A recent autumn storm caused the destruction of the metal goal fame in our garden. The small goal with the weather-beaten net had fallen into disuse. But I liked it seeing it there on the grass. I suppose I half-expected, half-hoped, it would be used again. Once, it was a father and son thing and had been constructed carefully from a nice set of plans. At the time, it impressed both son and daughter no end. But that was then, this was now.
One of our trees, blown over by the recent high winds, caused the goal frame’s final demise. As I unscrewed the twisted metal I thought of the hours of innocent fun it had given us. It had been the scene of many goals and not a few great saves. My son, who is soon off to uni, smiled thoughtfully as I mentioned that this was the end of the ‘goalposts of childhood’. Perhaps he knew what I meant.
My own childhood goalposts had been ‘doon the back’. Drawn with chalk on the red brick of the ‘sausage wall’ at one end, and on part of the ‘wash hoose’ at the other. Many a league, Cup and international match was played out between those goals on the Dennistoun dirt. We once put on a parallel version of a historic England v Scotland match while the real match was being played at Wembley. Jim Mone sitting on one of the dykes had a transister radio to his ear. As we played our match he chalked up live score updates on the wall — our Twitter and FaceBook anno 1967. What a day.
We did use a pile of jackets up on the old Dennistoun cricket pitch, but only rarely. Mostly, we played on the red gravel surface at the Finlay Drive entrance. That pitch was fitted with real goalposts — like the ones they had at Hampden. Or so we imagined.
These sentimental memories of receding years accompanied my removal of the ruined metal goal frame. But, as you can imagine, it seemed an almost symbolic act. For fans of Scottish football the ‘goalposts’ that once defined the game of our football childhoods — have not only been moved, they’ve been been twisted and mis-shapen out of all recognition.
The past decades have seen a fundamental change in the way our game is run and governed, at home and abroad. Money is now king and sporting consideration is a luxury we sometimes have to put to one side — or at least, so we’re told.
At the risk of stating the obvious, sport, if it is to mean anything at all, has to be based on clearly defined rules and principles. These rules must be applied equally to all the participants, they are certainly not optional extras. However, to misquote and paraphrase George Orwell, ‘all teams are equal, but some teams are more equal than others’ — at least, when it comes to Scottish football.
The efforts by the SFA to re-interpret rules to fit the unfortunate circumstances surrounding the demise of Rangers FC in 2012 have left most of us scratching our heads. Much of the Scottish media has backed up the SFA’s efforts, something which has added to the general confusion and chaos. In fact, it’s become clear that the death of Rangers, as we knew them, has been such a traumatic event that it must be denied. The authorities and media seem to have been so besotted with one club that its loss is out of the question. And so, it’s been gifted a bizarre kind of immunity from liquidation and death that implies its on-going existence, long after it drew it’s final breath.
This situation has opened the door to a legion of businessmen on the make. They have been allowed to perpetuate the myth, with SFA blessing, that they ‘saved’ Rangers. And their unwavering message is, that they can only succeed if fans keep giving them their hard-earned cash. To those outside the blue bubble it looks like a huge con trick. If the only source of real money in football is the fans, then the Ibrox faithful have been royally fleeced.
How different it could have been if the former club had been allowed a dignified end. A year out of the game would probably have allowed fans to restart a newco of their own. They could have applied for entry into the professional leagues along with the other clubs waiting in line. Chances are they would have been given special dispensation, and walked straight into the bottom tier. Of course, they would have claimed to be the continuation of the spirit of the previous entity — but would anyone have argued against that? How different it could have been if the rules governing the game had been respected. The SFA may even have kept their dignity intact and the press not felt obliged to print half-truths, falsehoods and lies.
You’ve got to wonder why Dunfermline and Hearts fought so desperately to avoid liquidation. After all, the Scottish football authorities now seem intent on convincing us that liquidation has little or no effect on a football club. Even past sins, such as wrongly-registered players are as naught — if, at the time, they were thought to have been registered correctly. By this logic, we have to ask: if a ‘company’ running a ‘club’ bribes a referee, will retrospective action will be taken against the ‘club’. The players and the club, after all, will have done nothing wrong. And since the referee was not known to have been bribed, and not struck off, he was qualified to referee the match in question, at the time. Using the SFA thought process, the result would probably be allowed to stand. Personally, I’m not sure I follow SFA logic. They’ve ‘moved the goalposts’, and (you saw it coming) bent them into an unrecognisable shape.
Which brings me back to our garden. The old metal goal frame is waiting to be driven down to the local re-cycling centre. The twisted metal and worn-out net are useless. Ruined by forces beyond our control. There is no interest in a replacement at present. Perhaps, if we have grandchildren, they will show an interest in football. If they do, I’ll build a new set of goalposts. They’ll be straight and true, the way the goalposts of childhood should be. The way goalposts should always be.
Auldheid says: (1124)
January 2, 2014 at 10:50 pm
ecobhoy says: (2143)
January 2, 2014 at 10:07 pm
I think your consistent point which I understand, hard to take as it is, about the outcome of the LNS Commission , is that it could only arrive at the decision it did given the evidence and arguments presented to it by SPL Counsel and the SFA, no matter how bizarre.
It surely follows by the same ;logic that the SPL could only prepare their case on the evidence supplied to it by Rangers administrators Duff and Phelps and that if that evidence was withheld that must have been in Rangers possession and which Campbell Ogilvie knew about and it were presented, the SPFL would have no option but to put aside the LNS Commission and review matters in light of what any of the new evidence presented?
Basically if Rangers cheated the SPL by withholding important info, then the LNS Commission has to be set aside or reconvened?
===========================================================
I have never believed the LNS Tribunal could have reached any other legally acceptable decision on the evidence submitted. I also have never seen anyone present a coherent and legally logical argument to the contrary.
It isn’t enough to talk of common-sense approaches and LNS and the other two tribunal members should know more about football rules and operation of the game than ‘expert’ witnesses involved at the heart of the sport either in playing, managing or governance. I also think the cry for LNS to have adopted an inquisitorial model rather than the normal adversarial one usually adopted in the UK is a bit of a red herring. The bottom line is that if the SPL/SFA/Rangers decided on how this was to ‘go away’ then it doesn’t matter how the Inquiry was carried out – it would have been stymied.
LNS was also dealt the body-blow of the FTTT Decision that the EBT payments weren’t irregular and it only took the Bryson Definition to remove any chance of removing titles which to many is the real issue at stake here and unfinished business for them.
The tribunal’s role was to listen to the evidence and come to decisions on the various issues being considered and it was clealy understood that the prepareation of the case and presentation of evidence was down to the SPL.
I have no intention of dealing with the detail of the decision – which I have done exhaustively on numerous previous occasions – but to people like yourself who have studied the subject intensely the flaws in the construction of the SPL case were serious and particularly wrt to Issue 3(c) and the concluding words of Issue 3(b) and the LNS statement: ‘No notice is given in the Notice of Commission of any comparable allegation relating to any earlier period, and for this reason we are not prepared to consider this part of the argument’.
I have often wondered whether this was an oblique reference of the DOS cases – on which you are the expert – and which becomes a barrier to considering ‘irregular’ payments which would lead to ineligible players having played and thus the gaining of an unfair sporting advantage.
On the question of evidence having to come only from D&P that wasn’t actually the case as the BBC ‘Who Sold The Jerseys’ was vital because of the source material it revealed and I’m not actually clear that the D&P delaying tactics actually achieved any real advantage. But I don’t feel there is enough facts in the public domain for me to reach a firm conclusion on that and to a large extent it depends on how efficiently the shredders had been working long before D&P arrived at Ibrox.
In any case I think it probably impossible to reconvene LNS wrt DOS players as they are outwith the remit – intentionally I believe – and nothing else is going to happen unless evidence is produced that important witnesses lied directly to LNS and I don’t believe that will ever happen. A series of parallel universes have operated around the whole Rangers affair with a lot of characters only having bit parts in various different episodes. The main actors aren’t spivs but Real Rangers Men and their friends at Hampden and SMSM and they are biding their time by and large until the Spivs depart and then we will see the Big Push for Rangers to be returned to its Rightful Place.
They can’t help themselves, can they? It’s a decent plea (and he does make some relevant points in it), but the fact that it’s wrapped up in ‘whataboutery’ coating is what makes it difficult to take seriously.
Also, nice to see that it was all wine and roses until MBB turned up. And here was me thinking that he was the final nail in the coffin rather than the cause of the whole thing!
I really can’t understand their mindset – their club is falling apart, surely their first and only concern should be to do what is needed to save it, and not concern themselves with distractions like ‘Why didn’t Celtic play a benefit game with us?’. Let the Green Brigade and their Revolution/Liberation Theology self destruct on their own, you’ve got far more pressing matters to attend to!
[Edited for missed out words and typos – I need to type slower so that my brain can catch up!]
Shooperb says: (344)
January 3, 2014 at 12:59 pm
Reilly1926 says: (217)
January 3, 2014 at 12:42 pm
———————————————————–
At first I thought this was the work of a “Timposter” but apparently not.
http://www.therangersstandard.co.uk/index.php/articles/current-affairs/304-across-the-great-divide
———————————————————————————————————-
They can’t help themselves, can they? It’s a decent plea (and he does make some relevant points in it), but the fact that it’s wrapped up in ‘whataboutery’ coating is what makes it difficult to take seriously.
Also, nice to see that it was all wine and roses until MBB turned up. And here was me thinking that he was the final nail in the coffin rather than the cause of the whole thing!
I really can’t understand their mindset – their club is falling apart, surely their first and only concern should be to do what is needed to save it, and not concern themselves with distractions like ‘Why didn’t Celtic play a benefit game for us?’. Let the Green Brigade and their Revolution Theology self destruct on their own, you’ve got far more pressing matters to attend to!
==========================================================
He’s an ex-journo and tries hard to hide his bile but just can’t quite manage it and the poison puss oozes out – all his articles are the same.
Bawsman says: (246)
January 3, 2014 at 12:40 pm
3
0
Rate This
Quantcast
tearsofjoy says: (37)
January 3, 2014 at 12:14 pm
Mate, there’s a wheen of Rainjurzzz men out there who would give their left nut to step into Ally’s Brogues and probably pay money for the chance to do so. Brown’s, Ferguson’s, Calderwoods, Jeffrey’s and their ilk, all of whom would do a job
==============================
I wouldn’t disagree with that – in fact , some (maybe even all ) of them may get their chance at Ibrox some day. If Sevco lives long enough.
My original point still stands though. 😛
Just read the rubbish by Alex Mooney on The Rangers Standard entitled “Across The Great Divide”, thanks for the link.
What a vile creature.
“The chattering-class witch-hunters have had a comfortable life thanks to a taxpayer-funded Catholic education that afforded them entry to the professions and corridors of power in our beautiful little country.”
Did he write this in the seventies and has only just put it online.
Tif Finn says: (1161)
January 3, 2014 at 1:35 pm
Sometimes people with mildly Timmy-sounding names seem to try extra hard to be seen as a berrrz’s berr: Kyle Lafferty, Brian Donohoe, Alex O’Hara, Francis Andrews, Mike McCurry, Nacho Novo, John O’Brown …
Ignacio Javier Gómez Novo does sound mildly timmy now you mention it.
themightyflash says: (12)
January 3, 2014 at 11:56 am
‘.Do you think some of the theories discussed on RTC/TSFM have ever shown the spiv another avenue of spivery the may not have thought of exploring till they saw it here?.’
————–
I would say probably not.
These guys are steeped in chicanery, double-dealing, double-crossing, conmanship, and find-the-lady trickery from their birth.
They will have learned every little dirty trick that might turn them a dubious shilling or two at the expense of anyone and everyone else.
You will have come across them even in primary school : the kid who’s always in there hustling other kids out of their dinner money or bus fares, using every little psychological trick-bluster, charm, arm-round-the-shoulder , flattery, lies, ridicule, hard-luck tales, pay-you-back -double tomorrow etc etc.
When I think of the various larger shareholders and the various Ibrox boards in the abstract, I see them compositely represented as a cross between ‘Harry Lime’ in ‘The Third Man’ and William Holden in ‘The Wild Bunch’. ( With a touch of Sgt Crapgame of ” Kelly’s Heroes” also in the DNA)
Thoroughgoing rogues without scruple but with plenty of angles and nothing to learn when it comes to self-enrichment at the expense of others.
Tif Finn says: (1162)
January 3, 2014 at 1:35 pm
When I read that-part of me thought it must be a spoof…
Incredible stuff…
Walking and Chewing Gum
George W Bush was accused of being incapable of doing the two simultaneously. Does McCoist have similar difficulty with standing up and chatting at the same time – try this google search
mccoist “sit down” site:dailyrecord.co.uk
other search engines are available
m.c.f.c.
Brilliant! “All sit down…”
Bawsman says: (246)
January 3, 2014 at 12:40 pm
‘…, there’s a wheen of Rainjurzzz men out there who would give their left nut to step into Ally’s Brogues and probably pay money for the chance to do so. Brown’s, Ferguson’s, Calderwoods, Jeffrey’s and their ilk, all of whom would do a job..’
——
Any half-decent CEO will surely have succession-planning on his agenda.
Be interesting to find out whether any of these gentlemen or similar others might already have been approached? ( Jimmy might already have rubbed his left nut away, of course, and might not have it to give. 🙂 )
normanbatesmumfc says: (51)
January 3, 2014 at 10:15 am
‘..and a required 90 day statutory consultation period where 50+ employees are to be made redundant. .’
———–
I’ll betray my ignorance here and ask: how many full-time ‘office’ (or f/t equivalent) staff are on the Ibrox pay-roll? Or, if as many as 50+ can be disappeared, could the place function?
It’s an aspect of the game that I had not previously thought about, before the Sheriff Officer’s men went in to strip out titl, correction, a barra load of desks and office equipment.
HirsutePursuit says: (466)
January 3, 2014 at 12:27 am
The question for LNS is not in regard to the reasoning behind their decision. What they should answer, is why the commission’s choices were deliberately restricted because they chose to adopt an adversarial system. Rather than seeking the truth by properly examining the evidence, the commission bound themselves to the evidence as it was presented and automatically accepted all matters that were agreed by the allegedly “competing” parties.
Had they conducted proceedings on an Inquisitorial basis, the personal (and professional) burden of gathering evidence and questioning witnesses independently would almost certainly have led them to quite different conclusions. You may think they knew that before they started…
=============================================================
I have often puzzled over the call that LNS should have adopted an inquisitorial approach rather than an adversarial one. Quite simply the SPL Rules don’t allow it which I will deal with later.
The criminal and civil law in Scotland and England & Wales is virtually 100% built on the adversarial system for largely historical reasons and the only fragmentary examples I can think of involving any UK inquisitorial role can be found in some very low value debtor court cases and also some activities in Family Courts. However I would be happy to hear of other instances.
I therefore am at a bit of a loss in underfstanding those who advocate what is basically an ‘alien’ legal system from a different historical background and development and yet, as far as I know, have probably never seen it in action except on the TV in a French or Italian-based cop series.
It must be remembered that the quality and fairness of the inquisitorial system lies fimly on the shoulders of the judges involved in terms of their ability and objectivity. Inquisitorial systems are by no means perfect and can go terribly wrong with a biased or opinionated judge who has already made their mind up and seeks only evidence to bolster their pre-determined decision before any evidence is even gathered.
You make some kind of allusion to that possibly being the case with LNS and his colleagues which I believe is more than a tad unfair,
I also fail to understand why you think adopting an adversarial process restricted the issues dealt with by LNS. His tribunal clearly lists the issues to be investigated and I wonder what you think is missing. The only thing I can think that should have been added as an issue is the DOS cases although I don’t think they would have seen the light of day even under an inquisitorial system.
I can just imagine the outcry if LNS had opted for a previously untried inquisitorial basis for the Rangers Case no matter what decision he reached sitting alone I would assume ‘alone’ as I would think inquisitorial systems could get a bit messy the more people in charge deciding what should or shouldn’t be investigated. But and I don’t accuse LNS of cowardice but it would have taken a very brave man or woman to individually decide to strip Rangers of Titles.
However those supporting the inquisitorial system have IMO mistakenly believed that the SPL Rules would have allowed LNS to take this route if he so wished by thinking the statement: ‘A Tribunal shall not be bound by any formal rules of evidence’ stretches to allowing an inquisitorial enquiry. The Rules don’t allow this and anyone can check this for their own satisfaction.
What many might have missed is that the chair of a tribunal can order enquiries to gather evidence that he can then present to the Tribunal. Tribunal members can also question witnesses at any time and they can be cross-examined by one of the Parties with permission from the chair. So there is ample opportunity for a Tribunal Member to bring personal expertise or experience to bear when seeking evidence and weighing its value.
LNS stated: ‘we shall proceed on the basis of the facts which we hold to be established by the evidence before us, and on nothing else.’ And that’s what the three LNS Members did and the longer we dream of them being involved in a conspiracy and that the Inquisitorial Squirrel would have produces a different result is a waste of time and resources.
The Heart of this Black Plot lies in the SFA and it may be that the SPL wasn’t equally as complicit and if it wasn’t the preparation of the SPL case was, at the very least, woefully inadequate such as to be culpable.
Quite simply as LNS observed: ‘The burden of proof of the Issues rests on the SPL throughout’. Even under an inquisitorial system that burden lies on whoever collects and presents the evidence.
This appears to suggest its only 90 days if 100 or more are going http://business.scotland.gov.uk/view/guide/staff-redundant#redundancy-consultations
I don’t think they could function if 100 staff were let go even if a sizeable percentage of the playing squad was included in that number.
john clarke says: (1487)
January 3, 2014 at 2:59 pm
Ally will be expensive to sack-his contract was drawn up by Martin Bain.
It is generous…
Tif Finn says: (1162)
January 3, 2014 at 1:35 pm
I knew that as a contributor to this site I was viewed as being a ‘Rangers hater’ by some of the faithful down Ibrox way but now I know that, thanks to the teachers at Lourdes Secondary, I am also a ‘chattering-class witch-hunter’ as well.
My name is Bob and I’m a chattering class witch hunting Rangers hater. Out and proud!
No1 Bob says: (77)
January 3, 2014 at 3:43 pm
2 0 Rate This
My name is Bob and I’m a chattering class witch hunting Rangers hater. Out and proud!
***************************************************************************
I’m Bob!
In the same article, Mr Mooney somehow contrives to make a comparison between the Clutha Vaults Tragedy and the Ibrox Omnishambles.
Shameful. Utterly shameful!!
Caveat Emptor says: (99)
January 3, 2014 at 3:55 pm
That’s their problem, they have no shame!
Bryce Curdy says: (22)
January 2, 2014 at 10:46 pm
ecobhoy 10:07 pm – I’m a huge fan of yours on this site, but with the definite exception of your reference to ‘fear regarding personal safety’ and the possible exception of your response to my point regarding Mr Bryson’s equivalent at the SPL (although I do find it hard to believe that nobody within that organisation held that role / responsibility) I am utterly unmoved by your responses to my other points. While recognising that Mackenzie’s arguments were feeble, I still cannot accept that the LNS panel was forced into some sort of corner; they had some flexibility.
===============================================
I’m sorry having taken the time to do a detailed response – as I usually try to do for genuine posters – that I have left you unmoved and I have to confess that is seldom the standard reaction to most of my comments 🙄
A lot of your statements IMO were basically simple ‘declarations’ which I did not agree with and tried to explain my counter-position. Obviously it is your right to disagree with me but it’s very difficult to examine your statements in depth when there is little or no explanation as to how they have been arrived at other than a strong thread running through them that they are common-sense or natural justice and I have to observe that I have often let myself down when over-reliant on such seemingly noble concepts.
I have probably analysed every line and phrase of LNS on here as many know 😆 If you think LNS had legal ‘flexibility’ given the evidence presented then I would love to hear your reasoning but a simple declaration really takes us nowhere in understanding each other’s position or the wider picture IMO.
Obviously the SPL and SFA are different organisations with different rules and objectives so I don’t believe given the SFA Registration Governance role re registration that there could be an identical position in the SPL. If you read the LNS Decision you will see mention of the SPL’s company secretary iain Blair who possibly comes closest and who interestingly was also acting as Secretary to the LNS Commission. If you read from {65} you will be able to judge on the similarities/differences of the two roles and the approaches of both men.
I see that your original decription of thge efforts of the SPL Counsel could: ‘Best be described as inept and at worst as corrupt. I agree that as a result LNS et al would have struggled to justify so called title stripping’.
Now you seem to think his performance wasn’t that bad and rate it only as ‘feeble’. I also wonder if, as you say: ‘LNS et al would have struggled to justify so called title stripping’ you now appear to believe they had ‘some flexibility’. However I look forward to a detailed explanation based on the facts that we know were presented to the Commission and not on wishful thinking.
tykebhoy says: (6)
January 3, 2014 at 3:30 pm
This appears to suggest its only 90 days if 100 or more are going http://business.scotland.gov.uk/view/guide/staff-redundant#redundancy-consultations
====================================================================================
This scale of redundancies will only help in the medium/long term as part of a plan to convince investors or potential credit sources that sensible steps are being taken. Even “little people” who have been there a few years will be due £5K-£10K statutory redundancy – increasing costs in the short term.
It will need to be done after ST time to ensure the bears have paid up before they can object – and cogitate the concept of still being a “big club”. My advice to the bears is skip STs and pay-as-you-go next season if you want a voice in the running of your club.
Calculator: https://www.gov.uk/calculate-your-redundancy-pay
Basic parameters
0.5 week’s pay for each full year you were under 22
1 week’s pay for each full year you were 22 or older, but under 41
1.5 week’s pay for each full year you were 41 or older
Length of service is capped at 20 years and weekly pay at £450. Years of service or earnings over these amounts aren’t included in the calculation.
The maximum amount of statutory redundancy pay is £13,500.
Redundancy pay under £30,000 is not taxable.
Edit: 100 “little people” at £25K/yr – £50K/yr = saving of approx £4m/yr to £8m/yr fully burdened cost – a good saving but a long way short of £14m/yr (or more realistically £20m/yr)
In light of Charlotte’s revelations:
http://www.blog.rippedoffbritons.com/2012/02/how-private-equity-partners-were-able.html?utm_content=buffer8c1a8&utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer
Ecobhoy 3.27
The burden of proof of the issue lay with the SPL but they could only act on the evidence Rangers administrators supplied.
Short of Harper Maclead checking through Ranger’s files the SPL had to rely on Ranger’s honesty.
This is where it all collapses. The rules depend on honesty. UEFA FFP rules depend on honesty.
Rangers broke more than the rules, they trampled all over the principles and ethics on which sport rules are based. In doing so they have changed the regulation landscape and the SFA fear the consequences of saying so.
Auldheid says: (1125)
January 3, 2014 at 4:34 pm
‘….Rangers broke more than the rules, they trampled all over the principles and ethics on which sport rules are based..’
—–
Enthusiastically aided and abetted and encouraged by the willingness of the Football Authorities to let them away with it, and by the not-so-tacit support of the MSM.
Ecobhoy 12.59
I’m not looking for a reprise of your points on LNS as commissioned which I totally accept.
What I am saying is that Rangers administrators witheld evidence, it aint shredded and it demonstrates LNS was not provided with the whole truth by a witness who knew the full history of ebts and has made statements in public that conflict with the evidence.
I accept an absolute unwillingness to revisit LNS and that it was always predisposed to rule as it did but made possible by the unshredded evidence that protected the SFA President from having to explain his role in Rangers ebts to remunerate players.
LNS was in effect the mother of all squirrels.
How the telegraph reported on Bryson.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9901434/How-Rangers-lost-but-still-managed-to-gain-victory.html
The independent commission set up by the Scottish Premier League to rule on whether Rangers had improperly registered their players by failing to disclose their full earnings on Thursday published its verdict and found the club guilty on all counts.
……..
The evidence of Sandy Bryson, the SFA’s Head of Registrations, held the key as to why stronger punitive action was not taken by the tribunal.
Under questioning, he explained that a player, once registered with the ruling body, remained registered with them until such time as his contract ended or that player left their club’s employment.
Consequently, even though the complete details of his contract had been wilfully withheld or any other breach had occurred, that registration, once accepted, would stand.
As a result of that policy, it was not possible for Nimmo Smith and his learned friends to state that the players who had benefited from side letters detailing the amounts to be paid into Employee Benefit Trusts, should not have been fielded during the decade under dispute.
It therefore followed that the results of the matches played during that time were valid and that there could not be a case for stripping of titles. Hence the £250,000 fine on the oldco.
He basically said that, as far as registrations are concerned if we find out that a club was systematically cheating over a protracted period then there is no real action which can be taken against them for it in relation to the players actually playing whilst the cheating was going on.
It was an absurd position to take, however it really did tie the hands of the panel hearing the evidence.
This was the SFA’s own man. This was the expert in the field. This was the man whose evidence had to be relied on.
Hell will freeze over before the LNS verdict is put aside and another hearing reconvened.
Even if Ogilvie hears the knock of Police Scotland’s finest, his two lieutenants Regan and Doncaster, will continue the malfeasance down Hampden way.
These guys have everything to lose if the truth ever comes out.
Remember we are only talking about sporting regulations here, not laws of the land.
As much as it pains me to say I believe that, like every major enquiry in the UK, sufficient time is always allowed to pass before a massively watered down conclusion is produced and by that time no body can remember what the enquiry actually sat for in the first place.
If or when charges are eventually brought we will be told that it was so long ago that there is no point in taking it any further.
The only fly in the ointment is us ‘bampots’ who simply will not let the matter rest. We won’t go away, we won’t move on for the good of the game because the good of our game has been wantonly abused for quarter of a century by people in power that we, as supporters, trusted.
The mask has been torn and revealed a bunch of greedy, self centred, self serving individuals who have no place running our sport. The majority of fans in this country do not trust these people and we want them out. Now that would be justice.
Tif Finn says: (1165)
January 3, 2014 at 5:03 pm
He basically said that, as far as registrations are concerned if we find out that a club was systematically cheating over a protracted period then there is no real action which can be taken against them for it in relation to the players actually playing whilst the cheating was going on.
It was an absurd position to take, however it really did tie the hands of the panel hearing the evidence.
This was the SFA’s own man. This was the expert in the field. This was the man whose evidence had to be relied on.
*****************
Seems the SFA are very happy with this position as there have been no rule changes to close any loop hole since. Therefore this is still the position of the SFA – so should (as an example! – not stating that there is such a case!) a player currently in SPFL to be shown to have procured his registration by means of an illegal passport deeming his registration invalid or payments from a third party not known to the SFA – guess what the punishment to the club would be? Or the player? Zilch!
So seems the SFA position is clear – if you are doing wrong, we don’t care!
Reilly1926 says: (217)
January 3, 2014 at 12:42
At first I thought this was the work of a “Timposter” but apparently not.
http://www.therangersstandard.co.uk/index.php/articles/current-affairs/304-across-the-great-divide
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The bit about Celtic could have given Rangers a loan had me laughing, the boy is a nutter. Can you see it, Mr Lawell saying “what’s that you say? oh you have ripped off HMRC and a whole load of other creditors for how much ?. and so you have denied us of and others possibly of SPL titles and the opportunity of European or CL money through your cheating, Oooch lets not worry about that, lets draw a line here, here’s a few million to tide you over I’m sure your good for it”. “Oh what’s that you say you aren’t going to change the way you manage the club and are going to continue to overspend, ooch don’t worry, here, take it we love you”
Auldheid says: (1125)
January 3, 2014 at 4:34 pm
Ecobhoy 3.27
The burden of proof of the issue lay with the SPL but they could only act on the evidence Rangers administrators supplied. Short of Harper Maclead checking through Ranger’s files the SPL had to rely on Ranger’s honesty.
This is where it all collapses. The rules depend on honesty. UEFA FFP rules depend on honesty.
Rangers broke more than the rules, they trampled all over the principles and ethics on which sport rules are based. In doing so they have changed the regulation landscape and the SFA fear the consequences of saying so.
==================================================================
My understanding was that the documents required from D&P weren’t ‘not provided’ but that there was a delay in doing so in an unredacted form and LNS identifies the offence as: ‘Issue 4 [110] Failure to respond timeously to legitimate requests for the provision of information’.
As it turned out LNS found other sources for the info saught and had it 6 months before the hearing so I don’t think the delay caused any serious damage to the investigation.
The info deadline was originally 9 March 2012 and this passed followed by extensions and concerns about data protection/redaction and various other legal issues but no actual refusal to supply the info. Obviously it was part of ‘the game’ to delay/obstruct LNS as much as possible with the Murray Group also being involved to gather info. But some naughty boy/girl passed on info/doscuments to LNS which were used as the basis of the BBC’s ‘The Men Who Sold the Jerseys’ broadcast on 23 May 2012.
The delaying game was then a bogie and the info requested by LNS begain to be supplied in dribs and drabs from 31 May 2012 by Biggart Baillie acting for D&P.
I therefore just don’t accept that what happened in any way damaged the case against Rangers. I think the real damage was done years before D&P arrived with the industrial-scale shredding taking place at Ibrox to do with the decisions to actually set-up EBTs including the DOS schemes. The real smoking guns had long gone and all that were left when D&P arrived was fairly light-weight evidence in the shape of side letters.
Important but not really fatal to the people no longer associated with the club. The only possibility that they might be drawn into this is through BDO and I think this is a real possibility 💡
Exiled Celt says: (886)
January 3, 2014 at 5:28 pm
Tif Finn says: (1165)
January 3, 2014 at 5:03 pm
He basically said that, as far as registrations are concerned if we find out that a club was systematically cheating over a protracted period then there is no real action which can be taken against them for it in relation to the players actually playing whilst the cheating was going on.
It was an absurd position to take, however it really did tie the hands of the panel hearing the evidence.
This was the SFA’s own man. This was the expert in the field. This was the man whose evidence had to be relied on.
*****************
Seems the SFA are very happy with this position as there have been no rule changes to close any loop hole since. Therefore this is still the position of the SFA – so should (as an example! – not stating that there is such a case!) a player currently in SPFL to be shown to have procured his registration by means of an illegal passport deeming his registration invalid or payments from a third party not known to the SFA – guess what the punishment to the club would be? Or the player? Zilch!
So seems the SFA position is clear – if you are doing wrong, we don’t care!
——————————————————————————————–
Oh I do think they care because they know they’ve left an elephant on the rampage at Hampden. The problem is they don’t know – as they say: ‘How to square the circle’ 😆
But they know it’s only a matter of time before this one comes back to bite them or even worse – sits on them ❗
……..
The evidence of Sandy Bryson, the SFA’s Head of Registrations, held the key as to why stronger punitive action was not taken by the tribunal.
Under questioning, he explained that a player, once registered with the ruling body, remained registered with them until such time as his contract ended or that player left their club’s employment.
Consequently, even though the complete details of his contract had been wilfully withheld or any other breach had occurred, that registration, once accepted, would stand.
As a result of that policy, it was not possible for Nimmo Smith and his learned friends to state that the players who had benefited from side letters detailing the amounts to be paid into Employee Benefit Trusts, should not have been fielded during the decade under dispute.
It therefore followed that the results of the matches played during that time were valid and that there could not be a case for stripping of titles. Hence the £250,000 fine on the oldco.
======================================================
Yes . . .
But . . .
Why isn’t this “interpretation” – compared to other UEFA or FIFA association members?
It was notified on here last week about the Brazilian FA taking action against a “club” whose players were not registered “properly”, or their contracts were not “registered” properly.
PhilMacGiollaBhain @ 3:39 pm
john clarke says: (1487)
January 3, 2014 at 2:59 pm
Ally will be expensive to sack-his contract was drawn up by Martin Bain.
It is generous…
I now have a picture of the two of them whiling away the hours on the long flights to and from their charity sponsored rafting holidays making sure that their, and all their other chums, contracts were all worded just right!
No pesky little loopholes.
My contempt for Mr McCoist grows daily, which continues to amaze me.
I suppose for a couple of weeks each year the snakes in Idaho can feel good about the fact that there is something around lower than their bellies.
ecobhoy says: (2149)
January 3, 2014 at 3:27 pm
However those supporting the inquisitorial system have IMO mistakenly believed that the SPL Rules would have allowed LNS to take this route if he so wished by thinking the statement: ‘A Tribunal shall not be bound by any formal rules of evidence’ stretches to allowing an inquisitorial enquiry. The Rules don’t allow this and anyone can check this for their own satisfaction.
================
I absolutely do not agree that the rules of the SFA do not allow an inquisitorial approach. I have just read through the relevant rules and can find nothing that necessitates an adversarial process. Didn’t LNS himself say in his preliminary remarks that it was open to him to the tribunal to conduct the matter as it thought fit, and he (ok, all 3 of them) had decided to adopt an adversarial procedure? I will try to hunt out the reference and post it later if I find it. Meanwhile, here is rule 8.3.1 , which as I read it gives the tribunal very wide powers to decide their own procedure.
8.3 General powers
8.3.1 the tribunal may adopt such procedures as it considers appropriate for the
determination of the matter before it and, in the exercise of its general
procedural discretion, it may amongst other things:
8.3.1.1 decide when and where proceedings are to be conducted;
8.3.1.2 decide whether the party(s) are to submit written submissions and, if so,
when they should do so and the extent to which such submissions may
be amended;
8.3.1.3 decide upon the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of any
evidence;
8.3.1.4 decide whether any documents or other evidence should be disclosed by
or to any party(s) and, if so, when such disclosures are to be made and
to whom copies of the disclosed documents and information are to be
given;
8.3.1.5 decide whether any and, if so, what questions are to be put to and
answered by the party(s);
8.3.1.6 decide whether and, if so, to what extent, the tribunal should take
the initiative in ascertaining the facts and the law;
8.3.1.7 Hear representations from any person or body, if it considers it to be
appropriate to do so;
8.3.1.8 Hear submissions and evidence and/or proceed to its determination in
the absence of a party where it is content that such party has had fair
notice of proceedings or any particular element of such proceedings;
8.3.1.9 decide the extent to which proceedings are to proceed by way of:
(i) hearings for the questioning of the party(s);
(ii) written or oral argument;
(iii) presentation or inspection of documents or other evidence;
and
(iv) submission of documents or other evidence;
8.3.1.10 decide upon an extension or abridgement of any time limit;
8.3.1.11 amend or dispense with any procedural steps set out in the protocol;
and/or
8.3.1.12 decide upon the language to be used in proceedings (and whether
a party(s) are to supply translations of any document or other
evidence).
If you know of a rule in the SFA handbook which makes an adversarial approach compulsory, could you please post a copy?
According to the FTT, one of the purposes of declaring income was to assess the value of fines imposed on players for misconduct. If during the progress of a player’s career he received a conduct fine and only paid the amount declared on his ‘registration’ income, that player’s registration would be voided.
&&&&&&&&&&
Rule D 9.3
No Player may receive any payment of any description from or on behalf of a Club in respect of that Player’s participation in Association Football or in an activity connected with Association Football, other than in reimbursement of expenses actually incurred or to be actually incurred in playing or training for that Club, unless such payment is made in accordance with a Contract of Service between that Club and the Player concerned.
A3.1
In all matters and transactions relating to the league and company each club shall behave towards each other club and company with the utmost good faith.
%%%%
The ‘good faith’ requirement means that the registration is valid, not because the paperwork has been submitted on time with required spaces filled in, but because the recipient (SFA) can trust the responses to be accurate, honest and based on the most up to date information.
Like ‘fit & proper’, organisations should take the strongest possible action against those who abuse their position.
I think the hearing should have been held on an inquisitorial basis. However I do not think that would have suited anyone involved.
Using the adversarial system they could control what evidence was led, and they could tie the hands of the panel to a certain extent. I think they did what they did because it suited those concerned.
The Bryson law has never been applied in all my years in grassroots football. If my club register a player who is not eligible and allow him to participate even in a friendly match (e.g.. not correct age but player provides incorrect date of birth or is currently signed with another club) then they player is subsequently banned and club secretary also ..anything up to 5 years for failing to check they were eligible to play. Any opposition team would also be able to request scoreline to be overturned for any match the player played in or kicked out of cup competition. It is all the more laughable that the players were knowingly incorrectly registered at the “biggest” club/ company in our game, yet no punishment was applied in terms of results and or club administrators. The sfa could do well to walk along the the corridors of power to the syfa(youth) office and learn how to administer punishment.
I know this is an old one, but it really is appropriate.
Here’s what happens when a normal team make an administrative error in Scottish football.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/15672375
Spartans have been thrown out of the Scottish Cup for fielding an ineligible player in their 2-0 win over Culter.
===================================
It is always worth noting the dignity with which they took it.
Spartans chairman Craig Graham said the club were “disappointed” by the ruling, adding: “We wish Culter well against Partick Thistle [in round three].”
====================================
The basics
The club had their case heard at Hampden by the judicial panel set by the SFA on Thursday, having been reported by the compliance officer for fielding an ineligible player during the second-round 2-0 win at Culter .
Scottish Cup rules now state that any club that plays a player who is ineligible will be thrown out of the competition.
The rules also state that neither the judicial panel or anyone at the SFA has the authority to change this rule.
Time Erodes Complexity Leaving Only The Big Lie.
I’ve often read discussions on here about events in TheRangersSaga (c) from a year or two ago and found my memory lacking the detail that I’m sure I knew and could articulate at the time. I’m sure it’s not just my dying brain cells – but I find myself searching for contemporaneous accounts and comments to refresh my understanding and re-pick a path through the logic. The current LNS debate is a case in point. This is one excellent piece I found http://henryclarson.wordpress.com/tag/sandy-bryson/ (start about half way down at “This experiment came to my mind when I read Lord Nimmo-Smith’s report”)
LNS clearly demonstrates the attritional forces of complexity, propaganda, truth and time. The spivs engineered TheRangersSaga from the start for complexity so that only the dedicated can follow even the company names – let alone the allocation and movement of shares and the myriad links between the many players. The SFA and SPL have contributed complexity with sieve-like rules and creative interpretation. These three self-interest groups have pumped out propaganda willingly promulgated without question by the loathsome SMSM. The result is that over time only the most dedicated bampots can retain an accurate mental model of all the facts and the efforts to obscure and confuse them. Overtime the bampots’ accurate account becomes the minority view of the obsessed and deluded when balanced against the simplicity and sheer weight of the common understanding of what happened only a year or two ago.
But – the web never forgets. Those who care can still search for what was said at the time, and track the shifts and mutations of opinion and spin with great precision. Unlike Hillsborough and so many other miscarriages of justice of the past, TheRangersSaga will not take 25 years to unravel – it is documented day by day, week by week for anyone who wants to read and form their own opinions. The likes of Jack Irvine, Campbell Ogilvie and Charles Green may consider that they’ve played a blinder so far – but they have fundamentally misunderstood the web’s nature by exercising their black arts on the record leaving historical tracks as evidentially indisputable as fingerprints and DNA.
So to all who tend towards despair that TheRangersSaga will lead to business as usual in a few years’ time, I say fear not – the evidence is out there and cannot be erased. The balance of complexity, propaganda, truth and time has changed forever. Time can no longer erode the complexities. Propaganda can no longer hide its origins and inconsistencies. The web has changed the bampot from Cassandra to a librarian ready to advise the quickest path through the index of a vast archive of evidence. But what could roll back the tide of propaganda and reset the common understanding of how the establishment fought tooth and nail to protect its own. Simple – a storyteller looking for a fantastic story to tell: Oliver Stone, the Coen brothers, Ron Howard, David Fincher, Danny Boyle, Stephen Frears maybe even Dan Brown.
Or just one Scottish journalist with the balls to point out that the King is in the all together. He’s all together as naked as the day that he was born.
Derek Johnstone on SSB, discussing whether Rangers might buy players in January. Responding to Hugh Keevins saying there was no chance and it was more likely players would be leaving.
If Dave King comes in and says here’s £10m do what you want with it they might buy players in January
Did Dave King get anything the last time, for his £20m. Did he even get shares. I think he just invested his money.
===========================
Seriously, Johnstone is a buffoon. We’re talking some really basic stuff here.
ecobhoy says: (2151)
January 3, 2014 at 5:35 pm
Rate This
Quantcast
Auldheid says: (1125)
January 3, 2014 at 4:34 pm
Ecobhoy 3.27
The burden of proof of the issue lay with the SPL but they could only act on the evidence Rangers administrators supplied. Short of Harper Maclead checking through Ranger’s files the SPL had to rely on Ranger’s honesty.
This is where it all collapses. The rules depend on honesty. UEFA FFP rules depend on honesty.
Rangers broke more than the rules, they trampled all over the principles and ethics on which sport rules are based. In doing so they have changed the regulation landscape and the SFA fear the consequences of saying so.
==================================================================
My understanding was that the documents required from D&P weren’t ‘not provided’ but that there was a delay in doing so in an unredacted form and LNS identifies the offence as: ‘Issue 4 [110] Failure to respond timeously to legitimate requests for the provision of information’.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Issue 4 Embraced two Items
.
Items not provided by D&P
4(a) the period from and including 15 March 2012 Rangers PLC, whilst a member of the Company and the owner and operator of Rangers FC, and Rangers FC, whilst a member of the Scottish Premier League, breached Rule F1 by failing to deliver to the Company or to agents acting on behalf of Company copies of any and all items of documentation, communications, contract documents, notes, correspondence, emails, trust deeds, memoranda and others, including all notes of conversations and meetings in any way concerning or relating to any and all payments made by or on behalf of Rangers PLC to Players since 1 July 1998 which had not previously been disclosed to The Scottish Premier League Limited, including, without prejudice to the foregoing generality, all payments made by or on behalf of Rangers PLC to an employee benefit trust or trusts and/or sub-trust or sub-trusts for or in respect of Players and/or any and all such payments made by such employee benefit trust or trusts or sub-trust or sub-trusts to Players including any and all productions of whatever nature lodged for Rangers PLC and lodged by HMRC relating to Rangers PLC in the pending First Tier Tribunal proceedings known as “the Big Tax Case”;
Delaying in providing them.
4(b) the period from and including 15 March 2012 Rangers PLC, whilst a member of the Company, and Rangers FC, whilst a member of the Scottish Premier League, breached Rule G1.1 by failing to afford every assistance to the Company and to agents acting on behalf of the Company as requested and required in a letter dated 5 March 2012 from agents acting on behalf of the Company and that by failing to deliver to the Company or to agents acting on behalf of the Company copies of any and all items of documentation, communications, contract documents, notes, correspondence, emails, trust deeds, memoranda and others, including all notes of conversations and meetings in any way concerning or relating to any and all payments made by or on behalf of Rangers PLC to Players since 1 July 1998, which had not previously been disclosed to the Company, including, without prejudice to the foregoing generality, all payments made by or on behalf of Rangers PLC to an employee benefit trust or trusts and/or sub-trust or sub-trusts for or in respect of Players and/or any and all such payments made by such employee benefit trust or trusts or sub-trust or sub-trusts to Players including any and all productions of whatever nature lodged for Rangers PLC and lodged by HMRC relating to Rangers PLC Rangers PLC in the pending First Tier Tribunal Proceedings known as “The Big Case” and by failing to produce to the Company or to agents acting on behalf of the Company, preferably in spreadsheet format, details comprising all payments made by or and behalf of Rangers PLC to or for the benefit of any Player since 1 July 1998 to any employee benefit trust or sub-trust, by any employee benefit trust or sub-trust and to or by any other third party, to and for the benefit of any Player since 1 July 1998, where such payment has not been made for or in terms of a Contract of Service notified to the Company and to The SFA with details of (i) name of Player; (ii) date of payment(s); (iii) amount of payment(s); (iv) method of payment(s); (v) by whom payment was made; and (vi) reason for payment(s); and 4(c) the period from and including 15 March 2012 Rangers PLC, whilst a member of the Company and the owner and operator of Rangers FC, and Rangers FC, whilst a member of the Scottish Premier League, breached Rule G1.5 by failing to deliver to the Company or to agents acting on behalf of the Company copies of any and all items of documentation, communications, contract documents, notes, correspondence, emails, trust deeds, memoranda and others, including all notes of conversations and meetings in any way concerning or relating to any and all payments made by or on behalf of Rangers PLC to Players since 1 July 1998, which had not previously been disclosed to the Company, including, without prejudice to the foregoing generality, all payments made by or on behalf of Rangers PLC to an employee benefit trust or trusts and/or sub-trust or sub-trusts for or in respect of Players and/or any and all such payments made by such employee benefit trust or trusts or sub-trust or sub-trusts to Players including any and all productions of whatever nature lodged for Rangers PLC and lodged by HMRC relating to Rangers PLC in the pending First Tier Tribunal Proceedings known as “the Big Tax Case”.
LNS appears only to have judged on the timing of any delivery but my point is that the SPL asked for all ebt related documents from July 1998 and documents dated 22 Feb and 30 Aug that described DOS ebts were not provided because had they been then the start date of ebts to be looked at would have been 30 August 2000. A side letter of 23 November dictated that date the Commissions were directed to start looking at.
Indeed given that all documentation relating to EBTS from July 1998 was required it could be argued that the letter of 3 September signed by Campbell Ogilvie that kicked off Rangers venture into ebt land should have been the date the Commission should have been directed to look at evidence from. Given that the minutes of the Rangers Employee Remuneration Planning committee of 16th Sept 1999 were documented then that date should have been used as no player was named in the 3rd Sept letter (only an employee identified in the later minutes..
m.c.f.c. says: (94)
January 3, 2014 at 2:36 pm
Walking and Chewing Gum
George W Bush was accused of being incapable of doing the two simultaneously.
_________________________________________________________________________________
For verity, the quote was by Lyndon B Johnson on Gerald Ford – and it was;
“He can’t fart and chew gum at the same time!”
🙂
another Johnson on Ford quote;
“He’s a nice fellow but he spent too much time playing football without a helmet.”
Clyde SSB – haven’t listened for a while.
Dave king will be back and every Celtic fan misses Rangers
Click
TSFM says: (583)
January 3, 2014 at 7:07 pm
Walking and Chewing Gum
George W Bush was accused of being incapable of doing the two simultaneously.
_________________________________________________________________________________
For verity, the quote was by Lyndon B Johnson on Gerald Ford – and it was;
“He can’t fart and chew gum at the same time!”
🙂
another Johnson on Ford quote;
“He’s a nice fellow but he spent too much time playing football without a helmet.”
===================================================================================
TSFM – excellent – always happy to be relieved of my general ignorance 🙂
neepheid says: (969)
January 3, 2014 at 6:11 pm
ecobhoy says: (2149)
January 3, 2014 at 3:27 pm
However those supporting the inquisitorial system have IMO mistakenly believed that the SPL Rules would have allowed LNS to take this route if he so wished by thinking the statement: ‘A Tribunal shall not be bound by any formal rules of evidence’ stretches to allowing an inquisitorial enquiry. The Rules don’t allow this and anyone can check this for their own satisfaction.
================
I absolutely do not agree that the rules of the SFA do not allow an inquisitorial approach. I have just read through the relevant rules and can find nothing that necessitates an adversarial process.
————————————————————–
I would suggest that to aid understanding that you go back and read my post. You will see that I am actually discussing the SPL rules and not the SFA ones you refer to because the LNS Commission/Tribunal was held under SPL Rules.
The SPL doesn’t specifically exclude an inquisitorial approach but it also doesn’t exclude using Sharia Law or any other of the hundreds of different legal systems used throughout the world. It doesn’t need to list these exclusions because they aren’t part of the fabric of the legal systems used throughout the UK. Sometimes the commonsense answer is the right one.
Modern inquisitorial systems are based on legal systems derived from Roman Law and the Napoleonic Code. the different current legal systems of Scotland and England & Wales aren’t based on Roman or Napoleoinc Law but on the Adversarial System which has a very different origin and legal basis.
Interestingly England did use the inquisitorial system for a time after it was introduced by the Catholic Church – it morphed into the infamous Star Chamber where torture to gain ‘evidence’ was the norm but eventually was replaced by the adversarial system.
What the posters who blithely declare that LNS should have used the inquisitorial system with Rangers – I wonder if that was the original pure system with torture still allowed – seem to have a complete blind-spot on is that there is no legal basis for an inquisitorial system in the UK and without that even if LNS had wanted to go down that road he couldn’t.
Just think about what an inquisitorial system entails 💡 It means that the prosecutor and judge is the same person with a single aim. Ours system of adversarial justice quite simply has an unbiased judge listening to the evidence and coming to a decision based on the evidence he has heard. If anyone can’t see the difference then there’s nothing I can do to further explain.
I have undernoted the relevant section from LNS and NB no one was appointed as an Inquisitor but only as a Chairman and tribunal members. Even though there is a wide lattitude given in the conduct of the Commission by its members there is no authority given for the Commission to be run on inquisitorial lines and never could be because the legal mechanism and precedent doesn’t exist in the UK. If anyone disagrees with me thern please advise me of where the inquisitorial system is actually practiced in the UK other than the two very minor areas I mentioned.
Civil and Human Rights are much more important to me than whether Rangers lose a few titles and I would hope that most posters would agree with that approach and dismiss the squirrel which has been around for some time and needs put to rest.
Anyone with any knowledge of the adminstration of justice in the UK will recognise that a decision from an unrecognised inquisitorial proceeding wouldn’t be recognised in terms of the Appeal Process or indeed the complex web of Tribunal Administration which covers a huge range of human and commercial activities.
UNDERNOTE
The Commission’s remit
[2] By Resolution of the Board of Directors (“the Board”) of The Scottish Premier League
Limited (“the SPL”) dated 1 August 2012 we were appointed respectively as Chairman and
members of a Commission in terms of a Notice of Commission, a draft of which was on that date
approved by the Board, all in terms of section G of the Rules of the SPL (“the Rules”). SPL
Rules G1.1 and G1.2 provide:
“G1.1 The Board and, where appointed by the Board, a Commission, shall have the
power of inquiry into all financial, contractual and other arrangements within, between
and/or amongst Clubs and Players and all matters concerning compliance with the
Financial Disclosure Requirements and into all matters constituting or pertaining to any
suspected or alleged breach of or failure to fulfil the Rules by any Club, Club Official
and/or Player or any matter considered by the Board or, where appointed by the Board, a
Commission, to be relevant to an Adjudication or an Appeal and every Club and Club Official and Player shall be liable to and shall afford every assistance to the Board or, as
the case may be Commission, as may be requested or required of it or him.
G1.2 Subject to Rules G1.3 and G1.4, the Board and, where appointed by the Board, a
Commission, shall (i) have the power of determination as to whether there has been a
breach of and/or failure to fulfil the Rules and in Adjudications and Appeals; and (ii) may
exercise such of the powers set out in Rules G6.1 and G6.2 as it shall think appropriate.”
[3] Rules G1.3 and G14 are not relevant for present purposes. Annex B to the Rules sets out
Rules of Procedure which govern the proceedings of this Commission and other bodies
appointed in terms of the Rules (any such body being referred to as a “Tribunal”).
I know this has been mentioned briefly on the blog but the lack of interest or detailed analysis lead me to believe that we might not have noticed a change of attitudes across the footballing spectrum over the last few weeks. The latest ramblings from Ally McCoist shows that fans from other clubs are now demonstrating their distain for the Ibrox club and it is affecting the players and staff of that club.
McCoist felt there was a hostile atmosphere in and during the games at Airdrie and Dunfermline.
—————————————
“Whether I think it’s over the top or not, I think it’s just something we are going to have to handle,” he said. There was an attitude around East End Park and around the stadium tonight which I don’t think is necessarily a good attitude for women and children to be involved in at a football game. Let’s just leave it at that. But if we’re going to have to handle it that way, we are going to have handle it that way. I’m a big enough boy and have been around Scottish football long enough that the fans and opposition aren’t going to open the door and let them trample all over you. That’s just the way it is.”
—————————————
Ironic as it is to complain about the atmosphere at other grounds when the rest of the teams have had to listen to racist and sectarian bile every time they visit Ibrox over the years, it is more important as a gauge of just how bad it might be when they reach the top league.
ecobhoy says: (2152)
January 3, 2014 at 7:38 pm
The SPL doesn’t specifically exclude an inquisitorial approach but it also doesn’t exclude using Sharia Law or any other of the hundreds of different legal systems used throughout the world.
=================
Excuse me, but I did quote your original post. You said-
“‘A Tribunal shall not be bound by any formal rules of evidence’ stretches to allowing an inquisitorial enquiry. The Rules don’t allow this and anyone can check this for their own satisfaction.”
Now you are saying that the rules do NOT exclude an adversarial approach. So no point me trawling through the SPL rules, then.
You clearly dislike the inquisitorial system. You prefer the adversarial system. Fair enough. But in my view there was a clear legal basis for LNS to adopt an inquisitorial approach, and that legal basis was the rulebook of the organisation under whose auspices the tribunal was acting. This was not a court of law, but an internal matter. LNS had freedom under the rules to conduct the matter as he thought fit. It was not impossible for him to operate in an inquisitorial way- he simply chose not to do so. You clearly think that was a correct decision, again, fair enough. I think the whole show was a “smoke and mirrors” operation, designed to achieve a result. You will disagree. But I think the whole thing stinks.
Tif Finn says: (1168)
January 3, 2014 at 7:02 pm
Derek Johnstone on SSB, discussing whether Rangers might buy players in January. Responding to Hugh Keevins saying there was no chance and it was more likely players would be leaving.
If Dave King comes in and says here’s £10m do what you want with it they might buy players in January
Did Dave King get anything the last time, for his £20m. Did he even get shares. I think he just invested his money.
===========================
Seriously, Johnstone is a buffoon. We’re talking some really basic stuff here.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Personally I think he is an Imbecilic Buffoon but he is very insistent about the probable involvement of King and repeats it every time he is on SSB. Does he know something we don’t or is he just getting extremely desperate and trying to raise the bears morale?
Auldheid says: (1127)
January 3, 2014 at 7:04 pm
I feel you may have misdirected yourself on this one Auldheid and I understand why and recognise it as in no way an attempt to intentionally prove me wrong.
But my correct statement was on the basis of what LNS decided and not on what you or I might have wanted him to decide.
However as you know I am with you generally on the DOS situation after initially disagreeing with you. However Item 4 only covers the period 15 March 2012 to 1 August 2012 and therefore I personally don’t accept it is actually relevant to the sleight of hand that took place over the DOS cases. The key to unlocking them lies elsewhere IMO.
You are correct that Item 4a {failure to produce) was one of the: Issues for Inquiry into and Determination by the Commission and is noted in Appendix C as such along with all the other issues, including 4b (late production), some of which were established and some weren’t.
If you go to page 33 of the LNS Decision it refers only to ‘Issue 4’ and if you go to para [110] it defines ‘Issue 4’ only in terms of ‘Failure to respond timeously’. There is no mention therefore in the actual judgement of ‘failure to produce’ as you suggest.
My interpretation is further backed at the foot of Page 4 where it is stated: ‘The fourth chapter alleges that during the period:
• 15 March 2012 to 1 August 2012 (period 4)
Oldco (then in administration) and Rangers FC, in breach of the relevant Rules of the SPL, failed
to assist the SPL and to respond to requests for documents in relation to payments by Oldco to
Rangers players. The Notice of Commission was served on Oldco, Newco and Rangers FC by
letters dated 2 August 2012.’
At some stage after 2 August 2012 D&P obviously provided all the requested info and the ‘failure to produce’ charge therefore scrapped. Obviously I fully realise the significance of the 1 July 1998 date but I think this way is a dead end which allows the hampden suits to brush-off legitimate concerns.
GeronimosCadillac says: (163)
January 3, 2014 at 7:56 pm
3 0 Rate This
Tif Finn says: (1168)
January 3, 2014 at 7:02 pm
Derek Johnstone on SSB, discussing whether Rangers might buy players in January. Responding to Hugh Keevins saying there was no chance and it was more likely players would be leaving.
If Dave King comes in and says here’s £10m do what you want with it they might buy players in January
Did Dave King get anything the last time, for his £20m. Did he even get shares. I think he just invested his money.
===========================
Seriously, Johnstone is a buffoon. We’re talking some really basic stuff here.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Personally I think he is an Imbecilic Buffoon but he is very insistent about the probable involvement of King and repeats it every time he is on SSB. Does he know something we don’t or is he just getting extremely desperate and trying to raise the bears morale?
*******
I can’t recall BFDJ ever knowing anything of relevance re the Ibrox Saga.
Gerald Ford – the only man ever to be both vice president and president of the USA without being elected to either post
He sees it as the only way out. King giving the club a load of money, presumably for no return.
Remember we are talking about a man who wasn’t sure whether or not King got any shares for his “investment” of £20m in the previous club.
Even if that was not plain stupid you would have expected him, or someone he knows, to have actually found out. It’s not that hard.
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2012/mar/07/sir-david-murray-rangers-legal-challenge
King said: “I seem to be one of the few people who actually invested cash into the club. I have made a claim of £20m on the basis of non-disclosure by the then chairman, David Murray, of Rangers’ true financial position as far back as 2000.
“Other shareholders may feel deceived like I do and wish to take similar action. (David Murray will no doubt argue to the contrary and the merits of this will be dealt with in due course in the appropriate forum.)
“For present purposes, however, I simply want to advise the fans and fellow shareholders that any benefit I receive from my claim will be fully reinvested into the restructured football club.
neepheid, ecobhoy auldheid et al,
fantastic debate, which i am following and enjoying.
On the subject matter at hand of registration, the ineligibility under SPL rules, under an SPL commission was what LNS ruled on.
And the start date was deliberately set to avoid the DOS but cover EBTs.
Does this mean a DOS inquiry could take place, against the SPL?
In relation to the spartans decision, could there be challenge against the eligibility of RFC(NIL) players for EBT and DOS during scottish cup games?
OR as the SFA is really in charge of eligibility all three former organisations, SFA (scottish cup) SPL (SPL), SFL (league cup) are covered by the results of the LNS enquiry?
Short answers accepted, but these points have always intrigued me.
Buddy
scottc says: (409)
January 3, 2014 at 8:28 pm
TSFM says: (583)
January 3, 2014 at 7:07 pm
For verity, the quote was by Lyndon B Johnson on Gerald Ford – and it was;
“He can’t fart and chew gum at the same time!” 🙂
Gerald Ford – the only man ever to be both vice president and president of the USA without being elected to either post
**************
Sorry to be pedantic – but you cannot be elected to be VP – only the President.
However for anyone who really wants to understand how boring he was, please visit his Presidential Museum in Grand Rapids, Michigan – or you could insert needles in your eyes!
neepheid says: (970)
January 3, 2014 at 7:56 pm
You clearly dislike the inquisitorial system. You prefer the adversarial system. Fair enough. But in my view there was a clear legal basis for LNS to adopt an inquisitorial approach, and that legal basis was the rulebook of the organisation under whose auspices the tribunal was acting. This was not a court of law, but an internal matter. LNS had freedom under the rules to conduct the matter as he thought fit. It was not impossible for him to operate in an inquisitorial way- he simply chose not to do so. You clearly think that was a correct decision, again, fair enough. I think the whole show was a “smoke and mirrors” operation, designed to achieve a result. You will disagree. But I think the whole thing stinks.
==========================================================
I try not to personalise issues and where possible use rational thought processes and keep my emotions under control. I don’t dislike the inquisitorial system per se and have actually lived and worked under its jurisdiction. It has strong points and weak points as do most legal systems which operate in real democracies and which constantly evolve.
I assume you couldn’t have read the two examples I mentioned in the UK where I mentioned a limited introduction of good aspects of the inquisitorial system which I fully support because it might not necessarily provide better justice but I believe a more compassionate system and more attuned to those appearing before the courts.
Similarly I am fully cognisant with the system and operation of justice in the UK and, on balance, because of the separation of State and an Independent Justiciary and greater protection for the accused I would probably usually tend to favour the adversarial system.
There is also the small point to be considered that in the UK there is no inquistorial system in operation – it doesn’t exist – it isn’t part of the legal framework. You either accept that or don’t and tbh I don’t care because it’s your choice and it’s not mine.
I have to laugh though at the faith you now seem to put in presumably the rule books of both the SPL and SFA now that has brought a smile to my face and I’m sure Donkey and CO must be pleased at the success of their squirrel.
One day you might understand that no matter what legal system was used by LNS – even Kosher Dietary Laws – that the truth would never have been achieved. That was the object of the exercise and the more people get hung-up on the smoke and mirrors you mention the less chance we will ever have of exposing the Hampden Fraud.
I don’t think LNS and his colleagues were actually complicit in the deception and by the time they realised where it was heading it was too late to bail-out and as I have always stated I don’t think there is anything legally suspect in their decision on the evidence provided which, of course, raises all sorts of otrher issues,
Auldheid/Ecobhoy – question for you both.
The original LNS scope was from 1998 onwards – which was the inception of the SPL. There was no request to go further back because I presume – no one was able to represent the old league as it had gone the way of the dodo (unfortunately!).
So is this perhaps the real need to get a new SPFL – since when FTT goes against MH/RFC-NIL, the need to revisit LNS will be brushed over because the SPL no longer exists and no one could represent them now – only SPFL? Can they deem LNS decision no longer able to be revisited because of SPFL coming into fruition? Or can they try…………..
Exiled Celt says: (887)
January 3, 2014 at 8:46 pm
Sorry to be pedantic – but you cannot be elected to be VP – only the President.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That is true although generally the ‘running mate’ of the Presidential candidate would be known in advance and would be expected to become VP.
Surely the SPL does still exist? It just changed its name to SPFL and consumed the SFL
Re inquisitorial v adversarial
It is standard practice in sport generally that penalties for transgression are handed out following an inquisitorial process. It is normally only at the appeal stage that the format will move to an adversarial system.
Think Stewards in horse racing, motor racing or athletics. The “accused” may appeal and take the process to an adversarial system – as could Rangers (to the SFA) if the SPL’s “stewards” had handed out any meaningful punishment.
It is simply wrong to say that an inquisitorial system is alien to us in Scotland. It is actually quite bizarre that such a system was not applied by the LNS Commission.
The SRU’s disciplinary system allows a panel to find a “cited” player guilty of the most appropriate offence after considering the evidence – whether or not that offence had been alleged in the first place. It does not normally allow witnesses to be cross examined. The panel decides what witnesses should be called to attend. These are not adversarial procedures.
http://www.scottishrugby.org/sites/default/files/editor/images/the_scottish_rugby_union_guide_to_disciplinary_issues_2013-14_2.pdf
Not that is really that relevant to the LNS Commission; but in the Scottish legal system the first duty of the COPFS is to investigate allegations and it is only when it is considered that guilt can be proven, they will set out cases that can be prosecuted by its Advocates Depute.
Though LNS treated Rod MacKenzie (the SPL’s QC) as the equivalent of an Advocate Depute this was never his role. It was the LNS Commission itself that was tasked with investigating the alleged rule-breaking. How could the commission have been independent of the SPL, if they are saying the SPL were effectively conducting the “prosecution”?
It is utter nonsense.
The LNS Commission could have, and should have, chosen to adopt an inquisitorial process. That they did not tells its own story.
Scottc – Presidential candidates tend to pick a candidate that would draw votes in from a constituency that they themselves cannot access or depend on – in John McCain’s case, he wanted to tap into the stupid and hard of thinking base – hence Sarah Palin 🙂
scottc says: (411)
January 3, 2014 at 8:54 pm
Exiled Celt says: (888)
January 3, 2014 at 8:52 pm
So is this perhaps the real need to get a new SPFL – since when FTT goes against MH/RFC-NIL, the need to revisit LNS will be brushed over because the SPL no longer exists and no one could represent them now – only SPFL? Can they deem LNS decision no longer able to be revisited because of SFPL coming into fruition? Or can they try…………..
*********
Surely the SPL does still exist? It just changed its name to SPFL and consumed the SFL
++++++++++++++
Was there not some agreement of merger – and new SPFL rules came into play etc. If they could use the excuse that we can only look at 1998 onwards rather than see if there were also any issues with some of the mega stars of the 90’s, then I am sure they can use the same excuse.
I am asking if they can legally – if as you say its the same corporation and registered company no, then that is ok.
Edit to add – I am so suspicious of the need to reform and have the SPFL come in to play – there was some reason for the hurry……….and it was not for the good of Scottish football as apparently no one cares about that in Park Gardens!
THE SCOTTISH PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE LIMITED
SC175364
Age 16 years (Incorporation date 13/05/1997)
Thanks Tif Fin – my paranoia is well founded though!
Ecobhoy
Buddy Holly.
If D&P had delivered the documentation original swerved by1st then the date LNS would have been asked to look at would not have started 23 Nov.
It is a fact that it was this date on a side letter which determined the coverage of the Commisssion.
D&P might have delivered stuff the SPL must have had reason to believe was missing. They could not have delivered the documents prior to 23 Nov back to July 1998.
These documents should be examined as they refer to irregular payments with side letters concealed from SFAcand HMRC.
Is, “my paranoia is well founded” not an oymoron.
Kilgore Trout on January 3, 2014 at 5:44 pm says
34 2 Rate This
PhilMacGiollaBhain @ 3:39 pm
“john clarke says: (1487)
January 3, 2014 at 2:59 pm
Ally will be expensive to sack-his contract was drawn up by Martin Bain.
It is generous…”
I now have a picture of the two of them whiling away the hours on the long flights to and from their charity sponsored rafting holidays making sure that their, and all their other chums, contracts were all worded just right!
——————————–
Steady.
As The Rangers Etc. found out to their cost Mr Bain can be quite litigious.
Mr Bain may well have gone rafting on one of the Idaho Challenges but you would be on firmer legal ground if you mused on Mr Bain going on an Arctic Circle Challenge and wondering if there was a more efficient way to raise charitable funds.
The Rangers Charity Foundation website is a thing of wonder; as in Alice’s Adventures In Wonderland.
In 2009 a team of nine Teddy Bears headed up to the Arctic Circle, presumably on a Twinning Mission with Polar Bears. There was three fans, Mr Bain, (Chief Executive; salary circa £600,000 p.a. and £249,000 EBT beneficiary); Alex Rae (former player and £600,000 EBT beneficiary); Connal Cochrane (Manager of the Foundation) and three others who are described as “Rangers staff members”. One of the latter is named as “Jacqui Gourlay” and it would appear that this is the same person as Foundation Trustee (and Rangers staff member) Jacqueline Gourlay who in her biography on the website refers to this selfless trip. Her biography tells of Ms Gourlay graduating from Glasgow; being a Chartered Accountant and having huge experience in various financial and operational roles within the electronics and leisure industries. Space obviously did not permit mention of the fact that she was employed by The Rangers Etc.
Interestingly one of the three persons not on the Rangers payroll was named Garry Allan and I had to check that the Q.C. involved in Super Salary McCostly’s “Who are these people?” outburst spelled his forename “Gary”.
Credit has to be given to all of the above-named for funding the raising of, well, funds, particularly the three fans who were not in receipt of a salary or EBT payment but as I said, surely there must be a more efficient way?
@Tif Finn
Derek Johnstone on SSB, discussing whether Rangers might buy players in January. The last time i heard him discussing £10 mill with a caller, The caller was saying there was no £10 mill But DJ in the end almost near to tears said ” just lets see when Ally gets the £10 mill we will see who he buy’s. Just wish i had recorded it comedy gold it was
buddy_holly says: (136)
January 3, 2014 at 8:38 pm
neepheid, ecobhoy auldheid et al,
Does this mean a DOS inquiry could take place, against the SPL? In relation to the spartans decision, could there be challenge against the eligibility of RFC(NIL) players for EBT and DOS during scottish cup games?
OR as the SFA is really in charge of eligibility all three former organisations, SFA (scottish cup) SPL (SPL), SFL (league cup) are covered by the results of the LNS enquiry?
=================================================================
I think we are in a limbo until we get a decision from the Upper Tribunal on the EBT Appeal. The DOS and EBT cases could then be coupled if the EBT payments were declared to be irregular. But that could be appealed and if it goes all the way we could be talking five years away before a Final Result.
A lot can happen in that time involving Rangers and some of the main players in the saga and we should never underestimate the forensic accountancy power of BDO. I don’t think there is currently any appetite for action by the Hampden Suits but that could change in the blink of an eye if it suits them – especially fresh Young Turks – and they could decide that some Rangers creation and a few titles have to be sacrificed to secure their credibility. But CO will go in peace from hamden but I have a feeling he won’t find it and have to account at some stage.
Personally I don’t really care about stripping titles that much – for me it’s enough to know that they cheated and my kids and my grandkids know that as well and so will the coming generations.
But I firmly believe they played ineligible players and should be found guilty of that and I haven’t given up hope that Justice will be done one day no matter what system we operate under. If it isn’t it will remain a stinking festering sore that won’t go away and I would rather not have that because of the obvious dangers it creates for society.
Tif Finn says: (1171)
January 3, 2014 at 9:08 pm
Is, “my paranoia is well founded” not an oymoron.
***********
Not in Scotland – thanks to Traynor and Jack Irvine its not 🙂
ecobhoy 4:06 pm
I accept that my earlier post could be perceived as a list of statements. I was trying to keep my post relatively brief, but hope TSFM and its readers will now indulge a longtime reader, but a far less frequent poster than you, with a very lengthy post which is my full article published in CQN magazine early last year. I hope this provides proper context as, like you, I poured over every word of the LNS verdict. I accept that my messages on TSFM were mixed when I ridiculed the verdict of the panel but at the same time recognised that the SPL case presented by Mackenzie was hopeless, but you are equally guilty when you assert that LNS et al could not have possibly reached any other conclusion but also make reference to fear of personal safety. Fear of personal safety was completely academic and irrelevant if there was only one possible verdict.
Bloody Sunday, Hillsborough and Rangers’ Use of Employee Benefit Trusts
Cast your minds back to April 2008. A title race that had appeared very much over was very much alive again. While we were still second favourites requiring ‘Rangers’ to drop points, their next fixture was the potentially difficult visit by Dundee United.
I can still recall my deep sense of unease when I learned during the week prior to the fixture that Mike McCurry was to be the referee. It would be wrong to claim that McCurry had been viewed with suspicion by Celtic fans for many years, but over the course of the previous 12 months or so he had made numerous ‘honest mistakes’ that advantaged one club only. My belief was that in the absence of a satisfactory explanation these ‘honest mistakes’ favouring the same club were likely to continue. It is, however, possible to toss a coin ten times and for it to land the same way every time. There was therefore in my mind the remote possibility that McCurry’s pattern of errors could be explained by chance (1 in 512 if I continue with my coin tossing analogy).
As everyone knows, McCurry’s performance that Saturday was and remains the most controversial witnessed in Scotland for many seasons. The mainstream media, while being highly critical of McCurry’s performance, importantly failed to put it in the context of his previous performances. But for me the possibility of chance was now miniscule; we are talking about monkeys, typewriters, Shakespeare and a time limit (or Scottish football hacks, laptops, proper journalism and no time limit if you prefer). McCurry subsequently suffered serious allegations relating to both his professional and personal life and did not officiate in an SPL fixture again.
Why do I mention this? Quite simply because to me there remained the very remote possibility that he was simply a poor but honest official. This week, however, I am 100% certain that Scottish football is utterly corrupt.
On learning that a preliminary SPL investigation had found a prima facie case (a charge that at first inspection appears open and shut), that it was to be investigated ‘without fear or favour’ by an independent panel and that only a ‘civil’ case burden of proof (ie on the balance of probabilities) was necessary my only fear that the conclusions reached and any penalty imposed on Rangers would be unfair was, that the club in question was Rangers. For the purposes of this article I am avoiding the question of same club / company which I personally find tedious.
Rangers quickly set the agenda and the mainstream media predictably fell into line. According to the Ibrox club ‘title stripping’ was the most serious punishment available and would not be accepted under any circumstances. This was highly disingenuous. There were a wide range of sanctions available but very few individuals were suggesting that titles should be withdrawn as a direct punishment for fielding ineligible players, even if the practice was found to be deliberate, widespread and longlasting. The precedent most often cited was Spartans which in 2011 had fielded a single ineligible player in a single Scottish Cup tie. He was deemed ineligible on the basis that he was improperly registered, and was deemed improperly registered on the basis that the club’s application for reregistration was dated in only one place rather than the required two. Spartans claimed that they did not receive the form returned by the SFA and assumed all paperwork had been completed correctly. Their penalty for what was without doubt a minor administrative error was to be expelled from the competition. The consequence (not the punishment) of fielding an ineligible player was the match (which Spartans won) had to be awarded to the opponents. The punishment was a £4000 fine. Spartans accepted the decision without complaint and apologised to their supporters.
In terms of potential sanctions that might be imposed on Rangers if found guilty of fielding ineligible players, the award of the matches concerned to their opponents (G6.1.7) was the only logical consequence. If, and only if, the resulting adjusted points totals meant that a different club now finished with the highest points total then the further consequences were that titles were reallocated. Any punishment would take account of the scale of the rule breaking and whether it was felt to be deliberate.
The outcome of the investigation is now well known. Rangers were found guilty of not disclosing the side-letter arrangements but no sporting penalty was imposed. So why despite a ‘guilty verdict’ were matches not awarded to Rangers’ opponents? Paragraph 6 of the result is crucial stating:
‘Rangers FC did not gain any unfair competitive advantage from the contraventions of the SPL rules in failing to make proper disclosure of the side-letter arrangements, nor did the non-disclosure have the effect that any of the registered players were ineligible to play, and for this and other reasons no sporting sanction or penalty should be imposed upon Rangers FC;’
The reporting of this key to the decision in the mainstream media has been predictably uninformative; once again it has been left to the ‘internet bampots’ to carry out the necessary forensic analysis to understand how the conclusions were reached. Lightweights such as Matthew Lindsay went as far as to suggest Rangers were due an apology ignoring a guilty verdict; middleweights such as Graham Spiers noted the scathing criticism of ‘oldco’ and questioned the conclusion that no sporting advantage had been obtained; the only genuine heavyweight in the room (Channel 4’s Alex Thomson) compared Scottish football to a banana republic but even he did not pass comment on the crucial conclusion reached by the panel that allowed results to stand.
Rule D1.11 of the SPL Constitution states:
“Any Club Playing an ineligible Player in an Official Match and the Player concerned shall be in breach of the Rules.”
Rule D1.13 of states:
“A Club must as a condition of Registration and for a Player to be eligible to Play in Official Matches, deliver the executed originals of all Contracts of Service and Amendments and/or extensions to Contracts of Service and all other agreements providing for payment, other than for reimbursement of expenses actually incurred, between that Club and Player, to the Secretary, within fourteen days of such Contract of Service or other agreement being entered into, amended and/or, as the case may be, extended.”
These rules are, in my opinion, refreshingly unambiguous; there are no subtle nuances; there are no grey areas of interpretation. In order to be eligible a player has first to be registered but there are other requirements including delivery of the Contracts. How then did the panel conclude that improperly registered players were not ineligible for play? The crucial evidence was given by Alexander Bryson, Head of Registrations at the SFA, who described the registration process (paragraph 86). He explained that once a player had been registered with the SFA, he remained registered unless and until his registration was revoked. The registration of the player was not treated as being invalid from the outset.
Despite being found guilty of deliberately misregistering dozens of players for over a decade, crucially the panel concluded that the same players had not been ineligible to play.
They reached the conclusion that the players remained eligible until such time as their deliberately improper registration was discovered. Such a conclusion in my opinion is not merely bizarre, going against common sense and natural justice; it is frankly perverse. It is not merely unprecedented; it is contrary to existing precedents such as Spartans in 2011. It encourages and rewards deceit.
I work as a doctor. In order to practice medicine in the United Kingdom I require a medical degree recognised by my regulatory body, the General Medical Council (GMC). If I lie to the GMC about my qualifications but my lie is undetected until after I have retired, by the panel’s logic my only crime is the initial lie. I would not be guilty of attempting to practice medicine without qualification for many years, and most perversely of all the GMC would have to regard me forever more as having been a doctor for my entire working life.
Another analogy is a woman who has had recent intercourse (I will return to this later) misses her period and believes on the balance of probabilities she is therefore pregnant. Three weeks later she has a pregnancy test which is negative. By this panel’s logic however, she was and forever more will be regarded as having been pregnant for those three weeks.
The report did not state who cited Mr Bryson.
It did not state why an important member of the potential appellate body was cited.
It did not state who held the equivalent role to Mr Bryson at the SPL.
It did not explain why that individual was not cited.
It did not state why the SFA interpretation was not stated in any relevant rules.
It did not explain why consistency between SPL and SFA regulations trumped either individual body’s regulations.
It did not explain why the panel chose to prefer an interpretation that appeared to defy natural justice and common sense over one that did not.
It did not explain why the panel chose to prefer an unwritten and seemingly ad hoc interpretation that appeared to defy natural justice and common sense over a clearly written and unambiguous rule that did not.
It did not explain why, in an investigation into SPL player eligibility, the panel chose to prefer the SFA unwritten and seemingly ad hoc regulation that appeared to defy natural justice and common sense over the SPL clearly written and unambiguous rule that did not.
No precedents were cited; none have been since to the best of my knowledge.
Perhaps most importantly of all, it did not explain why, given the information in the public domain, the head of SFA regulations (Mr Bryson) or indeed the SFA President and former ‘Rangers’ secretary for much of the period in question (Campbell Ogilvie) did not seek to clarify the status of then current ‘Rangers’ players?
On first inspection this perverse but crucial conclusion means that despite improper registration, the players remained eligible, and therefore no sporting sanctions should be imposed. But what if the players were ineligible for another reason? I return to rule D1.13:
“A Club must as a condition of Registration and for a Player to be eligible to Play in Official Matches, deliver the executed originals of all Contracts of Service and Amendments and/or extensions to Contracts of Service and all other agreements providing for payment, other than for reimbursement of expenses actually incurred, between that Club and Player, to the Secretary, within fourteen days of such Contract of Service or other agreement being entered into, amended and/or, as the case may be, extended.”
This clearly states that the delivery of the relevant documents is a requirement not just of registration but eligibility also. Elsewhere in the result the panel make it clear the side-letters were not delivered. Despite their remarkable efforts to show that improperly registered players were still registered, the players were ineligible regardless.
The panel reached two other conclusions that have to be challenged. First of all they stated that the non-disclosure of side letters had to be regarded as deliberate. In almost the same breath, however, they state there was no question of dishonesty. These two claims seem mutually exclusive. Furthermore, elsewhere in the report ‘Rangers’ were admonished for failing ‘to respond timeously to legitimate requests for the provision of information’ (paragraph 110).
It was probably expected that the panel would consider the question of honesty. More surprising, however, was firstly that they also expressed any opinion on whether sporting advantage was obtained, and secondly the conclusion reached that no direct sporting advantage was obtained. This appears to have been as important as the conclusion regarding eligibility in terms of deciding not to impose any sporting penalty. I can only assume this conclusion was based on the premise that other clubs could have made use of EBTs to the same extent (on the basis of the majority FTT verdict under appeal) but chose not to. At the same time, there is surely little doubt that despite winning fewer championships than their main rivals during the period in question, the undisclosed £47 million at least offered indirect sporting advantage. ‘Rangers’ knew the tax position of EBTs was questionable. ‘Rangers’ knew that there was a danger that if the EBT payments were disclosed that PAYE and NIC would be payable. They therefore deliberately chose not to. This is recognised in the report. Quite simply, ‘Rangers’ were able to obtain a better calibre of player for the same money than their rivals. Without this advantage they would in all probability have won far fewer honours. There must be even less doubt that non-disclosure of the side letters was motivated by an attempt to obtain direct sporting advantage. What other motivation could there have been? Is a forward shooting motivated by something other than an attempt to score a goal? And regardless, would Lance Armstrong have been less guilty had he won fewer than 7 Tour De France tournaments? Would Ben Johnson have been less guilty had he finished 2nd behind Carl Lewis in the 1988 100m Olympics final. Non-disclosure of the side letters was motivated by an attempt to gain sporting advantage.
The conclusions that there were no questions of dishonesty and no unfair advantage had been gained allowed the ‘Rangers’ manager on Friday to state that any suggestion of cheating had been put to bed. Like many, I do not believe that ‘Rangers’ players and coaching staff cheated, and would have had a degree of sympathy had their achievements been tarnished by the report’s conclusions. I do not accept the conclusions and will always be of the opinion that at the boardroom level ‘Rangers’ cheated.
To summarise, the key to understanding why no sporting penalty was imposed is paragraph 6 which states that Rangers did not gain any unfair competitive sporting advantage from the contraventions of disclosure, and that non-disclosure did not have the effect that the registered players were ineligible. I believe this to be a completely flawed conclusion. The conclusion that the players remained registered until their improper registration was discovered required unimaginable mental gymnastics. Even accepting this perverse conclusion, under rule D1.13 the players were still ineligible as the necessary documents had not been delivered. And non-disclosure of the side letters was obviously motivated by an attempt at the very least to indirectly gain unfair sporting advantage.
I can only guess as to why the panel reached such a flawed conclusion. I suspect the implications and consequences of finding that dozens of ineligible players had been fielded over so many seasons were simply too big. There was the real possibility that UEFA and FIFA would investigate whether ‘Rangers’ and the national team had fielded ineligible players in their competitions. And perhaps more importantly, it was not just ‘Rangers’ who were being judged; the SPL’s and SFA’s roles in allowing such a scandal were also under scrutiny. Even as it stands the report is damning of football governance in Scotland over the previous decade.
I have made a huge emotional investment in Scottish football over the last forty or so years as well as a financial one. Like many following the publication of this report I am questioning whether I will continue to do so. ‘Rangers’, under David Murray with a cameo role from Craig White have, with the assistance of spineless, inept, ‘heavily conflicted’ and probably corrupt football authorities and a complicit mainstream media, utterly ruined Scottish football. It brings me back to Mike McCurry and April 2008. Following the Rangers – Dundee United match there remained the possibility in my mind, however small, that McCurry was a poor but honest official, and that his mistakes always seeming to favour the same team could be explained by simple chance, even if the odds were very long. I have no such doubts about this report. It is a cover-up to join the two others listed in the title of this article.
http://www.uefa.com/memberassociations/uefarankings/club/
UEFA have removed Rangers history
Ecobhoy – I have no desire at all to strip titles – I am more interested in the way it was able to be so easily done and remain undetected (allegedly!).
(1) We need to know what SFA failed to do in their self regulatory role as requested and demanded by UEFA.
(2) We need to know what SFA knew and turned a blind eye to.
(3) We need to have anyone found incompetent or even conflicted resign from their posts
(4) We need new regulations to ensure the rule bending and cheating can never happen again – and make sure that since obviously the clubs cannot be trusted to comply with rules that an audit is done on occasion to ensure regulations are being adhered to.
With the current state of affairs, it could all happen again. If you don’t understand what the problem was, how can you fix anything? Assuming of course that we want to ensure its a level playing field for ALL clubs….
Cluster One says: (2)
January 3, 2014 at 9:11 pm
The attitude of Big D is the same as the most of the media.
It goes something like this;
There will be £1M in the bank come April.
This £1M plus £9M from season tickets equals £10M.
That is Ally’s war chest.
Unfortunately they don’t seem to understand that if they spend that £10M the don’t have anything left to pay any of the players with.
It is typical RFC/’The Rangers’ economics and the media spew forth the same nonsense.
They cannot grasp the notion that they will have to balance the books going forward or it is a case of ‘go to the bottom league, go directly to the bottom league and do not pass GO’.
Perhaps some one should go on and ask Big D if there is a money printing press in Ibrox that will just continue to produce cash for ‘The Rangers’ to spend. Oh wait a minute there can’t be because if there was RFC wouldn’t have went bust in the first place.
Bryce Curdy says: (23)
January 3, 2014 at 9:31 pm
‘….. The conclusion that the players remained registered until their improper registration was discovered required unimaginable mental gymnastics…… And non-disclosure of the side letters was obviously motivated by an attempt at the very least to indirectly gain unfair sporting advantage.’-
——
I agree!