Gilt-Edged Justice


Carl31 (@C4rl31) says: Monday, March 11, 2013 at 13:29 Ecobhoy, “On ‘Sporting Advantage’ …

Comment on Gilt-Edged Justice by ecobhoy.

Carl31 (@C4rl31) says:
Monday, March 11, 2013 at 13:29

“On ‘Sporting Advantage’ I think the concentration should have been on the amount available to pay players through the EBT mechanism. Then there could be many witnesses brought to explain the simple fact that more cash and higher wages, in the main, lets you buy and field better players and also support a larger squad than your competitors.

There could be a counter-argument that results on the field didn’t necessarily reflect an advantage. But at least the argument I believe could be won if done correctly and at the end of the day even if there isn’t a proveable Sporting Advantage it should be enough if the intention was there.”
Carl 31
No. If thats the only criteria, it fails as a criticism. A club cannot be charged with being able to get more funds together, by allowable means, than other clubs. Thats whats been happening across the board. LNS states that EBTs are allowed due to the current status of the FTT. Thats not, nor can it sensible be argued, as any kind of charge against a club.

The issue is if an allowable cash generating scheme breached rules. Theoretically, raising an extra tenner by avoiding tax in an allowable way could still breach the rules. Its not the amount of money that is the problem – it is gaining an unfair advantage by breaking the rules or concealment of the fact a club is breaking the rules.

I was actually answering a narrow hypothetical question to me from another poster: ‘What evidence could the SPL have provided to prove sporting advantage occured?’

I am well aware of the LNS position on EBTs and also McKenzie’s position of accepting the FTTT Decision but that wasn’t what I was trying to answer and deal with.

‘Sporting Advantage’ if it took place was through the EBT payments and side contracts not being declared.

That’s why I spelt-out what I saw as constituting ‘Sporting Advantage’ and being aware of the difficulties of proving an advantage took place I added the rider that it didn’t need to actually happen as long as the intention was there.

But I have always been very sceptical that it would be easy to prove the Sporting Advantage ‘charge’ and once the Bryson Bombshell dropped I think it became impossible.

ecobhoy Also Commented

Gilt-Edged Justice
Carfins Finest. (@edunne58) says:
Monday, March 11, 2013 at 19:28

Celtic need to ban questions about TRFC from all interviews with their staff. Not hard to do. Talk about Celtic. Nothing else. Statements like the one from Mulgrew are golden nuggets to these obviousley biased reporters. Wonder if they asked any TRFC players their views on Celtic at their press briefing.
Totally agree – a player isn’t there to comment on issues which have nothing to do with the club but the reaction doesn’t need to be a refusal to answer. All they need to practice is a simple statement: ‘I’m here to discuss Celtic and matters relating to any other team are for them to comment on’ with a clear open look at the camera.

You don’t even name the other team or opposition player. Keep it nice and simple and friendly and if they persist then Lennon should have a word in the ear of offending journos. They aren’t out to help Celtic but to stir up agrro whether with another club or between the player and the Celtic support. It is too easy for an unguarded statement to be taken out of context and used to ignite the tinder box.

Gilt-Edged Justice
abcott says:
Monday, March 11, 2013 at 18:03

Let’s not forget that sporting advantage wasn’t the issue for LNS. The only thing that needed looking at was incorrect registration; yes or no. If yes, then punishment to follow. You cannot make exceptions based on conjecture as to what the consequences were.

I would suggest that you might care to read the LNS Report as you are seriously mistaken in stating that: ‘sporting advantage wasn’t the issue for LNS’.

It was actually one of the major issues as the undernoted section of the Decision illustrates:

(4) The relevant SPL Rules were designed to promote sporting integrity, by mitigating the
risk of irregular payments to players;
(5) Although the payments in this case were not themselves irregular and were not in
breach of SPL or SFA Rules, the scale and extent of the proven contraventions of the
disclosure rules require a substantial penalty to be imposed;
(6) Rangers FC did not gain any unfair competitive advantage from the contraventions of
the SPL Rules in failing to make proper disclosure of the side-letter arrangements, nor
did the non-disclosure have the effect that any of the registered players were ineligible
to play, and for this and other reasons no sporting sanction or penalty should be
imposed upon Rangers FC;

Gilt-Edged Justice
tomtomaswell says:
Monday, March 11, 2013 at 15:37

Who was Bryson there on behalf of?

Good Question 🙂

1) A witness for the SPL
2) A witness for Rangers
3) Representing the SFA – but would that prejudice the SFA appellate function

But I wonder who called him which might not provide the same answer as to the the choices above.

Recent Comments by ecobhoy

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
jimmci says:
April 24, 2015 at 1:50 pm

And why did we not get the panel’s reasoning together with the decision last night?

Simples ❗ The Decision was the easy bit 😆 The explanation to sell it was the hard bit and despite a nightshift they appear to have fluffed their lines AGAIN 🙄

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Allyjambo says:
April 24, 2015 at 2:18 pm

Might I suggest that SD’s main interest in this meeting was to put the RIFC board straight on some matters regarding the security over the IP and just how watertight it is, rather than to discuss funding or any ‘amicable’ discussion how best to move the club forward!
You might be right but would SD want the club suffering another Insolvency Event? Perhaps they were asking for the second loan tranche of £5 million which the new board apparently rejected on taking control.

I have undernoted a reply I made to parttimearab last night which may have been missed but may also be relevant.

3. Insolvency events

(i) The inability of the Company to pay its debts as they fall due within the meaning of section 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”);
(ii) The issue of an application for an administration order or a notice of intention to appoint an administrator in relation to the Company;
(iii) The passing of a resolution or order for the Company’s winding-up, dissolution, administration or reorganisation;
(iv) The declaration of a moratorium in relation to any of the Company’s indebtedness;
(v) The making of any arrangement or any proposal for any arrangement with any of the Company’s creditors; and
(vi) The appointment of a liquidator, receiver, administrator, supervisor or other similar officer in respect of any of the Company’s assets.

Now I haven’t a clue whether that has anything to do with the SPFL Rule Change. But it’s clear that there could be various stages in an Insolvency Event and perhaps the rule change is to cover all eventualities which might not have been previously defined in the Rule Book.

In particular I look at:

(vi) The appointment of a liquidator, receiver, administrator, supervisor or other similar officer in respect of any of the Company’s assets.

And I think of the various charges which have been placed on Rangers assets wrt the £5 million loan. I have previously posted that the contracts wrt a Default Event could see the assets pass to SportsDirect without any court hearing and SD also already has the power to appoint a Receiver to deal with any of the assets that pass to it via a loan default event.

Now that might not ultimately lead to a full-blown Insolvency depending on what SD actually decide to do with Rangers. But looking at the above I wonder whether with the SPFL rule change that just taking control of the assets is enough to be classed as an Insolvency Event under SPFL Rules?

Perhaps the SPFL are thinking ahead ?

But does the rule take effect immediately or from the new season?

It seems that if it is immediate and Rangers suffers an Insolvency Event then that would be an automatic 25 points this season and 15 next season. Assuming it is able to survive death a second time.

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Resin_lab_dog says:
April 24, 2015 at 12:10 pm
ecobhoy says:
April 24, 2015 at 12:00 pm
blu says:
April 24, 2015 at 11:40 am

From what I saw, all criticisms emanating from ICTFC was directed towards the SFA machinery and not towards CFC. Similarly, I have seen no evidence of any criticism of ICTFC being put forward by CFC. I see that fact as quite telling.

Celtic were quite entitled to make all the statements they made and had the boot been on the other foot, in the circumstances I am sure KC at ICTFC would have done likewise.

Similarly, had the situtaions been reversed w.r.t. the foul, I would have expected CFC to back their player robsutly in the same way that ICTFC did.

This is about governance of the sport, not internecine disagreements between member clubs – for which I am yet to see any cause advanced from either party.
Couldn’t agree more!

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
blu says:
April 24, 2015 at 11:40 am

My view is that Celtic played this one wrong (only in the public nature of it)and it was easy for media outlets to infer cause and effect in the Celtic/Compliance Officer actions.
There is some merit in your view IMO. However there’s a balancing act to be achieved which requires an answer to what the officials saw, didn’t see, or decided or didn’t decide on Sunday.

All I heard in the ground, leaving the ground, on the train, in the pub, was real anger and disbelief at the decision which worsened with the TV replays.

I do think Celtic fans were due an explanation and tbf to Celtic I doubt if they could have forseen what an absolute hash the SFA would make of it. Obviously the SMSM has ridden to the rescue of the SFA so what’s new about that?

But we’re still awaiting the answers requested. Will we get them? Not without keeping the pressure on the SFA on all fronts where Hampden’s dark secrets exist.

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Gabby says:
April 24, 2015 at 10:18 am

If Celtic really, really felt they needed to send a letter, then this is the type of thing they should have sent…
I disagree as the letter you suggest goes way beyond the immediate point which is simply: ‘Please explain how the decision was arrived at’. I say decision because when Celic sent the letter it seemed there had been no decision reached but that the incident had been ‘missed’ by all officials.

Once the SFA provide that info then Celtic can make a decision as to if and how it should proceed with the matter.

My credo in a situation like this is not to give any leeway to a slippery character or room for manoeuvre. Ask the straight simple question and take it from there once the basic position is established.

Never jump fences too soon and never ever jump fences you don’t need to especially if you don’t know what lies in wait on the other side.

About the author