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?
arabest1 says:
June 24, 2013 at 10:09 pm
‘..It would appear CF is playing a game of brinksmanship, why else does the material never quite amount to the smoking gun?…..’
—–
Many of us have enjoyed the fun of speculating on Charlotte’s motives and ‘bona fides’.
I just wish I was a John Grisham.
I could then write an entertaining, exciting, page-turner of a tale.
Bluff and double and treble bluff, involving ( fictional) government, police, the Press, UK parliamentarians, the Scottish bit of the CBI, big (‘ I’ve got a hundred companies’) businessmen with , perhaps , a streak of racism in their make-up.
And Charlotte!
But, sadly, I am no John Grisham.
And just where the hell is Brookmyre when you need him? Or Jack Parlabane? ( naw, too MSM?)
the taxman cometh says:
June 24, 2013 at 10:11 pm
6 0 Rate This
Gaz says:
June 24, 2013 at 10:07 pm
0 0 Rate This
The accounts being late, and only 17,000 season tickets sold to dat.
Wishful thinking from some people or things starting to fall apart again.
Thing is, no one though administration could happen, or liquidation, or failure to get into the SPL as a new club … so just about anything is believable now. Particularly with the things we have been discussing regarding the cash flow, IPO money etc.
=======
The info on season book renewals comes from the ticket office
……………………….
17k is a very rounded figure…if true…how many are concessions…or on a quarterly payment plan?
HirsutePursuit says:
June 24, 2013 at 6:18 pm
““I don’t agree with the writer’s intended meaning, so I am entitled to assign any alternative meaning to any part of the writing that better suits my position.””
——————-
Hirsute, I must commend you on your contributions concerning the recent club vs company discussion. You have made your arguments in a logical and well tempered manner. I did myself become increasingly frustrated that the discussion did not appear to be converging on a common understanding as would be anticipated in the normal course of debate. Even the ‘agree to disagree’ option was never really explored; it seemed contentiousness was the only tact.
Your comment above is about as close you have come to expressing the frustration that I suspect many would have found entirely understandable. Despite the apparent continuing divergence of opinion I think readers will have made up their own minds through the thorough exposition of the arguments. You may indeed suspect you failed to make your point but for me the matter became clearer and clearer with every post. Thanks for picking up the gauntlet. Your efforts are much appreciated by myself.
The ST money is crucial to go some way towards balancing the books. Hatches have been battened and the board ( what’s left of it) is in the storm cellar. Only Ally is left outside looking for a stray loan signing .’…I guess we’re not in Kansas anymore!!!’
CF is starting to prise the lid on the can of worms labelled ‘Agents’
broganrogantrevinoandhogan says:
June 24, 2013 at 9:22 pm
Bryson’s logic and reasoning– whether accepted by all, not challenged by anyone, presented as an expert or no— is in itself tortuous and contrived
—————————————————————————————————————————-
Not just tortuous and contrived but scandalous. But I think the real question is whether his thoughts on the matter had been identified prior to giving evidence. I assume there must have been some kind of precognition done with witnesses especially important ones.
If Rod McKenzie had prior knowledge about Bryson’s position and did nothing to gather counter-evidence then obviously the position must have suited the SPL as it resulted in the decision of no unregistered players being fielded and all that followed from that.
Even if McKenzie was caught by surprise surely his instinctive reaction should have been to ask whether this was Bryson’s personal view as Head of Registrations or whether it actually had previously been discussed and adopted at the SFA and was this minuted/noted and who else was involved in the discussion and decision and what was the date this all happened.
But total abject surrender. That is the bit that really stinks for me.
On the issue of RIFC accounts being due….Werent RIFC only formed in december?
So. It would be august before the 6 month reports were due. Not may.
no?
ecobhoy says:
June 24, 2013 at 11:29 pm
‘.Even if McKenzie was caught by surprise surely his instinctive reaction should have been to ask whether this was Bryson’s personal view as Head of Registrations or whether it actually had previously been discussed and adopted at the SFA and was this minuted/noted and who else was involved in the discussion and decision and what was the date this all happened.’
—-
A very good point.
It is not at all likely that McKenzie was caught by surprise.
His quick acceptance of Bryson’s position betrays a re-hearsed readiness to help in achieving the desired result.
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
June 24, 2013 at 11:45 pm
‘..So. It would be august before the 6 month reports were due. Not may…’
——-
NTHM, you may very well be right.
I myself don’t know.
But perhaps AIM regulator will tell us.Hence my email.
Either the accounts are late, or they are not.
If they are late, there may or may not be an acceptable reason which investors and shareholders may be happy with.
But equally, there may problems that would worry the same investors and shareholders.
I have no idea.
But it is worth going to the authoritative source to try to establish the facts.
Castofthousands says:
June 24, 2013 at 11:23 pm
HirsutePursuit says:
June 24, 2013 at 6:18 pm
““I don’t agree with the writer’s intended meaning, so I am entitled to assign any alternative meaning to any part of the writing that better suits my position.””
——————-
Hirsute, I must commend you on your contributions concerning the recent club vs company discussion. You have made your arguments in a logical and well tempered manner. I did myself become increasingly frustrated that the discussion did not appear to be converging on a common understanding as would be anticipated in the normal course of debate. Even the ‘agree to disagree’ option was never really explored; it seemed contentiousness was the only tact.
Your comment above is about as close you have come to expressing the frustration that I suspect many would have found entirely understandable. Despite the apparent continuing divergence of opinion I think readers will have made up their own minds through the thorough exposition of the arguments. You may indeed suspect you failed to make your point but for me the matter became clearer and clearer with every post. Thanks for picking up the gauntlet. Your efforts are much appreciated by myself.
——————————————————————————————————————————-
As one of HP’s sparring partners I actually found the discussion good and it forced me to think very hard about the position I thought to be correct in terms of my interpretation of the rule books and I did amend one key definition to that suggested by HP which then led me on via neepheid’s contribution to a situation where I am happy with what I understand to have happened and what I perceive the actual position to be. So for me it was valuable and that’s why we are here at the end of the day.
As I have made clear before it was more an exercise for me in working out what the rule books would allow or not. My own personal position on the definition of a ‘club’ however remains as it has been for as long as I can remember.
I believe a club can exist forever quite simply because no corporate entity can own it or buy or sell it and it can outlive any and all corporate entities. The ‘club’ to me belongs to the fans and survives as a collection of the memories of individual fans and is a receptacle for the history, culture and traditions of those fans who hold it all in trust for future fans. The only way a club can die IMO is if the fans stop supporting the team and the memories slowly fade away as the fans also fade away.
Sadly the term ‘club’ has been hijacked and it’s used a milking machine because Football Company management know that visceral pull the club concept has on their fan base. And it’s also time the rule books sorted out some of their definitions and that might be easier to achieve with reconstruction.
And my concept of ‘club’ isn’t up for debate because it’s what I believe in and it might be irrational and some might think it’s stupid but I’ll never change my mind because my position is totally irrational on the subject and I’m fully aware of that – but then who ever thought that football had anything to do with rationality 🙂
And on that note I’m off!
@HirsutePursuit
On the “conditional membership” issue (again), as I said in my post on the 23rd at 1:34pm, I hadn’t at that point checked the provisions you were referring to, but I have now had a look at them, and have a clearer idea where you are coming from.
The sections of the SFA rules which seem most important are:
“club” means a football club playing Association
Football in accordance with the provisions set
out in Article 6
“member” means a full member and/or an associate
member and/or a registered member of the
Scottish FA, and the expression “membership”
shall be construed accordingly;
Both the above from Article 1, the interpretation Article,
and
6.2 A club or association shall be admitted as a registered member automatically by reason
of its being admitted as a member of an Affiliated Association or an Affiliated National
Association, or in the case of a club through membership of or participation in an
association, league or other combination of clubs formed in terms of Article 18 and
in the case of an association by being formed in terms of Article 18, provided it is not
already an associate or full member. A registered member shall not be a member of
more than one Affiliated Association or more than one Affiliated National Association.
A registered member may apply at any time to become an associate member.
On the question of whether there were 2 clubs (in the sense of the SFA rules) at the point of the Brechin game, is the answer not simply in the SFA’s definition of “club?” – “ a football club playing Association Football in accordance with the provisions set out in Article 6”
By the Brechin game, surely the oldco wasn’t “a football club” for the purpose of this definition? All its heritable and moveable property had been transferred. It had no ground, no players, no back room staff, no manager, no strips, no crest – it didn’t even have a football.
That seems too easy, and no doubt you’ll respond that it retained the SFA membership and the SPL share, which is true, but it had no means to play football, so although it (temporarily) retained these memberships, I don’t see how it can be described as a “football club” (and it certainly wasn’t one “playing association football” – it wasn’t playing anything.)
I suppose another counter to my position might be that what I’m saying is “it wasn’t a football club because it wasn’t a football club.” Put as starkly as that, it’s circular of course, but that’s because the SFA’s definition is also partly circular, I think.
By the Brechin game there was an agreement to transfer the SFA membership to the new company, but that hadn’t actually been affected.
I think the point you make that there would none the less have been the automatic registered membership status is probably right, although on the other hand, what happened next isn’t consistent with that membership continuing – a registered member can only become an associate member in terms of 6.2. and an associate member then must wait 5 years before it can be a full member in terms of 6.6.
Sevco Scotland had the full membership by 3rd August, so that can’t have been derived from a registered membership, and of course the whole intent of the agreed transfer was that Sevco Scotland should get the old full membership.
I think probably the anomaly here isn’t that there were 2 clubs in the SFA sense, but rather that the club which played Brechin – on your analysis – had a different membership to the one it ultimately obtained at the beginning of August.
I see the transfer of the SFA membership as one of the fundamentals of the transfer of “the club” to the new company, so that isn’t an outcome which is comfortable. That said, the Brechin game was awful, so if it’s not in this strict sense an RFC game, I can live with that…
That’s if your argument that the registered membership provisions were what the club was operating under that day is correct. If not and if the club were just playing on the strength of some cobbled together concept of a conditional transfer of membership, as I hypothesised in earlier posts, then that anomaly doesn’t exist, although I think what the SFA did would be ultra vires.
Either way I think I’m back to my original comment following on the query you put to me – what was done was a fudge.
http://i.imgur.com/RDqFY8s.jpg
Darrell, Darrell. Did you think we didn’t know, or that you wouldn’t be found out? Hell mend ye!!
Caveat Emptor says: June 25, 2013 at 1:27 am
http://i.imgur.com/RDqFY8s.jpg …
============================
I have enjoyed CF’s tweets but on reading this link my immediate reaction was…mmmmmm?
That last sentence: “Darrell says he will do his best to fight our corner.”
Seems a bit contrived – and superfluous – for an internal email.
Just my opinion of course.
john clarke says:
June 24, 2013 at 11:53 pm
21 1 Rate This
ecobhoy says:
June 24, 2013 at 11:29 pm
‘.Even if McKenzie was caught by surprise surely his instinctive reaction should have been to ask whether this was Bryson’s personal view as Head of Registrations or whether it actually had previously been discussed and adopted at the SFA and was this minuted/noted and who else was involved in the discussion and decision and what was the date this all happened.’
—-
A very good point.
It is not at all likely that McKenzie was caught by surprise.
His quick acceptance of Bryson’s position betrays a re-hearsed readiness to help in achieving the desired result.
………………………………
Reminds me of the court room scene in sleepers…between Brad Pitt and Dustin Hoffman…where defence Lawyer Hoffman has been provided the questions and get out responses for each witness by Bradd Pitt the Prosecution Lawyer…
Caveat Emptor says:
June 25, 2013 at 1:27 am
31 0 Rate This
http://i.imgur.com/RDqFY8s.jpg
Darrell, Darrell. Did you think we didn’t know, or that you wouldn’t be found out? Hell mend ye!!
……………………………..
Would be interesting to know if that was King’s approach on the radio at that time.
StevieBC says:
June 25, 2013 at 4:48 am
Caveat Emptor says: June 25, 2013 at 1:27 am
http://i.imgur.com/RDqFY8s.jpg …
============================
I have enjoyed CF’s tweets but on reading this link my immediate reaction was…mmmmmm?
That last sentence: “Darrell says he will do his best to fight our corner.”
Seems a bit contrived – and superfluous – for an internal email.
Just my opinion of course.
******
Not wanting to be a smart ass but I disagree – this is an email from someone trying to impress his bosses that he has taken action and done his best to ensure the message has got out – if you only report that there will a statement read from a source at RFC, if I were Craig/Ali, I would say anyone can do that – however there is a need from Steven Kerr to impress his bosses that he has managed to do more than just the normal job expected but has gone beyond to ensure that he will get more that from his contact Darrell. Only Steven and Darrell know if this was bluster from Steven or a promise from Darrell – although if it were possible to listen to the SSB show that night we could always make our own minds up!!!
I am assuming the latest CF release is as genuine as every other document she has released and I have yet to see anyone question the provenance of even one of them.
I have said for some time now that I believe a strong reason for the SMSM embargo on the CF material is because they are so heavily conflicted and have been exposed as merely ‘creatures’ of a highly skilled PR machine working to further the aims of Rangers.
I also believe that if journalists have been conflicted then their senior editorial management are even deeper in the succulent lamb.
This latest email is an absolute disgrace in the way it has exposed the manipulation and attack on Celtic’s chief executive. I notice a poster suggesting the email seems to be contrived and superfluous for an internal email. Having been bombarded by zillions of superfluous internal emails in my life I doubt if that can be held up as a reason to question provenance.
As to contrived well that’s a difficult one without knowing the two individuals involved and their personal chemistry. But, this email was copied to CW by an excited subaltern eager to show the Boss he knew how to see-off Lawwell Big Style.
And check the date – September 2011 – HMS Dignity was financially doomed by this this time and now I truly understand what rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic really means as the financial crisis was set aside to respond to a hook carefully set by Lawwell.
And meanwhile a story that should be in every paper will be ignored – I’m afraid the SMSM no longer deserve to survive and I feel real sorrow for all the ordinary workers involved in these enterprises who are being sold down the Yellow River by their editorial colleagues.
@ Duplessis
Either way I think I’m back to my original comment following on the query you put to me – what was done was a fudge.
_________________________________
I like theuse of the “fudge” word here, but “fix” would be more accurate
A “fudge” is where one avoids a decision or blends various aspects into a decision which has elements of a number of seemingle mutually exclusive options – usually designed to kick the original decision down the road a bit.
Usually fudges are legal if fairly cowardly /expedient ( delete as appropriate)
A “fix” is where all participants know that what is being done is against the rules but contrive to allow a break of the rules to which no-one will object.
“fixes” are invariably “ultra vires” at best – downright cheating or illegality at worst.
Either way a “fudge” can be defended – a “fix” cannot.
At no point has anyone sought to defend or explain what happened at the Brechin game. They made up nonsense to allow the game to be played – and then subsequently “fudged” to allow the Rangers to play in the SFL.
FWIW I think the subsequent “fudge” was a “fix” as well – but they do atleast mount a defence – albeit a spurious one IMHO of that decision.
The Brechin game – they just choose to ignore the ramifications of.
paulmac2 says:
June 25, 2013 at 8:01 am
john clarke says:
June 24, 2013 at 11:53 pm
21 1 Rate This
ecobhoy says:
June 24, 2013 at 11:29 pm
‘Even if McKenzie was caught by surprise surely his instinctive reaction should have been to ask whether this was Bryson’s personal view as Head of Registrations or whether it actually had previously been discussed and adopted at the SFA and was this minuted/noted and who else was involved in the discussion and decision and what was the date this all happened.’
—-
A very good point. It is not at all likely that McKenzie was caught by surprise. His quick acceptance of Bryson’s position betrays a re-hearsed readiness to help in achieving the desired result.
………………………………
Reminds me of the court room scene in sleepers…between Brad Pitt and Dustin Hoffman…where defence Lawyer Hoffman has been provided the questions and get out responses for each witness by Bradd Pitt the Prosecution Lawyer
…………………………………….
And I should have said – surely McKenzie knew that this was going to sink the whole unregistered player charge and therefore was a critical point to the SPL case. Why didn’t he ask for either an adjournment to consult with the SPL Hierarchy or at least defer his view until later when he had time to take instructions from his client.
Instead when LNS, who instantly recognised the probable consequences of the Bryson statement, asked McKenzie what the SPL view was to it the QC weakly said something along the lines of ‘well we never thought of it that way before’ and meekly accepted the Bryson definition.
The more I think about it how in Hell did McKenzie have the right to state the SPL position on a vital issue that had surfaced out of the blue without being instructed by the SPL. It now seems obvious to me that Bryson’s testimony was known previously to the SPL who had instructed McKenzie to accept it. I have previously blamed a lot on McKenzie for what went wrong with the SPL case but perhaps his hands had been well and truly tied by his client to suit their agenda and not that of Truth and Justice.
The client was, of course, the SPL.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/celtic-face-600k-sell-on-fee-1990605#.UclWMHdfM98.twitter
From the Daily Ranger, notice not Newco or Oldco, but New Club.
CELTIC may have to pay a £600,000 sell-on fee for Victor Wanyama – to a club that went bust.
The Kenyan midfielder is in talks over a £12million move to Southampton, while Cardiff also want him.
That would earn the Hoops a massive profit after they bought the 21-year-old for £900,000 from Beerschot in 2011.
The Belgian club, though, inserted a five per cent sell-on clause in the deal.
However, the Antwerp side went bankrupt last month and have now started a new club – KFCO Beerschot-Wilrijk – who will play in the Belgian Provincial League.
But the new club will still claim the sell-on fee if Wanyama signs for Saints.
Meanwhile, Celtic will play their first friendly of the season next week in Austria against Ukrainian side FC Sevastopol.
The Hoops are back in training and will soon fly off to their camp in Germany. They have already lined up games against Greuther Furth and Union Berlin but will kick off with a friendly against Sevastopol next Wednesday before playing Romanian side Cluj.
Duplesis says:
June 25, 2013 at 1:23 am
That’s if your argument that the registered membership provisions were what the club was operating under that day is correct. If not and if the club were just playing on the strength of some cobbled together concept of a conditional transfer of membership, as I hypothesised in earlier posts, then that anomaly doesn’t exist, although I think what the SFA did would be ultra vires.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think I can clear up the question of which membership the Brechin game was played under:
http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/news/article/press-statement-67/
“Friday 27th July 2012
Joint statement on behalf of The Scottish FA, The Scottish Premier League, The Scottish Football League and Sevco Scotland Ltd.
We are pleased to confirm that agreement has been reached on all outstanding points relating to the transfer of the Scottish FA membership between Rangers FC (In Administration), and Sevco Scotland Ltd, who will be the new owners of The Rangers Football Club.
A conditional membership will be issued to Sevco Scotland Ltd today, allowing Sunday’s Ramsdens Cup tie against Brechin City to go ahead.”
So the concept of “conditional membership” was invented, contrary to their own rules in my view, and therefore ultra vires as you say, simply to allow the Brechin game to go ahead. I won’t repeat my previous posts as to why I believe they didn’t have the power to issue a “conditional membership”. But at least it’s now clear that the SFA did in fact purport to issue such a membership, and that’s what was in force for the Brechin game.
Italian clubs raided last night in a money laundering probe
http://news.sky.com/story/1107805/top-italian-football-clubs-face-money-probe
Couldn’t happen here though could it????
nowoldandgrumpy says:
June 25, 2013 at 9:57 am
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/celtic-face-600k-sell-on-fee-1990605#.UclWMHdfM98.twitter
From the Daily Ranger, notice not Newco or Oldco, but New Club.
================================================================
Aw naw – where did ah put ra rule books?
nowoldandgrumpy says:
June 25, 2013 at 9:57 am
==================
Wouldn’t it be a wonderful gesture if Celtic paid this and didn’t try to hide behind any corporate legislation. They don’t have to admit that the new club is really a continuation of the old one, simply say that they are helping out a new club at the beginning of it’s new life, or something along those lines
.
tomtom says:
June 25, 2013 at 10:13 am
Wouldn’t it be a wonderful gesture if Celtic paid this and didn’t try to hide behind any corporate legislation. They don’t have to admit that the new club is really a continuation of the old one, simply say that they are helping out a new club at the beginning of it’s new life, or something along those lines.
=======================================
I’m sure Duff and Phelps Brussels will be claiming it for creditors of the bust club.
I see that Richard Wilson of the Herald has taken the opportunity to separate Club and Company again, but this time with Hearts.
“Fourteen office staff were made redundant last week after the accountancy firm BDO were appointed as administrators. A plea was then made to supporters to buy 3000 season tickets to provide the £750,000 estimated to be required to allow HMFC plc to survive until October, by which time BDO hope to have secured the future of the club’s operating company.“
@Newtz
You have a message
easyJambo says:
June 25, 2013 at 10:25 am
2
0
Rate This
I see that Richard Wilson of the Herald has taken the opportunity to separate Club and Company again, but this time with Hearts.
“Fourteen office staff were made redundant last week after the accountancy firm BDO were appointed as administrators. A plea was then made to supporters to buy 3000 season tickets to provide the £750,000 estimated to be required to allow HMFC plc to survive until October, by which time BDO hope to have secured the future of the club’s operating company.“
===================================================
I suppose irrespective of the position on either side of the argument at least he’s showing consistency which is at least something.
blu says:
June 25, 2013 at 10:20 am
tomtom says:
June 25, 2013 at 10:13 am
Wouldn’t it be a wonderful gesture if Celtic paid this and didn’t try to hide behind any corporate legislation. They don’t have to admit that the new club is really a continuation of the old one, simply say that they are helping out a new club at the beginning of it’s new life, or something along those lines.
=======================================
I’m sure Duff and Phelps Brussels will be claiming it for creditors of the bust club.
===================================================
Might even be time to set-up TSFM (Benelux).
easyJambo says:
June 25, 2013 at 10:25 am
I see that Richard Wilson of the Herald has taken the opportunity to separate Club and Company again, but this time with Hearts.
“Fourteen office staff were made redundant last week after the accountancy firm BDO were appointed as administrators. A plea was then made to supporters to buy 3000 season tickets to provide the £750,000 estimated to be required to allow HMFC plc to survive until October, by which time BDO hope to have secured the future of the club’s operating company.“
===============================================================================
Did he reassure Hearts fans that the club would survive whether they bought these season tickets or not?
After all, it’s only an ‘operating company’ and liquidation doesn’t really mean anything in Scottish fitba’!
One thing that has always puzzled me in this whole Rangers debate is this “Transfer of Membership from Old Club to New Club.. the reason being that according to various ppl Charles Green’s Sevco bought the Assets of the Old Club, surely by doing that the Old Club automatically ceased to be a Member of the SFA on that day as it was no longer a “Club” playing Association Football.. Therefore I can’t understand how a Membership of the SFA can be transferred from a Club that is no longer a Member of the SFA for the above reason.. Maybe someone with better knowledge of the SFA rules can enlighten me..
neepheid says:
June 25, 2013 at 9:59 am
Duplesis says:
June 25, 2013 at 1:23 am
A conditional membership will be issued to Sevco Scotland Ltd today, allowing Sunday’s Ramsdens Cup tie against Brechin City to go ahead.”
So the concept of “conditional membership” was invented, contrary to their own rules in my view, and therefore ultra vires as you say, simply to allow the Brechin game to go ahead. I won’t repeat my previous posts as to why I believe they didn’t have the power to issue a “conditional membership”. But at least it’s now clear that the SFA did in fact purport to issue such a membership, and that’s what was in force for the Brechin game.
=========================================
I totally agree with you that there is no argument that the Brechin game was played by Rangers on the basis the SFA had awarded them a ‘conditional membership’ which was a transfer of the oldco membership and not a new SFA membership solely on the basis that Rangers had joined the SFL.
All that remains at dispute IMO is whether the SFA had the power to issue a ‘conditional membership’ or not and you and I are at odds on that issue. But whatever the truth of that matter I think the whole debate over the issue has been of some assistance at least for me. And it has narrowed down the actual area of dispute to a single clearly identifiable issue whereas before it was much more tangled.
Personally I don’t think it is worth continuing to argue the point as we now have two clear sides separated by an interpretation of the SFA rule book and we have reached that magic point where we can agree to disagree IMO as possibly only a Judicial Review could now provide a decision acceptable to both sides of the debate.
I really think that TSFM has shown what a valuable forum this is where, in the main, the debate was fairly even-tempered given the conflicting viewpoints. But the high standard of research and debate shows what a force this forum could become in terms of informed opinions where it is a strength to accept there can be two equally valid positions.
Readers can then make-up their own minds based on factual evidence and reasoned argument unlike being told what to believe by conflicted SMSM numpties who haven’t a clue what they are talking about.
On the Celtic Wanyama situation I see the SMSM are at their old tricks of stirring it with the comment: ‘The Belgian club, though, inserted a five per cent sell-on clause in the deal’ as if this was done in secret and Celtic knew nothing about it.
FFS it is an absolutely standard type clause especially with such a young player as Victor and I’m sure fellow posters will fully understand all the good financial reasons for it which accrue to both parties in the contract.
Obviously we don’t know any dates or how the former Belgian club became the new one – pass me that Belgian dictionary and Belgian FA rule book luv – but I strongly suspect this might be a ‘footballing debt’ which requires to be met.
Still one thing the DR story sadly reveals is that despite everything written for the last couple of years about the Rangers debacle that Record journos still don’t know the questions to ask to get at the financial facts. It’s really depressing and stupidity seems to play an equal part with bias created through PR manipulation.
Philip Spicer says:
June 25, 2013 at 11:02 am
The only way a full membership of the SFA can be terminated is by the judicial panel, after the matter has been referred to it by the Board. I can’t find any way in the rules that a membership is automatically terminated. That’s rule 15, by the way, copied below. Note the use of the word “may”, plus the absolute discretion reserved to the Judicial Panel. In other words they can do as they please.
15.1 Subject to Articles 15.2 and 15.4, full membership or associate membership may be
suspended or terminated by the Judicial Panel following reference to it by the Board in the
following circumstances:-
(a) where a club fails to have its ground accepted by the Board for the current playing
season;
(b) where a club fails for 2 successive playing seasons to play and complete its
participation in the Challenge Cup Competition;
(c) where a full member entitled to have a representative at a general meeting
facilitates representation by a person who does not qualify as its representative in
terms of Article 40;
(d) where a full member or associate member becomes a member of another
National Association or of any other body promoting football which is not
authorised by the Scottish FA;
(e) where the Judicial Panel has exercised its power of expulsion in relation to a full
member or associate member in terms of Article 98;
(f) where the club has had its Club Licence suspended for a period in excess of 6
months or where it has been determined by the Board that a club has failed
to meet the required minimum standards as prescribed in the Club Licensing
Procedures;
(g) where a full member or an associate member suffers or is subject to an
insolvency event; or
(h) where an Affiliated Association fails to have a league or competition included
in the Register of Competitions in accordance with Article 18.4.
15.2 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 15.1 and subject to Article 15.4, the Judicial
Panel may elect not to suspend or terminate full membership or associate membership
in the circumstances listed in Article 15.1 and may instead:
(a) censure, fine, sanction and/or penalise the relevant full member or associate
member in such manner as it considers appropriate; and/or
(b) in the case of a club which suffers or is subject to an insolvency event, eject
such club from the Challenge Cup Competition,
provided that any such censure, fine, sanction, penalty and/or ejection shall not prohibit
the Judicial Panel from subsequently suspending or terminating the membership of the
full member or associate member in question if it is not satisfied that the circumstances
giving rise to the censure, fine, sanction, penalty and/or ejection have been remedied
within a reasonable time to its reasonable satisfaction
Ecobhoy,
On the Celtic Wanyama situation I see the SMSM are at their old tricks of stirring it with the comment: ‘The Belgian club, though, inserted a five per cent sell-on clause in the deal’ as if this was done in secret and Celtic knew nothing about it.
======================================
Overreaction I think. The DR report is pretty straightforward – no suggestion of poor negotiation by Celtic or hiding of secret clauses. They also said, ‘That would earn the Hoops a massive profit after they bought the 21-year-old for £900,000 from Beerschot in 2011.’
tomtom says:
June 25, 2013 at 10:13 am
3 2 Rate This
nowoldandgrumpy says:
June 25, 2013 at 9:57 am
==================
Wouldn’t it be a wonderful gesture if Celtic paid this and didn’t try to hide behind any corporate legislation. They don’t have to admit that the new club is really a continuation of the old one, simply say that they are helping out a new club at the beginning of it’s new life, or something along those lines
————-
Or Celtic could honour the agreement with the original club and pay the money into any creditor pot.
What To Say When They Claim It’s the Same Club
http://saynotothesameclub.wordpress.com/2013/06/24/what-to-say-when-they-claim-its-the-same-club/
Duplesis
It may help to consider another couple of definitions in Article 1:
If the Oldco ceased to be a club on 14th June 2012, it would have ceased to meet the requirements to be a “full member” on that same day.
How then, if the Oldco was neither club nor association, could it’s full membership be transferred to Newco on the 3rd August 2012?
In this regard, you may find Article 18 of some help:
And it light of the events as they unfolded:
1. Newco automatically became registered members of the SFA on 13th July 2012 when admitted to the SFL [A. 6.2]
2. Oldco were registered members of the SFA until it transferred the SPL share to Dundee on 3rd August 2012 [A. 1]
3. “Registered member shall not be a member of more than one Affiliated Association” [A. 6.2]
4. To play Brechin it had to have been formally admitted to the SFL (and therefore have registered membership of the SFA). So, Newco must have been regarded as a club by 29th July 2012 [A. 1]
5. To retain its full membership until 3rd August 2012, Oldco must have still been regarded as a club in its own right when the Newco team played Brechin.[A. 1]
Taking these together, my interpretation is that:
RFC Ltd remained both a “registered member” – as the registered shareholder of the SPL share – and a “full member” of the SFA under article 18.
Being a “member” under either/both categories, Oldco must still have been recognised as a club (according to Article 1) until the SPL share was transferred to Dundee and the board’s “conditional” approval that the full membership could be transferred to Newco, became effective on 3rd August 2012.
On 3rd August 2012 RFC plc (Oldco) ceased to be a member of the SFA and therefore ceased to be a club in terms of Article 6.2 – as referred to in the definition of club in Article 1.
Newco, became a registered member of the SFL on 13th July 2012. They became full members on 3rd August 2012.
The transfer of full membership on 3rd August 2012 was between two existing clubs as permitted under Article 14.1.
ecobhoy says:
June 25, 2013 at 10:52 am
I suppose irrespective of the position on either side of the argument at least he’s showing consistency which is at least something.
——————————————————————————————————————————————
Unfortunately its not consistent with his views pre-liquidation.
In my previous post I referenced Article 18. This was under the previous set of Articles.
Under the current version the reference should be to Article 16 (Cessation of Membership).
Apologies, in future I’ll try not to have both versions opened at the same time.
Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes 1m
Darrell hurting badly and trying to suppress the truth – @Martin1Williams article.
1. http://i.imgur.com/Kayr6Wh.jpg
2. http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/rangers-fail-to-pay-35k-law-firm-bill.15043292 …
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More
phill4500 says:
June 24, 2013 at 9:22 pm
17
0
Rate This
Flocculent Apoidea says:
James Traynor – “He was accused of pocketing the cash two years ago in an article in a French newspaper yesterday.”
———–
Did he take the cash and slip it into a copy of L’Equipe,
and did he do it 2 years ago, or yesterday?
*************************************
Nothing that man does surprises me anymore.
Regarding the Darrell King email. Whilst it is a concern that he is willing to be a propgandist for Rangers. What is more concerning is the way both the old firm feel the need to compete against each other in a PR war. It’s not as if they are trying to grab market share as far as I can see allegiances to one club or the other are more or less settled at birth. It would be good if in future the confined their rivalry to the football pitch.
blu says:
June 25, 2013 at 11:38 am
Ecobhoy,
On the Celtic Wanyama situation I see the SMSM are at their old tricks of stirring it with the comment: ‘The Belgian club, though, inserted a five per cent sell-on clause in the deal’ as if this was done in secret and Celtic knew nothing about it.
======================================
Overreaction I think. The DR report is pretty straightforward – no suggestion of poor negotiation by Celtic or hiding of secret clauses. They also said, ‘That would earn the Hoops a massive profit after they bought the 21-year-old for £900,000 from Beerschot in 2011.’
=====================================================
I think in view of what most people now know exactly what the SMSM get up to with PR spinmeisters, behind formerly closed email walls, it is merely an objective observation.
If the DR had stated that the Belgian club had ‘negotiated’ the clause then I would have had no problem with the report but to say they ‘inserted’ the clause reads as though they had done so unilaterally and without the knowledge of Celtic,
The trick about successful PR is to use words to achieve an objective but in such a way that there can always be deniability if questioned later or queried my a more alert journalist. I think your intervention reinforces my point much more ably that I ever could 🙂
As to the ‘massive profit’ I can see a deep PR thought that possibly this could create a link in the minds of some that Celtic were a part of the financial demise of the Belgian club by ‘stealing’ a star asset for a song and making an absolute fortune from it.
Sadly there is sometimes little rationality in footballing affairs and the PR people and journos know how to extract the maximum benefit from that towards whatever objective they seek to achieve.
ecobhoy says: June 24, 2013 at 9:15 pm
“It’s difficult to actually answer the ‘meaning’ of it—-“
justshatered says: June 24, 2013 at 10:03 pm
“They are no longer trusted by the vast majority of fans and day by day their plight becomes worse..”
Excellent, only one change, vast majority of “people”——
Let me explain, 63 years old, have been to under ten football matches in that time, can’t really describe myself as a “fan” but this caught my eye in 2011.
Lies, damned lies, and Scottish football journalism 29/03/2011
“Being privy to many of the facts related to Rangers’ tax ordeal, the last year has been a revelation to me. I find it hard to believe that every journalist in Scotland is naive enough to believe the nonsense being fed to them. In their hurry to publish, they shamelessly rush from fax machine (or whatever PR firms use these days) to the press without editing or critical thought. In short, readers are paying to read PR-fluff written and produced by people with agendas.”
Copyright:- RTC (Orwell Prize winner Blogger 2012)
The rest is history?
Back to echobhoy
An editorial in the British Journalism Review saw this trend as terminal for current journalism, “…a harbinger of the end of news journalism as we know it, the coroner’s verdict can be nothing other than suicide”
Quite
Where do you want to go today?” was the title of Microsoft’s 2nd global image advertising campaign.
The British Journalism Review should suggest “What do you want us to print today?” for a newspaper advertising campaign.
Drew Peacock says:
June 25, 2013 at 1:03 pm
Not quite sure where you read Darrell’s emails and feel the need to bring in Celtic on this. Do you have proof of this? Do not all clubs try to get news out there> I am sure Evening News has more stories tailored to Hearts and Hibs than others – everyone is in a PR war.
However all clubs think its a fair PR war – just like the SPL.
Easy to see its all been stacked against us all
PS Old Firm is dead – there is no such thing now. The Glasgow derby will be Partick and Celtic this year – and long may that continue (Speirs – I confirm – I don’t miss them one ioata!)
Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes 12m
Darrell hurting badly and trying to suppress the truth – @Martin1Williams article. 1. http://i.imgur.com/Kayr6Wh.jpg 2. http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/rangers-fail-to-pay-35k-law-firm-bill.15043292 …
ecobhoy says:
June 25, 2013 at 1:06 pms:
The trick about successful PR is to use words to achieve an objective but in such a way that there can always be deniability if questioned later or queried my a more alert journalist. I think your intervention reinforces my point much more ably that I ever could 🙂
As to the ‘massive profit’ I can see a deep PR thought that possibly this could create a link in the minds of some that Celtic were a part of the financial demise of the Belgian club by ‘stealing’ a star asset for a song and making an absolute fortune from it.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Another PR thought or two could be that having a massive profit available was good business by Celtic or that there was now money available for a big signing.
Sam says:
June 25, 2013 at 1:12 pm
Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes 12m
Darrell hurting badly and trying to suppress the truth – @Martin1Williams article. 1. http://i.imgur.com/Kayr6Wh.jpg 2. http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/rangers-fail-to-pay-35k-law-firm-bill.15043292 …
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
He’s not being very loyal to his employers – was he pushed or did he walk from the Herald? The new ones might want to take note. He’s worth a watching.
Exiled Celt says:
June 25, 2013 at 1:12 pm
Drew Peacock says:
June 25, 2013 at 1:03 pm
Not quite sure where you read Darrell’s emails and feel the need to bring in Celtic on this. Do you have proof of this? Do not all clubs try to get news out there> I am sure Evening News has more stories tailored to Hearts and Hibs than others – everyone is in a PR war.
However all clubs think its a fair PR war – just like the SPL.
Easy to see its all been stacked against us all
PS Old Firm is dead – there is no such thing now. The Glasgow derby will be Partick and Celtic this year – and long may that continue (Speirs – I confirm – I don’t miss them one ioata!)
***********************************************************
Ok so I imagined what Mr Lawell said on Sky to wind up Rangers
ecobhoy says:
June 25, 2013 at 1:06 pm
=====================================
ecobhoy, to me this particular short article is just standard journalism playing to readers’ interests. I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Keep up the great work that’s been in evidence over recent months.
Drew Peacock
Apologies – I thought you meant Celtic were doing the same thing as Darrell King was doing for RFC-NIL. Now I understand your reference – I don’t think Lawwell was alone in thinking the whole story of third parties talking for unnamed people was an utter farce. Could be he was also insulting the same journalists in the audience who lapped the story up.
The Guardian @guardian 18m
Charlotte Moore set to be confirmed as BBC1 controller http://gu.com/p/3gzpa/tf
View summary Reply Retweet Favorite More
Paulsatim @p4ulsatim 16m
@guardian Maybe now her tweets re rangers will get MSM attention!!
Remember, the press has it’s own PR game to play to boost it’s own circulation.
Good news rangers stories sell more papers than good news Celtic stories
Bad news rangers stories create more “bloo-mail” campaigns and angry protests than bad news celtic stories
it’s not good economic sense to back one club over the other, no, the game here is to see who can put the best possible spin on the mess that is rangers situation and then try to sweeten the bad news by throwing in the odd bad news story or outright lie about Celtic.
Keep that in mind at all time.
WTF is it with the residents of South of France…………..
CW
CG
[S]DEM
MB
The corrupt football Agent Ranko Stojic
Thanks for clearing that up for me guys.. I guess that also clears up the New Club/Old Club debate as well if both Clubs were members of the SFA at the same time, then they can’t be the SAME CLUB.
Drew Peacock says:
June 25, 2013 at 1:16 pm
He’s not being very loyal to his employers – was he pushed or did he walk from the Herald? The new ones might want to take note. He’s worth a watching.
———————————————————————————————
The Bold Darrell has previous form. Here is a letter I wrote to the Herald editor complaining about King’s disloyalty. Needless to say I did not receive a reply or even acknowledgement from that newspaper.
The Editor
The Herald Newspaper
7th December 2009
Dear Sir,
I wish to draw your attention to the standard of reporting in the Herald of late by your football correspondent, Darrell King. In particular, I would to refer to the recent articles by him on a Scots exile in Florida called Graham Duffy.
It would appear that the Herald sanctioned Darrell King to visit Duffy in America recently to interview him in relation to the proposed purchase of Rangers F.C. by a consortium. On his return, Darrell King wrote an article for the newspaper outlining Duffy’s plans. Last week Darrell King wrote a further piece in question & answer form, having again spoken to Duffy. I presume this second interview was by telephone as it would have been gross extravagance had your reporter made another visit to Florida.
The Darrell King articles merely reproduce the fantasy uttered by Duffy without any attempt to verify the many fanciful claims made by Duffy. To me, this is not the sign of a professional journalist and certainly not one who should be employed by a quality broadsheet such as the Herald.
Are you aware that Darrell King posts on the Rangers supporters’ message board, “Follow Follow”, under the username of BarryBaldy? He has been updating its membership with the Graham Duffy situation in advance of the information appearing in your newspaper. Surely the Herald should have first call any such story? After all, it pays his wages.
I would also question the judgment and integrity of Darrell King as a football correspondent in becoming too closely associated with one particular football club or set of supporters.
Can you tell me why you, as his editor, allowed Darrell King to write articles on this Walter Mitty character without him firstly checking Duffy’s credibility? Others have found it quite easy (and proper) to do so. Very shortly Darrell King may be made a laughing stock if Duffy is finally exposed as a fantasist or fraudster. This will inevitably reflect on you as his editor and in the reputation of the Herald itself.
I would now ask you to review the whole Graham Duffy saga and to monitor Darrell King’s conduct in the matter before any further damage is inflicted on the Herald.
Yours faithfully,
A wee point about the darrell king email,its dated the 9th september 2011 and in it darrell seems to suggest a relationship with craig whyte that has lasted at least 12 months which would take us back to sept 2010.
My own recollection is CW appeared in october 2010 but the earliest article i can find is dated november 18th 2010.So,was darrell king involved with CW before it become public knowledge that he was involved in the takeover of rangers.
http://i.imgur.com/Kayr6Wh.jpg
@HirsutePursuite @ 12:36pm
Thanks, I think the Articles you quote (and I note your update of 12:54pm) are helpful in getting to the bottom of this, as is the terms of Article 15 mentioned in Neepheid’s post of 11:34am.
I agree with your outline of the position from 1 to 4 (subject to the caveat in my earlier post), but I don’t agree with 5.
When the assets and business were transferred from the oldco to the newco, I think oldco ceased to be a club for the purposes of Article 1 on the basis it wasn’t a “football club,” nor was it playing (nor able to play) “association football” as required by that definition, for the reasons previously given.
Your argument I think is that – because the oldco still held the membership at that time – it must be a club, as only a club (or affiliated association etc, but it wasn’t any of these other categories) can be a member.
I think that may come at things the wrong way round. Although the oldco ceased to be entitled to membership when it ceased to be a club for the purposes of Article 1, there is no mechanism within the Articles for the automatic revocation or transfer of membership when a member ceases to be entitled to membership – as shown in the Articles referred to by Neipheid and yourself.
It remains a member not because it is still a club, but because it was a member prior to the transfer, and its membership can’t be transferred or revoked in consequence of the transfer without intervention by the SFA under one of the Articles.
Arguing by analogy is always dodgy, but I’m going to do it anyway…
Let’s say there’s a rule of the law society that to be eligible to be a member you cannot suffer from a mental incapacity, but that there is also a rule that your membership can’t be removed without a particular procedure being adopted. I, a perfectly healthy solicitor already on the roll, suffer a stroke which renders me incapax. Although I’m no longer eligible to be a member, I’ll still be one until that procedure is invoked. It would obviously be wrong to say that, because I’m still a member over that period, I must be capax because it is a condition of membership that I have capacity.
I don’t see that we can just ignore the terms of the definition of “club” in Article 1 that a club needs to be a football club playing association football . Without rehearsing the rest of your argument for now, do you agree that after the business and assets transferred, whatever else the oldco was, it wasn’t a football club playing association football?
Duplesis says:
June 25, 2013 at 2:15 pm
—————————————————————————–
Absence of evidence
or
Evidence of absence
Apply any of the above quotes to you’re post
Sam says:
June 25, 2013 at 2:04 pm
‘..WTF is it with the residents of South of France………’
—-
Apparently, in that country, you can buy houses with part of your remuneration taken as loans on which you have not paid and which will not be called in!
@Sam at 2:29pm
Thanks…
I’d always understood the argument to be that absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence (although that’s not an argument I’d like to be relying on in Court…)
In any event, I’m probably just being thick, but I’m not sure where that comes in to what I’ve said.
HirsutePursuit says:
June 25, 2013 at 12:36 pm
————————————————————————————————————————————
I certainly have reached the point where the ‘conditional membership’ issued to Rangers to play the Brechin game was either within or outwith the SFA Rules and it seems to me there are two validly held positions on this as typified by my arguments and those of neepheid.
I don’t know who is correct and I have no need to prove that I am right and neepheid is wrong and I think we both agree to disagree – we are both entitled to our opinions as long as they are based on fact and I believe that is the case albeit our interpretation of those facts differ.
I think some of the ‘facts’ presented by HS are incorrect and I will explain why below not to re-open the debate as I am of the opinion it is beyond my capabilities to meaningfully advance it. However, I think I am beholden to query anything I see as factually incorrect.
———————————————————————–
HP] 1. Newco automatically became registered members of the SFA on 13th July 2012 when admitted to the SFL [A. 6.2]
EB] On 17 July the SFA stated the SFL ‘have made a conditional acceptance of Rangers FC’ into the SFL3. Now this is the first mention of ‘conditional membership’ that I am aware of. I think the three categories of SFL membership in the rule book are Registered, Associate, Full. However the SFL like the SFA can with a few exceptions, which don’t apply here, change its rule book at any time.
I note that HP originally stated that Rangers were admitted as associate SFL members on 13 July 2012 but I have previously pointed out the flaw in that reasoning.
So, the SFL created a ‘conditional membership’ for Rangers at some date between 13-17 July 2012. I would suggest that exactly the same arguments apply to the legality of this move, within the SFL rule book, as apply to the earlier debate between myself and neepheid on the SFA position.
HP] 2. Oldco were registered members of the SFA until it transferred the SPL share to Dundee on 3rd August 2012 [A. 1]
EB] The conflation of SFA membership and the SPL share is a red herring and matters not in any case.
HP] 3. “Registered member shall not be a member of more than one Affiliated Association” [A. 6.2]
EB] Rangers was not a registered member but a ‘conditional’ member and in any case I have seen no proof that Rangers was ever a ‘registered’ member and I have never believed that to have been the case.
HP] 4. To play Brechin it had to have been formally admitted to the SFL (and therefore have registered membership of the SFA). So, Newco must have been regarded as a club by 29th July 2012 [A. 1]
EB] It is self-evident that Rangers required to be admitted to the SFL to play Brechin. Again we have a conflation with the SFA membership which creates an ambiguity which doesn’t exist as it is incorrect to believe that Rangers SFA membership rested solely on SFL admittance.
The simple test of this fact is that if Rangers had received SFA membership through joining the SFL then it would be as an associate member and not the full membership it actually holds by virtue of the oldo SFA membership being transferred to newco.
On 27 July 2012 – two days before the Brechin game – Stewart Regan stated: “We have reached agreement on all terms and conditions attached to the transfer of membership and are able to grant conditional membership . . . “.
At that point Rangers SFA membership transferred from oldco to newco.
HP] 5. To retain its full membership until 3rd August 2012, Oldco must have still been regarded as a club in its own right when the Newco team played Brechin.[A. 1]
EB] See my answer to 4 above which makes it clear that Oldco SFA membership ceased at the latest on 27 July 2012. As to whether Oldco could be regarded as a ‘club in its own right’ on 29 July I think has comprehensively been dealt with by Duplesis.
callumsson says:
June 25, 2013 at 1:01 pm
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/rangers-fail-to-pay-35k-law-firm-bill.15043292
——————-
Seems that my concerns over Martin Williams may have been a bit misplaced. Sorry Martin. You appear to be one of the few who do their job. Charlotte appears to be ‘ganging warily’.
ecobhoy says:
June 25, 2013 at 1:06 pm
7 2 i Rate This
The trick about successful PR is to use words to achieve an objective but in such a way that there can always be deniability if questioned later or queried my a more alert journalist. I think your intervention reinforces my point much more ably that I ever could
As to the ‘massive profit’ I can see a deep PR thought that possibly this could create a link in the minds of some that Celtic were a part of the financial demise of the Belgian club by ‘stealing’ a star asset for a song and making an absolute fortune from it.
——————————————————————-
The ‘massive profit’ comment could also be used to imply a certain meanness of spirit if Celtic don’t pay this money to the new club regardless of whether they are entitled to it according to the rules
ecobhoy says:
June 25, 2013 at 2:55 pm
On 27 July 2012 – two days before the Brechin game – Stewart Regan stated: “We have reached agreement on all terms and conditions attached to the transfer of membership and are able to grant conditional membership . . . “.
At that point Rangers SFA membership transferred from oldco to newco.
——————————————————————————————————–
Are you saying that “rangers” held 2 memberships at the same time,(one conditional and one full) because thats how the above reads.
Duplesis says:
June 25, 2013 at 2:15 pm
…………………………………………………………….
I think it’s worth looking at my post:
ecobhoy says:
June 25, 2013 at 2:55 pm
I think we have all missed this previously but the first mention of a ‘conditional membership’ seems to apply to the SFL and not the SFA which IMO takes us back to the straight divide as to whether the SFA and SFL were entitled to grant these ‘memberships’ or not.
I think they were and neepheid think they aren’t. I don’t think it’s possible to get much beyond this point as it becomes totally dependent on interpretation of the rule books. I have previously outlined why I think the SFA were entitled to create a conditional category of membership. I also believe the SFL rule book to confer the same power. So there 🙂
Robert Coyle says:
June 25, 2013 at 2:13 pm
———————————–
As was the case ……
Remember the DK/CW email of 17 November 2010 produced by Charlotte showing King passing editorial control effectively to CW when running the story of CW as a potential buyer ………..
ecobhoy says:
June 25, 2013 at 2:55 pm
On 27 July 2012 – two days before the Brechin game – Stewart Regan stated: “We have reached agreement on all terms and conditions attached to the transfer of membership and are able to grant conditional membership . . . “.
At that point Rangers SFA membership transferred from oldco to newco
============================================================================
It didn’t. Although agreement was reached by the SFA to transfer membership on the 27th July, the transfer itself did not take place until the 3rd of August.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19120224
To me, this means that new Rangers and old Rangers both held SFA memberships at the same time.
Darrel King ….
Direct Quote ….
“Normally, we do not give any outside editorial control on stories but I will take on board any points you make in the best interests of all concerned, as we discussed, and appreciate your assistance on this.”
Simply Incredible …..
Drew Peacock says:
June 25, 2013 at 1:03 pm
“…allegiances to one club or the other are more or less settled at birth. It would be good if in future the confined their rivalry to the football pitch.”
——————-
Fair comment Drew. From my own partial perspective, Celtic provided an affirmation and legitimacy to my cultural background and myself when I was younger, even though I was not an ardent football fan. When 11 Scottish guys wearing green and white hoops won the cup in 67 it seemed that my tradition could no longer be idly looked down upon but was at times to be looked up to.
All over the world football traditions draw on social and political backdrops to colour the support. This goes beyond football. Witness the Pakistani support at a cricket game against England. The point is to have these rivalries played out on a field of sport rather than the ancient battlefields that predated such frictions. This is progress, however sluggish.
When such rivalries are reflected in the media it should come as no surprise. Indeed the nature of such contests often adds interest and context to fairly mundane encounters. However when journalists are accepting inducements to reflect a certain attitude then it moves back from rivalry into primitive tribalism. I do not wish to be drawn backward, except when I read history.
Having taken the trouble to study the history it is clear that these clear cut divisions have been artificially manufactured. The cultural threads are interwoven and overlapping like the weft of a tartan cloth. Yet some wish to unpick this societal fabric to break it back down into its constituent parts. I blame the Normans. Their divide and conquer tactics were way too effective. That we should still be suffering the aftermath of this nearly a thousand years later is disappointing. For a thousand years prior to the Normans, the Romans found that this fabric could not be so easily torn asunder.
When you attain an appreciation of the context the whole pageant becomes closer to a spectacle. Some wish our gaze to be microscopically narrow to prevent us seeing the big picture.
Just saying….not implying anything
Bristol announce friendly with Sevco Currents
Sevco Currents unable to register a player under contract this transfer window
Ricky Foster negotiates early release from Bristol contract despite a year to run and having played about 30 games last year
Ricky Foster signs for Sevco currents
No transfer fee involved
Foster can be registered as an out of contract palyer on 1st Sept.
just saying.
Matteo Galy says:
June 25, 2013 at 3:18 pm
1 0 Rate This
ecobhoy says:
June 25, 2013 at 2:55 pm
On 27 July 2012 – two days before the Brechin game – Stewart Regan stated: “We have reached agreement on all terms and conditions attached to the transfer of membership and are able to grant conditional membership . . . “.
At that point Rangers SFA membership transferred from oldco to newco
============================================================================
It didn’t. Although agreement was reached by the SFA to transfer membership on the 27th July, the transfer itself did not take place until the 3rd of August.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19120224
To me, this means that new Rangers and old Rangers both held SFA memberships at the same time.
++++++++++++++++
Agree entirely. I think it is now beyond reasonable argument that on the day of the Brechin game, Sevco held a “conditional membership” of the SFA (whatever I may think of that) while the old RFC membership of the SFA remained with RFC at that point. The “old” membership was not transferred until 3 August. So from 27 July until 3 August, Sevco and “old” RFC each held separate memberships of the SFA, one conditional, the other full.
newtz says:
June 25, 2013 at 3:17 pm
—————————————————–
Thanks to darrell its looking like CW was on the scene 1 or 2 months before the takeover story broke and that DK had been in on it from when whyte showed up,now i’m wondering who introduced them to each other and i won’t be using a broad brush whilst deciding who it was :).
@ecobhoy at 3:16pm (and 2:55pm)
I haven’t had the chance to check that quote, but if the conditional membership referred is conditional SFL membership, then that obviously changes things considerably and would be a very important point.
I’ve never seen it suggested that was the case before now though, so I’d want to check on that before working through what it would mean.
I have to get on with some work, but will try to look back in tonight.
I see the bears are upset….with their own club this time.
Season ticket renewal form has lumped ALL home games into one box – so, home cup, europe (haha) and FRIENDLIES
I think we can expect to see a LOT of friendly matches organised in the coming weeks and months to keep that continuous credit card scheme ticking over and the cash flowing!
ecobhoy says:
June 25, 2013 at 1:06 pm
7 2 i Rate This
The trick about successful PR is to use words to achieve an objective but in such a way that there can always be deniability if questioned later or queried my a more alert journalist. I think your intervention reinforces my point much more ably that I ever could
As to the ‘massive profit’ I can see a deep PR thought that possibly this could create a link in the minds of some that Celtic were a part of the financial demise of the Belgian club by ‘stealing’ a star asset for a song and making an absolute fortune from it.
——————————————————————-
The ‘massive profit’ comment could also be used to imply a certain meanness of spirit if Celtic don’t pay this money to the new club regardless of whether they are entitled to it according to the rules
Robert Coyle says:
June 25, 2013 at 3:13 pm
Are you saying that “rangers” held 2 memberships at the same time,(one conditional and one full) because thats how the above reads
————————————————————————————————————————
Well it isn’t meant to read like that and I apologise if I have allowed ambiguity to creep in.
In simple terms there only ever was one Rangers membership which used to be held by ‘oldco’ but on 27 July 2012 that membership was transferred to newco and the term used by the SFA was ‘conditional membership’. I think a more correct term would have been ‘conditional full membership’.
There are various reasons as to why the SFA might have wished to retain conditions on the licence and possibly the most obvious would could be to ensure that the SPL share passed to Dundee without any shenanigans not so much from Rangers but from Green although effectively they were one and the same. There are also the provisions of the secret 5-way Agreement to be considered in this regard.
What is clear is that by the 3 August 2012 the condition/s to the full membership which I believed was transferred on 27 July had disappeared and Rangers held an uncondititional, except for the normal rules that applied to all clubs, full licence.
However whatever membership was held by newco the oldco membership clearly ceased on 27 July and newco never held more that one class of membership at any time IMO from that point on.