THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight

ByAllyjambo

THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight

Acouple of weeks ago we revisited the OCNC debate. This is a useful exercise to turn to periodically, for I have noticed how, with the passage of time, new aspects have become clear as new information emerges, or some ridiculous claim is made and then debunked.

In those circumstances, we are given the opportunity to reassess what we already know using the new known knowns, or finding significance in something previously overlooked, but now shed in a new light.

Or put another way, the Beauty of Hindsight!

In introducing his notion that both ‘sides’ are merely putting their opinion, SFM contributor MarkC recently brought me to see that one side must be correct and factual, while the other will merely be left expressing an opinion. In the same way that one side must be right, because TRFC is either a new club, or it’s not, one argument must be the one that is factually correct and leaving the other as just opinion (at best). Once a factual argument is put forward, it can only be countered with fact, for anything else is just opinion.

Armed with facts, there would be no need to prove that TRFC is a new club, for first it would be necessary for those who claim ‘same club’ to show, using documentary evidence and facts, that ‘Rangers Football Club’ isn’t currently in liquidation.

So, factual evidence; what facts do we have?

Well, it is a fact that Rangers Football Club availed itself of the advantages of incorporation in 1899, and it’s a fact that Rangers Football Club Plc entered the terminal state of liquidation in 2012.

It is also a fact that at no time since this incorporation took place has anyone been aware of any other Rangers Football Club ensconced within Ibrox, no one has written or spoken about it; or not, at least, until a snake oil salesman used it to push his off the shelf company as ‘The Rangers Football Club Limited’.

What’s more, no other failed incorporated football club has ever availed itself of this new notion of the ‘eternal club’. The SFA was apparently unaware of it either, for they never offered up the salvation of its use to the likes of Airdrieonians, or Gretna, or dear old Third Lanark.

In fact it seems to have miraculously appeared only as a result of the failed CVA attempt of Rangers FC Plc, and the words of one of the spivs who surrounded Ibrox at that time (and for some time before, and after).

The only ‘fact’ put forward to support the ‘same club’ argument is that the SPL say, in their rules, that they are the same club. But the rules don’t actually make them the ‘same club’, for it’s not the SPL’s place to say what is and isn’t a club, and they only explain how they would treat the situation under their rules, and as Easyjambo and Hirsutepursuit (see appendices I, II and III) brought to our attention, the football authorities had reasons to introduce this to their rules that had nothing to do with establishing a separate club that lives on eternally.

It does, though, as Easyjambo’s post describes, show a willingness by football’s governors to change the rules to support their desired outcome.

As Hirsutepursuit (Appendix II) points out, the change to the SPL’s rules that enable this ‘interpretation’ of continuance after liquidation, only came about in 2005. So, have we to believe/accept that the split between club and Club has only existed since 2005 and is the preserve of the SPL?

And that brings me to look again at what Lord Nimmo Smith said of how the SPL rules view the continuation of a ‘Rangers’ (see appendix IV for reference). In short, a lot of words that confuse rather than clarify, and give no legal basis, or justification, for what he, or the SPL rules, say. Basically, the rules say ‘Rangers’ continues as the same club because the SPL rules say it does.

Then, in January 2015, Doncaster said this in an interview with the BBC:

“In terms of the question about old club, new club, that was settled very much by the Lord Nimmo Smith commission that was put together by the SPL to look at EBT payments at that time.
“The decision, very clearly from the commission, was that the club is the same, the club continues, albeit it is owned by a new company, but the club is the same.”

What Doncaster seems to be saying here is that TRFC are RFC because LNS said so.

Which is strange because it was the SPL’s own rules, and nothing else, that LNS based his findings on, and to have lent weight to the ‘same club’ argument, LNS would have had to have used some independent reasoning, or examples in law, to back this up. Instead we are left with the following:

  • (i) the SPL, through an interpretation of their rules, told LNS that they looked on TRFC as the ‘same club’,
  • (ii) so LNS said the SPL looked on TRFC as RFC,
  • (iii) and then Doncaster said it’s the same club because LNS said so,

It’s a bit like me telling Big Pink (who is an acknowledged expert in the field of colours) that SFM treat black as white, BP tells the world that SFM treat black as white, and a couple of years down the road I announce that black is white, because Big Pink said so!


SOMETHING IMPORTANT I THINK WE’VE OVERLOOKED

Now here’s a fact for us all to consider. At some point Rangers FC ceased to be a member of the SPL. With the help of Neil Doncaster, Sevco (Scotland) Ltd tried to gain entry to the SPL and to participate as The Rangers FC. They failed.

Whatever entity was trying to gain entry into Scottish football, it was at that time not a member of the SPL, and so never had been under the jurisdiction of the SPL.

Therefore whatever the SPL rules or Doncaster said, or what conclusion LNS reached over the matter when it was based solely on what the SPL rules said, it madeno difference to the new club, since the SPL or Doncaster had no locus in the matter. Sevco were in limbo, and everything then depended on Sevco, as The Rangers FC, getting entry into the SFL.

Now, the ‘same club’ argument’s only factual ‘evidence’ is the SPL’s rules, and if they hadn’t included the recent amendment highlighted in Easyjambo and Hirsutepursuit’s posts, then there would be no ‘factual’ evidence, at all, however flimsy it might be.

So let’s take a look at what the SFL’s Constitution and Rules say on the matter, and I will quote the relevant parts!

Here’s what it says on a liquidated club joining the league:
“ …”

And here’s what it says, in full, about how it would treat a liquidated member club:
“ …”


In fact, there is absolutely no mention of liquidated clubs in the SFL’s Constitution and Rules, because the notion that a club could live on after liquidation is just that, a notion invented by a spiv!

And because liquidation means the end of a football club, there is absolutely no reason for rules covering such an eventuality to be considered within the rules of football.

And as I said earlier:
‘…the change to the SPL’s rules that enable this ‘interpretation’ of continuance after liquidation, only came about in 2005.

So, have we to believe/accept that the split between club and Club has only existed since 2005 and is the preserve of the SPL?’

What is now obvious is that there was nothing in the rules of Scottish football that gives succour to the notion that TRFC is one and the same football club as RFC.

When the SPL clubs voted against Sevco, to be called The Rangers FC, from entering the SPL, they made the SPL rules on the ‘same club’ matter irrelevant.

When Sevco, to be called The Rangers FC, entered the SFL, they were, according to the SFL’s own rules, a new club, for there is nothing in the rules that says otherwise, or can be interpreted as saying so!

Of course, by the time Doncaster made his nonsense statement, the SFL had been disbanded, and it’s clubs were now part of the SPFL, with rules tailored to suit those who bought into the ‘same club’ notion. Handy, huh?


WAS IT ALL ABOUT ARMAGEDDON?

We all laughed at the time it was spewed forth, but perhaps Armageddon was a real possibility, but not in the way we were encouraged to believe. We know that RFC owed a significant amount of money (football debts) to clubs outside of Scotland, and so outside of the SFA’s influence. We also know, with some certainty, that the SFA turned a blind eye to, or were incompetent in policing, some of RFC’s wrongdoings (the EBTs and European Licence) and the last thing the SFA, and SPL, would want would be non-Scottish clubs kicking up the inevitable stink and getting UEFA/FIFA involved, and investigating the SFA. So how to prevent it?

Plan D (plans A through to C had been used up trying to save RFC)
Create a scenario where TRFC must pay these debts, is the answer! How to do that? Well there’s that rule in the SPL Rule book! Right! but we must ensure Rangers stay in the SPL! Easy, we’ll frighten the other clubs into voting them into the SPL, and so TRFC will have to pay ‘Rangers’ football debts… Oops, the vote went against us! OK, we can stall the other leagues for a year, let’s get them into the Championship, promotion’s a certainty… Oops, we did it again… Let’s create a new set up, all under the (effective) SPL umbrella, with rules to suit, before anyone notices!

Could it be that all that help wasn’t so much because, or not only because, it was ‘Rangers’, but because of what no Rangers, to pay the non-Scottish football debt, might mean for the SFA and SPL, and so for the whole of Scottish football? Was that the real Armageddon?


Footnote

While putting this blog piece together I found it very difficult to write whenever I had to include the ‘what do you call it’ newly discovered ‘club’ thingy.

I find the ‘big C/little c’ method of describing it to be a nonsense, and at best a poor effort to create whatever it was they (whoever they are) wanted to create.

Even Lord Nimmo Smith, a much more learned man than I, failed to come up with a word, phrase or expression to adequately describe it. In short, a club with a capital ‘C’ is exactly the same as a club with a small ‘c’ – and only a fool could imagine it creates a difference!

Is a game of Football somehow different from a game of football?

But, of course, what can you call something that you can’t see, you can’t feel, can’t hear, can’t smell, something that has never been heard of or spoken of before?

Clearly, LNS could find nothing within the millions of words previously written within the myriad of cases dealt with under Scots Law, UK Law and EU Law, and clubs and associations, both corporate and incorporate, will have been the subject of a fair number of legal cases in the past for him to draw on, yet there was no answer to this conundrum to be found there.

And if Lord Nimmo Smith was unable to draw on his legal knowledge or research, he was merely expressing a layman’s opinion on how the SPL viewed a ‘????????’ club!

In such circumstances, his opinion is no more valid than any other reasonable person’s might be!


Acknowledgements
Easyjambo and Hirsutepursuit for the posts I have used in the appendices and my thanks in particular to EJ for kindly providing me with some documents I was unable to find on the internet by myself.
I’d also like to acknowledge the part MarkC played in bringing the debate back to SFM’s attention, it can’t be easy, constantly arguing against the accepted wisdom in any debate, but it always seems to bring out the best in us and something new.


APPENDIX I: HIRSUTEPURSUIT
March 1, 2017 at 23:02
EASTWOODMARCH 1, 2017 at 08:366 Votes …
Deviously, both the SPL (around 10 years ago coinciding with Rangers (In Liquidation) entering very choppy waters) and the SFA more recently, changed their rules to adopt this distinct “Club” (capital ‘C’) type definition, distinguishing it from the “owner and operator” company. It could have been said at the time to be a licence for unscrupulous, badly run “Clubs” to dump debts and shaft creditors, and so it proved with Sevco’s exploitation of these rules.


In 2005 the SPL changed its articles to create the definition of Club (with a capital C) – which actually INCLUDES the ‘owner and operator’. Whether the ‘owner and operator’ should be EXCLUDED depends on the context of the article in which it is used and to WHICH Club (with a capital C) it is referring.
The SFA did not add the ‘owner and operator’ tag until 2013.
It is interesting because the original SPL articles referred to the clubs (with a lower case c) as its members. Its members each held shares in the SPL. The clubs were listed by their full company names – rather than their trading names.
The Club (with a capital C) definition came about because the SPL were trying to launch SPL2 and one of the clubs (with a lower case c) that could have been included was Brechin.
Brechin is not a company, so could not as a club (with a lower case c) become a member/shareholder in the SPL. To cover this eventuality, a form of words was created that would allow the club (with a lower case c) to play in the SPL even if the share was not actually held by the club (with a lower case c).
If a club (with a lower case c) has not been incorporated, the club (with a lower case c) cannot own anything. In such cases, the assets are held by its members (usually a committee member or members). Since the original articles defined the member/shareholder as a club (with a lower case c), it would have resulted in the committee member who took ownership of the SPL share being defined as the club (with a lower case c).
The reference to ‘undertaking of a football club’ in the definition of Club (with a capital C) meant that it could refer to both an incorporated body and an unincorporated body of persons.
So the context of when the ‘owner and operator’ should be EXCLUDED from the definition of a Club (with a capital C) is only when that owner and operator is not a club (with a lower case c).
What is even more interesting is that three non-corporate clubs (with a lower case c) have each been listed as members/shareholders of the current SPFL – even though none have the legal personality to own anything.
…which is strange.

APPENDIX II: HIRSUTEPURSUIT
March 1, 2017 at 23:32

I should add that LNS found The Rangers Football Club PLC (the owner and operator) guilty of offences that predate the creation, in 2005, of the definition of Clubs (with a capital C).
Even if you accept that Rangers FC (the Club with a capital C) can be separated from The Rangers Football Club PLC/RFC 2012 (the owner and operator) – which, to be clear, I do not – that distinction only came about in 2005.
So if there is guilt prior to 2005, that guilt lay with the club (with a lower case c).
LNS didn’t seem to spot the distinction.
…which is even stranger.

APPENDIX III: EASYJAMBO

March 2, 2017 at 08:01
My recollection of the change in the SPL and SFA rules on “Owner and Operator” was implemented in early 2006, as the SFA wished to sanction Vladimir Romanov for his comments, but couldn’t do so because he held no official post at the club (small “c”).
It was Vlad’s son Roman who was Hearts chairman at the time, although Vlad was the major shareholder. So feel free to blame Vlad for the change in the rules.
Hearts were fined £10,000 by the SFA for Vlad’s comments about referees in October 2006. The DR article below, suggests that the SFA rule change came into effect in May that year.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/h/heart

APPENDIX IV
(46) It will be recalled that in Article 2 “Club” is defined in terms of “the undertaking of an association football club”, and in Rule 11 it is defined in terms of an association football club which is, for the time being, eligible to participate in the League, and includes the owner and operator of such Club.

Taking these definitions together, the SPL and its members have provided, by contract, that a Club is an undertaking which is capable of being owned and operated.

While it no doubt depends on individual circumstances what exactly is comprised in the undertaking of any particular Club, it would at the least comprise its name, the contracts with its players, its manager and other staff, and its ground, even though these may change from time to time. In common speech a Club is treated as a recognisable entity which is capable of being owned and operated, and which continues in existence despite its transfer to another owner and operator. In legal terms, it appears to us to be no different from any other undertaking which is capable of being carried on, bought and sold. This is not to say that a Club has legal personality, separate from and additional to the legal personality of its owner and operator. We are satisfied that it does not, and Mr McKenzie did not seek to argue otherwise.

So a Club cannot, lacking legal personality, enter into a contract by itself. But it can be affected by the contractual obligations of its owner and operator. It is the Club, not its owner and operator, which plays in the League. Under Rule A7.1.1 the Club is bound to comply with all relevant rules. The Rules clearly contemplate the imposition of sanctions upon a Club, in distinction to a sanction imposed upon the owner or operator. That power must continue to apply even if the owner and operator at the time of breach of the Rules has ceased to be a member of the SPL and its undertaking has been transferred to another owner and operator.

While there can be no Question of subjecting the new owner and operator to sanctions, there are sanctions Which could be imposed in terms of the Rules which are capable of affecting the Club as a continuing entity (even though not an entity with legal personality), and which thus might affect the interest of the new owner and operator in it. For these reasons we reject the arguments advanced in paragraphs 2 and 9 of the list of preliminary issues.

About the author

Allyjambo author

What it says on the tin. My name is Ally. I am a Jambo in exile

1,483 Comments so far

StevieBCPosted on4:06 pm - Mar 31, 2017


Well whilst we await the SC decision…

You would think that the SFA blazers would have their contingency plan agreed ?

If the SC upholds the ruling, then Rangers cheated and had an unfair sporting advantage for x years.

The logical follow up is of course: what about those honours won by Rangers during that period ?

It wouldn’t have become a hot topic if the SFA/SPFL and SMSM correctly recognised TRFC as a new club.

But with their implicit – and explicit – support of the current ‘Rangers’ as being the same club and which claims these honours as their own – then they will have to address this issue which is significant to many Scottish football supporters across the country.

Trying to ignore this is just going to cause a never ending sense of mistrust and anger against the SFA and TRFC in particular.
“Moving on” will be forever stalled, IMO.

So, to try and take control of the narrative, you would think that the SFA would have a master plan to counter a SC verdict upholding the illegality of Rangers’ tax arrangements ?

Like: UEFA ‘has informed’ the SFA that they can’t strip honours from a ‘holding company’ which is being liquidated ?  
Or: the SFA has no rules in its constitution to strip titles [mibbees Auldheid could confirm ?]
Or: it’s not in the SFA’s remit to trip titles – and slopey shoulder it onto the SPFL.  The SPFL then claims that as the cheating happened in the SPL, it doesn’t have the jurisdiction to take any retroactive action.

Or some such tosh.

Then again, perhaps their well thought out strategy will be to just remain in the Hampden bunker – and wait it out ?

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on4:38 pm - Mar 31, 2017


easyJamboMarch 31, 2017 at 13:24
‘…The SFA have appointed a new “I am the SFA” representative to replace Darryl Broadfoot. It is Greig Mailer, …’
_____________
I wot not the man,eJ, but I note that he left his SPL ‘marketing and communications manager’job in 2010, before any of us ordinary folk thought that SDM was cheating all the other clubs in the SPL, and had been for years.

We have to assume that he too had no idea either of the fact  of , or the scale of, the cheating by SDM, or he would surely have blown the whistle at the time, wouldn’t he?

I think I might write to him to ask why he thinks it a good idea to move to work for a deceitful organisation that is living a lie and defending the idiotic idea that a club in Liquidation is actually still participating in professional  football!

His readiness to work for the SFA makes me think that he might very well be of the same mindset as his predecessor.

And the fact that Doncaster described him as having been ‘a star’ as part of the SPL management team is, to my mind, a dubious recommendation.

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on9:02 am - Apr 1, 2017


When the Podcast resumes on Monday/Tuesday week, I am hoping to add a fact check section in the programme. Actually we spoke about it a while ago – but the Independent beat us to it 🙂

 Obviously we could fill it every week with the nonsense, nomenclature and fake news surrounding TRFC.

However there will be other stuff concerning other clubs that escapes the filtering process. Clubs where there is a lot of stuff going on like Aberdeen with their new stadium, Hearts with the Tynie refurbishment etc.

if you see anything you think it just plain wrong, or which has been misreported due to lazy journalism, let’s start to make folk aware of that here.

SFM should be a forum for fans of all clubs to share their concerns with fans of other clubs – not just with like minded folk on fan sites.

View Comment

FisianiPosted on9:19 am - Apr 1, 2017


April is a momentous month for Sevco. Dave King ignoring the TAB and refusing to buy out shares. The Supreme Court ruling against the Oldclub liquidators.The 3 Amigos getting compensation and contracts upheld. Getting beaten twice in a week by Celtic. What more will happen?

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on9:40 am - Apr 1, 2017


Quick request folks about doing a click on the ads to investigate the wonderful bargains contained therein 🙂

It really can help with the funding, so if you have a few seconds, please get busy.

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on9:43 am - Apr 1, 2017


Great contribution to OCNC debate AJ. I agree that a return to the topic is worthwhile occasionally. A good common-sense approach too, although i am sure some may disagree 🙂

View Comment

valentinesclownPosted on10:32 am - Apr 1, 2017


Great article AJ.  This OCNC has always got to be addressed as it is IMO the most important issue of a fan (the club’s history). Any other club and we would not be having this nonsense. Fans outside Ibrox believe they are new club for it is factually true. What is also factually true is the lengths our smsm and football authorities will go to  not actually say “The Rangers are a new club”.  We always have to push this for if we do not the sport becomes a mockery (close to it now imo). There must be fans of the Ibrox club who deep down know (but will never publicly say) they are a new club.  There will also be other fans of the WATP type who will force the lie that they are same club (and they openly say this). Our cowardly approach by the SFA and smsm feed the second opinion and this is what really hacks me of, the WATP mantra grows as a result of this. 
This could not happen in any other country with any other club, so why here and why with this club.  If you know your history may be the answer.

View Comment

EastwoodPosted on10:33 am - Apr 1, 2017


It’s been 5 years since the RFC meltdown and – to any honest observer – the following facts should be unarguable:

1. The Law and public record will ALWAYS show TRFC plc was liquidated.

2. Sevco fans will NEVER cease to believe their club is old Rangers FC as was.

3. Rival fans will NEVER cease to remind them Rangers died.

4. The football authorities will NEVER cease to portray sevco as old Rangers FC (websites, promoting of games, so called “ex players”).

5. The media will NEVER cease to portray sevco as old Rangers FC (websites, promoting of games, so called “ex players”).

I will never grow tired of reiterating how cheating lost and a cheating club died, but beyond this personally cathartic experience, I don’t delude myself that anything wider – regarding the media or football authorities – can possibly be achieved.

View Comment

jimboPosted on11:54 am - Apr 1, 2017


On the face of it according to the fans of Ibrox they have won the war of OC/NC.  After all they have the backing of the SFA & SPFL.  The SMSM.  The National Public Broadcaster and some advertising regulator.  Not to forget LNS.

But if this is a victory it was a rather Pyrrhic one.

They are skint.
Dealing mainly in free transfers & loans.
Their stadium is crumbling.
The whole club/company is an omnishambles (see Fisiani’s post above).
Every week or so something new comes out to embarrass them. 
They are the laughing stock of most other clubs fans.
The threat of titles stripping has not yet gone away.

The point is they had the chance to start afresh as a New Club in 2012. Without the baggage. It was a badly run club under SDM, it still is.

Some day in the future Regan & Doncaster will be gone.  Maybe they will be replaced with clones.  Or maybe Ann Budge & Leanne Dempster. or anyone with integrity.

View Comment

jimboPosted on12:04 pm - Apr 1, 2017


Incidentally that was my one thousandth post above.  Apologies 12

God knows how many AJ, EJ JC  et. al. have posted!

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on12:21 pm - Apr 1, 2017


Yesterday was the deadline for clubs to apply to the SFA for a European Licence for next season. Does anyone believe the SFA will not put Rangers forward? 

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on2:08 pm - Apr 1, 2017


Not to interrupt the flow, but could I let gabby know I have pm’d him? I have another 4 weeks in Oz, and a bit of explaining to do which my phone texting limitations have not been able to overcome.03

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on2:45 pm - Apr 1, 2017


jimboApril 1, 2017 at 11:54
‘…On the face of it according to the fans of Ibrox they have won the war of OC/NC. After all they have the backing of the SFA & SPFL. The SMSM. The National Public Broadcaster and some advertising regulator. Not to forget LNS…’
________
And who can forget LNS?07

Adolf Hitler had the backing of Joe Stalin, of Benito Mussolini, of Vichy France, of Quisling, and lord ‘Haw-haw’, and Emperor Hirohito and all kinds of pretty unacceptable types.

That ‘backing’ could not, and did not, prevail against the simple truth.

There are, one must assume, many fans of the old, genuine, original, and, within its lights, honourable , Rangers Football Club, unhappily now languishing in the limbo of Liquidation,who, like me, had fathers or other family members, who actually did suffer/die for the Truth against those evil bast.rds.

The pity is, that they cannot see the parallel.

Their dads, uncles, grandfathers, were up against the same kind of people , i.e. truth benders and liars, as we in Scottish football have been are are still being faced with.

The fans of Ibrox are whistling in the dark.

They know their club died.

And that they were well and truly shafted by their one-time majority shareholder, and have been being shafted by every regime in control of the new Charles Green creation , originally Sevco 5088, suddenly SevcoScotland, and then TRFC.

Being backed by liars and deceivers and/or by convicted persons is no guarantee that one has the truth!

View Comment

aberdeen1970Posted on4:03 pm - Apr 1, 2017


Up the hoops – I see the Scottish Sun may have answered your question.  According to their article today the club will be put forward to participate in uefa football next season even if they don’t meet financial fair play criteria.  
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/807420/failure-to-meet-uefas-financial-fair-play-criteria-will-not-prevent-sfa-issuing-rangers-with-licence-to-play-in-europe/

View Comment

billyj1Posted on4:42 pm - Apr 1, 2017


Excellent post. Thanks for all the hard work.

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on5:07 pm - Apr 1, 2017


Anyone following the Twitter debate with David Leask? Very interesting.

View Comment

tonyPosted on5:26 pm - Apr 1, 2017


JEAN7BRODIE
he won’t answer anything though

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on5:53 pm - Apr 1, 2017


aberdeen1970April 1, 2017 at 16:03  
Up the hoops – I see the Scottish Sun may have answered your question.  According to their article today the club will be put forward to participate in uefa football next season even if they don’t meet financial fair play criteria.
 https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/807420/failure-to-meet-uefas-financial-fair-play-criteria-will-not-prevent-sfa-issuing-rangers-with-licence-to-play-in-europe/
=====================
I saw that on KDS and posted this:
Before a UEFA Licence can be issued Clubs must meet National Club licensing standards which are graded
Platinum, Gold, Silver Bronze and Entry
and in the Finance Category last season TRFC had a Silver level awarded (I know, but they did have audited accounts)).
This year unless they have audited accounts they should be looking for an Entry Level Licence where acceptance requires.
For a Limited Company:
The club shall be required to provide acopy of its annual financial statementswhich have been approved by theDirectors. The financial statementsshall consist of, as a minimum, a Profitand Loss Account and Balance Sheet.Approval shall be evidenced by theappropriate signatures on the face ofthe financial statements.
The last lot of “accounts” produced did not have a Profit and Loss Account and Balance sheet and The Directors of TRFC/RIFC and Chairman in particular are untrustwort5hy.
So are the SFA saying they trust what TRFC will produce because the last time they did that in 2011 history will show the SFA were lied to.
There is an interesting propaganda war being mounted via the media with regards to the facts around licensing which is discussed on previous SFM blog at
http://www.sfmonitor.org/towards-a-more-professional-sfa/?cid=155902 and the line that seems to be emerging is akin to pass the parcel.
UEFA are in effect saying that once a licence is granted by the national association then regardless of what emerges afterwards nothing will happen until the following season.
The SFA are saying that once they grant the licence based on assurances from the clubs that allow a national licence to be granted, and Regan has set the date as 31st March, the SFA are done and it is over to UEFA to monitor.
If that is the case the rules are worth shit as the gap between granting the licence (which in 2011 happened on 19th April not 31st March) and informing UEFA (which was 26th May 2011) allows a club to say anything to get the licence and with the help of a friendly national association they will, and not face the consequences of misleading the national association until the following year.
This “lacuna” between a licence being granted and UEFA being notified needs addressed as it is a convenient excuse (if it is what the rules actually mean) for the SFA to justify not doing their job.
This lacuna was drawn to UEFA’s attention by Res12 lawyer and if for no other reason than to plug the gap in their rules or plug the gap in Regan/SFA’s knowledge of them, UEFA should investigate.
What is needed is pressure from club chairpersons for a clear statement of guidance from the SFA setting out the process,  roles and responsibilities in a way that makes sense to supporters at large.
The difficulty the SFA/SPFL face is that no one trusts them or TRFC/RIFC to be honest and suspicion always fills the gap the loss of trust causes.
The problem UEFA and the SFA face is that their system is one of self certification and policing it, as is now necessary to reassure supporters of even handedness, will come at a cost, but against that there is a cost to the integrity of our game of doing nothing.

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on6:01 pm - Apr 1, 2017


tonyApril 1, 2017 at 17:26
__________________________________________________
Aye.

Matthew Leslie‏ @mattleslie74 2h2 hours ago   According to a Herald journalist, a football club can survive liquidation. But he’s not telling how “coz it’s a secret n’ that”. #shh 12 replies 27 retweets 70 likes       

View Comment

aberdeen1970Posted on6:10 pm - Apr 1, 2017


It’s an absolute shambles once again. The only long term answer is a complete restructuring of the governance of Scottish football.  The sfa must be removed and replaced with an independent and publicly accountable governing body. 

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on6:54 pm - Apr 1, 2017


StevieBCMarch 31, 2017 at 16:06
Or: the SFA has no rules in its constitution to strip titles mibbees Auldheid could confirm ?]
=========================
Because the LNS Commission found its genesis in the failure of RFC to provide side letter documents to the SFA when registering players, it was quite natural at the time when there was no ruling on the lawfulness  (one way or another) of ebts to look at the issue through the telescope of SFA Registration rules.
The belief at the time was that a natural consequence  of mis registration would be players were ineligible and a 3 point deduction would follow leading to loss of titles. As it turned out Bryson was able to say because the nature of ebts with side letters had not been finalised that once registered, even if imperfectly a player was not ineligible to play.
In fact he was only following a precedent from 2005 described here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/livingston/4602415.stm
where a player was incorrectly registered but SFA found no competitive advantage   for reasons in that particular case that seem reasonable. That ” reasonable” argument equivalent from LNS was that as other clubs could use ebts, no competitive advantage accrued as it was OK for all clubs to arrange their tax affairs within the law (a key phrase to revisit post SC Decision).
At the time in 2012 when there was a hoo ha for a Commission my position was that it was too hasty and that any investigation should wait until the lawfulness of ebts had been established as the real question here was were RFC paying players in the equivalent of an under the counter brown envelope kept secret from football authority?
Now there is an argument that one of the roles of the Registration Rules was to deter clubs from paying via brown envelopes but I don’t recall that case being made in the LNS Commission, certainly not in that language.
If the SC find for HMRC, making all ebts with side letters unlawful,  then the registration rules route  does not appear suitable to judge the wrong doing from 2000 to 2011. LNS himself said that only a fundamental defect would render a player ineligible.
There are no rules specifically addressing the fundamental defect which paying players by unlawful means constitutes,  but there would be an argument that the following SFA Article had been breached and it is fundamental to the wellbeing of the game.
5. Obligations and Duties of Members
5.1 All members shall:-
(a) observe the principles of loyalty, integrity and sportsmanship in accordance
with the rules of fair play;
(b) be subject to and shall comply with these Articles and any statutes,
regulations, directives, codes, decisions and International Match Calendar
promulgated by the Board, the Professional Game Board, the Non-
Professional Game Board, the Judicial Panel Protocol, a Committee or subcommittee,
FIFA, UEFA or the Court of Arbitration for Sport;
(c) recognise and submit to the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport
as specified in the relevant provisions of the FIFA Statutes and the UEFA
Statutes;
(d) respect the Laws of the Game;
(e) refrain from engaging in any activity, practice or conduct which would
constitute an offence under sections 1, 2 or 6 of the Bribery Act 2010; and
(f) behave towards the Scottish FA and other members with the utmost good
faith.

 http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/ScottishFAPublications2012-13/SFA_HANDBOOK_53-136_Articles_of_Association.pdf

View Comment

goosygoosyPosted on10:30 pm - Apr 1, 2017


From poster on JJ site
Fri 31 March 2017
http://www.sharenet.co.za/v3/sens_display.php?tdate=20170331120000&seq=40
Dave King executive chairman resigns from SA based Micromega Holdings in which he has majority control  
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
A wee look at Co House indicates that
So far DCK hasn`t registered any resignation as Director of their London based subsidiary, Micromega Holdings Ltd ( Co No 10177274)
If he is intending to renege on the instruction of the Takeover Panel due to be actioned by 13 April then he might as well resign from the UK subsidiary as it will be cold shouldered as long as he is a Director
On the other hand
DCK could simply be freeing up time to come to the UK to buy out the minority shareholders of RIFC and maybe provide Pedro with the fabled war chest he talked about during the fateful takeover in March 2015
Because
For all we know this UK subsidiary could be the vehicle for legally repatriating tax paid profits from SA in order to make UK investments.
and where better to invest than the Ibrox money pit?

View Comment

woodsteinPosted on12:01 am - Apr 2, 2017


Auldheid
April 1, 2017 at 18:54
“with the utmost good faith.”
===============================================
Brings back memories of  Insurance Law and Claims, where it was referred to as
Uberrima fides in all the textbooks. (It was also in short supply there too.)05

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on11:53 am - Apr 2, 2017


Up the hoops – I see the Scottish Sun may have answered your question. According to their article today the club will be put forward to participate in uefa football next season even if they don’t meet financial fair play criteria. https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/807420/failure-to-meet-uefas-financial-fair-play-criteria-will-not-prevent-sfa-issuing-rangers-with-licence-to-play-in-europe/
==============================

Muddy waters which of course allows the SFA to throw Rangers an advantage.  

View Comment

bad capt madmanPosted on12:46 pm - Apr 2, 2017


Up the hoops –
Is there a provision for meeting all football debts for the European licence? What about the Ibrox 3’s legal claim? Does that need to be ruled on before UEFA would consider it a factor? or does the SFA have discretion there too??

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on1:43 pm - Apr 2, 2017


UPTHEHOOPSAPRIL 2, 2017 at 11:53
Are the SFA saying failure to meet Uefa’s Financial Fair Play criteria will NOT prevent the SFA from issuing trfc (if trfc are the one’s applying for a licence) with a licence to play in Europe.
If trfc are issued with a licence,And only then “Only once a club has a License and enters a Uefa club competition will they fall within the club monitoring regime.”
And if that club monitoring regime confirms the club is failing to meet Uefa’s Financial Fair Play criteria. Rangers are at risk of falling foul of Uefa rules and could face a hefty fine or even a ban.
What a dillema for the SFA. issue a licence and then the club could face a fine or a ban.
could this be a big pass the buck and let’s the SFA say well we did our bit but UEFA look on it differently.
or am i way off the mark?

View Comment

jimboPosted on3:36 pm - Apr 2, 2017


02041519

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on3:57 pm - Apr 2, 2017


goosygoosyApril 1, 2017 at 22:30
_______
Your post sent me to have a wee look at Micromega stuff, and  the possible reasons for the changes in their Board.
It’s interesting that on 17th March, Micromega were censured and fined by the J’burg Stock Exchange, and have stated on that same day that they will appeal against that censure and fine.
This  is from http://irhosted.profiledata.co.za/micromega/senspopup.aspx?id=286862

“MICROmega – censure imposed by the JSE17 March 2017 7:08The JSE Ltd. (“JSE”) hereby informs stakeholders of the following findings in respect of the Company:1. The JSE has found the Company to be in breach of paragraph 5.69 of the JSE Listings Requirements for the purchase of its shares from two counter parties without the required specific authority to do so and during a closed period i.e. the date from the expiration of the six month period of a financial year up to the date of publication of the interim results.a. As announced by the Company on SENS on 19 June 2015, the purchases comprised of:- 1 995 134 shares repurchased on 11 April 2013 from Mr W Friedland at 250.00 cents per share;- 1 806 281 shares repurchased on 18 July 2013 from Mr W Friedland at 220.00 cents per share; and- 318 302 shares repurchased on 19 August 2013 from Mr B Carolin at an average price of 305.52 cents per share.b. The shares were acquired by the Company in terms of a general repurchase authority granted by its shareholders. Despite such repurchases having been effected through the order book operated by the JSE trading system, a prior understanding or arrangement between the Company and the counter parties existed, contrary to the provisions of paragraph 5.72(a) of the Listings Requirements.c. The repurchase of shares from the counter parties with prior understanding or arrangement is classified as a specific repurchase in terms of paragraph 5.69 of the Listings Requirements for which shareholder approval by way of a special resolution should have been obtained.
2. The JSE has also found the Company to be in breach of paragraph 5.72(h) of the Listings Requirements for the purchase of an additional 224 863 shares between the period of 16 July 2013 and 20 September 2013 during a closed period, without a share repurchase programme in place. The JSE has decided to impose this public censure against the Company as well as a public fine in the amount of R1 000 000 (one million rand) of which R500 000 (five hundred thousand rand) is suspended for a period of twelve months in relation to the above mentioned breaches of the Listings Requirements.
The Company disseminated the relevant information pertaining to the transgressions by way of SENS announcements and a circular to Micromega shareholders.”

“MICROmega – JSE censure17 March 2017 13:31Shareholders are referred to the SENS announcement made by the JSE on 17 March 2017. The Company wishes to advise shareholders of the following information: The JSE notified the Company of a public censure in respect of a breach of paragraphs 5.69 and 5.72(h) of the JSE Listings Requirements (“the Breach”) on 16 March 2017. The Breach relates to the specific repurchases which occurred almost four years ago, and were disclosed in the Statement By the Board in Respect Of Previous General and Specific Repurchases announcement released on SENS on 19 June 2015.
The JSE has been advised that the sanction will be opposed by the Company with an appeal to the FSB; The Breach had no impact on the Company’s shareholders as following the Company discovering the Breach a circular was sent to shareholders to approve the specific repurchases and at the resolution was passed by 100% of shareholder present and voting at the general meeting on 19 January 2016.
Of the total number of shares in question, 3 801 415 (88% of the shares) were in respect of a single corporate finance transaction, whereby the Company received the shares as proceeds for the sale of shares in one of its subsidiaries. The Company was of the opinion that this did not constitute a repurchase in terms of the JSE Listings Requirements. The remaining shares were acquired from a shareholder who had approached the Company indirectly to sell his total shareholding. The related repurchase occurred in a closed period that had erroneously not been identified by the Company as a result of a change in the financial year end of the Company.
The Company previously apologised to its shareholders for the aforementioned infringements in the SENS announcement and attempted to rectify the oversight by the issuing of the circular and allowing shareholders to vote on the repurchases, and views the latest SENS announcement by the JSE as ill-considered and will therefore be appealing the censure by the JSE. Shareholders will be advised of the outcome of the appeal.
MICROmega – board changes31 March 2017 12:05MICROmega announces the immediate implementation of the following restructuring of its board of directors (“the board”) to ensure that the company continues to pursue the evolving changes in corporate governance – both required and recommended – by the JSE and the King Commission:
Deborah Di Siena is appointed as Independent non executive chairperson of the board and relinquishes her present role as chair of the Audit Committee. Russell Dick is appointed as board Chief Operations Officer and relinquishes his present position as board Financial Director. Cornelia Kemp, previously board Financial Manager, is appointed as board Financial Director. Craig King, previously board executive – Strategic Finance, is appointed as board Director – Strategic Finance. Duncan Carlisle and Dave King have resigned as executive Director and executive chairperson respectively, to ensure the enhanced independence of the new board, however will continue to provide the support that they have previously contributed to the board.
The new structure has resulted in a clear majority of non executive directors on the board and an equal balance between Independent and non-independent directors with the Independent chairperson having a casting vote.”

Now, one does not need to know too much about share-dealing and Stock Exchanges to be able to reflect on the old saw which suggests that leopards cannot change their spots; or the other more modern observation  that points out that once a SAFA (even by ‘adoption’), always a SAFA!10

View Comment

Madbhoy24941Posted on6:43 pm - Apr 2, 2017


We have all been waiting for this acknowledgement for years….. The best ones are usually the ones that you cannot make up 10

View Comment

occamPosted on7:35 pm - Apr 2, 2017


So we have Charlie ‘the Scottish Football specialist’ spouting about the Champions not having to work hard blah blah blah and Keysy showing himself up in true ignorance of the facts.  T’was ever thus – let’s remember who won the Coronation Cup, the achievements of the Dundee teams, Aberdeen, even a club which no longer exists…, not to mention Lisbon 1967.  There are many more recent examples of our clubs ‘punching above their weight’ (no pun intended with reference to Manchester …) at home and abroad.
For all the claims of the EPL being the best in the world, how many english (small ‘e’ due to the high proportion of imported foreign players) teams have won the Champions League since Sky started to pour insane amounts of money into clubs which simply overinflated the transfer market?  How many times has England won a major trophy in the same time frame? How many of these clubs are operating on a truly sustainable basis?
Scottish football is on a more realistic and sustainable footing now than for many a year.  SMSM as usual, has only one agenda – get Sevco back to prominence or we’re all *ucked!
Don’t let the SMSM b…..*s get you down.
The truth will out!

View Comment

Higgy’s ShoesPosted on8:50 pm - Apr 2, 2017


Dont know if the cameras picked up the following. I doubt it as they would have been following the ball for Celtics second goal.

For everyones information

10 secs before the goal Michael Lustig was lying on the ground writhing in agony in the Celtic half, giving the universal sign that something was seriously wrong ie waving his hand in the air to attract attention.

When Celtic scored he jumped to his feet, gestured to the Hearts fans and ran away uninjured.

The online papers are already going overboard. Lustig has ball throw at him. Lustuig this, Lustig that.

Well Ill add one. Lustig cheated.

Having said that there is no excuse for fans throwing the ball at a player.

Anyway, congratulations to Celtic. The best team in Scotland by a mile. Even without their two main goalscorers they still took 5 off us.

Any different next season? I doubt it.

HS

View Comment

gunnerbPosted on9:18 pm - Apr 2, 2017


HIGGY’S SHOESAPRIL 2, 2017 at 20:50
______ __________
Don’t despair HS. Although today was a wake up call for Cathro and his non triers, I still think the management structure in place has merit. Cowie seemed to be one of the few who today really wanted to earn his corn even in the second half. Where do Hearts go from here? ..Ditch the loans and gamble on the youth system producing enough to keep the team in the top flight. It will need fan support and nerve and also blanking the smsm but I hope the club has the courage to try. I know there is a lot of investment into the ground and facilities upcoming and perhaps that is weighing heavily on the minds of those in power but the faith and backing demonstrated by Hearts fans deserves to be recognised and encouraged. Should Hearts fall from grace by giving youth a chance then the board should not be blamed and I doubt they will. As for Lustig then if he acted in such a manner then that would be disappointing given his recent comments about Neymar.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on10:05 pm - Apr 2, 2017


HIGGY’S SHOESAPRIL 2, 2017 at 20:50
I thought Hearts played well up until the first goal was scored then it looked as if some of the fight had been taken out of them. But a clinical display in finishing from celtic was the big difference

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on10:58 pm - Apr 2, 2017


I prefer not to talk about specific games and incidents here.

There are plenty of club specific sites to do that on.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on11:06 pm - Apr 2, 2017


Phil’s latest is the Glasgow Council reply to his FOI request re: Ibrox stadium.

A rather lengthy reply – to say “Naw!”.

And their novel interpretation of FOI exemption clauses has the sniff of a self-serving, ‘Bryson-type of thinking’ to justify the decision.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on11:24 pm - Apr 2, 2017


bad capt madmanApril 2, 2017 at 12:46  
Up the hoops –Is there a provision for meeting all football debts for the European licence? What about the Ibrox 3’s legal claim? Does that need to be ruled on before UEFA would consider it a factor? or does the SFA have discretion there too?
==================
Back in 2011 a similar situation existed iro outstanding payments due to Bain and McIntyre, who were dismissed under claims of improper behaviour or some other made up tosh. It was done to save money which was eventually paid out in a settlement.
Sound familiar?
This happened after Takeover but before 30 June, but no questions were raised by UEFA as it was explained to UEFA by RFC as being withheld due to the employee’s suspension.
Bain’s claim was not made until September so SFA would argue they had no reason to doubt what was said by RFC although you would have thought that when  Bain was suspended on 24th May 2011 some questions  would have been asked and certainly by 30 June a simple enquiry to Bain and RFC on receiving the 30th June submission would have been in order.

View Comment

EKloonPosted on11:50 pm - Apr 2, 2017


Well said Occam at 19.35.  Razor sharp as usual.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on12:20 am - Apr 3, 2017


Cluster OneApril 2, 2017 at 13:4314 Votes 
UPTHEHOOPSAPRIL 2, 2017 at 11:53 Are the SFA saying failure to meet Uefa’s Financial Fair Play criteria will NOT prevent the SFA from issuing trfc (if trfc are the one’s applying for a licence) with a licence to play in Europe. If trfc are issued with a licence,And only then “Only once a club has a License and enters a Uefa club competition will they fall within the club monitoring regime.”And if that club monitoring regime confirms the club is failing to meet Uefa’s Financial Fair Play criteria. Rangers are at risk of falling foul of Uefa rules and could face a hefty fine or even a ban. What a dillema for the SFA. issue a licence and then the club could face a fine or a ban. could this be a big pass the buck and let’s the SFA say well we did our bit but UEFA look on it differently. or am i way off the mark?
========================
Based on what has been reported by The Sun and STV that is a natural question to ask.
What that process suggests is that as long as the SFA issue a licence anything after that falls under UEFA monitoring and if any reason to sanction arise during the monitoring they will be applied in the following season under UEFA CFCB well established jurisprudence.
There may be practical reasons to apply sanctions the following season but the hazard here is that a club in desperate financial straits might be willing to misrepresent their position to the national association when applying for a licence and a national association, fearing the consequences of a licence not being granted, will be less than diligent in confirming what a club tells them.
This chances of not being caught out by UEFA are increased the greater the void between the SFA saying OK and UEFA being informed and according to what Regan told the BBC about the 2011 licence, the SFA were done with their responsibility on 31st March 2011. However  UEFA have confirmed the licence was granted on 19th April and UEFA informed on 26th May so the SFA do the three monkeys from 31st March and UEFA are blind until they are informed of licences granted at end of May! Pardon my cynicism but this is a very convenient interpretation by the SFA for the SFA but is it what UEFA intend?
Only UEFA can confirm if this is their intent, but common sense suggests that it is the SFA’s responsibility to be certain when they submit the list of licences granted, that nothing has happened since 31st March to ensure the basis on which a licence is granted has not changed.
There was a great deal happening between the 31st March and 26thMay 2011 that it seems it is no ones responsibility to look into and who knows what will happen to TRFC/RIFC between now and when UEFA start monitoring, like it being confirmed the three employees are owed money from before 31st March and their dismissal was a ruse to avoid payment?
I’m not even sure if provision for outstanding payments to Warburton and Co has been made in any form of accounts submitted to the SFA that would allow them to tell UEFA when sending the list of licences granted that there is a dispute. 

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:25 am - Apr 3, 2017


HOMUNCULUSAPRIL 2, 2017 at 22:58   
I prefer not to talk about specific games and incidents here.
There are plenty of club specific sites to do that on.

I agree. For the record I don’t like posts about the IndyRef either. I note one is on the board. I really can’t see why there should be anything about that on here. 

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:28 am - Apr 3, 2017


AULDHEIDAPRIL 3, 2017 at 00:20
Thanks for reply

View Comment

Madbhoy24941Posted on8:06 am - Apr 3, 2017


upthehoopsApril 3, 2017 at 07:25

Take the blinkers off UTH, it was not a post about politics. It was an attempt at humour because the headline has the term ‘GERS’, nothing to do with The Rangers but is very relevant taken in the context of this whole charade.
I never even read the story, I just saw the headline on ‘Newsnow’ and thought “Wow, a game changer”, until I saw what it was really about.
For record, I saved the screenshot as a picture so there would be no automatic link to the political story.

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on10:10 am - Apr 3, 2017


Madbhoy24941April 3, 2017 at 08:06
Correct, and I thought it was funny12 No offence taken.

View Comment

Higgy’s ShoesPosted on12:39 pm - Apr 3, 2017


HOMUNCULUS and UTH.

I beg to differ!

Exposing CHEATING should not be something left to club specific sites

This is THE SCOTTISH FOOTBALL FORUM Isn’t that our raison d’etre?

ALL cheating within Scottish football should be exposed and discussed on this site.

You will, of course, be quite happy that we have been discussing other forms of cheating 
over the last 20 years.

CHEATING IS CHEATING IS CHEATING. No degrees or shades of grey.

HS
ps. I think everyone will have already worked out why you are aggrieved.

View Comment

tangoedPosted on1:13 pm - Apr 3, 2017


HIGGY’S SHOES
APRIL 3, 2017 at 12:39
 
CHEATING IS CHEATING IS CHEATING. No degrees or shades of grey.
——————————————————————————————————-
Agreed..so when are Hearts going to hand back that scottish cup they won using money from bumping their creditors..

View Comment

shugPosted on1:53 pm - Apr 3, 2017


Dont know if the cameras picked up the following.  I doubt it as they would have been following the ball for Celtics second goal.(Yes the cameras did pick it up fortunately.) 
For everyones information
10 secs before the goal Michael Lustig was lying on the ground writhing in agony in the Celtic half, giving the universal sign that something was seriously wrong ie waving his hand in the air to attract attention.(Lustig at that point had just been fouled that is beyond dispute for me it was caught on camera was it a bad foul well I would have booked the offending player.)
When Celtic scored he jumped to his feet, gestured to the Hearts fans and ran away uninjured.(Cannot comment as this wasn’t shown.)
The online papers are already going overboard. Lustig has ball throw at him. Lustuig this, Lustig that.
Well Ill add one. Lustig cheated. Was Lustig cheating then I doubt it I suggest  maybe have a wee look at it as Lustig was fouled after he played the ball away I would add that I have watched the incident numerous times since it was mentioned and of course only my opinion but I believe the hearts player knew he wasn’t getting the ball but followed through anyway. Of course this is just my opinion and I may be seeing it through Hibs coloured glasses.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on2:00 pm - Apr 3, 2017


HIGGY’S SHOES
APRIL 3, 2017 at 12:39
==========================================

One of the good things about this place is that it tends to try to avoid “whataboutery”.

You decided to mention one specific incident from one specific game, which you now clearly have decided is cheating. What do we do now, look at other incidents in the same game and I say I consider that was cheating. Do we go onto other times the two sides have played and then decide if that was cheating. Do we decide if refereeing decisions, or decisions by the linesman was cheating.

Do we discuss administration and what that represents, club’s coming out of a CVA not having paid all of the money they owed their creditors, is that cheating as well. Do we discuss spending beyond their means and winning things whilst doing it. Do we discuss debt for equity swaps and a chairman doing it and ending up owning the vast bulk of the club by swapping millions of debt for shares. 

Or do we discuss a club whose debt was around £35m prior to such swaps taking place, does that represent systematic cheating. 

It all seems very familiar.

View Comment

Higgy’s ShoesPosted on2:11 pm - Apr 3, 2017


TANGOED:

Yep. Agreed.

So, lets have a great Truth and Reconciliation event.

Rangers we know about.

Hearts we know about.

Lets discuss Celtics 10 to 20,000 “missing” fans per game (uncounted therefore monies untaxed) from the 60s and 70s.

Lets look at all the points accrued by Motherwell, Dundee (twice), Livingston during periods of administration (Didn’t they shaft their creditors?).

Lets look at the way Hibs held back over 300 tickets for the recent cup-tie v Hearts at Tynecastle and then charged (cheated) their own fans by charging nearly £80 for a “corporate package”. Ticket for the match, £30, bus to Tynie (£1.60 if you had used Lothian Buses…and one way only..no bus back to Easter Rd), a breakfast worth about about £5 and 2 drinks at Easter Rd before boarding the bus. That’s the equivalent of approx £20 a drink). I was in Sloane Square in London recently where they were wanting, in comparison, only £10.75 for a bottle of Bud. 

All of it CHEATING!

So yeah, lets discuss EVERYTHING

HS

Remember, everytime one of your players puts his hand in the air to claim a throw that they know is not theirs is a CHEAT.

PPS

One of the great scandals of the last 4 years was my teams signing of Craig Beattie. This should never have been allowed.
We signed him and then couldn’t pay his wages that month. Other sides wanted to sign him, St Mirren being one I think). More cheating

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on2:23 pm - Apr 3, 2017


HIGGY’S SHOESAPRIL 3, 2017 at 14:11
Lets discuss Celtics 10 to 20,000 “missing” fans per game (uncounted therefore monies untaxed) from the 60s and 70s.

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

I would be interested in seeing your proof of this as it is a serious allegation, hopefully it isn’t “Everyone knows they were doing it”.

View Comment

tangoedPosted on2:27 pm - Apr 3, 2017


HIGGY’S SHOES
APRIL 3, 2017 at 14:11

Lets discuss Celtics 10 to 20,000 “missing” fans per game (uncounted therefore monies untaxed) from the 60s and 70s.
—————————————————————————————

Ever since the beginnings of the RTC blog,i have seen this allegation loads of times,what i haven’t seen is any supporting evidence to go with it.

You got any.

View Comment

Higgy’s ShoesPosted on2:40 pm - Apr 3, 2017


Homunculus

Back in the 70s I used to attend c V h games at Parkhead.
When the crowd was announced you would hear the Celtic fans laughing.
These were guys who had been going to Celtic Park all their life and knew the difference between say a 50,000 crowd  and that which the Celtic announcer told them were at the game. Ive just phoned 2 Celtic orientated mates to get their perspective. Both were scathing of those days and agree with what I posted.
One of them (remember, a Celtic fan) also told me that Celtic were the last or at least one of the last professional clubs in UK to use computerised turnstiles (This, of course predated McCann).

We have slaughtered other clubs (or should I say another club) with less evidence that that.

HS

View Comment

tangoedPosted on2:48 pm - Apr 3, 2017


HIGGY’S SHOES
APRIL 3, 2017 at 14:40
——————————————–
That would be a no then…

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on2:49 pm - Apr 3, 2017


HIGGY’S SHOESAPRIL 3, 2017 at 14:40 
We have slaughtered other clubs (or should I say another club) with less evidence that that.
============================================

I’m sorry but that is absolutely not the case.

You have provided no evidence at all other than a guess by yourself and hearsay based on a question relating to events from 40 years ago. That is little better than the “Everyone knows they were doing it”

There is absolute undeniable evidence that Rangers cheated. They have been found guilty of it and received a substantial fine.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on3:03 pm - Apr 3, 2017


MADBHOY24941APRIL 3, 2017 at 08:06  

upthehoopsApril 3, 2017 at 07:25
Take the blinkers off UTH, it was not a post about politics. It was an attempt at humour because the headline has the term ‘GERS’, nothing to do with The Rangers but is very relevant taken in the context of this whole charade.I never even read the story, I just saw the headline on ‘Newsnow’ and thought “Wow, a game changer”, until I saw what it was really about.For record, I saved the screenshot as a picture so there would be no automatic link to the political story.

Apologies mate. I sometimes despair of social media with regard to the IndyRef and I just didn’t want this place to go the same way. 

View Comment

gerrybhoy67Posted on3:06 pm - Apr 3, 2017


Good Afternoon All – Let’s remember there are some fans other than sevco ones really hurting just now and they do what most people in that situation would do they lash out at you and scratch at their old wounds – don’t engage and he will go away.

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on4:46 pm - Apr 3, 2017


https://www.unlockthelaw.co.uk/corporate-insolvency-and-football-clubs.html#rangers
Interesting04

View Comment

billyj1Posted on5:09 pm - Apr 3, 2017


I quote “sold the history”.  O they didn’t.
Article written 2 years ago and in parts is factually incorrect imo.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on5:35 pm - Apr 3, 2017


BILLYJ1
APRIL 3, 2017 at 17:09

The historic football club, Rangers Football Club plc, formally ceased to exist when liquidation was completed and the assets of the club sold to Sevco Scotland Ltd. A new body has been formed which uses a similar name as its historic predecessor, but whether this new firm is a continuation of it is subject to debate.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on5:37 pm - Apr 3, 2017


TANGOEDAPRIL 3, 2017 at 14:27       10 Votes 
HIGGY’S SHOESAPRIL 3, 2017 at 14:11
Lets discuss Celtics 10 to 20,000 “missing” fans per game (uncounted therefore monies untaxed) from the 60s and 70s.—————————————————————————————
Ever since the beginnings of the RTC blog,i have seen this allegation loads of times,what i haven’t seen is any supporting evidence to go with it.
You got any.
——————————
HIGGY’S SHOESAPRIL 3, 2017 at 14:40       12 Votes 
Homunculus
Back in the 70s I used to attend c V h games at Parkhead.When the crowd was announced you would hear the Celtic fans laughing.These were guys who had been going to Celtic Park all their life and knew the difference between say a 50,000 crowd  and that which the Celtic announcer told them were at the game.
——————-
I can’t speak for anyone else but back in the 70s when the crowd was announced, and that which the Celtic announcer told us that was there at the game. we knew there were more fans there than what was announced. We (me and about eight friends) knew this as we sneaked in got a lift err,Doubled up,and crawled under.These fans (me and my mates) were unacounted as we did not pay in.Celtic could only announce the number of paying customers. Therefore there was no money to be taxed.from the many fans who did not pay in.

Back in the 70s there was not just me and my mates getting a lift err, doubled up or crawled under there was many more.

View Comment

tonyPosted on5:44 pm - Apr 3, 2017


CLUSTER ONE
aye all the young ones got a lifty 01

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on5:57 pm - Apr 3, 2017


jean7brodieApril 3, 2017 at 16:46 (Edit) 
https://www.unlockthelaw.co.uk/corporate-insolvency-and-football-clubs.html#rangers Interesting
____________________

Quite a contrary paragraph/summing up here, with the part I’ve highlighted in bold more or less contradicted by the part that follows:

‘Rangers FCs liquidation allowed for the clubs ‘business, history and assets’ to be sold off. This is precisely what happened, and was sold to Sevo Scotland Ltd. The historic football club, Rangers Football Club plc, formally ceased to exist when liquidation was completed and the assets of the club sold to Sevco Scotland Ltd. A new body has been formed which uses a similar name as its historic predecessor, but whether this new firm is a continuation of it is subject to debate.’

I do wish that anyone writing in a (pseudo) legal way would justify any statements that are not covered by legal facts or precedents! How on earth did Rangers FC’s liquidation allow for anything that any other liquidation (of any other football club or company, of any description) didn’t allow, and if it did, why no explanation? Surely, if this piece was in any way worth publishing, then this strange anomaly would be well worth the writer’s time to investigate and explain! But we know why no one has ever explained, or even attempted to explain, how ‘Rangers history’, or any history, could possibly be sold or purchased.

As I said previously, however, it’s the ‘facts’ that matter, and here are the factual utterances from that piece. Note that they don’t mention the sale of history!

‘The financial affairs of football clubs are treated no differently to that of normal companies by the law.
The administrator of a football club has the same role(s) as the administrator of any other business,
The administrators role is to rescue the club ‘as a going concern’
The role of the administrator is set out very strictly in law – they must abide by very rigid rules.
Most clubs have benefitted from the appointment of an administrator and gone on to financial viability.’

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on6:00 pm - Apr 3, 2017


TONYAPRIL 3, 2017 at 17:44
Don’t know of any kid at school who was going to the game with their dads who were not getting a lifty

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on6:10 pm - Apr 3, 2017


ALLYJAMBOAPRIL 3, 2017 at 17:57
‘Rangers FCs liquidation allowed for the clubs ‘business, history and assets’ to be sold off. This is precisely what happened, and was sold to Sevo Scotland Ltd.
—————
would just love to know were i can buy some history and claim it as my own

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on6:11 pm - Apr 3, 2017


ALLYJAMBO
APRIL 3, 2017 at 17:57
=========================

I think the point most people forget is that the job of the administrator is to save the Limited Company in administration, it is not to save the business it carries out.

The three Administration statutory purposes (or required outcomes) are:
 
 – Rescuing the company as a going concern. (Note: this purpose is to rescue the company as opposed to rescuing the business undertaken by the company.)
 
 – Or, achieving a better result for the company’s creditors as a whole than would be likely if the company were wound up (without first being in administration).
 
 – Or, realising property to make a distribution to one or or more secured or preferential creditors.

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on6:18 pm - Apr 3, 2017


AllyjamboApril 3, 2017 at 17:57

Well I did say ‘Interesting’02!!!!!

View Comment

bfbpuzzledPosted on6:30 pm - Apr 3, 2017


Interesting picture at the top of this blog. The Bugatti at the left is universally regarded as authentic Volkswagen bought the history of the dead company… The one on the right looks authentic but might be an Argentinian reproduction which is identical to the original 1930s original down to each bolt yet not regarded as genuine nor purported to be so.
I was impressed by the reaction of a player at one of this weekend’s games when a supporter threw the ball into his midriff at close range there was no over reaction or other potentially incendiary response. That is a player with a history of injuries which often lead to long periods out who had earlier in that game been fouled heavily I believe.
Clyde could slip into oblivion this season…dearly me.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on6:39 pm - Apr 3, 2017


Higgy’s ShoesApril 3, 2017 at 14:11

There are a number of issues raised in your post and I’ll start with the one in which the final answer will ultimately lie which is  Truth and Reconciliation. I wrote about it in March 2011 at
http://celticunderground.net/nothing-to-see-here-timmy-move-on/
and Id urge everyone to read it because that is the road that needs to be travelled, but 6 years later we are not even at the starting blocks, in fact we haven’t even got the gutties on.
The blog was picked up by the RC Church and put to their Parliamentary adviser but sadly the feedback was those of an opposite persuasion don’t know what gutties are. I paraphrase of course but T & R was and is an idea ahead of its time, but that does not mean it will always be. Ecclesiastes and all that.
A key point in that article was the acceptance of wrongdoing as a precursor, the “Truth” part of Reconciliation, and what has happened through the lens of Scottish football since 2011/12 is denial that any real wrong took place. The wrong has been diluted to a series of clerical errors running over 10 years and a fine handed out.
The actual wrong has been the breaking of trust on which the regulations, as they currently stand, depend. Until such times as it is accepted that trust was broken by dishonesty and the consequences realised, there can be no reconciliation.
But what is the truth? It is what everyone ultimately accepts was true, the wrongdoer and the victims, and for that to happen the truth has to be evidence based. That evidence exists and only the failure of it to reach main stream for reasons that will evaporate in the summer, has stopped it being used before now.
What that truth will reveal is cultural dishonesty. Res 12 to Celtic only asked UEFA to look at the 2011 Licensing because of evidence that suggested dishonesty. Nothing more, nothing less . Like peeling an onion its been an eye watering experience but three and a half years have not yet produced the truth. Note the “yet”. Honesty demands dishonesty is exposed for then and only then can the movement to reconciliation begin.
The wrongdoing will become clear and the victims will be on both sides of the divide, but in different ways when the truth sets everyone free.
On the wider aspect of cheating:
You list a number of ” wrongdoings” without evidence, but what makes what RFC did the biggie is that whilst Celtic Directors (and others) allegedly may have cheated the taxman in the past, they did not do so to the benefit of Celtic FC (the reverse some of us who lived with the crumbs from the biscuit tin might say) something that cannot be said of RFC.
EBTS gave them competitive advantage when hiring players (that manifested itself on the field of play), which is what SDM intended as he told the FTT in 2011.

Page 125
Q. I’m just going to ask you a few questions, Sir David.
18 When I ask them, could you direct the answers to the
19 Tribunal.
20 A. Certainly.
21 Q. Because they want to hear what you’re going to say. If
22 we can go to the remuneration trust.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And its operation. Would you describe it or would you
25 not as a tax avoidance scheme?
 
Page 126
1 A. No, not at all. I think it was a method of us
2 acquiring, especially football wise, better players in a
3 more cost effective manner than we would be able do so.
4 In the football world, we’re in a very competitive game
5 and you’re competing with players and countries all
6 around the world. And we were very ambitious at that
7 time. And it was seen as a correct and proper way for
8 us to proceed.
 
Page 126
 
21 Q. As regards football players, was it a success in getting
22 good football players, do you think?
23 A. As a club, we have been very successful, because we’ve
24 been able to attract players of a certain standard that,
25 perhaps, we may not have been able to do otherwise.”

So there has to be a distinction made between the different types of cheating at play in the pursuit of justice and deterrence as well as reconciliation.
 

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on6:52 pm - Apr 3, 2017


HomunculusApril 3, 2017 at 18:11 (Edit) 
ALLYJAMBO APRIL 3, 2017 at 17:57 =========================
I think the point most people forget is that the job of the administrator is to save the Limited Company in administration, it is not to save the business it carries out.
The three Administration statutory purposes (or required outcomes) are:   – Rescuing the company as a going concern. (Note: this purpose is to rescue the company as opposed to rescuing the business undertaken by the company.)    – Or, achieving a better result for the company’s creditors as a whole than would be likely if the company were wound up (without first being in administration).    – Or, realising property to make a distribution to one or or more secured or preferential creditors.
_________________

And again, what you say is factual, not unsubstantiated opinion. The ‘history sale’ has never been substantiated or explained, it was an invention of a man known to tell lies to further his business plans, yet still ‘he bought the history’ gets spouted!

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on6:54 pm - Apr 3, 2017


jean7brodieApril 3, 2017 at 18:18 (Edit) 
AllyjamboApril 3, 2017 at 17:57
Well I did say ‘Interesting’ !!!!!

You certainly did, Jean, and you were not wrong 19

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on6:59 pm - Apr 3, 2017


ALLYJAMBO
APRIL 3, 2017 at 18:52

“…it was an invention of a man known to tell lies to further his business plans…”
=============================================

And once again we are back to keeping the bits you want and discarding the bits you don’t.

Believing the bits you want, discarding the bits you don’t.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEkbSD56hlY

View Comment

gunnerbPosted on10:12 pm - Apr 3, 2017


So Glasgow city council state they are unwilling to release any details regarding health and safety as it may put the health and safety of the public at risk..Joseph Heller springs to mind.

View Comment

jimboPosted on11:49 pm - Apr 3, 2017


Remember the days of parking around Celtic Park “Watch your car for you mate?”  Couple of pounds.  Seems Glasgow City Council are about to put a ban on parking around the stadium and likewise Ibrox. What is the alternative? What is the solution?  Honest question, does anyone know?

View Comment

jimboPosted on12:46 am - Apr 4, 2017


If I was rich man. 17

And I was a Civil Engineer. 

At the same time as Celtic were building a lovely big hotel adjacent I would ‘build’ a 6 storey underground car park for thousands of visitors.  £5 for Celtic supporters (3 hours) £8 pounds for other supporters (3 hours) and £10 pounds for Ibrox supporters per half hour).  Just to cover the extra security required fot toilet security.  02  Only kidding bears, having a jolly.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on3:02 am - Apr 4, 2017


Easy Jambo
Remember that STV article of last November you pointed out stating how TRFC might get a licence?
https://stv.tv/sport/football/1374309-explained-will-rangers-need-approval-to-play-in-europe/
Well I came across this one from STV  from 3 April 2012 when a licence was refused  
https://stv.tv/sport/football/clubs/rangers/302538-rangers-will-not-get-uefa-club-licence-insist-scottish-fa/ and this:
” It is understood however that clubs do not even apply to the Scottish FA for a licence. Instead, the powers that be at Hampden assess the suitability of all potential European competitors based on the information they submit in their application for a national licence, as well as any additional paperwork sent in required to meet UEFA criteria.”
which is not about meeting break even AFTER a licence is granted but about obtaining a licence in the first place and it suggests that meeting national club licensing standards is not by itself enough to be granted a license, which makes sense as the standard there is lower than UEFA require but might have offered the SFA a loophole.
The Art 47 referred to in April 2012 article says annual financial statements must be audited by an independent auditor as defined in Annex V but if it is Interim Accounts under Art 48 the same requirement applies.
Have financial statements that meet the auditing criteria UEFA demand been provided? Obtaining a licence seems to depend on that although there may be other criteria as yet unknown that need to be met.
My view is that apart from meeting audit criteria the SFA should be looking at what UEFA would be asking for under break even rules and asking what was covered previously at
http://www.sfmonitor.org/towards-a-more-professional-sfa/?cid=155902
which is – is it permissible for TRFC/RIFC to include forecast UEFA income to meet break even at some point in the future when other clubs applying are not dependent on UEFA income currently and are already operating sustainably with no break even problems?

View Comment

jockybhoyPosted on8:32 am - Apr 4, 2017


If a player, let’s say Joe DooDoo buys a shirt previously worn by Alistair “Ally” McCoist and changes his name to Alistair “Ally” McCoist and plays for a team in blue at Ibrox calling itself a form of Rangers, would the crowd believe him to be the same colossus that bestrode Scottish football in an earlier century, but is now retired? That this new Ally’s goals would be added to that of the previous incarnation in record books? Nope, that would be stupid.

Verily I say, though Sevco buys some assets from the Rangers, changes its name and plays in blue at Ibrox, calling itself a form of Rangers, should the crowd believe the team to be the same colossus that bestrode Scottish football in an earlier century, but is now in liquidation? That any new glories (ahem) would be added to those of the previous incarnation in the record books? Nope that would be stupid.

As for Higgy’s boots wee teacuppy storm, I’d say he posted in haste, in a tough place having watched his team get soundly beaten, at home, for the championship, and he’s doubled down when challenged. If I was him though, I’d stay away from conversations about Celtic employees being assaulted by Hearts fans at Tynecastle.
Give him a wee bit of time to get over Sunday, some peace and quiet, and the wounds will heal – let’s not chase anyone away from this site, which purports to be inclusive.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on9:30 am - Apr 4, 2017


JIMBOAPRIL 4, 2017 at 00:46
If I was rich man.
And I was a Civil Engineer.
   ————————————————————————
   I doubt going underground would be a feasible option so close to the Clyde Jimbo…..Most likely you would be looking at a 6 storey underground fish-tank,  
    Until it is known what the public transport infra-structure can support, and the actual capacity of car-park required, there is no point proceeding with anything. 
   Any suggestions before understanding the needs may not meet demands. 
   However I think a combination of methods most likely, including improving public transport, and maybe the introduction of a matchday park and ride scheme, along with traffic light timing controls on a wider scale to manage the peaks and troughs
   A bus-park on the old training ground behind the social club may be a cheap option, and a dedicated drop and collect point for the elderly and infirm closer to the stadium is a must. 
   It’s a complex scenario, and I doubt one idea would suffice. A raft of measures seems the most likely solution.
   One of the most important of which, may be the introduction of regular kick-off times to enable all the services to coordinate better, and lroviding local residents with at least a regular schedule of when they can expect heavy flows. 

View Comment

Comments are closed.