A Guest Blog by Auldheid for TSFM
Honesty requires both transparency and accountability. In pursuit of honest, transparent and accountable governance of Scottish football, and only that objective, the following letter, with attachments, has been sent to SPFL lawyers, CEO and SPFL Board Members.
An honest game free from deception is what football supporters of all clubs want. It is the action the letter and attachments prompt that will tell us if there is any intention of providing it.
It is a response on behalf of readers here on TSFM, but the sentiment which underpins it is almost universally held amongst fans of all clubs. Importantly it is a response directly to all clubs, especially those with a SPFL Board member, that will make the clubs and the football authorities aware just how seriously supporters take the restoration of trust in an honest game, honestly governed.
The annexes to the letter contain information which may be published at a later date. We thought it appropriate to first await any response from any of the recipients.
Please also draw this to the attention of friends who are not internet using supporters and love their football and their club.
Auldheid
__________________________________________________________________
Harper MacLeod
The Ca’d’oro
45 Gordon Street
Glasgow
G1 3PE
19 Feb 2014
Copy sent to SPFL CEO and Board Members *
Dear Mr McKenzie
We the contributors to The Scottish Football Monitoring web site write to you in your capacity as the legal adviser employed by Harper MacLeod to assist the Scottish Premier League (now the Scottish Professional Football League) to gather evidence and investigate the matter of incorrect player registrations involving concealed side letters and employee benefit trusts as defined in the eventual Lord Nimmo Smith Commission.
We note from the then SPL announcement that set up an enquiry that the initial date range to be covered was from the inception of the SPL in July 1998, but that was changed to 23 November 2000 because, according to our understanding, that is the date of the first side letter supplied by Rangers Administrators Duff and Phelps. It is also our understanding that the SPL asked for all documentation relating to side letters as well as the letters themselves.
It is a matter of public record that Rangers Administrators failed to supply the SPL all relevant documentation. Indeed the seriousness of not complying with SPL requests was the subject of an admonition of Rangers/Duff and Phelps from Lord Nimmo Smith under Issue 4 of his Commission.
Quite how serious that failure to comply or concealment was in terms of misleading the Commission and so Lord Nimmo Smith can now be assessed from the information contained at Annexes 1 to 10 attached.
We think that as legal advisers to the SPL (now the SPFL) you have a responsibility to make them aware that their Commission was misled by the concealment of documents starting on 3 September 1999, and signed by current SFA President Campbell Ogilvie, whose silence on the ebt matters referred to in the attached annexes* is questionable at the very least.
This letter but not attachments is being posted on The Scottish Football Monitor web site as this is matter for all of Scottish football and support for the issue being pursued to establish the truth can be gauged by responses from supporters from all Scottish clubs once the letter has been published there.
A copy of this letter with Annexes has also been sent to the SPFL CEO and members of the SPFL Board.
Acknowledgement of receipt and reply can be sent by e mail to:
(Address supplied)
Yours in sport
On behalf of The Scottish Football Monitor contributors and readers. http://www.tsfm.org.uk/
Addressees copied in
Neil Doncaster CEO
The Scottish Professional Football League
Hampden Park
Glasgow G42 9DE
Eric Riley (Celtic),
The Celtic Football Club
Celtic Park
Glasgow G40 3RE
Stephen Thompson (Dundee United),
Tannadice Park,
Tannadice Street,
Dundee, DD3 7JW
Duncan Fraser (Aberdeen);
Aberdeen Football Club plc
Pittodrie Stadium
Pittodrie Street
Aberdeen AB24 5QH
Les Gray (Hamilton),
Hamilton Academical FC
New Douglas Park
Hamilton
ML3 0FT
Mike Mulraney (Alloa)
Alloa Athletic FC
Clackmannan Road
Recreation Park
Alloa FK10 1RY
Bill Darroch (Stenhousemuir).
Stenhousemuir F.C.
Ochilview Park
Gladstone Road
Stenhousemuir
Falkirk
FK5 4QL
Interesting (not really) that the SFA choose to highlight United’s ticket sales at their last two semi finals, but not Rangers’ ticket sales last time they met United in the cup. Like McCoist, they’re conveniently glossing over that.
Smugas
In relation to the settlement and payment of the wee tax bill I must have drafted poorly.
The advice to settle was in March 2011 from QC A Thornhill.
The collection process was allowed to drift until early May when the takeover took place.
The process began by saying collection would begin again within a number of days and actually began on 20th May.
Rangers had 30 days to pay but failed to.
Sheriff Officers called in August to collect and a sum to cover payment was seized and frozen for reasons I do not recall but seemed normal practice.
That money however was allocated by HMRC to cover the other taxes accruing because CW was paying none.
So the wtc bill never got paid. Taxpayer screwed totally.
The SFA would have known of the liability from April 2011 and that CW had agreed to take that liability on from published reports and a statement to Rangers shareholders.
It is what they did with that knowledge along with the reservations expressed by Rangers Independent Takeover Board about CW’s ability to fund the potential BTC bill that needs probing. Res12 is enabling that.
The D&P statement in my post relates to April 2012 and has no bearing on the pursuit of the wtc in 2011.
toadinthehole says:
March 19, 2014 at 12:36 pm
Interesting (not really) that the SFA choose to highlight United’s ticket sales at their last two semi finals, but not Rangers’ ticket sales last time they met United in the cup. Like McCoist, they’re conveniently glossing over that.
——
Or, indeed, ticket sales to fans of The Rangers playing in any League or Scottish Cup semi-final or final – ever – in their short history.
Angus
You’re almost entirely correct, Jack, apart from the suspicion that Rangers have enjoyed a cup run which would appear to be a touch easier than pure luck of the draw would have suggested.
——————————————————–
That suspicion is also inevitable conspirational gossip.
In the previous three seasons when Rangers could have done with a long cup-run, we have been drawn against the following teams in early rounds (Feburary) of the Scottish Cup: Celtic, Dundee Utd and Dundee Utd.
This season we’ve had opposition outwith the top-flight but now have to try and get past Dundee Utd, who have put us out of the Cup 3 times in the last 4 years. Of those 3 ties, two were played at Ibrox with one going to a replay.
sannoffymesssoitizzhizzemdyfonedrapolis says: Loads ‘n loads of links.
I think you have successfully blown Sandy Brysons law out of the water. There is clearly provision to back date punishment. For him to stand in front of LNS and claim otherwise beggars belief.
I was surprised to learn that the SFA themselves, also breached player eligibility rules in the Steven Whittaker example. Was that on the Worlds greatest administrators day off, 😀
Auldheid says:
March 19, 2014 at 12:37 am
bogsdollox says:
March 19, 2014 at 12:28 am
Auldheid says:
March 18, 2014 at 10:05 pm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The word “settled” can have to meanings in the context of the WTC DOS. It could mean the matter was resolved/agreement reached or it could mean it was paid. We know which one actually applies but for D&P not to add that the tax remained unpaid is misleading.
====================
Neither applies.
No agreement.
No payment in spite of a statement saying a payment had been made.
A possible late appeal but in spite of advice it would be viewed as vexatious and it might have been on the penalty rather than the core amount.
Sherriff Officers collected and money held in suspense but later allocated to unpaid PAYE/VAT and NI before administration so never paid.
The smoke screen around the wtc almost makes you think there is something to hide.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ok – got you now. I agree that settlement could not apply to payment.
About settlement of the disagreement of the legality of the case with HMRC. I recall it was all agreed by the outgoing SDM Regime but on taking over didn’t Whyte ask D&P to reopen it. Was that not an argument/appeal about “grossing up” and as you note the level of the penalty? If D&P were involved in reopening the issue it is strange that they could write what they did.
There seems to be a deliberate attempt to confuse and mislead here. I smell a Rattus Norvegicus.
JimBhoy says:
March 19, 2014 at 9:48 am
Today’s Sallyism….
The Gers boss added: “I think Jackie said on television that we would have an advantage but, being honest with you, there is very little to be made with home advantage in the modern game the higher you go up the ranks in football……
“I won’t kid you that I am not happy the game is at Ibrox.”
_____________________________________________
And for the umpteenth time he states he is ‘being honest with us’.
If in his next interview he fails to declare he is being honest, does it mean we must assume he isn’t?
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
March 19, 2014 at 11:39 am
You have to remember this is the same SFA who penalised the Celtic Ladies team for not being able to field a side for a cup tie.
The reason why they couldn’t field a team:
The girls were elsewhere,playing for Scotland!.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I dread to think what the punishment would have been had the wee lassies been on International duty with Eire!!
Greenock Jack says:
March 19, 2014 at 11:13 am
13 12 Rate This
Taysider
Any right thinking football fan would be concerned at the implications of the actions of the football authorities. Where would they draw the line in trying to assist one club?
————————————————————————————————–
You infer that football authorities act to assist one club leading into the present issue of the Scottish Cup tie venues.
This particular decision of the SFA had two clubs that may end up with an advantage of playing a semi-final or final at their home ground. At the time of the decision (October 2013) it would have been fair to assume that Celtic would be the more likely team to enjoy that advantage (to play SC Final at Home) rather than Rangers of the SPFL3 reach the semi-final.
So regardless of the merits or otherwise of the decision taken in October 2013, if you are going to infer that unfair advantages was being quite deliberately given then be accurate and tell the full story rather than painting it as part of a cunning and exclusivly pro-Rangers plan.
I fully except the argument that the SFA should have made appropriate provision in the case of either side reaching the semi-final / final.
—————————————-
The inference you perceive is one that I wasn’t aware of, certainly didn’t intend! The quote you have lifted is from the section of my post concerned with the decision of the authorities to try and ensure Rangers remained in the top tier, even when liquidated, a development totally unprecedented. Once a decision like that was taken, there was inevitably going to be a concern regarding whether one club would be favoured in the future.
Yes the current mess regarding “neutral” venues potentially had a benefit for Celtic as well as Rangers as the Stephen Thompson quote from October last year made clear.
But to hopefully avoid any doubt my point was this. 2012 involved an unprecedented treatment attempting to assist one club. Following that the authorities are at risk of being seen as tarnished and indeed corrupt. They should therefore be very careful not only to act in a fair and transparent way treating all clubs equally but to be seen to do so. The venue fiasco is in a contrary direction and does nothing to reassure fans about the governance of Scottish football. Leaving the selection of the venue until after the competing teams were known was an obvious solution.
Finally just to emphasise, the issue United have here is with the SFA, not TRFC.
Well done Rangers.
Great sportsmanship, and deserving of all the praise going.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/sportsmanship-of-cork-schoolboy-is-praised-online-262385.html
ThirdParty says:
March 19, 2014 at 1:01 am
“The Commission was not about whether OldCo had breached to rules of football by not paying tax due in relation to the DOS scheme or the MGEBT.”
—————————-
I understand the point you are making but this doesn’t seem to align with Lord Nimmo Smith’s analysis. At para 23 of his decision is written:
“…Adopting this approach, the evidence available for our consideration includes that of
witnesses, contemporaneous documents and the narrative of evidence and findings in fact made
by the First-tier Tribunal…”
So he decides that FTT is a viable source of information for his considerations.
Than at para 104 we get:
“…These rules are not designed as any form of financial regulation of football, analogous to the UEFA Financial Fair Play Regulations. Thus it is not the purpose of the Rules to regulate how one football club may seek to gain financial and sporting advantage over others….”
Which to me implies that though he is considering FTT, he does not anticipate it will be material to his findings. However later in the same para we get:
“…The Tax Tribunal has held (subject to appeal) that Oldco was acting within the law in setting up and operating the EBT scheme. The SPL presented no argument to challenge the decision of the majority of the Tax Tribunal and Mr McKenzie stated expressly that for all purposes of this Commission’s Inquiry and Determination the SPL accepted that decision as it stood, without regard to any possible appeal by HMRC…”
So considering the tribunal was about registration there seems little doubt that the FTT outcome did colour the judgement. I can see why this might be. If it transpired that like DOS, the wider EBT scheme was found to be operating effectively illegally and allowed RFC to adopt methods that would otherwise be beyond their financial compass, this would not sit comfortably with the concept that there was ‘no sporting advantage’.
At para 103 there appears the statement :
“…Under SPL Rule G6.1 we have the power to impose a wide range of sanctions. Under Rule G6.1.18 we may in addition “make such other direction, sanction or disposal, not expressly provided for in these Rules”…”
As a result he applied a sanction that was effectively £2500 per player per season for mis-registration. Even though he had the power to impose a wide range of sanctions.
Sanoffymes… (thanks for the links sanoffy…) has posted various precedents concerning mis-registration and player eligibility. This article in particular is telling:
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1848&newsID=2792
The sanction was £20,000 for one ineligble player being fielded in 2 games. If my maths is correct, that works out as £10,000 a game.
The LNS tribunal was about mis-registration. However it could not be decoupled from the financial entrainment since culpability and sanction would inevitably be informed by intent. If there was not scurrilous intent behind mis-registration (concealment of side letters), then of the wide ranging sanctions available LNS could have erred on the side of leniency. If however such misrepresentation could be construed as an attempt to accrue a sporting advantage not available to other clubs then the sanction logically would be more weighty.
LNS chose to invoke FTT as it seemed at the time to support a certain perspective. Having done this he necessarily must accept the consequences of apparently being misled concerning the DOS scheme.
If this was about mis-registration why did LNS entrain FTT. It was his choice.
I can understand why it would be material.
On the subject of ticket allocations, personally I am of the belief the opportunity should always be for both teams to get equal tickets in these sort of games. I am pretty sure this principle was established a few years ago after a similar debate and yet here we find the while thing open to intepretation and bias once again.
However, if the rules have now magically changed again to now state that clubs who have more regular fans every week should get more tickets for finals (an argument many Rangers fans working in the media seem to be making), then perhaps its time for all the diddy clubs to employ a method of counting official attendance figures more akin to what Celtic and Rangers do at the moment to avoid being screwed in this way in future…..
Always had a wee sweet spot for DUFC ever since the 80’s… I really do not think they have anything to worry about in the cup semi and it will be all the more sweet when the angry bear’s majority start hissing at the men in blue.. I actually think the semi at Ibrox will work in the favour of the men from Dundee. I have watched some rangers games this season and it has been a tough watch, My rangers pals tell me the football generally lacks invention and guile. I cannot disagree.
I read today that if rangers win both cups they will have had a better season than Celtic, but to balance that out if they do NOT win both cups and Peterhead win League 2 will they have been more successful than rangers this season?
Just a word of admiration for Auldheid. He shows great patience in explaining time after time the facts surrounding much of the mess and great determination in seeking clarity and answers from people who wish we would just shut up and pay up.
Sanoffymess’s links are very good, but the SFA are completely unaccountable for their hypocrisy because we have no journalists who will call them to account. Sanoffymess is well named.
Steve Wright (in the afternoon) has just announced that The Human League are in the top 5 on itunes thanks to Peter Pawlett 🙂
Esteban says:
March 19, 2014 at 11:26 am
21 1 i
Rate This
Before now, has anyone ever made it to the Scottish Cup semi-final without playing a tie against an opponent in the top division? Is this a world record?
——————————————————————————————————————————-
It must have happened hunners of times before – e. g both Dundee Utd and St Mirren in 1987
1987 Scottish Cup
Celtic beat Aberdeen, Hearts beat Celtic, Hamilton beat Rangers (all of which which cleared the decks a bit) and both Airdrieonians and Clydebank were in the same competition (which just confuses the hell out of me now :eek:)
Clydebank were in the top division. 🙁
James Forrest on our favourite cheeky chappie-
http://www.onfieldsofgreen.com/the-many-faces-of-ally/#comment-5152
Corrupt official says: March 19, 2014 at 1:09 pm
sannoffymesssoitizzhizzemdyfonedrapolis says:
Loads ‘n loads of links.
I think you have successfully blown Sandy Brysons law out of the water. There is clearly provision to back date punishment. For him to stand in front of LNS and claim otherwise beggars belief.
I was surprised to learn that the SFA themselves, also breached player eligibility rules in the Steven Whittaker example. Was that on the Worlds greatest administrators day off, 😀
__________________________________________________________________
I wouldn’t go that far as the underlying reason(s) for the each player’s “ineligibility” needs to be considered in reaching the sanction applied to them.
Having said that I ust make it clear that Bryson’s “opinion” on what constitutes correct registration by a member “club” is just plain ridiculous and shameful..
I was not surprised, just delighted as we all need a good laugh ocassionaly to get us through the turmoil created by the SFA. Which reminds me, I must search on the UEFA website for details of the sanctions applied to the SFA for their breach. If I find anything I’ll post it. 😆
Auldheid
have a look at 2.2.5 and 4.1.6 This indicates to me Bryson’s interpretation was at odds with SFA rules
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/ScottishFAPublications2012-13/SFA_HANDBOOK_201-280_Registration_Procedures.pdf
I’m not a lawyer , but it seems to me that the side letter players contracts were never ever valid. The rule looks clear to me. There own words “2.2.5 a non-recreational player registration Form will not be valid unless it is accompanied by the contract entered into between the club concerned and the player stating all the terms and conditions in conformity with rule 4”
ALL the terms and conditions
Castofthousands says: March 19, 2014 at 2:21 pm
Thank you for your clear and detailed response to Third Party’s post at 1:01 am at March 19, 2014.
It expresses wonderfully exactly why I did not agree with his interpretation of the purpose and decisions reached by the LNS SPL Commission better than I ever could.
William Hill have a team called Rangers at odds of 10/3 to win the Scottish Cup.
But, Dear Reader,
Q. Do you think ‘Rangers’ are being assisted in their bid to win the SC ?
TU = YES
TD = NO
Taysider @ 1:49pm
I agree that provision to allow the SFA to change venues so as to preserve neutrality should have been in place, but it wasn’t.
The Dundee Utd chairman expressed misgivings to the press at the time but in hindsight he really needed to gather support and lobby the SFA on this matter then (Oct/Nov 2013). Waiting until it actually happened means no neutrality and unhappiness without any prospect of change.
So I would see it as the SFA awarding Celtic and Rangers a potentially unfair advantage and that member clubs didn’t get together and shout loud enough at the time so as to put pressure on the SFA to introduce a provision so as to guarantee neutrality. Another failure all round.
Regarding your specific post, I felt it lacked balance regarding who the potential beneficiaries of the SFA “venue” decision were. I realise that it has turned out to be Rangers and not Celtic but this wasn’t known in October 2013. Your subsequent linkage of the perceived benefit for one club (2012) and the present situation re. semi-final venue was therefore and IMO inaccurate.
Barcabhoy says: March 19, 2014 at 4:02 pm
It’s a good point that you make.
However, the SPL did not ask the LNS Commission to consider any alleged breach of registration Rules ocurring in the 2012/13 season.
IIRC the SFA Registration Rules were different for the years of the alleged breeches considered by the LNS Commission.
Unfortunately, I don’t have access to the copies of the SFA Handbook for previous years or the LNS Commission Decision as my external hard drive is “in dispute” (i.e. not “talking” to) with my laptop computer.
Can anyone else clarify what the SFA Registration Rules were in earlier years?
Greenock Jack says:
March 19, 2014 at 4:32 pm
Agree with you on much of that, though I would add that the petty, petulant, idiotic boycott of Dundee United by not just Ranger’s fans, but orchestrated by the then Ranger’s CEO, accounts for an awful lot of the current heat around the issue.
M&B
Q. Do you think ‘Rangers’ are being assisted in their bid to win the SC ?
———————————————————————————
In a similar way to how Celtic were but couldn’t take advantage of.
ie. The Final being played at Parkhead.
Scapa
I think the historic “heat” and the “venue” are very seperate issues.
The “venue” is a stand alone issue and would have arisen whatever the ongoing temperature may have registered.
It will of course only add to any “heat” previously created by the loud-mouthed Yorkshireman and fanned by the Scottish footballing media.
Greenock Jack says:
March 19, 2014 at 11:13 am
I fully except the argument that the SFA should have made appropriate provision in the case of either side reaching the semi-final / final.
_______________________________________________
They should.
If Celtic had reached the Cup Final it would have been fairly simple to switch the game to Ibrox, and equally simple to switch the game to Parkhead if Rangers reached the semi-final.
Why they didn’t is a question for the SFA.
Their given reason that the clubs and the sponsors wanted to know the venues early doesn’t wash.
A.Price
That has been said but what needs to happen is for member clubs to take timely action and lobby for the changes they think are needed. Without it you have column inches, hot air, long messageboard threads and nothing.
(ps. accept not except !)
Greenock Jack says: March 19, 2014 at 5:03 pm
I agree with most of what you say. The current TSFM message board is about exactly what TSFM contributors are actively engaged in via consideration and analysis of Auldheid’s letter to the SPFL Board and its legal advisors Harper McLeod and their response.
May I politely ask “What action do you personally take to put pressure on the SFA member club(s) that you support to redress the maladministration of the SPFL and SFA Boards and Officials?
The venues had the potential to benefit both Glasgow teams and it was stupid to announce them before the semi final stage was reached and the teams known. Rangers are left in the tournament and Celtic aren’t so many on here, predictably, get all worked up and view this as yet more ‘proof’ as bias towards one club. I’ve read some on here speculate whether Rangers have been paid already for the games at Ibrox and if this in normal practice for the SFA. No speculation if Celtic have been paid already for use of Parkhead for the final, though.
Whataboutery and petty Old Firm rivalry is alive and well.
Greenock Jack says: March 19, 2014 at 5:03 pm
Please ignore my 1st draft which I cannot now edit because of a later post by another TSFM Contributor.
I agree with most of what you say.
The current TSFM message board shows that TSFM contributors are actively engaged in seeking answers to valid questions on the possible mis-direction of the LNS Commission via their consideration and analysis of Auldheid’s letter to the SPFL Board and its legal advisors Harper McLeod and their response.
May I politely ask “What action do you personally take to put pressure on the SFA member club(s) that you support to redress the maladministration of the SPFL and SFA Boards and Officials?
Alan Price says:
March 19, 2014 at 4:50 pm
6 0 i
Rate This
Greenock Jack says:
March 19, 2014 at 11:13 am
I fully except the argument that the SFA should have made appropriate provision in the case of either side reaching the semi-final / final.
_______________________________________________
They should.
If Celtic had reached the Cup Final it would have been fairly simple to switch the game to Ibrox, and equally simple to switch the game to Parkhead if Rangers reached the semi-final.
Why they didn’t is a question for the SFA.
Their given reason that the clubs and the sponsors wanted to know the venues early doesn’t wash.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Regarding venues.
It is obvious that the early setting of the arrangements for playing the final and semi-finals had the potential to benefit the teams whose grounds were involved. But only the potential (as of course there was no guarantee that the teams in question would have reached either the final (Celtic) or semis (Rangers) in order to benefit from that potential advantage).
I have no idea what the bookies’ view of the odds for Celtic reaching the final or Rangers the semi-finals were at the time the decision was made. Neither seems to me to have been a hugely unlikely possibility at any time. Celtic reaching the final was probably the more likely.
The final had to be played at Parkhead or Ibrox I would suggest.
The semi finals could have been played at Parkhead, Ibrox or a smaller ground (depending on who was involved).
Given that at the time of the decision, Celtic were more likely to be playing in the final than Rangers (I expect most would agree with this statement) the decision to play the final at Parkhead seems a bit a bizarre.
Given that at the time of the decision, Rangers were more likely to be playing in the semis rather than the final, awarding BOTH semis to Rangers also seems bizarre.
At the very least, if the SFA had to make early decisions (and I cannot accept that they had to), they should have been looking at ways of minimising any advantage that might accrue.
If they insisted on early decisions and only Parkhead and Ibrox (and I dont agree with that either) then better would have been:- Ibrox for the final and both semis at Parkhead (or one semi at Ibrox and one at Parkhead – and which one could be decided after the semi draw depending on who was still in teh draw at that point). And if RvC was still a possibility at the time of the draw, the first named team would play at “Home”. (Plenty of scope for hot ball I know but best I can do) and the second tie would be next day at the other venue. If RvC didn’t come out then neither played at home.
Surely that has to be fairer (but of course still has the effect of preferring R and C over everyone else).
Greenock Jack says:
March 19, 2014 at 5:03 pm
2 2 Rate This
A.Price
That has been said but what needs to happen is for member clubs to take timely action and lobby for the changes they think are needed. Without it you have column inches, hot air, long messageboard threads and nothing.
======================
I agree. What were the member clubs thinkng about? Who (yes, we need to know the names of these people) were the individuals responsible for this harebrained decision? Regan? Ogilvie? Or, as I suspect, the SFA Board? Whoever it was (or were) should be hounded out of the game for good. I have seen some stupid decisions from the SFA over many years, but this nonsense takes the biscuit.
The clubs (and that’s all of them) need to get a grip of this totally dysfunctional organisation while they still have any fans left. And for the record, the decision to play the final at Celtic Park, made while Celtic were favourites to win the competition, is just as stupid (maybe more so) as the decision to play the semis at Ibrox.
Of course a lot of this comes back to the crap decision to rebuild (= destroy) Hampden rather than spend half the money building a 50k National Stadium somewhere like Stirling or Perth. The game in this country is surely run by idiots.
incredibleadamspark says: March 19, 2014 at 5:29 pm
Based on 2013/14 SFA Cup Rule 41 I think it is highly unlikely that neither RIFC plc (“the club”) has been paid by the SFA in advance for the use of Ibrox for the SFA Cup Semi-Finals, nor Celtic plc (“the club”) been paid in advance for the use of Celtic Park for the SFA Cup Final.
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/ScottishFAPublications2013-14/Cup%20competition%20rules.pdf
incredibleadamspark says:
March 19, 2014 at 5:29 pm
—
No need for speculation regarding Celtic having been paid already. Celtic have produced accounts.
sannoffymesssoitizzhizzemdyfonedrapolis
May I politely ask “What action do you personally take to put pressure on the SFA member club(s) that you support to redress the maladministration of the SPFL and SFA Boards and Officials?
——————————————–
I am not taking any current action.
However it’s my opinion that the only language clearly understood is pounds and pence.
Barcabhoy says: March 19, 2014 at 4:02 pm
Auldheid
have a look at 2.2.5 and 4.1.6 This indicates to me Bryson’s interpretation was at odds with SFA rules
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/ScottishFAPublications2012-13/SFA_HANDBOOK_201-280_Registration_Procedures.pdf
I’m not a lawyer , but it seems to me that the side letter players contracts were never ever valid. The rule looks clear to me. There own words “2.2.5 a non-recreational player registration Form will not be valid unless it is accompanied by the contract entered into between the club concerned and the player stating all the terms and conditions in conformity with rule 4″
ALL the terms and conditions
===============================
That was the expectation of most observers to the process.
However Sandy Bryson never denied that the non disclosure of the side letters made the players registrations invalid.
He only said that because the registration requests were accepted by the SFA at the time, they remained valid throughout the period that the players were with Rangers, as they were never revoked.
Basically his position could be interpreted as “you can lie all you like on the registration forms and as long as you are not caught at the time then it’s ok”
That’s not quite true as there are many examples of players having played with incorrect registrations in cup ties, but their clubs have subsequently been thrown out the competition. Among those cases, there must have been some instances when a player’s registration was accepted by the SFA, the player played a game, an issue was later identified or complaint made, then the club was thrown out. Taking the Bryson doctrine to its logical conclusion, the results in those cup ties should have stood as the players registrations hadn’t been revoked before the game.
neepheid says:
March 19, 2014 at 5:41 pm ”
“….What were the member clubs thinkng about?…”
—————–
A good question, and it makes me wonder whether the SFA Articles give too much executive power to the Board,which then simply lets the CEO and his staff get on with things more or less without any real accountability to the membership? ( Did any AGM ever question how efficiently and effectively CO oversaw the chaps/chapesses who examined the information provided by club re their player contracts and social taxes situation?)
It certainly seems that too many really important decisions seem to be being made on a very inadequate basis almost designed to cause problems.
Greenock Jack says: March 19, 2014 at 5:49 pm
However it’s my opinion that the only language clearly understood is pounds and pence.
________________________________________________________
That’s why I declined to join the Scotland Supporters Club and would not attend an SFA Cup Semi-Final or Final even if the club I’m a fan of were competing at that stage of the competition. Until the SFA Board & Officials are brought to justice for their maladministration I refuse to contribute one penny to the 5% levy that the SFA deduct from the total match receipts.
Hoewver, it’s also my view that other forms of action can also be successful if deployed strategically. It seems to me that the alternative is just to let the dead hands of apathy embrace us. Choose Life! 😛
andygraham.66 says:
March 19, 2014 at 3:16 pm
Steve Wright (in the afternoon) has just announced that The Human League are in the top 5 on itunes thanks to Peter Pawlett 🙂
If he gets Mary to join up they could do the same for “Leaving on a Jet ‘Plane” 🙂
andygraham.66 says: March 19, 2014 at 3:16 pm
I’m shocked that you listen to Steve Wright on BBC Radio 2. 😳
I suggest that you give BBC Radio 6 Music a try. 😛
TSFM says: March 19, 2014 at 6:08 pm
That was an absolutely terrrrible attempt at humour. 🙄
sannoffymesssoitizzhizzemdyfonedrapolis says:
That was an absolutely terrrrible attempt at humour. 🙄
_________________________________________________________________
I agree – but you would think that given the age cluster on here, more people would get it. 😳
What do we make of an organisation who plays dumb or says it has no authority to make decisions on specific maters but cannot stop trumpeting and flexing its muscles against one of its member clubs.
The fact that it issued a statement with no name to it shows that there is something seriously wrong with this organisation. It is no longer acceptable, indeed it never was, for the governing body to play the hoki koki with the rules of the game. First they are the rule makers and arbiters. Judge and jury of all things but then there voice is lost when serious misconduct occurs. It is poor management, shocking PR and basically stinks to high heaven.
The location of the cup semi final issue shows the incompetence that is now rife within the game. The Chairman of Dundee United has made valid points and, despite what the media say, did raise his concerns at the time of the announcement. A scandalous communication released by the SFA yesterday put the tin lid on it for me. An unsigned attack on the numerical support of a member club discussing in depth their attendance figures at various semi-finals with no mention of the attendances of their opponents to back up the ticket split. It was a disgrace of a press release and whoever composed it should be shown the door.
No doubt the SFA will now retreat back into their shell for another for another few months where silence will reign golden.
As I’ve said before the clubs only have themselves to blame. They put this cabal in power, and worse kept them there, and in so doing have brought the whole sport into disrepute.
Stewart Regan famously mentioned “civil unrest” nearly two years ago. If anything the atmosphere has got worse and I dread to think what is going to happen the first time ‘The Rangers’ have to travel to Pittodrie or Celtic Park or Easter Road.
Fans are sick fed up of an organisation who are accountable to no one and clubs who ignore their customer base leaving incompetents in charge of the show. The people in board rooms up and down the country really better wake up and smell the coffee before the game simply disintegrates altogether.
helpmaboab says:
March 19, 2014 at 8:42 am
12
5
Rate This
Resin_Lab_Dog at 12:39
Surely this is simply because they have never participated in a UEFA ranking tournament by dint of ineligibility? They haven’t entered European airspace, ergo the transponder signal not been picked up by the radar! Need it be more complicated than that?
……………………………………..
An unfortunate analogy I think. I’m sure it was unintended.
___________________________
Absolutely. No topical reference to Malaysian Airways in mind or intended. Analogy was mainly contrived on the basis of ‘off the radar’ – as in an expression used by SMSM to describe the wealth of a certain RFC(IL) “owner/investor”. Clearly, in this sense ‘off the radar’ actually meant ‘non existent/not forthcoming’. This meaning massively predates the unfolding MA tragedy, if that is any help/explanation.
Apologies for any crassness.
Pretty appalled at Graham Spiers article in the Herald today. Bumping his gums about the ‘rights’ of Rangers season ticket holders. This is the first time I’ve ever heard this argument in terms of cup games. Celtic have far more season ticket holders than Hibs. but that did not dictate the ticket split for last season’s final and neither should it have. Notably the media, Spiers included, slapped down any Celtic fan who suggested 70-30 splits etc. No arguments from me about that. A cup occasion is meant to be just that which means as much support for each team as possible.
Adam the incredible
Any country could have named their final venue early given the same circumstances re the normal venue – most though would have built in a plan b (venue z for club y and vice versa).
Any country would have named the opposing venue for the semi to spread the wealth (assuming there were just the 2 big alternatives) but most would again have built in the above clause (if club y, play at z)
I would venture though that few countries would have named the same venue for both semis on consecutive days to the exclusion of another obvious venue presumably on the grounds of fairness (they got 2 big games so we HAVE to get 2 as well) and not even see fit to explain why even if it is to the detriment of the quality of the tie itself.
You also quoted my earlier statement on DUTD asking about an early payment. This was purely to suggest that DUTD should fight fire with fire which I see has continued today with the anonymous statement from our public authority. The purpose of specifically citing RFC as opposed to CFC for the final (as I suspect you very well know) was that the early payment to CFC would not make the slightest difference to them if their accounts are to be believed whereas it would be potentially indicative of something entirely different across the divide.
On the subject of semi-final ticketing this article,from STV, seems to me commendable on the whole (given the general standard of SMSM reporting).
http://sport.stv.tv/football/268954-transparency-can-avoid-more-ticket-rows-for-scotlands-showpiece-games/?
When the rangers fans see the cost of a full price ticket, Will they sell out their allocation for the semi final?
Castofthousands says:
March 19, 2014 at 2:21 pm
ThirdParty says:
March 19, 2014 at 1:01 am
LNS refers to the FTT decision in connection with various factual findings. In effect it allowed the Commission to avoid having to hear and assimilate a great deal of important but essentially non-controversial evidence about how the schemes worked and how they were implemented by OldCo. Until immediately before the hearing neither OldCo or NewCo were going to take part so there will have been no opportunity to do what lawyers do in cases such as this in agreeing in writing screeds of such evidence which needs to be established but which is not really in issue. He will effectively have ‘adopted’ the FTT factual findings on all such issues except where the QC representing OldCo took issue. I do not think the decision discloses any material part of the factual findings of the FTT with which OldCo took issue.
What LNS does not do is recount and/or adopt the legal analysis of the majority of the FTT as to why, in its opinion, the MGEBT ‘worked’ to legitimately avoid tax. He did not need to do so because it will not have mattered whether this was legitimate tax avoidance or illegitimate tax evasion, to the Issues (as defined) before the Commission.
To me that this is the critical part of the decision as regards the sanction imposed:
“What we are concerned with is the fact that the side-letters issued to the Specified Players, in the course of the operation of the EBT scheme, were not disclosed to the SPL and the SFA as required by their respective Rules.
[105] It seems appropriate in the first place to consider whether such breach by non-disclosure conferred any competitive advantage on Rangers FC. Given that we have held that Rangers FC did not breach Rule D1.11 by playing ineligible players, it did not secure any direct competitive advantage in that respect. If the breach of the rules by non-disclosure of the side-letters conferred any competitive advantage, that could only have been an indirect one. Although it is clear to us from Mr Odam’s evidence that Oldco’s failure to disclose the side-letters to the SPL and the SFA was at least partly motivated by a wish not to risk prejudicing the tax advantages of the EBT scheme, we are unable to reach the conclusion that this led to any competitive advantage. There was no evidence before us as to whether any other members of the SPL used similar EBT schemes, or the effect of their doing so. Moreover, we have received no evidence
from which we could possibly say that Oldco could not or would not have entered into the EBT arrangements with players if it had been required to comply with the requirement to disclose the arrangements as part of the players’ full financial entitlement or as giving rise to payment to players. It is entirely possible that the EBT arrangements could have been disclosed to the SPL and SFA without prejudicing the argument – accepted by the majority of the Tax Tribunal at paragraph 232 of their decision – that such arrangements, resulting in loans made to the players, did not give rise to payments absolutely or unreservedly held for or to the order of the individual players. On that basis, the EBT arrangements could have been disclosed as contractual arrangements giving rise to a facility for the player to receive loans, and there would have been no breach of the disclosure rules.
[106] We therefore proceed on the basis that the breach of the rules relating to disclosure did not give rise to any sporting advantage, direct or indirect. We do not therefore propose to consider those sanctions which are of a sporting nature.”
It is unrealistic to expect the Commission to have come to a different decision on the legitimacy of the MGEBT than that found by the majority of the FTT. Some of the reasons are:
1. There are at least 3 layers of appeal above the FTT. It is at least as likely to be wrong in finding the scheme illegitimate as legitimate. It could only go with the decision of the FTT as it stood. It might take 4-5 years to exhaust the appeals process even without a remit back at some stage. By that time OldCo will likely be dissolved.
2. The FTT is a specialist tax tribunal, why would a tribunal consisting of a retired judge and two specialist sports QCs be expected to second guess a tribunal made up of two experienced specialist tax lawyers and a Chartered Accountant.
3. The Commission would need to have access to all of the documentary evidence and witnesses that were available to the FTT. The difficulties in getting documents are recounted in the Commission decision and it had no power to compel witnesses form outwith football to attend to give evidence. What chance of witnesses from HMRC, Murray Group and Jersey as well as players, their agents, directors and staff of OldCo to name only some, voluntarily attending an internal inquiry in Glasgow? Bear in mind that they and their lawyers would all be terrified of some adverse evidence coming out which had not come out at the FTT and which might be prejudicial to their respective interests and perhaps leave some of them with potential liabilities for tax, interest and penalties.
sannoffymesssoitizzhizzemdyfonedrapolis says:
March 19, 2014 at 4:35 pm
The relevant Issues (charges) and the Rules are printed in the annex to the LNS second decision. Here are the links to the documents.
http://www.scotslawthoughts.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/commission-decision-28-02-2013.pdf
http://www.scribd.com/doc/143094729/SPL-Commission-Reasons-for-Decision-of-12-September-2012
justshatered says:
March 19, 2014 at 6:37 pm
Great post.
Was listening to SSB tonight and Gordon Daziel was challenged by a caller about failing to talk up the positives of Scottish Football.
The issue on the neutral ground and ticket split is the same thing.
As you say here we have the National Association telling one of our well run clubs, who appear to be trying to develop a young and exciting squad that they should know their place. As opposed to a nameless press statements would Regan and Ogilvie not have been better coming out with a statement saying they, along with Mr Thompson,would do all in their powers to try and encourage as many Dundee Utd fans as possible to attend the semi as this club is a good example of the way forward for our game.
Naw its was the same old rubbish of hoping that a stadium full of Bears celebrating a victorious team in blue is somehow going to save the game in this country, when if fact such scenes are mostly likely to kill it off for good as people will know that, despite all that has passed in the last few years, nothing has really changed.
Smugas says:
March 19, 2014 at 8:18 pm
______________________________________________________________________________________________
I don’t know how much the SFA pay for using another stadium. Do they pay less for a semi final than for a final? Is it a percentage of the gate money or a flat rate? Rangers financial problems are such that unless they are being paid around £3m (enough to see them to the end of the season…. maybe) the amount they’re getting will make little difference to their balance sheet. For me the whole thing is a storm in a loving cup.
incredibleadamspark says:
March 19, 2014 at 9:31 pm
I don’t know how much the SFA pay for using another stadium.
——
Rule 41, as mentioned and linked to above, explains how ground rental at a “neutral” venue is paid. As a percentage of receipts.
I’m not actually sure how you could define Ibrox as a “neutral” venue, though. Perhaps the definition could be stretched a little if Rangers were the “away” team, but they’re not.
The indisputable fact remains that Rangers get a home game for the semi. They also get to control the condition of the pitch and facilities for both teams in the other semi.
Quite simply, it’s not right. The SFA have hoped their brass neck in helping the Glasgow clubs would go broadly unremarked. They’ve been called out on it, and been found seriously wanting. In that respect, they can only be thankful that Celtic will not play in the Final.
To use the vernacular, it is an actual disgrace.
The consolation is that it will be even funnier when Dundee United pump the Establishment representatives.
I wonder which representative of the authorities will draw the short straw of presenting the Cup? I should think a ParkRed full of Dundee United and Aberdeen (St J allowing) fans would give him almost as warm a welcome as Mr Doncaster was treated to the other day.
wottpi says:
March 19, 2014 at 9:15 pm
Naw its was the same old rubbish of hoping that a stadium full of Bears celebrating a victorious team in blue is somehow going to save the game in this country, when if fact such scenes are mostly likely to kill it off for good as people will know that, despite all that has passed in the last few years, nothing has really changed.
=========
Your last 4 words just sum it all up for me- “nothing has really changed”. Any superficial changes are being rapidly rectified, because the dream of everyone at the top of Scottish football is to press the reset button and get football back to 2005 or thereabouts.
The mystery to me is why the clubs are willing participants in this. Now Dundee Utd have a grievance. Weren’t they a party to the coronation of Ogilvie at last year’s AGM? Now I’m not picking on them, everybody else was party to it too.
But they have willingly left in place as President of the SFA an individual who received £90,000 at the behest of a member club, and who has never repaid that sum, to the best of my knowledge. Now they have an issue with a decision of the SFA which appears to disadvantage them in relation to that club.
Well all I can say to that is that life is full of surprises, but this ain’t one of them. Like every other club, they had a golden opportunity at last year’s AGM to start clearing out the stinking midden that is the SFA. Like every other member club, they blew that chance. Why the clubs refused that chance is an enduring mystery, a question I can’t answer. It is truly beyond me.
Angus, I agree with all you say about the choice of venue. It was ridiculous to name them before the teams were known but I don’t think it was done to financially benefit Rangers, like many on here. Nor do I think it was done to give Rangers any advantage. They could play any of other semi finalists in McCoists back door and I think they’d still get beat. I put it down to Glasgow-centric incompetence.
So it’s a percentage of the gate receipts? So potentially if Rangers v Dundee Utd is not a sellout and there is a low attendance for the other semi but the final is a sellout Celtic could, potentially, make more money from this than Rangers. Potentially.
ThirdParty says: March 19, 2014 at 8:52 pm
Thanks for the links you’ve provided. I’ve accessed these via the much missed scotslawthoughts blog.
I’ll study these and your comments when I have time tomorrow.
I think it’s a waste of time getting worked up about ticket allocation and neutral grounds for cup semis and finals. Mind you, my own team have never had the luxury of a “neutral” game in their own city never mind their own stadium. For diddy teams semis and finals generally mean away games, it’s traditional, like it or lump it basically. Also it’s traditional that the big two have to hoof it to Hampden now and then or even, heaven forfend, the “other” stadium.
I think that Dutd have been intentionally sucked in to yet another whipped up sevco drama. They’re out of their depth, I can only hope they rise above it on the field of play.
easyJambo says:
March 19, 2014 at 5:56 pm
——
EJ
My point though is that the registrations were never valid in the first place. The rules are clear. Bryson’s comments were an insult to every fair minded fan of all clubs, including Rangers.
His logic is that if a country played eleven 30 yr olds to win the under 20’s world cup by providing false passports, then nothing could be done retrospectively. His interpretation was contrived to meet a desired outcome in my view. There is no other association , as far as i have been able to ascertain, who even come close to sharing his assertion.
The opposite is true , as there is evidence a number of Fifa member associations have acted retrospectively . Then of course we had the case of Uefa taking retrospective action against FC Sion.
Bryson and the SFA acted against all Fifa and Uefa precedents. The SPL in my view shamefully accepted this without appeal, which suggests to me Doncaster was very happy with LNS verdict. He was quite correctly roundly boo’ed by 50,000 at the LC Final
Five Key Questions over Ibrox Club’s Future
Jaw-dropping regurgitated drivel from Richard Wilson.
Q. Why 30 days until revealing the business plan?
A. Because it’s 90 days into the 120 day business review.
Like a bloody Rottweiler, right enough.
Do they really get paid (by us) to write this puerile p*sh?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26656718
Barcabhoy says: March 19, 2014 at 10:45 pm
—————————-
I fully understand and agree with all the points you raise. In particular, the rules do make it perfectly clear what it required to enable the registration of a player.
That said, Rangers were found guilty of not disclosing the side letter contracts. i.e. they failed to meet the requirements of the registration process. The common sense interpretation of the rule would suggest that the players were not properly registered, and would thus be ineligible to play.
However the acceptance of the Bryson input scuppered the ineligible argument, mainly because of a complicit SPL legal team. It was the ineligibility of players that would have led to sporting sanctions. Bryson’s argument was simply that the SFA had accepted the registrations in good faith at the time and there was nothing they could do about it unless and until such time as evidence was presented to the contrary.
When the side letters were presented to LNS, there were no longer any players at the club with incomplete registrations that could be “revoked”, e.g. Steven Davis and Kris Boyd were among the last of the EBT recipients at the club. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened to Davis’ registration had he been “TUPE’d” to the Newco.
Not a United supporter but was at Hampden as a neutral in the 90s when the beat the old Rangers in the Scottish cup,how they partied at the end ,I will try for a ticket for the semi,not sure if its the 10th or 11th anniversary of that game ,it would be interesting to add a bit of spice to the semi when ,as they will,the bears burst into their offensive repertoir that the United fans hold up red cards just to let all the selective deafness ones know what is being sung .as if,as sure as night follows day it will happen and no comment will be made .
Campbellsmoney says:
March 19, 2014 at 3:25 pm
6
0
Rate This
Esteban says:
March 19, 2014 at 11:26 am
21 1 i
Rate This
Before now, has anyone ever made it to the Scottish Cup semi-final without playing a tie against an opponent in the top division? Is this a world record?
——————————————————————————————————————————-
It must have happened hunners of times before – e. g both Dundee Utd and St Mirren in 1987
1987 Scottish Cup
Celtic beat Aberdeen, Hearts beat Celtic, Hamilton beat Rangers (all of which which cleared the decks a bit) and both Airdrieonians and Clydebank were in the same competition (which just confuses the hell out of me now :eek:)
Clydebank were in the top division.
—————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Queen of the South in 2008 didn’t encounter a top division team until they beat Aberdeen in the semi-final – the most recent occurrence?
incredibleadamspark says:
March 19, 2014 at 5:29 pm
The venues had the potential to benefit both Glasgow teams and it was stupid to announce them before the semi final stage was reached.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Not in my opinion
It was deliberate
So also was the decision to choose Celtic Park for the SC Final (straightforward whataboutery to buy silence)
The venues were announced shortly after the FD of TRFC predicted they had insuffcient funds to survive to end April
…………………
Why don`t the MSM ask the SFA if they have made a loan to TRFC equivalent to the fee they will receive for two semi finals?
There should be a financial record somewhere if it happened
ThirdParty says:
March 19, 2014 at 1:01 am
“it will not have mattered whether this was legitimate tax avoidance or illegitimate tax evasion, to the Issues (as defined) before the Commission.”
———————————-
Thanks for the response ThirdParty. I appreciate the opportunity to revisit the LNS decision and review in retrospect. Thanks also for the ‘reasons for decision’ link. My original link had broken.
Preface: When this was debated at the time my gut instinct was that all the legalese in the world couldn’t make this a justifiable outcome. That is a rather jaundiced perspective I know but sometimes you just know when something is wrong, even if there stands in front of you a pile of apparently well formed opinion that points to the contrary. So I am not entirely objective in my approach. I did not feel comfortable in being immersed in a plethora of ‘facts’ that deep down I felt were merely justifying a preordained outcome.
Having put my cards on the table I must say that reading the decision failed to dispel my scepticism. It appears rife with paradox.
The side letters could have been disclosed but were not since this might prejudice the outcome of any HMRC investigation. This non-disclosure was not to be viewed as anything other than an administrative oversight, even though this does not stack up with my previous sentence.
No sporting advantage was accrued from non-disclosure of the side letters but non-disclosure might be pivotal in deciding whether the scheme was tax avoidance or tax evasion. The UTT made reference to the side letters. This was evidence that HMRC saw as important yet might never have known about if Mark Daly hadn’t publicised their existence. These matters were inextricably linked.
The tribunal would have found it difficult to rule on matters of such complexity I grant you. In that case it would have been better to exclude FTT from their considerations. However in the passage you quote we get:
“…It is entirely possible that the EBT arrangements could have been disclosed to the SPL and SFA without prejudicing the argument – accepted by the majority of the Tax Tribunal at paragraph 232 of their decision – that such arrangements, resulting in loans made to the players, did not give rise to payments absolutely or unreservedly held for or to the order of the individual players…”
LNS seems to be quoting from the FTT judgement to confirm that no irregular payments were made to players. If it mattered not to him whether this was tax avoidance or tax evasion, why does he feel it necessary to echo the FTT’s findings?
I would contend that it was because to make a finding of ‘no sporting advantage’ was easier if the payments could be illustrated to be regular. He uses FTT to partly justify his decision. If his judgement was solely based on mis-registration, why did he himself entrain the FTT findings and quote parts of it in his decision?
Surely a distinction would arise between the concealment of side-letters as an administrative oversight and concealment which would have facilitated irregular payment? Quoting the FTT to illustrate the regularity of payment pointed at one of these two distinctions in my opinion.
If this tribunal was not about tax avoidance/evasion but about mis-registration, why quote the FTT para 232?
I would be happy to read your thoughts. I was never convinced by LNS. Initially it reminded me of the mythical rock band ‘Disaster Area’ that featured in ‘The Hitch Hikers Guide To The Galaxy’. They were so loud that the band had to be placed in an auditorium constructed of immensely thick concrete and the audience situated on a nearby planet. That was how loud LNS cried injustice to me. You could see from some distance away even with dark glasses that something just wasn’t right. When I eventually did read it none of my preconceptions wilted under the glare of common sense.
My memory of Hitch Hikers was a little erroneous. It also missed a little quirk that is serendipitously appropriate:
http://youtu.be/EqvYNlUIx8Q
FIFA says:
March 19, 2014 at 11:22 pm
5
1
Rate This
Not a United supporter but was at Hampden as a neutral in the 90s when the beat the old Rangers in the Scottish cup,how they partied at the end ,I will try for a ticket for the semi,not sure if its the 10th or 11th anniversary of that game ,it would be interesting to add a bit of spice to the semi when ,as they will,the bears burst into their offensive repertoir that the United fans hold up red cards just to let all the selective deafness ones know what is being sung .as if,as sure as night follows day it will happen and no comment will be made .
_________________________________________
Hmmm….
This doesn’t sound like one to bring the kids to I suspect!
Compare and contrast with the truly wonderful family atmosphere that was experienced last Sunday.
So I have a suggestion which could backfire horribly, or could defuse the situation niceley to everyones net benefit.
50:50 ticket allocation between DUFC and TRFC.
Adults normal price.
Kids for a quid (3 per full price adult). Sales on a first come basis i.e. no preference to full price ticket holders over kids for allocation.
This should help DUFC sell their allocation.
This should help balance the crowd diminishing TRFC home advantage.
This SHOULD also reduce the level of hostility between the opposing crowds and make sure that best behavior is observed… and therein lies the real risk… but I think the presence of so many families at the game also has an empowering effect on the stewards and the police and strengthens them in both their motivation and resolve to crack down on antisocial behavior in everyones interest, as well as having a moderating influence on the behavior of those inclined to antisocial outbursts.
I think that the police – in light of the LC final experience – might actually welcome the idea.
There could be a short term financial cost to the clubs, through giving away valuable seats to the next generation of fans.
But this is offset by a long term financial gain I believe.
Would it be possible to turn a grudge match born from hatred, emnity and mistrust into a family occasion – and outnumber the knuckle dragging element with decent people who want to reclaim their sport for their kids?
Could it happen?
All it would take – I believe- to turn this possibility into a reality is the benign goodwill and support of both clubs, and some genuinely impartial leadership on the part of the SFA.
So -sadly – I think I have just answered my own question.
GoosyGoosy says: March 20, 2014 at 12:06 am
Why don`t the MSM ask the SFA if they have made a loan to TRFC
equivalent to the fee they will receive for two semi finals?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Why stop at ‘equivalent’ ?
After all TRFC is the sine qua non of Scottish Football.
The semis fees would make a perfect cover for SFA funding.
Nah, they wouldn’t do that would they ?
Without batting an eyelid.
Castofthousands says:
March 20, 2014 at 12:14 am
0
0
Rate This
____________________________
guffaw!
‘Not merely curved, but totally bent!’
‘Spending a year dead for Tax Reasons’… Finally an answer to the OCNC argument that no one can disagree with!
ergo
“Disaster Area FC”…. 😆
(copyright claimed. Creative Commons License Share alike applies. But COTS to be listed as beneficial owner for Tax purposes)
42.
And another thing…TSFM might be becoming ‘non-inclusive’…the log-in sums are getting tougher and could exclude us ‘arithmetically-challenged’… especially late on a Friday/Saturday night. 😉
And to be more on topic: where would we be today if TRFC had NOT been allowed into SFL3?
Finances maybe debated – but sure as heck a huge amount of negativity would have exited Scottish football immediately – there would be more focus on the positive aspects of the game now – and perhaps we would have new SFA / SPFL executives in place by now?
Castofthousands says:
March 20, 2014 at 12:07 am
ThirdParty says:
March 19, 2014 at 1:01 am
The LNS decision just seems bizarre to football men. I used to run an amateur team and was on the league disciplinary committee. There were cases of games being replayed or results awarded to the opposition for incorrect player registration. “Ringers” that is guys who played at a higher standard being played to give the offending club an advantage were often the reason for a protest and result reversal or replay.
The LNS Commission takes ten years of contravening player registration rules, whose purpose many thought was to deter clubs using under the counter cash stuffed brown envelope to persuade a player to play for Club A and not Club B, and says nothing worse than ten years of clerical error took place!
What makes it bizarre is that it is the SFA Registration Officer who is saying in effect that the rules have no deterrent element or purpose, which leaves us scratching our heads to work out what their purpose actually is.
Indeed if all that was being investigated was the possibility of a huge long running clerical error why was an Independent Commission led by a judge necessary at all?
This saga began in March 2012 when it was reported that Hugh Adams revealed secretive payments had been consistently excluded from contracts lodged with the SFA.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2109018/Rangers-accused-misleading-SFA-secret-deals.html?ITO=1490
The concern was secret payments not mis-registration of contracts but that is where the focus was placed subsequently.
If it wasn’t about secret payments why go to the bother of an independent enquiry or did most folk, including the SPL, share the opening belief that registration rules were intended to stop under hand behaviour? That the rules were a means to an end and not an end in themselves?
If I thought FIFA or UEFA would answer a question on intent, I would be asking them but I think the question would have to come from a respected Scottish club and not an individual to get an answer.
But here we are in Scotland operating under the Bryson.s law because LNS gave it the semblance of the authority of law. Truly bizarre.
However there is little point repeating the debates that followed the LNS findings because the way that the commissioning took place makes that a fruitless task since it focussed on player registration and not the nature of the payments. These were under the counter in that the SFA were unsighted and in at least two cases are unlawful, which puts that particular method to recruit and attract the standard of player a club using secret unlawful payments did, beyond its competitors .
The point of the letter to Harper MacLeod is to say should it really still be the case that the issue is a player registration one? Had they received what they asked for in relation to ebts and full player contracts of service in March 2012, would the commission have been able to focus wholly on registration with no regard to the nature of the payments, two of which were not only not subject to the same FTT as the big tax case payments but whose type had already been judged by another FTT (Aberdeen Asset Management) to be irregular and accepted as such by Rangers on legal advice?
Perhaps an analogy will help here. Imagine I’m upstairs sleeping, the wife is off visiting her sister for a weekend and I wake up in the middle of the night on hearing unusual noises downstairs. I dial 999 to report what I believe to be a burglary in process and ask the police to investigate.
The police arrive and I hear more noise but wait until it is safe to enquire. On going downstairs I see the burglar being charged by the police. But then I enter the kitchen to see my wife lying on the floor with a head wound. She had come home early and surprised the burglar, who knocked her out and she requires hospitalisation.
Do the police change the charge from burglary because that is what I asked them to investigate and what they first saw evidence of or does the intruder get charged with assault and grievous bodily harm as well as burglary as a result of my entering the kitchen?
The SPL thought a crime was taking place, they thought on what was known to them that it was secret payments not registered with the SFA using EBTS as the method. They called in Harper MacLeod to investigate such and the commission were able to focus on registration because information that would have told them it was not just a player registration issue was not provided when asked for.
That evidence has now turned up,
Do the SPFL instruct Harper MacLeod to ignore it because the SPFL were misinformed on the true nature of all the payments and so misguided from the outset (even although someone who could have painted a fuller picture was resident in the same offices at Hampden?)
or
Do Harper MacLeod under SPFL instruction have to take all the evidence into account and look at it again to see its impact on LNS findings and advise the SPFL if they believe the additional information provided would have made it impossible for them to commission LNS as they did and so for LNS to rule as he did?
We are not talking the equivalent of burglary here, we are talking about the equivalent of assault and grievous bodily harm to Scottish football, exacerbated by the failure to provide the additional evidence when the enquiry asked for it.
That hurtful feeling that lingers from unfinished business will persist to harm our game as long as the truth is avoided.
Auldheid says:
March 20, 2014 at 3:44 am
That hurtful feeling that lingers from unfinished business will persist to harm our game as long as the truth is avoided.
=================================
Auldheid, I commend you on your excellent work on this.
What do think are the actual chances of the case being re-visited? I always fear unless the media are willing to kick up a real stink then it is very difficult. We often speak of reduced MSM readership and the influence of new media, but it still appears that old media hold the absolute key to any scandal being investigated.
Auldheid says:
March 19, 2014 at 12:40 pm
=====================================
If HMRC ‘froze’ and seized money in relation to a tax bill eg the WTC would that not mean that debt is actually cleared. It might well be that it suited HMRC to take that money and apply it to other tax arrears.
Possible a catch-all phrase was included in the documentation to cover any tax arrears and it could be that HMRC has a ranking system as to how any money recovered is actually assigned when there are various separate tax liabities.
I think it all depends on the HMRC paperwork issued to initially seize the dosh but I think it’s possible that that a legal argument could exist on this issue. It might also account for some of the ‘fudging’ used when discussing whether the WTC head been settled or not.
GoosyGoosy says: March 20, 2014 at 12:06 am
Why don`t the MSM ask the SFA if they have made a loan to TRFC
equivalent to the fee they will receive for two semi finals?
==============================================
If the SFA have made a loan what terms have they included?
Have they received security on property and what is the fee and interest payable? After all the biggest RIFC shareholder asked and got those and another shareholder and director also got security. Surely what’s good for the goose is equally good for a gander.
Barcabhoy says:
March 19, 2014 at 10:45 pm
———————————————————————–
I think it’s worth remembering that this acceptance didn’t follow the issue of the LNS Decision. It actually began when Bryson gave his explanation in evidence at the LNS Tribunal.
There was a half-hearted attempted by Rod McKenzie when he said that was never how the rules had previously been interpreted – my words btw from memory. But he caved-in virtually immediately and accepted the Bryson position.
By any definition the Bryson disclosure blew any possibility of applying a sporting sanction out of the water and I cannot understand why the SPL didn’t know it was coming. Did HM not precognose the witnesses especially an expert witness like Bryson. They should have known what he was going to say.
They then could have presented their response to show how previous cases had been dealt with. There is no transcript of the evidence and the more I think about that the more I think it was never about saving money but it would have provided a record revealing what actually went down at LNS.
I would have expected McKenzie to have asked Bryson when his ‘definition’ became SFA policy and how that came about and where it was recorded. Was it in any rule book, was it in any minute, was it in any correspondence with anyone, was it ever communicated to member clubs, were there any incidents where the rule hadn’t been followed? And possibly most importantly who had Bryson discussed this rule with at the SFA and was it ever communicated to the SPFL, SFL or any other league bodies under the SFA umbrella.
If Bryson was a bolt from the blue so to speak I wouldn’t have expected McKenzie to have been able to recite all the historic incidents. But, in view of the seriousness of the interpretation, he could have asked either for an an adjournment or advised that he would need to have Bryson recalled after he had an opportunity to consult with his clientg viz the SPL.
But from what we know of the LNS Hearing none of these things happened. Bryson said his piece and for all I or anyone else knows – outwith the LNS Hearing – the only place that the Bryson ‘Interpretation’ exists is in his own head.
I just don’t believe that McKenzie is as poor a lawyer as he appears to be when you look at his feeble/non-existant attempts to deconstruct the Bryson rule makeover. I believe that the Bryson ‘Definition’ was known to the SPL before the Hearing began and the decision was made not to contest it. McKenzie IMO was acting quite simply on the instruction of his client – the SPL who became the body presenting the case against Rangers to preserve the SFA Apellate position on the issue.
Perhaps even the omnipotent SFA thought it would have been too close to home for them to play a get out of jail card at a Hearing they presented and that by putting forward a flak defender in the shape of the SPL then the Bryson Definition would appear to be impartial.
As time has passed I have actually come to totally believe that the Bryson ‘Definition’ is the weakest point of the whole shebang. At some stage there will be a registration issue – possibly involving a European game – which will require this ‘Definition’ to be dropped very very quietly if possible because it is legally perverse and even worse I doubt if any thinking Scottish football fan exists who isn’t well aware of why the 12th Man was brought into play in the 90th minute.
Auldheid
Without going into the merits or otherwise of your particular crusade I’d like to once again make a general broadbrush comment that concerns society at large, how it seems to operate and the consequences.
At a national political level (UK), if the powers that be can “manage” judicial enquires when it is themselves that are being looked into (“Hutton style”:Blair quote) then what message does that send out and what tone does that set?
Subsequently, if the people just accept it because “that’s how things are” and that they really can’t be bothered then it enboldens others to do the same in a trickle down cultural effect. If people are interested in a society with reasonably even-handed accountability then I repeat for the XXth time, it has to start at the top. Until it does then it isn’t really in the interests of those in power to buck a particular trend.
One unified and successful big battle at the top would suddenly make all those smaller fights a lot easier.
On the way you’d have the added bonus of reducing the power of the professional liars and misleaders of organisations (“PR”) that help facilitate the pathway society is embarked upon. One that rewards those best able to spin the truth into something else.
The above should be considered as you look towards your children and think about what the parental generation of today are going to leave them.
ecobhoy says:
March 20, 2014 at 9:08 am
For anyone who has been involved in the legal process and court settings, it is almost unbelievable that a flimsy argument such as that put forward by Bryson would not be challenged by a motivated solicitor/QC acting for the pursuer.
I came to the same conclusion that it was all a ‘set up’ a long time ago.
The problem however is not with Harper McLeod or Mr McKenzie but with his paymasters.
Those are the same ones who would have had Sevco playing in the Premiership from day one.
Those are the same ones who allowed CO to be re-elected unopposed.
Those are the same ones who allowed Regan and Doncaster to get unwarrented pay rises.
Those are the same ones who appear unable to ask questions of the exact financial position of Sevco at this time.
While I appreciate fans want to support their individual clubs, those same clubs have a lot to answer for.
The sterling work being undertaken by a few dedicated contributors on this site deserves more support from the wider fan base of Scottish Football and, of course, some decent investigative journalism from MSM.
Unfortunately I believe far too many are not wanting to look under the carpet to see where all the dirt was swept and by whom.