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.
texaspedro says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 15:18
I think it is time for everybody to move on – there are more important things to worry about in life and in football
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Rangers fan in “let’s not scutinise closely the decisions of those we put our trust in” shocker!
texaspedro says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 15:18
2 44 Rate This
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.
==================
Demoted To Div ??????? For What? Please enlighten me of the sevconian mindset.
The New Rangers (Formally known as Sevco 5088) were formed in the summer after the Rangers Old Club(1872) were confined to liquidation. They then (Back by the SPL/SFA/SFL) touted themselves about like a 10 buck callgirl to whoever would have them. The SPL clubs said no, and the SFL clubs voted you to the bottom tier. This is were you should count yourself very lucky as this was against the rules, you should have been out of the game altogether.
Demoted? Geez Peace.
texaspedro says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 15:18
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?
————————————————
They weren’t charged with “gaining a sporting advantage”, they were charged with failures in the registration process. Based on not making full declarations of players contracts.
They were found guilty of it, hence the penalty.
Making up a “charge”, and then claiming Rangers were found innocent of it really is clutching at straws. I know you may find solace in it, but what you said is simply not true.
Innocent parties do not receive a fine once they are found innocent. I think that is pretty obvious.
Lord Nimmo Smith – We find Rangers innocent of the charge against them, as such we impose a £250,000 fine.
It doesn’t really work, does it.
I know some people are clutching onto this “sporting advantage” idea, but it is at most a mitigating factor, reducing the penalty. It has nothing to do with whether Rangers were found guilty or not.
They were btw.
Stewart Regan says continuing debate would cause ‘collateral damage’
http://sport.stv.tv/216088-stewart-regan-says-continuing-debate-would-cause-collateral-damage/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
SFA chief executive Stewart Regan has claimed any continuing debate over the Rangers payments issue would cause ‘collateral damage’ to the game.
Speaking in Edinburgh today, Regan urged Scottish football to draw a line under the last 12 months and move on.
The independent commission chaired by Lord Nimmo Smith this week fined the old company £250,000, but decided not to strip the club of any titles.
He said: “Now is a very good time for all parties to draw a line under what’s gone on in last 12 months.
“It’s crucial with league reconstruction being such an important issue that we draw a line under what’s happened and seek to work collaboratively.
“If we spent as much time focusing on building and growing the game on the pitch as we do talking about conspiracy theories, exit strategies and matters off the field, I think we would be world class.
“We have to avoid the rest of the game becoming collaterally damaged. It’s not about trying to find scapegoats for what’s happened.”
Regan also defended Scottish Football Association president Campbell Ogilvie’s role during his time as company secretary at Rangers when some undisclosed payments were made.
He said Ogilvie had been totally open about his role at Rangers, adding: “Campbell Ogilvie played no part in the management and organisation of any element of the Murray group remuneration trust.
“He has been transparent and up front and he was the only member of the old [Rangers] regime who put himself forward to be interviewed by Lord Nimmo Smith and that says a lot about the man.”
Regan insisted no deal had been done with Rangers to stop the club being stripped of their titles, but that the possibility of it happening had been mentioned to the new owners.
He said: “When the consortium approached the SFA and were interested in buying Rangers FC they asked for an outline of what were the worst possible punishments.
“The reason they wanted the information is they had investors who wanted to know exactly what the implications were, so what came on to the table was literally every possible sanction and issue.”
On the FTT ruling.
If I remember correctly it was ruled that Rangers had failed to pay the tax in the instances of 5 or 6 players. If that had been considered on it’s own it would be a major scandal.
On tax in general, Rangers have also had to admit to the “wee tax case” involving several million pounds. For Heaven’s sake there were even Sheriff’s Officers at Ibrox on that one because they agreed to pay it then reneged. They also failed to remit PAYE / NIC and VAT in the region of £14m, money they collected and stole, and have admitted to doing. No argument, hands up we just spent the money and it wasn’t ours.
So, nonsense aside, Rangers have admitted to not paying somewhere in the region of £20m, most of which they had received from other people and simply stole.
On The Lord Nimmo Smith Ruling.
Rangers were found guilty and were punished. It is the derisory nature of that punishment which is the issue, not whether they were guilty or not. Those found innocent by a panel are not then subject to a substantial fine.
Rangers have admitted to, or been found guilty of underpaying £20m to Her majesty’s Revenue and Customs (you and me) and of systematically breaking football rules for over a decade.
Can someone tell me which part they expect an apology for.
I’m trying to think . .
Q. Is there any other group of people
Or any other institution
That has in the past caused this country as much trouble
As Rangers FC(IL) ?
A. Nope
Q. And is there any other group of people
Or any other institution
That is presently causing this country as much trouble
As New Rangers FC ?
A. The SFA ?
Well that’s good.
I’ve got that clear
Robert Coyle says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 17:26
Its not about finding scapegoats, its about putting people in place whom we trust not to cause damage in the first place.
It’s a new double world record !!
New Rangers are the deafest football club in the world !
And the SFA (a subsidiary of New Rangers) is the deafest football association in the world !!
Auldheid (@Auldheid) says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 15:28
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?
————-
Of course I would take a different view if the UTT judged EBT’s to be illegal. Otherwise, I wouldn’t have been eager to hear the result just like you and many others. Unfortunately, there seems to be an attitude where if a decision doesn’t go their way then it’s corruption and bias.
I agree with what you say about them being illegal by todays standards but this situation happens all the time where legislation has to be tightened to stop loopholes. However, who can blame someone for taking advantage of loopholes when they can?
SDM did take a massive punt but I don’t believe he would have done it blindly. He would have based his decision on advice from experts. I believe they went out their way to hide it where possible, and I cannot understand fully why they done this. This is the aspect that concerns me. There could be a few reasons – to hide it from competitors or maybe they thought it was probably ok but in the back of their mind knew it was dodgy.
On a side note, people are STILL telling me how RFC signed Ronald De Boer, for example, solely because of the EBT’s. Can I just say I’m fully aware of this and not disagreeing with that argument. What I am saying is that, so far, EBT’s haven’t been deemed illegal so there was nothing wrong (legally) with what they done.
texaspedro says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 15:18
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.
——————————————————————-
Citing Talksport as evidence of how anything is definitively viewed in England or elsewhere is maybe not the strongest card to be playing there. They have their moments, but their main reason for existence is to fire off polemic against random targets. They’re not meant to be taken seriously!
I have to ask whether Mr. Doncaster believes what comes out of his own mouth! If anyone had doubts about how the SPL board (made up of representatives from SPL clubs and other “independents”) was going to view the Lord Nimmo Smith enquiry, I think this interview makes things pretty clear. They really do take us for supplicant cretins!
I believe the way forward is clear: only fan power can change things. In the short period we have, only boycotting will suffice. Anything else plays into their hands. All issues will be conveniently lost in the mists of time and will not be revisited “for the good of Scottish football” (no what the UTTT decides).
I have seen comments stating that there is no point in Celtic challenging the decision as there is no financial gain. On the contrary, Celtic will be affected most by fan boycotts if they go along with this charade. I believe attendances will plummet, 20,000 – 25,000 being the upper end of the range. All of the good work and the foundations laid in the last few years will be lost. They will no longer compete at the Champions League level and reaching the Europa League group stage will be seen as a good year.
Using EBT’s for contractual payments was never a “loophole” it was an abuse of the system. The “loophole” defence is simply another urban myth.
The fundamental flaw in the ruling given by the FTT, based on the evidence presented to them, is considering the nature of the payments and accepting them as loans. That is fine if one considers that the payment is made when the loan is made by the sub-trust to the beneficiary.
However the position HMRC take is that the payment is made when the money goes into the sub-trust, for the benefit of the player. As that payment in is part of the contract (as per the side letters) then that is when the tax point is made and when tax either does or doesn’t become due.
If anyone thinks this is done and dusted and the decisions have been made and are final then I’m afraid they don;t understand how it works. Once again, have a look at Dextra and how that worked out.
On a side issue, I think it’s significant the HMRC have lodged 4 (I think) appeals. The initial appeal, made by the Murray Group, was for the whole trust. HMRC’s appeals are against the individual companies. So Rangers stand on their own this time.
Typo: ” (no what the UTTT decides).” should be ” (no matter what the UTTT decides).” D’oh!
So even more people today are telling us to forget it ,time to move on, it’s best for Scottish Football , it’s going to have to be just one of those things that happen in football we got caught but in all the important things cheating etc it wasn’t us. Greenockjack and now texaspedro just a snapshot of the TRFC mindset, and I would venture to say despite what we’re told I fear the majority. However the UTT has still to sit in judgement and dare I say it the vast majority of non TRFC will not be for letting this go after all if RTC and others had chucked in at the very start we would not be where we are today . The exposing of the web of corruption and deceit at the very heart of our governing bodies has left a lot of people looking very silly and incompetent and indeed in any other walk of life would have had them picking up their P45 so there’s still much to do, and I feel there will be more twists and turns to come yet.
Unless of course somebody has borrowed a memory eraser from Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones . (Sorry that was men in black, not men in blue)
areyouaccusingmeofmendacity says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 16:02
19 0 Rate This
texaspedro says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 15:18
Couple of points – Rangers didn’t ‘win’ the EBT
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
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.
———————
OK – The EBT scheme employed was deemed legal, in that the “loans” were deemed loans. In 5 cases it was deemed that the scheme was administered incorrectly – therefore tax was due. I would say they won as the scheme itself was deemed acceptable – it was the administration of it that was incorrect. But I take your point – what I would say is important is that the liability was not 50-100 mill.
I am not 100% sure of these other cases so cannot comment – if its the Spartans one, where the player played and was not registered, that is different from the Rangers case because the players were registered – “[86] Evidence was given by Alexander Bryson, Head of Registrations at the SFA, who described the registration process. During the course of his evidence he explained that, once a player had been registered with the SFA, he remained registered unless and until his registration was revoked. Accordingly, even if there had been a breach of the SFA registration procedures, such as a breach of SFA Article 12.3, the registration of a player was not treated as being invalid from the outset, and stood unless and until it was revoked……But in the kind of situation that we are dealing with here we are satisfied that the registration of the Specified Players with the SPL was valid from the outset, and accordingly that they were eligible to play in official matches. There was therefore no breach of SPL Rule D1.11” – but happy to accept you may be talking about other cases.
Talksport was an example of the views held outside of Scotland – I am sure Durham can defend himself, but he probably meant 2nd biggest.
broadswordcallingdannybhoy says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 16:20
21 0 Rate This
texaspedro says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 15:18
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).
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?
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 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)?
There’s knowing the difference between what’s right and what’s wrong not allowing cheats to prosper.
—————
If they are deemed innocent then they are innocent – you are entitled to feel the commission was wrong of course, but it seems a pointless exercise.
If its a new club as you say (I am not arguing) then you seem awful bothered by them – it is this point i don’t get with other fans. They say its a new club but are obsessed with what happens at a “new” 3rd division club. Weird
As for my comments regarding the media, I was highlighting how Rangers had been punished over the past year. You have brought another issue into it – all I will say is Rangers issued the following statement during the game “The Club is disappointed by certain outbursts of inappropriate singing by a section of the support at Berwick.
Our fans have been excellent this season both home and away and we do not want to see this tarnished.” Unfortunately, some people will feel the need to sing what they want and it needs the fans to really step in to name and shame. But I can’t agree the club avoided the issue.
As for Green – he has totally played the fans to raise money, but I am not sure what people expect. He needs to keep the customers coming back to make money, so I have no issue with that as long as the club is on a steady footing – that remains to be seen.
As for your comment on Rangers escaping with a slap on the wrist – all that matters is this quote from the findings. “(6) Rangers FC did not gain any unfair competitive advantage from the contraventions of the SPL Rules in failing to make proper disclosure of the side-letter arrangements, nor did the non-disclosure have the effect that any of the registered players were ineligible to play, and for this and other reasons no sporting sanction or penalty should be imposed upon Rangers FC”.
Rangers have been deemed to have not gained a competitive advantage, but you refuse to accept it. That is your issue.
Have been pondering some likely LNS scenarios to explain their inexplicable decisions.
A the 3 QCs are busy guys and only managed to cram the SFA / SPL regulations the night before they started
B they were so swayed by the extraordinarily brilliant oratory of Ogilvie $ Bryson that they forgot to check what they were told against the actual regulations.
C some or all of the panel pored over the regulations for weeks in collaboration with SFA parties unknown to find a way to minimise punishment
D the regulations did not allow a way to avoid a massive and overpowering guilty verdict so they came up with the idea of a witness giving oral evidence not conceived of previously so no precedent could be used to refute it, and allowed them a route to minimal punishment.
E C & D above were deemed necessary and required by the SFA and possibly others as their definition of “the good of the game” is purely a financial calculation
F C & D above were deemed necessary as the state & security interests have calculated that there is a latent threat (i.e. “armageddon” / “threat to the fabric of society”) if TRFC as well as RFC were put out of business. The recent resurgence of Unionist unrest in NI which could possibly spill over to the west of Scotland should not be underestimated if there is strategic planning ongoing in government agencies to minimise risk and threats to the state.
G C & D above were conceived as the panel members and others have natural sympathies with RFC / orangy connections that superceded their professional responsibilities /values.
Personally, just as I cannot accept the panel’s decisions and arguments, I also discount scenarios A, B & G; and think a combination of C, D, E & F came into play.
Its not even paranoia, just what a sensible state security agency might recommend to the great and good. Its only football you know, what’s that compared to the stability of the country. Of course if there is any truth in this then we will not see changes no matter what the football arguments are until the “threat” has diminished. This therefore gives us all even more of a dilemma when considering how succesful a boycott strategy could be or even if changes to personnel at the SFA would be able to make a difference.
Sits back and awaits comments (if any)
texaspedro says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 19:08
0
1
Rate This
broadswordcallingdannybhoy says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 16:20
21 0 Rate This
texaspedro says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 15:18
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).
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?
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 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)?
There’s knowing the difference between what’s right and what’s wrong not allowing cheats to prosper.
—————
If they are deemed innocent then they are innocent – you are entitled to feel the commission was wrong of course, but it seems a pointless exercise.
If its a new club as you say (I am not arguing) then you seem awful bothered by them – it is this point i don’t get with other fans. They say its a new club but are obsessed with what happens at a “new” 3rd division club. Weird
As for my comments regarding the media, I was highlighting how Rangers had been punished over the past year. You have brought another issue into it – all I will say is Rangers issued the following statement during the game “The Club is disappointed by certain outbursts of inappropriate singing by a section of the support at Berwick.
Our fans have been excellent this season both home and away and we do not want to see this tarnished.” Unfortunately, some people will feel the need to sing what they want and it needs the fans to really step in to name and shame. But I can’t agree the club avoided the issue.
As for Green – he has totally played the fans to raise money, but I am not sure what people expect. He needs to keep the customers coming back to make money, so I have no issue with that as long as the club is on a steady footing – that remains to be seen.
As for your comment on Rangers escaping with a slap on the wrist – all that matters is this quote from the findings. “(6) Rangers FC did not gain any unfair competitive advantage from the contraventions of the SPL Rules in failing to make proper disclosure of the side-letter arrangements, nor did the non-disclosure have the effect that any of the registered players were ineligible to play, and for this and other reasons no sporting sanction or penalty should be imposed upon Rangers FC”.
Rangers have been deemed to have not gained a competitive advantage, but you refuse to accept it. That is your issue.
dentarthurdent42 says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 17:20
7 0 Rate This
texaspedro says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 15:18
dentarthurdent42 says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 14:10
2 0 Rate Thi
They weren’t charged with “gaining a sporting advantage”, they were charged with failures in the registration process. Based on not making full declarations of players contracts.
They were found guilty of it, hence the penalty.
Making up a “charge”, and then claiming Rangers were found innocent of it really is clutching at straws. I know you may find solace in it, but what you said is simply not true.
Innocent parties do not receive a fine once they are found innocent. I think that is pretty obvious.
Lord Nimmo Smith – We find Rangers innocent of the charge against them, as such we impose a £250,000 fine.
It doesn’t really work, does it.
I know some people are clutching onto this “sporting advantage” idea, but it is at most a mitigating factor, reducing the penalty. It has nothing to do with whether Rangers were found guilty or not.
They were btw.
—–
I ain’t the one clutching at straws – it seems to be all of you. I meant they were cleared of gaining a competitive advantage. You can make of that what you will. I quite clearly stated they were found guilty of a admin error “(5) Although the payments in this case were not themselves irregular and were not in breach of SPL or SFA Rules, the scale and extent of the proven contraventions of the disclosure rules require a substantial penalty to be imposed”.
Consider ing the events of the last week, my mind drifts back to the summer when Mr Traynor in his (then unofficial) role as Rangers cheerleader stated in his article urging SPL clubs to welcome
new Rangers into the big boys’ playground.
From memory, so forgive me if it’s not word for word; someone may be able to help;
“Scottish football has never been honest. It cannot afford to be.”
RTC if you are looking in – I would like to thank you for creating an environment where a community (internetbampottery) of like minded people can come together to scrutinise the powers that be.
Internetbampots – never give up.
To quote from the x-files – the truth is out there.
texaspedro says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 19:08
Rangers have been deemed to have not gained a competitive advantage, but you refuse to accept it. That is your issue.
===================================
They have also been found guilty of breaking the rules over a protracted period, but you refuse to accept it.
The point you keep returning to relates to the penalty they were given, not whether they broke the rules or not.
They deliberately broke the rules of the football association they were a member of.
Deliberately breaking the rules is cheating, however you wish to mitigate it, however you wish to downplay the result of that cheating.
dentarthurdent42 says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 18:12
On a side issue, I think it’s significant the HMRC have lodged 4 (I think) appeals. The initial appeal, made by the Murray Group, was for the whole trust. HMRC’s appeals are against the individual companies. So Rangers stand on their own this time.
—————————————————————————————————————————-
That’s a very good point, dt42- well spotted. Are the implications worth exploring, or is it purely procedural?
TallBoy Poppy (@TallBoyPoppy) says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 19:36
========================
Given that the original appeal, won in the majority but not entirely (as some people would have you believe) was by the Murray Group and covered all of the businesses, I personally think that it is significant that HMRC have chosen to lodge what appears to be 4 appeals against the 4 individual businesses.
If I remember correctly their are 4 separate UTT reference numbers so I imagine it is being dealt with as 4 separate appeals.
However I am not an expert and as you say that may be procedural.
dentarthurdent42 says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 19:30
3 0 Rate This
texaspedro says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 19:08
Rangers have been deemed to have not gained a competitive advantage, but you refuse to accept it. That is your issue.
===================================
They have also been found guilty of breaking the rules over a protracted period, but you refuse to accept it.
The point you keep returning to relates to the penalty they were given, not whether they broke the rules or not.
They deliberately broke the rules of the football association they were a member of.
Deliberately breaking the rules is cheating, however you wish to mitigate it, however you wish to downplay the result of that cheating.
—————–
I personally think you would have needed to gain an advantage for it to be classed as cheating. Breaking the rules deserves punishment but being classed as cheats when you didn’t gain an advantage is taking it too far.
Genuine question because I can’t remember – do we know that RFC, beyond all doubt, deliberately concealed the payments? If so, how do we know this?
shield2012 says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 20:17
dentarthurdent42 says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 19:30
3 0 Rate This
texaspedro says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 19:08
Rangers have been deemed to have not gained a competitive advantage, but you refuse to accept it. That is your issue.
===================================
They have also been found guilty of breaking the rules over a protracted period, but you refuse to accept it.
The point you keep returning to relates to the penalty they were given, not whether they broke the rules or not.
They deliberately broke the rules of the football association they were a member of.
Deliberately breaking the rules is cheating, however you wish to mitigate it, however you wish to downplay the result of that cheating.
—————–
I personally think you would have needed to gain an advantage for it to be classed as cheating. Breaking the rules deserves punishment but being classed as cheats when you didn’t gain an advantage is taking it too far.
Genuine question because I can’t remember – do we know that RFC, beyond all doubt, deliberately concealed the payments? If so, how do we know this?
——————————————————————————————————————-
Well they kept concealing them for TEN years , that looks pretty deliberate. Use your loaf !
So did in of these players who had 2 contracts ever receive fines from the S F A ?
if so they was it a set amount or based on their salaries ?? ?
I see the walking away has already started. Most of today’s blog activity has been trolls stirring away and getting plenty of bites. As ever, it is interesting what Mr. Doncaster did not say today (and of course, was not pressed): where now reconstruction? It merited a fury of effort in the last month and now just vanishes?
As has the winding-up order from Orlit. Was this a red herring to divert the internet bampots while Lord Nimmo Smith & the SPL beavered away on a method to launder Rangers’ dirty past?
I personally think you would have needed to gain an advantage for it to be classed as cheating. Breaking the rules deserves punishment but being classed as cheats when you didn’t gain an advantage is taking it too far.
========================
Cheating is deliberately breaking the rules.
That is what Rangers did. The deliberately and systematically broke the rules of the association they were a member of. They did it over a protracted period.
I think it is worth remembering that they were in the process of paying players via EBTs. These payments had to be non-contractual, or they would fall foul of the rules.
If they had declared the payments to the SFA then they would clearly have been contractual, so they concealed the payments. They had no choice, it was break the SFA rules, or effectively admit their payments into the trusts were a sham.
In reality the cheating, in football terms, was actually a necessary by product of not paying the tax. That however is irrelevant, the bottom line is they still did it, whatever the motivation.
texaspedro says:
Thanks for replying Pedro, from deep in the heart of Texas.
The Lone Star state and the land of the cowboy.
You fail or are unable to say why challenging the decision is pointless?
For me it’s not so much the decision but the punishment which should be challenged.
They were found guilty of (semantics aside) cheating.
Other clubs who committed similar clerical errors were thrown out of competitions, punitively fined, and results reversed for each instance.
How many instances were Rangers guilty of?
How Many result reversals occurred?
Why was the fine imposed when it cannot be paid?
Therefore Rangers were not punished, why is it pointless to challenge this incredible decision?
You wanted to highlight how Rangers have been punished over the last year?
They died, they ceased to be, not as a punishment, as a consequence of their business practices stretching back possibly decades. We may even see people prosecuted as a result.
The statement of the club certainly savaged the fans for their Berwick singing in much the same way a dead sheep savages its victims.
Excellent all season? Do you want the YouTube links to the sectarian and offensive filth sung by those excellent fans all season?
Green has every right to pander to a moronic element to raise money, however I was highlighting the MSM’s failure to hold him to account and expose this dangerous practice.
I say he has every right because I am a Libertarian, not because I agree with it.
Perhaps like you they have no issue with increasing sectarian tensions in our country because it’s for the good of the club, I hope I’m inferring your meaning incorrectly.
All that matters is that no other club got a slap on the wrist, as I indicated earlier, for a single instance, of say a missing date on a form, they were thrown out of competitions and results reversed. They’ve even been told that they were not trying to claim a competitive advantage.
So why were Rangers not treated in the same way for each instance?
Until that question is answered, it will continue to be asked
You think it’s time for us all to move on?
You think you know what’s best for me and everyone else do you?
A little arrogant that don’t you think?
As a Rangers supporter arrogance is surely an anathema to you so I’m certain that you don’t mean to be, I’m therefore not offended.
Oh, back to the Texas theme
I’m hoping for a cheap laugh by saying that Rangers are a no star team, in a state, and run by cowboys.
Hopefully you can respond with some similar witty banter and we can keep the discussion civil.
shield2012 says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 20:17
Shield, correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m fairly certain Murray admitted as much during the hearings for the FTT. It was commented at the time that he’d thrown Rangers under the bus in order to try and save his business empire…. how naive we all were, eh?
Forgive me if this question has already been asked but if the ‘gaining a sporting advantage’ scenario is to be addressed accurately should the following question also be asked.
If the undisclosed £47M had been included within the contacts would that have made them liable for tax?
The way I read this, simply as a layman, is that the trust is discretionary in that you may or may not get paid a large sum of money and this is where the tax efficiency comes in. However if the players have letters stating that they WILL be paid the money then there is no discretion in this and the money must be paid to the players. This would make it liable for tax surely otherwise everyone would have been at it.
The point I’m trying to make is that this is where, if possible the EBT case and footballing law, collide. If this is the case then another £15M would have to have been found by RFC in order to pay the tax for the players RFC signed.
In reality the footballing public are being asked to believe that making undisclosed payments which also resulted in tax not getting paid in a small country like Scotland to the tune of £4M a year for eleven years does not boost your performance. Or to put it another way a Nikica Jelavic a year for eleven years will not make your team any better than a team of youngsters playing in the third division.
That is the real scenario we are being asked to believe here. Personally I don’t, can’t, and won’t accept this scenario.
It would be interesting to ask ‘The Rangers’ fans if they think the team playing in Div 3 would have a sporting advantage against the team that played as RFC in the SPL last year?
The team playing in Div 3 didn’t seem to have much of a sporting advantage when they played Inverness or Dundee United in the cups. If they didn’t have a sporting advantage then why was this?
After all they have a state of the art training facility and highly paid coaches so why don’t they have a sporting advantage.
If the answer is because they do not have the same quality of players then there is a conundrum here because in paying large sums of money to entice players every club wants to better the playing squad/team otherwise what is the point in signing them.
Are Liverpool a better team for buying Suarez?
Are Manchester United a better team with Van Persie?
The answer is of course they are.
At the end of the day if you have a rubbish left back you would not spend £10M on a equally bad left back. You would want to buy one that is better than the one you already have.
In addition to above about move along nothing to see here that’s it finished and dealt with , Vincent Lunny anyone , remember Berwick , apologies on air , embarrassed on air commentators etc or is that just another incident to be buried under The LNS report.
Also, no one seems to have satisfactorily answered why Rangers were able to claim Colin Hendry’s full wages from the SFA when he was injured on Scotland duty…. Sorry, I’ve forgotten myself for a second, I do of course mean his full wages and, for some reason, ‘lifestyle’ loans. Why would the SFA aquiesce to that money if it didn’t match what was submitted on the player’s registration to them?
For Celtic to survive and maintain its fa n base it has no option but to appeal the punishment on two clear grounds. Firstly theassertion by LNS without any supporting evidence that no footballing advantage was gained. LNS was wrong in this – and he has form on this as a judge In the Lockerbie trial one of the defendants was acquitted because of the lack of confidence in the forensic links to Malta, yet to appease his paymasters he used the same discredited evidence to convict Al Megrahi as he realised that regardless of evidence a guilty verdict of some sort was required in the interests of political expediency. Similarly here. He could not but find Rangers guilty yet expediency demanded that they avoided meaningful punishment thus the invention of an irrelevant condition previously unheard of in footballing governance to allow the club to escape a footballing penalty. His justification was arbitrary ultra vires and wrong in fact. So on thes grounds Celtic must appeal.
texaspedro says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 19:15
0 18 Rate This
Palacio67 says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 17:16
Demoted To Div ??????? For What? Please enlighten me of the sevconian mindset.
The New Rangers (Formally known as Sevco 5088) were formed in the summer after the Rangers Old Club(1872) were confined to liquidation. They then (Back by the SPL/SFA/SFL) touted themselves about like a 10 buck callgirl to whoever would have them. The SPL clubs said no, and the SFL clubs voted you to the bottom tier. This is were you should count yourself very lucky as this was against the rules, you should have been out of the game altogether.
Demoted? Geez Peace.
——–
That is fine – if Rangers are dead so be it. But a lot of other fans seem awfully upset by this new club – just ignore them.
If they had been put out the game completely though, I would fear for many a Celtic fan – not sure how they would fill their time without getting angry at a “new” Div 3 club. More obsessed and interested with them than supporting your own team. Its actually sad.
————————————–
Good post, your best yet, I did’nt even give you the thumbs down 🙂
I do fill my time going to Celtic park at all home games and an really enjoying the fact the RFC1872 are not there, most supporters of other clubs will agree. It is not an obsession that most fans have, just the fact that the whole scam of the last 15 months and the way is was executed.
From the SPL knowing about RFC1872 going to admin months in advance (C Whyte), to the farce of administration and D and P. The intervention of the First Minister, fabric of society statement. The blatant rule breaking and making over the summer ( Secret 5 way agreement ), the delay by Lord Hodge to offer a drip feed to the terminal patient, The social unrest statement, Armageddon, RFC1872, going to the COS, SFA/Uefa do nothing, actually agreeing to the very sanction they went to COS to complain about ( Because the only other sanction would be expulsion, before frankensteins baby has been created), the delays about side contracts, the temp membership given to play Brechin (Who actually played Brechin), the transfer of SFA membership (What?),The new membership of the SFL agreed and timed to co-incide with the opening of the Olympics, the Sectarian chants at the Kilmarnock game (Still Waiting ), the threats to members of the panel and threats to burn down RRs park, threats to journalists, Charles Green spouting of words like 8igotry. The FTT result, and LNS result ( OJ Simpson would have been embarrassed )
Sorry that I have missed anything, but all this and more has gone on and you wonder if we are obsessed?
Concerned, Yes really concerned about the state of our game and the new addition at the bottom of the ladder who have had a large silver spoon thrust in its mouth .
Continuing my post. The second clear ground for appeal rests in the lack of challenge to Mr Bryson’s evidence. He contradicts his owni rule book in stating that a registration is legal until the flaw is spotted. In the Spartans case the error was noticed after the tie. In the absence of any written rule on this I accuse Mr Bryson of simply making stuff p to allow the registrations to stand. Precedent proves that this interpretation has never been used before and it flatly contradicts SFA practice.
Even if such an appeal by Celtic were ultimately unsuccessful the very fact of having the courage to appeal would cause the fan base to unite and rally round. Such an action would I think allow me to return to Celtic park retaining my dignity.
Obviously the appeal would have to go beyond Scottish jurisdiction . I would strongly suggest the CAS.
Has anyone had a look at the SPL’s Accounts for last season? Oddly, they were published on 28th February (a good day to bury bad news?). At first glance they don’t look that great with income down, the end of year cash balance down, deferred income down, salaries up and, sadly, confirmation that the SPL at least considers that Rangers FC lives on.
“Following the end of season 2011/12 Rangers FC was sold by the Rangers Football Club PLC (in Administration to Sevco Scotland Limited”
Q. When is a company not a company? A. When it’s a football team, silly. 🙁
I’ve uploaded a copy to my Scribd account for any bored individuals to peruse at their leisure.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/128155449/SPL-Annual-Accounts-2012
Some specific points:
Income down 6%, mainly due to a reduction in a grant from UEFA because no club made the group stages of the CL
Cash at Bank and in Hand down from £3.998M to £1.266M
Accruals and deferred income down from £7.169M to £3.288M (this should include Sponsorship income etc. for the next season (2012/13) – end of the Clydesdale deal perhaps?)
Salaries up £30,000 (6.17%) although the same number of people employed.
What may be interesting is who will pay the £250k fine. To keep up the myth of unbroken lineage it has to be CG. 140 years history for £250k, cheap at half the price Charles. Of course the fine should be levied to the defunct club and thus the fine is thrown into the creditors pot.
The following youtube video shows Gary Hooper demonstrating how Ibrox gets away with it. 😉
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsZzH0a7dwc
Seriously Shield if you’re not trolling (and no offence intended if not) then don’t open the barn door of rebuke quite so wide!
“….Genuine question because I can’t remember – do we know that RFC, beyond all doubt, deliberately concealed the payments? If so, how do we know this?…”
Both LNS and the FTTT specifically commented that RFC in whatever guise had concealed the information from them individually and collectively. Four and a half years in the case of the FTTT and only broken by a co-incidental dawn raid (there’s a clue there – any other clubs had co-incidental dawn raids, or is that us picking on you again?). 4 months in the case of the initial SPL inquiry when focus on the club meant that a continuation of the three monkeys policy was, at best, unfortunate. Even a specific link between the two with the FTTT findings saying the non disclosure would seem to breach the registration AND player eligibility rules of the SPL regardless of payment status, contractual or otherwise, and conversely, the LNS findings again quite specifically saying something like the non disclosure must have been to do with tax savings else why else would you do it.
Beyond all doubt. All doubt of whom exactly?
jimlarkin says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 19:01
——————————————————————————————————————————-
To be expected. What is really interesting is where English gets incredibly prickly and interrupts a caller before he gets a point out about Nimmo’s “connections”. And it’s not the first time he’s done it. It’s a legitimate and widespread concern, but he more or less threatens him with a writ. Worth a listen. If English is not a gatekeeper for the britherhood I’ll eat my hat.
Conspiracy theory? There’s more than enough in the public domain to link them all to the same fraternity. It needs to be recognised and factored but it’s the final frontier for the MSM.
So what if people genuinely are obsessed with Rangers? What harm does it do them?
Rangers on the other hand were so obsessed with their supremacism, they resorted to deceit to maintain it, doing harm to the whole game.
That is REALLY sad.
iceman63 says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 21:20
1 0 Rate This
====================
With regards to the Celtic statement I think they will appeal, they know the feeling of the majority of fans.
I was’nt going back, I told my son that was it finito. I Calmed down a bit yesterday, thought thing over and remember all the cheating that has been going on for years, they called us paranoid, but we were strong. We are the underdogs against the Establishment always were and always will be. The only difference now is, that they cannot callus a paranoid any more. Next season I am upping sticks to go to any new standing Section or as close as can be to the GB and me and my son are going sing loud and proud and get behind the team I love.
We will await the SPL statement on the LNS result, before the ball is firmly put in Celtics Court.
Tall Boy I’m pretty sure the Gentlemans Club of Old Sevconia (Parliament Square supporters club) will all be well pleased with the work that has been put in over the last 18 months .
I understood that the LNS commission investigating the undisclosed payments was on behalf of the SPL. Do Celtic, or any other individual club, even have scope for appeal? Would it not require either the SPL board or 11-off SPL clubs to instigate an appeal?
Is an appeal even necessary? Surely the football authorities could decide that since LNS has decided guilt, then appropriate football sanctions are best kept within football?
Hampdenbore says..
Ah! Now I get it! Its a cunning plan to get two lots of verdicts / sanctions / punishments! Get the independent panel to establish fact / guilt, and impose a financial sanction. The SFA / SPL then get the chance to add a second tranche of football sanctions / consequences / punishments! Also, depending on whether the 5 way agreement has actually been signed, etc, then TRFC is also liable / partially liable. Meanwhile, allow the msm to praise the panel’s decisions, simultaneously lulling bearz into a false sense of security and leaving them with difficulties in appealing since they applauded / accepted the panel’s decisions.
Who wouldda thunked it?
Not me, and considering Mr Regan’s comments today, not him either.
The LNS findings seem to have caused something of a problem and I think you there is a great deal of over-reacting.
Rangers were indeed found ‘guilty’ on the questions asked.
LNS was not asked for an opinion on fairness or otherwise of having more money to spend on players. The accepted opinion is that having more money to spend on players is an advantage. This is professional football after all, money, spent wisely on good players wins. That’s true for every team, it’s true for Rangers and it’s true for Celtic.
Having more money is not cheating. You may have questions about the morality of where the money came from or even if sport should be reduced to something as base as financial muscle however LNS was not asked for an opinion on this.
LNS was asked for an opinion on rule breaches made by Rangers in registering players, he found that indeed there were rule breaches, ‘guilty as charged’.
An outcome of this was that despite deliberate failure to disclose the full earnings of the players in question, those players were still registered by the football authorities and therefor eligible to play, hence Rangers did not in this respect cheat.
Had the football authorities been aware of the absence of full disclosure of payments then registration of the players in question would have been revoked and they would have been ineligible to play. This did not happen.
LNS was impeccable in his logic. The result was highly critical of those controlling Rangers at the time but correct in it’s final judgement.
The question now for footballs’ authorities is firstly how did they manage to miss so much wrong doing in the registration of players and secondly what are they doing to prevent it happening again?
For Rangers fans celebration in not having titles stripped is at least expected if a little tasteless given the extent of wrong doing found by the commission.
Rangers were presented with an open goal, and they put that ball in the back of the net.
For me it matters little, I’m of the old fashioned ‘ it’s the taking part’ that counts school.
Some people in Scottish football have rather lost sight of this which is why so many of our smaller clubs are maligned or dismissed as being unimportant.
this is a pity, our smaller clubs contain within them, sporting integrity, honesty, community spirit and indeed charm.
They will never trouble the top leagues or threaten the European Champions they simply don’t have the money.
Those who do have the money or access to anyone else’s money will face all the temptations that go with it. Rules can be circumvented if they are not robust. The cracks will be found by those with wealth and the power that goes with it.
For lovers of sport this is nothing to be proud of, rather it’s a cause for dismay.
csihampden says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 21:38
So what if people genuinely are obsessed with Rangers? What harm does it do them?
Rangers on the other hand were so obsessed with their supremacism, they resorted to deceit to maintain it, doing harm to the whole game.
That is REALLY sad.
========
Sevconians try to use the “obsessed” tag against anybody who isn’t pro them in the same way that I would use fly spray in the heat of summer.
Our obsession is the reason why they are where they are today.
Every time I hear the “obsessed” accusation I relate to it as a badge of honour.
Definition of CHEAT;
Definition from Merriam-Webster;
1: to deprive …….. by the use of deceit
2: to violate rules dishonestly
Definition from The Free Dictionary;
1. To act dishonestly
2. To violate rules deliberately
3. To deceive or practise deceit
Definition from Dictionary.com;
1. to elude; deprive of something expected
2. to violate rules or regulations
3. a deliberately dishonest transaction
Definition from Macmillan Dictionary;
1. to behave dishonestly, or to not obey rules
Definition from Oxford Advanced Learner;
1. to trick somebody or make them believe something which is not true
Definition from Cambridge Dictionary Online;
1. to behave in a dishonest way in order to get what you want
Definition from ARD;
1. someone who leads you to believe something that is not true
2. deprive somebody of something by deceit
3. engage in deceitful behavior;
Definition from WordReference.com
1. to deceive or practise deceit
2. a deliberately dishonest transaction
Etc., etc., etc.,
Given that the LNS report clearly notes that there was a deliberate non-disclosure ie. DEPRIVED BY THE USE OF DECEIT, resulting in a breach of regulations i.e A DISHONEST VIOLATION OF RULES, which in turn led to the SPL/SFA falsely believing that they had all necessary registration details i.e. MAKE SOMEONE BELIEVE SOMETHING WHICH IS NOT TRUE and all this to hide full details of their tax ‘efficiency’ plans i.e. BEHAVE IN A DISHONEST WAY TO GET WHAT THEY WANT which in turn equated to every improper registration being A DELIBERATELY DISHONEST TRANSACTION.
Therefore no matter what LNS, SFA, Charles Green, Ally McCoist, Jim Traynor, any of the SMSM or any TRFC fan ever says from here until doomsday, their club has met the literal criteria that would meet the definition of CHEAT.
Rangers (the club and company) by definition, cheated.
Captain Haddock, I was attempting to suggest that should either the 6 man SPL board or 11-off SPL clubs decide that the sanctions proposed by LNS are not strict enough in a footballing sense, then an appeal may not be required. The SPL could decide the football sanctions and leave any subsequent appeal decision to Rangers FC.
In that event then surely the SFA could not be the appellant body given the evidence provided by the SFA in the original enquiry, allied to the conflicted SFA president and the views expressed today by the SFA chief executive. I could be wrong but the CAS is likely to be an avenue that neither the SFA or Rangers FC would be eager to explore.
Slightly off topic perhaps, but if the Falkirk/Hamilton game is any sort of advert for the Scottish first division, then we need to get more matches shown on TV – that was an utterly superb match.
Oh, and Stephen Pressley talks like some sort of character that Tom Weir would have interviewed in his pomp!
Surely the whole point of appointing an “independent tribunal” is that you will accept their findings. You cannot complain if the “independent tribunal” arrives at a verdict you don’t agree with, otherwise it would be pointless appointing them in the first place.
Let’s face it the SPL got the decision they wanted. The whole thing seems to have turned on the evidence of a man who is employed by the body who would be responsible for any appeal. If the SPL appealed is Bryson going to turn round and say that he got it wrong. Not a chance.
My thoughts are that the SPL, in order to placate the rest of Scottish football, tried to broker a deal with Green regarding the stripping of titles. After all they had the evidence and it seemed pretty clear cut. They thought they had this deal only for Green, after consultation with the “bears” to turn round and tell them to “do one”. The tables have now turned. It was ok when it was Mr Charles who was seen to have acquiesced but for them to be the ones who pulled the trigger was unthinkable. The solution? Get a friendly Law Lord who has already been involved in the process. After all this is a Law Lord whose previous decision was overturned so there’s no way he’s going to be soft on the accused, is there?
I spent a few hours last night in the company of a legal friend who has absolutely no interest in football so could not be, in my opinion. clouded or swayed by any blue/green leanings in their thoughts. Let’s just say his take on LNS was interesting.
Conspiracy? You better believe it.
Scotland on Sunday front page, with Regan showing no inclination to stand down and still backing Ogilvie with selective pieces from the LNS decision.
https://twitter.com/KennyFarq/status/307959586487414784/photo/1
easyJambo says:
Sunday, March 3, 2013 at 01:03
What do you expect? If people keep paying into the game why should any of the reprobates or the SMSM have to change there modus operandi?
Wings Over Scotland hit the nail on the head, “Everyone who ever paid for entry to a Scottish football match in the last decade has just been made a mug of.”
An earlier post had a wee “Humpty Dumpty” poem and I cannae find it to quote him/her but my effort is……
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall
Because that’s whit ye dae at Div3 grounds…..or
Humpty Dumpty sat on a hedge
sevco cheated us outae a wedge
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/PLLNCMR
It would seem some things never change. The idea of having your placeman in the media is obviously a good one. Disconcertingly, looking over some of the posts and noting from replies I find the post being replied to absent. Presumably censored or deleted. Same thing. It begs the question is one,or more of the anonymous moderators working to an agenda or orders?
The ultimate aim of the looking glass world was to get one of your own into a position on the inside of the opposition. Has this happened with TSFM? There would appear to be one organisation that reference to makes the post liable to deletion and it does not play football. Perhaps George needs to be called in to do a bit of mole hunting. Or at the very least if a post is deleted the content could be marked with a *** and the reason for deletion given.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21628728
The ‘secret agents’ of the UK press
By Jeremy Duns BBC Radio 4
In December 1968 the state-controlled Russian newspaper Izvestia ran a series of articles accusing several high-profile British journalists of being spies – listing their names and alleged codenames.
The articles caused a storm of protest in Britain: the Russians were claiming journalists and editors at the Sunday Times, the Observer, the Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mail and the BBC worked directly with MI6…
…The BBC’s official historian Jean Seaton said the claim that the BBC had broadcast prearranged messages during the post-war period was “very plausible”.
The Soviets naturally put the worst slant possible on the memos, but in the main they were telling the truth: during the Cold War, MI6 did have a network of journalists and editors embedded in the British press…
…According to Stephen Dorril, the documents offer a rare glimpse into the workings of MI6, and open up a new field of research.
“We really need to go back and look in detail at some of the key events of the Cold War,” he says. “Look at the newspapers, see what was planted, who were the journalists, and what was it they were trying to put out and say to the British public.”
areyouaccusingmeofmendacity says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 21:48
I suppose I’m lucky enough to have that option, because Clyde aren’t an SPL team, and in reality it’s now only SPL teams that can actually bring the correct conclusion to this utter farce
———————————————————————————————————————-
Not so sure I agree with you ayamom.
Someone posted earlier that teams should just refuse to turn up at Ibrox.
On first reading it sounds like a ridiculous step….but…..if we think it through? Please walk with me here.
There are 9 games or so left in SFL Div 3. Probably means 4 or 5 home games for TRFC. The league is virtually won so other teams have little to lose especially in view of the apparently favoured league re construction resulting in an 18 team bottom tier..
Lets suppose that the next team earmarked to visit Ibrox do in fact refuse to turn up? The worst sanction that the SFL/SFA can apply (I assume) is expulsion from the league. So the rest of the teams side with them until the next team refuses to turn up.
TRFC gain promotion and it continues.
You see where this is going.
ALL teams register their protest at the treatment of the expelled teams and the authorities have a major problem on their hands.
They either face up to the underlying issues or deal with 41 teams refusing to attend Ibrox and a remaining league of 1.
I understand that this requires a major leap of faith for the first “sacrificial lamb” but if the respective chairmen/CEO’s speak to each other first then………..
Is there mileage in this?
There is no pun intended in the use of the phrase “sacrificial lamb”.
whullie says:
Sunday, March 3, 2013 at 02:17
There is no pun intended in the use of the phrase “sacrificial lamb”.
“”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
Sacrificial sheep.
Sacrificial goat.
The SPL will not appeal. They lack the desire the courage and the necessity so to do. Celtic have a huge amount to lose if they allow this to stand. They I think will ultimately have to appeal and as the SFA who are the suppposed appellant body have acted in adishonest and clearly derimental fashion that appeal must go to the CAS. The winning of that for Celtic will be less important than the fact that they showed the courage to appeal. We can expect vile venom and bilious outrage from the SFA and the msm and probably establishment political figures were Celtic to do this.Salmond for one would denounce them but the need for justice outweighs the need to placate the hordes in my opinion.
I firmly believe that Celtic can appeal as the decision directly and adversely affects the club. Ideally the SPL would appeal itself. It won’t.
Good morning from an overcast Hannover…..and yes moderators thats where I am and not a mistype….
I note Big Pink’s post earlier placing a ban on me for making a comment in reply to Shield, regarding Mr Lennon, that could be taken as racist, ethnically based or sectarian in nature. It was not intended in any of those ways, though I understand how it could be taken to be so.
For those of you who complained about that post, and to anyone else who took offence – please accept my unreserved apology.
broadswordcallingdannybhoy says:
Sunday, March 3, 2013 at 01:18
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/PLLNCMR
=================================================
Q1 I am a supporter of:
An SPL club 92.93%
An SFL club 7.07%
Total Respondents: 99
Q2 Rangers were found guilty and the punishment of a fine is fair
Agree 1%
Disagree 99%
Total Respondents: 100
Q3 Rangers were found guilty and the punishment was too harsh.
Agree 1.01%
Disagree 98.99%
Total Respondents: 99
Q4 Rangers were found guilty and the punishment of a fine was too lenient
Agree 94%
Disagree 6%
Total Respondents: 100
Q5 The process is over and it is ‘time to move on’
Agree 2%
Disagree 98%
Total Respondents: 100
Q6 I would support my club if they agreed in full with the decision
Agree 10.10%
Disagree 89.90%
Total Respondents: 99
Q7 I would support my club if they expressed agreement with the verdict but not the punishment
Agree 73.74%
Disagree 26.26%
Total Respondents: 99
Q8 I would support an attempt by my club to increase the punishment
Agree 96%
Disagree 4%
Total Respondents: 100
Q9 I will be satisfied if no further action is taken by The SPL
Agree 2%
Disagree 98%
Total Respondents: 100
Q10 I would consider not returning to football unless the punishment is increased
Agree 78.57%
Disagree 21.43%
Total Respondents: 98
Iceman63, your feeling that the SPL do not have the appetite for appeal, is this the board or all 12-off current members? I’m not even sure that the current SPL voting rules are sufficient for a case of this gravity. For example over an 11 year period there are many more clubs affected than the current SPL make up, should have those clubs got right of appeal?
I disagree with this idea that Celtic that has to do something and that Celtic has most to lose. This is a problem for the whole of Scottish football and the only way anything will change is if we present a united front. We cannot argue against vested interests on the one hand and try to make use of the ‘clout’ that Celtic bring to the table as leverage on the other. This has to be about equality: any one club is the equal of any other; any fan with a ticket in their hand is the equal of any other.
There’s actually 192 responses so far on that survey, The free account only shows the first 100 responses. I’ll upgrade later today and post the results.
shield2012 says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 20:17
—————–
I personally think you would have needed to gain an advantage for it to be classed as cheating. Breaking the rules deserves punishment but being classed as cheats when you didn’t gain an advantage is taking it too far.
Genuine question because I can’t remember – do we know that RFC, beyond all doubt, deliberately concealed the payments? If so, how do we know this?
————————————————————————————————————————-
Deliberate non disclosure of payments was what the old club was found guilty of so yes beyond all doubt. Like anybody needed an independent commission to know that anyway.
The very definition of cheating is deliberately breaking rules in any game or sport.
This has been proven despite the ridiculous punishment which flies in the face of all other “administrative errors” in the past (Spartans, Dunfermline etc)
Admin errors except LNS said it was DELIBERATE.
re schottie59
just down the road in burgdorf and it is overcast as well. i think the tsfm is great. my only way of keeping up with “wrong doings” in scottish football.
Shooting Fish in a Barrel or proving Charles Green talks p*sh…….what’s more of a challenge.
It’s a close call but I’m going for the first. Today’s words of wisdom from Charlie have him claiming Puma are bigger in Football than Nike. He claims they are battling Adidas for first place in the world of kit manufacturers
Now you might think that as Nike has Barca, Man Utd, Brazil, Inter, Juve , Celtic , and Arsenal amongst others that this could be yet another figment of Greens silver tongue.
You would be correct. Puma have confirmed on page 2 of their 2012 annual report that Charlie is lying yet again
The direct quote is
“In the soccer arena we continued to consolidate our position as the clear number three”
In fact shooting fish in a barrel is considerably more difficult than proving Green is a consistent and regular liar, unless of course you are a Scottish tabloid journalist .
http://about.puma.com/wp-content/themes/aboutPUMA_theme/financial-report/pdf/2012/IAS_Konzernabschluss2012_e.pdf
Davie Proven coming out with some absolute garbage as usual in the ‘Scottish Sun’
—————————————————————————————————————
IF Lord Nimmo Smith’s tribunal had stripped Rangers of five titles we might have needed the army on the streets of Glasgow, so a big thank you to m’lud this morning.
On their hourly rates, our learned friends will have done very nicely out of this investigation, but you can bet they’ll be glad it’s over. It’s always a relief to leave the nuthouse.
Nimmo Smith was damned if he did, damned if he didn’t.
The day before the tribunal announced it’s findings it was described as a “kangaroo court” by former Rangers striker Mark Hateley.
A bit harsh on Nimmo Smith who graduated from Eton and Oxford to become a Supreme Court judge, but I doubt he’ll have lost sleep over it.
Inevitably, in the land of the full moon, the verdict has upset everyone. Celtic fans see it as a whitewash, Rangers punters are demanding apologies and the heads of Neil Doncaster and Stewart Regan. In the meantime, the race for the moral high ground has become a stampede.
Despite Rangers oldco being found guilty of breaching disclosure regulations, Sir David Murray was quick to break cover.
During Rangers slide into liquidation you couldn’t have found Sir David with the Hubble telescope, but you can’t keep a good man down.
Murray claims Rangers have been victims of a “retrospective witch-hunt.”
More likely Gers are victims of Murray’s deal with Craig Whyte, despite him being well warned against it by Alastair Johnston.
Murray though is yesterday’s man and with some justification Charles Green spoke on behalf of the club.
Whatever you think of Green, his decision to refuse the plea bargain that would have seen Rangers trade titles for a place in the First Division, has been vindicated.
Despite the £250,000 non-disclosure fine, Nimmo Smith ruled that Rangers had gained “no sporting advantage” through their use of EBTs.
If that’s good enough for the man who tried the Lockerbie bomber, it should be good enough for the rest of us.
Green is the man who’ll decide where Rangers go from here and his reaction to the verdict was refreshing.
When he could have promised a pursuit of Doncaster and Regan he instead chose to draw a line under the EBT issue and promised to help rebuild the Scottish game.
It won’t be easy. The commercial madness that saw Rangers relegated to Division Three is coming home to roost.
Nowhere more so than at Celtic Park where supporters are struggling to stay awake on match days.
With no credible opposition for at least another two years, Peter Lawwell will have his work cut out selling season tickets.
Spare me the idea that Neil Lennon’s boys will take the same satisfaction from clinching this season’s title. In Rangers’ absence this championship was a gimme.
This week Jose Mourinho said his Real Madrid players “live for the games against Barcelona”.
It’s no different at the Old Firm where nothing matches the satisfaction of beating the other lot.
With a one-horse title race until at least 2015, how does the SPL sell itself to punters and sponsors?
On Wednesday, first played fourth in the SPL at Fir Park with James McFadden’s homecoming thrown in. Less than 9,000 fans fancied it.
Where are the chocolate gladiators of cyberspace who threatened to boycott their clubs unless they voted Rangers out of the SPL? Didn’t they promise they’d turn out every week to make up the shortfall?
Aberdeen had 6,000 for the midweek game against Ross County for heaven’s sake.
Scottish football is heading for rigor mortis unless someone has the balls to say the bleeding obvious.
Without the Old Firm at each other’s throat the SPL is a busted flush.
It’s time to boot “sporting integrity” into touch and bring Rangers back into the top flight.
Reconstructing the leagues to accommodate Rangers might upset the Luddites but it’ll send 30,000 volts through the top division.
If it means switching to a 14-team league to squeeze Rangers in, why not?
The return of four Old Firm games would bring hard cash and competition into the game in its hour of need.
Charles Green eyeballing Peter Lawwell in the boardroom? Neil Lennon and Ally McCoist in each other’s faces on the track in front of a baying mob?
Bring it on.
So now it would appear that we are at the “Let’s all just move on stage” of this farce.
Before any ‘moving on’ can be done surely it is important to understand where we currently stand and how we managed to get here.
Can I suggest a simple starting point in clarifying this.
Can I ask that someone in a position to do so please asks and pursues an answer from Stewart Regan to the following simple question.
“Do you consider that the 42 clubs competing in the top 4 leagues this season are the same 42 clubs that did so last season?”
This cannot be a hard question for any competently run association to answer.
Indeed, it is ludicrous that we find ourselves in a position that such a question needs to be asked yet that is where we would appear to be.
If such a simple question cannot be answered by the governing body that oversaw our descent into this mess then I do not see what role they can possible be expected, or allowed, to play in any process of ‘moving on’.
Maybe im looking at the LNS decision/outcome from a simplistic point of view,but
I fail to see wheather gaining an advantage or not as a result of deliberate cheating should have played any part at all in the proceedings.
As noted on Celtic’s wesite , “We note yesterday´s decision that Rangers FC has been found guilty of contravening the SPL rules on disclosure of payments over 11 years between 2000-2011. The scale of this amounts to a deliberate non-disclosure of £47 million in payments to players and staff.
I simply cant understand how advantage or not has anything to do with anything.
They broke the rules, end of.
For some reason my post comparing shooting fish in a barrel and proving Charles Green is a liar is sitting in moderation
If you want to read it, it’s also on CQN
http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/?cqn_match_reports_=st-mirren-1-2-celtic&cpage=4#comment-1738135
Ok…I have to ask….what is it about Lord Hodge we cannot discuss?
That’s 2 rather tame posts regarding his lord that have been removed..
Just wondering.
D Provan.
Enjoy your league of two. I won’t be there to see it, fund it or provide token opposition to ensure a CL place is ‘justified.’