

View Comment

paulmac2Posted on1:05 pm - Mar 1, 2013


barcabhoy says:

Friday, March 1, 2013 at 10:48

http://www.kickitout.org/news.php/news_id/2899. Interesting
…………………………..

Outstanding stuff….a clear breach of human rights….the SFA an utterly appalling,..coruupt and not fit for purpose group of clowns….

Is there anything this mob have done for the benefit of football in Scotland?

View Comment

paulmac2Posted on1:07 pm - Mar 1, 2013


shield2012 says:

Friday, March 1, 2013 at 12:57
……………………………….

No you are correct….it’s just you!

View Comment

ekbhoyPosted on1:10 pm - Mar 1, 2013


Shield2012

Just

View Comment

ekbhoyPosted on1:16 pm - Mar 1, 2013


Shield2012

….. You

View Comment

wottpiPosted on1:22 pm - Mar 1, 2013


shield2012 says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 12:57

No green tinted specs here.

However as you are willing to look at things from the ‘other side’ what is your honest views on the Bryson evidence in relation to the eligibility issue.

While it is a nice result for Rangers fans to have LNS come up with that ‘construction of the registration rule’ are you surprised by the interpretation and logic?

Were you, like many others, thinking that if the loans were deemed as payments and they weren’t declared then it was simply going to be game over?

View Comment

valentinesclownPosted on1:24 pm - Mar 1, 2013


tomtomaswell says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 11:52
9 0 Rate This
Robert Coyle says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 11:45

If the SPL takes the matter to CAS it will win.
===============================

Why would the SPL takes the case to CAS? It got the result it wanted

—————————————————————————————————————–

To change things at the top of our corrupt game this absurd decision based on one heavily conflicted man’s (Alexander Bryson) unchallenged evidence has got to be challenged. All fans have another chance to inform their clubs of our distrust of ever attaining justice in our game.

If we do nothing then nothing will change.

View Comment

cosmichaggisPosted on1:27 pm - Mar 1, 2013


I find the verdict by LNS bizarre in the extreme, but not unexpected. I accept the verdict with extreme reservations and doubts as will most of Scottish football.

The one BIG lesson we have learnt from this fiasco in the past 18 months is that we can NEVER trust or believe anything that the SFA, SPL, SFL, MSM or Rangers say ever again. That is the very clear message that has been sent out. No-one has been fooled by this clusterf*ck, and I think the authorities have shot themselves in the foot big time with this blatant act of………..well, inaction!

This will come home to roost in the future. I expect the ground swell of fan and club dissent to start soon for another summer of discontent over league construction. The scene is being set by the authorities and the MSM. Roll on the summer.

I now challenge to my club, and all clubs in Scotland to initiate complete reconstruction of our football authorites to flush out the incompetents and to cleanse the organisation of all nepotism, corruption and incompetence, to be replaced with a body of integrity and professionalism that our game is crying out for.

It is the least they can do after this debacle.

View Comment

brianm2001Posted on1:30 pm - Mar 1, 2013


valentinesclown says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 13:24
1 0 i
Rate Down

tomtomaswell says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 11:52
9 0 Rate This
Robert Coyle says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 11:45

If the SPL takes the matter to CAS it will win.
===============================

Why would the SPL takes the case to CAS? It got the result it wanted

—————————————————————————————————————–

To change things at the top of our corrupt game this absurd decision based on one heavily conflicted man’s (Alexander Bryson) unchallenged evidence has got to be challenged. All fans have another chance to inform their clubs of our distrust of ever attaining justice in our game.

If we do nothing then nothing will change.

Valentine’s Clown — WELL SAID SIR

View Comment

justpedylanPosted on1:31 pm - Mar 1, 2013


After 2 years of this blog and its predecessor, after an adminsitration followed by a liquidation of RFC, after a connived insertion of TRFC into the 4th tier and after continuous incompetence by our footballing authorities : where have we ended up?

Well, RFC were guilty of two things. 1. Administrative errors. 2. Running out of money. That’s the outcome that will be written into the record books (that and the 54 titles of course).

As a result of 1. oldco are fined 250k. As a result of 2. they could have been playing in the Nineteen oatcake league central division instead went into SFL3.

And that’s it really. (A UTT not withstanding) Nothing more to see, no need for our club chairmen to call for anything, nobody needs to resign, no truth and reconciliation. Just business as usual for Ogilvie, Doncaster, Regan and the rest.

Who is there who is planning a healing process and rebuilding our game after this blood letting?

And frankly my dear, who gives a *uck.

View Comment

ShooperbPosted on1:39 pm - Mar 1, 2013


shield2012 says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 12:57

I would say there’s a few out and about, venting their frustration at what’s transpired, but the strength of this site was always that other posters were quick to remind them that this was all inclusive, and not yet another Celtic site.

View Comment

TaysiderPosted on1:40 pm - Mar 1, 2013


An easy reaction to this latest development would be a feeling of helplessness and a temptation to, I hesitate to use the phrase, walk away. If the system is geared to a certain outcome, what realistically can we achieve?

But together we can achieve. We proved it last summer. When supporters of just about every club, Aberdeen, Celtic, Hearts, Hibs, Kilmarnock, Motherwell, I could go on, in short all of us said enough is enough. The threat not to renew season tickets with a simple key message, No To Newco, prevented an immediate rule defying return to the top flight for a company that had gone bust.

Will it be possible to repeat this? I don’t know and I’m pretty sure that those with their own agendas, including one or two posting on here, would be quite happy to discourage us and say this time it would be a waste of time. Well, forget that, it’s better to try and fail than to give up without a whimper.

CorsicaCharity (11.55) is right. The solution is regime change. You need to distill Auldheid’s paper down to a focal point for a campaign to get integrity in at the top of our game. Campbell Ogilvie has said he intends to stand for re-election as SFA President.

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/rangers/sfa-president-ogilvie-ive-started-so-let-me-finish-108942n.19586679

The focal point needs to be Ogilvie Out. His re-election would stand for a vindication of how the football authorities have responded to this crisis. Ogilvie Out, Integrity / Change Candidate In. Or don’t renew your season tickets.

View Comment

valentinesclownPosted on1:46 pm - Mar 1, 2013


I make no excuses as this link has been posted above. This is a game changer and should be distributed to every football fan.

http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/?p=11735&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

View Comment

Celtic Paranoia (@CelticParanoia)Posted on1:59 pm - Mar 1, 2013


Information can only be “nuclear” if it is acted upon. It is at this stage abundantly clear that no-one in a position of authority has the stomach or wllingness to act upon anything that will be to the detriment of Rangers/New Rangers/The Rangers FC

View Comment

spaldingbhoyPosted on2:05 pm - Mar 1, 2013


Not a regular poster but long time follower of both this and RTC, disappointed but not surprised in the result. Lets be honest everything that the authorities have had a hand in and involving the justiciary to ensure impartiality have despite more learned people and erudite posters than myself have told us that they were ” good men ” and wouldn’t possibly put their reputations at risk, by not applying the rules, have simply found the path of least resistance and concocted some seemingly bizarre descisions , normal rules of sport, civil law and criminal law simply do not seem to apply to the New Rangers or indeed to the old Rangers depending what case is under review. We should have known the result was going to be a strange one and convoluted one when Chas went quiet , a fortnight without an utterance except to tell us the result would be out on the 28th oops . Although he’s now demanding apologies from unnamed people that wanted the titles stripped from a club he won’t be paying the fine for, strange that , maybe the RFFF could step in I mean that’s why they were started for was it not . The only hope left now is UTT which will I believe will be held in London away from the “best wee country in country in the world” where the influences and the fear of the “mob” can’t be used.
It’s clear that the SFA and SFL have too many people are indebted to too many people to allow this club to be punished in anyway shape or form ,even their registration expert has developed his own interpretation of the rules as has been discussed by people who understand such things, I wonder if his interpretation will be questioned by anyone , nope don’t think so. According to him my father who was a professional footballer many years ago is still registered as a player despite dying more than 10 years ago well their rules he hasn’t been transferred and I certainly never told the SFA he died so ergo still a player .
While I admire Auldheid for trying so hard to get some kind of accountability in to our game , its clear that the authorities don’t want to play, I think it may well be time to throw our lot in and try to get the FA yep the English football authorities to take over the running of our game . I know I expect to get a lot of flack but seriously what are we losing , our associations have shown not just over the Rangers fiasco they,re not fit for purpose, we have too few Turnbull Huttons and way too many Ogilvies compromised beyond belief recipient of a ” good night out ” payment and still in place.
Scottish football is being run like a banana republic of the comedic kind a la Woody Allan , and I seriously believe that the only way to save the game up here is to throw our lot in with the FA yes there would be massive problems to overcome but at least it would be run in a more even handed and more importantly professional manner, at least they know how to market the game down there.
Rant over sorry if rambles a bit .
Brenda don’t worry about “Greenockjack ” he only appears when there’s a “good news” for sevconia. however once he calms his fevered brow he’ll realise his team were found guilty of cheating, the tax case is going to appeal, and oops they’re in Div 3 .
Rant definitely over.

View Comment

tic6709Posted on2:06 pm - Mar 1, 2013


Just remembered,when asked not so long ago about the EBT “loans” a rangers(IL) official said that since the year 2000 NOT ONE PENNY has been repaid,even though all of the recipients have since earned enough to pay the loans back many times over.Loans my arse.
Murray coming out with his usual spin to protect HIMSELF.

View Comment

61patrickPosted on2:13 pm - Mar 1, 2013


We must unite fans of all clubs that play by the rules.RFC, SEVCO and the SFA have robbed every club with their actions. (IMHO)
CQNs latest
http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/?p=11742#comments

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on2:20 pm - Mar 1, 2013


Some comments from a Hearts message board to lighten the mood:
————————–
Presumably because LNS was sitting on behalf of the SPL, the £250,000 fine for OldCo he has imposed, is a football debt. You know, like the football debts Green had to agree that NewCo would pay. 🙂
————————-
The moral of the story is if your running a business which gives £50 million away in non repayable interest free loans to directors, employees and non employees then don’t be surprised to find your business suddenly flushed down the toilet.
————————-
and from the Scotsman

Broke Vladimir Romanov in ‘taxi driver’ plan

Published on Friday 1 March 2013 12:50

VLADIMIR Romanov has lost his entire £250 million fortune to the collapse of Ukio Bankas, the Hearts owner has claimed.

• Vladimir Romanov claims he has lost his £250 million fortune

• Romanov’s assets have been seized by Lithuanian authorities

The Lithuanian’s banking empire plunged into administration last month, piling on the pressure on Romanov as he looks to sell the Tynecastle side and a Lithuanian basketball team which he also owns.

Speaking on Lithuanian television, Romanov said his entire £250 million fortune has disappeared, prompting him to consider a return to a previous job – as a taxi driver.

Romanov, whose assets were seized by Lithuanian authorities, said: “On the day the bank went into administration, the authorities froze all my bank cards and accounts.

“All that I had left was the money I had in my pocket. I was forced to borrow money from friends and immediately sell my property to raise funds.

“As for what I will do next, I think I will become a taxi driver.”

Before establishing his business empire in Lithuania, Romanov was a taxi driver, selling bootleg records form the back of his cab.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on2:23 pm - Mar 1, 2013


Taxi for Romanov, Taxi for Romanov 🙂

View Comment

torrejohnbhoyPosted on2:24 pm - Mar 1, 2013


HirsutePursuit says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 12:50

torrejohnbhoy says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 12:37
0 0 Rate This
Just thinking out loud.
I read the LNS result to say that whilst the Oldco was liquidated,the club has continued with an unbroken timeline and is now operated by Newco.
My problem is:
If the club is still the same then it may be the case that Naismith,McGregor,Lafferty et al are probably in breach of contract.Something Green has been claiming all along.If he continues to pursue them(and LNS has seemingly backed him)then an employment tribunal will have to rule on whether the players were employed by club or corporate entity.
=====================
How many of those players are now found to have defective registrations?

From my reading of it, LNS has ruled that any player who held a side letter is not properly registered. This will include players now playing with the new club too if the SPL and SFA recognise them as a continuance of the old.

They will all remain improperly registered until all side letters have been lodged.
===========================================
HP,
I think what I’m trying to say but not succeeeding,is that Green,knowing employment law well enough,is arguing that a players registration is an asset and he bought the assets.
The question is,Does a players registration form part of his contract or is it a separate entity?.
Hypothetically,could a club sign a player say ’til 2016 but”by accident” write an 8 instead of a 6 on his registration,therefore registering the player until 2018?.
Would said player be out of contract in 2016 but still registered to the same club until 2018?.
Could the refuse to pay him but still withhold his registration for another 2 years and if challenged,would an SFA official rule that as the “mistake” was not noticed at the time the registration is legal and cannot be revoked retrospectively?.

View Comment

greenockjackPosted on2:25 pm - Mar 1, 2013


corsicacharity

It’s time to stand up. Stuart Cosgrove, if you’re reading this; you have the platform, use it for all our sakes.
——————————————————————————————————-

Whilst I´m sure SC will throw out some questions as to the verdict (hopefully including for the likes of Regan & Doncaster to take responsibility and go), I´m equally sure that publicly he´ll also call for a line to be drawn and for Scottish football to get on with other pressing issues.

Alex Thomson is away home aswell.

Time to move on or give the game up.

View Comment

bad capt madmanPosted on2:25 pm - Mar 1, 2013


One way to get things changed might be if a club/fan’s organisation asked the SFA to investigate whether one of it’s officals deliberately or otherwise wrongly advised the LNS tribunal. Posters here have already submitted information on how Mr Bryson might have been “in error”. This could lead to also investigating whether a person or persons higher up could have done more to ensure that full and accurate information was presented to LNS.
A small step perhaps, but maybe one in the directon of clearing out the SFA. This high profile “error” or failures in governance is now even in the national press so now might just be an opporchancity to shine some light into the competence of the SFA / individual officials.
Now it might turn out that Mr Bryson was just as right as he was wrong due to poorly written rules, and in that case my apologies to the gentleman, but this also would show the need for change in the rules.
Club chairmen, I dare you!

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on2:28 pm - Mar 1, 2013


Quite a measured response from Lennon

“I believe they were found guilty of paying £47m over 11 years in non-disclosed payments,” Lennon said.

He declined to share his “own views” on whether they enjoyed a competitive advantage.

“I will save that for another time,” the Celtic manager added

View Comment

rougvielovesthejunglePosted on2:34 pm - Mar 1, 2013


Mr Romanov is well used to giving punters the runaround.

I wouldn’t be offering him a tip though!

View Comment

Grant KingPosted on2:37 pm - Mar 1, 2013


The questions asked of the hearing was – Should Rangers of declared the payments to the SPL.

LNS clearly stated that the answer was Yes, however no sporting advantage was gained by not declaring the payments.

A different question is did operating an EBT scheme give Rangers a sporting advantage. The answer to whihc IMO is possibly.

However as other clubs could of done the same and (appeal permitting) these were perfectly legal, then surely any advantage gained was as a result of other clubs not following suit.

When playing snooker, a player can use chalk on his cue, and if the othe rplayer does not use the chalk then the first player has gained an advantage. How can that be the fault of the first player, as the second player choose not to do so.

View Comment

Leave a Reply