Regular posters and contributors to the SFM may remember that in October last year I wrote to Mr McRae, President of the SFA.
I posted the text of my letter on 28th October http://www.sfmonitor.org/whose-assets-are-they-anyway/?cid=20786
I had not received a reply or acknowledgement by 12th December, so I sent a reminder. I received a reply to that reminder, dated 16 December 2015, in which Mr McRae apologised for not having responded to my previous letter, and invited me to come and see him. We arranged that I should visit him at Hampden on 19 January 2016 at 2.00 p.m.
Following the meeting, I wrote a summary of the conversation. I emailed that summary to Mr Darryl Broadfoot, Head of Communications, asking him to check whether my recollections were accurate, because I was my intention to post the summary on SFM.
I have not had a reply and I think I have waited a fair enough time, so, here is the summary of an approximately 45 minute conversation.
I should first make it clear that Mr McRae said that he had no recollection of airing any of the views recorded in my letter as attributed to him. I should also say that I made it clear that while I contribute to SFM, I was not there as ‘officially representing’ SFM, although what I would say broadly reflected the view of many.
“Note of informal meeting between me, and Alan McRae, President of the SFA, with Darryl Broadfoot, Press Officer, at Hampden park, 2.00 pm Tuesday, 19th January.
Background: I had written to Mr McRae in October 2015, to ask whether Mr McRae had really (as had been reported to me) aired the following opinions:
- that Rangers FC were not Liquidated
- that Rangers FC were put down to the third Division
- that Rangers FC were bought by Charles Green and that the team currently playing out of Ibrox Stadium and calling itself The Rangers Football Club Ltd is one and the same as the club known as Rangers Football Club, which is currently in Liquidation.
Mr McRae, through Mr Broadfoot, went through the points one by one.
On point one, there was no difficulty in agreeing that RFC had been Liquidated. That was accepted as a matter of fact.
On point two, I argued that;
- Mr Green’s new club had had to apply for league and SFA membership, and were therefore admitted as a new club to Scottish Football and allowed into SFL Third Division.
- They had as an emergency measure been granted conditional membership, and had had to seek the Administrators’ and Football Authorities’ agreement to the use of certain RFC (IL) players who had decided to sign on with the new club in order to play their first game as a new club.
- They were ‘put in ‘the Third Division as a new club, not as an existing club being relegated.
Mr McRae, through Mr Broadfoot, argued that ‘put in’ and ‘admitted to’ are pretty much the same thing, and that the legal advice obtained was that Mr Green’s new club was not a new club, and the Authorities were stuck with that.
I referred to the 5-way Agreement, and made the point that two entities other than league or SFA representatives were signatories to that agreement: RFC (IL) and Mr Green’s new club. The two could not be one.
Mr Broadfoot said that was a matter of opinion.
I said that it was rather a matter of fact.
Likewise, on the third point, there was disagreement.
Mr Broadfoot, for Mr McRae, argued that Charles Green bought the club (and Mr McRae personally added ‘and the “goodwill”’).
I pointed out that Mr Green had NOT bought the club out of Administration, as had happened with other clubs, but merely had bought the assets of a former club that was NOT able to bought out of administration and was consequently Liquidated.
Mr Broadfoot said that Celtic and Rangers supporters might continue to disagree but that could only be expected.
I pointed out that this was not at all a Celtic-Rangers supporters’ issue, and that the Scottish Football Monitor, for instance, represented the views of supporters of many clubs. I further made the point that many sports administrative bodies had come under the spotlight in current times and people were naturally concerned that the governance of football should be above suspicion: and that substantial numbers feel that the Football Authorities have been at fault, in permitting a new club to claim to be an old club and pretend to the honours and titles etc etc.
Reference was made in the passing to some allegations that had been made that certain evidence relating to the Discounted Option Scheme had been withheld from the LNS commission, which occasioned Lord Nimmo Smith to be misled; and to the apparent negligent performance of the SFA administration under the previous President, who, both on account of his personal knowledge of the use of the DOS by Sir David Murray, and as a subsequent recipient of an EBT, might reasonably have been expected to ensure a thorough and diligent examination of the information provided by clubs about payments to players.
Mr Broadfoot ruled out discussion of the first of these matters because ‘there was no evidence’, and the second matter was also ruled out because, he asserted, the previous president is a man of the highest integrity.
I replied that work was in hand to provide evidence, and that the question of negligent performance of duties was not a question of ‘personal integrity’.
Mr Broadfoot opined that the future would show whether Scottish Football supporters were really concerned about the old club/new club debate, if huge numbers turned their backs on the game.
I replied that a sport based on a false proposition, on what could be seen as a lie, no matter on what pragmatic reasons, would certainly wither if and when people thought the sport could be rigged.
As the meeting drew to a close, I was asked if, coming from Edinburgh, I was a Hibs or Hearts supporter, or perhaps a Celtic supporter? And whether I was going to tonight’s (Celtic were playing that evening at home) game?
I replied that as my name suggests, I was of Irish extraction and perhaps conclusions could be drawn from that. Also that I would not be going to tonight’s game, and that my interest in the present matter was rather more academic and objective than partisan.
The meeting ended cordially at about 2.45.pm “
I think I can say that Mr Broadfoot, opening the meeting, explained that
“for the purposes of this meeting, I am the SFA.”
Mr McRae’s personal contribution to the conversation was therefore very little more than mentioned above, Mr Broadfoot doing most of the talking.
I will say further that I spoke to BP, and consulted one or two other posters before I went to the meeting, in order to make sure that my general understanding both of the principal events of the ‘saga’ and of the thrust of most of SFM’s contributors, who are drawn from supporters of many clubs, was sufficiently sound.
I give it as my opinion that I may have been invited to a personal meeting only because it might have been thought in some quarters that I was in possession of an electronic recording of what I told Mr McRae that he was reported as having said.
And, finally, I declare here that my note of the meeting was written within two hours of the meeting, and reflects the substance of the conversation. It is exactly the note I sent by email to Broadfoot, except that I corrected a typo in the spelling of Darryll (I had ‘Caryll’), have omitted my own surname, and changed references to myself from the third person to the first person.
Just wanted to say …….. 🙂
zerotolerance1903 3rd February 2016 at 9:39 pm #
Just wanted to say …….. 🙂
——————————————————————————————————————————
Deila must go!
Sorry I meant STAY!!!
I think I’m going to adopt Arbroath as my second team for a couple of weeks to get over my latest heartbreak. There is no anger left in me only sadness.
Besides, I loved the Red Lion caravan park where I lost my virginity – it was horrible- I won’t go into detail, Tutties Neuk was a great pub where I regained my dignity. Gayfield is very windy, I went there once to support Motherwell!. There I have said it! I am not proud of it but it was a day out. We searched the town for Buckie but alas none was to be found so we had to settle for QC (boak).
Not really feeling better for that but it keeps me off the subject of my club.
Celtic needs a strong Arbroath.
Corrupt official 31st January 2016 at 2:16 am #John Clark 31st January 2016 at 12:59 am John I have always been of the mind, that on any day, any team, can beat any team. A belief that is constantly reinforced. I will be as apprehensive pre match tomorrow, as I will be playing EK, or Aberdeen. I honestly wouldn’t be bothered with fitba if I thought a result was just a matter of turning up. Fortunately I never do. For me, every game starts at 0-0 and will be decided over the next 90 minutes…..Anything can happen. As you say..It’s a funny old game.
———————————————————————————————————–
EK next………GULP !!!!!!
P.S. Forgetting my manners. Well done Dons. No complaints that the more deserving team on the night won.
neepheid 3rd February 2016 at 9:35 pm
‘…All so predictable 4 years ago,..’
__________
And yet the stench of the 5-way agreement is as rank and foul as ever!
I sat today, and watched the back of the head of the man who so easily got our Football Administrators to sell their souls and the integrity of our sport. And I wondered. This middle-aged to elderly old geezer could twist sophisticated bureaucratic CEOs ( and other sharp-eyed businessmen for whom they( ostensibly) worked?
And as I watched, the stench of the Big Lie rose in my nostrils.The man I was watching is, in effect, no more, and is of no significance. What becomes of him is of little or no interest.
But we still have people who helped create the Big Lie and continue to foster it, and propagate it, and play us all for mugs.
Happily, I haven’t got the backs of their heads to look at. But if I had, I would know that inside those heads was the consciousness that they were men of little personal integrity and courage.
They won’t go of their own accord, of course. But they must be made to go.And the record books must show the truth.
Else, what’s it all about? Giving your money to a rigged sport, rigged by its very administrators, FIFA and UEFA style?
There are better things to do with it.
jimbo 3rd February 2016 at 11:49 pm #….We searched the town for Buckie but alas none was to be found so we had to settle for QC (boak).
==========================================
…nor Emva Cream…nor Lanliq (aka Lanny!)…double boak!
John Clark 4th February 2016 at 12:03 am #neepheid 3rd February 2016 at 9:35 pm‘…All so predictable 4 years ago,..’__________And yet the stench of the 5-way agreement is as rank and foul as ever!And as I watched, the stench of the Big Lie rose in my nostrils.
=========================================
Amidst all the incisive, erudite and educational posts to be found on this glorious blog, and notwithstandingJohn Clark(e)’s superb presentational skills with his “chat show” presentation of D. Broadfoot, aka “I am the SFA”, the main thrust of what we are all about raises its despicable head..
..”And as I watched, the stench of the Big Lie rose in my nostrils…”…and it still stinks four years on…
Big Pink 3rd February 2016 at 8:36 pm
“Armageddon alert…”
Ha, quite the opposite, and I think we are in agreement on that 🙂
Sportsound was a delightful listen this evening, not just because of the exciting match, but Richard Gordon, Willie Miller and Mark Wilson were all top notch. Wilson in particular comes across as articulate and not afraid to be critical of clubs we once played for.
Willie Miller made a very interesting point about league reconstruction – why is it needed? An interesting title race, remarkably close battle to avoid the lowest two spots, and that’s not to mention the annual top/bottom six interest that approaches in a few weeks. The top league is in rude health. I wouldn’t be dreaming of changing it right now.
Celtic will probably go on to win this league but are unmistakably on the wane, on the pitch at least. This makes the prospect of next season a potentially mouth-watering one: Rangers returning with an exciting team and manager, a resurgent Hibs possibly joining us, entering the competition with the strengthening forces of Aberdeen and Hearts, for – perhaps – a shot at a Celtic side creeping, it seems, ever more into the reach of “the others”.
A five-way battle for the League title? Not that far-fetched on the evidence in front of us at the moment. Scottish football could be heading for its finest top flight season yet 🙂
Cuddlybear, One thing I get from your post, although you didn’t say it, is that this is not a one horse competition in Scotland. On the one hand I am sad that Celtic are not the power they used to be. I blame our board. On the other hand I am pleased to see that Regan & Dunkaster have been shown to be the idiots that they are. Armaggedon ? There is actually a real completion in Scotland.
I want Celtic to win everything. But when we don’t, I love to see other clubs getting a bit of silverware which didn’t often happen. For instance, it would make me very happy to see Hibs getting a bit of glory again. A big club with a big support , it would be good.
As for next season, we will see.
competition not completion
A corpse, propped up, draped in a blue ‘born in 1872’ t-shirt doesn’t constitute a return. In the real world that we inhabit here on SFM, the new club formed in 2012 has never been in the top division, so it cannot conceivably return to it.
SFM Meeting – April 2016
The next SFM meeting, planned for February 2016 has been postponed until April.
It has been difficult to get a consensus on venue, and as a consequence we have dragged our feet a bit in terms of making a decision. We have narrowed it down to either Perth or Stirling, and we are currently looking at venues for suitability and price.
The meeting will now take place on Monday 4th April. Venue and arrangements will be posted before next Friday (12th Feb)
If we have made any calamitous errors in picking that date, please can someone point that out? 🙂
@cuddlybear – I think you’re getting a bit carried away. Whilst it looks likely that Rangers* will be playing in the premier league next season, a couple of freebies from Accrington Stanley are not going to have you even close to challenging for the title. Realistically, without a major cash injection and new players a top 6 place at the split will be an achievement.
I hope one thing is clear from last night. The only thing that makes football exciting is competition. The excitement of listening in to the game last night and hearing the old Stadium bouncing once more made the old ticker ramp up again and again over the 90 minutes. That is what brings people in through the gate, that is what sells the game to punters and TV companies alike (and dare I say it, makes people buy newspapers the day after). Ok for my side it was all
‘s, whilst I’m sure Celtic fans would rather forget it happened – but it was a game we all want our clubs to be involved in.
What we need to know is what are the authorities doing to ensure this level of competition is maintained and enhanced? Many of the saner amongst us knew that the prediction of armageddon was laughable. That given time things would close up as the whole playing field re-calibrated itself given the change in the available finances. Celtic couldn’t continue to pay excessive fees/wages, especially without the hyper-inflated direct one-up-manship required by the CFC:RFC battle. The crowds at Parkhead were always going to fall when the passion from that competition was gone. Thus the quality of the Celtic team has undoubtedly fallen (although looking in from the outside I would suggest the problem is not purely quality of player available).
Meantime, those clubs outside the “big two” have benefitted from real possibility of Cup success and they have grabbed that chance. Crowds have increased across many clubs, as has the general quality of play. it’s all closing up, its how the league should be. The authorities need to ensure that we don’t return to two behemoths sucking the vast majority of the wealth back out of the game again. A healthy national league will undoubtedly lead to a better national team, and I would suggest is the only way any Scottish club will ever have any measure of success in Europe. No Scottish team is a member of the rich Euro gang and the sooner that is accepted the better. We need to collectively drag the game up in this country, looking after number one simply won’t work. I think the evidence of the past demonstrates that with crystal clarity.
Everything else aside, the difference in squad size alone should ensure Celtic still go on to win the league. I am now dreading Aberdeen playing St Johnstone on Saturday, it would be just like us to cock it all up again by losing that one! But hey, I’m enjoying the ride and plan to keep on enjoying it for as long as it lasts!
zerotolerance1903 4th February 2016 at 8:13 am
===============================
If that major cash investment is by way of a shares issue that would make absolute sense. Bearing in mind a lot of that share issue money would be debt converted to equity, so no new money into the club.
If it was by way of further loans, with the club already owing c£11m (ignoring any debt from TRFC to RIFC) that would strike me as a bit bold. Particularly as it is still losing money and it’s own accounts predicted further losses next year. Surely further loans would be used to fund the ongoing losses.
I do not see “major cash investment” as being viable. Unless it really has become an expensive hobby for people willing to simply write-off the debt. Though how that fits in with Financial Fair Play Rules is another story.
Amageddon: An end to the artificial propping up of a self defeating duopoly*, by virtue of debt dumping and selective rules application, the purpose of which no-one was particularly clear on but tv money (never proven and in any case specifically designed to provide mere scraps off the table to 95% of the competing teams thus perpetuating the problem) and some misty eyed dream of european exposure at the expense of all domestic competition seem to feature somewhere, possibly, we think. Not the most ideal mission statement I’m sure you’ll agree.
Scottish Football had to downgrade and that was with none of the 42 competitors self imploding, never mind being caught red handed alongside the authorities tasked (and paid handsomely) to govern our game. Regan/Doncaster’s stance all along seems to have been “well if we’re going to fix the game we don’t want to be starting from here” to mangle the old joke.
* Happy to accept that one half of the duopoly do not look to have been particularly complicit per se, but equally, didn’t seem particularly vocal in arguing against being taken along for the ride either. To be entirely fair, of course, Celtic should not have had reason to question the shere level of ‘assistance’ being offered!
I’m not so sure. The O’Halloran episode shows that you can get a decent top flight player for a half million or so. And although we may laugh at Warburton’s magic hat, and his “respect” agenda, he does seem to be able to spot decent players in the very large bargain bin of the English lower leagues.
Of course a warchest of a couple of million will be needed, and we don’t have a clue where the money is coming from right now, but it’s certainly coming from somewhere. Whoever put in £6.5m before Christmas is not going to let this project collapse at this stage. There are now several people with a lot to lose. If they are ever to get their money back, there has to be a competitive team on the park. So they will put more money in, in my opinion. Not doing so just makes no sense to me.
Whether we have now seen the final defeat of Ashley is an open question. His tactic of using the courts to bankrupt TRFC via legal fees seems to have backfired spectacularly. He may now try another approach (and sack his legal team). I doubt whether his new approach would extend to playing nice with King, though.
Maybe if the three bears threw King under the bus, Ashley might even sweeten the retail deal. However if I think that King would have been discarded months ago, if he was ever going to be. Can TRFC ever return a profit with the current retail deal? I doubt it, and without a profit it’s hard to see how the investors can get their money back, unless a market listing is achieved and debt is swapped for equity.
Of course all that is contingent on the outcome of the criminal prosecution. I have to admire the cast iron cojones of anyone sticking in millions in current circumstances. But someone has done it.
I note from James Doleman tweets from court today that the SFA bench may be getting tied in knots over exactly what ‘Rangers’ are being discussed…
Is it me but the club from Govan seems to run better when King is nowhere to be seen or heard.
And no-one questions where the money is actually coming from!
I see our friends in the media are still applying the old maxim of not letting the facts get in the way of a good story.
Celtic were atrocious against both Ross County and Aberdeen and were deservedly beaten in both matches.
The media response has of course been as tiresome as it was predictable.
On Sky Sports today we had Andy Walker gleefully fulfilling the role of the ex-Celtic player without a single good thing to say about the club and calling for the immediate dismissal of the manager.
Meanwhile David Tanner salivating at his side quickly chipped in to say that not only was the lead at the top of the table now only 3 points but that “Aberdeen were chipping away at the goal difference too”
A quick check on the last 4 matches played shows a goal difference for Aberdeen of +3 against Celtic’s + 11.
Words fail me.
A statement from Dave King- notice has now been served on the Rangers Retail deal.
http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/chairmans-update-supporters/
Seems to be a rather sustained campaign by all sevco media outlets today all running with the same destabilizing story get rid of Ronny now paddy power install Giggs as fav for job.Is this the deflection tactics to avoid what is happening in court today.
neepheid 4th February 2016 at 2:47 pm #A statement from Dave King- notice has now been served on the Rangers Retail deal.
http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/chairmans-update-supporters
=====================================================================
So where is it exactly that Rangers won?
Ashley got his £5m back when the King appeared to say he was not for paying it back.
T’Rangers are still contracted to the alleged seven year notice period as reference is made to them requiring a legal challenge to quash the deals. (Potentially at their cost if they lose)
Ashley still has the power in the Rangers Retail boardroom.
The farce at Royal Courts seemed to be personally motivated re Ashley v King and his big gob. However even if a “substantial recovery of legal costs” was achieved this makes no difference whatsoever to the football clubs balance sheet despite the implication the club has somehow won extra cash from SD. (Nice spin there, BTW)
Further notes from the statement
Despite attempted and implied drastic cost cutting the club/company by previous boards, the accounts from previous years show money was being lost hand over fist.
However this board is shouting about splashing cash all over the place but still expects to be a sustainable business when there is no obvious funding model.
Were any of these costs for all the recent and ongoing improvements included in the six monthly figures referred to the other week or are they going to show up in the 2nd half of the yearly accounts?
Ibrox needs “significant investment”. I thought the Bampots who said it was the ‘Crumbledome’ were all wrong?
Same question as always for the loss making company without a credit line from the banks – where is that money coming from in addition to the money spent to date and the need for Warburton’s close season signings of 4-6 new players?
I can see the fans piggy banks being raided soon.
shug 4th February 2016 at 3:25 pm
======================
If there’s no story, make it up (or more likely cut’n’paste some Level Sinko tosh).
I await the SMSM publishing something about Deila being Capt. Mainwaring (a decent man, but floundering), Collins being Cpl . Jones (‘Don’t panic! Don’t panic!’) & Kennedy being Pte. Pike (‘Stupid boy.’). Does that make Lawwell the effete Sgt. Walker?
Remember, you (might have) read it here first
Ref. Above statement. Is “unanticipated investment ” new speak for loan?
Just catching up on James Doleman’s tweets. I don’t know what the outcome will be in Ashley v SFA but Ashley’s brief appears to be making a better fist of it than has previously been the case.
Jingso.Jimsie 4th February 2016 at 3:44 pm #shug 4th February 2016 at 3:25 pm======================
If there’s no story, make it up (or more likely cut’n’paste some Level Sinko tosh).
I await the SMSM publishing something about Deila being Capt. Mainwaring (a decent man, but floundering), Collins being Cpl . Jones (‘Don’t panic! Don’t panic!’) & Kennedy being Pte. Pike (‘Stupid boy.’). Does that make Lawwell the effete Sgt. Walker?
Remember, you (might have) read it here first =======
I concur 100%
I don’t think the negativity towards RD is a media construct. They haven’t been playing very well, were knocked out of the cup at the weekend and were well beaten last night and the media should report this…. positively?
John Collins comments about the standard of players in Scotland (who don’t play for Celtic) seem even more arrogant and ridiculous given the performances of some of his own players, especially last night.
I wonder what is being said on the Celtic message boards about their manager? RDs jacket looks like it is on a shoogly peg and I think the media is calling this one right.
incredibleadamspark 4th February 2016 at 3:50 pm #I don’t think the negativity towards RD is a media construct. They haven’t been playing very well, were knocked out of the cup at the weekend and were well beaten last night and the media should report this…. positively?
John Collins comments about the standard of players in Scotland (who don’t play for Celtic) seem even more arrogant and ridiculous given the performances of some of his own players, especially last night.
I wonder what is being said on the Celtic message boards about their manager? RDs jacket looks like it is on a shoogly peg and I think the media is calling this one right.
————————————————————————————————————————–
I have to say that ALL of my Celtic supporting friends want RD sacked NOW so I also don’t think it is media driven. As I said last night after a celebratory shandy or three I think he should definitely stay!
incredibleadamspark 4th February 2016 at 3:50 pm
I don’t think the negativity towards RD is a media construct.
========================
Deila is a gift that keeps on giving to the SMSM; an outsider, not a ‘Celtic man’, English as a second language &, best of all, the worst poker face in the entire history of mankind. I actually think they’re bullying him, whereas he should be bullying them.
Ok let’s say you kick the manager into touch will that make the players any better than they are I don’t think so because if they suddenly improve under a new manager then in my eyes they were taking wages under false pretences.Now if I was getting paid and not doing my job then I would be sacked so if they are taking wages and not doing their job 100% then it is they who should be sacked.This type of crap is so annoying as it is not just Celtic who are being targeted as I’m sure Stubbs will come into it somewhere as well thus affecting us and helping sevco in the process.
Shug, players NEVER get sacked because of results. It is always the manager. Another manager can come in and improve things like tactics and training and this might lead to an improvement in performances. Or not. It’s always a bit of a gamble, truth be told.
And linking managers with clubs they used to play for (your Stubbs example) happens all the time. This is not some SMSM ploy to unsettle Celtic and help Rangers. I suspect many Celtic fans would be happy to see Deila replaced.
incredibleadamspark 4th February 2016 at 4:40 pm #…………………..I suspect many Celtic fans would be happy to see Deila replaced.
And regrettably I’m one of them.
That does not however prevent me from being disgusted by the willingness of media no-marks who couldn’t manage the proverbial in a brewery queueing up to hammer the guy.
I accept that he is probably too inexperienced at this time for the Celtic job.
He nevertheless comes across as an honest guy doing his best on limited resources (I know!) in terms of previous Celtic managers.
He also (in my view) has very limited say in transfer policy and probably had his backroom staff imposed on him as well.
incredibleadamspark 4th February 2016 at 4:40 pm #Shug, players NEVER get sacked because of results. It is always the manager. Another manager can come in and improve things like tactics and training and this might lead to an improvement in performances. Or not. It’s always a bit of a gamble, truth be told.
And linking managers with clubs they used to play for (your Stubbs example) happens all the time. This is not some SMSM ploy to unsettle Celtic and help Rangers. I suspect many Celtic fans would be happy to see Deila replaced. ========
That maybe so but at this stage of the season I smell SH**E. I have many mates as well as family who are Celtic fans and none want Delia sacked any who do are letting themselves be influenced by the media campaign IMHO.
Jingso.Jimsie 4th February 2016 at 3:44 pm
Does that make Lawwell the effete Sgt. Walker?
===============================
Apologies
That should read Sgt. Wilson, of course. I seem to have confused names with Pte. Walker, who was the ‘spiv’ character.
Regarding Ronnie’s woes with the media chappies, I remember a Tommy Docherty quote –
“I’ve always said there’s a place for the press but they haven’t dug it yet.”
http://sabotagetimes.com/football/25-funny-tommy-docherty-quotes-chelsea-and-man-utd-fans-must-see
Surely Celtic’s performances at the weekend and last night , and whether the manager should be sacked are conversations more suited to Celtic forums than the Scottish Football Monitor.
I was under the impression this was not a place for that type of discussion. Maybe I’ve picked that up wrong.
Homunculus 4th February 2016 at 5:24 pm
Yes you are correct. The reason we decided to give this discussion some rope was that it was not originally about the Celtic manager, but about press approach to the story.
On that point, I think the press in general are less hawkish than the fans I speak to, so I can’t see any anti-Celtic sentiment here. I also think it is a VERY tenuous bridge to cross over to get to ‘helping Rangers’ land .
On Andy Walker, I am sure like most pundits he gets his fair share of criticism, but I know Andy very well, and I can assure you that he is not in the ‘over-compensating due to his Celtic connections’ camp. I also spoke to him last night and my sense is that he is honestly frustrated at what he sees is a square peg in a round hole scenario with respect to the Celtic manager.
I have disagreed with AW for years on many issues – and will no doubt continue to do so – but he doesn’t make stuff up for the sake of it, nor is he likely to tug a forelock in the direction of any editorial imperative.
He is in my opinion a very honest man.
I guess my point is that if we shout ‘Fire!’ every time the toast is being made, we are all headed for the same sad end as dear old Matilda 🙂
Homunculus 4th February 2016 at 5:24 pm
Agreed, however the question of whether or not Deila is being treated differently by the SMSM than others is perhaps up for discussion.
However, despite my hopes his philosophy and the continental approach by Collins (daft comments excluded) would bring improvements to the Scottish game as a whole, in my view this one has been rumbling along for a while now so the coverag, following a cup exit and Aberdeen mounting another challenge, is more than understandable.
As per something I saw earlier today – in Scotland any Celtic manager and indeed possibly one from the oldco are only ever a few defeats away from a ‘crisis’. Le Guen (out of the league cup but unbeaten in the Uefa cup group stage) comes to mind.
I agree that a club specific topic is best dealt with elsewhere. Having said that I shall put in my tuppence worth on the Celtic supporters view of RD. I watched the game last night with 4 friends. Only one of us was overtly critical of RD.
Hats off again today to James Doleman for his coverage of the Ashley vs SFA court case today. Not sure why he gets criticism for essentially being just a freelance journalist, reporting on matters of sufficient interest for the STV to send their man to cover.
One of the arguments being pushed by Ashley’s counsel was that because TRFC Ltd (newco) was the member of the SFA, and as Ashley had no shareholding in that company, the charge of having undue influence on two football clubs (with Newcastle) was false.
The SFA – on more than one occasion – corrected, clarifying at one point that “Rangers FC is the club, not a synonym for The Rangers Football Club Ltd”. The governing body also stated that both the Ltd and the PLC were counted as “manifestations” of the club, so a shareholding in the latter could be taken as an interest in the “club”, despite the former (Ltd) being the entity holding the membership.
Whilst it is reinforcing a perspective I share, not for the first time it leaves me scratching my head at the, to be kind, light touch approach they have to communicating with fans. The 5WA was kept secret, their advice to Lord Nimmo Smith was not made explicit, their advice to the Advertising Standards Agency was also made in private, albeit mentioned briefly in the Agency’s report.
Why are the ordinary supporters not addressed directly on a question that, quite clearly, has animated a fair number of fans over a period approaching 4 years. What good has the disagreement/acrimony done over this period other than entrench bitterness on both sides?
Apologies in advance if this post is untimely/drivel/ or contemptuous . I suspect the former.
Reading James Doleman’s tweets and summary of todays proceedings in court re Ashley resisting the fine imposed by the SFA after accusing him of falling foul of dual ownership rules. It appears the defence is that MASH the company and not the individual MA hold an interest in RIFC NOT in TRFC.The SFA seem to hold that the club is the company ..very strange. The talk of corporate veil lifting/piercing as mentioned by the judge hints at MA being the sole shareholder of MASH being enough to indicate control of decision making. I believe MA did have the right to re-appoint directors to TRFC under the 5M loan facility but never exercised it, it may be something to do with this case looming. It revolves around the original appointment of Derek Llambias..was this at the sole behest and control of MA? Evidence presented today indicates David Somers was happy to appoint Llambias at the ‘suggestion’ of MA.I have a feeling that the SFA may not have prepared their case as robustly a they should and may fall foul of a technicality of the rules if so then …how ironic.
gunnerb 4th February 2016 at 11:44 pm #
“The SFA seem to hold that the club is the company ..very strange.”
__________________________________
They actually took the opposite position, my post above tries to explain it.
It reminded me of a similar principle applied by the Football League took when they punished Southampton FC back in 2009, even though it was only the parent company that had gone into administration:
Southampton’s relegation to League One was sealed yesterday but they may not be in existence to play there next season.
The Football League decided to inflict a 10-point penalty after investigating the club’s finances when the parent company went into administration.
Administrators Begbies Traynor had been confident the penalty did not apply because it was the club’s parent company, Southampton Leisure Holdings plc, and not the club itself, which had gone into administration.
That argument was dismissed by the Football League, however, who stated: “The three entities (the Holding Company, Southampton Football Club and the stadium company) comprise the football club and they are inextricably linked as one economic entity”.
cuddlybear 4th February 2016 at 11:56 pm
______________________________________________
“That argument was dismissed by the Football League, however, who stated: “The three entities (the Holding Company, Southampton Football Club and the stadium company) comprise the football club and they are inextricably linked as one economic entity”.
Sorry cuddlybear as I said, my comment may be drivel but how does the above quote support your opinion that the company and club are not one and the same? ( “manifestations” as put forward by the SFA has no legal status and is an abstract and nebulous reference.)
gunnerb 5th February 2016 at 12:21 am
It is simply an example of where a football body has resisted the position, adopted then by Southampton to avoid an admin penalty, of the club and company (usually the one holding the league Share) being one and the same.
I think the “manifestations” mention was the SFA explaining their position to the Judge (“aspects of the club” would have been a more straightforward phrase to use) rather than a direct reference to the wording of their rules/articles.
Might be wrong but I’d imagine the SPFL/SFA rules now cover that if a holding company like RIFCplc was to go into admin, the club couldn’t dodge a penalty just because TRFC Ltd was not, ruling out a Southampton type approach to avoiding a punishment.
Cuddlybear
In 2013 the SFA changed their definition of a club. Previously it said –
‘club” means a football club playing Association Football in accordance with the provisions set out in Article 6;
After the demise of the old club (RFC PLC) the SFA changed the definition to –
“club” means a football club playing Association Football in accordance with the provisions set out in Article 6 and, except where the context otherwise requires, includes the owner and operator of such club;
In the context of influence or control of the club, it’s owner and operator (RIFC PLC) must now be included.
Therefore the SFA QC is correct, in this context, that Rangers FC (the club) includes both TRFC Ltd (the member club) and RIFC PLC ( the owner and operator of such club)
Had the definition applied in the days of the old club, whatever Murray group company was deemed to be the ultimate controlling interest would also, by definition, have been a manifestation of the club.
Of course, RFC plc alone was, by extant definition, the club.
This should not be confused with the SPL/SPFL definition of a Club. Where the owner and operator of a Club is the entity holding a share in the league. That was RFC plc wrt the SPL. It is TRFC Ltd wrt the SPFL.
Hope this helps
HirsutePursuit 5th February 2016 at 12:54 am #
—————————————————–
It’s a question I keep asking myself. What is a club?
LNS sought to give his view on the matter in his “Reasons for Decision” in September 2012 when he said:
I think LNS is being very generous in his description where he includes the contracts of the players as being part of a “Club”, particularly when he accepts that a “Club” cannot enter a contract, because it has no legal standing.
To my mind a “Club”, legally, is simply just a brand name, to which fans can associate anything they want, e.g. players who play or have played for it in the past, its history of games and trophies won or lost, its colours, a badge, a stadium etc. To that extent I think that Stewart Regan was actually correct when he said that is was up to the fans to decide whether or not they viewed the “Rangers” post liquidation as the same club.
However, I think that the SFA made a huge error when they missed the opportunity to actually document a process whereby “sporting title” could be passed to a new entity. e.g. while I know that Airdrie Utd (now known as Airdrieonians) was previously Clydebank, therefore has Clydebank’s playing history. I would like to have seen a process where they could have disowned the Clydebank history (perhaps in favour of the new Junior Club of that name) and been assigned the oldco Airdrieonians sporting record instead. That is not to say that it would be a continuation of the old club, but also that the process would require an acknowledgement from a newco that they were a new club, but by dint of location, support, colours etc., they sought to be considered a continuation in sporting terms.
I believe that MK Dons has effectively carried out this sort of process, by disassociating themselves from Wimbledon’s record, which they believe should reside with the newco, AFC Wimbledon.
easyjambo, I like johnjames’ interpretation that the new club are the ‘spiritual’ heirs of the old club. I have no problem with that for their fans sake. But in no shape or form are they Rangers. In a legal or club sense. Only in the perverted mindset of Regan & Doncaster and Charles Green, Duff & Dumber was that able to be sold to the fans. Now it is told as fact. And by the media too!
easyjambo
It has always intrigued me that LNS saw the word ‘undertaking’ as a key element in the definition of a Club.
Intriguing, because that word has not been given a specific definition within the SPL Articles and rules.
Intriguing, because (in Top Gear stylee ‘some would say’) that the definition LNS came up with was somewhat controversial in the context of the meaning of a Club.
Intriguing because the SPL Articles say that words and expressions should, unless the context does not allow it, take their meaning from the Companies Act.
Intriguing, because the Companies Act defines an undertaking as
A body corporate or partnership, or…
an unincorporated association carrying on a trade or business, with or without a view to profit.”
…which, in the context of a business where potential members are a mixture of body corporate entities (companies) and unincorporated associations, using the Companies Act definition makes perfect sense.
Intriguing then that LNS, one would assume, did not know that he had no need to speculate on “what exactly is comprised in the undertaking of any particular Club”
The body corporate in context of Rangers FC was RFC plc.
Intriguing that something so obvious was missed.
…Unless, in the context of the LNS terms of reference, the context did not allow the correct definition to be used.
…which would suggest a problem with the terms of reference
cuddlybear 4th February 2016 at 11:38 pm #
One of the arguments being pushed by Ashley’s counsel was that because TRFC Ltd (newco) was the member of the SFA, and as Ashley had no shareholding in that company, the charge of having undue influence on two football clubs (with Newcastle) was false. The SFA – on more than one occasion – corrected, clarifying at one point that “Rangers FC is the club, not a synonym for The Rangers Football Club Ltd”. The governing body also stated that both the Ltd and the PLC were counted as “manifestations” of the club, so a shareholding in the latter could be taken as an interest in the “club”, despite the former (Ltd) being the entity holding the membership.
————————————————————————————–
Following on from what the SFA says, I can see the logic of them then applying a points sanction on the ‘Club’ if the LTD and PLC go into administration. The Club is held to be in administration. Surely then if these ‘manifestations’ (one holding the membership) go into liquidation then the Club surely follows?
That would explain why two ‘Clubs’ briefly existed at the same time, one being allowed to vote on the other’s application to join the SPL and both being party to the 5-way agreement.
Have the SFA now clarified matters in a court of law? This is a new Club we see playing out of Ibrox?
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
HirsutePursuit 5th February 2016 at 12:54 am
Thanks for your reply. As you will know, in the SPL/SPFL the “owner and operator” (O & O) of the club refers to its legal personality, the company/unincorporated body that holds the “Share”. So for that reason, Newco (formerly Oldco) is the O & O of the club, Rangers FC.
It seems a bit strange why the Scottish FA would adopt a definition different to this one, with the O & O being the holding company (in Gers case) of the company holding the share/membership, although nothing would surprise me. But you may be right, given they don’t bother to define “owner and operator” in as clear a fashion as the SPFL!
Certainly in court yesterday, the SFA were rejecting the view that the term “club” was simply a synonyms for TRFC Ltd, rather that it was an umbrella term (“football entity”, the term Doleman cites the SFA as using) to include the PLC as well. Grant Russell of STV tweeted interestingly:
“Some mild commotion and shaking of heads from the SFA side when it is repeated [by Ashley’s QC] that RFC Ltd is the member. Clarification later, perhaps”
This seems to be a point of contention that, hopefully for the likes of us who muse on it, gets further explanation! 🙂
redlichtie 5th February 2016 at 8:44 am
Following on from what the SFA says, I can see the logic of them then applying a points sanction on the ‘Club’ if the LTD and PLC go into administration. The Club is held to be in administration. Surely then if these ‘manifestations’ (one holding the membership) go into liquidation then the Club surely follows?
That would explain why two ‘Clubs’ briefly existed at the same time, one being allowed to vote on the other’s application to join the SPL and both being party to the 5-way agreement.
————————————————————————————–
You are spot on, the PLC of a club going into liquidation does mean the club goes into liquidation. However, in the words employed in BDO’s reports, the previous PLC was “placed into Liquidation on 31 October 2012”.
Prior to this, the Rangers FC membership of the Scottish FA held by Oldco had transferred to Newco “so they could continue as the same member of the Scottish FA” (the words assigned to the SFA by the Advertising Standards Agency report).
Of course, many in the media interpreted liquidation as occuring the moment the CVA was rejected, a definition rival fans were happy to adopt! I suppose it comes down to whether you place much credence on the liquidator’s definition of when liquidation began. I’ll take anything going 🙂
cd
The key, as always, is context.
The current discussion is around influence on the club. if the SFA adopted the SPL position – that the owner and operator was the company holding membership – it would exclude RIFC.
It is only because the SFA take the view that RIFC are an owner and operator of a club (TRFC) that it is included.
The SFA, as far as I know, has never adopted nor approved the LNS definition as applying to the general meaning of a club.
It probably has no locus in challenging that definition within the SPL’s Articles – but we should not try to create a uniformity where none exists.
Unless the SFA also wish to misinterpret their own Articles.
John F. Kennedy“The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie–deliberate, contrived and dishonest–but the myth–persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the cliches of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought ”
– but I guess he was a Celtics Supporter
cuddlybear 5th February 2016 at 9:04 am
CB many thanks for your level headed and considered contributions to the site on the ‘oldco/newco what the hell are the SFA/SPFL playing at’ debate.
Not wanting to scare you away but just wondering what your view was on where things are going financially for your club given King’s update yesterday?
Yes signings have been made last summer in the manager and player department and indeed some contracts have recently been extended. Money has been shelled out for O’Halloran but the rest of the January signings are freebies and by all accounts Hearts are paying Billy King’s wages while on loan. The mention of improvements at Murray Park must surely include the laying of the new indoor astro at Murray Park but this was paid for by a grant from the Scottish Football Partnership and assistance from the Rangers Fighting fund.
Despite the mention in yesterday’s statement of supposed neglect and drastic cost cutting, including at Murray Park, the previous boards actually renewed the training centre’s outdoor astro in 2013 via a similar grant/fan/club funding.
http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/new-pitch-laid-at-mp/
At first look any new and additional money that has come into the club since the DCK takeover appears to have gone straight out the door to pay the leccy bill or sort out the Ashley debt.
Nothing wrong with that and trying to get your ducks in order for the future are commendable.
The big question is however, where do you see the money (and how much) coming from in the near future and how does this tie in with your expectations of where you want the club to be?
HirsutePursuit 5th February 2016 at 9:27 am,
You make your point well. The SFA articles in this regard say more loosely defined that the SPFL/SPL, whether the club’s owner and operator is clearly defined as the body corporate holding the Share (eg. Newco, Oldco), and any holding company also merits it’s own specific mention.
There is certainly an ambiguity there, fuelled by the position the SFA are (as we speak) espousing in court. Give it a few minutes of updates by Doleman et al and we may have our answer! 🙂
cuddlybear 5th February 2016 at 9:24 am #
I recall too that the old Club was given formal dispensation by the authorities to lend players to the new Club so that they could play Brechin.
The SFA/SPFL (SFL) are tieing themselves in knots over all of this with upcoming court cases likely to have them held up to ridicule.
To lance this boil, all that is needed is a simple statement from the SFA saying :
– clarification of the OC/NC situation would assist Scottish Football to ‘move on’
– Rangers fans are completely at liberty to view the current entity as the ‘spiritual’ heirs of the old Club
– however, in both law and under SFA and EUFA regulations TRFC is a new Club
There, that wasn’t too painful, was it?
Scottish Football potentially has a very difficult year ahead in which it has to deal properly with issues currently causing a huge lump in the SFA Boardroom carpet.
redlichtie 5th February 2016 at 8:44 am
Following on from what the SFA says, I can see the logic of them then applying a points sanction on the ‘Club’ if the LTD and PLC go into administration. The Club is held to be in administration. Surely then if these ‘manifestations’ (one holding the membership) go into liquidation then the Club surely follows?
============================================================
Absolutely. Excellent point.
If as seems to be the case the company is placed in administration, that constitutes the club being placed into administration and they suffer a points deduction then the company and club are analogous for administration purposes.
In administration a company will often try to obtain a CVA, if they do and satisfy the conditions then they are saved. If however they fail to achieve a CVA then they will be placed into liquidation. A company cannot stay in administration for an unlimited period, it has to exit, one way or another.
Using the same logic as above, the club must also be placed into liquidation. It makes no sense to say that both are in administration but that only one is liquidated. At which point do they miraculously “split” and what possible mechanism is there for them doing so.
It strikes me that the SFA, once again, seem to be having two sets of rules which they can choose from as they see fit. If the company is placed into administration then so is the club and we will dock points. However if it is liquidated we will ignore that and say the club survived. It really is laughable.
TRFC,RFC,RIFC 1 entity but separate manifestations of said entity a Holy Trinity if you like.
redlichtie 5th February 2016 at 9:53 am,
Neil Doncaster could not have been more clear in clarifying the OC/NC situation:
“The decision, very clearly from the commission, was that the club is the same, the club continues, albeit it is owned by a new company, but the club is the same.” [Question: So the official take from the SPFL is that Rangers Football Club continues, it’s the same club?] “Yes, it’s the same club, absolutely.”
Did that allow rivals fans in any way to, as you allude, “move on”? Or did it just stir up more acrimony over the subject. The answer to that probably informs why the SFA have taken the stance they have done over the years, although to my opinion it has been to the detriment of trust with supporters.
Cuddly bear
With all due respect, when you start quoting Neil Doncaster as a means of supporting any argument, then the credibility of that argument is significantly undermined and subject to scrutiny.
Cuddlybear – great to see a bear sticking around and adding much to the debate. Wish there were more of you.
Pulling back from the minutiae of the legalese, in my simplistic brain Doncasters infamous comments made me think – great, pay your debts then. I reckon it’s that simple to most folk looking in – same club then same debt. But also from TRFC side, if they are the same club, then why did players have to TUPE over, or more importantly how did several players manage to simply walk away as free agents? Significant loss of cash that could have offset some of the debt just walked out the door. Plus of course – who played against Brechin?
What really grates with me is this apparent cherry picking of the rules. You either are the same entity or you aren’t. You can’t alternate between new/old just depending on what state obtains the best outcome. Until that little dilemma is sorted once and for all there can be no moving on! The crazy thing is, it really isn’t that difficult, deep down I think we all know what the answer is.
From JD tweets
Judge to O’Neil “I don’t follow your logic, are you saying the club is an idea?”
“It has a reality that the law has to catch up with”
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
And thats it in as nutshell
TRFC exists
It believes it is RFC
But the law hasn`t been changed yet to make it legal
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Oh Dear
They have decided a law needs to be changed
and while we are all waiting on the legislation to change the law
Everybody should treat us as if the law had been changed
tayred 5th February 2016 at 11:01 am
Your post goes straight to the core of the matter. If it is the same club then who played Brechin, why were they in the bottom tier the following season, why were they not in Europe the following season and why did they not enter cup competitions the following season based on a 2nd place SPL finish.
We can argue the toss re corporate law or all eternity but there has been never been any explanation with regards to footballing law how all of the above was allowed to happen being that the ‘same club’ did not breach any footballing rules that would merit such drastic punishment/consequences.
When the SFA/SPFL can explain why such extraordinary and unprecedented actions were taken for this one particular ‘same member’ club when others (Airdrie, Grenta etc) have simply gone to the wall then we may get somewhere. Until then it is just gobbledygook.
Judge now asking O’Neil if they are now to be Metaphysician’s,and in a court of Law,this is getting better by the minute.
Wottpi,
you beat me to it!
other than the questions posed by Tayred above, I was also going to ask our cuddly friend why his continuing ‘club’ didn’t play anywhere in Europe the following year having finished in 2nd spot in the SPL.
an important question which no one over Govan way seems to be able to answer
A priceless quote from the judge on OC/NC
As an aside I see JJ’s had the lawyers on the phone and he’s taken down his Punch and Judy article as being too close to the wind, and more importantly, the current legal proceedings.
Shame. It and the following comments were excellent and, I agree, right at the heart of the matter.
Homunculus 5th February 2016 at 10:18 am,
It makes no sense to say that both are in administration but that only one is liquidated. At which point do they miraculously “split” and what possible mechanism is there for them doing so.
_________
You raise a fundamental point, the answer to which is that they “miraculously split” by the reversal of the process by which they miraculously came together!
Namely, the transferring of the club’s business/assets out of the company, through the door from which they had been transferred in, at incorporation.
At incorporation, there are two constituted bodies – one unincorporated, one a newly-formed corporate body – involved in the transaction. Clearly and unambiguously, two distinct entities.
If the football club was definely solely and exhaustively by either, there would by definition be two distinct football clubs. But there are not, no one believes that, therefore such a definition fails from the outset.
On that basis, a distinction simply must be granted between the undertaking of the football club and the elements that comprise it, and the legal form through which that entity is organised. Thus the wordings of “owner and operator”, etc.