Over the past couple of years, we have built a healthy, vibrant and influential community which recognises the need to counter the corporate propaganda spouted by the mainstream media on behalf of the football authorities.
The media have, not entirely but in the main, been hostage to the patronage of those in charge of the club/media links, and to the narrow demographic of their readership. Despite a continuing rejection of the media’s position by that readership (in terms of year on year slump in sales) there is an obstinate refusal to see what is by now inevitable – the death of the print media. The lamb metaphor in fact ironically moving to the slaughter.
The football authorities in Scotland, once the country that gave the world the beautiful game, are rigid with fear that their own world will fall apart – because they are wedded to the idea that only one football match actually matters. To that end they will do whatever it takes to ensure that it continues. They have long since dispensed with the notion that football is an interdependent industry, and incredibly, even those who are not participants in that match follow like sheep towards the abattoir.
The argument is no longer that one club cheated and got away with it. The debate that we need to have is one about what is paramount in the eyes of the clubs and the media . Is it the inegrity of sporting endeavour, or box-office?
For out part, independent sites like this have accelerated the print media’s demise, and there have been temporary successes in persuading the clubs to uphold the spirit of sport. However our role has up to now been to cast a spotlight on the inaccuracies, inconsistencies and downright lies that routinely pass for news. News that is imagined up by PR agencies and dutifully copied by the lazy pretend-journalists who betray no thought whatsoever during the process.
Despite our successes, it really is not enough. We have the means at our disposal to do more, but do more we need to change ourselves, because the authorities sure as hell aren’t gonna.
We need to provide meaningful insight into the game that removes the Old Firm prism from the light path. We need to provide news that has covered all of the angles. We need to entertain, inform and energise fans of sport and all clubs.
We need to do that from a wholly independent perspective. None of this refusing to tell the truth about club allegiances. There is no reason why intelligent men and women can’t be objective in spite of their own allegiances (although the corollary absolutely holds true). Our experience of the MSM in this country is that the lack of arms-length principles in the media has corrupted it to such an extent that they barely recognise truth and objectivity. We need to be firm on those arms-length principles.
In order to do that we have put together a plan (with enough room to manoeuvre if required) as follows;
We will rebrand and re-launch as the Independent Sports Monitor. We have acquired the domains isMonitor.co.uk and IndependentSportsMonitor.co.uk, and those will be the main urls after the re-launch, hopefully later in the summer.
The change in name reflects the reality of our current debate which is not always confined to Scotland or football. It will also give us the option in future of applying the success of our model to other sports and jurisdictions through partner sites and blogs. This should also help in our efforts to raise funds in the future. However any expansion outwith the domain of Scottish football is some time away, and will depend on the success we have with the core model.
Our mission statement will be;
- ISM will seek to build a community of sports fans whose overarching aim is the integrity of competition in the sport.
- ISM will, without favour, seek to find objective truths on the conduct and administration of sport. We will avoid building relationships with individuals or organisations which would bring us into conflict with that.
- ISM will provide a platform for the views of ALL fans, and guarantee that those views will be heard in a mutually respectful environment.
- ISM will also endeavour to inform and entertain members on a wide range of topics related to our shared love of sport.
- ISM will seek to represent the views of sports fans to sporting authorities and hold the authorities to account.
We have estimated our (modest) costs to expand our role as per recent discussions. The expanded role will take the form of a new Internet Radio Channel where we hope to provide 24/7 content by the end of the year. It will also see a greater news role where we will engage directly with clubs and authorities to seek answers to our questions directly. And we will seek to contact the best fan sites across Scotland with a view to showcasing their content.
We have identified individuals who we want to work (initially on a part time basis) towards our objectives, we have identified premises where we want to conduct our business, and we hope to move into those premises during this summer.
To finance these plans there are a couple of stages;
- Initially (as soon as possible) we need to pay accommodation and hosting costs for the first year. To do so, we hope to appeal to the community itself. Our aim is to raise around £5000 by the end of August.
- There are salary costs (around £15,000) attached to our first year plan, but these have been underwritten by Big Pink, and equipment costs (est. £3000). These will be reimbursed if the advertising campaign we recently started bears any fruit (we will not know about that for a few months).
- It will not be too discouraging if we make losses in the first couple of years, so if necessary we will seek crowd-funding to finance our plans if the resources of the community itself prove inadequate to smooth a path to break-even point.
Our first year may be a perilous hand-to-mouth existence, but I am certain the journey will be an exciting and enjoyable one. We will also need to search our community resources for contacts at clubs; players, officials, ex-players, local journalists etc. Please get in touch if you have any in at your club.
We also hope to tap into the expertise of our community for advice, comment and analysis of developments, and we will be looking for any aspiring presenters, journalists, sound and video editors, graphic designers (and lots of others) to help us find our feet. Any offers of assistance would be gratefully accepted.
We mustn’t lose sight of why we are doing this. It is because we love our sport, because we want to be able to continue to call it that, and because the disconnect we find in Scottish football, that of the conflicting interests of the fans and the money men, will never be addressed as long as the fans are hopelessly split.
The ultimate goal is to allow sport – not our individual clubs – to triumph over the greed and corporate troglodyte-ism of those people who run it. I am confident that we as a community desperately want to be able to make a difference. That is why I am confident we can achieve our aim of becoming a significant player in the game.
bobcobb says:
Member: (3 comments)
July 9, 2015 at 3:03 pm
You say – “The destination of “sevco”/Rangers (matters not to this issue) in terms of league placing was determined by votes by the other clubs.
“If the SPL Clubs voted in a different way, it would’ve been the SPL.
If the SFL Clubs voted in a different way, it would’ve been the second tier.”
If the football authorities had followed their own rules at the time, no vote would have taken place; Sevco would have had to apply for the vacant football league place in a process open to all aspiring clubs – Spartans, for example, might have fancied a chance at entering senior football.
===========================
And we return again to the Five Way Agreement.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33458803
Blazer banned for life from football.
No, not that blazer, but RCO must have had a wee moment’s panic when he heard the news.
Auldheid says:
Blog Writer: (482 comments)
July 9, 2015 at 3:36 pm
Bobcobb
I have wondered why Spartans did not speak up.
Were they not ready to be able to apply or were they persuaded/disuaded from doing so?
I have often wondered that too. The other thing that puzzles me is why no member clubs, especially those in the championship, have proposed a limit to loan players from one club.
burghGerburghGer says:
Member: (25 comments)
July 9, 2015 at 2:45 pm
Auldheid says:
Blog Writer: (479 comments)
July 9, 2015 at 2:01 pm
The destination of “sevco”/Rangers (matters not to this issue) in terms of league placing was determined by votes by the other clubs.
If the SPL Clubs voted in a different way, it would’ve been the SPL.
If the SFL Clubs voted in a different way, it would’ve been the second tier.
Those votes proved decisive. Their democratic will was enforced. I don’t see how any of the above could be questioned.
I was careful and deliberate to use the phrase “to that extent ‘sevco’s’ fate was enforced upon it”, for the very reason I was not seeking to shift wider responsibility for the saga away from those responsible – the arrogance/recklessness of Murray/Whyte etc. Perhaps you missed that qualification, as I think it renders your criticism unfair in this instance.
–//////////////////////
The point you seem to be missing Or completely ignoring
Is why there was voting
1. The Spl took a vote because there was a Free space in their setup because of the liquidation and end of RFC
The vote took place because A New club applied for the free space
Which was aloud as the SPL had no rules in place regarding 1 of their members becoming Defunct
2. The SPFL took a vote on which league this New club should start in
At the request of the SFA
Who wanted the New club to take the place of the club voted/promoted to the SPL
Sorry that should be SFL not SPFL lol
CanuckBhoy says:
Member: (13 comments)
July 9, 2015 at 1:52 pm
‘Sorry John, but I’ve seen you make this mistake a couple times.
The Rangers Football Club Limited began life as Sevco Scotland, not Sevco 5088..’
________
Always happy to be corrected,CanuckBhoy. That sequence of names is imprinted on the remaining few brain cells like a mantra.
Auldheid, I really don’t know and can only offer my opinion based on the evidence available. Certainly, Spartans had tried to enter the league before 2012 and are a club geared towards SPFL football. Precedent suggests they would have been interested had a place been available. I suspect (as I think you do too) that a quiet word was spoken to them outlining the futility of trying to take the available slot. I will stress again that this is speculation on my part but it seems the only plausible explanation.
You nailed it earlier; if the authorities had followed their own rules there would have been no need for the 5 way agreement.
On another note; if this version of Rangers are also liquidated, where would any re-incarnation start? The Third Division (league two these days) is no longer the bottom division in the football pyramid…
Auldheid says:
Blog Writer: (482 comments)
July 9, 2015 at 3:36 pm
“I have wondered why Spartans did not speak up.
Were they not ready to be able to apply or were they persuaded/disuaded from doing so?”
Speak up against who? The SFL Members?
Spartans would’ve known there was close to zero chance of the Scottish Football League electing to invite a club which 100-150 people turn up to see every week, in favour of a club whose average attendance for the preceding season had been 46,324.
This was reflected by the fact 29 out of 30 Scottish football League clubs voted for the following resolution:
“Scottish Football League Members agree to admit Sevco Scotland Limited as an Associate Member and agrees to permit Rangers F.C. to play in the League during Season 2012/13”.
Could they have voted against that in favour of another candidate club, Spartans possibly? Of course, such is democracy. But they exercised their rights in voting to accept Rangers FC into their league.
Auldhead/burghger
On th Spartan’s conundrum
As I pointed out in my last post
It was the SFA who put forward the New club to the SFL after they were knocked back by the SPL
So whether Spartans or any other deserving club applied I do not know
But whether they did or didn’t
Does not matter as the SFA had already shoehorned their chosen team into pole position In a 1 horse race (in the SFA eyes)
burghGer says:
Member: (26 comments)
July 9, 2015 at 5:02 pm
Auldheid says:
Blog Writer: (482 comments)
July 9, 2015 at 3:36 pm
“I have wondered why Spartans did not speak up.
Were they not ready to be able to apply or were they persuaded/disuaded from doing so?”
Speak up against who? The SFL Members?
Spartans would’ve known there was close to zero chance of the Scottish Football League electing to invite a club which 100-150 people turn up to see every week, in favour of a club whose average attendance for the preceding season had been 46,324.
This was reflected by the fact 29 out of 30 Scottish football League clubs voted for the following resolution:
“Scottish Football League Members agree to admit Sevco Scotland Limited as an Associate Member and agrees to permit Rangers F.C. to play in the League during Season 2012/13″.
Could they have voted against that in favour of another candidate club, Spartans possibly? Of course, such is democracy. But they exercised their rights in voting to accept Rangers FC into their league.
________________________
I think you’ll find that the SFL members were not given the opportunity to vote for Spartan’s admittance, as they were only allowed to vote on the level of TRFC’s admittance, therefor Spartans were not democratically dealt with. So the question of why that club has not complained is still there.
On your own idea that ‘Rangers’ were demoted; what led to their ‘demotion’? What offence did they commit, or rule break, to make it possible for them to be demoted? If they were demoted ‘without due cause’, why do you think Charles Green accepted, what would then have been a crippling injustice, without taking the football authorities to court?
Allyjambo says:
Member: (1073 comments)
July 9, 2015 at 5:32 pm
Apologies if I was not clear. My intended meaning was that the SFL clubs could’ve voted not to accept Gers, which would inevitably have opened a door to applications from other clubs, eg. Spartans.
29 out of 30 clubs thought otherwise.
I think I’ve made my position on the “demotion” question, as it was framed earlier, clear enough for now. To answer the additional three broad-ranging questions you ask on the topic would, I’d hazard a guess, expand its discussion into the tiresome category for some other users 🙂
burghGer says:
Member: (26 comments)
July 9, 2015 at 5:02 pm
This was reflected by the fact 29 out of 30 Scottish football League clubs voted for the following resolution:
“Scottish Football League Members agree to admit Sevco Scotland Limited as an Associate Member and agrees to permit Rangers F.C. to play in the League during Season 2012/13″.
——————————–
That kind of kick’s the demoted post from earlier into the back of the net
Burghger
Says
I think I’ve made my position on the “demotion” question, as it was framed earlier, clear enough for now.
///////////:::::////////
Sorry but your position and reasoning
Is as clear as mud
I posted up earlier about the Reason there was a vote by the SPL & SFL
The reasons I posted up are facts
Not opinions,positions or anything else
Just plain facts
On the Spartans debate, I think there is misunderstanding.
There was no vacancy in senior football so long as the RFC membership was still “alive”. The 5 way agreement was all about transferring that membership (in a big hurry) to Sevco Scotland, before RFC entered liquidation.
It is my position that if the RFC membership had not been transferred to Sevco before the date on which RFC entered liquidation, then that membership would have been extinguished, and so unavailable for transfer. Hence (in my solitary opinion) Lord Hodge’s extraordinary intervention to delay the liquidation process until after the RFC membership had been transferred.
Sevco Scotland, as a brand new company, simply could not meet the conditions set out in the rules for an applicant for a new membership. And as the rules stood back in 2012, I believe that the SFA had no discretion in the matter.Three years accounts were an absolute requirement for new members. Spartans, of course, met all requirements. That is the genesis of the 5WA fraud, as I see it.
This is all from memory of an extensive debate on here over 2 years ago, so happy to be corrected.
As far as I recall there are limits but there is a glaring loophole, in that it doesn’t count if the players come from another jurisdiction.
Auldheid says:
Blog Writer: (482 comments)
July 9, 2015 at 3:36 pm
Bobcobb
I have wondered why Spartans did not speak up.
Were they not ready to be able to apply or were they persuaded/disuaded from doing so?
————————-
I don’t often post but this is something that has played on my mind for a number of years.
Might I refer the right hon gentleman to a comment posted yesterday by Eddie Goldtop.
“Unfortunately it looks like I have come up against a brick wall for the time being.
Despite the club CEO giving his word that they would ask questions , he has come back to me with a change of mind ” due to Internal difficulties ” .
I have not been privi to the reasons for the turnaround but can take an educated guess given the additions to their board at and around the time of my asking. IMO 2 board members are friends of the SFA and changes may have been made to the board to enable a satisfactory vote. It’s only my guess.”
Myself, I have long been of the opinion that similar strategic placements in boardrooms throughout Scottish football be they SFA or RRM might explain why there is little objection to any of the ludicrous governance observed over many years.
Ballyargus says:
Member: (20 comments)
July 9, 2015 at 4:48 pm
The other thing that puzzles me is why no member clubs, especially those in the championship, have proposed a limit to loan players from one club.
___________
It’s about time someone did, before it’s too late. That’s why dual ownership is so dangerous. Never mind TRFC, do fans of any club want to see 11 youths/reserves from a larger club turning out for them every week on the basis that they are the players the big club wants to be playing? The Ashley 5 are the thin end of a wedge.
Also, Bryson’s assertion that RFC(IL) players were eligible to play because their registrations had not been revoked because the side letters that made them improperly registered were not known about at the time needs to be monitored for consistency of application. It’s complete billocks.
There are other hostages to fortune waiting to corrupt the integrity of Scottish football that this endless farrago of rule bending has created, but I’ll leave it at that.
scottc says:
Member: (189 comments)
July 9, 2015 at 6:22 pm
Ballyargus says:
Member: (20 comments)
July 9, 2015 at 4:48 pm
Auldheid says:
Blog Writer: (482 comments)
July 9, 2015 at 3:36 pm
Bobcobb
… The other thing that puzzles me is why no member clubs, especially those in the championship, have proposed a limit to loan players from one club.
————————————-
As far as I recall there are limits but there is a glaring loophole, in that it doesn’t count if the players come from another jurisdiction.
============================
You recall correctly, there are no limits to numbers of international loans.
I found this odd and wondered if there was some EUFA/FIFA/EU angle here.
It would seem not though as a scenario you may find familiar unfolded in the English Championship…..and it was promptly sorted out by the member clubs.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22800755
Why similar action hasn’t been taken here I have no idea 😆
Auldheid says:
Blog Writer: (479 comments)
July 9, 2015 at 2:01 pm
The destination of “sevco”/Rangers (matters not to this issue) in terms of league placing was determined by votes by the other clubs.
If the SPL Clubs voted in a different way, it would’ve been the SPL.
If the SFL Clubs voted in a different way, it would’ve been the second tier.
Those votes proved decisive. Their democratic will was enforced. I don’t see how any of the above could be questioned.
I was careful and deliberate to use the phrase “to that extent ‘sevco’s’ fate was enforced upon it”, for the very reason I was not seeking to shift wider responsibility for the saga away from those responsible – the arrogance/recklessness of Murray/Whyte etc. Perhaps you missed that qualification, as I think it renders your criticism unfair in this instance.
——–
The point being deliberately missed is that if sevco is the same club(rfc not ceasing to be a club as their own lawyers and spl agreed)then no vote would have been required on sevco’s Admission and RFC would have played in SPL 12-13 and taken their plce in round 4 Scottish cup, as it was livi took their place
As to the sevco Scotland / sevco 5088 anyone found that deed of novation yet?
Good Evening.
This morning I was struck by the BBC’s laughable inconsistency on ‘new club’ issues. And in a move sure to shock TSFM readers I decided to write a short blog about it!
https://theclumpany.wordpress.com/2015/07/09/inconsistent-aunty/
Enjoy the rest of the evening!
Another interesting story from Europe today with the French courts requesting that FFF sorts out their arrangement with Monaco. The issue being that there is a French super tax rate of 75% for incomes over €1M per annum. The current arrangement means that Monaco has a financial advantage over other French clubs because their players are exempt from the Super Tax in the Monaco tax haven despite competing in the French League.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33465304
So, what I’ve gathered from all that is that RFC died and the remaining Scottish professional clubs accepted the new club into the leagues at the lowest possible level .
Now, why didn’t any clubs who were chucked out of the Scottish Cup for fielding ineligible players complain ? Surely they weren’t ineligible until it was discovered that they were, by which time the tie would have been completed ?(is that not what the Bryson ruling means ?).
easyJambo says:
Member: (696 comments)
July 9, 2015 at 8:21 pm
Another interesting story from Europe today with the French courts requesting that FFF sorts out their arrangement with Monaco. The issue being that there is a French super tax rate of 75% for incomes over €1M per annum. The current arrangement means that Monaco has a financial advantage over other French clubs because their players are exempt from the Super Tax in the Monaco tax haven despite competing in the French League.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33465304
===========================================================
One for the state aid lot to get stuck into, or have they already been petitioning the EU in the interests of fair play?
paddy malarkey says:
Member: (50 comments)
July 9, 2015 at 8:54 pm
A reminder of the so-called “Bryson interpretation”:
once a player had been registered with the SFA, he remained registered unless and until his registration was revoked… even if there had been a breach of the SFA registration procedures… the registration of a player was not treated as being invalid
from the outset, and stood unless and until it was revoked.
Someone will correct me if I’m wrong but I believe the Cup examples you refer to regarded players who were ineligible from the outset, but still played.
@easyJambo
I’m amazed that Monaco have got away with it this for so long. I had assumed that the other French Clubs would have made sure that this HUGE advantage had been sorted out long ago.
In fact, never mind French clubs. When Monaco play in the Champions League surely they have a massive advantage compared to all other clubs.
They can’t still be getting away with this, can they?
Fergus was right over the John Collins affair too. Turns out he was right about quite a few things!
been lurking for a while and enjoying the insights, special mention to JC for his court reporting, excellent and a tribute to the blog.
In the whole rule bending, left field decisions in that fateful 2012/13 period, the Airdrie/Airdrieonians one was something that I felt at the time was too convenient, esp as it folowed the change from “The Rangers” reverting back to “Rangers”
I seem to remember the only reason given was:
“When the old company went into liquidation, it was in a different football environment and the use of the name was not possible at that time,” Airdrie chairman Jim Ballantyne said in a statement.
I don’t know – it didn’t feel right at the time and smacked of an accommodation.
(Not an attempt to have a go at Airdrie)
Scottish football needs a strong Airdrieonians
speaking of accommodations and in context to the discussions over Bryson, has any team been up before the SFA ‘beaks’ over registration issues in cup ties etc?
I am dying to see if someone will use the ‘Bryson defence’ in the future.
Dons through on away goals 😀
Saints out on away goals 🙁
We’ll get pumped next week if we don’t play much much better than that.
Just heard the commentator at the Aberdeen match mention how the opposition tonight was more difficult than at this stage last year against Daugava Riga ‘who don’t even exist anymore’. Jings, he’ll be getting a visit fae thon newspeak polis. No one is allow to utter stuff like that in oor media!
Bayview Gold says:
Member: (45 comments)
July 9, 2015 at 9:41 pm
been lurking for a while and enjoying the insights, special mention to JC for his court reporting, excellent and a tribute to the blog.
In the whole rule bending, left field decisions in that fateful 2012/13 period, the Airdrie/Airdrieonians one was something that I felt at the time was too convenient, esp as it folowed the change from “The Rangers” reverting back to “Rangers”
I seem to remember the only reason given was:
“When the old company went into liquidation, it was in a different football environment and the use of the name was not possible at that time,” Airdrie chairman Jim Ballantyne said in a statement.
I don’t know – it didn’t feel right at the time and smacked of an accommodation.
(Not an attempt to have a go at Airdrie)
Scottish football needs a strong Airdrieonians
———————————————————-
Absolutely right BG. All that has happened over the past few (or more) years has meant that we can’t take anything from these people at face value.
As Paxman said “Why is this lying b*stard lying to me?”.
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath, Airdrieonians and East Fife.
Does the Airdrie entity still have the colourful singing problem? Or was that left behind during the Airdrie United years?
Clyde -more successful than TRFC!
Interesting discussion earlier about the potential implications for the LNS decision in the event of HMRC being successful in their latest appeal.
I have never understood why LNS considered the FTTT verdict in their decision at all. The LNS panel was tasked with investigating improper registration. Whether the players’ EBTs were a form of tax evasion or ‘merely’ highly aggressive tax avoidance had no bearing on the status of their registration. Likewise I do not understand why the panel felt compelled to state that a subsequent successful HMRC appeal would not result in their decision being revisited. The LNS decision makes no attempt to justify this stance.
In terms of establishing any sporting advantage that may have resulted, all the panel needed to explain was that despite improper registration the players in question remained eligible (according to Bryson) and therefore no sporting advantage was gained.
Ultimately I can only speculate that consistent with the ludicrous Bryson interpretation, there was a predetermined outcome and this was all about contriving a mechanism, however ridiculous, of getting to that outcome. The predetermined decision makers, whoever they may be, were not content with confining the outcome to player registration and wanted to put the tax status of the EBTs, including any appeal, to bed as well.
In the event of a successful HMRC appeal, the question of the implications of tax evasion by Rangers has never been asked and I therefore fail to see why a judicial review would be required, except for the fact that inexplicably, in my opinion, the LNS panel set out to partially answer the unasked question anyway.
Thanks again JC. I’ll look forward to your record of the summing up from each party.
It sounds as if Dunlop put forward a strong argument on the basis of previous precedents on the definition of “unreservedly” and “earnings/emoluments”.
For background information, it was mentioned yesterday that McCann was paid £8K a week through the PAYE system and another £8K a week via the EBT.
Had all his income been paid via the PAYE system, he would have needed a £21.33K a week salary to match his “take home pay” from the £8K + £8K arrangement.
Many, many thanks to JC and EJ for their reporting from court and comments in general. You guys are a credit to this site not just for these reports but for all year round input.
This is slightly off topic but by the beard of Zeus, what were we doing paying Neil McCann, a good player but not exactly the star of the team, £16k per week “after tax”??!! Rangers were obviously among the worst if not the worst culprits (I’m sure the likes of Hartson, Sutton, Larsson etc. weren’t exactly being paid peanuts especially while being legitimately taxed) but what were they all thinking splashing that kind of money? It was a global problem at the time but, if we focus on Scotland, having ever thought that that kind of outlay was acceptable never mind sustainable is so ridiculous in the cold light of day in 2015.
jean7brodie says:
Member: (327 comments)
July 9, 2015 at 11:04 pm
‘..You guys are a credit to this site not just for these reports ‘
_____________
Thank you, Jean7.
Troutman and I scanned the court-room hoping that you might have made it through.Alas,we were disappointed.
We planned to have a lunch of the most tender, most succulent lamb, washed down by a glass of nice French red.
In the event, we chose not to, thinking that by some dreadful process such a lunch -even if we paid for it ourselves- may have corrupted us as easily as were our SMSM guests corrupted by the lamb and wine of SDM.
burghGer says:
Member: (28 comments)
July 9, 2015 at 9:10 pm
paddy malarkey says:
Member: (50 comments)
July 9, 2015 at 8:54 pm
I take it you agree with the first part of the comment ?
Sorry, but, IIRC, I made no reference to player registration, but eligibility to play .
Bryce Curdy
Can you easily point me at the relevant page/papa in The Decision? It stinks of a set up and why the question of withheld documents that reveal illegal EBTS is not being answered by the SFA/SPFL.
The question is not going to go away, its just gathering strength and if you can point to the paras re not reviewing the Decision it strengthens the case of premeditation further.
“why the panel felt compelled to state that a subsequent successful HMRC appeal would not result in their decision being revisited. The LNS decision makes no attempt to justify this stance.”
burghGer says:
Member: (28 comments)
July 9, 2015 at 9:10 pm
“Someone will correct me if I’m wrong but I believe the Cup examples you refer to regarded players who were ineligible from the outset, but still played.”
——————————–
I’ll leave it to the poster quizzed to answer your precise point but I think the general principle can be easily elucidated.
If a player has been incorrectly registered then it can be shown that the footballing authorities will administer sanctions once this fact comes to light. Another poster helpfully provided a selection of historical decisions that I squirrelled away and can call upon to illustrate this propensity.
How would you determine the validity of a players registration “from the outset”?
Should there be a registration official present on the touchline who checks through a player’s registration details whilst the fourth official checks his stud length? This would clearly be an unworkable arrangement given the number of staff that would be required to administer such a policy.
The sensible approach would be to have a register of player registrations that could be consulted in the event of a dispute.
Unless a player’s registration was verified at the point he took the field of play then it must be clear that all sanctions applied concerning mis-registration of players must be applied retrospectively.
The logic here is not tortuous. A rule is defined and a failure to adhere to that rule attracts a sanction. It would not be relied upon for the person or team causing the infringement to own up to that misdemeanour either before or after a fixture. In past cases it is often the opponent that realises that an infringement has occured and brings a complaint to the football governance authorities. The authorities themselves may recognise an infringement and similarly call the case to investigation. However it transpires this eventuality will only arise once the offence has been committed. It is sensibly always going to be a retrospective action.
A rule is legislated and published. Consequences of rule infringement will be notified at the same time. The rule is not breached by someone having the potential to breach any such rule. It is breached at the point the breach occurs. i.e. when the player takes to the field as in the circumstances considered.
The idea that a player is mis-registered from the outset is meaningless. Of course he is in infringement at the outset and also during the game and also after the game. However being in infringement before the game would not attract a sanction. I would currently breach the registration rules. However since only Donkey FC would ever invite me to take to the field of play my status as mis-registered is of no consequence.
From a layman’s perspective it is clear what happened concerning the Bryson expert opinion during the LNS commission. This was not some judicious and considered application of natural justice. It was executive expediency writ large. The only viable logic for sanctions not being proportionately applied for the mis-registration of dozens of players over numerous years was that to apply proportionate and equitable sanctions would have wreaked havoc with the footballing record books. Not just in Scotland either. Those with better knowledge of the rule book than me can correct me but I suspect that if a player was mis-registered for Scottish League and cup games then this likely had a knock on effect for European competition.
LNS applied a punishment of £250,000 for Rangers mis-registration of players. The Players were mis-registered and it would be very difficult to claim otherwise. However similar decisions have attracted fines of £10,000 per player per game. There are examples of three nil score lines being awarded to the opposition team in some cases, however the precise tariff for such breaches is not clear from the examples I have to hand. I’m sure the Head of Registration would have had a scribbled note somewhere in his desk drawer to remind him what punishment applied to a particular level of infringement.
The reason the sanction was not greater than £250,000 and that the ‘no sporting advantage’ ruling was invoked, in my opinion, was because the rule breaking was so widespread and over such a prolonged period that to have applied the rules equitably would have led to a revision of the Scottish League tables for a number of years and might have had a knock on effect on European competition once this information came to light.
Rangers got away with a relatively puny punishment since to apply the correct punishment would have brought such scandal upon the game in Scotland that it would have lost all credibility.
If Rangers had broke the rules a wee bit they might have got punished. Because they made a huge ginormous breach in the rules the sanctions effectively became unenforceable.
Perhaps you might sense that such a situation might irk the supporters of other football clubs?
Danish Pastry says:
Blog Writer: (1287 comments)
July 9, 2015 at 9:55 pm
“Jings, he’ll be getting a visit fae thon newspeak polis.”
————————-
I had to turn off the radio during the post match remarks.
It was dissapointing that St. Johnstone did not make it through, especially since the opposition had a man sent off part way through the game. I could see the sense in the post match analysis that perhaps St. Johnstone could have been more adventurous and adopted a more attacking formation in the circumstances However I’m not the club manager and I didn’t see the game so my agreement came from the heart rather than the head.
Alan Preston helpfully offered the opinion that Mark Warburton would have made such an attacking tactical change. Wit!. Where did that come from? I didn’t realise that Brentford attracted so much scrutiny from Scottish football pundits. Perhaps I should be gratified that pundits have taken the trouble to garner such widespread knowledge of so many clubs?
This was not in fact my reaction. Instead I reached for the off button.
JC, EJ and apologies to anyone else missed. Your attendance at court proceedings is sincerely appreciated in the bampots arena. Nobody could fault your commitment and for one who has to attend court (not as the accused) frequently, they can be slow, laborious and painful places.
A whole day can be summed up in a few sentences and are often at odds as to how a lay persons mind works. You were guilty, accept punishment and move on. End of story.
Points of law seem at odds with the truth and a black and white world seems much simpler. See Bryson if anybody needs further explanation. Rangers liquidated, players were paid backhanders to avoid tax, authorities bent backwards because of the bloo pound and here we find ourselves in a bit of a mess of their own making.
Simply put, to the man in the street, Rangers cheated, got caught, couldn’t pay their bills and were liquidated.
In the legal world, lawyers argue that they didn’t cheat, there was no advantage and they should retain all honours won during this time????
Here is where the working man feels out of his depth or scunnered with the seemingly corrupt establishment bending rules, in order to suit a preferred entity over another.
The summation of ‘the law is an ass’ doesn’t sit well and should read ‘the interpretation of the law is an ass.’ The law is fine but the perpetrators implementing that law are corrupt but as they wear suits, it somehow falls to interpretation.
No less a thief and a con man than the guy banged up in Barlinnie for robbing a bank. I pray hmrc are successful and we can finally lay this rotting corpse to rest and move on in a proper, untainted manner.
Thanks for that JC: your hand must have been cramping up with all that scribbling!
Let’s see what M’luds come back with…and I fully concur with your observation;
“[Dr.Poon] made the other two look like rank amateurs”
Beancounters 1-0 Legaleagles
I’ll get ma calculator… 🙄
Castofthousands says:
Member: (241 comments)
July 10, 2015 at 1:18 am
‘..Alan Preston helpfully offered the opinion that Mark Warburton would have made such an attacking tactical change. ‘
________
CoT, not your fault of course, but you have been instrumental in plunging me into grief! I had the greatest respect for Preston as an absolutely dead-down-the line football analyst and knowledgeable, objective commentator who respected himself and his personal integrity.
If he has swallowed the poison pill that requires him to big up anything to do with the newest club I spit in his eye.With great regret, I cease to trust him as being any better than the succulent lamb brigade.
burghGer says:
Member: (28 comments)
July 9, 2015 at 9:10 pm
paddy malarkey says:
Member: (50 comments)
July 9, 2015 at 8:54 pm
Some of these players’ registrations were in breach of the rules from the outset, but once registration was accepted ,they were properly registered ? Some players were ineligible to play but once they were accepted onto the field of play they were eligible ? It’s not the dark ages we live in , not even in Maryhill(well maybe excepting the Butney area) so basic admin stuff should be easy using modern technology . I can see the point if somebody played a “ringer” , but the players entering the field of play are accepted by officialdom as being eligible . Same goes for the “fit and proper” test – this person is fit and proper because we say so and until somebody proves otherwise .
John Clark on July 10, 2015 at 1:35 am
While it’s still reasonably…
——–
Since you’re on the nightshift and I awoke (no doubt worrying about my uncommunicative son off studying in a big city) I went through your notes. Very revealing annaw. This Mr Ghosh has lived up to his name by the sound of it.
Was Dr Poon’s opinion specifically referred to at any time?
Btw, CoT I didn’t hear too much of the Preston bit you mention as my VPN kept cutting out which meant I had to reset my MW stream connection. I got most of what the managers said. Must say, surprised if he mentioned ‘Warbs’ or is it ‘Warbo’? Seems supremely irrelevant.
I moved on to twitter reaction and saw KJ bemoaning ‘the St Johnstone disaster’, or words to that effect. Some downbeat critique on the BBC comments, too. No one seemed to have heard that TW described a severely depleted squad — I think it is a fair excuse, considering the size of squad, time of the season taken into account, etc. But at least the Saintees are not living on hand-to-mouth loans and ARE paying their bills. If they had gone through, I think a trip to Kasakhstan awaited — blimey, some reward. I wonder if that had made them a profit or a loss? They joys of modern European competition eh? Well done Dons though, a trip to Croatia seems more managable in practical terms, even though the opposition will be very tough.
To be fair to burghGer, in the case of the Spartans player the SFA did identify the incompletely filled out registration form and returned it to Spartans for the missing signature. Spartans claimed they never received it, so he was identified by the authorities as improperly registered prior to the match. I’m assuming that’s what he means by ‘from the outset’.
Keith Jackson having a right royal go at St Johnstone on Twitter. What a pity he was so happy in the past when his team advanced in Europe on the back of an almost unlimited overdraft and risky EBT schemes. I’m sure the people of St Johnstone will know it was a bad result, but they are a well run club who lost fairly. Despite what many in the Scottish media think, there is much to said about that. On the other hand we have a club living on crisis loans every month with the sword of Mike Ashley hanging over them, and even then they are going to be in the Champions League in three years!
If I sound paranoid, I believe the media’s behaviour over decades gives me every right to be.
Pretty amusing stuff UtH, the twitter scrapes KJ gets into. Some of the conversations are like stuff made up by Clumps (apologies). This tweet is worth clicking to follow a tit-for-tat which includes Ewan Murray, Steven McGowan, and a few fans — not least those types of fans who revel in the Saintees’ exit. It’s on his timeline about 23.36 last night, although that might be 22.36 for you. Ewan Murray can be over the top miseryguts but up against KJ it gets very funny. Good laugh to start the day 🙂
JC the fattest of yaks is awaiting your return downunder for the outstanding coverage you have given to the proceedings so far! Great work
Never before have I heard of, much less read, someone trying to defend bryson’s law!
This whole thing needs to be put to bed this time round. Although as has already been mentioned, it will make not a difference to trfc and their supporters (obvious exclusions apart) will continue to peddle the victim myth, which is a hell of a lot more annoying and tedious than even the survival myth. I can understand the mind set that says they are still alive ( even when everyone else kows they are not ) but the victim myth and hatred of the rest of Scottish football really annoys me!
Auldheid et others
When Sevco were invited/ shoehorned /muscled in as an associate member of the leagues as a replacement for Rangers many some of us asked why aspirational clubs like Spartans or Gala or Cove did not make a fuss.
Clubs who wanted then and still want to be in the real leagues.
I have since taken up that line of question with the people behind a few of these aspirational clubs in unoffical off the record conversations.
The reality is they would all have relished the chance to join the leagues by such an invitation.
But
These clubs at the time were more on the outside than the inside of the SFA/SFL organisations.
It was pre the much discussed and then finally introduced pyramid scheme that saw Montrose keep their status at the expense of Edinburgh City just a few months ago in the pyramid premier.
Every club knew that Rangers were in death throes and that the SFA sensible and pragmatic view was to parachute a new entity into as high a league as possible.
Indeed SPL clubs were told it was for their own good and the original plan was for an SPL level rebirth.
This was all unwritten and unpublished but well known through the usual channels and the angry response from the fans set a queer few days in process that changed the plans.
So it was politics.
And there is also the politics that exists between the diddy clubs too especially those who are threatened by the aspirations of the current non spfl members.
So nobody who wanted “in” made a fuss becaue at that time the only real way forward was for a diddy non spfl club to court friendship among the self same people who were behind the construction of the 5 way agreement.
The people who had a vacancy and a replacement without opening up the opportunity.
We can’t castigate the wee guys though.
If I had been involved in any way with any of the aspirants I would have blocked any move to make a fuss and continue to play the waiting game as the pyramid was on the horizon and in time it will see a radical realignment at the bottom end just as it has done in England.
That is why Cove, Spartans, Gala, Edinburgh City et al stayed schtum.
It wasn’t the lack of a vacancy.
It wasn’t the shoehorning (back)-in of a club with 50,000 fans.
It was the very real fear in the politics of exclusion by the ruling paid for servants and some of the other clubs.
The aspirational diddys are all playing the long game and good luck to them.
Doncaster Longmuir and Regan were playing the short game.
Badly.
Finloch, so the pyramid system was effectively a quid pro quo for the aspirant clubs keeping their heads down and letting Sevco/TRFC have an unchallenged passage into the lowest division?
It makes sense and is totally in keeping with what we already know about the corrupt approach of the administrators in other areas.
Scottish Football needs a strong stomach.
Finloch
A good analysis and right on the mark. However apart from the strong stomach Red Litchie prescribes I am still left wondering why, when the diddy clubs in the League are now also subject to a threatening play-off, they still do not say anything? Unless of course the conspiracy theory of SFA putting support on the boards of strategic diddy clubs is correct?
The same goes for Hibs, Falkirk, and QoS in the Championship not saying anything about loan players? Why the silence when what happened last season was obviously to their detriment? It makes you wonder?
Perhaps in the intervening period they themselves have been looking at getting themselves a Newcastle style source for adding to their squads – it would be interesting to see what would happen if each of them [and St Mirren] got, just as an example, Chelsea, Liverpool, Man City and Man United to loan each of them 5 of their reserves and in doing so threaten the team from Ibrokes from even the play-offs. I wonder how quickly our conflicted administrators would take to close the loophole if that happened. Answers on a postcard to …….. .
Scottish football needs a strong Arbroath and East Fife (and some new administrators).
Many thanks also to JC and EJ for their very informative reports – no sight of any such detail from the lamb munchers.
Finloch & redlichtie
———–
Does make you wonder what would have happened if radical common sense and/or fate had intervened leaving no immediate newco.
A one-year hiatus would have benefitted the Ibrox fans, imo. Chances are, a proper newco would have emerged and may well have reached by now exactly the same league Sevco Newco are currently in. But then, I suppose the high heid yins wanted to avoid the puzzle of slotting a newco in again after a year out? One of the 42 would need to go, either that or start up outside the then SFL. I imagine some kind of reconstruction would have been cobbled together to ease a newco into the league setup.
The short game it was indeed. What a mess they’ve facilitated.
Castofthousands says:
Member: (241 comments)
July 10, 2015 at 1:18 am
Danish Pastry says:
Blog Writer: (1287 comments)
July 9, 2015 at 9:55 pm
I had to turn off the radio during the post match remarks.
It was disappointing that St. Johnstone did not make it through, especially since the opposition had a man sent off part way through the game. I could see the sense in the post match analysis that perhaps St. Johnstone could have been more adventurous and adopted a more attacking formation in the circumstances However I’m not the club manager and I didn’t see the game so my agreement came from the heart rather than the head.
Alan Preston helpfully offered the opinion that Mark Warburton would have made such an attacking tactical change. Wit!. Where did that come from? I didn’t realise that Brentford attracted so much scrutiny from Scottish football pundits. Perhaps I should be gratified that pundits have taken the trouble to garner such widespread knowledge of so many clubs?
This was not in fact my reaction. Instead I reached for the off button.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Apparently Warburton has the “reputation” of successfully exploiting the situation when the opposition has a man sent off
Now we know why he got the job
Danish Pastry says:
Blog Writer: (1290 comments)
July 10, 2015 at 3:05 am
‘….Was Dr Poon’s opinion specifically referred to at any time?’
__________
No, indeed,DP, absolutely no reference to her either by name or by function as ‘the dissenting’ member of the Tribunal.
What I don’t know is how a Tribunal , or a panel of Judges for that matter,produces its judgement.
Troutman and I talked about this in conversation as we walked down the High St . He thinks that each member individually writes up his/her own judgement before they come together to arrive at the final , official Tribunal judgement. I had always just assumed that they met together first to agree on what would be their findings of fact in relation to the evidence they accepted, and then perhaps wrote up their individual view of how the law related to the agreed facts.
Maybe someone on the blog has an idea of how Tribunals are supposed to work?
Castofthousands says:
Member: (241 comments)
July 10, 2015 at 1:02 am
The Bryson interpretation is the only sensible interpretation in my opinion.
Remember this is a matter of adminstration. X documents weren’t lodged with Y authority per Z regulations. (Not to mention, in Gers case, EBT payments to players were not secret, in the sense that they were well known to be the modus operandi at Ibrox throughout that period).
Going back through years and years of football records scrubbing out sporting contest after sporting contest, “3-0 defeat. 3-0 defeat. 3-0 defeat. 3-0 defeat…”. Insanity.
It would only take one player, a Willie Miller for instance, to have been receiving back-handers/improperly registered payments for 20 years of competition to be null and void.
Disproportionate would be an understatement.
burghGer says:
Member: (29 comments)
July 10, 2015 at 10:59 am
Going back through years and years of football records scrubbing out sporting contest after sporting contest, “3-0 defeat. 3-0 defeat. 3-0 defeat. 3-0 defeat…”. Insanity.
=====================
These weren’t actually “sporting contests” though. One side was making concealed payments to its players. It is no different from the old “boot money” scam, where “tax free” cash was paid to players outside of their contracts. Unless both teams are playing by the rules, then there is no sporting contest- just a loaded dice. All games in which unregistered payments were made should be overturned, and the innocent club awarded a 3-0 victory. That’s how it works for every club bar one.
BurghGer
Have you got Willie instead of Kenny mixed up,it would then be for example than for instance ,this would also change your last line to proportionate would be the case.
Apologies for all for rising to this, but what a strange standpoint. The underlying message is if you’re going to break the rules, do it on an industrial scale over many years and you can’t be punished for it because it’s too hard to work out. On second thoughts, I agree with you burghGer – rather than go into the minute detail of each and every transgression and overturn results, as per the rules, RFC should have just been kicked out of the SFA and SPL forthwith when they were found guilty by the LNS tribunal of deliberately breaking the rules on player registration. I suppose liquidation made that redundant though.
burghGer says:
Member: (29 comments)
July 10, 2015 at 10:59 am
_____________
Castofthousands above has explained my view on this at greater length and more articulately than I would have. My point last night, which I will repeat, is that in bending the rules to allow RFC(IL) players, improperly registered, to be considered eligible, Bryson set a precedent, an interpretation of eligibility that is directly contrary to that which had pertained in the past and which had never been questioned, because it makes obvious sense.
Having re-read the Registration procedures, the only way I can see that a player could not be eligible from the outset is if his registration with the SFA had lapsed, probably because he was without a club, or in the process of being transferred and somehow the new registration documents had not been completed at the same time as the previous club registration lapsed, or soon after.
In the case of RFC(IL) players there was no question of this. Their registration papers had been submitted, incorrectly as the side letters to the contracts detailing further payments had been withheld, and had the SFA known about these side letters the registrations would have been returned as invalid (at least one would hope so).
The consequence you describe of endless 0 v 3 scores receding into history is impossible – these players played European and international matches too.
However, it would have been sensible and pragmatic for the SFA to have come clean and stated that RFC(IL)had been found to have played entire squads of ineligible players in all competitions for years, made it clear to UEFA and FIFA that this had occurred because of the wilful non-disclosure of mandatory financial information and left them to carry the can.
The removal of titles and other trophies won within Scotland
during the period of ineligibility would have made the point and been accepted , of necessity, by UEFA and FIFA.
That would have been justice and it would have prevented the regulatory mess we have now and the undermining of one of,in practical terms, the most important aspects of football governance and hence integrity, the correct registration of players and their eligibility to play.
It would have been reported as a major scandal, because it was a major scandal, but it would have left our game clean.
in the sense that they were well known to be the modus operandi at Ibrox throughout that period
—————————————————————————–
This to me is the crucial point Celtic and all the other knew what rangers were doing the fact that they chose not to follow that route was their concern, however the fact that they never raised an objection is very strange!
Neepheid
You hit on the crux of the matter. The BTC ebts whose legality is uncertain until the legal process runs it’s course were the equivalent of cash in a brown envelope payment in that they share the same characteristics which is secret and hidden from football authority.
Rather than admit that, the LNS sham was about minimising the crime in order to avoid the natural consequences of it.
Of course had the documents showing that the early DOS ebts were illegal been supplied then it could not have been presented as solely a registration issue.
And those documents were not provided not once but twice. Once is careless, twice is deliberate and if you take in deliberate concealment of related documents a few years earlier it becomes fraud and probably criminal.
Perhaps it was the use of the word fraudulent in one or more of the witheld documents that is the reason they were kept from prying eyes.
Deception on this scale within what is a closed community (of which msm are a part ) can only succeed if the parties are complicit and there is more than enough to suggest that they are.
I can understand the fears that led to commercial considerations taking precedence over integrity, but like most fears in life they are unfounded and had there been anyone in a position to lead the game in the integrity direction (and I excuse Turnbull Hutton because his health was not up to the fight although maybe his spirit lives on at the Kirkcaldy club or elsewhere) but essentially it’s not RFC or TRFC that is the target of our disdain but football itself for being so morally bereft and cowardly.
That goes for those in our media refusing to aknowledge the reality of what has taken place, not just in the use if ebts to gain advantage but the lengths gone to cover up and avoid the consequences.
It’s being lied to then asked what are you going to do about it that rips my knitting.
It’s as if football is mocking the very folk it depends on to provide it’s participants with a living. A dangerous attitude.
Just to be clear, my earlier post was not a defence of EBTs.
The whole scheme proved an exercise in corporate mismangement/recklessness by certain individuals, that has had various damaging consequences to Rangers and its supporters, not to mention the wider game in Scotland.
But that fact doesn’t mean Rangers fielded ineligible players.
They didn’t. The players were eligible, they were registered; that is a fact of history that cannot be re-written by the hindsight showing they should not have been if due attention had been paid, and processes properly followed.
Over 10 years Rangers’ publicly-available accounts displayed £48 million of payments to players & other staff (nobody ever believed it was the tea lady getting the EBT). These weren’t brown-envelope payments, or a deliberate effort to break the rules, it was a well-known scheme which should have been paid due attention to at the time, not just waved through as if all was well.
I don’t defend EBTs but re-writing the history books with hindsight, besmirching the efforts of players/coaches who did no wrong, was never the just punishment.
burghGerburghGer says:
Member: (30 comments)
July 10, 2015 at 12:52 pm
Just to be clear, my earlier post was not a defence of EBTs.
The whole scheme proved a disgraceful exercise in corporate mismangement/recklessness by certain individuals, that has had various damaging consequences to Rangers and its supporters, not to mention the wider game in Scotland.
But that fact doesn’t mean Rangers fielded ineligible players.
They didn’t. The players were eligible, they were registered; that is a fact of history that cannot be re-written by the hindsight showing they should not have been if processes had been properly followed.
Over 10 years Rangers’ publicly-available accounts displayed £48 million of payments & other staff (nobody ever believed it was the tea lady getting the EBT). These weren’t brown-envelope payments, or a deliberate effort to break the rules, it was a well-known scheme which should have been paid due attention to at the time.
I don’t defend EBTs but re-writing the history books with hindsight was never the just punishment.
…………………………….
IMO – what you are claiming is incorrect.
You state the players were ‘registered’. They were.
But
The rules stated that “ALL” payments to players
[for playing football]
MUST be notified to the SFA.
This was the part that ‘Rangers’ did not adhere too.
[why was it that a full team of properly registered players could be kicked out of a competition on the basis that ‘a second signature’ was missing from a document, which already been signed by that individual and he mistakenly did not sign the second part, which was clearly a mistake, but non the less, this oversight rendered the rules to have been broken] ???
burghGer says:
Member: (30 comments)
July 10, 2015 at 12:52 pm
————————-
I think that it is fair to sat that the jury [their Lordships] are still out on whether the EBT scheme managed by MGH/Rangers is or is not legal.
The scheme was listed in the accounts/financial statement [of the Club?] however, what was not widely known was the existence of side letters.
If my memory is correct the Club moved to hide the existence of the side letters from the authorities – including HMRC.
Until we have a decision from the Court of Session, or indeed the Supreme Court, there is no history to be written.
BurghGer
So what your saying is that the recipients of an EBT at RFC (IL) once they moved onto another club(s) would want this method of payment used to pay their wages as it was all above board at the club they have just signed from, if not why not,maybe these clubs should be asked the question if this was put to them.
burghGer says:
July 10, 2015 at 12:52 pm
“But that fact doesn’t mean Rangers fielded ineligible players.
They didn’t. The players were eligible, they were registered; that is a fact of history that cannot be re-written by the hindsight showing they should not have been if due attention had been paid, and processes properly followed.”
So if I’m a money launderer and manage to get dirty money into the banking system without it being noticed then subsequently buy houses, cars etc, I’m effectively in the clear and can keep all those ill gotten gains even when 10 years later the authorities catch up with me and prove my wrongdoing?
John Clark says:
Member: (978 comments)
July 10, 2015 at 10:39 am
No, indeed,DP, absolutely no reference to her either by name or by function as ‘the dissenting’ member of the Tribunal…
———–
Cheers John. Some of the things you wrote gave me the impression she might have been quoted.
Regarding some of the discussion on this page, I can’t help thinking of the £250,000 fine on the oldco club for keeping the EBT payments undisclosed, in other words, cheating. That the old Rangers got off without stripped titles is thanks to a political decision by the SFA, surely. Perhaps someone whispered the words ‘social unrest’ again? A club whose players were properly registered aren’t hit with huge fines based on secret hidden contracts.
Looking at it from a purely sporting perspective, all titles & trophies achieved during the years of wilful non-disclosure are tainted. The absurd re-run of the Bryson doctrine looks no more convincing this time than it did first time round.
If the side letters were revealed to the SFA then for football purposes there would be no issue because all payments had been disclosed. However not only were the letters not revealed they were deliberately concealed. Those actions are telling are they not? That concealing of the letters indicate to me that RFC knew what they were doing was wrong either ab initio or from the time that they new the jig was up when the provision of the letters was demanded.
LNS said that their actions were second only to match fixing.
Were my club to be caught doing that and were subsequently liquidated that would have been to my eyes reason either to start again or to bury the corpse completely over the shame. To claim that the corpse was alive and not only had suicide not been committed but that had been a victim in the matter is not the action of a dignified person.
I know that I am conflating matters here . The cause of the death was tax and other debt but that debt was generated in a large part by paying too much for players via EBT or otherwise and using players which could not be afforded within the resources of the club. The fact that the EBT schemes were potentially dangerous to the finances of the club multiplied the recklessness,
How long was Rangers for sale before the sale to a transparent chancer? The several years and the sale for a pound of itself shows that it was the sale of a dead horse.
Emotions and meta narratives are all well and good but have ill served the TRFC supporters and continue to do so.
As Dylan Thomas said after the first death there is no other!
Guess the Club
What If We Sign No One?………..
It would be a disgrace in all honesty. We have a great chance of winning 4 trophies this season and simply must show the correct level of ambition to win them all. We are not the worlds most successful club for nothing. We are winners. Or at least we used to be.
Danish Pastry says:
Blog Writer: (1291 comments)
July 10, 2015 at 2:27 pm
‘…Looking at it from a purely sporting perspective, all titles & trophies achieved during the years of wilful non-disclosure are tainted…’
__________
Yes. The refusal of the SFA to acknowledge the invalidity of those ‘sporting successes’ won by the deliberately plotted and planned use of ineligible players was a bigger crime than the crime of that wretched cheat Murray. the cheat was just a common or garden cheating chancer:the SFA are supposedly the law-makers and law-enforcers , and for them to behave as crookedly as the despicable Murray is as heinous a crime as an ‘authority’ could commit, removing any belief and trust in the governance of our game.
I get really angry when I think about it.
If anyone’s interested in a neutral summary of the EBT tribunal saga, from a legal professional’s point of view, I stumbled across this…
http://www.pkfcooperparry.com/news/tax/rangers-case-%E2%80%93-upper-tribunal-decision#comment
GoosyGoosy says:
Member: (425 comments)
July 10, 2015 at 2:51 pm
‘… We are winners. Or at least we used to be.’
___________
A useful, if rueful, avoidance of any hubristic tendency! 🙂
That wasn’t LNS. That was the Lord Carloway SFA tribunal that ended up being contested in court.
burghGer says:
Member: (31 comments)
July 10, 2015 at 3:12 pm
‘..If anyone’s interested in a neutral summary of the EBT tribunal saga, from a legal professional’s point of view, I stumbled across this”
________
Grateful for that link.
But we have to remember that the footballing offence is quite different from the tax offence ( if, as seems likely, the actual experts in the Law find in favour of HMRC).Whether SDM gets legally away with the EBT scheme is really neither here nor there , since his failure to abide by football laws is the football offence which gave his club an illicit advantage and helped them to ‘win’ by underhand, sleekit, deceitful methods. Those wins should automatically be stripped from the record, just as gold medals are stripped from cheats in other major sports.
If HMRC lose the appeal, so what? RFC(IL) under SDM are still in actual fact to be considered as football cheats, big-time.
No amount of black propaganda or lying statements from Level5 or from the 6th Floor could ever change that. The stain on the character of Rangers-that-was is indelible, just as the players with EBTs were ineligible.
And no ordinarily decent football supporter could think otherwise.