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.

This entry was posted in General by Trisidium. Bookmark the permalink.
Tom Byrne

About Trisidium

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 thoughts on “Fair Play at FIFA?


  1. Danish Pastry says:
    Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 13:30

    I hope so!

    What if the AIM suspend the shares of Rangers International Football Club plc tomorrow – will the panel on SSB have to do a crash course in the operation of the markets 😉


  2. Not one to really stick up for ally but considering he’s been in the company with the likes of david murray ,Craig whyte and Charles green ……….f@cking terrible must be his daily mantra as he stares into the mirror in the morning.see what I did there ,just gave Vincent lunny a lord nimmo smith option.


  3. Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan says:
    Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 13:36
    14 0 Rate This
    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.
    ==========================================================================

    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

    what a belter. just spat my tea all over the laptop

    (good job i’ve got an inbuilt windae-wiper)


  4. Danish Pastry says:
    Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 13:30
    3 0 Rate This
    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?

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

    who is it?

    i never buy the current bun or any of the churnalism merchants now.

    maybe though, this will be the litmus to them calling them as craig whyte states,
    you are sevco

    sevco,5088

    sevco,scotland

    sevco will do me for now, til we hear the court decision


  5. So CW sent IA’s mum £137,500. CG says RIFC/TRFC has tried to give this money back and it lies in an account unused not directly related to the business. OK.

    Exactly which account is the £137,500 now in? Mrs Ahmad’s account? Sevco5088?, RIFC plc? TRFC?

    If it’s in Mrs A’s account why is that account indirectly linked to Rangers?

    If it’s in any of the others why was the money moved from Mrs A’s account if you didn’t want it?

    What purpose was the £137,500 required for, even though the action was not undertaken?


  6. Sorry for going on but there is another reason for the SFA/SPL etc being able to do nothing about Craig Whyte actually being the owner of The Rangers Football Club Ltd and its assets.

    You see last year Charles Green told all and sundry including the football authorities that he was heading a consortium that wanted to buy Rangers PLC or the assets of Rangers PLC in the event it went into liquidation.

    In the event that this happened, then the whole deal was dependent of His new company being given a licence to play football in Scotland– or as some prefer to depict it— the existing Rangers Club licence and permissions being transferred to Green and his consortium. I know that this is not exactly how the law looks at things but that is the way some have portrayed events.

    Anyway, a conditional permission was given to play in the SFL and that permission was granted to Green on the basis of his submissions and declarations to the SFA and the other league authorities.

    Now, if it turns out that Mr Green failed to declare that he was in fact employed by, was a front for, or was in partnership with Craig Whyte or had any other type of contract with Craig Whyte
    ( a man who has been banned sine die from football )– then all of this makes no difference to anything.

    Why?

    Because any such failure to disclose has not led to any sporting or commercial advantage to Charles Green, nor any disadvantage to the SFA or the SFL or whoever.

    There was still a Rangers on the pitch and no matter who fronted up the IPO or issued a prospectus in the name of Rangers International Football Club PLC it makes no material difference and has made no significant financial difference– the shareholders would not have viewed matters differently if the IPO had been fronted by Whyte or that Whyte’s full involvement had been disclosed.

    Whether or not full details of all contracts and financial arrangements have been properly or fully disclosed, or about who owns or runs or invests in a holding company- or for that matter a football club should that ever happen— are not material conditions or concerns for the football authorities in Scotland because like player registrations these matters cannot result in any sporting advantage..

    Whatsmore, Mr Green having made his pitch and submitted his submissions, these were accepted by the SFA and the SFL ( and possibly tacitly by the SPL ) and all of the officials within those organisations.

    We already have judicial ruling which says that notwithstanding the fact that it is later shown that these submissions were wholly inaccurate, false , incorrect, and that they failed to disclose the true position ( namely that Green was in cahoots with Whyte ), the Scottish Football Authorities will still allow any licence of permission to stand and treat the person/club/company who made such false or inaccurate statements as properly registered and eligible to participate in Scottish Football until such time as someone from the SFA or whoever determines that the licence or permission previously granted was granted in error or obtained improperly.

    There is absolutely no question of any of the clubs in division 3 of the SFL having any right to object to Charles Green fronting for a person banned Sine Die from football or reversing any result or seeking that The Rangers Football Club be stripped of any title.

    Whilst there are all sorts of rules about proper registration of Directors, Shareholders managers and players– even where these have been ruled upon by the Scottish Football Authorities— these rules and regulations are of no significance and can be flaunted with impunity where the SFA don’t realise that they are being flaunted and they result in no obvious sporting advantage or disadvantage as currently defined.

    They can be ignored completely if you go about it the right way!

    So there you have it– there was no sporting or commercial advantage or disadvantge by not declaring Whyte as a player in all of this and unless the SFA or SFL say something naughty has happened then it never happened.

    Clear?

    Good!


  7. With regard to Sportsound Extra and the views of Chris Graham I quote you an extract from a BBC response to a complaint I made in February regarding the cancellation of a programme Chris Graham was scheduled to appear on with Paul McConville, but had to withdraw.

    “…You express concern about the WebTalk element of Sportsound that evening. This part of the programme deals with the way in which Scottish football is covered online and within social media and this date was also the anniversary of Rangers going into administration. A discussion on this matter was to form part of the WebTalk item. However it was felt that the make-up of the invited panel would not adhere to BBC guidelines on maintaining balance in debate”

    Having listened to the programme 06 April I am puzzled as to how the BBC were maintaining balance. Spiers and English were there to counter his views on the media being anti-Rangers, but there was no-one to counter his outlandish views the SFA and SPL did Celtic’s bidding for them.


  8. Sugar Daddy says:

    Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 14:27

    As Judge Judy might say: ‘when you’re telling lies, you’d better have a good memory! When you’re telling the truth, you don’t need a good memory’.


  9. Chris Graham really does have his head jammed where the sun don’t shine. When reminded of Jim T’s assertion that tRangers are a new club, without breaking stride he made sense of this by stating ‘he was wrong’. So Chris, now that tRangers have given Mr T some cash, he has been re-educated and now he is correct!………….talk about circular reasoning! Life must be easy with no morals or ethics to clutter up one’s daily interactions….. no effort whatever to engage with evidence or debate of any kind………I suppose that is what the Bears euphemistically describe as ‘loyal’.


  10. upthehoops says:

    Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 14:33

    And with both Spiers and English being BBC presenters (of sorts) and presumably considered neutral by the BBC, who did they invite onto the panel to give balance to Graham? Did someone of a non TRFC perspective chicken out because they knew Chris Graham is such a sharp cookie they couldn’t possibly outsmart him? With Chris Graham accepting his invite, wouldn’t it have been the perfect opportunity to have one of the two invited previously to give Graham the opportunity to show how ‘stupid is right’ in Sevco-world? What a show that would have been 🙂


  11. theoldcourse says:
    Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 12:50

    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.
    ——

    It was the Craig Whyte portion of the original “horsemen” banner, according to the photo on the Daily Record website.

    I don’t have any problem at all with people displaying such things, or Celtic fans spending their time singing about Mr Whyte. Whatever turns you on. And yeah, it was faintly humourous.

    I just find it curious that they spend so much time doing so at a game where Rangers are irrelevant. I can’t imagine such goings-on at Pittodrie if, for example, Dundee Utd were in the situation that TRFC find themselves in.

    Meantime, I see Cammy Bell is off to Ibrox in September.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22057653


  12. Jonathan Sutherland is another that thinks Rangers won the league despite being in the bottom division. I’m not on twitter to point out his silly mistake.


  13. weebully says:

    Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 15:26

    A year ago, if the fan of an SFL3 had club told a Rangers fan how good it was to be ‘Champions’ as his team had just secured SFL3, the Rangers fan would have put him in his place, pointing out that Rangers had been league champions 54 times, that the guys team wasn’t even champions of the SFL, and that he should support a top league team like Rangers. ‘Your team’s a diddy team, in a diddy league’, would undoubtedly have been his words. Maybe not all would have been so outspoken, but most would, and those that weren’t would have been thinking it, just the same. They have quite literally beaten a team of amateurs today, and a part-time team of plumbers, painters, brickies etc every other week (well not quite) to win what they consider title no, 55. I wonder how many of them won their bets of how many times TRFC were going to win by 10 goals or more!


  14. Danish Pastry says:
    Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 13:30

    I hope so!

    What if the AIM suspend the shares of Rangers International Football Club plc tomorrow – will the panel on SSB have to do a crash course in the operation of the markets
    ================================

    They will either:

    a) play the legal card and say they can’t talk about it

    or

    b) state they are mere football men and are not qualified to discuss such complicated issues.

    The only one who may discuss it will be Derek Johnstone, who will inform us ‘Charles says Whyte is talking nonsense so that is the end of it’, or words to that effect.

    The remainder of the show will be spent discussing Celtic’s attendances and how much the club secretly misses Rangers.


  15. allyjambo says:
    Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 15:43

    … what they consider title no, 55.
    ——

    Andrew Smith in SoS points out today that, at best, they could call it “54 and a Third”, and that it’s a shame it wasn’t 33 and a Third. That way they could claim it as another record. Arf arf. 🙂


  16. angus1983 says:

    Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 15:18

    I just find it curious that they spend so much time doing so at a game where Rangers are irrelevant. I can’t imagine such goings-on at Pittodrie if, for example, Dundee Utd were in the situation that TRFC find themselves in.

    ——————————-

    It’s football and for as long as I can remember, a big part of the game was the banter and goading and ridicule that comes from one side winning or losing. For years, Celtic fans have been at the wrong end of that ridicule and now they are getting some revenge, taking advantage of the situation and articulating their feelings in a humorous way.¨

    And don’t forget, this is not something that is new. I remember sitting in the old Clydebank stadium some years back and during a lull in the game a voice from the back shouted “Jock Wallace says, Rangers look good in training”. Now Rangers at that game were just as much an irrelevance and I am not sure the motivation for this guy shouting that out but it raised a laugh among the fans and even some of the players (great ground for being close to the action).

    It’s a pity the banners were not as inventive in the 80’s, then we just had bed sheets with some words painted on it. We could have had so much fun with our wooly friends in the North East :o)

    It’s all part of the game and long may it continue….


  17. Help?!

    I presume that it that it is highly improper / illegal for an administrator to sell a company from administration back to the individual who put the existing company into administration in the first place…yes?

    So, CW sets out to land CG right in the legal brown stuff by releasing these details to the Sun.

    As a nice side benefit he also lands D&P right in it as well by suggesting that they were willing to sell the assets to Sevco (1) knowing that he, CW, was part of that company.

    But what I’m confused by is this: is he not also very publicly admitting to attempted fraud, either with the connivance of D&P, or by keeping them in ignorance of what he believed to be his part ownership of Sevco (1)? (an ignorance D&P have, of course, already claimed)

    Or is it that he has already decided that it is worth that risk to get back at Green / D&P?
    Or is it that the only way he stands a chance of paying back Ticketus is if he gets a pay-out as a result of the threatened court action in London? But surely, if that’s the case he’s risking living with the stripey sunshine before he gets anywhere near that outcome.

    I’m just struggling to see CW’s angle here – even if he went all the way and won in court, thus proving that Green had shafted him, he still seems to have so much else to lose.

    When spivs collide, eh?


  18. After the revelations last week about secret accounts in the British Virgin Islands I asked the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists to check if they had any information on Charlotte 18 and Gavin Masterton.

    Unfortunately, the ICIJ drew a blank.


  19. Delicous thought on the Craig Whyte monies. Craigy’s monies went into Mrs Amed’s account. Charles Green THEN put in ‘his’ £25,000, then TRFC repaid him ‘his’ £25,000 and there is, today, still 137,500 sitting in Mrs Amed’s account. He wouldn’t have would he? That would be spivery taken to a whole new level.

    And Angus, I can only assume you weren’t at what was effectively the relegation decider at Pittodrie in 1996. Did the AFC fans solely clap their team off for honest endeavour and not mention to the away section that it effectively meant relegation for them. Thought not.


  20. WRT to any comments made by Chris Graham, I don’t think people should get overly concerned about him. I quite like hearing some of the guff he spouts as it makes me feel semi-intelligent! Either Mr Graham actually believes the crap he is talking or he is incapable of independent thought and is willing to go on TV and say things he knows to be patently untrue; both scenarios are clear evidence that the man has no credibility. Just remember, some people are desperate to perpetuate the myths they have created for financial gain. Every time Mr Graham or anyone else like him is on TV, remember that they know we know the truth and it tears them apart! I would ask that that the learned people on this site continue to check, challenge, probe and investigate everything that is said.


  21. Do they somehow think that the money going into the financial bloke’s Mother’s bank account somehow makes things better.

    If anything it makes things look even worse.

    It also means that not only did they ask for that money, they must also have given him the details of the account it was to be put into. Either that or took is as cash or a cheque. Are we to believe that Craig Whyte already had those details, had he transferred money to her account before.

    So, it is perfectly clear that Charles Green’s position that they didn’t want his money and have tried to return it is nonsense. He has claimed he lied to Whyte, that’s entirely believable. As is him lying when he was explaining his earlier lies to Whyte.

    I’m afraid that if the Rangers support decide to keep following this man then they really do deserve all they get. They were warned what Whyte was and it came true. Al the indications are there about Green as well.

    As to what they would do if he leaves. He owns 8% of the shares, that does not give him the right to be CEO, and to run the plc as a total autocracy as seems to be happening, or to run the club in the same way.

    Santayana – Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.


  22. Green may only own 8% of the shares but the group(s) he’s working for will hold the majority of the shareholding. He knows that he is bombproof until he has finished the job he was sent in to do or until he is no longer needed. The MSM haven’t turned on him in the past so why do we think they will now. The longer he’s in place the more papers they’ll sell. He’ll have a shelf life and when that’s up he’ll be off.

    Whyte is an irritant at the moment. Whether he has anything that can blow the masterplan apart is another thing.

    However, what the masterplan is is baffling.


  23. chipm0nk says:
    Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 17:22
    6 0 Rate This
    Do they somehow think that the money going into the financial bloke’s Mother’s bank account somehow makes things better.

    If anything it makes things look even worse.

    It also means that not only did they ask for that money, they must also have given him the details of the account it was to be put into. Either that or took is as cash or a cheque. Are we to believe that Craig Whyte already had those details, had he transferred money to her account before.
    _____________
    CW showed the text message to the media that he was sent with the bank account details he was to send the money to


  24. tomtomaswell says:
    Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 17:49

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

    Any plan is based on making money, that money comes directly or indirectly from the fans.

    If they do not buy season tickets and merchandising, if they do not go to games and put money into the bank account then Green will be replaced. His replacement would be chosen by the major shareholders, but he would be replaced.

    Football fans may be considered “only customers” however that also gives them huge power over the business. Bearing in mind it is a business which it would appear is still running at a loss.

    Re Green himself, would you really want the CEO of a PLC you had money in behaving like this oaf. Unless of course that is actualy part of the plan.


  25. Andy says:
    Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 17:50

    Thanks, I didn’t know that.

    And people are saying they never needed or wanted the money, that they tried to reject it and have been unable to return it.

    Alternatively, they took his money whilst lying to him and with no intention of going ahead with their side of the deal, and still have that money.

    That doesn’t sound very legal to me.


  26. Signing embargo on TRFC
    Can anyone clarify whether its allowed to AGREE a signing of a contracted player during the embargo even if they can’t play until September?
    We read that Bell has agreed to join TRFC in September, but doesn’t the window close in August? If Bell is available in September due to being out of contract, then that’s wrong, as he is in contract now, during the embargo when he “agreed” to sign, and isn’t this an example of a tapping up?


  27. smugas says:
    Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 16:34

    And Angus, I can only assume you weren’t at what was effectively the relegation decider at Pittodrie in 1996. Did the AFC fans solely clap their team off for honest endeavour and not mention to the away section that it effectively meant relegation for them. Thought not.
    ——

    I was, as it happens, except that would have been 1995. 🙂

    Slight difference is that we were in the process of playing against United, and their support (in impressive numbers, if memory serves) were actually present at that game. I don’t imagine there were many Rangers representatives at Parkheid yesterday.

    Nae big deal – if Celtic’s support would rather spend the game laughing at non-present – not even playing yesterday – Rangers than supporting their own team, fair enough.

    Quick word on the side – this is potentially a great blog. In all honesty though, it’s way too easy for observers to classify it as an extension of a Celtic fan site. If we’re to get any serious attention through this particular medium, there has to be balance. Currently, there simply isn’t.


  28. chipm0nk says:
    Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 18:15

    And thats the crux of the matter.

    Whyte is claiming he has passed over money (£137k). How reliable a few photos of phone texts are is another matter.

    However, if true, it would be reasonable to assume that either Whyte got something in return for that money or he was conned out of it as he received nothing in return and the people who he gave the money to still have it in their (or their mother’s) possession.

    Now if Green wanted Whyte off the scene then why hold onto the money if it was not required..The story about being unable to return it doesn’t appear to stand up otherwise Green, having admitted his group has the money, would be saying his lawyers were dealing with the return of the money – end of story.

    He must surely have had an inkling that Whyte would use tihis cash transfer in some way. These guys don’t get their money from throwing it around willy nilly.

    Therefore Green has given him something for the £137k or is as daft as a brush for holding onto the cash for no reason.

    All that being said we are not dealing with the normal man on the street who would be cautious about what to do with £137k.

    We are talking about spivs and the whole affair is just an indication of why T’Rangers fans should be very very wary.

    Not sure why we waste our breath trying to help them prepare for a possible third kick in the teeth.


  29. Captain Haddock says:
    Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 18:42
    3 0 Rate This
    Signing embargo on TRFC
    Can anyone clarify whether its allowed to AGREE a signing of a contracted player during the embargo even if they can’t play until September?
    We read that Bell has agreed to join TRFC in September, but doesn’t the window close in August? If Bell is available in September due to being out of contract, then that’s wrong, as he is in contract now, during the embargo when he “agreed” to sign, and isn’t this an example of a tapping up?
    ===================
    From previous posts on this topic, I understand that a player is free to seek new employment during the final 6 months of their contract. Which only seems fair if you think about it from the player’s point of view.


  30. Neepheid,
    Of course players should be free to negotiate and contract with clubs during that last 6 months, but can an embargo’d club??
    I know I’m probably being a bit over the top, but the terms of the embargo should be clear, and we can’t assume that everything is above board without asking such questions where TRFC and the SFA are involved.
    Thanks though.


  31. Most unusual.

    A genuinely interesting article in the Herald yesterday.

    Not the football stuff , as such, know what to expect here.

    Simon Bain piece with Sir David Murray on MIH current fortunes (sic)

    Worth reading.

    Couple of quotes from the article :

    ” On Rangers, Sir David said MIH continue to bankroll the costs of the “big tax case” and none of the £2m cost had been charged to Rangers”

    and

    “We are confident … but it was important that we won the initial thing and were not found to be totally guilty”

    Why should Joe Soap be interested in the fate of Mr Murray and his involvement ( past or present ) with this particular footballing commodity.

    Joe Soap still owns 41 % of Lloyds TSB which ,due to a debt for equity swop , has a 12% share in the fortunes (sic) of MIH.

    It is far too easy just to write these kind of things off .


  32. angus1983 says:
    Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 18:57

    Hi Angus
    My memory sometimes fails me, but did you once appear to be one of the Baddies! on here? 🙂


  33. I’m trying to keep to basics and follow the money here – could it be that Green, Whyte and the rest of them have all been played for mugs by…Imran’s mum?


  34. Captain Haddock says:
    Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 19:17
    0 0 Rate This
    Neepheid,
    Of course players should be free to negotiate and contract with clubs during that last 6 months, but can an embargo’d club??
    ====================

    I believe that they can sign free agents once the embargo ends, but they won’t be able to buy any players until the January transfer window opens. Since the player in question will be out of contract in September, he can now talk to anyone, as I understand it.

    You are, of course, quite right to question everything to do with TRFC. If in doubt, keep on asking, is my advice.


  35. angus1983 says:

    Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 18:57
    —————————————–

    Balance should come from increasing the number of non-Celtic posters Angus, not from having a go at or reducing the number of Celtic supporting posters. For the record, some of us agree with most of your points but just because some others disagree with specific points you make should not mean we blame that on the site being too Celtic centric.


  36. Miss Brodie – only because sometimes I don’t agree with the majority view. Not a bad thing in my book. There’s no malicious intent on my part, but I do strongly believe that to have any clout, a blog like this needs to take a far more balanced position. 🙂

    Anyway. This £137K – what an unusual figure. Not £130K, or £135K or £140K.

    As a starter you could, for example, think it was (rounding up to another 500 quid) payment for 275000 somethings that cost 50p each.


  37. angus1983 says:

    Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 15:18

    I just find it curious that they spend so much time doing so at a game where Rangers are irrelevant. I can’t imagine such goings-on at Pittodrie if, for example, Dundee Utd were in the situation that TRFC find themselves in.
    ============================================================

    Celtic fans had to live through a period where a bank who were prepared to close Celtic down were at the same time lending Rangers an amount of money which was way over what they could afford to borrow. However, Rangers ‘wealth’ was portrayed as being down to David Murray’s business acumen and Celtic were portrayed as paupers in comparison who could never realise the great riches the well oiled financial machine at Ibrox was producing. We had to suffer taunts for years – much from the media – when Celtic were the ones who were actually being managed in the proper way and suffered nothing but ridicule for it.

    By my reckoning we have about 26 more years of gloating before we can call it quits. Bring it on!


  38. Watched the Ramsden’s Cup final today.

    Excellent drama and some attractive football.

    Well done to both teams, congratulations to Queen of the South.


  39. Summary of the last few days , “Dirty Rotten Scoundrels – without the jokes.”

    Where will it end for Green , the ‘N’ word is the next potential stopping off point for this cretin.

    The SFA will do nothing, it’s over to the Rangers fans to force this moron out of the club, I believe that Malcolm Murray needs to make a formal statement to distance his club from the garbage coming out of Green’s mouth.

    Imagine waking up and finding this twerp is your boss.

    Where will it end?


  40. macbrayne says:
    Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 19:29

    Sir David is only too well aware that HMRC may well come after his other business’ assets or even his own. If I remember correctly he personally benefited to quite a large extent.

    In addition, his football club and other businesses almost certainly not only saved money through not paying the right amount of tax, they may actually have been more profitable, or less loss making.

    The football arm for example. Would it have won as much, gained as much prize money, sold as many season tickets without the underpayments of tax. Almost certainly not.

    This matter is far from over.


  41. ekbhoy says:
    Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 19:59

    ‘N’ as in Nihil?


  42. if Craig Whytes plan is to reveal that he was a backer behind Sevco 5088 – then does it not simply put himself in line for criminal charges?

    Surely a director of a company cannot simply offer to buy the assets at a knockdown price once he has engineered the administration – and guaranteed rejection of the CVA

    What does CW have to gain? there is no way BDO will unravel the sale to Sevco 5088 – leaving CW in charge of those assets again. (they may unravel the sale and sell them agian) And i can’t believe he’d be entitled to compensation from Green for stiffing him in what would have been an illegal/fraudulent deal

    WTF is going on. Is this simply taking green etc down with him?

    Why am i reminded of the Chris Huhne affair here – there can be no winners from this


  43. ChipmOnk

    Right On !

    Check out how many debts were Written -off by Lloyds TSB to MIH


  44. angus1983 says:
    Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 19:45

    Anyway. This £137K – what an unusual figure. Not £130K, or £135K or £140K.

    As a starter you could, for example, think it was (rounding up to another 500 quid) payment for 275000 somethings that cost 50p each.

    ==============
    The exact figure was £137,500. Here is a post from yesterday which echoes your thoughts-

    Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan says:
    Saturday, April 6, 2013 at 00:25

    Also it has been pointed out elsewhere tonight– the sum sent by Whyte to Green— £137,500 works out as exactly 25% of the non refundable deposit sought by D&P as part of the deal.

    Now, sometimes I believe in coincidence but…….. it is a really odd and random figure just to transfer into someone’s bank account on a mad mental whim isn’t it?


  45. Angus,

    £137,500.00 is 25% of £550,000.00. Now wasn’t that the sum that D&P asked for to assist with the running costs?


  46. AMcC ‘Charles, am I 6ft 4in tall?’

    CG ‘I think you are taller than that Ally. I think you are 6ft 6in. I think you’ve grown two inches overnight.’

    AMcC ‘Oh thank you, thank you Charles!’


  47. Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
    Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 20:31

    Yes but those in the Chris Huhne affair were found guilty and jailed!!


  48. jean7brodie says:
    Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 19:30

    angus1983 says:
    Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 18:57

    Hi Angus
    My memory sometimes fails me, but did you once appear to be one of the Baddies! on here?
    ______________________________________________________

    Jean, if I remember correctly, in the days of RTC Angus threw his rattle out of the pram and said goodbye. Credit to him, he quickly returned and has been a stalwart on TSFM ever since. I enjoy his valuable contributions and long may he post.

    I do however miss the regular spats on RTC that Angus had with the legendary Hugh McEwan (whatever happened to him). Hugh always seemed to get the upper hand in their fisticuffs. Nonetheless, it all went towards good solid arguament and debate.


  49. Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
    Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 20:31

    Who knows how desperate Craig Whyte may be, how difficult it is for him to get involved in business since his very high profile collapse. He may well be something of a pariah, and the Ticketus thing hanging over his head won’t be nice.

    Personally I think he is currently doing two things. First and most straightforward he is making some money, from the papers. (There may even be a wee book in it down the line). Second he is effectively “blackmailing” Green and his backers. They now have a lot invested in this and he is basically saying “I can bring the whole thing tumbling down” In effect they currently have more to lose than him.

    I think he probably knows the medium term plan and simply wants a piece of the action. If for example they sell the Ltd company to “Rangers men” but keep the assets there could be a nice wee pension for life going with rental income on the properties.

    Oh and he’s probably really p!553d off with Charles Green who now has shares worth about £5m, a tidy six figure salary and all reasonable expenses paid for him. Including a couple of grand a month for rent, council tax, bills etc. He almost certainly feels that should all be his and Green stole it from him.

    He is also a bit of a mental of course.


  50. Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
    Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 20:31
    0 0 Rate This
    if Craig Whytes plan is to reveal that he was a backer behind Sevco 5088 – then does it not simply put himself in line for criminal charges?

    Surely a director of a company cannot simply offer to buy the assets at a knockdown price once he has engineered the administration – and guaranteed rejection of the CVA

    What does CW have to gain? there is no way BDO will unravel the sale to Sevco 5088 – leaving CW in charge of those assets again. (they may unravel the sale and sell them agian) And i can’t believe he’d be entitled to compensation from Green for stiffing him in what would have been an illegal/fraudulent deal

    WTF is going on. Is this simply taking green etc down with him?

    Why am i reminded of the Chris Huhne affair here – there can be no winners from this
    +++++++++++++++++++++

    Whyte must surely have been interviewed under caution by now in connection with the police enquiry into his acquisition of RFC. If he has already made a statement which he knows is likely to lead to criminal proceedings against him, then maybe he has decided that if he’s going down, he’s not going down alone? All total speculation on my part of course. But I could definitely see where he was coming from, because Green has by his own admission acted in a way towards Whyte that would get most people very angry indeed.


  51. probably57 says:
    Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 20:40
    1 0 Rate This
    AMcC ‘Charles, am I 6ft 4in tall?’

    CG ‘I think you are taller than that Ally. I think you are 6ft 6in. I think you’ve grown two inches overnight.’

    AMcC ‘Oh thank you, thank you Charles!’
    =================================

    AMcC ‘Charles, is this really the worst ever Rangers team?’

    CG ‘They’re the worst one I’ve seen lad. They’re the only one I’ve seen mind you. Did I ever tell you I’m from Yorkshire?’

    AMcC ‘What about that £10M you promised to make them better?’

    CG ‘Forget the £10M lad – remember I also said if the fans buy the season tickets again it could be £30M? That’s scary is it not? That’s why my Dad and my Grandad went down the pits, so that lads like you could have better lives. I’ve never actually been down a pit myself but I’ve seen the photos down the miners welfare. I could play a bit too – did I ever tell you that?

    AMcC ‘Oh thank you, thank you Charles!’


  52. Disappointing crowd at Hampden today to see t’Rangers first ever title (11,492)


  53. I’m guessing that Maestro Whyte is looking for a dignified retreat – and £137k’s worth of penny shares.

    Quick sum: 137,000 x 100 = 13,700,000 shares.

    Punting these shares at 50p a go will certainly pay for a few Stellas in Monaco.


  54. So Craig burley believes SEVCO should be shoe horned back up to the top flight? And the farmersas he calls them…should not be allowed to decide on matters of such importance!

    Well here is the thing…Rangers football club that was liquidated had been circumventing regulations…avoiding payment of debts and being dishonest.

    The new club have been circumventing regulations…avoiding payments…dishonesty…threats…bullying…

    Their MO has not changed if anything it his got worse…

    I can see why anyone could believe it is the same club…why anyone would actively promote such an organisation is an entirely different matter…one which Craig needs to think twice about sticking his name to.


  55. if people remember at the time of the cva charles green was doing everything in his power to make it fail ,some of the statements he was coming out with were off putting,seems now we know why ,its because of greens greed sevco were liquidated he’s the instigator not whyte


  56. angus1983 says:
    Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 18:57

    Quick word on the side – this is potentially a great blog. In all honesty though, it’s way too easy for observers to classify it as an extension of a Celtic fan site. If we’re to get any serious attention through this particular medium, there has to be balance. Currently, there simply isn’t.

    —————————————————————————————————–

    You may very well be correct however if I could find the truth or analysis within the MSM then I probably would debate things on their websites as opposed to being here.
    That is the problem. The MSM have allowed a vacum to develop where truth is ignored and reasonable debate virtually outlawed.
    As I mentioned yesterday Chris Graham is allowed to talk utter nonsense on national radio and, make no mistake about it, if he was taking a view opposed to conventional wisdom on ANY other subject not only would he be given no air time he would be held up for public ridicule.

    I do believe that there is also fans from many other clubs on this site that have no great love of Celtic but like myself have nowhere else to go for reasoned debate and discussion.

    It is always good to agree to disagree but this topic is not going away and indeed over tthe last seventy two hours seems to have developed in a way long predicted by many on this site.

    This site, although born from the old RTC site, was developed because many people who love our sport feel alienated, sometimes from our own clubs, but particularly by the people charged by governing our sport. They have ruined and trampled on the aspirations of many clubs by adopting stances that are ludicrous or even dangerous for the future of our game.
    A man still remains in the top position of our sport who has been on the boards of two clubs. One of them is in liquidation and the other in severe financial distress. What does that say about the state of our sport that this is the man in charge.

    Our sport is teetering on the brink of an abyss that many club chairmen are still oblivious about. The way our sport is being administrated we will get league re-construction but only because there are no clubs left as fans drift away through frustration and appathy.


  57. Robert Kane says:
    Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 21:07

    I believe that what he was coming away with was show boating and for the fans. I do not believe HMRC would allow the CVA, as a matter of policy and based on the money which had been stolen from them.

    I have taken this from a website, just for the irony factor.

    “The main problem with the CVA is that they are seen as a quick remedy to a short-term problem. The foundation of the CVA is based upon the theory that the problem creating the cash flow crisis has been solved and that the CVA is a tool to manage that crisis. Too many times that problem not been solved and therefore the CVA tool does work.

    HMRC have started to recognise this and hence are not agreeing to certain CVA’s. A well constructed and properly used CVA will always get support from the HMRC.

    http://www.mcr.uk.com/company-voluntary-arrangement-the-good-the-bad-and-the-cva.html

    Tie that to the nature of the debt, stolen CVA and PAYE, that it was a football debt, that Rangers had agreed to pay the previous tax case and reneged (forcing HMRC to use Sheriff’s Officers, arrestments etc) and that Craig Whyte was involved there was no chance.


  58. neep, tomtom – thanks. I must confess to not reading all of the longer posts on here, as I’ve said. I believe the “deposit” thing is the obvious answer, right enough.


  59. Is the 31st of aug not a sunday get all there players they are going to sign lined up.Transfer window still open on mon 1st of September.What transfer embargo


  60. I see Charlie is in more hot water…allegedly using racist language towards someone at the club


  61. liveinhop says:
    Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 21:39

    I believe the SFA have confirmed that will not be allowed.


  62. liveinhop says:
    Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 21:39

    Is the 31st of aug not a sunday get all there players they are going to sign lined up.Transfer window still open on mon 1st of September.What transfer embargo

    ———————————-

    Rangers will be free to sign free agents from the first of Sept.


  63. chipm0nk says:

    Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 21:41 And you believe them


  64. Tommy says:
    Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 20:47
    Thank God I don’t have dementia Tommy!
    I remember the spats and enjoyable they were too! The more diversity, the more valuable the debate.


  65. In reply to Angus1983. Apologies to all if a similar poll has already been done on here. Thumbs up if you are a Celtic fan, down if other. I’ll kick off with a TD (Falkirk).


  66. Forres Dee (@ForresDee) says:
    Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 21:49
    0 0 Rate This
    liveinhop says:
    Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 21:39

    Is the 31st of aug not a sunday get all there players they are going to sign lined up.Transfer window still open on mon 1st of September.What transfer embargo

    ———————————-

    Rangers will be free to sign free agents from the first of Sept.
    =================================================

    i’m guessing you mean

    . . .sevco [for they are sevco] will be free to sign free agents from the first of Sept.


  67. Tom English ‏@TomEnglishSport 11h
    I need an extra notebook to document the idiotic things that Charles Green says. Yesterday: a self-confessed liar. Today: Bernard Manning


  68. jimlarkin says:
    Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 22:36
    Forres Dee (@ForresDee) says:
    Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 21:49
    liveinhop says:
    Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 21:39

    Is the 31st of aug not a sunday get all there players they are going to sign lined up.Transfer window still open on mon 1st of September.What transfer embargo

    ———————————-

    Rangers will be free to sign free agents from the first of Sept.
    =================================================

    i’m guessing you mean

    . . .sevco [for they are sevco] will be free to sign free agents from the first of Sept.
    —————————————-

    As I understand it…the liquidated club have a transfer embargo….SEVCO do not

Comments are closed.