Whose assets are they anyway?

Avatar ByBig Pink

Whose assets are they anyway?

It has recently been suggested to me quite strongly by two separate Finance Industry experts that no matter the outcomes of the forthcoming criminal trials into the sale of Rangers and the subsequent disposal of the liquidated assets, it is highly unlikely that the sale will be reversed. In fact BDO (the liquidators of Rangers) see the path of least resistance to any remedy (if guilty verdicts are returned) through the professional indemnity insurance held by organisations involved (I am choosing my words carefully here to comply with the rules surrounding the court case).

There is of course still the dispute between the owners of Sevco 5088 and Sevco Scotland to consider (although depending on the outcome of the criminal cases, that may be moot).

On the face of it, all of this is good news for TRFC and Dave King. After all, one of the main problems they have been facing is the uncertainty over the ownership of the assets, and if BDO are swinging in the direction indicated above, King and his board are free to move forward – you would think.

The recent plans to raise cash from the fans is I think a smart one, but it is still a sticking plaster applied to a gunshot wound. Rangers already have a gate income which is the envy of not just most Scottish clubs, but clubs much further afield. Their problem is their astronomical fixed costs, their dilapidated infrastructure, and possible cash outflow through the fabled ‘onerous contracts’.

Even putting in place a severe austerity package (which may be unpalatable to fans being asked to part with their cash to buy off pesky shareholders who don’t share King’s vision) does not remove the need to capitalise urgently to repair the stadium and build a squad capable of competing in Scotland. So they need to raise cash, and they need it quickly – because soft loans cannot be provided forever.

So the share issue route is the obvious way to go, and to do that effectively, a listing on an exchange is required. However our sources in the financial world don’t think it is possible that this could happen with the current regime for the following reasons (not in order of importance);

  1. They have absolutely no credible business plan to move forward over the next five years – only a commitment to limping on with soft loans;
  2. The current chairman is a convicted felon;
  3. Two directors of the new company were directors of the company now in liquidation;
  4. They have no line of credit;
  5. They are already in debt to the tune of at least £12m – increasing as I write;
  6. They are unable to repay that debt;
  7. There is still a nominal (even if we accept the BDO position above) doubt over the ownership of assets;
  8. The football team does not play in the top league – and European income isn’t coming soon;
  9. The company have astronomical fixed costs which are way in excess of their income.

So even if the doubt over the ownership of assets is removed, there isn’t an easily navigable route for TRFC into calmer waters.

My own conclusion is that perhaps the biggest single thing that is holding Rangers back is Dave King. I really don’t know what his motivation is. There is speculation that he has his eyes on the increasing cash-pot and diminishing creditor list at the Oldco. Some Rangers bloggers are suggesting  that a land-grab play is taking place. I think the former is far more plausible than the latter, but if we take his RRM credential at face-value, it seems to me that the Rangers-minded thing for him to do would be to reverse himself out of the position he is in.

That might enable the company to raise some of the cash they need to repair the stadium, rebuild the infrastructure within the club (players, management, youth and scouting etc.).

Are King, Taylor and Park really in this so they can indefinitely fork out £10m per year? Will Taylor and Park continue to ally themselves with King if he is the impediment to inward investment that we think he is? Park will most certainly not, and my information, from sources very close to him, is that he is done.

The fractures in KingCo are beginning to appear, and King himself may come under increasing pressure to do what is best for the future of the club, which is to remove himself from the equation and allow those better placed to take it forward.

It is often speculated elsewhere that SFM is a Celtic blog, and even those who give us credit for being a much broader church than that will still insist that we are anti-Rangers, obsessed with Rangers, and out to get Rangers.

The occasional outburst of Schadenfreude from commenters aside (it IS a football forum after all guys) SFM is quite definitely not editorially anti-Rangers.

I think the evidence shows that we are nothing of the kind, and it doesn’t do Rangers any favours to conflate our position on the corrupt nature of the governance of the game with that of the Ibrox club – new or old. Where we do discuss Rangers (as we have in this article), it is with an acknowledgment that the money flying around in football makes all of our clubs vulnerable to the kind of rip-off merchants who have wandered in and out of Ibrox in the past few years.

There are many areas where the SFM consensus is unpalatable to Rangers fans. But protecting all of our clubs and their fans from mismanagement is hopefully not one of them.

Also, despite the many rivalries within the game, Rangers are an important focus (old club or new) for tens of thousands of fans. As such they are of interest to ALL of us who support football in this country. Anyway, I tend to be more obsessive about my own club – and find it rather easier to be objective about others 🙂

My own preference in moving the debate forward is to get the perspective of Rangers fans on these issues. I am ever hopeful that we can have Rangers fans engage with the blog and look for areas where we have common purpose.

Nobody at SFM wants Rangers fans to have no team to support. Nobody here wants the SFA to stay unregulated and unaccountable. Nobody at SFM wants people to make up rules they go along just for the sake of a few quid. I can’t believe that Rangers fans don’t share those values.

I agree that Rangers fans are victims of this affair to a large extent, but the culprits are quite definitely not us at SFM. They need to look closer to home to find them.

About the author

Avatar

Big Pink administrator

Big Pink is John Cole; a former schoolteacher based in the West of Scotland, He is also a print and broadcast journalist who is engaged in the running of SFM . Former gigs include Newstalk 106, the Celtic View, and Channel67. A Celtic fan, he is also the voice of our podcast initiative.

1,787 Comments so far

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on12:03 pm - Nov 11, 2015


Anybody know how I can separate the ethereal me from the me that is writing this, so that the same me  can be in two different courts  simultaneously on Friday? 20
I would hate to miss ‘judicial review’ hearing, given that in my overall view the SFA is the greater sinner. But I want to hear how Charlie’s legals argue his claim for legal costs to be met by RIFC.

View Comment

Avatar

Hoopy 7Posted on12:06 pm - Nov 11, 2015


Good Morning
It is interesting to see that Mike Ashley is attempting to clean up our game.
Why does it take an external force to make the Governors of our game do the right thing?
The SFA only enjoy the administration of the game via FIFA AND UEFA and I am sure that if the SFA sit on their hands then UEFA will act.
The following is taken from the SFA’s own website.
“The Scottish FA is responsible for administering disciplinary procedures for its member clubs. This is essential in protecting the integrity and reputation of the game at all levels, while also providing guidelines of acceptable behaviour for clubs……..
….these provisions relate to the Determination of matters arising from any breach of the Articles and/or the Disciplinary Rules, which govern the operation of Association Football in Scotland in a civil context.”
 
There are two things I wish to address and both of these are in the hands of the SFA, despite what misguided football phone ins say.
 
SSB try to ridicule and cut short anyone who attempts to get at the truth and last night suggested that the SPFL and LNS had dealt with the matter.
NO and NO again.
It is not a matter for the SPFL it is for the SFA.
Forget, for the moment, tax avoidance, Tax evasion, EBT’s or any other hair brained scheme to beat HMRC and secure personal enrichment to the detriment of the public.
Concentrate on the SFA rules and the Licensing audits which must take place to comply with UEFA regulations.
Ask the following questions:-
Were there any side letter relating to players salaries?
Were they disclosed to the SFA?
If the answer to the first question is no then there is no problem.
If however the answer is yes, which has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt in various tracts of evidence, then the second question has to be asked.
If they existed and were not disclosed to the SFA then this is a clear breach of the Rules.
A player cannot be properly registered if these existed and were concealed or not otherwise disclosed to the SFA.
So what happens if a player is not properly registered?
The simple fact is that he is ineligible to play football!
No ifs, ands or buts, he is ineligible full stop!
So what is the sanction for playing an ineligible player?
Without question and it is contained in the SFA’s own rules, the penalty is the forfeiture of the match and a score of 3-0 to the opponent.
This is a rule that every player and team and administrator at any level in football is familiar with, including Mr. Ogilvie.
It is axiomatic that the rules must be applied, and that is irrespective of any tax situation.
The SFA have NO discretion!
This then is the agenda that all fans should be pursuing and letting everyone know it is not about EBT’s of Tax Evasion, but a simple breaking of the rules.
It is not a punishment it is a consequence.
Turning now to the SFA and their fit and proper person.
Ashley is right, King cannot be allowed to sit on the board.
Even if the SFA got it right when they declared King a fit and proper person it cannot stand now.
The decision by the Court of Appeal is a game changer.
If King was a member of the Board when a scheme of Tax evasion was implemented he must take responsibility and as a result cannot be a fit and proper person, irrespective of his criminal convictions.
Equally if Murray was on Board then he should do the honourable thing and resign. There is no place for people who implemented and controlled an unlawful system of tax evasion.
Interesting times ahead when the truth comes out.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on12:08 pm - Nov 11, 2015


John Clark 11th November 2015 at 12:03 pm #
———————————————-
The Judicial Review hearing has been put back to 4 February according to the Herald. I hope to be at the CoS on Friday too.

Oops: Just noticed that I got the first date wrong for this week’s case. Should have read 12/13 November.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on12:17 pm - Nov 11, 2015


John Clark

Anybody know how I can separate the ethereal me from the me that is writing this, so that the same me  can be in two different courts  simultaneously on Friday? I would hate to miss ‘judicial review’ hearing, given that in my overall view the SFA is the greater sinner. But I want to hear how Charlie’s legals argue his claim for legal costs to be met by RIFC.
————————————————————————————————-

031221

View Comment

Avatar

LUGOSIPosted on12:18 pm - Nov 11, 2015


Jolyon Maugham’s long awaited Part III was hardly worth waiting for.
The only thing I found noteworthy is that he suggests the real question is one of morality. Of the Directors. Not the recipients of untaxed money but the Directors. Not the players or employees who didn’t pay their dues on what was undoubtedly income but the Directors.
I think I prefer to consider any morality question from the point of view of Alex Rae, Campbell Ogilvie, Billy Dodds, Alex ‘Right Hander’ McLeish etc. seemingly taking the Leona Helmsley view that only the little people pay tax.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on12:22 pm - Nov 11, 2015


Strike my last: I misread the judicial review date!

View Comment

Giovanni

GiovanniPosted on12:29 pm - Nov 11, 2015


If Mr Ashley can get a judicial review of the King fit & proper person approval can we ask for one on the LNS decision? How much would it cost?

View Comment

Avatar

bfbpuzzledPosted on12:46 pm - Nov 11, 2015


Hoppy 7

Super summary – why were the side letters hidden and shredded or denied – at least in part for for the 0-3 reason. 0-3 however is a punishment consequent on the rule breach.
if I were hiding stuff from authorities including HMRC I would know that I was up to no good. if my club was hiding stuff from HMRC I would know that it was up to know good. In both cases The first sstep is to stop the behaviour and the second to accept the consequences. If my Club were employing something so inherently  unsavoury as an unlawful tax avoidance scheme it would cease to be my Club and I would watch more Rugby.
The arguments of the RFC apologists become thinner and more daft by the day while the evidence for the intentions of the SDM and others becomes more manifest at a faster rate
Apply the ineligibility rules see how it ends up via 0-3 when it can be done then move on. It would be interesting if those whom 0-3 benefited refused to take the titles so obtained because they were somehow tainted
“0-3 for an EBT” might be a good slogan.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on12:53 pm - Nov 11, 2015


bfbpuzzled 11th November 2015 at 12:46 pm #
‘…Apply the ineligibility rules see how it ends up via 0-3 when it can be done then move on’
__________
And , in my submission, the ‘moving on’ would have to be to the formal expulsion of RFC(IL) from Scottish Football, so great was the level of cheating and over so long a period.
That would put an absolute end to the pretensions of TRFC to be the old RFC!

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on1:25 pm - Nov 11, 2015


@ John Clark – I see that it is Lord Doherty who is scheduled to hear the Green v RIFC “debate”. You should be on speaking terms with him after the UTTT.

The start may be later than 10am though as he has cases scheduled at 9am and 9:30am beforehand.

View Comment

fishnish

fishnishPosted on1:36 pm - Nov 11, 2015


John Clark 11th November 2015 at 12:53 pm …. the ‘moving on’ would have to be to the formal expulsion of RFC(IL) from Scottish Football, so great was the level of cheating and over so long a period. That would put an absolute end to the pretensions of TRFC to be the old RFC!
…………………………………………………..
You’ve not thought that through, JC.
Consider the indefatigability of RRM.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on1:42 pm - Nov 11, 2015


easyJambo 11th November 2015 at 1:25 pm
‘ @John Clark – I see that it is Lord Doherty who is scheduled to hear the Green v RIFC “debate”.’
_________
Hmmm! 02
I wholly endorse , of course, all that Lord Gill ( recently stood down Lord President) said to the Parliamentary committee the other day about his absolute conviction that every judge,every sheriff , is committed to discharging his function with absolute integrity and scrupulous impartiality.
Happily, in this particular dispute I have not taken any sides-  I don’t care which party wins, in so far as I have no sympathy for either. (Ideally, if it were possible, I’d like BOTH to lose, because both parties have tried to play us all for mugs and deserve all and anything that the law can throw at them).
I shall enjoy the proceedings.
Thanks for the update re time: I shall be there before ten nevertheless!

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on1:46 pm - Nov 11, 2015


Interesting stuff on the latest jj article.  Apparently Regan did not convene the full Professional Gaming Board to decide on King’s Fit & Proper status. (This is against the SFA rules).  He did this to ensure King got the clearance he needed and was being pushed by Regan.  No sources quoted but it would hardly surprise me.

View Comment

Avatar

bfbpuzzledPosted on1:56 pm - Nov 11, 2015


Professional Gaming Board is a wee slip though apposite when dealing with a bunch of chancers

View Comment

Avatar

redlichtiePosted on2:54 pm - Nov 11, 2015


Maybe the SMSM should try and interview The Secret Footballer. In his new book “Access All Areas” he says on P.21 :
“It must never be forgotten that winning is partly a product of the wages that a club pays its team staff, which is comprised mostly of the playing squad.”
Goodness, sounds like there’s a sporting advantage from being able to pay more than competing clubs!

Scottisg Football needs a strong Arbroath.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on2:55 pm - Nov 11, 2015


jimbo 11th November 2015 at 1:46 pm #
———————————–
Here is an extract of a some of the PGB’s responsibilities from the SFA’s Handbook (page 154)

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/ScottishFAPublications2015-16/SFA_HANDBOOK_2015.pdf

3.14 in respect of the Professional Game:
(i) approving changes to an Official Return;
(ii) ensuring all required persons are specified on an Official Return;
(iii) approving of changes to constitution or rules of relevant entity;
(iv) approving persons to hold position within Association Football, and of changes to details on Official Return;
 
The “Official Return” is submitted by clubs with regard to a list of officials of a club, all of whom should be FPPs.
 
My reading of the above was that the SFA was wrong to limit the decision on King’s FPP status to the SFA Board.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on3:03 pm - Nov 11, 2015


Here is an article querying the SFA Board’s approval of King at the time, which questions the process, but also highlights the Board’s authority to rule on PMG responsibilities.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3093620/Did-Scottish-FA-break-rules-process-granting-new-Rangers-chairman-Dave-King-fit-proper-status.html

64.2.1 Notwithstanding any delegation of powers by the Board as detailed in the Board Protocols, the Board shall at any time be entitled to exercise its powers in relation to such areas of responsibility over any like matters considered and determined by the Professional Game Board, the Non-Professional Game Board, any Committee or sub-committee or the Chief Executive in priority to any such body or person.

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on3:55 pm - Nov 11, 2015


STATEMENT | Judicial ReviewWednesday, 11 November 2015
The Scottish FA can confirm we have received a petition for Judicial Review and will be defending it. We will make no further comment at this stage

Who said that the SFA weren’t communicating properly? A carrier pigeon has just winged its way out of the bunker with a statement written on a fag paper tied to its leg.

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on3:56 pm - Nov 11, 2015


easyJambo 11th November 2015 at 11:56 am #
The current schedule of court cases for your diaries:…
=====================
At this rate, mibbees SFM could produce its own “The Wee Blue Book” listing all the scheduled legal ‘fixture dates’ throughout the season !

The Ashley development – directed at the SFA – is an interesting development, which I don’t think [?] any Bampot had anticipated.
My immediate reaction: it’s just a bargaining chip.
The SFA cannot allow this to get to an open court – where their alleged incompetence, corruption, etc could be laid bare for all the SMSM journalists to report.
[And I think that they would have to report on this case, without choice.  232323 ]

Is this Ashley’s way of coercing the SFA to ‘deal with’ King behind the scenes ?
As ever, I haven’t a Scooby !
But IMO, Regan must be beavering away in the bunker trying to ensure that the SFA can dodge this court appearance – and remain impregnable to interested, external parties…including the paying customers.

View Comment

ThomTheThim

ThomTheThimPosted on4:24 pm - Nov 11, 2015


I’m slowly coming round to the view that the RIFC and SPFL advisors have made a monumental error in their coordinated “no title stripping” campaign.
All they appear to have achieved is to keep the CoS decision in the public arena, which allows more people to read and understand the issues that those bodies and the SMSM have been trying to bury for the last three years.
The increasingly shrill cries of defiance merely expose the paucity of their case and, ultimately will achieve nothing, except of an awakening of a wider public concern.
Secrecy was the authorities most potent weapon. They have lost that and have nothing to fall back on except petulant snarling and stamping of feet.

In an unrelated matter, I read at the weekend that his highness, the Duke of Kent, in his role of Grand Master, has giving his nod of approval to the formation of a Masonic Football Lodge in England, for players, officials and those involved in the game.
Should we be worried?

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on4:25 pm - Nov 11, 2015


neepheid 11th November 2015 at 3:55 pm #STATEMENT | Judicial ReviewWednesday, 11 November 2015
“The Scottish FA can confirm we have received a petition for Judicial Review and will be defending it. We will make no further comment at this stage”
Who said that the SFA weren’t communicating properly? A carrier pigeon has just winged its way out of the bunker with a statement written on a fag paper tied to its leg.
==========================
“Governancewatch”
Fair ‘doos’ 20  : the SFA has acknowledged Ashley’s move – and I can only surmise that the other pigeons were maybe distracted on leaving the bunker ? Mibbees they’re still on the window ledge ?

The SFA issues that brief update this week, but completely ignores the HMRC win and the RIFC/TRFC Going Concern stories last week. The SFA could have said;
“The Scottish FA can confirm we have noted last week’s developments with regards to Rangers, but we will make no further comment at this stage.”

No acknowledgement = the SFA [& SPFL] have absolutely no intention of following up with TRFC ?

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on4:40 pm - Nov 11, 2015


easy jambo, thanks for posting that link to the Mail Online article.  I didn’t realise this information has been out in the open since May!  I was surprised when I read about it today on jj, although not entirely shocked.

As for this:
“exceptional circumstances article 64.1 of the SFA rulebook says the full Board: ‘shall at any time be entitled to exercise its powers in relation to areas of responsibility… like matters considered and determined by the Professional Game Board.’”

Is there any rule in the SFA which does not contain ‘wriggle room’ ?

View Comment

Avatar

redlichtiePosted on4:45 pm - Nov 11, 2015


As noted by others, from the SFA website :
“STATEMENT | Judicial ReviewWednesday, 11 November 2015
The Scottish FA can confirm we have received a petition for Judicial Review and will be defending it. We will make no further comment at this stage”

Yes, that is the WHOLE statement. No word of the subject matter of the Judicial Review. No mention of who has requested it. No mention of when it will take place or where.

Transparency? What about the Fans Charter? As the SFA site says :

“The Fans’ Charter was written by fans, clubs and authorities working together to celebrate the enjoyment the game brings and to help make football better.

Football is a part of our culture. Thousands of fans travel the length and breadth of the country to watch their clubs. They celebrate the wins and despair after defeat. Collectively, everyone wants the game to be the best it can be and to share in the enjoyment that football brings.

The Fans’ Charter captures the good things about Scottish football and demonstrates that supporters, clubs and authorities can find common purpose by listening to each other.

What’s been achieved is a common sense view of football that puts people at the centre of the sport and provides guidance as to how to take their relationship forward.

By working together, everyone can use the Charter to remove the barriers that put people off attending matches, mend relationships and make football better.”

SFA, you’ve not been listening – it is time that you did.

Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.

PS http://www.fanscharter.com mentioned on the SFA page doesn’t seem to exist. How appropriate.

View Comment

ianagain

ianagainPosted on5:15 pm - Nov 11, 2015


Well JJ just blew an extremely large hole in the BBC Scotland nonsense. In fact holed below the waterline and demasted too boot.
Excellent demolition.

View Comment

scottc

scottcPosted on5:43 pm - Nov 11, 2015


scapaflow 11th November 2015 at 11:43 am #am not a huge fan of mike Ashley, but credit where its due, this judicial review of the King fit and proper decision will have the SFA board members sweating.
The prospect of Regan et al having to justify their decisions is hilarious, as well as long over due.

 … and moreso because the ‘decision’ was not made by the committee that was meant to make it. As I recall, they were not best pleased at the time

View Comment

scottc

scottcPosted on5:47 pm - Nov 11, 2015


easyJambo 11th November 2015 at 11:56 am #The current schedule of court cases for your diaries:
Charles Green v RIFC – 11/12 November @ Court of Session – re legal costsHMA v Whyte, Withey, Grier, Whitehouse, Clark, Green, (maybe Ahmad?) – 7-11 December @ High Court – further preliminary hearingsSports Direct v Dave King – 9 December @ Chancery Court, London – Contempt of court re disclosure of contract details.MASH Holdings v SFA – 4 February 2016 @ Court of Session – Request for judicial review of the SFA’s FPP decision on Dave King.

I imagine, if DK goes ahead with his attempt to stop MA being allowed to vote his shares, there will be another date to add to the above prior to 27th Nov where he seeks to either block that motion or stop the GM

View Comment

Avatar

dj7Posted on5:48 pm - Nov 11, 2015


So using EBT is not illegal in football sense – but side-letters is – as contract (all of it) must be registed with FIFA local authority..

So we know Rangers had side-letters , lots of them – guessing other clubs across Europe smart enough to burn/shred side-letters……

View Comment

Avatar

Scatman’s GongsPosted on6:13 pm - Nov 11, 2015


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.

View Comment

yourhavingalaugh

yourhavingalaughPosted on6:30 pm - Nov 11, 2015


What an embarrassment to all employees of our SFA that Regan et al as the Cod Fathers,fishy spelling mistake intended,continue with the charade,most companies hold daily,weekly,monthly meetings at all levels to cascade information ,in a transparent a way as possible,allowing staff to ask questions about this or that,well staff that have an interest in where their employer is taking them,it seems to me that this is not happening within our SFA and we have a staff of either scared,not very bright or they need the money ,someone at Ibrox is leaking info and for good reason,or it will be in the end for a new beginning,but the staff at Hampden,I wonder how the moral building is there,not very good I would imagine,these self centred leaders are out to cover their cheating and will not give a second thought to the staff on the floors below,well staff,I would suggest you think about your own future as these guys can’t take all of you to their new jobs,any leak ,apart from the roof ,would be sufficient to help your CV for future consideration.
Hope you all have a Merry Xmas and Sevco,sorry Santa,keep getting reality mixed up,is kind to you all

View Comment

Avatar

Night TerrorPosted on6:33 pm - Nov 11, 2015


That’s the kind of top quality PR & Communications you get when employing Darryl Broadfoot.

View Comment

Avatar

andygraham.66Posted on7:28 pm - Nov 11, 2015


A novel concept 

http://twohundredpercent.net/?p=28380

Good summing up so far 

View Comment

justshatered

justshateredPosted on7:29 pm - Nov 11, 2015


It was mentioned last night that the full list of EBT recipients has never been disclosed.
Could this be the reason that the media are so scared of this story?
Are there a few media household names in that list?
After all if Graeme Souness left the club nine years before the EBT system was set up and he received one, was anyone eligible?
That in turn would lead to even more questions such as;
Were any media editors in receipt of one?
And possibly the biggest question of all;
Was Jim Farry in receipt of one after the Cadette scandal?

No I’m not suggesting for one minute that this happened but after all that we have discovered over the last few years could such a set of questions be so easily dismissed!
Well obviously they could be dismissed by our so called media.

One another subject.
What is that Yvonne Murray like wanting her opponent stripped of their silver medal?
Somebody really needs to tell her to move on for the good of her sport!!!
I find it amazing that, with their standing at an all time low, the media cannot, dare not, will not allow an opposing view on this subject. The real problem they have is that they are now so far down the road that they have chosen there is no way back.

It is also interesting to hear the big name players coming out and saying that they do not want titles removed simply because the media are desperate to turn this into a Celtic / ‘The Rangers’ thing. Sutton, Lambert, and O’Neill had many days in the sun and another bauble for them, years after the event, would not necessary mean anything however what if they had never won a major trophy; no league titles, no European Cups, etc. In other words if you were a player where that ONE DAY at Hampden was your only day, your only ever chance to become a national winner. What then?
Queen Of The South players are probably the epitome of this. Try asking them what they would want done.

If there is no appeal then stripping is the very least that should happen. If should possibly be left to the defeated clubs to decide whether they accept the honours.
I personally think that the name should be removed from the trophies, or the word ‘Stripped’ inserted, but the date left. That would remain a reminder, not just to the clubs but to the authorities, of what happens when you lose sight of your responsibilities.

View Comment

Avatar

Jingso.JimsiePosted on7:35 pm - Nov 11, 2015


I can only assume that employment in the offices of the SFA/SPFL is such a sinecure that no-one has been tempted to go full ‘Deep Throat’ (or ‘Hoat Pie’) & reveal the machinations that must be taking place on the 6th Floor on a weekly/daily/hourly basis to keep the badly-holed rat-trap afloat.

View Comment

ThomTheThim

ThomTheThimPosted on7:40 pm - Nov 11, 2015


Do you think that someone has read my post @ 4.24  and capped on?

From The Tribute Acts Twitter account.

@TheTributeAct: Is it true the call in shows are refusing to discuss Rangers’ cheating / EBTs any more?All Warbs’ spending plans for January now? hahaha!”

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on7:42 pm - Nov 11, 2015


Spiers’ latest piece is pure Spiers: sit on the fence – but this time flinging stones in every direction.  He finishes with;
“…Meanwhile, the hatred continues, unabated, almost addictive. Scottish football at some stage will need a period of real healing. The anger, the scarring, cannot go on. Football rivalry and bragging – and even time-honoured slander – are one thing. But the hate-fest at some stage must reach its end.
The trouble is, that day looks far away yet.”
=============================
And yet…no mention – of course – of the role of the SMSM including Spiers himself who have been negligent in the non-reporting, and then mis-reporting of the RFC/TRFC saga.
If the SMSM had reported accurately and truthfully from the very start, would we be where we are today in Scottish football ?
Would the characters at the SFA and the SPFL still be in position – and still treating the fans with utter contempt ?
I think not.
The recent Russia doping and German FA payment scandals – both outed by the media – would seem to indicate that the media can indeed choose to do the right thing, even when it is the difficult option.
Spiers is just a better spoken Keef : both produce seriously deficient ‘journalism’, IMO.
And the SMSM is certainly not going to be a conduit for repairing relations across Scottish football: rather the opposite.
2323 

View Comment

Avatar

Jingso.JimsiePosted on7:49 pm - Nov 11, 2015


justshatered 11th November 2015 at 7:29 pm 
And possibly the biggest question of all;Was Jim Farry in receipt of one after the Cadette scandal?
=====================================
Did someone we now know for his twisted logic work in the Registrations Department of the SFA at that time? Did Mr. Farry “deflect certain executive decisions to his Head of Registrations”? According to the Burness Report, he did… 

There’s plenty on Google about it.

View Comment

Kid Gloves

Kid GlovesPosted on8:10 pm - Nov 11, 2015


@justshattered
I have often wondered if Murray has had something on the main media players too.
I wouldn’t imagine it would be something as obvious or dangerous as an EBT but as he was known to entertain certain media ‘friends’ at his palatial Jersey abode, is it going too far to imagine that there was more than the most succulent lamb on the menu?
This is not an accusation of course but when you see how he has escaped the media hammering he is due it does make you wonder. Fergus McCann did absolutely nothing wrong and yet got smashed by the media on a regular basis.
After all the damage Murray has inflicted on both Rangers and Scottish Football he has never had a front page anything like as strong as the Fergus/Saddam one in the Daily Record.
It does make you wonder… And he has been known to be very manipulative.
Thoughts?

View Comment

Avatar

abigboydiditandranawayPosted on8:10 pm - Nov 11, 2015


I imagine the lights will be on late into the night at Hampden…
Looking for the paperwork that saw GSL passed as a “fit and proper person”…
Maybe someone from over Ibrox way will help with the electricity bill…

View Comment

Flocculent Apoidea

Flocculent ApoideaPosted on8:18 pm - Nov 11, 2015


Back in the RTC days, the strap line was “”What they’re saying is 99 per cent crap” – Craig Whyte”
I was reminded of that when I read today’s statement by the Ibrox club MD, referring to bloggers with “When these guys say things, you can disregard it”. Ironically, he goes on to tell us Dave King has already told us everything is fine. There’s that self awareness problem again.

Regarding Mr Spiers – where does he go to find this “hatred”?* I can only assume when he’s there he bumps into Mr Jackson as he looks for his mouth-frothers. Hatred and frustration are not the same thing.  Hatred isn’t tearing the game apart.  The people running it very badly are doing that, supported by the unprincipled clowns in the media.

*Having thought about it, it’s probably Blythswood Square in Glasgow.  But you can probably disregard that, right?

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on8:19 pm - Nov 11, 2015


From Scatmans Gong post:

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.

Does that not tell you everything about the legality of the EBTs.  The trusts were at best a ‘third party’.  Or maybe I am reading this out of context?

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on8:21 pm - Nov 11, 2015


Will Regan be on the phone to Paul Murray at Ibrox;

“Could you give me directions to Mike Ashley’s office please…?”

…before Regan himself drives down that well worn path to the SD HQ – to kiss Big Mike’s bahookie ?!  10

Or Regan might just remain in the bunker playing dominoes with McRae and Doncaster.

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on8:32 pm - Nov 11, 2015


zerotolerance1903 11th November 2015 at 11:38 am #Can anyone clarify a couple of pedantic points for me?1. Were Sevco Scotland and Rangers plc members of, or affiliated with, the SFA at the same time?  I seem to recall this being the case circa June/July 2012 i.e. Sevco Scotland were (provisionally) admitted to SFL Div 3 whilst Rangers were still an SFA member Club.2. What rules or restrictions were in place within the SPL regarding sale or transfer of a Club’s share in the SPL?  Was this ever transferred from Oldco to Newco or did it go from Oldco to Dundee after newco was not admitted to the SPL?3. What were the rules in relation to transfer of SFA membership?  Did newco ultimately get transferred oldco’s SFA membership or did they get a new one?  If a transfer what happened to the provisional membership?

I’ve just noticed this comment, last one on the previous page, so easily missed! You are asking questions that were thoroughly dissected on here back in August 2012, which is a fair time ago, but I’ll offer my answers as best I can from memory. I’m sure any mistakes will be rapidly corrected by those with better functioning memories.
1. There was a short period during which Sevco were associate? members of the SFA, while the RFC membership was still held by RFC PLC as was.This was because the membership could only be transferred with SFA consent, and the SFA were “locking horns” 1414 with Charles Green regarding terms and conditions of transfer(the five way agreement). I believe the Brechin game was played shortly before the full RFC membership was transferred to Sevco.
2. The SPL share went from Oldco to Dundee. That was part of the 5 way agreement. I’m not sure on the SPL rules on share transfers.
3. SFA memberships could only be transferred with the express consent of the SFA. Once the 5 way agreement was signed, and the SPL share transferred to Dundee as part of that, then the SFA consented to the transfer of the RFC share from Duff & Phelps to Sevco. I believe that the transfer took place in the week following the Brechin match. I have no idea what happened to the associate or provisional membership under which Sevco played Brechin- I assume it either expired or reverted to the SFA, but that’s just guesswork. I don’t remember the point being raised before.
And another troubling point- player registrations. How did that work for the Brechin game? I have no idea, by the way.
I hope that helps.

View Comment

Avatar

bfbpuzzledPosted on8:42 pm - Nov 11, 2015


There is a hate fest but it emanates from Ibrox and the Govan Team’s support.
Asking that the Playing of ineligible players should be dealt with as it always is is not hate- particularly that if any other club played such an ineligible person the same request for the rules to be adhered to would be made. It is not as if the ineligibility rules are some esoteric thing never heard about given recent high profile cases.

View Comment

Avatar

BC_CeltPosted on8:46 pm - Nov 11, 2015


Having just read James Forrest’s latest piece on the Celtic Blog, via NewsNow, I’m motivated to write to my club to express my perspective on the current mess that is Scottish professional football and the lack of leadership thereof.
One of the challenges facing anyone who wishes to do so is knowing the right email address(es) to ensure the message gets through. I’d assume, but am unsure, that in the case of Celtic, this would be JP Taylor, the supporters’ liaison officer.
For all of us lurkers who want to connect with our clubs, a list of clubs and official email contact points would be extremely beneficial – Bryce Curdy suggested something similar several days ago and I’d like to underline how valuable this could be in assisting the clubs to hear the message loud and strong.
Additionally, a standard letter template that can be personalized and that is polite but to the point would add a lot to the process.
Given the almost total “suffered enough” mantra being flogged by the press, a strong message underlining the need for Auldheid’s “Truth and Reconciliation” process via an independent enquiry seems to me to be the only way out of this mess. 

View Comment

Avatar

angusmacPosted on8:48 pm - Nov 11, 2015


zerotolerance1903 11th November 2015 at 11:38 am #Can anyone clarify a couple of pedantic points for me?
I think the answers to your queries, zt, can be found in the advertisement paid for by Celtic Supporters in the Sunday Herald on January 25, 2015…
http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/lord-nimmo-smith-duped-the-banned-newspaper-ad/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+co%2FIRuC+%28Celtic+Quick+News%29

View Comment

Avatar

redlichtiePosted on9:03 pm - Nov 11, 2015


Night Terror 11th November 2015 at 6:33 pm # That’s the kind of top quality PR & Communications you get when employing Darryl Broadfoot.
————————————————————

Darryl, just in case you’re looking in…..

Press Release 101 – use the six ‘Ws’ :

      • Who – ?

      • What – Judicial Review

      • Where – ?

      • Why – ?

      • When – ?

      • How – ?

Even allowing for sub judice regulations I suspect 1/6 is not a pass mark Darryl.

Scottish Football needs organisations that are Respected and Trusted to Lead.

View Comment

Avatar

DenPosted on9:09 pm - Nov 11, 2015


John Clark 10th November 2015 at 11:31 pm

# Den 10th November 2015 at 9:25 pm‘….Was Keith using a journalist trick in making a case then elegantly refuting it point by point. ..’______I had occasion the other day to make an observation on Jackson’s piece. It was to the effect that it was a very, very, very  clever piece that would have secured him a job under Goebbels, any day of the week. A brilliant example , indeed the very epitome of darkness masquerading as light. But the cloven foot can still be seen!

It is a  crafted piece. Conceded too much at the start though and failed to provide any rational argument for his main thrust: don’t take away the titles that were won by cheating/
I have taken the beginning comments to the bank,as they accepted the truth of the situation. When he went off on Nuclear war and Jennifer Aniston it was clear that he was struggling to make coherent arguments.
I hate that sort of stuff and the papers are full of it.

View Comment

Avatar

angusmacPosted on9:10 pm - Nov 11, 2015


neepheid 11th November 2015 at 8:32 pm #
Apologies, Neepheid, I posted my reply to Zerotolerance1903 before seeing your (more comprehensive) response. 
Must do better.

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on9:12 pm - Nov 11, 2015


New strapline.
SSB –  its all about opinions
(Unless your opinion is that the club playing out of Ibrox are a bunch of F-ing Cheating Bar Stewards  who are currently skint and have a shit storm of trouble ahead of them  21)

There –  sorted that for everyone.

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on9:19 pm - Nov 11, 2015


Just thinking aloud…
I really don’t think it will happen, but let’s just say that Big Mike [or rather his expensive legal team] does have his day in the CofS with the SFA.
I am assuming that any witnesses called are under oath ? 

So, could for example, Regan be called up to provide information about topics related to Dave King – but which might not be specifically related to the ‘Fit & Proper’ rubber-stamping exercise ?

I’m thinking: what was King’s [& RFC’s] relationship with Regan/the SFA in the run up to the RFC Administration event ?
What sort of relationship did King/RFC have with Ogilvie – and during his time as the SFA President, but had self-declared his conflict of interest re: RFC matters ?
What ‘Fit & Proper’ test was applied to the ex-con, McGill Buses Director ?
Does the SFA have the competence in-house to assess a club’s submission as to who is deemed ‘Fit & Proper’ ? 
Does the SFA – generally – apply its own rules and regulations in a fair and consistent manner ? [Can of worms duly opened !]
There could be many, many other revelatory moments at the Court of Session ?
Or is that just wishful thinking on my part?
Can anyone confirm or otherwise re: under oath, witness call up, and scope of questioning ?
 

[Edit:or is it strictly a review of the ‘F&P’ processes applied only? ]

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on9:37 pm - Nov 11, 2015


Sons of Struth re Ashley

“What if his most recent claims are successful? We will see King jailed for 30 days and thrown out as chairman. How does that benefit our club? It doesn’t.”
“There’s a story brewing about how much we have actually received during the three years of the deal and I’ll leave it to the professionals in the press to get that info out but if they don’t because they can’t or won’t put it out then I will.”

So with all that is going on, publicly trying to encourage others to blab about the SD deal or doing it yourself, that is really going to help King stay out of jail!!

View Comment

Avatar

southstandcharliePosted on9:43 pm - Nov 11, 2015


I just listened to Roger Mitchell’s frantic incoherent rantings on the podcast. Earlier posters here today have mentioned various people having something to hide and it struck me that this might explain the desperate tone in some of this guy’s ludicrous views. The essence of what he was saying seemed to be that either Rangers’ offences were small fry compared to some of the massive corruption in other sport and we should just therefore ignore it or that there is so much corruption in global sport that there is nothing we can do about any of it but just live with it. Astonishing.
Then I noted that he was CEO of the SPL until 2002 when it appears he left under something of a cloud. His tenure overlaps with the commencement of Rangers’ EBT scheme. It started on his watch. Logic seemed to have deserted him and he was almost hysterical in his desire to see it all brushed under the carpet. 
So what was his involvement and what has he got to hide?

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on9:50 pm - Nov 11, 2015


From the Herald in 2012

“It appears Roger Mitchell has no plans to change from the diverse career path which has wound round accountancy, football journalism, consumer electronics, stickers, academic lecturing, the music business and being the first chief executive of the Scottish Premier League.
Now living in Como, Italy, with his wife and two children and with his office in Lugano, Switzerland, Mr Mitchell, 48, maintains a broad portfolio of interests. At the moment he is involved in a small vineyard in Chianti, London-based Sports New Media, which manages Twitter and Facebook accounts for a number of sports people, AIM-listed Swiss mobile banking technology business Vipera and Glasgow online marketing agency Alienation Digital.”

In my book that looks like a career of someone flitting here there and everywhere to avoid getting caught out as being a useless.

View Comment

Avatar

bad capt madmanPosted on9:56 pm - Nov 11, 2015


The comments from Neepheid and zerotolerance should remind us that the SFA cannot be trusted to follow its own rules and are not averse to making up new one time only rules for favoured pals.
Who did play Brechin on that fateful day? Not a club that had been properly accepted into any league by normal procedures, associate memberships, transfered registrations, Charles Green signing agreeements on behalf of two clubs etc etc ( can a director be involved in more than one club?) 
if it is argued that it was a temporary thing that was fixed soon after then hey ho, but why the rush to get this new club into a competition anyway? No rules can be found for that either i’ll bet.
so lets not be hearing that the SFA can’t do something to punish industrial strength cheating, or just try using rules about “disrepute” …i’m sure there are a few, with the usual discretionary powers thrown in.

View Comment

Avatar

high beeswaxPosted on10:03 pm - Nov 11, 2015


how many barrells do trfc have the governing bodies over given the supreme confidence they have in issuing their  p off , move on statement…….. hello darkness my old friend sang the sfa….

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on10:07 pm - Nov 11, 2015


Eye-catching headline from the DR;
“The SFA fire back at Mike Ashley over Rangers ruling: We’ll fight you every step of the way”

So I eagerly scanned the story to see if there were quotes from either Regan or even ‘an unnamed SFA source’.
Nothing.
The aggressive headline and the whole article was dreamed up based on that very brief SFA statement alone !
“The Scottish FA can confirm we have received a petition for judicial review and will be defending it. We will make no further comment at this stage.”
And to further confirm the quality of the article: it was penned by the anonymous “Record Sport Online”.
 232323
 

View Comment

Avatar

southstandcharliePosted on10:23 pm - Nov 11, 2015


high beeswax at 10.03pm
hello darkness my old friend sang the sfa……..

I’ve come to talk with you again sang Mike Ashley’s lawyer…….

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on10:25 pm - Nov 11, 2015


bad capt madman,

Not sure, but I think Chuckles Green only represented newco.  Oldco were represented by Duff & Duffer.  At the secret (21) 5 way agreement.

View Comment

Avatar

GoosyGoosyPosted on10:25 pm - Nov 11, 2015


MASH Holdings v SFA – 4 February 2016 @ Court of Session – Request for judicial review of the SFA’s FPP decision on Dave King.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Herse a speculative view
4 Feb 2016 is a long time away
Before then we are in for an eventful two months
IMO
Scottish football governance started to unravel today
Why?
Today’s press release saying they will defend the DCK fit and proper court action was meant to be a holding statement. But the wording revealed more than just panic.  
 Since you can`t defend the indefensible, the statement strongly suggests they intend to settle out of court long before it come back to bite them on the proverbial.
Settling out of court means:
 they intend to abandon their OTT support for DCK and TRFC
 which in turn means they have decided to clean the stable,
 which in turn means head rolling at the SFA/SPFL is very likely
which in turn means there is light at the end of the tunnel of integrity   
I predict
Some or all of the following significant events
BDO will announce they are not appealing the decision of the Law Lords
SFA President Alex McRae will adopt a more public role as spokesman for the SFA. Regan will fade into the background
McRae will announce that a new Commission of Enquiry is to be set up to review the implications on the LNS Review of the Law Lords decision.
The Terms of Reference will include evidence hidden from the first LNS review like the Small Tax Case. The Bryson interpretation of SFA rules on eligibility will also be revisited. Transparency will be promised during the Commission hearings. It will be clear from the ToR that a new broom is in charge.
 
Regan may well resign before the Commission have their first meeting.
Meanwhile
King will resign from TRFC before the Contempt of Court case on 9 Dec.This will not cause Ashley to  withdraw his fit and proper challenge to the SFA. That will  be saved for later.
Both TRFC and RIFC will be declared insolvent by the RIFC Board. All Directors will then resign. 
A respected Administrator will be appointed. His initial act will be to declare that liquidation may be more appropriate than administration if a CVA buyer does not emerge quickly
All saleable TRFC players will be put up for sale.
Warburton will be the sole management representative of the football club working closely with the Administrator to save the business. He will be the only senior TRFC figure to emerge with credit from the whole debacle
Ashley will continue to say nothing
But
At a crucial stage in the Administration
Ashley surrogate Sarver (Ashley) will re-appear as the only potential saviour in town 
Sarver (Ashley) will play extremely hard to get with the support
He will set out conditions for rescuing TRFC via a CVA or asset purchase and Newco
These will include:
Publicly declaring TRFC has always been a Newco and is a separate entity to Oldco
-And therefore a Sarver(Ashley) TRFC or a Sarver(Ashley) TRFC2
-Should be penalised 15pts not 25pts for insolvency
-Will not defend  any of the religious discrimination and tax evasion policies applied  by RFC plc   
-Will not oppose any sanctions applied to RFC (IL) by the new Commission of Enquiry
-Will consult with major Creditors and fan groups and require their support before making a CVA offer
-Will agree to Ashleys commercial position with Rangers Retail continuing unchanged
-Will promise to pursue offshore Spivs in court until legal fees exhaust their will to live
 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The good news will be that most of Scottish football will respond positively
The bad news is that at least half the support will respond with an ST boycott despite winning promotion through the playoffs

View Comment

Avatar

HirsutePursuitPosted on10:29 pm - Nov 11, 2015


Sevco were granted associated membership of the SFL on 12th July 2012. Associated membership of the SFL automatically conferred registered membership of the SFA.

Rangers remained a member of the SPL until 3rd August 2012 and therefore held registered membership of the SFA till then.
 
Each club held a separate SFA membership during the period 12th July to 3rd August 2012,

The SFA gave Sevco Full membership status when Rangers formally gave up membership of the SPL and consequently ceased to be a member of the SFA. 

Although this was spun as a ‘transfer’ of SFA membership, it was only the level of membership that transfered. Sevco already had membership. 

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on10:32 pm - Nov 11, 2015


StevieBC 11th November 2015 at 10:07 pm
“The SFA fire back at Mike Ashley over Rangers ruling: We’ll fight you every step of the way”
________
Oh, I wish it were already February.
I’m dying to hear what, if anything, is said about suspicions that Regan and some others may have, to the anger of others, exceeded their delegated powers by excluding some members of the Professional Game Board in such a highly public and contentious matter.
Or will there be some averment retrospectively signed by all the members of the PGB, stating that each and all were in agreement, and happy to endorse Regan’s decision?
Such is the state we have arrived at that, when anything and everything said or done now by any of our ‘sporting authorities’ is simply not to be taken at face value, because it is likely to be so self-defensively selective as to be worthless.

View Comment

Avatar

HighlanderPosted on10:36 pm - Nov 11, 2015


Reading neepheid’s mention of membership earlier reminded me of the following documents (for which credit is due to The Front Of The Bus). If genuine and in context, they appear to confirm that the old club and the new club existed simultaneously, therefore they cannot conceivably be the same club.

On the face of it, the fact that each club (not company!) existed at the same time is inescapable based on a request from Duff & Phelps in 2012 on behalf of Rangers Football Club plc (in administration) to the SPL for permission to allow a list of players to play for a different club in accordance with SPL Rule D1.16, which you will notice is quite unambiguous in its meaning. It makes clear for example:

“D1.16 A Registered Player must not, except with the prior consent of the Board and the Club to which he is Registered, play Football for any other Football club in any competition or except with the prior consent of the Club to which he is Registered, train with such other Football Club.”

At the risk of stating the blatantly obvious, there would be no need to apply for permission under that particular rule if the players were going to be playing for the same club. Permission was sought under a rule specific to players who would be playing for a different club. It follows that each of the two clubs are separate clubs which existed simultaneously, therefore they cannot in any way, shape or form be the same club.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8mkI0f9OZWM/U0g_LiBTYMI/AAAAAAAAA4w/V1Gheb1j__0/s1600/SPL1.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GQ4Xztqf0jA/U0g_SS3VeWI/AAAAAAAAA44/H_kt88zdEDU/s1600/SPL2.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YJfW80iO4dg/U0g_YNrFTVI/AAAAAAAAA5A/AcQy1tWpwwk/s1600/SPL3.jpg

http://www.scribd.com/doc/143090374/Spl-Handbook-2008-09-10-Feb-09-Current

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on10:42 pm - Nov 11, 2015


01020304050506070809101112131415161718192021222324

Sorry it’s a wee bit OT but still a forum issue, these are the best smileys on the internet.  A poster earlier today posted ‘GGRRRRR’  ( no disrespect)  and I felt very sad that he or she didn’t make use of:

07070807080806061111

This one on the other hand I have no idea:

18

Just to lighten the board up for a couple of minutes.  0303

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on10:49 pm - Nov 11, 2015


GoosyGoosy 11th November 2015 at 10:25 pm   
  I’m gonna print that off and send it to Santa. 13 
I think it probably fair to say that given the initial inactivity from Mick post EGM, he was probably thinking things through. He might be a vengeful man, but I doubt he is rash whereas the SFA and T’Sevco have been winging it since day dot.
    I would confidently say “Advantage Ashley” at this stage without even knowing what his game is. I do know that Ashley’s briefs have had a barrel load of options available to them. Concert parties and share crashing amongst them, and it would appear he has been very astute, selective, and tactical.  
     Another wee advantage he will have is his lawyers will be very very good, whereas, the SFA ones, if their reading of a rule-book is anything to go by,…. Wullnae.

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on10:53 pm - Nov 11, 2015


Well if the fallout from Ashley’s legal manoeuvrings eventually forces out Regan and maybe Doncaster then Scottish football will need 2 new, highly experienced football administrators, who are available to seamlessly fit into the culture at Hampden.

Wait a minute…

Blatter for SFA and Platini for SPFL.

The Dream Team !
 09

View Comment

Avatar

CerdanPosted on10:55 pm - Nov 11, 2015


GoosyGoosy 11th November 2015 at 10:25 pm #MASH Holdings v SFA – 4 February 2016 @ Court of Session – Request for judicial review of the SFA’s FPP decision on Dave King…..
…..But At a crucial stage in the Administration Ashley surrogate Sarver (Ashley) will re-appear as the only potential saviour in town  Sarver (Ashley) will play extremely hard to get with the support He will set out conditions for rescuing TRFC via a CVA or asset purchase and Newco These will include: Publicly declaring TRFC has always been a Newco and is a separate entity to Oldco -And therefore a Sarver(Ashley) TRFC or a Sarver(Ashley) TRFC2 -Should be penalised 15pts not 25pts for insolvency -Will not defend  any of the religious discrimination and tax evasion policies applied  by RFC plc    -Will not oppose any sanctions applied to RFC (IL) by the new Commission of Enquiry -Will consult with major Creditors and fan groups and require their support before making a CVA offer -Will agree to Ashleys commercial position with Rangers Retail continuing unchanged -Will promise to pursue offshore Spivs in court until legal fees exhaust their will to live  ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, The good news will be that most of Scottish football will respond positively The bad news is that at least half the support will respond with an ST boycott despite winning promotion through the playoffs
***********************************************

Goosy,
This has always been my idea of the likely scenario. Ashley will end up being the saviour and being in control. There is only one possible barrier to this I believe and it isn’t the SFA, the MSM or even the fans of the Bears.
It is the actual physical state of Ibrox. I am sure MA has the funds and the appetite for a long term operation, outlasting the SoS and their ilk and bringing in profits through regular ‘Gers fans. Racking up retail revenues for many years. The Bears would surely have made some attempt at a breakaway entity before now if there was any groundswell for it at all.
No, I think the only thing that can really deter MA from taking and running the business is if there is a huge capital expenditure requirement on the stadium. My gut feeling on this is that there is not. The reason being, despite about 5 years of rumours of a dilapidated Ibrox, of asbestos removal and of potential health & safety issues nothing concrete has emerged from the club/company, local authorities or (god forbid) the press.
There have been rumours that Lambias produced a report on Ibrox and its environs which honestly stated the capital needs but there have been no confirmation of this to my knowledge.
I think there may be two scenarios/options.
Firstly, the physical nature of Ibrox is not an insurmountable issue therefore Ashley will take control when the current Directors give up or are removed.
Alternatively, Ashley has sight of evidence that makes Ibrox a sink hole for capital expenditure beyond the clubs means and his threshold for ongoing profitability. If the second scenario is correct the this is very bad news for the Bears as MA’s actions can be seen as not the precursor to an eventual takeover but simply the revenge of a very angry, rich man.
I currently favour the first option based on the available evidence but don’t quite rule out the second. 
 
 
    

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on11:06 pm - Nov 11, 2015


jimbo 11th November 2015 at 10:42 pm
This one on the other hand I have no idea:
18
    ————————————————————–
Is it a wee lightbulb (idea/thought)?    
Should the SFA go after DCK to pay their legal fees?….At least haufers seems fair. 

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on11:10 pm - Nov 11, 2015


01  Awright you lot a eejits?
02 Aye no bad mate you Ill?
03 See you two you make me laugh!
04 Ave no got a wee smiley face, but ma big brother wis oan the Adams Family.
05 That’s so sad, you don’t have a smiley face.  Me Too. 05
06 Don’t get me started, always moaning you lot. Scunner me so you do.
07 Where do they live? I’ll freggin sort them out.  Annoying F……wts.
08 I’m saying nothing,  “look into my eyes, look into my eyes”
11 I’m with the big guy on this, I’m ready to explode
12 Jist listen tae yer sels!
13 None of ye ever thought of Yoga?
14 OOH , sounds like a plan.
15 Whits Yoga mate? 171816
19 Got it big man. That will do for me, yes sir.
20  (I think, mibees aye, mibbees naw)
21 See youse lot, am lafin ma heid aff wae you lot.
22 Now to get back to a more serious subject.  Football reporting in Scotland.
232323232323  We hate football.  We hate Football players and especially we hate getting eaten by Daily Record ‘reporters’.  Goodbye and leave us alone.
24 And it’s goodbye from him.

View Comment

Avatar

DenPosted on11:30 pm - Nov 11, 2015


Mr Jolyon Maughan was waxing lyrical about the Court of Session judgement.
As he is a tax QC I was very interested in his three part blog this week as I anticipated that he would outline some aspects of the case that elude me as a laymen.

 I express a clear view about the decision the Court of Session gave earlier this week in the Rangers case. I say that it was wrong. That’s my view at least and I’m a Queen’s Counsel specialising in the field of tax. Although that fact doesn’t make me right, it does make my view worth listening to.

The decision was wrong in his view. Stand by for forensic dissection. Wait a minute though !

I haven’t followed the Rangers story especially closely – as I say, I don’t have any connection to the club – so please make allowances for that fact. I don’t think that will affect my ability to carry out the task I’ve set myself – but please bear it in mind if you think I’m getting something wrong.

 Article 2 has the following.

t’s not easy for an outsider – like me – to look at a case and say what the answer should be. The answer is often quite sensitive to the facts. The advocates arguing the case – and the judge or judges hearing it – know those facts better than the outsider does. And that’s a particular problem in this case. I’m not sure why – perhaps it’s because the Court of Session decided the case on an entirely new argument – but the facts relevant to this new argument are not terribly clear from the Decision.So, although I stand by the problems I have set out above with the Decision, it is perfectly possible that my analysis is wrong. You know this, of course. But it’s important that I say it.

He seems to be winging it.

Article 3

Clearly, what is perceived to be at stake is the reputation of the club.
Did it “cheat”, as Alex Thompson and others have argued? Did the club’s directors, by trying to reduce its tax bill, imperil its claim to past titles? Did the club do anything ‘wrong’?
I could offer some answers to those questions.
But my views would be ill-informed: I have not followed the story. To offer them would be crass: I know nothing of Glasgow or its football culture. And my expertise is as a tax lawyer: I’m not a moral philosopher.

Is this the best that our media can come up with. Is he related to Neil Patey.

View Comment

paddy malarkey

paddy malarkeyPosted on12:52 am - Nov 12, 2015


1) The sums are getting harder – we don’t all have the same number of fingers and toes and there is now multiplication and division included as well
20 There still doesn’t seem to be a smiley wearing sunglasses, which is my smiley of choice
3)The cumulative effect of 1) and 2)make me think the mods have an agenda against people who have a problem with 1) and 2)
4) I may have scrolled past it, but is there a definitive list of recipients of the Murray Groups EBT largesse – I have only seen the identities revealed by BBC ?
5) If not ,are/should the names be in the public domain ?                                                                                                                                                 
6) Again, apologies for not paying attention, but was reason given for the deferral of the MA/SFA case to next year ?
And finally, I always looked at OC/NC as old club / new club . When did it morph into oldco/newco ?
Brought my own smiley
Naw ah didne – bugger widnae TUPE

View Comment

Avatar

comeongetaffPosted on2:50 am - Nov 12, 2015


Hi,
I used to think the word”Buffoon”was specially invented for Boris Johnson.
I changed my mind when I first heard Derek Johnstone on the radio.
I have now changed my mind once more.
So let’s have a warm hand for(wait for it)…….(drum-roll)………………
,,,,,,,,,Roger Mitchell.   The real reason why “Buffoon” was invented.

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on5:28 am - Nov 12, 2015


Was having a wee chuckle on The Clumpany timeline (as you do) when a link to yet more Armageddon turned up. It’s to a Roddy Forsyth piece. Title stripping will lead to financial ruin for other clubs, etc. 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/11990181/SPL-clubs-fear-they-will-be-hurt-financially-themselves-if-Rangers-stripped-of-titles.html?x

Was Roddy at Roger Mitchell’s wine tasting the other night? 

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on5:49 am - Nov 12, 2015


Danish Pastry 12th November 2015 at 5:28 am
‘…Was Roddy at Roger Mitchell’s wine tasting the other night? ‘
__________
Up betimes this morning, DP!
The more important question is: did he actually speak to any chairmen,or, like some other ‘journalists’ has he just made it up?
We have learned to be suspicious of what any Scottish football hack (whatever paper he writes for) has to say on anything affecting RFC(IL) or RIFC plc.
That’s just one result of the unholy mess caused by SDM and the Football Authorities.

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on7:58 am - Nov 12, 2015


Morning John. I’m always up early. I have an office at home so work is never far. There’s also pets, teenagers and the bonnie Mrs Pastry on station 🙂

Would Roddy make it up? Or was his Torygraph printing another Carmichael-type leak? Seems complete nonsense. 

Btw, I don’t subscribe to The National for its fitba content, but an interesting little reference to ‘dynamite’. Short piece highlights Ashley’s move on three-fronts, so far.

“In a separate development, The National understands Ashley is also considering fighting a resolution to the Rangers AGM on November 27 with information which a source close to the Sports Direct tycoon said was “dynamite.” The AGM will debate a resolution from the current board to stop Ashley, who owns almost nine per cent of Rangers, from having any say in the running of the club. The source said: “From what I have heard, Mike is determined to have his say on this resolution as the third-biggest shareholder in the club.” The “information” is thought to relate to Sports Direct being owed £5 million by Rangers.

http://www.thenational.scot/sport/football-mike-ashley-takes-sfa-to-court-over-dave-king-decision.9914

View Comment

Avatar

Carfins FinestPosted on8:11 am - Nov 12, 2015


There is a lot of noise booming around Scotland at the moment ALL emanating from the SMSM. All are singing from the same hymn sheet. ‘Trophies and Titles must not and cannot be stripped’ is the roar. The agenda is to ignore the player registration rules that were breached and focus on the EBT’s and how the SFA do not have any sanctions in for employing these tax evading schemes. All utter nonsense of course but there is a far more sinister narrative now being peddled and that is to turn this debacle into a Celtic v Any Rangers spat. This narrative totally ignores all the other equally valuable supporters of all the other teams in the land and their thoughts on the issue. You see its easier to tell the world that all is well and any voices of dissent they hear is just Celtic fans being their usual paranoid self. The SMSM spent years cultivating the view that everyone from the east end of Glasgow were always crying out about perceived injustices. Especially when it came to matters relating to the SFA or RFC(IL). So what would be the point of nurturing this belief then not using it when the opportunity to do so, on a large scale, presents itself. If it was portrayed as a Rangers(IL) v The rest of Scotlands football supporters then they know that the nonsense that they spout would never stand up. However, having decided to go down this route and completely dismissing the relevance of ALL other fans in the land they have undoubtedly created a large rod not only for their own backs but also the backs of TRFC and the SFA. Please continue lads. 

View Comment

Comments are closed.