On Grounds for Judicial Review

While the proposed Judicial Review of the LNS decision is to be welcomed it is a position that is fraught with legal difficulties such as the capacity to raise the proceedings, potential time bars and all sorts of other arguments.

It would be complete folly to base an argument here solely upon a judicial review of LNS as that would only leave one string to the bow.

Further, take the stated opinion or Mr Rod McKenzie that LNS only dealt with the issue of Player Registrations within the SPL/SPFL — and nothing else.

Any analysis of what is meant by that statement (and others made by Neil Doncaster) leads to the conclusion that there are other matters to be considered which were outwith the tight and narrow remit handed to LNS by the SPFL.

For me, the clearest consideration is this.

1. Craig Whyte has already been personally convicted by the SFA for deliberately failing to pay taxes as and when they fall due under article 5.1 of the SFA rules.

2. No such charge has ever been levied against RFC — just against their CEO.

3. Not only did RFC fail to pay taxes as and when they became due under Whyte’s watch, they deliberately failed to pay taxes for a 13 year period under the stewardship of Sir David Murray. They did this by deliberately entering into two unlawful tax aggressive tax avoidance schemes which even their advisers warned them could only be undertaken at considerable risk to the club as the schemes were never guaranteed to be successful.

4. Those schemes were entered into so that the club could buy players they would otherwise not have afforded.

5. In furtherance of those schemes, RFC chose to deliberately withhold the full details of their contractual arrangements with both players and managers from both the SFA and the SPL when submitting their applications to play under licence and in terms of the rules of both organisations.

6. In each of the years concerned, RFC had to apply for both domestic and European Licences to play football, and it is the granting of these licences which allows any football club to play in structured competition organised under the auspices of, or with the approval of, the SFA or UEFA.

7. Each and every licence application as submitted to the SFA in the knowledge that key financial and contractual information had been excluded in furtherance of tax avoidance purposes, and tax, which has since been declared to be legitimately due and payable from 1999 onwards, was unpaid and remains unpaid.

8. The above processes and procedures are no different, and indeed are considerably worse, breaches of article 5.1 under which Whyte was personally convicted and fined.

9. Further, as part of the HMRC investigations into the use of unlawful tax schemes, RFC deliberately lied to HMRC, SFA and SPL about the existence of side letters and other contractual documentation. This is particularly so in relation to the annual application for a playing licence.

On 20th May 2011, HMRC, in relation to one of the tax schemes, wrote to RFC and accused the club of “deliberate and fraudulent” behaviour in relation to the continued submission of false PAYE and NIC returns over a period of years.

10. It, therefore, follows that each and every application for a football licence made by RFC to the SFA from 2000 onwards (at least) was based on falsified financial, contractual and tax information and was designed to mislead the SFA with a view to persuading them to grant a licence on misrepresented grounds.

11. Not only is the above a breach of article 5.1 of the SFA handbook, but any licence obtained by misrepresentation has not been validly obtained as it has been obtained by way of false representation and deception.

12. It is a pre-requisite of entry into any league competition that the participating club holds a valid licence to play football.

13. In the event that a club did not or should not have held/hold a valid licence to play, that same club is not free to enter structured competition or register players to participate in such competition. It also follows that any declaration of a result of 0-3 in relation to any particular game as a result of a rule breach (such as fielding an ineligible player) is of no consequence because the club concerned was not eligible to participate at all.

14. The Court of Arbitration for Sport has already been invited by UEFA to hold that any application for a licence or any other compliance submission, which is devoid of all necessary financial and contractual information should be treated as null and void and as never having been received.

15. The same Court has also held that any title, championship, award, record, reward or other benefit which has been gained as a result of an improper or prohibited process should not be allowed to stand, the records of the award etc should be expunged and the sporting records corrected accordingly.

None of the above is dependent on a successful review of LNS but goes hand in hand with that process.

In the forthcoming review of Scottish Football recently announced by the SPFL, in conjunction with the SFA, all of the above should be under consideration.

LNS, under review, may determine that the players were in fact not eligible, but much more fundamental is the fact that there are clear facts and circumstances which should mean that the club itself was never eligible in terms of established legal jurisprudence.

As had been pointed out by Rod McKenzie, none of this has been considered by the SPFL as all matters concerning a licence are solely under the jurisdiction of the SFA.

Thus far, the SFA have taken no action against RFC or any of its officials as a result of the clubs involvement in, and cover up of, the Big Tax Case or the Wee Tax Case – both of which will be the subject of the forthcoming review demanded by Celtic and others.

541 Comments so far

MercDocPosted on10:11 pm - Aug 24, 2017

From Massive Rangers Story,”As sure as the chimes of Big Ben will bring in the New Year”. Mmm don’t think it will. So not so sure then?

View Comment

jimboPosted on11:07 pm - Aug 24, 2017

So this is my predations , Bayern Munich A 1-0 H 2-1, PSG H 1-1 A 0-2, Anderelecht H 6-0 A – 1-1

Easy!

jimboPosted on11:14 pm - Aug 24, 2017

Predictions!

Mind you we need to sign 3 defenders.

stifflersmomPosted on1:53 am - Aug 25, 2017

Is it fair to say that Sevco haven’t seen a draw like that since Peterhead in 2012?

jimboPosted on8:07 am - Aug 25, 2017

Player after player throughout the world want to play at Celtic Park. The atmosphere is legendary. For the best of reasons. Some stadiums across Europe have atmosphere but for hatred and potential violence. At Celtic Park our famous song is a love song. A song of love and hope. You will never walk Alone. That’s what makes us different. Why Messi bowed down to our support 5 years ago. It’s about love.

A list of players in our group are looking forward to Bayern Munich in a footballing sense, but realise that Celtic on their home turf will not be easy. Craig Swan had a good article today dismissing the notion that Celtic success in Europe is bad for Scottish Football. (What a joke). It keeps us on the map.

Some lesser players might get carried away by the atmosphere at Celtic Park. Be reckless. Try too hard. But I’m sure BR will instill in the players FOCUSS, this is our formation. This is where you need to be, this is what you do. Focuss. I don’t think we will lose a game at Parkhead.

AllyjamboPosted on9:46 am - Aug 25, 2017

jimboAugust 25, 2017 at 08:07

Totally agree with you, Jimbo.

I feel exactly the same about Tynecastle, and I’m sure supporters of every other club feel exactly the same about their home grounds too. When I sing the Hearts song, I’m singing a love song, just like you, but strangely enough, it’s actually about Hearts, and not a song to comfort the lover of a violent robber who has just committed suicide. Watch the musical, Carousel, to get the true meaning of the song. It’s still a great song though

Long may you continue to love your club and Celtic Park, as we all continue to love our clubs and home grounds, too. That’s what makes us all the same, and is part of what unites us on SFM.

jimboPosted on9:56 am - Aug 25, 2017

Funnily enough AJ, I was thinking about Tynecastle when I wrote that, in a domestic sense there are few stadiums comparable with Tynie for atmosphere. The steepness of the stands, the closeness to the pitch. (the opposite of Hampdump) Hope the new stand maintains that. I have a close friend who is a Jambo, for a laugh, he sings Sunshine on Leith at karioki (sp).

AllyjamboPosted on11:34 am - Aug 25, 2017

Yup, Jimbo, there’s still a lot of great things for us to enthuse about in Scottish football. It’s not all doom and gloom, and rivalry is actually one of the best things about it, within reason. And within reason is the ‘ma team’s better than your team’ kind of thing, or, ‘our atmosphere’s better than your atmosphere’, and maybe even ‘you’re sh*te and you know you are’. Regrettably, Scottish football has it’s own form of insults that go a long way towards limiting our game’s greatness.

Sadly, I know I will never see a time when what ails our game has disappeared, but I do hope that my grandson, he’s 8, will know a time when all insults shouted at football matches, no matter how vehemently they are shouted, or sung, have nothing to do with race, colour, sexual orientation or religion. Jings, football’s the greatest sport known to mankind, why on earth do people need to bring their prejudices into it to feel it’s got meaning for them?

jimboPosted on11:37 am - Aug 25, 2017

Last evening’s CL draw was spun out a wee bit but my goodness it was classy. Those two lady presenters were very professional although I doubt if either of them have ever kicked a football in their lives.

Compared to the cringey efforts of cup draws at Hampdump it was a step up.

easyJamboPosted on2:40 pm - Aug 25, 2017

Here’s an update on David Whitehouse’s action against the Lord Advocate at the Court of Session on Tuesday.

https://stv.tv/news/west-central/1396435-rangers-administrator-sues-lord-advocate-over-asset-freeze/

Rangers administrator sues lord advocate over asset freeze

A director of Rangers administrators Duff and Phelps is suing the lord advocate over a move to freeze his assets.

David Whitehouse and Paul Clark were appointed to the former Rangers Football Club PLC in 2012 after owner Craig Whyte declared the business insolvent.

The Duff and Phelps pair faced a failed prosecution bid by the Crown Office in relation to the collapse of the Ibrox oldco, while Mr Whyte was found not guilty of fraudulently acquiring the club during a trial in June.

It has emerged Mr Whitehouse has launched an action against the top law officer in Scotland, which is believed to relate to a restraint order imposed on the Duff and Phelps managing director and his wife in 2015.

The ordinary action called at the Court of Session earlier this week.

Stuart Munro, Mr Whitehouse’s lawyer, told STV News: “This action concerns a restraint order granted in December 2015.
“It would not be appropriate to say anything further at this stage.”

Mr Whitehouse and Mr Clark previously launched civil suits against the Crown Office, the lord advocate and the chief constable of Police Scotland after the cases against them were dropped in 2016.

Further developments in those cases are expected later this year.

The Crown Office said it could not comment on ongoing legal proceedings.

Mr Whyte was the only person to stand trial over the collapse of Rangers as charges against the other six accused were dropped.

Last October, Police Scotland and the Crown Office were found to have “abused state power” in a raid on a legal firm as part of the investigation into the Rangers insolvency.

The High Court of Justice awarded £500,000 to Holman Fenwick Willan LLP after privileged documents not covered by a search warrant were taken.

Mr Whitehouse and Mr Clark are being sued by BDO, which was appointed as liquidator of Rangers oldco, in relation to the administration process.

The Duff and Phelps employees “fundamentally disagree” with allegations made against them and vowed to contest the civil action.

woodsteinPosted on4:33 pm - Aug 25, 2017

easyJambo
August 25, 2017 at 14:40

“Mr Whitehouse and Mr Clark are being sued by BDO, which was appointed as liquidator of Rangers oldco, in relation to the administration process”
—————————————————————–
7 FEB 2017
BDO today confirmed a claim has been lodged against Paul Clark and David Whitehouse, of accountancy firm Duff & Phelps, at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.
It is understood BDO are seeking up to £28.9m following Clark and Whitehouse’s handling of the administration process.

17 DEC 2016
Craig Whyte has slashed the amount of cash he is trying to squeeze out of oldco Rangers by more than £21million.
Whyte’s latest claim for £3.5million means a further delay for creditors hoping to secure a dividend from the assets of the oldco.
“As the Wavetower claim purports to be secured, however, the joint liquidators have been liaising with their legal team to understand what further steps are required before they can prepare a fresh Scheme of Division and declare a first dividend to creditors.”

And there’s more ! © as Jimmy would say.

justshateredPosted on8:22 pm - Aug 25, 2017

Far be it from me to question tactics with regards to the old club/new club debate but for a long time I’ve thought the best way forward is a reverse tactic.

Don’t ask the SPFL, and their legal stooge, as to why they are the same club: accept it.

Now stay with me on this one, yes accept it.

Ask them to confirm the SPL was made up of football clubs, prior to the amalgamation of the SFL and SPL, adhering to rules created by that league.

Ask them then to justify, from a sporting integrity angle, why the club that finished second in the league in season 2011/2012 ended up in the bottom tier of Scottish football?

Ask them why that same clubs prize money was withheld?

Doncaster has been quite forthright stating that the SFL’s record keeping was not as it should have been but let us see how the SPL’s stand up to scrutiny.

Under what rule/rules of the SPL was a vote required to keep a club in the league?

This is unprecedented that a club finishing second in the top league, anywhere in the world, is treated in such a manner.

Why was a vote even required?

Indeed, what was their justification for such a vote?

Why was that club forced to start at the very earliest round of the Scottish Cup as the SPL should have put them forward to be exempt from those earlier rounds?

Who failed in their responsibility to that club and what sanctions have been taken against that individual?

Was the SFA, as the country’s governing body, not concerned that one of their member clubs was being so harshly treated by its fellow members?

Was there any correspondence between the then SPL and SFA regarding this matter?

I could go on but I think you get the drift.

We as supporters cannot get them to admit that ‘The Rangers’ is a new club because they will just say that is their adjudication however what we can ask, and indeed are entitled to ask, is what were the rules that allowed such an unjust thing to happen to a member club when, according to them, they had committed no crime?

If what they did is not in their rule book, then they broke their own rules and someone should be held accountable for such a vindictive assault on a member club.

jimboPosted on8:55 pm - Aug 25, 2017

Was in the pub this afternoon. Was speaking to a guy who as it turned out is a Jambo. So I excitedly told him I am on SFM and know EJ & AJ, he said yes Jimbo you told me that about two months ago! I felt deflated. He went away and finished his game of pool unimpressed. Eejit!

Anyhow on another revelation from today, Anderlecht is a part of Brussels, I never knew that. You live and learn.

jimboPosted on9:49 pm - Aug 25, 2017

Seeing as its so quiet on here tonight, here is my report on the PSG match tonight. Their manager has obviously been studying Brendan Rodgers tactics and formations. Honestly it was like watching Celtic on a good day. I no longer fear them, that guy Neymar is no better than LG, SS, MD or even wee paddy. Bring it on. Although their 3rd goal was sublime, reminded me of Scott Sinclair.

Good night and God bless.

Think this one might get sent to moderation. But it’s harmless. I love you all.

AllyjamboPosted on9:54 pm - Aug 25, 2017

Just noticed the following over on twitter, where some bear has countered someone with this little gem

“Yes and nobody is denying that. But it was the holding company that was liquidated. Not the club itself, yes?”

I don’t want to get involved in a twitter argument, and, anyway, there’s plenty putting him right, but it got me thinking that this is an argument put forward, even by some who should know better, and it would be much more fun if we were ever given the oportunity to disavow the smart arses of the media of this nonsense than some halfwit bear.

So, I know what a holding company is, but I thought I’d look for a definition that was a bit snappier than I was likely to produce, and found this:

‘holding company – noun – a company created to buy and own the shares of other companies, which it then controls.’

In other words, a holding company holds shares in a company, nothing else, so, even if Rangers ‘holding company’ entered liquidation (which it didn’t, but let’s imagine it did) and no one bought the shares of Rangers Football Club (which has to be a limited company to have shares to be held by a holding company) and clears or takes on the responsibility for it’s debts, Rangers Football Club had to enter liquidation, too.

As in all cases, when the Rangers protectionists invent a scurrilous argument for continuation, their own argument can be turned against them, and, in this case, it is this:- as it had, as they so correctly point out, a holding company, Rangers Football Club was, and only was, a limited company!

AuldheidPosted on10:57 pm - Aug 25, 2017

A question I think Doncaster and McKenzie should be asked:
Had brown envelopes stuffed with cash been used instead for ten years and then discovered are they both saying nothing could have been done under the SPL/SAFA Rules?
Is the only difference between a brown envelope stuffed with cash and an unlawful ebt that:
with the cash, it is clear that the payment has deliberately been made secretly because the payer knows he is being dishonest paying by that means as does the player taking it and it would only be uncovered by outside intervention
and
with the ebt, the payment was deliberately made secretly, was only discovered because of outside intervention, but because it was delivered in an ebt and not cash there was no question of dishonesty?
Except of course LNS was able to declare there was no question of dishonesty involved because that evidence of corporate dishonesty was not provided by Duff and Phelps, who had all the detail in March 2011 made in a Points of Claim document, but according to the meeting report with Doncaster and McKenzie, could not provide them because MIH had the paperwork, including presumably the HMRC letter of 20 May 2011 addressed to Rangers at Ibrox.
So what is the difference and under what rule would Rangers have been charged if payments had been made in a brown envelope over 10 years?

John ClarkPosted on10:58 pm - Aug 25, 2017

AllyjamboAugust 25, 2017 at 21:54
‘….‘holding company – noun – a company created to buy and own the shares of other companies, which it then controls.’’
___________
It’s when otherwise respectable QCs get in on the myth that we really have to begin to worry, Aj.

When one of them can write ,in his considered , no doubt expensive, ‘opinion’: ” In the case of Rangers FC, it was a member of the SPL and it was owned and operated by Oldco..” we realise that we are entering a world of fantasy.

There is no evidence that there ever was more than one legal entity. That entity was Rangers Football Club, incorporated in 1899. Shareholder in the SPL, and member of the SFA.

No ‘holding club’ was created even when SDM went public: there was still only good old Glasgow Rangers of 1899 vintage bearing the same commercial identity as it had on its incorporation, still only a football club ,shareholder in the SPL and member of the SFA, but renaming itself as “Rangers Football Club plc”

And it was that entity that was Liquidated. The club, the club , the feckin football club! There was no other entity, no other ‘company’ that owed the debts.

And as all of us who are not QCs know, that debt-ridden football club was NOT saved from Liquidation and sold to any Newco.

No, the ‘Newco, be it Sevco 5088 or SevcoScotland [ I can hear CG saying to CW ‘But you are Sevco!] that was set up to buy some of the assets had to start up a brand new Football Club!

And even that new club did not have a ‘holding company.’

That only came about when ‘Rangers International plc’ bought the shares owned by those who owned the shares of ‘SevcoScotland/ The Rangers football club Ltd’, and promptly changed the name of ‘Rangers Internation plc’ to “Rangers International Football Club plc” to launch the IPO.

This is all old ground to most of us, but we (or I) have to keep repeating the true facts for the sake of Truth, and to let new readers know that, if their knowledge of the facts depends on what the SMSM (including BBC Radio Scotland) have reported over the years, then they have been sadly deceived and are victims of unmitigated propaganda ( and have been treated as morons without a rational thought in their heads).

I think it’s a truism that there are evil, exploitative men in the world?

Some are evil by nature( known in theological circles as ‘very bad basterts’)
some are made so by circumstance( these are known as ‘bad basterts’),
and some are so weak in the matter of ‘principle’ as to succumb to pressure ( these are known as ‘stupid basterts’)

The degree to which that Truism has been made manifest in the whole suppurating saga initiated by SDM’s serial cheating is a matter which we must all carefully consider.

I have carefully considered.

armchairsupporterPosted on11:00 pm - Aug 25, 2017

Good night Jimbo!

Judging by the sentimentality of your posts tonight, I’m sure you’ll sleep tight.

jimboPosted on11:14 pm - Aug 25, 2017

Armchair, Its a long story mate. I take a bit of comfort here amongst on line friends. I have real life friends too and family. DG.

AllyjamboPosted on12:16 am - Aug 26, 2017

AULDHEIDAUGUST 25, 2017 at 22:57

Had brown envelopes stuffed with cash been used instead for ten years and then discovered are they both saying nothing could have been done under the SPL/SAFA Rules?
____________

This touches on a point I’ve made before, that, regardless of the legality of EBTs (let’s assume they are as legal as the legal tender that is a pound sterling), Rangers made payments to players that were outwith their registered contracts. They also induced players to sign for them by offering these out of contract payments. Was it not de Boer who said, quite openly, that it was the money paid by EBT (DOS) that persuaded him to choose Rangers over Manchester United? If Rangers had paid that money in the form of cash in the proverbial brown envelope, would that have been viewed as a bribe? Does football consider it an acceptable practice? There can be no doubt that, at the very least, it would fall foul of the principle of ‘upmost good faith’.

Is there a difference between handing a FIFA official a wad of cash to make a decision in favour of yourself (or your business, your club or your country), as opposed to handing a similar wad to a player to make a decision that favours you, rather than a rival (for his signature) who does not use unrecorded payments?

Regardless of the tax position, these were ‘under the counter’ payments, does the use of side letters make them any different from the brown envelope scenario? Or am I completely wrong in believing that there is anything wrong, or illegal, in brown envelope payments?

HirsutePursuitPosted on12:23 am - Aug 26, 2017

In the 2004 – 2005 season there were 12 members of the Scottish Premier League Ltd.

Every member of the company – its clubs (lower case) – received minutes of each SPL board meeting.

When the company’s articles of association were altered in 2005 (twice) by votes at general meetings, each member will have clearly understood the purpose of those changes through the earlier board minutes they will have received.

There are eleven current football clubs – Aberdeen, Celtic, Dundee, Dundee Utd, Dunfermline, Hearts, Hibs, Inverness, Kilmarnock, Livingston and Motherwell – who will have filed away in their company records, SPL board minutes which provide a clear explanation of why the 2005 articles of association changes were introduced.

BDO may also have a copy of the minutes that would have been available to the original Rangers.

If the SPL board’s intention was really to introduce the idea of a Club as a footballing franchise – as presented by Doncaster/McKenzie to LNS – then there should be a clear document trail leading to that outcome.

Can any one of the eleven clubs (lower case) listed above provide copies of the minutes of SPL board meetings when the changes to the articles were discussed?

It won’t prove that Sevco Scotland are Rangers FC – but it might show that they both operated the same franchise.

Alternatively, it might just show that LNS was fed a heap of horseshit.

The period prior to 2005 is already beyond the time when the notion of Club (with a capital C) and ‘owner & operator’ existed. That part of the LNS judgement is already (IMO) bound to be set aside if challenged – since the entities that were under investigation, did not actually exist in the forms defined by the terms of reference.

If the Doncaster/McKenzie franchise construction cannot be supported by the SPL minutes from 2004/05 then the entire LNS commission will be shown to have been based on a falsehood.

Do any of the eleven clubs (lower case) listed above have an interest in making the SPL minutes available to those seeking a review of LNS?

Has anyone asked to see those minutes?

Cluster OnePosted on7:44 am - Aug 26, 2017

ALLYJAMBOAUGUST 25, 2017 at 21:54 14 1 Rate This
Just noticed the following over on twitter, where some bear has countered someone with this little gem
“Yes and nobody is denying that. But it was the holding company that was liquidated. Not the club itself, yes?”
I don’t want to get involved in a twitter argument, and, anyway, there’s plenty putting him right
———————
Saturday 5 September, 2015
As mentioned previously, the “same club” myth has never been properly subjected to any form of legal challenge (largely because the opportunity has never presented itself – yet), but overwhelming evidence continues to refute the notion that the club is somehow a continuing legal entity – and there exists no more an authoritative voice than the conditions set down by a Crown Office legal official overseeing proceedings in open court.
On 19 July 2013 at a court hearing for Rangers Football Club PLC in Edinburgh, in his opening statement at the start of a First Tier Tax Tribunal appeal hearing (the appeal being made by HMRC against the verdict of the “Big Tax Case”, Colin Bishopp, Upper Tribunal Judge said:
”Before coming to the detail of the case it is worth making a preliminary observation. I have referred (above) to the strong feelings of many football supporters. Perhaps because of such feelings, professional football clubs are often regarded as having a special status. In some respects that may be the correct view; but it should nevertheless not be overlooked that a modern professional football club is not a “club”, in the sense of an unincorporated association of members who join together in pursuit of a common purpose, but a commercial enterprise whose function is to generate profits for its shareholders. From that perspective it has no special status, and there is no reason why its tax affairs should not be as open to scrutiny as those of any other profit-making organisation. The players, too, have no greater right to conceal their tax affairs from public scrutiny than any other taxpayer. The fact that they are in the public eye is irrelevant. Any application for privacy, anonymity or redaction of detail must therefore be supported by the same type and quality of evidence as would be required of another taxpayer, and will be granted only for the same reasons.” [28]These remarks demonstrate – above all other evidence – that there is absolutely no legal basis for the Rangers Football Club to circumvent Scots Law by arbitrarily defining itself as separate legal entity from Rangers Football Club PLC (or The Rangers International Football Club PLC or The Rangers Football Club Ltd or Sevco 5088 or Sevco Scotland Ltd) solely to protect the mortally-wounded pride of its deluded supporters and lay claim to an ephemeral notion such as “history” and “honours”.
The “club” component of the organisation has absolutely no protected legal status – only the company does – and since the company was liquidated in 2012, it now exists only in the memories of its supporters and in media chronicles of past events.
Put simply: Rangers Football Club, as it was, is dead.
http://www.hostilemonkey.co.uk/weekend-at-bernies/

SmugasPosted on8:02 am - Aug 26, 2017

Auldheid and AJ. There is a further key distinction re your brown envelope analogy. Auldeid refers to the “payer.” Fundamentally that was us! Their club and ours were just the mediums through which we transferred the funds.

AllyjamboPosted on9:50 am - Aug 26, 2017

Cluster OneAugust 26, 2017 at 07:44

Game, Set and Match!

I think I probably read, or saw it referred to, all those years ago, but, with all the other arguments it’s been lost in the fogs of time. And yet, it is that slam dunk, absolutely clear, in legal words that are easy for us all to understand (for a change), almost as though the Upper Tribunal Judge, Colin Bishopp, was making a point he wanted us all to be able to understand, to ensure there was no doubt that the law did not allow continuation of a football club after liquidation, no matter what clever ploys are employed by spivs, supporters, the game’s governors and the media. I suppose he felt it incumbent upon himself to scotch the idea that a football club, in particular, can flaunt the laws of civic responsibility, and act in the manner of an immortal to fund success on a ‘build debt, liquidate, build debt, liquidate…’ basis.

We have all probably been rather lax in allowing that clear and unequivocal statement of a legal fact escape our list of factual evidence, but how on earth did no one from the mainstream media publish it and explain to their readers exactly what it means, at least within their business or legal sections, at the time? I’d love to see one of their protectionists try to dissect it in an attempt to rubbish it as the ramblings of a man who knows nothing about football or the importance of a certain institution to the fabric of Scottish society!

Thank you, CO, for bringing it to our attention, it adds to that list of factual evidence of ‘New Club’ that is never countered with fact from the other side.

Indeed, it is surely all we need to present to any of the ‘Rangers’ protectionists, and invite them to counter it with factual evidence, something they would most likely respond to using the, ‘ah, but the SPFL say differently, it’s in their rules’ defence! But while the SPFL can maybe choose to treat a replacement club however they like, within their purview, they cannot breath life into a corpse, no more than, say, a ‘Vampire Club’, saying that no member can ever die, would mean that a deceased member lives on, even if they sit an effigy in his favourite chair in their meeting place and transfer all his ‘Vampire of the Year’ titles to the dummy. It is still a replacement vampire, and the original is still dead!

woodsteinPosted on10:15 am - Aug 26, 2017

The attached file is an article in the DR today by Gordon Parks.
It is exactly as printed no additions or changes.
Comments please.

AllyjamboPosted on11:22 am - Aug 26, 2017

woodsteinAugust 26, 2017 at 10:15

I don’t blame Caixinha for that rambling nonsense, it is, after all, made in his second (maybe not even his second) language. I blame the culture that says a football manager should have to make a daily statement to the press, even when he has nothing to say, and, of course, who ever is in charge of the Ibrox club, has a lot of nothing to say on a daily basis, it’s just that he’s afforded the opportunity to say nothing more often than anybody else which makes him appear more stupid than he actually is. Of course, maybe it is the case that, despite the fact that he is forced to say nothing more than everybody else, he is just as stupid as he comes across and what he says might still sound stupid in Portuguese!

AllyjamboPosted on11:57 am - Aug 26, 2017

I notice Pedro is saying in his latest statement that he will return the club to ‘the glory days’. Does that mean he is aiming for relegation? For the club’s only, ever, ‘glory days’ were in the lower leagues! Could this become known as ‘the Reverse Caravan Tactic’? Would that mean the RCT one day replaces the EBT as the way to go at Ibrox?

John ClarkPosted on12:02 pm - Aug 26, 2017

AllyjamboAugust 26, 2017 at 11:22
‘… who ever is in charge of the Ibrox club, has a lot of nothing to say on a daily basis”
_________________
Could be straight from the pen of Damon Runyon!

HomunculusPosted on12:13 pm - Aug 26, 2017

ALLYJAMBO
AUGUST 26, 2017 at 11:57
==========================

Third in the top division at the first attempt was a really good achievement.

They are lying sixth just now, so maybe that was a bit of freak.

I assume he is aiming for the glory days of third place. Which is achievable with the best squad in Scotland I would have thought.

John ClarkPosted on12:45 pm - Aug 26, 2017

Eric Cantona’s “When the seagulls follow the trawler, it is because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea’ was at least an original.
Caixinha’s ” the dogs bark and the caravan keeps moving” was used a couple of years ago by another, slightly more successful Portuguese football coach ( yep, Jose himself).
Does yer man Caixinha rank himself up there with Jose?

SmugasPosted on12:52 pm - Aug 26, 2017

AJ @ 09.50

regrettably easy to counter unfortunately. Colin Bishop is clearly referring to the club (lower case) this legally identifiable thing that just so happens to have the letters c, l, u, and b in the title and the Club (upper case) to which they will identify as Rangers FC as and when the arguement suits them.

thanks again Rod.

AllyjamboPosted on2:20 pm - Aug 26, 2017

SmugasAugust 26, 2017 at 12:52

I’ve no doubt someone will try that one, just like the bloke with the ‘holding company’ argument yesterday, but it is quite telling, I think, that they continually have to construct an argument, or resort to Xxxxx said they are, rather than to the definitive words of a senior judge.

The words of a judge presiding in a court of law will always trump the paid for words of a jobbing solicitor like Rod McKenzie.

easyJamboPosted on8:27 pm - Aug 26, 2017

The Celtic Blog (James Forrest) has reported that Celtic has formally requested a review of the EBT decision

https://thecelticblog.com/2017/08/blogs/stewart-regan-hopes-he-can-brass-neck-our-inquiry-calls-hes-crazier-than-pedro-if-he-tries/

Cluster OnePosted on9:09 pm - Aug 26, 2017

ALLYJAMBOAUGUST 25, 2017 at 21:54
“Yes and nobody is denying that. But it was the holding company that was liquidated. Not the club itself, yes?”
————
Going back to the OC/NC if i may?
ALLYJAMBOAUGUST 26, 2017 at 14:20
but it is quite telling, I think, that they continually have to construct an argument, or resort to Xxxxx said they are, rather than to the definitive words of a senior judge.
—————
I have never found anyone that has lost an argument or has been convinced otherwise by an ibrox fan or the smsm that it is the same club.At what point do they begin to look at themselves and say I don’t know anyone that believes we are the same club to have convinced someone who says we are not the same club to change their mind.And i don’t know anyone that has won an argument to defend the same club argument.At what point do they look at the facts in front of themselves and say i will never win the argument that we are the same club because the facts are so strong laid out in front of me that i have no argument

John ClarkPosted on12:22 am - Aug 27, 2017

I sat down today to acknowledge the reply, from Mr Doncaster, to my letter to Mr MacLennan.

Preparatory to doing so, I was reading a copy of the ‘summary’ that Mr Moynihan QC had provided and attached to the advice he had provided to the SPFL, a copy of which Mr Doncaster had enclosed.

On his ‘summary’ page ( on which he identifies the ‘several possible complaints’ ) the QC says this (at his para 7)
” The final option would be to consider the whole affair (non-disclosure of the payments and non-payment of any tax due) as conduct that that brought the game in to disrepute.That cannot be pursued by the SPL or SPFL.The Rules of the SPL and SPFL do not contain such a disciplinary offence and,therefore, there can be no charge brought by the SPL or SPFL on that basis.” (my underlining)

Now, I have to say that when I read that, I immediately went to the Nimmo Smith report. I read through that until I came to para [33] in which this is said:”
It can be seen from these provisions that every member of the SPL, being also a memberof the SFA, is bound by a nexus of provisions having contractual effect to comply with theArticles and Rules of each body, and is liable to sanction for any breach of either at the instanceof the SPL”

Now, we’ve all grown up hearing charges of ‘bringing the game into disrepute’: it’s as old as I am, a wonderfully flexible charge that can be used to meet almost any situation, including the charge of cheating your fellow League members and the Governing bodies of the sport!

It seems to me to be clear from this, that the SPFL even now DO have the ‘legal’ power to invoke the SFA’s Articles to support a charge of ‘bringing the game into disrepute’ against the Liquidated club.

Am I setting myself up as a more competent legal adviser than a QC?

Well, aye!
An’ ah’m no even a lawyer, just someone who can read!

I have not been at all impressed by most of the QCs I’ve heard in action, especially by those who try to defend the preposterous notion that TRFC Ltd is ‘Rangers 1872/99’ when it comes to sporting ‘titles and honours’ , but is not the ‘Rangers 1872/99’ when it comes to paying tax debts and other creditors.

If ever I need a QC, I know whom not to instruct!

John ClarkPosted on12:48 am - Aug 27, 2017

PS. I still have not formulated my reply to Doncaster/MacLennan.

It’s a bit of a bugger, Celtic ( if indeed it is the case) having put in writing a request for an ‘independent’ review, with the SPFL backing it.

That kind of review means absolutely nothing in terms of excising the cancerous growth and burning the diseased tissue to prevent further recurrences.

No.

The CGs of the football world and his successors simply must not get away with the ‘Big Lie’.

And those who engineered matters, and those who supported and continue still to support that engineering, in an attempt to turn lies into truth must be rooted out, and their deceit exposed, whether they be officers of the SFA ,or of the former SPL or SFL, or conflicted club/SFA/ SFL board member.

Or directors of a plc that will not seriously look after the interests of its shareholders.

It gars me greet.

AuldheidPosted on3:21 am - Aug 27, 2017

August 27, 2017 at 00:22
I sat down today to acknowledge the reply, from Mr Doncaster, to my letter to Mr MacLennan.
Preparatory to doing so, I was reading a copy of the ‘summary’ that Mr Moynihan QC had provided and attached to the advice he had provided to the SPFL, a copy of which Mr Doncaster had enclosed.
On his ‘summary’ page ( on which he identifies the ‘several possible complaints’ ) the QC says this (at his para 7)” The final option would be to consider the whole affair (non-disclosure of the payments and non-payment of any tax due) as conduct that that brought the game in to disrepute.That cannot be pursued by the SPL or SPFL.The Rules of the SPL and SPFL do not contain such a disciplinary offence and,therefore, there can be no charge brought by the SPL or SPFL on that basis.” (my underlining)
=======================
The SFA set up a Judicial Panel that charged Craig Whyte with bringing the game into disrepute for non payment of PAYE and VAT but not (strangely enough) the wee tax case liability after 6th May 2011 when he took over Rangers.
Rangers were also charged with failings in respect of Craig Whyte and non payment of money owed to Dunfermline and Dundee Utd and becoming insolvent, again from 6th May 2011, but not before then which, had the wee tax case been included had to refer to Rangers bringing the game into disrepute going back to 30 August 2000 when the issued De Boer with the first ebt side letter.
The relevant SPL Rule that they could be charged with and in place in April 2011 was Article 3
Relationship between Clubs and the League
A3.1 In all matters and transactions relating to the League and Company each Club shall behave towards each other Club and the Company with the utmost good faith.
If this was in place prior to April 2010 back to 2000 then it would appear to be an apt SPL rule to charge Rangers with breaching for all of that period or, if introduced later, for the period from when it started,
As regards the SFA articles the relevant Article from whenever it first appeared would be
Article 5. Obligations and Duties of Members
5.1 All members shall:-
(a) observe the principles of loyalty, integrity and sportsmanship in accordance with the rules of
fair play
The Judicial Panel Notes of 30 April 2012 (about a 6 weeks after Harper McLeod started asking about ebts with side letters )
at https://scotslawthoughts.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/93212354-sfa-rangers-note-of-reasons.pdf
show that Rangers as a club were charged with breaching Article 5.1b) but not 5.1 a) and again from 6th May 2011 only.
5.1.b) says
All members shall:-
(b) be subject to and shall comply with:-
(i) these Articles;
(ii) the Judicial Panel Protocol;
(iii) the Challenge Cup Competition Rules;
(iv) the Registration Procedures;
(v) International Match Calendar;
(vi) Club Licensing Procedures; and
(vii) any statutes, regulations, directives, codes, decisions promulgated by the Board, the
Professional Game Board, the Non-Professional Game Board, the Judicial Panel, a
Committee or sub-committee, FIFA, UEFA or the Court of Arbitration for Sport;
This begs the question why a charge of not observing Registration Procedures was made by the SPL and not the SFA.
The reason given was to allow the SFA to be the court of appeal of any LNS Decision but why not The Court of Arbitration on Sport especially, as the SFA provided the key witness that influence LNS?
Finally check back on my comment on cash payments in brown envelopes instead of ebts and AJ’s comments
More questions than answers I’m afraid.

upthehoopsPosted on8:35 am - Aug 27, 2017

Re what powers the SPFL do or do not have to take action against Rangers. It is a moot point when their stance is clearly linked to not upsetting the swivel eyed lunatics among the Ibrox support rather than doing what is right. Progress can never be made when fear of upsetting the guilty remains the priority. Even if Celtic have written to the SFA formally requesting they carry out the review the SPFL asked for, the Terms of Reference and the choice of panel members will ensure the pre-determined outcome the SFA and SPFL want prevails. A court needs to deal with this mess and that is why a judicial review is essential.

Let’s be honest. The U.K may not be world leaders in much these days, but having inquiries and reviews which actually set out to protect the wrongdoers remain a speciality.

AuldheidPosted on4:40 pm - Aug 27, 2017

Up the hoops
Going to court is the ultimate threat and if you have strong enough evidence to present at court then you have enough leverage to obtain an in house enquiry that does not have a predetermined outcome.
It’s no longer about the law or QC advice it’s about doing the right thing to restore integrity to the game in Scotland.

upthehoopsPosted on6:22 pm - Aug 27, 2017

AULDHEIDAUGUST 27, 2017 at 16:40 Going to court is the ultimate threat and if you have strong enough evidence to present at court then you have enough leverage to obtain an in house enquiry that does not have a predetermined outcome.It’s no longer about the law or QC advice it’s about doing the right thing to restore integrity to the game in Scotland.
===========================================

I must admit to wondering when the game in Scotland ever had integrity. In fact, pre-social media days who knows what went on. Regan and Doncaster have dug such a deep hole for themselves they may decide to dour it out in the hope a Judicial Review is not granted. They know the media won’t cause them any grief so if a JR is not granted they would probably be okay.

Cluster OnePosted on7:02 pm - Aug 27, 2017

UPTHEHOOPSAUGUST 27, 2017 at 18:22
In the hope that a Judicial Review is granted.And things start to unravel, just where do the SMSM go?
There is nowhere from them to hide, Scottish journalists will be laughed at all over the world, there careers will be in tatters and mocked until the end of time.

redetinPosted on7:20 pm - Aug 27, 2017

I’m told that the usual grounds for judicial review of a decision by a public body are:-
– Procedural impropriety
– Illegality
– Irrationality
I believe that BRTH has demonstrated elements of all three in the above post.

HighlanderPosted on11:39 pm - Aug 27, 2017

It is indicative of the woeful state of football governance in this small nation of ours that legal action such as a Judicial Review is the only reliable way forward to achieve justice, since the setting up of an independent review, as belatedly proposed by the SPFL, would be reliant on the entirely discredited Scottish football authorities setting appropriate terms of reference and supplying relevant information to any commission or inquiry.

We only need a cursory glance at the embarrassing contrivance that was LNS to recognise that justice can easily be subverted by the deliberate restriction and control of both timescale parameters and selective information supply, such as the utterly absurd reasoning of Sandy Bryson.

If left to their own devices, it is inconceivable that Regan, Doncaster & Co would pass up the opportunity to yet again control the narrative and outcome of a supposedly independent commission, rather than supply their own guillotines by admitting the patently obvious truth that the rest of us who inhabit the real world can clearly see.

They have to be challenged by any means available or we might as well change allegiances to WWE wrestling.

Jingso.JimsiePosted on11:21 am - Aug 28, 2017

CLUSTER ONE

AUGUST 27, 2017 at 19:02

And things start to unravel, just where do the SMSM go?
————————————————-

When it starts piddling down heavily upon them, they’ll all go & shelter under the umbrella marked ‘legal advice’. (Well, if it’s good enough for the SFA/SPFL…)

I’ve believed since the beginning of this saga that the SMSM thought this would be a seven-day-wonder & forgotten about toute-suite. That’s why it’s always been treated as a football story & not a business one.

I also don’t subscribe to the ‘James Traynor has something on everybody’ line. I think it’s pure laziness on the part of journos, who are happy to cut’n’paste press releases rather than actively look for a story.

StevieBCPosted on3:30 pm - Aug 28, 2017

Apologies if covered already.
This DR article appeared a couple of days ago.
I have extracted some of Regan’s quotes / [my comments in italics].
================
“Scottish football is on the up and making World Cup would be the icing on the cake says Stewart Regan

[Armageddon and social unrest is apparently still on hold then?]

“I was at a meeting in Monte Carlo on Thursday morning and there was recognition of the fact that the Scotland curve has started to turn again…These things are noted.”
[Regan not interested in responding to fans’ tweets/emails/letters…but happy to accept ‘recognition’ from people in Monte Carlo. Would like to see the eye-watering bill for that jolly – paid for by the fans.]

“…Scotland have always been seen as a strong country in footballing terms because our clubs in the past have competed well in Europe and won trophies…There is an expectation that Scottish football should be operating at that level and you have seen what other countries have done.”
[True, we have seen what Iceland, Wales, Portugal etc have done over the years. It’s just that we can’t see any discernible improvement in the Scotland team: and don’t look any nearer to qualifying for a finals.]

“Clubs are getting better. Smaller nations are doing better.”
[Well, under Regan’s watch a major Scottish club has died, the Scottish team is still cr@p…and very few Scottish football fans have any confidence in Regan – or the SFA as a whole.]
===================================================

Regan’s strength?
He has some brass neck !
He has absolutely no shame, no self-awareness, and should just stay silent in the bunker, IMO.
Who manages his / the SFA’s PR…?

Cluster OnePosted on6:21 pm - Aug 28, 2017

JINGSO.JIMSIEAUGUST 28, 2017 at 11:21
I also don’t subscribe to the ‘James Traynor has something on everybody’ line. I think it’s pure laziness on the part of journos, who are happy to cut’n’paste press releases rather than actively look for a story.
———————
They don’t have to look far. It has already been handed to them on a plate.
——————
I’ve believed since the beginning of this saga that the SMSM thought this would be a seven-day-wonder & forgotten about.
—————–
And the more days that pass the more they will be laughed at and mocked

Cluster OnePosted on6:24 pm - Aug 28, 2017

EASYJAMBOAUGUST 26, 2017 at 20:27 28 0 Rate This
The Celtic Blog (James Forrest) has reported that Celtic has formally requested a review of the EBT decision
https://thecelticblog.com/2017/08/blogs/stewart-regan-hopes-he-can-brass-neck-our-inquiry-calls-hes-crazier-than-pedro-if-he-tries/
—————–
Was half expecting Banner headlines today, like Angry celtic,or celtic demand. It was all very quite.

Cluster OnePosted on7:49 pm - Aug 28, 2017

ALLYJAMBOAUGUST 26, 2017 at 09:50
Thank you, CO, for bringing it to our attention, it adds to that list offactual evidence of ‘New Club’ that is never countered with fact from the other side.
——————
Reading back over the page i forgot to reply. Thank you, CO, for bringing it to our attention,No problem,something i came across while having a computer clean and fitted in with the conversation.

paddy malarkeyPosted on8:01 pm - Aug 28, 2017

Commiserations to the Jambo twins on the appointment of your new manager . 4-6-0 or the more adventurous 5-5-0 ?

John ClarkPosted on12:10 am - Aug 29, 2017

paddy malarkeyAugust 28, 2017 at 20:01
‘….Commiserations to the Jambo twins on the appointment of your new manager . .’
___________
It’s not for me to say anything whatsoever about the internal affairs of Heart of Midlothian FC.
But I listened with interest to the BBC Radio Scotland ‘Sportsound’ discussion. I use the word ‘discussion’ very loosely
I use the word ‘discussion’ very loosely indeed,for it generated more heat than light as Michael Stewart and Tom English talked over each other in such manner as to leave me confused about the points they were trying to makeAnd
And Kenny MacIntyre is no Richard Gordon as a ‘facilitator’ of discussion- he gets personally argumentative to the point of extreme irritation.
The subject matter of discussion turned to talk about Caixinha and his comments about O’Halloran, and I lost interest ( except to note that the people clearly want Caixinha out). That’s their business, and it’s not for me to comment.
But I was drawn up short ( when I was folding up the ironing board for Mrs C) to hear Boyd ( I know not which Boyd) tell the listeners that TRFC Ltd fans would rather beat one other team four times a year than win the league and qualify for Europe!
Boyd was not, of course, saying that that was his personal view, but saying that that was his view of what the TRFC Ltd support thought.
I would hope that his view could not possibly be well grounded in fact.
The absurdity of such a view is apparent, and I would hope that the supporters of the ‘new club’ would have higher sporting aspirations than those attributed to it by whatever ‘Boyd’ it was who was on radio.

TrisidiumPosted on1:15 am - Aug 29, 2017

Been away for a few days folks, and have returned just before the end of the fund raising appeal. WIth a couple of days to go we are just £70 short of our target. I think BP and I will settle for that – once again a great vote of confidence in the blog.

More good news – I think – is that the TWM podcasts will resume soon.
BP is currently arranging to get an interviewee sorted for the first one, and we also hope to have an update on the Fans for Judicial Review progress.
Interesting times.

AllyjamboPosted on8:45 am - Aug 29, 2017

paddy malarkeyAugust 28, 2017 at 20:01
Commiserations to the Jambo twins on the appointment of your new manager . 4-6-0 or the more adventurous 5-5-0 ?
__________________________

While not ideal, I think it’s possible, and it’s purely out of the loop guesswork, that Levein’s appointment is temporary, and as a result of the candidates (that were within Hearts’ budget) not meeting Hearts’ criteria (whatever that might have been). I think it’s possible that they have a target who is currently under contract elsewhere, and Hearts can’t afford (or don’t want to pay) the compensation that would be due. Either that, or they think that the target will want to see out his current contract.

If I am anywhere near correct, then it would be both unfair and poor economics to appoint someone knowing they had every intention of removing him some time soon (within the course of his contract). In the meantime Levein, who remains in situ as DOF, will, presumably, have a pay rise commensurate with his added responsibilities, but much less than a new manager/head coach would have received, and will readily step aside should a new manager/head coach be found, at no additional cost to the club by way of compensation to himself.

Of course, it may well be the case that they have no one in mind, but rather than appoint someone just for the sake of it, they have decided to appoint Levein until such time as they have the right man (in their view) available.

All total conjecture on my part, but it does seem to make some sense to me if that’s the plan.

I think it’s a smart move if viewed as short term, but not a good sign if permanent (unless he makes it work), though I doubt he will be using his Scotland tactics at Hearts (he didn’t previously, nor at United), unless he feels the club’s squad is as limited as he felt the players available to Scotland were during his tenure.

I’m far from excited by this move, but then, I was very excited by the appointment of Ian Cathro (and still rather sad at the way it turned out) but wasn’t by the appointment of Robbie Neilson, seeing Levein’s appointment as more of a steadying the ship move than the way forward.

Perhaps, after an exciting, but risky, plan has gone badly wrong, a steadying of the ship is a smart move to give the next, hopefully permanent, manager/coach, a better base to start from.

easyJamboPosted on11:24 am - Aug 29, 2017

Paddy Malarkey August 28, 2017 at 20:01
Commiserations to the Jambo twins on the appointment of your new manager . 4-6-0 or the more adventurous 5-5-0 ?
===========================
It’s not really a surprise to see CL appointed. I spoke to a couple of people at the weekend who have connections to the club. One wanted Steven Pressley to be appointed and the other said that CL was Ann Budge’s favoured option.

If my latter source was correct, then the delay in appointing him suggests that CL initially turned down the offer. The club then went through an interview process with some decent candidates, but ended up settling on CL, which begs the question of why go through the interview process in the first place.

CL clearly has the experience to do the job. He had some success last time round, but the football wasn’t great to watch (as Paddy hints at). Ann Budge had previously intimated that the club would be recruiting an experienced coach, so Jon Daly wasn’t going to be a serious candidate this time round.

I don’t believe that Hearts football structure will be changed by CL’s appointment. I suspect that Jon Daly’s promotion to assistant first team coach will see him progress to the top role when CL sees fit to step aside after a season or two.

CL’s ultimate selection as first team coach does make his little empire more vulnerable, of course, but he was already beginning to take some flak for Cathro’s and the team’s failings, so there is an argument that says he might as well do the job himself, and take the flak or plaudits directly.

He will be a busy boy as he now holds the positions of Club Director, Director of Football and First Team Coach. I would now expect him to reduce his hours watching the Development and Academy teams play, but I expect he will still be at the Oriam to watch the Development side play this afternoon.

The bottom line will be results on the park. If these improve then it will be viewed as a success for both CL and Ann Budge. If not then we could see a significant shake up on the footballing side.

I suspect that there is some tightening of the belts at Tynecastle with increased spending on the new stand (including rental of Murrayfield), and some revenue streams not meeting expectations (e.g. player trading, ST sales, league position). CL’s appointment will save the club a six figure sum, assuming he hasn’t negotiated a significant increase on his current remuneration as DOF.

Foundation of Hearts money is currently going solely to fund the new stand. The £2m mark of the £3m proposed contribution was due to be passed this month, along with £6m mark for total contributions since the club came out of administration. Their next scheduled funding target, from May 2018, is to repay Ann Budge’s £2.4m loan, so the club will have to rely only on its own resources until the end of 2019, unless FOH priorities change.

PatsyPosted on11:24 am - Aug 29, 2017

TRISIDIUM
£60 now

Scottish Football needs a strong Scottish Football Monitor

magicroundaboutPosted on11:29 am - Aug 29, 2017

A return to the ultra defensive style which brought Mark de Vries four goals in a 5-1 win in his home debut would be very much welcomed. As would the losing 2 Derbys out of 14 and qualifying for the group stages of the Europa League. I had hoped that Ian Cathro would be a success and that Hearts implementing the DoF model would be a positive influence in the Scottish game making up some of the ground it appears to have lost in recent years. Given that this has not happens it is always good to have some sort of contingency plan in place.

jimboPosted on2:53 pm - Aug 29, 2017

It has went a bit quiet on here the past few days. I guess transfer window fatigue has set in with fans, International break upon us. I have to admit I find it hard to get overly excited about Scotland matches now. I just like to see my own club’s players coming back without injuries.

I can’t even say I feel confident about the up and coming CL games. Plagued as we are with injuries as it is. Maybe we will be strengthened come Friday morning. I will wait and see.

No court cases to mull over. SFA & SPFL back in their bunkers. All silent at Ibrox. Thank goodness for Pedro, Craig Levein and Patrick Roberts to talk about. Unfortunately GMS too.

John ClarkPosted on1:29 am - Aug 30, 2017

jimboAugust 29, 2017 at 14:53
‘….SFA & SPFL back in their bunkers.’
____________
And that is what we should be concentrating on, Jimbo.

Is there a split between the SFA and the SPFL in the matter of a ‘review’ of how Scottish football arrived at the ridiculous situation it is in, where the most outrageous sports cheating that ever took place was simply accepted, and endorsed in effect by the Sport’s authorities, and the Commission appointed to look into the cheating was sabotaged by the very ‘prosecution’?

Or is the SPFL’s readiness to support the call for a ‘review’ simply part of a joint strategy to shut the door on the past deceit, and ‘move on’?

Just what are they up to, the utterly discredited SFA and SPFL?

What a dog’s breakfast the whole shambles is!

All caused by a cheating knight of the realm, supported by a lying press,and ‘sports authorities’ who put money so far ahead of personal and official integrity as to create the myth that TRFC Ltd (founded and accepted into a professional Scottish football league in 2012 is one and the same as the Rangers football Club that was founded when my grandfather was, what?, (?1851 from 1872) = 21 years old!

God give me strength!

StevieBCPosted on3:08 pm - Aug 30, 2017

Who is the Hampden blazer delegated with the task of remembering to wake up at midnight tomorrow night – to firmly close the window ?

We don’t want any dodgy clubs taking advantage of poor housekeeping at Hampden – and sneaking in some tardy and mibbees ‘imperfectly registered’ players ?

I’ll get ma squeegee…

AllyjamboPosted on3:27 pm - Aug 30, 2017

I am sickened by my club’s refusal to sell Jamie Walker to TRFC at a knock down price – by instalments. How dare any football club refuse to sell to the Govan club at whatever price they offer, they are, obviously, so full of entitlement and are ‘The Peepul’, that we should all bow before them!

I mean, that’s the impression one might get from reading this headline from the Herald:

‘Jamie Walker won’t sign for Rangers before the end of the window unless Hearts drop £1million demands’

The article, itself, doesn’t go on to explain why Hearts might/should let him go, for what is, I believe, 40% less than what they value him at, and doesn’t point out that TRFC have not made a fresh offer; so this article, and others similar, is merely a sop to the Ibrox club’s supporters to give the impression that their club is actively pursuing a player they would like to see playing for them. The headline would have been more accurate, and less of a PR exercise, if it had read:

‘Jamie Walker won’t sign for Rangers before the end of the window unless they make an increased offer closer to the £1 million Hearts are looking for!’

The article could then have made it clear that TRFC have not been in contact with Hearts since their unacceptable offer was made some weeks ago, and that it had been, and still remains, an offer to pay by three instalments over two years!

Think about it, the Ibrox PR machine is putting it out there that TRFC are still trying to buy Walker, despite the fact they have not spoken to Hearts about it since their last offer was rebuffed quite a few weeks ago!

StevieBCPosted on4:02 pm - Aug 30, 2017

ALLYJAMBO
AUGUST 30, 2017 at 15:27
…
Think about it, the Ibrox PR machine is putting it out there that TRFC are still trying to buy Walker, despite the fact they have not spoken to Hearts about it since their last offer was rebuffed quite a few weeks ago!
===================

AJ, you’re just a ‘hater’!

And as Phil has mentioned, September – i.e. next week onwards – is when TRFC needs another soft loan of c. GBP 3M / 4M.

So, Level42 might be instructing the SMSM to copy/paste a heck of a lot more cr@p in the near future… to distract the bears.

jimboPosted on4:20 pm - Aug 30, 2017

If I was Jamie Walker, I would get my head down and concentrate on Hearts. He could be a hero, get a Scotland cap or more, and don’t let his head distracted by noises from Ibrox. That day may come, but it is not now.

Anyways, I’m going back to worry about my own transfers. Wish some other club’s fans would come on here with their hopes and aspirations.

tonyPosted on6:07 pm - Aug 30, 2017

ALLYJAMBO
we all know the difference if it was the other way around

upthehoopsPosted on8:11 pm - Aug 30, 2017

ALLYJAMBOAUGUST 30, 2017 at 15:27
I am sickened by my club’s refusal to sell Jamie Walker to TRFC at a knock down price – by instalments. How dare any football club refuse to sell to the Govan club at whatever price they offer, they are, obviously, so full of entitlement and are ‘The Peepul’, that we should all bow before them!
I mean, that’s the impression one might get from reading this headline from the Herald:
‘Jamie Walker won’t sign for Rangers before the end of the window unless Hearts drop £1million demands’

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

In the good old days a quick phone call to the Bank of Scotland to get the overdraft limit increased would have sorted this. Wages would have been no issue either with the player probably being offered an EBT with a side letter.

Playing by the same rules as the rest is a real bitch eh!

Cluster OnePosted on9:06 pm - Aug 30, 2017

ALLYJAMBOAUGUST 30, 2017 at 15:27 31 4 Rate This
I am sickened by my club’s refusal to sell Jamie Walker to TRFC at a knock down price – by instalments. How dare any football club refuse to sell to the Govan club at whatever price they offer, they are, obviously, so full of entitlement and are ‘The Peepul’, that we should all bow before them!
——————-
The instalments. may be the stumbling block for any club that has a player that is on the ibrox radar.
If i’m not mistaken (and i’m sure i will be corrected if wrong) always happy to be corrected.
Did i read somewhere that players have signed for the ibrox club, with the ibrox club paying in instalments only for the ibrox club to sell the player before the final instalments have to be made?
Then the ibrox club pay off the balance with the money they have made from the sale of the player.
Nothing wrong with that maybe, but risky.
It looks like you have bought or splashed out say a million (Banner headlines and all that) Makes you look like you are a big club buying big money players.but in actual fact you have paid a deposit then paid off the balance with the sale of a player that has been hyped to be worth more than what you paid in the first place, trying to get a quick turnover and a little profit.
Hope you can get where i’m coming from

armchairsupporterPosted on10:21 pm - Aug 30, 2017

CLUSTER ONEAUGUST 30, 2017 at 21:06

Cluster One, I know exactly where you are coming from, although I have never even considered this angle. Very clever or, as you say, very risky!

jimboPosted on11:58 pm - Aug 30, 2017

I’ve got a question to ask. I know I have mentioned it in the past.

Why was Charles Green allowed to re-name Sevco as The Rangers. I thought that a phoenix company/clumpany arising from a liquidated thing could not have a name resembling the dead structure.

It would have solved so many problems with the bears, the SMSM to have had a name like IBROX UTD. But to merely add ‘THE’ helped the delusion.

HirsutePursuitPosted on1:28 am - Aug 31, 2017

Jumbo
From a legal point of view, the Rangers trademarks were purchased by Sevco, so it is perfectly entitled to use the name.

It’s only a phoenix if the same directors are involved in oldco and newco. Charles Green was never a director of oldco.

Not sure why you think ‘The’ Rangers is a different name from the original club. Before it was renamed to RFC2012 PLC it was ‘The Rangers Football Club PLC’.

The new club is using exactly the same trading name and trademarks as the old one did.

Cluster OnePosted on7:11 am - Aug 31, 2017

JIMBOAUGUST 30, 2017 at 23:58
I’ve got a question to ask. I know I have mentioned it in the past.
Why was Charles Green allowed to re-name Sevco as The Rangers.
———————————
This may help you JIMBO.
https://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/08/04/fun-with-forms-could-sevcos-change-of-name-to-rangers-be-invalid/

Cluster OnePosted on7:17 am - Aug 31, 2017

To late to edit.
You could also have had a look at this.https://www.sportinglife.com/error/404/football/news/article/165/7952551/new-name-confirmed-for-the-rangers———But for some reason. Sorry, but the page you were trying to view does not exist.I have been getting that once or twice with sites i have been looking back on to look up something in the ibrox saga

HighlanderPosted on7:29 am - Aug 31, 2017

There’s nothing particularly complicated about the reasoning behind allowing similar names.

It’s because they are the people, apparently.

ZilchPosted on8:22 am - Aug 31, 2017

upthehoopsAugust 30, 2017 at 20:11
ALLYJAMBOAUGUST 30, 2017 at 15:27 I am sickened by my club’s refusal to sell Jamie Walker to TRFC at a knock down price – by instalments. How dare any football club refuse to sell to the Govan club at whatever price they offer, they are, obviously, so full of entitlement and are ‘The Peepul’, that we should all bow before them! I mean, that’s the impression one might get from reading this headline from the Herald: ‘Jamie Walker won’t sign for Rangers before the end of the window unless Hearts drop £1million demands’
==============================
In the good old days a quick phone call to the Bank of Scotland to get the overdraft limit increased would have sorted this. Wages would have been no issue either with the player probably being offered an EBT with a side letter.
Playing by the same rules as the rest is a real bitch eh!
———————————————————————

AJ, UTH

In the Good Ole Days, Rangers phoning the Bank of Scotland did not result in them paying the going rate for Scottish players. How many players did they get at a knock down rate for other Scottish clubs? How many players did they get that the selling club did not want to sell?

Nah. A phone call to the Bank of Scotland was as likely to be to arrange for them to apply the squeeze on a reluctant seller. IMO.

This is the kind of corruption that I believe the clubs and the SFA etc are still trying to cover up.

HomunculusPosted on8:56 am - Aug 31, 2017

CLUSTER ONE
AUGUST 31, 2017 at 07:17
=====================================
I don’t know if this is the case for the pages you are looking for, however it may be worth noting that there is a European “right to be forgotten”. People (and presumably other entities) can request that online information be removed. It is no longer the case that once something is on the www that it will be there forever.

It is worth noting that if a page is important to you, for whatever reason, then the safest option is to download it. Right click, save as, will download an entire page which you can then refer back to locally rather than accessing the net to get the content. It will still open up in your browser as normal by clicking on the “link”.

It is also worth remembering that the www is not the entire internet and google is not the only search engine. So just because you cannot find something through google, bing or the more common search engines that does not mean it is no longer there, just that it is no longer included in their index. I think the fact that people now talk about “googling” something demonstrates just how ubiquitous that particular search engine is.

wottpiPosted on10:06 am - Aug 31, 2017

ALLYJAMBOAUGUST 30, 2017 at 15:27

The question should be why are T’Rangers interested in Jamie Walker in the first place, regardless of the price?

He was blowing a bit hot and cold last season and has since gone off the boil along with showing a questionable attitude.

Pedro let go two similar type players in McKay (£6m valuation) and O’Halloran and by all accounts he seems to want to replace them with Walker.

The addition of Jack, Dorrans, Alves and the other new lads don’t make T’Rangers look any better than they were last year. I don’t see the addition of Walker making much difference to their squad.

Its become a big blue squirrel of a story.

I did however say some time back that T’Rangers would resort to type by attempting to weaken the opposition by trying to buy and unsettle players of those around them. The MSM are of course only too keen to help.

People down Tynie may have issues with Levein but on this issue I am hoping his stubborness and GTF attitude to T’Rangers is seen as a key asset to the club.

Unless a decent amount of smakeroonies are offered in cash and up front, Walker can wait for the time he can sign a pre-contract and sit the season on the U20’s bench for all I care.

AllyjamboPosted on11:58 am - Aug 31, 2017

WOTTPIAUGUST 31, 2017 at 10:06

Since the outset of TRFC’s ‘bid’ for Walker I have questioned the genuineness of their intent, and believe it all but disappeared with their European Progres (of the Niederkorn type) but, of course, they weren’t going to make the damage that result had caused too obvious by ending their ‘interest’, especially as it was clearly undermining Hearts’ relationship with an important player. The deal, as far as I can make out, was quite ludicrous, and was never going to succeed, though TRFC might, if they were genuinely intent on getting his signature, have improved it if the Europa League had beckoned.

Things might change quickly today, and a deal be done, but it will have more to do with TRFC’s media aided propaganda campaign than Hearts’ need for the sale proceeds (most of which they won’t see for some time), as their only option appears to be to continue to pay for a disaffected player with no sale value after today.

I do wonder why Hearts haven’t made more of this, making it clear how the ‘deal’ was constructed, and showing how the media were helping to unsettle a player – and not for the first time – but, of course, that is the same media that would be free to spin Hearts’ reaction in whatever way they chose, so maybe they thought it wiser to say nothing.

I think we are seeing here an example of how the refusal of our clubs to make it clear that TRFC are not ‘Rangers’ will cost them all (with the obvious exeption of Celtic) as young, impressionable players, continue to believe they have the oportunity to sign for that once mighty club. I am sure the likes of Jamie Walker would believe the media’s published view that this ‘Rangers’ ‘return to glory’ is just around the corner, and sees signing for them will take his career to heights unimaginable at Hearts.

Hopefully Ann Budge will realise this and appraise other, non-Ibrox facing, directors of other clubs of how it’s affecting the minds of young players who have not yet learned to ignore what they read in the papers, especially about themselves and the Ibrox club.

woodsteinPosted on12:01 pm - Aug 31, 2017

But.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/20/ecj-ruling-google-right-to-be-forgotten-beyond-eu-france-data-removed

As Charles Vert might say:- plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose

And there’s more, The Great Repeal Bill.

On Grounds for Judicial Review