A guest blog by Auldheid
In the previous blog (http://www.tsfm.scot/how-not-to-govern-scottish-football/), TSFM wrote to Harper Macleod raising questions on their advice supplied to the then SPL Board in February 2013 when the Lord Nimmo Smith Decision re use of EBTs and side letters was announced.
A reply was received from Mr McKenzie on 18th September the gist of which can be discerned in the following reply sent on 4th October.
Dear Mr McKenzie 4th Oct 2014
Thank you for your response of 18th September to my letter of 5th September regarding the consequences of information on the true nature of EBTs for Craig Moore, Ronald De Boer and Tor Andre Flo being withheld from your good selves when establishing in 2012 the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission into the use of EBTs and side letters by Rangers FC from 1999.
In recognition of the points you made about publishing your responses on line, your letter of 18th September will not be published although readers of TSFM will be able to gather from this reply which is being published what those points were.
Anonymity.
It is a matter of real regret that not only was anonymity required, but that Harper MacLeod were used as a conduit to try and elicit a reply from the SPFL or SFA. In terms of anonymity there were three factors at play:
- Security. The individuals asking the questions are aware that any raised concerning Rangers can attract threats from the worst of the Rangers support. We know that they are a minority but nevertheless, as we have recently witnessed, some are ready to turn threat into action. It is a condemnation of Scottish society that fear has played its part in preventing the truth being revealed about Rangers FC’s use of EBTs since 1999.
- Collective. The Scottish Football Monitor is made up of supporters of many clubs in Scottish football and is in effect a collective. The letters reflect to a large extent the thinking and feelings of the majority of readers. If a name is required for any future correspondence from the SPFL or SFA, then it can be addressed to Mr John Macnab, and a Post Box address can be supplied if necessary in addition to this e mail address press@tsfm.scot.
- Accountability. The final factor is the most important because it is why Harper Macleod were approached. It was not just because you were responsible for commissioning the Lord Nimmo Smith enquiry, but because there is absolutely no form of direct accountability by either the SPFL or the SFA to the supporters of Scottish football clubs. Correspondence can be ignored or the content not fully addressed and the customer who pays the wages of both organisations has no means of redress at all. Had there been some oversight in say an Ombudsman type role, it would not have been necessary to involve Harper MacLeod and indeed your good self. We sincerely apologise for doing so along with our thanks for actually responding to our correspondence, but we would like the reasons for our approach being addressed by the clubs who make up both footballing authorities. We hope you pass this particular point on to both SFA and SPFL.
Provenance.
You ask what the provenance is of the information/evidencethat you were given. The answer is we do not know, it was taken from material uploaded mainly in June last year for purposes unknown. Whilst its provenance may be in doubt there is no question as to the veracity of the content of the material itself.
This, when put together, sets out the narrative that prompted our correspondence. This question of provenance simply looks like an excuse for football authority not investigating what the material suggests took place when Duff and Phelps were asked to supply all documents relating to EBTs (no distinction being made) from the inception of the SPL.
Even if the material itself could not be used directly, it should have prompted questions that would have either corrected the narrative or established that the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission was indeed misled either by accident or design, when those documents were not supplied.
The SPFL must surely have the powers to seek the original documents from BDO and the SFA cannot be totally impotent in that regard either.
Then there is the personal knowledge of current SFA President Campbell Ogilvie to draw on. A simple statement explaining why he saw no reason to make any distinction between the irregular DOS REBTs that he launched in 1999 and the later MGMRT EBTs of which he was a beneficiary would surely help clear the air?
Existence of Side Letters.
We note that the Commission were aware of the existence of side letters to Moore, De Boer and Flo at the time of its decision of 28th February 2013 and these were taken into account when determining the appropriate sanction. The existence of side letters is not the issue that was raised in our previous correspondence, it was the nature of the EBTs that was the issue raised. In fact it would seem that the Commission themselves were confused by the switching from the irregular REBT ebts in 2002/03 to the MGMRT EBTs that are subject to further appeal with regard to regularity by HMRC.
The side letters to De Boer and Flo of 30th August and 23 November 2000 related to the DOS REBTs that they were both paid under. It is not known if they had subsequent side letters relating to the MGMRT EBTs , which is possible, but as set out in previous correspondence there were two distinctive types of EBTs and the side letters supplied relate to the earlier irregular type.
The position regarding the Moore EBT is interesting in that whatever EBT side letter was known to the Commission in February 2012 it could only have related to payments made to him under an accompanying side letter from the MGMRT ebts after 2002/03.
That Mr Moore was paid under the REBT scheme in 1999 is a matter of supplied evidence. However there is no record of any side letter in relation to the payment under the 1999 arrangement, which may or may not have been reported in the contract lodged with the SPL and SFA. It was the absence of any side letter in respect of this payment that prevented HMRC pursuing the tax due on it as they did for De Boer and Flo in what has become known as “the wee tax case. “ The evidence of deliberate concealment by the Murray Group of the side letters to De Boer and Flo allowed HMRC to seek repayment outside the normal 6 year time limit.
However the absence of a side letter or tax demand for Mr Moore does not mean this particular payment is not deserving of further scrutiny since
- It was an irregular payment that other clubs could not avail themselves of (as applies to the other two EBTs to De Boer and Flo)
- It is not known if it was reported to the SPL/SFA under the registration rules of that period.
Finally thank you for forwarding our letter of 5th September and previous correspondence to the SFA Compliance Officer. Hopefully any further correspondence will be between him and ourselves, first to our email address, later to a PO Box if required.
It is the hope of all readers of The Scottish Football Monitor that the SFA will stop hiding behind the provenance excuse, which is destroying any semblance of integrity and proper governance of Scottish football and they will use their powers to properly acquire the information that will set the record straight and in doing so start to restore some of the lost trust which is essential for the wellbeing of Scottish football.
John Macnab
TSFM
scapaflow says:
October 8, 2014 at 11:46 pm
But, I have trouble making any sense out of this whole Ashley drip feeding money scenario. We are told that various parties benefit from a number of financial tape worms that were implanted into the corporate body, why on earth would Ashley feed in money, only to see a hefty chunk of it disappear to parts unknown? He owns honest to God assets, that he can get a decent return out of, whoever runs the business, why take on the extra hassle?
†**************************************
Or the question could be why is Ashley working at all?. He has more money than he knows what to do with.
The thing is these guys get a buzz from their little games. Like the obsessed football fans he is trying to fleece the Ashley’s of this world just love trying to work a deal so they can show the other players and the plebs how good they are at what they do.
Charles Green, clever man, chose right when he dangled the money making opportunity in front of Ashley’s nose. He just couldn’t resist having a wee punt.
Rafat Rizvi is described as ‘a convicted fraudster,’yet Dave King gets the title ‘South African tycoon’.Is there a difference,am I missing something?
I am puzzled here….just how much money is in this merchandise lark?
Does anyone have any real idea? I struggle to believe that there is anything like enough profit in this to tempt anyone to pour millions into the ibrox bottomless pit…
Long Time Lurker says:
October 9, 2014 at 7:13 am
The issues involving trademarks were quite comprehensively dealt with a couple of weeks ago on the previous post: ‘How Not To Govern Scottish Football’.
The problem is that we are reliant on the public records and it may well be that they don’t reflect the current position but that, so far, remains conjecture as no actual firm evidence has ever, to my knowledge, been provided to refute that TRFCL bought the rights concerned from D&P.
Some people claim that Green personally purchased the rights because of a statement he made claiming that. However Green invariably talked p*sh and if anyone bought the rights other than TRFCL IMO it was the mystery investors in the original Sevco 5088 consortium.
Green, afaik, never put a penny into Rangers and just took. He was always just the front-man and mouth of his anonymous bosses IMO and another piece of superb deflection to divert attention from those who have always controlled the future of Rangers from it went into admin.
If you check the Rangers AIM Prospectus you will see that SportsDirect already has world-wide rights under an exclusive licence to use the trademarks which right can not only survive a bankruptcy situation but be enhanced by one in terms of control of Rangers Retail. Of course the newly formed Ashley ‘Rights’ company might provide the final lock and resting place on these rights.
Morning Danish Pastry.
When Rangers become front page news you know that there is something up.
If ME were to secure the intellectual property rights, home many bears would impose a ban on purchasing replica kit? In addition if the team are not playing well on the park, then sales will fall away anyway.
The ME pitch for the crest seems to me to be a high risk punt.
Internet rumors this morning that (S)DM wants to come back to make amends. Amazing if true. I cannot see this happening. Would BDO/HMRC accept such a return to the fold?
Mr Whyte is also attracting much media attention – a nice reminder that he is still in the background.
It appears that there are a number of groups actively fighting to retain hold of the club. For the life of me I cannot see why. The stadium is still in need of investment – indeed who owns that particular asset? The club will have to invest significant sums to be competitive – Celtic appear to have built up financial reserves. Who is going to sink millions into a club – which is still a basket case?
Many bampots keep waiting for the club to internally collapse. The warring factions appear to keep breathing enough life into the club to keep it plodding along.
All this warring factions stuff, coupled with the media digs at Whyte appear to be classic distraction.
What is happening under the cover of the smoke-screen? And who is feeding the SMSM the distraction stories and why?
StevieBC says:
October 9, 2014 at 3:47 am
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/mike-ashely-demanded-ownership-rangers-4404886
Now I’ve said before that PMGB is more than capable of sticking up for himself, and I’m sure he has used some poetic licence and wishful thinking in some of his blogs, but in the same way he has consistently broken more news, in a lamb free way, than any of the SMSM.
If Jackson is to be believed (I know, I know) in this piece at least, then Phil’s blog of 2 days ago is given great credence. I’ll leave it to everyone else to decide for themselves if this credence carries over to all his blogs, but there’s no doubt he’s well ahead of the pack on this one, and I suspect Jackson would have missed it if he hadn’t read Phil’s version first.
Now, if we accept that Jackson has confirmed Phil’s story, then, unless Phil just embellishes his blogs with complete untruths, continually risking egg on his face (and I don’t think he does that), his explanation why Ashley didn’t get what he asked for – someone else (Green?), not TRFC, owns the image rights – must take on much credence too.
Phil ended his blog by challenging any MSM ‘journo’ to ask Wallace if it was true. Jackson would appear to have had the opportunity to do so. He either didn’t, or didn’t like the answer he was given.
Yet another opportunity to discredit that damned Irish blogger passes by!
Phil’s piece I refer to can be read here:
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/quite-an-image/#more-5157
peterjung says:
October 9, 2014 at 8:37 am
I am puzzled here….just how much money is in this merchandise lark?
Does anyone have any real idea? I struggle to believe that there is anything like enough profit in this to tempt anyone to pour millions into the ibrox bottomless pit.
————————————————–
I think you make a good point – obviously the amount would increase with promotion to the Premiership and possible European entry. However to someone like Ashley it really is small beer.
So why does he bother? Newcastle appears to have been a deal that went wrong in that he was going for a quick resale but that fell through so he was stuck with it. So he did what he does best he cut costs and maximised profit from the company and he appears to be genuine about flogging it if he can make a profit on the deal.
So why Rangers? Does he have some deep-seated need to be adored by tens of thousands of cheering Bears as a latter-day Caesar? Even if so does he really think Ibrox is a setting which comes close to matching the glory of the Colosseum although, that too, is in constant need of repair.
Ibrox politics are a cess pit and the support can be dangerously mercurial and tbh I would think Ashley has the sense to realise that tame magpies are more preferable than wild bears.
So if he’s looking for love and adulation then I doubt he’ll get it. Is it just to show the City that he can return a fallen ‘institution’ to its ‘rightful place’ in the footballing pantheon? Possibly.
Or is it just a glorified rpg which gives Ashley a bit of excitement and let’s him get totally immersed in the game controlling all the major pieces and determining every move. All of his huge financial coups these days are much more ‘clinical’ and probably most of the business is conducted by his professionaland detached staff.
Perhaps the Rangers Bear Pit gets Ashley’s blood and adrenaline surging especially when he personally destroys his opponents.
But once he has parked his tanks on the Ibrox turf and is installed as true Lord & Master of Ibrox will he retain any interest? I just don’t believe Ashley’s involvement is simply about making more money so, for me, the unanswered question is what his motivation is.
However, one thing about Ashley, is that while it might all be a jolly jape for him and a way of recapturing his youth when he fought his way to the top of the pile – once thing’s for sure he will not allow Ibrox to continue as a bottomless money pit.
So he could be good for the club and when he tires of it and moves on then it should be in a much better position financially. Of course perhaps the spivs will outsmart him and the whole Roman Circus will just continue and provide entertainment for the spectators.
Not a lot of fun for the Bears kept caged in the dungeons under the Colosseum waiting to fight for their life although the odds then – and now – were heavily weighted against them.
Here are some things that Mike Ashley knows.
Football clubs who want to win things are not profit generating machines because they have a requirement to spend everything they have in the quest for silver.
Football clubs especially if they are big or have a “point of difference” can and do make obscene amounts from selling their “rights” on merchandise at obscene prices.
Club merchandise is profitable and much easier to manage than the football club itself.
Even easier if you already have a network profitably producing and selling “stuff”.
Ashley is not a long term benefactor or owner.
But he would be stupid to let someone else kill his personal golden goose.
He cannot work alone in the long term because he needs someone to run the business while he continues long into the future making and taking easy money.
He’s probably in fact he is certainly not working alone now.
He’s just leading the line for a wee while.
Who brought him in to this carpet bagging feast?
ecobhoy says:
October 9, 2014 at 8:41 am
If you check the Rangers AIM Prospectus you will see that SportsDirect already has world-wide rights under an exclusive licence to use the trademarks which right can not only survive a bankruptcy situation but be enhanced by one in terms of control of Rangers Retail. Of course the newly formed Ashley ‘Rights’ company might provide the final lock and resting place on these rights.
==================================
As I interpret the prospectus, Rangers Retail currently has a licence to use all the Intellectual Property owned by TRFC, and pays nothing for this. Payments will only be made if the joint venture is dissolved and SD acquire 100% of Retail. In that event, payments will be made according to a formula, but whether that formula is beneficial to SD, we have no way of knowing. I’m guessing that Ashley’s legal team have a lot more firepower than Rangers had, certainly at that time, so I assume that TRFC have been stitched up like a kipper. What we do know about the joint venture indicates that the deal was extremely one-sided.
I can see why Ashley wants to own the Intellectual Property outright, as a tidying up exercise, but it seems to me that the current arrangement suits him very well financially. However if TRFC go into administration, Ashley will doubtless acquire 100% of Retail, but then have to pay fees for the use of the Intellectual Property. Which might partly explain the “drip feed” scenario. Ashley wants to avoid an admin which would cost him money. However if Ashley owned the rights, then TRFC could go into liquidation for all he cares, so long as a successor club was formed by the brogues, and that is a certainty. I presume that any successor club wearing the badge (or even using the name) would then have to pay Ashley for the privilege?
So if Ashley wins the battle and sacks Wallacw and Nash, they will presumably be replaced by Ashley men, who will then happily exchange the Intellectual Property for some drip fed soft loans. Or just put TRFC into administration, job done.
Maybe I`m missing something
Public Companies, AIM, NOMADs, Disclosures to Shareholders, Audited Accounts
Let`s skip the 3 NOMADs in 2 years bit and the Current NOMAD Suspended – thing
Go back to Dec 12 AGM / Accounts
Where does it say Ibrox Rights sold for a quid plus details of other onerous contracts?
It doesn’t
Bears and Shareholders properly informed? Doesn’t seem so
Is it fair to say Wallace / Nash / Deloittes didn`t know at the time? Probably.
Later 120 Day review by Graham Wallace gave a hint of what was loose
Point is a Dec 12 AGM ran based on Accounts without disclosure of key financial items
Is this allowed in Public Companies?
This should be under AIM investigation, at least. Now, not in 18 months’ time.
If these clandestine `Deals` between Green and MA were not made public to Bears and Shareholders, surely they are illegal. This is wrong.
To this day any assumed information on onerous revelations is from various media
All the people who generated this mess should be brought to book and sued
Am I missing something?
mtp
Ecobhoy says:
October 9, 2014 at 8:41 am
Long Time Lurker says:
October 9, 2014 at 7:13 am
============================================
@Long Time Lurker – you have possibly thrown a grenade into proceedings 🙄
I have checked on the IPO for the Rangers shirt badge with the interlinked RFC and 5 stars above.
I can’t find it under the ownership of Rangers in the IPO database but I will take a much slower and detailed look just to make sure.
The interlinked RFC is there on its own and also with other bits and pieces but not with 5 stars. The interlinked RFC dates back to approx 1990.
So the question is where is the interlinked RFC and 5 stars badge registered and who owns it? Could JJB have owned it? Or was this indeed a side deal done by D&P with Green?
And what right does Rangers Retail have to use the interlinked RFC and 5 stars on branded kit and if that company doesn’t own the trademark on the design who do they have a licence from and what do they pay for it?
As I say I might be missing something obvious so will retrace and search more closely but this is interesting 😆
Merchandising does indeed make money, but he’s got that stitched up anyway. Merchandising a point of difference that is visibly successful makes more money – he will know from NUFC the key balance re speculate to accumulate. Evidence there shows that he doesn’t particularly favour a strategy speculate first to accumulate later.
(On a complete side note by the way, I now pay attention at St J Park matches and the SD advertising is the epitomy of over the top).
Back on track re merchandising, propping up an ailing club that is pivotal to the above is not ideal, but its a straightforward cost benefit calculation, indeed one he has made a successful career out of. It is obviously even better if some other mug will do it for the kicks, leaving him to benefit from the commission of course. You also can’t discount the ‘macho’ factor. Certainly the bears shouldn’t. No-one knows how much he’s put into Newcastle or whether its relatively profitable or not. The one thing that’s not going to happen though is a statement along the lines of “Successful Businessman Mike Ashley has Invested Squillions into (insert club) and Has Found Out Its an Absolute Dog.” Even if it is!
It may mean nothing but a search on IPO for trademarks owned by Rangers Retail Ltd gives a client ID No of 352572 and when the link is clicked the following message comes up: No trade mark details were found for the selected owner.
So does that mean that Rangers Retail even though it is listed on the government site as a trade mark owner doesn’t actually own any trade marks or has the trade mark/s it own still to be registered?
Long Time Lurker says: October 9, 2014 at 7:13 am
“Returning to the crest, is there any way to understand who currently owns the rights?”
According to the HM Gov’s Intellectual Property Rights Office its (drum roll please….):
Holder’s name
THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED
Ibrox Stadium 150 Edmiston Drive, Glasgow, United Kingdom, G51 2XD
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmcase/Results/4/EU002557379
Reading through, it’s quite amazing to see how many unanswered questions remain. Tom English, Keith Jackson and others wax lyrical about all the intrigue and the struggle to “take control” of the new football club, while basic questions go unaddressed. Perhaps even unasked, except by Phil.
Some clarity on ownership of the intellectual property rights?
Phil MacGiollaBhain @Pmacgiollabhain · 29s29 seconds ago
@Allyjambo @VeloMonster Quite so.
RIFC could not sell to Mr Ashley what they did not own.
#Charlie
jockybhoy says:
October 9, 2014 at 10:42 am
Long Time Lurker says:
October 9, 2014 at 7:13 am
According to the HM Gov’s Intellectual Property Rights Office its (drum roll please….):
Holder’s name
THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED
Ibrox Stadium 150 Edmiston Drive, Glasgow, United Kingdom, G51 2XD
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmcase/Results/4/EU002557379
==========================================================
That isn’t the crest under discussion. The crest we are talking about is the one used on the club jerseys and other branded kit which is an interlinked RFC topped with 5 stars with the middle star larger IIRC than the 2 supporting on either side.
That is the crest which so far I haven’t found to be owned by Rangers. And if Rangers doesn’t own it then who does? That is the question.
The other question is how can Rangers Retail use the crest I am talking about to shift shirts and other merchandise without a licence? And if it does have a licence to use it then who owns that licence?
No drum roll I’m afraid – not even a cigar 🙂
As there appears to be some confudsion as to what crest/badge we are talking about it’s this one:
http://www.lovellsoccer.co.uk/Football-Replica-Shirts/Puma/Glasgow-Rangers-14-or-15-Third-S-or-S-Football-Shirt-Red/size_S?utm_source=googleshopping&utm_medium=organic&gclid=CP2Y7-mnn8ECFSsXwwod6rcASg
The one with the interlinked RFC and five stars above.
The question is: Who own the trademark? Or can anyone just start manufacturing Rangers kit using that badge? I doubt it but it would be one way to flush-out the owner 😆
Esteban says:
October 9, 2014 at 10:46 am
‘while basic questions go unaddressed’
_______________________________________-
Lamb at it’s most succulent 🙄
While Jackson is right there with the mint sauce, English seems to be wise enough to remain away from the table while avoiding knocking over the gravy boat 😳
OK the 2012/13 Rangers shirts can be seen at: http://www.rangersmegastore.com/replica-kit/2012-2013-kits
The Home shirt just had the interlinked RFC which is a Rangers-owned trademark as did the Goalie kit. But the Away and Third Strip had the interlinked RFC topped with the stars.
The 2013/14 kits are shown at: http://www.rangersmegastore.com/replica-kit/2013-2014-kits
The Home, Away and Third kits all have the interlinked RFC topped with the stars.
So the question is why did the 2012/13 Home kits not have the stars above it yet the Away and Third kits did have?
Just in the passing, I see a page in this morning’s ‘Scotsman’ headed up “Championship Fanzone”, which I hadn’t seen before.
I haven’t been buying the ‘Scotsman’ every day for a couple of weeks, so I phoned the paper. I was told that they had introduced this feature a couple of weeks ago because the Championship was ‘doing so well’. They still have the CL Fanzone on a Wednesday, and introduced the new page on Thursdays.
Anyway, full marks to a Mr Leo Ferranti (clever pseudonym!)whose report as a Livingston fan on the game against TRFC includes the following:
“……The match was sadly marred by a small section of the travelling support who charged at the stewards and police in the first half, caused significant damage to the stadium and ended up being ‘kettled’ outside by police officers and horses, leading to several arrests.
Finally, the match programme, trying to give an accurate Rangers’ recent history, i.e one trademarked name but 2 clubs/companies, caused great upset among many, for which the club formally apologised.
It will be interesting to see which issue gets most attention of the football authorities”
Allyjambo says:
October 9, 2014 at 11:07 am
—
Thanks. Jackson and English are two random examples of the journalists still taking a salary for ‘covering’ this matter.
Their performance, and that of their peers, remains pitiful though and they are, frankly, wasting everyone’s time. I mean specifically the way they go about reporting what is going on off the field at that football club.
If it was on the field, the way they are going about things would equate to listing the numbers of throw-ins in a match, who took them, from where and how far they threw the ball each time, while ignoring things like goals and the final score.
An interesting report from S&P Capital IQ that details its Credit Assessment of European Public and Private Football Clubs. The report evaluates the link between a club’s match performance, equity market’s perception of its credit risk, and financial assessment of its creditworthiness. The two Scottish clubs that are FTSE listed are covered, perhaps an idea for the SPFL to consider such risk assessment for all its members?
Link: http://www.spcapitaliq-credit.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/SP-Capital-IQ-Credit-football-league-03Oct2014-FINAL.pdf?t=1412610126
helpmaboab says:
October 9, 2014 at 8:23 am
‘..Rafat Rizvi is described as ‘a convicted fraudster,’yet Dave King gets the title ‘South African tycoon’.Is there a difference,am I missing something?’
———
I have been puzzling over this conundrum since you posed it this morning, and my heid is fair nipping. But I think I may have the answer!
Rafat Rizvi was not/is not a Castlemilk-born supporter of RFC(IL). If he had been, or if he presentlt was,the SMSM sports hacks would find as little fault with his conviction as they have done with the many convictions of the South African fraud merchant.
It is this blind partisanship (a la Chick of the BBC) which has reduced the general run of Scottish sports journalists to … what, exactly? …Lazy,ignorant and/or deceitful, pusillanimous, unprincipled, charlatans who, I hope, detest the face they see in the mirror, and haven’t the guts even to begin to act as proper, questioning,
seekers of truth.
Am I right or…?
Long Time Lurker says:
October 9, 2014 at 11:00 am
Some clarity on ownership of the intellectual property rights?
Phil MacGiollaBhain @Pmacgiollabhain • 29s29 seconds ago
@Allyjambo @VeloMonster Quite so.
RIFC could not sell to Mr Ashley what they did not own.
#Charlie
Hey LTL 😀
Yep, Phil shining a plausible torch again. Like Phil but the onus focus is on one person
My question is CG could not have done such a thing alone
Duffers sold that IP/Goodwill for a quid from memory.
They had to sell to CG as he had CW Shares, but was IP sold at fair market value?
Another Question
If a deal (onerous contract) was set up to channel cash away to any external party, it must have had approval from the then Board at that time. CG could not have acted alone. Who set up the onerous contract for approval? Such contracts must have identified parties to the contract for the then Board approval, even if they were not properly legally scrutinised? Who were all involved in removing a valuable revenue stream and what was their incentive as it must surely have reduced the overall value and future income streams of what they were legally charged as supposed to manage and supervise properly.
Graham Wallace and Philip Nash for sure were not involved as they were nowhere near Ibrox at that time. Suddenly a call for their removal?
Strange
Some hard answers would clear up any such speculation or misunderstanding
Not holding breath tho :irony:
mtp
Obviously the 5 stars were meant to represent the 50 league titles record which was achieved in 2003 but I don’t know for definite when the stars first appeared.
Looking at the Willie Vass Archive the first time the interlinked RFC appears to have 5 stars above it is in January 2005. The stars have been various different colours over the years. They also weren’t a permanent fixture from what I can see but came and went.
Obviously they must have been trademarked and it’s just a question of doing some more digging to see what happened to that licence which may however be licenced abroad – France anyone?
twopanda says:
October 9, 2014 at 12:00 pm
‘..Some hard answers would clear up any such speculation or misunderstanding.’
——-
Aye, but to get answers requires that hard questions be asked! And none of our journalists seem motivated enough, or capable enough, to do that.
Ecobhoy , Auldheid, and innumerable posters on this blog, have a talent for research, and the will to undertake the effort involved.And have made us all sit up and take notice and ask questions-questions that are increasingly focused, and focused on finding facts, not on acting as PR agents.
The research resources available to professional, salaried journalists are presumably much greater than those available even to free-lancers like PMCG, let alone to our posters.
Yet, it seems to me, Phil and our posters are always ahead of the hunt.
I do find it hard to avoid the conclusion that our ‘professional’ journalists are deliberately not investigating.
Surely to God, English, or Speirs, or even daft wee Chick could find out basic things like ownership of trade marks, badges, names or whatever? Or at least, let us know that they are trying ,on their own initiative,to unearth all the facts relating to what is essentially now a ‘business’ matter, a board-room and finance struggle between hard-nosed groups of dishonourable men, among whom are at least two convicted fraudsters and, possibly, one fraudster still on the run from his own country, and, again possibly,in the background, another fraudster sentenced to prison in absentia.
And it’s not such a great leap to question their readiness to reveal any ‘truths’ they might discover IF they did any research.
John Clark says:
October 9, 2014 at 12:54 pm
Concur JC
And to highlight your observation
“I do find it hard to avoid the conclusion that our ‘professional’ journalists are deliberately not investigating.”
This WILL backfire
SMSM need to get their skates on or they`ll go the way of the Dodo
People need to see this for what it really is and right now
Consider
Any punt /gambit is time related
EGM maneuverer BUYS TIME to force a cash flow fait accompli by end of this month
IMO
mtp
twopanda says:
October 9, 2014 at 1:15 pm
Consider
Any punt /gambit is time related
EGM maneuverer BUYS TIME to force a cash flow fait accompli by end of this month
=============================
The EGM ploy takes the power of timing away from the Board.
Wallace forecast an AGM by the end of this month, in his written submission to the Court on the Imran case, but there is now no chance of that. He would like to spin it out until late December if he can, because without more cash on the table, the auditors will qualify the accounts. And I imagine that the accounts themselves will make grim reading.
Clearly Wallace has crossed Ashley, who has decided to bring matters to a head by calling the EGM. The Board’s obvious response would be to set an early date for the AGM. That tactic worked last year, with the requisitioners, but I get the impression that Ashley is a much tougher cookie than Paul Murray and Co. I imagine Ashley will go to court to force an EGM if the Board try stalling again. Wallace should in my opinion walk away right now, if he values his reputation.
Rangers Badge and Intellectual Property Rights
I have looked at the badge on the latest Rangers Megastore shirts and it’s clear that the intertwining letters ‘RFC’ on the shirts is a direct descendant from the original trade mark first filed in May 1981: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmcase/Results/1/UK00001153482
There were further variants but essentially the design has remained the same to date with no stars ever being included in any trademarked design. Rangers Retail were granted an exclusive licence to use the ‘intertwining RFC design’ from 31 July 2012 (no stars included and no pun intended).
We know that rather grand symbolism of the 5 stars dates from the 50 titles achievement in 2003 and certainly by January 2005 the 5 stars were added to the ‘intertwining RFC letters’ on Rangers’ official shirts although in some years and on some strips other designs were used.
However there is no trace that any UK trademark exists in the name of Rangers for this combined RFC and stars shirt badge. It would appear that the design has either never been trademarked; is trademarked in another name possibly overseas; or the trademark was refused.
One thing for sure is that the design including the stars long pre-dated Green’s arrival.
I find it very strange that Rangers has been using this badge for a decade without trademarking it. Perhaps onerous contracts date much further back than previously realised ❓
It might not be in the interests of any director in the last 10 years or so to raise the issue or admit any prior knowledge that Rangers doesn’t own its own shirt badge. That goes beyond embarassing to the cringeworthy.
However I have no doubt someone somewhere owns it and is raking in a pretty penny year on year seemingly in perpetuity. I wonder how these payments are displayed in the club accounts or do they go through Rangers Retail whose admin IIRC is done via SportsDirect.
Just realised that the DR has disabled the readers’ comments facility online – for sports and all other articles it would appear.
A pity as the comments are usually more entertaining than the articles. In other sites like The Herald there is usually interesting discussion and info in the comments section.
And I don’t think it reflects well on any online MSM website if you are unable to make a direct comment on their output – and it’s even worse IMO if they are selective about which articles you can and cannot comment on (with maybe ongoing court cases aside).
I’m afraid my sometimes wicked sense of humour couldn’t resist this one 😆
Ploughing through starry trademarks I came across ‘OLD FIRM’ and ‘THE OLD FIRM’. and the holder of the badge of shame is jointly registered to:
It’s nice to see that another three jointly-owned ‘Old Firm’ trademarks are now declared ‘dead’ which probably won’t be accepted by my blue brethern 😆
I’m not great on the financials, so please bear with me and point out where my rationale is wrong.
In a financially recalibrated Scottish league, Ashley funds TRFC to compete at the top and therefore has potential access to CL money, exposure and, more importantly, selling to re-engaged and revitalised Bears. Would his cost benefit analysis give him more money from this scenario, than sticking with Newcastle and all its Premier League wealth? In Scotland, he’d need to spend a lot less to reasonably compete, but his return on merchandise would be similar or greater than Newcastle?
I know I must be missing something.
StevieBC says:
October 9, 2014 at 1:55 pm
Just realised that the DR has disabled the readers’ comments facility online – for sports and all other articles it would appear.
===================================================
They just can’t afford to staff the monitoring to the required level and potentially could end-up with hefty claims against them and may have already done so.
They might open it up to subscribers which mean they can trace you or report you to the police or their own lawyers or even a complainer’s legal eagles.
Hamerdoon says:
October 9, 2014 at 2:12 pm
I’m not great on the financials, so please bear with me and point out where my rationale is wrong.
In a financially recalibrated Scottish league, Ashley funds TRFC to compete at the top and therefore has potential access to CL money, exposure and, more importantly, selling to re-engaged and revitalised Bears. Would his cost benefit analysis give him more money from this scenario, than sticking with Newcastle and all its Premier League wealth? In Scotland, he’d need to spend a lot less to reasonably compete, but his return on merchandise would be similar or greater than Newcastle?
I know I must be missing something.
=======================================
At a guess when/if he sells Newcastle he will retain some onerous contracts so he still cashes in on merchandise/advertising.
StevieBC says:
October 9, 2014 at 1:55 pm
Just realised that the DR has disabled the readers’ comments facility online – for sports and all other articles it would appear.
—————————-
Then they are providing the rest of us with a better service. The bigotry, racism, stupidity and sheer ignorance of most comments posted, leaves me in despair for the future of my children!
For me there is a place in the media for Journalists, Reporters and Opinion Coloumnists, if they do their job well or not, at least they are controlled and edited. Online posters are not and that seems to attract a combination of idiots, attention seekers and haters, none of whom I have any time for.
Never thought I would say this but…. Good on The Daily Record!
Hamerdoon says: October 9, 2014 at 2:12 pm
“Ashley funds TRFC to compete at the top and therefore has potential access to CL money, exposure and, more importantly, selling to re-engaged and revitalised Bears.
In Scotland, he’d need to spend a lot less to reasonably compete, but his return on merchandise would be similar or greater than Newcastle? I know I must be missing something.”
Not neccess-celery, in fact I agree entirely. Look at the annual profits, sorry losses, posted by almost every EPL club and certainly any EPL club that doesn’t want to flirt with relegation. They are almost all posting massive losses (even in comparison with Rangers) – this is sustainable only with annual cash injections or varying levels of transparency.
Rangers running at an even keel should compete with Celtic & Hamilton at the top of the SPFL so you get the gains (occasional Euro-money, regular cup finals offering silverware, & Cup Final Special shirts, 1.4m “Loyal” fans in Scotland, “an estimated worldwide fanbase in excess of 5.5 million supporters” (source: wkikhaha) etc. without entering the arms race that is the EPL’s transfer policy.
If you are a businessman to get the same opportunity for revenue/growth whilst limiting your exposuire is a no-brainer…
Hamerdoon says:
October 9, 2014 at 2:12 pm
The idea of owning a football club is as social guardian custodian in trust for your team
It should not be an opportunity to financially rip supporters off at every possible chance
mtp
SFA Charge – Kris Boyd (Violent Conduct)
Verdict – Not Proven (just announced)
I know TSFM once asked us not to post comments from other blogs, but I thought this was a very decent post on the LSE share price thread:
———–
“I’m honestly not expecting anyone to roll up and spend £50M or anything close to that to buy Rangers. As a life long fan I would now be happy to do what the Wimbledon supporters did and basically start again, AFC Rangers or something similar. I would rather watch a Rangers team, run by the supporters, play in the lowest leagues and fight their way back to the top under their own steam, rather than be manipulated as another pawn in Ashley’s power games! They’ve already taken the heart and soul from the club anyway. Since all of this happened, and in the aftermath of all of the troubles and problems of the last few years, the club has been tarnished and battered to such an extent, that I’m not convinced that it can ever be anything like it was before. And as I do not want to line the pockets of the people that have perpetuated the problems, that leaves very little options.
When Rangers were consigned to the old Division Three, I said at the time that it would be a landmark day for Scottish Football, and I still believe that to be the case. It affected the entire game in Scotland, and perhaps now with the premier league being more competitive so far this year, it might seem to some people to have been a good thing. But you just need to look at the dwindling attendances to see that this is not the case. Scottish Football needed a strong Rangers and Celtic, I think it still does. But even if Rangers make it back to the premier division next season, I fear the atmosphere that will exist is not going to be very palatable for the majority of fans that have long been sick of the ‘baggage’ the follows both clubs when they are in the same division. I also think it’s very sad that the SFA have been so quiet during this whole fiasco. As the supposed guardians of the game in Scotland they have done nothing to try and ensure that the reputation of the game has been upheld, and their silence through all of this has been deafening!”
Very interesting piece on Celtic’s finances – They are top of the table while Rangers struggle:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/celtic-money-rangers-finish-lower-4406164#rlabs=1
jimlarkin says:
October 9, 2014 at 2:47 pm
I’d imagine the ‘not proven’ verdict, as opposed to ‘not guilty’, will leave it open for others to be found ‘guilty’ in (almost) identical circumstances.
Allyjambo says:
October 9, 2014 at 3:27 pm
jimlarkin says:
October 9, 2014 at 2:47 pm
I’d imagine the ‘not proven’ verdict, as opposed to ‘not guilty’, will leave it open for others to be found ‘guilty’ in (almost) identical circumstances.
=================================================
I felt that both players should have been charged and that it was unfair that only Boyd was. I do think that both should have been charged and penalised for their behaviour which IMO was unacceptable.
Long Time Lurker says:
October 9, 2014 at 8:52 am
“It appears that there are a number of groups actively fighting to retain hold of the club. For the life of me I cannot see why.”
—————————-
It is a long standing and easily recognisable brand. It can take a lot of time and effort to achieve brand recognition and the trust that goes with it.
This particular brand has two potentially useful groups of adherents.
1. A respectable community of business men who are thought to network with each other and who may have long established contacts in many spheres of influence.
2. A cohort of zealous footsoldiers who might be deployed to provide gentle but firm encouragement to the populous in general concerning for instance, their opinions and outlook.
There are the properties of course and the football thingy.
ecobhoy says:
October 9, 2014 at 9:13 am
“So why Rangers? Does he have some deep-seated need to be adored by tens of thousands of cheering Bears as a latter-day Caesar?”
—————————-
I think Ashley’s connection with Rangers predates the 2012 phoenix exercise. I heard tell a number of years ago about an annual dinner in Glasgow held around Christmas time that played host to Ashley and a number of Scottish business glitterati. My source was just a Joe Bloggs and it was just an annual ‘charity’ do. He was however a strong Rangers supporter and I got the impression that this might have been part of the entry credentials.
Ecobhoy,
With regard to your observation that failure to register a mark over a long period of time seems strange – it’s not the first time.
The intertwined RFC symbol link you provided showed that it was registered in 1981 – and from memory, it was incorporated into the new Rangers trip in the late 60s when the “V” neck was dispensed with.
An interesting link to the historical strips is here;
http://www.historicalkits.co.uk/Scottish_Football_League/Rangers/Rangers.htm
Students of OCNC will admire the semantics and syntactical gymnastics of the writer 🙂
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/ayr-united/294986-ayr-united-players-to-go-full-time-as-club-announces-new-academy-plan/
Chairman emphasising that this will all be achieved “living within their means”
Danish Pastry says:
October 9, 2014 at 3:06 pm
12 1 i
Rate This
I know TSFM once asked us not to post comments from other blogs, but I thought this was a very decent post on the LSE share price thread:
———–
“I’m honestly not expecting anyone to roll up and spend £50M or anything close to that to buy Rangers. As a life long fan I would now be happy to do what the Wimbledon supporters did and basically start again, AFC Rangers or something similar. I would rather watch a Rangers team, run by the supporters, play in the lowest leagues and fight their way back to the top under their own steam, rather than be manipulated as another pawn in Ashley’s power games! They’ve already taken the heart and soul from the club anyway. Since all of this happened, and in the aftermath of all of the troubles and problems of the last few years, the club has been tarnished and battered to such an extent, that I’m not convinced that it can ever be anything like it was before. And as I do not want to line the pockets of the people that have perpetuated the problems, that leaves very little options.
When Rangers were consigned to the old Division Three, I said at the time that it would be a landmark day for Scottish Football, and I still believe that to be the case. It affected the entire game in Scotland, and perhaps now with the premier league being more competitive so far this year, it might seem to some people to have been a good thing. But you just need to look at the dwindling attendances to see that this is not the case. Scottish Football needed a strong Rangers and Celtic, I think it still does. But even if Rangers make it back to the premier division next season, I fear the atmosphere that will exist is not going to be very palatable for the majority of fans that have long been sick of the ‘baggage’ the follows both clubs when they are in the same division. I also think it’s very sad that the SFA have been so quiet during this whole fiasco. As the supposed guardians of the game in Scotland they have done nothing to try and ensure that the reputation of the game has been upheld, and their silence through all of this has been deafening!”
I saw this earlier on the share site……..and sent it to Darryl Broadfoot at the SFA. I’ve not had a response yet.
Allyjambo says:
October 9, 2014 at 3:27 pm
I’d imagine the ‘not proven’ verdict, as opposed to ‘not guilty’, will leave it open for others to be found ‘guilty’ in (almost) identical circumstances.
——————————————
There has been numerous straight red cards for almost identical offences. That is a fact, not an opinion. Anyone who follows football or watches it on telly will know that. This part is an opinion – the SFA will refuse straight red card appeals from players sent off for for almost identical offences.
It is an incredible decision.
upthehoops
I agree with every word you say except, unfortunately, ‘incredible’.
Bawsman,
There’s a lot of sense in what is being said there. However, even the more rational of the RFC(IL) /Sevco supporters still cannot get past the fallacy that Scottish football needs a string Celtic and Rangers. Until people like him (her?) get past stuff like that, nothing that needs to change will change.
finchleyflyer says:
October 9, 2014 at 5:40 pm
0 0 i
Rate This
Bawsman,
There’s a lot of sense in what is being said there. However, even the more rational of the RFC(IL) /Sevco supporters still cannot get past the fallacy that Scottish football needs a string Celtic and Rangers. Until people like him (her?) get past stuff like that, nothing that needs to change will change.
Cannot disagree with you mate, unfortunately, they cannot fathom why others think the unthinkable…..we have the most openly competitive league in years and the national team is finding players who can actually play and not Scottish tabloid press hyped dross.
Big Pink says:
October 9, 2014 at 4:11 pm
Ecobhoy,
With regard to your observation that failure to register a mark over a long period of time seems strange – it’s not the first time.
The intertwined RFC symbol link you provided showed that it was registered in 1981 – and from memory, it was incorporated into the new Rangers trip in the late 60s when the “V” neck was dispensed with.
An interesting link to the historical strips is here; http://www.historicalkits.co.uk/Scottish_Football_League/Rangers/Rangers.htm
=======================================================================
I apologise if I gave the wrong impression that failing to register a mark over a long period of time with the IPO seemed strange. That situation afaik was mainly historical and largely created by successive extension of Trademark Law protection in general and the setting-up of registers and the IPO – the relatively recent successor to the Patents Office.
Celtic akso had a time-lag with the modern club badge first appearing on shirts in c1977 but the club badge not being listed on the IPO until 1990-91. Obviously there was copyright protection during the intervening period mainly from the 1938 and 1986 Acts.
Although the intertwined Rangers ‘RFC’ symbol (without stars) isn’t listed as being filed on the IPO register until 1981 it was apparently in use by the club from 1872 although the first memorabilia badge using the crest dates from the 1881-82 season. Obviously from that date and the years that followed the degree of copyright/trademark protection varied according to the changing legal climate.
The link you kindly provided shows the ‘intertwined RFC letters without any stars’ appearing on strips from 1968-1973 onwards. And we know the combined letters and stars badge has appeared on various strips since approx 2003 to date.
I think what really surprises me is – in this day and age where the value of image rights is well and truly known by everyone – that a major Rangers badge over the past decade doesn’t appear to be copyrighted by the club. I find it virtually impossible to believe such a recognisable symbol so closely associated with the Ibrox club isn’t copyrighted.
I therefore believe it has to be and therein lies the question IMO. Who holds that copyright?
SMSM Boyd nonsense dominating and probably now dominate for next three days
PR Manna from Heaven – almost makes you think this could be afore planned
Sad but predictable overly usual distractions by useless SMSM looking for excuses
Think they`re going for the Guinness book of records on this one
Much easier than reporting what’s really going on
And gives at least three days grace keeping the SFA off the agenda in a crisis
SMSM distracting Bears attention rotten to the core
Vitally important affairs smothered as per PR directives as paid for by their Moneyed Masters
Rome burned while Nero fiddled thing…………………….
mtp
upthehoops says:
October 9, 2014 at 5:33 pm
Allyjambo says:
October 9, 2014 at 3:27 pm
I’d imagine the ‘not proven’ verdict, as opposed to ‘not guilty’, will leave it open for others to be found ‘guilty’ in (almost) identical circumstances.
——————————————
There has been numerous straight red cards for almost identical offences. That is a fact, not an opinion. Anyone who follows football or watches it on telly will know that. This part is an opinion – the SFA will refuse straight red card appeals from players sent off for for almost identical offences.
It is an incredible decision.
===========================================
My understanding is that the ref didn’t see it and neither did his assistant. If it had been spotted then I have little doubt Boyd would have been red-carded. Whether that would have been fair or not is largely immaterial to me as it’s would have been the ref’s decision and by and large I seldom allow them to bother me the older I get.
I have said earlier that IMO it was unfair only to cite Boyd as both players were well at it and both deserved a ban in my book.
I really doubt that in a similar case – when the alleged offence isn’t dealt with by the ref but later from video recordings – that the verdict will be any different. I have absolutely no doubt if Boyd had wanted to use the nut then it would have been obvious as it was it was nearer to an air-kiss.
I’ve had harder head-butting from my cat so I think the incident has to be kept in perspective.
ecobhoy says:
October 9, 2014 at 6:48 pm
I’ve had harder head-butting from my cat so I think the incident has to be kept in perspective.
=======================================
At face value I see what you are saying. However, we have had probably a decade now of seeing players getting reds for identical. Every time it happens commentators, pundits, ex players, managers, ex referees, ex managers, current referees all tell us one thing. That is if you motion your head towards an opponent in the way Boyd did the guidelines from the SFA are that it is a red card. Now the same SFA want to change that. However they have to change it for everyone, not just in this case. They won’t though and now Boyd walks scot free for an offence many an aggrieved player has been banned for. It’s a disgrace in my view, and the next player to get done for the same will have every right to ask why.
Justbecause, I had the same thought. There were no theatrics by the Hibs defender in this case though. I’d compare it more closely with the Jamie Walker/Lewis Stevenson incident. It’s difficult to always get these things right but there seems to be inconsistency from the SFA when you look at the two again.
Hamerdoon @ 2.12
What am I missing (re financials)
————-
EPL tv money. Makes a bit of a difference to the cost benefit calculation.
In my naivety I always understood that being “offered” a ban was clear statement that not accepting it would result in a more punitive punishment. This draconian principle has been a long standing modus operandi of football associations, as with dual contracts also. Remember this is not a rangers/Celtic thing, not even an SPFL thing; it’s the same across every football league in Scotland and probably the world. Once again the SFA has opened up Pandora’s box.
While I’m at it. Not proven? This is a criminal law thing is it not? When the court (i.e. the court, not the paltry SFA) cannot prove the accused is guilty but doesn’t wish to record his/her innocence. WTF? They are taking the****.
What`s on MAs shopping list?
• Badge IP
• MASH Park
• Car Park (new SD Superstore)
• Whatever it is House (new counting cash hoose)
• Ibrox Stadium (to be painted bright GREEN) [In honour of his good £1 chum]
Any more `assets`?
To be `stripped`
ps – Isn’t it just awful about Boyd`s ban / no ban / not proven / PR Stunt thing?
Have no worries on that one,
SMSM will keep us all up to speed – every minute of every day it looks like or needs be
for as long as it takes as they`re been fed to say so
mtp
At the end of a day most football players are pussies that wouldn’t know what hit them on a rugby field or getting slammed into the boards in ice hockey and the likes.
The issue is however about consistency. The boys went face to face and Boyd added a forward movement. My understanding these days is that a straight red, bye bye, go the jail do not pass go etc.
In other games in the near future, without the benefit of the cameras as it happens, a ref will see it first hand and give a red card for the exact same thing. When appealing, all the player’s club has to do is bring out the ‘Boyd’ tape and ask for the red card and ban to be rescinded. Easy peesy lemon squeezy.
Ridiculous and cowardly decision in my opinion. The exact opposite should have occurred and players indulging in such antics should be mercilessly parodied on big screens at all grounds before the next weekends games and outed by the footballing authorities for the wimps they are.
With all this head butting japes did we not notice three lots of 100k shares in RIFC getting sold late this PM?
With the 300k on the books yet to be processed and another 250k yesterday thats up to 850k possibly changing hands.
In the midst of these boardroom manouverings it’d be handy to know the Easdales position….perhaps the SMSM might help so let’s turn to the Evening Times….
“Ashley has formed an alliance with football board chairman Sandy Easdale..”
All very clear but didn’t the board offer its full support to Wallace and Nash….
“The Rangers board issued a statement yesterday morning saying that it is “united in its support of the executive team…”
And I seem to recall that there’s another Easdale on the (RIFC) board…
Perhaps they’re not speaking…. 😈
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/mobile/rangers/500k-for-rangers-to-dump-wallace-and-nash-183855n.25551275?
parttimearab says:
October 9, 2014 at 9:08 pm
Exactly why the MSM are just deemed to be copying press releases instead of trying to get to the bottom of things.
EDIT
Actually I did the decent thing and read the Evening Times article. The piece is so naive with holes in so many levels I am assuming Matthew Lindsay is undertaking some kind of school placement for work experience?
DOUBLE EDIT
His picture tells me is is gae auld fir skool!!
wottpi says:
October 9, 2014 at 9:05 pm
You’re not supposed to see or mention such stuff!
SMSM may need to resurrect Nova`s 48 hour agonising tattoo of 5 stars over his backside
To which some might be calling soon on poor Naco looking for their onerous royalties’
Spivs like their cash coming in gratis
Spivs have the badge rights
They do Indeed
mtp
ernie says:
October 9, 2014 at 8:34 pm
In my naivety I always understood that being “offered” a ban was clear statement that not accepting it would result in a more punitive punishment. This draconian principle has been a long standing modus operandi of football associations, as with dual contracts also. Remember this is not a rangers/Celtic thing, not even an SPFL thing; it’s the same across every football league in Scotland and probably the world. Once again the SFA has opened up Pandora’s box.
While I’m at it. Not proven? This is a criminal law thing is it not? When the court (i.e. the court, not the paltry SFA) cannot prove the accused is guilty but doesn’t wish to record his/her innocence. WTF? They are taking the****.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Agreed
But
Have I got this right?
The SFA person responsible for monitoring compliance with the rules is the same person who pulls up a player he deems to have broken the rules
He then gives the alleged offender the opportunity to accept this punishment or appeal to a disciplinary panel
The offender is thus presented with a choice
Either
Accept the punishment knowing what it will be
Or
Refuse the punishment and opt to be tried before a Panel that excludes the Person who pulled him up in the first place
And
The Panel can make 3 decisions
Guilty
Punished by a greater or a lesser punishment than was issued by the Compliance Official
Or
Not Guilty
Or
Not Proven
,,,,,,
Thus
The only risk a player takes in refusing the initial punishment is that he will receive a greater punishment if found guilty
If found Not Guilty or Not Proven he gets off Scot Free
,,,,,,,
There`s a problem with this concept of justice
And its this
The Compliance Official is not acting as a Prosecuting Lawyer on behalf of the SFA
i.e. someone who opines that an offence has been committed and is empowered to state that a specific punishment is appropriate
Nope
Only a Judge can offer a Plea Bargain
So he is acting as a Judge on behalf of the SFA
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
And Plea Bargains don’t start from the premise that the evidence indicates that offender is likely to be found innocent
Nope
They start from the premise that the the evidence indicates the offender is most likely to be found guilty
So the idea that the evidence suggest that the offender could be found Not Proven is saying that the Panel (or Jury?) think the evidence was not sufficient for the Judge to conclude at an earlier date that the offender is guilty
Or put another way
Despite the Compliance Official being deemed the person responsible for making judgements about SFA Rules being broken
His judgements can be second guessed by a Panel
Which begs the obvious question
Whats the point in permitting a Compliance Official to offer Plea Bargains if they can be reduced?
blu says:
October 9, 2014 at 7:45 pm
There were no theatrics by the Hibs defender in this case though. I’d compare it more closely with the Jamie Walker/Lewis Stevenson incident. It’s difficult to always get these things right but there seems to be inconsistency from the SFA when you look at the two again.
—————————————-
IIRC the aggressive off the ball action by the defender initiated the immediate sequence which led to the alleged head butt. If the defender had behaved himself and not laid hands on Boyd and faced up to him then I don’t believe there would have been any reaction from Boyd.
I accept there were no theatrics after the event but there was plenty of hard-man ham acting by the defender before it. IMO it was an incident that defo took two to tangle and they both did so enthusiastically.
Wrt Walker/Stevenson didn’t they both accept their guilt by each accepting 2 match bans. Boyd claimed to be Not Guilty and that makes a helluva difference with the other case to an extent they can’t even be compared.
The big joke for me is there is all this talk about real-time video evidence/decisions. So are we gonna get Not Proven decisions there with the ref being told to flip a coin?
This wasn’t held in a Scottish Court and it should either have been a Guilty or Not Guilty decision on the evidence available. As I assume it was a 3-person tribunal then it would either be a 3-0 or 2-1 decision wither for G or NG.
And where does this leave the compliance officer? He obviously felt the evidence was strong enough to secure a Guilty decision. So will he be much more circunspect next time. Or at least learn a lesson where two professional footballers are acting like spolit children then both should be put on the carpet and dealt with.
The whole process IMO was a shambles but at least this time – so far – no one seems to be calling for the names of the tribunal members to be publicly revealed.
GoosyGoosy says:
October 9, 2014 at 10:21 pm
Whats the point in permitting a Compliance Official to offer Plea Bargains if they can be reduced?
==================================
My understanding is there’s a two-fold advantage. It’s faster and cheaper.
Didn’t realise until not long ago that England were playing an international tonight and it reminded me of a comment that was made in the commentary of their first game that they would play qualifying games on either five or six different days.
What has happened to our sport. Over the last twenty five years football has moved from its traditional days of Saturday and Wednesday.
In the beginning it was Sunday then the Monday night match arrived along with SKY TV.
Then the Champions League moved games to Tuesday and Wednesday. Ultimately the Europa League games are now played on a Thursday.
Now internationals are being played on Thursday nights, Friday nights, and late on Saturday afternoons.
TV has bought our sport and corrupted, and warped it in more ways than just financial. Any traditions of it being a working man’s/woman’s sport is slipping year on year due to increased costs and now even internationals can be played on any given day at almost any time.
The sport is in real danger of undermining itself.
Now if only we had a great administrator somewhere who could help the sport………………….!!!
The Rangers Union of Fans are demanding action from the SFA over Ashley in quite a neat move.
They state: “The SFA’s special dispensation, which allowed Mr Ashley to purchase up to 10% of the club, was clearly designed to mirror UEFA rules on dual ownership.
“These rules do not allow anyone to exert a ‘decisive influence’ over the decision making of two clubs. There can be no more obvious attempt to exert ‘decisive influence’ over another club than to try remove its executive directors.’
Whole article well worth a read: http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-fans-write-sfa-demanding-4410647
To those who posted LNS “evidence” at least some has arrived! Thank you, but go easy on this lad, he is a young Jedi. 🙂
Waiting for others to a knowledge.
@STVGrant
@moo_ted @Auldheid It’s not being ignored. I have the three letters from the good TSFM contributors on my desk…
ecobhoy says:
October 9, 2014 at 10:41 pm
4 1 Rate This
The Rangers Union of Fans are demanding action from the SFA over Ashley in quite a neat move.
—————————-
Indeed Eco, an interesting read and IMO have highlighted one of Ashley’s principle motives…
“We firmly believe that it is Mr Ashley’s intention to now attempt to grab ownership of the club’s trademark rights including our name and badge.
“We believe he is deliberately attempting to hamper the efforts of others to invest in the club so that he can provide a loan on terms which will allow him to demand these trademark rights.”
My only gripe with this is the unspoken belief that Dave King et al wouldn’t be looking for some form of return or collateral in turn for their investment.
Also I feel it’s becoming clear that the forthcoming share issue ain’t going to happen and what we’re seeing is a scramble to provide the loan that’ll keep them afloat….and for what it’s worth my money’s on Ashley.
Good Evening
What a strange world we live in.
The Rangers Union of Fans want the rules to be adhered to and even more bizarre is the fact that the want the SFA to implement them.
Where were they when Rangers went into liquidation?
I didn’t hear any of them screaming to stick to the rules.
Again the bears are confusing club with company Ashley owns 10% of the holding company.
If Newcastle fans are correct then Ashley will only look after Ashley.
He will not invest a penny in TRFC he only want to preserve and secure the incoome stream which he has.
I understand that his net spend at Newcastle is minimal. He is rich because he makes money and keeps it, he does not give it away.
If Ashley gets his hands on the brand then he won’t care what happens to Rangers.
Time for the bears to wisen up, but past history predicts future behaviour and they have never been fast learners,in my opinion the cash cow will be milked until the udders shrivel and die.
ecobhoy says:
October 9, 2014 at 10:41 pm
The difficulty with the union of fans position re/ UEFA rules on dual ownership is that the clubs are not currently in the same UEFA competition.
See point two under ‘What is meant as having an interest in another club’.
SFA rules can’t mirror this.
http://www.inbrief.co.uk/football-law/dual-ownership-of-football-clubs.htm
ecobhoy says:
October 9, 2014 at 10:41 pm
Interesting Rangers fans asking SFA to protect their interests using UEFA rules to support their case.
Fact is UEFA rules, if applied to domestic football in Scotland, would have prevented the current mess resulting from the 5 way agreement and attempts at preserving the same club perception.
In that sense it is good to see TRFC supporters cottoning on to the fact that the SFA are breaking their own rules to keep a commercial version of RFC alive at the cost of TRFC supporters.
How much longer can SFA stay silent?