A Blog by James Forrest for TSFM
I am a socialist, and as a socialist I believe in the fundamental goodness of people. Some people find that hard to believe when they read the stuff I write.
I published my first novel recently, on politics and the corrupting nature of it, and it is a deeply cynical book, a book where no-one has clean hands come the end. What has surprised some of those who’ve read it is that I didn’t focus on the lies and smears of the right, but the hypocrisy and deceit of those who claim to be of the left.
Corruption, you see, doesn’t respect political boundaries or points of view. It’s like rainwater. It finds every crack, and gets in there.
My political beliefs revolve around two apparently paradoxical elements; the belief in the inherent decency of people and the need for a strong, and powerful, state. I believe the second underpins the first, and this brings me into conflict with a lot of people, some on the left and some on the right. Too many people see the state as inherently evil, as something that interferes too much in the lives of ordinary people. As something suffocating.
Yet the state exists to protect us. It exists to provide a safety net. It exists to regulate and to oversee. If the state is made up of bad people, if the gears of society are captured by those with malicious or selfish intent, the results are obvious; war, corruption, chaos.
The vast majority of our problems in the modern age can be neatly summed up in two lines from Yeats’ poem “The Second Coming”, which I used to open my novel. “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”
We live in a time when those who are protecting their own interests have assumed such power that they’ve cowed the rest of us. They have become a law unto themselves. They have changed the nature of the game, because they have sapped our will to the extent some barely put up a fight anymore. The weak get weaker, and the strong use their strength to crush the rest even more. It is a vicious struggle, a downward spiral.
Society is held together not only by the endeavour and common interests of its citizens but by a collection of laws. We elect the people who make those laws. They do so in our name, and we can remove that right every four years. That is a powerful thing, and we do not appreciate it enough. The present corruption exists because we allow it to exist.
The people around me continue to puzzle over my uncommon interest in the affairs of a football club on the west of Glasgow. My own club plays in the east end. I tell those who ask that my primary interest in the goings-on at the club calling itself Rangers is no longer about football; how could it be, after all? With promotion this year they are still a full two divisions below us, emasculated, skint, weak and unstable. If we were fortunate enough to draw them in cup competition the match would be over, as a tie, by the halfway point … in the first half.
In footballing terms they are an utter irrelevance.
Rangers is more than a football club to me. They are a symbol. Their unfolding calamity is an on-going outrage. What is happening there, what is being allowed to happen, is an offense to decency. It is a stain on the face of our country.
In short, it is a scandal. It is a scandal without parallel in sport.
Yet it’s not just a sports story either. If it was, I might not be so focussed on it. What is happening at Rangers is a colossal failure of governance. It is a damning indictment against the very people who are supposed to oversee our game. It is a disgraceful abrogation of responsibility from those at the top, those who claim to be “running things.”
If this is not a failure of governance it is a result of corruption at the heart of our national sport. It says they are bought and paid for, and I will say no such thing here.
So let’s give them the benefit of the doubt. We’ll say instead that what they are is weak, indecisive, inept and disconnected from reality.
It reminds me of our political class, which has become insular and ignorant about what the public wants, and what it needs. It’s not a wonder parties like UKIP can achieve national vote shares of 25% at local elections. Nigel Farage strikes me as a dog-whistle politician, the kind who knows how to appeal to a select group of voters. He is little different to Charles Green, the man who beguiled Rangers fans into handing over large amounts of money, because he was “standing up for the club.” It is easy to do what he did, easy to do what Farage is doing.
Real leadership requires toughness. Say what you like about the Tories, but they have that in spades. Yeats was right about the worst being full of passionate intensity. Green was. Farage is. Cameron and Osborne personify it in their political outlook.
It is easy to be cowed by blunt force politics, and by “tough talking Yorkshire men” and venomous speeches about “strivers and skivers.” The politics of divide and conquer is the oldest form of politics there is, and it’s no surprise to see it practiced by some of the vested interests in the game here in Scotland. Yet, lest we forget … something significant happened last year. The maligned and the ignored, the weak and the voiceless found something they never realised they had. They discovered that, in a very real sense, the power was in their hands.
Last year, the fans rose up when the governing bodies and the media went all-out to save Rangers from the self-inflicted wounds caused by a decade of cheating, malpractice and ineptitude. I have no problem calling that what it was.
What happened at Rangers seemed incredible, but it was all too predictable, and some of us had been talking about it for years before it hit. The Association seemed caught in the headlights but it would amaze me if they really were as insular and ignorant as they appeared. They must have known how bad the outlook was for Rangers. They just chose to ignore it.
They were aided and abetted by a thoroughly disreputable media, a collection of cowards and compromisers, charlatans and frauds, masquerading as journalists, but who long ago laid aside any claim to be bold investigators and settled for commenting on events as they unfolded. More often than not, with their ill-informed opinions, sometimes due to weaknesses in intellect and others wilfully ignorant, they failed even in that.
Entire newspapers became PR machines for crooks and swindlers. They aided in the scam because they didn’t do their jobs, some because they were lazy, some because they were incompetent and others because they wanted a seat at the table and were willing to sacrifice whatever integrity they once had in exchange for one.
That all of this was embraced by the Rangers fans is amazing to me. They trusted when they should have been asking questions. They closed their eyes, covered their ears and sang their battle tunes at the top of their voices so they wouldn’t have to hear anything they didn’t like. As incredible as I found it then, and still find it now – and now, even more so, when they have already seen the results of it once – I find it pathetic too, and I do feel pity for some of them.
A lot of these people are genuine football fans, and nothing more. They have no interest in the phony narrow nationalism, or the over-blown religion, or the notion of supremacy which manifested itself in a ludicrous statement from McCoist when interviewed recently on Sky.
Some of the Rangers fans look at their team of duds, kids and journeymen, they look at a boardroom of cowards and crooks, they look at a failing manager in his first (and last) job in the game and at a dark future and are not in the least bit impressed by, or interested in, the chest-out arrogance espoused in those ridiculous words “we are the people.” They know full well that their present crisis was made by men like McCoist, and they understand that pretentious posturing is not an act born of strength, but a scrambling around in the gutter, and a symptom of weakness.
They understand their position, and they hate it. And because they care about Rangers, because they value the club, because they cherish those things that made it a great Scottish institution, they want that back. They understand that before the Union Jack waving, Sash singing, poppy wearing, Nazi saluting, Orange element became the public face of their support Rangers meant something else, and that, above all things, is what pains them the most.
People do not hate Rangers. When the country appeared to turn its back last year, they were turning the back on favouritism and the bending of rules. Yet it would be a lie to say that there is not an element of dislike in the gleeful mockery of many rival fans.
But they don’t hate Rangers either. They hate the version of it around which a certain section of the support continues to dance. They hate the version which hates, and so too do many, many, many Rangers supporters, and they definitely deserve better.
David Murray chose not to openly challenge that version. Indeed, he encouraged certain strands of it to flourish and grow, with his “Britishness Days” and his effort to turn the club into the “team that supports the troops.” Other clubs have done as much, if not more, for the British Army than the one that plays out of Ibrox. Other clubs have given more money. Other clubs have lent their support to those on the front lines. They just chose to do it with respect, and with class, and with dignity. They chose to do it in private, understanding that there eventually comes a tipping point between looking after the ends of the soldiers and using them to promote your own.
The army has not battened on to Rangers. Rangers has battened on to them, and although it is unclear when an altruistic motive became darker, what started out as a gesture of solidarity is now used to entrench division and promote a notion of superiority.
Craig Whyte took over from Murray and immediately understood the lure of the “dog whistle.” He knew too that the media would accept whatever he told them, without question, and as he spoke up for “Rangers traditions” he made sure the lunatic fringe was well onside. He met face to face with the hard-core extremists in the support first and made them his praetorian guard. They spoke up for him until the day the club entered administration.
So, whereas Murray pandered to them and Whyte used them to further his own ends, it was only a matter of time before someone suggested to Charles Green that he could use the same tactics to win over the support. He went even further and blatantly promoted and encouraged this mind-set, and stoked the hate and nonsense to frightening new heights. The same people who cheered Whyte to the rafters jumped on board the Big Blue Bus and the results are clear.
Through all of it, the ordinary Rangers fan has seen his club buffered against the rocks, battered, broken, smashed to smithereens and sunk. Now there’s a big hole in the side of the lifeboat, and they are terrified that further tragedies await.
They are right to be concerned. Much of the media is still not telling them what they need to know. The people in charge of their club – the owners who have lied, the former hack who covered up the truth about Whyte and now acts as a mouthpiece for Green, the “club legends” who are content to sup with the devil and take his greasy coin when they should be standing toe-to-toe with the fans – are trying to silence those members of the press who do have facts to present.
How many times now have media outlets been banned from Ibrox for daring to report the truth? The manager who demanded the names of a committee last year defends those inside the walls who are desperate to keep secret the things that are going on. He is either an unprincipled coward, or he is, himself, bought and paid for. The fans suffer for it.
The “inconvenient truth” is still being kept from them, and this denies them any chance to play an active role in their club. Indeed, it is all too possible that they’ve passed a point of no return, and that their club is heading for a new liquidation event and it can no longer be stopped.
In either case, their power has been eroded to the point at which they must feel they have nothing left to do but stand back and watch what happens next.
They are wrong. I am a socialist. I believe in the inherent good of people. I think the ordinary decent Rangers fans are the only people left who can save their club … and the means by which they will do it is as simple as it could be.
They must stand up for “big government.” They must embrace the need for a “strong state.” They must lobby the SFA, and they must trust the SFA and they must get the SFA to follow its own rules and thereby save them from any further harm.
There is a tendency amongst some Celtic fans to see our governing bodies as pro-Rangers. If it is true then those running our game are ruining Scottish football without benefiting the thing they love more. The incalculable harm that has been done to Rangers in the last 20 some months is a direct result of the subservient media and the willingness of the football authorities to be “deaf, dumb and blind.” Those who believe this has actually helped the Ibrox club have not been paying attention in class. It has irrevocably scarred them, and it may yet have played a hand in destroying them once and for all, as a force if not as a club entirely.
For years, the SFA sat and did nothing as a club in their association operated a sectarian signing policy. They did nothing whilst the fans sang sectarian songs. In their failure to act they strengthened those elements of the Rangers support, instead of isolating, alienating and eventually helping to eliminate those who saw that club as a totem pole of division and hate. Their failure over EBT’s, and their lack of scrutiny, led to one of the greatest scandals in the history of sport, and I say that with no equivocation at all. The testimony of their registrations officer in the Lord Nimmo Smith investigation was a disgrace and in years to come it will rank as one of the most disreputable and damaging moments in the association’s history.
The most egregious failures of all were the failures in the so-called “fit and proper person” tests, which allowed first Whyte and then Charles Green to assume controlling positions at Ibrox. They will pass the buck and say the responsibility lies with the club itself, in much the same way as they are content to let the club investigate itself at the present time, but any neutral who looks at this stance knows it is unprincipled and spineless. It’s like letting the defence set the terms at a trial. It is foxes investigating the chicken coop.
It is a blueprint for corruption, and a recipe for disaster.
It is now too late for the SFA to declare Green “unfit”, as it was too late when they finally slapped that title on Craig Whyte. He and his allies own Rangers, and they control its destiny. They can push the club to the wall if they choose, in the final extremity, if that gets them what they want. The time for changing that is past. The damage has already been done. The barbarians are not at the gates. They are inside the walls, and sacking the city.
The SFA will be forced to punish Rangers for the sins of the owners, for the second time in as many years, and whilst it is right that the club face up to that, all the better to send a message to other clubs and other owners, the SFA cannot be allowed to slither off the hook here as though this was none of their doing. Green will skip off into the sunset. Craig Whyte has yet to pay his fine. These people never cared about Scottish football and they don’t care now.
The SFA are supposed to. Our governing body is supposed to govern, for the good of the whole game, and not as a support system for a single club. What they have allowed to happen on their watch is absolutely shameful and if the people responsible were men at all, with any sense of accountability, they would resign en masse.
They can pretend ignorance, but only the truly ignorant would accept that. Craig Whyte was not inside Ibrox a week before RTC and other sites were dismantling his entire business history, with some of the people here doing the work the SFA would not. Whyte himself claims to have made the governing bodies aware of the scale of what was facing the club, and they did nothing at all. Heads should have rolled a year ago.
In October of last year, on this very site, I posted an article in which I wrote:
“Which isn’t to say the due diligence matter isn’t worrying, because, of course, it is. Again, no-one is going to convince me that the SFA has conducted proper due diligence on Charles Green and his backers. No-one will convince me they are satisfied that this club is in safe hands, and that the game in this country will not be rocked by a further implosion at Ibrox. They failed to properly investigate Craig Whyte, because of lax regulations requiring disclosure from the club itself, regulations which are just a joke, but they can be forgiven for that as the press was talking sheer nonsense about him having billions at his disposal, and a lot of people (but not everyone!) were either convinced or wanted to be convinced by him.
To have witnessed what Whyte did, to have witnessed the Duff & Phelps “process” of finding a buyer, and having Green essentially emerge from nowhere, with a hundred unanswered questions as to his background and financing, for the SFA to have given this guy the go ahead, only for it to blow up in their faces later, would annihilate the credibility of the governing body and necessitate resignations at every level. There would be no hiding place.”
There are times when it is fun to be right, but this is not one of them. It is dispiriting and disquieting to have been so on the nose. It scares the Hell out of me, as someone who loves football in this country, to have seen this matter clearly when the people running our game apparently either did not or chose to ignore very real, very obvious, concerns. The Internet Bampots had no special insight or access to information that was denied those at the SFA. We just weren’t prepared to ignore it and pretend that it wasn’t there. There was too much at stake.
I have become convinced that things will never change until the Rangers supporters join us in demanding the full and unabridged truth here. They need to come out from under the bed, and confront their fears. They need to be willing to take the consequences, so that their club can emerge clean from this, and start again, with all this behind them.
And it can all happen with one simple thing. The application of the rules.
The existence of laws comes down to a simple principle; they protect society from those elements within it who are interested only in their own selfish ends. We may cry out at those rules and regulations we see as “restrictive”, but the law was not made to restrict our freedoms but to protect them. Had the SFA years ago acted against Rangers sectarian signing policy, and the songs from the stands, the club would not have mutated to the point where there was no help on hand when they needed it the most. Let’s not kid ourselves about this; Whyte and Green were only able to grab control because the club itself has a dreadful image which put off respectable and responsible buyers. The SFA could have helped change that perception years ago and did nothing.
The SFA could have conducted its own investigation into who Craig Whyte was. They could have asked David Murray for full disclosure when he was running up £80 million of debt, a sum of money that is beyond belief for a single club in a small provincial backwater league. Had they had the guts to do that the club would never have spent itself into oblivion and forced the hand of Lloyds, which led indirectly to their ignominious end.
The SFA could have fully investigated Charles Green and the means by which he took control, instead of rushing through a license. His emergence at the last minute was transparently suspicious and designed to force them into a quick decision, but they did not have to bow to that pressure by making one, without being in possession of the facts, as it is now 100% clear they were not.
Had they asked for every document, had they insisted on legal affidavits and personal securities from investors (and this would have been perfectly legitimate and is common place in other licensing areas) none of this would have come to pass. After Craig Whyte they had a moral responsibility to the rest of the game to get this one right and their failure is without parallel in the history of Scottish football.
As the club hurtles towards a new abyss, names are cropping up which should send a shudder down the spines of every honest, genuine supporter of not only Rangers but every team in the land. The SFA claims that a strong Rangers is essential for the sake of Scottish football, but they have been extraordinarily lax in protecting that club, and therefore the game, from destructive elements. Craig Whyte and Charles Green had dubious personal histories, and the acquisition of the club itself was mired in controversy and scandal. Yet it was allowed.
Neither Green nor Whyte were known to have operated outside the law, yet neither was worthy of trust or stood up to scrutiny. Neither man should ever have been granted the status as fit and proper persons to assume a role in our national sport, and if it is true of them what can we say about the three men who are, presently, being touted as the Great White Hopes for a bright, new Rangers future; Dave King and the Easdale brothers?
King recently cut a deal with the South African government over an on-going dispute over taxes. In other words, he pled guilty and accepted the central plank of their argument; that for years he was engaged in wilfully with-holding vast revenues from their Treasury. The media does not like to put it like that, and the SFA seems willing to ignore it utterly, and this would be scandalous enough. But it does not stop there. HRMC rules – as well as the SFA’s own governance documents – actually bar him from serving on the board of the new club.
Last but not least, aside from being an admitted tax cheat, King is also awaiting trial in South Africa, having been indicted for corruption, forgery and fraud – 300 charges in total. Yet as recently as last week, we were told that the Association was willing to look at him and consider representations from his lawyers. This is almost beyond belief.
If Dave King’s position is untenable, and he is yet to be convicted of a crime, what can we say about the position of the Easdale’s? One of the two brothers, Sandy, has already served jail time. He is a convicted criminal, a fraudster nonetheless, who’s “victim” was the same Treasury who are appealing one case involving the old club and liquidated it entirely over another. This is precisely the kind of “businessman” the fit and proper person test was supposed to weed out, and if the SFA holds its nose here the reek will stink out the halls at Hampden for decades. If King or the Easdale’s are judged fit and proper, then who exactly is the test for? What exactly do you have to do to fail it? How do we explain the existence of laws, when these are not applied?
Pascal says “Law without force is impotent.” The SFA’s weakness has allowed one version of Rangers to destroy itself, and has allowed an existential risk to another. If the next power at Rangers resides in South Africa or Greenock I can say with some certainty that the Association is engaged in an even more dangerous roll of the dice, because the surfacing of fresh scandal will be an ever present risk, and will be of the sort no-one will survive.
The damage to Scottish football will take years to heal. The Scottish game has been through enough trauma. It does not need more. It barely survived the last calamity to hit Rangers. The rest of us should not be forced to pay the price of the next one.
The greater damage will be done to Rangers itself. If the Green crisis ends in another collapse – as it well might; another administration event is a certainty, and another liquidation is a much more likely prospect than it was before 14 February 2012 – the club will once again have to start from the bottom, and this time the reputational damage will be impossible to repair. The club faces internal strife, sporting sanctions, and criminal investigations. The last takeover might be declared a fraud. the Whyte takeover will almost certainly be. The share issue might be invalid, as well as criminal, and the people involved may well end up in jail. Lawsuits could follow from investors, there could be as yet unknown consequences from the Upper Tier Tax Tribunal (thank you Brogan Rogan for pointing out what those might be) and a host of other issues.
Rangers fans must be the loudest voices here. How do you want the world to view your club in years to come? Do you want one to be proud of, or one forever associated with the shame and disgrace of these days gone by? The one which bailed out on its tax obligations. The one with supporters who disgrace your very name. The one which allowed Whyte and Green to take you to the cleaners and send you to the wall. The one which handed over control to one convicted criminal and another awaiting trial. Do you want to be reborn clean, or mired in the muck?
David Murray destroyed your financial stability. He made it so no bank would issue you a line of credit and no investor of note wanted to buy. Craig Whyte liquidated you. Charles Green has cast the future of the Newco into doubt and acted in a manner which has annihilated your credibility with the financial markets for decades to come.
Between these three men, they have taken everything from you, and the press and the people who run the game here, as well as some of your own blindly ignorant fans, have allowed them to do all this and more. Now they conspire to hand the keys to Ibrox to other men of questionable character, who will wreck further havoc on the reputation of the club.
The Scottish Football Association has damaged the game it was supposed to protect, but above all else their greatest failure of governance was a failure to protect one of its biggest clubs from its own excesses and those of its owners.
Rangers fans, the SFA have betrayed your trust, more than the trust of any other club. What you must insist on now is full disclosure and transparency from the powers that be in Hampden. The SFA has to end the charade of allowing your club to handle this in-house. They must hand everything over to an outside agency – whether a legal one, or a footballing body like UEFA – and they must demand co-operation and answers, and threaten to withhold the license if they don’t get them.
You must not be afraid of that. You must embrace it. The men with their hands on the gears at Ibrox are motivated by money, and nothing more. If the license is withdrawn their “investments” are worthless. They cannot risk that.
You must demand that the rules on fit and proper persons are applied, and where necessary even made stronger, to prevent your club falling into unclean hands. You must demand that they protect your reputation from further damage, by getting this all out there and acting accordingly, even if that means your club does not play football for at least a year.
You must be willing to suck it all up, knowing that what will emerge is a Rangers which has been cleansed and moves forward with honour, and dignity, led by custodians who treasure it rather than those who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
The Rangers Standard has recently emerged as a genuine voice for those in your support who are sick and tired of what Rangers has become, and want it restored to something that is worthy of the love and respect in which you hold it. On that website, there are discussions about the kind of club you seek to be and about whether the institution of Rangers is about more than just football.
If that’s how you feel about it then you know it is about more than how many titles the club can claim, about more than just results on the park, about more than just the game. Rangers, like Celtic, is an idea. It has to be something you are proud of.
I am a socialist, but one with a fevered imagination and a tendency to write very dark things. This piece won’t have been good reading for some of you (perhaps all of you haha!) but I think there’s more hope in here than in other things I’ve written.
In spite of everything that’s come to pass, I still believe. I believe in Scottish football. I believe in our system of football governance, even if those who are working in it are failing on some level.
In society, as much as we strain against them, laws exist for our protection. To fail to enforce them is to leave us at the mercy of those elements who would do us harm. The rules of football ensure the protection of all clubs, not just a few.
The failure to enforce the rules has never had graver consequences than here in Scotland. The irony is that bending and breaking them has hurt the one club those violations were designed to help. It cannot be allowed to happen again.
The rules must be applied without fear or favour.
The best must find their conviction, and their passionate intensity once more.
James is a co-editor of the On Fields of Green Blog http://www.onfieldsofgreen.com/
abigboydiditandranaway
Spain will already be well aware how teams from Glasgow use their own modified calculators to count supporters.
mullach says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 09:32
ecobhoy says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 01:44
“…if CW defaulted on paying the money them perhaps Green saw that he might need to protect himself through the use of a new company and a Scottish one rather than a Welsh one which also added a separate legal wall”.
—————
“The money was supposed to be transferred on 23/05/2012 and at that time the only director of Sevco 5088 (listed at Companies House) was Green”.
However the following documenti genuine, has CW and Aidan Earley as directors on 9th May 2012. http://www.scribd.com/doc/142190916/Board-Meeting-9-May-2012
Not sure how this would affect your scenario.
==================================================
As soon as Charlotte put that document up I expressed doubt over it’s authenticity and to be fair to her it’s the only one I have really serious doubts about.
It just doesn’t ‘feel’ right to me. We are talking about a scenario here where secrecy is paramount and I just don’t believe that formal board meetings were taking place with minutes taken. What I am happy to concede is that a meeting took place between the three of them and possibly others and they may well have discussed what is stated in the minute.
But there will be no record – what there will be is CW’s tape and by ‘faking’ a minute CW sends a clear signal to Green that a tape exists because it would be impossible, just from memory, to get all the details correct.
A job needing done is a search of itineraries where possible to establish if the three named could have been together on the day – it might not be in London as that could just be a bit of deflection. I just haven’t had the time to do the searching required but it might answer the question.
The Sevco 5088 annual return is overdue and that is a critical document because various important things require to be disclosed. But will whoever completes tell the truth or will they lie and face possible prosecution? And I should say that I have no actual idea – following the various claims and counter-claims surrounding directorship and shareholding in Sevco 5088, who is legally required to complete and sign the return.
I’ve just read Alan Patullo’s piece (in today’s Scotsman) about Nelms’ consortium and Dundee FC.
This sentence is lifted from it:
“….The Texas-based consortium he is fronting have already been described as “cowboys” by one Supporters’ Direct official. ”
——–
I am astonished, nay, flabbergasted: ‘Supporters Direct’ actually saying something about cowboys and football club bidders!!
Did Supporters Direct have anything to say about the series of cowboy ‘bidders’ for the now dead RFC?
No?
I thought not.
barcabhoy says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 09:23
Those red flags you listed may or may not be terrible failures of oversight, but my point is that they are generally not reasonably within the SFA’s powers to prevent.
The one particular club involved in all of those has the ultimate power and responsibility to prevent such a succession of questionable characters to take charge of their club. There is risk in every potential owner or board appointment, but the SFA could not realistically, and should not ethically, have any final say in that. It is for the club to decide, and take the responsibility for the risk of any such actions going horribly wrong.
What matters is how the SFA deal with how club representative’s discharge their duties and how the club itself operates. I don’t think the SFA have done a terribly good job in this regard, and it is fair to criticise them for such a failing.
To expect them to vet potential investors is wholly unrealistic, removes responsibility from the club of ensuring they make good appointments, leaves the SFA open to legal recourse if they were to let a bad ‘un in, would be hugely expensive, imprecise and time consuming, disruptive to the functioning of clubs even when nothing untoward was found and hugely unpopular.
Why should the SFA be held responsible for the oversight of the ownership of the Ibrox club? Isn’t that for the Ibrox club itself?
abigboyandaweeboy
There is/was a sports bar half way down Las Ramblas next to the Meat/fish/fruit market entrance that will poss have the game on ,its on Sky so should not be an issue for them
@barcabhoy
Regarding this particular point – I struggle to see how the SFA would be required to mount any legal defence regarding this. What has it got to do with them?
That’s a matter for the various Rangersy companies involved.
Danish Pastry says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 09:51
Duff & Phelps in the clear?
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/duff-phelps-are-cleared.21156971
==========================================================
It may well be that fresh complaints emerge based on material that wasn’t previously available – that should become clearer once we fully understand how the Sevco 5088 rights passed to Sevco Scotland.
There might be nothing illegal or unprofessional in the way it was done but there is a question mark if only because we don’t have the documentation and might never have unless Charlotte obliges. However, CW might not ever have been in possession of the material.
However any police fraud investigation I feel sure would focus on whether Sevco Scotland had a ‘clean’ legal ability to purchase the Rangers assets from D&P which I would assume would require Sevco 5088 to have no further valid legal claim.
What’s for sure is that the police present a far bigger potential threat for D&P than an investigation by their professional body if any bodies have been buried in a too-shallow grave.
greenockjack says
not really what i was looking for, but thanks for going to the bother!!!
Night Terror,
Under your scenario, Rangers can just pass from Crook to gangster to fraudster to Crook in a never ending circle of deception and fraud. There is a consequent damage to Scottish Football, and the SFA have no obligation to do anything , as long as the names of the Croook, fraudsters and gangsters change at each turn.
Or
The SFA can use some of their £32 million annual revenue to do the same checks the Bampots were and are doing for free.
The SFA have a responsibility to ensure crooks, gangsters and fraudsters are not involved in our game. Your response also ignores the Red Flags, all of which took little or no ime and resource to uncover.
Self certification by crooks is being approved by the SFA, is that seriously what you are endorsing ?
Mullach
The overall significance of the documents is that they are pieces of the jigsaw. They may not clarify the overall picture significantly but bit by bit it is slowly emerging.
——————–
Charlotte is losing momentum.
Is it not true that what CW has a hand in or points you towards, invaribly leads to little ?
100bjd says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 08:49
“SPV…Hence you need to cancel the original dilution protection clause in your shareholder agreement which is the famous “disapplication of pre-emption rights”.
————-
Thanks 100bjd. I might do that business finance course yet.
Still trying to get my head round the motives for this happening and whether they are of interest.
ecobhoy says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 10:01
mullach says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 09:32
ecobhoy says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 01:44
“…if CW defaulted on paying the money them perhaps Green saw that he might need to protect himself through the use of a new company and a Scottish one rather than a Welsh one which also added a separate legal wall”.
—————
“The money was supposed to be transferred on 23/05/2012 and at that time the only director of Sevco 5088 (listed at Companies House) was Green”.
However the following documenti genuine, has CW and Aidan Earley as directors on 9th May 2012. http://www.scribd.com/doc/142190916/Board-Meeting-9-May-2012
Not sure how this would affect your scenario.
==================================================
As soon as Charlotte put that document up I expressed doubt over it’s authenticity and to be fair to her it’s the only one I have really serious doubts about.
It just doesn’t ‘feel’ right to me. We are talking about a scenario here where secrecy is paramount and I just don’t believe that formal board meetings were taking place with minutes taken. What I am happy to concede is that a meeting took place between the three of them and possibly others and they may well have discussed what is stated in the minute.
But there will be no record – what there will be is CW’s tape and by ‘faking’ a minute CW sends a clear signal to Green that a tape exists because it would be impossible, just from memory, to get all the details correct.
A job needing done is a search of itineraries where possible to establish if the three named could have been together on the day – it might not be in London as that could just be a bit of deflection. I just haven’t had the time to do the searching required but it might answer the question.
The Sevco 5088 annual return is overdue and that is a critical document because various important things require to be disclosed. But will whoever completes tell the truth or will they lie and face possible prosecution? And I should say that I have no actual idea – following the various claims and counter-claims surrounding directorship and shareholding in Sevco 5088, who is legally required to complete and sign the return.
=================================================================
I see where you’re coming from but when dealing with things like allotments and director appointments and what not that formally minuted board meetings – even if they only capture the board resolutions – are an unfortunate fact of life even for the spivs.
yourhavingalaugh says…
thanks…
wasn’t sure if it was on sky and how easy it would be to see, given that there will probably be competing events on at the same time which may be of more interest to the average spanish sports fan…
anyway i’m looking forward to it, my second cup final abroad…
can you guess the one i actually attended abroad greenockjack?
Interesting day ahead with the reconstruction meeting ,I wonder if there are other potential meetings pencilled in ,just in case and who might be floating about around the corridors that these meetings will be taking place,day of the long knives ,maybe.
Re the Duff & Phelps/conflict decision this morning; so far, almost every time a body rules on whether RFCIL/Sevco or any associated party has been up to no good , it comes down in favour (broadly speaking) of RFCIL/Sevco and the associated parties.
HMRC, LNS, D&P conflict etc etc etc.
Which means that either:-
– Everyone associated with RFC(IL)/Sevco is leading charmed life (which by the law of averages is unlikely to continue ad infinitum); or
– Much as many of us would be loath to admit it, the desire to see that loathsome organisation disappear often obscures the real facts, and they have yet to do anything other than act in a stupid (and immoral) way, but have not committed any major transgression which would finish them off once and for all.
I’m not into conspiracies. It seems to me they are where they are despite their best attempts to commit suicide, and I expect they will return to their self-appointed position of a “major Scottish institution” in due course.
Unpalatable maybe, but thems the unfortunate facts as events seem to be unfolding.
barcabhoy says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 10:20
If people running a club have a criminal or unsavoury past, what of it? If their convictions or suspensions are spent, why should they be prevented from investing (ha!) in Scottish football?
I would like the SFA to make it very clear to any club bringing such an individual of flawed record into their club that they will be attracting extra scrutiny from the governing body, and that there will be no charity available should they fall foul of the required standards.
Regarding the detail of your “red flags” outlined in a previous post – I ignored them in my response as I felt they were irrelevant to the greater point of what role the SFA should play.
On further inspection, may I suggest you may have overreached a little? Take your very first “red flag” –
What precisely is the SFA meant to do with this information? How can they use it fairly to make any sort of “oversight” conclusion?
Nobody wants to buy Rangers. Big deal. What concern should that be of the SFA?
Night Terror says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 10:09
@barcabhoy
Anyone see a flaw in a strong legal defence , if investors in the IPO come looking for their money back
Regarding this particular point – I struggle to see how the SFA would be required to mount any legal defence regarding this. What has it got to do with them? That’s a matter for the various Rangersy companies involved.
===========================================================
I think that we all accept that Green was no shrinking violet when it cames to expressing an opinion and had no fear of the SFA. I haven’t looked at the SFA rule book on its ‘fit & proper’ test quite simply because there are pleasant things I can waste my time on.
However Green at great length and repeatedly from last May – especially with regard to the original investors and in particular Blue Pitch Holdings – stated that all the information on them and their fitness had been given to the SFA. Now perhaps like the EBT paperwork – which the SFA didn’t actually examine for a decade and just filed away – the same was done with the ‘fit & proper’ info.
If that is the case then I think the SFA has a serious problem in the event of a claim from investors and any lawyer, on a slice of any award, may well think it’s worth a punt. You see the problem for the SFA is in not qualifying Green’s widely publicised remarks in any way by saying: ‘Hey, we aren’t saying these are fit and proper people. We just don’t know’. You must also remember and I strongly suspect this to be the case that the SFA were never told who were the actual shareholders involved in offshore trusts and investment vehicles but that wasn’t the impression that Green was repeatedly expressing publicly.
I’m fairly certain that if the SFA have any names it is just those of legally appointed administrators and not actual shareholders. One of the names which crops up in the Charlotte material is Rizvi – I won’t digress but that is a fascinating tale and one which Richard Wilson in the Herald was right on the money with a year ago.
I have little doubt there is enough to bring an action against the SFA for damages but whether anyone does and whether they are successful is another question and not worth IMO speculating on as, at this stage, there are too many imponderables.
ecobhoy says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 10:38
Certainly – if the SFA have received but not scrutinised information sufficiently they could be in trouble in an array of matters. They should be.
However, regarding Mr Green, I am wary of taking anything he says as reliable.
It is clear that the SFA’s F&PP test is a self-certification process. The SFA have been pretty clear on this, like it or not. Given the alternatives, I can see why they do it this way.
The overhead and delay in the SFA doing a comprehensive F&PP test on all prospective entrants to Scottish football makes it unworkable.
The clubs suffer most if they let a spiv into their tent – let them be responsible for preventing such an intrusion.
An interesting question for any lawyers readin, perhaps – as per ecobhoy above:
Are their grounds for an action against the SFA for failure to have an, ahem, proper Fit & Proper Person test as it relates to the recent RIFC IPO?
Danish Pastry says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 09:51
Duff & Phelps in the clear? (Herald Business Editor)
————–
Like a radioactive dye in a patients body, you can tell the extent of the disease from the organs it penetrates.
In reference to his piece today reporting the IPA’s decision on D&P’s ‘conflict’ I’ve just emailed Greig Cameron, deputy editor of the Herald business page, as follows:
“Mr Cameron:
How can you simply print what the IPA hands you without adding some reference to the fact that there are photocopies of documents which, if genuine, would see Clarke and Whitehouse possibly arraigned on charges of criminal conspiracy, and the whole of their actions as Administrators declared null and void?
Have you no journalistic curiosity?
Or are you, like so many of the sports journalists, in fear for your job if you start asking awkward questions?
I doubt if there has ever been a story which so many ‘journalists’ have turned their backs upon through self-interest ( or complicity in the SFA/RFC/Business nexus).
Yours in mild astonishment,
John Clarke
ecobhoy says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 10:01
“As soon as Charlotte put that document up I expressed doubt over it’s authenticity and to be fair to her it’s the only one I have really serious doubts about”.
————–
It is a very simple and clean document. I can understand your scepticism.
@abigboy….
Check out the Temple Bar, easy to find on Las Ramblas. Good bar food, hunners a tellys and a nice atmosphere. All major sports events shown.
Enjoy.
greenockjack says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 10:21
“Is it not true that what CW has a hand in or points you towards, invaribly leads to little”
—————
You should not underestimate your own capabilities Jack. This blog and its predecessor second guessed most of the stuff that Charlotte’s leaks have outlined. This is a huge sporting and business scandal. If you aren’t prepared to stand up for what you think is right then you are condemned to a pretty insignificant existence.
Caveat Emptor…
Thanks a lot, shall check it out…
might even report back when i return next midweek!
john clarke says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 10:01
“….The Texas-based consortium he is fronting have already been described as “cowboys” by one Supporters’ Direct official. ”
——
Rather than the American Football team, perhaps these were the Dallas cowboys Mr Green referred to? 😉
zerotolerance1903 says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 10:25
ecobhoy says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 10:01
I see where you’re coming from but when dealing with things like allotments and director appointments and what not that formally minuted board meetings – even if they only capture the board resolutions – are an unfortunate fact of life even for the spivs.
==========================================================
The problem is that nothing had been lodged at Companies House although we do have the flurry of activity when Whyte and Earley popped-up with the Green pre-signed directorship forms which truly saw battle publicly commenced.
But we do have the letter before claim obviously IMO not designed to derail the IPO but to send a ‘marker’ to Green and Ahmad that some ‘compensation’ was required by CW. It appears to me that Green’s quick response was to dissolve Sevco 5088 Ltd and I think it was 27 December 2012 he signed the required application form as sole director of the company. It was registered at Companies House on 7 January 2013.
Worth mentioning that this coincides with the 94p all-time high for Rangers shares and they have been falling ever since. Might mean nothing but worth noting. They have been dragging along on a flatline 56p in really thin trading for some time
Obviously when a company is dissolved before accounts or an annual return is due then there is no need to supply this info and that may well have been in Green’s mind. It was also in Whyte’s and the dissolution request has been withdrawn.
There’s little doubt in my mind that Green and Ahmad actively sought ways out of Rangers although Ahmad appears to not have anticipated the personal financial hit he is allegedly supposed to have suffered. In fact I reckon Green must have been at the stage where he was beginning to believe he would need to burn down Hampden to get his release so necessary was he and his vision for the financial health of Scottish Football 🙂
Night Terror says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 10:33
……………………………………….
In that case why do we need a governing body?
So in theory,,,you appear to suggest…a mass murderer owning and running a football club is ok as long as he has served his time?
Do repeat offenders get excluded as not fit or proper or just one off offenders?
It is a fairly strong argument you pose….for how can we or any organisation judge a person or persons suitability unless of course those doing the judging are crystal clean themselves.
The sport of fottball across the globe strives to ensure it is run and administered to a standard of probity.that allows the sport or any sport a fair competition.
Someone who has a history of dishonesty in whatever shape endangers that principle, which calls in to question their ability to be fit and proper.
Of course there is always the possibility that someone who does have a clean background could go on and commit wrong doing at the club…. that of course cannot be predicted with no history of such behaviour to raise a concern.
But you do raise a fair question…why is a spent criminal history a reason to say no?
I guess what we see happening at SEVCO tells us why a fit and proper assesment is necessary as the circus appears to be getting handed on from shyster to shyster to shyster..
@abigboy……
Watched Celtic league fixtures in the Temple Bar a couple of seasons ago so Cup Final should be a safe bet. Nice local wines on offer and if you fancy a wee celebratory ‘jolt’ at full time, check out the Irish Coffee. Not for the faint of heart!!
There’s something about all of this that reminds me of somebody with a finger in the dam, and every effort and every construct will be attempted to stop the whole thing bursting. There are an awful lot of people with vested interests in a ‘clean bill of health’ for TRFC and its cabal, not least the SFA and other football bodies who sought to give them a chance in the 3rd division. It stinks, and it stinks to high heaven. Even some Rangers fans are waking up and smelling the coffee that Bomber Brown was sticking under their noses, it still doesn’t seem to be enough. But I would suggest even if the MBB and Chuck Green sat down with Regan and told him straight, ‘We’ve taken the piss out of you, as if you didn’t know !’, he would be sitting with his fingers in his ears, singing ‘la,la,la, I can’t hear you, la la la’. I guess when the finally dam breaks,Mr Regan will be a safe distance and a very comfortable amount better off, unlike our game.
paulmac2 says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 11:10
Night Terror says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 10:33
————–
Night Terror, you have an obvious talent for provoking debate and I commend you for it.
paulmac2 says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 11:10
Again, I ask you to consider the complexity of administering a F&PP test. Remember, this is not just for one club with a recent record of shady characters, but, to be fair, for all prospective appointments or investors in any club under the SFA’s responsibility.
Imagine the uproar if a club was in deep financial trouble and an ellegedly rich individual appeared, offering to solve their financial woes for a controlling stake in the club, but the SFA put the brakes on that as they needed time to investigate him fully. What if they concluded – Nope – this guy is not a Fit & Proper Person, he must not be allowed into our game – and the club he was attempting to save folded.
Imagine the legal implications of the SFA taking full responsibility for applying the F&PP test, encouraging clubs courting wealthy investors to try and sneak a dodgy one past the SFA, or indeed the SFA making an honest mistake which resulted in a club collapsing. The legal responsibility would be much greater for the SFA, and much less for those at the clubs.
None of that sounds satisfactory to me, and certainly not an improvement on the current situation where clubs are, or should be forced to confront their mistakes if they make them rather than blame the SFA for not protecting them from themselves.
If a club is so badly run that a succession of shysters are in control, why is that not solely the concern of the club? The SFA & SPL & SFL can govern what the shysters and the club actually get up to. Whether they do a good job of that is another question entirely, but if you think they do a poor job now, why would you want them to have more power over the running of clubs?
Has anyone noticed this comment thread is in danger of briefly touching on the content of James Forrest’s original blogpost?
I think I deserve some positive thumbing for that at least, you ungrateful sods.
Night Terror says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 10:46
The clubs suffer most if they let a spiv into their tent – let them be responsible for preventing such an intrusion.
==========================================================
As I have previously stated on this issue I don’t see how Rangers can be held responsible, as a club, for what the spivs are doing when they were unable to control who bought their club from D&P.
Indeed I would say that in these circumstances there is an added burden on the SFA to ensure that spivs don’t get into not just a club ‘tent’ but into Scottish football as their motivation isn’t driven by love of the game but by how much they can rip-off and how quickly it can be done.
I don’t think you have to have the world’s greatest football administrator hiding in a cupboard to advise that football, as with many other sports, is a fertile hunting ground for predators. I nearly said Great Whyte Predators but perhaps humour shouldn’t be the order of the day.
I have to clear the confusion you have created with your statement: ‘However, regarding Mr Green, I am wary of taking anything he says as reliable’.
Personally I believe he is a fantasist of an order that gives spivs a bad name – the professionalism of a spiv is based on their ability to sell a credible dream. I’m not having a dig at Bears but they appear to have been the only group of people who hadn’t a scooby what was going down. Possibly the Murray and Whyte experience left them grasping at an obvious straw man
Still to be fair I know Bears I am related to and others I drink with who didn’t fancy what they saw but realised it was the ‘only game in town’. There may well have been others but perhaps that will become clearer when D&P are actually looked into – they should enjoy their moment of happiness today as it might be very transitory.
However, back to Green, I didn’t believe a word he was saying but what I stated was that the SFA should not have allowed him to spout his rubbish about his allegedly SFA approved ‘fit & proper’ invstors without the SFA publicly qualifying the remarks. Another classic case of where their head in the sand approach could bury them.
If you re-read my original post I think you will find it makes my position crystal-clear.
Mullach
You should not underestimate your own capabilities Jack. This blog and its predecessor second guessed most of the stuff that Charlotte’s leaks have outlined. This is a huge sporting and business scandal. If you aren’t prepared to stand up for what you think is right then you are condemned to a pretty insignificant existence.
——————————————
You didn´t answer the question. Here it is again.
Is it not true that what CW has a hand in or points you towards, invaribly leads to little ?
Pleasantly surprised to get an email reply from the Herald, as below:
—–
“.Hi John, the article which appeared in the paper was shorter than the one which I submitted due to constraints of space.
I can assure you I am aware of a number of unverified documents which are in the public domain and relate to Rangers but we are bound by the legalities of what we can and cannot report.
I expect there may well be more to report on in the future but the latest development in the story was the fact the IPA cleared Duff & Phelps.
Regards
Greig Cameron
ecobhoy says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 11:32
That’s a good point, ecobhoy. I hadn’t considered the implications of an administrator effectively selling the club.
Now that I have, I’m not sure it makes the case for a proactive SFA acting as a gatekeeper to the entrance of Scottish football.
In administration, and now liquidation, how can an SFA have any say in who can buy assets, given that this could conflict directly with the interests of creditors?
This is not a defence of how the SFA handled the particular insolvency event at the Ibrox club, but I struggle to see, even after your exhortations, how the responsibility for the running of a club should lie anywhere but with that club – even under the running of an administrator. Failings of that club, under whatever ownership or executive leadership, can be dealt with by the SFA wherever appropriate.
A governing body pre-emptively involving itself in the running of a club seems to cause more problems than it solves.
Night Terror says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 10:33
————————-
I agree that the SFA remit is limited.
I see where you are coming from on the red flag NT but there was a valid point there, if the club was for sale for up to 3 years with nobody showing serious interest, then isn’t it a bit suspicious (as stated at the time by the bampots) that someone suddenly turns up and buys it for a pound within a very short timeframe?
I think that is a valid red flag.
And there were many others, like the original asking price of 6M which was reduced to 1 pound based on an unknown bill of 2.4M.
“Ok David, how much do you want?”
“6M”
“But my people have seen an outstanding bill to the taxman that you have agreed to pay”
“Ok, then you can have the club for a pound”
Now I am no accountant but that was another red flag for me at the time.
Maybe on it’s own it may not have merited an investigation but along with the other flags, I believe the SFA could have done more to satisfy themselves that this guy was not posing any risk to the game in Scotland.
As it may transpire (if documents turn out to be genuine), it looks like The SFA wouldn’t have cared anyway as they choose to ignore CW’s previous when acknowledged by the guy himself.
What exactly constitutes a “Fit and Proper Person” to run (presumably as Chairman or CEO) an SFA licensed football club?
It seems that the only way to define this is by the exclusions, so that if these do not apply the individual is fit and proper.
So here are some suggested exclusions that come to mind, but I’d welcome others.
The FPP
– Is not an undischarged bankrupt
– Is not currently banned from being a company director
– Has not been banned from involvement in football or under a current suspension from another football association
– Has not been convicted of certain criminal offences (eg fraud), and is not currently serving a custodial sentence, even if suspended
– In the event of any doubt about any of the above, is able to prove by independent evidence that they do not apply.
That still leaves about 75% of the world’s population in the potential FPP group. Any other exclusion? For that matter any other positive attributes that such a person could possess and prove and I don’t just mean abstract qualities like honesty and reliability.
@ecobhoy
Apologies – I forgot to add, regarding your “predators” point, that I don’t see, once again, why the SFA should prevent anyone becoming involved in Scottish football even if it is very clear they are there to make a profit, exit and disappear.
If said predator behaves in contradiction to the standards expected whilst ensconced at a Scottish football club, that is a different matter and well within the SFA’s responsibility and duty to address.
There is little room for morality in business or football, and wishing the SFA become arbiters of whatever morality you might like to see implemented is a dangerous direction in which to move.
Night Terror says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 11:29
‘..Has anyone noticed this comment thread is in danger of briefly touching on the content of James Forrest’s original blogpost?
I think I deserve some positive thumbing for that at least, you ungrateful sods.’
—-
Nice one, NT.
I for one very much appreciate your posts, which are expressive of a generally reasonable approach to a line of argument ( even if I may not agree with your take on things).
TU for that, on a personal basis.
An updatefor Dundee FC fans:
http://www.dee4life.com/homepage/2013/5/23/society-update-on-takeover-discussions.html
greenockjack says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 10:21
Mullach
The overall significance of the documents is that they are pieces of the jigsaw. They may not clarify the overall picture significantly but bit by bit it is slowly emerging.
——————–
Charlotte is losing momentum. Is it not true that what CW has a hand in or points you towards, invaribly leads to little?
=======================================================
I really wonder if you actually believe what you have said about Charlotte or whether you are just stimulating debate 🙂
I have some doubts and lots of questions over the Charlotte material but I usually try to ascertain what direction I’m travelling in before working out the importance of momentum. As we have no idea of the Charlotte agenda it is impossible to say that her material ‘leads to little’ and the reason I say this is that CW will primarily be chasing cash.
Time is running out for him on that front IMO and he may well be tempted to provide enough to allow the police to take decisive action just to punish those he believes have ‘cheated’ him out of his payday but I would think that carries certain risks for himself.
So, being an optimist, I am happy to wait and see when he realises that he’s not getting any dosh whether the whole shooting match is dumped on the internet. However – he still maybe has deals to try and cut with whatever replacement spivs appear on the scene so this dramarama may become a saga.
I would advise that you await developments as there could be many surprises in store and I particularly refer to the tapes to back-up documents.
madbhoy24941 says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 11:45
A red flag to what purpose?
Some assets are only worth £1. You could even argue that Whyte overpaid. The fact that Murray could not sell the club having been actively trying to do so for several years does rather indicate that the assets he was trying to sell were of low value.
Again, that is an issue for the club, in that they had allowed themselves to be run in such a way that they were toxic to most credible and respected investors. Putting themselves is such a weak position means they are vulnerable to alower calibre of individual finding a spare quid and taking a punt on it.
What the SFA are meant to do about a club being run badly and being hard to sell I truly do not know, other than use existing licensing rules to ensure the club meets a minimum standard of administrative competence and ability to fulfil fixtures.
Its quite simple to ensure F+PP governance
The SFA is responsible for the FPP suitability of all CEOs (thats passing fit 42 individuals)
The CEO is responsible for the FPP of all Directors at his club
The Directors are responsible for the FPP of all major investors in their club
FPP governance on Craig Whyte was done by our MSM
they declared him a FPP due to his off the radar wealth , similairly Green passed go as he had
20 billionaires ready to invest in Rfc* even if no one knew who they were.
Dave King waves his wad in the air shouting “loads of money” and the Blazers have no objection in principal.
Where Rfc* are concerned judgement on their FPP status is determined by their wealth,their connections to wealth or their assumed wealth .Show me a man who judges people soley on their wealth and I’ll show you a man who knows the cost of everything and the value of nowt.
thebasharmilesteg says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 11:45
That seems like a reasonable list.
However, the issue I am so exercised by is who should be responsible for finding, verifying or disclosing the information pertaining to any F&PP test.
Is it to be the SFA, the club, the individual concerned?
As described in tedious length above, I don’t think it should be the SFA.
timtim says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 12:04
I fear you may have created a confusion in the governance of football clubs with that suggestion, timtim.
Putting the CEO in charge of directors is a questionable move.
Night Terror
The overhead and delay in the SFA doing a comprehensive F&PP test on all prospective entrants to Scottish football makes it unworkable.
==========================================================
NT, the normal procedure for admission to the SFA/SFL actually allows for that time. Maybe people more knowledgeable about recent admissions to the SFL such as Annan (SFA members since 1978/SFL admission 2008), Elgin (1898/2000) , Peterhead (1890?/2000) might be able to offer some information about what was required of them, certainly Annan were in competition against Cove Rangers and both made presentations to the SFL, with Annan winning out. At the time Peterhead and Elgin were admitted, Whitehill Welfare, Gretna, Preston Athletic, Gala, Huntly and Cove Rangers all bid. The Associate member status is also designed to offer protection to the leagues. Just apply the rules, consistently.
@blu
I take your point, but you seem to only address this process as it applies to clubs wishing to enter Scottish football.
It is not unusual for individuals to make an entrance to Scottish football at an existing member club. I think it was this that our particular strand of debate was focusing on.
Why NT ?
If the Directors are proven to be unsuitable the CEO becomes answerable to the SFA
who will then determine whether the CEO is suitable . The problem as always is who determines
if the SFA are FPP because the current President is most certainly not .
All roads in this scandal lead directly back to Hampden and thats where we need to begin the clear out if there is to be any hope for the future
Eco
Tbh I don´t think there is much debate left to be had with Charlotte unless someone has missed something, someone in the MSM were to start to pursue it (as it stands, unlikely) or the old ‘smoking gun’ is released.
I use CW and his past to illustrate that his direct or indirect threats or promises more often than not peter out into not a lot.
We go back to various legal actions he threatened, including the LBC letter prior to the IPO.
You could argue that as things seemingly come to a head, he´ll be forced to play directly or indirectly his supposed trump card.
Is it not more likely he has a case that would be unlikely to succeed (wrt.Rangers assets) but may cause ongoing problems and to this end he wants paid off.
That as days pass he may find people who would make a conditional agreement with him.
@timtim
My point is that the CEO is generally answerable to the board of directors. Your suggestion seems to subvert that normal corporate structure.
I guess you’re of the strong leader preference when choosing how best to run things.
Night Terror says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 12:15
========================================
NT, I largely agree with you on the limitations and practicality of FPP self-certification. It is a slight tangent but I didn’t agree with a club being admitted to the SFL as an Associate member without the standard diligence for admitting clubs to such membership.Perhaps (I know, I know) if rules had been followed at that time things might have turned out differently.
ecobhoy says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 11:32
As I have previously stated on this issue I don’t see how Rangers can be held responsible, as a club, for what the spivs are doing when they were unable to control who bought their club from D&P……………
====================================================================
I personally find this “the Club as a victim” train of thought disingenuous.
Rangers as a Club are not being held responsible for anything. “The Club” is not a person nor does not have a legal persona, so nobody is doing anything to it in that sense. At best it is an asset (of the company) to be bought and sold although in my view the Club and the Limited Company are one and the same.
I’m part of the accountability gang rather than strong leader brigade
Night Terror says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 12:15
@blu
I take your point, but you seem to only address this process as it applies to clubs wishing to enter Scottish football. It is not unusual for individuals to make an entrance to Scottish football at an existing member club. I think it was this that our particular strand of debate was focusing on.
========================================================
I think it’s also important not to put the circus wagon before the horse. How can a ‘fit & proper’ person test be designed and applied when the identity of shareholders owning a football club or a controlling interest in it remains a mystery.
They put ‘acceptable faces’ up front for show because they will pass the requirements when it might be that money is being laundered from all sorts of illegal activities. This is the real problem facing any ‘fit & proper’ test because if say the SFA or any other professional body gives a ‘fit & proper’ clearance they in effect certify the bona fides of these often offshore owners or those hiding money in investment vehicles or blind trusts.
This is not always for criminal or tax evasion purposes but often it is. I am not having any go at Rangers btw as it could apply to any club which attracts the interests of spivs or even an owner who starts off genuinely interested but who loses that interest and either through indifference or design financially damages the club.
Apologies, my last post quotes ecobhoy when the bit quoted is actually Night Terror
@blu – agreed.
Arguing that the SFA are not and should not be responsible for some aspects of governance does not mean I think they have no scope for improvement in the responsibilities they currently discharge, particularly concerned with recent events at the Ibrox club.
zerotolerance1903 says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 12:29
Oh really?
Night Terror says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 10:33
What precisely is the SFA meant to do with this information? How can they use it fairly to make any sort of “oversight” conclusion?
Nobody wants to buy Rangers. Big deal. What concern should that be of the SFA?
————————————————————-
You are right of course, after all there was literally no chance of the SFA saying boo the proverbial goose during this period of time: SFA President – Gordon Smith (2007–2010); resigned due to family commitments (sic); remind me again what his next paid job was?
From the SFA wiki page, there is a link to a BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/scotland/6705941.stm
Interesting wee quote in there too from the venerable GS:
“I think it was the American philosopher and writer Elbert Hubbard who said the only way to avoid criticism was to do nothing, say nothing and be nothing. That’s how you avoid criticism and certainly this job is not about avoiding criticism.”
He at least walked the talk, for when his time with Whyte was over he saw nothing, said nothing and did nothing to help or hinder the club during his tenure there. He left with barely a question asked and since the death of that once formidable club, was never asked to look back over his time in situ and maybe provide some insight to his role and what was unravelling in G51.
The revolving door between SFA/SPL and Ibrox had a rather long run, stocked with people who saw nothing, said nothing and did nothing (to hamper his lordship’s pet project)
Night Terror says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 11:27
You’re not my brother, are you?!? He had a very similar point about the SFA fit and proper person’s test. When it all fell apart on Valentines day, one of the aspects of the fallout from it had TRFC fans blaming the SFA for allowing Craig Whyte to take over in the first place (which shows a charming naivety on their part).
His point was that, 9 months earlier, having been promised a ‘Billionaire with off the radar wealth’ owner, what do you think the reaction would have been if the SFA had turned around and said ‘We’ve conducted a 5 minute review of Craig Whyte – mostly through Google, if we’re honest – and frankly, even in that tiny amount of time, we’ve got enough material to definitely say that he’s most certainly not a fit and proper person’?
Would the Rangers fans/press/David Murray have gone ‘Fair enough. Tell you what, we’ve dodged a bullet there’? Or do you think there’d have been uproar, burning of Peter Lawell effigies (for some, inexplicable reason), and a torch lit, pitchfork wielding march on Hampden?
This is what makes me think that when the SFA have ‘passed’ Dave King for ownership, it’s more likely that it means that they’ve got his paperwork in the safe, ready to see the light of day when it all goes down the pan again.
@verselijkfc
There may something in your point, but I don’t really see how it relates to the question of whether the SFA should be responsible for the F&PP test or not.
areyouaccusingmeofmendacity says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 12:51
Your brother sounds like a very wise gentleman, but I’m almost certain I am not him.
Night Terror says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 12:30
– agreed.
Arguing that the SFA are not and should not be responsible for some aspects of governance does not mean I think they have no scope for improvement in the responsibilities they currently discharge, particularly concerned with recent events at the Ibrox club.
================================================================
The SPL should have been updating its risk assessment on a regular basis though. I take that back, they did do a risk assessment and concluded that no matter what, RFC had to be kept in the SPL. No? SFL1 then. No? Well SFL3 will do.
You know what? It’s not hard to sympathise with verselijkfc @ 12:45 that, “The revolving door between SFA/SPL and Ibrox had a rather long run, stocked with people who saw nothing, said nothing and did nothing (to hamper his lordship’s pet project).”
Also, the supposed red flags – have to agree that somebody supposedly popping up out of nowhere to buy the club after it’s been up for sale for 3 years is hardly evidence of wrong doing. The house next door to us sold yesterday after being up for sale for 2 years (nothing to do with having us as neighbours, I hasten to add!). I don’t find it odd that it suddenly sold, mainly because the vendors had reduced it in price by £50,000!
All that the 3 year situation indicated was that Murray had managed to strike a deal with someone, and probably sold far under the value that he wanted in the first place (far, far under, as it turned out!). The fact that it sold for £1 is probably more worthy of comment, but it does happen in business, and normally a sign that someone just wants to cut their losses and get out.
Unfortunately, the flags would have to hung on test criteria far more quantifiable than those presented, and the list that someone provided would be a good start, but I agree that the SFA would be silly to enshrine it in their regulations, as it would leave them open to legal action, and the given the revolving door at Ibrox these days, it would be an annual thing for them!
Night Terror says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 11:27
……………………………………..
My own belief in this is…the SFA should have a degree of responsibility for protecting the game in Scotland…and yes they should be ready and willing to step in and govern….and if that means they investigate a club or its prospective new owners then that should be part of their remit…
The actions of one club can have a major impact on all others…
If FIFA decide to ban all Scottish clubs on the back of the actions of one club….shurley it is the responsibility of the SFA to ensure that doesn’t happen?
Ps. You don’t work at the SFA do you 🙂
Is that you Campbell?
paulmac2 says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 13:05
I wish I had his feckin’ money!
http://fshandbook.info/FS/html/handbook/FIT/2/1
The link above will take you directly to the PRA/FSA assessment criteria listed below.
Honesty, integrity and reputation
Competence and capability
Financial soundness
These are considered to be a benchmark for a fit and proper test.
Night Terror says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 11:49
“There is little room for morality in business or football,
and wishing the SFA become arbiters of whatever morality you might like to see implemented
is a dangerous direction in which to move.”
___________________________________________________________________________
NT, let’s put this to the test.
In football generally,
Is it right or wrong to field 12 unregistered players in a match at one time ?
Were this to happen, should the relevant Association become involved ?
Ps. Have you got homework to do ?
paulmac2 says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 13:04
On what basis are FIFA likely to ban all Scottish clubs?
I am doubtful that the level of malfeasance required to bring about this eventuality, however unlikely, could be prevented only by a SFA F&PP test. There are much easier ways to satisfy UEFA or FIFA that a national association has discharged its duties to a sufficient level that would prevent the need for a ban on all clubs.
Once we get into money laundering, as an earlier post suggested, I don’t think the SFA have sufficient powers to investigate this possibility properly. Sniffing out money laundering, or the potential for such activities, in potential staff or investors at clubs is surely well outside their remit.
Night Terror says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 12:34
zerotolerance1903 says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 12:29
Apologies, my last post quotes ecobhoy when the bit quoted is actually Night Terror
Oh really?
===========================================
On further review, nope?
It appears I was right enough in my original post and I retract my apology!
zerotolerance1903 says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 12:27
ecobhoy says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 11:32
As I have previously stated on this issue I don’t see how Rangers can be held responsible, as a club, for what the spivs are doing when they were unable to control who bought their club from D&P……………
====================================================================
I personally find this “the Club as a victim” train of thought disingenuous.
Rangers as a Club are not being held responsible for anything. “The Club” is not a person nor does not have a legal persona, so nobody is doing anything to it in that sense. At best it is an asset (of the company) to be bought and sold although in my view the Club and the Limited Company are one and the same.
———————————————————————————-
I would observe that if you honestly think my train of thought tends to the ‘disingenuous’ then you haven’t read many of my posts. I could equally infer that you exhibit zero tolerance going by your moniker but then I ain’t that crass although I am quite capable of responding to ad hominem moves in a similar manner.
I used the term ‘club’ as that was the term used by the original poster and I didn’t actually see that re-running the argument over Rangers – new, old or the same – actually made any difference to the fact that no matter what entity was involved even if it wasn’t Rangers – if it was in administration and sold by the administrators – then that entity had no control over who the assets were sold to.
As to your concept of ‘club’ I totally disagree with it. It may not have a legal persona although many organisations in the UK are run very successfully as unincorporated associations and I would be keen to observe the reaction of their members when you tell them they aren’t ‘a club’.
But you are correct in some degree with inferring that a club ‘is not a person’. Indeed it is very unusual for an unincorporated association to exist with only one member but not unknown depending on the constitution especially with regard to dissolution rights when only one member remains.
But lets move on now that we have established a modicum of agreement to the real meat of the matter where you state that at best ‘The Club’ is an asset of the company to be bought and sold. I’m not sure if you are a football supporter but to me as a Celtic supporter ‘The Club’ has nothing to do with a limited company – it is the fans pure and simple. They are distinct – real fans know that and know exactly who they are and also that they are the custodians of the history.
The history of a club isn’t the baubles and trinkets on display in a trophy room. It is the collective footballing memory of those who follow a club made up of victories, defeats and thousands of other things many of which are highly personal to individual fans but which coalesces into the collective memory. Players and owners come and go but the fans remain with their memories and if they depart there is no club and indeed the memory will eventually die as well.
I actually feel quite sorry for you when you say that ‘The club and the limited company are one and the same’ because then I know you have never ever experienced what being part of a club is all about and never been wrapped in that collective club memory – I know of no greater experience – well I can think of one but it doesn’t last for 90 minutes 🙂
And the beautiful thing about being part of a club is that you actually help form part of that ongoing memory and ensure it’s continuation.
It may be that you are an accountant because some of them get quite emotional when it comes to the balance sheets of Ltd companies and PLCs but maybe not as you haven’t identified whether your ‘club’ concept as being the same as the Ltd company refers to an operating company or a holding company but frankly I couldn’t care less because it’s not my concept.
And to finish where you started with my disingenuous concept of the ‘club as a victim’ train of thought. I will be quite clear and state that very many decent Rangers supporters whose main interest is in following their club to watch and enjoy football have been ‘victims’ in the rape and pillage of their club.
Whether some others like it or not they have been magnificent in their support and their club will survive no matter what the spivs do and no matter happens to the limited companies involved.
And how do I know their club will survive – quite simply because if the fans want it they’ll survive just like I know that even if Fergus hadn’t arrived and we had been saddled with Dempsey, which would only have delayed collapse, then we would have fought-on.
We might have had to become, once again, an unincorporated association but we would have fought on and rebuilt. Perhaps because I was involved in the fight against the old Celtic Dynasties and Dempsey I have no difficulty in feeling and showing compassion towards Rangers supporters because I know how it feels to have ‘YOUR CLUB’ hours away from disaster.
@manandboy
Are you confusing morality with rules?
areyouaccusingmeofmendacity says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 13:02
All that the 3 year situation indicated was that Murray had managed to strike a deal with someone, and probably sold far under the value that he wanted in the first place (far, far under, as it turned out!). The fact that it sold for £1 is probably more worthy of comment, but it does happen in business, and normally a sign that someone just wants to cut their losses and get out.
———————————————————-
Thank you, that backs up my point.
As I understand it, the F&PP rule is to ensure the league structure and fixture list is not put at risk by an owner playing games (or worse) with a member club.
If an existing owner is willing to sell the “biggest” club in the league for 1 pound because, as you have stated, he wants to cut his loses, isn’t that a reason to ensure the next guy has the necessary cash and clout to take that club out of the black?
If The SFA or SPL are in possession of the data they claim to require from member clubs, they would have seen that the club had assets (facilities and players) that were valued at upwards of 80M and a outstanding debt of approx. 30M. Even if the Big Tax Bill was factored in, then effectively he gave the club away.
I am pretty sure your neighbour did not do that.