Good Evening.
As we ponder the historic vote to create a new Governing body to oversee Scottish League football, I cannot help but wonder what brilliant minds will be employed in the drawing up of its constitution, rules, memorandum and articles of association?
Clearly, Messrs Doncaster, Longmuir and even Mr Regan as the CEO of the SFA will be spending many hours with those dreaded folk known simply as “ The Lawyers” in an attempt to get the whole thing up and running and written down in the course of a few short weeks.
In truth, that scares me.
It scares me because legal documentation written up in a hurry or in a rush is seldom perfect and often needs amendment—especially when the errors start to show! The old adage of beware of the busy fool sadly applies.
It also scares me because the existing rules under which the game is governed are not, in my humble opinion, particularly well written and seem to differ in certain material respects from those of UEFA. Even then, adopting the wording and the approach of other bodies is not necessarily the way to go.
I am all in favour of some original thought– and that most precious and unusual of commodities known as common sense and plain English.
Further, the various licensing and compliance rules are clearly in need of an overhaul as they have of late produced what can only be best described as a lack of clarity when studied for the purposes of interpretation. Either that or those doing the studying and interpreting are afflicted with what might be described as tortuous or even tortured legal and administrative minds.
If it is not by now clear that the notion of self-certification on financial and other essential disclosure criteria necessary to obtain a footballing licence (whether European or domestic) is a total non-starter — then those in charge of the game are truly bonkers.
Whilst no governing body can wholly control the actions of a member club, or those who run a club, surely provisions can be inserted into any constitution or set of rules that allows and brings about greater vigilance and scrutiny than we have at present—all of course designed to do nothing other than alert the authorities as early as possible if matters are not being conducted properly or fairly.
However, the main change that would make a difference to most of the folk involved in the Scottish game – namely the fans— would be to have the new rules incorporate a measure which allowed football fans themselves to be represented on any executive or committee.
Clearly, this would be a somewhat revolutionary step and would be fought against tooth and nail by some for no reason other than that it has simply not been done before—especially as the league body is there to regulate the affairs of a number of limited companies all of whom have shareholders to account to and the clubs themselves would presumably be the shareholders in the new SPFL Ltd.
Then again to my knowledge Neil Doncaster is not a shareholder in The SPL ltd– is he?
I can hear the argument that a fan representative on a league body might not be impartial, might be unprofessional, might be biased, might lack knowledge or experience, and have their own agenda and so on—just like many chairmen and chief executive officers who already sit on the committees of the existing league bodies.
Remember too that the SFA until relatively recently had disciplinary committees made up almost exclusively of referees. I don’t think anyone would argue that the widening of the make up of that committee has been a backward step.
However, we already have fan representation at clubs like St Mirren and Motherwell, and of course there has been an established Tartan Army body for some time now. Clubs other than the two mentioned above have mechanisms whereby they communicate and consult with fans, although they stop short of full fan participation– very often for supposedly insurmountable legal reasons.
As often as not, the fans want a say in the running of their club, but also want to be able to make representations to the governing bodies via their club.
So why not include the fans directly in the new set up for governing the league?
Any fan representative could be someone proposed by a properly registered fan body such as through official supporters clubs, or could be seconded by the clubs acting in concert with their supporters clubs.
Perhaps a committee of fan representatives could be created, with such a committee having a representative on the various committees of the new league body.
In this way, there would be a fan who could report back to the fan committee and who could represent the interests of the ordinary fan in the street in any of the committees. Equally such a committee of fans could ensure that any behind the scenes discussions on any issue were properly reported, openly discussed, and made public with no fear of hidden agendas, secret meetings, and secret collusive agreements and so forth.
Is any of that unreasonable? Surely many companies consider the views of their biggest customer? This idea is no different.
Surely such a situation would go some way towards establishing some badly needed trust between the governing bodies and the fans themselves?
If necessary, I would not even object to the fan representatives being excluded from having a right to vote on certain matters—as long as they had a full right of audience and a full right of access to all discussions and relative papers which affect the running of the game.
In this way at least there would be openness and transparency.
In short, it would be a move towards what is quaintly referred to as Democracy.
Perhaps, those who run the game at present should consider the life and times of the late great Alexander Hamilton- one of the founding fathers of the United States of America and who played a significant role in helping write the constitution of that country.
Hamilton was a decent and brilliant man in many ways—but he was dead set against Democracy and the liberation of rights for the masses. In fact, he stated that the best that can be hoped for the mass populace is that they be properly armed with a gun and so able to protect themselves against injustice!
Sadly, Hamilton became embroiled in a bitter dispute with the then Vice President of the nation Aaron Burr in July 1804. Hamilton had used his influence and ensured that Burr lost the election to become Governor of New York and had made some withering attacks on the Vice President’s character.
When he refused to apologise, the Vice President took a whacky notion and challenged him to a duel! Even more whacky is the fact that Hamilton accepted the challenge and so the contest took place at Weehawken New Jersey on the morning of 11th July 1804.
The night before, Hamilton wrote a letter which heavily suggested that he would contrive to miss Burr with his shot, and indeed when the pistols fired Hamilton’s bullet struck a branch immediately above Burr’s head.
However, he did not follow the proper procedure for duelling which required a warning from the duellist that they are going to throw their shot away. Hamilton gave no such indication despite the terms of his letter and despite his shot clearly missing his opponent.
Burr however fired and hit Hamilton in the lower abdomen with the result that the former secretary to the treasury and founding father of the constitution died at 2pm on the twelfth of July.
The incident ruined Burr’s career (whilst duelling was still technically legal in New jersey, it had already been outlawed in various other states).
In any event, in Hamilton’s time full and open democracy in the United States of America would have met with many cries of outrage and bitter opposition. Yet, today, the descendants of slaves and everyone from all social standings, all ethnic minorities and every social background has the constitutional right to vote and seek entry to corridors of power.
In that light, is it really asking too much to allow football fans to have a say and a presence in the running of a game they pay so much to support?
Evening all,
A couple of observations of the evidence etc of SDM.
First note his definition of the club and how he perceives he was chairman of the club– only when he was chairman of the PLC and so on.
Next — he clearly alludes to the fact that without the EBT scheme Rangers could not have afforded some of their players and that the whole scheme enables them to get some players they would not otherwise have been able to afford.
I am sorry but that makes part of the Nimmo Smith logic completely tortuous and the workings of a twisted legal mind. I know that LNS is commenting on the failure to properly register players in that judgement, and that the registration process still left 11 v 11 no matter what, however he opines that the administrative failings came about because there was an overriding desire to protect the EBT position rather than risk exposing the trust scheme to scrutiny by the SFA.
This does not sit well with Murray’s assertions about the management of the EBT’s and Rangers affairs in general. He is clearly surrounded by advisers aplenty and the inevitable conclusion is that corporeally they knew what they were doing at all times.
I thought the cross examination was very light on him– although that may have been deliberate.
On other matters— we have now seen that Rangers PLC were paying several people who were in the employ of other companies at the relevant time — the Daily Record, Hearts, Everton, Newcastle and possibly the SFA.
There may well be others of whom we are not aware yet.
Clearly the independence of all the people concerned in any other position they held is open to question, and there is a complete and utter failure to recognise the very concept of conflict of interest.
That is stating the position at its very best.
neepheid says:
June 23, 2013 at 9:58 pm
ecobhoy says:
June 23, 2013 at 9:39 pm
Obviously because of the tightness of time and complexity of the Rangers situation, from a footballing perspective, as well as the different footballing authorities involved the SFA were entitled to – under Article 14.1 – to apply a holding conditional membership for the Brechin game.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I agreed with every word in your post until I got to this. I cannot read into Article 14.1 any power to confer a “conditional membership”. I have looked in vain for any mention of “conditional membership” in the articles. There is none. In fact the SFA in their statement make no mention of any conditional membership of the SFA. Here is article 4.2 “Members shall be of three classes:- full members, associate members and registered
members.” That article excludes the possibility of any such thing as “conditional membership” in my opinion. It now seems pretty clear to me that Sevco played at Brechin without membership of either the SFA or the SFL.
——————————————————————————————————————————————-
I’m afraid I can’t disagree with you because the SFA Articles are silent on ‘conditional membership’ and therefore under the general powers given to the SFA Board they can grant a conditional membership.
I have no doubt that the conditional membership was on a Full Membership category and this can be seen as allowed under SFA Article Article 7 which states: ‘Full members and associate members shall be entitled to a certificate of membership in such form and terms as the Board may determine’. This makes it crystal-clear that the terms of full and associate membership could be different for every club in the SFA if the Association so decided.
However when trying to determine what is meant by anything in Rules or Articles the best source is always the one closest to what you are considering and therefore Article 14.1 states: “. . . Transfer of membership will be reviewed by the Board, which will have the complete discretion to reject or to grant such application on such terms and conditions as the Board may think fit.”
So the Board saw fit to grant a conditional membership and it had the power to do so – it is actually very clear and is also backed up by Article 7. And I perhaps shouldn’t say this Neepheid but it was your last two posts on the subject that sent me back to to more digging 🙂
Typo first line ‘disagree’ should be ‘agree’
john clarke says:
June 23, 2013 at 10:14 pm
I have just read SDM’s statement
(What school did he go to? He should demand a refund of the fees!)
=========================================================
One of the Edinburgh private ones I seem to remember
Apologies if this has been posted before and further apologies if it reopens the new club/old club debate, but I think it’s important to note that Companies House describe the Nature of Business of The Rangers Football Club PLC (RFC 2012 P.L.C.) in liquidation as being “93120 – Activities of sport clubs”. This evidently confirms that the football club is being liquidated, not just the operating company, as those of a blue hue might otherwise have us believe. I understand that holding companies being liquidated are categorised under a distinct Nature of Business numbered 70100.
Input SC004276 in the Company Number field at http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk//wcframe?name=accessCompanyInfo
broganrogantrevinoandhogan says:
June 23, 2013 at 10:23 pm
Next — he clearly alludes to the fact that without the EBT scheme Rangers could not have afforded some of their players and that the whole scheme enables them to get some players they would not otherwise have been able to afford.
I am sorry but that makes part of the Nimmo Smith logic completely tortuous and the workings of a twisted legal mind.
=========================================================================
I’m afraid that I don’t agree on your view wrt to the LNS logic on Sporting Advantage. It has been with us for a very long time when wealthier clubs have always been able afford to buy and pay for better players than their poorer League cousins.
And the sporting advantage could accrue to a club that has never stiffed creditors and always paid it tax. Obviously we have the fair play regs coming in and we’ll see if the can level the playing field but I have doubts to say the least.
The SPL Counsel gave evidence that as far as the SPL was concerned the EBTs under discussion were legal. So what LNS was confined to was whether the registration scam created an unfair sporting advantage in that unregistered players were allowed to play – we know what happened there when Bryson told his tale.
But even if Bryson hadn’t torpedoed the SPL case the SPL had actually offered no evidence to show that sporting advantage had actually been gained by the failure to register and it’s worth also remembering that when asked by LNS whether the SPL had any sanctions in mind Rod McKenzie was unable to suggest any.
broganrogantrevinoandhogan says:
June 23, 2013 at 10:23 pm
I increasingly get the impression that things are neatly compartmentalised in order to obtain the desired results.
SDM sounds like what he is: a guy trying to make a buck, and heck, if that’s a crime then we’re all going to jail!!!
100 companies, employing 3500 people, but only one company is a constant pain in the Lanark Town Halls, the meeja is only interested in one company, enough is enough!!!!
You go from an informal bonus scheme to some chunterer talking about contracts!! This worked in 99 companies! How come it all goes South when you involve Ally & Walter?
Anyhoo I was two points removed from the contracts, tax arrangements and motor provision, Cheezus! You don’t expect me to read this pish as well do you?
The house? My house, his house, your house, who gives a tuppenny? I borrowed, I lent back, I walked away, the guy’s got a lovely patio, and a very discreet neighbour.
I never met Craig Whyte before I met him and that’s the God’s Honest!!!!!
Charles Who?, Green? You’re having a laugh! Never dealt with him when he was chairman of Sheffield!!!!!
And, for the record, I only ever got involved in signing one player and that was a disaster!!!!!
Gaz says:
June 23, 2013 at 8:07 pm
jimlarkin says:
June 23, 2013 at 8:01 pm
How could the club guarantees what decision a group of independent trustees would come to when a player applied for a loan from his sub-trust.
—————————————————————————————————————
But of course those weren’t actually contractual payments, they couldn’t be.
==================================================================
Well the way the club could influence the decision is to get rid of the trustees and replace them with another more compliant set if the first lot start asking awkward questions. And, guess what, that’s what they did. Covered quite fully in the FTTT.
Echoboy
I see your logic, however there is a difference between a team who is incredibly wealthy buying up players and paying them, registering them and fielding them within the rules, —– and a team which is far wealthier than others but who constantly post huge losses, fail to register the players properly ( unlike every other team in the league ), fail to fulfil that registration obligation primarily to shore up ( or at least not jeopardise ) a hidden tax saving scheme ( which they in part accept was administered unlawfully ), fail to comply with the strict rule about disclosure of all contracts and documents relating to payments to players, and who in that way then proceed to buy players which their chairman openly admits they could not otherwise have aforded– but which players did play, scored goals, amassed points and financial rewards at the expense of other teams who did not act in such a way.
Going by the logic espoused by LNS — irrespective of the inexplicable silence from big Rod about a number of things— as long as the game starts with 11 v 11 there can never be any sporting advantage no matter what the rule breaches.
Sorry but that is tortuous legal thinking.
The whole pattern of behaviour is designed to ensure that the Rangers team that took to the sporting field on each and every occasion was as strong as possible whether the administration behind that team complied with the laws of football or not.
Again by such logic there should only be one rule and that is that prior to the match beginning the referee shall ensure that each team shall commence the game with 11 players and at no time throughout any match shall any team field more than 11 players.
According to LNS all other rules are de facto defunct!
BRT&H
To pinch some blokes quote “I admire your indefatigability”….Seriously, keep on the case please. This whole cabal of schemers, shysters and crooks will be exposed for what they are/have been.
I’ve oft stated before that it’s not the blatantly obvious things (like being an SFA office bearer in receipt of a member clubs money) that will bring the whole corrupt edifice down but something completely from out of left field.
The fun is trying to decide, with these sumptuous leaks, which won to shout BINGO on.
Keep up the good work
It may be me, but…where have the concerted masses of TD’ers gone…?
@ Gaz
“I increasingly get the impression that things are neatly compartmentalised in order to obtain the desired results.”
=============================================================
It was always thus and forever shall be. My 82 year old father told me this as I attempted to educate him during the RTC revelations, mistakenly believing that people outside our parochial little country actually gave a toss about the corruption in Scottish Football.
The evidence of malpractice is overwhelming yet the guilty go unpunished, the “The Rangers” are allowed to masquerade as Rangers and the MSM continue to toe the party line.
“Their friends will help them”, my old man said. And they did.
Abandon all hope of justice, we are pissing against the tide.
one 🙂
ecobhoy
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/ScottishFAPublications2012-13/SFA_HANDBOOK_53-136_Articles_of_Association.pdf
http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/news/article/press-statement-49/
http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/docs/009__034__constitution__rules__SFL_Constitution__Rules__1346425915.pdf
There are 3 distinct categories of SFA membership – “associate”, “full” and “registered”.
If a club is admitted to a league and, at the time, are neither “associate” nor “full” members, the SFA automatically confers “registered” membership to that club. Clubs do not apply for “registered” membership of the SFA, it is simply a consequence of a new club’s admission to a league.
Sevco Scotland Ltd were admitted as a member of the SFL on 13th July 2012, therefore automatically became registered members of the SFA on that date. While the SFL allowed the new club 14 days to make an application to become an “associate” or “full” member of the SFA, the new club was an SFA member from the day it was admitted to the SFL.
Whether the effective date of transfer of the “full” SFA membership – from Rangers Football Club plc to Sevco Scotland Ltd – is considered to be 27th July 2012 (when agreement was reached in principle) or on 3rd August 2012 (when the membership transfer became complete) is moot.
For the two or three week after 13th July 2012, Rangers Football Club plc and Sevco Scotland Ltd co-existed as member clubs of the SFA.
The SFA articles are not silent on the matter of membership. They are perfectly clear – which is why the “conditional” membership announcement was the single most embarrassing announcement to have been made in the name of the SFA.
And that is saying something!!
essexbeancounter says:
June 23, 2013 at 11:12 pm
0 0 Rate This
It may be me, but…where have the concerted masses of TD’ers gone
%%%%%
Off up the wooden hill to Bedfordshire with their thumbs safely tucked up their teddies.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6YP7GCXqdqU
I kept my post very simple and straight forward and especially tried not to conflate various issues.
I will try again. The Sporting Advantage which could have attracted a footballing sanction was all to do with non-disclosure of side letters and failure to follow the rules. This was blown out of the water by Bryson’s interpretation which McKenzie accepted.
And there wasn’t a scrap of evidence to show that being able to attract all these ‘class’ players through the use of EBTs conferred any other type of Sporting Advantage which I always considered would be extremely difficult to do and it seems the SPL agreed with me because Rod didn’t even attempt it.
As to your attack on LNS and his two colleagues and am quite surprised because they were there to make decisions on the evidence presented to them.
And, I will reiterate, as far as Rod was concerned the EBTs were legal because the SPL accepted the decision of the FTTT and actually went further and said words to the effect that even if overturned by the UTT that wouldn’t change their position.
There are things I think LNS got wrong but they are not important to this discussion. But as I have often pointed out we have no transcript of the proceedings, have not seen the written evidence and don’t even have the Counsel statements. So I am always conscious of the peril of reading too much into the rather sparse info we have.
However all I will say is it wasn’t the job of the three tribunal members to dig-up the evidence. It was to make a decision on the evidence presented to it. Because of the woeful preparation and presentation of the SPL case IMO there could have been no other decision than what was arrived at.
HirsutePursuit says:
June 23, 2013 at 11:15 pm
=========================================
I’m afraid the debate has moved on quite considerably and if you look at the last couple of posts I made you will see that I have narrowed quite a few thing down a bit tighter and I am now pretty clear in my own mind what the actual position was and I don’t actually see anything in your latest post that would affect that.
However have a look at the posts I refer to and if you want to come back with any points I’ll be happy to respond – cheers.
PS: Watch out for the typo in my first post where I agree with Neepheid instead of disagreeing with him 🙂
ecobhoy says:
June 23, 2013 at 10:25 pm
ecobhoy says:
June 23, 2013 at 9:39 pm
essexbeancounter says:
June 23, 2013 at 11:12 pm
It may be me, but…where have the concerted masses of TD’ers gone…?
===========
Silly Billy,tomorrow is a school day.
ecobhoy says:
June 23, 2013 at 11:21 pm
—-
”….Because of the woeful preparation and presentation of the SPL case IMO there could have been no other decision than what was arrived at…”
——-
That’s one way of looking at it.
I think, on the contrary, that the SPL case was very carefully prepared to achieve one purpose- to avoid the consequences of a club fielding ineligible players- reversing the results of games, honours stripping and such like.
The ‘prosecution’ became the ‘defence’ by telling the Tribunal that all previous understandings of the rules governing registration were now to be regarded as pure mince, and that failure to comply with those rules did not invalidate a registration.
You’re not talking inadequacy, or slackness, or inefficiency here- you’re talking of the deliberate subversion of truth and wide-eyed complicity in corruption.
In fairness to LNS, I agree that if the prosecution in effect drops the charge, it is not for the judge to become the prosecutor.
Bawsman says:
June 23, 2013 at 11:14 pm
”…one :-)”
—-
Took me a second, but I got there! Very good. 🙂
This story changes every day. Being an 80’s baby were Celtic as bad as a few clubs just now when they were struggling? I know different stories one club retained the history the other disbanded which was a shame. But Hearts to lift their skirt to The Rangers to raise a few sectarian quid really sickens me like going back in time no?
Some movement on Charlotte front and MSM ….
Bartinho@BartinhoBaroldo1
@alextomo When you spoke to Craig Whyte re RFC/CG/IA response to his LBA, did you ask him about @CharlotteFakes and if so, what did he say?
———————————-
alex thomson@alextomo
@BartinhoBaroldo he said he has mixed feelings – some of it’s been helpful, some of it less so
———————————–
campsiejoe@campsiejoe
@alextomo @BartinhoBaroldo Did he deny the truth of any of CF’s revelations ?
———————————–
alex thomson@alextomo
@campsiejoe of course not – all the revelations are ‘factual’ insofar as they are the opinions of the emailers and speakers etc.
———————————–
gary mcculloch@timmalloy70
@alextomo @MTHForum So Alex can you explain why no-one is reporting on the details that Charlotte is releasing,am confused,
—————————-
alex thomson@alextomo
@timmalloy70 I have done. Few journos know CF and there’s no public interest defence so post Leveson it’s a minefield. Am working on it.
———————————————–
I’m a bit concerned with Martin Willima’s discourse with Charlotte. His own profile portrays him as half a step up from a celebrity tittle tattle recycler. Is this an attempt at deflection from the gravity of the material that Charlotte is releasing?
Anyone else notice how quiet Fraser Wishart has been regarding the welfare of the Hearts players?
Echoboy
I agree entirely that LNS were not there to dig up evidence and were left in the extremely tight space left by the strangely unchallenged Bryson evidence.
As for there being no evidence that the entire actings of Rangers PLC overall lead them to have a sporting advantage over others by being able to field players that they could not have afforded otherwise — well may I present Sir David Murray– former chairman of said club, knight of the realm, businessman extraordinaire, controller of numerous professional business advisers from all walks of life, who for some reason stated precisely that when giving sworn testimony to the FTT!
Conducting business this way was all about gaining a sporting advantage== all clubs seek to gain a sporting advantage by signing the best guys that they can– that is obvious.
However, they have to do that within the rules of football– and Rangers broke the rules of football.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t expect things to change and I don’t expect the judgement to change — that was not my argument.
My argument was that by any stretch of the imagination what you are seeing is tortuous and twisted legal thinking which almost inevitable produces a ridiculous legal consequence.
I am not saying that it is your argument at all, but let’s examine what you have just espoused as the SPL/SFA argument that they have accepted the FTT findings and will continue to accept those findings irrespective of any appeal!
I can actually understand why the FTT reached the majority decision it did.The majority took the view that the revenue having asked them to consider the loans from the trusts to the players as real and effective, then must by sheer logic accept that you don’t pay tax on a loan!
End of case and cheerio.
Heidi Poon dissented and went beyond what the Revenue conceded within the confines of the court, arguing that notwithstanding what the lawyers technically agreed in her opinion the evidence all pointed to something else altogether etc…… yada yada yada… we know where she went.
Now there is an appeal– which I think will focus far more on the funding of the trusts themselves from the coffers of Rangers PLC– stating that as soon as the money went to the trusts in furtherance of the undertakings given in the side letters then tax was payable– irrespective of whether the money went to Jersey Trusts, The Sally Army or anyone else at all. If money is paid as part of a remuneration package then it comes with tax.
Now say that argument prevails, and the UTT agrees and overturns the very narrow decision of the majority in the FTT.
Further, lets say they make some obiter comments —as appeal courts and tribunals are very apt to do— and they set out both opinion and law which to paraphrase says that what the board of Rangers PLC did was bollox, a total sham, was completely related to the signing and paying of players and their wages highlighting those things that SDM and others said in evidence– namely that it was a way of getting and paying for players that Rangers could not have otherwise afforded.
Of course the UTT may say otherwise– but lets for the moment pretend that this is how they have ruled.
Well, in that case the UTT ruling would form part of the law– in Scotland, In England, would be a precedent in other tax cases, would be referred to bt tax advisers and accountants who would have to take notice of it when advising clients and so on.
However– going by what you were saying re LNS and his decision, The SPL and The SFA could just stick with the decision of the FTT ( even though it has been overturned ) and ignore the UTT decision and its implications and its meaning — unlike every other body corporate and individual in the country.
If they have said that they will stick to the FTT ruling in the face of a successful appeal to the UTT……
Then as I have said……. that is tortuous legal thinking!
paulmac2 says:
June 24, 2013 at 12:11 am
”..Anyone else notice how quiet Fraser Wishart has been regarding the welfare of the Hearts players?”
——–
I regret to say that I have not been following the HMFC in any detail, perhaps because I haven’t seen any criticism of the Footballing Authorities as regards their attitude/treatment of the club.
Are they applying any and all rules fairly and evenhandedly?
Wishart appeared willing to speak up for his members in their dispute with CG, which would not have endeared him to certain people.
On the basis of that,I would assume that he will doing what he can for the Hearts lads.
But it’s pretty clear that the footballing Authorities are not as upset at the difficulties that HMFC are in as they were/are with an already dead club and a yearling club!
ecobhoy says:
June 23, 2013 at 11:21 pm
3 14 Rate
***************************
However all I will say is it wasn’t the job of the three tribunal members to dig-up the evidence. It was to make a decision on the evidence presented to it. Because of the woeful preparation and presentation of the SPL case IMO there could have been no other decision than what was arrived at.
****************************
Unfortunately Eco, that’s about it in a nutshell and nothing we can do will change it.
The SPL Counsel gave evidence that as far as the SPL was concerned the EBTs under discussion were legal. So what LNS was confined to was whether the registration scam created an unfair sporting advantage in that unregistered players were allowed to play – we know what happened there when Bryson told his tale.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
apologies but I’m a bit new to this but i read on here before that Spartens were put out of the cup and fined for fielding a player who didn’t sign the form enough times. Maybe the forms were signed right in all the places they should be but Rangers hid the forms? That makes me not understand the idea of sporting advantage.
davythelotion says:
June 23, 2013 at 10:56 pm
The house? My house, his house, your house, who gives a tuppenny? I borrowed, I lent back
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
With a100 companies to run why make life even more complicated by introducing complexity into your private living arrangements?
There are two reasons for offshore arrangements. The first is the need for secrecy. The second is tax evasion. Sometimes the two come together in two offshore vehicles in Luxembourg and Jersey.
tailothebank says:
June 23, 2013 at 9:
Ref Aulheid comments above ref UTT etc..intellectually and theoretically right …but. Sorry….WRONG!
——————————————-
I think you mean there is a moral argument which the following to Jim Delahunt shows I subscribe to.
What I was referring to is what will happen if HMRC lose the appeal and we will just have to suck the nonsense from those with no morals. The Pharisees who know the law inside out, define right by it and use it to suit their cause, yet suffer the consequences of not having morals and wonder why they are in the grubber in a lower division and run by spivs.
this letter was to Clyde after I phoned in fed up not hearing any moral case being considered.
For Mr Delahunt.
Dear Jim
Thank you for taking my call last night re the moral aspect of the use of EBTS and taxpayers money not being collected.
I was beginning to think on hearing Mr Keevins justifying avoiding responding to my point that I had said something prejudicial to Clyde, which was never my intent and on listening to the broadcast again I was glad to hear you say nothing prejudicial had been said and my thanks for saying so.
It of course beggars the question if I had said nothing prejudicial why was no response given? Is Clyde so afraid of answering a question on a clear moral point its policy is simply to deflect and not answer?
I well appreciate the pressures you lads can be under on line and you have to protect the station but there comes a time when some values other than self protectionism need to be applied and as seasoned journalists with consciences, I am sure that you all know this, the silence told me, I just hope that when that point arises again, as it most certainly will, that you will not hide and will be prepared to stand up for real moral value.
I think you will.
(the tone did change a few weeks later but it seems to have forgotten again.)
paulmac2 says:
June 24, 2013 at 12:11 am
Anyone else notice how quiet Fraser Wishart has been regarding the welfare of the Hearts players?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Cheap shot. Not every part of union business needs to be done in the full glare of publicity or are you implying that as an ex Rangers player Fraser isn’t trying hard enough?
Auldheid says:
June 24, 2013 at 1:43 am
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ask Keevins and Clyde why Hately was put of SSB.
On the possible impact of the UTT
From LNS
(4) The relevant SPL Rules were designed to promote sporting integrity, by mitigating the
risk of irregular payments to players;
(5) Although the payments in this case were not themselves irregular and were not in
breach of SPL or SFA Rules, the scale and extent of the proven contraventions of the
disclosure rules require a substantial penalty to be imposed;
Based on this alone if the UTT finds for Rangers then the payments cannot be said to be irregular and that means it was open to other clubs to use the same method. (Celtic decided they were irregular and stopped the only one they had and paid the tax due. Rangers did not.)
If Rangers get the nod from the UTT then they were not using an irregular payment (although they were acting immorally) and the argument will be all clubs could have used EBTs, Rangers just took a punt and it paid off (in terms of impact on trophies won but not where they have landed up) so if EBTS are ruled OK as Rangers used them it was OK for other clubs to have followed suit, even if they chose not too, the key thing being all clubs have the same choice within the law (even if it is immoral).
But if HMRC win then the ebts become an irregular form of payment that other clubs had no access to or choice over using (without subsequent bad consequences if they did).
The payments were not irregular at the time LNS ruled, and were almost a side show, but if they become irregular then the ground rules change unless somewhere else on the LNS findings there is a statement that the nature of the payments is that they are regular whatever the UTT comes up with.
The SPL as far as I know have not commented on LNS so maybe they are waiting to see what comes from the UTT. I would, because if HMRC win then Rangers had an advantage using irregular payments that no other clubs could have availed themselves of without breaking the same rules Rangers did.
Nimmo Smith was lookimg to see if not mentioning side letters violated registration rules and made players ineligible and the fact that at the time ebts were “regular” helped him conclude that whilst registration rules were broken this was a relatively minor transgression to consider compared to being asked to make a judgement of the regularity of using other peoples money to which they were not entiltled (if HMRC win) to sign players they could not have otherwise afforded (and in the process perhap signed a player who might have gone to the opposition had they the same choice.}
A ruling on side letters and impact on registration where a payment is technically/legally regular cannot be applied to a situation where an irregular payment has occured and in which the side letters and impact on registration are not a factor.
Castofthousands says:
June 24, 2013 at 12:09 am
I’m a bit concerned with Martin Willima’s discourse with Charlotte. His own profile portrays him as half a step up from a celebrity tittle tattle recycler. Is this an attempt at deflection from the gravity of the material that Charlotte is releasing?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
With every day that passes the impact of CF’s material is diluted. In a few more days we can all get back to talking about Newco v Oldco. and the perversity of the LNS decision and the injustice against Sellik ovver the last 100 years or more,
Or Charlotte can dump it and leave us to pick out the good stuff.
I am glad that almost a year after the event we all finally recognise that the rules of football were thrown away the day that SEVCO received a “conditional” membership when no such derogation existed whilst Rangers simultaneously held a separate membership.
It is actually impossible to make any case that the game against Brechin took place within any rules of the game of football: no explanation of the sporting basis or sporting legality of that game has ever been forthcoming.
The refusal of any clubs within the SFA to challenge the erroneous granting of membership to a new club which then subsequently received a transferred membership though such a transaction was essentially impossible whilst the previous company remained extant though heading for liquidation and yet still held an SFA membership.
At that point we entered cloud-cuckoo land. essentially we had an organisation which was not at that point a football club by dint of not being registered nor being eligible for any registration entering a competition reserved for members of the SFL of which this organisation was not yet a member.
Everything since has been essentially illegitimate, even though no member club has challenged the legitimacy of any of the actions of the governing bodies.
There is now no doubt that Scottish football is acting in a manner outwith its legitimate functions by allowing Rangers to be formed/continue and the mess created cannot readily be sorted.
Burying heads in the ground appears to be the chosen tactic of all concerned: clubs, journalists, governing bodies. All are now complicit in the perpetrating of a charade upon those who support Scottish football.
We thus moved from a situation where a club broke rules on registration to cover up a tax scheme whose legitimacy was questionable and which they wanted to keep secret being given a tax bill it failed to make any contingency to settle and subsequently went into liquidation to one in which that entire process was disregarded and a successor club ( apparently the same club in footballing terms and the rules of the game were set aside to allow the continuation of the common undertaking of the club without the majority of its liabilities under an entirely new legal entity. Such a situation is unprecedented in any sporting context within Scotland.
What was a crisis generated by the mismanagement of one club to the extent that it collapsed became the death knell of the game when its governing bodies chose to disregard their own rules of association to allow such an enterprise to continue, and by failing to challenge or oppose or even seek clarification on the process by which an organisation that was not a football club came to play football in the SFL under SFA auspices, all clubs -I believe – are equally culpable.
newtz says:
June 23, 2013 at 10:01 pm
Jack Jarvis says:
June 23, 2013 at 9:55 pm
————————————
Jack have sent you a PM with personal apology
will send a seperate PM detailing … what i thought was a joke … but in hindsight is not so funny …
——————————————————————————————————————-
Thanks Newtz. Message received, understood and appreciated.
LNS tribunal was to look at the question of improperly registered players, and whether the rules were broken
It had nothing to do with the legality or otherwise of EBTs, nor was he asked to rule on sporting advantage
The tribunal did find that registrations were not carried out properly, and consequently RFC(IL) were found to be in breach of the rules
Bryson’s evidence made it impossible for LNS ruled outsporting sanctions, which meant LNS delivered what was regarded as a slap on the wrist
Correction to last sentence
Bryson’s evidence made it impossible for LNS to apply sanctions, which meant LNS delivered what was regarded as a slap on the wrist
Re Bryson’s evidence
If Bryson was to have said that the players were unregistered ,would that not have led to him being asked as to why he had allowed this to go on for years under his watch and an automatic reversal of results in every match played by these players ( no room for slaps on the wrist or made up sanctions ).
How would that have looked for Mr Bryson ,. So should we be surprised that his evidence exonerated himself .
Why was Bryson giving his evidence at all ,surely it should have been from an independent body as Bryson stood to lose too much and be under the microscope for his part in the whole debacle .
We all know what has been going on here and that is the power of the internet over the conflicted MSM .
There was always going to be a tribute act to fill the void left by the dead club but at least some will dig and expose the truth in this whole sordid and corrupt affair
An examination of the undisclosed payments to players made by MIH via trusts shows that some players picked up extremely large amounts of money off the books for either little or no return, on the pitch or in the transfer market. I wonder why SDM was delegating club officials to spend money in this way? Surely it would have made more sense to pay players, particularly loanees, a flat rate then bonus?
Were any agents paid ‘off the books’?
In the exchange market, how many players=1 villa?
Tic 6709 says:
June 23, 2013 at 11:43 pm
14
8
Rate This
essexbeancounter says:
June 23, 2013 at 11:12 pm
It may be me, but…where have the concerted masses of TD’ers gone…?
===========
Silly Billy,tomorrow is a school day.
==============================================================
Tic…thanks for the nice chuckling start to the day…!
But then on this blog, every day is a school day…!
Club A in the SPL have a budget which would allow them to buy the the entire playing squad of the Taihiti National Squad. SDM and RFC have a bigger budget and therefore could for example buy the entire Northern Ireland Squad. We have 11 players v 11 players and according to FIFA rankings RFC should have a better team than club A. If however SDM and RFC decide that by manipulating and ignoring rules, taking an approach which avoided tax they could buy the entire squad of Dutch National team or let’s take the budget down a bit and say it was the Scottish National Squad we would still have on the field of play 11 v 11. According to FIFA’s rankings it then has to be assumed that the RFC team with the Scottish National Squad is superior to club A with the Taihiti squad and therefore likely to romp the league. That is of course your line of thinking is similar to that of LNS because it’s 11 v 11, the FIFA rankings of course on that basis are a lot of nonsense because it’s always about 11 v 11 is it not !
Drew Peacock says:
June 24, 2013 at 1:49 am
4 10 Rate This
paulmac2 says:
June 24, 2013 at 12:11 am
Anyone else notice how quiet Fraser Wishart has been regarding the welfare of the Hearts players?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Cheap shot. Not every part of union business needs to be done in the full glare of publicity or are you implying that as an ex Rangers player Fraser isn’t trying hard enough?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Nothing cheap about that question what so ever…in the first case…the administartors where openly discussing the possibility of players needing to consider wage deferment or redundances….FW was in the lens of any camera available to champion the protection and best deal forthe players…now in the second case the administrator has placed the whole squad up for sale…with some players openly offering up to 50% wage cuts…not a peep
The Hearts situation is important enough for thier union man to publicly state his support and intentions in what is clearly a difficult time for his members….
So it does beg the question for the Hearts fans what is he doing for their team?
briggsbhoy says:
June 24, 2013 at 8:00 am
…………………………………….
You are correct…that the very simplistic view of 11 v 11 is what you would expect in a pub discussion…
Davie Murray…clarified the 11 v 11 view with his opinion that they acquired some or all of his 11 players that they would otherwise have been unable to do without the financial doping.
ecobhoy says:
June 23, 2013 at 10:10 pm
14 6 Rate This
neepheid says:
June 23, 2013 at 9:40 pm
18. An AIM company must prepare a half-yearly report in respect of the six month period from the end of the financial period for which financial information has been disclosed in its admission document and at least every subsequent six months thereafter (apart from the final period of six months preceding its accounting reference date for its annual audited accounts).
=============================================================
My brain has frozen on this one. So there was accounts due on 28/2/2013 and there will be another set due on 28/08/2013. But will there then be a set due on 28/02/2014 or does the fact that Companies House shows the next accounts due on 16 May 2014 mean that the ones due on 28/02/2013 won’t be done because they will within 6 months of the annual accounts date.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A 6 month report covering the period to 28/02/2013 was due on 31/05/2013. It is clearly overdue. The next reporting event will be RIFC’s first annual accounts, prepared to 30 June 2013. Under AIM rules these are to be published by 31 December 2013. Remember that these are AIM’s own rules and deadlines, nothing to do with Companies House, who have their own rules and deadlines.
My very last words on the LNS verdict. I have posted before on this. There is absolutely no linkage between “sporting advantage” and “sporting sanctions” in the rules of the SPL or the SFA. There are only rules and sanctions, and having found that the rules were broken, it was open to LNS to apply any sanction within the rules. The linkage has nothing whatsoever with the rules. In fact the terms “sporting advantage” and “sporting sanction” do not occur in the rules. This linkage is a convenient invention of LNS, but surprisingly seems to have acquired factual status in the minds of several posters. This connection between two terms which don’t even appear in the rules is now discussed on here as if the principle of linkage was written on tablets of stone, whereas it is an invention of LNS. Just to confirm that, there are plenty of examples of breaches of the rules by other clubs which involved no sporting advantage, but incurred a “sporting sanction”. That is why I believe that the whole thing was a complete fix, rigged to achieve a predetermined outcome.
Finally, the adversarial nature of the proceedings, much discussed, which apparently so constrained LNS from asking any pertinent questions, was adopted by LNS himself. He was perfectly free to proceed on an inquisitorial basis, but chose not to. Make of that what you will.
Neepheid and Briggsbhoy
Both of you are absolutely correct in what you say above.
I am reminded of a long and lengthy legal debate in the Sheriff Court in Glasgow many years ago which involved a number of legal agents including Counsel.
Everyone involved in the case knew what had happened, who had done what, who had messed up, the consequences of messing up and the ultimate disastrous calamity that befell the entire affair and the parties involved as a result of the foul up.
As with all court cases, the real aim of the legal action was to apportion blame strictly in terms of the law— which of course can be very different to the actual logical reality of the situation. Various legal agents cited precedent, legal text and clever argument to deflect or diminish their own clients failings in the affair and the matter became so protracted and complex that not unsurprisingly the poor old Sheriff gave the clear impression that he had lost the will to live.
The final legal submission was presented by the late Joe Hughes of Messrs Hughes Dowdalls Solicitors then of Bath Street Glasgow.
Old Joe ended his relatively short and very precise summation of the facts and the law by using his hands to indicate and include all his fellow lawyers who had already addressed the court, and in reference to the lengthy submissions they had all made to the court by saying:
“…….. however at the end of the day , Your Lordship, the only thing I can say with certainty about all of the submissions you have heard in this case, and the only thing that can be said with complete certainty no matter what your Lordship rules at the end of the day ………. is that we all know that this is all a cod!”
Joe Hughes was a wise man!
Auldheid says:
June 24, 2013 at 2:39 am
The payments were not irregular at the time LNS ruled, and were almost a side show, but if they become irregular then the ground rules change unless somewhere else on the LNS findings there is a statement that the nature of the payments is that they are regular whatever the UTT comes up with.
The SPL as far as I know have not commented on LNS so maybe they are waiting to see what comes from the UTT. I would, because if HMRC win then Rangers had an advantage using irregular payments that no other clubs could have availed themselves of without breaking the same rules Rangers did.
==========================================================================
At the risk of attracting a torrent of TDs towards you I have to say I agree with everything you have written and in particular with the clear, incisive, no-nonsense logical presentation.
On the couple of pars above perhaps I can assist by quoting from the LNS Decision: ‘The SPL presented no argument to challenge the decision of the majority of the Tax Tribunal and Mr McKenzie stated expressly that for all purposes of this Commission’s Inquiry and Determination the SPL accepted that decision as it stood, without regard to any possible appeal by HMRC. Accordingly we proceed on the basis that the EBT arrangements were lawful.’
Althetim says:
June 23, 2013 at 11:13 pm
The evidence of malpractice is overwhelming yet the guilty go unpunished, the “The Rangers” are allowed to masquerade as Rangers and the MSM continue to toe the party line.
“Their friends will help them”, my old man said. And they did.
Abandon all hope of justice, we are pissing against the tide.
———————————————-
Corrupt structures slowly become arrogant, lazy, bloated, then collapse under their own weight, and what ultimately changes things can be something relatively small. You never know what is going to end up making a significant difference. Through following RTC and this blog, I am much more aware of how things are run in my country than I was before, and even if we are just educating ourselves about the way things are (although I think the ripples spread beyond this site), that is a worthwhile step. Having the collective knowledge to be able to challenge the tortuous logic being used to justify decisions, and to draw attention to the inconsistencies we are being served up with is in itself a worthwhile act in my opinion.
paulmac2 says:
June 24, 2013 at 8:08 am
Paul, I wouldn’t expect Fraser Wishart to do anything for my team, or my club, as his concern is only with the players, and, as yet, they appear to only be interested in doing their bit for the club. The union won’t become involved unless one of their members approach them with a complaint, though, I expect, the players who have already accepted wage cuts will have sought advice. With all, or at least the vast majority, of his members looking to remain at Hearts, and to do their bit to help secure the club’s future, he maybe has enough sense to realise that his silence is in their best interest and that making any form of statement will be used by the MSM hacks to print, under banner headlines, either a banal ‘keeping a watching brief’ statement, which tells us nothing, or else, produce some hatchet job that destabalises the players’ situation.
It was interesting to read Alex Thomson’s comments on Twitter last night, regarding the reticence of the MSM in relation to CF.
“alex thomson@alextomo
Few journos know CF and there’s no public interest defence so post Leveson it’s a minefield.”
I am sure someone else on here made that precise comment in the last week or so and was roundly ridiculed for such a preposterous suggestion
neepheid says:
June 24, 2013 at 8:59 am
neepheid says:
June 24, 2013 at 8:59 am
My very last words on the LNS verdict. I have posted before on this. There is absolutely no linkage between “sporting advantage” and “sporting sanctions” in the rules of the SPL or the SFA. There are only rules and sanctions, and having found that the rules were broken, it was open to LNS to apply any sanction within the rules. The linkage has nothing whatsoever with the rules. In fact the terms “sporting advantage” and “sporting sanction” do not occur in the rules. This linkage is a convenient invention of LNS, but surprisingly seems to have acquired factual status in the minds of several posters.
—————————————————————————————————————————————–
Unfortunately neepheid we are back at the same position we arrived at wrt to ‘conditional membership’. I can only repeat that because a particular word or phrase does not appear in an organisations’s rule book then it doesn’t necessarily follow that the organisation can’t discuss an issue using the word or phrase in question and come to a decision on the matter using their rule book for guidance.
Guidance is the key word because the Articles of just about every single organisation gives an overarching power to the Board, or whatever term used, to come to a decision on issues not mentioned in the rule book as long as they don’t directly contravene an existing rule. There are actually ways round contravention but for the present purposes they can be ignored.
Before turning to the SFA and LNS let’s just think about sport in general. Without sporting integrity and rules to protect it then how does a sport deal with say drug abuse to enhance performance or a betting fix relying on bent participants and why would the sport need to bother at all.
The reason why every single sporting body in the world tries to ensure sporting integrity is because without it there is the strong possibility of an unfair sporting advantage being gained. Sporting integrity is integral to every honest sporting association and their rules all reflect this and the simple aim of those rules is to either prevent unfair/illegal sporting advantage or to redress the advantage if it is discovered after it has taken place.
It’s a very simple concept and there is an absolutely cast-iron linkage between Sporting Integrity via the Rules to preventing unfair Sporting Advantage. Sporting Sanction as used by LNS is quite simple – as a matter of interest the phrase is only used twice in the tribunal Decision in a neutral way.
The phrase merely distinguishes between the items in the list of possible sanctions which can be applied following a breach of the fairly long list of applicable SPL Rules. The term is used by LNS to split the sanctions/penalties into two main groupings: One is ‘sporting sanctions’ and the other is ‘financial penalties’. There is no legal significance in the term which is merely used as a shorthand expression that’s all it doesn’t create a new legal precedent and doesn’t alter perception or impact of any existing SFA Rule.
I will now move on to some of bits of the Decision which I feel is of importance:
(4) The relevant SPL Rules were designed to promote sporting integrity, by mitigating the risk of irregular payments to players
[67] ‘In recognition of the need to regulate the business of professional football in order to maintain its sporting integrity the international and national associations and the professional leagues have adopted extensive measures to ensure (so far as possible) that players do not receive irregular or improper payments or benefits.’
Evidence was given by Iain Blair, SPL Company Secretary of the SPL, which was uncontested and which LNS accepted, about the mischief which the Articles and Rules with which LNS are concerned are intended to prevent, i.e. their purpose.
[68] In short, the main purpose of these Articles and Rules is the promotion of sporting integrity.
neepheid says:
June 24, 2013 at 8:59 am
——————————————————————————
neepheid,
Spot on.
Well said.
slimshady61 says:
June 24, 2013 at 10:16 am
It was interesting to read Alex Thomson’s comments on Twitter last night, regarding the reticence of the MSM in relation to CF. “alex thomson@alextomoFew journos know CF and there’s no public interest defence so post Leveson it’s a minefield.”
I am sure someone else on here made that precise comment in the last week or so and was roundly ridiculed for such a preposterous suggestion
—————————————————————————————————————–
I actually thought that At had made that comment a couple of weeks ago. Whoever made it, I disagreed then and I disagree still.
slimshady61 says:
June 24, 2013 at 10:16 am
I’m not going to argue against Alex Thomson with regard to the problems journos might be encountering ‘post Leveson’ but if ‘there’s no public interest defence’ to reporting on what CF is releasing, then just what would provide a ‘public interest’ defence is beyond me!
In my opinion, by not publishing these revelations (which appear more and more to be genuine) the MSM are acting against public interest, as, at the very least, they point to much skullduggery and the breaking/bending of laws of the land, amongst insolvency practitioners, businessmen and within Scottish football. Without the intervention of the MSM a fairly large number of people who have been, alledgedly, involved in much wrongdoing, will get clean away with it. That can hardly be in the ‘public interest’!
Still, it might be true that Leveson has created a fear factor amongst journalists and, unwittingly, provided those involved in all things ‘Rangers’ with yet another ‘get out of jail free card’!
BRTH
I wish your friend Joe was around when I had to deal with that said firm in Bath Street on behalf of my mother in law a number of years ago and the outcome of that case in my mother in laws favour took over 8 years to settle. It was obvious to everyone what had happened and nothing more than negligence that cost my MIL dearly, but when you have a law firm having to sue a law firm and there are insurance companies involved then my God they don’t half try to muddy the waters.
Allyjambo says:
June 24, 2013 at 10:12 am
paulmac2 says:
June 24, 2013 at 8:08 am
Paul, I wouldn’t expect Fraser Wishart to do anything for my team, or my club, as his concern is only with the players, and, as yet, they appear to only be interested in doing their bit for the club. The union won’t become involved unless one of their members approach them with a complaint, though, I expect, the players who have already accepted wage cuts will have sought advice. With all, or at least the vast majority, of his members looking to remain at Hearts, and to do their bit to help secure the club’s future, he maybe has enough sense to realise that his silence is in their best interest and that making any form of statement will be used by the MSM hacks to print, under banner headlines, either a banal ‘keeping a watching brief’ statement, which tells us nothing, or else, produce some hatchet job that destabalises the players’ situation.
===============================================================
I totally agree that things are bad enough fo all without the Press drumming-up a story. If any player wants the publicity then all they need to do is pick-up the phone to the MSM. When jobs and wages are under threat it can affect every individually in different ways because of their private personal circumstances.
I have always been impressed by the way that Wishart works in the background saying the bare minimum publicly but apparently doing the business with the players behind the scenes because I can’t recall every hearing any complaints from any appearing in the media about him which is a sure sign he is doing his job well.
Just read an article there where the SFA are defending themselves on Mark Hateley’s charge they failed Rangers by not having a fit and proper persons vetting role. They also say the could not bind clubs via club licensing either Sorry I did not have the link
The SFA can rightly say they are bound by the clubs and company rights on fit and proper persons but they can show leadership by suggesting other ways to address the problem.
A new rule that requires a potential owner to place say £x million, based on a ratio to a clubs turnover ‘in escrow as a bond before matters get too far would sort out genuine football men with the resources from the spivs.
The conditions are now right to do something on those lines.
And dont get me started on club licensing! Its not something that first turned up in 2010 and the SFA do have the power not to grant a licence.
They were forced into using it in 2012 when Rangers by that time in April already in administration failed on a number of grounds to qualify for one. Even had Rangers come out of administration by the start of next season and stayed in the SPL the SFA could not have granted a club licence that UEFA would accept and it would have been interesting to see what contortion of the rules that would have produced to let them play in Scotland. Lucky for the SFA Rangers got liquidated.
Rather than apply the rules the SFA did all they could to keep Rangers going and here is the key point, at the expense of other clubs.
The SFA do have powers they have been reluctant to use and have neglected to wield.
There was nothing to stop them making a licence conditional on a club cutting its cloth and allowing a couple of seasons to get their costs down and tell the world why.
Nope the SFA failed the clubs and failed themselves and it is interesting they have come out with this defense as it means they are finally under attack in the mainstream and feel vulnerable.
Briggsbhoy
Only 8 years? A mere sprint in terms of legalities in such things– especially where insurers are involved..
I will say no more other than that too many people– and that includes the august members of the legal profession— fail to remember that the resort to law is an act of last resort — all possible alternatives should be considered first.
A friend of mine — who is a Sheriff—- recently told me that he was sitting on a committee full of lawyers and one other. All the lawyers were keen on making a decision on a certain matter and were unanimous as to what the decision should be.
The one other then piped up and said “try looking at this through the eyes of someone who is not a lawyer” and proceeded to outline his logic with the result that all the lawyers changed their mind!
Said my friend ” It’s amazing how someone can see something from a completely different perspective, and point out that your thinking and rationale has more to do with your conditioning than common sense”.
The law is a great tool— so is a spanner—- but completely useless when you are in need of a screwdriver!
Ecobhoy
You might not accept it as having a legal base but the msm are acting as if it has and have sought legal advice which might have been different and on your lines had Levenson not happened.
So we are where we are. The material is there because someone got their hands on it and is publishing it. Its bit like stolen goods in a car boot sale except the buyers know the stuff is dodgy and so will not touch it.
What I have read against known context says it is definitely genuine and one way or another the truth will eventually out.
The material itself raises many questions on Scottish society and its ability to handle the truth and act justly never mind Scottish football and in a run up to an independence referendum thecsilence is not a good advert for the kind of society that might emerge if unbridled by the balance being part of a wider population base brings.
I do not mean to take the debate here into pros and cons of independence but I do not like what I see in leadership terms across all parties -political , football and media.
Celtic will play Cliftonville! Home tie first.
FTTT 29 October 2010 – [S]DEM Knight of Tax Evadere
In your own words [S]DEM:-
“I understand that it has been suggested by HMRC that the loans which have been made in the present case were somehow not true loans.
I strongly disagree with this suggestion. There is no doubt in my mind that any loans which were made by the trustee were real loans and were intended to be repayable.
Those loans had been made by the trustee under the terms of the Trust deed. Individuals who borrowed funds did so under loan agreements which had a fixed term and the loans were due to be repaid at the end of that term.
“The first sub-trust” On 23 April 2001 the first sub-trust of the Trust was established. I was the Protector of this sub-trust. On a number of occasions, funds have been contributed to the Trust and transferred by the trustee to this sub-trust.
I have a service contract and draw an annual salary. Depending on the performance of the Group a bonus may also be awarded. In the cases where contributions of funds have been made to the Trust and then transferred to the first sub-trust, each of the contributions has taken the place of a sum which I might otherwise have been awarded by way of a discretionary bonus.
Where funds were transferred to the first sub-trust, I made requests to the trustee for loans to be made to me. This was to enable me to obtain the use of the money which had been transferred to the sub-trust.
In each case the trustee agreed to my request and made me a loan on a discounted basis. The loan was repayable at the end of a ten-year term.
When a loan falls due I will speak to the trustee to seek to renegotiate the loan.”
Allyjambo says:
June 24, 2013 at 10:12 am
paulmac2 says:
June 24, 2013 at 8:08 am
Paul, I wouldn’t expect Fraser Wishart to do anything for my team, or my club, as his concern is only with the players…
……………………….
Just to clarify, which may not have been as clear as I intended….when I stated team…I am of course referring to players….I fully expect FW to take an active interest in the player situation at Hearts…Yes he cannot actively get involved if there is no instruction to do so from the players….
The same applies to the Dunfermline lads…
How and ever my original question was a genuine one a lack of media concern and FW sound bites…to a serious issue for the players
john clarke says:
June 23, 2013 at 11:44 pm
ecobhoy says:
June 23, 2013 at 11:21 pm
—-
”….Because of the woeful preparation and presentation of the SPL case IMO there could have been no other decision than what was arrived at…”
——-
That’s one way of looking at it.
———————————————————————————————————————————–
I believe it’s the only way if based on the evidence actually presented to LNS and which the tribunal had to base its decision on.
I agree probably with everything else you stated and have I have previously posted in a similar vein although tbf I don’t know whether it was appallingly poor professionalism vis a vis the SPL case or indeed a conspiracy to arrive at the result that was eventually achieved.
I do not include the three tribunal members in any conspiracy theory and indeed believe, and have also posted on this previously, that I think the SFA and probably the SPL were hoping that LNS would strip some titles to provide ‘cover’ for the suits who could always say ‘nothing to do with us it was an independent tribunal’.
If LNS had come to that decision then it would have been swiftly overturned by Judicial Review of that I have no doubt.
However, something we tend to forget is the result of the FTTT because I am convinced the footballing authorities were fairly sure that would do their work for them in a way although I fully realise the difference in jurisdictions involved. I just think if the FTTT had found against Rangers that the evidence presented to LNS would have been different and I really doubt that the critical Bryson ‘claim’ as I decline to treat it as evidence would never have been made. And even the SMSM couldn’t have ignored a defeat in the FTTT for Murray.
broganrogantrevinoandhogan says:
June 24013 at 10:59 am
Only 8 years? A mere sprint in terms of legalities in such things– especially where insurers are involved..
The law is a great tool— so is a spanner—- but completely useless when you are in need of a screwdriver!
===============================================================================
BRTH….pure dead brilliant…!
I will, with your permission/approval, use that at the next meeting/dinner/drink-up with my legal friends.
Ecobhoy
I go along with your think re football authorities thinking of the FTT result doing the job for them.
I think that what we now have is the equivalent of a yellow card handed out by LNS, but there will be a demand ( if the UTT provides another camera angle on the offense) for the equivalent of a compliance officer to look at the video and administer the equivalent of a red card with consequent penalty.
Auldhied sir,
The irony of the SFA carrying out a F&PP test on anyone when they have employed Gordon Smith, Campbell Ogilvie, Bryson, Longmuir, Reagan, Peat et al has my Irony Detector Meter neddle bending at full scale deflection mate.
🙂
BRTH
I may in fact have been closer to 10 and was always close to getting time barred. The problems was there were to many “tools” involved in my opinion, lots of brains but no common sense.
I used to always say to my staff when dealing with customer service issues or reflecting on what I observed as poor customer service by them , ” tell me, if you had been the customer and I just gave the answer you just gave, would you have be satisfied and walked out the door thinking, brilliant ? or would you exit thinking, what a tool I’m not going back in there again ?
Rangers did not “win” the FTT, another of those things people repeat until it becomes accepted.
Rangers lost their appeal in 5 or 6 cases (I can’t remember how many). If that was all there was to it, and Rangers were found to have underpaid millions of pounds in tax, again, it would be a scandal.
They had the remainder of their appeal upheld. However that decision is now under appeal by HMRC.
They did not win their appeal. It has been established and accepted that they underpaid their tax by the misuse of EBTs. How is that, in anyone’s mind, a victory. If they were accused of murdering 100 people and it was found that only 6 of those murder could be proven would that be hailed as a victory.
I keep hearing about the things they have “won”, like this, or the LNS hearing. It’s simply not true, it’s propaganda. Can someone tell me something they have won. I suppose the vote to get them into the SFL.
paulmac2 says:
June 24, 2013 at 11:27 am
Paul, sorry I misinterpreted what you meant by team, so my first point in answer to your post is a wee bit pointless. I don’t, however, find his public silence as, in any way, an indicator that he, or the union, are not actively looking after the players’ interests. In fact, if I was a Hearts player just now, I’d probably prefer not to read what my union official was thinking about my situation in our discrdited media. Even if what was printed matched my concerns, I wouldn’t believe it and start to doubt myself 🙁 Should, however, the players’ situation begin to deteriorate, then it would be perfectly correct for Fraser Wishart to speak out to the press, but even then only if he believes it would be in the best interest of his players. Until then, when someone has nothing worthwhile to say, it’s usually worthwhile to say nothing 😉 (especially to the Scottish MSM).
I should have added you may not always be able to give them they answer they want but they should always feel you tried your best. Last night I phoned a nursing home trying to track down an old friend of my mothers, I knew it was council owned and in the Pollockshields area. What pissed me off when I discovered that she wasn’t in that home was that the girl did not offer and had to be prompted to give me the name of another council home in the vicinity. Even then she still said she couldn’t help and when I pushed again and said “ask a colleague” I finally got the answer I wanted. People who wont go the extra mile rip my knitting
briggsbhoy says:
June 24, 2013 at 12:19 pm
Come on, Briggsy, be fair, you were probably interupting her chat on facebook. Sadly, this might well have been the case. Recently I attended a training session where the trainer spoke of courses where she’d had people, who’d been asked/reminded to turn off mobile phones, reading and posting on facebook/twitter with their devices held below their desk! Go the extra mile, you ask: lucky to get them to go the extra yard!
Bill McMurdo Blog this morning:
“It is well-known that Rangers have extended favours to teams in the past. I remember two occasions from my boyhood when teams got end-of-season “surprise” results at Ibrox that helped them beat the drop”.
Cheating other teams again!