LNS – A Summary

 

cropped-sfmSquare.pngLNS is currently back in the headlines. It might therefore be a good time to try to set out a timeline describing correspondence we had with the representatives of the authorities over discrepancies and anomalies that appeared to have arisen. None of this is necessarily predicated upon the recent findings of the CoS in the Big Tax Case, but stands on its own.

Back in February 2014 The Scottish Football Monitor wrote to Harper MacLeod, the law firm that the SPL had engaged to gather evidence for the Lord Nimmo Smith (LNS) Commission investigating the full and proper registration of players paid by Rangers Football Club under Employee Benefit Trust (EBT) arrangements.

The initial set-up of the LNS Commission on 5th March 2012 by the SPL (View File) charged LNS with a look at EBTs from 1st July 1998 (when the SPL came into being).

In practice though, the Commission only looked at EBTs from 23 November 2000 onwards.

This change of date was based on the earliest side letter supplied by Duff and Phelps, although Harper MacLeod had requested ALL documentation from 1998 to March 2012 relating to ALL EBTs.

This prompted a series of letters to Harper MacLeod from The Scottish Football Monitor, although Harper MacLeod’s replies failed to address the issues raised.

The passage of time blurs memories but this archive is designed to remind readers of those blogs and correspondence, and the key points contained in them.

It also highlights the apparent inability or unwillingness on the part of the SPL and SFA to engage with us in any meaningful way.

NB: The SFA were informed of our correspondence by Harper MacLeod in October 2014.

It is extremely difficult to be concise in this situation. There are various strands of argument and details seemingly small, but vitally important – however the following is an attempt to make the material accessible and provides links to the relevant files in chronological order (links are in green).

 

  • Item 1: The first SFM letter of 19th February 2014 to Harper MacLeod
  • Item 2The Annexes containing the documents apparently not supplied to Harper Macleod in the spring of 2012 along with other pertinent information about the testimony given to LNS during the Commission.
  • Item 3The SFM response of 29 March 2014 to Harper MacLeod’s reply to the first letter.
  • Item 3.1: An SFM analysis of Harper MacLeod’s initial reply attached to response at 3.
  • Item 4: An SFM blog of 5th September pointing out how the documents not supplied had a direct impact on the advice given to the SPL Board to accept The Decision of The LNS Commission.
  • Item 5: The last letter of 4th October 2014 to Harper MacLeod answering points raised by them (see next) and thanking them for passing our correspondence to the SFA Compliance Officer who has so far deigned not to reply.
  • Item 5.1Harper MacLeod’s actual response to SFM 5th September letter.
  • Item 6: An SFM Blog (Inc. a transcript of an interview between Alex Thomson and Stewart Regan).
  • Item 6.1: Truncated version of above blog.
  • Item 7: A clearer extract of key document from Item 2 Annexes

 

Having no locus to demand answers from the SPL or the SFA, all we can do is provide information – information that we believe presents a prima facie case that LNS was deeply flawed even before the latest developments in the Tax Case came to light. The challenge for us is this: what can we do about it?

It is clear from the meagre response we have received that the authorities are unwilling to engage with us, so it is fair to assume that further correspondence will be met with the same lack of response.

Are we merely a bunch of obsessed nut-jobs with our own take on the Flat Earth conspiracy? If that is the case, surely a few words of explanation to dispel our doubts would have had traction with the rest of the football public. Indeed the lack of any reply undoubtedly serves as confirmation of our belief that something may be seriously wrong.

The questions have been posed. The SFA appears to think that not answering them is a wise course of action. Given that anecdotal evidence presents a compelling case that the general football public are widely in agreement with us, are there any journalists out there who will take the time to look at what we have observed and what we seek clarification on?

There are undoubtedly inferences to be drawn from the evidence we have, and from the silence of the authorities.

The statement by Celtic on Friday 13th November is certainly a start in the process we wish to begin, but it only mentions the elephant in the room. It gives no clue about how it could be transported to another place.

In the first instance we at SFM seek only explanations, and despite the inferences mentioned earlier, we are still eager to be satisfied that rules were followed and justice done.

Is there really  nobody in the MSM who has the courage to seek the answers we seek? I suspect not. What we do in the absence of that courage is important. We are at a crossroads. Either we give up on the game altogether and spend our Saturdays and Sundays doing other things – or we find a way to get these questions out of blog pages and into the mainstream.

We need an alliance of fans of all clubs to do that, and we will be looking to build that alliance. I would urge fans of all clubs to give this material to fan sites of their own clubs.

These are not just words. There can be no movement on this issue unless our reach is extended. SFM alone does not have the clout required to bring the clubs to the table or the MSM to fair and balanced reporting. We need that alliance of fans desperately. We don’t seek leadership of that alliance – but we are happy to provide it if required.

This is not a campaign to have Rangers punished. I understand that Rangers fans (since their club is in the middle of this mess) are reluctant to see us as anything other than a bunch of Rangers haters.

That is unequivocally not the case from the perspective of the moderators of this blog. SFM is committed to justice, and to the integrity of the sport we all love.

Justice is ON THE SIDE of Rangers and their fans – it does not conspire against them. A growing number of Rangers fans are coming round to our way of thinking and our tone must reflect that. This is not a Celtic or  Hearts or Aberdeen or anybody else v Rangers issue. This is a fans v corrupt authorities issue.

We all deserve answers, and hopefully our alliance will compel each individual club to act in the interests of the fans .

 

 

 

 

 

This entry was posted in General by Trisidium. Bookmark the permalink.
Tom Byrne

About Trisidium

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

2,349 thoughts on “LNS – A Summary


  1. StevieBC 16th November 2015 at 4:06 pm

    Of course it is not just the key decisions that the fans are told about in the NFL.
    Due to the stop start nature of the game the Head Ref announces every decision, the culprit and the resulting penalty/punishment to the crowd.
    e.g “Holding, Number 75 Offence, Ten yard penalty,  ‘x’ down”

    Given that, with the exception of playing advantage,  all fouls and goals require the referee to stop play then there is no reason why refs could not be trained to provide a quick ‘mic’d up’ announcement to the crowd before re-starting. Invariably they are telling the players involved or the team captain what the decision is so why not make it public at the same time.

    e.g “Reckless tackle from behind, No 3 Home team,  Yellow Card  direct free kick”.

    While it may add a few more minutes to the day, it could also save time because like the NFL and rugby the players would retreat to from the point of the incident and await the decision without all the argy bargy and intimidation that goes on just now.

    If not then a new penalty would be.
    “Intimidation of officials, Nos 3, 5 and 7 of Home Team, opponents gain 10 yards at restart.”


  2. @StevieBC I think you maybe answered one reason why it wouldn’t work in football.  The last 4 minutes took about 20 which is about right as the games are 1 hour playing time and usually take 3-4 hours.  In american football, tennis, rugby and cricket where decisions are reviewed and explained there is almost always a natural break immediately after a potentially contentious decision.  So the review in effect is about how to restart the game.  

    In football there may not be a natural break for several minutes which is too long for that to be re-played, as a point may be in tennis, if you wait for the break and if you don’t wait for the break and the decision after blown up is “play on” no infringement then the restart under current laws would have to be a drop-ball which IMHO are usually far too contrived these days anyway.


  3. Yes, but there are certain decisions that you could accept a degree of ‘playback’ for.  I would suggest missed goals (a la Lampards versus Germany for instance) for which play would be called back and player endangerment (where it wouldn’t need to be) would be start.  I’d also happily add simulation to that list more for deterrent purposes.


  4. tykebhoy 16th November 2015 at 4:45 pm

    As discussed, when there is a foul or a goal there is no need to wait for a ‘natural break’ being that an ‘enforced break’ occurs as the ref stops play and play can only start again when the ref gives the say so. The only exception is playing advantage where the ref then has to decide to either stop play or wait for the next “natural break”.

    I do however agree the occasional one offs like Lampard as mentioned by Smugas would present a problem.

    Decisions on throw ins, by kicks/corners could be excluded and Offside would remain as is with the flag being the marker that all the crowd can see.

    The main issues that could be announced would be fouls, handballs, unsportsmanlike conduct and all times when officials have to hold an on field conference to arrive at a decision.

    Think of all the ‘free time’ that could be used for refs to make announcements without adding time to the day out – injuries (especially those requiring the physio), the ball bouncing around the pitch or stands before getting back to the point of the incident/free kick, players continuing after not adhering to the whistle, coaches and players bawling & shouting, rolling around as if shot, general time wasting, strolling to take free kicks and corners etc etc.

    Invariably if you think of a televised game the commentators and pundit  will often make comment on the incident or the director will even have time to run a replay or two before the ref restarts.

    The only disadvantage I can see is at times when a team is ‘motoring’ and wants to take free kicks etc quickly to keep the pressure on. At present a ref has it within his power to keep the game flowing in such circumstances but my guess is that those occasions are few and far between these days.

    I do however agree one offs like the Lampard Goal as mentioned by Smugas and the Celtic ICT handball presents a problem when the ref doesn’t/can’t stop play due to how they call it at the time.


  5. Thanks for responses re: ref with a mic.
    Obviously plenty of pro’s/cons, but wouldn’t it be worthwhile to have a trial run of a few games in SPL to see if it added anything ?
    Or is anyone aware if any other footie league has tried this in the past ?
    ===================
    Just noticed that Ashley has taken a 5% stake in ‘Goals’ the 5-a-side operator based in East Kilbride.
    Is he anticipating that the cost of Ibrox is prohibitive…so TRFC will downsize to become a 5-a-side team to keep costs to a minimum ?!  14
    Is there a connection / overlap opportunity between this new investment and TRFC ?


  6. It seems to me that the recent desperate briefing  to DR about no means of changing the LNS decision and the latest ramblings from Roger Mitchell are signs of a desperation hitherto unknown in the corridors at Hampden. In short , I believe that Mike Ashley’s decision to seek Judicial review into the decision to declare Dave King fit and proper has sent shock waves through to the core of both SPFL and the SFA.

    They fear that judicial reviews may become widespread and force the explaining and accounting of a whole plethora of nefarious goings-on at Hampden. Up until Mike Ashley’s action, they believed that as the guardians, the lawmakers, the judges and juries, the terms of reference setters and the  holders of untramelled power in Scottish football they had carte blanche to do as they pleased. They now live in terror of being held accountable for some or all of the following:

    Their cosy five way agreement which led directly to he stitching up of LNS by cabals that allowed the incorrect registrations of players ( knowingly misregistered as I am convinced both Bryson and Ogilvie knew the true status of how players were being paid and how these were not being declared throughout the entire existence of the EBT and DOS schemes ):
    The incorrect awarding of a licence to Rangers to gain a European licence in 2011, despite being ineligible for one:

    The mysterious and to date unexplained changes to SFA rule 14 which changed from there being no mechanism to allow a registration to be transferred to one which under the same heading of preventing such a transfer , now allowed one: this change being  made in November 2011 shortly after the Charlotte Fakes leaked tape of the meeting between Whyte and Topping and other parties where he revealed the true state of Rangers finances ( and Topping a bookie too, and at a time when Rangers were top of the league -how corrupt and stinky do you want) and which, lo and behold proved essential in the switcheroo from Rangers to Sevco. This decision, of course,  facilitated the course of events which are currently the subject of a major trial for fraud involving organised crime.

    Mitchell is trying to deflect, to prevent scrutiny and to try and close any investigations into any aspects of football governance in Scotland. He has focused on title stripping as the most contentious and divisive issue in the hope that the fears that he seeks to raise will prevent investigation into the wholly compromised LNS enquiry and thus secure the position of the Status quo.

    It is already too late. Ashley’s review will shine a light on the processes at Hampden. It will be followed, by Celtic shareholders ( rather than the club) seeking similar reviews by the judiciary into resolution 12,;and theSPFL ;will be forced kicking and screaming;into launching a new inquiry into the misregistration of players by an independent body, as they know that  Celtic , with others hopefully, but on their own, if necessary, will appeal the decision if they do not, to ;the SFA  as the appellate body ( Ha ha!) , then UEFA and finally the CAS, if they do not.

    Where all of this will end is the real fear at Hampden. If European clubs sue, on the grounds of the incompetence or complicity of  the Scottish footballing authorities, or Celtic and Hearts, amongst others seek damages on those grounds , then it is likely that both the SFA and SPFL will end up bankrupt within the next couple of years.

    It is that serious.

    James Forrest’s excellent piece in On Fields of Green talks about how Rangers nearly destroyed Scottish Football. I believe that he is actually wrong. I believe that Rangers, with the assistance of the SFA, and SPL and the compliance and complicity of all of the other clubs have set in force a chain of events which will indeed lead to the destruction of Scottish Football – as we know it.

    A new governing body, a new professional league system and an entirely new culture will have to follow.

    Mitchell is not stupid, despite his insulting of others. He sees this chain unfolding and knows that all of those involved at any stage will have their reputation shredded. His input, as much as the other frantic nonsenses released on a daily basis as a rearguard action, is nothing less than a thankfully futile fight for their survival.


  7. iceman63 16th November 2015 at 5:24 pm #…
    In short , I believe that Mike Ashley’s decision to seek Judicial review into the decision to declare Dave King fit and proper has sent shock waves through to the core of both SPFL and the SFA. They fear that judicial reviews may become widespread and force the explaining and accounting of a whole plethora of nefarious goings-on at Hampden….
    They now live in terror of being held accountable for some or all of the following:

    It is already too late. Ashley’s review will shine a light on the processes at Hampden…
    ==========================
    Totally agree with the above iceman63…except that I just don’t think this will actually get to court.
    The SFA [& SPFL] – IMO – will ultimately bend over for Ashley.
    He will use the court threat(s) as leverage for his own financial advantage.  
    He’s not there to do Scottish football fans a favour by uncovering / confirming the dodgy goings on at the SFA: he’s there to make money.
    And Ashley looks to be in a rather strong negotiating position with the authorities.


  8. Interesting article about how Iceland managed to qualify for the Euro’s.
    ===============
    Iceland Population 329,000
    Fifa world ranking now31
    Fifa world ranking (May 2012)
    131
    Professional clubs
    0
    Uefa B licence coaches 639
    Uefa A licence coaches 196
    Uefa Pro licence coaches 13

    “…Despite Iceland having no professional club sides, there is an extraordinarily high number of qualified coaches in the country, with 639 people holding a Uefa B licence…
    It means even youngsters living in the tiniest provincial fishing village in Iceland can benefit from a state-of-the-art, all-weather pitch and a trained coach…”
    http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/30012357


  9. The latest blog from CQN puts focus on SPFL (as  SFM has).
    If they do nothing what is to stop a crowd funded Judicial  Review?
    CQN 16 Nov 2015
    I see a lot of argument exercised over the weekend on the double-jeopardy issue. Holding an inquiry into an event, then holding another when you don’t get the desired outcome. I have sympathy to a degree with this sentiment, but only within limits. Tax cheats who successfully wriggle out of their responsibilities at a Tribunal, may be called to a second, third or fourth hearing.

    This will feel like quadruple-jeopardy, but it’s correct and often needed for the law to apply evenly. It’s also worth noting that the Crown successfully convicted its first double-jeopardy case in November last year, following the Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Act.

    For non-legal cases, such as the SPL Commission headed by Lord Nimmo Smith, there is no double-jeopardy law, either way, the SFA source trying to influence the media late last week into thinking there was, was getting ahead of himself. Any organisation can ask any question of itself at any point.

    What the SPFL (formerly known as the SPL) must now ask, is was the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission fit for purpose?

    Auldheid, writing on Scottish Football Monitor last year, published correspondence to SPFL solicitor, Rod McKenzie of Harper MacLeod, suggesting crucial information, requested by McKenzie as part of his case on behalf of the SPL, was not disclosed.

    The implication being that McKenzie was unable to reference the material he needed to successfully prosecute his case as the salient information was withheld by Rangers. McKenzie wrote to Rangers on 5 March 2012 asking for relevant information but allegedly did not receive documentation on EBTs Rangers had already agreed with HMRC were incorrect and liable for tax.

    The SPL Commission concluded Rangers gained no sporting advantage from their EBTs as, although they found the club acted wrongly in respect of player registration rules, the Commission found that even if the EBTs had been declared, no tax would have been payable, so no sporting advantage was achieved.

    We now know that a considerable amount of tax should have been paid (subject to appeal to the Supreme Court), which flips the criteria Nimmo Smith based his decision upon.

    I suspect nothing will happen between now and the expiry of the Big Tax Case appeal notification window in early December. Should no appeal be made, the SPFL will need to consider its position.

    Football, to a considerable extent, relies on clubs issuing information openly and fully to authorities when required. If a conspiracy to withhold information from an inquiry exists, and is subsequently uncovered, the authorities must consider what action is appropriate.

    At the very least, the national association should not be privately promoting a cover-up.

    – See more at: http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/double-jeopardy-and-cover-ups/#sthash.BMU5Ra8g.dpuf


  10. If your on Twitter check out the account of moo_ted who tells us that at the Court of Session tomorrow the Craig Whyte letter before claim case is being adjudicated . And in seperate court there is Mike Ashley and seperately another action for Mash holdings ! 
    John Clark you are called back to barracks . I’ll see you there tomorrow .


  11. StevieBC 16th November 2015 at 5:20 pm
    Just noticed that Ashley has taken a 5% stake in ‘Goals’ the 5-a-side operator based in East Kilbride.Is he anticipating that the cost of Ibrox is prohibitive…so TRFC will downsize to become a 5-a-side team to keep costs to a minimum ?! 14Is there a connection / overlap opportunity between this new investment and TRFC ?
    _______________________________________________________________________
    I suspect that this is simply an investment opportunity rather than anything else connected with Scottish Football. I know ‘Goals’ very well indeed and I believe it makes perfect sense for SD to have a relationship with a company, whose customers play football and would probably buy merchandise from SD.
    Goals are a business with potential and see growth in their development by opening five a side football complexes in the US. That would appeal to SD hugely, I suspect? 
     


  12. Geez, a real Sevco love-in on Sportsound! Wetting themselves  drooling about what Warburton will do!


  13. Kenny MacIntyre hosting Spiers,Wilson and Jackson on tonight’s Rangers Sportsound.

    i lasted 5 minutes ?


  14. Matty Roth 16th November 2015 at 12:36 pm #
    Agree with you totally on the Rangers-focused reportage of BBC Scotland plus their relentless live match coverage where possible. The narrative is always as positive as possible with bare minimum criticism.
    Dear goodness, they’ve just this evening spent the first 20 minutes talking about them with, as ever, much enthusiasm.
    The thing that angers me most about BBC Scotland Sport is when they did have a genuine, quality football loving-guy who, I believe is and was respected and liked by most of the audience, Jim Spence, and who holds a stated and open allegiance to a given team, in Jim’s case Dundee Utd, the BEEB shamefully threw him to the wolves and effectively binned him due to pathetic complains from the Blue Hue. His crime? Telling it as it is and that does not follow the agenda.I firmly believe Stuart Cosgrove may also have has a word in his ear and, shamefully, he has allowed himself to be cowed.
    Theit treatment of Jim Spence for expressing his views openly and honestly is as shameful and their continuing denial that Rangers did anything wrong and their open welcome to a football pygmie
    To my mind the Controller at BBC Scotland should be ashamed in allowing this dept to behave as it does.


  15. Eddiegoldtop 16th November 2015 at 6:31 pm
    ‘..John Clark you are called back to barracks . I’ll see you there tomorrow .’
    _______
    Regrettably and regretfully, eddiegoldtop, I have an engagement in Glasgow tomorrow!
    I’m sorry I’ll miss you and whichever one of the cases  I would otherwise attend.( I’d probably go for the ‘letter of claim’, but the ‘judicial review’ one might be more immediately interesting.)


  16. Smugas 15th November 2015 at 7:21 pm #

    If you receive money for playing football you declare it simples.

    I don’t disagree with this.Corrupt official answered though,Even though it was regarded as a loan by the FTT,the fact the player had a contract guarenteeing his loan and that this still should have declared to theSFA/SPFL is why LNS found against Rangers.It’s all i was asking.

    Again thanks all.


  17. Bill1903 16th November 2015 at 7:16 pm #Kenny MacIntyre hosting Spiers,Wilson and Jackson on tonight’s Rangers Sportsound.
    i lasted 5 minutes
    =============================

    As soon as the line up was announced that was it for me. Four Rangers men on a show Kenny Macintyre incredibly insists is ‘balanced’. It’s just a Cabal now. 


  18. I was a bit disconsolate the other night when there was no other club making statements concerning the COS outcome the other week.

    The media have been full on, in your face, arrogant mode since that decision was announced. Wasn’t it funny when the first two Tribunals went in RFC’s favour they screamed the result from the roof tops but now the COS has ruled against them they now shout that it has no consequence or bearing on previous football hearings. You would almost think they had an agenda!!

    What they fail to realise is that the more they push their agenda the more desperate they sound, and the more people shrink away from them. They shrink even further from DJ and his threats!

    However perhaps they are not shrinking under their stones as DJ would wish, it could be that they are going to their clubs and asking what exactly is going on here?

    Why is there so much venom in the media regarding this issue. They use the word “hatred” and yet it is them that are frothing at the mouth; ranting like mad men howling at the moon!

    Why would that be?
    The longer these questions go unanswered the greater chance there is that someone is going to let something slip when in full rant mode.
    It only takes one journalist to find a spine and break the omerta surrounding this scandal that will bring the house down. Perhaps that is why their cries are becoming so shrill. They know that this dam is creaking and eventually somebody is going to break cover. It is clear, for anyone witnessing this spectacle, that there has been collusion between every major media outlet in Scotland regarding this scandal. Otherwise how can you explain the headlines the day after the CVA failed to the pronouncements of “The Rangers” being the same club.

    The media are now in full panic mode desperately attempting to shout down any opposing view, shutting off debate, and general bullying. The future court case, if last weeks hearing is anything to go by, will not fail to attract outside media. How are they going to attempt to control them when they start asking awkward questions?


  19. Ashley could support, through merchandising, the old firm plus EPL.  One half of the OF won’t buy although I’d question their consistency and staying power on that front.  Also, don’t forget the buy back clause in any case.  

    Alternatively he could merchandise the entire scottish set up via online if needs be to minimise costs.  41 clubs buying through him with wall to wall exclusive advertising for a minimal investment relative to England.  Rangers fans remaining the huff and assuming they have the discipline not to buy stuff and the stubbornness not to change logos then they’ve only got 7 years to wait.  And that’ll be interesting in itself on their funding model!


  20. upthehoops 16th November 2015 at 7:49 pm #
    ___________________________________________________
    I had a thought when you mentioned those four of ‘Four horsemen trying to halt the Apocalypse’.
    Sorry folks.


  21. Smugas 16th November 2015 at 8:16 pm # 

    I was honestly surprised that SD didn’t step up and sponsor the leagues – lots of coverage for a relative pittance .


  22. jean7brodie 16th November 2015 at 8:59 pm #
    ‘…‘Four horsemen trying to halt the Apocalypse’.’
    ________
    They were more like a clique of four fearful  school-boys outside the headie’s room, laughing as they did with a touch of hysteria when a wit ( half-wit?) among them spotted the word  ‘radar’ was used by Speirs when discussing  Lamb-ert.
    Oh, how they laughed!


  23. ianagain 16th November 2015 at 10:13 pm
    ‘..They won’t be laughing after tomorrow s court cases.’
    ________
    I’m not at all knowledgeable in these matters, ianagain. But looking at the Rolls of Court, I see that Lord Boyd of Duncansby has a full day’s work to deal with – 1 winding up order, 1 order re child abduction, 1 extension of an interim suspension order, and no fewer than 12 ‘judicial review’ petitions. Counsel are not required to be present, so there won’t be any actual hearing of the cases-just procedural stuff, probably.
    Likewise, the Craig Whyte matter is an  ‘unstarred’ petition i.e. counsel not present, so no arguing the case, but probably just procedural.
    So I don’t feel too bad about missing them, because ( I imagine) the merits of the cases will not be argued, no hitherto unknown details will be revealed!Maybe, even, both petitions will be refused on some basis or other.[ Now that would be interesting in itself,but I would imagine that it’s unlikely].
    But there are legal types on here , I’m sure, ‘learned enough in the law’, to keep me 02 right.


  24. Rodger Mitchel and his ilk are essentially Sevco sooks.They will say anything that keeps them in the good books. Unfortunately,those books were cooked some time ago.


  25. Having come back from a break in Paris with friends at the end of last week, my depression after Friday was partially lifted by the solidarity and supportive messages in the press and throughout the country. Given what happened there, how can the despicable spineless low lifes that pretend to be journalists in Scotland even dare to look themselves in the mirror, such is their failure to stand up without fear and favour and report something as harmless as a football story. Their cowardice is beyond contempt.

    I’m back off to mourn now, so sorry for going off topic.
    Nous sommes les Parisiens.


  26. justshatered 16th November 2015 at 8:11 pm
    Why is there so much venom in the media regarding this issue. They use the word “hatred” and yet it is them that are frothing at the mouth; ranting like mad men howling at the moon!
    Why would that be?
    ———————————————————————————————————
    An excellent question JS, ond one that may have multiple answers.

    However, one thing that following this blog has taught me again and again, is to follow the money. With that in mind…

    I think there is a common factor that unites the SMSM when it comes to the Rangers.

    There is a gnawing fear that consumes them all.

    If Rangers die, or even if Rangers don’t “return” to their rightful place, their big fear is that the market for SMSM coverage of Scottish football will plummet and their salaries will go with it.

    Where the SMSM talk about  “good for Scottish Football”, I read “good for my wallet”.

    Having grown up on a diet of succulent lamb, glory nights in Europe, Helicopter Sundays and the like – they realise that a future where Scottish clubs live within their means, means the end for them.

    The end of a whole stack of inflated salaries, freebies, junkets, expenses – all the trappings of former glories.

    And I believe they are right (in a way – read on though!).

    I do believe that their editorial masters are already making cuts because the Scottish game is no longer putting on an EBT steroid-enhanced show. Think of how it must have been in Las Vegas after the last Elvis gig – no more bloated farce after what was once a great show.

    Sports editors are quite likely driving a 3 line whip on this, because they too are going to feel the pinch if Rangers don’t return to some sort of Ascendency, if they don’t bring back the SDM Glory Days.

    This is naked self-interest in action. This is a free market media doing what it does.

    But what about the BBC you say? Shurely they are state subsidised and above this nonsense?

    Nope. The BBC is effectively in competition with the SMSM and the BBC Scottish sports guys are in competition with other areas of their own organisation. As a brutal example, compare coverage of football north and south of the border.

    So in one sense, I think I get it. Football without the Old Firm, without the tribal savagery, without the associated deaths and maimings – it ain’t going to sell like it used to.

    But here is the thing.

    It doesn’t matter if Rangers make it back to the top league. It doesn’t matter if we are subjected to a new Old Firm on a regular basis. It doesn’t matter if the GSL is given free reign to spout about moonbeams and threaten others.

    None of it matters, because the SMSM is dying. It is a dead man walking. And no amount of Rangersness is going to bring it back to life.

    All we are seeing now is the last desperate gasps, the shameless scramble to survive.

    Here we see what football really means to these people.

    It is a cash cow and nothing more.

    They would gladly trample over any consideration of sporting integrity if it meant they got to keep the expense account.

    And day by day they demonstrate this abandonment of any sense of moral commitment to sport and the positive role it can play in our community. Day by day people switch off and stop paying for the rags they produce.

    They don’t realise it yet, but we, we the paying public, we ain’t stupid.

    The curtain has been pulled back. We see the guys pulling the strings. We see it is a sham.

    Once the magic is gone – once you know how the trick was done – you can’t forget it and you are never going to pay to see it again.

    A renewed Scottish Football, one that lives within its means, pays it taxes etc, has the potential to be a small but vibrant community. We can develop our young players, give them opportunities to play at higher levels than previously, maybe even improve the national team as a result.

    Lots of wee diddy countries, you know, wee diddy countries like us, manage to survive and even thrive.

    I can live with that. The occasional run in Europe would be nice. Genuine competition in the SPFL would be great.

    But most importantly, knowing there was a level playing field and one set of rules for all of us – that would work for me. Anything less and you can forget it.

    The SMSM are dinosaurs who will eat themselves before they finally go extinct. No tears will be shed at their passing. Eventually they will be replaced by a new media that has adapted, evolved even, for the new reality.


  27. The ones who are making most noise post CoS are the  MSM with their megaphones and their paid mouthpieces.
    They doth protest too much, methinks.
    Everyone else are just shooting down their kites, waiting until December and the subsequent Court proceedings


  28. The Mitchell outburst is something of a litmus test for me. The authorities have for some time been relaxed about the Bryson Doctrine as we call it, because in fact it was perfectly in accord with the SFA’s rules (although why this wasn’t pointed out before the commission sat is mystifying).

    However the CoS changed all that.

    In 2005, Livingston did not register a player (Kachoul) properly. His registration was deemed valid since the situation was not uncovered contemporaneously. Instead they were fined. It is worth mentioning here that Livingston escaped relegation that year, so a clear enough sporting advantage took place.

    Bryson therefore, as ridiculous and intuitively bizarre as it seems, probably didn’t make stuff up to protect Rangers, but merely cited precedent.

    The derision I have reserved personally for Bryson was perhaps misplaced, and I think he is owed an apology for that.

    Back to the present day and the problem for the authorities is this. If the EBTs are found irrevocably to be illegal, LNS is bound to be set aside because his finding of no sporting advantage was predicated upon the belief that RFC’s use of EBTs was above board and available for all clubs to use.

    Adding momentum to the case revisit the Commission is the fact that the DOS EBTs were characterised to LNS as being legal when it was already settled that they were not (in fact RFC had admitted that when they agreed to pay the wee tax bill).

    Mitchell’s outburst – and the associated clamour from within the blue side of the MSM – is not concerned with the legality of Rangers (or the SFA/SPL) position, but with an appeal to “forget about it, and move on for the good of the game”. Quite what that is though has not been articulated.

    That is the game changer. Statute and recitation of the rulebook chapter and verse are now dispensed with. The game is up, and our “better selves” are being sought to help resolve the matter.

    I think everything now hinges on whether or not BDO appeal. Brenda’s clock should be on countdown for the leave to appeal window closing.


  29. Some time ago I said here that I thought that Bryson was broadly correct in terms of player registrations.

    Once a player is registered there seems to me to be no mechanism or rule that would retrospectively void that registration from the start. Of course, if a form is found to be defective (clubs have 14 days to provide the paperwork after electronic registration) the registration process is deemed not to have been completed and will be void from the start.

    The Rangers EBT situation is not comparable in any way with unsigned or undated registration forms as the registration process was completed in all cases.

    However, we have all tended to fall into the trap of equating registration with eligibility.

    D1.13 A Club must, as a condition of Registration and for a Player to be eligible to Play in Official Matches, deliver the executed originals of all Contracts of Service and amendments and/or extensions to Contracts of Service and all other agreements providing for payment, other than for reimbursement of expenses actually incurred, between that Club and Player, to the Secretary, within fourteen days of such Contract of Service or other agreement being entered into, amended and/or, as the case may be, extended.

    It may be easier to understand this by pointing out that the SPL rule rule explicitly allows for the possibility that the original contract of service may change during a players service with a club.

    Say that a club provides all the correct documentation at the point of registration; but the players remuneration package changes at some later point – say by the addition of an EBT bonus payment. The club have 14 days to provide the updated contract details. Failure to provide the updated contract renders the player ineligible from the date of that change in terms of Rule D1.13. It does not void the registration; but the player would be ineligible in all SPL competitions until the contract details are provided.

    By the same token, the SFA have no way of knowing at the time of registration if the contract of service details provided are complete or not. They will take it on trust that the details are correct and process the registration. If it later comes to light that contract details were incomplete, the SFA could cancel the registration at the point the irregularity is discovered. In practice, the SFA are likely to have the update and so have no reason to cancel. it is the SPL rule – which renders the player ineligible for all previous matches – that provided the real deterrent.

    I can fully accept (as per Bryson) the continuity of the Rangers players’ registrations. I find it frankly incredible that LNS was not asked to find that the players were ineligible.

    This was not the fault of Sandy Bryson.

    LNS wrote: “Mr McKenzie explained to us that SPL Rule D1.13 had hitherto been understood to mean that, at the time of registration, a document was not lodged as required, the consequence was that a condition of registration was broken and the player automatically became ineligible to play in terms of SPL Rule D1.11.” (p26)
    He accepted that no provision of the Rules enabled the Board of the SPL retrospectively to terminate the registration of the player.” (p26)

    <b>, the true position, is that the consequence was the player was ineligible in terms of Rule D1.13.</b>

    IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CONDITION OF REGISTRATION – which cannot be dealt with retrospectively.
    IT HAD EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE CONDITION OF ELIGIBILITY – which can be dealt with retrospectively.

    The question we should be asking is, why did Mr McKenzie unnecessarily – and destructively in the pursuit of his own argument – conflate registration with eligibility?

    Mr McKenzie, of course, was working under the instructions of the SPL.


  30. Big Pink 17th November 2015 at 12:32 am   
        BP, I think I am following your train of thought, but finding it hard to articulate a response.
    Are you saying that we are pretty much looking at an open and shut case with a new commission. But exposing the dastardly deeds may be detrimental to the game in Scotland? I guess you may be talking about a Euro expulsion at probably domestic and international levels. I have always considered that a possibility. I imagine the SFA operate under some sort of license arrangement from UEFA, (although I have not looked into it). Whatever the agreement, wrong-doing by the SFA would jeopardise this… Ergo threatening cross-border competitions 
       However I always thought it would be possible to plead for an amnesty from any ban. A sort of “supergrass exemption” for the whistleblower clubs, for doing what should in effect be, UEFA’s own housekeeping work.
          Are you implying this may not be possible, Hence the move to “for the good of the game lets forget it”, or are you implying it is to keep their own necks out of the noose, or most worrying of all, that all, or some, of our clubs (no appetite)are baw-deep in what was arranged and there will be no amnesty whatsoever?.
        Considering SPL clubs voted No to newco, I find the latter option the least likely, and their necks in the noose the likely favourite. However we are still left with the problem of a de-frocked national body, and no representation of credit worthiness within Europe.
       Busting the culprits may now be the easy part. Exemption from punishment for the innocents may be the hardest and possibly impossible hurdle…. Guilt by association so to speak. A tricky one to navigate, but we certainly can’t kid on what we suspect happened, never happened…… At least I can’t !!!!.  
       It’s something that has been on my mind for years, but maybe my “supergrass” thoughts were too simplistic and naive. A club and national UEFA/FIFA ban is a realistic possibility though, and needs to be thought through. 


  31. Big Pink

    I thought at the time that the LNS Commission was premature and had a look at the timeline to refresh my memory.
    The hoo ha began after Alex Thomson interviewed Hugh Adams in March 2012.

    This set the investigation running with Harper MacLeod investigating from March 2012.

    The SPL announced in August 17th 2012 there would be a Commission that would begin in Oct 2012 (before btc case results known.)

    That Commission was delayed until November, because of illness if my memory serves me, and on 21st November 2012 the FTT announced btc ebts were not illegal. It is likely therefore if the Commission did not know the result of the FTT when it started in November it would have before the end of November.
    The LNS Decision was made public in Feb 2013 and given the BTC FTT decision it is easy to see why the Decision was predicated on that legality basis. Convenient.
    However the likeliehood of appeals existed and in that sense the Commission was a hostage to fortune as events have shown.
    This  goes back to my point why the initial  rush and why not dampen expectations from the outset by announcing that  even if it was found out a player was incorrectly registered his eligibility to play was not effected and just tell everyone to calm their jets?
    The  cynic might also ask if the sickness that postponed work until November 2012 was a stroke of luck or a deliberate tactic.
    So in a sense even if there is no automatic deduction of 3 points we are back where started as if the Commission had not happened and was starting afresh. What would the charge be now? Gaining sporting advantage by an illegal means not open to others? How does SDM’S testimony to the FTT  about why ebts were used stand now as compared to 2012/13?
    None of the foregoing of course explains why the illegal DOS ebts were treated as legal other than it appears that the documents showing that they were illegal were not provided to the Commission (oh and C Ogilvie forgot to mention them).
    At least had it all waited until now it would not matter that the DOS ebts were illegal given the rest now are, but the fact is the failure to provide documentation about them is of itself a  reason to seek clarity that only a full investigation can provide.
    Oh what a tangled Web etc but it could all be untangled if an explanation was given of original rational and need for speed with a bit of braking applied at a lucky time and why DOS ebts were not categorised properly as illegal.

    Conspiracy/cover up or cock up? The football public has a right to know.


  32. Corrupt Official

    I cannot see UEFA applying a punishment to innocent parties ie clubs who already are the victims. 

    I could see a legal challenge there. 


  33.  Corrupt official 17th November 2015 at 2:08 am #                                                                                                                                                  Whit ? Nae sums ? I was counting on them being there – disturbs the equilibrium to be minus the arithmetical challenge .
    I know they cheated . They know they cheated . A wee asterisk beside the corrupted title wins would satisfy me ( and most of the fans of other “diddy ” clubs I know . ) It finished at 54  and we draw a line . An official statement to that effect and we can all move on . There are no winners here . I honestly think that we have to take what we can salvage from the wreckage of Scottish football and start afresh, accepting and acknowledging what’s been done and making sure it can never happen again on any scale . It’s not a case of x wrongs making a right . The court cases will take care of the legally suspect  I find it difficult to to “hate” people (bar those c**** in Paris and their ilk)and like to think there are redeeming features to be found most times . The football authorities have the opportunity to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem . They already know about Hugh Adams’ revelations, about DCK’s admission that there probably was a sporting advantage gained, that rules and regulations were flouted and ignored and that they are complicit or worse. The situation is not going away and has to be dealt with, with finality . Sorry to CFC fans , but I think Res 12 has to be abandoned , not because it is without merit but because it won’t do the bulk of the clubs any good and it looks like vengeance seeking for all the years of real and perceived injustices . Other clubs will be implicated through the historical movement of players and managers to them , and maybe that is why the sound of silence is so prevalent . In my opinion , UEFA would accept ,even welcome, a solution like that and we escape with a reprimand – they have enough on their plate at present . Accept there was guilt, amend the records, draw a line, move on . As for the present incumbents in management of SFA/SPFL, who could we replace them with who wouldn’t be compromised ?


  34. Morning all,
    Regarding the outcry from all angles in relation to “moving on.” It seem’s to me that the implications of dealing with this in the correct manner will never happen due to the far reaching consequences that would follow. IE….English football.
    Due to the current position of the COS appeal, there are numerous English clubs who also used the scheme (maybe correctly but maybe not.) If the revocation of title honours’ in Scotland comes to fruition that would surely have to be reciprocated when/if any of the EBT schemes used in English clubs are found to have been also been administered illegally and the players’ deemed to have been ineligible to play.
    Hence the BBC being totally embedded in the agenda being pushed from all voices related to the “Sport”. They don’t really care about what happens in Scotland – they have there eye on the big picture – namely the consequences should this travel south of the border; and will do and say ANYTHING to prevent a precedent being set here.
    Bad enough scenario in Scotland but imagine if this was carried on into the EPL? Now that would be Armageddon/Nuclear with the money that is involved there.


  35. #Big Pink on 17 November at 12:32AM
    Mitchell’s outburst – and the associated clamour from within the blue side of the MSM – is not concerned with the legality of Rangers (or the SFA/SPL) position, but with an appeal to “forget about it, and move on for the good of the game”. Quite what that is though has not been articulated.
    ==================

    I’m willing to hazard a guess that ‘moving on for the good of the game’ is getting Rangers to the very top more often than not. Their reaction to current events shows they really don’t care how that is achieved. The triumphalism and supremacy over Celtic which they relate to the 54 titles seems sacrosanct to them, even if to many other observers many of them were achieved by cheating the other clubs. The media were never happier than they were when the David Murray era was at its peak. Never mind it was all done using a banks money with tens of millions thrown in by the taxpayer. David Murray’s company folded owing hundreds of millions to the bank. How much of that was spent at Ibrox? Was the money to build Murray Park included? Yet STILL the media demand it’s all forgotten and let’s move on. It’s totally pathetic. In many other countries it would be a national scandal of epic proportions. In Scotland it is seen as entitlement. 

    We can’t move on until we know it can’t happen again. With the attitude of the media, that day still seems in the very far distance. 


  36. Auldheid – 2.46am

    “cynic might also ask if the sickness that postponed work until November 2012 was a stroke of luck or a deliberate tactic”

    iirc – it was due to the Harper McLeod solicitor (Mackenzie ?) having had a car crash ?
    (I may be wrong, but that is what my brain is telling me) !

    so, on that basis, the hearings would have been held before the date(s) they actually were


  37. Corrupt Official

    I’m not saying we should move on. That is what Mitchell et al are saying – however i don’t think they are worrying about UEFA sanctions. Their attitude is that going after Rangers for past deeds is tantamount to self-harming, and that it postpones the onset of the healing process.

    My view is that if you don’t deal with what happened, the healing process is postponed indefinitely.

    Personally I think you can forget about UEFA intervening. In the first place they have no jurisdiction over anything other than their own competitions. Any intervention would have to come from FIFA.

    The point I was making is that the CoS ruling takes the authorities out of the Bryson comfort-zone (notwithstanding Hirsute Pursuit’s theory about eligibility v registration) and into the jaws of the trap set by LNS re the legality of EBTs.

    Interestingly, Rangers previously successfully challenged a punishment that the SFA handed out because there was no provision for such a punishment (although the SFA used discretion).

    If they used any discretionary punishments retrospectively on the old club, only BDO would have locus to challenge – so the SFA would have a free hand to do what they like.

    They could void titles (which I believe is the best option if they are found guilty), or they could retrospectively expel old club, which would bring the continuity myth to an end.

    In either case, the SFA decision would be unassailable (from my point of view anyway).

    They could of course do nothing, but may leave themselves open to a judicial review of LNS.


  38. Hirsute Pursuit,

    Apologies if I am being daft. I get what you say about eligibility, but the same thing would have been the case with the Livvy player. He was signed as an amateur, but paid as a pro. His registration was not voided because they didn’t find out until the competition had ended.

    However he was clearly ineligible as well – yet no deductions too place. Even if that was a flawed judgement, at least it was consistent with t Rangers one.

    Thoughts?


  39. Paddy Malarkey

    Res12 was never about vengeance, sorry. It is but part of an attempt from four years ago to get a more transparent and accountable SFA. I can show you the proof.

    Just the very fact that SFA are being challenged on a wrong doing they were involved in and should explain is about telling them there are consequences for taking decisions that put commercialism before the integrity the game depends on.
    It tells them they cannot turn a blind eye to ten years of the use of a scheme and have a duty to ask questions from when it’s use is first noticed.
    If it brings about the admission you suggest with an apology and investigation into the processes that allowed it,  which of itself  tells them they can be brought to account, that is a reason not to abandon Res12.
    An accountable SFA is to the benefit of the game as a whole.


  40. Jim Larking

    Thanks for that. I could only find a report saying sickness without identifying who and the nature.


  41. Sorry UTH but in the eyes of this Diddy there is nothing in Mitchell’s little diatribe about supremacy, counting titles or lording it over 11 other clubs (i accept there is comment about Celtic fans focus on the 54 but I don’t think your interpretation is the point he’s making).  

    What came across loud and clear was the apparent need to return to the glory days of the OF, the competitiveness and to pander to the 80%.  The SPL was, in his eyes, a shop window to – sell on, promote, get rid, delete as applicable – of them both.  In the meantime, how that supremacy was maintained was immaterial, unimportant and apparently of no consequence to the other 40 members.

    i accept by the way that your post was not solely referring to RM.  Just on that, it was interesting to see Mitchell’s litmus test re the “what (the diddies) bring to the table.  Come work in the media he cried!  As if the media angle and quantum was more important than the story itself.

    i repeat a question from yesterday.  What do the diddies have to do in a positive sense or (sorry) the old firm do in a negative sense to change Mitchell’s 80% imbalance?  Because it’s clear the media ain’t for changing it!


  42. Big Pink 17th November 2015 at 8:20 am

    They could void titles (which I believe is the best option if they are found guilty), or they could retrospectively expel old club, which would bring the continuity myth to an end.
    In either case, the SFA decision would be unassailable (from my point of view anyway).

    Expulsion is, I think, the safest option, and the one least open to challenge in the courts, since it is a straightforward option clearly available to the SFA under its rules.
    Since the new company is the proud owner of the old RFC membership, would expelling the “member” not mean expelling the current holder of the membership as well as the previous one? That would demonstrate the perils of a continuity myth in dramatic fashion! And if expulsion was only applied to the old company, the continuity myth could surely not survive.
    But whatever is decided, I don’t believe that any SFA decision will be unassailable. BDO won’t care, but we now know that the SFA’s decisions are open to judicial review (thanks for that, Mr Ashley).  I feel it is a safe bet that any decision which displeases the Ibrox fans will be challenged in court, with the costs funded by the various fan groups.
    For the good of the game, this boil needs to be lanced quickly, but in reality I can see this saga dragging on through the courts for years.
    The cleanest and quickest option would be for 41 clubs to wind up (or resign from) the SFA, and form a new league with a new  governing body and clear, unambiguous rules which apply equally to all with no discretion available.
    Of course that would bring problems such as international recognition, but it would give us a clean, freshly purged game to watch. I am fully aware, of course, that such a fundamental reshaping of the game will never happen.


  43. Big Pink 17th November 2015 at 8:25 am #Hirsute Pursuit,
    Apologies if I am being daft. I get what you say about eligibility, but the same thing would have been the case with the Livvy player. He was signed as an amateur, but paid as a pro. His registration was not voided because they didn’t find out until the competition had ended.
    However he was clearly ineligible as well – yet no deductions too place. Even if that was a flawed judgement, at least it was consistent with t Rangers one.
    Thoughts?

    I may not answer for a while,  but what rule would have made the player ineligible? 

    As I understand it, the Livi player was registered. That can’t be undone retrospectively, so what rule would have made him ineligible? 

    I’m not sure that such a rule exists.

    The Rangers situation is different because the specific circumstances of player’s contract disclosure is covered by rule D1.13


  44. Just to add to my previous post.

    Did the Livi player have a contract? Or were the payments deemed to be ad-hoc gratuities? 


  45. Big Pink 17th November 2015 at 8:20 am #

    BP, so you think LNS knew he was being ‘duped’ and left a wee surprise?


  46. Hirsute.

    I don’t know about a written contract, but although they signed him as an amateur,they paid him on the side (iirc as a janitor or something). When the matter was exposed it s deemed to have been falsification of the facts and improper registration – although since the competition had ended, no sporting penalty was issued.

    My understanding of your post is that McKenzie conflated registration with eligibility. The point I am making is that they may have done so in Kachoul’s case as well.

    The ineligibility would arise because the conditions for correct registration had not been met (as you suggest is the case with EBT recipients), but they still didn’t void results.

    I imagine Dundee fans (they were relegated that season) would have been a it annoyed about that.


  47. Hirsute Pursuit
    This is what LNS said on registration.
    Whilst it is unclear which SPL/SFA rules would have been breached by making irregular payments, it was not the rules the Commission was directed to  examine as,  according to the Lord Nimmo Smith Decision para 88  “ There may be extreme cases in which there is such a fundamental defect that the registration of a player must be treated as having been invalid from the outset “

    According to Bryan that does not mean ineligible from the outset but in a case of such fundamental defect is there a construction that eligibility is also invalid?
    We are after all not talking about isolated administration errors we are talking about using a scheme not available to other clubs in case of DOS ebts  and unless there is an appeal not available to other clubs for the BTC ebts. A scheme that the person who decided at a RUMERNARATION Committee meeting, SDM  himself said was adopted because of the advantage it gave RFC in signing good players?

    An illegal scheme not open to others dependent on secrecy for longevity embarked on to provide sporting advantage is what is the current reality.
    Enough to apply sporting sanctions without mentioning eligibility?


  48. Taking a step back from this shambles, and attempting to take a fresh and objective look at it, how ridiculous is it that the integrity of the game in Scotland now hinges on a series of court cases?

    Decisions made elsewhere will effectively neuter the SFA and the other authorities to such a drastic extent that they will have lost control of their charge.

    That in itself is a damning indictment on them and on their record of governance. That in itself is enough reason to seek a root and branch clearout of individuals and the structure of the governance of football.

    They have failed. Just as Rangers did. They should  suffer the same fate.

    The future just can’t be left to the clubs.


  49. Two elements spring to mind re the livvie case albeit my memories of (was it?) 2005 are hazy.  Firstly, unusually for Livvie around that time there wasn’t an admin event unfolding.  Money wasn’t ‘saved’ nor was it used for other purposes.  Secondly, the end result was essentially the same.  Whilst it sticks in my throat to say it, no sporting advantage was achieved.  Rather than 11 v 11 it was 11 vs 10+ 1 janitor.  Thirdly, when asked, I don’t recall livvie denying it, hiding it or shredding anything!


  50. Big Pink 17th November 2015 at 9:26 am

    I don’t know about a written contract, but although they signed him as an amateur,they paid him on the side (iirc as a janitor or something). When the matter was exposed it s deemed to have been falsification of the facts and improper registration – although since the competition had ended, no sporting penalty was issued.

    Livingston had registered Kachloul as an amateur and were paying him for his services as a football consultant. The reason no points penalty was applied was that the SPL ruled they could actually have registered him as a professional after all, so no sporting advantage was gained. I don’t think there’s anything about that case that can be applied to the current one, at least not in a way that’s helpful to RFC(IL).


  51. Throughout this whole Rangers Scandal I’ve been surprised by how often my hitherto ‘belief’ that the big two were somehow favoured by what many consider to be the ‘Glasgow Football Association’ has been vindicated. Indeed, I wrote here (or RTC) of the effect ‘Davisgate’ had on me having watched my club cheated out of a point by a Rangers supporting linesman. 

    That effect came at a time of great optimism for Hearts supporters (though we know how it ended up) and to see that happen, and to also see how the media treated it as a Rangers/Celtic matter,  convinced me, there and then, that Scottish football was, indeed, just about the Old Firm and that everything would be done to ensure no other club would have a look in at winning the SPL title. I would imagine it was at that point that Vladimir Romanov realised it, too, and started his war with the football governors and the SMSM.

    At that moment I made up my mind to end my days as a season ticket holder. Not in protest, but in disgust.

    Since the scandal broke and the favouritism Rangers enjoyed over Celtic became obvious to all, my opinion changed to Celtic being a mere beneficiary of the OF bias, a bias that’s driving ambition was the continued supremacy of the Ibrox club.

    Whether I am right or not, Roger Mitchell has made it very clear, that from his extremely well informed position, that it was, ineed, not just all about Celtic and Rangers, but that all other clubs were actually considered diddies, and just didn’t matter, at all.

    He’s opened another can of worms that only a very compliant media would ignore.

    And if all those clubs he happily referred to as ‘diddies’ don’t go to war with football’s governors over it, what does that say about them? At the very least, they should be ordering the SFA and the SPFL to distance themselves from Mitchell and his words and to make it clear that he is of absolutely no standing in Scottish football, and that what he says is of no value whatsoever!

    I had great doubts that anyone could write anything as stupid as Richard Gough did, but Mitchell surpassed him by some measure. Two such desperately ridiculous rants must surely point to there being some very worried people about at this particular time!


  52. BP

    While the Livingston example may well be a possible ‘get out’ for the Brysonism, and it’s surely a very dubious decision in itself, there must be some doubt, though, as to the similarities of the two cases (taking RFC’s multiple crimes as one), as Rule D1.13 talks of all contracts of service being presented. Assuming ‘service’ refers to service as a player (I doubt it covers non-playing employees, like janitors)  then there is some doubt as to whether or not Kachloul’s eligibility could be affected in the same way as the non-disclosure of the side-letters. It could be that Kachloul’s playing contract was presented properly, and so, as a player, he was eligible to play, but only as an amateur. The problem was then, not that his contract hadn’t been presented in full, with all contracted remunerations, as a player, included, but that he was paid for playing while registered as an amateur. I have no doubt that Livingston were cheating (why they did in this way, I can’t imagine) but RFC cheated differently by not presenting all contracts and remuneration details for players registered as professionals, and so, under Rule D1.13, they were not eligible to play.

    While not exactly comparing an apple with an orange, it’s perhaps more like compaing an apple and an orange with two apples?


  53. I have no respect for the smsm and I used to believe that SSB was the worst culprit with their coverage of the Ibrox saga.  Now for me the BBC Sportsound team is the worst culprit. I used to have a wee bit of hope in the past with people like Stuart Cosgrove.  That is totally gone now. They know the real story, we know the story and soon the courts will tell the whole story. Think now how are the BBC team and the smsm going to report this court case.  It will be their worst nightmare, here a sevco 5088 there a sevco Scotland everywhere a sevco will be bouncing of the courtroom walls repeatedly.  Sevco the word they cannot bring themselves to utter. I have absolute or respect now for Mr Cosgrove (whose own team suffered in the past in relation to Gretna) as I have no respect or faith in any of them not now not ever. 


  54. The problem was then, not that his contract hadn’t been presented in full, with all contracted remunerations, as a player, included, but that he was paid for playing while registered as an amateur. I have no doubt that Livingston were cheating (why they did in this way, I can’t imagine)

    They did it this way because he was signed outside the transfer window and they mistakenly believed that they could not sign him as a professional.

    I believe that the punishment (i.e. just a fine) took into account that there was nothing preventing them from signing him as a professional.

    Oh, and they paid him as a “commercial executive” not a jannie


  55. In addition, from the SPL Board at the time:

    “The board considered that, had the club believed that, having regard to the registration period arrangements, it was possible to employ and register the player as a professional footballer then they would have done so,” it added.
    “The club secured no competitive advantage by having registered the player as an amateur player rather than as a professional player since they would have been entitled, had they made due enquiry as to the player’s contractual history and his position under the rules of football, to have registered the player on 31 March as a professional player.”


  56. buddy_holly 17th November 2015 at 11:50 am #
    If so have BDO and LFL (Law Financial Limited) been in court yet?
    ——————————————————

    BDO is in the Court of Session today for an adjudication on the claim.

    We are actually due to get BDO’s latest six monthly update in the next week or so, but they may delay it because of the CoS tribunal and today’s judgement.


  57. One Michael Ashley for Judicial review P989/15 today also.

    Oops doubler. Nothing new.


  58. Allyjambo 17th November 2015 at 10:02 am #Throughout this whole Rangers Scandal I’ve been surprised by how often my hitherto ‘belief’ that the big two were somehow favoured by what many consider to be the ‘Glasgow Football Association’ has been vindicated. Indeed, I wrote here (or RTC) of the effect ‘Davisgate’ had on me having watched my club cheated out of a point by a Rangers supporting linesman. 
    That effect came at a time of great optimism for Hearts supporters (though we know how it ended up) and to see that happen, and to also see how the media treated it as a Rangers/Celtic matter,  convinced me, there and then, that Scottish football was, indeed, just about the Old Firm and that everything would be done to ensure no other club would have a look in at winning the SPL title.
    ___________________________________________
    Alljambo’s little paragraph above jolted some memories. I was holding a football conversation with a family friend (long since passed) at a family party in 1990. The family friend was a fanatical Rangers fans, who was not only a Club member, but also worked within the SFA.
    He confidently informed me way back then that no football club outside Rangers and Celtic would EVER be allowed to win the Scottish League again! 
    At the time, I totally piffed this suggestion as Aberdeen were still a force in Scottish football with Alex Smith at the helm and thought he was talking pish. I held the belief (naively) that all was integrity and honesty.
    Well lo and behold, after almost 29 years………………….shambles, deceit et al !! 


  59. buddy_holly 17th November 2015 at 11:50 am #If so have BDO and LFL (Law Financial Limited) been in court yet?——————————————————
    BDO is in the Court of Session today for an adjudication on the claim
    ========================
    thank you, believe it is may be procedural, though that can have a long list of things…
    ……. john clark or eddiegoldtop may be there to give us an update.

    I do not expect the SMSM to report it.

    buddy


  60. Since Ireland qualified for Euro 2016, there has been another round of breast-beating in the Scottish press about the failings of the national team. For context, here are some key points about Qualifying Group D.
    • Having got their opening game out of the way, a 2-1 win over Scotland in Dortmund, the Germans promptly made a hash of their next two: losing away in Warsaw and drawing with the Irish in Gelsenkirchen. That was a wake-up call. They went on take maximum points from the following five games in a run that lasted from November last year to September this. They still managed to lose to Ireland in Dublin last month though. Germany’s dropped points made a big difference to the group outcome.
    • Poland were the second best team in the group. They beat Germany in Warsaw and were undefeated against Georgia, Ireland and Scotland, winning three, drawing three. They actually lost one game fewer than Germany overall and scored more goals than Germany. They deserved runners-up spot.
    • Ireland’s saving grace was their ability to take points off the Germans. They may have beaten Georgia home and away but they failed to beat Poland or Scotland, taking only two points from a possible 12 in the four games against these direct rivals. Their draw in Gelsenkirchen last October and 1-0 win over Germany in Dublin last month are probably the most extraordinary achievements in the group. Without those four points, Ireland simply wouldn’t be going to Euro 2016.
    • Scotland have to be phlegmatic about losing two games to the world champions. They still managed two draws with a decent Polish team though – the home tie was a kick away from being a win. They beat Ireland at home and drew away. They beat Georgia at home, but crucially lost away when they really needed to win; the game in Tbilisi in September was the one conspicuous failure of the campaign. Despite Irish heroics against Germany, another three points for Scotland would have secured a play-off place. Thirteen months, ten games, one serious lapse and you don’t get to go to the party.
     


  61. buddy_holly 17th November 2015 at 12:14 pm
    BDO is in the Court of Session today for an adjudication on the claim ======================== thank you, believe it is may be procedural, though that can have a long list of things… ……. john clark or eddiegoldtop may be there to give us an update.
    I do not expect the SMSM to report it.
    …………………………………………………………………
    EGT may be there but JC noted above that he has other plans…


  62. As Hirsute Pursuit rightly states, SPL Rule D1.13 would at first reading appear clearly to provide that all payments for playing activities must be disclosed to the SPL secretary in order for a player to be eligible to play.
     
    Notwithstanding this, based on Sandy Bryson’s evidence, LNS did not to interpret rule D1.13 as above. He instead concluded that the rules of the SFA and the SPL relating to registration should be construed and applied consistently with each other and that (in line with the Bryson’s explanation as to the operation of the SFA’s rules) a player’s registration should generally be treated as standing unless and until revoked.
     
    The relevant SFA rules are SFA Registration Procedures paragraphs 2.2.1 and 4.
     
    SFA Registration Procedures Paragraph 2.2.1 states: “Unless lodged in accordance with Procedures Rule 2.13 [which is not relevant to the Rangers situation] a Non-Recreational Contract Player Registration Form will not be valid unless it is accompanied by the contract entered into between the club concerned and the player stating all the Terms and Conditions in conformity with the Procedures Rule 4.”
     
    SFA Registration Procedure Rule 4 states: “All payments to be made to a player relating to his playing activities must be clearly recorded upon the relevant contract and/or agreement. No payments for his playing activities may be made to a Player via a third party.”
     
    Taken together, Rules 2.2.1 and 4 therefore state that a player’s registration form is not valid unless accompanied by the contract entered into between the club concerned and the player recording all payments made to a player relating to his playing activities. The C of S, as I understand it, has ruled the side letters to be part of the player’s contracts.
     
    The SFA’s Registration Procedures incorporate the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players – from Article 5 of the FIFA Statutes of 19th October 2003.
     
    Article 5 (Registration) states: “Only registered players are eligible to participate in organised football”.
     
    Article 6 (Registration Periods) paragraph 3: “Players may only be registered … upon submission of a valid application from the club to the relevant association during a registration period.”
     
    In order to be eligible to play in official matches in terms of the SFA’s rules (FIFA Article 5) players have to be registered. In order to be registered (FIFA Article 6), a valid application has to be submitted. In order for a registration form to be valid (SFA Rule 2.21) it has to be accompanied by the player’s contract including all terms and conditions and noting all payments for playing activities (SFA Rule 4)
     
    The Rangers’ players side letters, according to the C of S judgement as I understand it, contained contractual terms and conditions. They were not submitted with the players’ registration forms. The players’ registration forms were therefore not valid.
     
    Based on this, isn’t there a clear argument that the SFA rules provide that the players were never registered? They simply appeared to be registered but were, in fact, not as a pre-condition of registration (the submission of all contractual terms and conditions along with the registration form) was not met. If this were the case, it would not matter whether there was a rule permitting the retrospective revocation of registration. The registration in question would, in terms of the rules, never have happened in the first place.
     
    Article 8 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players of 19th October 2003 is also worth mentioning with regard to the Rangers situation and may shed some light on the Kachloul situation at Livingston too.
     
    It states: “The application for registration of a professional must be submitted together with a copy of the player’s contract. The relevant decision making body has discretion to take account of any contractual amendments or additional agreements that have not been duly submitted to it.”
     
    As I understand it from previous posts, Livingston registered Kachloul as an amateur. I can’t see any requirement for an amateur player’s contract to be submitted in order for his registration application to be valid and in order for him to be registered. It would follow from this that Kachloul was correctly viewed as having been registered from the outset and therefore eligible to play – hence no revisiting of Livi’s results. I am therefore not sure that his case provides any kind of precedent for the Rangers case, which dealt exclusively with the registration of professional players.
     
    The second sentence of Article 8 of the FIFA Regulations states: “The relevant decision making body has discretion to take account of any contractual amendments or additional agreements that have not been duly submitted to it.”
     
    The C of S has ruled, as I understand it, that each side letter was effectively part of “the player’s contract”. That would seem, based on the current position (which is of course potentially subject to appeal) to preclude the side letters from being viewed in terms of FIFA Article 8 either as “contractual amendments” or “other agreements” (i.e. agreements other than “the player’s contract”. If that view is correct, there would be no discretion to take account of the side letters.
     
    Also, even if discretion to take account of side letters did exist in the SFA rules, would it be reasonable to exercise such discretion in the case of wilful and sustained non-disclosure, as was the case with the Rangers side letters?
     
    LNS relied on an explanation of the operation of SFA registration rules to conclude that no side letter players were ineligible to play. When the rules in question are looked at in detail as above, there appears to be a logical argument that in fact none of the side letter players were eligible to play.


  63. Cosmic,

    notwithstanding the anecdotal nature of your tale, could I just clarify “allowed”?  Or “able”?

    a fine, but very important distinction.


  64. Allyjambo (at 10.02 am)
    While I enjoy reading your contributions and find myself generally in agreement with you, I particularly welcome this post. You put the case well and fairly, well done – much appreciated!


  65. Additional Euro 2016 quickie. For those who are pointing to Iceland as a side Scotland should emulate, I’d say this…
    If Scotland were drawn in a qualifying group with the Czech Republic and Netherlands, even when irrationally optimistic, how many Scots fans would expect a haul of nine points from those four matches? This is perhaps a benchmark for Iceland’s achievement. Without those points, the Icelanders would have finished fourth in Group A but they beat the Czech Republic and Netherlands in Reykjavik, and beat the Netherlands in Amsterdam. That’s utterly extraordinary; it’s certainly not ‘business as usual’.


  66. Scatman’s Gongs 17th November 2015 at 1:01 pm

    Now that is SFM as a monitor at its best and can you please keep a copy handy?
    I’ve taken a right simplistic view which is what are the registration rules designed to deter and what is their genesis?
    I think one purpose is from the wholey cash days  to combat the under the counter payments made in  cash, stuffed into brown paper envelopes,  and illegal bets are the modern day equivalent.

    Had it been cash and brown envelopes under the table RFC used, would there be any questions on eligibility or removal of trophies?

    I think not.


  67. cosmichaggis 17th November 2015 at 12:14 pm #Allyjambo 17th November 2015 at 10:02 am #Throughout this whole Rangers Scandal I’ve been surprised by how often my hitherto ‘belief’ that the big two were somehow favoured by what many consider to be the ‘Glasgow Football Association’ has been vindicated. Indeed, I wrote here (or RTC) of the effect ‘Davisgate’ had on me having watched my club cheated out of a point by a Rangers supporting linesman. That effect came at a time of great optimism for Hearts supporters (though we know how it ended up) and to see that happen, and to also see how the media treated it as a Rangers/Celtic matter,  convinced me, there and then, that Scottish football was, indeed, just about the Old Firm and that everything would be done to ensure no other club would have a look in at winning the SPL title.___________________________________________Alljambo’s little paragraph above jolted some memories. I was holding a football conversation with a family friend (long since passed) at a family party in 1990. The family friend was a fanatical Rangers fans, who was not only a Club member, but also worked within the SFA.He confidently informed me way back then that no football club outside Rangers and Celtic would EVER be allowed to win the Scottish League again! At the time, I totally piffed this suggestion as Aberdeen were still a force in Scottish football with Alex Smith at the helm and thought he was talking pish. I held the belief (naively) that all was integrity and honesty.Well lo and behold, after almost 29 years………………….shambles, deceit et al
    __________________

    Until that game I always assumed that we all, including myself, viewed the onfield, and Park Gardens/Hampden, rulings as, perhaps, viewed through our clubs’ coloured glasses. There was something about that penalty decision, and the aftermath, that disgusted me far more than ever before. I was suddenly certain that I was being cheated and had had enough, or at least enough to decide to cease my commitment of a season ticket.

    We have all realised now that we were all being cheated, including 50% of the OF,  though in a far more sinister way than we knew, but Mitchell’s revelation has confirmed, once and for all, that what we, the diddy team supporters believed, was, indeed, the case.

    Sickening!

    There was a time, I’m sure, that most of us would have written off what you say as, at most, exaggeration. I reckon that, with the 20/20 vision we now have of how Scottish football works, very few on SFM will doubt your words!


  68. Auldheid 17th November 2015 at 8:37 am #

    Thanks for the reply and explanation, Auldheid .

    I am not suggesting that any of this should be swept under the carpet, nor that the SFA and SPFL are fit for purpose . I think the opposite of that . What I’m trying to say is that there must be a way forward and there may be unpalatable compromises that we all have to accept in order to achieve this . For me, it would start with the football powers-that-be stating that the rule-breaking was done by the old club, not holding company or any other concoction , and since they haven’t existed since 2012, all they can do is retrospectively amend the records (asterisks, voiding of titles etc ) . Put their hands up to their involvement and complicity, including wrt Res 12, and offer an apology for their shortcomings .  I appreciate and applaud all the hard work and diligence done by you and by others like you to bring these matters to the fore, and am sorry if you took the inference that you were looking for vengeance rather than justice. That was not what I was suggesting . But we are where we are now . All the legal stuff concerning the new club will take their course through the courts. I think we have defined the problem . Now we need to decide where we want to be and formulate a plan to get there .
    Keep shining a light in the dark places- what you are doing for us is invaluable .


  69. rabtdog 17th November 2015 at 12:47 pm

    Can’t argue with the facts. However the salient fact remains that where the Irish won all their games against Gilbaltar and Georgia so 12 points in the bag. After that they fought and scrambled for every extra point and managed to get six out of 18. 

    We didn’t put up a decent showing against Ireland at the Aviva when they were there for the taking and the switch off at the end of the Poland game was just amateur hour.

    Therefore if we agree the chances of us getting something from Germany was a long shot I would say that  there are another two failures in terms of having the gumption to get the ‘bonus points’ (ie 4pts ) in addition to the major one of losing the Georgia (3pts).


  70. On the basis that you cannot expect others to engage in a Truth and Reconciliation process if you don’t engage yourself I have to ‘fess up
    On 5th November I posted; referred to Helicopter Sunday and I stated that in their game against Hibernian with the exception of Shota Arveladze the starting lineup for Rangers were all EBT beneficiaries.
    This I now know is not the truth.
    I’m sorry. I can only ask for forgiveness.
    I based my post on the EBT lists which have been published but I accept that this is no reason far less an excuse for being factually incorrect.
    Rereading the Commission Decision amid the morass of names I noted a name which had on first reading been no more significant than any of the many others.
    The Decision refers to an EBT and side letter for Shota Arveladze.
    So I have no compunction in accepting I was wrong.
    The entire team that kicked off against Hibs had EBTs.
    Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
    On the credit side of the ledger I now have a further 990,000 reasons why this is not going to go away.


  71. Something wrong with my radio which picked up a broadcast by the Rangers radio at 6.30pm yesterday evening. The breathtakingly expert analysis quickly reached a consensus that we need all the big teams in the top flight. Why oh why state paid broadcaster did you have messrs Jackson, Wilson, Spiers and MacIntyre all together on the same programme? Yet not one BBC journalist can apparently respond to the non emotive, dispassionate analysis of concerns raised by the LNS decision (as set out here.)  

    Silence of the lamb eaters: An MSM 21st century horror film.

Comments are closed.