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.
itsalitany says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 01:05
2 0 Rate This
First time poster. Long time lurker here and previously on RTC.
I’m driven to post for the first time (and probably only) time by my incredulity at LNS’s interpretation of the rules on the eligibility of the players with undeclared side letters to play in official matches.
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 my opinion, and I drafted contracts for a living for many years, this rule means, in layman’s terms that “all other agreements providing for payment etc” must be delivered to the football authorities. If this is not done, the consequences are twofold: (1) a condition of the player registration requirements is broken; and (2) a player is not eligible to play in official matches.
LNS concludes that the side letters were such “other agreements providing for payment”. He determines that the side letters had not been delivered. The two consequences of this failure to deliver the side letters, as provided in D1.13 and as Hirsute Pursuit and majorcoverup have already pointed out are clearly in my view (1) that the registrations were flawed AND (2) that the players were ineligible.
On the registration point, LNS accepts seemingly without question the SFA’s Mr Bryson’s evidence that, as far as the SFA are concerned (1) a registration is valid until it shown not to be valid and even then, only becomes invalid from the point when the factor which invalidates it comes to light and is proved and (2) remains valid through any period during which it should not be valid but the invalidating factor is not yet known to the SFA. LNS quotes no precedents for this approach having been taken in the past and no SFA rule underpinning such an approach.
LNS goes on to state that SPL rules in his view should be interpreted to agree with related SFA rules. Therefore, he interprets D1.13 to provide that while the non-disclosure of the side letters was a breach of the registration conditions, the fact the non-disclosure was not known to the SPL meant the registrations of the affected players remained valid and that, as they were validly registered, they were eligible to play. If the registrations were subsequently proven to be invalid, they would only became invalid from the point of time they were proven to be invalid (i.e. now) and cannot retrospectively be challenged or set aside.
LNS then relies on rule D1. to determine that, following his conclusion above, no ineligible players were fielded by Rangers FC as a result of the non-disclosure of the side letters.
Rule D1.1 states that: “Subject to these Rules, to be eligible to Play for a Club a Player must first be Registered…”
Rule D.1 clearly, in my opinion, means that a player cannot be eligible to play if he is not registered.
It cannot in my opinion, reasonably be taken to mean that if a player is registered, he is therefore eligible.
Yet that is how LNS has interpreted it.
A quick analogy. In order to be pregnant, one must be female. By the logic of LNS’s interpretation and application of D1.1, however, if one is female, it follows not only that one is pregnant, but also that one will be forever be deemed to have been pregnant during such period as passes from the point one became female until the point one proves that one is not pregnant.
The most bizarre aspect of the LNS findings on eligibility of the affected players is that it goes to such lengths to determine that the players were validly registered when valid registration is just one of a number of requirements for eligibility and when, in terms of D1.13, another of the requirements for eligibility to play is clearly absent.
As stated above, D1.13 provides that “for a Player to be eligible to Play in Official Matches…a club must…deliver all other agreements providing for payment”. This could not be clearer in my view. It matters not a jot whether the players were validly registered. In terms of D1.13, if the “other agreements for payment” were not delivered (which LNS confirms they were not), the players were not eligible to play, irrespective of the validity or otherwise of their registration.
Yet LNS concludes that the side letters were “other agreements for payment”, concludes that they were not delivered, but concludes that the affected players WERE eligible to play.
Try squaring that circle. I can’t.
==================================
Fantastic first post and absolutely hits the mark.
The distinction between Registration and eligibility is the point that must be understood by everyone.
It is not the only mistake the commission made; but it is probably the most important.
I wonder if any club who feels that this (mis-)ruling has denied them their rightful league positions and the consequential prizemoney, may wish to “seek clarification” from the SFA (as the governing body) or indeed the CAS.
I agree I will always be emotionally tied to my club who have been my life for over 45 years, and it’s going to be hard ( if not impossible) to turn away from football but that’s my reaction to this now.
Money talks and “walking away” may be the only option we all have.
Empty grounds week on week throughout the land would bring the game to its knees.
No crowds for internationals, no money to pay the blazers.
Football would have to change or die.
Although, I fear, many would have it die rather than let it change and become fair it may be the only way to make the point that the game as we used to know it is DEAD.
And another question: how can it be construed that deliberate non-disclosure motivated by tax avoidance is not dishonest?
I thought a couple of night’s sleep would make the stench less, but LNS makes 2 statements (nothing dishonest, no sporting advantage gained) that are both unnecessary and more importantly plain wrong. It is these which have allowed McCoist et al to claim integrity and deny cheating.
itsalitany says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 01:05
2 0 Rate This
First time poster. Long time lurker here and previously on RTC …..
———–
I’ll second HP in thanking you for that post @itsalitany.
@HirsutePursuit
Why not CAS indeed, this is such an important issue for football that it really should be looked at by an authority outside of Scotland. (If not CAS then the EU Fisheries Committee, because this is yet another fishy smell in a long line of fishy things that reek suspiciously of fish!)
Folks,
Apologies for missing Angus’s post about the Celtic manager. A quick skim of it made me think that he was being complimentary to Neil Lennon, but after receiving a couple of complaints, I was moved to make another inspection, and it was clearly an attempt to categorise Lennon’s character based on his ethnic or racial origins.
Although I did have doubts about the intentions behind the Shield’s original post on the matter, I allowed that post to remain given that he had not crossed the line. Clearly Angus inferred that the Shield had crossed that line and was weighing in with support.
I will give the Shield the benefit of the doubt, but like all people who have been banned for sectarian/racial comments, Angus will only be re-allocated posting rights if a full apology is received for publication.
One of the reasons my quick skim failed to pick up on the nature of the post is because Angus has been a lively, insightful and valued member of the blog. I am very sad that he has gone down this road.
I have removed Angus’s post and the two reactions to it. Please do not consider this an invitation to have a go at Angus. The matter has been dealt with.
I thought that – except for few notable cases – posters on tis blog have been considered in their comments. People who constantly question even their own sacred totems in an effort to get at the truth, keeping taunts and insults AND BLOCK CAPITALS to a minimum.
In the main we are successful in achieving that. I hope Angus will reconsider those remarks.
brycecurdy says:
And another question: how can it be construed that deliberate non-disclosure motivated by tax avoidance is not dishonest?
I thought a couple of night’s sleep would make the stench less, but LNS makes 2 statements (nothing dishonest, no sporting advantage gained) that are both unnecessary and more importantly plain wrong. It is these which have allowed McCoist et al to claim integrity and deny cheating.
___________________________________________________________________________
Yes…indeed…this stuck out and had been bothering me ever since….who asked for the learned panel to advise their opinons on sporting advantage and honesty anyway?… I was not aware that this was part of the remit of the Independant panel…
HirsutePursuit says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 09:17
6 0 Rate This
itsalitany says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 01:05
I second your comment on the quality of itsalitany’s post. I questioned the point in more truncated form at ScottishLawthoughts (under Old Auditor) on Thursday evening but P McC has not (yet)responded.
The pregnancy analogy helps to show the nonsense but the real football case is where a player is transferred with an outstanding match suspension. The player may certainly be registered but he is not eligible to play.
Applying formal logic to the issue, Registration is a necessary condition for eligibility but is not the sole condition and therefore not sufficient on its own. To be eligible to play the player must be registered, have all of his contract details disclosed and not be under suspension. If the lawyers leading the SPL case had any sense they should have pointed this out.Notwithstanding that, the tribunal members in publishing the critical rule should have seen the flaw.
The ruling on eligibility is a fundamental flaw and it cannot be allowed to stand without comment and explanation from the tribunal members. The SPL have a fundamental duty to be completely transparent about this.
Mr Cosgrove, will you raise the point and enlighten the uninformed this lunchtime?
itsalitany says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 01:05
______________________________________
Yep…pretty much my thoughts too….thank you itsalitany for posting this contribution …and in a more cohesive manner that I would be able…….
themightyflash says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 09:34 (Edit)
Quantcast
I agree I will always be emotionally tied to my club who have been my life for over 45 years, and it’s going to be hard ( if not impossible) to turn away from football but that’s my reaction to this now.
____________________________________________–
TMF
The choice for me is very simple. If any club is happy to participate further in what is self-evidently a sham, then they are entitled to do so, but they will do it without my support.
The charge of Uncle Tommery is not a pejorative one. I find it astonishing that clubs who have suffered significant financial losses as a consequence of RFC’s actions may be happy to go along with this.
If they won’t help themselves, then why on earth would I help them?
The emotional ties you speak of are what our clubs are betting the farm on if they decide not to act against the malpractice of the last fifteen years.
If I continue to financially support Scottish football, my conclusion is that my hard-earned is being used on an ongoing basis to prop up the bankrupt business model of Rangers. If I had wanted to do that I would have bought a season ticket for Ibrox – not Parkhead or Rugby Park or Pittodrie.
theoldcourse says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 08:51
………………………..
Sepp maybe seeking details on how they pulled it off…
It would appear CAS is the appropriate body for the SPL to appeal to….
I was under the impression that the SFA would be the appellant body to the LNS decision…
However as has been revealed the SFA actively assisted in the decision LNS had to arrive at thus removing them from any appeal…from either party!
Like most on here, I am disappointed with outcome of LNS report.
But, as I have said in other posts, to abandon our football clubs by not renewing season tickets, only plays into the hands of the cheats.
No doubt most of you are sickened by the crowing coming out of Ibrox and their puppets in the press. But ask yourself, what victory have they actually won. Everybody now knows they cheated, their reputation, such as it was, is in tatters. TRFC are now playing in the 4th tier of Scottish football and are still very seriously injured both financially and in a playing sense.
TRFC were the only team that tried to gain an unfair advantage. All the other Scottish teams played by the rules of Sporting Integrity.
I have 3 season tickets for Celtic Park and will be renewing them next season.
I hope fans of every other team support their team this way as well. I am proud none of our teams cheated and will continue to support Scottish football warts and all.
There are now too many people aware of what has happened to let TRFC or any other team cheat in the future. Our voices have been heard and will continue to be heard.
It may take time but we will rid our game of these cheats forever.
The findings of the LNS Enquiry clearly defy the logical thought processes of the proverbial “man on the Clapham omnibus”.
The angst being experienced by many posters on this forum results from looking at the SFA rulebook and searching for correlation between said rules and the LNS findings. In the interest of your sanity stop this pointless self abuse as there is no such correlation.
It seems to me that LNS has looked at the Rangers situation in the round, his round, and decided that a fine of £250,000 was a suitable punishment. HE HAS THEN CONSTRUCTED A CRIME TO FIT THE PUNISHMENT. Hence the need for the absurd interpretation of the rulebook.
LNS clearly had no inclination follow a route to the stripping of titles as the societal consequences would have been unpredicatable and, probably, quite horrific.
Brenda says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 10:46
paulmac2 @ 10:39
Maybe he wants to go to the night out with CO
………………………………………..
I now have images of CO and Sepp hanging out at Cleopatra’s…eeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwweeeee
Big Pink…
using itsalitany says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 01:05…. why don,t you add a few words or ask !itsalitany” to, and use this as a new page …cos the man hits every nail smack on the head.thankyou
Ogilvie out!
timalloy67 says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 11:01
Good man and well put…..lets face it we are all having a ball since RTC and TSFM came into our lives….roller-coasters are fun …whoo whoo enjoy …all the “baddies” will eventually be thrown off..and we can all get our gardens sorted out !
I think talk of appeals and reference to the CAS is a bit premature.
The SPL Board has still to consider the report. Are they obliged to accept without demur, or can they refer it back to the tribunal for clarification? The flawed logic on eligibility and therefore the consequential erroneous conclusion on no sporting advantage cannot be allowed to stand without explanation.
SPL Chairmen need to be pressured to refer back to the tribunal the eligibility issue and other apparent flaws for clarification. If they do not do that then they fail on honesty, openness and transparency.
Lets if any of the fourth estate has the gumption to publicize this and push for explanation.
paulmac2 says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 10:54
1
0
Rate This
It would appear CAS is the appropriate body for the SPL to appeal to….
I was under the impression that the SFA would be the appellant body to the LNS decision…
However as has been revealed the SFA actively assisted in the decision LNS had to arrive at thus removing them from any appeal…from either party!
===================================================
This was after the SFA stating they would not take part as they would be the appellant body.It seems anyone can change their mind at any time,provided it gets them the result they want.
Unless you’re a fan.You’re job is to throw your hard earned into this corrupt game and accept being treated like dirt.You’ve no choice in the matter.
Actually,you have and it’s the only action that will make the powers that be take notice.
The SFA/SPL/SFL are made up of the clubs themselves.Only when they see empty seats on a regular basis(1 game boycotts are useless),non renewals of STs and plenty of correspondence telling them that we’ll not support a corrupt system,then and only then will they change.
Right now they’re hoping that it’ll all go away over time and by next season the saps will come rolling back again.
Is it any wonder Lord Nimmo Smith has been getting it in the neck?
A £250,000 fine for the oldco Rangers? What’s the point?
However, I’d like to say a kind word for the big man.
After that 1-1 draw with Stirling Albion on Tuesday night, perhaps the compassionate soul simply felt the Rangers fans had already suffered enough.
(Memo to all bluenoses calling for Neil Doncaster’s resignation after accusations of ineptitude: I trust you also want the entire Rangers team to resign after that farce at Forthbank?)
No title stripping means big celebrations for Rangers’ fans.
I hear the punters who travelled to Berwick last week have already organised a sing-song … and goodness only knows how John Brown will be able to concentrate on tomorrow’s cup clash at Dens Park.
As a Motherwell fan I couldn’t care less about title stripping and, quite frankly, I was utterly bored by this entire debate.
As I mentioned in a previous column we’d only have been affected if Rangers risked losing the 2003 League Cup Final in which they gubbed Motherwell 5-1.
Sorry, but if we’d suddenly been awarded that particular trophy – on the back of such a pummelling – I don’t think we’d organise a conga line down Airbles Road before urging the club to release an official souvenir DVD.
Anyway, let’s get real. How could £47m of secret payments to players possibly have given Rangers an advantage over a club paying guys £500 a week?
That’s just bonkers, eh …?
The Celtic fans should give it a break as well. Listen, Bhoys, forget about how much dosh was being trousered via side letters … do you really want to keep drawing attention to the fact Celtic were denied titles by diddies such as Flo, Bonnissel, Capucho, Muscat, Vignal and Ostenstad?
If anything, it sounds as if Rangers’ EBT scheme should have given Celtic a clear advantage!
In saying that I’d still like to ask some pertinent questions.
Why did Rangers need an EBT scheme if there was supposedly no benefit or advantage from it?
And would the top players (not the aforementioned duds) even have thought about a move to Ibrox if payments hadn’t been topped up with a tasty EBT?
As Jim Royle would say, no advantage my arse.
Still, I’m genuinely glad for the diehard Rangers supporters. As I’ve stated since day one of this sorry saga you can’t blame the fans for the club’s collapse.
These punters who’d pumped millions into Rangers were innocent bystanders, the victims of gross mismanagement at boardroom level.
I think they should now invite Sir David Murray to pay the £250,000 fine – personally – and then we should all move on.
Considering we hadn’t heard a cheep from Murray for ages – The Silence of the Succulent Lambs – I can’t believe he’s now bleating about a “witch-hunt” against Rangers. Gie’s peace, chief.
“Efforts to bayonet the wounded are unjustified,” says the man whose winding-up order
effectively closed Airdrieonians.
Lord Nimmo Smith certainly didn’t miss Murray.
“David Murray and his directors must bear a heavy responsibility for deliberate, serious and long-term rule-breaking over Rangers’ use of EBTs.” Ouch!
I thought Sir Dave had promised (on camera) that all dual contracts were above board and fully disclosed to the SFA?
Mind you, after claiming – preposterously – that he was “duped” by Craig Whyte I wouldn’t believe Murray if he chapped my door and told me Daniel O’Donnell was a crap singer.
Murray’s the man who put the oldco into a financial mess before bailing out for the princely sum of £1.
But there will be no punishment for the main culprit, the guy now directly responsible for Rangers playing Third Division football.
In fact, you could argue Lord Nimmo Smith gave him an easier ride than some of his old pals in the Scottish media (I still can’t believe three or four lackeys in the press weren’t on that EBT list).
Looking at the legacy of Murray, hands up all the Rangers fans who can think of one title that should be stripped?
PS. Did you see the pics of Lord Nimmo Smith in yesterday’s papers? Might be wrong – and it’s got nothing to do with the case – but I think that’s a wig.
For what it’s worth, my letter to Duncan Fraser!
Dear Mr Fraser,
Further to the announcement of the judgment of the SPL Commission published this week, I am writing to you, in your capacity as a member of the SPL board, to express my concerns over the published ruling. As Chief Executive of the club I support I trust you will represent the supporters of Aberdeen FC in the forthcoming SPL board discussions on the Commission’s findings.
I think it is fair to say that the vast majority of Aberdeen fans (and those of other SPL clubs) are in total disbelief that the Commission considered Rangers FC did not gain a competitive advantage by deliberately not disclosing £47M of payments to players in contravention of SPL rules. You just have to look at the internet message boards of Aberdeen supporters and “The Scottish Football Monitor” site to appreciate the depth of feeling.
I implore you to have the courage to take a stand for Aberdeen supporters and reject this finding of the Commission. I fear for Scottish football if the SPL do not impose appropriate punishment and sanctions on the Ibrox club (as they were, AND are now). I, for one, will not invest another penny attending SPL matches should the SPL accept the Commission’s findings as presented. Fans are currently walking away from SPL matches in droves, for various reasons, and I fully expect that to accelerate should the SPL not “do the right thing”.
Yours sincerely,
timalloy67 says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 11:01
………………………………………
That is the rock and a hard place Tim….we know by withdrawing our financial support we simply feed the monster who created the sequence of perverse decisions….on the other hand if we continue to provide financial support…that very same monster knows they have been able to manufacture the situation to arrive at a suitable and beneficial destination…(with exception to their placement in SFL3 aside)…whilst everyone carry’s on paying…
CG is doing that right now over at Ibrox…they still keep handing over their cash…
So what is to stop this monster having the right people in place to construct a set of circumstances to attain what they need in the future…
What we have right now is one of the last opportunities to force our clubs to stand upright and take the bull by the horns….there is always the opportunity to renew season tickets at a later date…but right now the threat of withdrawel is a starting point to say to those in position…I cannot pay to watch a sport that has proven itself to be fixed…corrupt…and seemingly controlled by 1 club…for the benefit of 1 club…
Sad to hear of anyone giving up on their club, because of all the recent events, but as a former “Celts for change activist” i did not give up on my club then and will not give up on it now, so will continue to have my season ticket.
We found ways of getting rid of the old board over a long period of time, and the same can be done now with cleaning up the SFA,SPL etc, but it wont happen overnight, but it will require some group to organise all the scottish football fans who feel the same.
You do not need to stop attending, all everybody needs to do is enter 10 minutes after the game has started, making sure your chairman know the reason’s why this is happening, just imagine both home and away fans doing this together for the rest of the season.
@lagerbeer Well put sir
Jane Lewis @JaneLewisSport
#Rangers Chief Executive Charles Green says #Celtic’s ‘surprised’ comments re. the SPL commission ruling were ‘ill-timed and inappropriate’
Seems Green’s decided to start talking again.
Senior says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 22:01
Will the bloggers (a dozen or more) who are responding to shield cop themselves on. He is a troll, albeit a exceptionally good one. He is absorbing a lot of energy from some of our best bloggers.
———————-
I expected this arrogant response from you Senior.
I think many welcome an alternative view as it’s both stimulating and healthy for discussion. Not only that, it stops TSFM becoming just another football fan site.
I’ve listened to many arguments and have even changed my mind a few times as a result. I think that’s why TSFM is so popular with a wide range of people. I hope it stays like that but, will admit to being close to turning off TSFM for good. Especially when I read responses like yours.
If anyone is doubtful of my motives then let me explain them. I’m arguing that RFC aren’t cheats and that the club (by club, I mean the fans and shareholders) has been treated badly by past and present owners. In a way, the clubs fans, shareholders and creditors (i.e. the people that really matter) are the real victims here. Yes, Celtic and other clubs have and will suffer but spare a thought for the 25% or so of fans who have done nothing wrong apart from support the club they love. I’d give anything to be playing in the CL again.
To ascertain whether RFC are cheats in the true sense of the word, you have to establish whether they gained an advantage. A lot of my posts have been based around this argument and at the moment, I’ve yet to be convinced otherwise. I’ve had good responses worth thinking about (e.g. Barcabhoy, wottpi, Lord Wobbly, areyouaccusing……..) but still to be absolutely convinced otherwise.
I know many do not agree with me and I even have doubts myself to the point where I think I must be wrong. This is the benefit of welcoming alternative views – it challenges your own views.
I asked myself again this morning – should I continue down this road of arguing that RFC aren’t cheats. I then remind myself of one thing – both a tribunal and a lord have yet to prove that RFC have done anything other than break SFA registration rules.
If a lord and a tribunal is yet to be convinced of systematic cheating then surely, at they very least, I deserve the right to a healthy debate without being branded a troll!
Nice one Senior but I think I’ll continue thanks.
Could this be the man to bring unity to Scottish Football?.
Rudi Gutendorf: The colourful life of a ‘footballing missionary’
By Mani Djazmi BBC Sport
Rudi Gutendorf has witnessed bribery, betrayal by his own players and the horrors of genocide during his coaching career, so it may surprise some that he still wants to add to his colourful CV.
Instead of enjoying the fruits of retirement after an incredible managerial career, which has seen him coach 18 national teams and six different clubs in the German top flight, the 86-year-old is desperate for another job.
Rudi Gutendorf’s international management career
Rudi Gutendorf
Chile
Bolivia
Venezuela
Trinidad & Tobago
Grenada
Antigua
Botswana
Australia
New Caledonia
Nepal (twice)
Tonga
Tanzania
Ghana
Fiji
Zimbabwe
Mauritius
Rwanda
Samoa
Plus, managed the Iran and China Olympic football teams
And whatever Gutendorf lacks in youth – he led Duisburg to runners-up spot in the inaugural Bundesliga season in 1963-64 – he more than makes up for in experience.
While Gutendorf accepts the possibility of being offered a role at home are slim, he has an unparalleled knowledge from coaching in every corner of the globe having been something of a footballing missionary – when he was funded by the German government and football association to take his expertise to the developing world.
And it’s not just his experiences on the football field which mark out Gutendorf, but also the many challenges he has faced off the field – including when he was sent to Rwanda at the end of the 1990s.
The country was still recovering from a brutal civil war in which the government-led Hutu tribe carried out a fierce genocide against the Tutsis, killing up to a million people.
“The German government told me, ‘Rudi, we don’t care if you win 1-0, 2-0, the most important thing is the social aspect; that you try to get together the two tribes’,” Gutendorf told the BBC’s World Football programme. .
“Such hate, you cannot believe. I was able to unite these two tribes to play football, and good football.
“After every training in the evening, we made a camp fire. We were sitting around and I made half Hutu, half Tutsi.
“I explained that revenge leads to nothing and to forgive each other. It was not easy because they saw how they killed each other.
“I said it makes no sense, you’re now a footballer. I came here so we can work together, and that made a big impression.”
A 2-2 World Cup qualifying draw in Kigali against an up and coming Ivory Coast team was the high point.
“The public in the stadium, they were still here are the Tutsis and there are the Hutus,” said Gutendorf. “But when we played good football they forgot it and they hugged each other and they felt like a united nation. I’m very proud about that.”
Earlier in his career, while coach of Chile, Gutendorf had installed a wall with holes in at the national stadium in Santiago, through which his players had to kick the ball from distance.
“Such hate, you cannot believe. I was able to unite these two tribes to play football”
Rudi Gutendorf on reconciling Hutus and Tutsis in post-civil war Rwanda
But he had to leave in a hurry because of his association with the deposed socialist president, Salvatore Allende, after Augusto Pinochet’s junta took over – meaning he was not able to lead Chile in the 1974 World Cup in his native West Germany.
Infamously, Pinochet decided to use Gutendorf’s practice wall as the place against which hundreds of dissidents were shot.
While in Nepal, Gutendorf found himself on both sides of the bribery line. He turned down $500,000 from an oil-rich sheikh to lose 8-0 in the Asian Games.
But after a monsoon hit Nepal’s match with India, with the score poised at 0-0 at half time, he bribed the referee with a bottle of whisky to play on.
He knew that Nepal had the right studs and India didn’t. Nepal won 1-0.
Gutendorf says the two events in his life that have left him with “unhealed wounds” are his sacking as the Iran Olympic coach, just before they won the 1990 Asian Games, “because the religious leaders did not want an unbeliever on the bench” and his loss of the Hamburg dressing room after signing Kevin Keegan from Liverpool in 1977.
“Six weeks before I came to Hamburg, they won the European Cup Winners’ Cup,” he said.
Rudi Gutendorf coaching in Rwanda
Rudi Gutendorf coaching in Rwanda in 1999
“The captain came to my room and said ‘We don’t like this English guy. We won the Cup and we don’t need him and we don’t like him. If you put this little English guy in we don’t like to work together with you’.
“I wanted to make a very big team like Bayern Munich and with Keegan it was possible.
“I’m sure today, otherwise I would not say it, that the players made sabotage against me. The first game of the season we lost 5-2 and I saw that my players didn’t like to win.”
Three months later, Gutendorf was sacked.
“My own players, they sacked me. That is the hardest thing that can happen to a coach,” he added.
“I was so fed up. I went away as far as possible in the world. I became the national coach of Australia.”
There, he again narrowly missed out on qualifying for the World Cup, something for which, Gutendorf says, his Australian wife still hasn’t forgiven him.
That, as they say, is another story for another day but Gutendorf is keen to add one more chapter to a fascinating career.
“I am fit and healthy enough to take over a first division team as head coach,” said Gutendorf. “But the club presidents here in Germany don’t believe me.
“They say 86, that is too old. They are a little bit ashamed to give me a contract. It makes me sad but I can’t change that.”
Sorry to go back to this again, but I was thinking about it overnight – I’m not a legal mind but I’m hoping that someone will show me where I’ve gone wrong with the logic in my summation, because the consequences of it seem to leave our game ungovernable:
The LNS conclusion was very, very careful to make a distinction between ‘Old Co’ and ‘New Co’, but accepted that Rangers as a club were a continuation with an unbroken time line. The report stated that Old Co registered the players, but in a manner that was invalid and contra to the rules. Because of this, the Old Co were fined £250,000 as a punishment.
Now, with that in mind, and taking it at face value, it seems to raise the following questions:
– Do punishments for failure to register players properly only apply to owners of clubs at the time the offence took place? This is what the ruling appears to be saying by apportioning the £250,000 fine to ‘Old Co’, rather than Rangers, the football team. By that logic, any club that has been punished for ineligible players has been wrongly penalised. It should have been the owners of the club that were punished, rather than the club.(i.e. the club shouldn’t have been forced to forfeit the result in any matches that they played in). Does this mean that Spartans, East Stirlingshire, Annan etc. have recourse to sue the SFA for loss of income and compensation?
– I thought players had to be registered by the clubs they were signed to, not holding companies or owners. Surely this contravenes rules on third party ownership of players?
As far I can see, from now on every club can simply ignore punishments levelled at them (or, at the very least, the ones concerning registration of players), and claim it’s a matter for the owners of the clubs – all thanks to this ruling.
It would appear that by bending over backwards to save RFC, they’ve single-handedly destroyed any authority they have over our game.
Like I said, I WANT someone to point out the flaw in what I’ve stated, because right now it’s making me even more hacked off with what’s gone on (if that was possible), and I’d rather be told that I’ve got it wrong.
areyouaccusingmeofmendacity says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 11:59
=================================================
Does this mean that although TRFC cannot register players until September,could RIFC register them before then,giving Ally the next transfer window to spend his £10m warchest?.
Does anyone know how much the “Dry Blackthorn” deal is worth?.
TRFC fans reporting Green turned down £500k from Tennents so I assume it’s worth more than that!
shield2012 says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 11:51
“To ascertain whether RFC are cheats in the true sense of the word, you have to establish whether they gained an advantage. A lot of my posts have been based around this argument and at the moment, I’ve yet to be convinced otherwise”
______________________________________
You are indeed blind. “you have to establish whether they gained an advantage”
£47m of undisclosed payments to players covered by side letters to each player, which was withheld by the RFC board from
a) The footballing authorities
b) The clubs own auditors.
Paying for a better quality player that they wouldn’t have been able to afford otherwise.
I think any fair minded person can make a judgement on that without the help from Scottish legal minds. It was a blatant case of rule breaking, deception and cheating.
I don’t want to try and change your mind, I know like every other RFC/TRFC fan in public you’ll be in denial, in private it’ll be a very different case.
I have a lot of friends from each end of the divide and I was drinking with a few of them last night and the bears openly admitted to me they knew that they were guilty and had been very very lucky.
torrejohnbhoy says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 12:06
It does appear to be that way. The ban only stopped Rangers from registering players, it doesn’t mention anything about Rangers International, and as the LNS report established, it appears that holding companies can register players (if you ignore the bit about 3rd party owernship, obviously)
Are we expected to believe that the SFA were unaware of the non disclosure of side letters ever since they were first used?
At what point were they aware because that is when they should have questionned Rangers.
Was it when Phil Mac broke the story or when Campbell Ogilvie joined them? Campbell Ogilvie knew all about ebts and it should not be difficult to establish under testimony how much he really knew about their operation.
He had a responsibility as soon as he became part of the SFA to disclose non disclosure, to reveal what he knew and yet football’s greatest administarator stayed silent and in doing so corrupted our game as that silence enabled the justification Bryson gave LNS.
Campbell Ogilvie needs to be brought to account, questions of what he knew and when and why he remained silent about non disclosure if it is established that he did know must be put to him. Who advised Sandy Bryson what and what not to look for? Collusion and corruption lie at the heart of this.
From Wikpedia
In June 2003, Ogilvie became the treasurer, now second vice-president, of the Scottish Football Association (SFA).[5] On 1 June 2007, Ogilvie became first vice-president of the SFA, with Alan McRae taking his place as second vice-president.[6] On 8 June 2011 it was confirmed that Ogilvie would take up the presidency of the Scottish Football Association, succeeding George Peat.[1
iceman63 says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 07:35
Bunion well done. A sad but necessary step I am afraid.
You are absolutely correct.
I gave up all of my pecuniary interests in the game last summer – when the notorious five way agreement ended any pretence that professional football in Scotland was even a sport. Everything that has happened since has convinced me of this. I have now very little passion or interest in the game – though a part of me does still instinctively follow Celtic – I can logically understand that football is an organic whole – and not a healthy one.
I still have feelings and an attachment to Celtic which will take years – possibly decades to unwind. That emotional attachment cannot and should not allow any of us to support what we know to be corrupt and immoral against all of our better judgements. It is the tie that binds forged from early childhood which the corrupt and deceitful who run the game rely upon to feed their greed, dishonesty and corruption. Only by resisting that powerful allure and freeing ourselves of our loyalties can we regain our dignity and self respect.
The game will not change – either you acquiesce and continue supporting your teams under duress and protest whilst this unfolds around you, or you simply recognise that it is not an essential component of your life and your identity and your own happiness – and you simply do something else with your time, your money and your emotional collateral.
——————————————————————————————————————
hugozhackenbush says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 08:03
I think I’ve had my “Road to Damascus” moment in all of this carnage. While my heart has been supporting my club for 46 years, (at least some of) my money has been supporting Rangers and the Establishment put in place to sustain Rangers.
The people who manage my club have been happy with this arrangement and may well be happy for the arrangement to continue, but I am not.
So unless and until my club make it clear that the game in this country is going to change, not another penny piece shall slip from my pocket to my club.
——————————————————————————————————————
me too. no more money to football in any shape or form from me.
cancelled my sky [espn]
i read a post yesterday, that a guy has stopped doing “fixed” odds coupons too.
that’s another good idea. no more giving money to football via the bookmakers either.
if the LNS decision is appealed to the SFA and/or CAS, then i may consider, but until then,
not a penny more from me.
torrejohnbhoy says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 12:06
To be honest, the thing that amazed me most was that Dry Blackthorn is still around! I now look forward to Clyde running out with their shirts emblazoned with ‘Vesta Curry’.
Back page of the sun Mc oist saying he would have walked away if they had stripped titles.Kind of glad they never now
Good stuff from Cosgrove from Cowan on off the ball
shield2012 says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 11:51
When Fergus McCann built a stadium with greater capacity than Ibrox and filled it he gave Celtic a sporting advantage in an acceptable way, he drew on the fan base to increase income that after paying Fergus back, produced the kind of Celtic teams that would have won even more if Sir David Murray not embarked on trying to match Celtic’s improved income streams by dubious means that have not yet had their final ruling.
There is the difference, the right way in business to get a business advantage and the wrong way. How do we know it was the wrong way? Look where The Rangers now are. You can tell right from wrong by its consequences.
Rangers under SDM chose the wrong way, they could have done many things to compete fairly but always looked to do it the easy way. No matter what judges say life or Karma is the final arbitrer. It turned up wearing Malmo and Maribor strips but I’ve always thought life had a sense of humour and right now I suspect it is lying on the floor pissing itself laughing.
As regards LNS I have copied this from KDS post by Adam smith
” From the ruling of the now great and fair LNS, which we always accepted he would be:
“If it had not been intended that the player would directly benefit from the EBT arrangements then there is no real reason to believe that the player would have agreed to the overall financial package offered”
There it is, the slam dunk.
The technicalities of the seemingly not fit for purpose (defending the integrity of the sport) registration process stopped him saying it was a sporting advantage.
They hid £47m of payments, McCoist accepted it and apologised for it, LNS no less (the paragon of virtue) states that the players would not have signed otherwise.
This is what we have always argued, there were players on that park where the trophies were won who would have not been there but for this deliberate concealment to allow this to happen.
Every fan in the country knows if they could have an extra £80k per week of wages (not far from Sevcos current wage bill which is the second highest in Scotland) this would give Their team an advantage.”
How anyone can deny that no advantage was gained is incomprehensible, did Celtic’s McCann not derive an advantage? Of course they did, the difference is Celtic did it by the rules, Rangers did not and that is why to most supporters its cheating.
Ahem penalty coming up, test.
The SFA indicated that it was to distance itself from the SPL investigation to allow it to become the body that would hear any appeal that arose from the hearing. Why then was it the SFA’s top man when it comes to the registration of players who ultimatley provided the loophole for one of the most incredible decisions Scttish Football has ever witnessed.
peterjung1 says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 10:13
brycecurdy says:
And another question: how can it be construed that deliberate non-disclosure motivated by tax avoidance is not dishonest?
============================================
Surely his Lordlyness would be fully aware of the following oath and it’s meaning
the truth – what the witness experienced
the whole truth – not leaving any material out
nothing but the truth – definitely no lies
Off the ball – Jim Traynor as Jabba The Hut, Ibrox bouncer. I guess that’ll set a few people off!
Cosgrove hits the nail on the head.
The thing that gets me is that Rangers will now attack all and sundry.
Including those who have continually either re-written the rules or totally ignored them to assist one club.
Charles Green et al have said what they wanted, with apparent impunity, all season. I fully expect them to do the same again, and for nothing to be done about it.
They are clearly a club, and an organisation which can do and say whatever it wants in Scottish football. No one will take any action against them.
However, the business model is far from fixed, rhetoric aside they still have enormous problems to face. All that has and is going on, all that will be spouted is nothing more than a distraction. It will serve to keep the fans onside and to fuel their “righteous indignation”. It will probably even help to sell season tickets. However it won’t solve the fundamental issues. The club is not as big as the fans take it to be. It is unlikely to ever be as big as they used to think it was.
If three men in a park with a bottle of Buckie between them, were to come up with the same judgement as LNS, they would be laughed at and ignored thereafter by all and sundry.
But give a man a wig, a reputation and judicial status and experience, and although he and his two fellow experts, say exactly the same as the three men in the park, their conclusions are hailed in some quarters as demanding of total acceptance and respect.
The obvious point is that what is important is the intrinsic merit of what is said. Titles and outward appearances etc. count for almost nothing.
The LNS statement about unfair advantage and ineligibility has no intrinsic merit whatsoever.
So also the evidence of Sandy Bryson, the SFA’s registration chief.
The SPL Board may or may not consider these issues in the same light as the above when it meets to review the Commissions findings.
But, in my view, if the said Board, choose to ignore the clamour of the fans and endorse the Commissions findings, then I fear that a point of no return will have been breached.
At that stage, I will start to walk my dog in the nearest park.
That way, I stand at least a chance of meeting three men, with a bottle of Buckie between them perhaps, whose opinions are of greater merit than those who sat on the SPL Commission.
Auldheid (@Auldheid) says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 12:43
5 0 Rate This
shield2012 says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 11:51
When Fergus McCann built a stadium with greater capacity than Ibrox and filled it he gave Celtic a sporting advantage in an acceptable way, he drew on the fan base to increase income that after paying Fergus back, produced the kind of Celtic teams that would have won even more if Sir David Murray not embarked on trying to match Celtic’s improved income streams by dubious means that have not yet had their final ruling.
There is the difference, the right way in business to get a business advantage and the wrong way. How do we know it was the wrong way? Look where The Rangers now are. You can tell right from wrong by its consequences.
Rangers under SDM chose the wrong way, they could have done many things to compete fairly but always looked to do it the easy way. No matter what judges say life or Karma is the final arbitrer. It turned up wearing Malmo and Maribor strips but I’ve always thought life had a sense of humour and right now I suspect it is lying on the floor pissing itself laughing.
As regards LNS I have copied this from KDS post by Adam smith
” From the ruling of the now great and fair LNS, which we always accepted he would be:
“If it had not been intended that the player would directly benefit from the EBT arrangements then there is no real reason to believe that the player would have agreed to the overall financial package offered”
There it is, the slam dunk.
The technicalities of the seemingly not fit for purpose (defending the integrity of the sport) registration process stopped him saying it was a sporting advantage.
They hid £47m of payments, McCoist accepted it and apologised for it, LNS no less (the paragon of virtue) states that the players would not have signed otherwise.
This is what we have always argued, there were players on that park where the trophies were won who would have not been there but for this deliberate concealment to allow this to happen.
Every fan in the country knows if they could have an extra £80k per week of wages (not far from Sevcos current wage bill which is the second highest in Scotland) this would give Their team an advantage.”
How anyone can deny that no advantage was gained is incomprehensible, did Celtic’s McCann not derive an advantage? Of course they did, the difference is Celtic did it by the rules, Rangers did not and that is why to most supporters its cheating.
—————-
I agree wholeheartedly that Rangers have operated the wrong way and possibly with the motive to gain an advantage. Whether it’s unfair is still up for debate because any other club could have done the same.
“They hid £47m of payments, McCoist accepted it and apologised for it, LNS no less (the paragon of virtue) states that the players would not have signed otherwise.
This is what we have always argued, there were players on that park where the trophies were won who would have not been there but for this deliberate concealment to allow this to happen.”
This doesn’t make sense? Your saying that if the players payments weren’t concealed, they wouldn’t be playing? Why would that make a difference to them playing or not?
“Every fan in the country knows if they could have an extra £80k per week of wages (not far from Sevcos current wage bill which is the second highest in Scotland) this would give Their team an advantage.”
Absolutely, this would and did give them an advantage but you’re back to the debate as to whether EBT’s were a legitimate way of paying players. At the moment, it has not been proven to be illegal. I concede the argument about them spending money they didn’t have but again I would compare them to most top English clubs at the moment.
I know supporters of all clubs in Scotland now know that the Ibrox club have cheated for years. Lots of fans walking away.Who could blame them. They have been found guilty of cheating but are claimimg some sort of victory with Ally McCoist using words like ‘vindicated’ and ‘justice’. We know, they know and the governing bodies know they are cheaters and they should never be allowed to forget this. To this end I would like to propose that an anthem should be played over the tannoy system at all matches before every game, week in week out up and down the country to signify that we will not lety this rest. This way we will remind them at every turn that they are indeed convicted cheaters. I would propose ‘you’ll never walk alone’ be this anthem. I know some clubs may view this as a Celtic song but in fact it has been used by more clubs over the years for marking events way more than any other song. A true FOOTBALL anthem. However,maybe someone has a better choice. Fine. But I think we can get our respective clubs to buy into this if asked properly.
Every time a club is thrown out of a tournament, whether it be boys football, junior football or senior football, and it is a retrospective punishment for an ineligible player being fielded it will be a reminder that the rules count for almost everyone. One club is exempt.
Every time it is retrospectively ruled that a player was ineligible because of an administrative error (for example forgetting to date a contract renewal twice) and his club is subsequently ruled to have broken the rules and their match result is overturned, losing them valuable income, it will be a reminder that almost all clubs must accept the consequences of their mistakes. One club is exempt.
The SPL and the SFA have made their allegiances totally clear. Not that it’s actually surprising after the last year or so, but fair’s fair they couldn’t have made it more obvious this time.
Equal treatment, without fear or favour. Well maybe nearly, it seems there is one club this will never cover. No matter what they do, what they say, who they attack, who they threaten, who they take to court.
Re pressurising SPL clubs to ignore LNS’s ‘recommendations’:
Tactically, it might now be wise to drop any suggestion that RFC’s titles would be awarded to the runners-up. Maybe some sort of consensus could be formed on this on the various fans’ sites and especially this site and SPL FANS UNITED.
I know this might be especially difficult for (some) Celtic fans, but I’m sure they see the logic in it too. Dropping other clubs’ claims on titles might just give SPL board the balls they need to announce that LNS has badly misread the eligibility rule — ideally by explaining the pregnancy analogy! — and that the result of all relevant RFC games is now 0-3. As a result of this, no titles need to be stripped from RFC because they were never won in the first place. The titles for the relevant years will go unawarded.
At the same time it is essential to make it clear that the appellant body to this decision cannot be the SFA, for the reasons outlined by Auldyin/heid.
This battle can be won yet.
Can I ask what may be considered a naive question.
When Rangers were found guilty as charged, and fined £250,000 why is this being considered a victory by some people.
Or is this a new system where people who are found innocent are punished anyway.
For months I have been saying, particularly to those Celtic fans, who seem to have the notion that the Rangers disgrace is all about the injustice done to Celtic, that Scottish football is bigger than any one club and that the whole of Scottish football has suffered, that all clubs are victims. We are now at a defining moment. If the LNS recommendations are accepted by the SPL, then TRFC will, in effect, be enthroned as the monarchs of Scottish football, they will confirmed as being above the laws of the game and for whom the law is a slave. If this state of affairs cannot be stopped now with the momentum that has been built up over the past twelve months, I fear it will never change. I respect the determination of those who have decided it is better to stay and fight than walk away. Unfortunately, when the fight has been won and the decision handed to the defeated, what point is there in carrying on fighting?
areyouaccusingmeofmendacity says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 12:12
2 1 Rate This
torrejohnbhoy says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 12:06
It does appear to be that way. The ban only stopped Rangers from registering players, it doesn’t mention anything about Rangers International, and as the LNS report established, it appears that holding companies can register players (if you ignore the bit about 3rd party owernship, obviously)
————–
Good work, areyouaccusingmeofmendacity. No mendacity or flaw in your thinking that I can see. So to avoid the absurdities you identify, it would seem the SPL board have yet another reason for rejecting/ignoring LNS’s bizarro findings. I’m no expert in these matters, mind you.
For those who are, could you tell us just how typical LNS’s, um, interpretative skills and general intelligence in this case are of the Scottish legal profession? A lower standard than usual? A far, far, far lower standard than usual? A (gulp) higher standard than usual?
Cheers.
allyjambo
Blatters at Tynecastle today, have a word.
Would anyone like to summarise the Cosgrove points on the radio for those of us unable to listen abroad? Thanks.
Sean McNulty says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 14:05
Just to emphasise the point, this is not about Celtic, it is arguably no longer about football although that is the stage for the battle. It is now about what what is right and what is wrong and the kind of society we have in Scotland..
This is an ethical battle for if what is wrong appears to escape the consequences of being wrong , which after all determine the difference, then it is no longer wrong and it becomes right.
There is a natural prediliction on the part of human nature to do what is right, and wrong occurs because we justify to ourselves and others that what we do is right. That what Rangers have done is wrong is manifest in the consequences for them and all of our game, that is why they languish in SFL3. It may be they have to languish in the lower regions a bit longer for the corrective consequences of life to emphasise the difference between what works and what doe’nt.
As I said earlier had it not been for karma turning up in a Malmo shirt Rangers would still have been in the SPL. might still have been in the CL this season but they would still have been guilty of all they have been exposed as being guilty of.
So whilst some may think the fight is over karma will be the final judge.
shield2012 says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 13:45
Please take note…..
If Ronald De Boer was not able to get 40K a week after tax he would not have come to RFC as someone in England/Germany/Spain would have given him the same deal
The only way RFC could get 40K into his hands was to enagage in a deal to bypass paying tax to get him the 40k a week he needed in order to afford him
Based on their income from Ibroke and TV money and CL prize money, they could not afford him
It was either free bank ;loans or EBTs………..
If RFC had to paythe tax for Ronald De Boer, they would have been bankrupt 3 years ago
The fact they soldiered on last year by not paying taxes was also cheating
Hope that clarifies for you
Final question
For all thoise saying the holding club went out of business – what is the name of the holding company that D&P represented as administrators? Just so I can understand……………….
Orwellian newspeak anyone ? How about “Blackwhite”
“ …this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink. ”
—Orwell, 1984
combine with “Prolefeed” (the steady stream of mindless entertainment to distract and occupy the masses)
and the “recdep” (division of the Ministry of Truth that deals with the rectification of records) and of course “rectify” (a euphemism for the deliberate alteration of the past)
I better stop before the thought police knock on my door.
(refs Wikipedia)
Auldheid (@Auldheid) says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 14:55
That what Rangers have done is wrong is manifest in the consequences for them and all of our game, that is why they languish in SFL3
Shirley this should read: that’s why they no longer exist.
As I said earlier had it not been for karma turning up in a Malmo shirt Rangers would still have been in the SPL
Shirley says that this should read: they maybe would have seen out the season before administration and the eventual termination of their existence.
Sorry for the pedantry but to me Rangers no longer exist and it’s important to me that this fact is not forgotten.
dentarthurdent42 says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 14:10
2 0 Rate This
Can I ask what may be considered a naive question.
When Rangers were found guilty as charged, and fined £250,000 why is this being considered a victory by some people.
Or is this a new system where people who are found innocent are punished anyway.
——————
Oh, the irony of this post. Why in this country are a team found innocent of gaining a sporting advantage by a neutral commission still deemed to have cheated?
The facts remain – Rangers won the FTT (now on appeal) and were found guilty of admin errors – both these decisions made by legal minded and neutral parties. Accept it, move on and support your teams as supposed to being obsessed with another team – that you say doesn’t even really exist.
I get that people were desperate for Rangers to be guilty of everything. Now it hasn’t happened there is anger, gnashing of teeth and desperation has set in. But look – Rangers were demoted to Div 3, lost most of their playing assets for a pittance, have a transfer embargo, have no voice in league reconstruction and are being hammered by every Scottish newspaper, radio show and blogger known to man. They were ran into admin by a complete charlatan who refused to pay PAYE and VAT and refused a CVA by HMRC for a phantom 50-100 mill (you pick the value) liability that didn’t actually exist (again in appeal so may change).
Outside of Scotland there is real confusion with this obsession of non rangers fans with Rangers. Just listen to talksport from last night to see how pathetic Celtic are currently being viewed in England for their statement on LNS decision.
I think it is time for everybody to move on – there are more important things to worry about in life and in football.
Just to clarify – my example using De Boer was an example – you can use Prso/Cuellar/Bougherra or whomever else you want to replace the name
Also – for the WTC – RFC were found guilty and accepted the punishment – but never paid the fine!
shield2012 says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 13:45
So if the UTT says ebts were illegal you will accept Rangers acted unfairly? Other clubs,well Celtic anyway, did not touch them because having had a look and on advice decided they were dodgy and at risk of being declared illegal.
That the loop hole that enabled anyone to use them as Rangers did was closed by law tells you that they are illegal, but it took society a while to realise. HMRC are trying to back date the point of legality because it allows them to recoup loss tax.
SDM took a massive punt they would not be, the UTT will decide, but to the man in the street a loan is a payment and it was to induce a player to sign, otherwise what was the point of taking the risk? and why were they hidden if not to reduce the risk?
Updated Nursery Rhyme..feel free to amend and use in stadia.
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall,
All the King’s horses and all the King’s men are trying to put “Ringers” together again.
exiledcelt says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 15:11
I’d like to know as well. Basically, I’m just playing Devil’s Advocat (not GDS, before anyone asks!), and going along with the LNS notion that somehow it was the nebulously defined Old Co, the company behind the club that no one had ever heard of before, who were at fault.
This might be a bit of a surprise to Companies House – I’m sure it was pointed out on RTC a while back that the reference code relating to the entity being liquidated was one that pertains to a sporting club or organisation, not a simple shell or holding company.
broadswordcallingdannybhoy says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 15:17
I’ll give you the first but had they qualified for the CL Craig Whyte would have borrowed against that income and kept them out of administartion. They were 4 pts adrift or so when they went into administration but with CL borrrowings would not have had to cut players wages and use Paye money instead.
They would have had no PAYE tax bill to pay and HMRC would not have put them into administration. M & M (Malmo and Maribor) screwed them.
When talking about Rangers I use The Rangers for Newco and Rangers for oldco and it was Oldco I was referring to. Rangers are being liquidated and that entity beginning 1872 has ended.
nixonwhytewashing says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 15:34
A bit of haiku
The Glasgow Rangers
Aye Ready
But no longer.
And to think if the voice of the ordinary fans of all the other clubs had not trumped Regan’s and Doncaster’s plans, they would be in the SPL.
But they will be back soon, somehow even more disgusting than before.
shield2012 says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 13:59
LNS didn’t strip titles. FTTT didn’t rule EBT’s were illegal. RFC owners of old, cheated. The SFA/SPL have done nothing.
—————————————————————
One more time and this is the last time I take the opportunity to make this point, I have supplied many instances why it has been deemed by many on this blog that Rangers Football Club have in fact cheated, I will mention only these 2:
At the FTT, the lawyer representing Rangers Football Club acknowledged the some (a small percentage of the total claimed) employees and players at the club were paid in the wrong manner thus paying less tax than was owed. They basically cheated the taxpayer for those instances.
Before The BTC there was a smaller case involving 2 players, Rangers Football Club reviewed the claim by HMRC and acknowledged both of these players should have paid more tax on earnings. They basically cheated the taxpayer.
Argue if you must, see it you want to see it but I define cheating in the same manner as most normal thinking individuals, if you do something against the rules, if you try to conceal, deceive and withhold payments due, you are cheating someone.
1. bill1903 says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 11:21
————————
Nice bit of comedy in parts, I actually had to check to make sure that was not Tam Cowan’s moniker :o)
How long will it be before the mobile shredders turn up at Hampden as well?
texaspedro says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 15:18
Couple of points – Rangers didn’t ‘win’ the EBT, they were found to have less tax due than HMRC had demanded. I know the all singing, all dancing media were keen to portray it as a vindication, but I’m afraid it wasn’t. The fact that 5 players were found to have been paid through the mechanism (and that’s taking into account 2 of the judges apparent determination to ignore the evidence!), and that there was liability for these seems to have been completely glossed over.
As for the administration error, as you refer it, I think what people are gnashing their teeth over is that several other teams have committed this ‘admin error’ and have been met with the full weight of sanctions, yet for some reason, the same punishment doesn’t get recommended when it’s Rangers in the dock, thanks to a supposed loophole that doesn’t actually exist.
As for talksport and how it’s viewed in England – really couldn’t give one. I live in England, I know what the attitude to Scottish football is like. “It’s Celtic and Rangers, innit?’. It’s the stock answer, and they won’t allow themselves to think anymore about it. This is best summed up by Adrian Durham (of your beloved talksport) who wrote an article in the Mail the other day about Scottish football being crap because the best team in Scotland being 20 or whatever clear at the top of the SPL, and the 2nd best being 20 or so clear at the top of the 3rd. This 2nd best tag might come as a bit of a surprise to Dundee United and Inverness, both of whom absolutely horsed the ‘2nd best team in Scotland’ in cup matches without even breaking sweat. Their is confusion because the nearest Talksport gets to it is when Jackson or Hately are wheeled out to give their own highly partisan ‘expert’ comment.
texaspedro says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 15:18 (Edit)
——————
Oh, the irony of this post. Why in this country are a team found innocent of gaining a sporting advantage by a neutral commission still deemed to have cheated?
The facts remain – Rangers won the FTT (now on appeal) and were found guilty of admin errors – both these decisions made by legal minded and neutral parties. Accept it, move on and support your teams as supposed to being obsessed with another team – that you say doesn’t even really exist.
__________________________________________________________________________
TP
Just to correct your factual inexactitudes.
They were not found guilty of administrative errors. That is James Traynor’s spin, which had nothing to do with LNS.
LNS found that they deliberately withheld information in contravention of what they knew were the rules.
Thus, unsurprisingly the consensus on here is that there was cheating.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but it seems to me that those who plan to never return as a consequence of the offenders being given a get out of jail card, are ambivalent if anything.
And you are correct about the existence of Rangers. Perhaps modern day Rangers fans recognise the seriously corrupt institution as Rangers, but would Bill Struth?
Struth’s Rangers died the day Murray decided to use PBW as his main strike-force.
Off the ball listen again feature:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01r0yv5
Thank’s boys!
I have not posted for months as I had hoped that justice and integrity would naturally prevail through the FTT and the SPL commission.
From a purely common sense approach and looking at a level playing field if Rangers had employed and paid their staff and players using the same methods and rules as all the other teams in the SPL over the years from 2001, then they would have had to source and pay an additional £47million in PAYE and NIC. We know from the findings of both the FTT and LNS that Rangers FC deliberately concealed theses payments known as EBTs from both HMRC and the football authorities.
When I read my own statement out loud again and again, i am bemused at the comments by people who are at a higher pay grade than myself that Rangers did not gain any sporting advantage over their rivals.
The score at the moment is:
Sleakit Rangers 2 : Morality, Justice and Integrity 0
Hopefully the second leg at the UTT might allow Morality, Justice and integrity to get back into the game. I am not holding my breath though. 😉
texaspedro says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 15:18
Oh the irony….
I and others deem that Rangers cheated because we have looked at the evidence and disagree with the commission’s findings, not because we are desperate for Rangers to be found guilty, but for the rules to be applied without fear or favour (or fudge).
Ironically it’s possible that Rangers who are now in liquidation perhaps felt something similar when they appealed to the FTTT.
Ironically I feel that they should have just accepted it and just moved on.
Oh, and Rangers were not demoted to Division 3, they are now in liquidation, there’s a new club with a similar name in the 3rd Division.
When you say that the media have been hammering the team currently known as Rangers, are you referring to, for example, the recent wall to wall condemnation of the singing at Berwick and the calls for action to be taken, and the vociferous calls by journalists, reporters and pundits for the team’s management to outright condemn and apologise for their fans disgusting behaviour?
Are you perhaps referring to the fact that Charles Green is constantly challenged by the media whenever he opens his mouth and is allowed very little leeway whenever his statements appear to contradict something he may have earlier said, or indeed make little sense?
Is it because Green’s pandering to the moronic WATP element of the Ibrox faithful was continually exposed in the media and roundly condemned for the dangerous cash raising ploy that it clearly is?
Is it because nobody in the media has ever come out to say that perhaps Rangers have been punished enough?
Perhaps it’s because whenever it is mentioned that it’s the same club, the media are almost foaming at the mouth in their vigour to have that nonsense exposed for the lie that it is?
Is it because of the forensic analysis of the commission’s findings in the media indicating clearly that Rangers were found guilty but escaped with a slap on the wrist (or a fine on the corpse)?
Oh the Irony….
I think that there is more important things in life than football and Talksport.
There’s knowing the difference between what’s right and what’s wrong not allowing cheats to prosper.
Oh, and irony is important too.
shield2012
”If a lord and a tribunal is yet to be convinced of systematic cheating then surely, at they very least, I deserve the right to a healthy debate without being branded a troll!”
Eh? If you check the Lord’s document carefully, he found the dead-club/dead-company guilty on all charges. This is what is commonly known as a “fact”. In his opinion, despite dead-club/dead-company being found guilty, only a financial, not a sporting, sanction would be appropriate. This is also commonly known as a fact. Where did the charge of systematic cheating come from – that’s not what they dead-club/dead company charged with or found guilty of? This is what’s commonly known as making things up as you go along (dead-club/deadcompany was good at that whilst still around) or good lold fashioned bullshit. Which part of “guilty as charged” don’t you accept, as factual or reality?
Auldheid (@Auldheid) says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 15:39
Gave you a thumbing up!!
You’re 100% correct, I was overly pedantic.