Whose assets are they anyway?


Ballyargus OBB was shorthand for the Offensive Behavior at Football Bill …

Comment on Whose assets are they anyway? by Auldheid.


OBB was shorthand for the Offensive Behavior at Football Bill (somebody please look up correct title Im on my second large bacardi) which is a testimony to legislative stupidity and is driving support away from football by criminalising  supporters for behaviour a copper is offended by.

Auldheid Also Commented

Whose assets are they anyway?
Easy Jambo 6.13

I posted the following on CQN this afternoon unaware Celtic had made  a pre AGM statement.

I’m reposting as I think it worth putting the situation in a proper context and the statement this afternoon by Celtic does not cut across it but sets out a way forward if no appeal made after the AGM  where I agree with you that Celtic will refer to this afternoon’s statement.
However there is the matter of Res12 to address to and the following attempts to encompass that.
From CQN 
OK folks let’s start thinking.
Celtic are unlikely to say anything related to LNS until the date for appeal has passed except perhaps to say they have a position that they will state if no appeal is made.

That’s not hiding anything , it’s just that they would be stupid demanding an LNS retrial if one of the substantial grounds for doing so were later reversed. Pretty self evident.
If no appeal then I doubt they will ask for title stripping to appear anywhere in any statement and they will ask for an independent enquiry.
Now given that Celtic have a good grasp of the Res12 issues, if I were them I would want that to be a part of any enquiry on the grounds that information about already illegal ebts was kept from SPL lawyers thus comprimising the Terms of Refence for the LNS Commission AND the wee tax bill that appears on the face of all evidence to have been overdue at 30 June 2011 came as a direct consequence of HMRC providing evidence to RFC of side letters relating to the DOS ebts that should also have been given to SPL lawyers.
That would provide reason to have a UEFA investigation of it all or a UEFA representative on the investigating panel.
After such an Investigation the findings should be made public with reference to the evidence and with conclusions whether an extreme case of deception had occurred or not.
I’d give that report a month to settle in before deciding how best to close the issue including justice if the findings show it is required and at that point make recommendations for institutional reform of the SFA to prevent anything like this ever happening again.
If we make this just about stripping titles we will lose the war even if we win the titles battle.

– See more at: http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/spending-like-the-borgias-time-to-move-on-conspiracy-to-subvert-the-rules-we-have-a-problem/comment-page-6/#comment-2718154

Whose assets are they anyway?
Scatman’s Gongs 11th November 2015 at 6:13 pm # As has been discussed many times before, the key findings of LNS re player eligibility were informed by the Commissions interpretation of SPL Rule D1.13, which states: A Club must, as a condition of Registration and for a Player to be eligible to Play in Official Matches, deliver the executed originals of all Contracts of Service and amendments and/or extensions to Contracts of Service and all other agreements providing for payment, other than for reimbursement of expenses actually incurred, between that Club and Player, to the Secretary [of the SPL], within fourteen days of such Contract of Service or other agreement being entered into, amended and/or, as the case may be, extended. On one reading Rule D1.13 would be read as meaning that all agreementsproviding for paymentbetween that Club and Player must be delivered to the Secretary [of the SPL] within 14 days of the agreement being entered into (1) as a condition of registration and (2) for a Player to be eligible to Play in Official Matches. This was the SPLs understanding going in to the LNS Commission. The LNS Commission concluded at paragraph 82 of its decision that the side-letters constituted agreements providing for paymentbetween that Club and Player within the meaning of SPL Rule D1.13. An open and shut case, you might think. Then entered Alexander Bryson, Head of Registrations at the SFA”, who [according to LNS at paragraph 86 of the LNS decision] described the registration process. During the course of his evidence he explained that, once a player had been registered with the SFA, he remained registered unless and until his registration was revoked. Accordingly, even if there had been a breach of the SFA registration procedures, such as a breach of SFA Article 12.3, the registration of a player was not treated as being invalid from the outset, and stood unless and until it was revoked. This led Mr McKenzie, for the SPL, to accept [at paragraph 87] that there was scope for a different construction of the rule, to the effect that, as the lodging of the document in question was a condition of registration, the registration of the player would be liable to revocation, with the consequence that the player would thereafter become ineligible to play. He accepted that no provision of the Rules enabled the Board of the SPL retrospectively to terminate the registration of the player. It became apparent from his submissions that Mr McKenzie was not pressing for a finding that Issue 3(c), together with the concluding words of Issue 3(b), had been proved. Based on this, LNS drew the following conclusions (at paragraphs 88 and 89): – “There is every reason why the rules of the SFA and the SPL relating to registration should be construed and applied consistently with each other. Mr Brysons evidence about the position of the SFA in this regard was clear. In our view, the Rules of the SPL, which admit of a construction consistent with those of the SFA, should be given that construction. All parties concerned clubs, players and football authorities should be able to proceed on the faith of an official register. This means that a players registration should generally be treated as standing unless and until revoked. There may be extreme cases in which there is such a fundamental defect that the registration of a player must be treated as having been invalid from the outset. But in the kind of situation that we are dealing with here we are satisfied that the registration of the Specified Players with the SPL was valid from the outset, and accordingly that they were eligible to play in official matches. There was therefore no breach of SPL Rule D1.11. For these reasons we are not satisfied that any breach of the Rules has been established in terms of Issue 3(c), taken in conjunction with the concluding words of Issue 3(b) quoted above. This is an important finding, as it means that there was no instance shown of Rangers FC fielding an ineligible player.”What would seem to be a logical interpretation of Rule D1.13 was, therefore, set aside in favour of an interpretation which matched the SFAs rules re player registration and eligibility as described by Sandy Bryson. So what are the SFA registration rules which lie behind Sandy Brysons evidence and LNSs resulting conclusions? LNS refers at paragraph 73 and Annex D (xi) to (sic) SFA Procedures Rules 2.2.1 and 4. (This should actually read SFA Registration Procedures paragraphs 2.2.1 and 4). These Rules, in LNSs words in effect require all payments to be made to a player relating to his playing activities to be recorded in his contract of employment and disclosed to the SFA. SFA Registration Procedures Paragraph 2.2.1 is narrated in full at Annex D (xi) of the LNS decision. It states: “Unless lodged in accordance with Procedures Rule 2.13 [which applies to circumstances where a player is allowed to play outside Scotland while his registration is held by a Scottish club and is therefore of no relevance to the LNS decision] a Non-Recreational Contract Player Registration Form will not be valid unless it is accompanied by the contract entered into between the club concerned and the player stating all the Terms and Conditions in conformity with the Procedures Rule 4. SFA Registration Procedure Rule 4 is also narrated in full at Annex D (xi) of the LNS decision. It states: “All payments to be made to a player relating to his playing activities must be clearly recorded upon the relevant contract and/or agreement. No payments for his playing activities may be made to a Player via a third party. Taken together, Rules 2.2.1 and 4 therefore state that a players registration form is not valid unless accompanied by the contract entered into between the club concerned and the player recording all payments made to a player relating to his playing activities. The SFAs Registration Procedures incorporate the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players from Article 5 of the FIFA Statutes of 19th October 2003. These are narrated in full in an annex to the Regulation Procedures and are stated to form an integral part of the basic text of the Regulation Procedures. These state the following: –Article 5 (Registration) paragraph I states: A player must be registered to play for a club and that Only registered players are eligible to participate in organised football. Article 11 (Unregistered Players) states: Any player not registered who appears for a club in an official match shall be considered to have played illegitimately. Article 6 (Registration Periods) paragraph 3: Players may only be registered upon submission of a valid application from the club to the relevant association during a registration period. On the above basis, it seems apparent that no valid application forms were submitted in terms of the SFAs rules to register any of the EBT players. In terms the SFAs own Registration Procedure rules, players may only be registered upon submission of a valid application. In terms of the SFA rules narrated above, it appears self-evident that the players must be deemed never to have been registered as the trigger for them to be registered (a valid application recording all payments made to them for playing activities) was never made. If they were never registered, they were never eligible to play official matches. Paragraph 88 of the LNS decision states that: “There may be extreme cases in which there is such a fundamental defect that the registration of a player must be treated as having been invalid from the outset. But in the kind of situation that we are dealing with here we are satisfied that the registration of the Specified Players with the SPL was valid from the outset, and accordingly that they were eligible to play in official matches. The LNS decision relies upon interpreting the SPL registration rules in line with those of the SFA to reach the above conclusion. Yet the SFAs rules appear to indicate that all of the EBT players registrations were indeed void from the outset and that they were never eligible to play for Rangers while their EBTs were in operation. To repeat: paragraph 88 of the LNS decision states that: “There may be extreme cases in which there is such a fundamental defect that the registration of a player must be treated as having been invalid from the outset.”The SFA’s registration rules appear to indicate that this was exactly such a case. It seems quite remarkable that the LNS Commission decided otherwise based on a stated reliance on the SFA’S rules.

I’m bumping this up front because if accurate (and has any checked or challenged) it makes a case for involving UEFAFIFA (I’d rather not mention either but it is their rule).

Apart from that I always thought the Bryson interpretation blew a hole in FIFA intent of using rule as a deterrent against an extreme form of cheating..

Whose assets are they anyway?
If I were writing a book there would be a chapter called Project Fear.
Hate is not the opposite of love, fear is.
If we were to be philosophical for a moment Christians believe love never fails. My experience is that is true, but knowing what love is and what it requires is a life learning lesson. To keep the philosophy short – love requires patience but it also requires courage. It’s absence in the media which reflects a part of society is manifest.
So The Telegraph article like all of which we have been barraged with is a load of fearful tripe and this is why.
The fear of compensation is really a bogey if every club seeks it. Where will the money come from? Scottish football is a closed INTERDEPENDENT industry that, if it goes the full compensation hog, will just eat itself.
That just isn’t going to happen. Stupid as football is it isn’t that stupid. So it’s much more likely deals will be done that meet the need for sporting justice without commiting financial suicide.
That brings me to a simple question. Why is taking titles away in light of all the evidence they were dishonestly won by a means that required full registration details under the rules not to be disclosed in order to get the advantage SDM admits ebts were used for to remunerate players?
It’s not as if it is TRFC who risk losing the titles. They were won by RFC. OK same club poo comes in here but clearing up that mess of their own making is a nettle SFA and SPL need to grasp.
Is all this propaganda at the end of the day driven by the fear of a number of asterisks appearing in the football history books against trophies RFC “won”?
Why is that so terrible as it’s only official recognition of what every non TRFC supporter believes. Add to that that the same club believers will simply believe the titles were fairly won anyway and it really all becomes much ado about nothing after the loving decision is made.
So we need patience to give it time for that to happen and hope that authorities will find the courage to overcome their fear.

Recent Comments by Auldheid

Here we go again
Cluster One
Hirsute Pursuit

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
Hirsute Pursuit

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?

About the author