In the aftermath of the recent election and whilst those of us who voted one way are still hoping that our way continues to count, the horse trading has begun. No matter your politics, the fact that a party wholly representing one part of the United Kingdom is suddenly having such a massive influence, coupled with a lack of detail in the public domain over their negotiations, causes people some nervousness; because of the nature of the DUP, for some they claim it terrifies them.
Can we imagine if football was run that way? Can we imagine if it wasn’t?
Having people who have one focus deliberating and influencing your life has always been an issue at the core of the United Kingdom. Proud Scots do not like the power of the English, some English have begun to resent the growing independence of the Scots, the Welsh have turned out to have their own independence and as for the Irish; the Trouble has always never been far behind.
The recognised method of dealing with these issues has now become to allow, where possible, organisations within the domain of the domicile to grow on their own. For some it sows the seeds of an increasing independence as the locals realise they can do it for themselves. It also does, though ensure the organisation is close to its own people and is truly representative of them.
In Scotland, and throughout the last election, the big two – Conservative and Labour parties – have suffered under the accusations of being a “branch office” of their London centric big sister. It has led to people making choices based on the assumption that, at times, neither of the leaders up here have autonomy. When there are policies that will be unpopular in Scotland, they say, the high heid yins in Edinburgh have no choice but to toe the party line.
We do not like that thought.
Nor should we.
I suggested that football has a similar issue. And so. It does…
The views and opinions of the Scottish fans who last Saturday threw up their hands in joy and held their heads in despair all within 90 seconds or so suffer from that lack of representation. As deals are done in secret and “announcements” made over innovations and changes they are collectively silent through the funded organisation established to represent them; at best that organ is muted.
Never has it been more important for the Scottish football fan to feel the importance of their view being heard. Never has it been more important as Project Brave is being undertaken, chairmen are being fined £3,000 for having a bet, we look as though we are going to miss out on another World Cup, expansion of our cup competitions is growing apace, play offs and promotions have delivered their verdicts and handed their budgets to managers who bemoaned last year it was hard, that one of our two giant clubs seems unable to keep itself out of the court room whilst supplying the accused, the defence lawyer, the pantomime villain and a circus or at least two premiership clubs appear to be on the verge of administration.
Supporters Direct – Undemocratic?
The time has come to ensure that the voice of the footballing nation does not come from around the Isles but around the corner. Whilst the work of Supporters Direct has brought a great deal of support and aid to a number of clubs and supporters groups, the fans need something that is much more than a branch office of a bigger organisation.
In the recent past, SD have seemingly been forced to be more visible but let us not be fooled, if you are an ordinary fan, SD have no place for you. You cannot join, you cannot vote, and you cannot influence; so there is not much point. Building a democratic and fair vocal chord for Scottish football fans needs commitment from the bottom up to engage, enlist and enrich the chorus and chanting of disapproval or support for Scottish football.
That’s why I am in the SFSA – isn’t it time for the Scottish Government to take the bull, grasp the thistle and make the clear choice of removing money going all the way to London and giving it to a fans based organisation that represents them here in Scotland?
We think so… don’t you?
Join the SFSA today! It’s free
The Celtic statement is neither tame nor bland it goes right to the heart of what needs to be done as a first step and without any histrionics or excess verbiage. A line in the sand has been drawn.
Correct. Just disappointing there aren’t 40 similar statements sitting next to it.
CO
Also don’t forget a true Rangers man, Hugh Adam, who tried to tell the Rangers-phere and anyone else who would listen that Murray was a wrong ‘un.
SFA Statement
The Board of the Scottish FA notes the judgment of the Supreme Court and wishes to clarify the implications of this final legal decision from a football regulatory perspective.
In light of the Inner House of the Court of Session decision, the Board of the Scottish FA sought external senior counsel opinion to ensure a robust and independent consideration of all implications of today’s judgment.
The Board received written advice from Senior Counsel, amplified when the QC attended a full meeting of the Board to discuss his conclusions.
Specifically, Senior Counsel was asked to anticipate whether a determination in favour of HMRC, as announced today, could imply that there had been a breach of the Scottish FA’s Disciplinary Rules as they applied at the time of the EBT payments.
The clear opinion of Senior Counsel is that there is a very limited chance of the Scottish FA succeeding in relation to any complaint regarding this matter and that, even if successful, any sanctions available to a Judicial Panel would also be limited in their scope.
Accordingly, having had time to consider the opinion from Senior Counsel, and having examined the judgment of the UK Supreme Court, the Board has determined that no further disciplinary action should be taken by the Scottish FA at this time.
I don’t think that anyone will be surprised that the SFA plans to do SFA.
BILLY BOYCE
JULY 5, 2017 at 16:23
SFA Statement
…
Accordingly, having had time to consider the opinion from Senior Counsel, and having examined the judgment of the UK Supreme Court, the Board has determined that no further disciplinary action should be taken by the Scottish FA at this time.
================================
Please tell us the SFA has been hacked ?!
Looks like the SFA had made its own decison before it new the SC result then ?
i.e. The SFA is not prepared to gauge the fans’ opinions / feedback / reactions at all ?
Would have thought the SFA would have issued a statement after a few days to absorb the SC result – at the very least.
SFA taking legal advice means they asked their lawyers to come up with something weak and insipid (even though they call it robust) to use as an excuse for doing SFA. Note that they make no effort to give any reasoning behind their counsel’s advice, and anything at all ‘robust’ would include reasoning ie we remember what happened to the last lot that stood up to a ‘Rangers’.
Sorry, just to come back on my last post.
There may well be nothing within that statement from the SFA to concern us, for they did nothing the last time either, other than to collude in the farce that was LNS. They left it to the SPL then, and appear to be leaving it to the SPFL now!
I’m sorry. Succeeding in respect to what? And this refers to any complaint? Absolutely ANY complaint whatsoever? And even in the limited chance of success (undefined) against ANY complaint whatsoever the sanctions available (unspecified) will be limited.
So. Very very clear evidence that the disciplinary rules aren’t fit for purpose. I assume there’s minutes from this meeting moving to immediately update them given their apparent ineffectiveness. Goodbye Stewart, your sword is waiting for you.
If I was being really cynical…
Is it mere coincidence that the CFC statement – asking for a review – was issued promptly today @ 2.28pm
…and was followed by an even more prompt statement from the SFA – saying “Naw” ?
The SFA trying to ‘slopey shoulder’ the cluster-thingy onto the SPFL now ?
IMO, the SFA has to take action, and be seen to take action… for the good of the game.
‘Dear SFA,
You are the body responsible for player registrations.
Can you tell me how many Scottish teams, apart from RFC, have been permitted to have ‘imperfectly registered, but eligible’ players take part in League, League Cup, Scottish Cup & EUFA competitions during the last two decades?
Yours in football etc.’
The SFA statement doesn’t quote the legendary 5 Way Agreement, but it might as well do…
BILLY BOYCE
JULY 5, 2017 at 16:23
SFA Statement
The Board of the Scottish FA notes the judgment of the Supreme Court and wishes to clarify the implications of this final legal decision from a football regulatory perspective. In light of the Inner House of the Court of Session decision, the Board of the Scottish FA sought external senior counsel opinion to ensure a robust and independent consideration of all implications of today’s judgment. The Board received written advice from Senior Counsel, amplified when the QC attended a full meeting of the Board to discuss his conclusions. Specifically, Senior Counsel was asked to anticipate whether a determination in favour of HMRC, as announced today, could imply that there had been a breach of the Scottish FA’s Disciplinary Rules as they applied at the time of the EBT payments. The clear opinion of Senior Counsel is that there is a very limited chance of the Scottish FA succeeding in relation to any complaint regarding this matter and that, even if successful, any sanctions available to a Judicial Panel would also be limited in their scope. Accordingly, having had time to consider the opinion from Senior Counsel, and having examined the judgment of the UK Supreme Court, the Board has determined that no further disciplinary action should be taken by the Scottish FA at this time.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Major shot in the foot by the SFA
It is not for a 3rd Party Senior Counsel to determine the implications of the SC decision on the LNS Enquiry
It is an issue solely for Lord Nimmo Smith
Second guessing his opinion is an insult to his integrity
Integrity cannot be kept under wraps
If there is silence from Lord Nimmo Smith his reputation for integrity is shredded
I and my son have been a season ticket holders since 1997 till this present day and we both have actually attended about 90% of away league games during this period of time. This has cost me in the region of roughly £1000 per season to watch a sport called football. Today the Supreme Court have confirmed my belief that actually I was not watching a total sport as a club called RFC were paying players by a tax avoiding scheme that is illegal. This gave them an illegal sporting advantage not open to clubs playing by the rules.
I do not care a jot about the past decisions (LNS etc…) today it has been confirmed by the Supreme Court that the club from Govan IL did cheat.
Striping all trophies is expected although this is not a punishment in it’s self. It is a starting point as the whole of Scottish Football should be seeking punishment and justice against the highest governing body of football in our country.
In Olympics if a gold medal is presented to a contestant and then the person fails a drug test the medal is given to the person in second place, as that how sport should work. The contestant who failed the test is then punished usually with a ban.
It cannot be overstated the level of cheating we are talking about here. I have wasted money (possibly duped) and I will not be the only one. I more importantly have missed out in possible celebrations of trophies that my team may have won which is more important to me.
I am glad my club have made a statement and I would expect other clubs to do the same. They cheated and should pay the penalty.
Worth bringing up at this point of course the suggestion made on here previously that since there was an indemnity given by Green’s Sevco that they would take no further action against the SFA and SPL (as was) as part of the 5WA, a side letter if you like
, as provided by Charlotte in one of her many guises that it doesn’t take a huge stretch of the imagination to suggest that a similar indemnity exists indemnifying “Rangers” from further action by the SFA/SPFL over and above the 200k specified in the LNS conclusion.
The existence of such an indemnity would definitely “limit” the SFA’s “chances of success” for sure.
Said it at the time. Why the hell would an experienced liquidation operator like Green sign up to a supposedly open cheque for future football claims against his new company club thingy. Unless he was getting something back the other way of course. Like a predetermined fine (this was before LNS remember) and a promise that that would be an end of it.
SmugasJuly 5, 2017 at 17:11
That is certainly a very plausible, if flawed, reason you put forward for this statement; a statement that was justified without giving the actual justification for the SFA’s inaction.
Crivens, it appears that the bears are claiming Progres played an ineligible player last night. You just couldn’t make it up!
http://forum.rangers…o-play/?page=15
First time poster, but a long time reader.
Does anyone have a copy of the letter that the EBT recipients were issued with from old Rangers, which states that the club would be liable for any payment demand made to players by HMRC?
I’m sure one of the players gave a copy of his letter to the press when the case first went to court.
That’s what rules are for AJ. And you know what they’re like with rules…
joking apart, that is exactly what rules ARE for without fear or favour. Including the FFP/ licensing ones.
Allyjambo July 5, 2017 at 17:35 Crivens, it appears that the bears are claiming Progres played an ineligible player last night. You just couldn’t make it up!
—————————-
If I fail the breathalyser test I can still drive until such time as the court sits to ban me. The player failed a drugs test in a previous match and is now waiting for the relevant panel to sit. Meanwhile he is perfectly entitled to continue playing. Despite TRFC fans clutching at straws and Sky TV trying to raise their hopes, there will be no reversal of the result last night.
goosygoosyJuly 5, 2017 at 17:03 i 8 Votes
BILLY BOYCE JULY 5, 2017 at 16:23 SFA Statement The Board of the Scottish FA notes the judgment of the Supreme Court and wishes to clarify the implications of this final legal decision from a football regulatory perspective. In light of the Inner House of the Court of Session decision, the Board of the Scottish FA sought external senior counsel opinion to ensure a robust and independent consideration of all implications of today’s judgment. The Board received written advice from Senior Counsel, amplified when the QC attended a full meeting of the Board to discuss his conclusions. Specifically, Senior Counsel was asked to anticipate whether a determination in favour of HMRC, as announced today, could imply that there had been a breach of the Scottish FA’s Disciplinary Rules as they applied at the time of the EBT payments. The clear opinion of Senior Counsel is that there is a very limited chance of the Scottish FA succeeding in relation to any complaint regarding this matter and that, even if successful, any sanctions available to a Judicial Panel would also be limited in their scope. Accordingly, having had time to consider the opinion from Senior Counsel, and having examined the judgment of the UK Supreme Court, the Board has determined that no further disciplinary action should be taken by the Scottish FA at this time. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Major shot in the foot by the SFA It is not for a 3rd Party Senior Counsel to determine the implications of the SC decision on the LNS Enquiry It is an issue solely for Lord Nimmo Smith Second guessing his opinion is an insult to his integrity Integrity cannot be kept under wraps If there is silence from Lord Nimmo Smith his reputation for integrity is shredded ===================
I wonder if SFA Council looked at Article 5 Obligations to Members in the SFA Handbook?
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/ScottishFAPublications2016-17/Scottish%20FA%20Handbook%202016-17.pdf
specifically
SFA Articles 2016/17
5. Obligations and Duties of Members
5.1 All members shall:-
(a) observe the principles of loyalty, integrity and sportsmanship in accordance with the rules of fair play and
(f) behave towards the Scottish FA and other members with the utmost good faith.
The SFA/SPL trick has been to focus on registration breach and separate the legality of ebts from the registration question because paying players by an illegal hidden means is plain wrong regardless of the rules ability to cover the way it is done.
I would argue that had all relevant information about all ebt use at Rangers been provided then the question would not have been one of mis registration but paying players by an illegal means in conflict with Article 5.1. a) and f) even more so.
Still the SPFL Board have something to get there teeth into and the arguments that stopped them appealing LNS (not all were happy) will be well worth revisiting in light of what has emerged in court relating to the wtc ebts and deliberate side letter concealment.
SmugasJuly 5, 2017 at 17:45
Totally agree, Smugas, but what irony it would be, and not a deserved outcome, and would it make any difference for Progres to appeal over TRFC’s FFP issues? Would it be the case that both would go out, therefor not worth this small club making such a big effort, as I would imagine they would have to put up a deposit and lose it if their appeal failed. On the other hand, would a successful appeal mean that, as TRFC should never have played the game in the first place, Progres would be held to have committed no offence?
Wouldn’t it be a delicious irony if TRFC were to be reinstated, then expelled due to FFP issues with further penalties attached!
SFA statement
https://t.co/LhN6oek7zP
email sent to AFC Board.
Is it possible for TSFM to keep a log of which clubs are contacted by fans ( & if possible the numbers of folk who do?) to get them to act for the integrity of the sport and some justice?
It would be too easy for reluctant clubs to keep quiet and not acknowledge how many of their supporters contacted them. There’s a major role for official fan groups to play in this and TSFM could try to coordinate & publicise the pressures being put on the club boards.
Billy BoyceJuly 5, 2017 at 17:56
Allyjambo July 5, 2017 at 17:35 Crivens, it appears that the bears are claiming Progres played an ineligible player last night. You just couldn’t make it up!—————————-If I fail the breathalyser test I can still drive until such time as the court sits to ban me. The player failed a drugs test in a previous match and is now waiting for the relevant panel to sit. Meanwhile he is perfectly entitled to continue playing. Despite TRFC fans clutching at straws and Sky TV trying to raise their hopes, there will be no reversal of the result last night.
___________________
I have to admit, I only read one post as it was a TRFC supporters site, and enough is enough, and so merely assumed that the matter was a registration issue, so much irony around
As you say, it must surely be the case that he can play on until such time as he is banned, or not.
Of course, the lying propgandists of the BBC carry on as usual with the guff that the present ‘Rangers’ will not be affected by the Supreme Court’s judgment on the grounds that it is owned by new owners.
What is the basis for that inability to acknowledge that SevcoScotland did not exist as a football club until its application to join the then SFL was accepted? That Charles Green did not do any straightforward purchase of an existing club, owner to owner,but bought the assets from Administrators and did not and could not have bought or brought RFC out of Administration (as other more honourable clubs in the same situation have managed to do)?
If he had, there would have been no need for SevcoScotland. Creditors would have been accommodated to whatever extent they had accepted in a CVA, players contracts would have continued in force ( instead of players being free to walk away because the contract with RFC had been broken), there wouldhave been no Liquidation, and there would have been no need for the bullying and blustering and the 5-way agreement and so on and on.
Of course, the new club will be affected when the titles and honours cheatingly won on the back of SDM’s tax cheating are stripped from the club it falsely claims to be.It will mean that one of their false claims will be doubly false!
I wonder if anyone can cite a precedent anywhere in the world, in any sport, that comes close to what we have witnessed here?
In terms of the length of time that the cheating went on, the number of people involved and the amount of money involved, and geographical spread of the cheating, I would suggest that this is the biggest sporting scandal in history!
Compound that with the involvement of a manager of a major banking institution and his ‘friendship’ with a Knight of the Realm, who went on to become the biggest benefactor of the huge illegal payments scheme and we have a story of quite staggering importance.
Surely, after today’s decision, the MSM and the football authorities can no longer ignore this national and international scandal which may well have wider implications for the individual players involved and the English leagues as well. Surely?
Or is it just too big to report?
RobbyP.
i don’t think EBT Ogilvie could avoid mention in your blockbuster. Just as crucial a role as Whyte, Bryson and co.
So far, Jim Spence has opined that Dundee United will NOT issue a statement over the SC decision. Aberdeen have told supporters’ groups that they will also NOT be issuing a statement.
Of course that is not to say that there won’t be discussions held in private. My initial feeling is that there is some breaking of the ranks in the MSM. Both Tom English & Hugh Keevins have implied dissatisfaction with no action.
Not tipping point of course, but a step in the right direction. We have written to the SFA asking them to publish the correspondence between them and counsel. specifically the precise wording of the advice request to counsel, and the written opinion of counsel.
Don’t know about locus, but this is most definitely JR territory here. One opinion being given a decisive role in something of this magnitude appears at best to be a haphazard approach to governance – and at worst a corrupt one.
John ClarkJuly 5, 2017 at 18:32
Technically the BBC are cautiously stating what is right the new club are not the fault of the old club and no sanctions will apply to a new club. However, heads have to roll for the incompetence, licence granting and favouritism shown and the myth sold on to innocent and mostly deluded fans that the new club is the same which enticed them to part with their money on this lie.
The titles of the old club and accumulation stopped when the CVA was rejected and 140 years history cosigned to the bin.Feel sorry for people who buy merchandise sold on a lie that its the same merchandise sold by an old club consigned to the history books with no new chapters ever to be written. Murray Metals sold them any old iron and they swallowed it hook line and sinker.
BIG PINKJULY 5, 2017 at 19:00
====================
Good luck with writing to the SFA BP. I know from personal experience that respectfully written letters, which were proven to have been delivered, were never answered.
In terms of other clubs getting involved I really can’t see why they wouldn’t issue a statement. Is it for security reasons, or do they really not care that much? In terms of my own club I would be very supportive if they announced they will not take part in this season’s Scottish Cup because of the SFA inaction. I don’t know if that’s possible but such action would be heard beyond Scotland.
Ok, time to step up to the plate.
I have sent a message to my club (DAFC) asking if the board have any opinion on the SFA statement and whether they have a view on the tax case, the role of the SFA in this matter (governance!) and the performance of the SFA in this role. And a few other points.
Clearly I have tried to word it in a passionate yet positive manner and I have provided my telephone number and the offer of a discussion if they wish to get a better understanding of my position.
If I may suggest that others do the same, at least there may be some discourse on the matter.
Fairways.
What are the chances that the SFA “sought external senior counsel opinion ” from the same guy who provided SDM with the opinion that it was all kosher ? Or did they ask more than one QC and chose the opinion that best suited their position ?
Can Scottish football have an apology please.
From 11 July 2014, Chris Jack
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/13285157.Rangers_legend_demands_apology_over_EBT_debacle/
Rangers legend demands apology over EBT debacle
DEREK JOHNSTONE today demanded an apology from some of the most high-profile names in Scottish football in the wake of Rangers’ victory over the taxman.
He said: “A lot of people in the game should hang their heads in shame. Rangers are owed a huge apology.”
HM Revenue and Customs this week lost their appeal to the ‘big tax case’ verdict that ruled Rangers were not guilty of wrong-doing during Sir David Murray’s time at the helm.
The spectre of the case cast a huge cloud over the club before a disastrous chain of events unfolded that led to Ally McCoist’s side dropping down to the Third Division two years ago.
On Wednesday, the Union of Fans hit out at SFA chief Stewart Regan, Neil Doncaster of the SPFL, Stephen Thompson, Rod Petrie, Peter Lawwell and lawyer Rod McKenzie for their actions and comments during Rangers’ troubles.
DJ told SportTimes: “They all came to the conclusion that Rangers were guilty before anything was proven.
“They all had their say and every one has been proven wrong.
“The most famous two words that were spouted was ‘sporting integrity’. Well, where is the sporting integrity in what has happened to Rangers? The club and the fans have been proven right.
“I hope the club are recompensed for everything they have missed out on in the last two years.”
Despite being cleared for the second time in the courts, the ruling is a bitter-sweet one for Rangers fans and the club as Ally McCoist’s side look to complete their journey back to the top flight this term.
But Johnstone insists the actions of some should never be forgotten after Rangers and the Light Blue legions were vindicated once again.
He said: “A lot of people in the media jumped on the bandwagon as well. It was all built on ifs, buts and maybes, and too many people lined up to stick the boot into Rangers.
“It was absolute rubbish. I think there should be many, many apologies sent to Rangers in the next few days.
“It is good that it has all come out and Rangers have been vindicated. That is fantastic.
“But there are a lot of people who will have their heads buried in the sand and will be keeping a low profile in the next few weeks.”
Is anyone else thinking the SFA statement could have been summed up as below:
UPTHEHOOPS
celtic will take part UTH but fans don’t have to,imagine trying to explain why hampdump is empty at a semi-final or a final
Interesting.
From a certain TRFC fans’ forum;
– the HMRC ‘win’ seems to be almost ignored, with only 1 thread with a mere 12 replies.
Comments are along the lines of: nothing to do with us, we’ve been punished enough, etc.
– the shocking Progres result is the only hot topic, with several threads and 500+ replies.
It would seem that the majority [?] of bears believe that the SC result today is irrelevant ?
Well to be fair Stevie, the “eyes closed, fingers in ears, lalalalalalalalala I’M NOT LISTENING” approach worked a treat for them with David Murray, Craig Whyte, Charles Green…….
So what could possibly go wrong this time?
Up the hoops
Plausible enough, but who takes the action against the SPFL? The defence to any such action is; “we are not taking any titles from you – just the other club”
No way they would risk that being discussed/resolved in court.
BIG PINKJULY 5, 2017 at 21:00
Plausible enough, but who takes the action against the SPFL? The defence to any such action is; “we are not taking any titles from you – just the other club”
No way they would risk that being discussed/resolved in court.
=============================
Wouldn’t any action be predicated on the 5WA also agreeing to bestow the history of the old club on the new one? Just speculating, but I assume lawyers were involved when it was signed.
Alex Thomson did an excellent piece from outside Hampden for Channel 4 news this evening. Before going over to Alex his female co-presenter in the studio described the RFC case as the biggest scandal in British sporting history. Yet the SFA consider that no action is required.
WHAT A DAY FOR COMPUTER TO GO DOWN
on a day like today heart felt thanks from me must go to Random Thoughts Re Scots Law by Paul McConville and TRFC.without who i would never have read so much on the goings on down ibrox way
Indeed, Cluster One, indeed it is.
Despite two root canal treatments in the last week, the last 24 hours have been wonderful, and more than made up for the dreaded dentist.
The dreaded dentist turned out to be a model professional outlining the best options and getting the work done, something the SFA and the SPFL should aspire to.
The SFA Board’s statement is utterly farcical.
As a footballing nation we have been sliding inexorably towards nonentity status for several years.
This statement is just icing on an already unpalatable cake.
We have a laughing stock of a football association.
sorry ment to post RTC instead of TRFC
http://www.celticfc.net/news/12873
Here’s your review
https://t.co/LhN6oek7zP
CFC …It’s your go….All the rest have sh*t it. !!!!
Celtic have made their statement.
Will no-one else speak?
Will the other clubs that form the Scottish Football Association accept tonight’s statement as a fair reflection of their view?
Really?
Perhaps we are witnessing the awful truth of Scottish football. What is it? Fear? Small mindedness? Acceptance of subservience? Bigotry??
We need more than Celtic to respond to the circumstances. Where are the others?
Stand free? Come on. Your fans stand free. They have stood free and spoke against the corruption. Where are you Stuart Milne? Where are you Anne Glover? Your paying customers, shareholders and fans expect better.
It’s probably worth pointing out that the SFA cannot effectively sanction a club that is in liquidation and is no longer a member of its association.
Of course, the SFA is an association of members. Only clubs and affiliated associations can be admitted as members. The Rangers Football Club PLC and The Rangers Football Club Ltd (formally Sevco Scotland Ltd) are different clubs and cannot be treated as a single entity by the SFA.
My interpretation of today’s statement is that:
1. The ex-SFA member known as Rangers FC is not capable of answering any disciplinary charges put to it. It may even be dissolved before proceedings come to a conclusion.
2. As it did not exist at the time of the offences there can be no question of charges against the current member using the same name.
3. Even if the former member was found guilty, the only realistic sanction available to a Judicial Panel would be a financial penalty that would ultimately be of very limited value.
4. The responsibility for managing SPL games and competitions lies with the SPL (now SPFL). Only the SPFL can take sporting sanctions against the original Rangers FC for its failure to follow the correct registration processes.
5. As the SPL/SPFL has already ruled on this matter, it is that organisation that must consider if the LNS decision should be reconsidered.
My own view is that the circumstances of this debacle require a completely external review of the SPL’s remit and processing of the LNS Commission.
As I have said before, LNS decided (or was told) that the commission must be adversarial (like a trial) rather than inquisitorial in nature. This meant that, without conducting its own research, the commission could accept as fact those elements of ‘evidence’ that were agreed by both sides. As the continuity myth was financially beneficial to both the SPL and Sevco Scotland, it became a ‘fact’ of the commission that Rangers FC continued despite a change in owner and operator.
He presumably did not know that the SPL articles he confidently quoted in support of the absurd notion that club and company were separate entities did not exist until 2005.
Similarly, the commission could accept the idea that the EBT arrangements were legal in all cases. Ignoring completely that there was an outstanding and agreed debt on the original DOS scheme and that a number of the later EBT payments were already found to be ‘irregular’.
With no appetite to ‘strip’ titles, the interpretation of improperly registered players being nevertheless eligible to play in official matches was not properly tested.
I could go on…
The SPL/SPFL cannot honestly revisit the LNS Commission decision unless it opens itself up to unwanted scrutiny over its remit and delivery.
I wish I could believe it will happen.
“Celtic’s position on this issue has been consistent – that this has always been a matter for the courts of law and also the Scottish football authorities, whose rules are intended to uphold sporting integrity.”
Welcome enough as this anodyne statement is, the way Celtic frustrated the ‘Res 12’ issue, which, if pursued, had every chance of nailing the SFA as having been complicit in deception to protect a cheating club before most of us knew about the arch-cheat’s tax-dodge-enabled sporting advantage, is inexcusable.
Res 12 had nothing to do with whether EBTs were used properly or not. It had everything to do with with whether a club had met the criteria for the award of a UEFA competitions licence.
And, as was conclusively proved at the time( not at all to do with today’s decision by the SC) that club did not meet the ‘social taxes’ criterion.And lies were told, that it had, and a UEFA competitions licence was unmeritedly and deceitfully awarded by the SFA.
It is a fact that Celtic knew that. There was no unresolved legal question. The SFA told an untruth, to secure a chance of European money for a cheating club.
In my view, Celtic should have listened to their shareholders, and made an issue of that cheating at the time, instead of buggering about.
Had they done so, the whole farcical ‘saga’ that saw the SFA prostituting itself to CG in the 5-way agreement [an agreement from which two of the signatories ,a club in Administration and another brand new club, end up being deemed to be one and the same!] would not have come about.
Because the cheatery, exposed, would have resulted in a change of approach by the SFA, to one which had some regard for sporting integrity.
Now, as is evident from the crass statement from the SFA, integrity in football administration is not at all a priority.
And the,frankly, mealy-mouthed statement from Celtic is as crass.
In my opinion.
John Clark
)
HirsutePursuit
Although aimed at CQN readers I think the message below is applicable here to supporters of all clubs seeking closure on what looks like justice avoidance (or evasion
Years ago when Tims made claims of referee bias we were laughed at as paranoid because we could prove nothing.
Then came Dougie Dougie where he lied to Neil Lennon and we had some sort of hook for his removal and would have got Dallas had his Pope’s e mail not got in first. The agenda also changed from bias to incompetence because whilst you could not prove bias, you could demonstrate incompetence and that at least got the debate underway on individual refs.
Today has presented another opportunity to change things but if we stick to the stripping titles agenda we will again be treated as biased.
So we have to change the agenda and not let the media and SFA form it for their own ends .
To that end Celtic’s statement is spot on. No accusations, no outcome sought just a review of the position since 2012/13 when the LNS Commission was in session.
Has anything emerged since then that makes the LNS Decision Unsound?
If not demonstrate it. If yes in what way?
How does what is found change what was decided?
What is now the correct decision based on all known facts at this time?
Two stages.
A Review of LNS and the advice the SPL took in deciding not to appeal.
Then based on that ask for a new commission/investigation with recommendations or justify letting LNS and the sanctions stand.
If Celtic are looking forward to a review on those lines and the SPFL refuse, then is pitchfork time.
Lets not play their game and play ours.
I have not posted for quite some time. In fact, I have become quite despondent at how long things were taking to happen. This goes back a long way.
I remember walking back to the car from Celtic Park after a 2-0 win against Rangers in 2001 and saying to my pal, and driver, “that’s it, the wheels have surely come off now” (referring to Rangers, not the car). But they always seemed to find a way out – little did I know at that time that their ‘way out’ involved illegal payments to players and using other people’s money (eventually ours) to bankroll the operation. I was so sure, “that that was it for Rangers” – that they had spent so much on the likes of Flo that they could not possibly sustain the competition with Celtic. They had gambled big and lost. How naive! Little did I suspect that, with the collusion of the football authorities, Rangers would continue to make lavish signings and be a thorn in the side of every team in Scotland.
I waited 11 long years to watch with baited breath as they were plunged into administration and then liquidation. I read Phil and Paul in the build up and aftermath. I applauded the clubs in Scotland’s stance that, having been cheated once, they would not have the next iteration of Rangers walk all over them. They would have to start (not start again) in the bottom tier. I read TRTC and then this site, Phil and latterly JohnJames (I know) and could not believe that the newco would make it past the their first year. However, constantly topped up by loans they made it to the top-tier (at the second time of asking). When King took over, I really thought the wheels would come off pretty quickly for every site proclaimed it so.
When the TOP ruled against King, I thought that was it, we were getting close but they still seemed to find a way.
The result the other night was a disgrace. The disgrace is that Rangers were allowed to play this match without producing any accounts which show they would be able to fulfil fixtures (had they proceeded) or that they were not just using the competition to enable them to break-even. Hearts and Partic Thistle would both have faired far better than the team Caixinha fielded. I don’t believe this game was, in anyway, a reflection of the standard of other Scottish teams. In fact, the side that played out of Ibrox last season would have faired better. Why was Pedro allowed to field this team of misfits in a European competition? Why was a blind eye turned to the financial situation which left some of his best players unable to take to the field because they were ‘looking for a new club’.
This is the scandal which has backfired on Scottish football ‘governors’. So much for Caixinha’s team doing it for Scotland – 1 coefficient point gained! Please don’t expect us to thank you.
And now we have a final ruling on the cheating years but the SFA are still in the grace and favour business when it comes to a team playing out of Ibrox.
I will not be so naive as to think the wheels have finally come off the Ibrox wagon – maybe (if other teams do not follow Celtic’s lead) it will be Scottish football that goes down the pan!
Football businesses survive only in monetary terms and fans have the monetary power to force change. We are fans of football not slaves of football we may show loyalty and devotion but we have morales and integrity, sport is not a sport if unethical practices are permitted to the advantage of one.
Call me cynical but Celtiic’s statement followed almost immediately by the SFA statement smacks of collusion. A lot of Celtic fans are just happy the Club made a statement. The SFA say ” nothing to see here, let’s all move on”, and Celtic say “we tried”. and as long are Celtic are winning most fans will accept it, after all they’ve accepted everything else since Sevco started in Division 3
That’s a perfectly valid interpretation TUD. It just galls me that if that is the case why not have another 40 clubs do the same. Why the bizarre indifference?
I was wandering where Regan And Doncaster in 2012 actually envisaged ‘Rangers’ being at this juncture. Did they believe it would be a cash rich club, run by a credible board, winning the title more often than not? Especially more often than Celtic, which is the happiest ‘status quo’ known in Scotland. Instead it is a club relying on handouts to survive, with a board containing three directors who were part of a previous disgraced entity ruled to have cheated the public purse of tens of millions in tax. The much vaunted ‘return’ to European football has fallen by the wayside in spectacular style. Should they even have been given a licence in the first place?
Meanwhile Regan has already played his cards, and laid on the table a sneering contempt for every other group of fans and clubs in Scotland. We await to see if Doncaster does the same, but he has already done enough to earn our mistrust. If I owned a Scottish Football Club, I wouldn’t let either of these two men darken the door.
Precisely. The club (don’t start) fall on their sword for cheating or they fall on theirs for (I’m being genererous) incompetence. This notion, apparently supported by the majority of clubs where neither happens and all the bad things magically go away has to stop.
as regards where they thought the club (I warned you) would be: on the basis they didn’t seriously believe the Green sales patter it was always my view that the goal was get them back to the top league. By fair means or foul, at horrendous self funded cost if needs be, and then at some point to sell the OF package either to England or a Euro reshuffle. This would probably, ideally, involve a colt set up to keep the Scottish scene relevant in their eyes.
The Board of the SFA:
Alan McRae, President
Stewart Regan, Chief Executive
Rod Petrie, Vice-President
Ralph Topping (SPFL)
Michael Mulraney (SPFL)
Tom Johnston (Scottish Junior FA)
independent non-executive directors, Barrie Jackson and Gary Hughes.
The 2016/17 SPFL Board:
Neil Doncaster (CEO)
Ralph Topping (Chairman)
Karyn McCluskey (non-executive)
Peter Lawwell (Celtic)
Ann Budge (Heart of Midlothian)
Ian Maxwell (Partick Thistle)
Leeann Dempster (Hibernian)
Eric Drysdale (Raith Rovers)
Ken Ferguson (Brechin City).
Has anyone else noted what it was that the SFA left out of their statement yesterday, something that should have been the first thing on their mind as soon as the appeal decision was read out?
There was not one word, not one single word, condemning Rangers and David Murray – and his board – for their actions. No mention of ‘bringing the game into disrepute’, just a mealy mouthed excuse for their own inaction.
If the actions of an individual player, such as Ian Black, can be (rightfully) considered to have ‘brought our game into disrepute’, for a few dishonourable bets, how on earth are these words not amongst the first words out of Regan’s mouth to describe Rangers’ actions that resulted in court proceedings lasting some five years, and ending with the confirmation that that club did, undeniably, cheat the public purse of tens of millions of pounds?
Instead of trying to distance the disgraceful actions of one dead club from the rest of Scottish football, the SFA has decided that the most important thing for them to do is to ‘excuse’ themselves from acting in an honourable and dignified manner!
The people who run Scottish football really are blinded to whatever wrongs were inflicted on our game by Rangers, to the detriment of all other clubs, and to the game, itself!
Whatever was behind the ‘robust’ advice given by the SFA’s counsel, however valid it may or may not be, there can be no excuse for this tacit acceptance by the game’s governors of what Rangers and Murray did, with no acknowledgement, at the very least, of how heinous an act it was! They should also be apologising to the wider community for their own failure to police their own registration process properly, allowing the tax avoidance scheme to be instigated in the first place.
Ach these mobile phones are a terrible way to contribute to the blog. Wrote previous post with 2% battery left and no time to check details.
So I am an awful eejit and wrote Glover instead of Budge. I’m not sure what prof Glover’s football allegiances might be, if any, but as a highly eminent biologist I hope she has a good sense of fair play.
In this matter however I think the views of Ann Budge are of great interest and I hope she will share them with the paying public and with her supporters who have done so much to revitalise their club.
I’m off to bang my head off a wall in the hope of gaining some sense. As a Scottish football fan it seems it was ever thus…
ALLYJAMBOJULY 6, 2017 at 09:26
AJ – took the words out of my mouth.
IIRC Craig Whyte, an innocent man, was fined and banned sine die for what could easily be described as an administrative error in from filling re his directorship status.
Yet Murray and a range of cohorts from Ibrox have now been confirmed as operating an illegal tax dodge on an unprecedented scale in British sport but all that has happened is a fine of circa £3k per registration.
Every piece of evidence in the public domain points to Rangers trying to hide and withhold relevant documentation from both Tax and Footballing authorities. Honest and true operators do not act in this fashion.
Which is why it gets up my nose when folk like Hamilton chairman Les Gray bleats on the radio about us all needing Rangers, despite his own club toiling away and working wonders on peanuts.
Why exactly do we need to bow down to this embarrasing of a football c!ub (old and new)
It is hard to believe that the SFA can take such a hands off approach.
While Celtic’s statement is OK as a holding pattern I hope more will come from them and others, including our Ms Budge.
While nothing would surprise me I can’t see how this can keep being swept under the carpet.
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/07/06/rangers-ramsays-back-in-town/
Alex Thomson reported this correctly last night. Not one of the the smsm in Scotland would state what Alex said. Any where else in Europe if a club had used the same tax avoidance method over that period of time I am sure there would be massive coverage of this. Imagine Man Utd where using this avoidance scheme and were found guilty by the Supreme Court, how do you think this would be reported. This level of cheating as someone else stated maybe to big for sport in Scotland to handle. This needs to be dealt outwith our country as I have no trust in our Governing bodies in our game. The coverage (or lack of it ) is embarrassing. David Murray and Alex McCleish stated openly that this scheme made it possible for them to get players they good not otherwise afford. SC decides that this was earnings and not loans so those players were basically cheating the tax man and therefore cheating our sport. Basically guilt being admitted in the past from the mouths of David Murray and Mr McCleish. In my words “We did it we had to do it otherwise we could not compete with Celtic”.
Surely prove enough for any journalist to at least challenge this seriously. This decision is only one day old but already we can all see how the smsm, SFA and no doubt SPFL want to deal (or not deal) with this scandal. I do not know of a bigger sporting level of cheating than here with the club that used to be RFC. Players with side letter (concealing contracts basically) not paying tax on earnings declared by SC yesterday. This surely means players not registered correctly. Players if not registered correctly are breaching football rules not only for their club domestically, but in Europe and also Internationally if they represent their country in any tournament. Am I wrong in my assumptions, or where they registered correctly? This corruption could only be kept in this country only. We all pay taxes which help our services including the Armed Forces, that club failed to pay all their taxes and they made that decision to do so. So really members of RFC as mentioned above can admit guilt basically and SC confirms this by law but nobody again wants to cover this in a truthful way. Are we back to fear or favour.
This cannot be left to the smsm to say it is a OF issue as that is what they do. More clubs need to make a statement or approach this verdict in some way as this is a Scottish Football issue which has effected us all.
Well as a Rangers supporter,I feel I will be as rare on this site as a neutral Old Firm fan but I wanted to put my views across regardless.
I don’t feel that Rangers will be stripped of titles and nor do I believe they should be, and I will argue my view here.
Rangers from 2001 to 2010 operated a tax avoidance scheme in an effort of reducing tax due to the exchequer. Of that there can be no argument. The EBT scheme was a loophole that was open at the time and operated by hundreds of big businesses including football clubs. The key part of this is that the loophole was closed and categorised as ‘tax avoidance’ – not the criminal version tax evasion. Like any tax avoidance schemes, Rangers were asked to pay back the money due along with the penalties. Rangers were never, at any time, accused of operating an illegal tax evasion scheme and if they had been, this would be a criminal proceedings and not a civil one.
Unfortunately due to years of reckless spending by our previous chairman, the previous company went into liquidation owing millions to creditors, including this huge tax bill. The BTC just added to this debt, but the punishment for liquidation has already well and truly fitted the crime, in so much as we were demoted to the Third Division, lost our entire first team for nothing, suffered a huge embarrassment and black mark in our history, and will likely have not been competitive for 10 years. However, I cannot think of a single example in history where a club has had trophies stripped for owing a debt?
The argument over whether the players were eligible has already been answered by the previous enquiry, and the SFA were aware of these EBT payments. Whether they should have accepted it at the time or not is a different argument, but Rangers can’t do anymore than submit the accounts, draw attention to them, and expect the governing body to inform them if they are wrong. There was nothing in the rules that stated EBTs were ineligible to be registered with the SFA, and the only contentious question over the side letters was answered by LNS and nothing in the judgment yesterday changes this.
The other argument I hear all the time is Rangers won the titles through ‘financial doping’, and I think of all this would be the most difficult to prove. Example 1: a football club pay their staff through a dodgy tax scheme or offshore accounts. Is this financial doping?Example 2: a chairman uses dirty money to pump into his football club to buy players. Is this financial doping?Example 3: a club goes into serious debts it can never hope to repay in order to buy players. Is this financial doping?Example 4: a club uses money granted by the government to buy players. Is this financial doping?
As you can see. If you start a precedent here with Rangers, where do you stop? There is no way anyone can say that the players would not have come to Ibrox were or not for the EBTs. In the days before Lloyds took over HBOS, Murray was running up huge debts every year. Is anyone going to say he wouldn’t have added an extra approx £1.5m a year?
In summary, EBTs whilst found to be taxable payments, are not illegal. Rangers advised the governing body that they were using them so the players were not ineligible. The club were asked to pay back the tax and couldn’t afford too – leaving the company liquidated and the club heavily punished. I really can’t see what grounds exist for further punishment
ALLYJAMBO
JULY 6, 2017 at 09:26
Whatever was behind the ‘robust’ advice given by the SFA’s counsel, however valid it may or may not be, there can be no excuse for this tacit acceptance by the game’s governors of what Rangers and Murray did, with no acknowledgement, at the very least, of how heinous an act it was! They should also be apologising to the wider community for their own failure to police their own registration process properly, allowing the tax avoidance scheme to be instigated in the first place.
———————————————–
I referred, at 1702 yesterday, to the 5WA.
Whoever the SFA’s senior counsel was, he/she would have been made aware that there was a signed, binding agreement not to proceed with further disciplinary action, whatever the result of the BTC.
It appears that we are now hoping for the SPL(as was)/SPFL to move on registration irregularities &, potentially, throw some of their SFA pals under the bus.
I’m sorry to write that I don’t see that happening unless a majority of the 41 clubs actually demonstrate that they want that course of action & I can’t foresee that amount of solidarity occurring.
JJ
Yes, although my recollection is that the indemnity was contained in the infamous side letter revealed by Charlotte and, hazy memory again, it was only the one indemnity I think from Sevco to the SFA that was revealed – that there was a logical counter indemnity granted was speculation on my part).
Now I’d be very inquisitive to know why such a side agreement would be required. Either it would be contained within the 5WA that was presumably endorsed by the full board, or it wouldn’t be there at all, one of a less cynical persuasion than I might think.
With apologies to Cruise/Kidman was somebody writing indemnities that their ‘body’ shouldn’t have been delivering?
‘I have been advised by my counsel to say nothing’! Who said that?
Every person with something to hide when questioned by the police.
Lawyers tend to advise their clients to say nothing when they (their clients) have something to hide. The SFA, who felt they had to say something about their position after the news that the Rangers’ appeal had been dismissed, said nothing of why they were taking their position of inaction, other than they had been advised not to take action.
Clearly, if they had nothing to hide, their statement would have included exactly why they are unable to revisit the LNS inquiry.
Yesterday it was irreversibly confirmed that Rangers had illegally paid players without deducting tax and NIC. What possible legal impediment could exist that might prevent the governing body from instigating a review of the, now known to be flawed, LNS inquiry? If one does exist, what possible legal impediment exists that prevents the SFA from publishing what it is that stops them from instigating a fresh inquiry, now armed with this overpowering evidence of wrongdoing?
Broadly speaking, there can only be two possible answers:
1) They have been advised by their counsel that, should the enquiry be re-opened, there will be only one possible outcome – guilty of gross cheating, with the only possible outcome (not punishment, not even penalty, but the just outcome) of strip the titles, which might include bans from football for all the club’s directors involved during the EBT period.
2) Their counsel advises that there could be huge problems for members and/or employees of the SFA for their part in the whole affair, from the use of the EBTs, to the registration of the players’ contracts, to cover-ups and to the integrity of the LNS inquiry itself.
It could, of course, be both, with possibility number 2) coming into play, ie legal problems for the SFA, as a result of the inevitable outcome of a proper and just inquiry. That is not a justifiable reason for not revisiting LNS. It would, in fact, be the result of the dishonest acts of men charged with ensuring the honesty and integrity of our game, and would not be a problem if those men have always acted within the laws of the land and of our sport.
So far, it seems only Celtic is prepared to issue any kind of statement about the SC (unanimous, unequivocal and irreversible) decision.
That statement is at best frustrating, declaring merely that Celtic is ‘sure’ our football authorities will want to review the LNS commission and is ‘awaiting’ the outcome of that review.
So far, one half of our football authorities has already dinged that aspiration.
The other half? We’ll need to wait and see; noting that Ralph Topping serves on both Boards.
I fail to see how Celtic can feel ‘sure’ on this. Equally, Celtic gives no hint or clue about anything the club is doing to make sure that a review is actually carried out.
I think it would only take one more club to have the b*lls to make a statement asking for a review [of LNS] for yet more to join the fray.
Come on, you know it’s the right thing to do.
What are you waiting for … ?
JINGSO.JIMSIEJULY 6, 2017 at 11:10
ALLYJAMBO
JULY 6, 2017 at 09:26 Whatever was behind the ‘robust’ advice given by the SFA’s counsel, however valid it may or may not be, there can be no excuse for this tacit acceptance by the game’s governors of what Rangers and Murray did, with no acknowledgement, at the very least, of how heinous an act it was! They should also be apologising to the wider community for their own failure to police their own registration process properly, allowing the tax avoidance scheme to be instigated in the first place.———————————————–
I referred, at 1702 yesterday, to the 5WA.
Whoever the SFA’s senior counsel was, he/she would have been made aware that there was a signed, binding agreement not to proceed with further disciplinary action, whatever the result of the BTC.
It appears that we are now hoping for the SPL(as was)/SPFL to move on registration irregularities &, potentially, throw some of their SFA pals under the bus.
I’m sorry to write that I don’t see that happening unless a majority of the 41 clubs actually demonstrate that they want that course of action & I can’t foresee that amount of solidarity occurring.
_____________
I, like you, suspect the 5Way Agreement will have been involved in the counsel’s advice, a secret agreement, kept secret because of it’s craven nature, and as such, should be the subject of an investigation, itself. Protecting those involved with such documents should not be a factor in any decision to be made in the matter at hand, though will, of course, be the main motivation for Regan and his cohorts.
In the post I’ve just made previously, the 5WA would be included in ‘reason 2)’, coming into play as a result of a just outcome of a fresh inquiry. I’d suggest that, in the event a legal challenge was mounted against the SFA, backed by the 5WA, that the 5WA, itself, would be found to be flawed, with Green having signed it on behalf of two parties, one, RFC, his legal right to do so being open to question (he was not a director of that club) and there also being a question mark over the validity of Sevco (Scotland)’s right to Rangers’s assets! There is another can of worms within the 5WA that no party to it wants opened, I am sure, and there is only one member club of the SFA likely to be harmed by that can of worms spilling it’s contents – and it’s not the dead one!
Further thoughts on that SFA statement.
I find it extremely noteworthy that the SFA’s counsel did not advise that, in their robust opinion, there was no case to answer!
Surely if titles are stripped then Sevco will be due compensation?
After all they bought the titles from RFC2012 according to Charles Green.
Sometimes you have to look back a little to remember what people were asked and what they said at the time.
On March 29th 2012 Alex Thompson interviewed Stewart Regan
Quite a long piece at 12 mins 50.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxPZ5ExeAqY
But a worthwhile record of why SR made his decisions (and much of his bedrock has been blown away since then)
Some of the content I noted down includes these 8 topics but there is more
1 There is nothing wrong with Rangers use of EBTS at the moment
2 You should ask that question to the SPL – (Alex replies – They told me to ask you)
3 We are in the process of undertaking an independent inquiry with Lord Nimmo Smith
4 We have a self declaration policy for clubs vis a vis the suitability of directors
5 The “alleged years” of financial mismanagement at the club run by SDM before he sold it
6 There are a number of learnings
7 EBTs are legal if implemented correctly
8 Rangers were in discussion with HMRC and no tax had crystallised
Over 5 years on and this interview now frames and suggests so many questions for Mr Regan, The SFA and all their anonymous Queen’s Councillors.
Make a coffee and watch him under the cosh.
It would be great if Alex could ask the same questions again
Rangers fan on here with a point of view he has expressed respectfully. I hope he is engaged commensurately.
DR page 4 column 2 today.
“Critics say it gave them a massive advantage over rival clubs by enabling them to sign players they wouldn’t otherwise have been able to afford.”
Well they should know, as per above.
ALLYJAMBOJULY 6, 2017 at 12:23
It’s impossible to be conclusive Ally, but if I recall correctly, it was Duff & Phelps who signed on behalf of Rangers(I.L.)
Hi Folks,
A voice from the wilderness! I seem to remember at the start of the crisis the First Minister Alex Salmond made, what was to be his only comment on Rangers, “That He would do everything in his power to help them”!
Since way back then the, Scottish Government and the Opposition Parties have rarely, if ever commented on the situation.
I note that Sir David Murray was a guest along with other millionaires to a dinner held by current First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, back in March of this year.
The First Minister is usually not shy at tackling companies who cheat at paying there Taxes. Why no comment about this subject? The sums of money involved, and the cheating of our National Game, has found Rangers and the owner and members of the Boards, Players, Coaching Staff, and the one time Chairman of the SFA GUILTY of wrongdoing?
Will the First Minister condemn this appalling cheating, and stealing of Taxes, and do Her Day Job of running our country, in a fair minded manner, and ensuring that all the help needed by, HMRC, to collect, the money owed, and help out NHS, Schools etc., the list is endless!
Politicians normally are falling over themselves to get on TV, when scandals like this happen!
Or, are they scared? Or, maybe there hands are on the Five-Way Agreement? It is 2017, and our Government and Media are behaving like we are in the Dark Ages! Time for Action!