Launch of SFSA Fans’ Survey

ByAuldheid

Launch of SFSA Fans’ Survey

LAUNCH OF THE FIRST INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF SCOTTISH FOOTBALL GOVERNANCE BY THE SCOTTISH FOOTBALL SUPPORTERS ASSOCIATION (SFSA)

 

Representatives from various fan groups, including the Scottish Football Monitor took up the invitation to the above event which is largely self-explanatory. The scene was set with the following agenda

 

 

 

 

Media Briefing.

SURVEY TO SET BENCHMARK FOR FUTURE EVALUATION OF NATIONAL GAME

 WHEN:                             Thursday, 20TH July 2017 at 11AM

WHERE:                           Scottish Parliament – Committee Room 4

WHO                                Simon Barrow (Chair of the SFSA), Henry McLeish (Board member of the SFSA), Richard Leonard MSP (member of Scottish Parliament for Central Scotland and host of event) and Dr Joachim Lammert (The Department of Sports Economics and Sports Management at the University of Leipzig)

 

The first independent evaluation of Scottish football governance will be launched by The Scottish Football Supporters Association (SFSA).

 

The SFSA’s nationwide survey will assess, for the first time, supporters’ views on the current position of the game, including the performance of the game’s governing bodies in Scotland.  The research will become an annual benchmarking & reporting exercise looking at all aspects of the game.

 

The SFSA’s online survey has been created in partnership with Prof. Dr. Axel Faix and Dr. Joachim Lammert, two experienced German academics who have undertaken similar evaluations on a national level in Germany and on a European level on topics including 50+1 (German football’s rules that a parent club must own at least 50% plus one share of the football company) and Financial Fair Play.  Their research has been backed by Football Supporters Europe and by German fans organisation, Unsere Kurve.

 

Fans will also be able to provide comment on their own club’s performance.

 

The SFSA, whose board includes former First Minister Henry McLeish; former MP and MSP Cathy Jamieson and Maureen McGonigle, Founder of Scottish Women in Sport and first female Scottish FA Council Member, has over 67,000 members supporting clubs across Scotland.

 

The SFSA is Scotland’s fans’ representative in The Football Supporters Europe network (FSE), an independent, representative and democratically organised grass-roots network of football fans’ in Europe with members in currently 48 countries across the continent.

 

The SFSA might be best thought of as movement appearing at a time when Scottish Football supporters are desperately seeking an alternative to the attitudes and events that have seen our game at best stand still and at worst decline, as changes in the way football has grown as a global industry  have left us marooned on our own small patch of God’s earth.

 

If the two maxims that

  • a problem cannot be solved by the mind that created it and
  • if you cannot manage (and therefore improve) what you cannot measure

are true, then the SFSA professional idea to making change happen offers a different approach to the past by introducing new thinking and using tested scientific metrics on a survey model used successfully in Germany, where the game is light years ahead of Scotland’s by any measure.

The arrival of this movement is crucial, and in the words of SFSA Board member Henry McLeish, ex footballer and former First Minister of Scotland; “Scottish Football is at a Watershed”.

Few if any who love our game would argue with that. We love football because it is in our blood, it plays a key part in the social interplay of Scottish society and it is too important not to now say  “Enough!”

It is clear that the medicine of the past, an approach to the game which excludes it’s life blood, (no wonder it is ill) is no longer efficacious – if indeed it ever was.

To continue with that same prescription would fall foul of that other maxim; “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result”.

Thus the SFSA, who are independent of current Scottish football authorities (SFA/SFL), offer an opportunity to break that insane cycle by offering a new approach, which sees it’s first duty as asking the fans what they think, and they are seeking to do exactly that by enacting a comprehensive nationwide survey of fans’ views and attitudes. The survey, created by a team of research academics at Leipzig University will present, in a cohesive way, the views and thoughts of Scottish football fans concerning the health of the game in Scotland through their own own clubs, the SPFL, and the SFA .

The higher the number who complete the survey and articulating their views, the more weight and authority the survey’s outcomes will carry when the SFSA presents them to current authority and government.

 

SFM hopes that as many people as possible will take part in an exercise that offers real hope of change by clicking below

https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/sfsa-benchmark-2017

and visit the SFSA page at

http://scottishfsa.org/have-your-say-now/

where the survey is explained and you can join the SFSA individually.

 

This may be our last chance as lovers of Scottish football to restore its integrity and trust in our football authorities who have lost sight of those values in pursuit of commercial concerns.

 

To the cynics whose past experience of calling for change discourages them (and who can blame them for it’s taken lifetimes) one last maxim.

 

If you don’t buy a ticket, you don’t win the lottery.

 

Roll Up, Roll Up https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/sfsa-benchmark-2017

Big Pink Comment:

Like Auldheid, I am encouraged by the birth of the SFSA and its determination to procure the views of supporters. There are enough people involved in the initiative with clear views about the harm that inherent self-interest on the part of the clubs has brought to our game.

I was less encouraged by the conciliatory tone of Henry McLeish, in public at least, towards those in power at Hampden. For example he said that Scottish football folk viewed outside bodies with suspicion, and that was often understandable.

My take is that they only view anyone wishing to become proactive with that suspicion (and fear). They have never viewed my cash with anything other than hungry eyes, far less suspicion.

The feeling in the room, when less formal discussion was taking place, was that the authorities and the clubs have refused to take fans’ views into account for too long.

Governance (particularly the lack of and the ‘making it up as we go’ varieties), FFP and Strict Liability were all subjects of those discussions. These are all nettles that MUST be grasped in public, and the sooner the better, if fans’ views are to be properly reflected.

I am hopeful that the weight of dissatisfaction I expect to see as a result of this ambitious survey will compel a change in tone by McLeish and his colleagues.

One final note of concern is that a group like SFSA, which after all hopes to represent fans at the top table, appears to have a board overly comprised of folk from the political, business and academic spheres. Some grass roots participation is vital moving forward. Hopefully that is also on the agenda.

About the author

Auldheid author

Celtic fan from Glasgow living mostly in Spain. A contributor to several websites, discussion groups and blogs, and a member of the Resolution 12 Celtic shareholders' group. Committed to sporting integrity, good governance, and the idea that football is interdependent. We all need each other in the game.

629 Comments so far

tonyPosted on9:35 pm - Jul 22, 2017


JIMBO
having a banner with a skull, sunglasses and a beret is not illegal

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on9:57 pm - Jul 22, 2017


ZILCHJULY 22, 2017 at 10:09I want to see the GB doing the “Wanted” banners that the Aberdeen lads have produced.————-I believe i read somewhere that stewards had the banners taken down.
—————-
Hope it’s ok by mods to post a screengrab of twitter.If these banners appear at scottish football grounds will the fans be asked to take them down? you would hear from fans if they were asked,would be an indication of how club boards feel

View Comment

goosygoosyPosted on10:19 pm - Jul 22, 2017


TONY JULY 22, 2017 at 12:36  ERNIE has Milne something to hide and doesn’t want to rock a boat ? 5 way agreement perhaps, oh and I’m not saying this as fact, just a throwaway question
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Who knows?
Perhaps the 5 way Agreement is the key to everything
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
–Perhaps it demonstrates the depth of SFA and SPFL corruption in writing?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
–Perhaps the SFA were being blackmailed by Sevco Scotland with the collusion of D&P who held all the records
Because it is  now abundantly clear from court evidence that Regan and his SFA Board permitted RFC plc to participate in the 2011 -2012 CL  despite having clear written evidence  in the SFA Office at Hampden  that RFC did not   comply with UEFA rules on social taxes on the date of their application
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
–Perhaps the 5WA is positive proof of Celtic pretending to oppose corruption when they were in fact supporting it?
Or
Could it be a piece of evidence in a criminal conspiracy to defraud 2012-2013 ST holders into thinking they were supporting an honest sport when the game was being rigged all along.?
i.e.  
SFA rules supposed to safeguard sporting integrity were being negotiated with  Sevco Scotland under threat of disorder on the streets?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
It begs the question
Can the Cabinet Minister for Health and Sport or indeed Police Scotland be refused a copy of the 5 Way Agreement by the SPFL if they consider it may be evidence of corruption?
Can a shareholder of any SPFL Club be refused a copy by their Board?
Can the SFAS be refused a copy?
Can an RFC Creditor be refused a copy by BDO who took over all the D&P records.?
Is it a desperate effort by D&P to “hide”  their copy of the 5WA that is holding up the current BDO v D&P court case.?
Can a Court compel the SPFL to release a copy of the 5WA to a crowd funded group of fans?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The mind boggles at the options that could open up if just one Club was prepared to finger the 5WA as the written evidence of corruption
But
Make no mistake
If the SFAS are seeking a short cut to getting the governing authorities to put their hands up and resign en masse
It might just be pressure for public scrutiny of the 2012 5WA possibly by a petitioned SG Committee resolved to clean up corruption at Hampden

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:35 pm - Jul 22, 2017


SmugasJuly 22, 2017 at 14:06
‘… In a half hour chat about the clubs progress, challenges ahead etc he’ll have made a throwaway remark along the lines of “moving away from all this crap onto more important stuff!”.
_____________
I’m minded, as our Lordships say, to suggest to Stuart and Tam that they run a wee competition on ‘Off the Ball” for the best suggestion as to the reason for Milne’s apparent  readiness to defend sporting cheating

Down my way, there are mutterings about the new contract for McInnes, the possible(!) fairly imminent departure of Caixinha and ( desired in many quarters) replacement of same by McInnes, and with a nice wee enhanced compensation figure if McInnes is persuaded to go to the job of his dreams …

I, of course, distance myself from any such thinking.

But isn’t such thinking symptomatic of the disease of ‘distrust’ that we have all caught because of that contagion that was injected into the very life-blood of our sport by the needle of SDM’s cheating and the failure of our Football Authorities to take the necessary steps to zap that contagion before it kills the Sport as surely as Liquidation killed the Rangers of my grandfather’s day!

Shortly, yes!

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:51 pm - Jul 22, 2017


Cluster OneJuly 22, 2017 at 21:57
‘…If these banners appear at scottish football grounds will the fans be asked to take them down?’
________________
I suggest to my learned friend ( i.e you, Cluster One19) that there is nothing in the Lord Advocate’s guidance as in this link
http://www.crownoffice.gov.uk/images/Documents/Prosecution_Policy_Guidance/Lord_Advocates_Guidelines/Lord%20Advocates%20Guidlines%20-%20Offensive%20Behaviour%20at%20Football%20and%20Threatening%20Communications%20Scotland%20Act%202012.pdf
that would require them to be removed!

View Comment

Hoopy 7Posted on10:53 pm - Jul 22, 2017


Good evening,
Going to complete survey shortly and hope that this initiative will lead to change but won’t hold my breath.
Very suspicious of the involvement of politicians unless the come out publicly and demand the changes we want and don’t sit on the fence and seek self publicity as usual.
I have seen the disgusting self serving statements from Regan etc
I want to see title stripping but also the publication of the five way agreement and the removal of the present incumbents at the SFA.
At a minimum If titles are not stripped and the reason is that there is no point because Rangers went into liquidation, I want an unequivocal statement that Rangers(IL) died in 2012 and that the present team playing out of Ibrox is a new team and that they have zero history.
As far as the Green Brigade are concerned, their actions and subsequent statements are a disgrace.
When will they wake up to the fact that they hurt the club. How many fines need to be dished out before UEFA get fed up and kick Celtic out.
No one is asking them to change their politics, just keep them out of the club on match days.
Looking forward to the new season, the second without a season ticket because of the cheating which went on.

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on11:12 pm - Jul 22, 2017


Follow the money. Always follow the money.

If titles are stripped. The prize money and outcomes need to be reallocated. This isn’t just about Celtic. Every professional club in Scotland may (theoretically) have a claim of some sort.

The clubs’ contract for prize money payment is/was the SPFL/SPL. 

Assume the titles are stripped. The old Rangers FC will consequently owe the SPFL/SPL many £millions in wrongly paid prize money – but the SPFL/SPL will owe those same amounts to the clubs whose league placings are retrospectively amended. Actually, it will owe more than just the difference in prize money – because there will have been knock-on effects and some club’s may well feel that the SPFL/SPL hold some culpability in those additional losses.

As a creditor, it would get next to nothing from the liquidated club, so there is no chance whatsoever that it would be able to meet its liabilities.

Have no doubt, the SPFL/SPL has its very existence at stake. Its really important for us to recognise that the organisation’s potentially fatal liability only ‘crystalizes’ if/when titles are stripped.

The SPFL simply cannot remove the titles without a solid protection from the debts it would then incur. 

The only way that the SPFL can look at the misregistration issue with a truly unconflicted outlook, is if the clubs first vote in a general meeting (with the requisite majority) that the liability to other clubs – if/when league positions are retrospectively amended –  rests solely with the miscreant club.

If we are to call out the SPFL/SPL for not dealing with this matter, we need to point out the issue around financial liability and ask what it is doing to remove that confliction now and in the future.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on11:15 pm - Jul 22, 2017


If the GB statement had been on Club 1872 headed note paper, apart from the mention of cheating down Ibrox way, would folks have noted any major differences between the two organisations in terms of playing the victim card and coming across as self absorbed windbags?

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:01 am - Jul 23, 2017


HirsutePursuitJuly 22, 2017 at 23:12
‘…If titles are stripped. The prize money and outcomes need to be reallocated. This isn’t just about Celtic. Every professional club in Scotland may (theoretically) have a claim of some sort.’
___________
Yes, it moves the debate away from a ‘merely’  sporting context into the hard world of finance!

The cheating carefully planned and executed by SDM has cost a lot of other people a lot of ‘MONEY’.

( And why Milne in particular is so unconcerned about that is a bit of a mystery, by the way).

As you rightly surmise, HP, our Football ‘mis-users of authority’ Authorities are in a ‘Macbeth’ situation, and  a ‘Wild Bunch’ situation and  a ‘Bad Day at  Blackrock’  situation.

They are trapped in their evil-doing, but ,even knowing that their guilt cannot be expunged,  in their perverse badness keep on killing in what they know is a fruitless attempt to escape!

God grant that there may be enough honest men ( and woman) to square up to the truth, and be brave enough to lance (  what an appropriate word, given that I am talking about sports cheating!) that big bloody cancerous lesion festering away in the very bowels of Scottish Football, and thereby restore some truth and integrity to our game.

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on12:13 am - Jul 23, 2017


HP
I get your point re prize money, although what is being called for here is a review of the Nimmo-Smith findings. I do think the clamour for ‘title stripping’ is both unhelpful and inaccurate.

Also, I’m not sure there were any monetary adjustments made when Marseilles were stripped of their EC.
I think the workaround to the difficulty you foresee is to simply set any titles aside – assuming of course that the review finds a sporting penalty to be appropriate.

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on12:19 am - Jul 23, 2017





Ernie,
I find it discouraging, and a bit odd, that Milne should have made a statement like that without first touching base with the Aberdeen fans who had already made their feelings unequivocally clear.

And if he thinks that a statement designed to keep one half of Glasgow onside will benefit his wider WoS business interests, it may be a sign that his business acumen has deserted him. ?

View Comment

View Comment

View Comment

View Comment

aberdeen1970Posted on12:30 am - Jul 23, 2017


Down my way, there are mutterings about the new contract for McInnes, the possible(!) fairly imminent departure of Caixinha and ( desired in many quarters) replacement of same by McInnes, and with a nice wee enhanced compensation figure if McInnes is persuaded to go to the job of his dreams …

Interesting and humorous conspiracy theory.  I’d suggest there is zero truth in that particular rumour. Are they suggesting that if McInnes went to one particular club the compensation would be higher than if he went to any other club? Or that Milne would rather McInnes left Aberdeen rather than stayed so he can get a slightly higher compensation figure than they could have got a few weeks ago from Sunderland without going through all the hard work persuading the manager to stay then subsequently sign a new contract?  Or indeed that the Ibrox club could even afford such a sizeable fee? I think those who have came up with this theory didn’t really think that one through properly. 

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on12:45 am - Jul 23, 2017


Finloch, I agree that this is a start with regard to what appears to be a genuine attempt to increase accountability to the game. I also agree that it was not overly politicised, and in fact the SFSA appears to enjoy cross party sympathies at Holyrood.
My concern is over the elephants in the room that you mention. No-one at the SFSA has been outspoken on any of the major controversies in the game in the last five years or so. I am therefore a tad concerned that in the interests of attracting the widest possible membership, none of these elephants will be acknowledged, none of those nettles will be grasped.
I remain hopeful that my face will be egg-ridden in the not too distant future.

View Comment

aberdeen1970Posted on12:51 am - Jul 23, 2017


I agree with Smugas on the Milne comments.   I think he has been stitched up.  He’s always been pretty clumsy in his media dealings.  I suspect that the newspaper have selected a portion of his quotes from a wider piece and used those quotes to support the story they wanted to print. 
He should really decline all interviews and leave others at the club who are more competent in that area to deal with the media.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:53 am - Jul 23, 2017


I mentioned Mr Paul Noble in connection with his choice of words calculated to avoid having to say that ‘Rangers’ died the death of Liquidation.

He is not, of course, the first to use , not actually untruthful, but nevertheless misleading language.

I had a wee look , earlier this evening at the ‘Prospectus’ issued by RIFC plc when they went public.

And the wee sneaky bit was there ,as being in the DNA.

In the Prospectus , we can see this:”…RFCL acquired the assets of the club on 14 June 2012 from RFC 2012 plc..”

No, it was SevcoScotland Ltd , incorporated on 29/05/12, who ‘purchased the assets’ on 14 June 2012.

Because the name change to ‘The Rangers Football Club Ltd’ [ RFCL in the Prospectus] was effected only on 31 July 2012.

So, you can see the deceitful intent was there,  to try to persuade sucker investors, in that lovely, big-handed boy foot-race champion, Yorkshire way, that the little b…ard new club was the ‘Rangers’ of old fame/notoriety

The devil is said to be  the father of lies.

And, my, isn’t he daddy to TRFC/RIFC?

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:25 am - Jul 23, 2017


aberdeen1970July 23, 2017 at 00:30
‘….Interesting and humorous conspiracy theory. .’
____________
In an expression used by  Captain Aubrey in that really good ‘Aubrey/Maturin’ novel series, you have smoked me out!19

I have no idea why Milne takes the view he takes, and why he wishes to propagate that view.He is entitled to his view, of course.

But it is a view that is so apparently ready to accept cheating in sport as to make one question what the man’s motivation  actually is.

Peace,Chamberlain-style, at any price? Profit over principle? Submission to corrupt forces?

And, make no mistake, that is what we are dealing with.

Namely, a Football Governance body that allowed a cheating club to get monies that it was not entitled to, and that propagates a lie about a dead club  being alive!

And , forgive me, a Chairman/owner of Aberdeen FC who seems to think that cheating can be ignored and that we should all move on.

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on2:23 am - Jul 23, 2017


BIG PINKJULY 23, 2017 at 00:13  Rate This 
HPI get your point re prize money, although what is being called for here is a review of the Nimmo-Smith findings. I do think the clamour for ‘title stripping’ is both unhelpful and inaccurate.
Also, I’m not sure there were any monetary adjustments made when Marseilles were stripped of their EC.I think the workaround to the difficulty you foresee is to simply set any titles aside – assuming of course that the review finds a sporting penalty to be appropriate.
,………………..
BP
I don’t think the SPFL/SPL can even contemplate holding a fresh enquiry without considering the ramifications of all of the possible outcomes. If it cannot deliver on what would be a possible/likely outcome – disqualification from past competitions – what would be the point? Other than, of course, to present itself for even greater ridicule.

In relation to Marseille, I presume you mean the French League title. The club kept the EC – as no proof was found that any European games were affected.

Interestingly, PSG were “offered” Marseille’s forfeited league title but refused it. Unfortunately, not for any sense of honour or sportsmanship. If only!

PSG, owned by Canel+ , was concerned that the TV broadcaster would lose a significant number of subscribers/viewers outside of Paris. The 1992/93 Ligue 1 title was therefore left vacant.

However, I would be very surprised, though I do not know, if Marseille were not ordered to repay the tainted league prize money.

To be clear, I agree that a fresh enquiry is the way to go. What I am saying is that the SPFL/SPL must firstly remove any financial obstacles from any of its possible outcomes before such an enquiry could commence.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on7:26 am - Jul 23, 2017


   Ah well, as its conspiracy day, and many a truth is born of conspiracy, lets have a wee see. 
If Milne has been mis-quoted, there is nothing preventing him releasing an angry clarifying statement.
I wonder if Minty’s green belt new build, is up for contractors tender yet?..Will they be timber frames?
…….Just asking.  07
    As pointed out above…..The purse money will be problematic, and I have suggested an amnesty, but supposing not?…..Supposing there is hope that wee Craigy might just make it all go away, by making Sevco go away? …It’s not ideal, but the fix is in to keep a new new club in the same league.
   As a get out of jail card emergency plan B, A third Rangers is not a bad option. Do it properly with Newco newco Sevco starting on zero titles, but with an ethereal,  though not official claim on them, and they could all look like Heroes, (except Craigy) given a few Jabba-risms in the SMSM.
   Lazy Sunday motnings eh…….Keep turning the screw Bams. 04 
   

View Comment

FinlochPosted on7:52 am - Jul 23, 2017


BIG PINKJULY 23, 2017 at 00:45 
Finloch, I agree that this is a start with regard to what appears to be a genuine attempt to increase accountability to the game. I also agree that it was not overly politicised, and in fact the SFSA appears to enjoy cross party sympathies at Holyrood.My concern is over the elephants in the room that you mention. No-one at the SFSA has been outspoken on any of the major controversies in the game in the last five years or so. I am therefore a tad concerned that in the interests of attracting the widest possible membership, none of these elephants will be acknowledged, none of those nettles will be grasped.I remain hopeful that my face will be egg-ridden in the not too distant future.
———————————————————————————————–

I can’t and don’t disagree with you.

Sooner or later the SFSA will have to make and take stances on some of the differences that divide the community of fans in Scotland.

That won’t be easy even with the borrowed wisdom of Shankly.
 

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on8:10 am - Jul 23, 2017


JOHN CLARKJULY 22, 2017 at 22:51       4 Votes 
Cluster OneJuly 22, 2017 at 21:57‘…If these banners appear at scottish football grounds will the fans be asked to take them down?’________________I suggest to my learned friend ( i.e you, Cluster One ) that there is nothing in the Lord Advocate’s guidance as in this linkhttp://www.crownoffice.gov.uk/images/Documents/Prosecution_Policy_Guidance/Lord_Advocates_Guidelines/Lord%20Advocates%20Guidlines%20-%20Offensive%20Behaviour%20at%20Football%20and%20Threatening%20Communications%20Scotland%20Act%202012.pdfthat would require them to be removed!
—————
That was a good read,thanks for that.  I suggest to my learned friend ( i.e you, Cluster One ) I’m all chuffed with that16
———–
CORRUPT OFFICIALJULY 23, 2017 at 07:26       Rate This 
   Ah well, as its conspiracy day,
—-
Ok..The GB were going to boycot those two games anyway because of celtic’s inaction on the cheating,and PL just got in first with the banners giving him the oppertunity to strike first14

View Comment

aberdeen1970Posted on8:59 am - Jul 23, 2017


If Milne has been mis-quoted, there is nothing preventing him  releasing an angry clarifying statement.

I think it is less a case of being misquoted and more a case of having some of his sentences cut and pasted into an article which suits the newspaper’s agenda.
I’m not agreeing with some of his comments but I don’t think he is the bogeyman that some are painting him as. His media dealings are continually embarrassing, I would suggest inept rather than corrupt.
Duncan Fraser’s email on the sit on the fence site suggests that the club have a pretty firm view of the nimmo enquiry regarding the inappropriateness of the scope, the decision,  the scale of punishment and the lack of scope left for appeal.
Let’s not encourage the Aberdeen fans to inflict self harm on their club due to Milne’s statement which I believe to be a mixture of the gullible on his part and mischieviousness on the reporter’s part.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on9:02 am - Jul 23, 2017


CLUSTER ONEJULY 23, 2017 at 08:10
    “CORRUPT OFFICIALJULY 23, 2017 at 07:26       Rate This    Ah well, as its conspiracy day,—-Ok..The GB were going to boycot those two games anyway because of celtic’s inaction on the cheating,and PL just got in first with the banners giving him the oppertunity to strike first ”
   ——————————————————————————————————–
   Possibly a good call C1, as the opposing statements mean one side is being economical with the truth. 
   The GB are a puzzle to me. I love the colour, imagination and noise they bring to the game, but that’s about it.   Politics?…. It’s not that I don’t share some of their political beliefs, it’s more that they have nothing to do with me.
   I am Scottish born, of Scottish parents and grandparents, and proud of it. To me Celtic are a Scottish club, and I doubt I am alone in that. I have no religion, and I doubt I am alone in that. 
   When I am in Scotland, I go to support my club and watch the fitba in a great atmosphere. I doubt I am alone in that. Broadcasting any political beliefs I have is not a condition of my entry. 
    Leave them outside, as I do ! 
    I just thought I would clarify that, as BP cuffed my ear the other day. 19

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on9:16 am - Jul 23, 2017


WOTTPIJULY 22, 2017 at 23:15  
If the GB statement had been on Club 1872 headed note paper, apart from the mention of cheating down Ibrox way, would folks have noted any major differences between the two organisations in terms of playing the victim card and coming across as self absorbed windbags?

===========================

I think the GB may be about to find out the people with real influence at Celtic did not get where they are in life by being a soft touch.  I have not yet spoken to any fellow fans who have any sympathy with them – sometimes social media is not an accurate indicator of how an entire group of people feel. I have encountered occasional whataboutery and lack of Scottish media/UEFA action, and in my view much of it is valid, but everyone agrees getting your own house in order is the absolute priority.

As an aside one of the UEFA charges against Celtic was for blocked passageways in the GB area. Anyone at the game could see this was the fault of the Police. I find it incredible that no journalist at the game is willing to say this. The GB have many faults, and I want them addressed as much as anyone, but this particular charge is concerning.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on9:56 am - Jul 23, 2017


The Herald reporting on the stuff EJ brought up the other day with regards the floating charge etc.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15428043.Rangers___39_oldcos__39__stalk_the_club/?ref=mrb&lp=1

IN another astonishing turn in the Rangers financial saga both the old company which owned the club and the new one in control are likely to face multi-million pound claims on their assets.

Continues …

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on10:06 am - Jul 23, 2017


HOMUNCULUSJULY 23, 2017 at 09:56
      “Following Whyte’s calamitous ownership, in June 2012 Charles Green completed the purchase of Rangers’ assets for £5.5m through Sevco 5088. The new Sevco claim will centre on the ownership of Rangers and the transfer of assets, such as the Ibrox ground and the Auchenhowie training complex, by Green to another of his companies, Sevco Scotland, and the substantial upward revaluation of these assets.”
    ————————————————————————————————–
   Oh Dear !…….Didn’t Chuckles, his adoring press, and Pinsent Mason claim it didn’t touch Sevco 5088, as there would be no membership for them if wee Craigy was involved?   

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on10:22 am - Jul 23, 2017


There’s the rub though CO.

It was Sevco 5088 which Duff and Phelps agreed to sell the assets to, but sold them to Sevco Scotland.

No-one has ever seen anything to support that novation took place. 

So where’s the justification.

I think this is more of an issue than the floating charge personally. However who knows when the whole commercial law thing kicks in.

View Comment

billyj1Posted on10:23 am - Jul 23, 2017


Testing 1 2 3

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on10:37 am - Jul 23, 2017


If Ron McKay, the author of the Herald article, had cared to read the last BDO Creditors Report, he would have been able to provide his readers with more accurate info, e.g.

“BDO holds substantial liquidation funds, believed to be in excess of £30m, including £24m from the lawyers Collyer Bristow who acted for Whyte.”

The last BDO Creditors report confirms that the Creditors’ pot is down to £15m, but it also provides some detail on the size of the “Wavetower Claim” 

“As the alleged Wavetower claim of c£3.5m purports to be secured, the Joint Liquidators have beenliaising with their legal team to understand what further steps are required.”

JC attended a Court of Session hearing with Henderson & Jones represented and can confirm that the current claim is lower than the £3.5m figure quoted above.

McKay is relying on Lord Doherty’s decision, dated 16 March 2016.  Things have moved on somewhat.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on10:43 am - Jul 23, 2017


EASYJAMBO
JULY 23, 2017 at 10:37
==============================

Indeed, as you have pointed out here previously. 

As I said I am more interested in the novation, or lack thereof, and what action could possibly be taken in relation to that. Could Sevco 5088 seek compensation from Sevco Scotland. 

They would of course ignore the trading (at a loss) but look at the value of the assets they lost out on.

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on11:03 am - Jul 23, 2017


Some very interesting posts over the last 24hrs. Thanks to all who’ve posted.

Re Milne: I can only think he has one eye on the huge residential development on the outskirts of Edinburgh & thinks that the potential financial rewards from that will outweigh any football-related reputational damage.

Re title-stripping & the prize money re-allocation scenario: The prize money is all but unrecoverable.  I do wonder what might happen if any of the financial institutions who took a hit when several clubs restructured (& had written-down) their debt realises that some of their losses was down to the catastrophic mismanagement of the governing bodies.

Re the GB: It’s a spectacular own-goal by the GB. They can’t win. I suppose CFC would rather shut down that section for this season & refund any monies paid than allow the GB to continue as they are. 

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on11:16 am - Jul 23, 2017


HP.
I stand corrected on the EC thing. I must have confused it with the set-aside title.
I get your point re financial obstacles, but I think that a decision whether or not to hold an enquiry being dependent upon that would yet again put sporting integrity at the bottom of the priorities pile.
Making your judgement a sound one, given who we are dealing with.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on11:17 am - Jul 23, 2017


HOMUNCULUSJULY 23, 2017 at 10:22 
There’s the rub though CO.
It was Sevco 5088 which Duff and Phelps agreed to sell the assets to, but sold them to Sevco Scotland.
No-one has ever seen anything to support that novation took place. 
So where’s the justification.
I think this is more of an issue than the floating charge personally. However who knows when the whole commercial law thing kicks in.
   ——————————————————————————————————
  Personally HOMUNCULUS, I have always been of the opinion something does exist to have allowed the asset transfer to take place. Purely on the grounds that for it not to, D&P would have been mental not to have something. It was they who really publicised the two pronged deal. (i.e. £8.5m CVA loan, or £5.5m asset purchase). 
   Maybe it does exist, but he hasn’t been paid yet?. 
   Either way, Craigy’s shares were essential to be in a position for the two pronged bid. This may be reflected in his lower quantum now being his claim, possibly as a result of the CVA  failure. with a higher quantum being for a success.  

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on11:20 am - Jul 23, 2017


CO
Would never presume to cuff anyone’s lug on here ?

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on12:21 pm - Jul 23, 2017


BIG PINKJULY 23, 2017 at 11:20  
COWould never presume to cuff anyone’s lug on here 
  ———————————————————————
   Away wi ye. You school teachers have a way about you. I know a telling off when I get one (Which was often) 1510

View Comment

roddybhoyPosted on12:21 pm - Jul 23, 2017


Regarding Milnes statement I personally dont believe it is anything to do with misquoting . After reading JJs latest I would bet thats something more like the truth . Did nt realise that Milnes Company ran with that kind of debt, cant be healthy and must be a worry for Aberdeen fans and genuine football fans too. Also people talking about title stripping , Absoloutely get that but personally I would focus on a proper Independent review and ridding our game of the corrupt SFA and SPFL achieve that then everything else like title stripping should fall into place. Focus on title stripping only just plays into the SFA , SPFL and Medias hands of it being a Celtic Rangers thing

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on12:45 pm - Jul 23, 2017


Aidan Earley’s comments about a legal claim from yesterday, implicating D&P. I would like to see the affidavit from D&P.

https://www.aidanearley.org/news/

Prior to the purchase of Rangers Football Club in May 2011, MCR (insolvency and restructuring specialists) were retained by Mr Whyte to advise on all aspects of the transaction. Prior to the completion of the Rangers takeover MCR was sold to Duff and Phelps for a significant initial consideration but which also included a multi million pound deferred consideration. This deferred consideration specifically related to a major insolvency case from which the vendors of MCR were hoping and expecting to earn very substantial fees. Unbeknown to Mr Whyte that large insolvency case was none other than Rangers Football Club plc. So at the time that Mr Whyte was retaining them to advise on a successful restructuring of Rangers, they actually had a direct multi million pound incentive to ensure that Rangers went into liquidation/administration instead. Following the takeover of Rangers by Wavetower (the Whyte vehicle) the MCR team, now part of Duff and Phelps, were retained to negotiate with HMRC in order to agree a solution to the various tax problems faced by Rangers. However, instead of negotiating in good faith on behalf of Rangers/Wavetower, having been retained to do so, they actually advised HMRC to reject any restructuring proposals coming from Rangers and to appoint them as administrators instead. Following the administration of Rangers the MCR vendors were then able to, and did, receive the multi million deferred consideration they had planned. This unethical, and probably illegal, treachery is evidenced in an affidavit from HMRC. Similarly, the multi million pound deferred consideration incentive is confirmed by an affidavit submitted by the CEO of Duff and Phelps in the recent Scottish trial.
 
The losses and reputational damage resulting from this duplicity is the subject of the Second Legal Claim.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on12:54 pm - Jul 23, 2017


If Earley’s claims are correct then the saga has a bit more mileage in it yet, and the lawyers will be rubbing their hands once more.

Another interesting snippet from Earley’s website is the following statement, which may explain his and Whyte’s continuing involvement.

The April 2013 share purchase agreement relating to Worthington’s interest in Law Financial contained an insolvency clause so that, in the event of the insolvency of Worthington, ownership of Law Financial would revert to the vendors. The vendors of Law Financial are willing to waive this insolvency clause subject to the successful exit of Worthington from liquidation via CVA. Proposals in this respect are intended to be submitted to the liquidators within the next two weeks.

View Comment

woodsteinPosted on12:56 pm - Jul 23, 2017


Re Sevco ?????

Paul McConville above

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:57 pm - Jul 23, 2017


easyJamboJuly 23, 2017 at 10:37
‘  …JC attended a Court of Session hearing with Henderson & Jones represented and can confirm that the current claim is lower than the £3.5m figure quoted above.’
______
Yes,the figure I scribbled in the wee note-book I was trying to hide ( never too sure about restrictions!) is £2.8 millions.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on1:00 pm - Jul 23, 2017


HirsutePursuitJuly 22, 2017 at 23:12  
Follow the money. Always follow the money.If titles are stripped. The prize money and outcomes need to be reallocated. This isn’t just about Celtic. Every professional club in Scotland may (theoretically) have a claim of some sort.The clubs’ contract for prize money payment is/was the SPFL/SPL. Assume the titles are stripped. The old Rangers FC will consequently owe the SPFL/SPL many £millions in wrongly paid prize money – but the SPFL/SPL will owe those same amounts to the clubs whose league placings are retrospectively amended. Actually, it will owe more than just the difference in prize money – because there will have been knock-on effects and some club’s may well feel that the SPFL/SPL hold some culpability in those additional losses.As a creditor, it would get next to nothing from the liquidated club, so there is no chance whatsoever that it would be able to meet its liabilities.Have no doubt, the SPFL/SPL has its very existence at stake. Its really important for us to recognise that the organisation’s potentially fatal liability only ‘crystalizes’ if/when titles are stripped.The SPFL simply cannot remove the titles without a solid protection from the debts it would then incur. The only way that the SPFL can look at the misregistration issue with a truly unconflicted outlook, is if the clubs first vote in a general meeting (with the requisite majority) that the liability to other clubs – if/when league positions are retrospectively amended –  rests solely with the miscreant club.If we are to call out the SPFL/SPL for not dealing with this matter, we need to point out the issue around financial liability and ask what it is doing to remove that confliction now and in the future.
___________________________–

To have the titles removed from RFC would not require reallocation of prize money, just a notation in the league records that they were removed due to ‘financial irregularities’ or some such, which would leave every club in the same position that they finished in in each of the respective seasons. Not only is it the only feasible outcome, it is the one most likely to be accepted by the game’s governors and excuse makers, and cause least disquiet (well what would you have me call it?) amongst the supporters of the old club.

I think it is extremely important that all calls for ‘title stripping’ make it clear that we only want the right to those titles removed from a club that has cheated. thus removing, as far as possible, the massive problems that reallocation would cause, and the counter any claim that it’s only Celtic supporters who want them stripped. Plus, seeing Celtic get ‘their titles’ would ramp up the ‘disquiet’ to unprecedented levels.  

I think it is very important that, should calls for title stripping begin to make progress, that we don’t give the ‘let’s move on’ brigade the slightest argument against it by looking for anything more than the removal of titles.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on1:14 pm - Jul 23, 2017


Big PinkJuly 23, 2017 at 00:19   Ernie,I find it discouraging, and a bit odd, that Milne should have made a statement like that without first touching base with the Aberdeen fans who had already made their feelings unequivocally clear. And if he thinks that a statement designed to keep one half of Glasgow onside will benefit his wider WoS business interests, it may be a sign that his business acumen has deserted him.
__________________________

I think you do your fellow Celtic supporters a disservice by suggesting they’d not buy a house (perhaps their ideal home) from Milne’s company just because of this statement, cutting off one’s nose comes to mind, but I do see how many Rangers (IL) supporters might choose not to do business with his company should he be seen to be complicit in ‘steeling’ their titles! They do have previous for boycotts etc, and I doubt they’d even buy a house with a green door, let alone one built by a ‘Rangers hater’!

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on1:27 pm - Jul 23, 2017


BP
Neil Doncaster once described the SPL as akin to a “trade association”.
https://www.channel4.com/news/spl-boss-rules-applied-without-fear-nor-favour

IMO, the SPFL/SPL should never ever be confused with a footballing governing body. The problem I have is that we seem to be acting under the false premise that it exists to look after the interests of football in Scotland. It absolutely does not. It never has and never will. The SPFL/SPL exist only to maximize the financial benefit to its members.

The enquiry I would like to see is one that includes an examination of the stated purpose of the SPFL/SPL and the inherent conflicts of interest when questions of sporting integrity arise.

It is outrageous, for example, that this trade association was allowed to sign up to a TV contract that provides a financial incentive to keep particular members in its top league.

Whose role was was it to ensure that sporting integrity was assured when that deal was signed? 

Certainly not anyone at the SPFL/SPL.

Its role is simply to maximize the benefit to its members. A TV deal that left sporting integrity at the door arguably gave the best financial return, so job done. 

It is the SFA who is charged to uphold the integrity of its competitions. All competitive football in Scotland is under the ultimate purview of the SFA.

What would really be achieved by an enquiry set up and administered by the SPFL/SPL in its present form? What practical outcome could be achieved that would be in its self interest AND satisfy the demands of sporting integrity?

The EBT/misregistration debacle is a merely a symptom of the underlying conflict of interest that is fundamental to the operation of the SPFL/SPL. It was purposely designed into its creation.

IMO we require an enquiry that begins with an honest analysis of the independence of the SFA to act against miscreant members. The miscreant member in question being the SPFL/SPL.

It must be able to make recommendations that would design out the conflicts of sporting integrity with base financial imperatives.

It is only when that structural job is done, a proper (in all meanings of the word) examination of the EBT/misregistration circumstances can be undertaken.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on1:44 pm - Jul 23, 2017


HomunculusJuly 23, 2017 at 09:56  
The Herald reporting on the stuff EJ brought up the other day with regards the floating charge etc.http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15428043.Rangers___39_oldcos__39__stalk_the_club/?ref=mrb&lp=1IN another astonishing turn in the Rangers financial saga both the old company which owned the club and the new one in control are likely to face multi-million pound claims on their assets.Continues …
______

Well, that was a remarkably accurate article from the Herald, I take it the writer is not of their sports variety22, describing properly the purchase of the original club’s assets as exactly that, though he did say that Rangers administration was as a result of Whyte running out of money, when it was the club, itself, that fell into insolvency.

In suggesting that the new club might be effected financially we have to bear in mind that it is a Herald article, and we can’t accept as accurate a story in a publication we usually slag off as a rag, but, perhaps the journalists involved is more of a business/financial mind and has the ability to understand what’s happening here better than most. 

As you correctly pointed out, Homunculus, thanks to EJ, SFM trumped the SMSM yet again04

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on7:17 pm - Jul 23, 2017


Its amazing the stuff you come across when reading publications from the past that have created the present where in the past

a) Rangers were viewed as a single corporeal entity much as a human being is thought as such rather than being of mind, body and spirit.

b) Everyone thought Rangers went bust because they could no longer operate as a going concern.

On a) this is interesting from the examination of preliminary issues in the first stages of the LNS Commission.

” The relationship between SPL Limited and Oldco is one of contract.  By its membership of SPL Limited a contract was constituted in accordance with the terms of the Articles of Association of SPL Limited (SPL 85) and the Rules of the Scottish Premier League (“SPL”) (SPL 86).

 Both SPL Limited and Oldco are companies incorporated under the Companies Acts limited by shares.
 Rangers Football Club (“Rangers FC”) was at all material times owned and operated by Oldco. 

Rangers FC has no separate legal personality but it has an identity which is recognised by the Articles of Association of SPL Limited, the Rules of the SPL, the parties to the agreement at SPL 100 and Newco, see SPL 40. “

So the SPL recognised Rangers identity but the contract between SPL and Rangers was with something else called “Oldco” (how many titles did Oldco win, anyone?

This is where the myth of separation was born, it is apparently part of SPL Articles, an immortality certificate. Rangers FC has no legal personality but does that not mean that legally they never existed at all? 

Are TRFC/RIFC finding it difficult to get a credit line from a bank because a bank is not sure if it is loaning money to a corporeal legal entity or an identity formed by SPL rules which is less likely to repay loans under the same identity the SPL Articles recognise?

Would it not have been so much simpler to say Rangers FC were a football club that is a legal entity with membership of the SFA?

Hmm that sounds familiar .. Oh yes. its what Article 12 of UEFA FFP says about licensing applicants that

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

(either: a) is a registered member of a UEFA member association and/or its affiliated league.”

(I’ve left out (b) which requires a written contract between an operating company and a club under a) as no such contract existed before 2011 – and does  one exist now between TRFC and RIFC?).

All this cognitive dissonance caused by the SPL Articles is making my two heads spin.

Now if you are still with me lets move on Billy Connolly style to the idea we all had that something (we are no longer sure what) went bust.

This is from a summary BDP Report to creditors

 ” As part of a wider agreement with the Joint Administrators which was finalised prior to the CVA meetings, Newco was obliged to purchase the business, history and certain assets of the Company should the CVA fail. Accordingly a going concern sale to Newco completed shortly after the meetings, which has resulted in the Joint Administrators achieving the second objective identified on the previous page, as a better result for creditors has been achieved than if the Company had been wound up without having first being in Administration.”

A going concern sale??? Of what? It has to be The Rangers Identity, because the only place Rangers FC were going of concern was liquidation.

But how can an identity humph a stadium etc to a new company and can an identity with its history really be sold?
Did Duff and Phelps mean Newco would be a going concern, which with the debt dumped on Oldco would be true, but the language suggests the legal entity that was Oldco or is it its identity as Rangers FC, never went bust.

Myths are what happen when you get sophistry merchants involved in the running of our game, like Pharisees* they know how to use words to justify their deeds with absolutely no feel for the ethics, the underlying spirit (in this case of sport) that words are meant to convey.

* The word Pharisee is derived from an Aramaic word meaning, “separated.” They were a group that held to the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the dead, and punishment in future life.

How apt, but without waiting. 16

https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_1316.cfm

Gamaliel, Nicodemus – Regan and Doncaster?

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on7:46 pm - Jul 23, 2017


HirsutePursuitJuly 23, 2017 at 13:27 (Edit)

I’ve said before, if the relationship between the SFA and SPFL were to be represented in a graphic say a pyramid for hierarchical structures then the graphic would look like a Mobius Strip.
http://wonderopolis.org/wonder/what-is-a-mobius-strip

An independent root and branch review by business professionals  is needed which would be a recommendation after an investigation took place or as a first step of a business type review.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:50 pm - Jul 23, 2017


AULDHEIDJULY 23, 2017 at 19:17
A going concern sale??? Of what? It has to be The Rangers Identity, because the only place Rangers FC were going of concern was liquidation.
——————-
If SFM did an emoji for tea all over the screen.
because the only place Rangers FC were going of concern was liquidation.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on7:51 pm - Jul 23, 2017


AllyjamboJuly 23, 2017 at 13:00 (Edit)  14 Votes 
HirsutePursuitJuly 22, 2017 at 23:12  

First step has to be a financial amnesty on the simple basis that the game could not afford the cost of compensation.
For the good of the game and its future!

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on8:03 pm - Jul 23, 2017


AULDHEIDJULY 23, 2017 at 19:46
I’ve said before, if the relationship between the SFA and SPFL were to be represented in a graphic say a pyramid for hierarchical structures then the graphic would look like a Mobius Strip.http://wonderopolis.org/wonder/what-is-a-mobius-strip
—————
Great link thanks, this picture came to my mind before i clicked on link,don’t know if it is a mobius-strip?
But it’s what i see when i read the SMSM tying themselves up in knots trying to explain an ibrox club was not liquidated

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on8:14 pm - Jul 23, 2017


Auldheid
This part rips my knitting 

Rangers Football Club (“Rangers FC”) was at all material times owned and operated by Oldco

It is factually incorrect.

The original SPL articles (which remained in force till 2005) had no such construct as “owner and operator”. 

Even if you accept the separation of Club with company (which I do not) the articles on which this fantasy relies, only came into existence in late 2005. So even if you are an avid adherent of the continuity myth, the very best it gets you is a Club created in 2005. Prior to that the SPL articles just had plain old association football clubs which were all companies. Rangers FC WAS oldco
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC175364/filing-history/MDE0MTg4MzA1OGFkaXF6a2N4/document?format=pdf&download=0

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on8:23 pm - Jul 23, 2017


easyJamboJuly 23, 2017 at 12:45 (Edit)

Wow.
Funny though I don’t recall David Grier of MCR doing anything to sink RFC. His role as described by Earley was to negotiate the payment or more accurately non payment of RFC’s wee tax liability of£2.8M and he strung HMRC along from 6th May until Rangers bought Lee Wallace in third week of July 2011.
This led to the warrant delivered by Sherriff Officers on 10th August. Thereafter Grier was still involved in offers to pay the wtc bill in instalments until end of August all rejected by HMRC.
If CW did have any restructuring plans we all know now they were blown away after successive defeats to Malmo and Maribor in the CL and EL in August 2011 and it was in September CW started the road to administration/liquidation when he ordered his accountant not to pay PAYE or VAT.
Based on that song sheet Earley is whistling Dixie but he might have another song sheet that sings a different tune.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on8:27 pm - Jul 23, 2017


HirsutePursuitJuly 23, 2017 at 20:14 (Edit)

Interesting. I did wonder what SPL Articles said, so whoever advised whoever raised the preliminary issues told porkies?

I’m betting it was Nicodemus. 12

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on8:34 pm - Jul 23, 2017


It’s quite so i looked it up
It’s A cardioid (from the Greek καρδία “heart”) is a plane curve traced by a point on the perimeter of a circle that is rolling around a fixed circle of the same radius. It can also be defined as an epicycloid having a single cusp.
————–
As i said the smsm going round and round in circles trying not to say rangers football club was not liquidated

View Comment

goosygoosyPosted on9:16 pm - Jul 23, 2017


HIRSUTEPURSUIT
JULY 23, 2017 at 13:27
 BP Neil Doncaster once described the SPL as akin to a “trade association”. https://www.channel4.com/news/spl-boss-rules-applied-without-fear-nor-favour
IMO, the SPFL/SPL should never ever be confused with a footballing governing body. The problem I have is that we seem to be acting under the false premise that it exists to look after the interests of football in Scotland. It absolutely does not. It never has and never will. The SPFL/SPL exist only to maximize the financial benefit to its members.
The enquiry I would like to see is one that includes an examination of the stated purpose of the SPFL/SPL and the inherent conflicts of interest when questions of sporting integrity arise.
It is outrageous, for example, that this trade association was allowed to sign up to a TV contract that provides a financial incentive to keep particular members in its top league.
Whose role was it to ensure that sporting integrity was assured when that deal was signed? 
Certainly not anyone at the SPFL/SP
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Heres another view
If the SPFL are no more than a trade association, they have no jurisdiction over whether RFC plc broke SFA rules by playing illegally registered  players. At best the SPFL have jurisdiction  on the financial consequences of RFC plc cheating other member clubs
This leaves  moral and fairness questions  as matters solely for the SFA.
 The SFA cannot escape from the fact that as the supreme body in Scottish football they are responsible  for definitive rulings when major moral and fairness questions arise
This obligation is not simply to SFA member clubs. It is a responsibility they owe to paying customers and society as a whole. They have actively  encouraged the public to believe that the SFA are the moral and fairness guardians of last resort. This is why the Police and the SG have turned instinctively to the SFA  in their child abuse investigations. They have sought out whether the SFA are following their own rules and processes to minimise the corruption and abuse of children in their care.
This is why the behaviour of the SFA in response to the SC decision is so puzzling
The Rangers cheating issue is fairly and squarely a matter of morality and fairness both for other member clubs and their customers. Nobody is agitating for financial recompense or re allocation of trophies as happens in other sports. All they are seeking is the application of morality and fairness to a culprit who behaved without morality and fairness.
By framing the issue in quasi legal terms the SFA may think they have found a neat way out of  facing up to their moral responsibility.
The reality is quite different
The SFA board were required to consider a moral and fairness issue and refused to act. In doing so they have acted out with their remit. They have a duty as the supreme body to make a moral judgement on the fairness of Rangers behaviour now that the SC has made a final decision.
By acting outwith their remit the SFA have effectively refused to do their job. They could have approved or disapproved  of the Rangers cheating saga on moral and fairness grounds. They chose to say nothing. By saying nothing they are telling their members, their customers, their employees and the citizens of Scotland that they are unwilling to give a ruling on this specific  moral issue.
They are refusing to acknowledge the belief system they themselves promote to their members. This makes their Statement a constitutional issue for all members of the SFA.
The SFA have acted as if they believe the behaviour of  RFC typifies a new type of special moral and fairness case that cannot be judged using moral and fairness criteria.
If so
Then this proposition need to be formally endorsed by SFA and its constitution amended appropriately
Meaning
Rules need to be drawn up defining future special cases that should be treated solely on legal grounds This will ensure that that elected Board Members have the power to act without taking account of morality or fairness
Constitutional issues need to be approved by at least two thirds of all members at an EGM called specifically for this purpose
This is the one route still left open to the SFA Board
Apart from resigning en masse

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on9:31 pm - Jul 23, 2017


Auldheid  July 23, 2017 at 20:27 
HirsutePursuitJuly 23, 2017 at 20:14 (Edit)
Interesting. I did wonder what SPL Articles said, so whoever advised whoever raised the preliminary issues told porkies?
======================
On 23 May 2005 a GM of the SPL agreed Articles which included references to clubs as follows:
Scottish Premier League Club means a football club which is for the time being a member of the Company in accordance with the Rules;

…… and under Share Capital

Shares shall only be issued, allotted or transferred to or held by football clubs entitled, pursuant to these Articles and the Rules, to be Scottish Premier League Clubs.
======================
On 21 July 2005 the SPL AGM changed the Articles re clubs to read as follows:
Club means the undertaking of an association football club which is, for the time being, entitled, in accordance with the Rules, to participate in the League;
 
…… and under Share Capital

A Share may only be issued, allotted, transferred to or held by a person who is the owner and operator of a Club and if a Member shall cease to be the owner and operator of a Club then such Member shall cease to be entitled to hold a Share.
==========================
I’ve discussed the reason for this change with HP previously.  My understanding was that it was to enable the SPL to be able to sanction “owners and operators” of clubs who did not hold an office within the club, e.g. Vladimir Romanov. That was achieved by creating a separation of the club and its owner.

Romanov had been critical of the SFA ever since Linesman Andy Davis’ intervention to award a last minute penalty to Rangers at Tynecastle in March 2005, that provoked a reaction by Saulius Mikolunis.  Hearts were fined by the SFA in April after the decision was publicly criticised by a director, Sergejus Fedetovas.  However, Romanov could not be sanctioned as he held no role at the club.

Move forward to October 2005 and further Romanov’s comments about referees resulted in another SFA fine for Hearts.

A BBC report on that fine included the following comment:
The SFA closed a loophole in May that had allowed Romanov to air his outspoken views with impunity because he has no official post at Tynecastle.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/h/heart_of_midlothian/6084480.stm
==========================
Based on the above, you can blame Vladimir Romanov for the 2005 fudge in the SPL rules that apparently allowed a club to achieve immortality while its owner and operator suffered a painful death. 

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on9:59 pm - Jul 23, 2017


Consider the “owner and operator” always to be an association football club.

Thereafter, substitute the word “Club” (with a capital C) in the articles and rules with “SPFL Franchise”

The franchise system began in 2005.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on10:02 pm - Jul 23, 2017


A bit more on the SFSA from Michael Gannon.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/sfa-spfl-might-not-able-10853969
(making some points I have already but without mentioning Herr Schiklgruber.)
A bit hard on Strip The Titles who might have started independently but are happy to join the SFSA initiative as they said in a report back to their followers.

” It became clear to us following comments from MSP’s and others including Henry McCleish (former pro player and First Minister) that the SFA, SPFL and your clubs have no interest in changing the current status quo which has seen Scottish football fall from grace. Whether fans want change or not they simply just want to protect themselves, privileged positions and nice salaries. Be in no doubt your clubs are strongly against major structural change within the game. Just let that sink in.
In conclusion. We are happy to carry on the fight and we would ask you all to become members of the SFSA. It’s free and believe us when we say these guys have the experience, resources and positive dedication to reclaim the game. Basically they are the ‘only show in town’ . We at “Strip The Titles” will now work with and along side the SFSA to obtain a good outcome for our game and most importantly the supporters.”
https://stripthetitles.wordpress.com/2017/07/21/reclaiming-our-game-at-holyrood/#more-212

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on10:09 pm - Jul 23, 2017


HirsutePursuitJuly 23, 2017 at 21:59 (Edit)
Did they understand what they were doing or did the think that before the bank crash in 2008 the loans to non legal entities would always flow?
Yet another area to look at as well as integrity v commercial issues.
It opens the door to 
a) moral hazard
b) stifling investment.
c) dubious, perhaps criminal,l funding sources as a result of b)
Hmmm again that reminds me of something.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on10:17 pm - Jul 23, 2017


easyJamboJuly 23, 2017 at 21:31 (Edit)
Thanks
I remember the circumstances but not what it led to in rule terms.
So whilst the rule was changed for legitimate reasons it was given a factually incorrect interpretation in 2012 for an entirely different purpose?
I thought Nicodemus Doncaster might be behind it. Has he not used it to argue his view an same club since?
Which takes me back to why not use Art12 of FFP as base? Crystal Clear.

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on10:57 pm - Jul 23, 2017


Easyjambo & I, I think have different views on why the change was made. Both may be equally valid.

You will know that the SPL is constituted in a way that each member club became a shareholder in the SPL. The regulations were written with an assumption that each club is a company that can legally own a share.

You may also remember that back in 2004 there was an attempt to create SPL2. 

However, Brechin City won what was SFL League 2 in 200/05 – so would be a candidate club for the proposed new division of the SPL.

Problem is, Brechin City is an unincorporated body. It has no legal personality to own shares or anything else.
http://www.morton-fraser.com/knowledge-hub/unincorporated-associations-facts

The new regulations should have allowed the shares to be registered by a club committee member. Under the original articles the holder of the SPL could only be the club itself.

It is ironic (if somewhat surprising) therefore to note that there are least three (possibly four) current shareholders listed in the SPFL which have no legal personality.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:27 am - Jul 24, 2017


There have been such good, informed and informative posts tonight that I hate to have to go to bed, but i’m going into Glasgow tomorrow, early, and an old geezer like what I am needs his sleep.

But what an absolute ars. of things our Football Authorities have made of themselves in their blind panic when Rangers Football Club (1872 vintage) went bust: 

It was not some ‘holding company’  ( what was its company number, if different from SC004276?) and not some ‘owner’ ( Craig Whyte did not go bust)

No, what went bust , as every one from James Traynor to Companies House recognised , was the Rangers football Club of 1872 ( aye, ok, incorporated in 1899)

And it is pathetic ( and as legally sound as lawyer [ Rod Mc.. whit’s?] player registration crap) that a rule change effected to deal with an entirely different situation is being invoked.

Competent and efficient bad guys might be a force to reckon with.

But we don’t have that.

We have a bunch of compromised  liars, desperately trying to seek legitimacy by the most absurd appeals to ‘their rules’. 

It simply will not wash.
And bad cess to those who would lie to me.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:12 am - Jul 24, 2017


Amidst everything else currently going on is it fair to assume TRFC will run out of money in September this year? They ran out in October last year, they have no European income stream, and they have more high earners on the books. 

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on8:06 am - Jul 24, 2017


On this rule change in 2005 that has helped to facilitate Scottish football’s Great Myth.

It shows just how the game’s governors were prepared to change their rules to, in this case, retrospectively penalise a ‘non-institution’ type member club. This club had an owner who was outwith their sphere of influence and able to say what he felt about the game he was helping to finance. The game’s governors didn’t like that, so they changed the rules to suit their own agenda. In that act they showed their readiness to protect the status quo at all costs and to find a way to penalise those members who refuse to conform to the lickspittle style of the rest of Scottish football.

Compare their readiness to act when a member club’s owner speaks words of criticism, to their action when they discovered Rangers’ cheating! In one they somehow managed to act without the aid of an LNS, changing their rules in the process, in the other, with clear, very serious, breaches of existing rules, they saw fit to create an unprecedented court style inquiry that somehow found a way to penalise the offender – in a way that was only marginally greater than the penalty for describing the governors as the ‘Glasgow Mafia’. 

However, at the time of this rule change, Rangers were already haemorrhaging money, with a tax dodging scheme in operation. Their leader (Murray) must have been aware of the dangers that lay ahead. He had, beyond doubt, greater influence at football’s headquarters than anyone before him, and the ability to push agendas without being asked, too strongly, why?

Shortly after this rule change, Campbell Ogilvey left Ibrox to further his career at Hearts (yeah, that’s going up in the world), then, after a suitable gap from his favourite club, still holding his tax free EBT, joins the SFA to end up as it’s most influential member. Coincidence? Possibly, but a very useful coincidence once we know what followed.

Regardless of all that, this change of rules only affected the SPL. On falling into liquidation, Rangers Football Club left the SPL and so were no longer under their rules. The entity that then popped up entered the SFL, which as not covered by this rule change. It would be four years before TRFC came under the rules of the, by now, SPFL. They never enjoyed the benefit of that rule change until then, so how could it be of consequence during those first four years of existence?

View Comment

causaludendiPosted on10:58 am - Jul 24, 2017


AllyJambo, the SPFL came into being 2013 with a ‘merger’ between the SPL and the SFL. This resulted in the dissolution of SFL and all member clubs coming under the banner of the newly renamed SPFL – it is the same company number as the SPL. Therefore all member clubs (should that be big C?!) were now subject to the rules of the SPFL whether they were in the Premiership, Championship, league 1 or League 2. Was this another sleight of hand? In my opinion, which is worth next to hee-haw, of course it was. As well as being a power grab by the commercial-istas who were no doubt alarmed by the Turnbull Hutton effect and the fan revolt. Power was centralised for a reason – we are all aware of the fact that should 2012 happen again, to any member club, the right to re-admit lies at committee level as opposed to going to a free vote.
Apologies, got sidetracked and went on something of a tangent there. 

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on11:54 am - Jul 24, 2017


The first of the EBT recipients to be hit following the SC decision. I don’t think he’ll be the last.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15429959.Former_Rangers_star_Barry_Ferguson_declared_bankrupt_with_debts_of_more_than___1_4_million/

FORMER Rangers star Barry Ferguson has been made bankrupt with debts of more than £1.4 million.

The ex-Scotland captain was declared insolvent after failing to settle large bills thought to be owed to the taxman.

He is one of a number of former Ibrox stars who faced paying back money they had received in Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs) after Rangers lost a battle with HMRC at the Supreme Court earlier this month.

Ferguson, 39, who recently stepped down as manager of Clyde, received £2.5 million in EBT payments.

He also invested in a film production partnership called Eclipse which has targeted by HMRC after being ruled to be a tax avoidance scheme.

Ferguson applied for his own bankruptcy after running up debts of £1,425,633 and it was approved by the Accountant In Bankruptcy, Scotland’s insolvency service, earlier this month.

A bankruptcy trustee, Maureen Leslie of Glasgow-based insolvency specialists MLM Solutions, has been appointed to take control of his assets and try to recover money owed to creditors. She said she did not comment on individual cases.

Ferguson, who lives in a gated mansion near Larkhall, Lanarkshire, has declared that he has only £3,000 worth of assets available to help pay off his creditors.

The so-called Rangers ‘big tax case’ centred on the use of EBTs. More than £47million was paid to players, managers and directors between 2001 and 2010 in tax-free loans.

Earlier this month judges found that ‘loans’ paid to players and staff were in fact taxable earnings, in a decision that brought to a close legal proceedings that have dragged on for years.

View Comment

woodsteinPosted on1:05 pm - Jul 24, 2017


Barry Ferguson declared bankrupt
———————————————— 
Appropriated  from twitter:-
 ————————————
Can I buy his history and titles?
 
He’ll be back as The Barry Ferguson
 
Nightmare for Bazza, strip the titles next
 
02

View Comment

bluPosted on1:15 pm - Jul 24, 2017


woodsteinJuly 24, 2017 at 13:05 
Barry Ferguson declared bankrupt ————————————————  Appropriated  from twitter:-  ———————————— Can I buy his history and titles?   He’ll be back as The Barry Ferguson   Nightmare for Bazza, strip the titles next

I’d imagine that Barry stripped himself of the title ‘Director’ some time ago. Around the same time someone else named Ferguson will have acquired the title ‘Director’.

View Comment

AmFearLiathMòrPosted on1:21 pm - Jul 24, 2017


I’m guessing that means the side letters aren’t worth the paper they were written on?

Feel a bit sorry for Bazza. He’s not the sharpest tool in the box, and to some extent, he’s been lead into this by his agent and Rangers.

I know it was rumoured he was putting his own money into Clyde, which may explain the high profile (or, at least, high profile for a 2nd division club) signings that we made, not to mention the sheer number of players – around 100 in 3 and half seasons – we managed to burn through during his tenure.  Also, the obstinate refusal to get rid of him when we were plummeting like a stone towards the foot of the Scottish football league last season. 

Then again, it may just be that someone couldn’t work out why he wasn’t being sacked, put 2+2 together and got 5!
Will be interesting to see Alex Rae’s take on it, since he was the most vocal about them being loans when offered a (unquestioning) platform on radio to spout about them.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on1:33 pm - Jul 24, 2017


I see that Stewart Robertson has been appointed to the SPFL Board at today’s AGM.  I assume that he will willingly put his name to an SPFL Board statement later today that announces their decision not to revisit the LNS Commission report.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on1:47 pm - Jul 24, 2017


Chris McLaughlin‏Verified account @BBCchrismclaug    #Hibs chairman Rod Petrie emerges from #SPFL AGM and confirms new board will review Rangers’ use of EBTs following Supreme Court verdict
——————
That’s a surprising development.

View Comment

ChristyboyPosted on2:05 pm - Jul 24, 2017


EASYJAMBOJULY 24, 2017 at 13:33

Oh EJ, you are awful 12

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on2:05 pm - Jul 24, 2017


EJ
Not so surprising if the board are doing the reviewing in the knowledge that TRFC rep on it has a massive conflict of interest.
Looks almost certain to be a jump through hoops exercise ending in ‘move along folks …’

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on2:23 pm - Jul 24, 2017


Big Pink July 24, 2017 at 14:05 
EJ
Not so surprising if the board are doing the reviewing in the knowledge that TRFC rep on it has a massive conflict of interest.
Looks almost certain to be a jump through hoops exercise ending in ‘move along folks …’
========================
I see it in a slightly more positive light.  Yes, there is a clear conflict of interest, but it is also an acknowledgement that the SC decision does impact on previous decisions made on behalf of the SPFL.

Until we get more information of what/who will be involved in the review, it should act as a trigger for fans and other groups to make their voices heard about what the terms of reference should be and how the independence of the review can be assured.

View Comment

ChristyboyPosted on2:25 pm - Jul 24, 2017


BP , would SR have to excuse himself from any investigation? Or would the board just turn round and say ” so whit ” . 

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on2:27 pm - Jul 24, 2017


EASYJAMBO
JULY 24, 2017 at 11:54
================================

Are you sure it’s the EBT which caused that debt, rather than the film scheme he “invested” in. 

As I understood the situation they would be given the opportunity to repay the money they got via the EBT, or pay the tax on it. Clearly paying the tax would be the cheaper option.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on2:27 pm - Jul 24, 2017


 I won’t be singing and dancing until I see the remit terms……We saw how they managed LNS and Pinsent Mason. ….But it’s a step in the right direction…..It’s all a bit vague at the mo…..Keep Bamming boys and girls !   

View Comment

Comments are closed.