Whose assets are they anyway?

  • Home   /  General   /  
  • Whose assets are they anyway?
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

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

SmugasPosted on1:49 pm - Nov 13, 2015


Sorry John, but can you elaborate;

John Clark 13th November 2015 at 1:31 pm # 
In the context of a reference  to  ” CEO of the Rangers FC” and “CEO of the Company”Mr Woolffe:  ” … the defenders distinguish between RFC and the corporate identity. SevcoScotland only acquired the Rangers Football Club on 14th June 2012 by virtue of….so it is only from then..”

Can you recall what Mr Wolffe was referring to happening on the 14th June that conferred “Rangers status”? 

View Comment

SmugasPosted on2:03 pm - Nov 13, 2015


Sorry, just to add to the above a quick check on Paul McConville tells me that 13th June was the creditors meeting at which the CVA was voted down.  14th June was the onward sale to “Sevco.” Interestingly, the popular media reported it as something along the lines of “the business and assets of the club…”now pass to the sevco consortium (Charles Green) or words to that effect.  The “official” (and suffice it to say Paul had a picture of Chemical Ali on a dusty roof next to the link) RFC statement said “the Club and assets now pass to the sevco consortium” and then in a side note highlighted Greens involvement with Sevco Scotland and not 5088 as previously reported.

Therein’s the difference as claimed, but no-one seems to be able to say what the difference was!

And just to add – how far ahead of all of us (and particularly me) was Paul in all of this?

View Comment

nawlitePosted on2:09 pm - Nov 13, 2015


Let’s all make sure we don’t fall into the trap they’re all  trying to set on title stripping (SMSM; TRFC*; fans etc). They are trying to frame the argument in terms of the EBTs giving Rangers a sporting advantage by allowing them to outspend other clubs and attract better players. 
Although this is undoubtedly the case, it is absolutely not the reason title stripping should happen. Even if we win this argument, it only allows them wriggle room by way of:-
1.  Investors would have put in the money anyway if needed
2. Players would have signed for (the glorious Glasgow) Rangers anyway
3. Were Alex Rae and Nuno Capucho really sporting advantages?
4. Celtic used EBTs too
5. Most businesses use aggressive tax avoidance
6. Even if it IS tax cheating, the SFA/SPFL have no rules/sanctions that allow for title stripping as a result
This argument also allows other clubs who have ‘overspent’ to gain an advantage (Hearts, Gretna, Dunfermline have been mentioned) to be tarred with the same brush and used as a precedent/threat against title stripping.
We need to remember that Rangers have already been hit with the consequences of their financial mismanagement/cheating. Mainly because of the BTC David Murray couldn’t find a buyer for the club and they ended up being liquidated.
We must keep the argument on title stripping to the actual point – to hide the use of EBTs, Rangers deliberately did not provide the SFA/SPFL with details of all financial contracts/payments in respect of a large number of their players. This is in very clear breach of football rules.
Don’t get sidetracked.

View Comment

oddjobPosted on2:30 pm - Nov 13, 2015


  1. Smugas @2,03 

Apologies, Smugas, TD`d you in error, should , be TU !!

View Comment

Kentes1Posted on2:41 pm - Nov 13, 2015


What history is it that DCK is getting so worked up about, is it the one from oc/nc rifc Trfc aw forget it I meant is it the one that contains the history of the now proven cheating(could be appealled). Or is it the 3 year old history containing the hard won lower league titles that always mean so much to a fledgling club.

View Comment

Gym TrainerPosted on2:43 pm - Nov 13, 2015


Night Terror 13th November 2015 at 11:53 am #@Gym TrainerI agree. The problem is, most fans find the overspending thing easier to grasp and be outraged about, whereas the intricacies of player registration can seem ore of an administrative and therefore boring infraction.

Incorrect/incomplete registration was perfectly understandable when it applied to Spartans (as a for instance). Even when that only related to the misplacement of a date on a form. Jut because it’s perceived by some to be complicated doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be enforced.

View Comment

Scatman’s GongsPosted on2:44 pm - Nov 13, 2015


The key issue to keep in mind is: did Rangers field ineligible players during the EBT era? If they did, they must forfeit any honours won during that period.
SPL Rule D1.13 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.”
The LNS Commission was satisfied that the side-letters constituted “agreements providing for payment…between that Club and Player” within the meaning of SPL Rule D1.13.
The SPL, as their lawyer explained to LNS, had hitherto understood this to mean that unless “all agreements…providing for payment…between that Club and Player” were delivered to the Secretary of the SPL within 14 days of the agreement being entered into, a Player was not eligible to Play in Official Matches.
However, Sandy Bryson explained that, once a player had been registered with the SFA, he remained registered unless and until his registration was revoked.  
LNS concluded that the rules of the SFA and the SPL relating to registration should be construed and applied consistently with each other and that a player’s registration should generally be treated as standing unless and until revoked.
LNS added that while 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 case before his commission was not such an extreme case and that there was no instance shown of Rangers FC fielding an ineligible player.”
LNS did not go into detail with Sandy Bryson as to the details of the SFA Rules on player registration. He relied on Mr Bryson’s explanation of the rules in question.
The relevant SFA rules are SFA Registration Procedures paragraphs 2.2.1 and 4 and Article 5 of the FIFA Statutes (which are expressly incorporated into the SFA Registration Procedures).
SFA Registration Procedures Paragraph 2.2.1 states: “… 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.”
A Registration Procedure Rule 4 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 player’s 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. This includes the infamous side letters.
 The SFA’s Registration Procedures incorporate the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players – from Article 5 of the FIFA Statutes of 19th October 2003.
 Article 5 (Registration) states: “Only registered players are eligible to participate in organised football”.
 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.”
In order to be eligible to play in official matches in terms of the SFA’s rules, players had to be registered. In order to be registered, a valid application had to be submitted. In order for a registration form to be valid it had to be accompanied by the player’s contract including all terms and conditions.
The Rangers’ players side letters contained contractual terms and conditions, They were not submitted with the players’ registration forms. The players’ registration forms were therefore not valid. They payers were therefore not registered. The players were therefore not eligible to play.
LNS concluded that the players were eligible to play on the understanding that, once they were registered, they were automatically eligible to play and that (as Sandy Bryson explained) their registrations could not be revoked retrospectively.
LNS appears to have missed the fact that due to the side letters not having been disclosed, the players were not registered in terms of the SFA’s rules.
They appeared to be registered but, in fact, were not. A pre-condition of registration (the submission of all contractual terms and conditions along with the registration form) was not met.
They were therefore never eligible to play.
 

View Comment

zerotolerance1903Posted on2:45 pm - Nov 13, 2015


Looking back at the various reports from yesterday (I’ve been catching up all day today, having been under the weather yesterday) and it seem to me that yesterdays argument goes thus:

Wolffe: Green’s contract described him as the CEO of Rangers Football Club and Sevco didn’t acquire Rangers Football Club until 14 June therefore anything prior to that is not covered.

Brown: Green’s contract was with RIFC which IS (the current) Rangers Football Club.  It was previously called Sevco and acquired the assets and business of RFC Plc (which was the old Rangers FC) on 14 June.  Anything prior to that was in his capacity as Director of the same company.

Some have asked why Wolffe would advance such a difficult to defend argument, I suspect that in the circumstances of being instructed by his client to defend against Green’s action that it’s the only route open to him. However pursuing this line can only bring to a head even more explicitly that there are two Rangers Football Clubs, one incorporated in 1899 that is now in liquidation and one that formed in 2012.

IMHO RIFC shouldn’t be fighting Green at all, they should want him to win his criminal case.  If he doesn’t it will be extremely bad for TRFC/RIFC.  Why are they pursuing this action?
– is the cash position so bad that they can’t afford to pay his costs?
– has King let it become so personal that he’s not seeing sense? or
– does he not get the longer term implication?

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on2:45 pm - Nov 13, 2015


Re the overspending by Hearts – here are some figures that may help put the matter into context.

Romanov took over at the end of February 2005.

Hearts “Net debt” was £21.5M in 2005 and £26.2M in 2013 when the club went into administration, up £4.7M.

As ever with Net Debt, there is devil in the detail: The 2005 figure was mostly made up of an overdraft of £4.7M, a bank loan of £12.3M and Convertible loan stock (SMG) of £4.6M The 2013 figure was made up of £15.6M (Ukio), £8.3M (UBIG) and sundry other items

The “like for like” part was, in reality, £21.5M in 2005 against £23.9M in 2013 an increase of £2.4M over eight years.

Sure, Romanov actually spent much more than the headline debt figures would suggest. That  was paid for by a combination of  Debt for Equity swaps and debt forgiveness, but with no FFP rules in Scotland there was nothing to prevent a wealthy benefactor acting as Romanov did. That is not to say that Romanov was a good guy, he certainly wasn’t. I’m sure that he would face criminal fraud charges in relation to the collapse of Ukio Bankas had he not gone on the run back to his native Russia.

Hearts net debt actually went up more during the Chris Robinson / Leslie Deans period in charge of the club than it did under Romanov.

In 1997, Hearts net debt was £1.9M. When Robinson handed over the reins to Romanov in 2005 it was £21.5M, an increase of £19.6M over an eight year period.   

So, as far as Hearts accounts went, you could argue that the overspending was much worse under Robinson than it was under Romanov. 

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on2:56 pm - Nov 13, 2015


I’m pleased to see that the Jags is the latest club to get a refinancing agreement to sort out their finances, and get to a debt free position.  I guess the board must have been looking after their own fiduciary matters as a priority in recent months.

http://ptfc.co.uk/news/2015-2016/november_2015/partick_thistle_debt_free_after_restructuring

Friday 13th November 2015 at 13:06
Partick Thistle Football Club can today announce that, following new shareholder investment and agreement with Bank of Scotland, the club is now debt free.
Intrinsic to this refinancing is the creation of the Partick Thistle Football Club Trust, which will provide supporters, through fans appointed representatives on the trusts board, an opportunity to have a greater say in the running of the club.
In 2008, the club’s debt totalled more than £1.5 million, which has been reducing year on year due to ongoing sound financial management and some tough decisions around costs.
The 2014/15 season saw the club continue to operate a break even budget strategy, however it remained a challenging period from a financial perspective. Despite on field improvements, leading ultimately to an eighth place finish in the Scottish Premiership, the club saw home attendances drop by more than 500 on average, although numbers have stabilised in the current season.
As part of the club’s ongoing financial planning process, the board of directors discussed options around funding with the bank and it became apparent that, should suitable investment be found, there would be an opportunity to restructure the club’s debt. With investment secured, that restructuring deal is now in place, meaning the club is debt free.
Partick Thistle chairman, David Beattie, said:  
“This is a historic day for Partick Thistle Football Club. To put not too fine a point on it, it represents the biggest off the park success story since Save the Jags.
“This deal is the result of a huge amount of work behind the scenes at Firhill and feels like the ultimate reward for a sustained period of careful financial planning.
“I am grateful to the board of directors and all at the club, including our fans, for their support to get us here and to Bank of Scotland for helping us realise our vision.
“Before this season started, we explained that one of our objectives going forward was to bring stability to the club. That’s what this deal means for us. What it doesn’t mean is that we will become complacent, rather that we will use this as a base to build from.”
Further details on the Trust and the new investors will follow in due course.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on3:00 pm - Nov 13, 2015


STV Sport ‏@STVSport 45m45 minutes ago
Hampden Park and Tynecastle to host Scottish League Cup semi-finals

Another potential source of funds for King & Co. has gone awry.

View Comment

nawlitePosted on3:13 pm - Nov 13, 2015


I know McDiarmid isn’t as big, but wouldn’t that be fairer for RossCo fans than coming all the way to Hampden? After all, if it’s good enough for TSFM, it’s good enough for the SPFL.

At least it’s a 3.00pm KO, I guess.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on3:15 pm - Nov 13, 2015


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..

View Comment

redlichtiePosted on3:26 pm - Nov 13, 2015


jimbo 13th November 2015 at 1:33 am # Sadly I have to agree with you regarding Phil. It’s all hints and half hearted speculation now. Todays revelations about TRFC accounts revealed …. nothing. If you want some gossip now jj is the go to site.
————————————————————————————————-

Hi jimbo. I think you are being a shade harsh on Phil. I read jj’s site too and I have to say that sometimes he is quite sweeping in his statements and I wonder if he has fully considered potential legal consequences. He also makes some basic errors at times.

Phil has been going for a good number of years now as a professional journalist and has obviously learned to be very careful with what he says for legal and other reasons. This almost certainly constrains what he can say about certain subjects.

If you read between the lines however the true meaning is often fairly apparent.

You must remember that Phil is also openly associated with whatever appears on his site – no anonymous blogging name there.

I’m looking forward to SMSM revelations on movements in the South African wine trade and the SFA F&PP committee make-up.

Scottish Football needs a strong (and legally responsible) blogging community.

View Comment

tykebhoyPosted on3:42 pm - Nov 13, 2015


@auldheid It looks like FIFA have adopted the SFA’s habit of giving wiggle room.  The following appears in several transfer and status of players documents since 2003

8 Application for registrationThe application for registration of a professional must be submitted togetherwith a copy of the player’s contract. The relevant decision-making body hasdiscretion to take account of any contractual amendments or additionalagreements that have not been duly submitted to it.

http://www.fifa.com/about-fifa/official-documents/law-regulations/index.html#doctransfersreg

View Comment

tayredPosted on4:02 pm - Nov 13, 2015


easyJambo  13th November 2015 at 3:00 pm #STV Sport ‏@STVSport 45m45 minutes agoHampden Park and Tynecastle to host Scottish League Cup semi-finals
Another potential source of funds for King & Co. has gone awry.

So why did they have to be held in Ibrox last year? It was last year wasn’t it?

Took a nasty bang to the head this morning so I could be making it up – who said that? Matron!!?

View Comment

SmugasPosted on4:20 pm - Nov 13, 2015


Aberdeen versus United was deemed too large for Tynecastle.  Can’t recall who was in the other semi 07

Joking apart, I would actually query why the Celtic County match has to be at Hampden.  Does that not give either club an advantage over the duo fighting it out at Tynecastle?  Is there not another stadium big enough for what one would assume would be the biggest semi final attendance? 

And further joking apart at least finally we have some common sense being shown – that two semis on the same pitch on consecutive days in Scotland in winter is asking for problems. 

View Comment

tayredPosted on4:26 pm - Nov 13, 2015


Hi Smugas,
Absolutely agree that some common sense being used, and don’t believe for a minute that both semi’s should be at Hampden.

In fact do either need to be at Hampden? Celtic v County could be at Pittodrie, that would probably be big enough and approx same travel for both teams…..

Or is that a step to far 14

View Comment

SmugasPosted on4:29 pm - Nov 13, 2015


Take that back – it was the St Johnston cup semi 13-14 that was at Ibrox, the new firm semi 14-15 was indeed at Hampden.  I was even there 20 

Point on same pitch two days still stands though!

View Comment

southstandcharliePosted on4:37 pm - Nov 13, 2015


Just out on STV Sport –

“Celtic say it is down to the Scottish football authorities to ensure “sporting integrity” is upheld, in the wake of a court ruling that Rangers’ used a tax avoidance scheme.
The Court of Session decided last week that the Ibrox side’s Employee Benefit Trusts, used between 2000 and 2011, were used to pay employees and should have been subject to income tax.
The ruling has prompted the board of the Scottish Professional Football League to discuss the matter, with their lawyers reviewing what course of action, if any, should now be taken.
A 2013 commission chaired by Lord Nimmo Smith levied a £250,000 fine on the Ibrox club due to their non-disclosure to the league of the payments.
A statement from Celtic read: “We are aware of last week’s Court of Session ruling, which we note is subject to potential appeal.
“Celtic’s position on this issue is consistent – that this remains a matter for the courts of law and also the Scottish football authorities whose rules are intended to uphold sporting integrity.
“In 2013, we expressed surprise – shared by many observers and supporters of the game – over the findings of the SPL Commission that no competitive or sporting advantage had resulted. That remains our view.”

Game on, I believe……

View Comment

tayredPosted on4:48 pm - Nov 13, 2015


southstandcharlie  13th November 2015 at 4:37 pm #Just out on STV Sport –
“Celtic’s position on this issue is consistent – that this remains a matter for the courts of law and also the Scottish football authorities whose rules are intended to uphold sporting integrity.“In 2013, we expressed surprise – shared by many observers and supporters of the game – over the findings of the SPL Commission that no competitive or sporting advantage had resulted. That remains our view.”
Game on, I believe……

It’s ramping up. Taken a long time to get here, but the pressure is being cranked up. Glad they didn’t end it with a King style “or else”, just a calm arms length that is our opinion.
Now, I’d like to see my club along with some others releasing something very similar and very soon please.

View Comment

high beeswaxPosted on5:42 pm - Nov 13, 2015


that celtic statement quoted above is wrong…… the outcome of LNS was no UNFAIR sporting advantage…… the fact he had to use the word unfair is ridic but he was meticulously precise here in his judgement….. his tenet of legal ebt’s has of course been smashed as things stand.

View Comment

OdiochainPosted on6:05 pm - Nov 13, 2015


Celtic’s statement is 83 words long.
It is relatively neutral in tone – with the exception of the term “sporting integrity” which has in recent times come to acquire connotations in the context of Scottish football with which it had not previously been imbued.
It reads like the sort of holding statement that an organisation feels obliged to make in relation to a major issue in its field and around which their is a clamour that it cannot or should not ignore.  (SFA/SPFL take note – we know you are watching!)
Meanwhile in the SMSM the BBC headlines its website coverage:  Celtic Respond to Rangers EBT Ruling; the Evening Times goes with:  Celtic Break Silence on Rangers Tax Ruling; STV has:  Celtic:  SPFL must uphold ‘sporting integrity’ after Rangers EBT Ruling; and the good old Daily Record states:  Celtic hit back at Rangers’ Dave King: We’re STILL surprised Lord Nimmo Smith ruled EBTs gave no sporting advantage.
I invite you to draw your own conclusions…  unless, of course, you are a fellow member of the “Apostrophe Police” and wish to congratulate the last named publication for writing Rangers’.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on6:13 pm - Nov 13, 2015


I think Celtic’s statement was published now, in part to avoid any awkward or multiple questions coming up at the AGM next week.  If anyone asks about it at the AGM, then they will simply be referred to today’s statement.  

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on6:14 pm - Nov 13, 2015


New podcast – hopefully the last where i will be flying solo

http://podcast.sfm.scot/e/roundup-s01e04/?token=a656f303b6b3baf794c0deda6fd7cabf

View Comment

sickofitallPosted on6:31 pm - Nov 13, 2015


Just had to turn radio Clyde off .Hugh Kevin’s asking if Rangers had a sporting advantage in the EBT years why did they not win every trophy they played in .My god I give up

View Comment

Kid GlovesPosted on6:39 pm - Nov 13, 2015


@sickofitall
I can hardly believe my ears. Keevins is a (relatively) clever man so he knows he’s playing to a script (i.e., telling lies). Rangers only cheated if they won absolutely every trophy and they only won about half of them so there was no cheating.

Registrations. They incorrectly registered players and then played them. Loads of them. End of story.

Rules applied without fear or favour.

View Comment

tamjartmarquezPosted on6:39 pm - Nov 13, 2015


Watching under 21s, did the camera pan onto CO and the new presidente just before ht?

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on7:00 pm - Nov 13, 2015


Excellent post by Gordo RFC on johnjamessite

https://johnjamessite.wordpress.com/2015/11/12/an-orwellian-dystopia/comment-page-1/#comment-2171

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on7:09 pm - Nov 13, 2015


Big Pink 13th November 2015 at 7:00 pm #

No mention of Hugh Adam or the fact that Murray rejected the board committee’s recommendation . Heartfelt from a true football fan , though .

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on7:12 pm - Nov 13, 2015


tykebhoy 13th November 2015 at 1:22 pm #

That’s us and ICT off the hook ,then . The rest of yeez, gie yersels a shake !Yeez huv been telt !

View Comment

alexander276Posted on7:38 pm - Nov 13, 2015


In the days of the Easdales was there not a distinction between a company board and a club board. Have they given up on that?
 
I see someone else was astonished at the lack of media coverage  to Mr Brown’s comments. I thought he was very quotable . But Shakespeare would be ignored if he made these arguments….
 
I also agree with the advice we have   got to focus on breaches of football rules. Just because some things are socially unacceptable they might not be punishable in football sphere.

View Comment

Scatman's GongsPosted on7:48 pm - Nov 13, 2015


Tykebhoy @ 3.42pm.
You make a valid  point re the discretion wording in FIFA’s Article 8 of its Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.

This states that a player’s contract must be submitted with their registration form, but gives national bodies discretion to take account of “contractual amendments and other agreements not duly submitted” to them with a player’s registration form.

However, the SFA’s rules (narrated fully in my earlier post of 2.44pm) are very clear that the player’s registration form must be accompanied by their contract, which must narrate all payments made to the player for playing activities, in order for the registration application to be valid. The rules also state that no valid application equals no registration and that no registration equals ineligibility to play.

On my reading, that leaves no scope for any “other agreements” to exist which the SFA could exercise discretion to take account of. The SFA’s rules as I read them define the player’s contract as including all playing payments. If my reading is correct then the FIFA discretion wording doesn’t add anything as the side letters are part of the player’s contract in terms of the SFA’s rules and therefore had to be submitted to the SFA with the player’s registration forms in order for the players to be registered and therefore eligible to play. The SFA has no discretion on the point as the side letters are neither “contractual amendments” or “other agreements”. 

On that view, even allowing for FIFA’s wording, the side letter players were not eligible. 

As I understand it, a side letter is normally understood to be part of a contract anyway. It is basically part of an overall contract that is recorded in a separate letter for commercial or confidentiality reasons. So viewing the side letters as part of the player’s contract would, as I understand it, be the normal legal view.

It would be interesting to get the likes of Hirsuit Pursuit’s take on these points. (S)he is usually pretty forensic in examining the minutiae of regulations and clarifying legal points.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on8:09 pm - Nov 13, 2015


tykebhoy 13th November 2015 at 10:49 am #
“……The giveaway is the elephant in the room which I strongly suspect was a James Doleman aside rather then anything mentioned in court.”
___________
I’ve only just read this post, tykebhoy. You won’t mind, I hope, if remove the grounds for your suspicion!
My notes record the following:
Mr Brown as saying    “..the elephant in the room is….”
I am feeling just a tad too risk averse to give the  fuller context ( as far as I understood it) could  in which he made this remark, given the terms of the order restricting  reporting .
Counsel on either side themselves frequently indicated that they were very mindful of the need to avoid saying anything that could conceivably be thought to bear on the criminal charges facing certain parties!

View Comment

ChristyboyPosted on8:12 pm - Nov 13, 2015


“If the history of our Club comes under attack we will deal with it in the strongest manner possible and will hold to account those persons who have acted against their fiduciary responsibilities to their own clubs and to Scottish football.”
Who’s he going to start with, HIMSELF ??????
I think there’s a Monty Python sketch in this, with King presenting the questions, only for him to run behind the dock and answer them………
” So Mr King, were you a Non-Executive Director of Rangers Football Club”?
” Eh, Hurumph, mmmmmmm. Sorry…………..hold on……………What ????

View Comment

motor redPosted on8:16 pm - Nov 13, 2015


hello tykebhoy, thank you for pointing out the wriggle room that fifa have given to our authorities, the problem with that is that deadco withheld the payment information for 11 years approximately  as you well know and never at any point did they clarify their position,instead they went straight to the shredder knowing full well they had cheated.so hopefully our clubs will step up and make this clear to the SFA.

 a reminder to some. LNS  was quite clear in saying that we move forward on the basis that the use of the ebt scheme was used correctly or words to that effect, which has now been proven to have been used incorrectly.

glad that celtic have made a statement ,i only wish it were some other club that did it first to quell the kaflic conspiracy that i come across when dealing with certain individuals of the blue meannie kind

3 years ,i can now see light at the end of the tunnel
thanks to all with deeper knowledge,keep it coming. 

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on8:16 pm - Nov 13, 2015


Smugas 13th November 2015 at 1:49 pm
‘..Sorry John, but can you elaborate?’
__________
Just to acknowledge your query, Smugas, which you answered before I saw the question!
02

View Comment

James DolemanPosted on9:07 pm - Nov 13, 2015


On “The elephant in the room”
Was said but giving the context would breach reporting restrictions I’m afraid. Reason I posted it was an old twitter joke we had during the phone-hacking trial were we also had ‘the office cat’ ‘ so a few of us used to tweet out animal jokes to kill some time.

Sorry for any confusion caused. 

View Comment

SmugasPosted on9:31 pm - Nov 13, 2015


Apologies but trying to keep lid of understanding on several pots at the moment.  Phil hints that a senior administrator had boobed by being involved in the F & P discussion whilst conflicted.  JJ then elaborates by inferring that his wife had RIFC shares.  Is that correct?  I remembered that CO’s wife was involved, but was it not to do with owning RFC plc (oldco) shares when he joined hearts (or possibly when he left to join the SFA).  Tell me my mind is playing tricks and that he had the wherewithal to keep the hell away from RIFC shares.  Please!

View Comment

GoosyGoosyPosted on9:38 pm - Nov 13, 2015


From jj sitonthefence 
A Gers minded poster with integrity who would grace any blog
Gordo RFC (@gordorfc1)says:November 13, 2015 at 12:37 pmJJ
Since we went into Administration and in leading up to it even, I remember calling for the Club/Company to come clean and to make a fresh start, by accepting fair punishment but standing up when it felt unjustly treated. I still stand by that and feel we must stand up and defend ourselves when all around want to squash and ridicule us.We have missed golden opportunities since administration to put our house in order, to build a better club, a club we can be proud to say has been rebuilt from the train wreck that was left when we were at our lowest ebb, but we have missed that boat by a long way and continue to stumble from one crisis to the next and with no end in sight, its very disheartening for honest loyal fans who pay hard earned cash and time to support the club.
When Murray took over from Marlborough all those years ago we all thought it was a simple natural progression as clubs all around were going down this ‘new ownership’ route, courting huge investments from those who could afford it. That’s what we believed we were getting when one of, if not the, richest man in the country at the time, took us over and promised huge investment and he had the companies and the clout to deliver. Too good to be true, it couldn’t be any better and things were looking great. Take the arrival of Souness and a raft of huge names and we were flying high….winning and playing and attracting investment and sponsors to match our standing.When Auchenhowie was first opened, my very on son was one of the first apprentices in the door and with the Dutch managing team things were looking fantastic for us, Gazza, Laudrup, Alberts, Tugay ….the big names kept on coming and life was great. I am as guilty, and innocent, as ANY Gers fan at the time in seeing us blossoming into a really big club within Europe, never quite getting as far as we should, but competing every year and a real feel good factor about the club.All of us, while loving what we were getting for our money, were complicit in questioning just how we were being funded and run, but it wasn’t our place to question it…we had a Board of Directors who would be looking after our interests and who would not allow things that shouldn’t happen….hell I can barely remember Hugh Adam leaving, never mind his old statements around what was going on, I mean why should I, we, any of us, we had a very rich owner and a Board that were honest true hard working for the good of the club……or so we thought.
Does it make us, Rangers fans, bad or weak or anything else for not questioning things earlier…..I don’t think so, I think we were football fans and enjoying a huge resurgence in the game similar to what was happening down in England. We, the fans, were not responsible for the idiocy and greed of those who were in charge of running the club, they were honest ‘Rangers men’ with the best job in the world and we trusted them to deliver. That’s how I remember those days and how it came as a huge shock when Murray’s web started to unpick its self.
If your honest, you can say we were had, by a con man, walking into it eyes wide shut and accepting it as a god given gift. So when things started going wrong and Murray was pretending to be the ‘Honest man’ caring for the club, not selling to who he thought was not the ‘right man’ …again we believed him and took him at face value, I mean lets face it having owned us for all those years and giving us so much pleasure, why would he do anything to harm us? We were let down then by a number of people, and while they are note solely responsible for what happened, being complicit at the time has cost us almost everything.
The first ones under the spotlight for being complicit are of course our Board of Directors, those custodians we had in place to ensure our club was being run properly and everything was being done to rectify what was happening….oh wait a minute, ummmm no they were not doing that….they were dodging every question and deserting like rats from a sinking ship….lets face it…they were more complicit than anyone to believe and accept Whyte in the door…….where was their due- diligence on the next owner of our club? How much probing and investigating did they actually do…..or did they just take Murray’s word at face value that Whyte was the best man to take us forward? Again…what can we fans do, our Board of Directors wouldn’t do anything to harm the club…honest Rangers men and all.
The second who must be fingered for not doing their duty is the Football Authorities who knew the in’s and outs of the whole thing, had access to all accounts and how the club was being run and also had a Fit & Proper criteria that should and would catch out any ‘used car salesmen’ …oh ummm no it didn’t, in fact quite the reverse…..they couldn’t wait to usher in a Jim Traynor approved man with “Wealth off the radar” into Ibrox…tv deals needed the Old Firm to be strong and competing…just what they needed was a real rich Ranger man in.
The third who must be fingered at this time are surely the media, who should have had the balls to do investigative work and to use their contacts in London to verify and back up this ‘unknown Scottish billionaire’ ……ummm, don’t you think a small country like Scotland would have known and heard of such a wealthy man before he arrived? ummmmm smell a rat there even? But no, the red carpet was out and Whyte was heralded in as the new saviour of the club. Were we, the fans to blame for this? No, but I think we should have been far more vocal and asked who, what how…..but all we heard was ‘mega rich, loads of cash to invest’ and anyway…we had a Board of Directors elected to keep our club on the straight and narrow.
Fast forward to Green and I, like I would say the vast majority of fans, were delighted he rode into town when he did, if he hadn’t, we wouldn’t be here now in any form or guise, and that is a fact. All the so called hugely wealthy Rangers men with deep pockets, and very short arms, stayed away….scared by the up coming tax cases. So Green did save us, whether you like the man or not, he was what was required at the time and we all bought into that, we were desperate and needed to survive. The fact that he was in it for one reason and one reason only, didn’t diminish most peoples thanks, yes once back on our feet we could get him out and get someone with Rangers in their heart in to run us properly…for the fans.
And so today we are where? Another criminal in charge of the club, and this one is a convicted criminal, who with his fellow side-kicks have systematically destroyed what little in the way of credibility we had in the financial markets by delisting us from AIM and alienating anyone who could aide us in our quest to move the club forwards. We have a Board, who, like those in the past, are real Rangers men, who would never do anything to harm the club, hmmmm , where have I heard that again!!!We have a club and Board of Directors being hauled through every court in the land for various fiscal and criminal offences, with custodial sentences a distinct possibility for some. We have a club with no funding, despite wild promises about vast sums of money, ummmm where did I hear that again? We have a chairman with wealth off the radar…ummm where have I heard that again?? We have a complicit Footballing Authority allowing a criminal to be Chairman of the club, ummmmm where have I heard that before? We have a media who will not investigate and or tell the truth about those running our club….ummm where have I heard that again? We have honest fans who are not switched on with these things and know our board will do the very best for us….ummm NO. This time our fans are guilty, and the blame in part lies on them for the state we find ourselves in now….and there is no hiding from that one.
Our chairman, from his SA bunker is lobbing grenades over the wall and ducking down again and our fans are hanging on his every false claim and bluster statements doing nothing at this time but bring scorn on us from everyone. There are ways of saying things, and times to say them, our Glib & Shameless is complicit and stupid and takes things to a whole new level of stupidity. I agree we must defend things, what’s the point of surviving if you do not stand up for what the vast majority of fans think…..but you don’t lob a grenade like he did with that ridiculous statement yesterday.My guess is this is part of his big ‘sweep and deflect’ tactics again, moving attention to things that at this moment are really second in line to what is happening and being said in court…..and the up and coming court cases in which our Glib & Shameless will be in the dock, along with what bombshells come out at the EGM…..again I feel he is rallying his troops to deflect from what is coming out.
So, are we, the fans guilty for EBT’s, administration and Green….no we are not, but we most certainly are guilty of supporting the regime now in Ibrox, doing their best for the fans and the club like always….ummmm where have I heard that before?
GSTQ

View Comment

Jm15Posted on10:04 pm - Nov 13, 2015


Hello,

long (very long) time lurker. Decided to register on the back of the suggestion by others that those that run (?) our game need to understand the depth and breadth of the anger that is felt about where our game has ended up.
So, here I am and what do I have to say? Apart from asking that the good, nay, incredible work done by many posters on this blog, ( truly fantastic), continues. I  ask that we (I know I’m new as a registered member, but I do feel part of the community of right thinking football fans which includes those that inhabit this blog), focus on the facts. Players were not registered correctly, deliberately or not (ha). The consequence of this fact is that rules were broken and the result of the games that these players played in should be voided and a 0.3 result recorded. According to the rules. The outcome should therefore be whatever it is, according to the rules, no wriggle room. The spirit of the rules and the intention of the rules should be applied, without fear nor favour. Especially fear.
Can or should this retrospective action be taken? Once a decision is taken, it can’t be reviewed or reconsidered in light of new evidence? Those of a legal persuasion will confirm that the ‘Double Jeopardy’ legal principal no longer applies. And, without in any way wishing to compare the ‘Rangers’ situation to any specific case, (there have been cases; I though about naming a particular case, but thought better of it) where new evidence was brought to light and was considered, this has happened, and there have been new, different outcomes, based on new evidence and new understanding of facts.
my tuppencworth anyway. I’ll leave it at that for the moment but I’ll proffer thanks to the mods, generally, for managing a brilliant forum, but also for helping a somewhat technologically challenged geezer join the debate

cheers.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on10:26 pm - Nov 13, 2015


Phil’s latest is quoting a source stating that any Ibrox plan Ashley did have, went out of the window when King appeared…and it’s now about revenge.

If that is indeed Ashley’s motivation now, then where will this take Scottish football ?

It can’t be good for King or TRFC in the short-term, and it might not be good for Scottish football in the short-term either…but it could prove to be beneficial in the long run for the game as a whole.

Don’t think I’d like to be in the sights of an angry billionaire – and the SFA better get it sorted ASAP as they/we can’t afford to be p!ssing away money on legal fees when we can’t qualify for the Euros or World Cup.  

Money which could be much better spent at grass roots level – to state the bleedin’ obvious !

View Comment

GoosyGoosyPosted on10:47 pm - Nov 13, 2015


A lateral thought
Does the clean up of Scottish football coincide with the best interest of Sports Direct ?

View Comment

justshateredPosted on10:58 pm - Nov 13, 2015


Celtic’s statement tonight was interesting; short, concise, and direct.
As easyjambo stated it was possibly issued with an eye on the forthcoming AGM, or was it?
Could we see other clubs now issuing similar statements?
In 2012 I think it was Dundee United who issued the first statement concerning their voting intentions. Aberdeen were second followed by Celtic and the rest.

I think the next 48 hours could be crucial in framing this debate. If there are no statements from the other clubs I fear the media will have there wish and thrust with the age old Celtic versus RFC/’The Rangers’ that they cannot move beyond.
If there were frank discussions, as has been hinted, at the recent meeting to discuss the COS verdict then we may see more clubs making statements. That shows a consensus beginning to take shape. The SPFL and SFA will begin to worry about that. We are told often enough that these organisations ‘are the clubs’ well if that is true then the clubs will tell the governing bodies how they will deal with this.
Finally it will send a shockwave through Ibrox!
For quarter of a century this club has believed it could manipulate the narrative and set the agenda. This will be the peeling away of another layer of the mystic that, at one time, David Murray seemed able to weave around this entity.
There are not many layers left now. The dignity layer left the building some time ago but that was after the financial muscle layer had gone.

View Comment

armchairsupporterPosted on11:11 pm - Nov 13, 2015


StevieBC 13th November 2015 at 10:26 pm #
I posted something similar on Phil’s blog. I would probably correct my post to say that any cleaning up of Scottish Football will be an unintended ‘consequence’ of MA’s retribution.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on11:13 pm - Nov 13, 2015


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

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on12:49 am - Nov 14, 2015


Paris tonight puts it all in perspective . RIP the innocents .

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on12:56 am - Nov 14, 2015


Auldheid 13th November 2015 at 11:13 pm #
————————————————-
I had already read your post on CQN after you asked Jim Spence on Twitter for his views.

You have suggested an independent inquiry, which I think would have widespread support, but the difficulty I see is if the authorities say no. What then?

There is a thread on JKB, the main Hearts message board, asking whether or not Hearts should issue a statement, but in the main almost everyone, barring myself, appears to share the view that Hearts should not respond unless specifically named by a Rangers official or spokesman. (Hearts were only named by the Record)

It is also Hearts AGM on 3rd December, so I can see Ann Budge being asked her views there. As with Peter Lawwell, I think that it would be prudent to adopt a stance that acknowledges the situation, before the AGM, to minimise any discussion or protest, that could end up as the major story that comes out of the meeting. 

I hope that Peter Lawwell will already have canvassed the views of a number of clubs to gauge the collective mood, and not to isolate himself, or Celtic, resulting in the issue becoming a Celtic v Rangers matter.

One cautionary point re Hearts cooperating with Celtic is that Ann Budge was clearly unhappy with Celtic’s response to her complaint about vandalism at Tynecastle following the cup tie, last December.  Part of her response was to restrict sales of tickets to Celtic and other clubs (assisted by a high take up of STs by Hearts fans).  I don’t know if that relationship has thawed out as yet.  I hope it has, but I wouldn’t bank on it. 

Don’t take my last paragraph as Hearts being anti Celtic.  Ann Budge has just given life bans to 10 young Hearts neds for their behaviour inside and outside the ground. Hearts also assisted police in yesterday’s arrest of 14 young Killie supporters,  who caused a bit of a rammy in McLeod St just before a match a few weeks ago.  She is a woman with a mission.    

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on1:14 am - Nov 14, 2015


paddy malarkey 14th November 2015 at 12:49 am #

Thanks for the TD.

View Comment

DonegaltimPosted on2:28 am - Nov 14, 2015


So our administrators have dug themselves into an almighty great hole in the pretext of looking after the game as a whole or solely to retain the bloo pound in our game. I would suggest the latter is true and statements like Armageddon only confirm my suspicions. Rules have been bent and broken to retain this mythical bloo pound.
Now to the court case last week. Unequivocally, there is no wriggle room. Cheating was the result of SDMs actions and fine well he knew it and was informed by others close to him. He chose to ignore warnings and believed himself to be untouchable. When surrounded by sycophants and lamb munchers, your true self would become somewhat inflated, even beginning to believe the hype and bulls**t.
Mike Ashley, it would seem, has now set his sights on DCK and by doing so, has dragged our administrators into the battle ground. It will all end in tears for those who haven’t been playing with a straight bat. Consequences in all this will be resignations and dare I say it, loss of liberty for some. Until this scenario is gutted from the roots up and appropriate punishments meted out to all concerned, there will never be harmony in Scottish football.
Remove the license from TRIFC or sevco or any other term they hide under until all debts have been dealt with. Disbar any individual deemed to have been associated with breaking rules and banish them from Scottish football forever. A right of appeal must exist but as Mike Ashley has attested with his court case against the SFA, can they be trusted. I would suggest that not be the case. Microscopically check accounts to see if they actually have funds and are not operating on promises. Find out finally, who owns what legally, disclose to the paying public then finally we can move on.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on2:54 am - Nov 14, 2015


easyJambo 14th November 2015 at 12:56 am
    EJ. my only knowledge of Ann Budge is of what I have read, and none of it points to her being the type of lady who would let what was, in the grand scheme of things a petty quarrel, spoil her judgement. I agree, a determined lady on a mission. 
   From Peter Lawell’s perspective, I think it is, as in his opening line, an open response to fans, shareholders and the media, and I suspect the postie is now off with a bad back. I hope there are many posties with bad backs by now up and down the country                     Personally, I think he has countered DCK’s claims to fight any challengers.  Like any bully, he was only talking about the wee boys in the playground. Well now there is a big boy who will stand up for them. Maybe they needed to know that after a bit of fence sitting previously.(which I agreed with then) Who really wants to be first on the list of the west of Scotland club?. I’m happy for my club to take the flak this time, and lets face it, the unseen hand was always going to get the blame anyway.  
    He pretty much only stated what was expected, and needed stated anyway, and this time I think it is right he should have been first out of the traps.
    If the authorities say No?……Well lets not hurt our own clubs. Lets lobby them to donate X amount per head of gate, to a court of sessions job.  A beneficial crowd funded challenge that boosts the gate and helps our clubs. If the clubs don’t go for it they get zilch gate money…… It’s oor ba’
    We’ will have the money in no time. I would rather do that than a vote of no confidence. Get the no confidence endorsed in court, and international exposure for what has passed. It may even help us escape, (as a nation) any UEFA punishments for their behaviour.
   Alba gu Brath.  

ps. Shocking events in Paris. I think a letter of condolence should be sent from the monitor  
    

   

View Comment

gerrybhoy67Posted on7:51 am - Nov 14, 2015


The report into the collapse of HBOS Bank in2008 is due to be released next Thursday – I wonder if any particular knights of the realm or associated companies will be mentioned?

View Comment

jimlarkinPosted on8:41 am - Nov 14, 2015


Now that the establishment are mobilising the “double jeopardy” defence…

am i wrong in thinking, after the LNS ‘findings’

was it not the case that these findings could be APPEALED and the SFA would be the body who would ‘consider’ the appeal?

To date, there has been no appeal ??

View Comment

tykebhoyPosted on9:28 am - Nov 14, 2015


I believe that is correct Jim Larkin.  From memory  the SFA shirked the  investigation claiming they would be the appellant body.  Of course that was garbage and was made even more so by them compromising their position by providing the “star” witness for RFC’s defence.  Would it not have been for the SPL to appeal, which of course they wouldn’t  having got the result they wanted from the muzzled, blinkered and neutered Commission.

View Comment

jimboPosted on10:27 am - Nov 14, 2015


Site Ads.
I noticed a few times an Ad for Celtic Superstore on-line.  I intend to purchase a Christmas gift from it.  Is there some way to call up an Ad?  I was hoping to order it from here.

Sorry Jimbo
You’d have to wait for it to come up again. If you go to the club site on your won and come back here, there’s a good chance it will come up 🙂
Thanks for thinking about clicking – I hope everyone is “investigating” the ads 🙂
Tris

View Comment

sickofitallPosted on10:45 am - Nov 14, 2015


http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/celtic-wade-rangers-ebt-row-6827750 Who would have thought it eh

View Comment

jimboPosted on10:57 am - Nov 14, 2015


Thanks Tris, I did try that but no luck.  Still, no rush, I’ve got a few weeks yet.

View Comment

southstandcharliePosted on11:01 am - Nov 14, 2015


Against my principles, I had a quick look at the online Daily Record to see what kind of spin they would employ to dampen and defuse yesterday’s Celtic’s statement. I feared the worst and I wasn’t disappointed.
So we have “….according to a source close to the situation at Hampden….” 
And –
“But the source told Record Sport: “There is no need for Rangers to take such a stance and there is no point in people calling for titles to be stripped because it can’t happen.
“There is no legal vehicle for it to happen. They’ve already been found guilty – it’s double jeopardy, if you like. They can’t be re-tried for something they’ve been found guilty of.
“So many people on both sides of this argument are speaking without knowing the facts or the legalities.
“And on top of that, it is my understanding that there is little appetite from other clubs to strip Rangers of their titles, even if they are not coming out and saying it.”

This report displays more of the same nonsense we, as football supporters, have had to put up with throughout this saga. No openness at all from our football authorities. Instead, secrecy, subterfuge, spin, leaks, etc etc. Instead of someone at the SFA openly setting out their stance we have, alledgedly, an anonymous source helping out their pet integrity-strapped newspaper to further their blatant pro Ibrox club agenda. It really has to stop. The Daily Record is implicated throughout this shameful period, doing the SFA/SPFL’s dirty work, covering up, and in fact playing its part in duping and hence prolonging the agony of the supporters of the club it obviously tries to help protect.
For my own part, I had largely lost interest in Scottish football during Rangers’ period of devious dominance. Without knowing the mechanics of the situation, I sensed something was amiss in their ability to procure such big name players for our modest league. If that wasn’t enough, there were other factors at play too, for example the officials’ consistent ability to turn a blind eye to such as Paul Gasgoine’s flying elbows etc. 
Having returned to the fold in recent years, I’m enjoying it much more. Sure, Celtic are dominant domestically, but it seems to me a much more natural factor, given their larger support and the financial benefits that affords. I can live with that, it’s part of the romance of football with the chance of the smaller clubs doing the odd giant-killing act. At least it’s fair.
i now really, really need my own club to show solidarity and come out in support of Celtic’s statement. If they don’t then I intend to let them know I am unhappy. If we meekly accept the conniving of the authorities to engineer the favoured club back into the top league at any cost, then the game is a goner and I’m off. The Rangers are still grossly overspending to regain their “rightful place” and if they get away with all this, we can only expect more of the same nonsense in the future.

View Comment

jimboPosted on11:22 am - Nov 14, 2015


Re. ‘The Source from Hampden’.  Since when did the SFA not having a ‘mechanism’ become a problem?  (To strip titles).  3 years ago they were making up rules as they went along.  e.g. Provisional licence.  Besides if the rumours are true the 5 way agreement initially had title stripping very much on the agenda.  And then as always the infamous get out in most SFA rules – ‘or at our discretion’. 

View Comment

jefflynnePosted on11:28 am - Nov 14, 2015


I believe in being brief,
rangers players were not registered properly , 

the end.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on11:32 am - Nov 14, 2015


I read the Daily Record story online and I am frankly disgusted. If the SPFL have something to say on this matter then they should publicly state it and show irrefutable evidence that there is no mechanism to strip Rangers of titles. I doubt if they can though because I’m sure a good lawyer could tear apart anything they say. This isn’t going to go away, and the Chairmen of 41 other clubs really need to understand they will be asking for our season ticket money next year. They really, really need to understand that.

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on11:44 am - Nov 14, 2015


New blog up

View Comment

Comments are closed.

RSS SFM Podcasts

  • TWM 33: Celtic and Corporate Governance 13/09/2021
    Former chair of the Celtic Supporters' Trust David Low with his take on the goings on at boardroom level, what he feels should be the next steps, and his support for the CST's quest for better corporate governance.
  • TWM Episode32 11/04/2021
    David Low on the Celtic Trusts' innovative solution to clubs' dilemma on how to give fans value for the money paid for no-show season tickets. And a groundbreaking idea for how football could embrace the modern technological environment.
  • TWM Episode31 16/01/2021
    John speaks to Stuart Wallace (@srwallace1), Chairman of the Foundation of Hearts (@The_FOH), about the success of the fans group over the last decade, how they have achieved so much, and what they hope to achieve in the future.
  • TWM Episode30 06/01/2021
    This episode is the first in a multi-part series and explores the holy grail of football fans - ownership of their club. In part one, John Cole talks to David Low, the Chair of The Celtic Trust, a fan and shareholder body committed to fan ownership. Low explains the realities, the dream, and the pragmatic […]

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

SFM Podcasts

 

[podbean type=multi playlist=”http://playlist.podbean.com/852756/playlist_multi.xml” share=1 skin=8 auto=0 download=1 height=350 ]

 

 

Recent Comments

Proudly powered by WordPress | Theme: Shk Corporate by Webriti