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
“I will personally help efforts to expose it for what it is”
Have fun!
Greenock Jack says:
March 22, 2014 at 6:30 pm
‘..The blog is one-sided and will struggle for the credibility you seek..’
——————
TSFM can speak for himself and for the Blog, of course.
I speak only for myself when I say that there are two overarching truths, the need to assert which prompted my involvement as a poster.
First, one club for many years cheated the rest of us, footballing-wise ( leaving aside HMRC and social taxes and all that), in ways that ought to have spotted by the SFA , coincidentally at a time when then there was/is a close connection between the SFA and the cheating club.
Second, those facts were steadfastly ignored, not investigated, and to all intents and purposes denied and or played down by the MSM.
The truth and the whole truth behind those facts needs to properly exposed and publicly acknowledged, and any and all guilty parties must be appropriately and justly dealt with. That’s what I want.No more than that.
The circus that is presently entertaining many people is neither here nor there in itself: the new club may or may not die through Administration and Liquidation. Many people may fervently hope that it will, and that hope will certainly colour their view of the extraordinary shenanigins of the circus.
My interest lies in making damned sure that if it does die, there will be no secret, vile ‘5-way agreement’ to give ‘continuing ‘ life to another new club, and that any such new club will be treated in every respect as a new, history-less being.
Those who wish to deny those basic truths will naturally find it difficult to win support. Because they are undeniable, and trying to deny them is futile.
When it comes to discusssion of the ‘circus’ , there is more scope for discussion,because much of what has happened and is happening gives rise to no more than reasonably intelligent guess work if not pure speculation. Who’s in charge? will they go bust? Can they buy players to help win the Championship? Who’s made or will make more money? What the heck is King trying to do?
Anyone can put their tuppence worth into that kind of discussion/speculation on the same basis as anyone else, because denial of facts is not required ( although checking of them may be!).
It is because of our insistence on sticking to the basic facts relating to the club’s cheating and the inadequate ( complicit?) response to that cheating, that the blog’s credibility cannot be impugned, no matter how wild the speculation may be about the future of the new club..
helpmaboab says:
March 22, 2014 at 9:09 am
“If Celtic had gone under,which team if any,would their support have transferred their allegiances to.”
——————————
My gut instinct was that it would either be Aberdeen or Dundee United as this was near the period they were doing well. For some reason I’m not so keen on the red strip so might have plumped for Dundee Utd even though Aberdeen’s record would have been better.
However after googling the 1994 league table I see that Aberdeen finished ninth and Dundee United were in the relegation spot.
Rangers were winners with Motherwell second, Hibs third and Celtic fourth. This would have likely coloured my judgement. I was never a capable footballer at school and the one occasion I did get a football strip for Christmas it was Motherwell. It had a diagonal maroon stripe on the front. I was never quite sure if the choice was due to the straightened financial times we enjoyed as youngsters and that this was the cheapest choice or whether it was a subtle slight by my Maw on my football credentials. Motherwell didn’t have much of a record of prominence at that time as I recall. They did however have a gifted left footer called Willie Pettigrew. My maw never showed any interest in fitba and only appeared to endure it when the Saturday night highlights were on. It may be that she took more notice that was ever expected however and hoped that Willie’s livery might rub off on her most uncoordinated son.
Despite this bias I think, given full consideration, I’d probably have went with Hibs. They did play in green and white after all and had the same Irish roots as Celtic, though I wouldn’t have known that at the time.
RyanGosling says:
March 22, 2014 at 10:11 am
“I think for the sake of this blog, at least just to allow us to discuss issues without always coming back to the same point,…”
———————————–
I am pretending not to hear but you are making a fair point. We should be trying to uphold the laws and rules rather than call them into disrepute. The point of attack is previous decisions that appear to be unfair which muddy the waters. It is a bit naughty of us to encourage Brora’s appeal for our own ends but as the old saying goes, ‘my enemies enemy is my friend’.
Your comments may be the target of festering frustration but I don’t think that frustration is truly aimed at you. Seeing contrary opinions keeps it real.
Castofthousands says:
March 22, 2014 at 9:40 pm
‘……I did get a football strip for Christmas it was Motherwell….’
—-
Whit? You got an actual strip? Oh, spoiled and pampered youngster that you were! When I played heidies in 1949 beside the air-raid shelters ( oddly, with an older boy who had exactly the same name, and lived two closes down) the nearest I had to a fitba’ jersey was an old blouse kind of thing that my mammy dug up from somewhere. It was black and yellow vertical stripes, which made it, I was told, the same as an East Fife jersey. ( no TV highlights in them days. You had to go to actual games in order to see opposition strips). But that was good enough for me: I was happy to wear it, a wee boy in a big girl’s blouse!
Bill1903 says:
March 22, 2014 at 9:26 pm
0
0
Rate This
CliffHanger says:
March 22, 2014 at
Nae sure if he was a Celtic fan. He was involved with the Moorings Bar Sunday league team. They played in green and white hoops and Charlie seemed to have one of their tops welded on at all times…
———————————-
Aye I played against them many a time back in the day.
That’s where I was getting his Celtic connection 😆
Charlie used to do the write ups in the paper and he hasn’t improved much since
……………………………………………………………..
His day job was a postie but he would write a weekly column in the Evening Express for the Sunday League. I think there was some sort of industrial action and the journalists left and Charlie filled the void……..
Cliffhanger says………………………………………..
His day job was a postie but he would write a weekly column in the Evening Express for the Sunday League. I think there was some sort of industrial action and the journalists left and Charlie filled the void……..
————————
Oh aye I used to give him a bollocking if my name was spelt wrong!
I also called him a fat scab at a friendly game we played in England 😳
He’s aged better than me like
Oh JC, why ever did you desert the Bayview gold, almost in their zenith?!
Oh aye I used to give him a bollocking if my name was spelt wrong!
I also called him a fat scab at a friendly game we played in England 😳
He’s aged better than me like
…………………
At least he wrote about you! I never got a mention… not that I’m bitter after 25 years though….
CliffHanger says:
March 22, 2014 at 11:00 pm
1 0 Rate This
Oh aye I used to give him a bollocking if my name was spelt wrong!
I also called him a fat scab at a friendly game we played in England
He’s aged better than me like
…………………
At least he wrote about you! I never got a mention… not that I’m bitter after 25 years though….
—————-
It’s nearer 30 years for me 😳
Just 2 quick questions……
First is on the neutral stadium of choice for the semi final between TRFC and DUFC….
Given that TRFC will have the ‘home’ dressing rooms because they were drawn out first, has SFA endeavoured to ensure the pre-match songs chosen by the DJ do not include any of the favoured songs – for example a certain hit recorded by Tina Turner? Since it is a semi final run by SFA, I am sure they will be ensuring the announcements and songs chosen by the DJ will not involve ratching up feelings and noise on one side or the other………..after all, it is an event being run by SFA on a neutral site………
2nd question……….
Has anyone asked Wallace what exactly the deliverables will be at the end of his 120 date assessment? Will there be an up to date accounting status published as it will be more up to date than the one that will (presumably) be filed any day now with the SFA given it is for certain accounting periods long time lapsed. Since the 120 days analysis will enable him to have an accurate and up to date picture of the current financial status as well as a detailed plan to show how the money will be saved or come into the business in order for them to compete with Hearts and Raith Rovers next year and then a plan as promised with DK to show how they can then springboard into SPFL and compete with Kilmarnock, St Mirren and Ross County before moving on to compete with the big guns in the Top 6, I would expect it to contain detailed financial ins and outs for the coming few years to put the peoples mind at ease and to be published to show the excellent progress made and ensure the people are comfortable that it is attainable and realistic plan…….and not to be compared with casino or hoverpitch promises………..
In my line of work I plan projects and budgets that have to be approved by CIO/CFOs etc before we are given the nod that we can progress into putting them into practice………I know the details some folks look for in the real world of business……and woe betide anyone who under estimates anything! However, we know before we start the planning, what exactly the deliverables the client is expecting to see as part of the statement of work……..
What exactly is DK and Chris Graham expecting to be delivered? Is it the same as Laxley – or the board? Is it a detailed plan and budget – or a press conference that will make any of Kenny Dalglish’s press conferences in Bairds look positively informative……….
Has anyone from MSM (I know!) actually asked what he will be producing? Has DK and Chris Graham asked what they will be shown given that they agreed to have their followers all wait for it to pan out?
What did you find after 120 days Mr Wallace?
It looks like we are ok
Anything else to add?
Naw – buy the STs and we will be fine……..
Excellent – so good news all round……………
Following on from Exciled Celt, I also would like to ask how the attempted targets are to be achieved?
1) Still playing out of Ibrox, so same costs.
2) Players still on too high a salary with nobody signing up for -%15.
3) A further loan to Laxey and Mr Easedale to pay back.
4) no further streams of income to what is already there.
5) the black hole hasn’t been filled.
6) a small drop in STs could be fatal
Now I know GW is a wonderful corporate head honcho but I personally think he’s going to need a magicians cape and pointy hat to make profit from the entity that is the The rangers il 2012.
It looks to all and sundry like a slow and painful death and nobody wants that as Scottish football couldn’t survive without that new team.
Well, that’s what the suits have told us anyway so who am I to rain on their parade.
TSFM says:
March 22, 2014 at 12:46 pm
20 8 Rate This
Have changed the registration page to include team supported. The User Profile Page now also includes that field, so if anyone wants to add their team to their profile, that will allow us to have a look at the Partizanometer 🙂
———————————–
Excellent TSFM. My profile updated with team.
Would a “tag cloud” style representation of the teams represented on the forum be worthwhile?
One of the great things about this blog is the opportunities that it gives us to reminisce. Jauntorena opening his legs and showing his class at the 1976 Olympics is a fond a memory and like Lasse Viren (I thought he was also Bjorn Bjorg!!!!) and Brendan Foster inspired me and my mates to have our own Mini olympics round the high flats where we lived – brilliant fun and doing the commentary was all part of the fun.
Anyway – I know we are moving on from the “corruption” mini-topic – but please let me give my take on one issue.
The 5-way agreement. The point of this was of course to set out the basis upon which a Rangers was to be allowed in. The fact that an agreement was required at all shows that what was intended was not in accordance with the existing Rules – after all you don’t need an agreement if you are just applying the existing Rules (because everyone has already agreed to play by those rules (haven’t they?)).
The 5 way agreement was clearly irregular. Was it “corrupt”?
Following my post on actus reus (what is done) and mens rea (intention) yesterday – I think it is relevant to look at what motivated the parties. The motivation on the “Rangers” side was obvious. Why did the other parties do this? Was it because they were motivated by a desire to assist/promote a “Rangers” as far as possible or was there a different motivation or motivations?
I believe that the footballing authorities probably did think that “things would be worse” if a Rangers wasn’t playing in the top division and that “things would be MUCH worse” if there wasn’t a Rangers at all.
I strongly believe that they were wrong and that they have been shown to have been wrong. But that does not mean that could not have been an honestly and reasonably held belief at the time. This was uncharted territory.
Problem is – it is difficult for us to accept (given various factors (e.g. CO’s conflicted position, the previous perceived behaviours of the same authorities towards old Rangers) that the actual motivation of the footballing authorities was anything other than a desire simply to assist a Rangers.
In fact of course motivations tend to be more complicated. I might donate something to charity and get a tax advantage by doing so. One act – two possible motivations. If I am wholly charitable – the tax advantage will be a side effect of the act – not its motivation. If I am wholly financially driven it will be the other way round.
I bet that when the discussions were had, prior to the 5 way, all the talk among the non-Rangers participants was about the benefits to the rest of football of the act – no doubt this ties in with the armageddon press onslaught which set the scene – rather than the fact that this helps a Rangers.
So I bet they all knew the consequences/side effects of what they were proposing but didn’t discuss it openly. That way they could feel altruistic and even think of it as a necessary evil.
It is difficult to prove the intention (mens rea) of someone else. In law, more or less all we can do is look at what they actually do (actus reus) and infer from that, what they meant to do.
So – yes – they bent the rules for a Rangers – in fact let me rephrase that because talk of “bending” rules is wrong and misleading. Rules were broken. Rules were not applied – rules were not simply “bent a wee bit” – they were simply treated as not applying this time round.
Was that corrupt or just wrong? I would say that it depends on truly why they did it.
Either way – it should not have happened and each member who allowed it to happen has something to answer for.
Campbellsmoney
A very thought-provoking post. Of course we can only guess at the motivation of those involved, but it is healthy that we look at alternatives.
Thanks for that.
Campbellsmoney,
You have a mail – and a PM 🙂
causaludendi says:
March 22, 2014 at 10:37 pm
-.why ever did you desert the Bayview gold, almost in their zenith?!’
———-
Desert thee? “I will never desert thee… I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee;”
Memories of childhood never leave one’s mind. Simple little things like being lifted over the bar at Celtic Park by a supporter of the day’s opposing team (in the days when you could make your way once inside from one end of the ground to the other, on the Janefield side), or a kind word and smile from a player, leave a lasting feeling of goodwill. And even half-listening to the football discussions that your old man had (when you were playing on the linoleum with your wee motors or train set) you formed an understanding of the sporting skill and qualities of grit and endeavour and team-work and mutual encouragement that our game is founded upon.
And those kinds of notions were further developed in primary school by those tremendous teachers who voluntarily gave up their Saturdays to take the school teams, to exotic places like Rutherglen or Glasgow Green-on the tram.
To win was important, certainly. But to play wholeheartedly and fairly was paramount. We all learned that,whatever the short-term ‘glory’ achieved by cheating, it turned to ashes in your mouth when other people scorned you, and dismissed your ‘achievements’ with upturned lip.
Wearing that East Fife-like jersey as a wee boy pre-disposes me to have good feelings about the team, even now!
Campbellsmoney says:
March 23, 2014 at 11:27 am
6
0
Rate This
___________________________________
I believe that the footballing authorities probably did think that “things would be worse” if a Rangers wasn’t playing in the top division and that “things would be MUCH worse” if there wasn’t a Rangers at all.
___________________________________________
I believe you are correct.
But I believe this already signifies an ingrained bias in favour of that club and a status quo that tilted the pitch in the favour of an ‘old firm’ 2 club model, with both of these clubs predefined.
Which – in a sporting competition – equals corruption.
Without fear or favour?
To liken it to WWF, in the minds of those at the SFA, we had the hero (RFC), the pantomime villain (CFC) and everyone else was there as a warm up act.
I content that the ‘staged wrestling’ parallel we all strenuously resisted was already the established narrative within some of the minds of those running the game, whether conscioulsy or otherwise.
And before TSFM dismisses this, I challenge you all to find me a solid piece of hard evidence that would dispute this interpretation?
We were all mugs for not recognising this!
Corruption. In plain view. And we couldn’t see the wood for the trees.
Afternoon All
Can anyone update on when the 120 day consultation is due out .
Thanks
Campbellsmoney says:
March 23, 2014 at 11:27 am
Resin_lab_dog says:
March 23, 2014 at 12:02 pm
———
Well done, chaps. Two not quite directly opposing positions, each of which relates to the very core FACTS about what the Authorities did, even if their personal, group, or organisational motivation for what they did might be open to discussion.
I found both your posts helpful in keeping the central point clearly in focus as the main-spring of this blog..
Auldheid
you have mail.
Campbellsmoney says:
March 23, 2014 at 11:27 am
So – yes – they bent the rules for a Rangers – in fact let me rephrase that because talk of “bending” rules is wrong and misleading. Rules were broken. Rules were not applied – rules were not simply “bent a wee bit” – they were simply treated as not applying this time round.
Was that corrupt or just wrong? I would say that it depends on truly why they did it.
Either way – it should not have happened and each member who allowed it to happen has something to answer for.
===========================================
Your last sentence sums it up perfectly. I for one believe the rules as they existed should simply have been followed, and if that meant a Rangers ceased to exist then so be it. Did every member agree to what happened though?
Aulheid,
Please see my recent PMs to you.
Thanks in anticipation of your response.
Sanno
John Clark says:
March 23, 2014 at 11:56 am
____________________________
I too share your soft spot for the Methil-men. Indeed I was at the last game to be played at Bayview, East Fife Vs Man Utd
and it was only the second time I’d been in the main stand, sitting on a wooden bench which seemed like luxury!
upthehoops says:
March 23, 2014 at 12:30 pm
2 0 i
Rate This
Campbellsmoney says:
March 23, 2014 at 11:27 am
So – yes – they bent the rules for a Rangers – in fact let me rephrase that because talk of “bending” rules is wrong and misleading. Rules were broken. Rules were not applied – rules were not simply “bent a wee bit” – they were simply treated as not applying this time round.
Was that corrupt or just wrong? I would say that it depends on truly why they did it.
Either way – it should not have happened and each member who allowed it to happen has something to answer for.
===========================================
Your last sentence sums it up perfectly. I for one believe the rules as they existed should simply have been followed, and if that meant a Rangers ceased to exist then so be it. Did every member agree to what happened though?
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
No – I am sure they didn’t agree – I have no recollection of the 5 way agreement being put to the wider membership for ratification – in fact if I recall – many members probably still haven’t seen it (incidentally I have always wondered if a 5 way agreement was actually signed – I know one was drafted (and it may well have been agreed) but was it ever signed? Might well be the simplest reason why no one has seen a signed one – our old friend Occam’s razor)
But when the management of an organisation is entrusted to an executive (a management committee or some such) then the wider members do not get to be involved in the minutiae of the day to day running of the organisation. However the executive are accountable to those members in the same way as our MPs are accountable to us – we can vote them out if they choose to use their powers in a way that we consider unsatisfactory.
Indeed I would go further on this one. I suspect that the executive had no power to do what they did. The only powers they have are contained in the rules/constitutions. I suspect they acted outwith their powers (ultra vires if you pardon another lapse into Latin).
Now of course the rules have been changed (new SPFL Article 36) so that they can now do what they did, but that does not mean that, when they did what they did, that they were entitled to have done it.
upthehoops says:
March 23, 2014 at 12:30 pm
Your last sentence sums it up perfectly. I for one believe the rules as they existed should simply have been followed, and if that meant a Rangers ceased to exist then so be it. Did every member agree to what happened though?
==========
From memory, just one of the SFL clubs (Stranraer?) voted against admitting Sevco at any level.
As regards the 5-way agreement to transfer the SFA membership, I believe that the SFA Board would have had direct input, plus the SPL and SFL Boards. There was a bit of fun after the event, with some clubs denying any knowledge of the whole shabby affair. But then Ogilvie was handed another two year term shortly afterwards, with not one single club out of 42 raising any objection.
In my opinion the clubs are in this up to their necks. Which is why everyone at Hampden is absolutely safe in their jobs, and even better, anticipating the next round of juicy pay rises and bonuses for a job well done. A job well done is how the clubs see it, anyway. That much is crystal clear.
A team called Rangers playing at Ibrox with 5 stars on their top went into administration, followed by liquidation.
Today a team called Rangers plays at Ibrox with 5 stars on their top.
Your having me on !! stop it your having a laugh. Seriously what Football Association or for that matter country would allow this?
0 0 i
Rate This
A team called Rangers playing at Ibrox with 5 stars on their top went into administration, followed by liquidation.
Today a team called Rangers plays at Ibrox with 5 stars on their top.
Your having me on !! stop it your having a laugh. Seriously what Football Association or for that matter country would allow this?
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
That statement is not correct. Try this:-
“The company that owned the assets used by a team called Rangers playing at Ibrox with 5 stars on their top went into administration, followed by liquidation.
Today a team called Rangers plays at Ibrox with 5 stars on their top and the assets used by that team are owned by a company that is a different company from the one that went into liquidation.”
To be clear – I am not making any comment here on the use by the media, footballing authorities or anyone else of the word “club”.
Teams don’t go into liquidation and neither do clubs and, for the avoidance of doubt, companies do not survive liquidation.
For me, this is a key disclosure from the FTT(T) and explains almost everything up to and including the 5-way agreement.
“He acknowledged that he was aware of HMRC’s interest from about 2005.”
In 2005 the SFA’s articles of association said:
By 2009 (under the stewardship of former Rangers striker Gordon Smith) article 16 was reworked. It then became:
So, when HMRC first “showed an interest” there was no mechanism to transfer existing membership to another club. By the time of Rangers liquidation, the Board “have complete discretion to reject or to grant such application on such terms and conditions as the Board may think fit.”
Is it too obvious to say that the 5-way agreement was (at best) a planned contingency for a liquidation event that could have been predicted seven years before it actually took place.
valentinesclown says:
March 23, 2014 at 1:14 pm
A team called Rangers playing at Ibrox with 5 stars on their top went into administration, followed by liquidation.
Today a team called Rangers plays at Ibrox with 5 stars on their top.
Your having me on !! stop it your having a laugh. Seriously what Football Association or for that matter country would allow this?
——————————————–
Italy for sure and England I think…..presumably others…
Campbellsmoney 11.17
I remember being told of a school of thought (that probably has a name ) which says that human nature is naturally programmed to do good or what is right and that in order to do anything not good or not right we tell ourselves that what we are doing is the right thing. Not so much tell ourselves as fool ourselves.
As individuals or nation states we justify small pecadillos up to wars on the basis that our cause is just.
Then reality steps in and experience tells us what the inner programme was trying to do, but without the pain, of what is right.
Pain IS the breaking of the shell that encloses our understanding and that aversion to pain is what keeps the truth hidden and diminishes our understanding.
Honestly looking into what has been done is going to be very painful for those who justified breaking the rules designed to do what was right. But they are only swapping one kind of pain for another, much like avoiding the dentist to correct a dull ache which will not go away because of the sharper unpleasantness from having a tooth pulled.
No one likes having a tooth pulled but the relief thereafter is tangible and dentist treatment is necessary.
Pliers please nurse.
Neepheid
According to Turnbull Hutton nobody would stand for the President’s job because of the mess and the risks in clearing it up.
By risks think “who are these people?”
I think there would have been an inner circle who would have formulated the parachute into top tier proposal to try for size but that got watered down to SFL entry in light of fan and club opposition.
Now had the SFA stuck to the rules for providing SFA membership, TRFC could have applied for Associate Membership of the SFA within 14 days of joining the SFL as Associate Members and after 5 years been granted full SFA membership.
However the SFA used their discretionary powers under the Article that prohibits transfer when the other avenue was available.
That could only have been on commercial grounds and was probably a key item in the 5 way agreement as the SFA and CG would recognise the commercial value in terms of keeping numbers of supporters in the game.
It all goes back to commercialism v sporting integrity and both the league AND the SFA putting the former above the latter. There is no check and balance between the two opposing dynamics which is a feature of any good governance hence the omnishambles the game now faces.
What makes it worse is not only do we have an omnishambles but the system that created it, because it is uncorrected, is trying to build another one!
parttimearab says:
March 23, 2014 at 1:43 pm
1 2 Rate This
valentinesclown says:
March 23, 2014 at 1:14 pm
A team called Rangers playing at Ibrox with 5 stars on their top went into administration, followed by liquidation.
Today a team called Rangers plays at Ibrox with 5 stars on their top.
Your having me on !! stop it your having a laugh. Seriously what Football Association or for that matter country would allow this?
——————————————–
Italy for sure and England I think…..presumably others…
=========
Why don’t all the other clubs in Scotland just have a top with 6 stars? or 20? or 1000? There is nothing to stop them, and it is totally meaningless anyway.
HirsutePursuit says:
March 23, 2014 at 1:37 pm
So, when HMRC first “showed an interest” there was no mechanism to transfer existing membership to another club. By the time of Rangers liquidation, the Board “have complete discretion to reject or to grant such application on such terms and conditions as the Board may think fit.”
Is it too obvious to say that the 5-way agreement was (at best) a planned contingency for a liquidation event that could have been predicted seven years before it actually took place.
=================
That is very interesting. Were the rules changed at an AGM of the SFA? I guess they must have been, so what AGM, and is there a link to the relevant SFA announcement? As I said earlier, all the clubs are in this up to their necks (or higher).
neepheid says:
March 23, 2014 at 2:22 pm
Why don’t all the other clubs in Scotland just have a top with 6 stars? or 20? or 1000?
————————————————————————————-
Bit of a bugger ironing them on I should think……. 🙂
Campbellsmoney says:
March 23, 2014 at 1:23 pm
Teams don’t go into liquidation and neither do clubs and, for the avoidance of doubt, companies do not survive liquidation.
———————————————————-
Going by that logic, does that mean that clubs also do not go into Administration?
I ask because the officials of Rangers, The SFA and the media all talk about the Club going into Admin. Rangers themselves, continue to claim the Club will not go into Admin for a 2nd time.
So I ask again, how is it possible for a Club to go into administration but not possible to go into Liquidation after that?
Again it all comes Down to the legal interpretation of how a club is defined, Rangers fans are watching Rangers, they believe it is the same Club they have always watched with the same values, strip, stadium etc… They are to all intense purposes, Rangers, the same Club!
Legally however, that Club is not a business, just an emotional name.
The old club however, they were a business, one that failed financially and is now going through the process of Liquidation. Just because the present model has changed doesn’t mean we can retrospectively apply that to the previous Club/Company, doesn’t work that way…..
This has been done to death and no matter how many times it is raised, explained or disputed, the legal facts stand. Rangers were a club that was a legal entity; this entity received a license to play football and went on to build up a very successful history, which ended when the club ceased trading, simple!
Re the five way agreement – aren’t we in danger of forgetting the most important party to it…..
Sky
Re the five way agreement – aren’t we in danger of forgetting the most important party to it…..
Sky
=======================
It was Rangers, Sevco, SPL, SFL and SFA. Or have I been whooshed?
Been away for a few days, not reading. Caught up with stuff up to morning of 22nd and thought, ‘Oh hell, I’m going to have to post something and it’s going to get slaughtered, heigh ho,’ then i read TSFM post from that morning at 1143hrs and did a wee dance of gladness. It said, in paraphrase, ‘That’s enough conspiracy flim-flam thanks, Ed.’ World saved.
Madbhoy24941 says:
March 23, 2014 at 3:14 pm
11 0 Rate This
———–
What an interesting observation. If clubs can not be liquidated, how on earth can they even be ‘in administration’?
Does this mean that Hearts should appeal their points penalty? I’d say they have a case …
ernie says:
March 23, 2014 at 3:55 pm
It was Rangers, Sevco, SPL, SFL and SFA. Or have I been whooshed?
———————————————————————
Quite right……wee slip on my part
So are The rangers the only club in scotland unincorporated ?
If so is this a good thing or a bad thing 😕
I remember Murray being presented with a certificate for 100 years Incorporated
parttimearab says:
March 23, 2014 at 5:58 pm
0 0 Rate This
ernie says:
March 23, 2014 at 3:55 pm
It was Rangers, Sevco, SPL, SFL and SFA. Or have I been whooshed?
———————————————————————
Quite right……wee slip on my part
================================
Wasn’t sure if you were being cynical as they were the “elephant in the room” as perceived by the parties anyway.
Auldheid says:
March 23, 2014 at 1:45 pm
20
0
Rate This
Campbellsmoney 11.17
I remember being told of a school of thought (that probably has a name )
___________________________________________
Moral Rationalisation. A subset of cognitive dissonance.
http://www.academia.edu/171600/Moral_rationalization_and_the_integration_of_situational_factors_and_psychological_processes_in_immoral_behavior
Moral Rationalisation. A subset of cognitive dissonance.
=========================================
At last, a core value that Scottish fitba can claim as it’s own.
Madbhoy24941 says:
March 23, 2014 at 3:14 pm
36 0 i
Rate This
Campbellsmoney says:
March 23, 2014 at 1:23 pm
Teams don’t go into liquidation and neither do clubs and, for the avoidance of doubt, companies do not survive liquidation.
———————————————————-
Going by that logic, does that mean that clubs also do not go into Administration?
————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Administration was an insolvency regime created by the Insolvency Act 1986. Liquidation has a longer history but the law relating to liquidation is effectively now codified in the Insolvency Act 1986. Only limited companies and limited liability partnerships can go into liquidation or administration.
When anyone says ” Hearts went into liquidation” what they mean is:-
(a) the company that owns the assets that the team/club known as Hearts uses to play football with, has gone into liquidation; (or just conceivably they may mean:-
(b) the company that holds the majority of the shares in the company that owns the assets that the team/club known as Hearts uses to play football with, has gone into liquidation .
I have said before that there is such a thing in Scots law as a club – think of your golf club, bowling club etc – they may well be clubs under the law of Scotland. But it is not the same as what the football authorities mean when they use the term. The laws of Scotland that are applicable to clubs have no bearing whatsoever on what has happened to any of Gretna, Hearts, Livingston, Dundee, Rangers, Morton, Motherwell, Partick Thistle (have I missed any?)
It would be far better if a different term was used in football – but “club” is used because when the league/association was set up – the original members were almost certainly clubs in the true (legal) sense of the word. But they are not clubs now and most haven’t been for many many years.
I was told that Arbroath had remained, until some point in the last twenty odd years, a true club and that they were the only ones left at the time. But I think they have now incorporated (there is an Arbroath Football Club Limited incorporated in December 2004 – so that is probably it now).
parttimearab says:
March 23, 2014 at 1:43 pm
Italy for sure and England I think…..presumably others…
——
Hungary … Budapest Honved.
The Moorings – I never played for them, but I’ve played there often enough. Nae for a while now, like – motivated drummers are had to come by nowadays.
Anyway. Did anyone see Mr McCoist’s comments in the paper today, before the Brechin game?
“He said, “We’re going back up to where it all started for us. We played Brechin in the Ramsden’s Cup at the beginning of last season.””
Mr McCoist hits the nail on the head. Glebe Park was exactly where The Rangers played their first ever game. Rangers fans take note of Mr McCoit’s words of wisdom, please.
ernie says:
March 23, 2014 at 6:18 pm
4 0 Rate This
parttimearab says:
March 23, 2014 at 5:58 pm
0 0 Rate This
ernie says:
March 23, 2014 at 3:55 pm
It was Rangers, Sevco, SPL, SFL and SFA. Or have I been whooshed?
———————————————————————
Quite right……wee slip on my part
================================
Wasn’t sure if you were being cynical as they were the “elephant in the room” as perceived by the parties anyway.
———————————
Indeed…..an enormous elephant and one that imo drove the five way agreement….
but no not being cynical…Just forgetful…. 😳
Going back to a much discussed subject this past week. All the Sunday’s seem to be carrying critical articles of Dundee Utd and Stephen Thompson. It is now a matter of record that Thompson DID raise concerns in October when the venues were announced, yet the common theme today is ‘why did he say nothing at the time?’ The Scottish media overall really are a disgrace. Is it just too boring for them to print the truth?
Campbellsmoney says:
March 23, 2014 at 11:27 am
Which Rule(s) did the Football Authorities break when they allowed NewCo/TRFC to enter Scottish Football from division 3 of the SFL?
upthehoops says:
March 23, 2014 at 7:55 pm
11 1 Rate This
Going back to a much discussed subject this past week. All the Sunday’s seem to be carrying critical articles of Dundee Utd and Stephen Thompson. It is now a matter of record that Thompson DID raise concerns in October when the venues were announced, yet the common theme today is ‘why did he say nothing at the time?’ The Scottish media overall really are a disgrace. Is it just too boring for them to print the truth?
============================
It’s not boring. It just doesn’t suit their agenda. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story and all that.
upthehoops says:
March 23, 2014 at 7:55 pm
14 2 Rate This
Going back to a much discussed subject this past week. All the Sunday’s seem to be carrying critical articles of Dundee Utd and Stephen Thompson. It is now a matter of record that Thompson DID raise concerns in October
—————————————————-
And unless I’ve missed something he’s had zero support from other clubs/chairmen who have kept their heads well down on this one.
Campbellsmoney says:
March 23, 2014 at 12:57 pm
I do not want to be pedantic but what do the Articles of the SPL have to do with NewCo/TRFC playing in the third division of the SFL? I have separately asked which “rule” was broken but if there is one it is not in the Articles of the SPL Limited.
Resin _lab _ dog 6.39.
Moral rationalisation. Yup that’s it. It was on the tip of my tongue but was clinging to my kidney. 😀
Third Party
It will depend what the requirements are for allowing a new club into the league.
I would imagine all club licensing criteria at Entry level would be required including past accounts…..
But licensing is ignored if it gets in the way of a desired result. Like preventing UEFA asking for future financial forecasts at the same time HMRC were asking for them in 2011.
Football does not want to be properly governed, it inhibits the opportunity to cheat.
Interesting story breaking on another forum, Although the usual rules will need to apply as there is no hard evidence available other than the poster’s say so.
Currently Celtic and Rangers under 20’s sit joint top of the league on points, with Celtic ahead by a difference of 2 goals. There is a scheduled fixture between the two sides on 31 March (Ibrox being the venue as stated on the official Celtic website). Naturally this fixture is likely to draw a sizeable attendance and will need to be policed accordingly. It is being claimed that Police Scotland are refusing to cover the game unless paid up front, which Rangers are not agreeing to. The person breaking the story claims his/her source as a ‘senior Police Officer’, and there are also claims the SFA/SPFL are trying to get the Police to agree to cover the game without up front payment. It seems there is an agreement to cover top flight games then bill the clubs, but this does not extend to under 20 fixtures. As a result, the game is now to be played behind closed doors at Murray Park.
Of course, verification of the story is required.
Danish Pastry says:
March 23, 2014 at 4:25 pm
From the Rules of the SPFL
Club means a Football club, other than a Candidate Club, which is, for the time being, eligible to participate in the League and, except where the context otherwise requires, includes the owner and operator of such club;
Insolvency Event means:-
(i) entering into a Company Voluntary Arrangement pursuant to Part 1 of the Insolvency Act, a Scheme of Arrangement with creditors under Part 26 of the 2006 Act, or any compromise agreement with its creditors as a whole;
(ii) the lodging of a Notice of Intention to Appoint an Administrator or Notice of Appointment of an Administrator at the Court in accordance with paragraph 29 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act, an application to the Court for an Administration Order under paragraph 12 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act or where an Administrator is appointed or an Administration Order is made (“Administrator” and “Administration Order” having the meaning attributed to them respectively by paragraphs 1 and 10 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act) or an interim manager is appointed by any court as a step in any proceedings which include an application for the making of an Administration Order;
(iii) an Administrative Receiver (as defined by the Insolvency Act) or any other Receiver is appointed over any assets which, in the opinion of the Board is material to the Club’s ability to fulfil its obligations as a Club or a Judicial Factor is appointed;
(iv) shareholders passing a resolution pursuant to section 84(1) of the Insolvency Act to voluntarily wind up;
(v) a meeting of creditors is convened pursuant to section 95 or section 98 of the Insolvency Act;
(vi) a winding up order is made by the Court under section 122 of the Insolvency Act or a provisional liquidator is appointed under section 135 of the Insolvency Act;
(vii) ceasing or forming an intention to cease wholly or substantially to carry on business save for the purpose of reconstruction or amalgamation or otherwise in accordance with a scheme or proposals which have previously been submitted to and approved in writing by the Board;
(viii) in the case of an individual person, partnership or unincorporated association an award of sequestration, appointment of a trustee, entering into a trust deed for creditors, appointment of an interim judicial factor, appointment of a judicial factor or an equivalent or analogous appointment;
(ix) being subject to an insolvency regime in any jurisdiction outside Scotland which is analogous to the insolvency regimes detailed in paragraphs (a) to (g) above; and/or
(x) have any proceedings or step taken or any court order in any jurisdiction made which has a substantially similar effect to any of the foregoing.
E1 Subject to Rule E5, where a Club suffers or is subject to an Insolvency Event that Club shall be deducted 15 points in the League.
E2 Where an Insolvency Event occurs during a Season, the 15 points deduction shall be applied immediately to take effect in the current Season.
E3 Where an Insolvency Event occurs during the Close Season the 15 points deduction shall apply in respect of the immediately following Season, such that the relevant Club starts that immediately following Season in the relevant Division on minus 15 points.
So, 15 points deduction when the entity, in the case of 39 SPFL members a limited company in the case of 3 an unincorporated association, which owns and operates the Football club suffers an Insolvency Event; administration being one such event.
parttimearab says:
March 23, 2014 at 8:55 pm
—————————————————-
And unless I’ve missed something he’s had zero support from other clubs/chairmen who have kept their heads well down on this one.
==================================
Not so sure other clubs should get publicly involved IMO. The disappointment for me is that the clubs did not scupper it at the time, or at least insist on a rider if either Celtic or Rangers ended up with a ‘home’ game.
The shysters that claim to be sports reporters in Scotland will take their papers down,the editors of these papers should be taken to task as they will put a lot of background staff on the dole ,the staff that run the presses etc,another shocking episode was the reporting of the young Watt of Celtic where they had a full back page on the problem boy ,again ,no checking was done ,but it was not required as the young man has previous ,according to our press,different story a week later when his manager gets involved.
Auldheid says:
March 23, 2014 at 9:17 pm
I was simply looking for an explanation of the often repeated mantra that the rules were broken when OldCo/TRFC was admitted to play in Scottish Football. If you are suggesting it was something to do with club licensing then that is incorrect. The then SFL Rules did not require a club to have a particular or indeed any form of SFA club licence to be a member of the SFL. I think it is a reasonable question to ask which rule?
upthehoops says:
March 23, 2014 at 7:55 pm
Going back to a much discussed subject this past week. All the Sunday’s seem to be carrying critical articles of Dundee Utd and Stephen Thompson.
——
SoS Sport section has a piece by Aidan Smith (in Tom English’s old slot on the back page) headlined thus:
“SFA Should Change Semi Final Venue”.
… and it goes like this:
“IF, LIKE me, you’re proud of the Scottish Cup being the oldest national football trophy in the world you might have issues with it copying other inferior johnny-come-lately tournaments.
I’m thinking of the screeching pop music, the balsa-wood stage for the winners, the celebratory bouncing, even the foliage in the managers’ lapels. You were first, Scottish, do your own thing. Don’t be bullied by the Champions League into moving from sacred Saturday to Sunday. And – favourites of this column – let’s bring back the massed pipes and drums and the Alsatian obstacle-course.
Some of those changes are modernisms and maybe we have to move with the times. But every year our clubs are writing the cup’s history, a dutiful task like that of the trophy’s engraver. And when future generations of football students and anoraks open up Wikipedia at season 2013-14, what will they see? That Rangers played their semi-final at Ibrox, their home ground. Seriously, that has to be a joke.
What an all-consuming tale this is. Truly, our cup runneth over. There’s stupidity, arrogance, incompetence, intransigence, fatuousness, our-club’s-bigger-than-your-club juvenalia, delusions of grandeur, you name it.
Let’s deal first with the delusions of grandeur. The Scottish Football Association, who announced as far back as last October that Ibrox would host both last-four ties due to Hampden being out of action, have in the midst of the rammy tried to cite Euro precedent. The Champions League final venue is confirmed a whole season in advance, they point out, and you’ve got to forward-plan.
Who are they kidding? Without wishing to contradict myself, the Scottish Cup is not the Champions League. It does not need six months of planning. George Peat, the former SFA president, recalled seasons in the League Cup where the Scottish league would have less than a week to arrange all-ticket ties.
Peat said that while the SFA would have signed a contract for Ibrox he couldn’t understand why they didn’t have a plan B in the event of Rangers reaching the semis. Dundee United chairman Stephen Thompson reckoned he had a pretty good idea why: money. All current SFA chief executive Stewart Regan, pictured right, was interested in was the commercial benefits, he claimed. “Obviously looking after the sponsors is more important than it being a neutral venue.”
Certainly Ibrox getting the semis and Celtic Park having the final sounds very SFA: a divvying up in the grand old tradition. But I do find it astonishing that no one in a blazer thought the cup could pan out like this. If no one did, requiring the plan B that Peat was talking about, then you have to wonder what kind of brains trust is running the game.
The SFA have tried to pass the buck for being aware that Ibrox was the home of a club who potentially had semi-final aspirations back to the rest of Scottish football, saying that any concerns should have been raised at the time of the decision.
It is here that the story becomes a bit murkier. You can find two different Dundee United responses. Yes, we had concerns and raised them then. No, we didn’t because it would have been presumptuous to suggest we’d be involved in the semis. But this isn’t the crucial aspect, and the second response would have been perfectly acceptable. The duty for organising one of the oldest club football competitions in the world, and avoiding the complete and utter embarrassment of one team having home advantage in their favour to reach the final, rests entirely with the SFA and it is both laughable and chilling that they appear not to have anticipated this could happen, or had a contingency plan, or were unprepared to change the venue when, as Peat says, they still had the best part of a month to do so. The bickering between Rangers and Dundee United was caused by the SFA, although the individual reactions of the clubs were fairly predictable. United laying into the game’s rulers, angry at the SFA’s tone, arguing that given the number of talented young footballers they were producing for the greater good they didn’t deserve such treatment. And Rangers, in the squabble over how many tickets United should receive, labelling their fans glory-hunters.
Ally McCoist chose this moment to boast about Rangers’ bigger support. The last time United had been in a semi, against Celtic, Hampden was only half-full. His club’s fans didn’t just turn out for semis, McCoist said, but all games. Not true, of course – Ibrox wasn’t packed for the quarter-final against Albion Rovers – but the basic point hardly needed to be made: a lot of people like to watch Rangers do their special thing.
The issue then became ludicrous with McCoist claiming no special benefits for his men from playing in the distinctive Govan air, with yon majestic Broomloan Stand rising up behind them and the classic criss-cross detailing by the great stadium architect Archibald Leitch so known to the team, like the tattoo on the back of a hand. “There’s very little to be taken from home advantage the higher you go in football,” he argued, before being quickly backed up by his striker Jon Daly.
Sorry guys, but you’re talking tripe. Daly would not be saying “I don’t see Ibrox as being an advantage” if he was still a Dundee United player and McCoist would not be dismissing the venue as being of no significance if Rangers were facing a Scottish Cup final at Celtic Park against … Celtic. This too was among the scenarios of the SFA’s “planning” last October. They’ve avoided that, but a semi at the Big Hoose featuring its occupants is definitely happening.
To be fair to McCoist and Thompson, they’ve toned down the language since the rumpus kicked off. But 12 April is currently shaping up as a dread day in the football calendar rather than one for families to enjoy.
The SFA can still change the venue and they should. As things stand they’re doing no favours to Rangers save for stoking the defiance of their own fans and the conspiracy theories of the rest. They’re doing no favours to Dundee United who’ve been dealt a grossly unfair hand for sure but must be wondering if making such a stink could cause their young team to think their abilities to win are being doubted. Most of all, though, they’re discrediting the grand old Scottish Cup.”
Angus1983 says:
March 23, 2014 at 9:48 pm
‘.Most of all, though, they’re discrediting the grand old Scottish Cup.”’
—————–
There does seem to be a chronic inability on the part of the SFA to get to grips in a proper managerial sense.To be aware, to look around, to see that they do not live in an ivory castle, that they have to relate to real, practical concerns that go right to the heart of our game. They must learn that they must be like Caesar’s wife-beyond even the smidgin of a suggestion that they are less than true to the sporting ideals behind the oldest cup competition in the world of ‘soccer’.
And they must learn that their decisions are NOT irreversible. Whether the stadium decision was made in good or bad faith, they should have the decency and common sense to accept that they got it badly wrong.And win some credit by changing the venue.
upthehoops says:
March 23, 2014 at 9:33 pm
parttimearab says:
March 23, 2014 at 8:55 pm
—————————————————-
And unless I’ve missed something he’s had zero support from other clubs/chairmen who have kept their heads well down on this one.
==================================
Not so sure other clubs should get publicly involved IMO. The disappointment for me is that the clubs did not scupper it at the time, or at least insist on a rider if either Celtic or Rangers ended up with a ‘home’ game.
—————————————–
Can’t agree UTH – they should have created a stink then and a bigger one now – the semis should be played at a neutral venue, bottom line – clubs had an opportunity to stand together and, predictably, they’ve chosen to fall separately, as usual.
Arbroath incorporated about 10 years ago. The only ones left to incorporate, as far as I am aware, are Brechin, Stranraer and Annan, although they may have ‘obscure’ company names, I suppose
John Clark says:
March 23, 2014 at 10:02 pm
1
0
Rate This
Angus1983 says:
March 23, 2014 at 9:48 pm
‘.Most of all, though, they’re discrediting the grand old Scottish Cup.”’
—————–
There does seem to be a chronic inability on the part of the SFA to get to grips in a proper managerial sense.To be aware, to look around, to see that they do not live in an ivory castle, that they have to relate to real, practical concerns that go right to the heart of our game. They must learn that they must be like Caesar’s wife-beyond even the smidgin of a suggestion that they are less than true to the sporting ideals behind the oldest cup competition in the world of ‘soccer’.
And they must learn that their decisions are NOT irreversible. Whether the stadium decision was made in good or bad faith, they should have the decency and common sense to accept that they got it badly wrong.And win some credit by changing the venue.
_________________________________________
Part of the irony here is that, priort to 5WA, I could have taken some of the logistical and practical arguments at face value and would have probably given the SFA the benefit of the doubt here and cut them some slack.
But they have demonstrated such celar abuse of process and conflict of interest that it makes the opposite now true. Assume the worst. It will remain so as long as their president remains in post. At least.
The person breaking the story claims his/her source as a ‘senior Police Officer’, and there are also claims the SFA/SPFL are trying to get the Police to agree to cover the game without up front payment.
___________________________________
IF true:
WHY?
Q.WHY AREN’T THE SFA GETTING THE HOST CLUB TO PAY THE POLICE UPFRONT ON THREAT OF SANCTIONS?
Q.WHY AREN’T THE SFA THREATENING TO THROW THE HOST CLUB OUT OF THE COMPETITION IF THEY ARE UNABLE TO HOST THE FIXTURE AS REQUIRED?
A. Because they are corrupt.
Sorry for shouting!
ThirdParty says:
The then SFL Rules did not require a club to have a particular or indeed any form of SFA club licence to be a member of the SFL.
they did need a licence to play football..
“I still can’t believe just 36 hours before our first game we never had a licence to play” Ally McCoist
Cluster One says:
March 23, 2014 at 10:34 pm
0
0
Rate This
ThirdParty says:
The then SFL Rules did not require a club to have a particular or indeed any form of SFA club licence to be a member of the SFL.
they did need a licence to play football..
“I still can’t believe just 36 hours before our first game we never had a licence to play” Ally McCoist
No, they did not need a licence to play football, there exists no such requirement in any Scottish Football Rules that existed in July 2012.
What NewCo/TRFC needed to do was meet the criteria for an SFA Licence by the first criteria test point in early 2013 or seek a derogation. If it did not do so, and I have no idea if it did or did not, then the low end would have been a fine of up to £500. The SPFL has Membership Criteria based, in part, on SFA National Club Licensing. The SFA does not but in fairness it does not run a senior professional football league and it has Full Members ranging from CFC to amateur clubs so it could hardly make possession of such a licence a criteria for membership.
🙂 ThirdParty – I owe you a response – it was me who said the 5way was a rule breaker. When I said that it was, it was on the basis of my understanding that the Rules did not allow what (per Neepheid and HirsuitePursuit’s later posts) it turns out they may have had a discretion to do – changes to art. 16 – I think.
I have been busy tonight – El Classico – what fun – so let me rethink my position. Thanks for challenging what I thought I knew for sure. Turns out I was wrong.
And re refereeing
Imagine that wasn’t Barca and RM tonight. Any dodgy decisions? Honest? Corrupt?
Or maybe just mistakes?
It happens apparently.
ThirdParty says:
No, they did not need a licence to play football, there exists no such requirement in any Scottish Football Rules that existed in July 2012.
so why did Ally say this?
“I still can’t believe just 36 hours before our first game we never had a licence to play” Ally McCoist
Campbellsmoney says:
March 23, 2014 at 10:51 pm
3
0
Rate This
🙂 ThirdParty – I owe you a response – it was me who said the 5way was a rule breaker. When I said that it was, it was on the basis of my understanding that the Rules did not allow what (per Neepheid and HirsuitePursuit’s later posts) it turns out they may have had a discretion to do – changes to art. 16 – I think.
A very fair post. I have seen it said in so many places and on so many occasions that the 5W was entered into in breach of the “Rules of Football”. until now I have just let it pass because………..well no very good reason. Mia Culpa.
I suspect people have confused the issue of OldCo/TRFC, what is the acceptable description by the way, I am tired of having to type this out, membership of the SFA/SFL with them not having an SFA licence but if one thinks about it no new SFA member will ever have an SFA Licence because the test point is not until the early part of the calendar year and all, or virtually all football competitions begin around the start of a new season in August.
ThirdParty says:
March 23, 2014 at 9:21 pm
0 7 Rate This
Danish Pastry says:
March 23, 2014 at 4:25 pm
From the Rules of the SPFL
Club means a Football club, other than a Candidate Club, which is, for the time being, eligible to participate in the League and, except where the context otherwise requires, includes the owner and operator of such club;
———-
So a football club includes the owner and operator?
Yes or no?
Campbellsmoney says:
March 23, 2014 at 11:27 am
“So – yes – they bent the rules for a Rangers – in fact let me rephrase that because talk of “bending” rules is wrong and misleading. Rules were broken. Rules were not applied – rules were not simply “bent a wee bit” – they were simply treated as not applying this time round.”
————————————————
ThirdParty says:
March 23, 2014 at 8:22 pm
“Which Rule(s) did the Football Authorities break when they allowed NewCo/TRFC to enter Scottish Football from division 3 of the SFL?”
—————————————————-
Campbellsmoney provides the context for his assertion by saying “…Rules were not applied…”. You might argue that not applying rules is different from them being broken and you would be technically correct. However in the context of a sporting scenario it pretty much amounts to the same thing in my opinion.
These matters have been discussed at length over the intervening two years. I would be unable to recall all the instances where the Laws of the game had not been adhered to as they are numerous. One particular glaring anomally is the presence of both RFC and Sevco Scotland as signatories to the five way agreement. It has been discussed that the existence of both of these corporate entities simultaneously required creative interpretation of the Laws (to the point that they were not applied) to allow this to occur. It would be possible to delve into the blog archive and identify the specific arguments but this would be a laborious task and not one I am minded to undertake since I have read them all before. Many contributors would be stunned into silence by your question as they will have read the same commentary as I and therefore would find the query disengaging. The blog has been over many such discussions in great detail and knowledgeable contributors have posted excerpts from the various regulations to inform the argument. I think we may have moved beyond these discussions now.
However, in an attempt to avoid appearing discourteous, perhaps HirsutePursuit’s recent post may provide a flavour. In this instance Laws are not being broken but reformed in anticipation of forthcoming events. I have selected extracts to outline the argument but you will be able to locate the full post and issue a specific query if you wish.
————————————
HirsutePursuit says:
March 23, 2014 at 1:37 pm
“By 2009 (under the stewardship of former Rangers striker Gordon Smith) article 16 (SFA’s articles of association) was reworked.”
“So, when HMRC first “showed an interest” there was no mechanism to transfer existing membership to another club. By the time of Rangers liquidation, the Board “have complete discretion to reject or to grant such application on such terms and conditions as the Board may think fit.””
“Is it too obvious to say that the 5-way agreement was (at best) a planned contingency for a liquidation event that could have been predicted seven years before it actually took place.”
———————————–
Many such inconsistencies have been encountered that produces a pattern which in my opinion make Campbellsmoney’s assertion entirely tenable.
Cluster One says:
March 23, 2014 at 11:06 pm
0
0
Rate This
ThirdParty says:
No, they did not need a licence to play football, there exists no such requirement in any Scottish Football Rules that existed in July 2012.
so why did Ally say this?
“I still can’t believe just 36 hours before our first game we never had a licence to play” Ally McCoist
I cannot say that I have any insight into the workings of Mr McCoist’s mind but I would speculate that what he meant was membership of the SFA and SFL. Many other people in many posts and articles have confused membership of a required football organisation as a criteria of participation in a competition e.g. the SFL and/or Ramsdens Cup, with possession of an SFA Licence.