The Existence of Laws

ByTrisidium

The Existence of Laws

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/

About the author

Trisidium administrator

Trisidium is a Dunblane businessman with a keen interest in Scottish Football. He is a Celtic fan, although the demands of modern-day parenting have seen him less at games and more as a taxi service for his kids.

5,802 Comments so far

bad capt madmanPosted on3:39 pm - May 29, 2013


sanoffymessssoitizzhizzemdyfonedrapolis says:

122.1 Each Trialist may be allowed to play in, or be listed as a substitute for, a maximum of three games for any one club, provided he is otherwise eligible to do so. Clubs playing a player in these circumstances must indicate the fact by adding the words “not registered” after such player’s name and address, place and date of birth, previous club, and the country in which he last played, in the list of players in their Report of Result of the game.

So for Black & Templeton to have played against Brechin FC as trialists after they had signed for Sevco they must have been “unregistered”. I suppose its within the rules, but not the spirit? or can anyone remember any other such situations where a club hasnt registered a player in time for a game so played them as a trialist?

View Comment

Forres Dee (@ForresDee)Posted on3:55 pm - May 29, 2013


The CE says,

I’ve just watched the video, he can’t even look his interviewer in the eye, make up your own mind about that.

I’m led to believe that most of the initial cash is coming from an existing source, DFC director Bill Colvin.

DFCSS have the authority to accept/reject the deal outright, they have had a year to make their minds up. The deadline in place was to get the existing squad signed up asap, this won’t happen now.

DFCSS have a history of ignoring things until they get the outcome that they desire without actually having to make an actual decision.

They also have a history of taking credit for the good work of others.

This is from Dundee Mad, taken from the ‘Tele’;

————
Bill Colvins email to DFCSS reps on club board.
Tonight’s tele shows email from Bill Colvin to BOD.

1. DFCSS BOD ask for £100,000 up front to use at their dicretion.

2. DFCSS ask for a guarantee of another £550,000 to be used at their discetion.

3. Ask for Due diligence to be carried out on investors at investors own expense without limit until DFCSS are satisfied.

4. Say nothing to anyone about the deal unless it goes through DFCSS first.

It goes on to say he hasn’t heard anything from the 3 BOD members since he was asked to leave last weeks meeting.

He also states he finds their position bizarre.

And the best bit of all, states that all proposals had been discussed before at several board meetings.
————

Take from that what you will, Dundee fans are furious at DFCSS for the continual lies, bluster and delays. This following on after failing to properly back or sack Barry Smith at Xmas is enough for me, DFCSS have a place, it’s just not in control and definitely not with these individuals.

View Comment

bogsdolloxPosted on3:58 pm - May 29, 2013


Captain Haddock says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 15:39
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I agree it’s not in the spirit of the rules. To my mind it is designed to allow unregistered players from the juniors to have a go at stepping up by turning out for a lower league club.

The Rangers are exploiting a badly drafted rule (no surprises there) and as for the players they intend to play as trialists they cannot complete the paperwork as instructed. As to put “not registered” would be incorrect as the players are registered but out of contract with their previous clubs.

Beats me why the rule was not changed after Dundee used it in the second admin.

View Comment

The CEPosted on4:07 pm - May 29, 2013


FD,

Thanks far that info. A couple of my pals are big Dee men and have been keeping me somewhat informed.

Genuinely interested in part due to our own failed fan ownership vehicle and a desire to see DFC avoid any further financial calamity.

I have sympathy for your position it does seem you are, caught between the rock and a hard place of somewhat dodgy, pipe-dream investors, and a dithering and deceitful Supporters Society who’s representatives have ‘gone rouge’ to a degree.

Best of luck, but I can’t help thinking that no matter how poor the performance of the DFCSS, you’ll be better off without Scott Gardner and the Texans.

View Comment

tonto8on8his8high8horsePosted on4:11 pm - May 29, 2013


I know, I know, i’m a bad man.

But i couldn’t resist a bit of nostalgia.

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/2357/01uk4.jpg

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/1896/02mb5.jpg

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/6858/03cn4.jpg

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/7587/04lj1.jpg

Plus I think that the “club insider” was the one and only Jim Traynor 😉

View Comment

Forres Dee (@ForresDee)Posted on4:13 pm - May 29, 2013


bogsdollox says:

Beats me why the rule was not changed after Dundee used it in the second admin.
—————–

Most of the loopholes were closed, although not all.

Again Rangers are abusing the spirit of the rules/punishment but not the actual loose wording.

View Comment

tomtomPosted on4:15 pm - May 29, 2013


bogsdollox says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 14:19
7 0 Rate This
tomtomaswell says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 13:19

Re the trialist issue. You can bet your mortgage that TRFC have been getting advice on this from their friends at the SFA. There is no way they would have went ahead with any of these “signings” without guidance from above.

Why should any of us be surprised at any of this.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I understand what is behind your post but surely it is perfectly reasonable for a club to approach the SFA for a “ruling/advice” before doing something because as the governing body they interpret the rules?

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

Nothing wrong with the club establishing what they can and can’t do. What is wrong is the barefaced disregard for the sanction that was imposed. Whatever happened to the “we are prepared to accept our punishment and get on with regaining our place in the top league” attitude that was being spouted last year. Not content with having a “ban” that doesn’t start until you have had time to prepare for it, the club then decides that they should exploit the inadequacies of the ban to the disadvantage of every other club in the league they are now in. Is McCoist really saying that the players who romped home last season aren’t good enough to do it again or is this just a two fingered salute to the rest of Scottish football.

WATP and we can do what we please seems to be the order of the day. Punishments are only for the little clubs who can’t fill in forms properly.

It’s like being sent to prison and your lawyer finding a clause for you that allows you to spend each evening at home. The whole thing stinks but it’s what we have come to expect in this whole debacle. If the SFA are not complicit in this then they should be hanging their heads in shame at the ease with which their laws/rulings are being circumvented.

View Comment

Forres Dee (@ForresDee)Posted on4:17 pm - May 29, 2013


The CE says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 16:07

Best of luck, but I can’t help thinking that no matter how poor the performance of the DFCSS, you’ll be better off without Scott Gardner and the Texans.

———————-

I agree with you about Gardiner and honestly have no idea about the Texans, initially I was dead set against it. But now, it’s become secondary to the duplicity of the DFCSS.

View Comment

The CEPosted on4:20 pm - May 29, 2013


Now that the season’s finished I would just like to commiserate with the fans of the six SPL club’s who went out of business this season. 🙂

On a serious note how did Armageddon work out for everyone?

Yes I’m sure fans of the following clubs are gutted at the way the SPL’s turned out without the deceased Rangers.

Celtic – Easy-ish league win, Champions League knockouts, SC Win.
Motherwell – 2nd spot – Europe
St Johnstone – 3rd spot – Europe
Ross County and Inverness Caley – Both finishing high in the league after record breaking seasons
St Mirren – Won a cup
Hearts – Got to a cup final, but continue to navigate choppy financial waters.
Hibs – Got to a cup final – will play in Europe
Dundee – Relegated as expected, made some money thanks to the death of Rangers
Dundee United – Made more from Dundee derbies than they would have off Rangers, did well in cups, including a near full house and Sky’s money for televising the absolute spanking they gave the tribute act.
Kilmarnock and Aberdeen – Meh, no real change either way.

Yup, an absolute disaster for all concerned in the SPL.

Looking an absolute mile down the leagues:

Rangers – Won the Third Division with the second biggest budget in the country, failed to beat fourth tier records of Gretna and East Fife, lost to the likes of Annan and Stirling, and endured early cup exits to QoS, DUFC and ICT.

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on4:23 pm - May 29, 2013


Spot the difference in Rule 8.

Ramsden Cup Rules as given on the SFL website on 31st July 2012:
http://web.archive.org/web/20120731171331/http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/thesfl/constitution/

Ramsden Cup Rules on the SFL website by 24th September 2012:
http://web.archive.org/web/20120924010528/http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/thesfl/constitution/

The first round ties were scheduled to be played on 28th/29th July 2012.

To any member of the MSM tuning in, can you ask Mr Longmuir at which meeting the SFL board approved the rule change?

Before or after the 1st round ties had been played?

View Comment

bobferrisPosted on4:25 pm - May 29, 2013


I think we’re forgetting that one of TRFC stated aims for last season was to win a major trophy, not just the Scottish Third Division. They wanted/expected to go deep into all the cups but, as we know now, failed miserably to even go deep into the latter stages of the Ramsdens. I think it also rankles with them that they didn’t set any records last season, coming nowhere near Gretna’s 98 points or even East Fife’s 88. They couldn’t even go unbeaten at home for goodness sake! Even with Low, Daly and no doubt a few other SPL drop downs, they will have to go some to surpass QoS’s 92 points but maybe just maybe they might be able to secure the coveted Ramsdens Cup.

View Comment

AllyJamboPosted on4:35 pm - May 29, 2013


Forres Dee (@ForresDee) says:

Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 14:11

DFC – Once again a shambles!
_____________________________________

Certainly looks that way, FD. How close to the edge are DFC – again? If they don’t accept this additional funding is there much likelihood of it being found elsewhere? It would appear to me that the supporters must just about be tapped out and that the Texans might just be Last Chance Saloon. I certainly hope not, but infighting and resignations in the boardroom can only make things worse. As you described, the other day, a supporter-led board is not necessarily the Nirvana many think it to be.

View Comment

bluPosted on4:39 pm - May 29, 2013


Forres Dee (@ForresDee) says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 16:13
================================
Barry Smith was lauded for making the most of what he had in that season, including the “smart” use of trialists. I don’t think it’s right to give Rangers stick for doing the same. The rules maybe crap but they weren’t framed to assist one club. Unless, of HP’s observation on diddy cup rules proves different!

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on4:44 pm - May 29, 2013


HirsutePursuit says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 16:23

could you narrow down the rule that changed – lots of reading there and you clearly know what changed

ta

View Comment

wottpiPosted on4:45 pm - May 29, 2013


RM has a post running with statements from the fans directed at the board and mentioning a meeting today?

Anyone heard any mutterings from Govan.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on4:51 pm - May 29, 2013


wottpi says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 16:45
0 0 Rate This
RM has a post running with statements from the fans directed at the board and mentioning a meeting today?

Anyone heard any mutterings from Govan.
+++++++++++++++++++
Today’s Herald-
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/agenda-clear-but-more-tough-decisions-ahead-for-rangers-board.21208735

View Comment

sanoffymessssoitizzhizzemdyfonedrapolisPosted on4:58 pm - May 29, 2013


NTHM, sorry for my delay in responding to your other posts on the eligibility of Spivco FC’s recent “signings” to participate in matches prior to 1 September 2013. I had to pop out to collect some medical documents from a friend.

I reckon that to answer your questions I‘ll first need to (re)consider the following

• SPL Rules (under which the Judicial Panel was convened to consider the prima facie case that payments to players arising from EBT “Loans” had not been declared to the SPL or SFA);

• The SPL (LNS) Judicial Panel Determination dated 28 February 2013;

• SFL Rules regarding players’ whose contracts end on 30 June each year; and

• The infamous “5-way Agreement”

It will come as no surprise to regular contributors that the interaction of the above are, to say the least, very convoluted so it will take me a bit more time to draft a response that will hopefully aid our mutual understanding!

Thankfully Hirsute Pursuit, whom I regard as our “Ace Rules Reporter” is on the case too. Thanks for giving me something else to consider HP.

View Comment

ikiPosted on5:00 pm - May 29, 2013


bogsdollox says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 14:19
I understand what is behind your post but surely it is perfectly reasonable for a club to approach the SFA for a “ruling/advice” before doing something because as the governing body they interpret the rules?

========
I wonder if any such approach was made for a “ruling/advice” before using EBTs?

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on5:13 pm - May 29, 2013


Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 16:44
===============================================
As things stood on the SFL website on 31st July – AFTER THE 1st ROUND TIES HAD BEEN PLAYED.
http://web.archive.org/web/20120606093110/http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/docs/Challenge_Cup_Competition_Rules.pdf

8. ELIGIBILITY OF PLAYERS
Players taking part in the Competition must be registered in terms of Scottish Football League Rules as appropriate.
8.1 No Club shall play, or list as a named substitute, any player who, in the same season, has already played or been a named substitute for another Club in the Competition.
8.2 It shall be the responsibility of each Club participating in the Competition to ensure that its players are eligible to play in any Challenge Cup match. If a player participates in a Challenge Cup match, such player being ineligible to play in the Cup match as a result of his suspension by The Scottish Football Association or for any other reason, the Club for which the player participates in the Challenge Cup match shall be liable to such penalty as the Board may decide.
8.3 Any Club infringing this Rule may be disqualified from the Competition and the tie awarded to its opponent.

As things stood by 24th September.
http://web.archive.org/web/20121101153128/http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/docs/009__034__constitution__rules__Challenge_Cup_Rules__1346426065.pdf

8. ELIGIBILITY OF PLAYERS
Players taking part in the Competition must be registered in terms of Scottish Football League Rules as appropriate save as outlined in Rule 8.3 below.
8.1 No Club shall play, or list as a named substitute, any player (including a trialist) who, in the same season, has already played or been a named substitute for another Club in the Competition.
8.2 It shall be the responsibility of each Club participating in the Competition to ensure that its players (including trialists) are eligible to play in any Challenge Cup match. If a player (including a trialist) participates in a Challenge Cup match, such player being ineligible to play in the Cup match as a result of his suspension by The Scottish Football Association or for any other reason, the Club for which the player participates in the Challenge Cup match shall be liable to such penalty as the Board may decide.
8.3 In the First Round only, each Club shall be entitled to play, or list as a named substitute, up to a maximum of two trialists, despite the trialists not being registered in terms of Scottish Football League Rules provided the trialists are otherwise eligible to do so. Clubs playing a trialist in these circumstances must indicate the fact by adding the words “not registered” after such player’s name and address, place and date of birth, previous club, and the country in which he last played, in the list of players in their Report of Result of the game.
8.4 Any Club infringing this Rule may be disqualified from the Competition and the tie awarded to its opponent.

View Comment

CastofThousandsPosted on5:15 pm - May 29, 2013


HirsutePursuit says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 16:23

“To any member of the MSM tuning in, can you ask Mr Longmuir at which meeting the SFL board approved the rule change”?
—————–

I take it that is a rhetorical question Hirsuit. I think many will be experiencing corruption fatigue so the impact of what otherwise would be a striking observation may be lost amongst the general disbelief. The old adage is ‘if you’re going to tell a lie make it a big one’.
I presume you were pointing us to the Challenge Cup rules where the discrepancy you allude to is quite clear (i.e. eligibility of trialists in the first round only).

Since it is far more likely to be able to solicit a sensible response from yourself Hirsuit, I was wondering, the SFA and SPL rule changes that you alluded to previously were mighty suspiciously timed. What authority would be needed to effect such changes? I presume they would have to be ratified by a meeting of the respective boards. Perhaps you can list who would have been present on those boards.

On the presumption that you have nothing better to do with your life other than engage with TSFM (this speaks from my own experience), could you paste up the critical clauses (SFA & SPL, if they’re not too lengthy) so that they can be easily viewed side by side. Although I apprecaite you provide the full documentation to remove any doubt of partiality, sometimes your research leaves me in its wake and the full weight of its pertinence can become diluted.

If you have already done this and I have forgotten already then perhaps you can direct me to the relevant posts. I was sure I had taken copies of these but the document where I would have kept them is considerably lighter in content than I recall.

View Comment

CastofThousandsPosted on5:35 pm - May 29, 2013


HirsuitPursuite.

I was looking in the wrong place. I have your SFA comment here
—————-

HirsutePursuit says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 13:43

Thinking about the responsibility of governing bodies towards good governance:
PROHIBITION ON TRANSFER OF MEMBERSHIP
16.It is not permissible for a member to seek directly or indirectly to transfer its membership of the Association to another member or to any other entity. Any member desirous of transferring its membership to another entity within its own administrative group for the purpose of internal solvent reconstruction only must apply to the Board for permission to effect such transfer. The Board may refuse or grant such application on such terms and conditions as the Board may think fit

http://www.scribd.com/doc/143099754/SFA-ArticlesofAssociation-2006

PROHIBITION ON TRANSFER OF MEMBERSHIP
16. It is not permissible for a member to transfer directly or indirectly its membership of the Association to another member or to any other entity and any such transfer or attempt to effect such a transfer is prohibited save as otherwise provided in this Article 16. Any member desirous of transferring its membership to an other entity within its own administrative group for the purpose of internal solvent reconstruction must apply to the Board for permission to effect such transfer, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Any other application for transfer of membership will be reviewed by the Board which will have complete discretion to reject or to grant such application on such terms and conditions as the Board may think fit.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/143196212/SFA-Articles-of-Association-2009

I have the SPL one as well but it is structured a little differently. I’ll read it through and ask questions as necessary.

However, who would have authorised this particular change?

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on5:44 pm - May 29, 2013


mullach says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 17:15
================================
At the time of the new club’s first match with Brechin, there was a general outrage because the old club’s SFA membership had not yet been transferred to Sevco Scotland.

At the time of Sevco’s first match – when they were granted the infamous provisional SFA membership – Rangers FC still held its own membership of the SFA. Rangers SFA membership was not transferred to Sevco until several days later.

There was a general debate at the time as to how any of the former Rangers players could play for Sevco as their registrations were still held by the old club.

On August 27th last year, I posted this in “The List” section
http://scottishfootballmonitor.wordpress.com/the-list/comment-page-1/#comment-6870

The link I provided to the Ramsden Cup Rules, worked at the time. The quote I provided was taken directly from the rules as they were published at the time. This was four weeks after the first round ties had been played.

In these rules no trialists were allowed to play in the competition. ian Black played as a trialist in the first round.

In September a new set of rules appeared on the website. In these rules, trialists could play; but only in the first round. Of course, by this time, Ian Black had been registered with the new club.

I’ve searched the media section of the SFL website; but cannot find any indication that this rule change had been sanctioned before the competition began.

I would just like to know, who proposed the rule change and at what board meeting was it approved.

View Comment

jonnyodPosted on5:51 pm - May 29, 2013


HP
saw your post earlier and dig a little digging on the SFL link you provided .
The change was made alright and the timing IMO is interesting .
I searched back on the archive link and the rule change is not there on the first available earlier date ,which is Monday July 30 /2012 but Sevco played their first gave the day before that on Sunday July 29/2012 .So according to the SFL website there was no amendment regarding trialists on Monday July 30/2012 but there then appears an amendment stating that in the first round ONLY teams can play TWO trialists .
A quick look at the match report for the Brechin v Sevco game and low and behold Sevco played TWO trialists Ian Black and Andy Little both unregistered .
I also found the official SFL website match report interesting for another reason I hope the sevconians don’t see it or the SFL will be on the banned list

View Comment

CastofThousandsPosted on5:52 pm - May 29, 2013


Just to break down Hirsuit’s observation, for my own benefit as much as anything, placing the different sentences one above the other (old one first).
================

It is not permissible for a member to seek directly or indirectly to transfer its membership of the Association to another member or to any other entity.
————————-
It is not permissible for a member to transfer directly or indirectly its membership of the Association to another member or to any other entity and any such transfer or attempt to effect such a transfer is prohibited save as otherwise provided in this Article 16.

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

Any member desirous of transferring its membership to another entity within its own administrative group for the purpose of internal solvent reconstruction only must apply to the Board for permission to effect such transfer.
————————-
Any member desirous of transferring its membership to an other entity within its own administrative group for the purpose of internal solvent reconstruction must apply to the Board for permission to effect such transfer, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed.

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

The Board may refuse or grant such application on such terms and conditions as the Board may think fit
———————–
Any other application for transfer of membership will be reviewed by the Board which will have complete discretion to reject or to grant such application on such terms and conditions as the Board may think fit.

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

I can see whats going on now.

* The first sentence change is effectively;

There may be another part of this article that allows such a transfer. Its not just transfer to another member now, you can also transfer to an “entity”.

* The second sentence;

From now on transferring a membership is made easy.

* Third sentence;

The board may act illogically from now on when considering such a transfer.

————

I can see why this might be considered a bit fishy.

View Comment

jonnyodPosted on5:55 pm - May 29, 2013


HP
there is also a mention about Little having to be unregistered as the ragers membership would not be transferred till the Friday

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on5:57 pm - May 29, 2013


neepheid says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 16:51
Today’s Herald:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/agenda-clear-but-more-tough-decisions-ahead-for-rangers-board.21208735
—————————————————————————————————————

Richard Wilson’s piece is all very wordy but unfortunately not very worthy IMO.

He writes that Murray has an: ‘obvious and heartfelt affection for the club, and his commitment to good corporate governance, Murray is a flawed chairman. With him at the helm, the board is thought to lack leadership and decisive decision-making, with much of the business of the last few months spent on internal politics – there was a fierce clash of personalities between Murray and Charles Green, the former chief executive – rather than driving the club forward.’

Has Wilson ever considered that we had a CEO of Rangers who was talking pash and promising moonbeams without any discussion, backing or sanction from the board? I don’t think what was happening was a ‘fierce clash of personalities’. Rather it was Murray who knew the meaning of what correct corporate governance for an AIM public company should be. It wasn’t a question of ‘driving the club forward’ but rather a desperate attempt to ensure the survival of the club.

And tbh if Green and Ahmad are gone then there is more chance that the club will survive and emerge from this crazy period in its history when it was run by rants from the CEO and it would appear that the only person who stood up for Rangers was indeed Murray.

Wilson states that in terms of a replacement for Murray: ‘Philip Cartmell, has only attended one board meeting. That remoteness would not suit the role’. Hello Richard have you missed or are you ignoring the fact that Cartmell has announced that he’s leaving to concentrate other business commitments that require his attention. Personally I think that Cartmell has looked at the shambles that Rangers has become and decided discretion was the better part of valour. I think it says a lot that he has decided to stay and support Murray and if Murray is axed Cartmell will follow.

I had to laugh when Wilson opined that there are: ‘Good working relationships around the board table’. What there actually are is a number of unstable cliques with various board members who appear to have shifting allegiances depending on what the agenda happens to me on any particular day’.

Wilson announces that Blue Pitch Holdings have demanded an egm. All I can say is has he any clue who Blue Pitch Holdings are? Is it Craig Whyte? Is it Charles Green? Who exactly is it and do Rangers fans not deserve to know?

It is very poor reporting to give unknown people the credence that Richard has – Indeed I remember his telling Charlotte Fakes that she had to reveal all. So Richard hasn’t backed her because he doesn’t know who she is but he’s happy to back the anonymous Blue Pitch Holdings. Poor, poor reporting IMO from an allegedly quality newspaper.

OK he mentions Easdale – well at least we all know who the brothers are. But Chris Morgan – what exactly does he do and who is he going to represent on the board as he only had 400K shares in the original consortium. So he can’t be there getting a board seat on the strength of his shareholding. So Richard – what shareholders does he actually represent? Ah you haven’t asked the question?

And then there is Wilson’s statement that Green: ‘Having resigned as chief executive last month, he was allowed to remain on the board as a director until May 31, so he can participate in today’s meeting.’ Oh really – last month when Green resigned the date of this meeting had already been set? Is that what you are actually stating as a fact Richard? What about the Board meetings that took place in-between?

There are many many other inconsistencies, weakness and lack of substance in this blacmange of reportage and tbh it appears that no matter what happens – including a tornado striking Ibrox this afternoon – Mr Wilson would be able to point to his article and say: ‘Look, I mentioned that’. Sadly the article is bereft of facts, any real questioning and is just an excuse for the destruction of a swathe of Scandinavian forest.

View Comment

CastofThousandsPosted on6:15 pm - May 29, 2013


Sorry to clog up the blog as usual but to round off my recollection (cut and paste) of HirsuitPursuite’s previous excellent analysis, the critical sentence concerning SPL interpretation of Club vs Company

“The Commission was set up to be adversarial in nature. One side would put forward the ‘charges’, the other side would ‘defend’ its position.

The SPL’s case was set out in such a way that it declared that the Club had no legal personality – it was in the Commission’s remit to accept this proposition.

The Commission accepted the remit it was given and neither Rangers nor Sevco sought to argue against it.

The real question is why the SPL board would want to manufacture this false division between Club and company in the first place?

It seems to me that the SPL’s position is part of the same crisis management strategy that had the SFA change its Articles in 2009”.

Now I’ve broken it down into bite size pieces that my relatively wee mind can absorb, your analysis makes perfect sense Hirsuit. I’d like to think that the SPL were perhaps spooked into taking this line due to the approach of Armaggedon. However this may be my own partiality kicking in.

Conspiracy fatigue. Possibly the best remedy is acceptance of a whole new reality. Not sure if we can blame Rangers for the SPL’s acquiesence however convenient it might be to do so. Looks like its us against the world.

Watch out world, we’re coming after you.

View Comment

NawlitePosted on6:15 pm - May 29, 2013


Surely HP’s piece re the surreptitious retrospective changing of the eligibility rules is prima facie evidence of corruption and complicity within the Scottish Football Authorities?

Will any of our MSM – the good ones or the bad ones – now ask the questions of the authorities that they should have been asking at the time?

View Comment

AllyJamboPosted on6:22 pm - May 29, 2013


Looking at HP’s excellent uncovering of the Ramsden Cup rule changes I started to wonder if anything that turned out OK for RFC/TRFC actually came about through adherence to clear and concise, or unchanged, rules. Since Sevco 5088 (or was it Sevco Scotland) bought the assets of RFC there seems to have been an awfull lot of ‘get out of jail free’ cards come TRFC’s way. Every potential banana skin has been circumvented by an interpretation of the rules that has completely ignored the spirit of the rules and proceeded in a way that could only happen if the decision to ‘do the best thing for TRFC’ was made prior to an examination of the rules. What’s more, if TRFC have gone to the SFA/SPL to seek guidance on ways to circumvent the transfer embargo, they should have been told to go away and work it out for themselves, then, if they managed it, been told that the existing rules only cover clubs not under a registration embargo and were intended for clubs who have, themselves, previously abided by the rules.

I’d love to see the SFA try to explain, as mentioned by others on here, how a player, already signed and under contract, could ever be considered a ‘trialist’. Of course, as previously, the SFA will never try to explain or justify any of the decisions made to help their club.

In short, they should be told; you broke the rules, don’t you dare try to use any loopholes in those rules to avoid the full weight of the punishment meted out as a result of your cheating.

View Comment

CastofThousandsPosted on6:26 pm - May 29, 2013


ecobhoy says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 17:57

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/agenda-clear-but-more-tough-decisions-ahead-for-rangers-board.21208735
————-

Just as well you quoted explicitly in your analysis ecobhoy as the link appears to have mysteriously broken. Even though it is a perfect copy of neepheid’s post link which I read half an hour earlier. When I read this earlier post the link was working.

View Comment

jonnyodPosted on6:26 pm - May 29, 2013


I just wish that the SFA/SFL would stop kicking Sevco when they are down as it’s all the other clubs that end up with sore stones .

View Comment

neepheidPosted on6:51 pm - May 29, 2013


Here is a full copy of Richard Wilson’s article in the Herald today-

He ought to be used to the circumstances, since every board meeting for the past two months has involved discussions, sometimes heated, about his involvement in the club. The directors met last Friday to vote on the matter, only for the gathering to be abruptly brought to a halt. Had it gone ahead, Murray would have been voted off.

His future will not be the only item on the agenda today, but it is certain to feature prominently. For all of his obvious and heartfelt affection for the club, and his commitment to good corporate governance, Murray is a flawed chairman. With him at the helm, the board is thought to lack leadership and decisive decision-making, with much of the business of the last few months spent on internal politics – there was a fierce clash of personalities between Murray and Charles Green, the former chief executive – rather than driving the club forward. The majority of the directors, some of them reluctantly and including Walter Smith, have come to the same conclusion, but the process is not straightforward.

Murray would need to be replaced, although it could be an interim appointment. There are four current non-executive directors but one of them, Philip Cartmell, has only attended one board meeting. That remoteness would not suit the role. Smith has intimated in the past that he has no wish to hold the position. That leaves Ian Hart, a lifelong fan and respected business figure, and Bryan Smart, another who has an emotional attachment, but neither may be keen given the difficulties that chairing the board may bring, with much of the club’s business having been carried out in public in recent months and a lack of unity amongst directors and fans alike.

There are good working relationships around the board table, though. On the current issues, Hart and Smith are increasingly in agreement, with Smart often also sharing similar views. Craig Mather, the chief operating officer, and Brian Stockbridge, the finance director, have also been prepared to vote in favour of moves that would bring some stability to the board. With an emergency general meeting having been requested by Blue Pitch Holdings, with four issues to be addressed – to remove Murray, to remove Cartmell, to appoint James Easdale and to appoint Chris Morgan – there is a desire to find the means to negotiate a settlement in advance that is not disruptive.

There are two stages to Rangers returning to a more stable, productive set-up. The first is change in the boardroom, which is likely to begin to be addressed today. Disagreements amongst directors have not always followed along ‘Rangers men’ and ‘non-Rangers men’ lines, and there have been few clear-cut points of disagreement; the subtleties and the nuances have often been lost in the rush to impose a clear narrative on events. It is more that the board has lacked strong leadership, from the chairman, and some of the dissent has been leaked. A new chairman, and perhaps a vice-chairman with a specific remit, would go some way to restoring order to the boardroom.

It is considered highly unlikely that Green will return, despite being the majority shareholder with a 7.8% stake. Having resigned as chief executive last month, he was allowed to remain on the board as a director until May 31, so he can participate in today’s meeting.

The independent investigation into the level of collusion last summer between Green and Craig Whyte, the former owner – which was launched by Murray and carried out by Pinsent Masons and Deloitte – has been completed, but the results have not yet been seen by all of the directors. A detailed statement on the outcome is unlikely, but there seems little prospect of a return for Green. He remains popular with some fans, although the consensus view is that the club needs to draw a distinct line under the turbulence of the past 12 months.

Even if matters are addressed in the boardroom, where many of the issues have become centred on personalities, Rangers’ long-term stability is likely to require a change in the balance of shareholders. As revealed in the prospects ahead of last December’s Initial Public Offering of shares, members of Green’s initial consortium can begin to sell their stakes in June. Green himself, as well as Imran Ahmad, the former commercial director, have to wait until 12 months have elapsed before they can trade, although lock-in agreements do often leave room for manoeuvre.

Dave King, the former Rangers director, has previously admitted to monitoring the situation. Even if last year’s season ticket sales could be repeated, there is the likelihood that Rangers will need additional funding on or before the club’s return to the top flight. King has always believed that the business model will require further investment to be successful. With the Rangers Supporters Trust, as well as individuals, having bought shares during the IPO, there is also an opportunity for the fans to take larger stakes in the club if they can work together to pool their influence.

The board meeting today may well begin to address some of the issues that have been troubling Rangers in recent months. There will still be other difficult decisions to be made in the weeks ahead.

View Comment

newtzPosted on6:55 pm - May 29, 2013


100bjd says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 11:38
…. In respose to barcabhoy
—————————————————
chipm0nk says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 11:54
—————————————————

One key issue is that CG was an officer in Sevco 5088 and also (later) in Sevco Scotland and has certain fiduciary responsibilities ….

One of the key claims that that was brought out in the LBC from AE c/o CtH ….. and not highlighted to date …

Directly from the LBC …

We understand that Charles Green was a director of Sevco 5088 at all relevant times aswell as being a director of Sevco Scotland at the relevant time. This latter fact is important as Green’s knowledge would be imputed to Sevco Scotland as a result.

And later ….

The absence of proper consideration and a proper motive for the switch to Sevco Scotland would also indicate that Green was in breach of his fiduciary duties to Sevco 5088, a fact of which Sevco Scotland would have been aware. Moreover Green was not at the relevant time the sole registered shareholder of Sevco5088 and therefore in a position to “bless” the transaction (and thereby waive any breach of fiduciary duty to shareholders as director in that capacity).

And later …

Sevco Scotland (through its directors) had sufficient knowledge of the illegality to make it a constructive trustee of the relevant assets

And later ….

It should be noted that if Green did as it would appear act in breach of his fiduciaryduties to Sevco 5088, he would be susceptible to a claim for damages by that company.

View Comment

newtzPosted on7:08 pm - May 29, 2013


100bjd says:

Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 13:30
————————————————

Novation was first picked up by corsica (RIP), then RTC then Paul McC ……
But were was the consideration …. ?

go back to CtH LBC ….. it lists this as one of the possibilities …. now look at the Share holdings just released today by CtH ….. HOW ? ….. without agreement of shareholders ….. !

The … Patrick (Cannon FFW) docs should clear this up …..

View Comment

coineanachantaighePosted on7:10 pm - May 29, 2013


allyjambo says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 16:35

—— As you described, the other day, a supporter-led board is not necessarily the Nirvana many think it to be.
=====================================

I guess that just like you can have good and bad (from the club point of view) business men in charge of a club you can have good and bad supporters promoted folk. Problem is a club is often for both types a way of having an ego trip, whatever their background.

I think someone posted a while back some suggestions for rules to be put in place to ensure these ego-trippers (at least the suporter based ones – business men tend to have a money hold on the club and are harder to deal with) don’t get to do too much damage. Anyone know off-hand if Supporters Direct have something to cover this problem – or do they just think supporters control will automatically be brilliant?

View Comment

FIFAPosted on7:19 pm - May 29, 2013


One of my mates was done for doing 40 in a 30 zone on Sunday,no probs one of my other mates who works in Transport Scotland had the road upgraded to a 40 on Monday,see how easy it is when you have pals in high places.
ps he will downgrade again at a later date when no one is looking.

View Comment

Carfins Finest. (@edunne58)Posted on7:55 pm - May 29, 2013


Re Trialists. Scottish Football Governers and the Rules and Regulations that they should adhere too are indeed now complete strangers. No Shame. No Spine. No Self Respect.

View Comment

auchinstarryPosted on8:10 pm - May 29, 2013


Very quiet this Evening, no whyte smoke over Ibrokes yet?

View Comment

jimlarkinPosted on8:20 pm - May 29, 2013


the existance of laws is the topic of this thread

https://twitter.com/corsica1968

corsica 1968 has consistantly highlighted the facts that OSCR and the former strathclyde constabulary…aided and abetted by glasgow council, have all done nothing – took no action, when the RCF do not have a proper bona-fide board of trustees, the RFFF were allowed to “fundraise” by selling things in the streets of glasgow with no licence and allegedly did not pay v.a.t on the sales for the fundraisers!!!

who is keeping an eye on this shower?

it seems to me
if you put the name “rangers” to anything you do

all the polis, wigs, mp’s, msp’s, etc turn a blind eye to everything you do

– especially LAW BREAKING

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on8:26 pm - May 29, 2013


TRFC exploit any weakness to get their own way – currently to minimise punishment.

The SFA interprets their own rules which happens to be advantageous to TRFC.

The Scottish MSM doesn’t ask any questions.

…has anything really changed in the last couple of years…?

View Comment

Mark (@awolz1)Posted on8:40 pm - May 29, 2013


is the biggest fakeover of all the one in plain sight? Let’s assume for the purposes of my post that Green and Whyte are indeed buddies. Is it not a possibility that the plan all along id for Whyte to get his money via a threat of lawyer threats and court action? I mean and I say this without tongue in cheek, all the shady characters, lawyers(!), directors and everyone else all know each other, everything is looping back on itself, the money is all intertwined and eventually it all returns to those who own the many many many unused businesses….Sevco 5088 suing Sevco Scotland by two guys who have been heard discussing the deal as mates during secret recordings……really? are we chasing the white rabbit?

View Comment

CastofThousandsPosted on8:41 pm - May 29, 2013


newtz says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 19:08

“But were was the consideration …. “?
————

I haven’t reread the documents and suspect even if I did your understanding might trump my own so I am merely exercising the possibilities to keep your mind ticking over. Invoking my specialist subject, stating the bleeding obvious, the consideration (money) went to Simply Stockbrokers. Sevco Scotland might have acquired the assets and I recall someone suggesting they might have had an autonomous funding source, however there were funds lodged with Imran Ahmad’s SS business. Whether these were misappropriated for use by Sevco Scotland or are still sitting in the bank account, I have not seen evidence of. If CW still had the money sitting in a bank account then this might make the argument that he bought the assets much more difficult to establish and therefore difficult to litigate on the basis of. Did Simply Stockbroking ‘switch the points’ just as the acquisition vehicle was rolling down the line?

On a wider point, I found myself musing over Charlotte’s current motives as they align very closely with CW’s right at this particular moment. Whether this is by coincidence or something more furtive cannot be known right now. However it got me thinking about what might be running through CW’s head currently.

The scenario that stuck was that he was just another patsy in a much bigger game. I envisaged CW’s conversation with Media House concerning Pearl & Dean/STV to be the bait to draw him in. Thereafter he became a cog in the machine, working relatively independently he might have thought but ultimately just acting to pass on his inertia to the next cog, CG. Then I imagined CW realising where he was, sitting with the Ticketus debt and no Rangers assets and him thinking (ironically), I’ve been duped. Meanwhile the movement continues and the assets get passed further and further away from him. Its the Mr. Big scenario where someone is in ultimate control (?) of the whole chain of events. Craigie realises too late however. He thinks CG is just a chancer initially then it dawns on him that there is a bigger world out there and it has just dumped on him.

Just a few innane musings. Perhaps your subconscious will have figured out an angle in the process of digesting them.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on8:52 pm - May 29, 2013


mullach says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 18:15
6 0 Rate This

… Conspiracy fatigue …
———-

Quite mullach. That’s where a wee bit of humour, trivia, etc, helps this particular blog along.

That said, I do hope any upcoming podcasts will develop the work of HP. So important. You can see in golf how a couple of dodgy events featuring Tiger Woods have got people openly wondering if there’s Tiger Rules and then the ones that apply to the rest. No doubt some golf officials fear an Armageddon if the cash cow that is Woods is reprimanded, or disqualified. Good thing is though, people in the media and other golfers are not afraid to speak out. And, although not a cycling fan as such, I do enjoy the Velocast podcast (now over on Eurosport). The two presenters, as well as presenting a topical and informative podcast, have also spent a lot of time talking about the corruption in the sport and do not shirk from naming names. Pat McQuaid, the UCI bigwig, comes in for searing critique. Again, the good thing is, the presenters are not peddling some petty vendetta, they are trying to save their sport by naming and shaming. Conspiracy fatigue can be cured, in part, by listening to people who stand up for what’s right.

Rant over 🙂

View Comment

bailemeanachPosted on9:06 pm - May 29, 2013


Danish

“Peddling” pun not intended I assume

View Comment

paulmac2Posted on9:11 pm - May 29, 2013


tonto8on8his8high8horse says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 16:11
13 3 Rate This
I know, I know, i’m a bad man.

But i couldn’t resist a bit of nostalgia.

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/2357/01uk4.jpg

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/1896/02mb5.jpg

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/6858/03cn4.jpg

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/7587/04lj1.jpg

Plus I think that the “club insider” was the one and only Jim Traynor
……………………………………………………………………

You may also find this was produced by Jimbo when some bad financial news had just been released by the Govanites….timing…Jim was always on hand to engineer good PR when things were not going well…

View Comment

Carl31 (@C4rl31)Posted on9:13 pm - May 29, 2013


Ive called for a simple thing, along with many others here…
… for the application of the rules as they stand, in a fair manner.

I dont have much issue with the way Rangers will get round the ‘transfer embargo’, as it seems the same options are open to all clubs, and have been loopholed in the past by Dundee, for instance.

Its when the rules are perversely interpreted, or sidestepped or made up anew to seemingly assist only one club, that seems particularly unfair.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on9:25 pm - May 29, 2013


I’m guessing that the silence (no leaks) from the Ibrox Boardroom today is a precursor to an announcement to the AIM exchange in the morning.

Had there been no changes in the offing, then I’m sure that various individuals would be briefing their pet journos.

View Comment

sanoffymessssoitizzhizzemdyfonedrapolisPosted on9:48 pm - May 29, 2013


NTHM,

Re the transfer of John Daly and other players who are out of contract to Spivco FC

1.Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 13:50

This is what i don’t get…..Jon Daly is a registered player, registered to play for Dundee United right now.

Once his contract ends, he is no longer a Dundee United player, but is STILL registered with the SFA – hence the reason he can play as a trialist, as he is already registered in Scotland. If he was at an English team, it would require international clearance, so can’t happen

Does that mean that he will be playing for Sevco as a Dundee United player?

I’m struggling to understand this registration issue – appears it doesn’t matter what TEAM you are employed by, so long as you are registered.

Does that mean, for example, Celtic could have a player signed and registered but then he could simply play as a trialist for Hibs one week, Aberdeen the next, Dundee united the week after?

Put it like this, could Celtic let their players play for other teams every week against their closest league rivals and it wouldn’t be a problem?
_____________________________
1.Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 14:29

Can a club ask to have a former registered player “de-registered?”

i.e. if a player’s contract expires and they leave that club – can they ask the SFA that the player is deregistered meaning that the players new club would have to register him again (if they could….of course).

Or does the player remain registered FOREVER until they register elsewhere….does this mean all retired footballers are STILL registered?
_____________________________
3.Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 15:28

Didn’t Sandy Bryson state that these players were ALREADY registered to play in Scotland though?

So, how can they be NOT REGISTERED?
_________________________________

Sorry for my further delay NTHM but it’s a long time since I looked at Rules in this amount of detail and I’m a fool to volunteer myself to do so!. My apologies in advance for the long length of this post.

The relevant Rules (as far as I can make out) are reproduced below for ease of reference and my summary of the application of these follows at the foot of this long post.

SFL CONSTITUTION & RULES
SECTION 11 – PLAYERS

133.EXPIRY OF CONTRACT

Subject to the provisions of these Rules, a player whose contract expires shall be free at the end of his contractual engagement to seek registration with any club of his choice. On such a player reaching 24 years of age he shall be free to join a club of his choice without any compensation fee being payable to his former club.

133.1Subject to the provisions of these Rules, a player whose contract expires shall be free at the end of his contractual engagement to seek registration with any club of his choice. After the end of the season during which a player reaches the age of 23, a player shall be free to join a club of his choice without any compensation fee being payable to his former club.

133.3 The contract expiry date in the case of full-time players shall normally be 30th June and, in the case of part-time players, shall normally be 15th May. The time at which a contract will expire and therefore “Freedom of Movement” will operate is at the end of the contracted period which will include any option clause mutually agreed and thereafter exercised by the club, subject to the terms of Rule 128 (Contract of Service with Option).

139 FURTHER PROVISIONS REGULATING PLAYERS’ REGISTRATIONS

139.1For the purposes of these Rules, the following words and expressions shall have the following meanings:

Board means the Board of the Company from time to time;

Company means The Scottish Premier League Limited or any successor which manages and administers
the SPL;

Contract of Service means the League’s standard form Contract of Service at the relevant time of execution thereof for use by any member clubs of the League and their players;

Relevant Player means, in relation to any Relevant Club (as hereinafter defined) a player with whom the Relevant Club has entered into a Contract of Service and who is registered as a player for the Relevant Club with the League immediately prior to the date upon which the Relevant Club ceases to be a member of the League (by whatever means) and “Relevant Players” shall be construed accordingly;

SPL or The Scottish Premier League means the combination of SPL Clubs comprising The Scottish Premier League;

SPL Clubs means the member clubs of the SPL from time to time (including former member clubs of the League) and “SPL Club” shall be construed accordingly;

SPL Players means players (including Relevant Players) with whom SPL Clubs have Contracts of Service and who are registered as SPL Players of SPL clubs with the SPL and “SPL Player” shall be construed accordingly;
And

SPL Rules means the Rules and regulations of the SPL in force from time to time. The singular shall include the plural and vice versa. References in this Rule to “these Rules” are references to the Rules of the League as amended from time to time and including the SPL Rules incorporated into these Rules by virtue of this Rule and unless stated otherwise, a reference in this Rule to a particular numbered Rule is a reference to the relevant numbered Rule in these Rules.

139.2 If there is any conflict or inconsistency between any provisions of these Rules (other than the SPL Rules incorporated into these Rules by this Rule 139) and the SPL Rules so incorporated in relation to any matter concerning an SPL club and one or more of its SPL Players, the provisions of the SPL Rules (as so incorporated) shall prevail and apply to such matter. If there is any conflict or inconsistency between any provision of the SPL Rules and a Relevant Player’s Contract of Service in relation to any matter concerning the Relevant Player and his SPL Club, the Provisions of the SPL Rules shall prevail and apply to such matter. If there is any conflict or inconsistency between any provisions of these Rules and the SPL Rules in relation to any matter concerning a member club of the League and one or more of its players, the provisions of these Rules shall prevail and apply to such matter.

139.3If there is any conflict or inconsistency between any provisions of this Rule 139 and any other Rules or provisions of these Rules (including, without limitation, Rules 74 and 115), the provisions of this Rule 139 shall prevail and apply.

139.4.4The Relevant Player shall automatically be registered as an SPL Player for his Relevant Club with the SPL in accordance with the SPL Rules. The Relevant Player’s registration as an SPL Player for his Relevant Club with the SPL shall be terminated as a result of the Relevant Player having been transferred to another football club (including any member club of the League or any other SPL Club) by mutual consent of the Relevant Player and his Relevant Club.

139.8.2If the SPL Player is transferred to a club which is a member of the League, the registrations of such SPL Player for his current SPL Club with both the SFA and the SPL shall be terminated (together with the SPL Player’s registration for such club with the League if he is also a Relevant Player) and the SPL Player shall be registered as a Player for his new League Club with both the SFA and the League in accordance with the SFA’s Articles of Association and these Rules respectively.
____________________________________________
So now to try to answer your specific questions NTHM!

Does that mean that he will be playing for Sevco as a Dundee United player?
Does that mean, for example, Celtic could have a player signed and registered but then he could simply play as a trialist for Hibs one week, Aberdeen the next, Dundee united the week after?

As you will see from SFL Rules 133 and 139

133.
“a player whose contract expires shall be free at the end of his contractual engagement to seek registration with any club of his choice” and

133.3
“The contract expiry date in the case of full-time players shall normally be 30th June and, in the case of part-time players, shall normally be 15th May. The time at which a contract will expire and therefore “Freedom of Movement” will operate is at the end of the contracted period which will include any option clause mutually agreed and thereafter exercised by the club, subject to the terms of Rule 128 (Contract of Service with Option).

139.8.2
If the SPL Player is transferred to a club which is a member of the League, the registrations of such SPL Player for his current SPL Club with both the SFA and the SPL shall be terminated (together with the SPL Player’s registration for such club with the League if he is also a Relevant Player) and the SPL Player shall be registered as a Player for his new League Club with both the SFA and the League in accordance with the SFA’s Articles of Association and these Rules respectively.

So on 30 June 2013 the contracts of John Daly (and others) will “expire” and they will be able to “register” as a player for a new “club”.

No “clubs” (including Celtic) can release any ”registered” players to Aberdeen etc. as you suggest because registered players are only eligible to play for the club to which they are registered. (See SPL Rules D1.1-D1.26 Registration and Eligibility for details)

But what about the “registration embargo” imposed by the LNS Judicial Panel Determination under which , Spivco FC apparently accepted that they could not register any players until 1 September 2013.- presumably under “The Infamous 5-Way Agreement” (although I admit that I gave up the will to check the draft document posted by other contributors earlier today?)!

One would assume that the sanction(s) arrived at by the considered decision of a Judicial Disciplinary Panel would take precedent over any other Rules of the SFL, SPL etc. However, having searched for such a direction (unsurprisingly), I am unable to locate anything in the SFA Handbook which confirms that the sanction applied by the LNS (or any other) Judicial Panel Determination overrides other SPL or SFL rules. Although the LNS Determination is at pains to set out in detail that the SPL had the jurisdiction and power to impose sanctions for breaches of SPL Rules!

However, according to Sandy Bryson at the SFA the “registration embargo” imposed by the LNS Commission can be ignored as “unregistered” players can play in friendly matches or as trialists (within the terms of SPL Rule 122) between 1 July and 31 August 2013 anyway.

So it would appear that the effort put in by the Judicial Disciplinary Panel and the costs incurred were to little effect as obviously there was and is no political will to ensure that the intended sanction is applied without fear or favour.

I get the impression that the SFA Officers spend most of their time laughing at the fans without whom there would be no football. If they had any integrity those responsible for this shambles would resign from office as their behaviour brings into disrepute our national footballing heritage.

What can we do to get rid of this cancer?

View Comment

newtzPosted on9:48 pm - May 29, 2013


mullach says:

Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 20:41
———————————————–

I think i’m much the same mullach ……. specialise in …. stating the obvious, with a few possibilities thrown in for good measure ….. good at whataboutery … 🙂

Not sure I follow thinking on Simply Stockbrokers though, since 5088 did not benefit of any consideration …… i’m following the CW / AE claim here ….. will go back and read the Simply Stockbrokers post(s) a few pages back … maybe I missed something.

I’m working from the basis of the D&P / 5088 binding agreement.

The Share distribution shown in today’s CtH offering (if authentic) would give credence to the ‘novation’ theory (but without authority), but not exclude the other possibilities laid out in the QC’d LBC ……

! oops earlier post should have highlighted QC’d LBC instead of LBC ….. apol’s

5088 statutory records ….. C/O CtH

http://www.scribd.com/doc/144293447/Sevco-5088-Statutory-Records

QC’d LBC quotes violation of Section 195 of Companies Act (2006) ……Property transactions: civil consequences of contravention ……

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/195

From way back ….. yep looked at 3D maps …. tried one but had restrictions on nodes …
I use FreeMind … open source … freemind.sourceforge.net
On hyperlinks …. yes, that is the ‘red arrows’ on the map …. so useful …

If interested I can drop a map onto DropBox to allow others to contribute

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on9:49 pm - May 29, 2013


bailemeanach says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 21:06
2 0 Rate This

Danish

“Peddling” pun not intended I assume
——–

Not at all @bailemeanach, just another link in the chain of thought, while I was in the saddle, so to speak 🙂

View Comment

pilgrim1888Posted on10:00 pm - May 29, 2013


Cash for Rangers creditors is cut
RANGERS creditors are expected to claw back an even smaller fraction of what they are owed after a claim was lodged for almost £1million in fees for dissolving the oldco.

Liquidators BDO and two firms of lawyers want the sum for five months’ work last year in winding up the former company behind the Ibrox club.

The creditors’ pot will be cut from £2.27m to about £1.3m if their application is successful.The amount left for firms and individuals left out of pocket by the collapse could be cut by 50% if further legal costs are recovered.

BDO has warned the liquidation might not be closed for a considerable time because of outstanding legal cases, adding further concern about costs. The firm was appointed to wind up RFC 2012 plc, formerly The Rangers Football Club plc, in October.

The move ended the period of administration by Duff and Phelps. Former owner Craig Whyte began the process after HMRC lodged a petition over the non-payment of tax.

Duff & Phelps sold the business and assets of Rangers for £5.5m in June last year. Rangers relaunched while the renamed operating company, RFC 2012, headed for liquidation.

According to a creditors’ circular BDO is to be paid more than £640,000 for work between October 31 and the end of March. Lawyers working with BDO, Brodies and Stephenson Harwood, are taking almost £340,000.

BDO will only draw its money if no appeal is lodged by June 5.

The firm says in the circular: “At this stage, it is not appropriate to estimate the level of dividend that may ultimately be available to unsecured creditors.”

View Comment

tobyPosted on10:06 pm - May 29, 2013


paulmac2 says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 21:11

You may also find this was produced by Jimbo when some bad financial news had just been released by the Govanites….timing…Jim was always on hand to engineer good PR when things were not going well…

————————–

I think it’s only fair that we spare a thought for the Ibrox Wizard of Oz, Mr Traynor, working his media magic from behind the curtain, much like he sprinkled it over ‘Your Call’ on Radio Shortbread in days of yore and his wonderful insightful columns in the Record..oh the memories ! Yep, smashed radios and chip wrappers.

I’m sure he’ll have plenty of days cursing his luck when he wished he could have taken that offer of PR guru for North Korea, but I’m also sure TRFC are cursing their luck equally he didn’t.
The funny thing is, I couldn’t have wished a better person for the media job at Edmiston Drive.
It’s not as as easy as just cutting people off Jimbo, when they’re making you look as completely inept and biased as you have shown yourself to be.

View Comment

bailemeanachPosted on10:11 pm - May 29, 2013


Not at all @bailemeanach, just another link in the chain of thought, while I was in the saddle, so to speak

These things run in cycles Danish. Glad that you “spoke” up.

I’ll get me yellow jersey..

View Comment

paulmac2Posted on10:30 pm - May 29, 2013


sanoffymessssoitizzhizzemdyfonedrapolis says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 21:48

NTHM,

Re the transfer of John Daly and other players who are out of contract to Spivco FC

1.Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 13:50

This is what i don’t get…..Jon Daly is a registered player, registered to play for Dundee United right now.

Once his contract ends, he is no longer a Dundee United player, but is STILL registered with the SFA – hence the reason he can play as a trialist, as he is already registered in Scotland. If he was at an English team, it would require international clearance, so can’t happen
……………………………………………………………

If true then Mr. Daly can play as a trialist for anyone….maybe Pat Fenlon…Steve Lomas or Neil Lennon could ask him to appear as a trialist?

View Comment

Lord WobblyPosted on10:47 pm - May 29, 2013


sanoffymessssoitizzhizzemdyfonedrapolis says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 21:48
I get the impression that the SFA Officers spend most of their time laughing at the fans without whom there would be no football.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think that is far too close to the truth to be funny.

It also pervades the thinking of most of the MSM. Most of them actually think it’s funny that we fans would want to demand that our voice be heard above theirs. Sadly, a good many people within the football corridors of power are of the same opinion.

View Comment

FIFAPosted on10:54 pm - May 29, 2013


I think the word or phrase “on trial” will be the most unpopular but most used 2 words down Govan way for the forseeable future for more than just players,oh dear.

View Comment

carntynePosted on11:02 pm - May 29, 2013


StevieBC says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 20:26

TRFC exploit any weakness to get their own way – currently to minimise punishment.

The SFA interprets their own rules which happens to be advantageous to TRFC.
==================================================================

A Sevco insolvency event will circumvent that.

Coming soon.

View Comment

timtimPosted on11:04 pm - May 29, 2013


£280425
thats Two Hundred and eighty thousand four hundred and twenty five pounds
or to put it in terms most of us can appreciate 13.25 qualified nurses
13% pay rise this year or to put it in terms most of us can appreciate
13x the pay rise for a qualified nurse.
The connection is both have a lot of sh*t to deal with , both are tasked with the well being
of those put under their care but thats where the similairity ends.
Yes I am referring to one Stewart Regan .
Can someone, anyone, explain to me what he has done to deserve not just this
extravagant level of pay and a pay rise 6x the (official) rate of inflation ?
Its not as if he has managed a 3rd division football club to promotion on just a £7m budget
If its based on his appearances explaining situations to us the public (who pay his wages)
then once a year for 3 minutes must make him better value for money than Lionel Messi
times the square root of George Soros .
I cannot find the details of El Presidente Campbell Ogilvies current pay but I do know what a good night out sets him back , in terms most of us can appreciate about 4.35 years wages
for a qualified nurse.All this for a man who has recently taken to living in a hole and eating Juniper berries.
Now I’m not sure what would happen to a nurse who lost a patient on the operating table and then declared to the family that they didnt actually die but are alive and well and the same entity
as before but I’d guess they would be struck off .
Who approved this wage rise ? where are the motions of “no confidence” ?
why do we tolerate this level of corruption at the heart of our game ?
Time we upped the anti on the SFA and those with the ability to remove its
most overpaid, corrupt and useless employees

View Comment

CastofThousandsPosted on11:08 pm - May 29, 2013


newtz says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 21:48

“If interested I can drop a map onto DropBox to allow others to contribute”
———————-

I was only joking about 3D and hyperlinks. I’ll have another look for the hyperlinks on your map. If nothing else this escapade is informing new skills. I think your current map needs quality control at the moment rather than being Wikipedia open source.

Still trying to make head or tail of Charlotte’s latest but I can see what you mean about ‘where’s the consideration’ as Korissa and Willow allotments don’t appear to have a value attached. Whilst I’m getting confused, I can refresh you on the meagre offering concerning Simply Stockbrokers. They are mentioned in the following (which you will have seen) as being the recipients for share remittance.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/142959769/Sevco-Finance

I thought there was something linking Imran Ahmad into this more widely but the best I could find was the following that seems to be IA authorising the Korissa transaction via FFW.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/142959503/Intrinsically-Linked

View Comment

john clarkePosted on11:17 pm - May 29, 2013


pilgrim1888 says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 22:00
‘..Cash for Rangers creditors is cut………’
——-
What is this report taken from, please?

View Comment

goosyPosted on11:25 pm - May 29, 2013


Question

When SPL clubs look back on the 2012 – 2013 Armageddon season

Will they be longing for TRFC to join the SPL?
Or
Will they be secretly hoping they get liquidated period?

View Comment

wottpiPosted on11:25 pm - May 29, 2013


Lord Wobbly says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 22:47

I think that is far too close to the truth to be funny.

It also pervades the thinking of most of the MSM. Most of them actually think it’s funny that we fans would want to demand that our voice be heard above theirs. Sadly, a good many people within the football corridors of power are of the same opinion.
————————————————————————————————————————–

Unfortunately it is not just the authorities and the MSM but also some managers players and ex players who take a dim view of fans wanting to express their opinions and views.

If you recall WGS’s comments about fans phone-ins and the like. His view was that he was always willing to take onboard the opinion and criticisims of those who ‘know the game’ but was very dismissive of those he viewed as not ‘knowing the game’ expressing opinions with the implication that many journos and fans didn’t know what they were talking about . He was vocal in his objection but I am sure many who ‘know the game’ hold a similar viewpoint.

Now I shake my head at many a phone-in caller and internet bampot with the best of us but at the end of the day I’m not the one whose wages are getting paid by the man on the street coming through the turnstile.

View Comment

pilgrim1888Posted on11:31 pm - May 29, 2013


john clarke says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 23:17
1 0 Rate This
pilgrim1888 says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 22:00
‘..Cash for Rangers creditors is cut………’
——-
What is this report taken from, please?

The Evening times website.

View Comment

phill450Posted on11:32 pm - May 29, 2013


Re: The cash realised by the liquidators – are there any definite answers on this yet? –

I’ve seen posts on various Rangers forums that enough has been raised to pay creditors in full and I can’t understand where this can be coming from (i.e Oldco were owed circa £30m and these debtors have all suddenly paid their dues?)

View Comment

The CEPosted on11:39 pm - May 29, 2013


Despite the misplaced faith of many in BDO to wind the clock back and generally ‘sort things oot’, the report today has shown us that all that has been achieved so far is a reduced pot for the creditors of RFC(1872-2012).

View Comment

thespecialswonPosted on11:45 pm - May 29, 2013


Just to clarify the registration piece once for all. Players are registered to Clubs by Associations, for a fixed period of time, either season by season, or by length of contract. If John Daly’s contract has ceased or will soon cease at DUFC then he becomes unregistered or free (from a registration) and can sign a contract with Sevco, or anyone else.

This is what Mr Bryson is so deliriously happy about; Sevco can sign free or unregistered players but they don’t actually have to register with their Association them until after they’ve played three times, or 1 September.

When is a signing ban not a signing ban? When you can simply play them as a Trialist.

View Comment

Lord WobblyPosted on11:53 pm - May 29, 2013


wottpi says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 23:25
0 0 Rate This
Lord Wobbly says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 22:47
I think that is far too close to the truth to be funny.
It also pervades the thinking of most of the MSM. Most of them
actually think it’s funny that we fans would want to demand that our voice be heard above theirs. Sadly, a good many people within the football corridors of power are of the same opinion.
—————————————————————————
Unfortunately it is not just the authorities and the MSM but also
some managers players and ex players who take a dim view of
fans wanting to express their opinions and views.
If you recall WGS’s comments about fans phone-ins and the like.
His view was that he was always willing to take onboard the
opinion and criticisims of those who ‘know the game’ but was
very dismissive of those he viewed as not ‘knowing the game’
expressing opinions with the implication that many journos and fans didn’t know what they were talking about . He was vocal in his objection but I am sure many who ‘know the game’ hold a similar viewpoint.
Now I shake my head at many a phone-in caller and internet
bampot with the best of us but at the end of the day I’m not the one whose wages are getting paid by the man on the street coming through the turnstile.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I’m sure some of them get it. Unfortunately, they are outnumbered by the terminally short-sighted.

View Comment

newtzPosted on11:59 pm - May 29, 2013


mullach says:

Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 23:08
———————————————–

Okay, raises more questions …..

Monies paid to IA controlled account (Simply Stockbrokers) and FFW used to deal with D&P for purchase and setting up of Sevco Scotland. CW disguised as Richard B so no suspicions raised – Note that Patrick C was cc’d (mentioned as drawing up documents for D&P in audio) ….. is this all part of the sting operation then …. problem is though that for their money they are issued with share placing in 5088 ….. not Scotland ….. still does not quite fit the bill …. !

If you want a copy of the map just shout (been updated recently with more af links)

View Comment

TSFMPosted on12:13 am - May 30, 2013


Just a wee reminder that the poll is still running. Up till Friday teatime. Not lot of people voting. so maybe it’s not the issue I thought it might be?

View Comment

CastofThousandsPosted on12:13 am - May 30, 2013


newtz says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 21:48

http://www.scribd.com/doc/144293447/Sevco-5088-Statutory-Records
—————–

I’m just reading out loud so I can hear myself think.

On 29/03/2012 there is an opening balance of 1 x £1 held by 7Side Secretarial. (Page 1)

04/05/2012 : 1 x £1 (trans) disposed to CG from 7Side (no share cert no.). (Page 1)

04/05/2012 : 1 x £1 (trans) acquired by CG from 7Side (share cert no.1). (Page 2)

09/05/2012 : 5,000,000 x £? (allot) acquired by Korissa from Liberty Capital, paid £0.00 as per report (cert 2). (Page 3)

10/05/2012 : 5,000,000 x £1.00 (trans) acquired Liberty Capital from Willow, paid £0.00 nominee transfer (cert 4). (Page 4)

09/05/2012 : 5,000,000 x £? (allot) acquired by Willow, paid £0.00 as per report (cert 3 – can). (Page 5)

10/05/2012 : 5,000,000 x £1.00 (trans) disposed by Willow to Liberty Capital, paid £0.00 nominee transfer (no cert). (Page 5)

09/05/2012 : Korissa (cert 2) and Willow (cert 3 -can) each hold 5,000,000 shares (second page 1)

All of the above are classed as £1.00 ordinary shares
——————–

So boiling it down further.

04/05/2012 : CG holds only share (cert 1)

09/05/2012 : Korissa (cert 2) and Willow (cert3) each hold 5,000,000 shares.

10/05/2012 : Liberty Capital take delivery of Willow shares (cert 4). (cert 3 Can(celled?))

Paid £0.00 as per report may not mean no consideration was forthcoming. The ‘as per report’ rider may indicate that other documents detail the consideration.

Payment by Korissa is indicated in the link I embedded earlier. Was Blue Pitch a mask for Willow/Liberty Capital? :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/142959769/Sevco-Finance

Korissa transaction via FFW as earlier :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/142959503/Intrinsically-Linked

Cert 3 was cancelled (I construe). Did the finance fall through and Blue Pitch stepped into the breach?

However Liberty Capital held cert 4.

Why do I keep thinking about the pension fund monies Collyer Bristow are being chased for. Did CW need some emergency finance?

Is this were Imran lost patience and did a Sevco Scotland?

Tune in next time for another confusing installment.

Just noticed the values don’t add up. (Korissa £2.5M, Blue Pitch £2.0M).

All I do is chop the vegetables round here. It’s up to chef to make it into a palatable dish.

View Comment

CastofThousandsPosted on12:22 am - May 30, 2013


john clarke says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 23:17

“What is this report taken from, please”?
————

John, there was a liquidators report to creditors that was leaked to a Ger’s website. A link appeared on here the other day (yesterday?). It detailed the liquidators costs to date.

View Comment

barcabhoyPosted on12:34 am - May 30, 2013


Should the committee who handed Ranger the transfer ban have consulted with the registration department at the SFA. This committee , which included the Whyte family friend, Al Murning, surely didn’t just pick a start and finish date at random.

The ban could hardly have had less teeth. Starts after Rangers have the main transfer window to build a team. Then we have the January window ban which was utterly irrelevant , and then we discover that Rangers can play “Trialists ” during the period of the registration ban, which largely nullifies the effect of the current window.

All of which coincides with the greatest availability of out of contract players in the History of Scottish football. Lucky that !!

Should the committee have understood the implications of the ban, then it seems a conveniently light penalty. They could of course have spoken to the SFA’s head of registration , Sandy Bryson , to understand the implications if they were unsure. Al Murning could maybe have had Bryson’s number, or maybe he could have been given it by his good friend Tom Whyte or maybe even by ……..

We’ll leave that for just now, maybe return to Mr Murning and his connections another day.

View Comment

newtzPosted on12:40 am - May 30, 2013


mullach says:

Thursday, May 30, 2013 at 00:13
——————————————-
Possibly now need to look again at D&P final accounts included in final report.
Wonder if the £500k working capital was discounted ……

On CW monies tight ….. yep ….. FSA had just tied up all Pritchard associated bank accounts, so that avenue was closed …. ironically, just before June 14th ….. I wonder !

View Comment

creepylurkerPosted on12:40 am - May 30, 2013


Regarding the trialist thing, aside from the young q.o.s. lad who will want to make a name for himself. Will the other(more experienced) pre-contracted players be willing to take the risk of playing 3 trial games and then if they don’t play well end up not being given a contract at all? Would they be willing to give up a couple of months wages for that risk?

View Comment

john clarkePosted on12:47 am - May 30, 2013


mullach says:
Thursday, May 30, 2013 at 00:22
‘John, there was a liquidators report to creditors that was leaked to a Ger’s website. ..’
—-
Thank you. I missed that.

I have become so cynical that I am not at all surprised that BDO’s first concern is their own fees and whether they will be paid!

I suspect that the individual ‘liquidators’ may be of the same stamp as the Administrators, that is, of finance ‘experts’ who accept ‘public’ office, but whose core business lies in helping rotten business men to screw the rest of us by devising all manner of ‘legal’ tax dodges.

BDO have to have regard to their client base( and not to joe public), which is comprised of guys and companies who want to make money and profits, and buy and sell, and fcuk the law and the rest of us.

I very nearly despair.

View Comment

Comments are closed.