The following post comes about as a result of the research and work put in by Auldheid.
He has drafted the submission to FIFA detailed below after closely looking at their rules, and taking on board the points contained in the Glasnost “Golden Rule” blog. TSFM has attached the blog’s name to the report since the overwhelming – but not unanimous – view of our readership is that the SFA and the SPL have again gotten themselves into an almighty and embarrassingly amateur fankle over this issue.
We believe that tens of thousands of football fans will be lost to the game if the outcome of the LNS enquiry is not perceived to be commensurate with the scope and extent of the rule breaking that LNS found had taken place. In view of this, we believe that we have to do what we can to explore all possibilities for justice for those who love the game so much and yet are utterly disillusioned by recent events.
LNS is not being questioned here. He has found that RFC were guilty as charged by the SPL.
What is being questioned is the SFA’s crucial – and seemingly conflicted – role in the LNS enquiry, as is the effectiveness of LNS’s recommended sanction as either a deterrent or an upholder of sporting integrity.
It came to our notice last week that FIFA have created a web site at
https://www.bkms-system.net/bkwebanon/report/clientInfo?cin=6fifa61&language=eng
that tells us that FIFA have implemented a regulatory framework which is intended to ensure that all statutory rules, rules of conduct and internal guidelines of FIFA are respected and complied with.
In support of that regulatory framework FIFA have set up the above site as a reporting mechanism by means of which inappropriate behaviour and infringements of the pertinent regulations may be reported.
FIFA say that their jurisdiction encompasses misconduct that (1) relates to match manipulation; (2) occurs in or affects more than one confederation, so that it cannot adequately be addressed by a single confederation; or (3) would ordinarily be addressed by a confederation or association, but, under the particular facts at issue, has not been or is unlikely to be dealt with appropriately at that level.
Discussions arising from the previous blog on TSFM, “Gilt Edged Justice”, which was published after Lord Nimmo Smith (LNS) ruled on the registration of Rangers players who had contractual side letters that were not disclosed to the SFA as part of their registration, suggest that there may be possible unfortunate consequences for football arising from the evidence presented by the SFA to the LNS enquiry that informed its findings on registration and consequent eligibility. There is also a question of the propriety of the SFA providing evidence on an issue which could have had a negative impact on them had it been found that they had failed to carrying out their registration duties with due rigour over a period of ten years when the existence of EBTs was known to officials within the SFA.
On the basis that the LNS findings require that registration rules be clarified by FIFA and rewritten globally if necessary to remove any ambiguity and under clause 3 above, this appears to be an issue that the FIFA should examine and that the SFA cannot address.
The following report has therefore been submitted by TSFM on behalf of its readers to FIFA drawing on the content and debate following the “Gilt Edged Justice” blog in respect of the possible footballing consequences of the LNS enquiry.
The hope is that by speaking for so many supporters, FIFA will give the TSFM submission some weight, but individuals are free of course to make their own points in their own way. We await acknowledgement of the submission.
The report Submitted to FIFA is as follows;
This report was prepared on behalf of the 10,000-strong readership of The Scottish Football Monitor at http://scottishfootballmonitor.wordpress.com/
It is our belief that FIFA general rules of conduct were breached by the SFA and their employees in both creating and then advising The Lord Nimmo Smith (LNS) enquiry into the non disclosure of full payment information to the Scottish Football Association (SFA) by Rangers F.C during a period of player registration over 10 years from 2000.We believe that although the issue has been addressed by the SFA the particular facts at issue suggest that it has not been dealt with appropriately and we therefore ask FIFA to investigate. The facts at issue are that the process and advice given failed to uphold sporting integrity, and that a conflict of interest was at play.
We believe the advice provided and the enquiry set up, where SFA both advised and is the appellant body, breaches not only the integrity the registration rules were intended to uphold, but also totally undermines the integrity of the SFA in breach of General Conduct rules 1, 2 and 4. (See below.)
1. Firstly we believe that the advice supplied to LNS that an incorrectly registered player was eligible to play as long as the registration was accepted by the SFA however unwittingly, undermines the intent of the SPL/SFA rules on player registration and so undermines the integrity of football in three ways.
• It incentivises clubs to apply for a player to be registered even if they know that the conditions of registration are not satisfied, in the hope that the application will somehow ‘slip through the net’ and be granted anyway (in which case it will be valid until revoked).
• A club which discovers that it has made an error in its application is incentivized to say nothing and to ‘let sleeping dogs lie’ – because it would be in a better position by not confessing its mistake.
• And most importantly, it incentivises fraud. By deliberately concealing relevant information, a club can ensure that a player who does not satisfy the registration conditions is treated as being eligible – and therefore allowed to play – for as long as a period as possible (potentially his entire spell with the club). Then, if the club is no longer around when the deception is finally discovered, imposing meaningful sanctions may be impossible.
2. Secondly we believe the process followed was inappropriate due to a Conflict of Interest. Had the LNS enquiry not ruled on the basis of advice supplied by The SFA, they and those persons advising the LNS enquiry, could have been subjected to censure and the SFA to potential compensation claims had LNS found that the players were indeed ineligible to play and results then been annulled as was SFA practice when an ineligible player played.
3. Finally we contend that a law should not be applied according to its literal meaning if to do so would lead to an absurdity or a manifest injustice or in this case loss of football integrity.
See http://glasnostandapairofstrikers.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/gilt-edged-justice/4. We therefore ask FIFA to investigate both the process used and advice given to Lord Nimmo Smith to satisfy themselves that FIFA’s intentions with regard to upholding the integrity of football under FIFA rules have not been seriously damaged by the LNS findings and also to reassure Scottish football supporters that the integrity of our game has not been sacrificed by the very authority in whose care it has been placed to promote the short term cause of commercialism to the games long term detriment.
General Rules of Conduct (These are taken from the FIFA web site itself and can be found as part of completing the submission process)
1. Persons bound by this Code are expected to be aware of the importance of their duties and concomitant obligations and responsibilities.
2. Persons bound by this Code are obliged to respect all applicable laws and regulations as well as FIFA’s regulatory framework to the extent applicable to them.
3. N/A
4. Persons bound by this Code may not abuse their position in any way, especially to take advantage of their position for private aims or gains.
ianagain says:
Saturday, March 30, 2013 at 16:06
0 0 Rate This
OOPs need to keep up
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ian. You’re gonna love this.
It’s a DIFFERENT Rangers! 😀
valentinesclown says:
Saturday, March 30, 2013 at 16:14
0 0 Rate This
Thank God for Mr Cosgrove
http://www.newsnow.co.uk/A/637516199?-10583:834
______________
if stuart looks in before tonights show
is there any chance of you asking doncaster about the 5 way agreement and why it is a secret
For those more twitterish than me..
Mr Doncaster, Do you believe an effective rebadging of SFL1 to SPL2 will be to the benefit of the game? Accepting that distributing more cash between the top 24 can only be to the good do you feel this new set up could survive without Sevco for a season whilst they ‘play their way back’ something the majority of non sevco fans appear to want (with the assumption that they would then reciprocate by investing in season tickets)?’ If not, why not, and we want names (of clubs).
Humble Pie says:
Saturday, March 30, 2013 at 15:03
9 0 Rate This
Danish Pastry says:
Saturday, March 30, 2013 at 14:37
Everyone makes mistakes but what I can’t accept is this concept of ‘big team bias’. I know it happens and you know it happens, but really…rules are rules and bias is bias.
For too long we have been programmed to accept this as a ‘normal’ phenomenon and a convenient excuse for cowardly decision making …
—————
Totally agree Humble Pie. This decision was hard to take, but I suppose since it was a stramash the ref could perhaps be excused. I now tend to watch these kind of matches with my big-team bias radar switched on, so I am more likely to interpret an iffy decision this way. Naughty me. Hopefully, it was an honest mistake.
Congratulations to The Rangers. Their history of trophies is now up and running.
1 and counting.
Was that Charlie Mann stating that the Queens Park vs Elgin result would mean absolutely everything to the NEW Rangers?
Good Mann!
Loving BBC’s prepared phrase. The first trophy of the new era. You’d think there were lawyers listening!
Neil Doncaster: “because any club that is spending more on players than they can afford, is automatically gaining a sporting advantage over every other club it competes with.”
Surely that is said in jest?
On you go Stuart.
I didn’t talk down the Leauge – Doncaster – Liar Liar. Couldn’t do a deal with a stall holder never mind Sky.
Doncaster is an intractable fool and obviously believes in himself beyond anyone elses view of him and must go. Get someone with a bit of reality in their make up. Just because he did a deal in Jan doesn’t meen it works now.
David the accountant who usually phones into radio clyde
on radio scotland now 🙂
he usually gets new rangers dig in
cut off 🙁
for saying CG works longmuir from the back
madbhoy. you are nieve beyond believe if you think that.
the unwritten rule if you are an official in scottish football is do not offend rangers. the second part of this rule is do not favour celtic. look what happened to the referee kevin o’donnell when he gave a decision against hearts.
the daily mail football journalist brian scott related an interesting little anecdote many years ago. he was talking to an ex-rangers player whom he did not name. the player was trying to remember the name of a referee. he asked brian and i quote “what was the name of that big rangers referee?” that is how blatant it was and it is not much better today. alex ferguson once said after a rangers-aberdeen game and i quote “i know what goes on in scottish football. i used to play for rangers” he was not asked to explain his remarks. nobody at the sfa wanted to open that can of worms. no doubt someone had a quiet word in alex’s ear telling him that he would be playing celtic in a few weeks and that the decisions that went against him when they played rangers would no doubt go in his favour.
i have been a celtic supporter for 50 years and this has been going of for 50 years. we have tv cameras covering every angle and the cheating still goes on. can you imagine what it was like years ago when there was no tv?
the more things change the more things stay the same. rangers are the great corruptors of scottish football.
they should have not have let them back.
The question is, do we want a certain club to be accommodated to facilitate a TV deal, or do we want every club to be treated equally? I vote for the latter, and we sink or swim accordingly. If we need to pander to one team to survive, I’d prefer to find something else to do at the weekend.
Doncasters about to be cast adrift by the clubs methinks.
The current Sportsound is dynamite.
Doncaster without saying so manages to get CG/The Rangers implicated in the change of mind of SFL clubs against 12-12-18..
Mr Cosgrove is playing a blinder btw e.g. Problem is not income but cost base and The Rangers cost base in SFL3 is a disgrace.
6 mins Stuart 5 way? Go on
I’m sure it’s occurred to many of us here, but do you think when Off The Ball penned their “most petty and ill-informed programme on radio” catchline that they would evolve into the only respected voice fifteen years later?
Still can’t stand Tam Cowan, mind….
Well done Stuart, asked the right questions, but Doncaster was giving nothing away, dodged nearly every question. Doncaster also said no one has ever discussed an SPL2. Another Porky?
GS saying he wants the newclub to climb up the leagues with no help, BUT wants them to get an unjust invite to ant new league under a new set up, regardless of the teams above them.
Gerrylentils will you please drop your defence of kevin odonnel. As i said the last time, watch the video of the game then come back on here and tell me he didnt cheat. His display that day was a disgrace to his profession. The teams that suffer consistently from bad refereeing are all the teams except two. That is an undeniable fact.
Andy says:
Saturday, March 30, 2013 at 18:01
3 0 Rate This
David the accountant who usually phones into radio clyde
on radio scotland now
he usually gets new rangers dig in
————
I like Davy. He’s anti-negativity which is becoming a seldom trait. He should be on twitter.
Doncaster came across as focused on the plan as is, but his deflector shields were up. Why he won’t answer the question about if the RFC prize money was given to BDO is a mystery. And no mention of the 5-way mystery agreement by anyone, pity. Listening between the lines it seems Longmuir has developed a man-crush on Green. Oh dear. Hope the change of heart among SFL clubs isn’t because of the promise of cash on the table from a certain club chairman.
Stuart and Spiers had everything other than a square go! Never heard Stuart so angry …
This is the thrust of Sportsound from CQN. (Its not my work, cannot type as fast and accurately in reporting terms as Celtic First on CQN so all credit to him.
Doncaster: Rather surprisingly at the SFL meeting this week, 14 clubs for and 14 against. Previously, 28 out of 30 were for.
Doncaster: Colt teams brought up very late in the day. It’s not part of the package. The deal was put together Jan 8, pretty detailed package of measures, huge concessions to SFL, what’s changed I really don’t know.
Maybe it’s because a number of those clubs believe it’s possible to delay it a year, but that’s not part of the deal.
Cosgrove congratules ND on blog on financial fair play.
Spiers: You now want 12-12-18 and that might not be delivered. You’ve said to me we can’t have the status quo. If you don’t get 12-12-18, is your own position tenable?
Doncaster: All any CEO can do is take on board views of members. A lot of clubs liked 10-10, but in the end not enough. I didn’t use the word ‘Armageddon’. In the end, the finances have proved far more robust, but it was right at the time to set out the risks of going down certain paths.
Doncaster: It’s about four up, four down, potentially. It’s hugely dramatic. The fact is a lot of work has gone into creating something exciting and new. We should push forward. We should keep on with what’s been agreed and try and deliver it.
Spiers: If you can’t get it done, 12-12-18, if you can’t deliver it, SPL2 seems to be the plan B.
Doncaster: Anything taking us away from 12-12-18 would be a distraction. We’re in a week when Dunfermline have gone under and players have been made redundant. Need to push more money into SFL1 is urgent, greater than ever. We should focus on delivery of the deal for this summer.
Doncaster: The fans on the whole would like to see a bigger league but we understand a bigger league is not affordable.
Spiers: You keep saying implement this for next season. Looks like you won’t get 12-12-18 for next season what will you do next?
Doncaster: April 15 vote, then it’s for real. Then the SFL clubs will have a decision to make. We had an agreement. I can only assume they, the SFL clubs, believe it can be delayed. Part of the deal is implementation this summer. Part of the package is it has to happen this summer.
Doncaster: The money available in the first division is not sufficient to run a full-time outfit.
Cosgrove: Which clubs are again? Celtic and Aberdeen?
Doncaster: The proposal on the table takes 1.75 from existing SPL revenues and pushes it down to the first division. There is a recognition that when clubs come down out of the SPL almost impossible to survive.
Doncaster: We have to protect the relegated club or clubs each year.
Caller from Paisley, David [to ND]: Negativity must get you down. The three bodies agreeing on Jan 8 was great. The SPL are giving up a lot. My club Celtic giving up 800k or 900k. Go for it.
Doncaster: Don’t want to go into individual clubs’ deals.
David: Spiers wants you out the door.
Spiers: You’re talking nonsense. I have no agenda against Neil Doncaster.
David: Yes you have.
Spiers: I think 12-12-18 could work. The problem is the rabble among the clubs.
David: The split is a disgrace. You can end up playing Aberdeen away three times. We have to try something different. I admire the guy. You’ve got to give the guy a chance.
Cosgrove: I agree with you very firmly that Graham Spiers does have agendas. He hates St Johnstone.
Spiers: The nub of ND’s problem is lack of consensus among the leading figures. David Longmuir said he didn’t think change should be implemented next season. Leading figures disagreeing.
David: Could Charles Green be working him from behind?
Spiers: You said that, not me.
Doncaster: [on Charles Green’s rant] There were good robust points of view at that meeting. Private meeting. I was invited. Wouldn’t be right for me to talk about things discussed at that meeting.
SwanseaBhoy’s question on accusation that SPL insolvent.
Doncaster: He didn’t say that to me. I’ve heard other people say he said that.
Kenny: Where do Rangers stand? How big a part do they play?
Doncaster: I don’t deal with them. I deal with the SFL and the SFA.
Michael Stewart: But how powerful is the pressure Rangers are exerting on David L.
Doncaster: Not for me to say.
Spiers: That’s the elephant in the room. Strong suspicion that David L is falling under undue influence. He will have to come out and clarify this. I’m not making any accusation but this is what’s being discussed. Why this sea change? There is suspicion.
Cosgrove: Especially when the idea of colts teams came out of nowhere. It felt like a wrecking tactic. With Charles G I could forgive you for not knowing day to day what he’s thinking because he seems to want to be in the CL, every English league, the Bundesliga hasn’t come up yet. Influence of one club. All clubs should be treated equally, as you’ve said in your blog.
Doncaster: Ultimately it’s one club one vote.
Spiers: It’s as clear as day. Rangers are a key factor. I would love it all to be equal, but it’s not equal.
Cosgrove: One of reasons for financial situation, is Neil had to go out into real world and secure a deal. Problem isn’t income it’s cost. What Rangers are paying in SFL3 is a damned disgrace.
Doncaster: We have five year deals with Sky and BT Vision. Four years to run. Those deals are in place regardless of SPL2.
Spiers: Any reconstruction should not prejudice any club including Rangers. If SPL2 comes into existence and it’s a new format, I do not see why Rangers should not be invited.
Cosgrove: Gie us a list of the teams then.
Doncaster: We’ve had two detailed discussions. SPL clubs unanimously in favour of going forward. On April 15, none of that matters. It’s how they vote on the day.
Doncaster: The desire to take more time over this is not going to help the division one clubs this summer. I want to keep the focus on the deal that’s been agreed.
Spiers: You need to have a plan B. You’re not going to tell us about it here. April 15 is late in the day. If this thing is not delivered, late to deliver something for next season. Has to be a plan B, whether it’s SPL2 or whatever.
Doncaster: All the more reason why we have to go forward to April 15 with confidence.
Michael Stewart: Any credence given to Switzerland going down this 12-12-18 route and abandoning it?
Doncaster: Many people in the SPL would agree for countries our size is that 10-10 would work better but it hasn’t been possible to deliver that. We have the better part of 20 full time professional sides in Scotland and they need to be given enough money to run a full time outfit.
Doncaster: I can’t comment on something [SPL2] that I don’t have a mandate from my clubs about. Our clubs have not said they want to see an SPL2.
Cosgrove on key quote from ND blog.
Doncaster: That is the essence of a league. Create fair competition. To commercialise that league for benefit of members. Vital league is run fairly. Clubs have to pay players and taxman on time. If clubs don’t adhere, they face disciplinary sanctions.
Doncaster: Individual clubs will have their own views, but I’m not going to speculate about that.
Cosgrove: If SPL2 has not even been discussed, it can’t be in for next year.
Spiers: I take it as a given that SPL2 is a distinct possibility. I have said all along, Rangers did wrong and wrong was done to Rangers. Right they should play their way back. They have to do their three years of penance. But if structure changes and there’s a new system, invite clubs to join but not invite Rangers, it would be wrong. It would aid Rangers by one year. But why prejudice Rangers?
Cosgrove: If you are talking about a league treating everyone equally, no. Nowhere in the top clubs. If it’s just money, yes. But if it’s just money, say so. QoS first club to win their division this season. Are you saying that for economic reasons Rangers should be privileged above them?
Spiers: No it should be meritocratic.
Cosgrove: All these clubs are equal. You’re saying they should be invited in. If there is an invitation extended to clubs, it should be to those who have shown themselves on the field of play to be the top clubs.
Doncaster: Not going to speculate about that [Rangers’ prize money being handed to BDO].
Doncaster: Words exchanged with a number of chairmen. If you think someone’s unhappy with the SPL, you have to ask them about it.
All over.
I thought Stuart Cosgrove was excellent on radio Scotland this evening.
Graeme Spiers was really fighting the corner for Rangers being invited into the hypothetical SPL2. Stuart was quite rightly in favour of no team being given preferential treatment. Graeme’s only argument against that seemed to be that giving Rangers the preference would bring more money in. I don’t think he quite said “for the good of the game” but that was the clear message.
He even tried to twist Stuart’s words, suggesting he was against Rangers and no-one else. As opposed to what he was actually saying, that all clubs should be treated equally.
Very good stuff from Stuart, very poor from Graeme.
beepop.
you miss the point.
even if he did cheat?
the same season celtic played hearts at parkhead. brian whittaker handled the ball on the goal line. john greig, rangers greatest ever player was the sportscene analyst. he said and i quote “it was the most blatant penalty of this or any other season” frank mcavennie was booked for complaining. the hearts supporters celebrated as if hearts had scored.
the referee that day was george cumming.
was he suspended?
was he fired?
george cumming was later promoted to referee supervisor.
do you see the difference in the treatment of the honest mistakes?
one referee is fired with indecent haste.
the other is promoted.
sums up scottish football.
if you are an official always remember the unwritten rule!
Nice post-match comments from Craig Brown on BBC Alba after the win against Hearts. He made a point of congratulating Hearts for fielding 11 under-21 players … ‘This is the future of Scottish football,’ he said. Too right. It may have been out of necessity, but in the long run, with our own youth being given a chance once again, we may see new stars emerge to follow in the footsteps of past greats.
gerrylentils says:
Saturday, March 30, 2013 at 18:08
the unwritten rule if you are an official in scottish football is do not offend rangers. the second part of this rule is do not favour celtic, unless they are playing anyone except Rangers.
——
Fixed that for you, gerry.
Meanwhile, may I congratulate TRFC on their first trophy, won despite their best efforts in being sh1te the last few weeks. I still think they’ll only end up winning it by a few points.
Let’s hope they have the humility to not go over the top with their celebrations, bearing in mind the (ahem) “resources” available to them whilst in competition with bottom tier teams.
If it was me, I’d be embarrassed to celebrate at all. A forced smile and firm “handshake”, thanks very much for the trophy, now back to the grindstone would be about right, the way I see it.
From the Donkey’s mouth, the deal does not include a wee delay to promote the the Rangers first, then 12 12 18 ( Longmanures fast track intention ). Sounds like CG’s bribes are acceptable by clubs and authorities. In which case, SPL money filtering down should be stopped, let CG fund the lower leagues until it has cost them £140M.
The thought that some SFL clubs fancy more dosh from the top table and bottom feeders simultaneously suggests to me they are chancing their arm, and I commend them on good business practice.
It looks like the votes will go to the highest bidder, I cant see that ending well for the peepil loosing £1M a month and need a new team to win whatever league they are in next.
Doncasters closing remark about if you want a story about his spat with CG, ask him, I want to like him for that, he knows the score on a few levels. And i commend him for attending, now bring on CG or Longdrop or that other fhud Reagan.
gerrylentils says:
Saturday, March 30, 2013 at 18:08
madbhoy. you are nieve beyond believe if you think that.
—————————–
I may well be naive but I am comfortable now in that position, that doesn’t mean I have always been that way or will continue to be in the future. I have been where you are but I didn’t like when I looked in the mirror, questioning every stupid insignificant decision and trying desperately looking for any evidence to back that up that stance. If I felt that way after seeing some of the crazy decisions over that last years, I would have stopped watching the game years ago. I didn’t because I have a belief, if you are good enough then you will win (even if you have to be much better, just ask Aberdeen and Dundee United about that in the 80’s).
I don’t for one minute believe that Rangers are not favoured, by refs, by the media, by the SFA and by many other institutions, organisations and individuals. I believe they are, I am just not blinded by my hatred for the WATP mentality that I let it affect logical thinking.
I stand by my view; I believe there are far more incompetent decisions than ones fuelled by bitterness or funny handshakes. If Celtic had not hit the self-destruct button on many an occasion, then we might not even be discussing this.
I can put up with an honest mistake, I can even put up with a ref with a slight leaning towards another club, after all, we are all human. But I cannot and never will put up with institutional bias.
That is what it feels like when watch football in Scotland. There is a huge difference between the big clubs get ra decisions and institutional bias. Those in charge of the game do not realise that this bias stokes the flames of bigotry.
Graeme Spiers has to be commended for criticising Rangers sectarian policies and actions, he deserves credit for being one of the very few in the MSM to stand up to Murray, however if he is now advocating any form of fast track for Rangers he stands accused of rank hypocrisy .
He has stated on a number of occasions the reconstruction ticks a number of boxes , not least that it deals properly with the issue of ensuring Rangers need a minimum of 3 promotions to get back to the top level.
His focus should be on the actions of Longmuir and Ballantyne, who are working in concert with Green to torpedo the plan purely for Rangers benefit
Is it any wonder fans of all clubs are wholly mistrusting of the Scottish football authorities
I going to try and make sense of what I think Spiers was saying.
I think what he meant was that if the new SPL2 was going to be by invitation then why should Rangers be excluded. I don’t think he was actually advocating that Rangers should, as a right , be included to the exception of someone else. He just didn’t articulate it very well.
I don’t necessarily have a problem with the invitation idea unless it is skewed in favour of one team to the exclusion of other worthy candidates. The problem then arises of what criteria is applied to those invited in. If Rangers did get invited into the new set-up they would have to put in some rule that prevented them from being relegated. This would be patently absurd and quite frankly unthinkable so why even bother in the first place.
What seems like years ago, but actually about a year ago, B Kennedy said, referring to no Euro money coming in, that no CVA and starting from scratch meant a £30m hole in the figures. I believe he assumed 3 yrs to return to top division (if the trading loss of £7m for 7 months translates to £12m loss a year, then thats nearer a £36m sized hole).
If the £22m raised was to plug the hole, then it falls short.
Are the attempts to accellerate the ascent of Rangers through necessity?
tomtom,
i seem to remember a letter issued by the SPL in September 2012 about the stadium specifications and what needs be met – this could be the invitation criteria that will be used.
Carl31 (@C4rl31) says:
Saturday, March 30, 2013 at 21:45
I don’t think you can actually use an IPO to “plug the hole” between turnover and expenditure.
The offering and what the money was to be used for was set out in the prospectus. That is the basis on which people invested a lot of money into the PLC.
The board cannot simply use the money for anything they want now. If they said it was to be used for certain things then that is what it has to be used for, not on day to day running costs.
SPL 2 is a non starter!
so, we went from 28 SFL clubs in favour to 14 for/14 against
what has happened in the interim to make 14 clubs change their mind?
I have admitted before that I am not the sharpest tool in the box re the construction thing or the financial implications. I can only trust in God that TRFC get what is fair and that it is what they desreve!
If the SPL 2 comes to fruition by invitation and t’Rangers are invited then all of the clubs – especially Celtic – will have signed their own death warrants. Expect to see attendances fall by around a third and TV subscriptions and audiences by about a quarter. The fragile finances of the game will thus be broken and waves of teams will go part time and employ plumbers, sparkies et al.
Armageddon will inevitably follow such a decision.
The clubs should know this and must know this. Self interest must dictate that T’ Rangers go nowhere faster than on merit – the problem being that such glacial progress will bankrupt t’Rangers.
The powers that be specifically Longmuir and Doncaster are hell bent on preserving Rangers – they are in one case emotionally wedded to the club before all other interests and in the other we have a buffoon who does not have the slightest understanding of football or how it operates.
The clubs need to wrestle control back – or die – deservedly for their utter spinelessness. I fully expect the latter.
iceman63 says:
Saturday, March 30, 2013 at 22:49
I think this is what I tried to say!
barcabhoy says:
Saturday, March 30, 2013 at 20:23
… ensuring Rangers need a minimum of 3 promotions to get back to the top level.
——
… “back” to the top level?
Et tu, barca?
🙂
Graham Spiers may want TRFC shoehorned into whatever league he likes but the truth is he has no more of a say in these matters than my one year old nephew. Neither does Keevins, Johnstone, Guidi or Dalziel.
The penny may have dropped and they now realise that by the time TRFC get back to the SPL they won’t be able to afford a competitive team.
That scenario would in my opinion take us back to the eighties when teams who now have historical debt would not have to keep up with the jones’ anymore.
Heaven forbid but that may even allow clubs to nurture some home grown talent. Thus leading to a better national team.
Fast tracking TRFC in my opinion would be completely detrimental to football in Scotland. If anyone cannot understand that concept then they have no right to make a living off of the back of football in Scotland.
Stuart.Who are the 14?
madbhoy.
i agree. we have hit the self-destruct button on many occasions. we have lost so many important games we should have won and i can go back to the cup final against dunfermline in 1960 when we were overwhelming favourites and big jock was their manager. i do not blame the officials in every game we have lost.
rangers on the other hand have won so many important games that they should have lost due to the influence of officials and i can go back to cup finals when they played dundee united and aberdeen in the 1980’s never mind games against us in the 1960’s.
last season we should have beaten kilmarnock and hearts at hampden and we should have beaten them with ease given our financial advantage. for whatever reason these games ended up very tight and ultimately the referee became influential.
if rangers had played kilmarnock and hearts do you think for one second that the decisions that went against us would have gone against them. this goes beyond incompetence. incompetence does not explain this.
a rangers friend of mine once said to me that celtic supporters are paranoid. they never complained when they were winning 9 in a row.
big jock was never away from park gardens. almost every year he paid a visit to be warned or fined for criticising referees.
how many rangers managers down through the years feel the need to criticise officials.
alex cameron, probably the best known football journalist in the 1970’s said and i quote “i admire jock wallace. he never criticises referees”
this was a dig at jock stein. jock wallace never criticised referees because he never had reason to criticise them.
barcabhoy says:
Saturday, March 30, 2013 at 20:23
Graeme Spiers has to be commended for criticising Rangers sectarian policies and actions, he deserves credit for being one of the very few in the MSM to stand up to Murray,
—————————————-
Barcabhoy
I’ll grant you Speirs did as you suggest in relation to the sectarian signing policies. But when exactly did he stand up to Murray?
After several years at the top table, there came a point when he didn’t slavishly follow the official Murray line but that hardly constitutes standing up to the man. I don’t know any journalist who did; Murray had used his power and contacts to cow them all and they were either lapdogs at worst (most of them) or “non-combatants” at best (Speirs, Gibbons)
Not one journo ever criticised Murray’s financial mismanagement during the period in which it actually took place. Plenty came in towards the end of 2011, early 2012 when the body was in the ICU, but after the patsy had taken the club off the life support machine, they were able to reverse their opinion and erase all traces of Murray from the blame register.
I am willing to be proved wrong on Speirs but he is one of those infuriating hacks who hopes his soft-spoken tones, foppish air and wordy words will allow him to peddle his pro-Rangers agenda unhindered
PS Where exactly is [ Traynor ]these days?
Slimshady61
Australia apparently? (Traynor)
I yield to nobody in my absolute certainty that Scottish referees have been biased in favour of Rangers for as long as I have lived. I have no doubt that it is a bad career move for a Scottish referee to give the benefit of the doubt to any of Rangers’ rivals in matches that matter.
Nevertheless, the referee made the correct decision yesterday in disallowing the Montrose goal. The scorer was clearly offside when his team-mate played the ball forward.
chipm0nk says:
Saturday, March 30, 2013 at 22:01
I don’t think you can actually use an IPO to “plug the hole” between turnover and expenditure.
The board cannot simply use the money for anything they want now. If they said it was to be used for certain things then that is what it has to be used for, not on day to day running costs.
==============
Maybe they shouldn’t, but there is absolutely nothing in law to stop them using the IPO money for running costs. In fact they have no choice in the matter, because that IPO money sitting in the bank is basically all the money they’ve got until next season’s ticket money arrives.
The prospectus contained a load of pie in the sky, but anyone with a calculator and the most elementary knowledge of football business knew that the IPO money was going to be used to cover costs. If you ask me to explain why any genuine institutional investor would buy shares at 70p in these circumstances, I simply can’t. To me that is one of the most puzzling aspects of the whole Rangers saga. Maybe they saw value in the properties, but that value can only be released if property is sold, or they start charging rent for it. The trouble with the rent scenario is that they need a tenant who can pay, and TRFC are so far from being able to pay rent that it’s laughable.
There was £21m in the bank on 31 December. £5m was spent clearing football debts and buying more property (the car park and Edmiston House). The running costs are £2.5m per month, that’s £7.5m so far this year. So today there should be £8.5m left in the bank, plus any matchday income over the last 3 months, maybe £1m max. I make that to be less than £10m in the bank right now, and expenses are still £2.5m every month with very little income. This is a slow motion train wreck. I can’t see how they can survive past Christmas without another substantial injection of cash, either borrowed or via another share offering. Their cost base is simply far too high, and that has been obvious from the start.
The plan may be to liquidate or sell or even give away the loss making TRFC, leaving RIFC with all the property and any remaining cash. On that basis I can see some sense in the 70p share price, in fact if Murray Park or Ibrox or both could be redeveloped, there would probably be a tasty profit for all involved.
what is it about spiers, that he is always on the radio these days?
same with tom english and billyboy dodds.
i’m sick to the back teeth of listening to their sh1te.
saturdays sports extra was the last straw with spiers.
he continually tried to peddle the myths that sevco are actually still “rangers”.
he wants to see a strong “rangers”.
it is in scottish football’s interest, to have a strong “rangers”, and IF SPL2 happens, “rangers” MUST be invited into the SPL2, on the basis of the amount of mugs who follow follow and don’t understand the concept of spending more money than you actually have and going “bust” and out of business and who
WILL NOT listen to the facts that the club they used to support, doesn’t exist anymore. but the rest of scottish football, MUST cow-tow to them and their beliefs and take the emperors new clothes approach, and not be allowed to tell them it is now a sevco franchise
anyway,
stuart cosgrove said to spiers, that he [spiers] was going down the wrong road wiith that idea, as other teams “deserve” to be in SPL2 on merit and footballing reasons, for example QoTS, who convincingly won sfl2 and there were also many other teams “above” the sevco franchise team, who perhaps should be invited into SPL2 before any sevco franchise team.
spiers then attacked stuart cosgrove as being “anti-rangers”
this will be the new “kick us when we’re down” and “voted out” mentality.
it has to be stopped before it can grow any further.
before we know it, there will be threats to the bbc to ditch mr cosgrove or move him sideways or such like, and he will be off-air before we know it. and the succulent lamb will be back in full flow.
it’s time to ditch g,spiers, b.dodds and t.english.
get andy walker in and anybody that is willing to tell the truth, a-la charles green,
and call a spade a spade or…call sevco – sevco!!!
Has Charlie been on the blower to The Mirror or Nr 10? Who knows, perhaps national politics and the union have been unseen issues all along?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/prime-minister-david-cameron-backs-1794754
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/ally-mccoists-side-start-as-they-mean-to-go-on-but-some-will-go-no-further.20586532?
===================================================================
no “journalist” has put his name to this bull…
plenty of plaudits for the long slog and hard work that “rangers” put in
…”to win the title, and add it to the 54 previous titles”
could mr cosgrove point out to them that it is sevco’s 1st “title”
and it wasn’t exactly won by hard graft,
how many penalties did sevco get in sfl3 and how many opponents had players sent off – v – sevco?
If that is genuinely what TRFC and CFC want, for various reasons I think the rest of us would probably welcome the move. Are we really worried about whether we get Champions League places and so on? None of the rest of us ever get the good of them.
The independence referendum angle seems a bit desperate to me. Would people really vote on the long-term future of their country on the back of where a fitba team plays?
Gerrylentils.. if you are going to quote ex players comments then i,ll do the same…
Andy walker…” I got decisions for me playing for celtic that i never got playing for motherwell”
Everyone knows celtic and rangers get more ref decisions in their favour than the other teams. Even ex celtic players admit it. I will however agree with you that ive witnessed rangers get a lot more than celtic in the games ive seen against my team.
jimlarkin…
You can’t defeat one propaganda machine by installing one of your own…
You can’t say they will ditch Cosgrove so they must ditch Spiers, Dodds and English or whoever you don’t like. We must work together here to find a simple, irrefutable, argument that defeats the opposition. It can’t be the minutiae of the law that Sevco fans refer to…it must be in simple terms that the simplest can understand.
We should make it our mantra.
But McCoist says he’s already started talks with Chief Executive
Charles Green as his rebuilding for the new season starts.
Dundee United’s Jon Daly and Motherwell’s Nicky Law are prime
targets — while Sunsport revealed McCoist made a hush-hush
scouting trip to Central America during the international break.
He said: “I am certainly looking at bringing in double figures in
terms of numbers.
“I’m not talking about replacements, I’m talking about enhancing the squad.”
http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/leaguedivision3/4867291/Roars-when-Elgin-scored-proved-how-much-title-means.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It almost sounds like Super and Charles have a telepathic understanding. Don’t you think?
Reading the last few hours worth of comments, it´s never been clearer that for many on here it would seem more about the perceived agendas & bias in connection with Rangers than Scottish Football as a whole.
The hatred within the game in Scotland and I talk of all sides, will only serve to oil the slippery slope towards a darker place as so many other dynamics come together to form an unforgiving enviroment.
Generally speaking….
The governing bodies lack leadership.
The clubs have their own selfish agendas.
The supporters “hate” too much.
The players don´t work hard enough.
The media fail to address the real issues.
Add…..
The worsening economic situation.
The new generations increasingly not being interested in Scottish football.
Is it surprising where we are heading and is it constructive to aim mostly at one target.
greenockjack says:
Sunday, March 31, 2013 at 10:39
0 0 Rate This
Reading the last few hours worth of comments, it´s never been
clearer that for many on here it would seem more about the
perceived agendas & bias in connection with Rangers than
Scottish Football as a whole.
The hatred within the game in Scotland and I talk of all sides, will only serve to oil the slippery slope towards a darker place as so many other dynamics come together to form an unforgiving enviroment.
Generally speaking….
The governing bodies lack leadership.
The clubs have their own selfish agendas.
The supporters “hate” too much.
The players don´t work hard enough.
The media fail to address the real issues.
Add…..
The worsening economic situation.
The new generations increasingly not being interested in Scottish football.
Is it surprising where we are heading and is it constructive to aim mostly at one target.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just as long as one club is not given advantages over others.
“The new generations increasingly not being interested in Scottish football.”
sevco invited in to spl2 will advance that particular time bomb 20 years in my opinion.
greenockjack says:
Sunday, March 31, 2013 at 10:39
…is it constructive to aim mostly at one target.
———————————————————————-
At the moment, sadly yes, if you refer to Rangers, because they encapsulate all of the present wrongs with regard to spending money they didn’t have, non-payments to taxman and creditors, apparent attempts to gerrymander the league setup, contempt for other clubs, and so on. Personally I do not have a gripe with Rangers as such, but I most certainly do with those things that they go out of their way to represent. I would be every bit as angry if it was any other club acting as a black hole pulling Scottish football in.
But I gave a thumbs-up to your post, because I agree with the other points you made.
Gerrylentils Saturday 23:45
Agree entirely. Anybody who has followed the game, ( even from a neutral point of view) has witnessed these biased referees without the need for serious analysis or soul searching.
It sounds clever when another, perhaps interested party states that we should get over it, or put it down to “honest” mistakes or plain ineptitude. That can sometimes fit their agenda.
The team I support are not the only ones who have been subjected to the bias, we can add Montrose to that list.
neepheid says:
Sunday, March 31, 2013 at 08:32
==========================================
To me it is clear that the intention was always to use a fair proportion of the money raised from the IPO for running costs. I don’t see any other way in which they could have survived. I believe that is why the IPO was rushed through, they simply needed the money as quickly as possible.
As such, I believe the prospectus was deliberately misleading. If that is the case then they raised tens of millions of pounds based on a document which was at best disingenuous.
If you are saying that is legal, then fair enough. However to me it is not right, far from it.
Guys,
Can we draw a line under the refereeing stuff now? We have let it go thus far so that people can have their say, but it is starting to become tiresome. I’ve had to remove some of the wilder contributions, so please let us take it elsewhere.
LW
Just as long as one club is not given advantages over others.
————————————————————————————-
I think you have to be realistic with your demands when considering the well-being of the Scottish game being played at a certain level or be prepared to support a game that in terms of quality bears no resemblence to what you have been used to and suffers a downward spiral of revenue via match-day income, TV, etc.
It´s a stark choice.
I believe that the factors I have listed in a previous post has driven the Scottish game to the edge and that we have to be practical to mitigate damage.
Although it would now seem plain that whatever way it goes it is going to have a very negative effect.
I fully understand that the Rangers saga has brought things to a head and that entrenched attitudes make it impossible to have reasoned debate on many issues surrounding it.
That includes Charles Green, who has thrown oil on the fire and I cringe every time he opens his mouth.
But the here and now is that the game along with society is in dire trouble wrt finance.
My own personal opinion is that the game in it´s present format isn´t worth saving.
That it needs to change from being padlocked to finance and have a more positive contribution to society and it´s communities.
In historic times (economic situation worsens markedly).
Perhaps Scottish Football needs to (almost) die, so as to reincarnate into something else.
” quality bears ”
nice one jack, dont need to read any more……
On a more relevant note, and despite Graham Spiers’s strange views on football-by-invitation, and his hysterical accusations of Rangers-hating directed at Stuart Cosgrove, I think we heard a very loud dog-whistle from the wee guy on the Doncaster situation.
My inference is that the suspicions about his agenda are shared by those in the press who were present in SS Extra. I think that this seriously undermines Longmuir’s position, and one would assume that any talk of him getting a job at Ibrox would be scuppered now that the aforementioned dog-whistle as been blown. Wouldn’t it?
Ejaculation of the day though has to be Cosgrove’s “Geez a list!” to Spiers when the latter was talking about the make-up of SPL2
P1M
“quality bears ”
nice one jack, dont need to read any more……
—————————————————————
Thank´s for illustrating one of my previous points !!
only joking. i did read it (honest).
SFL Rules
“115.2 A club shall be permitted to register, at any one time, up to a maximum of
22 players, who have reached the age of 21 years on 1st January of the
appropriate year.
The maximum number of 22 players includes players
registered by means of a temporary transfer. Additional players may be
registered by a club, however such players must be under 21 years of age
on 1st January of the appropriate year.”
This rule presents problems not normally faced by a club of Rangers size.
The rule itself is less than clear. What happens if a player is under 21 at the start of the season, but turns 21 during the season. Does he move from one age group category to another ? What if this causes a breach in the rules governing squad size. That would seem to be unfair,especially on the players
It has been regularly stated that Rangers are at the maximum of players aged 21 and over. I don’t see how that conclusion can be reached , based on the squad they have just now. It seems to me they have only 17 players who fit into the21 and over category.
It would be helpful if SFL clubs , when publishing squad lists, provided which age category each player was in.
Unless there is information to the contrary it seems to me that Rangers will be able to sign 4 free agent players over the age of 21 in September
chipm0nk says:
Sunday, March 31, 2013 at 11:08
As such, I believe the prospectus was deliberately misleading. If that is the case then they raised tens of millions of pounds based on a document which was at best disingenuous.
=======
Here’s what the Prospectus actually said-
“The Company plans to use the money raised from the Placing to improve the infrastructure of the Club.
In particular, the Directors have identified:
• upgrades to Ibrox Stadium (approximately £5.5 million);
• acquisition and development of land assets adjacent to the stadium (approximately £4.5 million);
• other identified projects which could result in additional revenue generating activities
(approximately £3.0 million); and
• general working capital purposes.”
The fourth bullet is the “get out of jail free” card. Basically they can do what they like with the money, and keeping the company going has to be top priority.
neepheid says:
Sunday, March 31, 2013 at 08:32
==============================
I think it is worth going back to the Prospectus to anticipate factors which might affect Rangers finances and the operating shortfall.
The prospectus states: ‘The Company has no current plans (that is, at least for the next twelve
months) for a subsequent offering of its shares or of rights or invitations to subscribe for shares. However, it is possible that the Company may decide to offer additional shares in the longer term.’
I think it might be viewed very negatively by institutional investors if the company released additional shares before January 2014 especially if the original share pot had mostly disappeared in operating costs. Prior to then we have the situation, in three months time, when ‘certain’ shareholders will no longer be prevented from selling Ordinary Shares held by them without the prior consent of Cenkos Securities.
We don’t know who these shareholders are but I think it’s a fair guess they are the Institutional Investors and not the original investors in TRFCL who may well be or have been subject to various other restrictions regarding how their initial investment is/was repayable to them.
Then we have the Directors and key staff who are locked-in for 12 months from the December 2012 flotation date who include Green, Imran Ahmad and Ally McCoist. So barring any of the 12 month locked-in shareholders being sacked or taking seriously ill they can’t dispose of their shares before December this year. They could therefore be hit by any downward fluctuation if large tranches of shares are sold in three months time.
But if the12-month locked-in shareholders don’t sell in December this year they could then get caught up by their shares dropping in price through the dilution created by the possible release of additional new shares issued in early 2014 to raise capital for Rangers International to drip-feed TRFCL.
There’s always the potential downward drag from questions about what the original AIM flotation capital is being spent on – how much on plugging the operating costs and how much on the projects identified in the Prospectus. I keep wondering whether there is any evidence that the Albion lease has been bought-out and Edmiston House actually purchased.
I think it could all be problematic unless there are savage cost cutting in operating costs and a major hike in ST income. At a £200 average 37,000 tickets raises £7.4 million less VAT but bump it up to £300 and you have £11.1 million gross. Between extra income and cutting I think they can reach the Spring/Summer next year but there won’t be a lot spent for capital projects.
A flotation next year could raise the money to fill Ally’s warchest but as the Institutional Investors were sold on keeping tight control of wages I doubt if that would persuade them to cough-up much dosh, if any. But it just might persuade the Bears to dig deep but not if Ally was spending the money. The other problem with that plan is it will increase wages with no significant financial return for a couple of years.
The reality is IMO that Rangers International need to find a very rich buyer because I really don’t see the AIM well being deep enough to finance Rangers considering that over 30 other British clubs who went down the same route got out of market funding because it didn’t work in the long term for the age-old reason that the money raised in football is linked to onfield success and that means the players hoover up the profits and seldom leaving even a derisory dividend for investors not to mention sharply declining shareprices as more and more shares were issued in increasingly frantic attempts to raise capital.
I also think it would be difficult to finance Rangers using loans and hasn’t Green always been adamantly opposed to that – so if the company were to go down that route it might send a distress signal.
Listing to 12.00 BBC Radio Scotland News bulletin I got the impression that Charles Green has taken over the self appointed role as a spokesman for what was described as the ‘Old Firm’ and has apparently got the backing of the PM Cameron to move Celtic and Rangers to England.
Can’t find anything on the BBC site but there this fanciful piece in the Sunday Mirror today.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/prime-minister-david-cameron-backs-1794754
greenockjack says:
Sunday, March 31, 2013 at 11:23
5 6 Rate This
LW
Just as long as one club is not given advantages over others.
————————————————————
I think you have to be realistic with your demands when
considering the well-being of the Scottish game being played at a certain level or be prepared to support a game that in terms of quality bears no resemblence to what you have been used to and suffers a downward spiral of revenue via match-day income, TV,etc.
It´s a stark choice.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is indeed a stark choice. In my view, a league where one club is ‘catered for’ is a league not worth having.
barcabhoy says:
Sunday, March 31, 2013 at 11:55
2 0 Rate This
————————
barca, i make it 18 of their players are 21+ (although if Goian and Boca don’t return then it’s 16)
so, they can sign 5 players over 21 and replace any that leave
to be fair, they have won div 3 by a huge margin (performances/results don’t reflect that superiority – and a helping hand with dodgy calls and red cards to opponents have probably helped)
However, if they picked up 5 players over 21 on bosmans – then they will, of course win div 2 at a canter.
I see ally is calling for adding 10 players to the current squad (not replacements – additions)
so, 1st off, unless 5 of them are youngsters, then he’ll breach SFL rules
but even if he gets 10 what would the likely cost be? if Sandaza/Black/Shiels are the benchmark – then you are looking at about £5k a week
£2.5M a year – on top of losses of £12M a season!
or, put it another way, £36k season tickets at an average of £225 last season brought in £8.1M (less vat of course)
They’d need to bump the average season ticket price up to £295 – about 25-30% increase – JUST TO STAND STILL
this tells me…1. Ally isn’t getting 10 players, he might get the 5 the SFL rules allow. 2. Sevco will not be stemming the losses of next season – unless the bears are prepared to accept a ST rise in the region of 30-40% above current prices.
barcabhoy says:
Sunday, March 31, 2013 at 11:55
=====================================================================
McCoist says he’ll require “double figures” in terms of squad additions for next season.
He also revealed wild celebrations took place on the team bus coming back from the goalless draw at Montrose when they heard Elgin had beaten Queen’s Park at Hampden to ensure the flag will fly at Ibrox.
He said: “We were listening to the Queen’s game on the bus back. The second-biggest roar of the day came when they were awarded a penalty — and the biggest came when they scored it.”
——————————————————————————————————————–
I wonder how they are going to clear-out sufficient players to make room for a whole new squad. Unless there are going to be big pay-outs for the long contracts that will need to be broken – the only other way is finding reasons to sack people or to make them walk.
Surely even the Bears won’t be conned into buying STs on the promise of 10/12 new signings that won’t materialise – what was it he promised last year that he didn’t get – was it 6?.
But what wages are the new guys going to demand knowing the money that the useless ones were getting paid. I really wonder how badly Ally has lost the plot – the biggest roars came not at Montrose but on the team bus when QP were beaten. Says it all about this current Rangers squad methinks.
Falkirk statement on reconstructions
sorry, can’t copy and paste the test – but click the link and give them the hits – it’s worth the read…especially if you are of the opinion Longmuir is working to charles greens agenda and is trying to derail the changes
http://www.falkirkfc.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6393&Itemid=320