Whose assets are they anyway?


Homunculus Is that a desperate attempt by Sir David Murray to …

Comment on Whose assets are they anyway? by Auldheid.


Is that a desperate attempt by Sir David Murray to keep his title?  🙂

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

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
The allegations on CQN that Bobby Madden has a gambling problem surely require his  removal from the the firing line until the allegators are proved wrong.
No snap decisions, just a leisurely swim until there is no question as to his motivations. 

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
Dons/Hibees/Jambos and any other club wanting a UEFA spot.
Flogging players who have put TRFC near top of league is an admission those players unaffordable.
The solution is to make a licence for TRFC conditional on a realistic sustainable business plan. SFA are not doing their licencing job. Never have in fact.
So what questions are your club Directors asking the SFA?
Why not get them to ask UEFA if they are happy with the way SFA process licence applications from Ibrox. Seems UEFA not happy.
Proper club licencing can level the playing field a bit but it also protects all clubs from charlatans selling jam tomorrow.

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
Allyjambo 21.41

Matthew Lindsay: Time for Dave King to depart Rangers – but who could take over at the Ibrox club?

Rangers need to be run by individuals whose integrity is beyond doubt.
Do such individuals steeped in blue exist?

As rare as a dodo nesting on an iceberg in Carlisle Bay, Barbados.
” No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.” Albert Einstein 

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
I got my electronic copy of Not The View delivered yesterday.
Browsing through I thought I recognised The Christmas Tale offering and was pleased to read it as I had forgotten it was a tale I told at Christmas in 2012 (on CQN I think).
I think it worth repeating as a reminder of why SFM exists – because we love football and we love Scottish football and we aren’t done yet.
See me?
See me?
Ah jist luv fitbaw.
Its funny cos I was never that interested until about age eleven when a good pal, who was destined never to see his 21st birthday after a car crash in Rome encouraged me to try it. John was there to become a priest but got fast tracked by the Big Man who knows a good guy when he sees wan.
John encouraged me to give it a go in Suffolk St.  We played “croassies in” with the metal pull down blinds that formed the gates to the interior of the Barras as goals. Plastic baws, Fridos then Wembleys, arrived about then and many a red hot poker made the game a bogey in a failed attempt at repairing a burst baw.
(I blame the whelk shells; they were aw ower the place from the Oyster Bar in the Gallowgate (where I was entrapped in the cellar two weekends in a row cleaning whelks and mussels) and the ravenous appetite of the Glasgow punter for shellfish.
I played fitbaw morning, noon and night and saw Glasgow Green pitches UPGRADED from black ash/clinker to red blaze. We thought we were Wullie Fernie playing on that stuff and there was a case for playing with 10 baws as teams were filled with tanner baw players (goalies were just last man standing) for whom the object of the game was to beat everybody else in the opposition before scoring or it wisnae a goal.
I remember wan night  at the Glasgow Green waiting to play for St Alphonsus v Our Lady of Fatima  when I saw Tony Green, who was a Mungo boy and went on to play for Newcastle and Scotland before injury ended his career too early, waiting, sannies under his arm, to get a game with any team who were a man short. I think the OLOF manager mugged wan of his boys as Tony appeared for them and turned a virtuoso performance against us to give OLOF a 3-2 victory.
I started work and went to London for a year to work in the old Post Office Savings Bank. In my first week Jock (a Jock) approached and asked if I played. He never mentioned the sport, he didnae hiv tae, we wur already communicating at the spiritual level only fitbaw lovers can reach (the kind of thing that electrifies CP on CL nights.)
I get directions fur a game oan the Saturday at Acton Town and turn up, new Puma boots, paid by my transfer grant, under my arm (nae sannies fur me) On entering the park ahm puzzled, there wiz GRASS everywhere, nae clinker or red blaze in sight.  “Must be roon the back of the dressing rooms “ I remember thinking.
Anyhoo I gets changed runs roon the back to see — MAIR grass as far as the eye can see. So I troop back tae the dressing rooms to get directions to the ash pitches. When I explain what ah wiz used to playin oan they aw jist looked at me like my village wiz searching fur their idiot.
Well I get sorted out and line up. The baw, I remember, wiz a size 5 orange wan, but no wan o they bricks wi laces. The first pass to me wiz high and ah chests the ball doon and whirls roon afore I get studded from the back as wiz the custom oan the narrow pitches of Glasgow Green. To ma amazement the nearest opponent to me is about 4 yards away. As I look into his eyes I smile and turn to Jock at the sidelines and shout.
“Yer gonnae need anither baw” as I meander off in pursuit of the only goal that counted for a tanner baw man. I think I managed 7 before netting and I’ll take that. It wiz oan unfamiliar grass after all.
 Postscript “Aye very guid Auldheid” yer thinking (if you have stayed with me so far.)
“Nice reminiscing and it is Christmas Eve, so thanks fur the memories. “
But there’s mer tae this tale fur
See me?
See me?
I jist luv fitbaw.
Its ma game, its  OOR game and when I see the mess those responsible for looking after its welfare have made of it ah want to do something.
I hope ahm not alone.
Dec 2012

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
That Dave King is allowed any influence in Scottiish football is a dereliction of the duty of the SFA to protect our game from criminality.

Dave King should be called to account by the other clubs via the SFA to provide evidence he can do what he has promised, which is bank roll TRFC.

At the very least the clubs should be preparing for another insolvency event at Ibrox and deciding the conditions they will set for TRFC to continue taking part in Scottish football on the same basis as every other club, who act with the utmost good faith to fellow members.

The clubs via the SFA have the powers under Club Licensing to do so, powers that the SFA Comp Off can only conclude the SFA have failed to utilise. Powers that UEFA must have recognised by now as a result of Res12 letter of May 2016 and UEFA Licence submission this year, are not being used fully by the SFA.  

It was self preservation that underpinned the 5 Way Agreement . The dangers of that agreement – destroying integrity, undermining trust, ignoring deceit – become more and more manifest and should alert other clubs to the necessity to exercise their collective responsibility to each other and so to our game that they govern via the SFA on our behalf, using Club Licensing powers.

When a particular course of action designed to preserve self is not working it is human nature to try another course.

Not renewing STs come April/May unless positive trust restoring actions are taken by our clubs collectively, is one way of changing minds about what is self preserving.

About the author