Comment on Accountability via Transparency. by HirsutePursuit.


    The "Old Firm" trademark is now jointly owned by Celtic & Sevco.

    The liquidators transferred its interest in the IP to Sevco in Nov 18 – and backdated the effective date to 2012.

    I presume Celtic must have agreed to the transfer of ownership.

    HirsutePursuit Also Commented

    Accountability via Transparency.

    I'm not sure what point you are making in relation to the TV deal.

    In commerce of any type, an historic brand has a value. But a brand loses value when its provenance is broken.

    What, for example, does the MG marque mean to the average UK motorist today? I suspect a lot less than if the the brand had not been bought out of administration and the original company liquidated.

    The provenance of the Rangers FC brand has a direct relationship to its value. 

    There is no doubt that Sevco purchased the RFC brand, but that doesn't change the fact that the original club – the holder of the historic 'honours' – is no longer operating.

    Just as the motor manufacturer MG Rover is no more.

    It wasn't so long ago that there were two Lotus teams in F1. Both had claims to the brand. Neither, from memory had any direct link to the Lotus F1 team from the 50's through to the 90's. Each had leased slightly different versions of the brand from different sources.

    It's probably no coincidence that the Lotus brand is no longer present in F1. The latest incarnations lacked true provenance and (in F1 terms, at least) are no more. 

    My point is that the parties to the 5WA have agreed, as a matter of contract, that they would present a single front on the matter of Rangers purported continuation. That lie has been used by two of the parties (now merged into one) to sell a product (the TV deal) at a higher value than is likely to have been achievable if the truth had been told.

    Did Duff and Phelps achieve a better sale price because of the lie?

    Did Charles Green sell an IPO on the back of the lie? Is Sevco still benefitting from that lie today in season ticket and merchandise sales?

    Accountability via Transparency.
    Jingso.Jimsie 4th June 2019 at 15:48 6 0 Rate This

    'HirsutePursuit 3rd June 2019 at 22:39':

    The players' registration were held by the administrators, Duff & Phelps. They issued a letter allowing the players to be used by Sevco Scotland, trading as The Rangers Football Club. You can see a copy of the letter at: http://www.thefrontofthebus.com/2014/04/when-spl-ratified-sevco-as-new-club.html


    Assuming this is genuine, this is interesting on several levels:

    Firstly, as the player registrations were held by the "company", the company has to be regarded as the football club.

    Secondly, these players (if still registered with Rangers) could only play for Sevco by way of a temporary transfer. However, there is a problem with that:

    123.2.5 The Board shall not during a season approve more than four temporary transfers to any one club at any one time. Of these, no more than one such transfer at any one time shall involve a player who has reached the age of 21 years on 1st January of the appropriate year. The maximum number of temporary transfers allowed to any club in a season shall not exceed five, of which not more than two shall involve players who have reached the age of 21 years on 1st January of the appropriate year.


    Accountability via Transparency.
    Cluster 1


    Sky certainly walked away from the original deal. No Rangers in the SPL cost the league £17m. Even then, it had to pay the SFL £9m for the new club's games to get the deal over the line.

    Was the deal the SPL sold based on the lie that the original club had survived liquidation and were to play in the SFL?

    If so, it is the very definition of fraud.

    I'm sure that if it had been made clear to Sky that the new club was not the original Rangers, they would not have sold sports packages claiming that to be so.

    I'm sure that Sky, BT et al would not now refer to the "Old Firm" if they were truly aware that it no longer exists.


    Recent Comments by HirsutePursuit

    One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All
    …or you can find it here…


    One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All
    Rod McKenzie allowed the idea that registration and eligibility were wrapped together to go unchallenged.

    In fact, he may have introduced the idea to LNS.

    Why would he do that?

    One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All



    An official list or record of names or items.

    ‘a membership register’



    NOUN mass noun

    The action or process of registering or of being registered.

    ‘the registration of births, marriages, and deaths’


    The SFA keep a list of players. That list is a register. The register is maintained, largely in good faith, from the information provided by the clubs and players. The process and rules describing what and how the information must be provided are the registration procedures.

    If a player has been initially placed on the list and information later comes to light that the registration procedures have not been carried out correctly the player can be removed from the list.

    What the SFA cannot do is say that the player had never been on the list – the player's registration (place on the list) can only revoked from the point in time the defect in procedures became apparent.

    This is effectively what Bryson said – and actually, is self-evident.

    The SFA cannot change an event that has previously occurred. It can only correct it in the present time.





    often eligible for/to do something

    Having the right to do or obtain something; satisfying the appropriate conditions.

    ‘customers who are eligible for discounts’


    Suppose I register as unemployed and claim for any and all the benefits that would ensue. But, actually I have a little part-time job that pays cash.

    Ten years later my deceit is uncovered. I say I didn't think I needed to declare the cash payments as there was no PAYE involved. 

    Should the DWP revoke my unemployment registration retrospectively?

    Or should they remove my registration now and reassess my eligibility for the benefits I have already received?

    Or should they concede that I must have been eligible for the benefits simply because I was on the register.

    The SPL's rules covered both aspects. It doesn't matter that the conditions for registration and eligibility were the same

    Registration is an action that has already occurred. Mistakes can only be corrected in the present.

    Eligibility can (theoretically) be reassessed at any time.



    Does Money Indeed Ruin Football?

    It is worth remembering that the ignoble lord took great pains to ensure that the commission was conducted as an adversarial process.

    Rod Mackenzie acted for the SPL as the prosecutor and James Mure for Rangers as the defendant.

    There is no suggestion from the commission's report that the SFA (via Bryson) gave any opinion on the SPL's rules.

    On the face of it, it would seem more likely that, as a matter for the defence, Mr Mure (acting for Rangers) would introduce an argument that would seek to conflate the SFA's registration procedures with the SPL's rules on eligibility.

    But, as you say, it was Mr Mackenzie who wrote the SPL rules. He could and should have been able to repel that specious line in short order.

    I genuinely do not believe that the SFA gave any opinion on this at all. From my reading of LNS, Sandy Bryson simply provided a factual run-through of its own registration process.

    The big question is this: who put forward the creatively alternative interpretation of the SPL rules – that effectively let Rangers off the hook? 

    Was it Sandy Bryson? Was it Mr Mure? Was it Lord Nimmo? 

    Or was it Rod Mackenzie himself?

    I know who I think it was.




    Does Money Indeed Ruin Football?
    Just to be clear about Bryson:


    [86] Evidence was given by Alexander Bryson, Head of Registrations at the SFA, who 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.

    [87] Mr McKenzie explained to us that SPL Rule D1.13 had hitherto been understood to mean that if, at the time of registration, a document was not lodged as required, the consequence was that a condition of registration was broken and the player automatically became ineligible to play in terms of SPL Rule D1.11. He accepted however 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.

    [88] In our opinion, this was a correct decision by Mr McKenzie. 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 Bryson’s 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 footballing authorities – should be able to proceed on the faith of an official register. This means that a player’s 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.

    [89] 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.

    We should not accept the LNS conflation between registration and eligibility.


    Bryson gave evidence on the question of player registration from an SFA perspective. Evidence which, as far as I can see, was entirely accurate.


    The question of eligibility was a matter for the SPL and was conceded quite disgracefully by Rod Mackenzie acting on the SPL's behalf.


    The SPL rule was specifically intended to cover the situation that Sandy Bryson (correctly, IMO) described.


    If a registration is found to be defective some time after it had originally been accepted as correct, you cannot turn back time to pretend that the player had never been registered in the first place. All the SFA could do was revoke the registration when the defect became known.


    The SPL rule was written to deal with both the players' registration AND eligibility. 


    The SFA can say that the registrations would not have been made if the full facts were known – but cannot use a time machine to say that the players had not been registered.


    The SPL (via Rod Mackenzie) was derelict in it's duty to present a case that accepted that the players had been registered – but nevertheless ineligible to play in official matches.


    That Mr Mackenzie and LNS allowed the two things to be conflated is, if I am being kind, incompetent.


    On this matter I don't think kindness is an appropriate sentiment.


    It was not for Sandy Bryson to explain the SPL rules to LNS. The commission has the rules in front of them. It was up to Mr Mackenzie to ensure that the commission were given a technically correct interpretation.


    It was Rod Mackenzie (acting for the SPL) that should be the focus of our concern.