Jean7brodie says: (385) December 5, 2013 at 9:34 pm 2 2 …

Comment on Comment Moderation Thread by HirsutePursuit.

jean7brodie says: (385)
December 5, 2013 at 9:34 pm
2 2 Rate This

Could anyone enlighten me as to why the OCNC thread is called ‘Bonkers OCNC’?
a. TSFM wishes to stigmatize anyone who has an opinion on the matter as bonkers.
b. TSFM wishes to stigmatize anyone who argues that the old club has died is bonkers
c. TSFM wishes to stigmatize anyone who argues that the old club survives is bonkers
d. The debate is driving him/her bonkers
e. All of the above

Recent Comments by HirsutePursuit

Is Regan a DIDDY?
JOHN CLARKFEBRUARY 2, 2018 at 00:53
0 Rate This
HirsutePursuitFebruary 1, 2018 at 23:54‘…..He will know a serious crime if he sees one.The Criminal Justice & Licensing (Scotland) Bill has penalties including prosecution and a prison sentence of up to 14 years for failure to report serious crime.’____________________Indeed. But the question arises, I think, of what  powers he has, and of to whom he is paid to answer .

31Failure to report serious organised crime(1)This section applies where—
(a)a person (“the person”) knows or suspects that another person (“the other person”) has committed—
(i)an offence under section 28 or 30, or
(ii)an offence which is aggravated by a connection with serious organised crime under section 29, and
(b)that knowledge or suspicion originates from information obtained—
(i)in the course of the person’s trade, profession, business or employment, or
(ii)as a result of a close personal relationship between the person and the other person.
(2)In the case of knowledge or suspicion originating from information obtained by the person as a result of a close personal relationship between the person and the other person, this section applies only where the person has obtained a material benefit as a result of the commission of serious organised crime by the other person.
(3)The person commits an offence if the person does not disclose to a constable—
(a)the person’s knowledge or suspicion, and
(b)the information on which that knowledge or suspicion is based.
(4)It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (3) to prove that the person had a reasonable excuse for not making the disclosure.
(5)Subsection (3) does not require disclosure by a person who is a professional legal adviser (an “adviser”) of—
(a)information which the adviser obtains in privileged circumstances, or
(b)knowledge or a suspicion based on information obtained in privileged circumstances.
(6)For the purpose of subsection (5), information is obtained by an adviser in privileged circumstances if it comes to the adviser, otherwise than for the purposes of committing serious organised crime—
(a)from a client (or from a client’s representative) in connection with the provision of legal advice by the adviser to that person,
(b)from a person seeking legal advice from the adviser (or from that person’s representative), or
(c)from a person, for the purpose of actual or contemplated legal proceedings.
F1(7). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(8)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine or to both,
(b)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both.

Is Regan a DIDDY?
Not able to contribute as much as I would like these days; however, just want to make a small point.

Firstly, I have to say that I have no specific information about how the compliance officer is progressing with his investigation into Rangers’ application for a Euro Club Licence in season 2011/12. One would have thought that some evidence will have been gathered and from that specific lines of enquiry will have been established. It is also likely that, given the seriousness of the potential outcome, that his line manager (the CEO, Mr Regan) will have been getting regular updates.

I think these are reasonable assumptions.

The interesting outcome would be if Mr McGlennan has good reason to believe that the licence was issued fraudulently and that more than one person was involved.

Such a fraud is likely to be caught by 

serious organised crime” means crime involving two or more persons acting together for the principal purpose of committing or conspiring to commit a serious offence or a series of serious offences,
“serious offence” means an indictable offence—
(a)committed with the intention of obtaining a material benefit for any person, or
(b)which is an act of violence committed or a threat made with the intention of obtaining such a benefit in the future, and
“material benefit” means a right or interest of any description in any property, whether heritable or moveable and whether corporeal or incorporeal.

If the investigation is leading him to that conclusion, it is not a matter for him, Mr Regan or any other part of the SFA to decide what should happen next.

This would be an issue that would be referred to the police and ultimately (potentially) for a jury to decide.

Mr McGlennan “is a solicitor advocate who has conducted criminal litigation at all levels of the court structure, including the Appeal Court and the Supreme Court.”

He will know a serious crime if he sees one.

The Criminal Justice & Licensing (Scotland) Bill has penalties including prosecution and a prison sentence of up to 14 years for failure to report serious crime.

Who Is Conning Whom?
I am with you in most of what you say, but there are some important differences.

SFA Article 6.1 & 6.2 say:

Clubs or associations undertaking to promote Association Football according to the Laws of the Game and these Articles and other rules of the Scottish FA may be admitted as registered members, associate members or full members, subject to the provisions of Articles 6.2 to 6.7 (both inclusive).
6.2 A club or association shall be admitted as a registered member automatically by reason of its being admitted as a member of an Affiliated Association or an Affiliated National Association, or in the case of a club through membership of or participation in an association, league or other combination of clubs formed in terms of Article 18 and in the case of an association by being formed in terms of Article 18, provided it is not already an associate or full member. A registered member shall not be a member of more than one Affiliated Association or more than one Affiliated National Association. A registered member may apply at any time to become an associate member.

We are in complete agreement, I think, that SFA Article 6.2 made Sevco a registered member of the SFA from the date it was accepted by the SFL – 14th July 2012.

But, and I think this is important, the nearest the SFA get to insisting that a club has associate or full SFA membership is Article 6.2 which simply says, ‘A registered member may apply at any time to become an associate member.’
Note: no timescale applies… and no consequences (from an SFA perspective) if a club chooses to not make that application.

So I think we are on common ground that Article 6.2 was applicable as far as the registered membership was concerned – and Sevco did not take the opportunity to apply for associate membership by this method.

If we then go back to what the SFL Rules actually said:

6. REGISTRATION WITH SFA A CONDITION OF MEMBERSHIPA Member or Associate Member who is not already a full or associate member of the Scottish Football Association must make application to become a full or associate member of the Scottish Football Association (as the case may be) within fourteen (14) days of being admitted to membership of the League failing which its membership of the League will lapse, and in the event that the application is unsuccessful, its membership will lapse upon that decision being intimated to the League.

Now, if the SFL was being prescriptive about which SFA Article was to be used (to apply for full or associate membership), and that Article 6 was the only valid route, why mention full membership as an option. If ‘application’ is meant to mean only applications in terms of SFA Article 6, the only relevant option would be to apply as an associate SFA member.

No, the SFL rules are not prescriptive in the manner of that application. I think Rule 16 is clearly written to allow a transfer of associate or full membership from an existing club to a new club or entity under SFA Article 14. 

In fact the only method by which this could be achieved is SFA Article 14

14. Prohibition on Transfer of Membership14.1 It is not permissible for a member to transfer directly or indirectly its membership of the Scottish FA to another member or to any other entity, and any such transfer or attempt to effect such a transfer is prohibited, save as otherwise provided in this Article 14. Any member desirous of transferring its membership to another entity within its own administrative group for the purpose of internal solvent reconstruction must apply to the Board for permission to effect such transfer, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Any other application for transfer of membership will be reviewed by the Board, which will have complete discretion to reject or to grant such application on such terms and conditions as the Board may think fit.

…which allows the board to grant an application for transfer of an existing membership on such terms as it sees fit.

Importantly, the discretion only applies to which terms and conditions to a transfer of a membership that already exists.

Having complete  discretion on how or if that transfer (of full membership) took place is completely within the board’s power via Article 14.

What it doesn’t do is empower the board to create a new type of membership. 

And, even if it does claim to have done so, I still don’t understand how the SFA ‘conditional’ membership would satisfy the SFL requirement for an application for associate or full membership?

Remember, this transfer application was an SFL requirement. The SFA had no interest in whether or not Sevco applied for associate or full membership.

It seems to me that the SFA and SFL approached the Sevco scenario in a similar way as they did when Inverness Caledonian were admitted (as a new club) in 1994.

Difference is ICT, the SFL, SPL and SFA all recognise that that club was founded in 1994.

As I said earlier with regard to the birth of Sevco, the deceit is not so much in what they all did, but in what they said and continue to say.

Who Is Conning Whom?
The new club (Sevco) was issued with written permission to use the name of a club in full membership (Rangers).

This was necessary because both existed as SFA member clubs at the time.

Who Is Conning Whom?
This was the nub of the ‘conditional membership’

10.7 Each club in full membership or associate membership shall in its Official Return register its ground and playing field dimensions and no such club shall remove to another ground without first obtaining the consent of the Board. Any club in full membership or associate membership wishing to make any alteration to its name, its registered ground or its playing field dimensions must first obtain the prior written consent of the Board. No club in registered membership shall adopt in whole or in part the name of a club in full membership or associate membership without the prior written consent of the Board.

SSL Certificates