I have been receiving quite a bit of unflattering mail about the “agenda” being pursued on this blog. Depending on the correspondent, that is defined as either denying people their civil right to gloat, hiding the “truth” that people of the RC faith are welcomed and encouraged to come to Ibrox, or indulging in Chamberlain-style appeasement with the banning of the “H” word and other incontrovertible rights-to-insult.
The objection to moderation of any sort appears to be at the root of these diatribes. Our position here in terms of moderation is clear. There is no “agenda” other than a desire not to be chasing up posts containing the rantings and ravings of partisan types who “demand” their right to be heard no matter how objectionable it might be to those hear it. We are not here to service a conduit for conspiracy theories based in Masonic Lodges or the Vatican. There are plenty of places where people can indulge in that kind of stuff, but the moderators here are just not interested. The administration of the site takes around four hours per day. That’s a long time trawling through posts which often set out deliberately to insult, abuse or otherwise cause offence – mildly or otherwise.
Our view is that the blog will only have cross-club support if we stick to what we can substantiate by fact or reasonably infer from the way things proceed. Further, we feel that if we are to gain credibility as an alternative source of news and comment to the MSM, that we need to cut down on the fansite type comments. There is no dignity (a word often used here) in calling the Rangers manager or their fans names. We need to maintain higher standards of impartiality than football fansites, because we know that a united fan base can actually make a difference as RTC did when the SPL chairmen were gearing up for a parachute for the new Rangers. OT discussions are fine, and often amusing, but they shouldn’t become the main reason to come here.
The requirement to have a WordPress account before posting here is not in any way draconian. It is designed to make people accountable for what they post whilst still maintaining anonymity, and therefore being exempt from moderation. Those who don’t like it are not being compelled to carry out any instruction – they only need go to a place where they don’t feel so constrained.
If the main issue of this blog becomes how the blog is being administered – or how the moderation policy is affecting the human rights of posters, we may as well just pack up now.
There have never been any objections to the suggested posting rules on here. We assume that people who post are reasonably intelligent. Therefore it seems fair to assume that those who have ignored the suggested posting rules did so deliberately. If that doesn’t happen, moderation is just not required.
If what we are trying to do fails because of our posting framework, then we will be blamed. We are certain though, that we can have no credibility if we indulge ourselves in conspiracy theories and constant references to anachronistic organisations, the Scottish school system, and the leanings of referees.
There is real corruption in Scottish football. It is based not on religious rivalries but on greed and acquisitiveness. The only thing that matters is that we identify that corruption and help put an end to it.
Our job is to ask questions and not jump to our own conclusions about the answers. That will divide us as surely as the realisation of the depth of the corruption united us. To be totally united as fans, we need to have more Rangers fans on here. Therefore we need to create an atmosphere that they can be comfortable with. Is that the case right now? The anger for RFC’s mismanagement and abuse of the game in Scotland is real, but we need to look forward if we are truly committed to ensuring that what happened to Rangers can’t happen again.
We’re not gonna throw the toys out of the pram here. If anyone else would like to run the blog under those circumstances of zero moderation, we will be happy to hand over the domain. There is no “agenda” – we will be happy to hand the work over to others.
The initial posting which proposed the change to WordPress logins received over 130 TUs and only three TDs. Subsequently the post advising of the changes got around 100 TUs and 100 TDs. It seems that minds are not entirely made up.
To get some closure on this once and for all, we have added a poll below to end on Saturday at 1700 where you can decide whether you want to go along with our original plan in terms of login and moderation. We obviously recommend that you vote “Yes”
And a nice follow up:
Rangers Tax-Case @rangerstaxcase
Green has access to all the evidence. Looks like he thinks RFC did cheat for 11 years. He is only disputing the likely punishment.
stunney says:
September 24, 2012 at 05:17
3 1
Rate This
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/sfl-division-three/glenn-gibbons-rangers-hark-back-to-halcyon-days-1-2541349
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A piece of writing which strives to be well researched, accurate and brings perspective and succeeds. Glenn Gibbons is an example to the rest of what a journalist is supposed to be. Had others acted the same way there would have been no need for the RTC or any other blog. Some would even have had a scoop or two and enhanced their professional reputations and those of their newspapers.
Instead we have ‘off the radar’ reporting. That Gibbons’ article is so unusual these days reinforces the need for the Internet bampots to remain united and vigilant.
Annex B, 1.2 of the SPL Rules states:
“1.1: These Rules of Procedure have been made by the Board under and in terms of Rule G5.1 and they shall apply to pre and post hearing procedures and hearings in relation to:-
1.1.1 an alleged breach of or failure to fulfil the Rules;
1.2: Definitions of words and phrases in the Rules of the Scottish Premier League shall apply in these Rules of Procedure.”
Another possible anomaly …
The changes to SPL rules providing for points deductions from clubs in the seasons following insolvency events which include transfer of ownership to a New Company.
This would suggest that the points deduction is imposed on the “club” as a separate entity from the (old or new) owning company – and points again to the continuation of that club when it is reincarnated under the ownership of a “newco”.
Otherwise, how could they hope to deduct points from a newco for an insolvency event experienced by an oldco?
We didn’t pick that up at the time, I think, but it’s the same principle as explained by Nimmo Smith in his Statement of Reasons.
I’m really beginning to think that the SPL have, in fact, outflanked Mr Charles.
briggsbhoy says:
September 24, 2012 at 00:46
12 1 Rate This
Colours Symbolism Flags & Nationalism
—————
Goodmorning from sunny Helsingoer, a town that boasts St Vincient’s RC Church, a medieval Carmelite convent, a catherdral, various Lutheren churches, Hamlet’s Castle (Kronborg) though no expressions religious intolerance.
Thanks for that post briggsbhoy. You know that colour has puzzled me too. Oddly enough, I had a very similar thought about the CFC strip recently. It was after seeing all the Hoops in Helsingborg (a short ferry trip from here) a few weeks ago. Coming from a mostly indifferent football home as a wee boy, I just liked the blue top worn by Baxter to the green hoops worn by McNeil – but (in 1967) they were both heroes in my rather inclusive part of Dennistoun – and also to me. I don’t remember the infamous animosities invading my consciousness until much later. At least they didn’t affect me as a young child. It was just football.
Anyway, that’s by the by. Over in Helsingborg observing swarms of hoops I was thinking (as you do) in terms of a Blackburn Rovers type shirt thing with either white or green on one half and that yellow-ish, orangish, goldy colour on the other half. An alternative away strip. If the white symbolises what your dad said it did then what a cracking idea to incorporate those colours. It would be a bold move, and could even be perceived as inclusive … not to mention educational.
* I suppose this can be accused of being only slightly ‘on topic’ due to that Toronto photo posted yesterday. It’s a fair cop.
Wow … pressed the space bar and my post got posted before i meant it to!
Anyway, the first bit of my post (10:17) would suggest that – under the Rules of Procedure for Hearings (Annex B, SPL Rules) – the definition of “Club” will be that stated in the SPL Rules. Which is as Nimmo Smith said.
http://www.scotprem.com/content/mediaassets/doc/RULES%20EFFECTIVE%2014%20MAY%202012.pdf
(Annex B at Page 100 – ignore their own contents page, which says p97!)
Just a brief thought. If, as Lord Nimmo states, the ‘club’ entity, (that plays football and faces potential punishment if found guilty of the stated charges), is not a legal entity then surely that means that it can have no recourse to the legal system?
I agree Angus1993
Charles has been hoist’d by t’own petard here – Nimmo Smith interprets SPL rules and definitions as he and the panel is entitled to do so. No wonder Charles withdrew as arguing that t’Rangers are a new club after all might not go down well with those interested in investing (sic) in the IPO 🙂
Sorry Angus – made you 10 years younger there….
Question for all the legal minds.
Assuming the enquiry finds against oldco and strips them of the titles but they also find the sfa and spl complicit, does this not mean that cfc could sue the sfa and spl for champions league money ?
Thanks in advance.
angus1983 says:
September 24, 2012 at 09:11
0 0 Rate This
Hirsute – many thanks for your research into what constitutes a club/Club!
Personally, I don’t think the interpretation of the term will be taken any further than that laid out in the SPL Rules. The term “club” is defined in there, and that will be good enough for the purposes of the investigation.
The commission is looking to investigate a breach of SPL Rules, therefore, definitions will be taken from those Rules where such definitions exist.
As you’ll know, this is standard practise when a person is charged under a specific piece of legislation – and is why there is an “Interpretation” section at the start of such legislation. If that definition exists elsewhere, the Interpretation will refer the reader to that. There is no such reference to SFA or UEFA Rules in the SPL document.
(But let’s not get too tied up in legislation – this is an investigation into a breach of the rules of the SPL, not a breach of the Law.)
=====================================
Sorry; but you’re wrong.
Firstly, the rules of the SFA, SPL & SFL must be compatible with the law. Football clubs operating under the SFA and within the SPL or SFL are commercial entities and their respective Articles & Rules constitute the framework for such commercial activity. In this sense, sporting penalties/sanctions cannot be separated from commercial penalties and are therefore subject to the law. A definition that is “good enough for the purposes of the investigation” must be good enough in the eyes of the law. Lord Glennie has made this point already.
Secondly, and following on from my first point, the SPL Articles & Rules must be compatible with the Articles & Rules of the SFA; which itself must follow the strictures laid down by UEFA; which itself is subject to the will of FIFA. It is trite comment to point out that in such a hierarchical system, the definitions used by the higher body will be carried forward to the lower levels.
The SPL say that a Club (for their purposes) must be an association football club. The SFA & UEFA say that a club is the legal entity (company) that operates as a football club. It is simply illogical for the SPL (and its commission) to argue their version of a Club can be an association football club with no legal persona.
Lord Nimmo Smith and the other learned gentlemen appear to have accepted the Neil Doncaster’s version of Club without properly researching its true constituent parts. I find this as disturbing as it is surprising. Especially so, since they are suggesting that sanctions for the (alleged) mis-deeds of The Rangers Football Club plc can be applied to The Rangers Football Club Ltd.
Unless Charles Green has made such an undertaking on behalf of his club, it is beyond doubt that any such sanctions, if challenged, would be struck down by the CoS.
If I were a cynical man 🙂 I would wonder if, when the stolen titles are given to their rightful owners, the SPL expect the commission to seek repayment of the stolen prize money awarded to The Rangers Football Club plc. These prize monies would not be inconsiderable – certainly an eight figure sum. And, if I was so cynically minded, it would occur to me that it is commercially advantageous for the SPL to treat The Rangers Club Ltd as having sporting (and so commercial) liability for the old club.
If Lord Nimmo Smith does not correct himself (and I am minded to think he will not) Mr Green and his investors in The Rangers Football Club Ltd will almost certainly, have to make a commercial decision shortly.
1. Accept the SPL version of “Club” and pay them around £10m to claim the history of Rangers Football Club plc.
or
2. Go to the CoS and shout to the world that The Rangers Football Club Ltd is a different association football club from The Rangers Football Club plc.
angus1983 says:
September 24, 2012 at 10:17
I think this is another example of all sides wanting it all ways.
Rather than just saying the club is deid away you go and start again, the SPL rules have been developed to allow those and such as those to be reincarnated but hamstrung through various penalties to ensure the offending club are not seen as getting off scott .
Therefore despite what one would expect to happen in commercial law, the footbaling law/rules gives a different outlook because thay want to protext their own.
All that being said that only works if a club suffering an insolvency event get back into the SPL.
What happens if they have not been allowed entry to that organisation?
Is a cluib then correct, as Mr Charles has said, to stuff those rules where the sun don’t shine.
But then again he wants to claim and hold onto the titles that were bestowed upon them (or bought from them in his opinion) by that same organisation and off we go again…………………………
The world is a circle without a beginning,
And nobody knows where it really ends.
Everything depends on where you
Are in the circle that’s spinning around.
Half of the time we are upside down.
(Bacharach /David)
faithermurphy says:
September 24, 2012 at 10:42
0 0 Rate This
Question for all the legal minds.
Assuming the enquiry finds against oldco and strips them of the titles but they also find the sfa and spl complicit, does this not mean that cfc could sue the sfa and spl for champions league money ?
Thanks in advance.
==========================
Only if they could prove that these bodies were negligent in allowing Rangers to cheat.
In any case, for most clubs, suing the SPL would effectively mean suing themselves. Perhaps a relegated club might explore their options; but it is unlikely, I would have thought.
Clubs are forbidden by the Articles from suing the SFA.
If the current incarnation of Rangers do accept the premise of the SPL Commission (that they can be held responsible for the sporting mis-deeds of the original) they could leave themselves open to claims from any/all SPL clubs who were disadvantaged by their cheating.
Otherwise, claims could only be made against the creditor pot soon to be handed over to BDO from D&P.
Tic 6709 says:
September 24, 2012 at 09:39
1
0
Rate This
Essex, thanks for the kind words.It would seem you were not very popular last night( ?).
========================================================================
Tic 6709….I take the TD’s as a “badge” awarded for awkward questioning…just like an ASBO!
I am of course still waiting for an answer re the “Cinque Stelle”…best not hold my breath!
Hirsute … I don’t disagree with you. However, I do think that Nimmo Smith will proceed with the SPL definition. The matter will then probably be escalated to the SFA, UEFA, CoA & Margaret Thatcher as appropriate.
SPL Rules, Interpretation section:
“Club means an association football club, other than a Candidate Club, which is, for the time being, eligible to participate in the League and, except where the context otherwise requires, includes the owner and operator of such club;”
Devil’s Advocate: It could be argued that TRFC, “for the time being” are not eligible to participate in the League – and are therefore not a Club in the eyes of the SPL Rules!
I also note:
“Club Official means any director, secretary, official, representative, manager, agent or employee of a Club and any person having a function or duty or position involving authority or trust within a Club and includes, without prejudice to the foregoing generality, any person who is able to exercise control, whether directly or indirectly, over the Club and/or the majority of the board of directors of any such Club (whether or not such person is himself notified to the Registrar of Companies as holding the office of director of such Club);”
Mr Charles, by this SPL definition, was a Club Official at RFC(IA).
The more you look at the SPL Rules, the more you realise what a “back of fag packet” concoction they really are.
(ollielogie: I wish! What you did was change the year Aberdeen won the ECWC. :))
Danish Pastry says:
September 24, 2012 at 10:21
briggsbhoy says:
September 24, 2012 at 00:46
12 1 Rate This
Colours Symbolism Flags & Nationalism
—————
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Ireland
the white does represent the peace – I had heard that too previously
Mike Ashley will have been well aware for the last few months of the impending collapse of JJB Sports. With that in mind does anyone believe that the deal he has done with Chuck will be on anything other than extremely favourable terms to Sports Direct.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19697949
nowoldandgrumpy says:
September 23, 2012 at 22:06
3 34 i
Rate This
Seems like the Secovians feel that they have been punished enough and have put up an e-petition and another threat.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/the-people-together
=========================================================================
Forget all the political and sectarian nonesense, this is just comedy gold
If you have time over lunch have a wee giggle at some of the comments.
Paranoia that somehow corrupt biased authorities allow you to become the worlds most successful club!
Allegiance to Her Majesty but a total blank on not paying taxes.
Some wonderful retorts from non Sevconiains and plenty of zombie references.
HirsutePursuit says: September 24, 2012 at 10:46
———————————————
I’ve been away all weekend and missed much of yours and others excellent comment and analysis on the Nimmo Smith decisions. I’d like to add a couple of things.
One point from the SPL articles that appears to have been omitted thus far is that of “Member”. If you include that reference, then it is helpful in establishing that the SPL most definitely see the Club and the owner/operator as different entities.
From the SPL Artricles – definitions of Club and Member
Article 6
——————
As you have already pointed out the SPL/SFA/UEFA have differing views and definitions on what constitutes a “Club” or indeed a “club” and is defined in 3.1.1 of the UEFA licensing criteria
Article 46 of the UEFA licensing criteria also covers the legal entity and ownership issue quite extensively. I think it is safe to say that the “legal entity” encompasses both the club and its owner/operator (as Nimmo Smith has also accepted)
However I think that Nimmo Smith is right to accept the SPL’s differentiation between the Club and its owner/operator. I’m pretty sure the separation in the SPL rules has come out deliberately in order that the footballing authorities can still act against the appropriate body (Club or owner/operator) should there be any transgression of their rules.
Arguments have been made in the past (outwith Scotland), where a football club’s parent company (owner) has gone into administration and claims have been made that the club shouldn’t be made to suffer the subsequent administration penalties. It think that it was established (in England) that if a company was set up either entirely, or in part, to run a football club, then an insolvency event within that company would result in a footballing points penalty for the club.
I’m comfortable that Nimmo Smith will apply the rules with common sense and “without fear or favour”. If appropriate, Im sure he will highlight areas or other organisations for futher scrutiny. Ultimately I hope that he is the catalyst for change and transparency that is so desparately required in the Scottish game.
Angus1983
Ah, I remember it well – watching the game in the Garfield House Hotel in the good company of a certain M McGhees sister, friends and family. What a great night and a wonderfuly hospitable family
Apols for OT ….
tomtomaswell says:
September 24, 2012 at 11:55
Yes full marks for Mr Charles keeping track of the iceberg and jumping from the sinking ship that was HMS JJB Sports.
However I agree that it is unlilkely the HMS Sports Direct will have given them the Captains cabin. More likely the servants quarter below the water line. And we know that isn’t always the best place to be regardless of how big the ship is.
angus1983 says:
September 24, 2012 at 11:49
0 0 Rate This
Hirsute … I don’t disagree with you. However, I do think that Nimmo Smith will proceed with the SPL definition. The matter will then probably be escalated to the SFA, UEFA, CoA & Margaret Thatcher as appropriate.
SPL Rules, Interpretation section:
“Club means an association football club, other than a Candidate Club, which is, for the time being, eligible to participate in the League and, except where the context otherwise requires, includes the owner and operator of such club;”
Devil’s Advocate: It could be argued that TRFC, “for the time being” are not eligible to participate in the League – and are therefore not a Club in the eyes of the SPL Rules!
——————————-
Chuckie has already said that his club have never been a member of the SPL – and he’s absolutely right.
But, that’s not really what LNS is saying. He is saying RFC plc were [owner & operator of] a Club when mis-deeds are alleged to have occured. RFC plc’s contracted liability for such mis-deeds continued – even when they were no longer a Club. In this assertion LNS is also correct.
However, LNS also asserts that RFC Ltd purchased “Ranger FC” and this is a “recognisable entity which is capable of being owned and operated, and which continues in existence despite its transfer to another owner and operator.” It is this ethereal entity, he suggests, that somehow manages to transfer the liabilities of RFC plc to RFC Ltd.
In common speech: this is bollocks.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
I also note:
“Club Official means any director, secretary, official, representative, manager, agent or employee of a Club and any person having a function or duty or position involving authority or trust within a Club and includes, without prejudice to the foregoing generality, any person who is able to exercise control, whether directly or indirectly, over the Club and/or the majority of the board of directors of any such Club (whether or not such person is himself notified to the Registrar of Companies as holding the office of director of such Club);”
Mr Charles, by this SPL definition, was a Club Official at RFC(IA).
——————————————————
Indeed this is so.
It also leaves him open to accusations of having been a shadow director of RFC plc and, if proved, would make “Rangers” a prohibited name for RFC Ltd. It would also, if judged by BDO to be true, almost certainly lead to criminal charges.
For the avoidance of doubt I make no allegation of criminal behaviour.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
The more you look at the SPL Rules, the more you realise what a “back of fag packet” concoction they really are.
———————————————————
Absolutely 🙂 🙂
tomtomaswell says:
September 24, 2012 at 11:55
Mike Ashley will have been well aware for the last few months of the impending collapse of JJB Sports. With that in mind does anyone believe that the deal he has done with Chuck will be on anything other than extremely favourable terms to Sports Direct.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19697949
=========================================================================
Since it seems Ashley owns the whole of “Rangers Retail” and CG has stated publicly that all funds will go there,I’d say Ashleys position is more than favourable.Don’t know what he’s promised green in return though.
I also wonder if Ashley,owner of brands like Donnay,Londsdale,slazenger anongst others,is happy about CGs mega deal with Adidas :lol;
The threats to Rangers (the club as deemed by the Scottish football authorities) are these.
1. CG – asset stripper – taking the money and running away with his pals
2. The money running out if the share issue bombs
3. The Strathclyde Police investigation into Whyte’s purchase of club – this may be deemed illegal
4. Lord Hodge’s investigation into D and P – a two week time frame now three months in – no idea what has been found but a clean bill of health would surely have been addressed by now
5. Nimmo Smith investigation into illegal registrations and the insistence that the club are liable
6. Possible legal challenge to the above resulting in unravelling of 5 way agreement
7. FTT and its fallout leading to repercussions over brand use
8. Possible phoenix challeng by HMRC leading to liabilities for tax being pursued
No lines in the sand ; no business as usual. If they survive all of the above and any one going against will sink them then they will have done very well indeed.
easyJambo says:
September 24, 2012 at 12:04
1 0 Rate This
HirsutePursuit says: September 24, 2012 at 10:46
———————————————
I’ve been away all weekend and missed much of yours and others excellent comment and analysis on the Nimmo Smith decisions. I’d like to add a couple of things.
One point from the SPL articles that appears to have been omitted thus far is that of “Member”. If you include that reference, then it is helpful in establishing that the SPL most definitely see the Club and the owner/operator as different entities.
From the SPL Artricles – definitions of Club and Member
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;
Member means a person who or which is the holder of a Share;
Article 6
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.
——————
As you have already pointed out the SPL/SFA/UEFA have differing views and definitions on what constitutes a “Club” or indeed a “club” and is defined in 3.1.1 of the UEFA licensing criteria
Article 46 of the UEFA licensing criteria also covers the legal entity and ownership issue quite extensively. I think it is safe to say that the “legal entity” encompasses both the club and its owner/operator (as Nimmo Smith has also accepted)
However I think that Nimmo Smith is right to accept the SPL’s differentiation between the Club and its owner/operator. I’m pretty sure the separation in the SPL rules has come out deliberately in order that the footballing authorities can still act against the appropriate body (Club or owner/operator) should there be any transgression of their rules.
Arguments have been made in the past (outwith Scotland), where a football club’s parent company (owner) has gone into administration and claims have been made that the club shouldn’t be made to suffer the subsequent administration penalties. It think that it was established (in England) that if a company was set up either entirely, or in part, to run a football club, then an insolvency event within that company would result in a footballing points penalty for the club.
I’m comfortable that Nimmo Smith will apply the rules with common sense and “without fear or favour”. If appropriate, Im sure he will highlight areas or other organisations for futher scrutiny. Ultimately I hope that he is the catalyst for change and transparency that is so desparately required in the Scottish game.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think you’ve hit the nail squarely on the head.
“Owner & Operator” is almost certainly intended to cover the situation where a club has a parent company and the SPL could claim jurisdiction.
So, the SPL share could have been held by Wavetower (if it had existed when the share was issued) in the case of a pre-administration Rangers. The fact that the owner and operator did not actually hold the share did not change the meaning of what was intended.
The phrase seems to have been deliberately misinterpreted to artificially separate club from company and create a platform for Rangers to remain in the SPL. When that wheeze failed, the concept should have been dropped with some embarrassment; but, for whatever reason, the SPL have simply persisted in the convolution.
It is with some concern that Lord Nimmo Smith has not only accepted; but advanced quite detailed reasoning to support this falsehood. I wish I could share your optimism.
HirsutePursuit says:
September 24, 2012 at 10:46
=====================================
Sorry; but you’re wrong.
Firstly, the rules of the SFA, SPL & SFL must be compatible with the law. Football clubs operating under the SFA and within the SPL or SFL are commercial entities and their respective Articles & Rules constitute the framework for such commercial activity. In this sense, sporting penalties/sanctions cannot be separated from commercial penalties and are therefore subject to the law. A definition that is “good enough for the purposes of the investigation” must be good enough in the eyes of the law. Lord Glennie has made this point already.
Secondly, and following on from my first point, the SPL Articles & Rules must be compatible with the Articles & Rules of the SFA; which itself must follow the strictures laid down by UEFA; which itself is subject to the will of FIFA. It is trite comment to point out that in such a hierarchical system, the definitions used by the higher body will be carried forward to the lower levels.
The SPL say that a Club (for their purposes) must be an association football club. The SFA & UEFA say that a club is the legal entity (company) that operates as a football club. It is simply illogical for the SPL (and its commission) to argue their version of a Club can be an association football club with no legal persona.
Lord Nimmo Smith and the other learned gentlemen appear to have accepted the Neil Doncaster’s version of Club without properly researching its true constituent parts. I find this as disturbing as it is surprising. Especially so, since they are suggesting that sanctions for the (alleged) mis-deeds of The Rangers Football Club plc can be applied to The Rangers Football Club Ltd.
Unless Charles Green has made such an undertaking on behalf of his club, it is beyond doubt that any such sanctions, if challenged, would be struck down by the CoS.
If I were a cynical man 🙂 I would wonder if, when the stolen titles are given to their rightful owners, the SPL expect the commission to seek repayment of the stolen prize money awarded to The Rangers Football Club plc. These prize monies would not be inconsiderable – certainly an eight figure sum. And, if I was so cynically minded, it would occur to me that it is commercially advantageous for the SPL to treat The Rangers Club Ltd as having sporting (and so commercial) liability for the old club.
If Lord Nimmo Smith does not correct himself (and I am minded to think he will not) Mr Green and his investors in The Rangers Football Club Ltd will almost certainly, have to make a commercial decision shortly.
1. Accept the SPL version of “Club” and pay them around £10m to claim the history of Rangers Football Club plc.
or
2. Go to the CoS and shout to the world that The Rangers Football Club Ltd is a different association football club from The Rangers Football Club plc.
=========================================================================
It appears that the first draft of the 5 way agreement stated that Sevco would accept the title stripping for the dual contract shenanigans when there was only a prime face case to answer, which is a strong position to take prior to a formal finding of “guilt”.
Of course this did not make it into the final agreement, as far as we are, but I suspect a clause enabling punishment to be visited on Sevco was inserted in the event of “guilt” being established. That is why Charlie needs to distance himself from it because he left the door open for titles to be stripped and as we all know anyone connected with Rangers (the brand) is responsible for nothing at all whatsoever.
I think HP is right Sevco could face title stripping and fines.
If Green contests the punishment in court does he not face further sanction for pursuing footballing matters through the legal system?
Life for Sevco is about to get even more difficult.
Ok hypothetical scenario.
Investigation reveals widespread collusion within both the SPL and SFA where individuals who were in receipt of EBT’s and knew how they worked at board level ( McLelland, Bain, and Ogilvie) actively deceived the SFA and SPL and allowed registrations of players which they knew to be illegal.
Can Celtic or other clubs sue these named individuals for loss of earnings? They cannot sue the SFA – against the articles of association, they cannot sue the SPL as they are owners or part owners of SPl but can sue individuals whose neglkigence or active complicity cost them huge sums. Are employees or office holders in the SPL and SFA indemnified against such actions?
Secondly , can European clubs in same scenario sue the SFA and SPL and named individuals for earnings lost though their defeats in Europe by Rangers ( this would be a huge sum – teams defeated in CL qualifiers and teams defeated on the road to Manchester)?
Thirdly, Can Celtic and other damaged parties sue Rangers -the club- for damages and receive these from the new entity which owns their footballing history and so presumably their footballing liabilities – for damage caused by breaches of regulations of the club in a previous guise?
The more one explores the possibilities, the clearer it is that the fiction of the club being a distinct entity which can be passed on to a new body, the more that process looks like a poisoned chalice for SEVCO. I suspect that by year’s end they will be in court of Session seeking to have the history of Rangers removed from around their necks. and to be recognised as a totally new entity.
With regards to the independent tribuneral; has it been agreed that the SPL have to accept the penalties imposed or can they just ignore them and hand down a meaningless fine?
Another aspect that could also have a bearing is if the FTT verdict comes in before the independent tribuneral sits. If the FTT returns a damning verdict but at the same time stipulates that the avoidance scheme was pre-meditated and deliberate then that will surely influence the tribuneral.
If the FTT finds it pre-meditated and the tribuneral agree then, despite what the MSM says, this has not been an administrative error but a deliberate act designed to give an unsporting advantage.
Now while that is not match fixing by bribing officials but it is match fixing by ensuring you have better players but also more of them and, as I posted last night, some of those players have come from opponents making them weaker and Rangers stronger.
This all leads back to my question above. Can the SPL simply ignore the verdict and punishment handed down?
Surely if they make mugs of three very senior legal minds then the game is up.
Piston Broke
My apologies for the removal of your post the other evening. I misunderstood the context, and you were not as I claimed making abusive comments.
Please forgive my zeal.
angus1983 says:
September 24, 2012 at 09:11
Guys you can debate this as much as you like, for me I never actually had much confidence in the Club being separate from the Company. However after 7 months there seems to be a legal definition. Now I can see from previous altercations that :aw Lords and QCs can come to very different interpretations, but we can only contest these if you are of similar professional grade, ie you have the credentials to dispute the arguments.
davis58 says:
September 24, 2012 at 13:33
Guys you can debate this as much as you like, for me I never actually had much confidence in the Club being separate from the Company. However after 7 months there seems to be a legal definition. Now I can see from previous altercations that :aw Lords and QCs can come to very different interpretations, but we can only contest these if you are of similar professional grade, ie you have the credentials to dispute the arguments.
===========================================================================
Great post [SFM – Removed sarcasm aimed at OP]
I want to be clear.
Sevco (The Rangers Football Club Ltd) have no titles to lose. The have no prize money to return. Those supporters who switched allegiance from The Rangers Football Club plc, of course, have an emotional attachment to those titles. They (and I suppose Sevco – since they purchased the brand) do not want to see the reputation of Rangers diminished further than it is already
If Sevco repay prize money, awarded to The Rangers Football Club plc over the past 10 years, it is simply what they will see as the purchase price to claim the history of that former club.
They will never have the former club’s history; but it at least would allow them to make the claim.
In my judgement, they will choose not to repay the prize money.
davis58 says:
September 24, 2012 at 13:33
angus1983 says:
September 24, 2012 at 09:11
Guys you can debate this as much as you like, for me I never actually had much confidence in the Club being separate from the Company. However after 7 months there seems to be a legal definition. Now I can see from previous altercations that :aw Lords and QCs can come to very different interpretations, but we can only contest these if you are of similar professional grade, ie you have the credentials to dispute the arguments.
—————————————————————————————————–
I’m sorry davis58 but I don’t think that we do have a watertight legal definition from Lord Nimmo (or even others) but we do have the definition from the SPL rules under which the Tribunal sits.
That I think was the purpose of the clearly stated passage on the separation between ‘Club’ and ‘owner and operator’ by Nimmo.
Whilst this may be subject to later challenge in other domains that is how Lord Nimmo is to proceed with his Tribunal team.
bogsdollox says:
September 24, 2012 at 13:13
I am sorry but I do not think life will become more difficult for Green, I think he (perhaps others) have played this by the rule book. There is nothing Green has done that is illegal, i moral yes, but well within the law. My big concern is we have not seen the end game yet.
redlichtie says:
September 24, 2012 at 13:45
Hi thanks for that, so within the SPL rule book it is a definition, but perhaps can be challenged outwith that?
miki67 says:
September 24, 2012 at 13:50
???????????????????
How many times over the last decade have we seen clubs like Dundee Utd, Hibernian, Hearts, Motherwell, Kilmarnock and others needing to sell their home grown talent to try and balance their books. When these clubs were setting budgets, they would be including expected income from sale of players even before a football been kicked.
This should be remembered when comparing the means by which Rangers achieved success on the field of play. The outcome of the Independent Tribunal will hopefully make sure that the unfair sporting advantage gained will never be forgotten. The means can only be titles stripped, suspension or expulsion and severe financial penalties.
Justice will be done.
So not to make the blog run of course, I am off to bed, Good Night.
davis58 says:
September 24, 2012 at 13:48
redlichtie says:
September 24, 2012 at 13:45
Hi thanks for that, so within the SPL rule book it is a definition, but perhaps can be challenged outwith that?
————————————————————————————————————–
Mr Green has resorted to the Courts previously and I would anticipate a challenge of some kind if the SPL Tribunal returns a verdict that leads to the expulsion or suspension from the League of the ‘Club’ owned and operated by Newco/Sevco.
What would he then have to lose? If such a sanction was to go ahead it would likely be financially crippling if not terminal for his company (Newco/Sevco).
I note that the draft ‘5 Way’ agreement, whilst subject to the laws of Scotland, makes reference to all parties irrevocably submitting to “the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport…..in relation to any claim, dispute or matter arising under or in connection with (the) Agreement.”
With the previous dispute in mind I would be surprised if the final agreement between the various parties did not include such a clause for the avoidance of future doubt.
davis58 says:
September 24, 2012 at 13:33
Guys you can debate this as much as you like, for me I never actually had much confidence in the Club being separate from the Company. However after 7 months there seems to be a legal definition.
——–
I wouldn’t call it a legal definition – it’s what the SPL Rules say, and they’re not legislation. i.e. You can’t be taken to Court for breaking SPL rules.
The “legal definition” of a Club would appear to go the opposite way entirely – i.e. Club = Company. Company dies, club dies.
I’m going to bring up Budapest Honved again. Their story is almost as entertaining as TRFC’s …
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2007/may/10/sport.comment3
Thought you would all appreciate this.
HMRC boss getting a presentation he did’nt expect.
I wonder ??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w4tcIsaInE
Classic JMcLure, i am sure i saw SDM and CW at the top table…
My preferred option if I were a Rangers fan then, would be to accept the offer of continuity of the club and any consequentials of being found guilty (like losing honours) and any punishments short of expulsion. I’m guessing by the tone of your posts that you would concur?
Definitely last July, when we were facing suspension or expulsion, the problem is I would still accept these sanctions, however most will not. The reason for this appears to be there are legal get out clauses, so no one wishes now to concede any ground, basically the majority see it as an attack against rangers, and the Law seems to find in our favour.
I do not think Green actually cares about honours, well especially back in July, now he perhaps does. My fear was that this independent tribunal would determine that there were no case to answer as we were separate companies/clubs. that would have been disastrous as we would have lost our history by means of defending part of our history..
justiceintegrity says:
September 24, 2012 at 14:16
Classic JMcLure, i am sure i saw SDM and CW at the top table…
————————————————————————————–
Considering the following:
‘HMRC was accused of agreeing controversial “sweetheart” deals with large businesses over outstanding tax bills while it was still run by Mr Hartnett. The issue exploded last year after a whistleblower revealed that HMRC had waived as much as £20m of interest on a £30m tax bill owed by Goldmans on bankers’ bonuses. It was also accused of letting Vodafone off as much as £8bn in taxes by accepting a £1.25bn settlement.’
Would it be naughty of me to suggest I wish he was still there working on our case?
Peanuts compared to others..
I don’t think Rangers or their fans can have preferred options.
They have signed up to membership as Rangers and this has been allowed ( how or why I have no idea) they are therefore liable for all of Rangers’s football liabilities. If, as seems inevitable, they misregistered players deliberately to avoid disclosure of payments deliberately to avoid paying tax on such payments then that is deliberate industrial scale cheating. It will then not be enough to simply strip all titles and the record books. They( rangers ) as a football team have already been given a transfer ban for a lesser single season offence – this one went on for over a decade. It allowed the entire finaces and personnel employed by the company to be skewed purposefully to create a deliberate advantage. This must lead to severe punishments and Nimmos Smith appears happy to deliver these.
Rangers cannot appeal the legality of being liable, or the five way agreement will collapse and they will have nowhere else to go. merely the verdict or the punishments. Obviously having an EBT recipient and former director pulling the strings in the SFA will help but I supect that his involvement will be so starkly put into focus that no cover up or gentleman’s agreement amongst the blazers will be possible.
The Rangers are in very deep trouble here – the days oif them picking and choosing punishments may be consigned to history and justice will be delivered to them more than they desire!
jmaclure says:
September 24, 2012 at 14:35
==================================================
As you say, the RFC case would have been small beer for Hartnett, a man who made agreements with Vodafone that were beyond his powers and who cited the fact that he wasn’t a tax expert when admitting he’d got it wrong. He should be sharing a cell with his Vodafone pals but sadly remains at liberty. We can but hope that Gideon Osborne will, in desperation have to push HMRC to re-assess Vodafone’s tax liability in the UK (chuck in Amazon too please).
Anyway, back to this blog and your contribution – the problem for SDM and Rangers (and Sevco if they choose for some strange reason to be considered as ‘Rangers’) is that they don’t appear to have managed the tax dodge properly (it’s galling to use the soft term ‘dodge’ for tax thieves) and will pay the consequences.
I can’t for the life of me understand the desire to keep a history so tainted.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/the-people-together/signatures
Y’know, I’m not too sure all these signatures and comments are genuine…. 😉
Comedy Gold.
jmaclure says:
September 24, 2012 at 14:35
There was me thinking that a Rangers fan had developed a sense of humour.
Sorry to burst your high ground comparison i.e. using Vodafone to lessen the impact of what your Club has been doing over the last decade. It is certainly not peanuts when you look at overall tax intake by HMRC from football clubs in Scotland. If you are defending your cause you should be using similar industry comparisons and not plucking a global mobile communications company to justify the indefensible.
Anyway, I enjoyed the clip.
justiceintegrity says:
September 24, 2012 at 14:51
There was me thinking that a Rangers fan had developed a sense of humour.
…………………………………………………………
Whoooshhh!
Take a day off !
#
#
iceman63 says:
September 24, 2012 at 14:46 Agreed that if found guilty over a TEN YEAR PERIOD than they may receive the most severe punishment which is not as the MSM would have us believe, the stripping of titles! However were this scenario to come about and rangers appeal, does anyone think that the SFA as the Appellant body would uphold ANY sanction, no matter how severe delivered by LNS and his colleagues?
davis58 says:
September 24, 2012 at 14:19
0 2 Rate This
Definitely last July, when we were facing suspension or expulsion, the problem is I would still accept these sanctions, however most will not. The reason for this appears to be there are legal get out clauses, so no one wishes now to concede any ground, basically the majority see it as an attack against rangers, and the Law seems to find in our favour.
I do not think Green actually cares about honours, well especially back in July, now he perhaps does. My fear was that this independent tribunal would determine that there were no case to answer as we were separate companies/clubs. that would have been disastrous as we would have lost our history by means of defending part of our history..
————
Glad to see you’re still up 🙂
It’s been clever spin-doctoring to maneuver this as an attack on Rangers. I think most fair-minded Gers fans though accept that they’ve been in the wrong on several fronts.
Green in his BBC Alba interview last week said he had bought the titles and insisted that they were his. At least he didn’t sound too keen on having them removed. But that might just be wheeler-dealer posturing. As far as I see it though, old Rangers are a goner. The sanctions will be imposed on the deceased, soon to be liqudated club and history will be re-written for the offending years – to set the record straight.
Of course, the multi-investigations by the police and other authorities may put a different endgame on it, as you indicate. Could get very interesting indeed.
I just can’t see the original club or Club being allowed to move into a parallel, debt-free universe. If it does, standby for clubs queuing up to go through the same magical debt-removal process! Div 3 could soon be very crowded 🙂
I don’t know how I missed this little gem on first reading:
http://www.scotprem.com/content/mediaassets/doc/SPL%20Commission%20reasons%20for%20decision%20of%2012%20September%202012.pdf
To my mind the first part of this paragraph simply says that an association football club is an undertaking that is capable of being owned and operated. This says to me that the SPL regard an association football club playing within its league, all of its business and its owner & operator collectively as the “Club”.
I would have no problems at all with that description.
So why do the commission assert that these definitions imply that it is the “Club” that can be owned & operated – when the owner & operator are already a component of that collective entity?
How can owner & operator be both inside and outside of the collective entity? Unless the SPL regard a Club as a franchise (where the components are freely interchangeable) this makes no sense at all.
And even if you do ignore that piece of twisted logic, how does this provide for the assumption that the owner & operator is a company that can always be prised apart from the component that actually plays football? Why does that have to be so? Surely the owners & operators of an association football club are its members (shareholders) and its board respectively? A holding company should be regarded by the SPL as part of the “Club” in the same way as the club itself. Why does it have to be more complicated than that?
Once again, if I was of a cynical nature, 🙂 I might think that this is pure obfuscation.
This absolutely smacks of:
“This is the outcome we need. Lets decide how we can justify it.”
The more I read this document, the more bizarre it appears.
The Vodaphone and Amazon examples given are very different. These were in respect of corporation tax. Many companies have been finding legal (if completely immoral) ways of avoiding paying corporation tax. Holding companies in Luxembourg seem to be the latest favourite.
Rightly or wrongly, the government seems terrified of these large companies taking their business elsewhere and HMRC have made deals.
PAYE is entirely different and everyone is expected to pay that. We’ve seen in the past that HMRC have very little patience for companies who don’t pay their PAYE and NI. Various football clubs have been issued winding up orders from HMRC, Hearts included.
Don’t forget, it was HMRC running out of patience with Whyte’s non payment which brought on the administration.
This is how I think it will go.
Rangers guilty of all charges titles stripped,
Spl and SFA called in for being ever so slightly not Impartial .
These to Organisations are not fit to govern Scottish Football, the shout from the MSM
and in a wee threat or two fae super swallie and wait for it…
League reconstruction no Spl and T’rangers back in the new Division One debt free
I know it’s been asked before a few times but does anyone have any idea when BDO take over? I know it was put on hold because someone appealed something or other but surely it can’t be put off forever?? Or are they hoping we all just forget!!
Brenda says:
September 24, 2012 at 15:16
2 1 Rate This
I know it’s been asked before a few times but does anyone have any idea when BDO take over? I know it was put on hold because someone appealed something or other but surely it can’t be put off forever?? Or are they hoping we all just forget!!
================================================
There is nothing that D&P will be doing now that BDO could not do under the liquidation process. Actually, there are things that BDO should already be doing that D&P cannot.
But…
Lord Hodge said he would not agree to the end of the administration period until he was satisfied on the question of D&P’s potential conflict of interest.
We have heard nothing since then.
Brenda says:
September 24, 2012 at 15:16
Rate This
I know it’s been asked before a few times but does anyone have any idea when BDO take over? I know it was put on hold because someone appealed something or other but surely it can’t be put off forever?? Or are they hoping we all just forget!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
They will take over when they are appointed. I believe it is Lord Hodge who will make that decision but at the moment he is looking into the small matter of D&P and a potential conflict of interests. My best guess would be November.
Apologies HP. You repsonded to Brenda as i was typing.
HirsutePursuit @ 15:37
Cheers thought I missed something ……. Did Lord Hodge not put a time limit on the ‘conflict of interest’ investigation, on which time was up weeks ago? Everything seems to be aimed at FTT result being revealed?????
iceman63 says:
September 24, 2012 at 13:14
As a rule of thumb, when it becomes more painful to hang on than to let go, the one hangin on lets go.
scottc
Thank you
Been catching up after holiday and some interesting debates going on; registered with wordpress and for those interested (probably no one) I was previously Allyjambo Taxpayer, here and on RTC.
It’s good to see the Nimmo Smith Enquiry taking shape at last and it certainly seems LNS is calling the shots and no doubt somewhat annoyed by the CG/Sevco/RFC attitude and while I doubt he’d let that influence his judgement it gives him a clear indication of the kind of people he’s dealing with
redlichtie says:
September 24, 2012 at 14:50
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/the-people-together/signatures
Y’know, I’m not too sure all these signatures and comments are genuine….
Comedy Gold.
***********
its all very juvenile – but some of them had me in tears – especailly since McMurdo has been trying and failing to keep them off the petition but seems he has given up – he will need to take out about 1/3 of those “signatures”…..Ian Brady, Mendo Pedres etc……..its one of those “what was he thinking” moments
The takeover by BDO – can only come when Lord Hodge signs off the administration.
Were he happy this would have come into play in August once the switcheroo for the licence had been put in place.
I suspect that Hodge is on the horns of a dilemma here. Dand P were not only clearly conflicted, but clearly maladministered the club, added to the debt, traded whilst insolvent, pursued a CVA that could never have been successful, chose not to secure income streams that were clearly available, chose not to cut costs that could easily have been cut and chose not to sell the assets to the highest bidder once the CVA was rejected.
He may well be considering criminal charges, or disallowing the administration altogether, or allowing creditors to sue D and P for damages.
Yet he may also be utterly embarrassed at allowing them to be appointed in the first place and fear that if he take any action to invalidate the administration and sale or to reprimand D and P or to have them charged then his own credibility is undermined as he failed to prevent them being appointed and took no steps earlier to intervene when it was clear to the entire world that D and P were not acting in the creditors’ interests.
I think he’s sitting on his hands at the minute deciding which of the options that faces him is the least bad.
In the meantime RFC (IA) cannot be liquidated and BDO cannot move in.
They will move in when Lord Hodge makes his decision and not before. If he declares the entire administration fraudulent, possibly criminally fraudulent, as well as compromised then who knows where we end up – not liquidating but rescinding the sale of assets and moving to administration mark 2 possibly, unless of course the Strathclyde Police report first, declaring the sale to Whyte himself to be fraud also.
Could be fun days ahead on that front too!
Brenda says:
September 24, 2012 at 15:47
0 0 Rate This
HirsutePursuit @ 15:37
Cheers thought I missed something ……. Did Lord Hodge not put a time limit on the ‘conflict of interest’ investigation, on which time was up weeks ago? Everything seems to be aimed at FTT result being revealed?????
===================================
From memory LH gave D&P 2 weeks to write him a report – which, according to their latest creditor report, I believe they did.
How LH responded to that report is unknown; but, since the administration period has not yet ended, you may think that he is not entirely satisfied.
Simply due to the lack of information, it would not surprise me if there are some reporting restrictions currently in place. Though, I have no knowledge or heard of of such.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19702547
Rangers: Scottish FA to issue a statement on EBTs
The Scottish Football Association is expected to issue a statement regarding Rangers’ use of employee benefit trusts within the next 48 hours.
The Scottish Premier League’s chief executive Neil Doncaster declined to comment on reports they wanted Rangers to accept the loss of league titles.
A three-man tribunal has been set-up by the SPL to investigate Rangers’ possible use of EBTs as dual contracts.
Ibrox chief executive Charles Green has questioned the panel’s independence.
And former Rangers owner Sir David Murray has denied any undisclosed payments to players and staff were made during his stewardship of the club.
The tribunal, headed by Lord Nimmo Smith, are investigating the period 2000-2011, years in which Rangers are alleged to have used dual contracts.
Green is unhappy with the investigation, believing the outcome has already been determined.
“The SPL appoint the jury, set the outcome and set the punishment before the trial,” he said.
Nimmo Smith then took the unusual step of defending the tribunal’s impartiality after Green’s claims.
The tribunal is due to convene in November, but Green has already made it clear that Rangers will not attend .
BBC Scotland requested an interview with both Neil Doncaster and SFA chief executive Stuart Regan on Monday. Doncaster said it would be inappropriate to comment because of the imminent hearing and the SFA’s chief executive was also unavailable but a statement is expected on either Monday or Tuesday.
Rangers’ use of EBTs are subject to a separate probe from HMRC, with a decision due in October .
BBC Scotland has seen evidence, which was submitted to the courts, suggesting that 53 Rangers players and staff had side-letters giving undertakings to fund their sub-trusts with cash.
SFA rules state that all payments made to players in respect of their earnings from football must be declared by their club.
If found guilty of breaching the SFA’s and the SPL’s rules, one possible sanction is the stripping of league titles won during the period under investigation, a punishment the club have said they would strenuously challenge.
Regarding BDO, a blast from the past. Still makes thought-provoking reading …
——————-
“Liquidator may bring in forensic sleuths to unpick past transactions
Published on 13 June 2012
Greig Cameron
FORENSIC accountants could soon be swarming all over Ibrox trying to unpick how Rangers got into dire financial trouble …
Accountancy firm BDO is, at the behest of HMRC, going to be appointed liquidator with restructuring partner Malcolm Cohen promising a “full and robust investigation into why the company failed”.
Typically a liquidator’s main function is to collect in and sell the company’s assets then distribute the proceeds to the creditors.
But part of that role can involve investigating what has happened at the business if they believe it could lead to a greater return of assets.
That could include looking at areas of the law such as gratuitous alienation, when company assets are disposed of for less than their full value, and unfair preference when the company repays a creditor to the prejudice of the other creditors …”
Full article: http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/news/home-news/liquidator-may-bring-in-forensic-sleuths-to-unpick-past-transactions.17860196
Sorry if this has been posted before. Cannot scrawl through ALL the posts. My point. and I know it has been mentioned elsewhere is that the Stripping of titles is not a punishment but a consequence for being found guilty of fielding inelligable players.If found guilty I am sure this would be the best outcome by far for Mr Green if that is all that happens to his new club and he knows it. Thats why he has made such a rumpus about it. Let the games begin….
Carfins Finest. (@edunne58) says:
September 24, 2012 at 16:01
0 0 Rate This
Sorry if this has been posted before. Cannot scrawl through ALL the posts. My point. and I know it has been mentioned elsewhere is that the Stripping of titles is not a punishment but a consequence for being found guilty of fielding inelligable players.If found guilty I am sure this would be the best outcome by far for Mr Green if that is all that happens to his new club and he knows it. Thats why he has made such a rumpus about it. Let the games begin….
=====================================
Don’t forget the return of prize money award throughout the ten year period. All of it – my guess is £10m – £15m would be forfeit.
Since Sevco have previously agreed to pay the footballing debts of Rangers, this may be a fairly inconvenient consequence.
Not a snowball’s chance in hell that they would pay though!
I see that RTC has started tweeting….I wonder if the timing suggests something in the wind…
Another wee article that might have been posted already, but it has a topical closing paragraph:
“BDO partners Malcolm Cohen and James Stephen have been lined up to take the liquidation appointment, although no timescale for when this will happen has been made available.
A statement in the report said: “The joint administrators have provided a report to the Court of Session regarding Duff & Phelps’ prior involvement with the company and detailing the joint administrators’ conflict review procedures, which were undertaken prior to the administration.
“A similar report has also been provided to the Joint Administrators’ regulatory body, the IPA.””
http://www.accountancyage.com/aa/news/2201570/rangers-fc-administrators-reveal-finances-at-collapsed-club
The Board of Motherwell Football Club today (Monday) issued the following brief statement ahead of Wednesday’s match with Rangers.
“The Board, players, staff and fans at Motherwell FC are united behind making the club successful and a positive force for improvement in the Scottish game.
“This week we are excited to be playing a Scottish Communities League Cup fixture against Rangers as both clubs build for the future. All of our focus should be on the field of play and we look forward to what promises to being a great game.
“We are pleased to note both the CEO and Board of Rangers recently said they would welcome our staff and fans and we will extend the same courtesy to all clubs ourselves as we seek to create a welcoming family club.
“The past is done; we now can only influence the future. We are now totally focused on what happens on the field this week. More generally we want to put all our energies into building on the hard work we have done over the last few years to make our club a sustainable success.”
http://www.motherwellfc.co.uk/2012/09/24/statement-from-the-board/
HirsutePursuit says:
September 24, 2012 at 15:06
——
Note what the Rulebook actually says …
Rule 1: “Club means an association football club, other than a Candidate Club, which is, for the time being, eligible to participate in the League and, except where the context otherwise requires, includes the owner and operator of such club;”
Not included in NS Statement: “except where the context otherwise requires”, which means that the definition of “Club” can include the owner/operator – or not if you don’t want it to!
Better and better, eh?
🙂
Captain Haddock is badcaptainmadman says:
September 24, 2012 at 16:09
1 0 Rate This
I see that RTC has started tweeting….I wonder if the timing suggests something in the wind…
————
And lots of them too. Thanks for the heads up C’ptn.
https://twitter.com/rangerstaxcase
fuzzynuts1888.
Spl and SFA called in for being ever so slightly not Impartial
who is going to ” call them in ” ? uefa will not intervene/interfere