Comment on History, Neighbours and Made Up News by HirsutePursuit.
PADDY MALARKEYSEPTEMBER 19, 2016 at 14:19
There are so many threads to the continuity myth.
We were all trying to catch up with our new perceived reality back then.
I had intended to write quite a long piece several months ago around the changes to both the SFA Articles and the SPL Articles in 2005 – which combined have led us to a place where ambiguity reigns.
I had written, a very long time ago now, a piece on how in Italian football, history and sporting achievement does not reside with the club – but with what they call “Sporting Title”. If one club is liquidated, another local club can purchase the “Sporting Title” from the Italian football authorities and, subject to paying off the old club’s football debts, effectively claim the history and honours of the original club.
I have talked about England, where the idea of continuity is spun around a “Golden Share” in the Football League. Effectively, if a club goes under, the league decides if the new club will be allowed to transfer its FL membership to a new club and take its place in the league. The key is again, the payment of football debts. The leagues rules talk about “existing club” and “prospective club” – recognising they are not one and the same – but the general, informal, narrative is around continuity.
In Scotland, up until 2005, the SFA expressly forbade the transfer of its membership in an insolvency event – and so, even if a league membership could be transferred to a new corporate body, the SFA membership absolutely could not. What I wanted to do, was show that the SFA and SPL changes in 2005 were slotted in in such a way that no-one really recognised their significance.
The 5WA that we all despise, I think was drawn from a template designed during the original changes in 2005.
Had Sevco been accepted into the SPL as a direct replacement for Rangers, the situation would have been almost identical to what happens in England. This, I think, is what the authorities had intended. The challenge for the footballing authorities here are that we are a thrawn lot and simply did not accept the premise. Season Ticket boycotts told the clubs we refused to accept this interpretation of what it meant to be a club.
Bizarrely, the SPL then claimed the Italian method as its own. All you have to do is replace the phrase “Sporting Title” with “Club” and the jobs a good’un.
So even though the new club had to start at the bottom of the pyramid, the SPL created a narrative – via LNS, under the laughable cover of sporting integrity – that the new club was not a club at all. The new club was simply the new corporate holding vehicle for the original ethereal, eternal, everlasting Club.
The SFA Board and members just did as they were told.
HirsutePursuit Also Commented
History, Neighbours and Made Up News
Membership of the SFA in 2012 had three classes – but every club in membership of the SPL and SFL were “registered” members.
In late July, every club in those leagues – except Sevco – were also a “full” or an “associate” SFA member.
The SFL insisted that its members applied for “full” or “associate” SFA membership – but that didn’t remove the fact that those clubs were also “registered” SFA members.
These days the definition of member in the SFA articles is a full and/or registered member. Every member of the SPFL holds both classes of membership.
History, Neighbours and Made Up News
NEEPHEIDSEPTEMBER 19, 2016 at 16:01
There is a document in the ether purporting to show a list of players – still registered with Rangers – where permission was given for them to play for Sevco.
It seems highly unlikely that proper registration procedures were followed at the time
History, Neighbours and Made Up News
JINGSO.JIMSIESEPTEMBER 19, 2016 at 16:48
It was much more black and white that was being portrayed. Clyde gave the game away. There was no “conditional” agreement in the SFL’s acceptance on Sevco as a new member.
Sevco became a SFL member when Resolution 1 was passed on 13th July 2012. Under SFA Article 6.2 Sevco became a registered SFA member automatically at the same time.
The wording of statements are misleading or (at best) ambiguous; but all subsequent references to membership transfer can only be in relation to the “full” SFA membership, still at that time, held by Rangers.
I agree with your point on the timing of the “full” membership. I have repeatedly said this occurred on 3rd August.
Sevco Scotland (trading as Rangers FC) played Brechin on 29th July.
The three SFL resolutions were:
(i) That the Scottish Football League Members agree to admit Sevco Scotland Limited as an Associate Member and agrees to permit Rangers F.C. to play in the League during Season 2012/13.
(ii) That the Scottish Football League Members direct the Board of Management of The Scottish Football League (the “Board”) to provide that Rangers F.C. shall play in the Third Division of the Scottish Football League during Season 2012/13 unless the Board shall have to its satisfaction negotiated and reached agreement with The Scottish Premier League and The Scottish Football Association on a series of measures which the Board shall consider to be in the best interests of the game, how it is structured, how it is governed and how it is financed, whereupon the Board shall be authorised to provide that Rangers F.C. shall play in the First Division of the Scottish Football League during Season 2012/13.
(iii) That the Scottish Football League Members in terms of Rule 12 approve the resignation of either Dundee F.C. or Dunfermline Athletic F.C., whichever shall be admitted to join the Scottish Premier League for Season 2012/13, such resignation to take effect as at the date of admission of such club to the Scottish Premier League, notwithstanding that the requisite notice under Rule 12 shall not have been given.Details of the series of measures referred to at (ii) above shall be made available to the Members in advance of the meeting and an opportunity for full discussion of those measures will be given prior to the proposals being put to the meeting.
Recent Comments by HirsutePursuit
Who Is Conning Whom?
I am with you in most of what you say, but there are some important differences.
SFA Article 6.1 & 6.2 say:
Clubs or associations undertaking to promote Association Football according to the Laws of the Game and these Articles and other rules of the Scottish FA may be admitted as registered members, associate members or full members, subject to the provisions of Articles 6.2 to 6.7 (both inclusive).
6.2 A club or association shall be admitted as a registered member automatically by reason of its being admitted as a member of an Affiliated Association or an Affiliated National Association, or in the case of a club through membership of or participation in an association, league or other combination of clubs formed in terms of Article 18 and in the case of an association by being formed in terms of Article 18, provided it is not already an associate or full member. A registered member shall not be a member of more than one Affiliated Association or more than one Affiliated National Association. A registered member may apply at any time to become an associate member.
We are in complete agreement, I think, that SFA Article 6.2 made Sevco a registered member of the SFA from the date it was accepted by the SFL – 14th July 2012.
But, and I think this is important, the nearest the SFA get to insisting that a club has associate or full SFA membership is Article 6.2 which simply says, ‘A registered member may apply at any time to become an associate member.’
Note: no timescale applies… and no consequences (from an SFA perspective) if a club chooses to not make that application.
So I think we are on common ground that Article 6.2 was applicable as far as the registered membership was concerned – and Sevco did not take the opportunity to apply for associate membership by this method.
If we then go back to what the SFL Rules actually said:
6. REGISTRATION WITH SFA A CONDITION OF MEMBERSHIPA Member or Associate Member who is not already a full or associate member of the Scottish Football Association must make application to become a full or associate member of the Scottish Football Association (as the case may be) within fourteen (14) days of being admitted to membership of the League failing which its membership of the League will lapse, and in the event that the application is unsuccessful, its membership will lapse upon that decision being intimated to the League.
Now, if the SFL was being prescriptive about which SFA Article was to be used (to apply for full or associate membership), and that Article 6 was the only valid route, why mention full membership as an option. If ‘application’ is meant to mean only applications in terms of SFA Article 6, the only relevant option would be to apply as an associate SFA member.
No, the SFL rules are not prescriptive in the manner of that application. I think Rule 16 is clearly written to allow a transfer of associate or full membership from an existing club to a new club or entity under SFA Article 14.
In fact the only method by which this could be achieved is SFA Article 14
14. Prohibition on Transfer of Membership14.1 It is not permissible for a member to transfer directly or indirectly its membership of the Scottish FA to another member or to any other entity, and any such transfer or attempt to effect such a transfer is prohibited, save as otherwise provided in this Article 14. Any member desirous of transferring its membership to another entity within its own administrative group for the purpose of internal solvent reconstruction must apply to the Board for permission to effect such transfer, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Any other application for transfer of membership will be reviewed by the Board, which will have complete discretion to reject or to grant such application on such terms and conditions as the Board may think fit.
…which allows the board to grant an application for transfer of an existing membership on such terms as it sees fit.
Importantly, the discretion only applies to which terms and conditions to a transfer of a membership that already exists.
Having complete discretion on how or if that transfer (of full membership) took place is completely within the board’s power via Article 14.
What it doesn’t do is empower the board to create a new type of membership.
And, even if it does claim to have done so, I still don’t understand how the SFA ‘conditional’ membership would satisfy the SFL requirement for an application for associate or full membership?
Remember, this transfer application was an SFL requirement. The SFA had no interest in whether or not Sevco applied for associate or full membership.
It seems to me that the SFA and SFL approached the Sevco scenario in a similar way as they did when Inverness Caledonian were admitted (as a new club) in 1994.
Difference is ICT, the SFL, SPL and SFA all recognise that that club was founded in 1994.
As I said earlier with regard to the birth of Sevco, the deceit is not so much in what they all did, but in what they said and continue to say.
Who Is Conning Whom?
The new club (Sevco) was issued with written permission to use the name of a club in full membership (Rangers).
This was necessary because both existed as SFA member clubs at the time.
Who Is Conning Whom?
This was the nub of the ‘conditional membership’
10.7 Each club in full membership or associate membership shall in its Official Return register its ground and playing field dimensions and no such club shall remove to another ground without first obtaining the consent of the Board. Any club in full membership or associate membership wishing to make any alteration to its name, its registered ground or its playing field dimensions must first obtain the prior written consent of the Board. No club in registered membership shall adopt in whole or in part the name of a club in full membership or associate membership without the prior written consent of the Board.
Who Is Conning Whom?
The 14 day application deadline was an SFL requirement – not something that the SFA had any locus in considering.
As long as Sevco was a member of the SFL it was a member of the SFA.
It would have been up to the SFL management committee to decide if the application for transfer (rather than application for a new associate membership) met its requirements. If it did not, it would have been within its powers to revoke Sevco’s league membership. It is an arguable point, but there is no suggestion, as far as I’m aware, that the SFL league management committee ever met to even discuss the matter.
Nevertheless, I think you are saying that Sevco was no longer a member of the SFL at the time of the SFA statement – therefore needed this ‘new’ SFA membership category to play Brechin.
But how would any type of membership of the SFA help if it was no longer a member of the SFL? If its membership of the league had already lapsed or been revoked, another SFL EGM would have been required to try and vote the club back in. I’m 100% sure that did not happen.
On 29th July, Sevco must still have been a member of the SFL as the Ramsden Cup was only open to members of that league.
There was simply no mechanism for the club to rejoin the league in the available time. If it did not rejoin (and I’m as certain as I can be that it did not) then it cannot ever have been removed as a member of the SFL.
And as I keep saying, as a member of the SFL, it was also a member of the SFA.
The SFA’s deceit was not in its actions – but was in its words.
Don’t forget that the SFA had to consider the use of the Rangers name. The ‘conditional’ membership squirrel has been particularly useful in covering up the SFA board’s approval for Sevco to play Brechin under the Rangers name.
That, in reality, was the big announcement on that day. The rest was sleight of hand.
Smoke and mirrors.
Who Is Conning Whom?
The golf club analogy has been used before.
Dear old dad is a member of St Andrews (other golf clubs are available). To make best use of the facilities new members must apply to a ‘house’ that will give access to their respective lounges and bars. After 15 years of continuous membership Mon pere was awarded the status of ‘Gold Member’.
Gold Members have their own lounge and gain a range of additional benefits.
Recently poor old dad has become poorly and suggests that l join the golf club and take over his ‘Gold Membership’.
I join the club and, with a letter of agreement from sickly pater, apply for the transfer of his ‘Gold Membership’ status.
The committee meet and decide that I can only take on the enhanced membership status if old pop dies.
I tell them that father is on his last legs and won’t last the weekend.
As an existing member I can enter the club’s Saturday medal competition. On a conditional basis, they tell me I will be eligible to use the ‘Gold Members’ facilities. They issue me with a letter to confirm this arrangement.
They will reconvene in several weeks to confirm the transfer of membership status – assuming that by then papa will be gone. If he makes a miraculous recovery I must then apply to join one of the standard houses.