Here we go again

ByTrisidium

Here we go again

I think everyone on SFM knew that when the new club won its first trophy, whatever that trophy was, the old “same club” mantra would surface. Over the years, and since the nature of the debate is in the “santa exists” ballpark, we have largely discouraged discussion of it.

On the “old club” side, that reluctance to debate is largely because there is little value in arguing the toss with someone who either ;

  • knows the idea is preposterous, but won’t admit it for whatever reason; or
  • has been lied to by the person at (a) above and can’t be bothered to look at the facts for themselves.

On the “new club” side, the discouragement to discuss is mainly because we are in the main already equipped with the facts, and there seems little need to go over them again and again.

So why republish stevensanph’s blog and Hirsute Pursuit’s response from almost a decade ago?

Well firstly because it is an excellent piece of forensic scrutiny cutting through the fog which had begun to be induced by the MSM merely weeks after they had unanimously heralded the death of the old club.

Secondly because it was written as a response to the (at the time very unpopular) decision we made on SFM to close down the debate on the subject (for the reason stated above.

And lastly because the course of the truth – even if it is only shifted by a few degrees – can get completely lost as time goes by. Consequently, there are possibly many who take sides because of a leap of faith. This is a course-correction that demonstrates the absence of any need to do so.

So here then is a reprise of stevensanph’s remarks from 2013, on his own blog.


The Newco/Oldco debate has been ended over on TSFM, with the deletion of the excellent post from HirsutePursuit marking the end.  While some think we need to keep reinforcing the message that its a totally new club, others are bored of the subject, so I can’t blame TSFM for wanting to move on.

Personally – I have read all the arguments – I am yet to be shown any factual proof that Green’s Gers are the old club.  People will, and can believe whatever they want.  For Rangers fans who want to believe its the same club, then, as long as they are happy, then fine.  However, on paper, and in law, its a  new club, and thats all that I care about!

TSFM posters wanting to continue the debate can do so below following on from HP’s excellent deleted post!

TSFM

This blog, as far as I have been concerned, is widely regarded as a forum for people who wish to highlight the inequalities and skewed reporting of the issues within the Scottish football arena. If it is not, perhaps you can make it clear what you see as its purpose.

Perhaps the biggest ever story within the Scottish game has been the circumstances surrounding the demise of Rangers Football Club. It is a multi-layered story and one that that is still moving. In many ways, it may be a story that is only just beginning.

Central to the debate (that should be completely on-topic) for this blog, is whether or not the authorities (at all levels) have acted in an equitable manner and whether or not the “free press” have given life to events in a truthful and balanced way.

With absolute regard to these matters, there is a fundamental issue surrounding the status of the club incorporated in 2012 and currently playing in the 3rd division of the Scottish Football League.

If you genuinely believe that the club incorporated in 2012 are the same club as was founded in 1872/1873 then you have every right to be outraged at the behaviour of the footballing authorities. You will probably accept that UEFA were right to “ban” the club from European competitions because of its holding company’s insolvency event; but feel completely persecuted by your fellow Scottish clubs who demoted your team to the arse-end of the game. You will see this “demotion” as a punishment far too severe for the actions of the rogue ex-owner of the club’s former “holding company”. To compound matters, you will see the LNS enquiry as just another opportunity for the clubs who have already revelled in meting out a severe punishment, to have another fly-kick. You would, no doubt, believe that whatever the previous owner of the club’s “holding company” did in terms of player payments, the trophies were won fairly by the club on the field of play and can never be taken away. You will be – in the main – satisfied with the narrative of the “free press” in referring to your club as the same entity as played in the SPL.

All of the attitudes and beliefs rely 100% on the tenet of a “club” existing as a separate entity from the legal entity (“company”) responsible for a football team.

If you genuinely believe that the club incorporated in 2012 are a different club as was founded in 1872/1873 then you will still have every right to be outraged at the behaviour of the footballing authorities. UEFA would rightly refuse European Club Licence for the new club – if one was applied for – as the new club do not meet the criteria; but you will feel completely let down by the self-serving nature of the SPL and the weakness shown by the SFA in attempting to place the new club in the top tier of Scottish football. You will see the new club’s fast-track acceptance into the SFL as without precedent and their award of full member status (of the SFA) as against existing rules. You will wonder how – when the members of the SFL voted to give them associate membership as new club – the SFL executive list them on their website as the old club. As the old club had ceased footballing activities in June, there should have been no SFA membership or SPL share to transfer in August. Since the old club is no more, you will not recognise any punishment for the actions of the rogue ex-owner of the club. You will see the LNS enquiry as an opportunity for some sort of justice in relation to years of outrageous cheating by the now dead club. You will think that trophies and prize-money were stolen from clubs who played by the rules. You will think that a correction of results is simply a consequence of the old club being found guilty of cheating. You will probably think that the LNS enquiry has nothing to do with the new club; but may wonder if the enquiry orders the repayment of the old club’s prize-money, would this create a new “football debt” that has to be repaid by the new club to continue using the old club’s SFA membership? You will be aghast at the apparent repeated mis-reporting of the situation by the “free press”.

All of the attitudes and beliefs rely 100% on the tenet of a “club” being the legal entity (“company”) responsible for a football team.

You may feel that these positions are “just a matter of opinion” and do not ultimately matter.

I disagree. The indeterminate status of the club incorporated in 2012 is a huge sore in the Scottish football landscape. This is the biggest story that just cannot go away. If the schism created by this sense of injustice is not resolved, Scottish football will implode. Attitudes may already be too entrenched; but that should not stop us trying to find a way forward.

The principal difficulty (again totally on topic) is that it appears – from both sides of the debate) -that people in positions of power within the game have made decisions that cannot be justified by their rules and articles of association.

We can – as you wish us to – stop talking about the status of the club incorporated in 2012, or we can continue to argue our respective positions as a crucial factor in this controversy.

In my view we can only hold the SFA, SPL and SFL to account if we insist that a definitive answer to all of the important questions are given.

The status of the club incorporated in 2012 is – in my view – a simple matter of fact. It is only because it is being considered to be a matter of opinion that we are where we are.

The Origins of the concept of  a football club having an owner from whom it can be separated and its subsequent misuse by the SPL/SFA in 2012.

The following are taken from a well informed contributor to SFM who points out that pre 2005 no such concept existed in SPL rules and the meaning subsequently applied by LNS and The 5 Way Agreement is a danger  to the fundamental integrity of the Scottish football industry and its member clubs.


The very short version of what follows is this:



The SPL articles state that its definitions and expressions need to be given the meanings as described in the Companies Act 2006.

The Companies Act 2006 says that an “undertaking” is “a body corporate” i.e. a company.

Lord Nimmo Smith has ignored this definition and instead accepted (or created) an alternative meaning for “undertaking” (as used in Article 2) which is fundamental to the concept of being able to separate Club from Company.

The principle of Club and company being distinct entities was expressly stated in the commissions terms of reference.

Lord Nimmo Smith has accepted the terms of reference as “facts”.

The SPL articles and rules apply to Clubs and to their “owners & operators”.

LNS asserts that the Club “Rangers FC” was owned & operated by Rangers Football Club plc.

He asserts that the Club “Rangers FC” transferred from Rangers Football Club plc to Sevco Scotland Ltd.

The Club (if found guilty) is still liable for the alleged breaches of SPL rules, even though the Club is no longer a member of the SPL.

He asserts that Sevco Scotland Ltd – as the new owner & operator of the Club – have a material interest in his commissions findings.

However…

Instead of his accepting LNS logic that allows the ethereal Club to be transferred between companies, the truth is – read in conjunction with the Companies Act 2006 – Article 2 really says that the Club is the “body corporate”. The Club is the Company.

The Club is Rangers Football Club plc. That Club is in liquidation.

Since Sevco Scotland Ltd did not purchase Rangers Football Club plc, Sevco Scotland did not buy the Club.

*On the simple basis of Sevco Scotland’s purchase of Rangers FC’s assets, the Commission cannot legally apply sanctions that would fall to Sevco Scotland for remedy.

This issue should have been fairly straightforward. We need to understand why it is not.

It is surprising to me that an experienced high court judge accepted the commission’s terms of reference without first checking its validity. It would be interesting to understand if the statement of reasons was really his own thoughts or a re-hash of the SPL legal advice that framed the commissions work.

It does not surprise me that the SPL have framed the commission in the way that they have. The “transferable Club” logic was first used to unsuccessfully argue that Newco should have Oldco’s share in the SPL. They are acting in their own commercial interest. Sporting Integrity has never been high on their agenda. We know what they are about.

It is hugely disappointing – but perhaps not surprising – that the SFA have not stepped in to clarify matters. Conflicted and/or incompetent probably best sums up its contribution.

Longer version.

The SPL – essentially as a trade association – will correctly do what they can to maximise revenue for their members. It falls to the SFA – as the game’s regulators – to ensure that the SPL’s existing procedures, articles and rules are adhered to.

It is almost without dispute that the SPL have not functioned well in following protocol. The SFA have been incredibly weak in insisting that they do so. In fact the SFA – by being party to the 5-way agreement – are themselves seemingly complicit in going off-plan. Again, regardless of your own beliefs and agenda, the SPL (by their actions) and the SFA (by their inactions) are not TRUSTED to act as fair brokers.

Lord Nimmo Smith is due to reconvene his enquiry in just over a week’s time. When writing my previous (and quickly deleted) post earlier in the week, my mind was already moving towards (what I consider to be) the insurmountable difficulty the retired High Court judge will face in steering his commission to a logical conclusion.

In football parlance, I fear that the SPL have given him a “hospital pass” that will eventually leave him just as damaged as the game. I had already prepared an outline of why I think his enquiry will ultimately flounder; but, wonder if this topic too will fall foul of the new censorship policy on this blog.

As I think Lord Nimmo Smith’s remit is an important point that needs discussion – and out of respect to those people who have supported this blog as the spiritual successor of RTC – I will attempt to post my thoughts here first. If this post gets removed or doesn’t get past moderation, I’ll do as TSFM (Big Pink?) suggested earlier and find another, more open, forum to engage in.

I apologise in advance for the length of this post; but the points, I think, are fairly straightforward. Please do bear with me.

We should probably start at the SPL Press Release of 12th September 2012:

Independent Commission Preliminary Hearing
The Commission has considered all the preliminary issues raised in the list submitted by Newco and points raised in letters from solicitors acting for Newco and for Oldco. It has decided:

1. The Commission will proceed with its inquiry in the terms of the Notice of Commission and will now set a date for a hearing and give directions.

2. Oldco and Rangers FC, who are named in the Issues contained in the Notice of Commission and alleged to have been in breach of SPL rules, will continue to have the right to appear and be represented at all hearings of the Commission and to make such submissions as they think fit.

3. Newco, as the current owner and operator of Rangers FC, although not alleged by the SPL to have committed any breach of SPL Rules, will also have the right to appear and be represented at all hearings of the Commission and to make such submissions as it thinks fit.

4. Written reasons for this decision will be made available in due course.

Further to the decision made today the Commission make the following procedural orders:

1. We set a date for a hearing to commence on Tuesday 13 November 2012 with continuations from day to day as may be required until Friday 16 November 2012. We will also allocate Tuesday 20 and Wednesday 21 November 2012 as additional dates should any further continuation be required.

2. We direct that the solicitors for The Scottish Premier League Limited lodge any documents, additional to those already lodged, together with an outline argument and a list of witnesses by 4 pm on Friday 19 October 2012.

3. We direct that Oldco, Newco or any other person claiming an interest and wishing to appear and be represented at the hearing give intimation to that effect and lodge any documents together with an outline argument and a list of witnesses, all by 4 pm on Thursday 1 November 2012.

4. We direct that intimation of the aforesaid decision and of these directions be made to the solicitors for Oldco and Newco.

No further comment will be made.

Couple of points worth noting:
1. The Commission will proceed with its inquiry in the terms of the Notice of Commission and will now set a date for a hearing and give directions.

2. Oldco and Rangers FC, who are named in the Issues contained in the Notice of Commission and alleged to have been in breach of SPL rules

So it is clear here that Oldco and Rangers FC have, in the terms of the Notice of Commission, been described as separate entities. It is important to realise that this distinction is made before the commission has had any opportunity to consider the circumstances.

This is a non-negotiable “fact” – as supplied by the SPL – that LNS either accepts or stands aside. He has chosen to accept it.

This “fact” was later given reasoning by way of the Commission’s Statement of Reasons and carried the names of the Commission members:

History
[3] Rangers Football Club was founded in 1872 as an association football club. It was incorporated in 1899 as The Rangers Football Club Limited. In recent years the company’s name was changed to The Rangers Football Club Plc, and it is now called RFC 2012 Plc (in administration). In line with the terminology used in the correspondence between the parties, we shall refer to this company as “Oldco”.


[4] The SPL was incorporated in 1998. Its share capital consists of sixteen shares of £1 each, of which twelve have been issued. Oldco was one of the founding members of the SPL, and remained a member until 3 August 2012 when the members of the SPL approved the registration of a transfer of its share in the SPL to The Dundee Football Club Limited. Each of the twelve members owns and operates an association football club which plays in the Scottish Premier League (“the League”). The club owned and operated by Oldco played in the League from 1998 until 2012 under the name of Rangers Football Club (“Rangers FC”).

[33] It is now necessary to quote some of the provisions of the Articles of the SPL. Article 2 contains definitions which, so far as relevant are:
“Club means the undertaking of an association football club which is, for the time being, entitled, in accordance with the Rules, to participate in the League

Company means The Scottish Premier League Limited

League means the combination of Clubs known as the Scottish Premier League operated by the Company in accordance with the Rules

Rules mean the Rules for the time being of the League

Share means a share of the Company and Share Capital and Shareholding”.

[37] It is also necessary to quote certain of the Rules. Rule I1 provides definitions of various terms in the Rules. Of these, we refer to the following:
Club means an association football club, other than a Candidate Club, which is, for the time being, eligible to participate in the League and, except where the context otherwise requires, includes the owner and operator of such club

[46] It will be recalled that in Article 2 “Club” is defined in terms of “the undertaking of an association football club”, and in Rule I1 it is defined in terms of an association football club which is, for the time being, eligible to participate in the League, and includes the owner and operator of such Club. Taking these definitions together, the SPL and its members have provided, by contract, that a Club is an undertaking which is capable of being owned and operated. While it no doubt depends on individual circumstances what exactly is comprised in the undertaking of any particular Club, it would at the least comprise its name, the contracts with its players, its manager and other staff, and its ground, even though these may change from time to time. In common speech a Club is treated as a recognisable entity which is capable of being owned and operated, and which continues in existence despite its transfer to another owner and operator. In legal terms, it appears to us to be no different from any other undertaking which is capable of being carried on, bought and sold. This is not to say that a Club has legal personality, separate from and additional to the legal personality of its owner and operator. We are satisfied that it does not, and Mr McKenzie did not seek to argue otherwise. So a Club cannot, lacking legal personality, enter into a contract by itself. But it can be affected by the contractual obligations of its owner and operator. It is the Club, not its owner and operator, which plays in the League. Under Rule A7.1.1 the Club is bound to comply with all relevant rules. The Rules clearly contemplate the imposition of sanctions upon a Club, in distinction to a sanction imposed upon the owner or operator. That power must continue to apply even if the owner and operator at the time of breach of the Rules has ceased to be a member of the SPL and its undertaking has been transferred to another owner and operator. While there can be no question of subjecting the new owner and operator to sanctions, there are sanctions which could be imposed in terms of the Rules which are capable of affecting the Club as a continuing entity (even though not an entity with legal personality), and which thus might affect the interest of the new owner and operator in it. For these reasons we reject the arguments advanced in paragraphs 2 and 6 of the list of preliminary issues.

Here we were introduced to a few new ideas:
1. That SPL members “own and operate” association football clubs
2. That “Rangers Football Club” was “owned and operated” by Oldco (Rangers Football Club plc).
3. Club means the undertaking of an association football club
4. An “undertaking” is “a recognisable entity which is capable of being owned and operated, and which continues in existence despite its transfer to another owner and operator. “
5. “A Club cannot, lacking legal personality, enter into a contract by itself. “
6. “A Club is an undertaking which is capable of being owned and operated.”

So, the principle, by which Lord Nimmo Smith, purports to connect Oldco and Newco is by the alleged transference of a non-corporate entity between the two owners and operators of the “Club”. The Club is the non-corporate entity he identified as the “undertaking” referred to in Article 2.

However, this is where he gets into some very serious difficulty. It is very strange that – when quoting the relevant articles – the retired High Court Judge did not notice or think the following did not have a part to play.

2. In these Articles:-
2006 Act means the Companies Act 2006 including any statutory modification or re-enactments thereof for the time being in force;

4. Unless the context otherwise requires, words or expressions contained in these Articles bear the same meaning as in the 2006 Act but excluding any statutory modification thereof not in force when these Articles or the relevant parts thereof are adopted.

The SPL articles make specific reference to the Companies Act 2006. Specifically “words or expressions contained in these Articles bear the same meaning as in the 2006 Act”
So when the articles refer to “undertaking” we must refer to the 2006 Act to check what meaning we should apply. If we do so, we find:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/1161

1161Meaning of “undertaking” and related expressions

(1)In the Companies Acts “undertaking” means—
__(a)a body corporate or partnership, or
__(b)an unincorporated association carrying on a trade or business, with or without a view to profit.

(2)In the Companies Acts references to shares—
__(a)in relation to an undertaking with capital but no share capital, are to rights to share in the capital of the undertaking; and
__(b)in relation to an undertaking without capital, are to interests—
____(i)conferring any right to share in the profits or liability to contribute to the losses of the undertaking, or
____(ii)giving rise to an obligation to contribute to the debts or expenses of the undertaking in the event of a winding up.

(3)Other expressions appropriate to companies shall be construed, in relation to an undertaking which is not a company, as references to the corresponding persons, officers, documents or organs, as the case may be, appropriate to undertakings of that description.

This is subject to provision in any specific context providing for the translation of such expressions.

(4)References in the Companies Acts to “fellow subsidiary undertakings” are to undertakings which are subsidiary undertakings of the same parent undertaking but are not parent undertakings or subsidiary undertakings of each other.

(5)In the Companies Acts “group undertaking”, in relation to an undertaking, means an undertaking which is—
__(a)a parent undertaking or subsidiary undertaking of that undertaking, or
__(b)a subsidiary undertaking of any parent undertaking of that undertaking.

Everything that LNS uses to connect Newco to Oldco relies on a Club being a non-corporate entity. Without that interpretation, his original acceptance of the commissions remit would look very foolish. In my opinion, the commission’s statement of Reasons were always poorly framed

Using the 2006 Act – as it appears it is bound to do – I cannot see how any interpretation of “undertaking” can be used in the context of the SPL articles, other than “a body corporate”.

If I am correct and the correct interpretation of an undertaking in this context is “body corporate”, SPL Article 2, specifically (and quite clearly) states that a Club is the company. Since the Club that played in the SPL is in liquidation and the current version of Rangers has never been a member of the SPL, any attempt to sanction the new club for the sins of the old will be laughed out of court.

The real question – for me at least – is why has this ridiculous proposition has been put forward in the first place? Perhaps we can assume that the SPL chose to frame the commission’s remit in this way for purely commercial reasons; but, more worryingly, why have the SFA allowed it to progress?

About the author

Trisidium administrator

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

1,142 Comments so far

wokingceltPosted on6:15 pm - Mar 12, 2021


I also complained to the BBC for their reporting over TRFC’s championship. The email reply is pasted below – it won’t surprise many. Not yet responded as I’m not sure how you communicate with an ostrich with its head buried in the sand. And to note I didn’t complain about reports on “BBC Breakfast” (I don’t even watch it…) but about their reports on the BBC website. The Committees “conclusions” say it all:

“Many thanks for contacting us about ‘BBC Breakfast’, broadcast on 6 March.

We understand you may feel reports by Mike Bushell throughout the morning referencing Rangers football team being ‘on the brink of winning the Scottish Premiership title’ are incorrect, particularly in respect of changes which have impacted on the various companies which have owned and operated the business interests of the club since their liquidation.

In keeping with the BBC Trust judgement on the matter in 2013, we referred to, and will continue to refer to the team on the field as Rangers FC and only when reporting on the business matters pertaining to the club will we, when and as appropriate, refer to the old and/or new operating companies.

The BBC Trust finding on the issue may be accessed on page 25 of the document below:

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/appeals/esc_bulletins/2013/apr_may.pdf#page=27

The Committee concluded:

that the choice of the right language by the BBC was highly dependent on the purpose and context of the output, including the intended audience and, for example, whether it was a sport story or a business story.
that, while there was no reason to treat the football club itself as “new” simply because the assets that make up the club had been transferred from one company to another, there was good reason to distinguish between “newco” and “oldco” when referring to the owning companies and the corporate transactions involved in the sale of the club.

In this light, we feel Mike’s reports were fair and balanced throughout.

Thank you again for contacting us. We hope that our reply helps to clarify matters and allays any concerns you may have.

Kind regards,
Ryan Johnston
BBC Complaints Team
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

View Comment

nawlitePosted on6:29 pm - Mar 12, 2021


Yup, that’s the standard BBC response when you question the same club stuff, Woking Celt.

View Comment

bigboab1916Posted on6:43 pm - Mar 12, 2021


Darkbeforedawn 12th March 2021 At 16:02
“As the member share was moved from oldco to newco then of course this is a transfer of membership and therefore Rangers were unable to compete in Europe for 3 seasons (which we were).”

The share was not moved or transferred and Charles Greens Sevco had never been or owned a member club, he bought a assetts from a liquidation sale, not the club or the history that went to the morgue.

“A “Licence applicant” is defined as:-

Legal entity fully and solely responsible for the football team participating in national and international club competitions which applies for a licence.

We then come to “Chapter 2: Licence Applicant and Licence”.

Article 12 – Definition of licence applicant

1 A licence applicant may only be a football club, i.e. a legal entity fully responsible for a football team participating in national and international competitions which either:

a) is a registered member of a UEFA member association and/or its affiliated league (hereinafter: registered member); or

b) has a contractual relationship with a registered member (hereinafter: football company).

2 The membership and the contractual relationship (if any) must have lasted – at the start of the licence season – for at least three consecutive years. Any alteration to the club’s legal form or company structure (including, for example, changing its headquarters, name or club colours, or transferring stakeholdings between different clubs) during this period in order to facilitate its qualification on sporting merit and/or its receipt of a licence to the detriment of the integrity of a competition is deemed as an interruption of membership or contractual relationship (if any) within the meaning of this provision.”

He would also not have had
“The membership and the contractual relationship (if any) must have lasted – at the start of the licence season – for at least three consecutive years.”

View Comment

DarkbeforedawnPosted on6:55 pm - Mar 12, 2021


In response to Nawlite on the previous thread, you make a lot of very good points. I have never understand the reluctance to look into Res 12. In 2019 (I think) it was so long ago that the SFA could easily have opened an investigation. If it was found to be kosher then in which case it would have been put to bed and satisfied everyone. If there was wrongdoing, again they could have used the old fashioned “lessons have been learned, however the perpetrators (White, Reagan etc) have all now left so there is no point pursuing further. I don’t think anyone ever expected after so long for any real punishment to be handed out to anyone, but the refusal to investigate just makes the whole thing look fishy.

With regards the 5WA, I have always seen this as a formal arrangement similar to a personal insolvency event which agrees that any fines to come to light after the event cannot be pursued going forward (remember at that point we had no idea what else might have turned up that White or Murray had done illegally). In the personal insolvency (bankrupt) situation, if a debt from before the date of bankruptcy later comes to light, it is written off and I saw this as similar. It was a formal vehicle to manage a situation that hadn’t been imagined or accounted for before.

On the subjects of insolvency, I know Rangers are the example we all talk about on here because it is a football forum. But it is not unique. Sadly there are many unscrupulous directors who deliberately take everything from the company and fold it, screwing every other creditor in the process, only to set up a new company the following day with an almost identical name! The revenue keep trying to close the loopholes, but corrupt accountants will always find ways around it. Personal individuals often do the same, transferring any debts to their wife, going bankrupt wiping of hundreds of thousands of debt whilst still living the same life as before. A bit off topic but I guess just to demonstrate that the SFA, Rangers etc took advantage of various ‘schemes’ used daily in the country from the biggest companies to your Joe Bloggs in the street.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:38 pm - Mar 12, 2021


Darkbeforedawn 12th March 2021 At 18:55
Personal individuals often do the same, transferring any debts to their wife, going bankrupt wiping of hundreds of thousands of debt whilst still living the same life as before.
…………………..
A bit like Barry did. The thing is there are rules to stop Clubs doing this type of thing, if there was not every club in the world would do it, but then if every club in the world did it there would be no clubs as there would be no sponsors waiting to become creditors, there would be no advertising companies waiting to become creditors there would be no shareholders waiting to become creditors etc.
Hence the ibrox club and Green to his surprise found out you could not just dump the debt and take your seat at the top table. No club in the SPL had ever gone into administration and liquidation and if you believe it caught the SFA and The SPL and the ibrox club by surprise i have a bridge to sell. There was no stopping the club going into liquidation, the best they could do was to try and get some kind of franchise playing out of ibrox to stop the Armaggeddon and social unrest, but they made a right pigs ear of it.Green could only sell 250 season tickets and the SFA and SPL were wetting their pants and the best they could come up with was a 5 way agreement and if Green would pay the football debts and stop some other clubs going bust they could all sit round the camp fire and pretend the ibrox club never went Ti*s up, never happened. The thing is they unleashed Armaggeddon on scottish football and social unrest by their actions, and by their actions it is no longer a game worth the bother to many.

View Comment

Albertz11Posted on8:12 pm - Mar 12, 2021


Club statement.

https://www.rangers.co.uk/Article/club-statement-1203212/1n9VyyP4LxhSY9QU13RWqF

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on8:24 pm - Mar 12, 2021


Darkbeforedawn

I too am not that het up about the 5WA. A former, highly respected and knowledgeable poster on here, Campbellsmoney, referred to it as just a commercial agreement to protect commercial interests, and that the confidentiality was nothing unusual. Sporting integrity trashed perhaps, but I understand the priorities of boardroom folk are different from ours as fans.
The trouble with the 5WA, as is pointed out in the blog, and referenced recently by other posters, is whether the SFA/SFL rules at the time permitted the undertakings. Were any of the bodies involved acting Ultra Vires?

In respect of the many learned contributions we have seen on here for many a year, my judgement is that they probably were. The trouble is that it is not possible to have a JR without standing.
I do understand though, that some high net worth individuals representing fans of five different clubs, are investigating the possibility of buying a Scottish club as a project, which would of course give them standing to have a JR which may force the authorities to explain their decision to be part of the 5WA.

I don’t think this is over – in fact it ay never be.

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on8:29 pm - Mar 12, 2021


Just for completeness, it’s probably worth adding a little further context to some of the terms used within the SPL’s articles.

When the SPL was incorporated in 1998 it’s articles stated that only association football clubs could be members.

Members were defined as being the holders of a share in the SPL.

As all the original members were corporate entities, the SPL clearly recognised Celtic plc, Ranger Football Club plc, et al as association football clubs. Each member of the league was a company which was an association football club. There was no reference then to an ‘owner and operator’.

So why the change?

Around 2002 talk began of SPL2 – effectively incorporating the top tier teams of the SFL into the SPL.

If all of the relevant clubs had been incorporated, there would have been no issue. However, by 2004 Brechin (an unincorporated association of persons) was in the SFL’s top division.

The technical position is that an unincorporated association has no legal personality – so cannot, by itself, take ownership of a share in the SPL. All assets of an unincorporated association are held in trust by one or more of the committee members.

This meant that had Brechin been accepted into the SPL (under the original articles), and allowed a committee member to registered the SPL share, that person would be considered to be the club.

The change in 2005 allowed the holder of the SPL share to be a natural person (committee member) or (possibly) an associated corporate body when the association football club itself has not been incorporated. In this context, the ‘Club’ and the holder of the SPL share (the owner and operator) are separate entities.

The new articles say that ‘except where the context otherwise requires, includes the owner and operator of such club’. In the context of an incorporated association football club, the ‘Club’ and its owner and operator are the same entity.

LNS allowed this change – relevant only to unincorporated associations – to falsely create a distinction between Club and company, when no such distinction exists.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on8:56 pm - Mar 12, 2021


HirsutePursuit 12th March 2021 At 20:29

I remember that explanation from way back but stuck to it was to get Romanov line when explaining the change, especially on Twitter.

Would be fair to say its purpose was to close an anomaly concerning one potential SPL member as well as provide power to discipline major shareholder but never to confer immortality on any member club .

That can fit into a Tweet. 🙂

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on9:11 pm - Mar 12, 2021


The questions put to UEFA re 5 Way Agreement by Phil McGiolla Bhain can be read on his blog at

https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2021/03/11/uefa-were-not-told-of-the-5-way-agreement/

The UEFA answer was a sort of no comment but in view of the questions why did they not ask to see the 5 Way or say they would make enquiries of the SFA?

What we now know is the governance of Scottish football is subject to an agreement that appears to be based on a false premise that UEFA were never consulted on, that undermines the integrity of Scottish football that the clubs we support don’t care a toss about.

Mind you why should they if the paying customer don’t care a toss about sporting integrity either?

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on10:39 pm - Mar 12, 2021


Auldheid 12th March 2021 At 20:56
1 0 Rate This

HirsutePursuit 12th March 2021 At 20:29

I remember that explanation from way back but stuck to it was to get Romanov line when explaining the change, especially on Twitter.

Would be fair to say its purpose was to close an anomaly concerning one potential SPL member as well as provide power to discipline major shareholder but never to confer immortality on any member club .

That can fit into a Tweet. 🙂
……………………………………….

Auldheid, When the idea was first mooted, I couldn’t see how separating the ‘Club’ from it’s ‘owner and operator’ within the SPL articles would have helped the SFA ‘get’ Romanov. Still don’t.

I understand that Romanov was, in general terms, the owner/controller of Hearts, but he was not the personal holder of the SPL share. Therefore, under the SPL’s articles, he could not be properly described as the ‘owner and operator’. The ‘owner and operator’ of Hearts is the association football club, Heart of Midlothian plc. As a corporate body, it (the Club) owned and operated its footballing operations.

I don’t understand why this change in terminology would get the SPL or SFA any closer to holding Romanov accountable.

Unless I have completely missed something, the ‘get Romanov’ explanation for the changes I have described doesn’t really stand up to proper scrutiny. imo.

View Comment

bigboab1916Posted on10:51 pm - Mar 12, 2021


Darkbeforedawn 12th March 2021 At 18:55
“Sadly there are many unscrupulous directors who deliberately take everything from the company and fold it, screwing every other creditor in the process, only to set up a new company the following day with an almost identical name!”

No-one would argue this happens daily but you have hit the nail on the head, “set up a new company the following day with an almost identical name!”
TheRangers 2012 version attempt to seperate the two, club and company as if something that was recorded never happened or wishing never happened, but all the same, denying the fact there club was incorporated into a commercial successgul business until Murray got it, and when it went bust they decided to do as you describe, only difference they leave out the almost identical name part and claim same name as in same club,
Charles Green knows he never bought a club or he would have inherited debts, liquidation is the wiping out of creditors debts and creditors get the satisfaction of winding up that, that stole their cash. Two process, pay your debts or do not pass go.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:43 am - Mar 13, 2021


Big Pink 12th March 2021 At 20:24
”…I do understand though, that some high net worth individuals representing fans of five different clubs, are investigating the possibility of buying a Scottish club as a project, which would of course give them standing to have a JR which may force the authorities to explain their decision to be part of the 5WA.”

+++++
Ah, BP, the very idea of that cheers me up somewhat !(smiley face, if that facility were available!)

I hope your understanding proves to be based on fact.

In the world of sports cycling the suspicion was ( and now today confirmed] that a certain doctor was buying performance enhancing drugs for ‘competitors’ a decade ago .

In essence, what we have in Scottish football is the suspicion that the governance body acted corruptly in 2012.
The fact that that governance body(and other bodies] refuses to explain its actions and uses the cloak of secrecy as an excuse for its refusal simply reinforces the view that they have something to hide.

What we need is a wholly independent examination into how the ‘TRFC is Rangers of 1872’ lie was created, endorsed by Scottish Football Governance and ‘sold’ to UEFA and the Stock Exchange as the truth.

May I live to see such independent examination!

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on12:58 am - Mar 13, 2021


HirsutePursuit 12th March 2021 At 22:39

As I recall the notion was raised by Easy Jambo and a report by the BBC about a year later gave credence to it and it was easier to get across linking to that report via Twitter so my intent was not to persuade or argue the case the motivation was to get Romanov.

I gave it a mention on the basis that whatever the purpose of the rule change it was not meant to be a device to provide immortality to clubs.

That is the meaning I took from the original discussion regardless of both examples that I accepted as credible.

It is important because if the change did not have that immortality intent I would consider it hijacked and turned to a purpose never intended to give legitimacy to an argument to meet a desired outcome.

If that meaning is true what we have is the integrity of Scottish Football has been bound up by deceit , that would not stand scrutiny by any external authority be it UEFA , FIFA or CAS. It suggests why the SFA would not take the non compliance charges of UEFA licensing breaches in 2011 to CAS and may also be the reason Celtic did want to pass Res12 in 2013 to involve UEFA and the adjournment agreed was on the basis any investigation be confined to the SFA.

Now legal opinion based on evidence all recorded on www,res12.uk is that the UEFA Licence in 2011 was granted as a result of false pretence.

When that evidence was presented to Celtic in 2018, having given the impression themselves and via apparently friendly bloggers until then that they wanted the matter resolved, their resistance to using it was puzzling until proof of their knowledge of the 5 Way Agreement emerged.

I don’t think it stretches the imagination to breaking point to come to the conclusion that the last folk Celtic and SFA wanted in 2013 rummaging around events in 2011/2012 was UEFA, who were unsighted on the 5 Way Agreement.

One of the phrases I copied on to Twitter from today’s blog was the impact of the agreement on sporting integrity because that is what is important to me, not the number of titles accumulated although 5 of those fail to meet sporting integrity standards,

It seems to me that anything that can be done to bring out a phrase BP used i.e the ultra vires nature of the 5 Way Agreement is a step towards ditching it even if the direction is unclear.

Much will depend on supporters readiness to watch a game where the result depends on which of two club’s turn it is to fill their diminishing coffers.

When I say supporters I include all clubs not just Celtic/Rangers ones, because the others are paying into a game whose integrity has been killed by ongoing deceit and dishonesty.

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on2:42 am - Mar 13, 2021


Auldheid

Up till 2004 every member of the SPL had a representative on the board. In the June of that year the board was trimmed down to I think just 4 or 5 club representatives.

From memory, the board included representatives from Rangers, Dundee Utd, Hibs and Kilmarnock.

The rationale behind the proposed changes to the articles of association in 2005 would have been set out in board papers – prepared presumably by the chief executive in conjunction with the chairman.

I would be very surprised if copies of those board papers do not still exist.

In addition, it is very likely that each member club was sent a written recommendation to approve the resolution that affected the change. That recommendation will have had a summary of the boards reasons for making the change.

If creating a franchise system was indeed the SPL’s intent, that will be clearly set out in the board and AGM papers.

The matter could easily be cleared up – one way or the other – by making those documents public.

Those documents are either the smoking gun that proves the SPL lied – or utter vindication of its position.

That those documents have never been produced tells its own story.

Incidentally, and perhaps it is just coincidence, Eddie Thompson was on the SPL board when the changes to the articles went through. Eddie died in 2008 and his son Stephen took over as chairman of Dundee Utd.

Stephen, by 2012 was on the board of the SPL, but was forced off because he was accused of leaking confidential information relating to the Rangers situation. One wonders if he had his dad’s SPL board papers from 2004/5?

…and of course, Stephen Thompson, voted to refuse Sevco Scotland’s application to transfer Rangers’ SPL share.

He would know what his father voted for in 2005. Did he betray his father’s wishes in 2012? …or did he honour them?

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on9:44 am - Mar 13, 2021


Auldheid 13th March 2021 At 00:58

Much will depend on supporters readiness to watch a game where the result depends on which of two club’s turn it is to fill their diminishing coffers.

++++++++++

This is the notion I will never understand, and find hard to believe. If ‘Rangers’ win the league again next year it looks increasingly likely they will go straight into the Champions League Groups. Given their excellent recent record against mid ranking European teams there is every chance they will also negotiate next seasons’s qualifiers with relevant ease. If they were to access two season’s worth of CL money the effect on Celtic could be catastrophic, unless someone with deep pockets was willing to pony up. Celtic are well run, and Dermot Desmond has invested heavily in shares, but he does not take a sugar daddy approach as is his absolute right.

I just don’t get why Celtic would ever want ‘Rangers’ to have access to that kind of money. As for ‘Rangers’, I think they would not care if Celtic were ever to win a single trophy again. I find it very hard to believe either club would ever step aside for the other to win.

‘Rangers’ took a gamble on Gerrard. In my opinion if Covid had never happened he would most likely have resigned or been sacked last season after a post-new year implosion. The fans were turning against him at the point the league was stopped. I also think empty stadiums this season have taken the pressure right off him and his players, but they have been the best team by several country miles. Celtic’s implosion is inexplicable. They have the players to have taken it to the wire, but there is no way I can accept it was some kind of ‘after you’ in terms of letting ‘Rangers’ get CL money. Sometimes shit just happens, Liverpool with their brilliant players and top manager being a very good example of that this season.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:35 am - Mar 13, 2021


Upthehoops 13th March 2021 At 09:44
‘..I just don’t get why Celtic would ever want ‘Rangers’ to have access to that kind of money’
+++++++++++++++++++=
I’m pretty sure that what Celtic wanted in 2012 was merely to ensure that there was a ‘Rangers’ football club that would allow the continuation of the revenue stream that traditionally attaches to Celtic v Rangers matches.

That was one reason , I think, why they did not insist on an investigation into the UEFA licence award at the time, and why subsequently they were party to the 5-Way Agreement: they did not relish the prospect of there possibly not being a Rangers.

They would not have imagined that the new club they helped to create and ‘legitimise’ would thrive on the myth of being ‘continuity’ Rangers!

SDM’s tax cheating killed RFC of 1872.
The Celtic board’s part in the creation of TRFC may (as in your gloomy speculation !] lead to future financial troubles for Celtic.
We may be sure that there would be no cosy arrangement under which a liquidated Celtic would be ‘looked after ‘ by the Football Authorities.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on2:33 pm - Mar 13, 2021


It is emerging on social media that several Celtic fans are being visited by Police and warned not to go near Celtic Park on the 21st. They are going to be busy getting round 4,000 Rangers fans homes to give them a similar warning, or do Celtic fans just need reminded of their place in Scottish society? Not that I want any Celtic fan to go near the ground, but we have just witnessed state sponsored law breaking on a grand scale. We have also witnessed Rangers players giving two fingers to Covid rules, their manager supporting them doing it, and not one word of criticism for them from the media, government or police. Yes, definitely the best wee country in the world…aye right!

View Comment

incredibleadamsparkPosted on4:05 pm - Mar 13, 2021


Upthehoops 13th March 2021 At 14:33

Assistant Chief Constable Bernard Higgins said: “In advance of any Old Firm match, it is common practice for us to visit individuals affiliated with both clubs and remind them of their responsibilities not to engage in any behaviour or disorder which might endanger public safety.

“Given the current pandemic, it is vitally important that people do not attend Celtic Park or any other locations on Sunday, 21 March, as this would breach coronavirus regulations and is irresponsible in terms of protecting the health of the wider public and our officers.

“We will do everything we can to reinforce this message to stay at home including, where appropriate, visits to certain individuals.

“Police Scotland will also support both clubs in urging fans to take personal responsibility, do the right thing and stay at home.”

Looks like both sets of fans have been visited by the police here and it appears to be fairly standard procedure coming up to a glasgow derby. I think it’s a very sensible approach and hopefully both clubs will put out their own messages demanding similar from the supporters.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on4:15 pm - Mar 13, 2021


Up the hoops

I’m not suggesting Celtic threw the league this season. For one thing Rangers would still have had a qualifying opportunity as runners up.

However if not qualifying endangered Rangers existence which arguably it did in 2009 and almost certainly in 2011 given only one club qualified in that year, then it creates the conditions where integrity comes under pressure.

It is the huge incentive that CL money provides that in my opinion is the creator of an incentive to cheat to get at it, PARTICULARLY if the ability repay the debt depends on getting the CL money.

My solution is to reduce the amount the participating club gets and increase the subsidiary payment to other SPFL clubs for younger player development and retention purposes. A few million in that direction is not going to harm the qualifying clubs chances of winning and who knows gasp, it might mean the league title is purely down to who wins the 4 Celtic v Rangers matches.

View Comment

vernallenPosted on4:18 pm - Mar 13, 2021


English justice versus Scottish justice. Gary MacAllister is assaulted on a street in Leeds at 4 a.m. ( what is he doing out so late) and the assailant receives jail time. Neil Lennon is assaulted at his place of work and I ask could someone remind of the penalty imposed on the assailant. Memory is foggy but I believe the sentence was very light. Also, Steven Gerrard tells Sevco/Rangers fans not to fret about his leaving any time soon. Isn’t that like a manager in a precarious position getting a vote of confidence from his board shortly before the axe falls.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on4:37 pm - Mar 13, 2021


Not down to who wins etc.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on4:47 pm - Mar 13, 2021


Hirsute Pursuit

Thanks for your response useful as ever.

If the intent was to create a franchise is that not questionable of itself?

If it wasnt then SPFL misused it.

Either way the SPL appear het, it’s just from when?

View Comment

incredibleadamsparkPosted on4:48 pm - Mar 13, 2021


Vernallen 13th March 2021 At 16:18

I’m not sure of the relevance here but it looks like the man who assaulted McAllister received 5 months for that attack. Two men who assaulted Neil Lennon in the West End of Glasgow received 2 years each for that attack.

The Tynecastle incident seemed was a strange one. The guy was accused of a sectarian attack but the verdict returned was unproven and he was ultimately jailed for 8 months for a breach of the peace, I think.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on6:39 pm - Mar 13, 2021


Incredibleadamspark 13th March 2021 At 16:05

Interesting for the Police to say that, especially when they knew that Rangers fans would be taking to the street in numbers last week. It was getting discussed on social media for weeks. They will need to do much more to convince me that everyone is treated the same, especially when there is phone and video evidence of officers joining in the celebrations.

During the Capitol Hill riots in America it was noted how some police just stood back and allowed it because they were Trump supporters. Last week was just the same for me. It leaves an indelible impression that what is allowed depends on the colour of scarf being worn. In general terms though I sincerely hope no idiots from either side try and descend on the ground next week. If they do though, it will be interesting to see how the Police deal with it.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on6:45 pm - Mar 13, 2021


Auldheid 13th March 2021 At 16:15

It is the huge incentive that CL money provides that in my opinion is the creator of an incentive to cheat to get at it, PARTICULARLY if the ability repay the debt depends on getting the CL money.

+++++++++++++++++++++

Absolutely agree with that. Financial Fair Play in Scotland post 2012 would have been a good move, although the new Rangers would have suffered more than anyone because of it in my view.

View Comment

incredibleadamsparkPosted on7:21 pm - Mar 13, 2021


Upthehoops 13th March 2021 At 18:39

Yup, it would be nice to just watch a football match and hope that no idiots take to the streets. It’s been a strange and frustrating time this past year but hopefully common sense prevails and fans will behave themselves.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:36 pm - Mar 13, 2021


Incredibleadamspark 13th March 2021 At 19:21

An exclusion zone needs to be be created around the stadium area. Given recent events I can’t see thousands attempting to descend.

View Comment

Albertz11Posted on7:37 pm - Mar 13, 2021


IAP 13th March 19.21

Whereas everyone and their aunt was aware of how and where the Rangers fans planned to celebrate last weekends title win i am at a loss as to where the idea of attending Parkhead on the 21st comes from. One or two have suggested greeting the team bus on it’s journey to the stadium in much the same way as the Celtic support did for the first Old Firm game of the season. Apart from that i have seen no mention of hundreds/thousands descending en masse upon the east end of the city.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on8:02 pm - Mar 13, 2021


Upthehoops 13th March 2021 At 18:45
0 0 Rate This

Auldheid 13th March 2021 At 16:15

It is the huge incentive that CL money provides that in my opinion is the creator of an incentive to cheat to get at it, PARTICULARLY if the ability repay the debt depends on getting the CL money.

+++++++++++++++++++++

Absolutely agree with that. Financial Fair Play in Scotland post 2012 would have been a good move, although the new Rangers would have suffered more than anyone because of it in my view.

And there you have it. Canny have rules that hinder Rangers business model .

If the 5 Way created a franchise like McDonalds but selling hateburgers then sectarianism is only the sauce that goes on the otherwise tasteless moneyburger to make it tasty.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on8:12 pm - Mar 13, 2021


UptheHoops

On exclusions zones because supporters might turn up for invented reasons I think recognition of “knuckleheadessness ” as an all pervading human condition is necessary.

Knuckleheads.

I think it is an American term.

I quite like it, kind of onomatopoeic quality to it. Not so much sounds like but looks like.

Anyhoo it is a denial of reality that the support of Celtic and “Rangers” do not have their share of knuckleheads and they recognise each other.

The knuckle in the head stops the consequences of the emotions reaching the brain.

It’s a condition that most grow out of but it’s also one that we grow into before we grow out of it. A human condition.

So best not deny it and deal with it free from judgment of which support has the most knuckleheads or which kind of knucklehead is worse than the other.

Just say that anyone turning up at CP will be taken as evidence of knuckleheadedness to become huckleheads into a police van.

Set a perimeter around the ground and any one approaching without valid reason to do so will be huckled.

HuckleberryTim or HuckleberryHun.

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on9:31 pm - Mar 13, 2021


Auldheid…
On the subject of a franchise…

Is that not exactly what the SPL’s (mis)interpretation of its articles amounts to?

There have been many analogies used over the years to try and make sense of what has occurred. One that I found most amusing is from a family member who tried to liken Rangers being the same club with a local MacDonald’s branch having been taken over by new owners.

“It’s the same business, using the same trademarks, selling the same food to the same customers.”

He opined that it is only logical that Rangers is the same club in the same way the local MacDonald’s remained the same restaurant. In each case, only the owners had changed.

In accepting the general premise, I asked him if he was happy that, if he truly believed what he was saying, the SPL’s ‘new owners’ trope meant his beloved football club was no more than a franchise?

“It’s not the same thing!” was his reply.

Reminding him that it was his analogy, I said that on the face of it, it appears to be a very similar thing…

…if you believe the current Rangers FC is the same association football club as the one controlled by David Murray.

I asked him if instead of likening a restaurant to a Club, should he not relate the restaurant (the physical building and related assets) to Ibrox stadium?

I suggested that he could think of the current Rangers FC as a new Club operating in the same stadium as the old club did, just as a new franchisee was operating the same restaurant as its previous franchisee.

He didn’t like that analogy 😃

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on10:00 pm - Mar 13, 2021


HirsutePursuit 13th March 2021 At 21:31

If David Murray had only been honest with the taxman there would be no need for that type of conversation. It is also highly unlikely there would have been any shouting about 55 titles right now either, as the fact David Murray was not honest with the taxman gave them a huge advantage. As a Celtic fan I would have loved a goalkeeper of Stefan Klos’s quality, or a midfielder at the level of Ronald De Boer. I believe both made more money going to Rangers than they could have at Man United. Wow!

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on3:40 am - Mar 14, 2021


HirsutePursuit 13th March 2021 At 21:31
3 0 Rate This

Auldheid…

On the subject of a franchise…

At the very least the possibility that the 5 Way Agreement has turned Scottish Football into a franchise should be explored by UEFA just in case.

On McDonalds I remember reading McDonalds Behind The Arches many years ago and one of the fascinating things to come out is that their wealth was not based on burgers but on the land and buildings owned . Kind of fits your point to your family member.

View Comment

wokingceltPosted on8:17 am - Mar 14, 2021


Auldheid – couldn’t agree more on the corrosive effect of Champions League money. This applies not just in Scotland but also the so-called “big leagues” where business models are built on assumed success. In the EPL Arsenal bemoan their “lost revenue” from not being in recent CL (forgetting that they never earned it in the first place to lose it). And Liverpool will be under pressure next season unless they win the CL this year as this appears only real route to qualifying.
I have always felt that “UEFA” money should be shared more evenly across the domestic leagues (yes, the earning club should get a bigger share) as otherwise the destabilising effects on local leagues risk ruin. Of course such distributions would need to be done on a scrupulously fair and transparent basis but overall I think a force for good.
Whilst not a fan of the US approach to sports team franchising, it always amazes me that the leading capitalist nation applies salary caps and other controls to professional sports and yet we don’t think we can learn from them that such controls may be necessary to nurture fairer competition.

View Comment

Albertz11Posted on9:40 am - Mar 14, 2021


A message from Steven Gerrard.

https://www.rangers.co.uk/article/a-message-from-steven-gerrard-130321/2zAeGBJN0bgSKIfaJm00LT

View Comment

wokingceltPosted on10:32 am - Mar 14, 2021


As they (still?) ask at school: Compare and contrast policing methods between raucous celebrations in Glasgow last weekend with those used at a peaceful vigil demonstration last night in London.
The reason given for last night’s response was due to the risk of spreading Covid (which presumably was higher/same in Glasgow where rates I believe are higher/same and behaviour less restrained). And what mealy mouthed excuse did Police Scotland give???

View Comment

wokingceltPosted on10:43 am - Mar 14, 2021


@ Albertz11 – if I helped rob a bank last week but then told the gang not to rob another bank next week I am still a bank robber. There is only so much clubs can do and they will always be at the mercy of the “knuckleheads” (Auldheid – that post made me smile), but the simple facts are that Rangers were derelict (arguable wilfully negligent) in their duty in the run up and then actively complicit in law breaking on the Saturday. Maybe it’s something in the water at Ibrox that allows folk to think that they are above the law.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:22 pm - Mar 14, 2021


Albertz11 14th March 2021 At 09:40

‘.we must remember who we are, and we must remember what this club stands for.’
++++++++++++
Yes, Stevie boy you are the new club founded in 2012

Which ‘stands for deception’ in falsely claiming to be RFC of 1872, a deception which has left an indelible stain on the integrity of Scottish Football administration.

[I acknowledge that the quote I use from your link comes from Steven Gerrard’s ‘statement’ ‘A message from Steven Gerrard’ on http://www.rangers.co.uk]

View Comment

nawlitePosted on2:39 pm - Mar 14, 2021


Albertz11 13th March 2021 At 19:37

So none of the ‘Party at the piggery’ links from TRFC fans’ social media sites popped up on your FB feed, then? I’ve lost count of them on mine. I guess because I have occasionally clicked on posts from those sites to see the mad things their headlines imply, FB thinks I’m a TRFC fan. Shudder!

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on3:42 pm - Mar 14, 2021


Nawlite 14th March 2021 At 14:39
I’ve seen some suggesting TRFC fans turn up disguised as the Green Brigade (black clothing and masks -who’s to know ?)with green pyros , etc . Just a bit of a laugh , right enough . The Toxic Two .

View Comment

Albertz11Posted on4:10 pm - Mar 14, 2021


Nawlite 14th March 14.39.

I have never had a FB account and have no intention of ever having one. The example you give tends to indicate that my decision is justified.

Paddy Malarkey 15.42.

The Union Bears wear black clothing and masks.
The GB wear a olive type colour of clothing.

Not based on being a member of either group but having witnessed both.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on12:11 am - Mar 15, 2021


Wed oct 26, 2006
Hearts fined for Romanov comments
Hearts have been fined£10,000 by the scottish football association after majority shareholder Vladimir Romanov’s criticism of match officials.
The Edindurgh side were also warned about their future conduct after being found guilty of disrepute on the clubs website
Romanov had refered to referees conduct during Hearts successful scottish cup run last season.
Hearts have not yet revealed whether they will appeal against the fine.
An individual charge against Romanov was deferred by the SFA’s general purpouse committee because he was unable to attend Tuesdays meeting.
His case will be delt with at the next meeting of the committee in December even if he does not turn up.
Romanov was critical of the scottish media and said “Last season you didn’t manage to protect the scottish cup and gave it to Hearts despite all the referees efforts and intrigues.
The SFA closed a loophole in May that had allowed Romanov to air his outspoken views with impunity because he has no official post at Tynecastle.
The resolution means every person holding authority at a club or control over the board falls under the SFA’s jurisdiction.
”””””
They set new rules so they can fine a person who holds authority at a club or control over the board.
Yet when you look back at Park and Robertson and some ibrox players last season for bringing the game into disrepute during the Dossier gate scandle there is still silence .

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on12:51 am - Mar 15, 2021


Cluster One 15th March 2021 At 00:11
0 0 Rate This
……..
During ‘dossiergate’ one began to wonder if there was concern that someone from the new club was about to betray a secret from years past that would place the SFA, and perhaps some other member clubs, in a difficult position?

The phrase ‘mutually assured destruction’ comes to mind.

Thanks for posting. It confirms that it was SFA rule changes (not the SPL articles of association changes discussed earlier with Auldheid) that were used to ‘get Romanov’

View Comment

wokingceltPosted on9:29 am - Mar 15, 2021


Apologies-“dossiergate” is not something I am aware of (maybe didn’t make it to the English-based MSM). Could someone post a link/point me in the right direction to help me understand. Thanks

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:32 am - Mar 15, 2021


Wokingcelt 15th March 2021 At 09:29
‘..dossiergate” is not something I am aware of (maybe didn’t make it to the English-based MSM). Could someone post a link/point me in the right direction to help me understand. ‘

+++++++++
This link might be use. It relates to the farcical Park and Robertson attack on the SPFL after the voting farce last season.
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2020/05/07/own-goal-fc-finally-produce-the-demented-dossier/

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on1:21 pm - Mar 15, 2021


It was quite concerning to hear the views on Radio Scotland this morning of the head of the Police Federation. There was debate regarding the policing at the Sarah Everard vigil, compared to that for the Rangers fans gatherings. Referring to Manchester in 2008, he suggested the riots were the result of Greater Manchester Police ‘intervening’ in the Rangers fans party. It gives me no confidence whatsoever that if there is an attempt by fans to gather this weekend that there will be a robust response to what would be large scale lawbreaking. Anyone thinking of breaking the law in this way may just think as long as there is enough of us we can do what we like.

View Comment

wokingceltPosted on4:31 pm - Mar 15, 2021


Thanks John Clark – had not heard these shenanigans referred to as dossiergate but do recall the fingering pointing from last year.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on5:25 pm - Mar 15, 2021


Albertz11 14th March 2021 At 16:10
Looks black to me .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1E6g51jmh0M

View Comment

vernallenPosted on9:51 pm - Mar 15, 2021


workingcelt
march 14th 8:17

Interesting reference to the franchise system in North America. The leagues appear to operate in unison with interest in providing the paying customer with a positive experience. These leagues have committees established to discuss and improve rules, look at player safety, and seek better and more efficient equipment. The salary caps are vigorously monitored and teams exceeding the cap are subject to fine. The player safety committee, usually comprised of former players, monitors games and have contact with the officials on a regular basis when it comes to issues. As an example, in a recent NHL game their was a check that was not penalized at the time, but the player safety committee reviewed it in quick order. The outcome was a 7 game suspension for the offender. No offer of a suspension, no take 2 games now, and we’ll look at the rest later. The franchise owners realize that they are only as strong as their weakest link. It may not be perfect but appears to work for the most part. Something that could improve other sporting leagues around the world. There are huge dollar amounts at play but nothing like the stranglehold UEFA and FIFA appear to have on soccer/football.

View Comment

Higgy’s ShoesPosted on11:59 pm - Mar 15, 2021


Hirsute,

What was interesting about the SFA decision to change the rules to bring Romanov under their jurisdiction ….

Twice before, people who were “office bearers” at their clubs, all but called Scottish Football corrupt, live on TV.

Namely, Turnbull Hutton on the steps of Hampden and Craig Levein in the tunnel at Ibrox.
Both were never as much as censured. (If memory serves me correctly)

Of course, at the time Romanov was not an office bearer.

Romanov was the easy target.

HS

View Comment

Higgy’s ShoesPosted on12:21 am - Mar 16, 2021


Hirsute,

What was interesting about the SFA decision to change the rules to bring Romanov under their jurisdiction ….

Twice before, people who were “office bearers” at their clubs, all but called Scottish Football corrupt, live on TV.

Namely, Turnbull Hutton on the steps of Hampden and Craig Levein in the tunnel at Ibrox.
Both were never as much as censured.

Of course, at the time Romanov was not an office bearer.

Romanov was the easy target.

HS

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:34 am - Mar 16, 2021


Higgy’s Shoes 15th March 2021 At 23:59
‘..Twice before, people who were “office bearers” at their clubs, all but called Scottish Football corrupt, live on TV.’
+++++++++++++
I can’t quite place the Levein incident, but Turnbull Hutton , honourable man, was bang on in his observation.

View Comment

nawlitePosted on12:08 pm - Mar 16, 2021


Another useless blog from the Scottish Football Supporters Association. Any anti-corruption fans should worry about his free use of ‘the Old Firm’ phrase. What are these guys on? Do they understand how that phrase annoys anyone who cares about corruption in the game, given its clear connections to the Continuity myth and the biggest piece of corruption ever seen in Scottish football?
https://scottishfsa.org/an-elephant-in-george-square/?fbclid=IwAR11cLhlEKXH0nyuYCf2zQEd4CR9UmRD6p4XltmDDOyvuEmWYZJXS74jkQU

BP, if you’re still friendly with this guy (even if just in business terms) you really need to give him a heads up imo

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on12:22 pm - Mar 16, 2021


John Clark 16th March 2021 At 00:34
It may be this one .

https://www.scotsman.com/sport/rugby-union/craig-levein-launches-incredible-rant-officials-after-rangers-loss-197534

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on2:06 pm - Mar 16, 2021


To echo the blog title , here we go again . Why should the rest of the leagues have to develop players for the two cheeks ? Leave the youngsters to develop at their clubs , even provide free coaching ,rather than sook up all the available talent and hoard it .
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56412970

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on3:52 pm - Mar 16, 2021


Paddy Malarkey 16th March 2021 At 14:06

To echo the blog title , here we go again . Why should the rest of the leagues have to develop players for the two cheeks ? Leave the youngsters to develop at their clubs , even provide free coaching ,rather than sook up all the available talent and hoard it .

+++++++++++++++++++++++==

Well, the clubs can vote against it then, if it doesn’t suit them.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on6:16 pm - Mar 16, 2021


https://www.thenational.scot/news/19162837.crown-office-opposes-release-files-24-million-rangers-prosecution-case/
…………..
Here we go again right enough.
………….
Crown Office opposes release of files in £24 million Rangers prosecution case.
A virtual hearing in the Court of Session heard that Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC, a Scottish Government minister and head of the prosecution services, opposes the release of documents.
…..Some names we have heard before

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on6:26 pm - Mar 16, 2021


wokingcelt 15th March 2021 At 09:29
Apologies-“dossiergate” is not something I am aware of (maybe didn’t make it to the English-based MSM). Could someone post a link/point me in the right direction to help me understand. Thanks
…………………………………….
Was hailed as a Dossier that would bring scottish football governance to it’s knees. Later to be laughed out the room, and still no charge for bringing the game into disrepute for those who pushed it. In the end the word Humiliation was branded about a lot.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on6:44 pm - Mar 16, 2021


Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC and Police Scotland’s legal team argued the documents should be banned from being disclosed.

Now, Glasgow tribunal judge Muriel Robison has sided with Wolffe’s “public interest” request.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/whistleblower-cop-gagged-over-corruption-20894977
…………………………………………………………………………………………
I wonder if anyone will side with Mr James Wolffe in the above case…… release of files in £24 million Rangers prosecution case.

View Comment

nawlitePosted on7:10 pm - Mar 16, 2021


Agree PM. It’s just another example of Celtic and TRFC being treated differently to the rest of the SFA Clubs. What makes it worse is that because those 2 clubs carry most of the support, they can to an extent take it for granted that the small clubs will be at least tempted to go with it, knowing that even a second string Celtic or TRFC will still have a big following compared to a Stranraer or Cove Rangers, in addition to the prize money the Top2 will go without to bribe the small clubs to vote yes.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on8:09 pm - Mar 16, 2021


To follow up on my report of Lord Tyre’s hearing of David Grier’s action v the Lord Advocate and others, I’ve just noticed that his decision in the matter of whether the Lord Advocate had ‘ probable cause’ is:
” I decline the invitation to hold at this stage that there is no
relevant defence that there was objective reasonable and probable cause for the inclusion of
the pursuer in charge 1 of the petition.”
and ” In my opinion it cannot be decided at this stage that there was no objective
reasonable and probable cause for charge 5. “.

The matter now has to go to proof, and David Grier has to prove that the Crown acted without ‘probable cause’

The full decision can be found at
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2021csoh028.pdf?sfvrsn=0

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on11:51 pm - Mar 16, 2021


Cluster One
Hirsute Pursuit

Thanks for the clarification.

I can see how the Brechin reason and Romanov reason got conflated back then so we can drop Romanov from the underlying issue to look at which is:

What was the argument in support of the change in SPL rules introducing owner and operator and if it was solely to deal with a potential problem in respect of Brechin having no “owner” of a share, how did that rule change in 2005 transform Rangers from being an incorporated single Public Limited Liability Company (PLC) earning its revenue from football to a Public Limited Liability Company (PLC) that overnight owned a club earning the same income from the same source?

In terms of conforming with UEFA FFP before 2012 was it Rangers FC PLC that applied for a UEFA Licence or Rangers FC as a stand alone club or was it Rangers PLC whom Rangers Football Club had a written contract with to be their operators? The application template suggests it was Rangers Football Club only.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/0B6uWzxhblAt9VnptRTJBR01RTEE/edit

Post 2012 if its not the current club (Rangers FC Ltd) applying for a UEFA licence but the football Company (Rangers International Football Club PLC) they have a written contract with and the football company’s (RIFC) main source of revenue is from the club activities, then how can a Company go bust unless the club ceases to be able to provide that revenue?

Now had UEFA seen the 5 Way Agreement there would be the satisfaction of knowing they were OK with it.

As it stands UEFA did what their rules told them to do, Waited 3 years to allow the club that had undergone a terminal change in its legal structure to satisfy UEFA requirements in respect of historical membership of the SFA before being eligible to apply to play in UEFA competitions in circumstances that were not to the detriment of the integrity of those competitions.

After 3 years, whichever club ie legal entity that applied for a UEFA Licence, it was not the Rangers Football Club (PLC) that last applied in 2012 (which was rejected because they had no audited accounts and the wee tax bill of 2011 was admitted , unlike March 2011 when described as a potential liability, as a payable that as the world and its wean knew in 2012 was outstanding.)

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on8:53 pm - Mar 17, 2021


I’ve listened with interest and attention these last few days to the ‘Sportsound’ discussions on the proposal that ‘colt’ clubs (plus some Highland and Lowland league clubs] should be admitted to League 2.

I don’t think I’m being excessively critical when I say that our radio pundits are apt to add to confusion rather than clearly explain and justify their particular points of view: lots of heat, without too much light.

Tonight, the Brora rangers chap was a breath of fresh air with his succinct and clear exposition and enthusiastic advocacy .

McIntyre is not the best of ‘neutral chairpersons’, in that his aggressive, needlessly challenging manner gets people’s backs up, and he doesn’t attempt to summarise the arguments put forward by the different people, so as to keep the discussion focussed.

Apart from that, though, I was struck tonight that although it was mentioned that the proposals appear to include the proposal that the ‘colt’ clubs would not be involved in promotion or relegation, there was no discussion of that.
I’m not sure I understand that proposal.

Can anyone briefly explain how that proposal would work in practice , please ?
Can a match be truly sportingly competitive when it’s between a club for which every game is in effect a mere friendly while the winning or losing of points is vitally important in terms of honest competition as well as of finance etc for the ‘regular’ league cubs?
There’s a danger, surely, that a club with nothing to win or lose might accidentally prejudice other clubs by not playing seriously against , say, the league leader at any given stage in the league?

View Comment

vernallenPosted on9:50 pm - Mar 17, 2021


When I saw the Castore billboards I thought they were triumphing a new rock band coming out of Glasgow. How remiss of me to think this was a tribute to a tribute club that finally won a title of some sort. If that makes you a king, what does four trebles make you. Then again some clubs have grace and dignity while others have to clutch and grab at any form of recognition. Also the subtle reference to royalty in the billboards was interesting.

View Comment

wokingceltPosted on10:45 pm - Mar 17, 2021


Similar rules apply in Spain with the second teams for Real Madrid and Barcelona. They can go as high as Segunda Division but can’t play in the Primera (strictly speaking they could get promoted but it would require Real Madrid getting relegated in the same season – the rule is that they can’t play in the same division). I guess they trust in professional pride of teams that they will compete in all matches.
Personally I think the issue is the Academy approach that replaced the reserve team football in many countries, with young players not getting the chance to play competitively against seasoned pros. I know it’s viewed as a challenge in England where Academy players viewed as too cosseted, playing lots of bounce games on 4G pitches and then literally not knowing what’s hit them when faced with less than perfect conditions and more physical challenges. Don’t think being farmed out to Cumbernauld did the young Dalglish any harm…

View Comment

wokingceltPosted on10:53 pm - Mar 17, 2021


@vernallen
A little off topic but I was rather taken aback by Brendan Rodgers of all people being sought out in the MSM to advise others to show class…I imagine he had the engine running whilst providing the quote!

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:26 pm - Mar 17, 2021


In my email inbox today is a decision of the CAS relating to Football Club Carlos Stein [Peru].

The ‘Stein’ reference caught my eye ( maybe someone knows whether there is any connection with our Jock?]
So I had a wee gander at Wiki.
[ so NOTin relation to todays reported case]

And fancy that! It’s an older club than TRFC.
It was founded as long ago 6 March 2012! (Wow, so long ago!]

It appears that in 2019 it was defeated in the ‘Copa Peru’.

Guess what! It appealed.

On what grounds? I hear you ask.

Why, what else but on the grounds that the other team had fielded a suspended player!

FC Carlos Stein went on the final Group stages.

Its final games in that stage were against Desportivo Llacuabamba.

The overall stage winner was Desportivo Llacuabamba.

Can you guess what FC Carlos Stein did?

What else but appeal?

On what grounds? Yep, you got it in one: on the grounds that Desportivo Llacuabamba had improperly fielded a player.

Oh, there’s something tugging at my tired auld man’s memory cells about a Scottish Club founded in 2012 which claims to be an older club, a club that all of Scottish football KNOWS fielded ineligible players for years and years as part of a monumental tax fiddle by a club which no longer exists.

I’m happy that an equivalent of Brysonism was not invoked.

View Comment

vernallenPosted on12:41 am - Mar 18, 2021


Workingelt
March 17th/22:53

Perhaps his tongue was firmly planted in his cheek. Then again the way the question was phrased may have dictated the way the answer was given. Those media guys can be tricky when the need arises. Also, a little off topic but a tip of the hat due to the Rangers fan group for the donation, and, a substantial one, to the hospital. It’s not often their fans get something right.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on8:12 am - Mar 18, 2021


According to a report in the Glasgow Times, extra subway trains will be added to this Sunday’s schedule because Police intelligence advises of a gathering at Ibrox. I hope the story is nonsense. If it is true, then God help us all, because Scotland may just have become a lawless nation.

View Comment

Albertz11Posted on10:10 am - Mar 18, 2021


Vernallen 18th March 00.41

The gentlemen concerned raise money for various charities on a regular basis and have done for many years, usually done under the radar with a minimum of media coverage.
You would probably be surprised at how often we get it right.

View Comment

vernallenPosted on12:37 am - Mar 19, 2021


Albertz11 18th march 10:10
No intention of being flippant in regards to the charity donation and am aware of a number of groups/people who contribute all over the world without fanfare. Just thought it would be nice to acknowledge the act of kindness as these acts seldom get any positive press.

View Comment

Higgy’s ShoesPosted on10:37 am - Mar 19, 2021


Paddy Malarkey
“John Clark 16th March 2021 At 00:34
It may be this one.”

Paddy, thanks for the link you posted for JC.

I forgot about that one.

But I was thinking about is this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0xHWIw_dPk

John,

How could you forget this

HS

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:09 am - Mar 19, 2021


Why am I thinking of Sam English this morning?
And a ‘sine die’ suspension for Roofe?
In all my years I have never seen such a brutal flying assault.

View Comment

incredibleadamsparkPosted on11:43 am - Mar 19, 2021


Higgy’s Shoes 19th March 2021 At 10:37

I’ve always liked Craig Levein and his straight talking. Here is what he had to say about Celtic and Rangers during the Football Daft podcast from November last year.

“I’m fed up with the two of them. Honestly, it’s all people think football is in Scotland, and the press play up to it all the time.

“This whole stuff last season with Hearts getting relegated was a nonsense, an absolute nonsense, and part of it was to do with Celtic getting the title so that they could try and break this record of nine-in-a-row.

“I just can’t be bothered with it. For a while David Murray ran Scottish football and Rangers were calling all the shots and getting all the good publicity and now I think Celtic are doing exactly the same.

“They call the shots with all the big decisions in Scotland and I think it’s really unfair. So I can’t be bothered with the nonsense.”

View Comment

Comments are closed.