Comment on Two wrongs and a right by Auldheid.
Perhaps of interest to your club in particular.
It explains why Scottish football does not introduce a domestic version of FFP like the English Championship has.
At least one club would be operating under sanctions crippling to their hopes or not being allowed to operate at all
As long as accommodating that one club is a key policy matter our game will never enjoy good financial health.
I’m not sure what Hibs position is financially but if they were to meet requirements of similar nominal FFP rules and lost promotion to TRFC, if I were Hibs I’d be demanding fair play.
Common governance sense like gravity bends around the black hole that TRFC has been allowed to become.
Domestic FFP has no chance of being introduced in Scotland since it would only introduce another set of rules that the game would have to ignore to keep one club in it whereas applying such rules would in the long term return that club to financial health.
Auldheid Also Commented
Two wrongs and a right
Some interesting comments on smaller clubs, smaller/bigger leagues but what is responsible for making the decisions but the same mind set which caused the need for reform in the first place?
“Problems cannot be solved with the same mind set that created them.”
If ever there was proof Albert knew his stuff it is the way Scottish football has been run for years.
What is required is external input but with the authority to bring about any recommendations made. Henry McLeish had a go but his argument for a smaller league probably reflected the thinking of the game at the time and “consultants” hired by an organisation usually produce what they think would be acceptable to the organisation hiring them, so the thinking that causes the problem is still involved in the solving of it.
What would be interesting would be a truly independent review of Scottish football involving fans (which means setting up a mechanism that includes fans in the consideration process) and an undertaking by clubs and their representative governing organisations that they will surrender to the will of the wider/greater good.
Some rainbow not blue sky thinking is now needed as blue and Sky seem to have gone hand in hand in bringing us to the state the game finds itself.
Let’s have a proper well thought out independent investigation (perhaps Govt funded?) to first identify the problems in order to identify possible solutions and come up with solutions that take the long term good of Scottish football into account.
If ever there was a case to show how badly Scottish football has been served by current SFA/SP(F)L governance arrangements it is the contribution they made to the fate of RFC which the trials should bring out this year, assuming of course the media send any reporters to court.
Two wrongs and a right
vansen 14th January 2016 at 5:42 pm # Re: StevieBC
It is an interesting concept, sporting integrity. The fact that it is laughed at and ridiculed by media and some fans says it all.
Personally i like the idea that the club i follow, pay hard earned money on, support spiritually and financially, is competing against honest competitors. I like the honesty of competition. I like to know that an achievement earned is earned the right way.
However, i sense that the people running out game view it as a transient notion, something inconvenient that can be put aside. Certainly our media do, and judging by the views of some Rangers fans over the last few years, they do too. Win at all costs seems to be the mantra.
Sporting integrity should be a priority, fans need to know the game is honest and not corrupted. I remain positive that the forthcoming criminal trials will prove a watershed and the administrators of our game will be exposed and forced to resign. We will hopefully embark on a new era.
Unfortunately, sadly, if nothing changes, if the notion of integrity is alien and to be laughed at, then the game, our game, is beyond hope.
But i remain positive
Having gone through the indictments there are 4 which link either directly or indirectly to the wee tax case or the (mis) commissioning of LNS.
What will be interesting is if the SFA’s role in either escapes attention and why.
Like you I’m hopeful it will not in the interests of justice being seen to be done.
As regards JJs views on removing titles if common sense prevails in the appeal, the decision (to borrow from the excellent Aberdeen fans’ banner) will not be taken by Chairmen via SFA/SPFL. It will be taken by supporters either this ST renewal round or next. The principles involved will not deteriorate with time.
Two wrongs and a right
Much of this speculation about bills and so surviving to the end of the season could be put to rest if The SFA and SPFL agreed that a club not meeting a level of Club Licensing appropriate to their place in the SPFL as determined by the division they occupy or are going to occupy, would in fact have their SFA membership suspended and with it the right to play until such times as they reached that appropriate level
if not suspended, set a number of specified conditions to be met within a time frame after which a review would take place to determine if appropriate level reached and licence granted. Indeed if certain conditions are not met then as long as there evidence of moving in the right direction is provided why not just deduct a set number of points for each of the conditions not realised?
This would give the club an incentive to get its finances in order and other clubs who are meeting the criteria an assurance they are not subject to Financial Unfair Play. (Hibee and Falkirk fans to note)
Rather than wait for an insolvency event to trigger a points deduction rule that is there to deter clubs living beyond their means to win titles or promotion, the time to do that scrutiny is in the annual licencing rounds in the spring before the new season. Bolt the door before the horse bolts.
As it stands under Appendix Three of the SPFL Procedures
Financial Disclosure Requirements
1. Clubs entitled for the time being eligible to participate in the Premiership and the Championship are required to comply with Criteria (a)(i) 8.4, 8.11 and 8.12 to the Gold or Silver Standard in Part 2 – National Club Licensing, Section 8 – Legal, Admin, Finance and Codes of Practice Criteria; and (ii) UEFA Ref. Arts. 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 and verification where applicable 52 in Part 3 – UEFA Club Licensing, Section 5 – The UEFA Club Licensing Criteria of the Scottish FA National Club Licensing Manual; and (b) Clubs entitled for the time being eligible to participate in any other Division and Candidate Clubs are required to comply with Criteria (i) 8.4, 8.11 and 8.12 to the Entry Level Standard in Part 2 – National Club Licensing, Section 8 – Legal, Admin, Finance and Codes of Practice Criteria for Entry Level Clubs in The Scottish Football Association National Club Licensing Manual; (all “the Criteria”), all as from time to time amended, varied or supplemented by the Scottish FA, as if the requirements of the Criteria applied to provision of the copies, documentation, and information set out in the Criteria required to be made out and satisfied to the Company on the same basis and to the same extent as the Criteria require to be made out and satisfied to the Scottish FA.
TRFC with an Entry Level Licence would not qualify to play in the Premier next season although Hearts were (and perhaps still are) in the same position.
I’m not suggesting TRFC should be treated any differently than Hearts, but I think the football supporting public should know on what basis Hearts were granted a licence and if any conditions were set or commitments given that the required Silver or Gold standard would be met.
The same would apply to TRFC. Its called transparency
The SFA Licencing Rules are at
Para 2.2 states the powers of Licensing Committee (no copy paste of para allowed so read at the link)
Para 2.3 states The Appellate Tribunal (2.3) power to grant, suspend, refuse to grant or withdraw a club licence and determine at what level a licence is awarded.
Para 3.7 states what the LC can do in terms of determining which of the above applies including the ability to set conditions. This is where points deductions should kick in. It need not be ten but should reflect any advantage a club might have gained as a result of being slow to meet the conditions.
For info the relevant Finance Criteria quoted in the SPFL Appendix 8.11 and 8.12 are at pages 12 and 13 at the link where it states Championship clubs have until 30 April 2016 to supply the relevant documents. This gives SFA time to set the level and the SPFL to explain exceptions to Appendix 3 and any conditions applied to a licence.
Its not as if the rules and power to influence clubs spending don’t exist. What clearly does not exist is the will to use them as they stand and the suggested incremental deduction of points is surely a better approach than waiting for that horse to bolt, providing a level of transparency to all supporters giving them confidence in the fairness of the games they pay to watch?
If, as I suspect, Licensing rules are not being observed because of the financial mess that some Scottish clubs not just TRFC are still in, then the SFA and SPFL should be honest enough to come out and say that, but with a timetable by which time revised stricter but more sensible club licensing will be adopted.
Recent Comments by Auldheid
Here we go again
Thanks for the clarification.
I can see how the Brechin reason and Romanov reason got conflated back then so we can drop Romanov from the underlying issue to look at which is:
What was the argument in support of the change in SPL rules introducing owner and operator and if it was solely to deal with a potential problem in respect of Brechin having no “owner” of a share, how did that rule change in 2005 transform Rangers from being an incorporated single Public Limited Liability Company (PLC) earning its revenue from football to a Public Limited Liability Company (PLC) that overnight owned a club earning the same income from the same source?
In terms of conforming with UEFA FFP before 2012 was it Rangers FC PLC that applied for a UEFA Licence or Rangers FC as a stand alone club or was it Rangers PLC whom Rangers Football Club had a written contract with to be their operators? The application template suggests it was Rangers Football Club only.
Post 2012 if its not the current club (Rangers FC Ltd) applying for a UEFA licence but the football Company (Rangers International Football Club PLC) they have a written contract with and the football company’s (RIFC) main source of revenue is from the club activities, then how can a Company go bust unless the club ceases to be able to provide that revenue?
Now had UEFA seen the 5 Way Agreement there would be the satisfaction of knowing they were OK with it.
As it stands UEFA did what their rules told them to do, Waited 3 years to allow the club that had undergone a terminal change in its legal structure to satisfy UEFA requirements in respect of historical membership of the SFA before being eligible to apply to play in UEFA competitions in circumstances that were not to the detriment of the integrity of those competitions.
After 3 years, whichever club ie legal entity that applied for a UEFA Licence, it was not the Rangers Football Club (PLC) that last applied in 2012 (which was rejected because they had no audited accounts and the wee tax bill of 2011 was admitted , unlike March 2011 when described as a potential liability, as a payable that as the world and its wean knew in 2012 was outstanding.)
Here we go again
HirsutePursuit 13th March 2021 At 21:31
3 0 Rate This
On the subject of a franchise…
At the very least the possibility that the 5 Way Agreement has turned Scottish Football into a franchise should be explored by UEFA just in case.
On McDonalds I remember reading McDonalds Behind The Arches many years ago and one of the fascinating things to come out is that their wealth was not based on burgers but on the land and buildings owned . Kind of fits your point to your family member.
Here we go again
On exclusions zones because supporters might turn up for invented reasons I think recognition of “knuckleheadessness ” as an all pervading human condition is necessary.
I think it is an American term.
I quite like it, kind of onomatopoeic quality to it. Not so much sounds like but looks like.
Anyhoo it is a denial of reality that the support of Celtic and “Rangers” do not have their share of knuckleheads and they recognise each other.
The knuckle in the head stops the consequences of the emotions reaching the brain.
It’s a condition that most grow out of but it’s also one that we grow into before we grow out of it. A human condition.
So best not deny it and deal with it free from judgment of which support has the most knuckleheads or which kind of knucklehead is worse than the other.
Just say that anyone turning up at CP will be taken as evidence of knuckleheadedness to become huckleheads into a police van.
Set a perimeter around the ground and any one approaching without valid reason to do so will be huckled.
HuckleberryTim or HuckleberryHun.
Here we go again
Upthehoops 13th March 2021 At 18:45
0 0 Rate This
Auldheid 13th March 2021 At 16:15
It is the huge incentive that CL money provides that in my opinion is the creator of an incentive to cheat to get at it, PARTICULARLY if the ability repay the debt depends on getting the CL money.
Absolutely agree with that. Financial Fair Play in Scotland post 2012 would have been a good move, although the new Rangers would have suffered more than anyone because of it in my view.
And there you have it. Canny have rules that hinder Rangers business model .
If the 5 Way created a franchise like McDonalds but selling hateburgers then sectarianism is only the sauce that goes on the otherwise tasteless moneyburger to make it tasty.
Here we go again
Thanks for your response useful as ever.
If the intent was to create a franchise is that not questionable of itself?
If it wasnt then SPFL misused it.
Either way the SPL appear het, it’s just from when?