Is Stewart Regan, Chief Executive Officer of the Scottish Football Association a DIDDY?
Disingenuous: Incompetent: Dishonest: Duped? You decide.
Ladies and gentlemen of the Scottish Football Monitor sorority/fraternity jury, who want an honest game, honestly governed, are invited to pass judgement on Stewart Regan, the CEO of the SFA.
The main stream media are finally asking questions of Regan’s performance in that role, but based on a rather shallow (by comparison to what he has presided over) single issue of the recruitment of a national team coach, and not his character.
Maybe we can help the three monkeys media men (you know who they are) push for change at the SFA. How? By highlighting for them the appropriate response to Regan’s performance on the basis of what follows if he really is a DIDDY.
Disingenuous is defined as:
not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.
Evidence of such can be found in the written exchanges with the SFA that Celtic initiated on 27th July, and continued on 18 August, 21 August, 4th September and 7th September 2017; and published on the Celtic web site with SFA agreement at http://cdn.celticfc.net/assets/downloads/SFA_Correspondence.pdf
This from the SFA letter of 18th August 2017:
Comment: the statements are not alleged, they are a matter of court record and if untrue represent perjury.
…. And then this from subsequent SFA letter of 4th September 2017
Both paras give the impression that the SFA were unaware that Rangers had accepted the liability without question before 31st March 2011. Yet the SFA’s attention was drawn to this fact in July 2015 by lawyers acting on behalf of Celtic shareholders as follows:
- Our information in respect of this £2.8M in unpaid tax is that Rangers PLC had been alerted in November 2010 by HMRC that they would be pursuing payment of this exact sum.
- From that date onwards, the Directors of Rangers PLC should have known there was a potential liability to HMRC for back taxes specifically relating to payments made to Tore Andre Flo and Ronald De Boer. These sums became an accepted liability in March 2011.
- Matters had been brought to a head on 23 February 2011 when HMRC presented Rangers with a written case for payment of back tax owed in respect of Flo and De Boer. As your department may well be aware, that case for payment involved hitherto undisclosed side letters which were found to be an adjunct to their declared and disclosed contracts of employment.
- Those contracts of employment were, of course, disclosed to the Scottish Football authorities (including the SFA) as part of the necessary compliance procedures followed by all clubs and demanded by both the SFA and UEFA.
- Additionally when replying to the initial enquiries by HMRC in 2005 regarding these alleged side letters and ancillary agreements, the then Group Tax Manager of Murray International Holdings (MIH) acting for Rangers PLC on tax matters, apparently advised HMRC that no such agreements or side letters existed.
- It ultimately proved that these representations to HMRC were completely untrue and without foundation. The tax Inspectors concerned in turn saw these false misrepresentations as being an attempt to simply hide the true financial position and an attempt to avoid paying the taxes which were lawfully due on the contracts of the players concerned.
- As mentioned earlier, Rangers PLC accepted liability on 21st March 2011 for unpaid tax having taken legal advice on the matter.
- In turn, HMRC then chose to formally pursue payment of the back taxes and penalties in relation to these two players, all in terms of HMRC’s debt recovery procedures under what is known as regulation 80.
- Prior to 31st March 2011, there was clear knowledge within Rangers Football Club of the liability to make payment for these back taxes and, as can be seen from the attached documentation, by 20th May 2011 HMRC had served formal assessments and demands on Rangers PLC for the sums concerned.
The impression given by Regan’s reply to Celtic is that the first time the SFA were aware there might be an issue on granting was in June 2017 as result of testimony at the Craig Whyte trial. This is clearly not the case and the only explanation that would clear Regan of being disingenuous is a that he was incompetent as in not knowing what the SFA already had in their possession, however a bit more on being disingenuous before looking at incompetency.
The above extract of the exchange of 4th September where Regan mentions Celtic being satisfied on the UEFA Licence 2011 issue was challenged by Celtic on 7th September 2017 as follows:
“on the matter of the Licensing Decision in 2011 it is not accurate to describe Celtic as having been “satisfied” at any stage. Like everyone else we were in a position of responding on the basis of information available to us. In correspondence, Celtic raised continuing concerns as did a number of Celtic shareholders.”
In dealing with the Celtic shareholders the SFA and Regan appeared keen to welcome from the early days of correspondence that only the process after granting i.e. the monitoring phase of June and September was being questioned and not the granting itself. That was the case initially but as new information emerged in respect of what UEFA judged to be an overdue payable, upheld by the Court of Arbitration on Sport in 2013, focus swung back in 2016 to the significance of what the SFA had been told by the Res 12 lawyer in July 2015. However the emphasis the SFA put on shareholders accepting the grant was in order was puzzling at the time. The suspicion since is that the SFA did not want the circumstances around the granting investigated and the SFA and Regan were being disingenuous in their attempts to keep that aspect under wraps. especially when their defence of not acting as required in 2011 was based around when the SFA responsibilities on granting ended and UEFA’s on monitoring began. (for more on that read the Incompetence charge)
In response to a separate point in Regan’s letter of 18th August about the QC advice on there not being a rule in place at the time to use to sanction Rangers or the limited sanctions available to a Judicial Panel, Peter Lawwell responded on 21st August to Regan’s disingenuousness as follows:
” In your letter you refer to advice from Senior Counsel that;
‘there was very little chance of the Scottish FA succeeding in relation to any compliant regarding this matter and that, even if successful, any sanctions available to a Judicial Panel would be very limited in their scope.’
As I said in my last letter Celtic considers that this misses the point. The fact that disciplinary sanctions may not be secured is in our view not a reason for Scottish football to ignore the opportunity to review and possibly learn lessons from the events in question.”
Although they didn’t refer to it in that reply of 21st August, Celtic could have pointed out the following catch all rule in existence in 2011 (and presumably earlier) under Article 5 in SFA handbook.
5. Obligations and duties of Members (where all members shall)
5.1 Observe the principles of loyalty, integrity and sportsmanship in accordance with the rules of fair play.
This Article could have been used to demonstrate sporting dishonesty by Rangers FC. However by recognising this Regan would be on a collision course with an issue that he wanted to avoid at all costs;
whom to sanction? Rangers FC? The Rangers FC? Those currently at The Rangers FC who were officials or on the Board of Rangers FC in 2011?
Consequently, the SFA chose to hide behind QC advice – but to protect whom? Not the integrity of the game. Here is a suggestion to restore it:
That the Rangers FC admit that the trophies won in the EBT years were won as a result of clear wrongdoing (the wrongdoing Regan was so desperate to say never occurred – see later), and that The Rangers give them up. Surrendering them is not being defeated, it is simply the right thing to do for the game AND for Rangers to restore some integrity to themselves.
If they want to lay claim to their history, lay claim to all of it, just be honourable and act with dignity and we can all move on.
In summary then, Regan is being disingenuous by pretending to know a lot less than he does – and on that note the case of disingenuousness ends.
Incompetence: is defined as;
lack of ability to do something successfully or as it should be done:
Whilst a CEO would not be expected to know the minutiae of any process, he would be expected to seek such information before going public to defend the SFA’s position.
On 23 October 2013, Stewart Regan had an interview with Richard Gordon on BBC Sportsound. Excerpts from it can be heard at http://www.bbc.com/sport/scotland/24685973 . Interestingly or strangely, the following excerpt regarding the lines of responsibility between the SFA and UEFA fell on the BBC cutting room floor.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6uWzxhblAt9YktGc0kwWjJCY1E/view?usp=sharing
In it Regan is saying that the 31st March is a key date and AFTER that date, the SFA having granted the licence on evidence provided to the SFA (now under Compliance Officer investigation) have no more responsibility in the matter. Richard Gordon asks Regan to confirm that after 31st March there is no other course of action the SFA could have taken. To which Regan answers “Correct”.
This understanding however does not stand up when compared to the information supplied to the Res 12 Lawyer on 8th June 2016 by Andrea Traverso, Head of UEFA Club Licensing and so ultimate authority on the matter.
That letter (more famous for its new club/company designation of the current incumbents at Ibrox), confirmed that the UEFA Licence was not granted until the 19th April 2011, so Regan was wrong on his dates, but even more significantly UEFA stated that the list of clubs granted a licence was not submitted to them until 26th May 2011.
This raises the obvious question (though not so obviously to Regan);
” how can UEFA start monitoring until they know who to monitor?”
More significantly, and one for the SFA Compliance chap to consider, should the licence have been granted, irrespective of what “evidence” the SFA Licensing Committee acted on in March 2011 , when it was obvious from a HMRC Letter of 20th May 2011 to Rangers, that HMRC were pursuing payment of a tax liability which could no longer by dint of being pursued, be described as “potential” which was the justification for granting at 31st March/19th April?
Here ends the case of incompetence.
Dishonesty;
lack of honesty or integrity: defined as disposition to defraud or deceive.
The line between incompetence and dishonesty is a thin one and so difficult to judge, however some discernment is possible from observation over time.
On 29 March 2012 Stewart Regan was interviewed by Alex Thomson of Channel Four news, a transcript of which with comments can be found on a previous SFM blog of 8th March 2015 at
https://www.sfm.scot/did-stewart-regan-ken-then-wit-we-ken-noo/
It is a long article, but two points emerge from it.
Stewart Regan bases his defence of SFA inaction on the fact that at the time of the interview no wrongdoing had occurred . Regan emphasises this rather a lot. Had he been an honest man, he would have confessed that this defence fell when the Supreme Court ruled that wrong doing in respect of Rangers’ use of EBTs had occurred.
This extract from Regan’s letter of 4th September 2017 beggars belief in light of his position on wrongdoing during interview with Alex Thomson.
” The reality is that the final decision in “The Big Tax Case” signalled closure for many involved in the game. It is hard to believe that a “wide review” no matter how well intentioned and how wide ranging could ever bring closure in the minds of every Scottish football fan and stakeholder.”
How on earth did the Supreme Court decision signal closure to Regan given his emphasis on no wrong doing?
Had Regan (in response to Celtic in August and September 2017) acknowledged that wrongdoing had taken place, then that at least would have been honest, but the defence of not acting was on the grounds that admitting dishonesty would be raking over old coals. An honest man would have accepted that the situation had changed, and some form of enquiry was necessary, but instead Regan fell back on unpublished advice from a QC.
The second point is a new one. Regan was asked by Alex Thomson in March 2012
AT: But did anybody at any stage at the SFA say to you I have a concern that we need an independent body, that the SPL can’t and shouldn’t handle this?
SR: Well under the governance of football the SPL run the competition
AT: I’m not asking, I’m saying did anybody come to you at any stage and say that to you. Anybody?
SR: No they didn’t as far as the SPL’s processes is concerned. The SPL ,
AT: Never?
At time of interview in March 2012 this was true but 2 months later on 25th May 2012 the issue of a Judicial review WAS raised by Celtic
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/celtic-still-pressing-sfa-for-inquiry-8p25q8wbb
for the same reasons that Regan had ignored in 2011 as the LNS Commissioning proceeded apace and Regan continued to ignore in the 2017 correspondence. An honest man would have recognised that his truth to Thomson in March was no longer true in May 2012 and acted. He didn’t.
These do not appear to be acts of an honest man, rather they appear to represent the behaviour of a man who is being dishonest with himself; although perhaps Regan was simply duped?
Duped is defined as;
“ If a person dupes you, they trick you into doing something or into believing something which is not true.”
In his e mail of 7th December to Ali Russell, then Rangers CEO , after a discussion on the 6th December 2011 with Andrew Dickson, Rangers Football Administrator and SFA License Committee member in 2011, Regan set out the basis on which the SFA granted a UEFA License in 2011.
This was a letter from Ranger’s auditors Grant Thornton describing the wee tax liability of £2.8m as a potential one with the implication that it was subject to dispute, an implication carried into the Interim Accounts of 1st April 2011 signed by Rangers FC Chairman Alistair Johnson.
The true status of the liability and the veracity of statements made that justified the UEFA License being granted are under investigation by the SFA Compliance Officer.
However Regan’s belief that the liability was disputed and therefore hadn’t crystalized, is supported more or less by his Tweets at
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6uWzxhblAt9NG5CNXcwLW9RZjQ/view?usp=sharing
The case that Regan was duped is a plausible one, at least up to 2015, but I would contend that the SFA responses to Res 12 lawyers after July 2015 suggest that whilst the SFA may have been duped initially, they subsequently appeared more concerned with keeping events beyond public scrutiny (like the effect on the licence issue of HMRC sending in Sheriff’s Officers to collect a £2.8m tax liability in August 2011).
At this point, based on the foregoing –
You the SFM jury are asked to decide: Is Stewart Regan a DIDDY?
Copy paste this link for GUILTY: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejizOV-IQEM
And this for NOT GUILTY: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwXGdgFZmNk
The Sin of Omission by Margaret Sangster ends:
And it’s not the things you do, dear,
It’s the things you leave undone,
Which gives you a bit of heartache
At the setting of the sun.
Does anyone know the original source document for Sandy Bryson’s oft repeated “imperfectly registered but eligible” quote?
I don’t have a copy and it doesn’t appear in the LNS Commission decision. Was it said in an interview or reported on the SFA website?
cottcFebruary 4, 2018 at 13:35
JOHN CLARKFEBRUARY 4, 2018 at 12:45Was there a hint of longing in Craig brown’s wee voice 5 minutes ago, when he asserted that if Ernie Walker was still CEO ( or, as then styled, Secretary) of the SFA, ‘Rangers’ would have been fined half a million, not ‘relegated’ and things would hve moved on from there’ (Sunday Sportsound, BBC Radio Scotland)I’ve no doubt that old Ernie would have tried!And I’ve no doubt that Craig Brown is among the principal deniers of the death of RFC 1872, and will his not inconsiderable influence to maintain the denial. I’d love to hear his reasoning as to how a company/club in administration could possibly have dealt with a half million pound fine, not to mention what would have happened when they failed to achieve a CVA
____________________________
Scott,
And in that statement, from someone many would credit with a reasonable level of intelligence, we see the lack of understanding, or, perhaps, the extreme wilful ignorance, of each and every ‘denier’, and you are so very right, that for him to be asked how it could come about that a club in administration, after failing to achieve a CVA, could possibly pay a half million pounds in fines, would blow the ‘same club’ myth right out of the water. All it would need would be a journalist with a spine to ask him.
Taking that statement further, of course, would mean that ‘the club’ would have to be able to ‘owe money’, that is, build up debts. We all know that it did owe money, and build up massive debts, but, yet again, another denier’s idea of ‘how it should have been done’, falls even before the first hurdle!
It is so telling how, after all those years, it is still so difficult for any ‘denier’ to make a statement, assuming the club’s continuance, without including some stupid, and fatal, error. Just as telling is the way no one from the media picks them up on it, or even asks them to explain how what they suggest could have possibly been done!
Hey there Darkbeforedawn,
Would I be correct in thinking you believe it was wrong to strip Lance Armstrong of his Tour de France titles?
After all, all he did was;
Broke the rules.
Lied about his rule-breaking.
Continued to break the rules.
As such, while competing, his participation was “imperfect but eligible”.
So why did the authorities feel it necessary to rake over old coals, when they should have been concentrating on improving the future of cycling?
Your thoughts……..
@ Easyjambo 1625:
https://broganrogantrevinoandhogan.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/lord-nimmo-smith-and-the-hare-and-the-tortoise
…about halfway down the page…
‘…no sporting advantage on the field of play.—- I think Nimmo Smith takes a very narrow interpretation of what amounts to a sporting advantage and what does not. I think he sees that Rangers were able to field eleven players who they intimated would be their registered players over the course of any year, and that those players were registered ( albeit imperfectly if we accept Bryson at face value ) and so “eligible” to play…’
Jingso.Jimsie February 4, 2018 at 17:05
===================
BRTH’s blog can’t be the original source, as it is an interpretation of the LNS decision and not a direct quote from it. I have read through the LNS decision (several times) and the words “imperfect” or “imperfectly” do not appear in the document.
That’s kind of my point. If there is no exact source for the attributed quote “imperfectly registered but eligible”, then what Bryson is alleged to have said must be an urban myth, i.e. it has been repeated so often it has become an accepted fact.
Unless of course someone knows different.
For me, the smaller clubs (including mine) should be all over the combined SFA/SPFL nonsense. The formation of the Premier League in 1998 was simple way for the ‘big’ teams to screw over the smaller ones and they did it with no thought for Scottish football or for the littel teams. We have not qualified for a major championship since.
EASYJAMBOFEBRUARY 4, 2018 at 17:19
—-
this may help.
——–
Under questioning. so should be a paper trail. hope this helps
NormanBates, I’m not quite sure where the similarity is? I don’t believe we have (yet) been accused of using performance enhancing drugs! How the owner decided to deal with the tax man, for me is irrelevant to onfield success. Were we not to have used them, I have no doubt Murray would just have ran up further debt to fund the players!
With regards to registration, the players were registered, and I find the fact that a side letter was not disclosed to be infinitely less of an issue than the systematic use of drugs to win Tour De France. EBT’s were widely used in football, and outwith Celtic fans I have yet to hear of another single club that has called for titles to be stripped as a result. My English team is Spurs and I couldn’t even begin to imagine calling for Chelsea or Arsenal to be stripped of titles over their proven use of EBT’s.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9901434/How-Rangers-lost-but-still-managed-to-gain-victory.html
———-
link for above pic
Struggling there DBD. It was not the use that was the problem so the EPL examples are irrelevant. It was the central plank of their use being the deliberate failure to declare them at registration, with more than a whiff of connivance with the authority in that respect given the personnel involved that fans of every club including Celtic does have a problem with.
Smugas, I do know this will be one of the areas I will agree to disagree with others on, as I feel it has been exhausted to death. We were found to have not disclosed the side letters, of which we were penalised £250k for. Now it may be argued that this was not sufficient, and perhaps £1m would have been a fairer fine, but regardless they were found guilty and what the authorities saw as a sufficient punishment to fit the crime was applied.
Cluster One February 4, 2018 at 17:45
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9901434/How-Rangers-lost-but-still-managed-to-gain-victory.html
———-
link for above pic
=======================
I think the Telegraph article was also based on their interpretation of the LNS decision (the article and the decision are both dated 28 February 2013).
This is what LNS stated about the Bryson evidence in para 86:
and also in para 88:
DBD
…Now it may be argued that this was not sufficient, and perhaps £1m would have been a fairer fine……
Or, in reality, Laissez faire(r!)?
DARKBEFOREDAWNFEBRUARY 4, 2018 at 17:56
Smugas, I do know this will be one of the areas I will agree to disagree with others on, as I feel it has been exhausted to death. We were found to have not disclosed the side letters, of which we were penalised £250k for. Now it may be argued that this was not sufficient, and perhaps £1m would have been a fairer fine, but regardless they were found guilty and what the authorities saw as a sufficient punishment to fit the crime was applied.
———————–
Dos,EBT’s which had side letters, was kept from LNS. what would that fine or punishment have been if LNS had all the information and not the Parameters set by a SPL lead inquiry?
Darkbeforedawn February 4, 2018 at 17:56
Smugas, I do know this will be one of the areas I will agree to disagree with others on, as I feel it has been exhausted to death. We were found to have not disclosed the side letters, of which we were penalised £250k for. Now it may be argued that this was not sufficient, and perhaps £1m would have been a fairer fine, but regardless they were found guilty and what the authorities saw as a sufficient punishment to fit the crime was applied.
=====================
£250k, which LNS accepted was unlikely to be paid, so basically it was no more than a rap on the knuckles.
Again, here is what LNS actually said in para 106:
EASYJAMBOFEBRUARY 4, 2018 at 18:10
=======================I think the Telegraph article was also based on their interpretation of the LNS decision (the article and the decision are both dated 28 February 2013).
——-
I had hoped it may have lead you in the direction you were looking. Sorry i was in a bit of a rush (trying to do two things at once)
CO, I guess it all comes back to the point I was making on Friday. Regardless of who comes into the SFA, or what leanings. Regardless of how many enquiries – independent or otherwise – many on here stated over the weekend that they would not accept anything less than the removal of titles. It can be dressed up all you want as ‘sporting integrity’, ‘transparency’, ‘independent enquiries’ but at the end of the day, to a large number of people it is about punishment.
I had asked, theoretically, if the new SFA CEO was picked that had Celtic leanings, ordered an investigation into Res12 and promised transparency from now on and put new rules in place, but didn’t reopen the EBT and LNS enquiries would folk be happy to move on, and it was a resounding no.
DARKBEFOREDAWNFEBRUARY 4, 2018 at 18:33
It can be dressed up all you want as ‘sporting integrity’, ‘transparency’, ‘independent enquiries’ but at the end of the day, to a large number of people it is about punishment.
—————-
To a large number of people it is not about punishment,it is about doing the right thing.
Maybe a large number of ibrox fans will see it as punishment.But then they should be asking themselves if they think it is a punishment? what are we getting punished for?
Then when they add it all up they then should be saying to themselves, we did not do everything by the book,so in that sense we should be punished.(but what punishment for their misdeads would they be content with)?
Anyway…. What struck me most about the Killie v Celtic game (a view from the Moffat Stand) yesterday, apart from Kilmarnock’s well deserved win, was the ‘booking’s’ ratio…according to media reports, Killie had committed 17 fouls to Celtic’s 6. Yet, the ‘bookings’ ratio was 3:3 (or 4:3 depending on media outlet).
Killie went in hard. I get that. Sometimes that’s what it takes. Swings, roundabouts and all that. I’ll reiterate, Killie deserved their win, of that there’s no doubt. However, sometimes the stats can perpetuate the myth…..
I don’t want to derail the important discussions re our ‘requirements’ for a new CEO (where I’ve already stated my PoV), but was anyone watching the Liverpool-Spurs game just now? I’m confused by the first Spurs penalty, even though it didn’t influence the outcome.
All the pundits and even ex-ref Dermot Gallagher were happy with the eventual decision to award the penalty given the fact that Lovren touched the ball before it reached Kane. I understand the premise that you can’t be offside if the last touch was from an opposing player but Kane was in an offside position at the exact moment the ball left the passer’s foot. Even with the recent-ish changes to the offside law are you not still offside at the time the ball leaves the passers foot if you are the intended recipient of that pass? I know I need to be conscious of first phase/second phase but I thought that only came into play if he was in an offside position, ignored the ball in favour of a teammate, so getting himself back onside for the second phase. Can he only be flagged offside in the first phase if the ball goes directly to him and he touches it? So Lovren’s touch starts a completely new phase where Kane can’t be offside even though he was when the deliberate pass to him was made?
I thought I knew the new rules reasonably well, but feel free to clarify if you know he was definitely onside (especially if you are a referee).
DARKBEFOREDAWN
———-
https://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/11/22/myths-and-legends-the-spfl-and-the-250k-fine-of-rangers/#more-4317
————-
Myths and Legends – the SPFL and the £250k Fine of “Rangers”
Paul McConville.
nawlite February 4, 2018 at 19:20
===================
By the letter of the laws, I think he should have been given offside, but the current interpretation is that Kane is not given offside until he plays or attempts to play the ball. Given that the defender played the ball (miskicked) before it reached Kane, then he was onside.
From the laws:
Offside position
It is not an offence in itself to be in an offside position.
Offence
A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by:
• interfering with play or
• interfering with an opponent or
• gaining an advantage by being in that position
From my viewpoint, Kane was guilty of offences 1 and 3, but as I said above the current interpretation is that he is not active until he plays the ball.
Here’s a link to this afternoon’s Sportsound in which the SFA blazers’ blazer, Craig Brown extols the virtues of autocratic leadership a la Ernie Walker and Jim Farry; and Chick Young admits to tapping up players / their agents on behalf of clubs over many years.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05x2d0w#play
I recommend strong drink and a stress ball when listening.
With respect DBD, stripping titles would constitute restitution, not punishment.
If I broke into your house and stole all your valuables, giving them back when I got caught would not be a punishment, it would be restitution, ie restoring the valuables to their rightful place.
A prison sentence would be a punishment.
DARKBEFOREDAWN
FEBRUARY 4, 2018 at 17:42
How the owner decided to deal with the tax man, for me is irrelevant to onfield success. Were we not to have used them, I have no doubt Murray would just have ran up further debt to fund the players!
===============================
You can’t just “run up debt” the money has to actually come from somewhere.
Do you genuinely believe that David Murray would have lent Rangers tens of millions of pounds more. After what had happened with the failed share issue and him having to fund the bulk of the £50m via MIH as he had under-written that issue.
Seriously, where do you think Murray was going to get this money from. Actual money to be paid into players bank accounts. Not multi-millions worth of shares in businesses, or equity in property, actual cash
This is just another notion that the Rangers’ (old) supporters have come up with and now accept it as a fact.
NAWLITE
FEBRUARY 4, 2018 at 19:20
I don’t want to derail the important discussions re our ‘requirements’ for a new CEO (where I’ve already stated my PoV), but was anyone watching the Liverpool-Spurs game just now? I’m confused by the first Spurs penalty, even though it didn’t influence the outcome.
—————————–
The decision for the officials wasn’t whether Kane was goal-side of the second-last defender, which he was, but whether Loveren deliberately played at the through ball.
When it was decided that Loveren had intentionally played at the ball, then Kane was onside. Had the ball struck the defender & rebounded to Kane, then he would have been offside.
Thanks EJ for supplying the wording. By my reckoning then, he should have been penalised because “at the moment the ball…is played by one of his team, he is…gaining an advantage by being in that (offside) position”.
If you’ve quoted the rules, who brought in the interpretation that he can’t be offside until he touches the ball? I’m sure that, as you say, that is indeed the ‘current interpretation’ given how readily everyone took that viewpoint, but I can’t see how it’s right given the rules. Anyone?
Playing devils advocate a bit here, but from a Rangers fans point of view, I believe we were guilty of trying to dodge taxes by illegal means. That said, the consequence of those doings have been everything that has happened to Rangers these last six years:- Craig Whyte, Charles Green, Dave King, wilderness years in the lower divisions, losing all our good players, watching our biggest rivals romp towards 10 IAR, £250k fine, transfer embargo’s etc. From that point of view I would say that us the fans have been punished in the most severe way possible.
The argument of breaking into my house only stands if it could be proven without fail that Rangers would not have won those titles were it not for the EBTs. In my opinion Murray would just have borrowed more money.
Thanks JingsoJimsie, but I’m not sure that’s right, mate. I don’t think the argument was about Lovren’s touch being deliberate or accidental. In any event, that happened after the point I’m interested in – the exact point when his teammate passed the ball to Kane while Kane was in an offside position.
DARKBEFOREDAWN
FEBRUARY 4, 2018 at 19:44
============================
You are using specious arguments again.
The games which the ineligible players played in should have the score changed to a 3-0 loss.
If that meant that Rangers were then not the team with the most points that season then they would no longer be entitled to the title for that year.
That is not “stripping titles”. It is about changing the results in games where they cheated. There is precedent for that.
The Guidance for referees and referee assistants on Law 11 Offside, is on pages 110 – 118 of the FIFA Laws of the Game 2018
https://www.fifa.com/mm/Document/FootballDevelopment/Refereeing/02/36/01/11/LawsofthegamewebEN_Neutral.pdf
Diagram 13 on page 118 shows the guidance on an incident where
“The shot by a team-mate (A) rebounds off or is deflected by an opponentto attacker (B) who is penalised for playing or touching the ball havingpreviously been in an offside position.”
Thanks Sanoffymessetc. So you think Kane should have been flagged offside then? If so, I’m with you.
How did the referee and linesman – not to mention the pundits/presenters and ex-referee – get it so wrong then? It makes you think you’re mad when all these people, who are supposed to know the rules better than we do, disagree with you when you’re sure you’re right!!
DarkbeforeDawn, that last sentence applies to you, too, as well as all the SFA/SPFL/MSM/Rangers fans who expound the big lie and support LNS.
EASYJAMBOFEBRUARY 4, 2018 at 16:25
Does anyone know the original source document for Sandy Bryson’s oft repeated “imperfectly registered but eligible” quote?
I don’t have a copy and it doesn’t appear in the LNS Commission decision. Was it said in an interview or reported on the SFA website?
———
Had a look at the LNS commission decision as you did yourself.But the Bryson’s oft repeated “imperfectly registered but eligible” quote? i can’t find an original source. maybe someone will step forward.
——-
[86] Evidence was given by Alexander Bryson, Head of Registrations at the SFA, whodescribed the registration process. During the course of his evidence he explained that, once aplayer had been registered with the SFA, he remained registered unless and until his registrationwas revoked. Accordingly, even if there had been a breach of the SFA registration procedures,such as a breach of SFA Article 12.3, the registration of a player was not treated as being invalidfrom the outset, and stood unless and until it was revoked.[87] Mr McKenzie explained to us that SPL Rule D1.13 had hitherto been understood to meanthat if, at the time of registration, a document was not lodged as required, the consequence wasthat a condition of registration was broken and the player automatically became ineligible to playin terms of SPL Rule D1.11. He accepted however that there was scope for a differentconstruction of the rule, to the effect that, as the lodging of the document in question was acondition of registration, the registration of the player would be liable to revocation, with theconsequence that the player would thereafter become ineligible to play. He accepted that noprovision of the Rules enabled the Board of the SPL retrospectively to terminate the registrationof the player.
The interpretation of the Laws of the Game are decided by The International FA Board, which id comprised of representatives of FIFA and the Home Nations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Football_Association_Board
Here’s there latest update for the 2017/18 Season http://missourisoccer.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Players_Coaches_and_Media_summary_v1.0.pdf
The modern interpretation of Law 11 Offside requires the officials to consider the whole sequence of play not just what happens at the moment when the ball is played.
DARKBEFOREDAWNFEBRUARY 4, 2018 at 19:44
0
2 Rate This
Playing devils advocate a bit here, but from a Rangers fans point of view, I believe we were guilty of trying to dodge taxes by illegal means.
———
And we are back to the start again DBD.
Why were they trying to dodge taxes by illegal means.And what advantage did it give them in trying to dodge taxes by illegal means.?
NAWLITE
I don’t know if I’m correct as I’ve not seen the incident.
Diagram 13 considers only (my emphasis) what happens when a shot is taken as opposed to when the ball is played by a team-mate.
I agree with JINGSO.JIMSIE that the officials need to take account of the actions of the opponent too.
DARKBEFOREDAWN
wilderness years? i give up with this nonsense,sevco weren’t in the wilderness,they were starting as a new club,get over it and move on,a term i hear quite often
Well you’re right about one thing DBD. We are going to disagree!
if I could pick you up on your quote as it touches on my original point of yesterday.
But they haven’t happened to Rangers which is exactly the point. It is only when you try to insist that it HAS happened to Rangers that the questions on everything, from apparent leniency (250k for a 50m saving, really?) to more questionable items like the changing parameters of LNS are brought to the fore.
Call it a new club with all fans facing a simple and singular choice, treat them as Rangers or don’t as the rules provided for and the problem, the eternally broken circle, the “impossible” we spoke of yesterday, don’t exist. Its the route that Regan chose to go down that leaves them very much in play no matter how hard people want us to move on from them.
NAWLITE
Here’s the IFAB guidance supporting JINSO.JIMSIE’s interpretation of the incident that you refer to.
http://theifab.com/laws/offside/chapters/offside-offence
“A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save by any opponent) is not considered to have gained an advantage.”
Sorry!
I’ll never forget that night at Old Trafford, wlll you JJ? Rememember the non appearance of Charles Green? Or any of the trillions of ticket holders you suggested would take up table spaces? Liar, once, Liar always.
Go on, there was three at our table? Prove that wrong! I just feel sick I was one of them. You were boring. The Aberdonian guys were much more interesting.
Bugger!!! Lol.
DARKBEFOREDAWN
The causes of your old club’s demise are directly attributable to the unlawful behaviour, whether that be civil or criminal law, of its officers.
It was a suicide mission comparable to the one in Monty Python’s The Life of Brian.
That’s one reason why fans of other clubs continue to question and laugh at all of the obfuscations you are repeating.
JIMBO
FEBRUARY 4, 2018 at 20:43
=====================================
The Mensch must have been interesting though. It was brave the way he went to pick up the award.
Ha, ha, NAWLITE!
That’s what often happens when we instinctively think we are correct and why the consideration of “evidence” is so crucial in determining what actually is correct.
Just because we believe something, doesn’t make it a fact!
Fans of Neo-Gers who deny that they are a new club would do well to follow that mantra.
SMUGASFEBRUARY 4, 2018 at 20:38
==================================
Well summed up. Also the reason in my view why the media seem desperate for Leeann Dempster to replace Regan. Aside from her recently admitted Rangers leanings she is dead against any independent SFA investigation. In short, if an investigation concluded the SFA did something against its own rules to protect ‘Rangers’ then the extent of condition would surely also need to be considered. Dempster protects the status quo, and keeps ‘Rangers’ 55 titles glorified. That’s all that matters.
I can just imagine the focus on ‘moving on’ in her first Press Conference.
I don’t know why FIFA have to continue to come up with the most confusing of rules. What happens to good old offside rules we played with for 50 odd years! It was confusing enough then without this rubbish now haha
DARKBEFOREDAWNFEBRUARY 4, 2018 at 18:33
I had asked, theoretically, if the new SFA CEO was picked that had Celtic leanings, ordered an investigation into Res12 and promised transparency from now on and put new rules in place, but didn’t reopen the EBT and LNS enquiries would folk be happy to move on, and it was a resounding no.
=========================
It is not possible for someone with Celtic leanings to be the main decision maker in the SFA. History shows that. There has been Presidents with Celtic leanings such as Sir Robert Kelly and Jack McGinn. However there has never been a Secretary (previous main decision maker title) or Chief Executive (current main decision maker title) with Celtic leanings. That is not an opinion it is a fact. Regan came in with no leanings but ended up facing Ibrox. It’s just the way it is in Scotland.
I don’t know why but I think EJ is the classiest poster on here. So this is for him, even though I’m not fond of his team. You have to admit us Tims have got the Greatest Class ever?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyGOQoXyWTA
Yes, I enjoyed that too. Moved my heart. Now lets get back to the football before I fall asleep.
BTW,
Ta Ta all the posters on here that I love. Too many to mention. But thanks for all the TDs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTFUM4Uh_6Y&index=22&list=RDD-A65x0JSYI
Forgot to wear thinking cap?
Or a chancer?
WOODSTEIN
FEBRUARY 4, 2018 at 23:02
===========================
He was under oath, he told the truth.
Although the Queen is not legally obliged to pay tax, she chose in 1992 to start voluntarily paying income and capital gains tax.
David Murray, Knighted by the Queen 4 July 2007.
Former Rangers owner and chairman David Murray received £6.3m from the EBT scheme.
Murray, do the right thing, hand the Knighthood back along with the £6.3m
Darkbeforedawn February 4, 2018 at 19:44
In my opinion Murray would just have borrowed more money.
————————–
from whom?
Whatever happened to Third Lanark AFC after the club wase liquidated?
http://www.third-lanark.com/
http://www.third-lanark.com/about/
http://www.third-lanark.com/news/
http://www.greaterglasgow.co.uk/item.php?pg=clubdir&pd=1040&it=2119755140
http://www.greaterglasgow.co.uk/item.php?pg=league&pd=1049&it=121
The SMSM is also speculating about combining the SFA and SPFL.
On the face of it, this seems a logical solution to cut administration costs for Scottish football.
Except…
the SPFL is in effect a trade body, looking to maximise revenues for its member clubs. Sporting integrity, rules, and fans’ input is a negative influence.
The SFA on the other hand is supposed to be the guardians of Scottish football: commercial benefits SHOULD be secondary to the ideals and fundamental objectives of the sporting association.
To state the bleedin’ obvious.
The only problem is that nobody [?] has any confidence in the SFA.
This is not a recent development.I
For me, I was aware – probably like most Bampots – maybe 20 years ago that there was a problem.
The busy pitches I played on as a kid all weekend with friends and strangers were becoming obviously empty.
No rocket science qualifications required to guess the outcome.
When I was a teenager hopeful of becoming a professional, I had friends much better than me and most of us didn’t make the grade.
For me, a couple of exceptions were Durrant and Walker who did make it.
[Durrant/Dodo was one of the best I played with. Andy Walker was distinctly average.]
With an even slimmer throughput of kids playing football in all weathers / leisure time what is the end game?
Kids now have many more interests.
Sports – never mind footy – is secondary to electronic diversions like gaming and social media.
Regan’s departure is about six years overdue.
The SFA should be focused on engaging young girls and boys to play the game. Qualification for a Finals is an easy way to achieve this, IMO.
A catch 22?
“Walter Smith emerges as shock contender for Scotland job as SFA eye return for Rangers legend”
It is a headline from Keef in the DR, so who knows?
But if Sir Cardigan gets the job then the game is well and truly a bogey!
No subtlety: all Scottish football fans should know what a morally bankrupt sport they are supporting…or not any longer.
Personally, that would be the final nail in the coffin for my dwindling support of the national team.
This is what it feels like to be a Celtic supporter. Defeated but still hopeful. Dignity intact.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttF0vg0MGo
A club open to all.
This will be Celtic next time out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHFf7NIwOHQ
Proud and loud. Go on Broony.
Sorry it’s a bit musical and footballish but it’s just the mood I’m in. Still love you all.
La Forza del Destino. Who would have known the flute could have been played so beautifully and for the right reasons?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHk1RmPzA5E
easyJamboFebruary 4, 2018 at 17:19
Jingso.Jimsie February 4, 2018 at 17:05===================BRTH’s blog can’t be the original source, as it is an interpretation of the LNS decision and not a direct quote from it. I have read through the LNS decision (several times) and the words “imperfect” or “imperfectly” do not appear in the document. That’s kind of my point. If there is no exact source for the attributed quote “imperfectly registered but eligible”, then what Bryson is alleged to have said must be an urban myth, i.e. it has been repeated so often it has become an accepted fact.Unless of course someone knows different.
________________________
Could it have been a quote from Regan or Doncaster? It actually sounds like something Doncaster might say, in a rather pompous, knowledgeable way, that gets conflated in the media to leave us all thinking it’s something he’s extracted from the LNS report. I somehow have the impression that Doncaster is so much better at using the media in a Goebbelesq manner than Regan ever was.
I could well imagine him saying, something like, ‘the LNS report makes it very clear…’, knowing the media is well primed to twist it into something his Lordship actually wrote into the report.
When I read it now, with you, EJ, having pointed out it is not a quote from the report, it doesn’t actually sound like something a top legal mind would say, especially in a written report, as he might leave himself open to ridicule by his piers for using language that is quite ludicrous. I say ludicrous because the rules, that are the only written reference on which any judgement can be made, do not contain any leeway for anything other than ‘perfect’ registration.
DarkbeforedawnFebruary 4, 2018 at 19:44
Playing devils advocate a bit here, but from a Rangers fans point of view, I believe we were guilty of trying to dodge taxes by illegal means. That said, the consequence of those doings have been everything that has happened to Rangers these last six years:- Craig Whyte, Charles Green, Dave King, wilderness years in the lower divisions, losing all our good players, watching our biggest rivals romp towards 10 IAR, £250k fine, transfer embargo’s etc. From that point of view I would say that us the fans have been punished in the most severe way possible. The argument of breaking into my house only stands if it could be proven without fail that Rangers would not have won those titles were it not for the EBTs. In my opinion Murray would just have borrowed more money.
_______________
You mean, like the way the authorities had to prove that Lance Armstrong couldn’t have won all those titles without the use of drugs? Is there any form of cheating that you would say should result in the withdrawal of trophies won, in any sport? Do you think cheating is acceptable, or if not, should only ever face non-sporting consequences?
AJ, I certainly do not believe cheating is acceptable, but as I have stated on here often I don’t believe what Rangers did constituted cheating. That said, I don’t think we will ever agree on the subject so I don’t want to risk becoming an Earnie B and talking ad infinium about it.
With regards the SFA I genuinely believe they should be an separate independent body who’s remit is the national team and amateur football. The SPFL should be the governing body who control the club level football by committee. I think this split/demarcation would be good for the game overall in Scotland and a far more democratic approach. The SPFL would be made up with chairmen of the various clubs from all the different leagues.
DarkbeforedawnFebruary 5, 2018 at 10:07
AJ, I certainly do not believe cheating is acceptable, but as I have stated on here often I don’t believe what Rangers did constituted cheating. That said, I don’t think we will ever agree on the subject so I don’t want to risk becoming an Earnie B and talking ad infinium about it. With regards the SFA I genuinely believe they should be an separate independent body who’s remit is the national team and amateur football. The SPFL should be the governing body who control the club level football by committee. I think this split/demarcation would be good for the game overall in Scotland and a far more democratic approach. The SPFL would be made up with chairmen of the various clubs from all the different leagues.
___________________
Oh well, as long as you don’t believe Rangers cheated then that’s alright. So what did they get fined for? Parking on double yellow lines?
Do you think David Murray set up the two tax avoidance schemes, just because he could, or do you think it was to do as he, himself, said, under oath, that it was to sign better players than they could otherwise afford? Do you think signing better players than any other club, can, and usually will, lead to winning more competitions than with players of a much inferior quality? Do you think that ten years of deliberately not giving full details of players contracts, as is an absolute must under the rules of the game, with the clear intent to aid in the disguising of the remuneration payments, is not cheating?
Unless you think Murray lied, under oath, that the deliberate misregistration of players was a deliberate act to enable Rangers to put a far superior team on the pitch, than they, or anyone else, could come close to affording, then I’d like to know how you think that doesn’t constitute cheating.
One final question, please answer this even if you ignore the others. Do you think it was dishonest of Rangers not to give the full details of their players’ remuneration packages in the registered contracts, as was clearly required under the rules of the SPL and the SFA?
Yes I do believe they were dishonest to not provide the details, and therefore should have been penalised (which we were).
DarkbeforedawnFebruary 5, 2018 at 10:59
So what is dishonesty in sport, if not cheating?
Like others, I’ve been trying to track the ‘imperfectly registered’ phrase.
I have got back to Alex Thomson’s blog of 9th November 2015 , at this link
https://www.channel4.com/news/by/alex-thomson/blogs/rangers-cheated-football-fraudulent-silverware
A comment by a poster called Dave ( near the end of the posts) uses the phrase.
Now, as eJ has already pointed out, Dave appears not to be quoting from the LNS report.
However, the point is not so much the being ‘perfectly’ or ‘imperfectly’ registered, but that under UEFA and FIFA rules, retrospection of invalid registrations is perfectly legitimate, and Bryson disgracefully sullied himself and dirtied the LNS enquiry by his quite astoundingly nonsensical ‘interpretation’.
To avoid any question that I may be editing the comment, I give it in full, but since it is a bit on the long side, you will find the phrase used in the section which I have emphasised below, and take it from there.
“Dave’s comment: The Fatally Flawed LNS Report
Some, whose opinions I respect, have questioned the wisdom of my position on Lord Nimmo Smith’s report, I believe that it is unsound and not tenable. I am fully aware that it is one of the two fig leafs that we cling to as others attempt to strip us bare. The prospect of a BDO appeal to the Supreme Court is built on sand. Whether we like it or not, three venerable Law Lords have had the final word on the use of Employment Benefit Trusts. Their conclusions are binding. The report produced by the LNS commission was not legally binding.
In many ways the LNS report was a boon to Rangers. A fine, with no points deduction, was an inordinately favourable result. Despite this a succession of Rangers boards have refused to pay the £250,000 fine and costs. The £250,000 fig leaf was too rich for the blood of the underfunded King administration. Should the SPFL decide to engage in a process of further consideration, the tariff of penalties may well be exacerbated by the findings of the distinguished Law Lords
My desire for a new report was to expose King, Murray and the SFA (who approved both) to further scrutiny. The chances of this are slim unless a majority of the SPFL board demand it. Mr Topping and Mr Doncaster will do their utmost to keep a lid on resentment. The view of the fans of Scottish Football will not be solicited. The fans held their respective boards over a barrel to oppose the latest iteration of Rangers being granted an SPL share. The season cards have been paid for. The fans can inveigh to their heart’s content, but they cannot compel action at this point in time.
In another article I outlined a scenario where a new report could be commissioned by the SPFL and subsequently vetoed by the SFA. A report set up to fail. Some on Twitter argued that this was a cynical view. However if you look at the roles of some of the key contributors to the LNS report, you will find a rationale for cynicism.
The underlying premise of the LNS report was that any recommendations would be accepted and applied by the SPL. with a right of appeal to the SFA. The report would be independent of both governing bodies, and that the SPL and SFA would be at arms’ length from each other.
Sandy Bryson chose to drive a horse and coaches through these established precepts. Mr Bryson, as the head of registration at the SFA, should not have been presenting any documentary evidence to an SPL commission. Any appeal in regard to registration irregularities would have led directly to his office at the SFA. Mr Bryson chose to be a very ineffective poacher and a redundant gamekeeper. He ensured that there would be no rabbits in Lord Nimmo Smith’s snares.
Prior to proceeding, it would be instructive to look at Mr Bryson’s official SFA remit. As the head of the registrations department he would be the ultimate authority in the review of a club’s annual returns to the SFA, which should contain all contractual details between club and players.
He would have been mindful of the rules and regulations of the SFA, including:Rule D1.13: A Club must, as a condition of Registration and for a Player to be eligible to Play in Official Matches, deliver the executed originals of all Contracts of Service and amendments and/or extensions to Contracts of Service and all other agreements providing for payment, other than for reimbursement of expenses actually incurred, between that Club and Player, to the Secretary, within fourteen days of such Contract of Service or other agreement being entered into, amended and/or, as the case may be, extended.
I cannot overemphasize the significance of this rule, and that has been proven conclusively in court, Rangers flagrant disregard for this rule. This rule is not optional. It is compulsory. Should any club disregard this rule, the ultimate sanction is having their SFA licence withdrawn.
Mr Bryson was also responsible for the issue of UEFA licences which behoves him to diligently review all contracts and agreements and to conduct an annual audit of the contracts of all players, managers and directors prior to the issue of a licence.
However Mr Bryson was somewhat compromised when former Chief Executive, Martin Bain, sued RFC plc for £900,000 damages in 2011. It was revealed to the court that Mr Bain had ordered the shredding of his own contract and other documents for fear of leaving himself exposed to the rule of law. This would be the same contract that Mr Bryson should have reviewed at the SFA prior to granting a UEFA licence.
Despite all of these inspections and compliance tests, Mr Bryson’s department claimed to be oblivious to the subterfuge at Rangers. Some might suggest that there was a singular lack of governance in Mr Bryson’s department and that he went out of his way to conceal his department’s incompetence apropos to the LNS report. It has also been suggested that the audits and tests were not rigorously applied to Rangers and that corners were cut, and details glossed over, to accommodate the Establishment club.
Lord Nimmo Smith’s report castigated the Rangers board. He concluded that year after year the secretary of the club, Campbell Ogilvie. chose not to disclose the contracts and accompanying documents, which were addenda to the contracts, to the SFA. Heidi Poon was equally scornful of the RFC executives in her withering judgement of some 80 pages in the First Tier Tribunal.The conclusions of two eminent judges did not preclude the appointment of two individuals who were complicit in the disclosure transgressions. As non-executive directors in RFC plc, Mr King and Mr Murray had a duty to comply with Rule D1.13. The SFA set aside its own rules to pass them both as ‘fit and proper.’
The most surprising omission in the LNS report was that all former directors of the club were not punished for their actions, which were deemed to be tantamount to match-fixing. The SFA threw the book at Craig Whyte. He was an easy target. They obligingly overlooked the involvement of Campbell Ogilvie, Andrew Dickson and David Murray. The SFA did not reproach Martin Bain for shredding his incriminating contract.
Mr Bryson advised LNS that the players in receipt of EBT were ‘registered imperfectly’ but ‘eligible.’ to play. Please revert to rule D1.13. I would contend that Mr Bryson’s interpretation of the rule was a self-serving perversion of said rule. I posit that even if they were imperfectly registered, they were not eligible as key parts of their contract had not been disclosed and the clause clearly states that to be registered and eligible those contracts must be disclosed.The side letters, which former directors denied all knowledge of, were not disclosed.
There was a deliberate and sustained breach of the rules which resulted in a £47m pecuniary advantage over a ten year period. Despite this Lord Nimmo Smith arrived at the surprising conclusion that there was no competitive advantage
It would appear that the registration interpretations of Mr Bryson is at odds with the arguments presented by UEFA apropos FC Sion.The SFA unequivocally state that clubs and players will be bound by all rules and regulations of the SFA, UEFA, FIFA and by the findings of the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Mr Bryson’s unique interpretation of rule D1.13 is the Achilles heel of the LNS report. The UEFA precedent would suggest that the LNS report is fatally flawed.In the final analysis, LNS stated that RFC plc executives were able to breach the rules to protect their own tax efficiency interests and that the checks and balances within Scottish Football Governance were ill-equipped to uncover their subterfuge and to stop them. Two separate licensing functions and a supposed compliance audit each and every year were not fit for purpose.Reassessing fixtures, stripping titles and other considerations are far less significant than ensuring that those who were involved in creating this tax scam and those who were involved in covering it up, bargaining it away, or who simply failed to take the correct action for the sake of expediency, are removed from football for good.
[Posted on November 10, 2015Leave a comment on The Fatally Flawed LNS Report10th November 2015 at 9:26 pm “]
I am glad I read that comment again. It confirms me in my belief that any objective outsider looking at all the facts would conclude that the LNS enquiry was as rigged as a Stalinist staged trial (without, of course, the knowledge or complicity of Nimmo Smith himself)
There are some bad bast.rds in Scottish football!
I think there are varying degrees of cheating. From deliberately withholding side letters, circumventing FFP by creative accounting (PSG), diving in the box, stealing a few feet at a free kick. In all sports from play acting, deliberately taking out a team mate in motor racing, not putting out at golf, holding in AFB, all the way up to bribing referees and doping with steroids and drugs. Each one carries a varying degree of punishment that should fit the crime. And it is in the punishment that is the interpretation of those applying the rules.
To my mind , the only way forward for Scottish football is to totally eradicate the masonic influence from players ,officials,administrators and legislators . I see the proposal to bring back Sir Walter of EBT as a continuation of the model . Their artifice has been stripped bare by reaction to the death of the Establishment club . Mibbes explains why wee Mr McRae got the gig .
Sorry, just noticed JJ is battering on about the same thing . Accusations of plagiarism incoming !
Darkbefordawn
What Rangers were never charged with was dishonesty.
Even so LNS declared there was no question of it, individual or corporate.
There are huge questions of dishonesty that will reveal answers after SFA finally investigate the UEFA 2011 licence.
Why do you think it is taking so long?
The whole sham from the Judicial Panel that found CW guilty of non payment of PAYE and VAT but not the wtc liability because it never was on the charge sheet to the LNS Commission that was not provided with the background to the wtc ebts, background that would have made his statement on dishonesty impossible to make, is blanketed by dishonesty and cover up.
It is not necesay to prove a negative to carry out sporting justice. The facts speak for themselves and no amount of sophistry or obsfucatoon will deny them.
The reason dishonesty did not reach the charge sheet is that if found guilty to the extent Rangers were guilty of it, they could not be allowed a place in Scottish football. Sine die would have been appropriate.
The fact a reasonable chap like you can argue as you do is only possible because the full extent of cheating has been camouflaged under a netting of administration error – for which you were punished but not for the greater crime of dishonesty towards fellow clubs. Dishonesty that led to sucess by a route not open to fellow clubs yet you think it ok to retain the fruits of that success.
Put yourself in the shoes of other suppprters. If any club had acted as the evidence shows Rangers did, would you think it right they retain the fruits of dishonesty?
Had dishonesty not taken place from 2005 or earlier all the woes that it has brought on your club simply would not have happened.
DARKBEFOREDAWNFEBRUARY 5, 2018 at 11:08
The revered Nimmo Smith stated that the behaviour of RFC amounted to just less than match-fixing,based on the evidence put before him .We now Know that important evidence was withheld . What do you think a punishment should be for this level of transgression ?
DarkbeforedawnFebruary 5, 2018 at 11:08
I think there are varying degrees of cheating. From deliberately withholding side letters, circumventing FFP by creative accounting (PSG), diving in the box, stealing a few feet at a free kick. In all sports from play acting, deliberately taking out a team mate in motor racing, not putting out at golf, holding in AFB, all the way up to bribing referees and doping with steroids and drugs. Each one carries a varying degree of punishment that should fit the crime. And it is in the punishment that is the interpretation of those applying the rules.
_______________________
So you agree that Rangers cheated, it’s just that, as with Masons (I believe) degrees matter!
So, if you agree Rangers cheated, then all that remains, from your point of view, is the degree of that cheating.
Well, even if it was just a teeny, weeny wee bit cheating, it was done over ten years, and in every game Rangers played in, so that teeny, weeny wee bit, becomes a massive piece of dishonesty and cheating, in each of these ten years. What proportion, do you think, of that £250,000 is attributable to each and every case of a deliberately misregistered player playing in a game for Rangers during that period?
Was there not titles won by two points or less? Cups won by a single goal, scored by a player that Murray admitted the club could not afford if they didn’t run their EBT scheme, and, therefor, a cup won by a player only on the pitch as a result of dishonesty, or cheating which you do not deny that dishonesty constitutes in sport, but think is mitigated by degree. Are you honestly suggesting, that over the course of a league season, 36 games, there was not one game that wasn’t won, or drawn, as a result of Rangers having a team of a quality they could only afford by the use of EBTs?
Can you explain to us how many degrees of cheating there are in a player scoring the winning goal, in any match, who should not be on the pitch?
paddy malarkeyFebruary 5, 2018 at 11:36
DARKBEFOREDAWNFEBRUARY 5, 2018 at 11:08The revered Nimmo Smith stated that the behaviour of RFC amounted to just less than match-fixing,based on the evidence put before him .We now Know that important evidence was withheld . What do you think a punishment should be for this level of transgression ?
_______________________
I see this often used but think it is wrong. From memory, and I am sure someone will correct me with a suitable reference if I am wrong, that description of Rangers’ behaviour only related to the period under Whyte, when he/they withheld Income Tax and National Insurance monies from HMRC, and has nothing to do with LNS or EBTs.
I am sure that had LNS used that phrase, then there would have been no way possible way to avoid title stripping!
ALLYJAMBOFEBRUARY 5, 2018 at 11:44
You may be right – I didn’t check . Relying on memory at my age is a mistake !
Saw this on James Doleman’s bog and thought of JC .
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVPiPMwXcAAXaMK.jpg:large