Fair Play at FIFA?

ByTrisidium

Fair Play at FIFA?

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.

About the author

Trisidium administrator

Trisidium is a Dunblane businessman with a keen interest in Scottish Football. He is a Celtic fan, although the demands of modern-day parenting have seen him less at games and more as a taxi service for his kids.

4,057 Comments so far

tomtomPosted on12:22 am - Apr 7, 2013


Goosy,

Craigie boy didn’t send a cheque. According to Charles he paid the sum into a bank account. The bank details were provided by them. Now why would you give someone bank details if you didn’t want them to send you money :=D

View Comment

ptd1978Posted on12:28 am - Apr 7, 2013


allyjambo says:
Saturday, April 6, 2013 at 21:13
HirsutePursuit says:
Saturday, April 6, 2013 at 22:03
goosygoosy says:
Saturday, April 6, 2013 at 22:54
_____________

Thank you all for your explanations, but I still don’t see why Green, as the only registered Director of 5088 wasn’t legally allowed to administer the company as he saw fit and transfer anything the company owned to a new company.
Granted he has basically admitted that he was going back on his word to Whyte personally and (assuming Whyte can pay his lawyers) may well have to answer for that.

But if Whyte can show that the transfer itself was in breach of some kind of rule and that Green didn’t have the right to sign those documents, then the ownership of all the real estate is open to question.
In that case, Green remains personally screwed, but also:
– The flotation is a massive fraud.
– No one knows who owns Ibrox (even the guys who were hiding the deeds up until now)
– Everyone involved in the set up of the new outfit and everyone brought on at director level since has serious questions to answer about what they knew.
– Duff and Phelps are in even more serious bother.
– BDO will have a very obvious place to start when they begin their work on winding up Rangers and in theory, if Whyte has cast iron proof it will oblige them to invalidate D&P’s sale.

As far as the new Rangers are concerned, these are very different outcomes. I don’t know whether some of the justice their old club escaped may be visited on them because of this, or whether Zeus just need to find a new front man.

View Comment

bigsausagefingersPosted on12:33 am - Apr 7, 2013


Both James Traynor and Charles green have now openly confessed that they strung Craig Whyte along to gain his confidence.

If Craigy boy is so socially gullible I wonder how he ever managed to “dupe” SDM.

View Comment

tomtomPosted on12:42 am - Apr 7, 2013


http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/4876675/Show-me-the-mummy.html

View Comment

chipm0nkPosted on12:53 am - Apr 7, 2013


This, if it is true, is mental

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/leaguedivision3/4876693/The-players-dream-of-a-free-punch-at-me-but-I-was-right-this-is-the-worst-Gers-team-EVER.html

View Comment

dedeideoprofundisPosted on1:43 am - Apr 7, 2013


goosygoosy says:
Saturday, April 6, 2013 at 22:54

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I`ll have a go at explaining the issue
I suspect the original Whyte/Green/D&P plan was for Sevco5088 to do all the things that got done by Sevco Scotland

—————————————–
How can that be when Scotland came after 5088?

View Comment

dedeideoprofundisPosted on2:11 am - Apr 7, 2013


“I’ve had chairmen come to me and say: ‘Mr Green, my local pub came and gave the club a cheque for £1,000 because when Rangers turned up he had record takings. More than on Christmas Eve’.
————————-

Better than the baby Jesus.

View Comment

dedeideoprofundisPosted on2:14 am - Apr 7, 2013


Oh Sweet Jesus

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on2:24 am - Apr 7, 2013


Funny fictional story: Random and appropo of nothing.
Once upon a time a Mr waig Krshite (Golum) stole the gold wedding ring (my precious) off of the cremated remains of a deid old biddy (who used to feed some cats to do tricks) who had died owing alot of people rather alot of money.
Because he knew that some of the more serious people might be looking for the ring, he quickly swapped it with a Mr Chuck Less for some magic beans, as long Mr Chuck Less would feed his trick cats. Mr Chuck Less took the ring but secretly swapped the magic beans for the heinz variety, and Mr Krshite got quite angry.
Meanwhile Mr Chuck Less pocketed the gold ring and took some real magic beans that he had showed Mr Krshite and he planted them. But instead of a beanstalk growing upwards, a money pit grew downwards. A honey bee called Zzally went into the money pit with some of the cats that the old lady fed, but they didn’t do any tricks. There he met some money bears. He said to the money bears “Giz yer boots, yer motorbikes, and yer birds and I’ll show you how to play football just like Stirling Albion”. The end

View Comment

faza2010Posted on2:51 am - Apr 7, 2013


chipm0nk says:
Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 00:20
12 0 Rate This
jean7brodie says:
Saturday, April 6, 2013 at 23:00

Why thank you, I am genuinely touched.

Please don’t let it get you down too much. At the end of the day, when all is said and done, and there are no clichés left, without the paying customer it’s all just blokes playing football in big empty stadia with no-one watching on TV.

The fans really do have all the power. That’s the thing about being “just a customer” if you take your custom elsewhere then there is no business. The fans’ real power is over the business side, not over the football side.

The same goes for the papers, the radio and the TV. For all of the so called journalists and commentators. Without us they have nothing. No paying customer means no profits and no wages. We are football and they al know it.

And I did genuinely laugh out loud at chippy, quality.
————————————————————————

Would that be pretty much what big Jock said; ‘without the fans……’

Thought so.

View Comment

paulmac2Posted on3:03 am - Apr 7, 2013


ekt1m says:
Saturday, April 6, 2013 at 20:50
……………………………………

Correct..here is the text as taken from FIFA…

MEDICAL DOCTOR AND PHYSIOTHERAPIST

The licence applicant MUST have appointed at least one Doctor and one Physiotherapist responsible for providing medical support and advice to the first squad as well as doping prevention policy. He must ensure medical support during matches and training.

The Doctor must be recognised and certified by the appropriate national health authority and be duly registered with the member association or league.
——————————–

The above MUST be in place to receive a licence…any change to this and the club must inform the governing bodies…they cannot be granted a licence for next season without one in place.

Will be interesting to see who runs onto the pitch at their next game…Ally with a bucket of cauld water and a sponge…

View Comment

paulmac2Posted on3:08 am - Apr 7, 2013


dedeideoprofundis says:
Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 02:11

“I’ve had chairmen come to me and say: ‘Mr Green, my local pub came and gave the club a cheque for £1,000 because when Rangers turned up he had record takings. More than on Christmas Eve’.
………………………………………………….

Please tell me he didn’t say that?

View Comment

Lord WobblyPosted on3:10 am - Apr 7, 2013


Green said:
“I have told Ally that and I have told him the truth of the matter, just as I have always done. He knows what we are doing and where we want to take this huge Club and Rangers FC will return to the very top.
“Whyte will have nothing to do with that and he will never
benefit from it either. That is an absolute fact and I just wish the media would stop pandering to a man who is clearly out of touch with reality.”

Ally McCoist said:
“Yes we spoke and I’m glad we did. I never believed that Charles had entered into any kind of agreement but it was important to have a chat after what the former owner had been putting about in the papers.
“I am a fan and it would be devastating to have this man back
anywhere near the Club he almost destroyed.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Not exactly covering themselves in glory on the truth and honesty front, are they. (that’s a statement, not a question).

“Rangers FC will return to the very top.” ~ liar liar pants on fire! Charles has already told us that his club has never been in the SPL.

“I just wish the media would stop pandering to a man who is clearly out of touch with reality.” ~ to be fair, he’s got that bit correct. Why do the media pander to Green?

“I am a fan and it would be devastating to have this man back
anywhere near the Club he almost destroyed.” ~ Which club? Rangers? Rangers WAS destroyed. That’s why you didn’t play in Europe after finishing second in last season’s SPL. You’ve clearly not been listening to Charles, Alistair. HIS Rangers, the one that you’ve just one the SFL3 title with, has never been in the SPL.

View Comment

stevensanphPosted on4:03 am - Apr 7, 2013


As posted earlier, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-22041145

Isnt SDM a lucky boy that the day his latest multi million pound loss was revealed, the Sun happens to run a story about Whyte being involved with Sevco? I am still of the mind that this latest story is part of the plan.

The next step is moving the club back to the real rangers men, giving green and his mates an excuse to cash out with everyones blessing.

View Comment

broganrogantrevinoandhoganPosted on5:29 am - Apr 7, 2013


Good Morning.

The Green/Whyte situation becomes ever stranger with the latest revelations which I heard for the first time on Radio Scotland around 2pm yesterday– and stranger again now that I have seen the latest edition of the Sun and read the supposed response from Rangers/Green— and those responses are becoming weirder and weirder.

To recap— According to Duff and Phelps, they ( as Administrators of Rangers PLC ) entered into a written binding agreement with Sevco 5088 Ltd on SATURDAY 12 May 2012.

I have not seen that written agreement but am taking the position to be correct from the report provided by D & P and reproduced here by Hursuite Pursuite on Friday night.

As part of the conditions within that agreement, Sevco 5088 Ltd had to pay a non refundable deposit of £200k in return for the period of exclusivity— this is something that is fairly standard when gaining an exclusivity deal like this and so there is nothing untoward about that.

I am guessing now, but such agreements often say that the payment has to be made say within 48 hours of the date when the agreement was signed or something along those lines.

Now what is key here are the dates.

According to the interim accounts of Rangers Iternational Football Club PLC as prepared by Messrs Deloitte, Imran Ahmed provided Sevco 5088 Ltd with £200k on 11th May 2012 in order that it could make the payment in return for the exclusivity period.

Note that the 11th of May was a Friday.

Accordingly– If the agreement with D& P was signed on the Saturday– it is not necessarily unusual for such urgent deals to be worked on over a weekend ( and remember there was a real rush with this )– then at any meeting between the parties and their solicitors on 12th May the solicitors for Sevco 5088 Ltd could legitimately say that they were in funds to the extent of the sum required for the deposit!

However, that does not necessarily mean that the money was paid over to D&P on Friday 11th May and I doubt very much that the money will have been paid on Saturday the 12th either– the payment ( by bank transfer ) is more likely to have been paid in the course of the following business week.

Now, according to the details released by the Sun, Ahmed sent a text to Craig Whyte at 00:30 on Saturday 12th May which provides bank account details for Craig Whyte to make a payment into and which then says “For putting up £200k tonight for Rangers/Sevco deal as……” and then the text runs out.

We can speculate that the end of that text is says ” as agreed” but what is certain is that Ahmed appears to be saying that he personally put up £200k as the deposit sometime late on (tonight) in relation to the exclusivity deal.

The text shows, however, that he appears to be expecting that money back — or at least some of it– from Craig Whyte and here he is providing the details of how Whyte will get it to him.

There are then two texts which may or may not be dated 15th May where Ahmed and Whyte exchange relatively comfortable exchanges ending in Ahmed saying no moneis have as yet been received ( mate ) and Whyte saying that monies were sent the previous day.

On 16th May Ahmed texts again to say that he has now received £137,500.

So Pausing there– at around about the time when the deal is concluded between Sevco 5088 Ltd and D&P a deposit of £200k is paid by Sevco and it appears that Craig Whyte has in fact paid £137,500 towards that sum.

There are no texts produced showing Ahmed saying don’t send any funds, or asking why he has received funds or suggesting that the funds were to be sent back.

Now compare that to the Statements from Green/Rangers who say that when the CVA was refused the whole thing had changed and that “some time later” they received money from Whyte and that they were “astonished” and didn’t know what it was for!!

That explanation is clearly nonsense– in terms of timing and in terms of lack of knowledge.

Also note a comment from Graeme Spiers yesterday when he said that Whyte had not put up a single penny!

It is clear that Whyte did indeed put up a penny — or to be precise 13750000 of them.

If you then go back to the Rangers International Accounts you will see that a few days after Whyte paid in his money Charles Green supposedly made a payment into Sevco 5088 Ltd of £25,000. In other words, Green only paid money in after Whyte appears to have made payment to Ahmed.

So far we can see payments of £137,500 and £25,000 giving you a total of £162,500.

Interestingly, the very same accounts go on to state that on 15th August 2012 ( after the deal to buy the assets of Rangers PLC has gone through and so Green and Co have access to any cash Rangers had in the bank etc ) Charles Green gets repaid his £25,000 and Ahmed is repaid £178,000 of the money that he put up.

Further, Mr Ahmed gets a one off payment of £50,000 in return for having put up the £200k and of the outstanding £22k that appears to be due to him this is then converted into Shares.

So, by 15th August 2012 of all the players involved here Charles Green has parted with £25k and received it all back, Ahmed has parted with £200k and received £228k plus shares and Craig Whyte has parted with £137,500 and received — NIL!

This is very odd– so odd as to be almost unbelievable.

It looks to me as if Ahmed has acted as a bridger here as he has extracted an immediate fee for supplying short term funds.. and he has gained some shares.

What is also unbelievable is the notion that Whyte had to come up with £6m– as £6m would have bought you all the assets hook line and sinker.

Exactly who came up with the rest of the money has always been unclear but lets pause there because a great deal of fuss is being made of the fact that Green appears to be sole shareholder in Sevco 5088 Ltd– yet by that time he was already talking about his consortium— for whom he must have been acting as the frontman– so who was in the consortium?

Who appears to have paid over money to be in the consortium?

Also can I point out that it is very easy to transfer money back to another bank if it has been paid in by transfer because the receiving bank will have details of where it came from and you simply reverse the process.

All very odd…………………

View Comment

broganrogantrevinoandhoganPosted on5:42 am - Apr 7, 2013


http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/sfl-division-three/richard-bath-green-to-fight-whyte-rangers-fantasy-1-2881658?

View Comment

neepheidPosted on7:35 am - Apr 7, 2013


http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/sfl-division-three/richard-bath-green-to-fight-whyte-rangers-fantasy-1-2881658?

Richard Bath in the Scotsman:

As far back as 1999, we hacks were all scratching our heads at Rangers’ profligacy and a signing policy that seemed hopelessly spendthrift. Indeed, even the most cursory inspection of their annual accounts back then revealed that they were only technically solvent because of a valuation of Ibrox that was so stratospheric as to defy belief. Seriously, how was a listed building in a post-industrial part of town with no shortage of brownfield sites ever valued at the thick end of £100m?

If we scribblers could see that this was a nonsense, and that Rangers were hurtling down a financially unsustainable path, then why couldn’t the SFA and the SPL?

=====================
All that head scratching by the “hacks” did not result in much scribbling, did it? Or perhaps old age has erased my memories of all that ground breaking investigative journalism into the Ibrox scandal produced by the Scottish MSM between 1999 and 2011?

Our Scottish “scrribblers” appear to come equipped with brass neck of a standard only matched by Charles Green himself. But this article must surely win a prize at the annual journalistic awards in the “Most breathtaking piece of hypocrisy” category.

View Comment

liveinhopPosted on7:36 am - Apr 7, 2013


Posted Image

terrible

View Comment

TartawulverPosted on7:42 am - Apr 7, 2013


Richard Bath in the Scotsman says Whyte didn’t put a penny of his own money into Rangers – I thought even Green accepts that he paid up £137,500?

Bath also says “If we scribblers could see that this was a nonsense, and that Rangers were hurtling down a financially unsustainable path, then why couldn’t the SFA and the SPL? This, of course, must be the blazers’ worst nightmare…along comes a messy court case to remind us of their dithering and complicity.” I hope that Bath and the Scotsman therefore have a library of articles they can point to that shows that they used this knowledge at the time, and this is not just hindsight talking, which would be a cowardly rewriting of history. And while the SFA and SPL may be guilty of being out of their depth, wasn’t David Murray rather more blameworthy? Yet even now the Scotsman prefer to single out other targets for blame.

And as for that odious, racist-lite article from the Sun, sniggering behind its hand as it tries to say as many racist words as it can get away with – nauseating.

View Comment

liveinhopPosted on7:47 am - Apr 7, 2013


“That is something that I’ve found truly amazing and hugely surprising to find this divide in Scotland. It is a completely new concept to me.

Said Charles Green in an old Orange Rangers shirt

View Comment

AllyJamboPosted on7:51 am - Apr 7, 2013


paulmac2 says:

Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 03:08

“I’ve had chairmen come to me and say: ‘Mr Green, my local pub came and gave the club a cheque for £1,000 because when Rangers turned up he had record takings. More than on Christmas Eve’

______________

Who is that chairman, we have a right to know!

View Comment

helpmaboabPosted on8:12 am - Apr 7, 2013


Craig Burley writing in the Sunday Mail.” punishing Rangers last summer was a must but getting them into the top tier within 12 months was also an imperative”.This nonentity describes men like Raith’s Turnbull Hutton and Alloa’s Mike Mulraney who opposed this leg up as moral Muppets and farmers.If Burley thinks using language like this and attempting to demean these men will win him admirers then he is sadly mistaken.He and his like are intellectual pygmys by comparison.

View Comment

Long Time LurkerPosted on8:22 am - Apr 7, 2013


Three major events seem to be running in parallel.

First – Sevco appear to be burning cash at a rapid rate and there are indications that they are struggling to pay some of their bills.

Second – The comments from Mr Whyte and Green suggest that there may have been a conspiracy to defraud the creditors.

Third – Mr Green appears to be thinking about an exit strategy – his comments about the quality of the team etc. look as though he is looking to get fired as CEO of the club.

If BDO are concerned over the sale of the Club and they have evidence to support any concern – do they have to act fast? What if (and perhaps its a big if) TRFC run out of cash before BDO can move to seize control of the assets of the Club?

Third – if Mr Green is forced to leave could this trigger a (clean) sale of the assets of the Club to the “real” Rangers men – a team playing in Division 2, with no debt?

Now, more then ever vigilance is required.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on8:25 am - Apr 7, 2013


Scotsman article
————————————————————————–

Have read it and the thing that impresses me most is the nature of the highly-informed comments made in a calm manner which makes it so hard to dismiss them

I hope Richard Bath and the Scotsman editorial team and management look at those comments and perhaps come to the realisation that if they had acted responsibly before during this debacle and exposed the obvious failings, not just of those connected with Rangers but also the SFA, SPL, SFL and various elements of the Scottish establishment, then Scottish Footbal by now could have been well on the ay to recovery.

But The Scotsman, like most of the SMSM failed in their duty to bring truth to their readers, and they too are going down the plughole just like Rangers is likely to do again. The papers have been totally discredited over the biggest and longest-running unreported story in Scotland and I truly believe a lot of the circulation drops stem from that cowardice.

Instead fans seeking knowledge turned to the internet and if there truly is something that sites like this can justly take pride in it’s the quality of comment to Richard Bath’s article today. Sometimes it’s hard grinding away when we seem to be ignored and derided for attempting to tell the truth but it’s clear we are getting through to the people that matter and they are the ones, in the long run, who will prevail.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on8:34 am - Apr 7, 2013


myohmy1 says:
Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 08:12

Craig Burley:
—————————————————————————————
Whoever ‘ghosted’ Burley’s copy would have been following a directive which is as old as the hills. The Record has a pop at Rangers on Saturday and the Sunday Mail redresses on the Sunday.

Sadly this is only to do with retaining circulation and trying to keep a ‘balance’ – However the Record and Sunday Mail are also heading down the circulation plughole as they too have manifestly failed to recognise that times have changed and they no longer have a captive audience kept in ignorance because they could never understand the Big Picture according to the ‘experts’ at the papers.

View Comment

Forres Dee (@ForresDee)Posted on8:57 am - Apr 7, 2013


As much as I am enjoying the current shenanigans from Ibrox way, I can’t help but think that this is all simply a distraction and misdirection.

While we avidly watch the right hand, what is the left hand doing?

View Comment

torrejohnbhoyPosted on8:57 am - Apr 7, 2013


FWIW I think Charlie’s deliberately making his own position untenable.
He’s made good money,£7k pw + expenses and has surely collected his £370k bonus for winning TRFCs 1st title.
He knows audited accounts will soon be due and the 6 months tie in for some “institutional” investors will end in a few weeks.
If he can get himself resigned by mutual consent then I assume he would be free to sell his shares.Even selling at a discount of approaching 50% would see him walking away with the thick end of £2m.Including wages,bonuses etc,he’ll have made circa £2.5m in a year.
He knows TRFC cannot return to profit for years,if ever.
He knows more and more fans are starting to ask questions.
He knows he’ll be held responsible when thing go belly-up.
He knows the money well is running dry,for him,anyway.
more importantly:

He knows when to get out(good spivs do).

He cares not a jot about the carnage he’ll leave behind.Probably a bankrupt club,struggling along from week to week,maybe paying rent to play in a stadium it owned just a few months before.A club crying for help from “Rangers Minded” people because without major investment they’ll never be in a position to seriously challenge for the 1 CL place afforded to Scotland.Living within their means will slow their progress and the fans will eventually walk away.Unless,of course,a genuine group of businessmen come in and build from the bottom up,spend only what they can afford and grow the club over the medium to long term.
Problem is,will the fans be happy knowing second best will be as good as it gets,probably for a decade or more?.
If they start walking away,the whole thing crumbles.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on9:00 am - Apr 7, 2013


http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/4876675/Show-me-the-mummy.html

This story is dynamite and the most damaging so far – I honestly can’t see how the SFA and the AIM Regulation Department can ignore this.

The newspaper clearly shows that deals were going on between Imran Ahmad and Whyte with money paid ionto Imran’s Mums bank account to hide the fact they were dealing with CW. And the money was to pay the exclusivity fee for D&P to be able to buy Rangers. This truly is the nuclear option.

CW the man who was banned for ever from Scottish Football no wonder his involvement had to be hidden. Surely even the Bears must realise what is going on here.

View Comment

scottcPosted on9:03 am - Apr 7, 2013


As regards Doctors and Physiotherapists national club licencing rules are here

(http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/ClubLicensing/Part2:National/Part%202%20Section%206%20-%20First%20Team%20Football%20Criteria(2).pdf )

I would imagine that Rangers will be at the Gold level due to their facilities but they may only be silver. The relevant sections are 6.8 and 6.9

View Comment

dreddybhoyPosted on9:08 am - Apr 7, 2013


BRTH

Is it not the case that Green is the only Director of Sevco 5088 and that it has been implied that Whyte is a major shareholder.

How would they have morphed an English company into a Scottish Football Club

The players of this farce being who they are I wonder if what is coming out now is being portrayed as something it is not

Smoke and mirrors?

View Comment

torrejohnbhoyPosted on9:18 am - Apr 7, 2013


Long Time Lurker says:
Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 08:22

Three major events seem to be running in parallel.

First – Sevco appear to be burning cash at a rapid rate and there are indications that they are struggling to pay some of their bills.

Second – The comments from Mr Whyte and Green suggest that there may have been a conspiracy to defraud the creditors.

Third – Mr Green appears to be thinking about an exit strategy – his comments about the quality of the team etc. look as though he is looking to get fired as CEO of the club.

If BDO are concerned over the sale of the Club and they have evidence to support any concern – do they have to act fast? What if (and perhaps its a big if) TRFC run out of cash before BDO can move to seize control of the assets of the Club?

Third – if Mr Green is forced to leave could this trigger a (clean) sale of the assets of the Club to the “real” Rangers men – a team playing in Division 2, with no debt?

Now, more then ever vigilance is required.
=============================================
Agree with everything you say,
The problem however would still be the financing of TRFC in div 2.
this business has costs approaching £30m pa,with income lucky to reach half of that,Allowing for a 25% increase in income that still leaves a potential loss of circa £8-10m next season.Removing Sandaza,Alexander,the physio and the stadium announcer hardly puts a dent in that figure,whilst Ally’s on record as wanting at least 10 more players next season as his squad is too small.
What I’m trying to say is that without major cost cutting,and if half the non playing staff were laid off,savings would only be a couple of million,not enough to break even.Messrs,Ng,Miller and even Davie King all stated that around £30m would be needed just to get TRFC to the top division.Add this seasons loss to the next 2 and they won’t be far away.
There problem isn’t starting debt free in div 2.Their problem is remaining debt free permanently.

View Comment

torrejohnbhoyPosted on9:33 am - Apr 7, 2013


dreddybhoy says:
Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 09:08

BRTH

Is it not the case that Green is the only Director of Sevco 5088 and that it has been implied that Whyte is a major shareholder.

How would they have morphed an English company into a Scottish Football Club

The players of this farce being who they are I wonder if what is coming out now is being portrayed as something it is not

Smoke and mirrors?
===========================================
If I recall correctly,Green set up Sevco Scotland on the premise that to gain a licence to play in Scotland you had to be registered here.I’m sure he also stated that this involved the transfer of “certain” assets from Sevco 5088 to Sevco Scotland.
I speculated at the time,maybe wrongly,that only the football assets,ie,the players etc were transferred,whilst the tangible assets of Ibrox,Murray Park etc were left with Sevco 5088.
now I don’t know much about company law so apologies if this theory doesn’t make sense:
Green left the properties in Sevco 5088
Green,as sole director tried,last December to liquidate Sevco 5088.
would that have allowed him to walk away with the properties?
The liquidation was blocked.By whom,we don’t know.the popular theories are BDO or Whyte.
After this weekends revelations,is it possible that Whyte blocked the liquidation of Sevco 5088 to stop Green walking away with everything?.

View Comment

Lord WobblyPosted on9:41 am - Apr 7, 2013


What follows are genuine words formed into actual sentences, apparently by a genuine “scribbler”:

‘As far back as 1999, we hacks were all scratching our heads at Rangers’ profligacy and a signing policy that seemed hopelessly spendthrift.
Indeed, even the most cursory inspection of their annual accounts back then revealed that they were only technically solvent because of a valuation of Ibrox that was so stratospheric as to defy belief. Seriously, how was a listed building in a post-industrial part of town with no shortage of brownfield sites ever valued at the thick end of £100m?
If we scribblers could see that this was a nonsense, and that Rangers were hurtling down a financially unsustainable path, then why couldn’t the SFA and the SPL?’

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/sfl-division-three/richard-bath-green-to-fight-whyte-rangers-fantasy-1-2881658

It’s clearly not only Whyte who lives in a fantasy world.

View Comment

liveinhopPosted on9:45 am - Apr 7, 2013


MIH + EBT + HMRC = FTTT + CW + PAYE + NI = D&P + CG + BDO = 0

View Comment

gazpopsPosted on9:46 am - Apr 7, 2013


I actually feel sorry for the Rangers fans who have some expectation of dignity and decorum from their team. This kind of behaviour and language from Green is crass and tawdry and unbecoming of someone in his position. The fact that he isnt mindful of the clubs internal ‘traditions’ should be a major warning to their fans.

Like them or lump them, the CEO of Rangers should be one of the leading voices in our game. The vulgar picture of sewer-level business deals and archaic thinking over the last few days is demeaning to the whole of Scottish Football.

View Comment

coineanachantaighePosted on9:49 am - Apr 7, 2013


myohmy1 says:
Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 08:12

Craig Burley writing in the Sunday Mail.” punishing Rangers last summer was a must but getting them into the top tier within 12 months was also an imperative”.This nonentity describes men like Raith’s Turnbull Hutton and Alloa’s Mike Mulraney who opposed this leg up as moral Muppets and farmers.If Burley thinks using language like this and attempting to demean these men will win him admirers then he is sadly mistaken.He and his like are intellectual pygmys by comparison.
============================================

“by comparison”??

View Comment

SquigglePosted on9:54 am - Apr 7, 2013


paulmac2 says:

Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 03:03

12

0

Rate This

Quantcast
ekt1m says:
Saturday, April 6, 2013 at 20:50
……………………………………

Correct..here is the text as taken from FIFA…

MEDICAL DOCTOR AND PHYSIOTHERAPIST

The licence applicant MUST have appointed at least one Doctor and one Physiotherapist responsible for providing medical support and advice to the first squad as well as doping prevention policy. He must ensure medical support during matches and training.

The Doctor must be recognised and certified by the appropriate national health authority and be duly registered with the member association or league.
——————————–

The above MUST be in place to receive a licence…any change to this and the club must inform the governing bodies…they cannot be granted a licence for next season without one in place.

Will be interesting to see who runs onto the pitch at their next game…Ally with a bucket of cauld water and a sponge…
————————————————————————————-

Re. the physio/ doctor thing – is one of the new shareholders Craig Mather, can he not help with this.

View Comment

torrejohnbhoyPosted on9:56 am - Apr 7, 2013


monsieurbunny says:
Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 09:49

myohmy1 says:
Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 08:12
=========================================================

“Craig Burley writing”

Surely an oxymoron!

View Comment

TartawulverPosted on10:12 am - Apr 7, 2013


torrejohnbhoy says:
Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 09:33
…I don’t know much about company law so apologies if this theory doesn’t make sense:
Green left the properties in Sevco 5088
Green,as sole director tried,last December to liquidate Sevco 5088.
would that have allowed him to walk away with the properties?
The liquidation was blocked.By whom,we don’t know.the popular theories are BDO or Whyte.
After this weekends revelations,is it possible that Whyte blocked the liquidation of Sevco 5088 to stop Green walking away with everything?.
————————————————————–
Okay you ‘scribblers’ of the press – last year you said in mitigation that you were only football writers and didn’t know about finance. It was pointed out to you that you could have gone and worked together someone who did have the required knowledge, and made sure that the right questions were asked. Is there a wider interest? Well, the collapse of HBOS is current news, MIH have just been in the news with their latest financial figures too. Plus, the Rangers situation is having a marked and detrimental effect on the entire Scottish football game at present.

New questions are BEGGING to be asked, starting with what is Charles Green’s current relationship with Sevco 5088, is Whyte a shareholder…and take it from there.

Ask the questions, write the stories – NOW. Not in hindsight.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on10:40 am - Apr 7, 2013


TW (@tartanwulver) says:
Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 10:12

New questions are BEGGING to be asked, starting with what is Charles Green’s current relationship with Sevco 5088, is Whyte a shareholder…and take it from there.

Ask the questions, write the stories – NOW. Not in hindsight.
========================================================

Richard Bath in today’s Scotland on Sunday claims ‘ordinary hacks’ could see where Rangers finances were heading in 1999. Strange how 99% at that time wrote nothing but gushing praise about Rangers in general, and Murray in particular. The intensity of their praise was matched only by the same level of intensity as they derided Celtic on a regular basis.

There is still something completely rotten in Scotland in that any Rangers owner is viewed as a man of dignity and integrity, while Celtic owners are seen as scheming and untrustworthy. Let us not forget Craig Whyte was initially indulged by the media, even though his track record was there for all to see. If Celtic had an owner who behaved as Charles Green did, the media would simply run him out of town.

View Comment

helpmaboabPosted on10:42 am - Apr 7, 2013


Torrejohnbhoy
Not sure about the ‘oxy’ bit

View Comment

pau1mart1nPosted on10:44 am - Apr 7, 2013


whatever happened to malcolm murray ?
must be time for his thoughts ??
so many murray’s it must be confusing for the journos i suppose.

View Comment

paulmac2Posted on10:55 am - Apr 7, 2013


Andy says:
Saturday, April 6, 2013 at 21:43
33 1 Rate This
valentinesclown says:
Saturday, April 6, 2013 at 18:54
37 1 Rate This
I have just had the misfortune to listen to Chris Graham on BBC sportsound.
He had free reign as the panel was Graham Spiers and Tom English.

He spouted that Celtic basically run the SFA. Silence from panel.

Rangers are same club mentioned about 5 times. He based this on ECA sending SFA a letter to confirm Rangers status. According to Mr Graham SFA stated that they were the same club with all their history.
_______________
i wonder who it was that the ECA spoke to at the SFA regarding T’Rangers

surely it could not have been ex Rangers Director Mr Ogilvie ?
………………………………………………..

It was Charles Green who provided the ECA with his opinion on their status….

View Comment

bad capt madmanPosted on11:00 am - Apr 7, 2013


Fit and proper person

Am i right in thinking that if the SFA rule that someone isnt a fit and proper person, then that person can’t be involved in the running of a football club, but what does that actually mean?
He/she can’t hold a management / formal position in the club? Company running the club? Ok, but what if they are a significant shareholder of the company or some direct or indirect “holding company” ?(ok, but it was them that brought THAT up!) and who can influence the directors/board/office bearer? What level of shareholding is allowed? Is any allowed?
What forces the selling of shares in these circumstances? Can they sell to just anyone? their mum? Who checks? How do they know? Given the very complicated financial tangles used to disguise funding between companies we have seen, how far distant does this influence have to be / go to be allowed? (Wait! I know this one, its the nominees in the BVI! Isnt it? Thats allowed.)

If the shares / positions aren’t given up and the person doesnt remove themselves or aren’t removed, what then happens? What is the process? What are the consequences? I assume that due process gives the unfit person / organisation time to act but then what? …licence withdrawn etc? How long does that take? Is this purely a football matter or will courts be involved?

So what are the SFA to make of these interesting current allegations?

CW is stating that in effect he is still involved in the company, was involved in the company, or should be involved in the comapny, that gave birth to TRFC after he was declared unfit and improper. CG is admitting that for a period of time he worked with an unfit and improper person to form a Sevco / TRFC and run it for a period of time.

Some investigation required eh? Mr Lunny? How about the Scunner Campbell? Will anyone do their jobs? Or can I phone in and ask for an investigation? Has CW paid his fine yet? Has CG said anything lately that warrants a look given he is on some kind of suspended warning or something? (Did I make that up or was that the actual result of something way back?)

Even if most of the allegations turn out to be untrue, then fit and proper questions still remain as to how deeds were done and what was or was not told earlier to the SFA and other authorities.

….or maybe they did know? Only an open and transparent investigation would lay that particular question to rest. But this is Scottish football and the establishment club we are taking about, rats.

Reading this back, i’m afraid to admit that the talking to myself and answering myself back bits are a bit too much like Gollum for my liking….Collum! Collum!

View Comment

barcabhoyPosted on11:17 am - Apr 7, 2013


This is a little complex , but bear with me. If you want to be spared the detail, then just scroll straight to the bottom for my summary

The information below is taken directly from the CVA proposal presented to the Court of session on May 29 2012

“CVA Trading Costs” means the costs, expenses and fees payable as an expense of the Administration (but shall not include the Joint Administrators remuneration or the Supervisors‘ Remuneration) in the period from 6 June 2012 to the earlier of: (1) the draw down of the Sevco Loan; or (2) the completion of the purchase of the business and assets of the Company by Sevco.

Offer of Loan to Company
4.17 Following the extensive marketing of the Company and the extensive sale process, an offer was made by Sevco 5088 Limited (―Sevco‖) to make a loan on certain terms (explained below) in conjunction with the purchase by Sevco of the Group Shares.
4.18 Having considered the offer from Sevco and compared it to other offers received for the Company / business and assets, the Joint Administrators determined that the Sevco offer was preferable because it:
secures the best available return to creditors of the Company; and
proposes a CVA in respect of the Company, the benefits of which are outlined in paragraph 2.10.
4.19 Consequently, on 12 May 2012, the Joint Administrators agreed and signed an offer letter with Sevco (―the Offer Letter‖) and granted Sevco exclusivity to complete a takeover of the Company or a purchase of the Company‘s business and assets by 30 July 2012. Sevco made a payment of £200,000 to the Company for such exclusivity.
4.20 The Offer Letter is confidential between Sevco and the Company, but the principal terms are as follows:
4.20.1 In addition to the £200,000 referred to in Paragraph 4.19, Sevco agrees to advance to the Company the sum of £8,300,000;
4.20.2 £8,300,000 will be available for draw down by the Company no later than 31 July 2012, but only once certain conditions (the ―Conditions‖) are satisfied;
4.20.3 The Company will repay the Loan together with interest on it on or before 31 December 2020; and
4.20.4 The loan will, subject to the laws of Scotland, be secured by standard securities and a floating charge over the assets and undertaking of the Company.
4.21 From 6 June 2012, Charles Green will be appointed to assist in the day-to-day management of the business of the Company (at no cost to the Company or the Joint Administrators), in order to manage the ongoing trading costs of the Company and allow for a smooth transition in ownership.”

In short summary Sevco 5088 have paid £200,000 for the right to buy the business, in addition to providing a loan of £8.3 million , subject to a successful CVA

Next, what happens if CVA fails

4.22.4 Sevco acquiring the Group Shares (Sevco holds an irrevocable written undertaking from Group to sell the Group Shares to Sevco for £1, conditional upon approval by the creditors and members of the Company of a CVA);
4.22.5 the Takeover Panel confirming that Sevco shall not be required to make any offer for any share capital other than the Group Shares, under Rule 9 of the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers notwithstanding the acquisition of the Group Shares; and
4.22.6 all consents or other requirements of the SPL and SFA having been obtained or complied with so that Rangers Football Club can continue to participate in such domestic leagues and competitions as it currently participates in.
4.23 In the event that either this CVA is not approved, or the other Conditions of the loan are not satisfied or waived by 23 July 2012, Sevco is contractually obliged to purchase the business and assets of the Company for £5,500,000 by 30 July 2012. All further terms of that sale have been agreed in advance and are confidential.”

So irrevocable undertaking to acquire Whyte’s shares and a contractual obligation by Sevco 5088 to purchase business and assets for £5.5 million if CVA fails

“6.1.6 irrevocably assign to the Supervisors all the rights of the Company to receive monies from Sevco (or its successors) under the Offer Letter and the right to proceed against Sevco (whether by claim form, winding up proceedings or otherwise) in respect of any breach by Sevco of the Offer Letter; ”

(Or its successors) That’s an interesting addition. Especially when you consider the date of the application to the court of session was 29/5/2012 and the date Sevco Scotland was formed was 29/5/2012

“Failure of the CVA
7.4 Any of the following events (which are not exhaustive) will entitle the Supervisors, at their sole discretion, to issue a Failure Certificate:
7.4.1 any failure by Sevco to make the payments in full as set out in paragraphs 4.20.2 and 4.20.3 the Offer Letter by their due date;
7.4.2 any failure by Sevco to reasonably assist with the setting up of the Account;
7.4.3 any failure by Sevco to comply with its obligations under paragraphs 5.15 and/or 5.16 herein.
7.5 In the event that the Supervisors issue a Failure Certificate, then the Joint Administrators will sell the Company‘s business and assets in accordance with the terms of the Offer Letter and agreed contract.”

So, in order to rescind the contract between Sevco 5088 and Duff and Phelps, a failure certificate needed to be issued. Was it ? To my knowledge no such certificate was ever issued, or has been made public. Given the absolutely crucial nature of a preferred bidder failing in his obligations, and the impact on creditors , this should have been a very large and public red flag. Changing horses to a new and completely unrelated company (Sevco Scotland) should also have been publicly red flagged

Fast forward a mere 5 weeks to July 10 2012.

This is taken directly from the Duff and Phelps interim report in defining the purchaser of the assets

“Sevco Scotland Limited of Ibrox Stadium, Glasgow G51 2XD (Company number SC425159)

4.1 The Club continued to trade under the control of the Joint Administrators up to the date of the sale of the business and assets of the Company to Sevco on 14 June 2012.

Offer 6 – Sevco
5.38 Consideration of £8.25m on successful implementation of a CVA contingent upon Champions League participation during the next three seasons. Should the CVA fail, a binding agreement to purchase the business, history and assets of the Club for £5.5m using a newly incorporated company. Trading the Club whilst a CVA was proposed was to be funded utilising future revenue and football debtor monies, as appropriate.”

So Duff and Phelps decide AFTER the event to inform creditors that a ” newly incorporated company” would purchase the assets in the event a CVA failed. They made no mention of this whatsoever on May 29th when they informed the creditors Sevco 5088 was the successful preferred bidder.

The question is should they have issued the failure certificate on Sevco 5088, should they have sought court permission to do a deal with a completely different company to the one they told the court they were doing a deal with on May 29.

They did neither of these , which logically leads everyone to believe Sevco Scotland is a successor to Sevco 5088.

Charles Green and Imran Ahmad it appears have already publicly confirmed Whyte controlled Sevco 5088. This to my mind makes a number of areas potentially illegal.

The sale of assets

The IPO

The final creditors report

The issuance of an SFA licence

Associate membership of the SFL

View Comment

FIFAPosted on11:29 am - Apr 7, 2013


You really thought that it couldnt get any worse ,week after week ,month after month ,the press in Scotland fail to get on top of a story that is clearly the biggest scandal in Scottish news reporting history,these people obvisouly dont think about their future and will be lepers to future society,gutter press has moved up a notch and this lot now have clear ownership of the bottom rung,can I give the editors of these rags a bit of advice ,if your hacks cant report what is actualy happening out there ,dont report at all,are these hacks allowed to share an office with other reporters [finance,etc] if so ,surely they must say something to them ,if not why not ,can anyone come up with a collective for this bunch of ,eh Lepers

View Comment

scottcPosted on11:29 am - Apr 7, 2013


Captain Haddock, I believe the problem the football authorities have when it comes to making up rules about who can control a football club/company is that they have NO authority over the stock market and publicly traded shares. If the shares are available to be bought, no football authority can legally say who can and cannot buy them; same goes for holding a controlling interest in more than one club. They COULD withdraw licences to play, but then they might get hit with restraint of trade suits.

More and more, the football authorities in Europe are coming into conflict with European law in all sorts of ways

View Comment

AllyJamboPosted on11:34 am - Apr 7, 2013


It is the lack of the demand for truth, and the ready acceptance of anyone who appears to have money to pump into a team that represents Rangers, that is so damning of the SFA, the SPL, the SFL and the Scottish MSM.

View Comment

briggsbhoyPosted on11:38 am - Apr 7, 2013


It would be intresting to hear comment on recent revalations from Mr Miller, Kennedy etc.

View Comment

paulmac2Posted on11:45 am - Apr 7, 2013


I have emailed FIFA on guidance and clirification…lets see what comes back

View Comment

paulmac2Posted on11:49 am - Apr 7, 2013


scottc says:
Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 11:29
……………………………………

Yes you can control who owns a club…otherwise there is nothing to stop the same man or woman from owning every club in the top division..regardless of their background..

The fit and proper test is supposed to assist in who you allow to control or run a professional football club..

View Comment

AllyJamboPosted on11:51 am - Apr 7, 2013


So, according to Stephen Craigan, in the Hampden pre-match build up, Craig Whyte wants to take-over Rangers, and because he’s banned, he won’t be going ahead with his lawsuit against Green & co and, therefore, there’s nothing to worry about. As far as I can make out, Whyte only wants money (which is all he’s ever wanted) he claims is rightfully his, and the SFA can do nothing about that. The fans can be forgiven their ignorance, I suppose, as most appeared unlikely to know how to switch a computer on, let alone read blogs like this 😉 One even thought that Charlie must be a great guy because he’s a fellow Yorkshireman, t’orange scarf and all!

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on11:56 am - Apr 7, 2013


Having read The Scotsman article my feeling is like that of a castaway when a rescue ship finally turns uo. Not “what kept you?” but “thank goodness you are here.”

Perhaps its because I’ve used the term this all happened on the SFA’s watch before, perhaps its because the author is repeating some of the points I made at

http://scottishfootballmonitor.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/fair-play-at-fifa/#comments

but the latest revelations are creating the environment where Richard Bath can write the kind of article that was impossible in the last 12 years. Lets hope other journos follow him.

View Comment

cmontheshirePosted on11:56 am - Apr 7, 2013


It is good to see how greatly re-invigorated the blog has become over the last few days. Always grateful for the excellently forensic ruminations of the legal and financial contributors, since they offer so much for us all to mull over.

All of these thoughts, opinions and knowledge should be getting sucked up and served on the UTT table………..just to dispel any lingering doubts that the whole scam was setup by spivs who lacked any vestige of conscience or moral compass.

View Comment

SeniorPosted on11:56 am - Apr 7, 2013


Was it Green or Whyte who wore the orange strip.
Definitely, one could not make it up – could one!

View Comment

paulmac2Posted on11:59 am - Apr 7, 2013


It is quite simple…you either prove an individual who is banned has no involvement in your club at any level…or if said individual is involved you must remove them either by purchasing their involvement or dissolving their involvement..

View Comment

Long Time LurkerPosted on12:00 pm - Apr 7, 2013


barcabhoy says:
Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 11:17

Regarding the potential legality of the: sale of assets; IPO; final creditors report; and associate membership of the SFL – what next?

I think that the current reporting in the MSM MUST now rapidly move on from the Green vs Whyte focus, to a focuses discussions on the wrongs that may have been committed, in the financial and corporate governance aspects.

Barcabhoy – you raise critical issues re the potential legality of the sale of the assets etc. And it does look as if there is more to come on this story.

Celtic Underground ‏@celticrumours 43m
Guess who had a £250k pa contract (signed btw) to run sevco 5088 with 10% of annual profits as a bonus? And guess who still has a copy?

Again, its great to see this level of reporting on the Internet. However, for me the reach of the reporting of the story must move up a gear: we cannot afford for the real issues to be explored almost exclusively within cyberspace. If the MSM keep this at the red-tops level, over time the story will simply go away and we will be presented with the usual “nothing to see here” cr@p from the authorities.

I believe that the SFA will only act if their hand is forced. I do not think their hand will be forced in the short term by the MSM. I will be interested to see of the AIM take any steps tomorrow to suspend the shares of Rangers International Football Club plc. That would move the story on nicely to another level.

In the meantime, we need more investigative journalism on our side. Looking at the recent tweets from Alex Tomo – I appears that his involvement in the story is all but over.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on12:08 pm - Apr 7, 2013


valentinesclown says:
Saturday, April 6, 2013 at 18:54
37 1 Rate This
I have just had the misfortune to listen to Chris Graham on BBC sportsound.
He had free reign as the panel was Graham Spiers and Tom English.

He spouted that Celtic basically run the SFA. Silence from panel.

Rangers are same club mentioned about 5 times. He based this on ECA sending SFA a letter to confirm Rangers status. According to Mr Graham SFA stated that they were the same club with all their history.
_______________
i wonder who it was that the ECA spoke to at the SFA regarding T’Rangers

surely it could not have been ex Rangers Director Mr Ogilvie ?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I listened to him yesterday and he fails to understand the difference between licence and membership.

A club licence cannot be transferred in terms of UEFA licencing standards.

Graham was keen to use the ECA acceptance of what the SFA told the ECA but the SFA did not say a licence was transfered and the ECA are not afootball authority, so he is misleading himself and the listeners.

Uefa who are a football authority overeaching the SFA are quite clear that a club licence cannot be transferred. I’ve posted relevant section before that even covers a corporate change being a bar to a licence transfer.

The SFA rules on membership are a lot less prescriptive and The SFA can allow a club a membership that is allowed into a league but then it is circular- get into a league and become a member.

Somehow the SFA must have granted a licence but no transfer took place.

The reason SFA are happy to keep the myth going is as much to enable them to get monies from the club as help their tickets sales but apart from that The Rangers are treated as a new club for example playing in an earlier round of the Scottish.

The matter is simple. In order to avoid debts owed or thought to be owed Rangers went out of business. If The Rangers wish to be recognised as Rangers pay the debt dodged and remove the advantage gained over its competitor clubs by so doing.

Article 12 – Definition of licence applicant

1 A licence applicant may only be a football club, i.e. a legal entity fully responsible
for a football team participating in national and international competitions which
either:
a) is a registered member of a UEFA member association and/or its affiliated
league (hereinafter: registered member); or
b) has a contractual relationship with a registered member (hereinafter: football
company).
2 The membership and the contractual relationship (if any) must have lasted – at
the start of the licence season – for at least three consecutive years. Any
alteration to the club’s legal form or company structure (including, for example,
changing its headquarters, name or club colours, or transferring stakeholdings
between different clubs) during this period in order to facilitate its qualification on
sporting merit and/or its receipt of a licence to the detriment of the integrity of a
competition is deemed as an interruption of membership or contractual
relationship (if any) within the meaning of this provision.

Article 14.
1 Clubs which qualify for the UEFA club competitions on sporting merit or through
the UEFA fair play rankings must obtain a licence issued by their licensor
according to the national licensing regulations, except where Article 15 applies.
2 A licence expires without prior notice at the end of the season for which it was
issued.
3 A licence cannot be transferred.<++==================

View Comment

angus1983Posted on12:12 pm - Apr 7, 2013


The match report in SoS today of yesterday’s Celtic game tells of banners showing Mr Whyte being passed around the stadium alongside constant singing of his “Fenian Army”.

This during a game where Celtic could have won the League.

I honestly can only imagine one other stadium where behaviour so irrelevant to the game in progress might have been so gleefully on display.

Dignified? Banter? Schadenfreude? Obsession?

View Comment

billyj1Posted on12:15 pm - Apr 7, 2013


Take it Mr McCoist will now be cited having been caught on camera in the 9th minute clearly shouting “f…ing terrible” at the referee.

View Comment

broadswordcallingdannybhoyPosted on12:19 pm - Apr 7, 2013


greatscot161 says:
Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 00:12
————————————————————–
I agree the team playing at Ibrox is a new club.
If I started supporting Clyde instead of Celtic and they played the new club, then ‘our’ clubs would have played each other again.

I posted this yesterday on KDS in a thread about last nights RS broadcast:

This same club nonsense is basically a company’s PR aimed at it’s customer base.
I really have no problem with it, I know it’s gash and carries as much weight as any
other advertising campaign.
8 out of 10 zombies prefer it.

My problem is the BBC’s compliance in spreading it.
It’s sinister and tells us a lot about the b*g*tedest wee country in the world.

It’s pub argument/online forum fodder and nothing more.

Hope that clears things up.

View Comment

smartbhoyPosted on12:27 pm - Apr 7, 2013


9m 33secs into the Sevco match and McCoist is caught on ESPN swearing at the ref…. Lunny are you watching?!?!?!?!?!?

View Comment

FIFAPosted on12:32 pm - Apr 7, 2013


Not watching said game ,but does a member of the public have to report this to Mr Lunny for him to act,only asking as I am off on holiday for the next few days and would gladly hand a copy into his office if someone can provide one ,I am that type of guy ,willing to help out.

View Comment

Long Time LurkerPosted on12:34 pm - Apr 7, 2013


liveinhop says:
Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 09:45

MIH + EBT + HMRC = FTTT + CW + PAYE + NI = D&P + CG + BDO = 0

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

If only Rhebel Rhebel could turn that equation into a t-shirt – copyright acknowledged of course 🙂

View Comment

broadswordcallingdannybhoyPosted on12:34 pm - Apr 7, 2013


angus1983 says:
Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 12:12
========================================
I think it’s called humour.
I know that because it made me laugh, I bet even Chris Mc was chortling inside, but as the images prove, he was much too professional to show it.
The humour was taken a step further on KDS when one wag suggested that when Pat Bonnar was helping to pass it along, he dropped it. Oh my sides!!

We may even call it Humourous Freedom of expression having a dig at Celtic’s erstwhile rivals.
All part of the great spectacle that is football.

View Comment

AllyJamboPosted on12:41 pm - Apr 7, 2013


I think it’s time that Charles Green was called to Hampden to be told that unless he can produce documentary evidence of the names of all the original members of his consortium, and the names of all the major shareholders, including those hiding behind nominees, he will find his associate membership revoked. He should also be told that, if he can’t prove that he wasn’t, in any way, linked to Craig Whyte, at any time, then the membership will be revoked before the start of the new season. If it’s necessary for Green to take Whyte to court, if Whyte doesn’t beat him to it, to prove his case, then so be it. Pressure has to be put on Green to tell the truth, for he has given everyone concerned plenty of evidence that he is a stranger to it, otherwise the SFA will only know the truth once it’s too late – just like the MSM, so wise about Murray and Whyte, now it’s too late

View Comment

briggsbhoyPosted on12:42 pm - Apr 7, 2013


Whilst it wasn’t particulary audible I was able to lip read, did Ally swear ?

View Comment

theoldcoursePosted on12:50 pm - Apr 7, 2013


Angus1983, I was at said game yesterday and saw no banner of Craig Whyte being passed around the stadium. As far as I could see, given the shock of red hair on said banner it was more than likely Neil Lennon.

View Comment

Palacio67Posted on12:59 pm - Apr 7, 2013


briggsbhoy says:
Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 12:42
1 0 Rate This
Whilst it wasn’t particulary audible I was able to lip read, did Ally swear ?

—————————

“F@cking Terrible”, Ally did say.

View Comment

Madbhoy24941Posted on12:59 pm - Apr 7, 2013


angus1983 says:

Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 12:12
——————————————

I don’t see anything wrong with the banner, that was (along with all others they make) funny and I would encourage them to continue with that. Holding banners, passing round banners or having a chat with the guy sitting next to you while reading banners does not mean you are not watching the game. If you are saying we should be sitting only watching the game for the complete 90 mins then I would say that takes away a lot of the fun out of going with the guys to the match, then you can just sit at home and watch it alone on the TV.

The other factor is that for a long time yesterday, Celtic were in complete control of the game and not concentrating fully did not mean the importance of the game was lost.

I agree with you on the songs, some of them are not my cup of tea. There were many songs sung and most of them footballing songs so I wouldn’t get too hung up on that although I wish they would stick to football songs.

View Comment

tw1967Posted on1:26 pm - Apr 7, 2013


Can I just say if it was up to the major contributors on this site with there great insight and knowledge then this total scam and disaster would have been sorted regarding trfc.But the problem I have is who is actually going to do anything about these revelations which we have been hearing mainly not from the complicit msm.There is a massive list and building everyday regarding rule breaking,cheating,allegged fraud etc etc from trfc yet they have in my opinion got off almost scot free with every charge.I won’t list said charges as I only have 8 hours to spend,but its really starting to get me angry.Something must be done and soon.Any ideas out there how WE can stop this mess.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on1:30 pm - Apr 7, 2013


Long Time Lurker says:
Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 12:00
13 0 Rate This

… Celtic Underground ‏@celticrumours 43m
Guess who had a £250k pa contract (signed btw) to run sevco 5088 with 10% of annual profits as a bonus? And guess who still has a copy?
————–

LTL,
I wonder if this will be tomorrow’s story in The Sun?

View Comment

scottcPosted on1:30 pm - Apr 7, 2013


paulmac2 says:
Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 11:49

scottc says:
Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 11:29
……………………………………

Yes you can control who owns a club…otherwise there is nothing to stop the same man or woman from owning every club in the top division..regardless of their background..

The fit and proper test is supposed to assist in who you allow to control or run a professional football club..

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I agree Paul but those are football rules. The law of the land trumps them every time and so long as clubs are run as companies then nobody can dictate what shares an individual can buy (even if they buy control of every club in the top division). The only remedy the authorities have to ‘force’ an individual to comply would be to ‘punish’ the club or to remove their licence.

View Comment

broganrogantrevinoandhoganPosted on1:36 pm - Apr 7, 2013


Afternoon all.

Eh can I just point out that in relation to all of this Whyte and Green stuff it will make no difference to the SFA, The SPL or the SFL if it turns out that Craig Whyte does indeed own Sevco 5088 Ltd or the assets or has a major shareholding in any company that runs Ibrox or anything else.

The reason that they should and will have no interest is because the SFA, the SPL and any other football association in Scotland are all concerned with the running of Football clubs and not holding folding companies or anything like that– and as they have apparently clarified the company or companies are separate to the club!

Accordingly Green, Whyte, Fred the Shred, and anyone else who might be questionable can be a shareholder or director of any of these entities as they have absolutely nothing to do with the club.

I am also sure that this point of view will be endorsed by everyone else in Scottish Football?

For example Stephen Thompson has nothing to do with Dundee United– he is merely a shareholder and a Director of a company that administers the affairs of Dundee United–in much the same way that Abramovitch pumps money into a company called Chelsea but has nothing to do with the club of the same name.

Apparently, The SFA have confirmed across Europe that the Club has nothing to do with company as the company and its people can come and go but the club remains intact and unscathed and ongoing.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on1:40 pm - Apr 7, 2013


Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan says:
Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 13:36

the club remains intact and unscathed and ongoing
—————————————————————————————

True but they’ll be back playing on Glasgow Green or rowing on the Clyde 🙂

View Comment

Comments are closed.