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/
Having a glance over my shoulder at my mobile the missus asked me why I was following Charlotte Fakeorgasms on twitter. I told her it was fakeover and not orgasms. She then asked me why I was following her anyway. I told her that I think Charlotte may actually be a man. I could tell by her expression that this didn’t paint me in a better light. Anyhoos, after I explained what it was all about she told me that she was almost called Charlotte. Her dad is called Charles and apparently Charlotte is a female form of Charles.
It couldn’t be, could it?
So besides CtF not being the nuclear we had hoped for she/he may also be bad for relationships.
🙂
TSFM says:
Sunday, June 2, 2013 at 01:33
——————————————
TSFM, I struggle to understand on what basis you differentiate between a corporate insolvency and a personal one; both involve tragedies on a personal scale – in a (admittedly normal) corporate one, there are redundancies, small creditors left high and dry etc., in a personal insolvency the individual has lost everything he or she had but there are also creditors small and large left high and dry.
In the present case, the personal insolvency involved someone who has been consistently outspoken on a topic that is seminal to this blog – are his outpourings suddenly exempt from examination and comment simply because of his personal circumstances?
He was supported in those outpourings by a complacent and unquestioning media – an attitude which is very much a focus of this blog.
Both were defending a reckless, insolvent business and seeking special protection for it, at a time when it appears he and the media were in similarly poor financial health. That is a clear conflict of interest and should be exposed, not hidden.
it would be unfortunate in the extreme if some sort of censorship is exercised for what appears nothing other than mawkish reasons. If Charles Green’s budgie dies, is there going to be a period when any criticism of him will not be brooked? If Charlotte Fakeover is admitted to a private hospital suffering some sort of breakdown, is no comment to be allowed until he or she is fully recovered?
Given the comments about Charlotte’s info to date and how TRFC appear to be untouchable I thought I’d summarise some of the big issues they have effectively gotten away with, which does make me wonder if there is anything at all which would bring them down.
RFCIL found guilty of tax evasion at FTT – no penalties able to be applied so far
RFCIL found guilty of hiding double contracts from SFA – no meaningful penalty
RFCIL make payments to manager of another club within weeks of transfer dealings – no action
RFCIL director Campbell Ogilvie takes over at SFA knowing the above – still in post
RFCIL granted licenses to play domestically and in Europe despite being technically insolvent – no action against anyone involved
RFCIL given a transfer embargo for misdemeanours in their final season –
1) Appeal to courts against FIFAs rules – no punishment
2) Get to choose when the embargo begins thereby nullifying much of its impact
3) Dates are carefully chosen so that it turns into one winter transfer window ban
TRFC allowed to be launched into the 3rd division in contravention of SFA rules
TRFC allowed to ‘purchase’ the history of another club –
TRFC play first game with illegally registered/unregistered players – no action
TRFC director makes a series of accusations against SFA and Scottish football in general – no action
TRFC fans cause national broadcaster to apologise for their chants – no action
SFA and SPL put up such a feeble case that LNS is able to avoid title stripping – ‘no sporting advantage’ quote by LNS was unasked for, unchallenged and untrue. Impartial judge?
SFA license granted on condition of no links between GC and CW which are now well established – no action
Plans for major TRIFC shareholder to sell stake to another convicted fraudster – no action
TRFC director makes accusations of corruptability at UEFA – no action likely
I’m sure there are many more which could be added, but given all this what on earth could Charlotte come up with that would be worthy of action?
David Murray knew he was selling to a spiv- established
David Murray instigated the whole plan from the start – wouldn’t surprise anyone
RFC co-erced SFA/refs to get results during tight run-ins – SFA response “well that has happened so we can’t go back and change the results”
Souness bought players at over inflated prices to help out his old chums – EBT?
The SFA knew all about RFCIL policies and tax evasion from way back? – action? Suspend CO pending another interminable and inconclusive ‘independent’ investigation
The stench of corruption which surrounds that club appears to be impervious to anything including Nuclear events. Go on Charlotte, make my day, give it your best shot.
chipm0nk says:
Sunday, June 2, 2013 at 08:52
Does he say if any of it has been spent on the essential upkeep of the stadium.
========================================
It doesn’t but I have to give Richard Wilson his due given the gushing ‘Walter’ love-in most other Sundays have indulged themselves with. Wilson is only going for Smith having a short term impact and makes it very clear the club have to get their finances in order. Mention of finances not being in order seems to be the new elephant in the room for the MSM.
TSFM
I posted my views on Gordon Smiths predicament at 18.09 yesterday evening. The last time i looked there was an overwhelming level of agreement with my post, based on the TU/TD basis 145 to 3
This post appears to have been deleted.My post contained neither gloating or schadenfreude. It was a factual post , and as such should not have been subject to your censorship.
This blog has brought much to the debate, however when Mods behave in a such a manner , i’m afraid i’m out.
Those who wish to debate with me can do so via twitter @barcabhoy1 or on CQN. Thank you to the very many excellent posters from all clubs who’s contributions I have enjoyed. I joined this site and previously RTC because it attracted fans from outwith Celtic. That’s a real strength, however i can’t continue to contribute when Mods apply such illogical behaviour
smugas says:
Sunday, June 2, 2013 at 09:56
7
0
Rate This
The June release date for the shares has been bothering me too.
On a completely unrelated note wouldn’t that be a great time for an SPL2 invite to even be rumoured?
_______________________________________________
June 7 is also the deadline for discounted ST renewal at my club (Caley). Nevertheless I am not renewing until I know for sure where TRFC are playing next season. This will be when full fixture lists are published. Anywhere but SFL2 (or SFL3 if SFA sanction them for CW involvement) for TRFC and I am not renewing. Becasue it wouldn’t surprise me of the invitation is postponed until after the rest of the clubs have got the rest of their STs sold.
I may end up paying an extra £20 for such an assurance, but since TRFC insist on playing by a different set of rules to everyone else, I refuse to accept that their involvement in the sport is legitimate and will not be watching or attending any matches that involve them until I am satisfied that they are no longer enjoying preferential treatment, and the advancements they have benefitted from have been reversed. This includes not attending any games that they play at Tulloch in the next 2 or 3 seasons should they be promotoed or Caley be demoted to the same league as them, whether these are included in my season ticket price or not.
Barca,
I think I explained why some posts not contaminated in the manner you mention were removed. Perhaps you read that but rejected my reasons. I am sorry if you consider it illogical, but I can only apply my own sensibilities and logic.
If you think it cause for departure then that is cause for regret on my part, but the intention was not to insult you or your contribution.
Slim
I can’t understand how you cannot differentiate the personal and corporate. However as I have said in the past, the main area of he blog is not where should make criticisms of moderation. If you wish to discuss further, please email me.
I will consider the budgie situation if and when it arises though 🙂
johnnymanc says:
Sunday, June 2, 2013 at 12:20
16
1
Rate This
__________________________________
Take your list Johnny. Stick a pin into any one single thing on that list.
Now imagine it was any institution other than a team playing in blue at Ibrox that was even SUSPECTED of such behavior.
Can you conceive of the demands for punishment and the righteous indignation that would be emanating from the marble staircase via the back pages of the Daily record as a result?
We are so far through the looking glass here that we have all become inured to the stench of the blatent corruption that infests our sport, when the only logical response to this situation is absolute outrage!
Long Time Lurker says:
Sunday, June 2, 2013 at 09:07
Re the timing of Ctf releases – do you think that this latest release is as a result of Corsicacharity 1968’s recent post re OSCR investigation? A wee bit of info to make it a bit more interesting and keep up the pressure from OSCR?
johnnymanc says:
Sunday, June 2, 2013 at 12:20
SFA and SPL put up such a feeble case that LNS is able to avoid title stripping – ‘no sporting advantage’ quote by LNS was unasked for, unchallenged and untrue. Impartial judge?
=============================================================
In general I agree with just about everything in your post including that the SPL presented a feeble case to LNS. However I am slightly puzzled by the comment that the ‘no sporting advantage’ quote by LNS was unasked for.
I would have thought that sporting or competitive advantage should have been at the heart of the SPL case and basically one of the main foundation blocks. If LNS had made no reference to it then he would indeed have failed dismally in professional terms.
LNS has laid-out his reasoning as to why sporting or competitive advantage wasn’t achieved and, as a layperson, I can find no fault in his reasoning. If you wish to look at the appropriate sections in his Decision and come back on where his legal reasoning is wrong then I would be interested in reading that.
LNS could only form his Decision on the evidence actually presented to him. The fact that no evidence of sporting or competitive advantage, as far as I am aware, was presented to his Inquiry by the SPL quite simply means he couldn’t legally rule that it existed. He also couldn’t ignore the issue and therefore made it clear why he couldn’t issue sanctions of a sporting nature and that was because the evidence hadn’t been presented.
I won’t comment on your ‘unchallenged’ comment as I’m not sure where you believe the challenge should have come from and as to anything being ‘untrue’ I’m afraid that needs to be amplified by taking the LNS references on sporting or competitive advantage and pointing out where LNS actually erred in law. I can’t see any errors but then as I mentioned earlier I am not a lawyer but would be happy to hear an opinion also from any legally qualified posters.
‘Impartial Judge?’ – again not quite sure of the meaning conveyed here but one thing I’m sure of is that if LNS was issuing legal judgements not based on the facts put before him then he would be a very partial and probably biased judge.
I don’t think he is although I am happy to accept that he and his two colleague may have erred in their legal interpretation of any facts presented to them although I have yet to see anyone actually argue that case from a legal standpoint as opposed to a more emotional one based on wishing for another outcome which wasn’t based on the evidence presented.
fara1968 says:
Sunday, June 2, 2013 at 12:00
Having a glance over my shoulder at my mobile the missus asked me why I was following Charlotte Fakeorgasms on twitter. I told her it was fakeover and not orgasms. She then asked me why I was following her anyway. I told her that I think Charlotte may actually be a man. I could tell by her expression that this didn’t paint me in a better light. Anyhoos, after I explained what it was all about she told me that she was almost called Charlotte. Her dad is called Charles and apparently Charlotte is a female form of Charles.
It couldn’t be, could it?
So besides CtF not being the nuclear we had hoped for she/he may also be bad for relationships. 🙂
=================================================
Thank you for that revelation that Charlotte might be Charles – it has certainly helped my diet as I doubt I can face Sunday Lunch 🙂
ecobhoy says:
Sunday, June 2, 2013 at 14:03
———————————————-
I ask this as a lay person with no claim to insight into the legal system, but I had thought that there was also a concept of ‘natural justice’ in order to allow a means of countering arguments based on convoluted logic holding sway. What I’m saying therefore is that, would LNS have been absolutely bound only to consider the case as it was put to him even if it seemed to contort logic and suggest something that was contrary to a just outcome?
just listened to the recent “CF” audio … and it went on to play all of the other clips automatically …and you know what ? … these guys are definitely in bed with each other … my take … and it’s only a streetwise hunch … is it’s all smoke & mirrors to blame each other for the evitable collapse of r’gers … or indeed to blame everybody bar themselves … for safety reasons and a comfortable retirement !! no matter the endgame they are both gonna lift a tidy wedge to enjoy … Vive la France !!
ecobhoy says:
Sunday, June 2, 2013 at 14:03
In general I agree with just about everything in your post including that the SPL presented a feeble case to LNS. However I am slightly puzzled by the comment that the ‘no sporting advantage’ quote by LNS was unasked for.
I would have thought that sporting or competitive advantage should have been at the heart of the SPL case and basically one of the main foundation blocks. If LNS had made no reference to it then he would indeed have failed dismally in professional terms.
————————————————————————————————————————
I’ll have a look later at LNS judgement but the concept of Sporting Advantage seems such a highly subjective concept that I can’t see how or why he commented. If TRFC break more rules by playing more than the permitted over 21’s have they gained a Sporting Advantage? You could easily argue that it depends if they play better than the U21 players they should have used. Counter argument-they could play players other teams didnt have access to? which is what the dual-contract/EBT issue gave them access to.
“The fact that no evidence of sporting or competitive advantage, as far as I am aware, was presented to his Inquiry by the SPL quite simply means he couldn’t legally rule that it existed.”
My point exactly is that he shouldn’t have commented on it as it isn’t a ‘fact’ or otherwise.
———————————————————————————————————————–
The ‘unchellenged’ comment was in relation to the MSM. In terms of ‘natural justice’ it’s obvious to everyone that that if you purchase players which you can’t legally afford and haven’t correctly registered, then you have gained a Sporting Advantage, so irrespective of whatever loophole was used, there was nothing to stop the press saying how ridiculous a decision it was. They’re not shy on taking Judges to task when criminal punishments are deemed to be too lenient or off-the-wall-but-legally-accurate verdicts are delivered. They don’t hide behind the deferential ‘aye but we can’t challenge a judge’s verdict’ defence then.
———————————————————————————————
My querying of his impartiality comes down to a combination of the first point about the Sporting Advantage comment and also the belief that Judges should be aiming to get to the truth of the issue. Presumably he was briefed or aware of the whole issue of player registration. Why didn’t he challenge Bryson on his evidence by bringing up all the precedents of ejection by faulty/missing signature and ask him why this wasn’t deemed to be as serious?
I’ll never forget the sickening feeling when i heard the title stripping verdict; as miscarriages of justice go it may not be the most important but it’s up their with OJ in terms of patent absurdity.
To me it was clear from the outset that the gameplan was – ‘we know they had dual contracts but title stripping will open such a domestic and european compensation can of worms that we can’t have that. Come up with a method of finding them guilty without going that far.’ Who exactly was involved in that discussion is probably as close to nuclear as we would get.
Upthehopps
Its not about Wattie (or even ChFakes) its about the money and how much is left in the kitty.
I’ve suggested that The Rangers supporters would be better served by placing their trust in the figures rather than in a symbol and you are right Smith’s appointment is being used to deflect from a key issue.
The thing is ( and to bring the SFA back centre stage) in order to issue a club licence for next season, the SFA must request financial information from The Rangers that should satisfy the SFA that there is enough in the kitty to last next season or if not a credit facility exists.
The SFA have also said as part of club licensing procedures that they will make public some of that financial data supplied by the clubs. The ratio of wages to turnover being one of them.
Well it is now June and SFA should have had financial info for a month now.
So why are journalists (hah) not asking the SFA to give The Rangers support the assurances they seek about the financial stability of the club they are being asked to prop up rather than depend on trusting a man whose spending other people’s money to win titles helped bring about the current debacle at their club.
The SFA will have the wage figures from registration ( assuming of course full registration details have been supplied -what have SFA done to ensure that they are I wonder or is Sandy still working on trust as well) so together with whatever figures The Rangers supply on income projections and cash in the bank, the SFA more than any figurehead should be able to give the assurances that Rangers supporters, nay supporters of all clubs are seeking that The Rangers and the SFA are not partaking in a huge swindle of the Scottish football support at large?
If the SFA have no concerns or conditions to place on granting The Rangers permission to continue to play next season, then surely they can pass on the information that gives them that confidence instead of dumping the responsibility all on Walter Smith?
If I were a concerned The Rangers supporter I would be looking for an indemnity from the SFA. If I were an SFL club I’d be asking for a similar assurance from the SFA, not taking the word of sycophantic and possibly compromised journalists that all was secure down Ibrox way.
Auldheid
You make an important point about objectivity here; and The Rangers fans’ willingness to approach the problem from that viewpoint.
Whatever is being said here and elsewhere about their club, and it is understandable that they will distrust the views of those they see as anti-Rangers, the SFA’s lack of transparency is doing them a great disservice. Lobbying the SFA for information on the financial viability of the club will might at least allow fans to make choices based on some facts as opposed to the emotional blackmail that has not served them well over the last couple of years.
If the information from the SFA turn out to be wrong, then The Rangers fans would have a genuine grievance against the authorities for their failure to exercise proper oversight in the way their club is being run.
However if they fail to hold the board and the SFA accountable by attempting to avail themselves of the information, they are just as negligent as the authorities.
Auldheid says:
Sunday, June 2, 2013 at 14:54
========================================
For an organisation that said it would offer transparency the SFA appear to become more secretive by the day, if that’s possible. However, the club from Ibrox are only one member of the SFA. It’s high time others demanded answers if they suspect things are not quite right. As much as the SFA silence is maddening, the silence from other clubs is equally so. The media won’t ask questions but clubs don’t need the media to speak for them. Are they asking questions?
johnnymanc says:
Sunday, June 2, 2013 at 14:48
==================================
There can be no doubt the LNS verdict was the only one that could prove what we all knew, i.e dual contracts, but avoid consequences that could have seen football in this country and possibly beyond being played out in a courtroom. You mention sickening – the most sickening part for me was people like Murray, McCoist, McLeish and Smith smugly gloating that the verdict proved ‘we didn’t cheat’. I wonder how they’ll respond if the 2nd tier tribunal concludes beyond all doubt that the loans related to their dual contracts were a total sham.
upthehoops says:
Sunday, June 2, 2013 at 15:47
They claim to have been vindicated in the LNS enquiry … they were found guilty of the charges against them.
They claim to have been vindicated in the FTT … they were found guilty of the only parts which have actually been finalised.
They conveniently don’t even mention the two tax matters, totalling well over £10m which led to their administration and subsequent liquidation.
I don’t know if they are stupid or brainwashed. Possibly both I suppose. The one’s who realise the truth tend to stay quiet. To be fair when one sees the savaging they get when they try to express that truth it is hardly surprising.
You really would think that the club which was liquidated because of lying, stealing and cheating. Which was established beyond any doubt, had actually survived, thrived and proven all the claims against them sere wrong.
Their attitude really is astonishing.
johnnymanc says:
Sunday, June 2, 2013 at 14:48
Re: LNS and the issue of Sporting Advantage
===============================================================
You state: ‘Presumably he was briefed or aware of the whole issue of player registration. Why didn’t he challenge Bryson on his evidence by bringing up all the precedents of ejection by faulty/missing signature and ask him why this wasn’t deemed to be as serious?’
My understanding of the way in which a tribunal operates is that it listens to all of the evidence presented and makes a decision based solely on that evidence. LNS wasn’t briefed or necessarily aware of the whole issue of player registration prior to the Commission Hearing and didn’t need to be.
Because, the registration process was explained in evidence presented by SFA Head of Registration Sandy Bryson and it went unchallenged by the SPL and Rangers. It is not for a judge to challenge the evidence given by an expert witness or to tell him what evidence he should be giving.
In broad terms a judge or tribunal member might question a witness to clear up any anomalies or grounds for confusion they perceive. But this is usually after Counsel representing the other parties have questioned the witness if the issue still hasn’t been cleared-up.
Bryson’s evidence at [86] destroyed the SPL case being presented by Roddy McKenzie who was unable to refute Bryson’s evidence. LNS had no alternative therefore other than to accept the position as presented by the SFA expert witness. The great mystery is why the SPL were unaware of the SFA position and, if they were, how they didn’t recognise that it torpedoed their case.
In a nutshell it meant that a player’s registration should generally be treated as standing unless and until revoked which led the Commission to rule that: ‘There was no instance
shown of Rangers FC fielding an ineligible player’. [89]
[103] Since at the time of the hearing we had made no decision on the merits, we invited Mr
McKenzie (SPL) and Mr Mure (Rangers) to address us on various hypotheses. Mr McKenzie stated, and we wish to emphasise, ‘That the SPL did not seek the imposition by us of any specific sanction’. It was a matter for the exercise of the Commission’s discretion in the
whole circumstances of the case.
In other words the SPL were unable to suggest even a minimum sanction they thought appropriate to be applied to Rangers. It strikes me as a woeful position from the SPL and reveals the total weakness of their case.
I also feel that you might not have understood the difference between the phrase ‘Sporting Integrity’ and ‘Competitive Integrity’ and seem to think that LNS plucked the issue of ‘Sporting Integrity’ from the ether.
That isn’t the case as can be seen from the uncontested evidence of Ian Blair SPL Company Secretary [65 – 68] which explains that the main purpose of the footballing rules adopted is to preserve Sporting Integrity.
The question of ‘competitive and sporting integrity’ is dealt with at [105 – 107]. It is worth noting that no evidence was advanced to LNS showing and cases where any advantage was gained and tbh I actually understand the difficulty faced by the SPL in so doing.
I therefore don’t agree with your statement that: ‘It’s obvious to everyone that that if you purchase players which you can’t legally afford and haven’t correctly registered, then you have gained a Sporting Advantage’.
Firstly the SPL accepted the players were correctly registered and could provide no proof that any ‘advantage’ accrued to Rangers with regard to playing them so it appears not to have been obvious to the SPL. LNS goes into the subject at length and there is no need for me to repeat his reasoning which I have yet to see challenged in any meaningful way.
I accept that titles not being stripped has upset some people badly but my own position was that I would wait and see what evidence was presented. If I had known that the SPL had nothing to present I could have easily concluded before the Commission sat what the outcome was going to be on title stripping.
That is not the fault of LNS or his two colleagues. I am not here to defend LNS as his Findings do that for him. I am more interested in ensuring that people identify the real culprits here and that is the SPL and SFA rather than get lost in the smoke and mirrors of a wrongly perceived cover-up by LNS. His decisions are out in the open to be judged what we will never know was what was going on behind the scenes at Hampden and that’s what we should be concentrating on IMO
If anyone needs some bedtime reading the Commission Decision is at: http://www.scotprem.com/content/mediaassets/doc/Commission%20Decision%2028%2002%202013.pdf
TSFM
I’ve tried telling them on Twitter and this is just another attempt.
Remember the business case I uploaded? I understand it was sent to the SFA media man Broadfoot by another media man asking for comment in terms of granting a licence. No response, nada, zilch and that was ages ago. You would think the SFA would have rubbished it if it was so wrong and indicated where in even broad terms. They could still do so and indeed that was the purpose behind both the calculations and sending it to the SFA.
Then I got an approach from Rangers supporters on Twitter for the original. It seems the uploaded version had been passed on to a Rangers man whose judgement was not clouded by its Timmy source who confirmed the figures as reasonable and balanced.
The Rangers lad I then conversed with, whilst still suspicious of my motives was in fact as interested in the figures as any observers here so there is hope.
I have since suggested he gets support from fellow supportes to go to the SFA to get the kind of assurances they simply cannot get from inside Ibrox because those inside ( and quite possibly inside the SFA) fear the support cannot handle the truth. I think they can and indeed only with such honesty can Scottish football never mind Rangers move forward.
But then his fear ( and I would be fearful if positions were reversed) is that if SBs are not bought his club will go under. My view though is that is the threat itself not to rely on trust in an old guard who were themselves instrumental players in Rangers demise, but rely instead on cold hard truthful figures is what will in fact get those figures out into the open and provide meaningful information on which to decide if and how much to spend in supporting his club.
I appreciate it ia a very emotional time for Rangers supporters but its time they put their hearts aside and started using their heads.
Ask the SFA: will you grant Rangers unconditional permission to continue playing based on what you know of the true financial position at Ibrox and can you share what you have been told as promised in club licensing procedures?
If the Rangers support do not ask they are as culpable as the Board they do not trust and the man in whom they are being asked to trust. I think they can handle the truth if they have the sense and bottle to get it.
Then a stran
chipm0nk says:
Sunday, June 2, 2013 at 16:17
upthehoops says:
Sunday, June 2, 2013 at 15:47
They claim to have been vindicated in the LNS enquiry … they were found guilty of the charges against them.
They claim to have been vindicated in the FTT … they were found guilty of the only parts which have actually been finalised. They conveniently don’t even mention the two tax matters, totalling well over £10m which led to their administration and subsequent liquidation.
I don’t know if they are stupid or brainwashed. Possibly both I suppose. The one’s who realise the truth tend to stay quiet. To be fair when one sees the savaging they get when they try to express that truth it is hardly surprising.
You really would think that the club which was liquidated because of lying, stealing and cheating. Which was established beyond any doubt, had actually survived, thrived and proven all the claims against them sere wrong. Their attitude really is astonishing.
===============================================================
You are correct in all you say but I feel many assist them in their false perception by continually knocking the LNS Decision which found:
(1) We find the breaches in Issue 1, Issue 2, Issue 3 (except Issue 3(c) and the concluding
passage of Issue 3(b) starting with “such that Rangers FC . . . .”) and Issue 4 proved
against RFC 2012 Plc (in liquidation), formerly The Rangers Football Club Plc.
(2) We fine RFC 2012 Plc (in liquidation) £250,000 in respect of Issues 1 to 3, and
admonish it in respect of Issue 4.
(3) We make no separate finding of breach by Rangers FC and impose no penalty on it.
On (2) with regard to Issue 4 it’s worth reading why a penalty wasn’t issued:
[110] Failure to respond timeously to legitimate requests for the provision of information is a
serious breach of the rules. If the football authorities are to perform their functions effectively,
such requests by them must be met.
In the present case, at the time that the initial request was made, and throughout the subsequent period, Oldco was in administration and the administrators were acting as its agents. The administrators had the responsibility of discharging Oldco’s obligations, including those to the football authorities. They did not do so, and thus caused Oldco to be in breach of the Rules.
We have decided, however, without wishing to detract from the gravity of the breach, that no separate financial penalty should be imposed on Oldco in this regard. Instead, we shall impose an admonition.
Auldheid says:
Sunday, June 2, 2013 at 16:41
Rangers business case and the SFA
====================================================
It is hard to know whether to laugh or cry at the SFA. When I read your post I had this crazy thought that perhaps your business case is better than the one presented by Rangers so your’s will be the one used to let them play on 🙂
Still I hope the Bears involved are serious – I think there are some more serious questions being asked online now about the financial future by more Bears than were doing it a year ago but I wonder if the penny will drop with enough of them in time to do anything about it.
puzzlingresult says:
Sunday, June 2, 2013 at 13:37
I do not think that there is a connection between the latest release from @CharlotteFakes and the work that @CorsicaCharity1968 is undertaking.
As far as I understand the tweets of @CorsicaCharity1968 he is looking at the charity games with Rangers/Sevco that took place last year and more recently with Man U.
I have not had a look at Twitter to see if @CorsicaCharity1968 has made any comments on the latest revelations from Charlotte.
Ecobhoy
I never understood the SFA position at the outset that they should not be the investigative body or be responsible for appointing it. The reasoning that they would be the court of appeal never made sense to me in that there was always somebody above the SFA that could be used to rule on a matter of football law interpretation like UEFA or whoever within UEFA does appeals (CAS?)
I mean it is the SFA players are registered with not the SPL and if the SFA do not know the rules and their intent then who friggin does?
This questionning of SFA position is even more apparent from the key swaying evidence coming from the SFA itself.
If what Bryson told LNS was true then it was true from the outset. So why were the SPL not told from the outset that once registered players were eligible even if registration had not complied with the rules (that just sounds absurd typing it but it is what LNS accepted as it came from an expert)
I take it LNS was not in any position by way of the construct of the enquiry to ask if Mr Bryson or his employer was conflicted or compromised in any way because that is what it looks like to most observers. Indeed as Johnnymac says the SFA had a lot to lose if they had been judged as derelict in their registration process. So apart from wondering why that thought never crossed LNS’s mind he probably did his job as specified/ constrained.
However there is still the UTT decision on ebts to come and if they are found to be irregular as used by Rangers then the SFA will not be able to hide behind LNS. Shareholders of clubs can put pressure on them to seek compensation from the SFA for not carrying out registration diligently knowing that ebts were being used by Rangers. We know they knew because the current President had one and other Ibrox officials at the time with positions in the SFA, like Martin Bain knew all about them and of course ( as Rangers supporters were quick to point out) they were mentioned in the accounts supplied to the SFA.
This aint over until the UTT sings and if they sing HMRCs song the phony war on the SFA will be over and its blitzkreig time.
Upthehoops
The reason why all clubs are not asking is they fear the answers will bring the whole house of cards tumbling around their ears.
Same goes with msm. If we can work out the issues and consequences so can they and they know what we have to guess at.
ecobhoy says:
Sunday, June 2, 2013 at 16:53
You have defended the decision of LNS on several occasions now. However the bottom line is this- he found that the rules werte broken, but he decided not tyo impose any “sporting sanctions”. From his decision-
“[106] We therefore proceed on the basis that the breach of the rules relating to disclosure did
not give rise to any sporting advantage, direct or indirect. We do not therefore propose to
consider those sanctions which are of a sporting nature.”
Now, where in the rules of the SFA, SPL, or in LNS’ terms of reference, is there any linkage between the nature of the breach of rules, and the sanction to be applied? As I recall, Spartans were booted out of the Scottish Cup for a breach of the registration rules which could never have conferred a “Sporting Advantage”.
Does the term “sporting advantage” occur anywhere in the rules, in any context?
In my view, the link between “sporting advantage” and “sporting sanction” is entirely a creation of LNS. That is regardless of any evidence put forward by the “authorities” or any incompetence, deliberate or otherwise, in the conduct of their case.
It was open to LNS, having found a clear breach of the rules, to impose any sanction envisaged by the rules. In my view he simply chose to link “sporting advantage” to “sporting sanctions” because it was a “given” that titles would not be stripped.
In my book, LNS simply joins Lord Hodge in the list of those establishment figures summoned to the urgent aid of “Rangers”- and not found wanting.
The LNS enquiry was a set up from start to finish.
The idea was to find them guilty, it did, but to minimise the effect of any punishment.
Both were achieved.
It seems the SFA (the appellate body, aye right) provided the witness which allowed the punishment to be meaningless.
ecobhoy says:
Sunday, June 2, 2013 at 16:37
“In a nutshell it meant that a player’s registration should generally be treated as standing unless and until revoked which led the Commission to rule that: ‘There was no instance
shown of Rangers FC fielding an ineligible player’”.
————–
ecobhoy, I appreciate your dispassionate analysis of the LNS enquiry findings and understand you will get TD’s for exercising the arguments even if you only act in the role of Devil’s Advocate.
Since you have obviously studied the judgement and have debated it in detail recently, perhaps I can ask some ‘stupid’ questions that your responses to will aid both myself and possibly other readers.
The fundamental issue is that all details of a player’s contract needed to be lodged with the authorities. The existence of side leeters seemed to be an obvious infringement of this requirement.
I surmise that the requirement for all details of a players contract to be registered may have been for instance, to ensure that no payments were made that might distort the competitive nature of competition. Whatever the original reasoning behind the need for registration of the player’s full contract details with the authorities, the rule was expressed in words and therefore would need to be complied with to the word.
So, you with your LNS wig on, how was justice seen to be done (this was quasi judicial) if a basic requirement was so obviously infringed?
I presume that the registration rules did not have a complementary sanction for failure to comply otherwise this would have bee invoked.
It is a clumsy question ecobhoy but I am trying to distill your understanding down to a level that is more widely accessible.
Auldheid says:
Sunday, June 2, 2013 at 17:20
I take it LNS was not in any position by way of the construct of the enquiry to ask if Mr Bryson or his employer was conflicted or compromised in any way because that is what it looks like to most observers.
++++++++++++++
There were absolutely no constraints on LNS. This was not a court of law, or even a formal tribunal. He could ask anyone any questions he liked. I’m sure he did, but his questions would only lead to the answers he wanted, you can be sure of that. A total farce and a complete stitchup. In my opinion.
Auldheid says:
Sunday, June 2, 2013 at 17:29
The reason why all clubs are not asking is they fear the answers will bring the whole house of cards tumbling around their ears.
====================================================
I can’t see what they have to lose. Do they fear the club from Ibrox being lost to the game altogether? What’s the worst that can happen if they do ask searching questions of the SFA? They might get the clear out that’s needed on the 6th floor at Hampden, and the club from Ibrox would survive, only this time it would have to live within its means.
Any deserving charities you would like to benefit from excess TSFM funds, please leave a nomination on the Funding page.
neepheid says:
Sunday, June 2, 2013 at 17:53
Auldheid says:
Sunday, June 2, 2013 at 17:20
I take it LNS was not in any position by way of the construct of the enquiry to ask if Mr Bryson or his employer was conflicted or compromised in any way because that is what it looks like to most observers.
++++++++++++++
There were absolutely no constraints on LNS. This was not a court of law, or even a formal tribunal. He could ask anyone any questions he liked. I’m sure he did, but his questions would only lead to the answers he wanted, you can be sure of that. A total farce and a complete stitchup. In my opinion.
===========================================================
The job of questioning Mr Bryson was down to Rod McKenzie who agreed with him so didn’t question him. Any questions LNS or the other two members asked of any witness would primarily be to clear-up any confusion in evidence given rather than to influence the evidence given.
[22] Rule 2.6 of the SPL Rules of Procedure provides:
“A Tribunal shall not be bound by any formal rules of evidence and may accept evidence
in any form. However it shall be entitled to accord to evidence such weight as seems to
the Tribunal proper having regard to the quality of the evidence and the reliability and
credibility of same.”
[23] . . . we shall proceed on the basis of the facts which we hold to be established by the evidence before us, and on nothing else.
[24] . . . The burden of proof of the Issues rests on the SPL throughout.
[25] . . . In our view the burden lay on the SPL to prove (on the balance of probabilities)
material factors which might affect sanction, such as whether a particular breach had given
Rangers FC a significant competitive advantage.
As regards to [25] the SPL didn’t provide any material factors affecting sanction and were unable to even suggest a single sanction that LNS would apply – the SPL didn’t even ask for an egg cup to be taken from the Ibrox canteen never mind stripping titles. The SPL were also unable to detail any competitive advantage that Rangers had been given let alone a ‘significant’ one.
The total farce was down to a shambles of preparation and presentation and the fact that the SPL seemed to be unaware that the SFA was going to blow their case out of the water.
It seems that some people would only have been happy if LNS and his two colleagues had ignored the evidence presented and turned into a Star Chamber to provide the verdict required.
Sadly there was no conspiracy but just no case as far as the SPL and SFA were concerned but a lot of people got themselves whipped into a frenzy at the possibility of title stripping. Any reasonable person taking their time to read the LNS Decision will see that there could never have been any sanctions applied as there was no evidence supplied.
It is not the job of LNS to supply that evidence it was the job of the SPL.
…I see Fraser Wishart back in the press today, over Sevco rule bender signings, got me thinking. Maybe I missed it, but when frandaza was sacked FW was conspicuous by his absence, usually any union matter in Scottish football and FW hits the press and appears involved, at least to guide the player(s)…..yet not a peep about Fran’s sacking? When Is Fran’s hearing? Must be soon…….
Having read many posts this pm on the LNS enquiry reminded me of my other learned friend, one Lord Hodge.
It seems some time has passed since we were told that the IPA had found no fault or conflict of interest in D &P’s handling of RFC’s administration. How long will it be before LH rubber-stamps such a strenuous and impartial enquiry by that trade body and writes off another strand of the scandal as unworthy of further scrutiny.
Chalk another one up to the establishment.
Sorry messed up the link.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/pfa-scotland-chief-fraser-wishart-1850471
Auldheid says:
Sunday, June 2, 2013 at 16:41
—————————————–
Auldheid
With great respect, you need yer auld heid examined – what on earth made you think sending something to Darryl Rightfoot would ever initiate a response?
He is the guy who has been nudging Vincent Lunny to take action against Neil Lennon in recent weeks; Richard Wilson owes his entire writing style to Darryl.
The Herald has gone steadily downhill since Ian Archer left it in the late 70s. Since then we have been “entertained” by
Ian (“Playing For Rangers Nos 1-??”) Paul,
Ken (“Rangers are moving on to another level from the rest of Scottish football…” – May 2000) Gallacher,
Graham (“if I was chocolate I’d eat myself after broadcasting a radio show about it….and isn’t Donald Findlay the most marvellous man?”) Speirs
Hugh (“the only Catholic on the Sports desk and happy to be so”) MacDonald
Michael Grant (with an odious and gratuitous a propos of nothing anti-Celtic rant in yesterday’s paper)
The message is simple, do not expect anything from a present or past Herald sports journalist and you won’t be disappointed. That’s what this blog is here to change.
Arabest
Sandaza
To be fair the SFPA did say they were backing him with legal support etc. and thought his case was watertight. Whether he’s been persuaded otherwise by anyone from Greece I don’t know. Bit of a worry but im sure all is kosher knowing who’s involved.
Clutching at straws over in sevconia?
“UEFA’s treatment of Derry City – a cause for celebration for Rangers fans? By AD Bryce (@bryce9a)
The discussion surrounding the ‘Rangers FC – new or same club’ question has always included, bubbling below the surface of superficial taunts and assertions, a reasoned debate with arguments presented by both sides. The position – or alleged position – of UEFA is never far from mention, usually as a weapon in the armoury of “new club” advocates. However, evidence relating to a direct precedent of Rangers’ financial meltdown , Derry City FC, calls into question how UEFA officially treat instances of liquidation of football clubs.
Background – UEFA rules and the Derry City precedent
UEFA’s definition of a football club “a legal entity fully responsible for the football team”, contained within their Club Licencing & Financial Fair Play Regulations, is used to argue that – as far as UEFA are concerned – newco Rangers FC (being a new legal entity) are a new/ different/ separate “football club” to now-in-liquidation-oldco Rangers FC. That means founded 2012, no major trophies, old club is ‘dead’ etc.
The story of Derry City FC’s financial meltdown bears an extremely close resemblance to that of Rangers. The legal entity behind Derry City FC – Wellvan Enterprises Ltd – was liquidated in November 2010, with a new company picking up the pieces, the business and assets, attempting to continue Derry City FC – albeit having to start again at the second tier of the FAI league system – again echoing Rangers situation closely.
UEFA’s rules essentially prohibit a new legal entity from entering into European competitions for at least three years – which meant that, despite a 3rd place finish in the 2011 League of Ireland, the club were not allowed to compete in the 2012-13 Europa League as a result of this rule. However having returned to the top flight and winning the Cup in 2012, the 2013-14 Europa League will finally see Derry City FC return to European competition.
New club? Evidently not…
The most interesting aspect of this return from the wider context is that the “new Derry” club is being treated by UEFA as a continuation of the pre-liquidation “old Derry” club ie. as the same football club, despite being entirely separate legal entities.
Evidence of continuity of Derry City FC from oldco to newco is clear from a glance at the club’s UEFA team page, results from 2013 sitting alongside results from 1965! However, one could plausibly side-step that by putting it down to a slack web-page editor who has, inadvertently, incorrectly represented UEFA’s official position.
The really convincing evidence lies in the calculation of co-efficient points that determines a club’s ranking and thereby its seeding for the competition draw. It’s a key factor in determining the stage at which a club enters a competition and the pedigree of potential opponents. As such, it impacts upon a club’s chances of success and – crucially for clubs at this level – prize money, so is certainly no candidate for casual, throwaway errors.
“Old Derry” enjoyed a relatively successful Europa League campaign in 2009-10, earning themselves a (relatively) healthy haul of 1.275 co-efficient points. These points from 2009-10, won by “old Derry” pre-liquidation, are being included in – and to the benefit of – the ranking of “new Derry”. (Derry City can be found at number 347 on the UEFA list of club rankings)
There can be doubt, UEFA are demonstrably not treating “new Derry” as a new/different/separate club at all, otherwise there’s no way this would have happened. A default, baseline co-efficient value is standardly used to plug the gaps in the 5-season record where a club (a “new” club for instance) has not previously competed in Europe, but this option has been rejected in favour or recognition of points accrued in the 09-10 campaign.
Wider implications regarding Rangers FC
So, clear evidence where a liquidated company, returning “re-formed” as a new legal entity, yet being treated in practice by UEFA (despite that much-heralded sentence in the regulations) as the same football club. The precedent that has been set is, of course, cause for delight for Rangers supporters, whose emotional attachment to their club’s remarkable trophy-laden history is invaluable to them.
For those taking the opposite view, the fact that a club being a “new legal entity” is evidently no obstacle – at least in UEFA’s eyes – to the team’s football history being retained will not be welcomed. After all, this debate has never been about establishing legal/corporate status, but football status – trophies, achievements, world records…
Now, the treatment by the Scottish football authorities of Rangers FC as having survived the Summer of 2012 has lead to vociferous criticism from some quarters; strong allegations of ignoring the rules, breaking the rules, “pretending” a club has survived liquidation, sacrificing integrity for the ‘blue pound’ or even outright bias – all withering criticism of the SFA.
In stark contrast, UEFA have generally been the darling of the “new club” advocates. However, with this example of UEFA similarly treating a formerly-liquidated club as a surviving entity, it will be interesting to see if the same claims of treachery and bias are now directed at the European governing body – can we expect images conjured of a cabal of Derry City supporters plotting in the higher echelons of UEFA? Perhaps of a ruse to manipulate Derry City to smooth the way for recognition of Rangers’ history? Personally, I’ll withhold judgement and happily let the conspiracy theorists do what they do best.
Posted by AD Bryce. He is happy to receive comments on this piece via twitter: @Bryce9a”
slimshady61 says:
Sunday, June 2, 2013 at 19:04
0 0 Rate This
Auldheid says:
Sunday, June 2, 2013 at 16:41
—————————————–
Auldheid
With great respect, you need yer auld heid examined – what on earth made you think sending something to Darryl Rightfoot would ever initiate a response?
………………………………………………….
Not forgetting he is an ex Ibrox season ticket holder…
Sevco are sevco then now and forever .
As for ragers they have 140 years of history ,which is exactly that HISTORY .
There are some here living in Scotland that don’t believe in Santa and fairies no matter how many 5 year old tell us their real .
mullach says:
Sunday, June 2, 2013 at 17:48
Re: LNS
==================================================
I will try and answer the points you have raised but please remember I am not a lawyer and therefore my view is purely that of a layperson even if it may sound, at times, more like a laypreacher.
You state: ‘The fundamental issue is that all details of a player’s contract needed to be lodged with the authorities. The existence of side letters seemed to be an obvious infringement of this requirement’.
A) Details must be lodged with the relevant footballing authority to preserve footballing integrity and LNS heard evidence that extensive interest if gambling on football was a factor in this as was protection of a player in the event of a financial dispute with his club. The failure to register the EBT dosh was an infringement of the rules and that is why LNS imposed the £250K fine on Oldco.
So wearing my LNS wig justice was done as Oldco was found guilty on virtually all of issues 1-3 which covered the non-disclosure of the EBT payments. In LNS speak:
General conclusion
[83] For all these reasons, we are satisfied that breaches of the Rules have been
established in terms of Issues 1 to 3, except Issue 3(c) and the concluding words of Issue 3(b).
Issue 3c and 3b are very important and really the LNS Decision has to be read to understand the legal argument as my skills aren’t sufficient to precis it and retain the full meaning. See [84 – 89].
Essentially it means that: ‘There was no instance shown of Rangers FC fielding an ineligible player’ and it was partly reached because of the Sandy Bryson evidence on what constituted valid registration and which the SPL didn’t refute or question and indeed accepted as an alternative to their own viewpoint.
The question of any sporting sanction was killed stone dead at that point despite the wide ranging penalties available to LNS for such purposes. It really was a case of going through the motions from that point on with the SPL case in meltdown. It was so bad that when LNS asked the SPL QC if they had any suggestions as to punishment the SPL were unable to suggest any.
And yet some seem to think that if the SPL assisted (supposedly) by the SFA were unable to prove a single Rangers player was ineligible to play and couldn’t even suggest a sanction that the Commission should have got them off the hook by stripping titles. An important side issue was that no evidence was supplied by either the SPL or SFA that Rangers had derived any advantage from playing ineligible players
LNS would needed to have got the thumb-screws and the rack out to get any evidence IMO. If he had applied any sanctions against Rangers FC then it would have been immediately appealed and won without a shadow of a doubt. Is that really what the people who attack LNS would actually have wanted?
I think too many people got carried away on a tide of expectation which was built on shifting sand and in hindsight the whole exercise was a waste of time. It was also probably a sham by the suits but I doubt if that will ever be proven.
dreddybhoy says:
Sunday, June 2, 2013 at 19:11
Clutching at straws over in sevconia?
=========================================
I note that nonsense is getting punted onto all sorts of blogs and IMO is either deflection or just a poor attempt by an obsessive Bear to build a twitter following.
smartie1947 says:
Sunday, June 2, 2013 at 18:48
Having read many posts this pm on the LNS enquiry reminded me of my other learned friend, one Lord Hodge.
It seems some time has passed since we were told that the IPA had found no fault or conflict of interest in D &P’s handling of RFC’s administration. How long will it be before LH rubber-stamps such a strenuous and impartial enquiry by that trade body and writes off another strand of the scandal as unworthy of further scrutiny.
Chalk another one up to the establishment.
========================================================
I think it’s worth looking at the very restricted nature of the complaint ‘investigated’ by the IPA. There’s a lot more material in the public arena now regarding the activities of D&P which could form the basis of a fresh complaint to the IPA which I don’t think would be so easily dismissed.
There’s even quite a hefty sideswipe at D&P by LNS in his SPL Decision which even on its own would form the basis of a complaint to the IPA regarding D&P.
Go get it – if one complaint falls then make another especially when there is much better material now available. And you’ll have the benefit of LNS behind you 🙂
Slimshady
I’m not named Auldheid for nothing.
I did not send the spreadsheet to Broadfoot, a member of the NUJ did and whilst nothing has been made of the non reply so far that does not mean nothing will.I trust the judgement of the NUJ member.
In fact if the estimates are in anyway accurate and things dobgo pear shaped, Broadfoot will be implicated in the cover up having been aware of the dangers but remaining silent.
If the estiimates were rubbish they gave Broadfoot the ideal opportunity to state so and clarify and yet nothing………
Its a potential sleeper.
“There is a lack of openness transparency and accountability.
The governance of the game has to change, but the SFA presents
a serious obstacle to the modernisation of football in Scotland”
– Henry McLeish (former 1st minister) December 2010 -Independent report into the SFA
Two and a half years down the line and what has changed
nothing,and we know it
If we at TSFM want to force change then we have to take the fight directly to the SFA
If we want openness transparency and accountability then we have to confront these
men in an arena where they cannot hide , the only place for that is a courtroom.
Countless emails blog posts and twitter comment has been ignored
Money raised on TSFM has been wasted on internet gobbledygook systems that
no one wanted or needed to further the fight against corruption.
“Donations requested -target £700 ” What for this time?
If its to launch a legal process against the SFA count me in ,if its for more worthless software
that will end up in the bin then its staying in my pocket.
chipm0nk says:
Sunday, June 2, 2013 at 17:37
The LNS enquiry was a set up from start to finish. The idea was to find them guilty, it did, but to minimise the effect of any punishment. Both were achieved.
It seems the SFA (the appellate body, aye right) provided the witness which allowed the punishment to be meaningless.
=================================================
I totally agree with what you say I just happen to think that LNS wasn’t party to it. There was absolutely no case or evidence presented on what most would have seen to be the most important issue which was fielding ineligible players.
smartie1947 says:
Sunday, June 2, 2013 at 18:48
Having read many posts this pm on the LNS enquiry reminded me of my other learned friend, one Lord Hodge.
It seems some time has passed since we were told that the IPA had found no fault or conflict of interest in D &P’s handling of RFC’s administration. How long will it be before LH rubber-stamps such a strenuous and impartial enquiry by that trade body and writes off another strand of the scandal as unworthy of further scrutiny?
Chalk another one up to the establishment.
_________
If LH signs off on that IPA report – I`ll be surprised – well shocked. It was limited to the two joint admins as officers and based on the evidence presented to them in now past case files. LH requested tapes and other files incl DGs bits and pieces – and presumably waiting on the criminal investigation – whose tentacles now extend [we`re led to believe] to the post insolvency period – and – presumably the `sale` after which LH and the CO practically immediately launched further inquiries. LN could be in the mix – Indeed BDO is potentially involved as is anything CW may bring up [or CG if it comes to it!].
Doubt LH will allow the integrity of the CoS to be dragged into this sorry fracas that has tainted all unfortunate to be involved. Innumerable loose ends and risks. To date I would venture LH is the sole individual in this fracas who has maintained authority and the Law impeccably.
[neepheid & I have thing on this 😉 ] But seriously I think LH may surprise us yet!
Not unsympathetic to your observations though – I do think they all need to prove themselves now.
timtim says:
Sunday, June 2, 2013 at 20:11
If its to launch a legal process against the SFA count me in
===============================================
I would think that even if we could put together a case worthy of taking to court we would need approx £500K available for legal expenses. Great idea but I’m afraid a pipe dream although the RFFF did raise what was it £650K and put up £150K for Rangers to be represented at the LNS Hearing.
dreddybhoy says:
Sunday, June 2, 2013 at 19:11
“Clutching at straws over in sevconia”?
—————-
That piece looks as if its lifted in its entirety from a Paul McConville blog posted here earlier by Torrejohnbhoy. I can’t find his original post (the link may have updated) but here is the article :
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/05/31/uefas-treatment-of-derry-city-a-cause-for-celebration-for-rangers-fans-by-ad-bryce/
As we all know here, a policy cannot be discerned from one piece of information never mind an opinion on that information, however well thought out. Paul nevertheless opens up this area for debate and if Rangers fans are finding relaible information sources that is to be welcomed.
Ecobhoy
You remind me that whilst browsing through Europa League regulations ( I know I should get a life) there was a reference to a requirement for players to be registered with their clubs according to national assiciation regulations for those players to be eligible to play in the Europa League.
Hmmmm crossed my mind. Must run this by TSFM bloggers for a view. I’m on mobile and cannot reference the relevant registration but my thought was do any of the teams Rangers played in 2008 or earlier have a claim as LNS confirmed some registrations were incomplete and whilst Mr Bryson said they were eligible to play in the SPL did that apply to the Europa League.
I’ve not checked to see if there is a CL equivalent on registration but it might be interesting if there is to find out if UEFA share Mr Bryson’s expert view for UEFA competitions or did LNS cover all competitions and not just Scotland?
I’m thinking that in interpreting rules as literlly as suits, the SFA are undermining the principles that UEFA wish national associations to uphold and UEFA might finally decide they must intervene.
arabest1 says:
Sunday, June 2, 2013 at 18:45
…I see Fraser Wishart back in the press today, over Sevco rule bender signings, got me thinking. Maybe I missed it, but when frandaza was sacked FW was conspicuous by his absence, usually any union matter in Scottish football and FW hits the press and appears involved, at least to guide the player(s)…..yet not a peep about Fran’s sacking? When Is Fran’s hearing? Must be soon…….
============================================
I saw Wishart quoted in a number of articles saying the Players’ Union was fully backing Sandaza. I would think that with Green gone a quiet deal will be struck with Sandaza and we’ll never hear from him again. There’s no way do I reckon Rangers want a public hearing into what goes on at Ibrox.
Who knows what kind of questions Sandaza could be asked about possible religious discrimination – seems like too much of a loose cannon for the Ibrox facade to withstand and it’s one the MSM couldn’t ignore.
Clarification ” relevant regulations” not registration . Sorry
mullach says:
Sunday, June 2, 2013 at 20:19
dreddybhoy says:
Sunday, June 2, 2013 at 19:11
“Clutching at straws over in sevconia”?
—————-
That piece looks as if its lifted in its entirety from a Paul McConville blog posted here earlier by Torrejohnbhoy. I can’t find his original post (the link may have updated) but here is the article :
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/05/31/uefas-treatment-of-derry-city-a-cause-for-celebration-for-rangers-fans-by-ad-bryce/
As we all know here, a policy cannot be discerned from one piece of information never mind an opinion on that information, however well thought out. Paul nevertheless opens up this area for debate and if Rangers fans are finding relaible information sources that is to be welcomed.
=============================================================
The piece also appeared in full on Scotzine. Having had a look at AD Bryce’s twittering I’m afraid I don’t see it as a reliable information source but each to their own IMO.
Eco I would be happy with a small claims court action against the SFA if we can find
a suitable charge against them that would be applicable .
The victory would be in forcing a reply and the costs of these actions are well within our collective pocket. Maybe Paul McC or BRTH could advise what route to take.
twopanda says:
Sunday, June 2, 2013 at 20:13
Doubt LH will allow the integrity of the CoS to be dragged into this sorry fracas that has tainted all unfortunate to be involved. Innumerable loose ends and risks. To date I would venture LH is the sole individual in this fracas who has maintained authority and the Law impeccably.
[neepheid & I have thing on this ] But seriously I think LH may surprise us yet!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If Lord Hodge demonstrates to my satisfaction that his delaying of the liquidation of Oldco was anything other than a blatant ploy to enable the transfer of Oldco’s SFA membership to Sevco, then surprised won’t be the word for it.
Nobody has provided anything close to an explanation of why a potential conflict of interest involving D&P should have held up the liquidation (and the automatic extinguishing of Oldco’s SFA membership) by even a day.
Well at least Lord Hodge opened my eyes to the true state of play in the Scottish judiciary, which meant that LNS’ subsequent performance came as no surprise to me at all.
Neepheid mate – the admin creds committee led by HMRC eventually forced D+P into the liquidation phase
Auldheid says:
Sunday, June 2, 2013 at 20:29
Re: Europa League regulations
————————————————————————-
SPL Rule F1 provides:
“Every Club shall keep detailed financial records and the Company shall be entitled to inspect such records and to require Clubs to provide copies of any financial or other records which the Company may reasonably require in order to enable the Company to investigate whether the Club has complied and is complying with these Rules, the Articles of Association, the SFA Articles, the UEFA Statutes and the FIFA Statutes and to ensure compliance by the Club with the same.”
Bryson’s evidence only dealt with SFA and SPL rules & regs. I truly believe this tramcaur has passed and tbh I doubt that UEFA or FIFA would display the slightest interest because of all the other creepy crawlies that could emerge. Good idea but don’t see it flying 🙂
dreddybhoy says:
Sunday, June 2, 2013 at 19:11
Clutching at straws over in sevconia?
——
I don’t think so. I think the writer has a very good point with regard to Derry City and the way they’re being treated by UEFA.
It appears to me that UEFA will do the same for TRFC if and when the time comes. They will be treated as a continuation of the old Rangers. Who expected anything different?
We may have to admit that, to all intents and purposes, that’s who they are. Doesn’t put me up or down, but then the “history” thing is not the worst part of this whole affair by a long chalk as far as I’m concerned. In fact, who cares really?
It does lead me to wonder why they themselves took the 5 stars off their shirts, though.
For me the critical point is that in the past the various enquiry judgements we have witnessed would have been potrayed in the MSM as the final word on the matter and trotted out ad infinitum to anyone expressing a contrary point of view. However we are now in an environment where such decisions are subject to detailed public scrutiny and will be poured over to authenticate their validity or otherwise. If the course of events show such decisions to be questionable then the credibility of those arriving at them will be damaged.
We are often in the quest for the ‘silver bullet’ scenario where the culprit is nailed stone dead. However I think the outcome will be that those who may have been complicit in maintaining the status quo will slowly find their credibility eroded. It is a far more invasive process than the ‘stone dead’ scenario since the accomplices will not see their comrades drop under the force of the munition. They will soldier on thinking they are immune from threat but all the time their credibility will be slowly but surely dwindling: Like a cancer that does not show symptoms until it has already gained a fatal grip.
We are often frustrated that our efforts do not appear to bear fruit. Perhaps it is a symptom of the need for instant gratification. For me, seeing the guilty sow the seeds of their own destruction is a far more fitting and satisfying outcome. The taint is upon them and there will be no place to hide. It is a whole new ball game and like the governing authorities, we are setting the rules as we go along.
Two can play at that game.
neepheid – I do agree completely liquidation was avoided /delayed re SFA matters – I`ve always contended they tried but didn’t actually succeed, witness the Brechin farrago – but not with LH – respectfully, NH
Mullach
The author of that Derry article has been a stalwart defender of the same club myth/ reality depending on ones view.
I posted a couple of responses on that blog refuting the meaning he has given to how UEFA treated Derry AFTER they fulfilled the requirement of having 3 years trading history.
Derry did not have the required 3 years after liquidation just like The Rangers and after 2 years they were refused derogation of the 3 year rule when they qualified for the Europa League, precisely because UEFA saw Derry as a new club who had to build the necessary 3 year trading history before they could be allowed into Europe.
Having done their time so to speak it would only be right if UEFA applied the normal coefficient rules but that does not mean UEFA ever saw them as anything but new club, otherwise there would have been no reason to refuse Derry entry to Europe after two years.
The core problem is that in Article 12 of Chapt 2 of UEFA FFP, UEFA define what a football club is with no club/ company crap as well as providing for treatment if an insolvency has occured.
Under those rules restructuring as result of an insolvency is regarded by UEFA as emergence of a new club unless and until a national association makes a well founded case for it not to be so and so the 3 year trading history requirement dropped ( the derorgation Derry sought but failed to get).
No such case has been made by the SFA and until it is the Rangers are a new club to UEFA under Article 12.
In their IPO The Rangers themselves told subscribers that UEFA competition ( and income) was unlikely until 2016 because The Rangers did not have 3 years trading history.
The trade of The Rangers is football in whatever form the legal entity that UEFA define takes and UEFA deal with them as a football club who when trading as such create their history. Holding companies do not and indeed cannot of themselves trade in football.
UEFA take great care to protect the integrity of their competitions hence UEFA FFP and Article 12 to stop clubs shedding debt, ESPECIALLY tax on which they have other rules, via insolvency and turning up in another guise the next season to play.
Had the SFA stuck to the same principles the author would have been saved the effort in his valient defense of his club; but more important Scottish football would not now be in the deep ethical and moral mess into which the SFA have steered it.
I agree.
Someone sitting in judgement must base that judgement on the evidence placed before them. That is what the adversarial system is all about.
I think some people think LNS should have been more inquisitorial, but that’s not really the way we do things.
Well done Auchinleck to have won 10 SCJ cups is amazing and well worth the ten stars on the badge unlike some other players of other clubs. Personally I think a player who gets right through all the SJC rounds probably deserves the equivalent of the American purple heart.
On a similar note watching that Neymair from Brazil the guy just confirms what I thought of him agin Scotland at the Emirates, he’s a diving bam and will be nothing but trouble for Barca.
timtim says:
Sunday, June 2, 2013 at 20:37
Eco I would be happy with a small claims court action against the SFA if we can find
a suitable charge against them that would be applicable. The victory would be in forcing a reply and the costs of these actions are well within our collective pocket. Maybe Paul McC or BRTH could advise what route to take.
====================================================
I think it might be difficult to find a suitable reason given the basic purpose of Small Claims Courts which is to claim a small amount of money from someone you believe owes it to you. There is a slight window of opportunity with a claim asking the Small Claims Court to order the SFA to fulfil an obligation or perform a duty.
The example given is: ‘You employ a builder to put up a wall in your garden. The wall is half built and the builder says he will return in a few days to complete it. He does not do so. Despite repeated complaints from you, nothing is done.
‘You could then proceed to raise a claim against the builder, asking the court to order him to complete the wall and, if he does not do so, as an alternative ask for money. This sum would be to compensate you for the cost of having the wall completed by someone else and for the inconvenience you have suffered’.
But the big problem is that the court is well-used to people using the procedure for ulterior motives so the case will either be rejected or kicked upstairs into summary cause or ordinary cause procedures. The actual procedure you end up in isn’t solely down to the amount claimed but also to anticipated complexity. I truly believe you would never get to argue a case against the SFA in a Small Claims Court.
And if you did you have to realise that you could do more damage than good by looking like an obsessed nutcase and it is highly unlikely there would be any publicity with no chance of winning anyway.
IMO opinion the only case worth going for against the SFA would be be expensive even at Sheriff Court level and when inevitably lost then there is SFA costs as well. In hindsight perhaps we should have asked to give evidence at LNS and perhaps that’s the kind of forum to explore as a means of making a point.
angus1983 says:
Sunday, June 2, 2013 at 21:00
“It does lead me to wonder why they themselves took the 5 stars off their shirts, though”
++++++++
I would suggest because, you know, I know and every supporter from clubs up and down the UK know, even those at top of The Rangers know that to display them would make them a laughing stock. It’s a bit like me wearing my Grandfathers medals from WW1 buying a uniform at Army Surplus and wearing the lot in public at every opportunity, remembrance days or whatever. I may have a direct link with my Grandfather and could proudly display these medals but without ever announcing it everybody would know that I never earned them and that my Grandfather who did is long gone deed and buried. 🙂 The new Rangers have fought one successful campaign which was a one sided affair.
Ah your back nice to see you again. Are you a graduate at BDO or just a hired hand?
Angus
You will see from my post that I disagree with the point made in the Derry article.
The author has given a meaning under UEFAs treatment of the coefficient rules that appears to contradict the deterrent meaning and intent of their 3 year trading requirement under Art 12.
It would be interesting to hear which ruling has precedence. I think it quite fair of UEFA to interpret the coefficient rules in a forgiving manner without undermining the meaning and intent of Art 12.
Regardless until 3 years trading happens UEFA view The Rangers as a new club. After 3 years no one will really care anyway.
In spite of my views I have sympathy for the emotional same club view but want clarity on the applicable rules rather than the myths peddled that ignore those same rules.
I’d be surprised if UEFA realise this but until 3
More and more lunacy still over at Ibrox, Walter as Chairmen of the Board , a bunch of crooks squabbling over the remains, the legal profession continues to embarrass itself , the SFA as we all know will do SFA.
The administrative wing of Rangers are excelling themselves in non-action , however just like the MSM , their inactivity , whilst designed to provide succour to Rangers will only provide in pulling the sash over the (sorry wool) over their own supporters eyes. The relentless march of time and it’s ability to eat away at cash will not stop , just because the SFA sit on their hands or graham Speirs utters semi-intellectual balderdash on the radio airwaves, it doesn’t change anything; Income does not equal expenditure, plus no overdraft = bankruptcy.
Fundamental business laws will prevail and the SFA , Rangers , and the Legal profession can throw as many Lords and Sirs and Bowling Green-type administrators at the problem as they like, it will count for nought , when the cash runs out.
A vicious downward business trajectory is set, I would expect many suppliers now wanting their money up-front.
I think the crooks will pull a stroke in early to mid July 2013 , to flog the Rangers club and rent the ground , training facilities, all over 21 players sacked as the money runs out. Best chance for the crooks to flush out more cash from every bowling club in the land with only weeks to the start of the season.
Don’t get angry – enjoy.
Ecobhoy
Cheers. At least my Hmmmmmm radar is functioning.
Aye its another stone UEFA would not want to turn over but any of the clubs losing out to Rangers in the 2008 Europa Cup run might.
Its all a bit like Watergate sooner or later a position taken is going to run into a past statement that derails the cover up.
Auldheid
If they don’t get their financial act together pronto re SFA – could this delay potential Euro participation by a year?
If they don’t get their financial act together pronto re SFA – could this delay potential Euro participation by a year?
—————
C’mon guys,
UEFA will ask the SFA if everything is in order for these clubs to participate. SFA will say all is fine and rfc* will play if they qualify
without accounts filed timeously [registrations?] et al – ?
Don’t get your hopes up over Platini and EUFA Turkey was embroiled in an absolute scandal towards the end of the season, Platini was due at a EUFA board meeting there and effectively said its up to you guys and walked away.
I posted this stuff months ago