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.
Neepheid
PL knows the consequences for the game and so Celtic if sporting merit is not given primacy in any reconstruction.
So financially Celtic could lose as much as they gain from a Rangers return. I’m not even sure how that puts an amount on the table to make it an attractive risk to take.
Then there is UEFA income’ either CL or EC that is more or less guaranteed with possible CL windfalls over the next 5 years.
To me the financial arguments do not appear to stand up unless The Rangers return adds enough bums on seats to balance out lost CL revenue (even from the qualifying rounds).
Celtic have given up some prize money to smooth the reconstruction, one which incidentally recognises sporting merit and stops an early The Rangers return. That suggests to me that Celtic know exactly what they are doing.
Does the invitation to SPL 2 need a vote from the SPL and if so, does it still require 11 to 1?
Auldheid
I agree that PL has to weigh up the situation make a call and then be able to sell it to his club´s support.
My contention is based upon the infectious apathy on and off the field due to a one horse race which manifests itself in empty seats.
This season has seen many ST holders not bother to go to the games but next season they might simply not bother with an ST and instead cherrypick the games.
The economic situation may help supporters make that decision.
When you lost 20% in one season (Mowbrary), counter-measures halted the slide but didn´t bring the 20% back.
This is what PL/Celtic must think about, aswell as a threat to the ST culture.
As for the risk of upsetting so many of the support to put the above logic in the shade then that´s where a mixture of silence and spin will help.
However, if you are right then Rangers won´t be fast-tracked.
I think you´ll find that you´re wrong.
Are celtic playing winning football every week?
Are celtic playing entertaining football?
Are celtic signing or bringing through good players?
Are the PLC continuing to alienate the club from the fans with their behaviour in colluding with the police against supporters groups?
Are celtic providing a value for money product?
Have Celtic got a mediocre manager who got the job because 1. he was there 2. he was cheap 3. he appealed to certain elements of the support
the green seats are not because we are missing Sevco, they are not because we want to retain a poor tv deal with sky (which makes up a fraction of Celtics income)
Simply enough, Celtic are not managing their business very well as a football club. If they think voting Sevco into a NEW SPL2 set up will endear them to their supporters – they are more out of touch than i thought.
Anyway, Celtics demise – and the absence of another glasgow giant should encourage the other clubs to have a go. Will they go for it?
greenockjack says:
Monday, April 1, 2013 at 10:13 (Edit)
However, if you are right then Rangers won´t be fast-tracked.
I think you´ll find that you´re wrong.
_____________________________________________________________
I don’t disagree with the inferences you draw wrt the Celtic board’s “ideal case” scenario. I am convinced in fact that you are bang on the money with that.
Where I diverge with your analysis is that I do not agree that the “green seats” as you call them have nothing to do with the absence of Rangers at all, or of apathy. in fact I think many of the green seats – including four that used to be occupied by Big Pink bums – are due to the PRESENCE of the new Rangers in ANY Scottish major league.
I think that Celtic will have to do their own analysis of how much they would gain or lose as a consequence of a fast-tracked new Rangers being greased into to the top league. My belief, and fervent hope, is that the result of that analysis will convince Celtic that their bottom line would be irreparably damaged by such a move.
Rangers (at the present time) will not in any way improve the quality of football on offer. Consequently, if chairmen of any clubs are still convinced that having them in the SPL with a new genesis of the Old Firm is a good thing, that is tantamount to saying that our football can only survive on the proceeds of bigotry.
Right now, for me the jury is still out on whether that is the case or not, and that is a far more serious situation than a mere sporting integrity vs finance argument.
Today, many Sunderland fans, no less passionate about their club than fans of Celtic or any other club, are walking away because of they see their club as betraying its own traditions. I applaud their stance and their defence of their club’s traditions.
I am sure that their position will not have gone un-noticed at Parkhead or elsewhere
greenockjack says:
Monday, April 1, 2013 at 10:13
”When you lost 20% in one season (Mowbrary), counter-measures halted the slide but didn´t bring the 20% back.
This is what PL/Celtic must think about, aswell as a threat to the ST culture.”
No idea where you get the 20% reduction from – do you mean fans buying season tickets then just not turning up? season 2008-9 was an alltime record for ST sales, dropping 12% in the following season. Unless of course the “audited” accounts are bunkum of course
http://www.celticfc.net/downloads/annual_report_2009.pdf
http://www.celticfc.net/downloads/2010_annual_report.pdf
as has been mentioned many times in previous postings by other posters the deep and ongoing economic crisis, which first reared it’s head officially in 2007 does have a large part to play in this. Expect fewer ST’s being sold at all clubs next year also as a result of this, regardless of which financially distraught clubs are plying their limited trade in SPL 1 or 2 next season or the one after that.
BPink @ 10:41
Obviously there will be many factors involved as to why your SPL home crowds have decreased.
I don´t agree that the “presence” of Rangers in Scottish senior football will figure prominently as a reason for the decrease in numbers.
It appears that many who don´t go have actually purchased an ST and that supports my argument of “apathy” + economic crisis.
– The SPL was won before a ball was kicked.
– The players prioritised the CL and it showed.
– The fans prioritised the CL and it showed.
The apathy was infectious and the economic factor helped many supporters take their decision to stay at home. I think you´ll find that this covers the largest percentage.
——————————————————————————–
The “quality of football” isn´t presently much of an issue in Scotland, it´s about money, it´s about fear, it´s about survival.
There is very little in the way of leadership or quality about the game up here and frankly it is where it deserves to be.
I´d rip it up and start again.
Community clubs serving a greater purpose in difficult times.
Larger, ambitious clubs trying to find pastures new.
Greenockjack
Even if The Rangers as fast tracked it will not be because Celtic see any advantage to Celtic in such a scenario.
The lost bums on seats will have to be quite a number to equal the lost opportunity revenue from Rangers onging absence.
As regards fans staying away they will only be reducing the quality of what they do decide to go and pay for.
It will not be Celtic that stay aways would be harming but their own hopes and ambitions for the club they say they support.
If the argument is purely financial from Celtic’s view then why on earth would they want to take any risks by voting for the Rangers return?
The sporting merit principle is inarguable as to ignore will cost all clubs more than they gain from doing so.
I’ll keep paying to watch as long as I think Im watching a sport, even if I reckon the outcome is a foregone conclusion because Celtic are a well run club with more income than all others but I will not watch a competition where the rules will be ignored if to apply them means The Rangers would founder.
If you are correct and The Rangers get a leg up it will not bewith Celtic’s support, the club’s support or other club’s supporters support but because of back ground maneuvering by others whose self interest NOT football’s interest has its way. That this is possible there can be no doubt given FTT, Lns etc but there is no logic in saying it is with Celtic’s agreement.
verselijkfc
I thought it had been nearly 20%, in fact it was just over 15%.
I apoligize for the inaccuracy but the large % makes my point stand.
Average home crowd (Celtic)
08/09: 57,671
09/10: 48,968
http://www.scotprem.com/content/default.asp?page=home_Statistics
http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/docs/009__034__constitution__rules__SFL_Constitution__Rules__1346425915.pdf
Any member (or group of members) who resign from the SFL must give: “not less than two full seasons prior written notice so to do, unless with the approval of not less than two-thirds (66%) of the votes cast at a general meeting of the League.”
Any member (or group of members) in breach of this rule shall be held liable for: “any loss of income or profits from any sponsorship or other commercial agreement or arrangement entered into by the League or any of its Members or Associate Members.” This would include the value of TV deals, the SPL annual payment (in perpetuity) and any other costs incurred in reorganization.
With regard to reconstruction, these are the key points – as I understand them:
***This season, the SPL purchased TV rights for a number of SFL (Rangers) games for £1m. The SPL’s one-year deal with the SFL was a key component of their 5 year package with Sky.
Effectively, the SPL have committed to deliver the new club’s games on Sky for 5 years; but currently have no mechanism in place to get access to those games for the next 4 years.
Unification of the leagues gives the SPL (or its successor) TV rights to all senior games in Scotland. With unification, the Sky deal can be delivered.
http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/rangers-leaked-email/2305
***SPL2 can also deliver on the Sky deal; but only if the new club is invited. No sporting merit will be applied – only a simple commercial imperative. In my opinion, the perils of certain litigation make this option unlikely – but the possibility cannot be ruled out entirely.
***The status quo next season gives the SFL a strong hand. It also gives Rangers a potential bargaining position.
£1m is unlikely to be enough to purchase the SFL’s (Rangers’) TV rights for next season. Perhaps the SFL will insist on £2m or £3m from the SPL. Perhaps Rangers will demand a substantial payment from the SFL. Whatever the SFL demand, the SPL will have to pay. If the SPL cannot provide a guarantee that they can deliver on the SFL (Rangers) games for next season, the entire Sky deal will collapse at the end of this season.
***Lower league clubs get absolutely nothing from reconstruction.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/scotlands-top-eight-teams-prepare-1719321
With additional TV revenue, the lower league clubs have the potential to make a relatively small sum by deferring reconstruction for another year. We are probably talking about £50k – £60k per club for the bottom 18.
If the SPL/SFL merger was to offer a one-off payment of £60k for each club in the bottom league, it is likely to be sufficient to match what they would receive by keeping the SPL & SFL apart next season.
Sevco are really Rangers – april fool
oh, wait
oops
that was last years
Can we nail something once and for all?
Celtic fans loved beating Rangers but the so called atmosphere at OF games was really only enjoyed in victory. Defeat was a major downer for a lot of fans
For the rest of the season the existence of Rangers and the rivalry that went with it was a cause of serious friction between otherwise sensible citizens
Its simply nonsense to believe that a majority of Celtic fans welcome the idea of TRFC replacing Rangers
Big Pink
With regard to the dependence of Scottish football on bigotry to survive not only do I think it spot on but it is the underlying theme of a chapter I contributed to a book being published by Edinburgh press in June titled Bigotry, Sectarianism and Scottish Football with a foreword by Jack McConnell.
It is a collection of views mainly from an academic perspective but with two chapters by a Celtic and Rangers supporter.
Although there was never any contact whatsoever between us there is under lying common ground that hopefully will bring more focus on this particular aspect that may have worked in days gone by, but which not only no longer works but still bedevils attempts to create an honest game.
The Celtic Board of Directors will be cracking open the champagne shortly for another league title and will be endeavouring to keep ‘The Rangers’ in as a low a league as possible …… the board members will be counting the titles very carefully over the next few years.
The longer term question is can European football survive, it is in a financial mess , everyone knows it wrong , TV money will not last forever. The house price / asset bubble was economic madness, everyone knew deep down there would be a day of reckoning, the only question was when, ….. when will European football’s bubble burst?…. I suspect Celtic will overtake the ‘mythical’ 54 and then boom in 10 years time change will come.
Meanwhile, the SPL for all it’s faults is a better bet for fostering full time professional football in Scotland than the backwater SFL operation who have achieved nothing in the last 20 odd years … Money filtering down to the 2 main SPL leagues and a pyramid system for the remaining leagues is required.
The SPL will also need to rewrite their own rules to accommodate blatant cheating both off and on the pitch, which will prevent another Dignity implosion.
nowoldandgrumpy says:
Monday, April 1, 2013 at 10:07
4 0 Rate This
Does the invitation to SPL 2 need a vote from the SPL and if so, does it still require 11 to 1?
==========================================
SPL2 needs a “Reconstruction” of the company – currently there are just 16 shares. This requires a change to both the Articles of association and the rules of the SPL.
Such changes would require a 11-1 vote and approval by the SFA.
If an SPL2 was introduced by other means – for example by setting up a separate company – the specific SFL rules that allow clubs to keep their players when joining the SPL would not apply. In such circumstances, the player registrations of resigning clubs would revert to the SFL.
Auldheid says:
Monday, April 1, 2013 at 11:31
If you are correct and The Rangers get a leg up it will not bewith Celtic’s support, the club’s support or other club’s supporters support but because of back ground maneuvering by others whose self interest NOT football’s interest has its way. That this is possible there can be no doubt given FTT, Lns etc but there is no logic in saying it is with Celtic’s agreement.
======
I admire your optimism, but I can’t share it. The FTT and LNS outcomes are totally irrelevant. Celtic had no input to either process, other than to back the “independent” appeals process, which I guess they thought would be an improvement over the previous system, whereby the “blazers” just sorted it all out behind closed doors.
If TRFC get their “leg up”, it will have to be voted on by the SPL clubs at some stage. Celtic have no formal veto, as I assume any change goes through if it gets 11 votes. However Celtic must carry a lot of clout, and I find it hard to believe that if Celtic voice strong opposition to such a move, then the others will simply vote it through. Maybe I’m wrong to think that, but if this is voted through, I want a clear and unambiguous statement from Celtic on how they voted and why. I have to say that I’m not holding my breath on that one. But we’ll wait and see.
I am at a loss to understand anyone thinking that Celtic would want Rangers accelerated into the top league for financial reasons.
How much more money do people think Celtic earn with Rangers in the league, as opposed to how much they earn from for example the Champions League or even the Europa Cup. Realistically the longer Rangers are out of the top league the longer Celtic have to collect as much European money as possible.
People, primarily not Celtic fans in my experience, tell us what Peter Lawwell is going to do, or what he should do. What he will actually do is what he, the other members of the board and the principal shareholders think is in the bets interests of the PLC. That is not necessarily voting for Rangers being unfairly fast tracked through the ranks of Scottish football.
However if people really think Mr Lawwell is that powerful, and that he will support Rangers’ in their attempts to jump any queue then that they can carry on doing so. Presumably it gives them some comfort.
Maybe Peter Lawwell can even pull some strings with the SFL and get them to drop the notice requirement for any club leaving that league.
greenockjack says:
Monday, April 1, 2013 at 07:35
Of course Greenockjack Peter Lawwell has come in for exactly the same criticism before – exactly a year ago when his dignified silence was interpreted as backing for Rangers. When he then spoke he did so in measured tones, refusing to pour fire on the Rangers holocaust and making the simple statement that his board would act in the best interests of the club and Scottish football, having regard to sporting integrity, And that is precisely what they did.
I am not sure how many times he has to say something for it to be believed – most CEOs or chairmen seem to be taken at their word, especially Charles Green for some strange reason whose every utterance – “we’re debt free” followed by “we owe £6M”- is taken as gospel. But anything that comes out of Peter Lawwell’s lips is always subjected to a surprising degree of scrutiny. One Scotland, many scrutineers?
He will continue to act in Celtic’s best interests and those of Scottish football, of that I have no doubt, and having regard to sporting integrity. On that basis, TRFC will be on the list exactly where they should be, 20th out of 30 SFL clubs.
Now let’s suppose the SPL invite the top 12 clubs in the SFL to join an SPL 2; that is the logical course of action. If the 12 accept, that is a fait accompli.
If say they get some refusals and have to go lower down the list, that is fine. After 8 refusals, if my arithmetic is right, TRFC would be next in line to be invited.
Why on earth though would 8 SFL clubs, fiscally dying on their feet, turn down the opportunity of a substantial (£200K per club according to Falkirk) cash injection?
It couldn’t possibly be because they are offered some other financial inducement by the SFL to stay, could it? Like the opportunity to play the Rangers Colts with a bottom coppered guaranteed income?
Could it?
I am sure Jim Longmuir is an honourable man and has always acted, and will always continue acting, in the very best interests of ALL the SFL clubs. Don’t you agree?
I am sure it cannot be the case that at the SFL meeting last week he gave the floor to a man with a vested interest but no voting rights in the reconstruction process – that would be an abuse of process. Even if the man in question was desperate because his club, like many others, is cash strapped, albeit in his case he has circa £8M and the strapping is only on account of the fiscal imprudence of him and his manager.
copper bottomed! Bottom coppered is I think what happens when you are kettled by our brand new police force – apologies
Auldheid @ 11:31
If Rangers are fast-tracked it will be with the SPL´s blessing with at least 11 clubs voting for it.
The advantage to Celtic is financial, more especially to limit the time that the SPL is uncompetitive, apathy growing and have an increasing number of supporters giving up their ST or not going to so many games.
We live in economic times where the fan doesn´t need so much encouragement to keep his money in his wallet.
Once these supporters have gone, they´ll be hard to get back.
The sporting argument will come second to the financial.
The Gravy Train is more important to those involved and although they will lose some supporters along the way, they will hope to spin a line and bank on the blind loyalty of the hardcore.
For Rangers to get fast-tracked, it will need the support of Celtic PLC.
Neepheid
I’ll clarify what I meant by FTT and Lns. In spite of moral wrongdoing taking place technical legalistic ones held sway.
Morals ones could have just as easily been given sway had that suited the purpose or been the prime driver of those involved.
So although there is a moral case for The Rangers doing there time the fact that morality has taken second place before makes it possible to do so again.
As regards the rules I know the complex position Celtic find themselves in but not all the complexities themselves. So I am left to trust that they will do what is right and explain their position when matters are decided.
Trust has to start somewhere.
carlislecelt says:
Monday, April 1, 2013 at 09:10
ecobhoy says:
Monday, April 1, 2013 at 09:06
______________________________________________________
Rangers or whatever their name were found guilty as charged.
===================================================
Not on all counts! And I was specifically talking about Sporting Advantage where if they had been found guilty then titles may well have been removed but with no finding of guilt on sporting advantage or non-registered players they couldn’t be. Basically what we were left with is a gross and repeated breach of the rules by a liquidated company which effectively only allowed for a fine which will never be recovered.
And this is the problem about having your cake and eating it because why should a new Rangers have to suffer any penalty for the actions of the owners/management of a liquidated club? If positions were reversed and it was Celtic then I wouldn’t accept it which somewhat tempers my attitude towards Rangers supporters on the issue. And just like them I would claim an unbroken history because I happen to believe that a club’s history does reside within its support and cannot be bought for £1.
Greenockjack
Fair enough. We’ll have to agree to disagree.
Slimshady
I am convinced the leg up debate and Longmuir’s attempts at stopping the reconstruction the majority were in favour of is driven by the possibility of another administration event next season.
The SFA have to grant The Rangers a club licence in May/ June. To get it The Rangers have to supply financial info by 30th April or apply for an exceptional dispensation ( a new rule btw)
If a licence is granted then the SFA have to be sure that their process for doing so is bullet proof for if there is another insolvency event it will be the SFA in the firing line.
Of course if one is granted it would be in the SFA’s interest to move heaven and earth to help The Rangers avoid an insolvency event.
Club licencing – the device intended to enable the SFA to keep our game safe. One they have not been too keen on applying in the past.
If Rangers were to be fast tracked into a new SPL2 then it would be as much to do with the other SFL clubs letting them go as it would the current SPL clubs letting them in.
That would go for all 12 who wanted to leave. The big question would be, what would be in it for the rest.
If the Rangers support consider themselves a gravy train then why exactly would the other SFL clubs, not invited into SPL2 vote to allow them to leave. Especially the eight who would a, be being stepped over and b, lose those lucrative home games they were supposed to get.
Or does that particular financial argument not suit.
On a separate issue, there may just be clubs who would vote against it because it would simply be wrong. If there were to be an extended SPL then it should be made up of the top 24 clubs in the country, by standing. If there is a move to the 12-12-18 system then that should also be based on league positions at the time.
Simple, transparent and fair.
neepheid says:
Monday, April 1, 2013 at 11:55
I want a clear and unambiguous statement from Celtic on how they voted and why.
======================================================================
The decision by the Celtic board will be taken purely on a financial basis as to what is best for the shareholders. Sentiment and sporting integrity will not be directly involved. It’s a bit like not liking Capitalism so what do we do – go back to a barter economy, disinvent the wheel or return fire to the Gods.
The only way that sporting integrity will enter board thinking is if there is a significant slump in ST sales for next season but I would think the decision will be made before then so even that possible prospect is unlikely to sway a board decision because I think ST sales could quite likely fall next year just because of people being financially squeezed.
That could place even greater emphasis in retaining high European income to make up domestic shortfalls. Yea it’s all very grubby but it gets even grubbier when a Football Board doesn’t make a profit. It’s cold comfort to retain sporting integrity but have no club left to support because it went down the financial plughole.
ecobhoy says:
Monday, April 1, 2013 at 12:18
0 0 Rate This
carlislecelt says:
Monday, April 1, 2013 at 09:10
ecobhoy says:
Monday, April 1, 2013 at 09:06
______________________________________________________
Rangers or whatever their name were found guilty as charged.
===================================================
Not on all counts! And I was specifically talking about Sporting Advantage where if they had been found guilty then titles may well have been removed but with no finding of guilt on sporting advantage or non-registered players they couldn’t be. Basically what we were left with is a gross and repeated breach of the rules by a liquidated company which effectively only allowed for a fine which will never be recovered.
==================================
There were no charges of “gaining sporting advantage” or “fielding unregistered players” – though you are correct in saying that they were (bizarrely) found to be not guilty on both counts.
Rangers were actually charged with fielding ineligible players.
LNS made no specific decision on the players’ eligibility. Instead he decided that he could not revoke registrations retrospectively. His presumption – on the evidence presented to him – was that if a player was registered he must be eligible to play.
The presumption – though wrong – was not challenged by the SPL’s QC.
HirsutePursuit says:
Monday, April 1, 2013 at 12:42
The presumption – though wrong – was not challenged by the SPL’s QC.
===================
Would that be based on the evidence given by the SFA’s head of registrations who would be considered an expert in the field.
They must not have spoken about the times other results were overturned because of problems with a players registration, making them ineligible for that game. One would have thought that would be taken into consideration.
Auldheid says:
Monday, April 1, 2013 at 12:34
1 0 Rate This
Slimshady
I am convinced the leg up debate and Longmuir’s attempts at stopping the reconstruction the majority were in favour of is driven by the possibility of another administration event next season.
The SFA have to grant The Rangers a club licence in May/ June. To get it The Rangers have to supply financial info by 30th April or apply for an exceptional dispensation ( a new rule btw)
If a licence is granted then the SFA have to be sure that their process for doing so is bullet proof for if there is another insolvency event it will be the SFA in the firing line.
Of course if one is granted it would be in the SFA’s interest to move heaven and earth to help The Rangers avoid an insolvency event.
Club licencing – the device intended to enable the SFA to keep our game safe. One they have not been too keen on applying in the past.
======================================
Much, much simpler than that.
The SPL have contracted with Sky to provide TV access to Rangers games in each of the next five seasons (including this one).
The SPL paid the SFL £1m for this season’s TV rights. They have no agreement for next (or any other) season.
Everything that is happening now is simply to ensure the Sky deal can be delivered.
greenockjack
So Celtic demur in the fast tracking of their biggest historical rival and place at risk CL income , financial and sporting reasons brushed aside for what precisely?
The Rangers will not go bust again because they will just have to adjust expenditure as follows:
– cut back on scouting (already started)
– cut back on Operational mgt (already started)
– cut back on duds (already started – Kyle and Sandaza) , just watch the MSM get stuck in with Capucho like treatment to other duds Black and Shields
– make a few of the brothers redundant
– sell off the Training facility
– stop staying overnight in hotels before games an pretending to be a top notch outfit
– put all suppliers on 90 days
– query every invoice
– season ticket prices severely hiked
– cancel all executive bonuses
– freeze all executive pay for 5 years
– reduce the mgt and coaching staff salaries by 75%
Simple really ……….. If the above is insufficient then build a small stadia at Murray Park and close Ibrox , there are many ways in which The Rangers can cut costs , they only have to use their imagination.
Peterhead statement
The planned reconstruction of Scottish football has created many column inches of newspaper editorial and media coverage, much of which has been sensational, some of which has been sensible and as per usual much of which has been nonsense. We would therefore like to clarify our stance on these new proposals following the debate which took place at Hampden on 28th March.
Our previous meetings with our SFL colleagues regarding these proposals had been positive. We all felt that change was required and the time was upon us to deliver a new, more collective approach to the administration of our game. The SFL had put together a package of changes which had been presented to the SPL; the SPL agreed that changed was required but countered with their own proposal.
This new SPL package was debated and although it was far from a perfect solution it did deliver the key areas for change:
1 Governing Body
Redistribution of finance
Healthy promotion, relegation and play-off system
Pyramid system allowing for future growth.
A vote was taken at a previous meeting and the result was 28-1 in favour of progressing the SPL Package to the next stage.
We reconvened on Thursday to further discuss the details of the planned changes.
Governance issues, due–diligence problems and timescales were all covered. These areas, we agree are incredibly important and every care should be taken to ensure that all parties are safeguarded and we create a governing body not just for the short-term but for our long term future. The main concern from some of the SFL members was the timescale factor which was discussed at length. However the end result of this over-zealous procrastination now has the potential to de-rail all our previous progress and create divisions when we had unanimity.
At the end of our meeting we again took an indicative “vote” for the Implementation of the SPL package at the beginning of next season. This time the result was 14/14. The main reason given for the change in mind of majority of clubs was the timescale.
We accept the rational and agree that timescales are difficult and in other circumstances many of the reasons against change would be compelling. Indeed in business we would not consider a take it or leave it proposal as has been presented by the SPL, but the alternatives are grim.
Clubs in the 2nd/3rd Division have nothing to gain financially in the short term from “Reconstruction”, but we, as a club must look at the wider picture and judge what is best for the future of our national game. If we risk a situation whereby the 1st Division Clubs move to join the SPL then it would spell disaster and the opportunity to form one association to drive Scottish Football forward would be lost. The clubs that would remain would become a forgotten entity by media, sponsors and fans alike and stifle ambitious clubs such as ourselves in making progress up the ladder.
Therefore, on behalf of the board of Peterhead Football Club we would like to urge Neil Doncaster and David Longmuir to meet further to discuss lingering doubts and allay the doubts of those members who are concerned over the timescale of these proposals. We would also like to urge our fellow members of the SFL who voted against the reconstruction and unified governing body plans to please reconsider their position of requesting a further season of deliberations.
In the past year our leadership within the SFL over the Rangers saga and league reconstruction has been faultless, now is the time to stand together and take this opportunity to revitalise our game and not give the SPL the option of walking away from these proposals due to a divided SFL and all the negative repercussions that will follow from that.
Major change and especially football change, require a leap of faith by all parties concerned, status quo is not an option beyond this season if we are to bring excitement and competition back to our game
Chairman Rodger Morrison
Vice-Chairman Ian Grant
chipm0nk says:
Monday, April 1, 2013 at 12:51
3 0 Rate This
HirsutePursuit says:
Monday, April 1, 2013 at 12:42
The presumption – though wrong – was not challenged by the SPL’s QC.
===================
Would that be based on the evidence given by the SFA’s head of registrations who would be considered an expert in the field.
They must not have spoken about the times other results were overturned because of problems with a players registration, making them ineligible for that game. One would have thought that would be taken into consideration.
=======================================
For me, it was up to the SPL QC to make that case. It is too easy to limit the scope of a question to get a desired – if possibly misleading -answer from a witness.
If, in these circumstances, the opposition QC does not open the parameters of the question to get a more rounded – and ultimately truthful response – the responsibility ultimately lies with that QC.
As far as I can tell from the commission’s report was that a misleading question led to a misleading answer that went unchallenged.
Perhaps the SFA’s head of registration was complicit. Perhaps he simply gave an honest answer to a loaded question.
Perhaps the SPL’s QC simply chose – on instruction – to effectively “drop” the most damaging charge against RFC.
madbhoy24941 says: Monday, April 1, 2013 at 08:49 reply to willmacufree says: Monday, April 1, 2013 at 02:12
“The SPL has 12 teams, how does Rangers coming 2nd many times indicate that LNS could have been right and that no sporting advantage was gained?”
————————-
ecobhoy says: Monday, April 1, 2013 at 09:06 reply to willmacufree says: Monday, April 1, 2013 at 02:12
“LNS is no more qualified than I or the man in the street to decide whether Rangers derived a sporting advantage or not.”
—————————
If I can summarise what I said, I was trying to show from SPL stats that there have been not too many riveting games (the object of the split) at season’s end, and as an aside, on the face of it no great sporting advantage gained by xRFC from all the shenanigans.
Despite no competency or remit, LNS did make a judgement on sporting advantage, deciding to levy a fine only, which would be paid by the creditors.
Going by the actual performance, without banker(to the point of going bust), taxpayer and other assistance oldclub would probably have won nothing at all, so they did gain competitive advantage.
We need to find the formula for the standard league season of playing everybody twice, once home once away. Add Cup competitions.
I think the summary may be longer than the original.
I’m unsighted on the TV deal patriculars but both our points are linked. No The Rangers = no TV deal.
willmacufree says:
Monday, April 1, 2013 at 13:39
Despite no competency or remit, LNS did make a judgement on sporting advantage, deciding to levy a fine only, which would be paid by the creditors.
=======================================================================
I really have to take issue with the statement that LNS ‘had no competency or remit’ as the statement only adds to the myths. He and the other two members were fully legally competent and had a full remit from the SPL. What they didn’t have was any evidence presenterd to them that sporting advantage had taken place. It was up to the SPL to provide that evidence and by not doing so it was impossible to rule that sporting advantage had taken place. It might have or it might not – LNS couldn’t decide because no evidence was presented one way or t’other. So what was LNS meant to do? Toss a coin to decide?
The fine wasn’t levied in lieu of sporting advantage not being declared and if you want to see the reasoning then might I suggest that you read his decision. You might also note that the SPL didn’t even ask for any specific penalties to be applied. They washed their hands of that as well as failing to produce any evidence that might have shown that sporting advantage had taken place and yet they had framed charges based on that supposed ‘fact’.
It was certainly not in the LNS remit to provide the evidence to prove one way or another whether sporting advantage had taken place – if he had then he would not have been an impartial judge as his role is to make a legal judgement on the evidence presented and its subsequent examination by the parties to the proceedings.
HirsutePursuit says:
Monday, April 1, 2013 at 12:52
——————–
Not so. We are coming towards the end of year 1 of a five year deal, TV does not play a part in the reconstruction
That’s certainly what Neil Doncaster said. We have a 5 year deal, it’s towards the end of year 1, we don’t need to renegotiate anything. He was unequivocal on that point.
The otherwise very good Peterhead statement contains the line:
“In the past year our leadership within the SFL over the Rangers saga and league reconstruction has been faultless”
So close. A one point deduction for that piece of nonsense. Faultless leadership over the Rangers saga would have seen Spartans or some other worthy and ELIGIBLE club playing in SFL3.
HirsutePursuit says:
Monday, April 1, 2013 at 12:42
LNS made no specific decision on the players’ eligibility. Instead he decided that he could not revoke registrations retrospectively. His presumption – on the evidence presented to him – was that if a player was registered he must be eligible to play. The presumption – though wrong – was not challenged by the SPL’s QC.
=======================================================================
I am afraid that your explanation muddies the waters. LNS didn’t decide he couldn’t revoke players’ registrations retrospectively – that was Bryson I think his name was of the SFA given in his evidence and that ‘presumption’ was accepted by the SPL’s QC. Given that the SFA expert on the matter gave evidence which was actually accepted by the SPL – the party bringing the charges – then all LNS could do was accept it as well as to have done otherwise would have been perverse and opened the door wide-open to a successful appeal as LNS had no power to decide that registrations could be retrospectively revoked as he had been given no evidence to that effect or any counter-argument to the SFA’s stated position.
I also think you are wrong in stating that LNS didn’t make a specific decision on the players’ eligibility according to para 6 of his Findings below.
(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;
ecobhoy says:
Monday, April 1, 2013 at 14:53
Since you mention the eligibility point, I think it is appropriate to repost what is in my opinion one of the best contributions ever made to this forum. Thank you Isalitany, by the way- you should post again.
itsalitany says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 01:05
2 0 Rate This
First time poster. Long time lurker here and previously on RTC.
I’m driven to post for the first time (and probably only) time by my incredulity at LNS’s interpretation of the rules on the eligibility of the players with undeclared side letters to play in official matches.
Rule D1.13: A Club must, as a condition of Registration and for a Player to be eligible to Play in Official Matches, DELIVER the executed originals of all Contracts of Service and amendments and/or extensions to Contracts of Service and all other agreements providing for payment, other than for reimbursement of expenses actually incurred, between that Club and Player, to the Secretary, within fourteen days of such Contract of Service or other agreement being entered into, amended and/or, as the case may be, extended.
In my opinion, and I drafted contracts for a living for many years, this rule means, in layman’s terms that “all other agreements providing for payment etc” must be DELIVERED to the football authorities. If this is not done, the consequences are twofold: (1) a condition of the player registration requirements is broken; and (2) a player is not eligible to play in official matches.
LNS concludes that the side letters were such “other agreements providing for payment”. He determines that the side letters had not been delivered. The two consequences of this failure to deliver the side letters, as provided in D1.13 and as Hirsute Pursuit and majorcoverup have already pointed out are clearly in my view (1) that the registrations were flawed AND (2) that the players were ineligible.
On the registration point, LNS accepts seemingly without question the SFA’s Mr Bryson’s evidence that, as far as the SFA are concerned (1) a registration is valid until it shown not to be valid and even then, only becomes invalid from the point when the factor which invalidates it comes to light and is proved and (2) remains valid through any period during which it should not be valid but the invalidating factor is not yet known to the SFA. LNS quotes no precedents for this approach having been taken in the past and no SFA rule underpinning such an approach.
LNS goes on to state that SPL rules in his view should be interpreted to agree with related SFA rules. Therefore, he interprets D1.13 to provide that while the non-disclosure of the side letters was a breach of the registration conditions, the fact the non-disclosure was not known to the SPL meant the registrations of the affected players remained valid and that, as they were validly registered, they were eligible to play. If the registrations were subsequently proven to be invalid, they would only became invalid from the point of time they were proven to be invalid (i.e. now) and cannot retrospectively be challenged or set aside.
LNS then relies on rule D1. to determine that, following his conclusion above, no ineligible players were fielded by Rangers FC as a result of the non-disclosure of the side letters.
Rule D1.1 states that: “Subject to these Rules, to be eligible to Play for a Club a Player must first be Registered…”
Rule D.1 clearly, in my opinion, means that a player cannot be eligible to play if he is not registered.
It cannot in my opinion, reasonably be taken to mean that if a player is registered, he is therefore eligible.
Yet that is how LNS has interpreted it.
A quick analogy. In order to be pregnant, one must be female. By the logic of LNS’s interpretation and application of D1.1, however, if one is female, it follows not only that one is pregnant, but also that one will be forever be deemed to have been pregnant during such period as passes from the point one became female until the point one proves that one is not pregnant.
The most bizarre aspect of the LNS findings on eligibility of the affected players is that it goes to such lengths to determine that the players were validly registered when valid registration is just one of a number of requirements for eligibility and when, in terms of D1.13, another of the requirements for eligibility to play is clearly absent.
As stated above, D1.13 provides that “for a Player to be eligible to Play in Official Matches…a club must…deliver all other agreements providing for payment”. This could not be clearer in my view. It matters not a jot whether the players were validly registered. In terms of D1.13, if the “other agreements for payment” were not delivered (which LNS confirms they were not), the players were not eligible to play, irrespective of the validity or otherwise of their registration.
Yet LNS concludes that the side letters were “other agreements for payment”, concludes that they were not delivered, but concludes that the affected players WERE eligible to play.
Try squaring that circle. I can’t.
ecobhoy says:
Monday, April 1, 2013 at 09:06
——————————-
willmacufree says:
Monday, April 1, 2013 at 02:12
Looking at these statistics, maybe LNS was right that RFC (IL) gained no sporting advantage.. Whether or not he is competent to judge, or if it’s within his remit, is another question.
================================================
If he’s neither competent to judge or it’ not in his remit, then surely he should not be mentioning it (or if he is asked just state he can’t answer).
Nimmo Smith both acted beyond his competence and his remit in stating that no competitive advantage accrued. At no point was that part of the charge sheet and nor should it according to precedent, have been considered.
The Bryson “evidence” was purely hearsay and unsubstantiated opinion with no written rule basis and the QC for the SPL had he been instructed to do so would have indicated this – or demanded an adjournment. One thus must assume that the Bryson evidence was known to the SPL who instructed their QC not to challenge it – I suspect that the SPL were instrumental in working with the SFA to find some nonsensical loophole to avoid any meaningful sanction against Rangers. The entire proceedings were fundamentally bogus and the hearing was designed to allow Rangers to escape charges in order to protect the registration procedures and practices of the individuals involved to escape scrutiny.
Only the clubs can appeal this and they could do so easily – by demanding that Bryson’s evidence be subject to scrutiny and that the procedures of the SFA in their registration proceedings in this case and in others be subject to judicial review or some other form of independent scrutiny.
That every club chooses not to do so shows that every club is complicit – however unappealing we find that – and that as such each club is as worthy of our contempt as was the Oldco. We owe them no loyalty and should walk away from this fraud en masse.
The entire enquiry was not an enquiry at all, but a cover up by all concerned.
LNS has twice done this in major cases before: Lockerbie and the child sex ring case in Lothian and Borders police ( Magic Circle investigation) .
He is adept at this sort of thing I am afraid – as most judges are – it’s why they are placed in these positions of authority for when the need arises to give legal basis to patently unjust actions deemed necessary by the powers that be.
slimshady61 says:
Monday, April 1, 2013 at 14:13
7 0 Rate This
HirsutePursuit says:
Monday, April 1, 2013 at 12:52
——————–
Not so. We are coming towards the end of year 1 of a five year deal, TV does not play a part in the reconstruction
=====================================
The SPL purchased the SFL’s TV rights for just one year – the current season. They paid £1m.
The SPL’s deal with Sky is for 5 years. It is a package of both SPL and SFL matches. It allowed Sky to show (I think) five live games per season involving Rangers. The ESPN (now BT Vision) deal has a similar clause.
If the SPL are unable to deliver the new club’s matches next season, they will be in breach of contract with both Sky & BT Vision. At the moment, there is no deal in place between the SPL and the SFL that can deliver the Sevco Rangers matches to the TV companies.
If the SFL decide not to sell their TV rights to the SPL next season (or ask for an uneconomic figure) they would (I would think) get a substantially greater amount than £1m by dealing with Sky directly. Or at least, they will while Rangers are part of their league.
I believe, in the long-term, the best option for the lower league clubs is to be part of a unified structure. In the short-term however, they are being asked to forego a potentially significant income stream over the next 2 or 3 years.
Remember the leaked email?
http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/rangers-leaked-email/2305
The current clamour for league reconstruction is ONLY about the TV deal.
ekbhoy says:
Monday, April 1, 2013 at 12:57
=====================================
Well said on the suggestions for cost cutting at Ibrox. At the moment it is difficult not to conclude the living outwith their means mentality still permeates every inch of the place. Why should Scottish football have to move heaven and earth just because one club doesn’t want to face the financial reality of where they are?
ecobhoy says:
Monday, April 1, 2013 at 14:53
1 4 Rate This
HirsutePursuit says:
Monday, April 1, 2013 at 12:42
LNS made no specific decision on the players’ eligibility. Instead he decided that he could not revoke registrations retrospectively. His presumption – on the evidence presented to him – was that if a player was registered he must be eligible to play. The presumption – though wrong – was not challenged by the SPL’s QC.
=======================================================================
I am afraid that your explanation muddies the waters. LNS didn’t decide he couldn’t revoke players’ registrations retrospectively – that was Bryson I think his name was of the SFA given in his evidence and that ‘presumption’ was accepted by the SPL’s QC. Given that the SFA expert on the matter gave evidence which was actually accepted by the SPL – the party bringing the charges – then all LNS could do was accept it as well as to have done otherwise would have been perverse and opened the door wide-open to a successful appeal as LNS had no power to decide that registrations could be retrospectively revoked as he had been given no evidence to that effect or any counter-argument to the SFA’s stated position.
I also think you are wrong in stating that LNS didn’t make a specific decision on the players’ eligibility according to para 6 of his Findings below.
(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;
=========================================================================
http://www.scotprem.com/content/mediaassets/doc/Commission%20Decision%2028%2002%202013.pdf
I don’t know that what Mr Bryson is reported to have said is incorrect in any way.
Mr Bryson said that the SFA treat an incorrect registration as standing until or unless it is subsequently revoked. Mr Bryson, as far as I am aware, made no statement on whether being registered (correctly or incorrectly) automatically conferred eligibility.
It was Mr McKenzie who seemed happy to link registration with eligibility.He (Mr McKenzie) then “accepted” an interpretation of Rules D1.11 and D1.13 that meant registration (correct or not) conferred automatic eligibility until the registration was revoked. He accepted that the SFA had no power to retrospectively revoke a registration; thereby accepting that players could not been deemed ineligible retrospectively.
The problem is that the commission were tasked with making a decision of the eligibility of players – not about the validity of their registrations. Registration,of course,is a necessary condition for eligibility; but it is not the only condition.
The LNS commission dealt with the registration aspect of Rule D1.13 – but they did not make any decision on the direct effect of this rule on the players’ eligibility. They chose instead, with the compliance of Mr McKenzie, to wrongly conflate registration procedures with eligibility.
It was up to Mr McKenzie to make the case that Rule D1.13 applied to both the registration process and separately on a player’s eligibility to play in official matches. That being registered (correctly or incorrectly) did not automatically over-ride the eligibility aspect of D1.13.
Mr McKenzie could have, and should have, given copious examples of players who had been deemed ineligible retrospectively.
Mr Bryson is simply the wrong target IMO.
Sorry for the interruption, but a word of thanks to greenock jack for drawing out such a reasoned,lively and rational debate from the foremost contributors.Reminiscent of the old days of RTC.
HirsutePursuit says:
Monday, April 1, 2013 at 17:33
I accept the QC did not make the connection with SPL Rule D1.13 but surely Bryson with years of experience on the consequences of incorrect registration and as a football man had a responsibility to make the very point you have?
That he chose not to do so might be down to him knowing about ebts for quite some time and having his employer to protect and actually being conflicted.
Whatever the cause for the LNS decision it appears to go against the purpose of registration rules that authorise eligibility.
Is there a transcript of the LNS hearings and if there is how can it be made public?
Whether or not rangers gained a sporting advantage is not a consideration.
Rangers knowingly broke the rules.
They cheated.
They should be disqualified.
Period.
When ben Johnson cheated the ioc did not consider if he had gained an advantage by taking drugs.
When lance Armstrong cheated he was not asked to prove that he had gained an advantage. Maybe he could provide a doctor who could claim that taking drugs had in fact harmed his performance and therefore he should be able to keep his titles. He had in fact won the titles not as a result of his drug taking but despite his drug taking.
Gaining an advantage is never a consideration when you cheat at sports.
This is a red herring.
Trophies must be restored to the rightful winners.
dumfoonert says:
Monday, April 1, 2013 at 19:31
0 0 Rate This
Is there a transcript of the LNS hearings and if there is how can it be made public?
=============
If you mean a proper transcript based on tapes or stenographers’ notes of all the oral evidence and the lawyers’ arguments, then it is most unlikely that one exists. The published decision is as close as you will get. That written decision will be based on the panel members’ own notes made during the course of the proceedings.
Question raised again on Sportsound tonight: ‘Why is Longmuir now working against the reconstruction proposals?’
For the second night in a row commentators are openly voicing the opinion that Longmuir has ‘fallen under the influence’. Is the threat of a mass boycott of all clubs in the new 18-team league forcing his hand? What other coercion has Green? Or does Longmuir have valid concerns?
Danish Pastry says:
Monday, April 1, 2013 at 20:08
1 0 Rate This
Question raised again on Sportsound tonight: ‘Why is Longmuir now working against the reconstruction proposals?’
For the second night in a row commentators are openly voicing the opinion that Longmuir has ‘fallen under the influence’. Is the threat of a mass boycott of all clubs in the new 18-team league forcing his hand? What other coercion has Green? Or does Longmuir have valid concerns?
=========
It’s time for supporters and shareholders of clubs to put pressure on their boards to make sure that no club plays sevco.
Monday, April 1, 2013 at 20:08
1 0 Rate This
Question raised again on Sportsound tonight: ‘Why is Longmuir now working against the reconstruction proposals?’
For the second night in a row commentators are openly voicing the opinion that Longmuir has ‘fallen under the influence’. Is the threat of a mass boycott of all clubs in the new 18-team league forcing his hand? What other coercion has Green? Or does Longmuir have valid concerns?
==========================================================
Pure speculation at the moment, but the theory that Longmuir will be working for Sevco in the not too distant future is not difficult to believe.
gerrylentils says:
Monday, April 1, 2013 at 19:35
25 0 i Rate This
Trophies must be restored to the rightful winners.
——
The rest of your post makes sound sense, gerry, but I’m not sure that it’s possible to say who those rightful winners were. As has been discussed here several times, there are too many variables to just hand SPL titles to the 2nd placed team, let alone Cups.
Also, it’s never going to happen anyway. This is now cast in stone, the ship has sailed with the fat lady in mid-tune, etc. The old Rangers keep those titles.
As Mr J Hetfield, heavy metal hero, is often heard to say… Sad, but true.
The “Sevco” thing.
They’re not called that any more, and I think it’s disingenuous to keep referring to them as that.
It helps to tar this blog with the anti-Rangers brush.
Just saying.
angus1983 says:
Monday, April 1, 2013 at 20:35
0 3 Rate This
The “Sevco” thing.
They’re not called that any more, and I think it’s disingenuous to keep referring to them as that.
It helps to tar this blog with the anti-Rangers brush.
Just saying.
=======
To me history is everything in football and it’s very important to know your history and to remember your roots
Airdrie are Clydebank, RFC are Sevco
Danish Pastry says:
Monday, April 1, 2013 at 20:08
DP,
I doubt Longmuir needs to be coerced into helping TRFC, more likely a carrot was used, one that benefits Longmuir rather than the SFL. I can’t remember him raising any concerns over the proposals until Green realised that his club would be left in the bottom division, affecting their season ticket pricing and sponsorship deals. Indeed, he seemed happy enough at the prospect of the creation of one body, which, no doubt, would have seen him moving up the pecking order with the possibility of further advancement in the near future, and any delay in implementation would surely cost him money personally. Unless, of course, there’s a more tempting offer on the table from elsewhere.
Maybe explains it – a bit:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21989966
For myself the actual reason it wont happen is the 11-1 vote and I don’t believe at the death (sic) Ross County or Inverness want it.
Auldheid (@Auldheid) says:
Monday, April 1, 2013 at 19:09
10 0 Rate This
HirsutePursuit says:
Monday, April 1, 2013 at 17:33
================================================================
Auldheid,
A witness is called to give evidence by answering the questions that are put to him/her. The opportunity to provide information beyond the scope of the questioning is generally very limited.
Mr Bryson was not called to construct an argument for the “prosecution” – he was there simply to provide the information that was being requested.
It is right & proper that LNS should have looked at the registration status of the players in question. After all, if they were deemed to have not been registered, they would automatically have been ineligible. Mr Bryson seems to have given his answers in that context.
Mr Bryson says that, as far as the SFA are concerned, a processed registration is treated as valid until it is revoked. There are, he says, no SFA rules that allow a registration to be revoked retrospectively. His statements, relating only to the status of a player’s registration, seems fine to me.
It is not right and proper that having decided that the players’ registrations were valid that the commission did not consider the other conditions of eligibility
Mr Bryson, as far as we know, was not asked and did not offer a view on the eligibility of a player whose registration was found to be flawed. He was not asked, as far as we know, if registration automatically conferred eligibility to play SPL matches. It would not have been appropriate to ask these questions because those eligibility criteria are described, not by the SFA; but in the SPL rules and articles.
Unless you believe that a valid registration automatically confers eligibility, there is nothing in Mr Bryson’s testimony that diminished the SPL’s case against Rangers. The problem was simply that the SPL’s QC failed to construct a logical & persuasive argument and present the case to the greatest effect.
My assumption is that Mr McKenzie would have been acting under instruction from Neil Doncaster when considering what arguments to put forward. I just think we should be asking why the case construction was so inept – rather than focusing on a witness whose testimony (on what we know) I find hard to fault.
angus1983.
what variables?
rangers results when they cheated are recorded as a 3-0 defeat.
redraw the league table.
it is that simple.
as for the cup tournaments, give the cup to the runners up.
i don’t think anyone would complain.
accept rangers of course.
you are not suggesting that rangers should be allowed to keep these trophies.
when someone or some team cheats in sports they are disqualified and the rightful winners are then given what belongs to them.
the lance armstrong situation is somewhat unique because the entire sport is tarnished.
in scottish football only rangers cheated.
how are the sion-celtic results recorded by eufa when sion broke the rules?
just apply the rules.
this ship has not sailed.
celtic have not accepted the nimmo verdict.
justice will prevail.
Just caught the ESPN trailer for this weekend’s coverage of Scottish football. As well as a whole host of untruths ie Rangers fans united to save their club a year ago – rather than threatened all and sundry to save their club (which was actually saved by the ignoring of the rules by the football authorities and delays by the administrators), they didn’t half bum up the winning of the SFL Division 3 title in a way no one in the media has ever done before. They then finished with a two second aside that they’re also covering a match in a league 3 levels higher. The way they made out that a club that claims to be the biggest in the country has achieved something magnificent in winning SFL3 must surely embarrass all but the thickest of Rangers fans. Indeed, I’m sure if TRFC ever make it to the top that any titles they win on the way will be dropped from their honours list as soon as they think no one will notice or care.
We are by no means displaying anti-Rangers behaviour in equal or proportionate ammounts to that of the pro-Rangers behaviour all around us. Hows that for whataboutery.
Have we got to the bottom of CG’s mixing with the big boys at the weekend. He’s faster than a speeding bullet and the youngest miner in history, but scout? Shirley he did’nt bag the scout so he could go?
Shouting ” why you giving away OUR money “.
If he was there to watch players, thats more of a joke than if it was to substantiate his claim of sitting down with PL (but only in the same stand).
Bit desperate looking if you ask me, blagger. Like the wee fella ( Karl Power) who snuck into the ManU team photo.
gerrylentils says:
Monday, April 1, 2013 at 21:00
justice will prevail.
……………………………………………………………………………………………..
No chance of that im afraid
HirsutePursuit says:
Monday, April 1, 2013 at 20:55
================================================================
Auldheid,
A witness is called to give evidence by answering the questions that are put to him/her. The opportunity to provide information beyond the scope of the questioning is generally very limited.
==================================
Are you suggesting that what happened was more akin to a criminal trial than say a tribunal.
You are absolutely right as far as a criminal trial is concerned however tribunals are much more informal and likely to take opinion evidence. Particularly if the person concerned is effectively there as an expert witness. I don’t see how the SFA head of registrations would be considered anything else given the circumstances. His evidence would have carried a lot of weight, particularly if it wa swell presented.
That said, I think I agree with your general point. That the case against Rangers was constructed to achieve a specific and, and that end was achieved. It was probably achieved nowhere near the actual hearing, because that is simply the way QCs work. They talk to each other, they agree where they are going and they compromise. It is nowhere near as adversarial as people think.
In short, I think that what was achieved suited all concerned, and that did not need those sitting on the panel to be complicit. It just needed both sides to agree what would be put before them in order to reach that decision.
I see very intelligent upper middle class gentlemen sitting in high back red leather armchairs in their club and discussing things in a civilized manner over a rather nice malt. It’s a very small World they work in and they know each other rather well.
angus1983 says:
Monday, April 1, 2013 at 20:35
5 37 Rate This
The “Sevco” thing.
They’re not called that any more, and I think it’s disingenuous to keep referring to them as that.
It helps to tar this blog with the anti-Rangers brush.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Any such tarring brush would need to be anti-The Rangers.
Just saying.
HirsutePursuit says:
Monday, April 1, 2013 at 20:55
I’m with chipmunk. Why allow Green to keep beating the “no title surrender” drum if the SFA already had their ducks in a row? Indeed did they not try to use the loss of titles as a condition of membership?.
They had plenty of time to say what Bryson eventually did so why not say it sooner?
I think we are all on the same suspicious page and its just a question of which party was most complicit in a stitch up.
chipm0nk says:
Monday, April 1, 2013 at 21:37
In short, I think that what was achieved suited all concerned, and that did not need those sitting on the panel to be complicit. It just needed both sides to agree what would be put before them in order to reach that decision.
=====================================================================
I think you have hit the nail on the head – If LNS and his two colleagues had to be complicit to get the result required by the SFA and SPL then they would have failed big time. It’s as clear as a pikestaff that this tribunal was designed to fail and some posters are getting buried in the detail about rules and evidence. I know dozens on non-lawyers who could have made a better fist of this than was made by the SPL legal team and rather than look at what evidence was given it is much more important as to what wasn’t given.
LNS did his job and that in no way, as far as I am concerned, implies any impropriety on his part or his colleagues – given the lack of evidence and weakness of the case served up to them I believe LNS reached the only decision that was legally viable and not actually capable of being overturned on appeal because it is based on and reflects the evidence presented which appears from the hearing information made public to have been accepted 100% by the SPL
Personally I ain’t happy because it was obviously a carve-up but if the ‘prosecution’ case is that there is no case to answer then it’s a bit rich blaming the judges for tossing it out.
chipm0nk says:
Monday, April 1, 2013 at 21:37
0 0 Rate This
==============================================
http://www.scotprem.com/content/mediaassets/doc/Commission%20Decision%2028%2002%202013.pdf
Bottom of page 8:
The commission hearing was set up as an adversarial procedure – very much like criminal proceedings. By setting it up in this way, Mr McKenzie was asked to provide the witnesses and lead the questioning.
Within this structure, I cannot see how a witness would be allowed to volunteer an opinion on a subject not under discussion.
As far as I can tell Mr Bryson was asked only about SFA registration procedures and appears to have given truthful answers. As far as we know, he was not asked (and offered no opinion) on whether a valid registration automatically conferred eligibility to play in SPL matches.
Even if he was asked, the question of eligibility was not a question that Mr Bryson would be able to answer as an “expert witness”. The question of eligibility to play in official matches is dealt with within the SPL rules. Mr Bryson was only there (I would assume) to answer questions about the SFA’s registration procedures.
There is no doubt in my mind that the process was sabotaged; but, for me, the culprits are a little higher up the food chain.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Auldheid (@Auldheid) says:
Monday, April 1, 2013 at 22:02
4 0 Rate This
====================
The commission was set up before the FTT(T) decision was announced. The SPL – like most of us – assumed that the BTC would go against Rangers and that they had no option but to strip the titles. I think the SPL’s construction of the charges (separating club from company) gave the SPL hope that they could extract a substantial financial penalty on Sevco. The commission was set up to distance the title stripping (and fines) from the member clubs.
When the FTT(T) went broadly in favour of Rangers the SPL (at some level) lost their nerve; but would have faced open revolt from the fans if the commission was not allowed to complete its work.
The SPL got the result they were looking for in the end. I’m not sure it was the result they were looking for in the beginning.
It doesn’t say much for LNS’s probity if the case was rigged. Why did he not speak out at the time about how poorly the case presented by the SPL was. There have been plenty of instances when judges have criticised the prosecution in the past but no mention in this instance.
On the other hand if he was so stupid that he couldn’t see what was happening then he should never be allowed to sit in judgement again.
For the record I don’t think he’s stupid 😀
The good ship ‘Scottish Football’ has been listing badly for the past eighteen months due to the gross incompetence of her officers, but there was a slim chance that she may have got to dry-dock for some urgent repairs. When the LNS torpedoe hit her below the waterline all hope of recovery disappeared. Her demise will be slow and painful to watch but giving the combined recklessness of all on board, including LNS her death is inevitable.
RE LNS
Bryson was effectively an expert witness. However expert witnesses, while brought in by one side or the other, are there to offer an unbiased opinion and assist the court in preparing and giving evidence.
Therefore which side asked Bryson to appear or given it was a commission did LNS ask for his presence.
If Mure of old/newco asked him to appear then the question is why did MacKenzie not push him on other matters such as precedents, lack of rules for revocation, his (SFA) views on eligibility
If MacKenzie asked him to appear then….. same as the above.
If LNS requested his presence then re MacKenzie…….same as above
Whether the SPL eligibility was within Bryson’s area of expertise or not I would have thought some records of seeking his views, given he is the top man in this field,. would have been noted, even if it was to say he had nothing to add.
Expert witnesses often get asked questions that are outwith their area of expertise or ones that, given the evidence available they cannot answer. It is however normal to record when that happens.
I found it funny that it was LNS who appeared to be the one pushing for the alternative construction as opposed to Mure or MacKenzie. Therefore why did LNS not pursue other questions with Mr Bryson and when he didn’t why did MacKenzie not try and fill in the gaps.
Naw I think it was all a stitch up before the game even kicked-off.
ekbhoy says:
Monday, April 1, 2013 at 12:57
So Celtic demur in the fast tracking of their biggest historical rival and place at risk CL income , financial and sporting reasons brushed aside for what precisely?
=========================================================================
In their present state I think Rangers would be more likely to be relegated from the SPL never mind being in a position to place at risk Celtic’s CL income.
On top of that, if they had to resort to the cuts you suggested, their chances of improving even such a poor side would be next to nil.
A fitting coincidence that the weekend in which The Rangers win their first title is also the time when their share prices settles down to the level of the original offering.
What will happen to the share price with The Rangers in the third tier next season, regardless of the timing of reconstruction?
Well, the media campaign to get Sevco back in the top ranks has begun.Both The Herald and Evening Times lead this morning with McCoist pontificating that TRFC is good for Scottish football.He even has the temerity to reason that the national team is toiling because there are no players from Ibrox in the team! “where our club is at the moment does not help the national team”.Really,you couldn’t make it up.
myohmy1 says:
Tuesday, April 2, 2013 at 08:31
0 0 Rate This
Well, the media campaign to get Sevco back in the top ranks has begun
============
The current campaign began about 4 months ago- if you don’t count the Scottish MSM’s backing for direct entry to the SPL last summer, followed up by similar backing for direct entry to SFL1 when plan A failed.
The agenda of the MSM in Scottish sport is in two parts- firstly whatever they feel suits TRFC best, followed closely by whatever they are told their agenda should by Ibrox. Not much has changed on that front in the last 25 years.