Everything Has Changed

Avatar 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

Avatar

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

Avatar

Flocculent ApoideaPosted on2:43 pm - Mar 1, 2013


Grant King,

If eligibility to compete requires you to declare your use of chalk and you use chalk without declaring this, you will be breaching the rules – regardless of any perceived advantage.

View Comment

Avatar

smartbhoyPosted on2:43 pm - Mar 1, 2013


Maybe I’ve been reading too many books and researching the JFK assassination, 9/11, Iraq war with false claims of the country having WMD’s….But I’ve had a good nights sleep with time to mull over the decision.

Yesterday emotions were obviously running very high with everyone in shock not about the outcome of the decision, but the evidence given and the reasoning behind the decision

All day today my conspiracy theory alarm has been ringing in my head over the LNS decision and evidence given. I’ve read the report and then tried to analysis the information in my mind and I’ve came to a conclusion.

Maybe it is the doubt in my mind that over decades the people of various countries have been lied to, truths covered up, rules interpreted to suit individual needs,evidence lost of falsified to suit any commission’s decision.

All of this is done to keep the Elite/Establishment free from any criminal/civil proceedings.

This was a SPL led investigation, not SFA. The two major players giving evidence being Ogilvie and Bryson, both SFA employees.

Ogilvie President of the SFA

I don’t believe one word of his evidence, only a blind man would.

It was completely self preservation by Ogilvie and he did it well with his lies.
_______________________

Bryson in charge of registrations at the SFA.

His evidence sabotaged the SPL’s case.
_______________________

I find his evidence absolutely incredible……against all the rules and well being of the SPL/SFA/UEFA/FIFA. I have never heard anything so absurd in my life.

It’s now over and where we go from here, I don’t know.

We know why Campbell (£95k EBT) Ogilvie did it, but he’s a man with 10 fingers and the Hoover dam is about to spring another hole on top of the 10 it already has. His position is surely untenable.

We need to ask why did Bryson nail the SPL case to the wall?

How does it benefit him?

Did he have an ulterior motive?

Was he in collusion with Ogilvie to Kill the SPL case stone dead?

Was he a soldier under orders to give specific evidence?

If the SFA/SPL knew exactly what Bryson was going to say, surely there is no way you’d have called him as a witness or maybe that’s why he was called as a witness?

Was it a set up from day one and the football authorities knew exactly what was going to happen?

Green paying all football debts and informing people the decision would be delivered on the 28th, 13 days before any official announcement.

With the jubilation of TRFC fans claiming a great victory he slips in the Puma and Blackthorn Cider deals in under the radar. Without any announcement of the financial packages involved
( Very very strange, unless the deal’s are that poor he doesn’t want them publicised)

When it looks like a conspiracy, smells like a conspiracy and tastes like a conspiracy, it almost certainly is a conspiracy.

Bryson is the key player here. You find who’s behind him, you find who fired the fatal shot that killed the SPL case and denied every single innocent football fan justice.

View Comment

Avatar

abcottPosted on2:52 pm - Mar 1, 2013


Best protest would be for no teams to turn up to fixtures at Ibrox.

View Comment

Avatar

nevillepratPosted on2:53 pm - Mar 1, 2013


I feel an attempt should be made to move forward.Titles were NEVER EVER EVER going to be stripped.This verdict just confirms what we already knew.Nothing has changed.
I am having some difficulty with a Kilmarnock supporters post a while back;only celtic fans can bring change.Don’t think so,change will come from,initially, outwith football that will affect the necessary change in social attitudes..don’t see this in the near future.
In the meantime,we support our own clubs more than ever,otherwise the chosen one will return to what it always aspires to; total domination, supremacy,whatever you want to call it.
All we will be doing by turning our backs on our own clubs is facilitating theWATP to what they regard as their rightful place.

View Comment

Avatar

tic6709Posted on3:06 pm - Mar 1, 2013


abcott says:

Friday, March 1, 2013 at 14.52
Best protest would be for no teams to turn up to fixtures at Ibrox
=================
Best result would be if Sevco did’nt turn up.

View Comment

Avatar

spaldingbhoyPosted on3:06 pm - Mar 1, 2013


Is it me or is there a lot of people suddenly wanting us all to move on, nothing to be seen here, move along now, lets draw lines underneath it , it’s just an technical admin error, (of mammoth proportions) all in good faith. People questioning the “nuclear” information of contributors long after its been explained it wasn’t in Barcabhoy gift to give us , it would make you think there’s something else out there that we’re not meant to see or find or look at too closely, what is there that some people think that Barcabhoy knows that’s got some people a tad worried.

View Comment

Avatar

dedeideoprofundisPosted on3:08 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.
———————–

I wonder how Mr. Bryson knew about the alternative reading, perhaps David Nixon or Ali Bongo pointed him in that direction.

View Comment

Avatar

61patrickPosted on3:19 pm - Mar 1, 2013


nevilleprat
Change will only come when the fans of celtic killie and every other team that has been wronged by this” nest of vipers”.
Stand SHOULDER TO SHOULDER and in a united in every way voice tell the RUINERS of our game,
ENOUGH is ENOUGH!!!!!! our game is teminally ill thanks to the actions of a few to aid and abet a few.
Auldheid has the makings of a plan that WILL work.
But it is the paying custumor of every club in Scotland hand in hand, that will change our game for the better,Not chairmen or a change of guard at the SFA(like for like),always has been always will be.
YOU ME and every fan of every club that can see that our game is rotten to the core is our only hope.
I AM PREPARED TO STAND SHOULDER TO SHOULDER ,HAND IN HAND with anyone from any club to save our game.
NOW IS OUR TIME we may NEVER get another chance,
I am though only one voice and need leadership and direction to stop yesterdays “whitewash” happening again.
Yours in fairness,integrity and just plain justice Patrick.

View Comment

Avatar

nowoldandgrumpyPosted on3:20 pm - Mar 1, 2013


Surely he is at the wind up?

Matthew Lindsay ‏@MattLindsayET
In fact, an apology is the very least Rangers deserve. Those responsible should be called to account. #rfc
Details
9 mins Matthew Lindsay ‏@MattLindsayET
Ally McCoist is spot on. Rangers deserve a public apology from those who tried to strip them of titles. A grubby and sinister episode. #rfc

View Comment

Avatar

bluPosted on3:29 pm - Mar 1, 2013


Grant King says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 14:37
1 16 i Rate This
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.

==============================
Grant, an alternative view:

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

LNS clearly stated that the answer was Yes. (Stop here, don’t answer a question that wasn’t asked)

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

View Comment

Avatar

nevillepratPosted on3:33 pm - Mar 1, 2013


Thumbs up from me Patrick!

View Comment

Avatar

zoylerPosted on3:34 pm - Mar 1, 2013


When Mr. Bryson gave his evidence were none of the great legal minds of unquestionable integrity inclined to say something along the lines of – So after all your years working at player registration it has come to you in a flash of light that you have been – for years and years – incorrectly interpreting and applying the rules and just by pure coincidence it was in dealing with the biggest known example of rule breaking that you had this insight? All precedent across Europe is incorrect and it is only in Scotland that the greatest administrators in the world would notice this grave error and so stop an appalling injustice being done to an innocent club? Go on – your having a laugh!

View Comment

Avatar

jimlarkinPosted on3:44 pm - Mar 1, 2013


it was never ever about “stripping titles”.

it was never going to be a “punishment” it would have been a “consequence” and i for one, NOW
know that it has been decided, they have BEEN FOUND GUILTY of cheating in sporting terms, as well as cheating the TAX and N.I.

we have it on record = they DID cheat.

it just needs publicised – over and over and over again, to stop them peddling another myth
– that they were found not guilty.

guilty = cheating = rangers

View Comment

ismellafix

ismellafixPosted on3:49 pm - Mar 1, 2013


If eligibility to compete requires you to declare your use of chalk and you use chalk without declaring this, you will be breaching the rules – regardless of any perceived advantage.

———-
So you agree, they breached the rules but didn’t gain an advantage?
——————————————————————————————————————

Lets say all players use chalk. However the governing body require that all modifications to the players cues are reported to them. Player A inserts a special spring into the but end of his cue which gives him 50% more cueing power. However he deliberately decides to conceal this modification in case it is banned and he is back to square one.

Is he cheating? Or is it ok so long as no one finds out, at which time it becomes a mere oversight of a “construction error”.

View Comment

Avatar

61patrickPosted on3:50 pm - Mar 1, 2013


Matthew Lindsay ‏@MattLindsayET
They were found GUILTY & FINED

View Comment

Avatar

Flocculent ApoideaPosted on3:50 pm - Mar 1, 2013


Shield2012,

I don’t think withholding information gave RFC an advantage. It did help them conceal the EBT payments to players but that’s not the what was being investigated. They are deemed to have deliberately and repeatedly done so but results are allowed to stand, whereas other clubs have had results overturned and were thrown out of competitions for making a single error with one player’s registration, even where it is accepted there was no intention to deceive and no competitive advantage gained. That’s where I have a problem with this. We suddenly have a new interpretation of player eligibility. My previous understanding was that, regardless of motive or advantage, if a player is not properly registered, they are inelligible to compete and, where they have competed, those games go down as defeats, retrospectively. I think the SFA (at best) are trying to avoid the mess of claims from clubs who would have benefitted from the rules being followed. They should now be facing claims from clubs who were punished as I described, above.

View Comment

Avatar

Sean McNultyPosted on3:53 pm - Mar 1, 2013


I just want to repost the following from Hirsute Pursuit. These words, and yesterday’s similar post by majorcoverup, are potentially among the most important reactions I’ve seen to yesterday’s farrago. Surely the SPL board cannot ignore such a blatant misreading of their rules.

HirsutePursuit:

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 covers 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

ismellafix

ismellafixPosted on3:58 pm - Mar 1, 2013


Given the perilous financial situation at Hearts and Mr Romanov. I cannot believe the club lawyers are not all over this like a rash. Hearts are arguably one of the biggest losers of this Sevco Friendly Appeasement, (SFA for short). All it needs is for one of the member clubs to challenge this at CAS.

Hearts it would appear have nothing to lose and potentially millions to gain. Even if RFC IL cannot pay compensation, they may have a claim against the SFA/SFL for failing to carry out their duties properly which resulted in them, (Hearts) losing out on shedloads of prizemoney and european qualification.

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on4:02 pm - Mar 1, 2013


Early indications are that the TRFC reactions to the LNS outcome is similar to the FTTT decision: in their own heads their club was ‘completely vindicated’ and they now demand apologies from all and sundry.

Up until now, TRFC has been going out of its way to alienate itself from the rest of Scottish football. Yesterday’s decision – and TRFC’s reaction – is not going to help build any bridges.

Unfortunately, only one Scottish club will continue to adversely affect and antagonise the rest of senior Scottish football for some time. And God help us all when they do return to the top division, to settle scores against all the ‘Rangers-haters’…

View Comment

Avatar

greenockjackPosted on4:09 pm - Mar 1, 2013


Spaldingbhoy
Is it me or is there a lot of people suddenly wanting us all to move on, nothing to be seen here, move along now, lets draw lines underneath it , it’s just an technical admin error, (of mammoth proportions) all in good faith. People questioning the “nuclear” information of contributors long after its been explained it wasn’t in Barcabhoy gift to give us , it would make you think there’s something else out there that we’re not meant to see or find or look at too closely, what is there that some people think that Barcabhoy knows that’s got some people a tad worried.
————————————————————————————

That is at least in part aimed at me so let me respond.

You are free to do as you wish, to believe in what you want and to ignore the likes of me as you will, fine !

Go right ahead, follow another wild goose chase.
Paul Brennan talks of involving CAS but you need both sides to agree to the arbitration first, so that´s holed below the waterline for a start.

Look, you have played your jokers.
One has lost and the other is subject to an appeal.
Do you really think you´re going to get any joy in exploring ways to take things further ?
But if you want to, don´t let me or others persuade you otherwise, it doesn´t really bother me anymore and tbh I think the majority are becoming tired of it.
Don´t let me stop you from using the old nuclear comfort blanket either.

At the end of the day Rangers are still there (I´ll let others argue about old & new)
This saga has damaged the club badly and it will take a long time to recover.
Custodians did great damage and the support were blinded and complacent.
The real issue is whether lessons will be learnt or not.

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on4:09 pm - Mar 1, 2013


The key issues in terms of the footballing rules were

1) Would the EBT loans be regraded as payments. If NO then no problem, If Yes then see 2 below
2) If those payments were not included on registration documents then what is the consequences? – see 3)
3) A reading of both SFA and SPL rules tends to make everyone think lack of disclosure from the outset, regardless when the offense was discovered, would lead to the registration being improper and invalid thus a player or players should be deemed inelligible from the time they registered.

But then
The out of left field comes Bryson. However he doesn’t actually address the issue of ineligibility due to improper /incomplete registration documents because his argument is that on discovering an invalid registration, that registration would have to be revoked.

Therefore when the revocation is applied that doesn’t actually make a player ineligible because following revocation he doesn’t hold any registration that allows him to play football eligibly or otherwise

Once again I ask where is it in the rules of any of the bodies involved that says that once an invalid registration has been discovered it has to be revoked and what is the rules and processes (timescales appeals etc) attached to such a operation.

The revocation of a players registration mid-season would surely have to have a few paragraphs of written rules somewhere on the due process being that the consequences of such an action, on say, a key star player or captain could have very serious consequences for the club involved and even national teams.

LNS says how to revoke a registration is not included the SPL rulebook but then does not appear go on to point to it being in the SFA rulebook either.

So unless someone from the SFA can explain where it is then I believe the whole thing, while it may actually be a sound argument, merely exists is in the mind of Mr Bryson.

It would apper that the only rule that is written anywhere and thus factual and objective are ones such as SPL rule D1.13 and SFA Article12.3 that’s what the decision should have been based on.

View Comment

Avatar

beatipacificiscotiaPosted on4:10 pm - Mar 1, 2013


smartbhoy says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 14:43

Alexander Bryson may have described the process. I think you will find that it was Rod McKenzie (the SPL representatives from Harper MacLeod) who derailed the whole case. LNS noted that Rod McKenzie had “accepted that no provision of the Rules enabled the Board of the SPL retrospectively to terminate the registration of the player. It became apparent from his submissions that Mr McKenzie was not pressing for a finding that Issue 3(c), together with the concluding words of Issue 3(b), had been proved.”

So there you have it, the whole case in that last line. The sly old legal fox that LNS is spotted it and reported it. The SPLs own solicitor was not pressing for issue 3(c), that players were ineligible to play, to be proved. The SPL wanted out of it, and their lawyers delivered.

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on4:17 pm - Mar 1, 2013


PS

In fact LNS provides a nice summary of all the relevant footballing rules that are relevant to the case at the end of his report and there is no reference to the ‘construction’ of any rule that bears any relevance to what Mr Bryson is talking about.

Provisions of the Rules, Articles of Association of the SFA and SFA Registration
Procedures referred to in the Issues
(i) Rule F1:
“Every Club shall keep detailed financial records and the Company shall be entitled to
inspect such records and require Clubs to provide copies of any financial or other records
which the Company may reasonably require in order to enable the Company to
investigate whether the Club has complied and is complying with these Rules, the
Articles of Association, the SFA Articles, the UEFA Statutes and the FIFA Statutes and
to ensure compliance by the Club with the same.”
(ii) Rule G1.1:
“The Board and where appointed by the Board, a Commission, shall have the power of
inquiry into all financial, contractual or other arrangements with and between and/or
amongst Clubs and Players and all matters concerning compliance with Financial
Disclosure Requirements and into all matters constituting or pertaining to any suspected
or alleged breach or failure to fulfil the Rules by any Club, Club Official and/or Player
or any matter considered by the Board or, where appointed by the Board, a
Commission, to be relevant to an Adjudication or an Appeal and every Club and Club
Official and Player shall be liable to and shall afford every assistance to the Board or, as
the case may be, Commission, as may be requested or required of it, or him.”
(iii) Rule G.1.5:
“The Board, and where appointed by the Board, a Commission, may require the
attendance of any Club Official, Player and/or other person at any meeting of the Board
or a Commission and/or the production to the Board or a Commission of any books,
letters and other documents or records whatsoever and howsoever kept relating to or
concerning any matter in relation to which the Board, and where appointed by the Board,
a Commission have the power of inquiry or determination in terms of Rules G1.1 and
G1.2 respectively.”
(iv) Rule D9.3:
“No Player may receive any payment of any description from or on behalf of a Club in
respect of that Player’s participation in Association Football or any activity within
Association Football, other than in reimbursement of expenses actually incurred or to be
actually incurred in playing or training for that Club, unless such payment is made in
accordance with a Contract of Service between that Club and the Player concerned.” (In
effect from and including 23 May 2005).
(iv) Rule D1.11:
“Any Club Playing an ineligible Player in an Official Match and the Player concerned
shall be in breach of the Rules.” (This Rule and its predecessor in effect from and
including 23 May 2005).
(v) Rule 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.” (In effect from and including 23 May 2005).”
(vi) Rule D10.2.3:
“The Contract of Service between the Player and the Club shall state the Player’s full
financial entitlement from the Club, including signing on fees, additional lump sum
payments, remuneration, bonus payments, removal assistance and benefits in kind. In
any dispute between the Player and the Club, the remuneration contained in the Contract
of Service shall be deemed to be the Player’s complete entitlement. Any Club failing to
detail a Player’s full financial entitlement in the Contract of Service shall be dealt with as
the Board may decide.” (In effect prior to 23 May 2005).
(vii) Rule A7.1:
“A.7.1. Membership of the Scottish Premier League shall constitute an agreement
between the Company and each Club, and between each of the Clubs, to be bound by and
to comply with:- (a) these Rules and the Articles of Association; (b) the SFA Articles …..
;” (This Rule and its predecessor A7.1.1(b) in effect from 1998).”
(ix) SFA Article 5.1(b):
“All members shall: … (b) be subject to and shall comply with these Articles and any
… regulations … promulgated by the Board … ;”
(x) SFA Article 12.3:
“Furthermore, all payments whether made by the club or otherwise which are to be made
to a Player solely relating to his playing activities must be fully recorded within the
relevant written agreement with the Player prior to submission to the Association and/or
the recognised football body of which his Club is in membership.” (In effect from and
including 22 May 2002).
(xi) SFA Registration Procedures Paragraph 2.2.1:
“Unless lodged in accordance with Procedures Rule 2.13 a Non-Recreational Contract
Player Registration Form will not be valid unless it is accompanied by the contract
entered into between the club concerned and the player stating all the Terms and
Conditions in conformity with the Procedures Rule 4.” (In effect from and including
Season 2002/03).
(xi) SFA Procedures Rule 4:
“All payments to be made to a player relating to his playing activities must be clearly
recorded upon the relevant contract and/or agreement. No payments for his playing
activities may be made to a Player via a third party.” (In effect from and including Season
2002/03).

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on4:18 pm - Mar 1, 2013


ismellafix says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 15:58

Hearts it would appear have nothing to lose and potentially millions to gain. Even if RFC IL cannot pay compensation, they may have a claim against the SFA/SFL for failing to carry out their duties properly which resulted in them, (Hearts) losing out on shedloads of prizemoney and european qualification
=========================
That’s a decent point ismellafix.
Even if Hearts don’t have the cash, perhaps they could instruct some ‘no-win/no-fee’ ambulance chasers to launch a claim ?
Agreed, it may be a long shot, and would take a long time to resolve – but the numbers could be significant.

View Comment

Avatar

Flocculent ApoideaPosted on4:25 pm - Mar 1, 2013


Greenockjack says – “The real issue is whether lessons will be learnt or not.”

Currently, the lesson is that clubs can withhold information relevant to correct player registration for several years and still legitimately win honours and qualify for European competition. That doesn’t sit right with me and, I suspect, a good many others.

View Comment

Tartawulver

TartawulverPosted on4:26 pm - Mar 1, 2013


greenockjack says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 16:09

At the end of the day Rangers are still there (I´ll let others argue about old & new)
This saga has damaged the club badly and it will take a long time to recover.
Custodians did great damage and the support were blinded and complacent.
The real issue is whether lessons will be learnt or not.
———————————————————————————–
I think Rangers can get so far on a siege mentality, and obviously have been using that over the past year. But at some point some hard questions about what the club wants to stand for going forward are going to have to be addressed. So do you think relevant lessons will be learned? (This isn’t meant as a rhetorical question, I’m genuinely asking.)

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on4:27 pm - Mar 1, 2013


beatipacificiscotia says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 16:10

Have to say you may be onto something as it seems strange that there was no counter argument put forward to Mr Brysons argument as that would ahve surely that resulted in more detailed explaination from LNS as to how he reached his findings by weighing up the pros and cons put forward by either side.

View Comment

Avatar

SeniorPosted on4:35 pm - Mar 1, 2013


Bryson is the key player here. You find who’s behind him, you find who fired the fatal shot that killed the SPL case and denied every single innocent football fan justice.
_______________________________

One of the key players, the other was LNS. He accepted Bryson’s miasma without demur.
I do not question LNS integrity or honesty but regarding his naivety, savvy and his legal interpretation of an obviously concocted story regarding the Registration three-card trick, well that’s another matter altogether.

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on4:40 pm - Mar 1, 2013


“Lennon angry about Rangers fine”
=============================
The Scottish MSM continues to underwhelm…this deceitful headline is from the Herald.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/lennon-angry-about-rangers-fine.1362151765

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on4:42 pm - Mar 1, 2013


Flocculent Apoidea says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 16:25

Greenockjack says – “The real issue is whether lessons will be learnt or not.”

Currently, the lesson is that clubs can withhold information relevant to correct player registration for several years and still legitimately win honours and qualify for European competition. That doesn’t sit right with me and, I suspect, a good many others.

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

And you forgot to add that even when you do get rumbled currently there appears top be no known process (especially in the SPL) to actually revoke that players registration so they can keep playing until the rule is clarified because the player can’t ever be deemed inelligible.

Jospeh Heller would be proud of this one.

View Comment

Avatar

greenockjackPosted on4:44 pm - Mar 1, 2013


TW

I agree that strategy has to evolve in various areas.
Only time will tell if lessons are learnt, it´s presently too early to judge.

The support really need to get their act together and do what is possible to ensure that the club is being run in their best longterm interests.

View Comment

Avatar

Sean McNultyPosted on4:58 pm - Mar 1, 2013


beatipacificiscotia says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 16:10
11 0 Rate This
smartbhoy says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 14:43

Alexander Bryson may have described the process. I think you will find that it was Rod McKenzie (the SPL representatives from Harper MacLeod) who derailed the whole case. LNS noted that Rod McKenzie had “accepted that no provision of the Rules enabled the Board of the SPL retrospectively to terminate the registration of the player. It became apparent from his submissions that Mr McKenzie was not pressing for a finding that Issue 3(c), together with the concluding words of Issue 3(b), had been proved.”

So there you have it, the whole case in that last line. The sly old legal fox that LNS is spotted it and reported it. The SPLs own solicitor was not pressing for issue 3(c), that players were ineligible to play, to be proved. The SPL wanted out of it, and their lawyers delivered.

—————

That seems unarguable, beatipacificiscotia, and if anything makes the whole affair even more depressing.

The SPL lawyers either:
1. couldn’t see 3(b) and 3(c) as the centre of entire case;
Or 2. could but failed to ‘press’ on it.

I just can’t get my head around it being 1.

I can get my head around it being 2., just about, but then things really starts to spin, and I start to concur with the ultra-cynics who’ve called the whole dual-contacts ‘investigation’ a con from start to finish.

Apologies for the double-post above, by the way.

View Comment

Avatar

carlisleceltPosted on5:12 pm - Mar 1, 2013


Why do people continue to bother with this Rangers thingy, why does this board continue to exist. They (Rangers) have won and despite all the garbish that is spewed out on this and many other boards they will continue to win. Us lesser mortals should know our place, close this and all likewise boards down they are addictive, I cannot help myself I am lured to them, but they are not good for our health.

View Comment

Avatar

61patrickPosted on5:15 pm - Mar 1, 2013


Out of small acorns……….

https://twitter.com/splfansunited

View Comment

Avatar

hampdenborePosted on5:21 pm - Mar 1, 2013


Has the SFA head of registrations been so kind to explain what sporting advantage Spartans were seeking to gain in 2011, when they committed the ultimate sin of only signing a players contract once rather twice?

View Comment

Avatar

Geordie BhoyPosted on5:24 pm - Mar 1, 2013


First, apologies for the length of the post: I started and just kept going …

I held off for a day to see if my anger and disgust would wear off. They have not. What happened yesterday was a key part of the plan to keep Govan FC at the top table, record and dignity intact. What a plan it has been: on 13th February last year, Rangers were facing certain administration and an imminent winding-up at the hands of the taxman. A little over a year later, a tribute club called “The Rangers” (aka Sevco) sit debt-free, flush with cash (allegedly) and laying claim to all the honours that the previous club in Ibrox stadium had achieved. The new tribute club even have the use of some of the props of the dead club.

Thanks to two fine lawyers at the FTTT, they saw most of the charges laid against them vanish in a cloud of legal tail-chasing. In fact, the only charges that stuck were those that Rangers admitted to. As of yesterday, we were treated to details of the pantomime that was the Lord Nimmo Smith (and two other QCs) enquiry. Once again, no punishment for Rangers.

Two things have been constant over the last year. The first is the totally one-sided cheerleading for Govan FC from the mainstream press. Questions have not been asked, issues not explored and lies not exposed. To them, all that is of value is the blue pound. Their desire for this has been all-consuming but it has come at a cost: the rest of us have been sickened by what we heard and read and have turned off in large numbers. The Daily Record is in freefall and surely cannot survive as a standalone publication for much longer. I believe it will soon be followed by one of The Herald or The Scotsman, with possibly the Evening Times being next in line. They have lost the trust of their readership. How long will Super Score Board last?

The other has been the complete silence of all other football clubs, with only a couple of people going off-message. The first was Vladimir Romanov, who for years had complained at the corruption and rule flexibility of the SFA. For this, he has been repeatedly fined but had accepted his punishments. When Rangers went into administration, he let off a broadside, no doubt feeling vindicated. He has been silent since. “Why?” I ask myself because after Celtic, Hearts have suffered the most. Here is my conjecture: Vlad (who had after all invested tens of millions of pounds into Hearts) as a non-Scot, probably expected the rules to be applied without fear or favour and for people to be judged on what they do. Poor Vlad. He did not realise that in bonnie Scotland, it is the school you went to and the company you keep that is important. I think he met his fellow SPL chairman, expecting them to act honourably & apply the rules … but soon realised that they all wanted the cheats back in at the top table, no questions asked and no compensation paid. No one was prepared to stand up for what was right, even if that meant consigning your own club to almost certain administration (Dunfermline Athletic). Vlad left and has abandoned Hearts since then.

Th other was of course the honourable Turnbull Hutton, the one man who called out the SFL, SPL & SFA as corrupt. Sadly, I think he learned the same lesson as Mr. Romanov. He expected the other SFL chairmen to stand up for right & integrity and was sorely disappointed. Despite the arson threats to Starks Park, the pitch damage at Galabank (did Annan ever get compensated for that?), the threats to the Montrose announcer and programme compiler, the SFL chairmen have stayed resolutely silent. The only voice that was heard was that of Mr. Longmuir, telling us loud and clear that the SFL would never strip trophies from Govan FC, under any circumstances.

To my mind, this has been a plan long in the making. All the way through, it has required the active participation of the SPL chairmen and chief executives. I have read in posts on RTC and this blog that Celtic “are playing a blinder” by not getting involved. I am a Celtic fan and I believe they have been involved all the way through. They are the 1500 pound gorilla, the only club that could stand up for what was right and carry others with them. They are on the committees and were party to the infamous five-way plan. “Judge people by their actions” was advice I was given as a lad. My judgement is this: the blue pound is more important to the Celtic board than stolen titles or cups.

Also when I was a lad, I used to watch the excellent sitcom “Yes, Prime Minister.” I remember one episode in particular where Sir Humphrey counselled James Hacker to organise a commission in order to head off a particularly controversial decision. “Won’t that be a risky?” asked Hacker. “Oh, no!” said Sir Humphrey, “no one organises a commission without telling them of the outcome in advance.” How I laughed. I did not realise this actually happened. The fig leaf of respectability offered by Lord Nimmo Smith and his fellow QCs is exactly that. For those who assured us that Lord Nimmo Smith would not risk his reputation and unimpeachable integrity for Rangers (NIL) clearly miscalculated. But the Sevconians are happy with his conduct and that of Mr. Mure, QC.

Now for the last part of the plan where Sevco are invited into the SPL for the good of Scottish football and the First Division champions are shafted. A year late, but better late than never.

Again, apologies for the length of the post and of course, all of these are entirely my own opinions and beliefs.

View Comment

Avatar

fistasapartPosted on5:30 pm - Mar 1, 2013


Don’t know about anyone else but I can’t engage in banter with my sevco/rangers friends anymore. It’s embarrassing and intimidating. I no longer even discuss football with them and don’t think this will ever change. I think that the followers of rangers/sevco will always walk alone.

View Comment

Avatar

angus1983Posted on5:33 pm - Mar 1, 2013


nowoldandgrumpy says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 15:20

9 mins Matthew Lindsay ‏@MattLindsayET
Ally McCoist is spot on. Rangers deserve a public apology from those who tried to strip them of titles. A grubby and sinister episode.
——

No-one tried to strip the old Rangers of titles. They were being investigated for a misdemeanour – for which they were found guilty. This little fact seems to have been entirely overlooked, and the whole thing is being treated as some kind of “voctory” because they got to keep their – forever tainted – titles.

Rangers – that is, Oldco – deserve an apology from no-one. This figment, the ethereal entity, the “Rangers FC” thingy that McCoist beleives he’s ionvolved with, has nothing to do with it.

In fact, if David Murray had any balls, he’d apologise for breaking the rules. He’s apologise for tarring the club of which he was custodian with the swindle brush.

In the meantime, Ally McCoist would be as well zipping it. After all, we’ve heard often enough that this is nothing to do with his club.

Now … where’s Craig Whyte when you need him? Any new bootlegs, Craigy-boy?

View Comment

Tartawulver

TartawulverPosted on5:36 pm - Mar 1, 2013


greenockjack says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 16:44

I agree that strategy has to evolve in various areas.
Only time will tell if lessons are learnt, it´s presently too early to judge.

The support really need to get their act together and do what is possible to ensure that the club is being run in their best longterm interests.
———————————————————–
What would you think specific lessons to be learnt are, from a Rangers point of view? And do you see the club’s long term interests and those of Scottish football as being mutually compatible?

View Comment

Avatar

Carl31 (@C4rl31)Posted on5:38 pm - Mar 1, 2013


Having had the time to read the decision of the SPLIC in more detail, and now having read the Notice of Commission that set out the remit of the SPLIC, I am of the opinion that there has been a miscarriage of justice! Oldco should appeal.

They should appeal on the grounds that an entity with no legal personality (Rangers FC) cannot feasibly, under the law or under the football rules, perform any of the actions or activities that it was charged with having done, including any breaches of any rules.

If an entity has no legal personality it cannot enter into any contracts or agreements with any person or body or entity. It cannot make payments to any person or body or entity since it cannot own money or operate some form of bank account. It cannot be held in breach of contract or pursued for failure to honour such agreements, and cannot be held liable for any monetary or other debts. The Company that is the owner and operator of Rangers FC (who may change from time to time) can enter agreements, make payments etc. but Rangers FC cannot.

A company (or other legal entity such as a person or corporate body) can legally do these things, but its asset(s) cannot.

Rangers FC are defined as being an entity separate from its owner operator company and having no legal personality. In the earlier ‘ground rules’ decision and again in the latest decision, it is explained that Rangers FC are a recognisable entity separate from the owner and operator company. It is comprised of ‘some’ of the assets or it is an asset in itself, or something like that which is unclear. It can be held as something recognisable and can be a “continuing entity (even though not an entity with legal personality)”. We were informed that this is the basis upon which the Commission proceeded.

In the decision of the SPLIC of 28/02/2013, there were charges set out as per the charges of the Notice of Commission. Charges were notated: 1, 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 2(d), 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), 3(d), 3(e), 3(f), 4(a), 4(b) and 4(c) – that is 14 charges overall. The wording of each of these charges included:

“Rangers PLC, whilst a member of the Company and the owner and operator of Rangers FC, and Rangers FC, whilst a member of the Scottish Premier League, breached Rule …”

(…with the exception of the latter part of 3(b) and all of 3(c) regarding player eligibility, as these refer only to “Rangers FC”.)

The logical argument put by this wording in the 12 remaining charges takes the form, ‘that [entity 1] and [entity 2] [did something]’. It does not take the form of argument, ‘that an [entity A (comprising entities 1 and 2)] [did something]’.

It is clear that, excepting the latter part of 3(b) and all of 3(c), the charges require both the owner operator company (named as Rangers PLC) and Rangers FC, to have been:

“…making and/or entering into EBT Payments and Arrangements…”

Given the absence of any legal personality of Rangers FC, this cannot have happened. None of those charges referred to can be found guilty.

Further, since membership of a body such as the SPL or SFA involves a form of agreement to abide by the articles and rules, any entity that has no legal personality cannot be held in breach of such articles or rules as it cannot feasibly have agreed to them. I would suggest that the other two charges or part charges cannot be found guilty for the reasons as above.

I await news from BDO that they are to appeal the decision that has fined the Old Rangers £250,000 for roughly a decade of systematic rulebreaking due to deliberate non-disclosure of documents to the authorities.

View Comment

Avatar

iceman63Posted on6:05 pm - Mar 1, 2013


The verdict was wholly correct in that it found that Rangers had breached rules on registration.

LNS then unilaterally reinterprted the rules on registration errors in ways totally beyond his remit or competence quite deliberately to state that no material advantage was gained ( an irrelevance to the central point re- registration as all previous punishments for genuine errors have shown time and time again when such errors were genuinely made with no advantage as opposed to deliberate concealment of relevant information as in this case. ) as such his interpretation is despicable. taken with LH’s bizarre delays to allow the transfer and the Edinburgh based QC’s ignoring facts to dfeat the HMRC case in the face of all evidence, it is crystal clear that the Scottish legal profession has no interest in objective value of justice or upholding the law and is solely interested in protecting entrenched vested interests.

This should come as no surprise – laws are interpreted almost always to benefit the wealthy and pruvileged by establishment individual in this and in all other Western democracies ( just look at how the bankers walked scot free from the greatest ever fraud perpetrated on all of us in 2008 with their wealth protected and strengthened)

The vested interest here are to allow Rangers to regain its previous position as soon as possible and even as a new entity as the same entity. This is an Orwellian case of doublethink. LNS’s interpretation is also one of despicable doublethink. Thus all precedent and case law on registration and the letters of the association were simply ignored and replaced with an irrelevant subjective judgement to avoid Rangers facin the correct consequences of their actions.

This has much wider implications than football.

What it shows is that Scotland’s ultimate legal prerogatives are not based upon written Law, or case Law or common Law but upon the judgements of appointed individuals with a clear and defined agenda to maintain the interests of those in power and influence and to distort and ignore legal principles in order to achieve this end.

Anyone who still believes that the individuals who are in positions of judgement within the legal system in Scotland have any interest in judgements which are rule based and upon upholding law is patently deluded.

I do doubt LNS’s honesty and integrity on this – I doubt the integrity and honesty of all judges – these are political appointments and given to individuals who can best serve their interests rather than as some would have us believe based upon integrity and competence. The myth of law and Justice is simply a smokescreen – the Law is merely another weapon to legitimise those in power and their authority over us.

View Comment

Avatar

shield2012Posted on6:09 pm - Mar 1, 2013


Flocculent Apoidea says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 15:50
15 0 Rate This
Shield2012,

I don’t think withholding information gave RFC an advantage. It did help them conceal the EBT payments to players but that’s not the what was being investigated. They are deemed to have deliberately and repeatedly done so but results are allowed to stand, whereas other clubs have had results overturned and were thrown out of competitions for making a single error with one player’s registration, even where it is accepted there was no intention to deceive and no competitive advantage gained. That’s where I have a problem with this. We suddenly have a new interpretation of player eligibility. My previous understanding was that, regardless of motive or advantage, if a player is not properly registered, they are inelligible to compete and, where they have competed, those games go down as defeats, retrospectively. I think the SFA (at best) are trying to avoid the mess of claims from clubs who would have benefitted from the rules being followed. They should now be facing claims from clubs who were punished as I described, above.

——–

I agree Flocculent Apoidea, I was responding to others who insist there was systemic cheating by RFC.

The only thing I would add is – is it fair to make the same mistake twice? It could be considered to be ‘two wrongs making a right’. If the punishment is considered harsh, which many do in the case of Spartans, then you need to change the interpretation at some stage. Why not now during the most public case?

View Comment

Avatar

Geordie BhoyPosted on6:11 pm - Mar 1, 2013


Carl31 (@C4rl31) says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 17:38

Carl31, I have no faith that BDO will upset the apple cart. So far, we have a police investigation going nowhere, a charities’ regulator investigation going nowhere,
a SPL investigation that was undermined by the … SPL and a conflict of interests investigation by the Insolvency Practitioners Association going nowhere. The only people who will force change are the fans – by walking away. I have cancelled my Sky bundle and will not be at any Scottish game for the foreseeable future. If enough of us do the same, change will happen.

View Comment

Avatar

bogsdolloxPosted on6:16 pm - Mar 1, 2013


fistasapart says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 17:30

Don’t know about anyone else but I can’t engage in banter with my sevco/rangers friends anymore. It’s embarrassing and intimidating. I no longer even discuss football with them and don’t think this will ever change. I think that the followers of rangers/sevco will always walk alone.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Interesting comment.

I’ve had similar experience with a good friend of mine who he accepts none of the wrongdoing(I say wrongdoing but we all know they are cheats) and I got a bit angry and had to apologise to him. When I say apologise I just dropped the subject and after an awkward silence moved on to discuss something else (closest I can get to an apology).

My thinking is that Scottish football cannot be “healed” until the supporters of other clubs see some humility from Rangers and can trust the SPL/SFA/SFL again.

As for the trust aspect – reform of the SFA (which means a big clear out) is in the hands of the member clubs, backed by the fans, they need to start to show some leadership. If we don’t do it now when Rangers are an irrelevance there won’t be a second chance.

View Comment

Avatar

dreddybhoyPosted on6:24 pm - Mar 1, 2013


shield2012 says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 15:06
2 32 Rate This
Flocculent Apoidea says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 14:43
Rate This
Grant King,

If eligibility to compete requires you to declare your use of chalk and you use chalk without declaring this, you will be breaching the rules – regardless of any perceived advantage.

———-
So you agree, they breached the rules but didn’t gain an advantage?

———–
I haven’t seen anything in the regulations on player registrations that say the rules don’t matter if no sporting advantage is obtained – where did Nimmo get that as a consideration?

View Comment

Avatar

iceman63Posted on6:24 pm - Mar 1, 2013


The verdict was wholly correct in that it found that Rangers had breached rules on registration.

LNS then unilaterally reinterpreted the rules on registration errors in ways totally beyond his remit or competence quite deliberately to state that no material advantage was gained (an irrelevance to the central point re- registration as all previous punishments for genuine errors have shown time and time again when such errors were genuinely made with no advantage as opposed to deliberate concealment of relevant information as in this case. ) as such his interpretation is despicable: taken with LH’s bizarre delays to allow the transfer and the Edinburgh based QC’s ignoring facts to dfeat the HMRC case in the face of all evidence, it is crystal clear that the Scottish legal profession has no interest in objective value of justice or upholding the law and is solely interested in protecting entrenched vested interests.

This should come as no surprise – laws are interpreted (almost always) to benefit the wealthy and privileged by establishment individuals in this, and in all other Western democracies ( just look at how the bankers walked scot free from the greatest ever fraud perpetrated on all of us in 2008 with their wealth protected and strengthened by stealing resources from the state to sustain their fraudulent empires)

The vested interests here are determined to allow Rangers to regain its previous position as soon as possible and even as a new entity to emerge as the same entity. This is an Orwellian case of Doublethink, to which the press and MSM and footballing authorities and those in positions of power and influence beyond the realms of sport but deep within our civic society are intent upon inflicing upon all of us.Two plus two equalling five indeed and those who protest or who point out trith will be hounded and condemned and attacked. . LNS’s interpretation is just one more example of this of despicable Doublethink. Thus all precedent and case law on registration and the letters of the association were simply ignored and replaced with an irrelevant subjective judgement to avoid Rangers facing the correct consequences of their actions. Yet we are all then told to believe that this was a decision based upon pribciples and judgements which are transparent and just.

This Doublethink of turning truth into lies and lies into truth is , in fact, the very stuff of Judges and their unique and often baseless interpretations of the Law are commonly backed solely by their apparently unimpeachable reputation.

This has much wider implications for Scotland than simply in the administration of football. What it serves is as a case study in how the establishment uses the processes of Law to undermine Justice and protect vested interests by using legal process to confer legitimacy upon many practices and institutions whose reality is in fact far from legitimate and just.

What it shows is that Scotland’s ultimate legal prerogatives are not based upon written Law, or case Law or common Law, but upon the almost random and certainly subjective judgements of appointed individuals with a clear and defined agenda to maintain the interests of those in power and influence and to distort and ignore legal principles in order to achieve this end.

Anyone who still believes that the individuals who are in positions of judgement within the legal system in Scotland have any interest in judgements which are rule based and based upon upholding Law in the interests of Justice is patently deluded.

I do doubt LNS’s honesty and integrity on this – in fact it is clear that he has very little , just as I doubt the integrity and honesty of all judges – the notion of their neutrality and objectivity is a powerful one but is simply a myth with no basis in reality.

Judges are political appointees and the jobs are given to individuals who can best serve the interests of the establishment rather than as some would have us believe based upon integrity and competence. The myth of Law delivering Justice is simply a smokescreen – the Law is merely another weapon to legitimise those in power and their authority over us.

View Comment

Avatar

jimlarkinPosted on6:25 pm - Mar 1, 2013


Geordie Bhoy says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 18:11

Carl31 (@C4rl31) says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 17:38

Carl31, I have no faith that BDO will upset the apple cart. So far, we have a police investigation going nowhere, a charities’ regulator investigation going nowhere,
a SPL investigation that was undermined by the … SPL and a conflict of interests investigation by the Insolvency Practitioners Association going nowhere.

The only people who will force change are the fans – by walking away.
I have cancelled my Sky bundle and will not be at any Scottish game for the foreseeable future.
If enough of us do the same, change will happen.

———————————————————————————————————————–
well said.

i will be doing the same.

i won’t even be doing any more “fixed” odds coupons
– as scottish football certainly is “fixed”!

i will not be handing over anymore cash to football, unless there is change via the clubs themselves = us.

View Comment

Avatar

shield2012Posted on6:29 pm - Mar 1, 2013


Wottpi, you asked me a question earlier. I haven’t read enough of the Alexander Bryson material to warrant a comment yet.

I’m not ignoring you.

View Comment

lagerbeer

lagerbeerPosted on6:37 pm - Mar 1, 2013


Just watched the clip of Neil Lennon’s press conference and have to commend him very highly for his words and overall demeanour. I felt that Lennon was displaying the same frustrations that the majority of us who comment on this board are feeling just now. Nice one, Neil!

View Comment

Avatar

bogsdolloxPosted on6:41 pm - Mar 1, 2013


iceman63 says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 18:24
===========================================================================

To be honest I normally TD your posts on account of them normally being a bit paranoid. Tonight I gave you a TU. I’m losing my mind.

View Comment

broadswordcallingdannybhoy

broadswordcallingdannybhoyPosted on6:46 pm - Mar 1, 2013


I posted yesterday about anger forcing me to turn my back on this farce, that hasn’t changed.

I’ll hopefully be in the fortunate position in a few months to move to a new country, but by gum, I’d love for us (former?) fans do something to fix this unholy shambles.

Can you please click on the up thumb if you think us ordinary fans are capable of re-leveling the playing field?

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on6:49 pm - Mar 1, 2013


shield2012 says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 18:29

No worries.

It shouldn’t take long to review his evidence but the interpretation of what it means will go on forever 🙂

View Comment

Avatar

Geordie BhoyPosted on6:51 pm - Mar 1, 2013


jimlarkin says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 18:25

Cheers for that. I see that some posters are trying to get a fan movement to get the SPL/a SPL club to challenge the decision. I wish them luck and will support this move. Unfortunately, the SPL/SFA and clubs have had every opprtunity to meet with concerned fans but they have chosen not and I do not see that changing. Money talks the loudest and although it should be the last resort, to us disenfranchised fans, it is the only resort.

View Comment

Avatar

csihampdenPosted on6:56 pm - Mar 1, 2013


On LNS flawed logic:

I recognise that I was not being asked to ascertain eligibility of players….but I shall provide a judgement anyway.

View Comment

Avatar

Lord WobblyPosted on7:00 pm - Mar 1, 2013


shield2012 says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 08:45
3 40 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.
——————–
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’d have much more respect for you if acknowledged that your club had got away with it and thumbed your nose at me. But to insult my intelligence by attempting to suggest that Rangers have done nothing wrong is both undignified and unworthy.
You and I both know what Rangers did and why they did it. It was to put players on the park that would otherwise have gone elsewhere. That, my friend, is seeking to gain an advantage. One might argue that it wouldn’t necessarily gain an advantage over Celtic (although in practice it did), but it was without any question seeking to gain an advantage over the other Scottish clubs.
I’m really pleased with Celtic’s comments today.

View Comment

Avatar

csihampdenPosted on7:04 pm - Mar 1, 2013


More on LNS flawed logic

I ascertain that Rangers did not gain sportingly from this deceit, therefore I shall apply no sporting sanctions.
However, I must equally ascertain that Rangers did not gain financially from this deceit, for to have done so would require that they also may have gained sportingly, and as stated above, I have concluded this not to be the case. However, I shall reverse my previous judgement on sanctions equalling what was gained, and apply a financial sanction.

Above reproach right enough.

View Comment

Avatar

angus1983Posted on7:14 pm - Mar 1, 2013


Geordie Bhoy says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 18:11

a SPL investigation that was undermined by the … SPL
——

Indeed.

An investigation commissioned by the SPL which is directed by an SPL representative to interpret one of their rules in a way which no-one had previously interpreted it, or understood it to mean.

You’d almost think that the whole thing was a complete sham …

Make no mistake. This investigation was not SPL v Rangers (in any of their multiple disguises).

It was, as the TRFC fans said all along, a kangaroo court. Shocker – Mr Green correct again.

View Comment

Avatar

pau1mart1nPosted on7:18 pm - Mar 1, 2013


Perhaps you can explain why RFC would want to deliberately
deceive the SFA?

to assist in their deception of HMRC obviously.

View Comment

Avatar

jimlarkinPosted on7:35 pm - Mar 1, 2013


Sean McNulty says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 15:53
25 0 Rate This
I just want to repost the following from Hirsute Pursuit. These words, and yesterday’s similar post by majorcoverup, are potentially among the most important reactions I’ve seen to yesterday’s farrago. Surely the SPL board cannot ignore such a blatant misreading of their rules.

HirsutePursuit:

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 covers 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

Avatar

nowoldandgrumpyPosted on7:40 pm - Mar 1, 2013


hampdenbore says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 17:21
28 0 Rate This
Has the SFA head of registrations been so kind to explain what sporting advantage Spartans were seeking to gain in 2011, when they committed the ultimate sin of only signing a players contract once rather twice?
=====================

It was recognised that Spartans had not sought to seek a sporting advantage, but were still thrown out of the cup.

View Comment

Avatar

obonfanti88 (@obonfanti88)Posted on7:47 pm - Mar 1, 2013


Heartened to see Celtic make a statement outlining their “surprise” (I’m sure that’s putting it mildly!) at the LNS judgement. Getting increasingly disgusted at the way RFC’s actual GUILT is just being glossed over as if it doesn’t matter.

We know it, they know it, Scotland know it, and yes, probably even RFC (RIP) know it. They cheated. And we should never let the tribute act forget it.

View Comment

Avatar

Lord WobblyPosted on7:58 pm - Mar 1, 2013


I appreciate that many on TSFM are not Celtic supporters but, having just watched Neil Lennon on Sky Sports News, I am hugely impressed by his dignified stance. Many others, most particularly those at Rangers both old and new, could learn much.

View Comment

Avatar

shield2012Posted on8:03 pm - Mar 1, 2013


Lord Wobbly says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 19:00
15 0 Rate This
shield2012 says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 08:45
3 40 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.
——————–
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’d have much more respect for you if acknowledged that your club had got away with it and thumbed your nose at me. But to insult my intelligence by attempting to suggest that Rangers have done nothing wrong is both undignified and unworthy.
You and I both know what Rangers did and why they did it. It was to put players on the park that would otherwise have gone elsewhere. That, my friend, is seeking to gain an advantage. One might argue that it wouldn’t necessarily gain an advantage over Celtic (although in practice it did), but it was without any question seeking to gain an advantage over the other Scottish clubs.
I’m really pleased with Celtic’s comments today.
————————–
I doubt you would but never mind.

I didn’t suggest RFC done nothing wrong, I was referring to it being confirmed that they did make errors in registration but they gained no advantage in doing so.

Yes, they paid players through an EBT to save money and buy players. Firstly, you don’t know they would have went elsewhere and you don’t know if RFC could have otherwise afforded the players. Therefore, if you mean they were seeking an advantage by spending more money to attract players then isn’t that what football transfers is all about?

View Comment

Avatar

liveinhopPosted on8:07 pm - Mar 1, 2013


https://twitter.com/splfansunited

View Comment

Avatar

Big PinkPosted on8:17 pm - Mar 1, 2013


I think some folk are labouring under the misapprehension that the clubs, portrayed as the victims of an SPL/SFA cover-up, are somehow separated from the day to day intrigues carried out on behalf of those bodies.

The fact is that whilst regime change is an attractive prospect, the clubs already have it in their own hands to put this appalling train-wreck back on the rails. The clubs ARE the SPL. They ARE the SFA. The bureaucrats have little or no power to do anything other than via the proxy of the patronage bestowed on them by the clubs themselves.

The reality, as I see it anyway, is that despite being disadvantaged in terms of lost opportunity and finances by the actions of RFC, those same clubs have acquiesced in the cover up so many people speak of.

The ridiculous lengths that those in authority have gone to in the last year in order to preserve the Rangers brand were not travelled because either Neil Doncaster or Stuart Regan saw it as some kind of quasi-religious duty to save Rangers and had gone off-message. They were in fact completely on-message, and doing the bidding of the SPL and SFA boards (all controlled by club officials).

The clubs obviously see the continuity of Rangers as being of paramount importance to them individually and collectively. They have gambled that in a relatively short period of time, things will be back to normal. Rangers back in the SPL, history intact and as big a draw as ever.

It’s the equivalent of battered spouse syndrome. Abused and cheated on systematically by the Establishment Club, the others just can’t get themselves to the solicitors office. Deprived of the opportunity to compete on a level playing field, they come back for more, Uncle Tom-like, slavishly and excessively subservient, unable to assert any kind of authority of their own.

Rangers may well think that they are the people. Clearly the rest of the clubs in Scotland agree.

I am of the firm belief that Rangers DID gain sporting advantage in their use of EBT’s. It is a matter of fact that their breach of the rules (with or without sporting advantage) has not been dealt with in the manner commensurate with previous registration transgressions.

I can only conclude therefore that Scottish Football, however entertaining it ever was, is or will be, it is not in fact a sport at all, but merely another branch of the entertainment industry. The James Traynors of this world may think that naïve, but for me the attraction of sport is that it somehow rises above the Mammon-driven media that is obsessed by it.

If the clubs do nothing about this, then I am sure football will survive as an entertainment, just not as a sport. My love of my own club is founded in many things, but mainly based on the idea that honest endeavour, art and artistry will out.

Winning competitions used to be about – and still should be about – the skill of a Baxter or Johnston, the determination of a Ure or McKay, the guile of Henry Hall or Jimmy Smith.

Now it’s about the tax planning of Paul Baxendale Walker, and no matter how hard you try, the longer term prognosis is that your team CANNOT win – even when it is established that the Massas have won whilst deliberately and repeatedly breaking rules that the Uncle Toms have to observe.

Any club that can go along quietly back to its Cabin without that on its conscience doesn’t deserve the support of real fans. Any club that goes along with that spits in the face of sporting integrity just as surely as Rangers did.

And the last straw is that the lesson that is now on the board if we are all taking notes, is that cheating is ok as long as you don’t get caught right away. Eye witnesses may get you convicted, but CCTV footage is useless. It WILL happen again. It will happen again because there has been nor remorse, no humility, no consequences and no punishment.

I would rather watch Celtic in a pub league as see them turn a blind eye to cheating and become accomplices to the non-payment of tax and dumping of debt.

In fact I’d rather not have to watch at all.

View Comment

Avatar

Palacio67Posted on8:20 pm - Mar 1, 2013


Lord Wobbly says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 19:58
9 0 Rate This
I appreciate that many on TSFM are not Celtic supporters but, having just watched Neil Lennon on Sky Sports News, I am hugely impressed by his dignified stance. Many others, most particularly those at Rangers both old and new, could learn much.

———————————

Just watched the interview on SSN there LW. They were showing ‘speeches ‘ from McCoist and Green, letting them spout all kind of nonsense without question. Compare that with the treatment Lennon got from the media. Disgusting,imo

View Comment

Avatar

Lord WobblyPosted on8:21 pm - Mar 1, 2013


shield2012 says:
Yes, they paid players through an EBT to save money and buy
players. Firstly, you don’t know they would have went elsewhere and you don’t know if RFC could have otherwise afforded the players. Therefore, if you mean they were seeking an advantage by spending more money to attract players then isn’t that what football transfers is all about?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You’re really not helping yourself. If Rangers hadn’t offered what they did, of course players would have gone elsewhere. They couldn’t afford to by recognised means. Rangers could only offer what they did by deception. They sought to gain an advantage. If you genuinely believe otherwise (and not for a moment do I believe that you do) then you’re an imbecile. And if you’re a regular reader over the last couple of years, you will know that I don’t throw insults about lightly.

View Comment

Avatar

BrendaPosted on8:27 pm - Mar 1, 2013


SSB tonight was pretty boring but the interview with CG was comedy gold ……. He said since he’s been in Scotland he’s never been wrong?????’ 🙂

PS thank you mr moderator for deleting the earlier posts 🙂

View Comment

Avatar

Lord WobblyPosted on8:29 pm - Mar 1, 2013


shield2012 says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 20:19
0 0 Rate This
Lord Wobbly says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 19:58
I appreciate that many on TSFM are not Celtic supporters but,
having just watched Neil Lennon on Sky Sports News, I am hugely
impressed by his dignified stance. Many others, most particularly
those at Rangers both old and new, could learn much.
—————-
Now we’ve to take dignity lessons from Lennon? things really
have gone pear-shaped!
~~~~~~~~~~~
And that attitude is one of the reasons that your club was liquidated. The saddest aspect of this sorry saga is that you, and many like you, have learned nothing.

View Comment

Avatar

Geordie BhoyPosted on8:30 pm - Mar 1, 2013


Big Pink says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 20:17

———————————–

Hear! Hear! I would also add that continuing to give money to these acquiescent clubs without forcing change is supporting the status quo of the last decade. The start of the season promised so much: a more competitive league, the chance of getting rid of the 11-1 voting stranglehold, the lack of bile & hatred, a new fellowship between supporters of different clubs …

Now it looks like reconstruction will be blocked by two SPL hold-outs, there will be an unrepentant & triumphalist Ibrox team outspending everyone except Celtic (I expect the transfer ban to disappear so that Sevco FC can be competitive “for the good of Scottish football”) – what will have changed?

The sectarian bile will be even more prominent and sickening (let us face the facts, they have won), a large number of decent fans will walk away, unable to stomach the omnishambles and Scottish football as we know will go into a terminal spiral of decline.

And I was so optimistic back in August.

View Comment

Avatar

tomtomPosted on8:32 pm - Mar 1, 2013


shield2012 says:

Friday, March 1, 2013 at 20:03

Yes, they paid players through an EBT to save money and buy players. Firstly, you don’t know they would have went elsewhere and you don’t know if RFC could have otherwise afforded the players. Therefore, if you mean they were seeking an advantage by spending more money to attract players then isn’t that what football transfers is all about?
===============================================

Well that’s an interesting angle to take. So, by your logic, the players might have signed anyway, the wages weren’t an attraction. If that’s the case then Murray was a bigger failure than he appears to be. Strange that he didn’t take that kind of benevolent attitude towards Airdrie. Quite happy to give some second rate footballers hundreds of thousands of pounds that he didn’t need to but couldn’t let a poor struggling club away with £30k.

Now you are insulting our intelligence.

View Comment

Avatar

pau1mart1nPosted on8:36 pm - Mar 1, 2013


are we just forgetting the losses year on year with the scam in place??

View Comment

Avatar

joeraithPosted on8:39 pm - Mar 1, 2013


Raith Rovers sign Messi,Ronaldo and Van Persie on £500 per week,but they give them EBT’s for an undisclosed sum. Raith go on to win the league by 40 points,every other team in league are up in arms,and complain. After an inquiry, the other teams are informed that Raith would have won the league by 40 points without these three players,so there was no advantage gained? Who is kidding who.

View Comment

John Mccusker

John MccuskerPosted on8:41 pm - Mar 1, 2013


shield2012 says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 20:19

Now we’ve to take dignity lessons from Lennon? things really have gone pear-shaped!
====
A pathetic, and above all, undignified, comment. You certainly appear to be in sore need of some dignity lessons, so take it where you can find it, and count yourself lucky.

View Comment

Avatar

NawlitePosted on8:47 pm - Mar 1, 2013


Spot on, Big Pink. A perfect summation.

It’s interesting that I – and many others on here – are usually pretty good with an analogy to point out the ridiculousness of some of the statements/decisions we have seen. For this latest decision of “we see that you cheated, but because you hid it well for long enough, we now can’t/won’t make you pay the consequences”, I can’t come up with an analogy – it is in itself too ridiculous!!!!!!!!!!!!

View Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.