JPP: Perverting Justice?

972
166354

The SFA’s Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal (JPDT) process itself  is now under scrutiny .

Aberdeen FC have asked for change and the Celtic Supporters Association  have written to Ian Maxwell SFA CEO expressing concerns about judgements reached concerning recent on field incidents that appear to herald in A Cloggers Charter.

However the whole Judicial Panel Protocol (JPP) on which the JPDT is based (and which was the brainchild of the discredited former SFA Chief Executive Stewart Regan) has shown itself to be a means of perverting justice rather than providing it since it was introduced amidst a loud fanfare at the SFA AGM in June 2011 (the same one that saw Campbell Ogilvie elected SFA President)

To see how the JPP  has been misused  we need to start with a definition of  judicial which according to Websters dictionary is:

 of or relating to a judgment, the function of judging, the administration of justice

The latest Judicial Panel Protocol can be found on the SFA Web Site  .

One of its Founding Principles is:

2.2 Principle 1 – Economic and expeditious justice. The objective of the Protocol is to secure the Determination of disciplinary proceedings arising in respect of Association Football and that Decisions are made economically and expeditiously in a fair manner. Tribunals appointed from the Judicial Panel may impose reasonable procedural requirements on Parties to ensure that matters are dealt with economically and expeditiously.

The word justice actually appears nine times and injustice three times, so it would appear that whilst economy and speed are the means to the end, that end is justice, but how has that panned out since June 2011?

I am grateful here to Glasnostandtwostrickers  for three enlightening articles in Pie and Bovril in which he reviews the protocol a year later in 2012 with suggestions that with the passage of time have been shown to be prescient when made. They can be read at:

Of particular interest is the important view that the process is not independent of the SFA and the following is an extract from Pie and Bovril 3 covering that aspect which explains how the JPP has been used by the SFA to pervert rather than administer justice.

“So to what extent does the JPP system achieve that independence? We think that it does so to a far greater extent than the old system, but not nearly enough. Ensuring that the Tribunals are chaired by respected members of the legal profession was perhaps the single most important reform to make. But there remains a serious lack of independence in the JPP system. This centres on the roles of the SFA’s Compliance Officer (Vincent Lunny) and the SFA Secretary (Stewart Regan) in the process of bringing a case in front of a Tribunal.

The Compliance Officer’s task is to monitor what goes on in Scottish football, assess whether anyone has broken any rules, and – if so – to initiate the disciplinary process.  What happens if the Compliance Officer reviews a given event and decides that the conduct of the club, player or official in question doesn’t breach any rules? Well, that is the end of the matter. Neither the SFA executive nor the Judicial Panel can do anything about that decision. And, given that some SFA rules are very vague (e.g. ‘bringing the game into disrepute), the Compliance Officer wields a great deal of power. If the system is to be independent of the SFA, it the Compliance Officer must be independent of it. Yet, as things stand today, Vincent Lunny is an employee of the SFA.

The lack of independence associated with the SFA Secretary’s role is even more flagrant. Firstly, he can veto any decision of the Compliance Officer to mount a disciplinary case. Secondly, even if he allows a case to go ahead, he has the power to select (from the 100-strong Judicial Panel) the 3 individuals who will hear the case. The SFA claims that this takes place on a ‘cab rank’ basis (i.e. the Tribunal is formed of next 3 people in line), but no such rule is to be found in the JPP. On the contrary, it states that:

“Tribunals shall be appointed by the Secretary or his nominee from the Judicial Panel…The Secretary or his nominee may take such steps in respect of the appointment of Tribunals as he considers, in his sole discretion, to be appropriate.” (sections 7.2.1-2)

This applies equally to the Appellate Tribunals as it does to the first-instance Disciplinary Tribunals. So, in theory at least, the SFA Secretary gets two bites of the cherry. He may appoint to a Disciplinary Tribunal the individuals who he thinks are most likely to return the result that he desires. If they don’t, and there is an appeal, he also gets to choose the make-up of the Appellate Tribunal that will hear the appeal. And that’s only if he hasn’t blocked the case from happening in the first place. That is not to impugne Stewart Regan himself, but rather a system that allows him (and his successors) such great power.

The reasons why the JPP is structured in the way that it is are unclear. Despite the fact that it represents a great improvement over the system it replaced, more work must be done if we Scottish football is to have a genuinely independent – and therefore credible – system of footballing ‘justice’.


This  article however will let the readers decide if they impugn Stewart Regan and shows how he has used the Judicial Protocol not to deliver justice but to prevent such an outcome,  which might just clarify the reason  why the JPP was structured in the way that it was and why it absolutely must be replaced on the lines of the suggestions in the excellent Pie and Bovril articles.

Perverting the Course of Justice.

The Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal on Craig Whyte – Bringing The Game Into Disrepute.

The First instance can be found in  this E Tim’s article  where Regan and LNS met in February 2012 to set the terms of reference for the Judicial Panel that charged Craig Whyte with bringing the game into disrepute.(  Telegraph Report 21 Feb 2012 )

As the E Tim’s article shows, whilst Whyte was charged with non payment of PAYE and VAT no charges were made with regard to his failure to pay the £2.8m tax liability that CW undertook to pay in his statement to Rangers shareholders of June 2011. This omission prevented scrutiny of what lay behind that liability, what created it and why it was accepted by RFC in March 2011 and  how  the SFA were able to grant RFC a UEFA licence in April 2011.

Whatever information Regan had from his telephone conversation with Andrew Dickson  on 6th December 2011  and subsequent meeting at Hotel Du Vin with Craig Whyte along with Campbell Ogilvie and RFC CEO Ali Russell, appears not to have been passed to Lord Nimmo Smith in February 2012 when Regan and Nimmo Smith were drawing up the JPP Terms of Reference for the Craig Whyte Tribunal.

The Lord Nimmo Smith Commission

The second instance of Regan’s ability to shape outcomes  is in respect of the LNS Commission. Here the SFA stood aside on the grounds they were the Court of Appeal should RFC wish to appeal the eventual LNS Decision and let the then SPL take the running in March 2012. This was a convenient argument given that Regan knew by March 2012 that RFC had a £2.8m tax liability that Sherriff Officers had called to collect that prompted a number of enquiries asking how the SFA were able to grant a UEFA licence in March/April of 2011.

That event caused UEFA and the SFA in September 2011 to discuss the submission RFC made in June 2011 under Article 66 of UEFA FFP that described the status of the liability as postponed and awaiting scheduling of payments but more of this SFA/UEFA discussion later in the context of the current JPDT  charges of non compliance against Rangers FC.

It is inconceivable that by March 2012 when the investigation into ebts and side letters began that this  September 2011 discussion along with his conversations in December 2011 that  Regan was unaware that the tax owed was the result of RFC use of unlawful ebts nor the reasons why RFC had accepted liability for the sum owed arising from their use. However by standing aside there was no specific mention in  the SPL Lawyers letter of 15  March 2012   that began the investigation  of the by then clearly unlawful ebts that caused the £2.8m tax liability, although it did refer to all ebts with side letters from 1998.   All rather convenient for Regan under the powers the Judicial Panel  Protocol gave him.

The impact of this exclusion in skewing the LNS Terms of Reference and so the LNS Decision is now a matter of Social Media record that can be followed from beginning to end  HERE.

The E Tim’s article already mentioned covers how events from February to April 2012  allowed the exclusion from the Craig Whyte JPP and  The Reasons  given by Lord Nimmo Smith in September 2012 appear in a  follow up E Tim’s article   where LNS himself justifies  the exclusion of the £2.8m tax liability caused by RFC’s use of unlawful ebts in from 1999 to 2003 on what are less than convincing grounds unless he was kept in the dark by Regan.

 SFA JPP Charges In Respect of UEFA Licence in 2011

The final instance of the misuse of the JPP begins in September 2017 when after court testimony stating when the £2.8m tax liability was accepted, the SFA, whilst rejecting an investigation into the handling of RFC use of ebts with side letters (and the foregoing on LNS spells out why) Regan accepted that the granting  of the UEFA Licence by the SFA in 2011 should be subject to the Judicial Protocol process.

It took until mid-May 2018  for that process to come up with two charges of non compliance of SFA Articles by RFC that were put to TRFC presumably on the basis that they were responsible for the events in 2011, particularly when at least three current TRFC officials/Directors were in place in 2011, charges which TRFC said they would contest and subsequently in July wanted CAS involvement on grounds that the secret 5 Way Agreement requires it but on scope that that have still to be made known as the parties  negotiate the terms of reference to CAS.

Now seven plus months is a long time to finally arrive at charges that according to a TRFC statement in May 2018 in this BBC report excluded the very period at end of March 2011 stating accusations were groundless, that caused the SFA to invoke the JPP process, but what is interesting about those charges is the absence (and as Regan left in February he might not have had an influence or was his parting shot), of any charges against the SFA itself of aiding RFC noncompliance at end of March  in September 2011. The Compliance Officer himself resigned not long after the charges of non- compliance were made which raises eyebrows higher than Roger Moore level.

Perhaps it was because of possible SFA complicity in September 2011 that the Compliance Officer agreed to exclude this end March period although that exclusion was challenged by Resolution 12 lawyers just before the SFA Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal (JPDT) sat on 25th June. No answers to the evidence backed questions in that letter, copied to Celtic, have so far been provided.

So what are the SFA hiding from or behind the JPP process this time?

Here is a copy of the Good News  e mail of 19th September 2011 between Keith Sharp the UEFA FFP man at the SFA and Ken Olverman the Financial chap at RFC. In it Sharp tells Olverman that UEFA have verbally accepted the RFC submission of June 2011 under Article 66. (This admitted that the 2.8m EBT proposed settlement also required to be disclosed but is shown as a status of postponed (awaiting scheduling of payments)  but that a further declaration will be needed under Article 67. This can be read here but note the Comments were not part of original exchange.

Note the tone of the advice given about the Article 67 submission but the point is, either Sharp of the SFA told UEFA porkies to get the monitoring submission under Article 66, that itself was false at the time it was made, verbally accepted or told UEFA the truth and as RFC were out of Europe there was an agreement to bury it between SFA and UEFA.

That UEFA involvement if the latter instance, would explain Celtic’s reluctance to take Res12 to UEFA in 2013 especially as we don’t know UEFA’s response to Celtic’s earlier  letter  of May 2012 to SFA re ebt investigation copied to Infantino at UEFA.

If the former instance i.e. SFA told UEFA porkies it makes SFA complicit in covering up the non compliance they are charging Rangers with!

I mention this in the context of the SFA Judicial Process being totally  inappropriate in this case and why there should be  a speedy independent investigation because the charges of non-compliance that the JPDT are covering relate to RFC and NOT the SFA which is perhaps why the terms of reference to CAS are taking so long to emerge.

There is clearly a conflict of SFA self interest here.

It would be more than ironic if the organisation bringing charges against Rangers were in fact complicit in the non-compliance by Rangers after it became public HMRC were owed tax in August 2010!

Summary

The point of this long blog is that the Judicial Panel Protocol introduced by Regan in June 2011 with the flaws pointed out a year later in The Pie and Bovril articles has been used by the SFA under Regan not to produce justice but pervert it since 2011.

Only a truly independent investigation will provide the justice that the crimes perpetrated against Scottish Football and its supporters since 2000 by RFC under the dishonest leadership of Sir David Murray requires, an investigation that should recommend changes that make the JPP independent of the SFA..

Justice is there to uphold the rule of law, that applies to football law as much as natural law and without justice there can be no law. That is where Scottish football now exists, in outlaw territory with the bad guys still ruling as they please, not as justice demands.

Until justice is served and seen to be served there is no law in football and no fake Judicial Protocol Panel is ever going to provide it.

 The owners and Directors of all SPFL clubs need to revisit the scene of the crime, the 5 Way Agreement has done its  job, a form of Rangers drawing big crowds will continue to exist, but on it has to be on more honest grounds, where who knows, they might even earn redemption.

972 COMMENTS

1 12 13 14
 

  1. Billydug 13th October 2018 at 19:00  

    ========================

    It seriously baffles me what issue even the most ardent Rangers fans have with the SFA.

    When it all kicked off with administration eventually followed by liquidation in 2012, the SFA were nothing other than supportive. They gerrymandered, bent and broke rules to make very attempt to get the new Rangers straight into the top league. They spread fear among other clubs, they warned of clubs going to the wall, and painted a doomsday scenario where Scottish football could never recover. The fans though, who saw a club who had cheated on tax for over a decade to gain on-field success, were having none of it. The real doomsday scenario for clubs was fans refusing to buy season tickets, and the timing of it all was the perfect storm for those of us who prefer fairness in how the game is governed. 

    The SFA then oversaw one of the most gerrymandered disciplinary processes imaginable, which saw Rangers fined a meagre £250k, and a transfer ban to be applied at a time of their choosing, to ensure minimum inconvenience. The SFA even introduced a statement on the hoof where improperly registered Rangers players did not mean the club would be subject to points deductions, which is the rule they had previously applied to every other club and still do.

    The SFA also ensured that the new Rangers could claim to be the old, by claiming a football club is a concept, an idea in someone's mind which could never die. Again, this had never been claimed before when a club became insolvent, and there was no legal basis for the stance the SFA took.

    As I said, it seriously baffles me what issue even the most ardent Rangers fans have with the SFA. What more do they think the SFA could possibly have done? 

    View Comment

  2. upthehoops 14th October 2018 at 09:35  

     

     

    …As I said, it seriously baffles me what issue even the most ardent Rangers fans have with the SFA. What more do they think the SFA could possibly have done?

    _______________________

     

    Quite clearly the SFA failed in their duty to show that it was all Celtic's fault…

     

    In truth, I doubt there is anything that the SFA could have done to prevent the bears blaming them, along with every other leading Scottish football club, for the disaster they brought on themselves, which makes the efforts you described so much more ridiculous. With few exceptions, the one person they don't blame is David Murray, the very man, that very selfish and greedy man, who designed their club's downfall. 

    View Comment

  3. JD Sports web site…..The retailer say's it is no longer advertising the Hummel strips online because they don't want to risk overselling them.

    SORRY to anyone who now has their tea all over the screenmail

    View Comment

  4. Allyjambo 14th October 2018 at 10:01
    With few exceptions, the one person they don’t blame is David Murray, the very man, that very selfish and greedy man, who designed their club’s downfall.
    ……………………..
    That would be a very good question to now ask any ibrox fan. (Who do you blame for the clubs downfall)
    As one by one the finger of blame who the ibrox fans point at have became less and less.
    Could be a good blog. Who did the ibrox fans blame for their clubs downfall?
    A list of who they blamed from the banks to the tax man to craig whyte to charles Green.
    Eg.
    They blamed the banks for etc,etc.
    But the banks just wanted their money because etc,etc.
    So no blame for the banks.
    Someone more apt than me could put it down in more detail so your average fan from ibrox could understand and absorb.
    A follow up could be.
    And who do you blame for the short cumings in the ibrox club now since it’s conception in 2012.
    Eg. Charles Green etc,etc.
    But if it was not for Charles Green there would be no club playing out of ibrox
    so no blame there.
    Would be good to see an ibrox fan read it and then be asked. “Who do you blame?”

    View Comment

  5. Allyjambo 14th October 2018 at 10:01

      '..the one person they don't blame is David Murray, the very man, that very selfish and greedy man, who designed their club's downfall. '

    ___________________

    Aw, be fair, Aj!….surely that cheat has been punished enough by not being admitted into the Hall of Fame!

    Wait a minute, though! maybe he will be nominated by Club 1872 for his wonderful wheeze of feeding the running dog lackeys of the BBC/SMSM  with succulent lamb, thus for years buying their silence and journalistic integrity in the matter of reporting  the true state of the  finances and financing of the now dead  club and  the fact that the  vile, empty boasting of a man (who, in my opinion, was worse in his own way, and did more damage to Scottish football than the equally despicable Fred the Shred did to the UK economy) was groundless and 'based' on a monumental series of lies.

    Some of which lies were or ought to have been known to the SFA.

     

    View Comment

  6. Cluster One 14th October 2018 at 10:31 

    ==================================

    In no particular order Rangers fans blame Peter Lawwell, HMRC, Craig Whyte, the SFA, fans of all other clubs, and no doubt many others for their downfall. Try as I might though I can't see how any of those put in place an EBT scheme then operated it in an unlawful manner, which was the ultimate cause of their downfall. Whyte was in charge when millions were withheld in PAYE and N.I, but a buyer like Whyte would never have been near the place had the EBT scheme not existed. 

    Murray is to blame. It's incredible they can't see that. 

    View Comment

  7. Allyjambo / Upthehoops,

     

    I think you’re both mistaken. There may still be some Rangers fans who see Mr Murray in a positive light, but I don’t know a single Rangers fan who thinks of him positively and everyone I know sees quite clearly how he is the author of Rangers downfall. 

    View Comment

  8. RyanGosling 14th October 2018 at 12:29  

    '…everyone I know sees quite clearly how he is the author of Range rs downfall. '

    ______________________

    I wouldn't , because I couldn't, argue with you about your personal knowledge of individual supporters of the present 'Rangers', but I think there would be general consensus that neither the SMSM nor the mouthpieces of the 'support' have excoriated Murray as much , even, as the hapless, incompetent, McLeish is being excoriated for being simply hapless and incompetent.[ Some remember that McLeish deserves censure for buying into and profiting (short term) from the EBT business, but most of the present criticism is relted to current performance as National team manager]

    Murray deserves to have his name expunged from Scottish Football , written out of history. except as object  lesson in sports cheating.

    View Comment

  9. RyanGosling 14th October 2018 at 12:29
    2 0 Rate This

    Allyjambo / Upthehoops,

    I think you’re both mistaken. There may still be some Rangers fans who see Mr Murray in a positive light, but I don’t know a single Rangers fan who thinks of him positively and everyone I know sees quite clearly how he is the author of Rangers downfall.
    ………………..
    http://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2018/03/08/rangers-fans-react-to-sir-david-murray-to-ibrox-speculation/
    ……………
    A mixed bag of reactions, but i believe many would forgive if he said he was investing millions to stop celtic getting 10 in a row.
    ……………………
    The thing is if you talk to any of the ibrox fans the one thing they hark back to and dream of is a return to the glory years that involved Murray. Like everything down ibrox way, keep the good parts and don’t mention the bad parts.

    View Comment

  10. RyanGosling 14th October 2018 at 12:29 2 0 Rate This Allyjambo / Upthehoops, I think you’re both mistaken. There may still be some Rangers fans who see Mr Murray in a positive light, but I don’t know a single Rangers fan who thinks of him positively and everyone I know sees quite clearly how he is the author of Rangers downfall.

    ______________

     

    Ah, but do they hate him for it? For they surely hate everyone else they see as culpable in their club's demise.

     

    Having had no 'Rangers' supporting acquaintances for quite some time now, I have no way of knowing how one would talk now of Murray (the last one I knew, at the time of LNS agreed that the decision not to strip titles was wrong but would not hear a word said against Murray 'because he was doing what was best for Rangers at the time') but from what I can gather from social media any criticism of him would always have a 'but' in it. A 'but' recalling all the trophies won, mitigating his guilt (it would never be 'guilt'), leaving all those others to take the hatred that really belongs to Murray!

    View Comment

  11. Why do TRFC hate the SFA so much? Because that is what they are being told to do. No extra time added to the end of the season to help them during their magnificent Euro run. SFA Hate us. Regardless of the truth. Paul Gascoigne nomination to the Scottish Footballs hall of fame withdrawn because SFA hate us. All the calls for investigations onto SFA board members all to strengthen the narrative that SFA hate us. Brainwashing at its best with a mob that are desperate to be brainwashed. Now the demand for the removal of certain players and ex managers from the Hall of Fame has started to gain momentum from the usual suspects. As it was intended to do. Keep them all facing the wrong way. 

    View Comment

  12. upthehoops 

    14th October 2018 at 12:14 

    ======================================

    I think it goes back further than that. The EBTs came later because tax avoidance was the only place they had left to go.

    Rangers spent money that the club simply wasn't generating, ending up tens of millions in debt. Was it not about £80m at one time (back when £80m was a lot of money).

    They then had a failed share issue, which Murray had under-written so he had to come up with about £50m, which he did via MIM allied to smoke and mirrors.

    Rangers' downfall was due to a hubristic need (not want actual need) to dominate Scottish football. They had to win and didn't care what it cost or how it was paid.

    The new club has run at a loss in every season of its existence and is relying on loans and dilution of the shares just to keep going.

    View Comment

  13. RyanGosling 14th October 2018 at 12:29  

    =====================================

    Ryan, you obviously know a lot more Rangers fans than me. Many of those I know are very firmly in the camp that HMRC etc are to blame. I even know a highly educated man who is utterly convinced senior people in HMRC are Celtic fans and that is the only reason they went after Rangers. Many bloggers at the time did peddle that view. 

    It is with a mixture of sadness and anger that I view the sustained resentment and lashing out from leading Rangers fans groups towards others who did nothing wrong. However I do believe it has been encouraged by successive Rangers boards since 2012, simply because the fans are their major income source.

    View Comment

  14. I don't see them really "blaming" anyone, ok there's the odd criticism of Murray and what he left and the occasional"bloodydisgracesoitis" ref Green, Whyte et al but they're not really in the "blame" business.  Why should they?  They successfully shafted Scottish fitba for years and then went so badly pear shaped they were liquidated, then a new bunch came along and hey presto, "back where we belong".  All they see is a period of time where they were "relegated" and prevented from enjoying the entitlement that the privileged culture they believe they represent deserves by default.  Like all elitists/exceptionalists who don't get their own way (in their case entirely their own fault, it's not as if anyone actually tried to stop them) they lash out at someone, anyone. See UKIP, "Make America Great Again", EDL etc. and note also how the ultimate entitlement brigade, the Tories, may well be scuppered by their own extreme, privilege based but threatened wing the DUP as they lash out at the prospect of being a minority in NI.  Fascinating ain't it?

     

     

    View Comment

  15. I have another observation on blame and credit. If Rangers fans insist that the club did not die, then who gets the credit for 'saving' it?

    For me there can be only one candidate for that gratitude. That would be Green. However he is vilified by the Bears more than anyone – with the exception of White.

    It is odd that so many are blamed for the train-wreck – and yet nobody gets the credit for the 'rescue'.

    Freudian?

     

    View Comment

  16. Big Pink 

    14th October 2018 at 15:23  

    =================================

    I can explain why no-one got credit for the rescue.

    It didn't happen.

    White tried, they got knocked out of Europe, he stole tax money to pay inflated wages, that led to administration and now liquidation.

    Deep down they know it, not that deep down actually. 

    View Comment

  17. Big Pink 14th October 2018 at 15:23  

    That would be Green. However he is vilified by the Bears more than anyone – with the exception of White.

     

    It is really angering that Police Scotland wasted so much public money in an attempt to prove Green and Whyte committed a crime. As we know Green did not face trial and Whyte was found not guilty. For me it is clear that an attempt was being made to lay blame for Rangers demise to ensure the club would officially be written in legal history as the innocent victim of a crime. It would have been viewed as wiping the slate clean, yet the undeniable fact is had they somehow survived, they would still have faced a tax bill of over £90m for their unlawful use of EBT's and they would not have been able to pay it. 

    View Comment

  18. upthehoops 

    14th October 2018 at 16:14  

    =================================

    I don't think that's right.

    Once the club was in administration it had to get out of it. Administration cannot last forever it is a temporary measure to try to assist survival. It gives a company a bit of breathing space to try to survive.

    The options are 1, Pay your debts, which is possible if a benefactor comes in 2, Get a CVA agreed, then pay an agreed portion of your debts 3, Liquidation, which is what is happening.

    For Rangers to have survived then 1, or 2, would have to have happened. If either did then they would no longer have the tax bill. Debt to HMRC is no different to any other unsecured creditor. 

    View Comment

  19. Homunculus 14th October 2018 at 16:50  

     

    I think what UTH is alluding to is, if they'd managed a CVA or found a buyer, they would have, at a later date, had to face the EBT tax bill which didn't 'crystalize' until after the Supreme Court ruling.

    View Comment

  20. Big Pink 14th October 2018 at 15:23 8 0 Rate This I have another observation on blame and credit. If Rangers fans insist that the club did not die, then who gets the credit for 'saving' it? …………………… BP we are told it was the loyal fans that saved it. Don't you remember the fighting fund. The walk round ibrox. The sell out crowds for the third division. the red cards against liquidation.enlightenedenlightenedenlightened

    View Comment

  21. Alex Thomson 2012

    Just into Glasgow after an illuminating day speaking to club chairmen and officials of Scottish football which right now appears in a state of something like civil war.

    Hyperbole?

    What has it come to when club chairmen will openly agree with that description – one of them on camera? 

    When such people openly talk of a complete breakdown of trust between the FA in Scotland on one hand and the Premier League – on the other and personal breakdown of trust with their chief executives Neil Doncaster and Stewart Regan.

    They stand accused as men hell-bent on pursuing the existence of the “Rangers” cash cow and bleeding it at all costs, as high as possible in the game. Men, they say who care about money and not sport.

    Mr Doncaster and Mr Regan vehemently deny this and accuse the chairmen of living in a fairytale world and not thinking that ‘sporting integrity’ has a big price tag.

    So this is the atmosphere on the eve of Friday 13th – Hampden.

    I have in front of me a leaked email form Stewart Regan dated 23 June and sent to a small number of football officials and lawyers.

    He thanks them all “for your contribution and support…in trying to deliver a programme of change that will move Scottish football forward whilst addressing the need to deal with the Rangers matter with integrity and in line with our own values as an organisation.”

    Laudable enough – yet Mr Regan has presided over a sport where key relations between leagues, fans and governing bodies are poisonous.

    Once upon a time Ibrox was toxic – now the inflammation’s spread and a crisis infects every club in the land.

    No wonder therefore that one chairman twice told me today that he has had conversations with several other chairmen discussing a vote of no confidence in the SFA and SPL leadership.

    Chairmen I’ve spoken to regard the financial sweeteners proposed by these men to smaller clubs to allow “Rangers” into Division 1, as ‘derisory’ and ‘laughable’.

    “They have not even begun to address proper redistribution of wealth from the SPL and they show no real desire to do so,” said Gordon McDougall of Livingston.

    And look at how apparently out of touch Mr Regan is with the mood of both SPL and SFL clubs.

    His email plans out what was supposed to happen inside Hampden-world as opposed to what did happen in the real world:
     “D) DL (David Longmuir SFL boss) to organise SFL Board Meeting w/c 25th June to gain buy-in to the plan…

     E) ND (Neil Doncaster) to gain support from SPL Clubs 28th June

     F) SFL Clubs Meeting to be planned for 3rd July

     G) SPL Club Meeting to be planned for 4th July

     H) Scottish FA Board to sign off on the final plan post July 4th
    Well -best laid plans. Nothing went according to this recipe.
    And all the while the man about whom the clubs know so little; about whose financial backing so much remains mysterious – Charles Green, “Rangers” owner, was to be kept in the loop.

    The email goes on:

    “In parallel to the above, could Rod Petrie please brief Charles Green confidentially on the discussions from a Scottish FA perspective so that there are ‘no surprises’ and there is a general acceptance of the plan…”

    So the “Rangers” boss gets full briefings on the quiet to keep him sweet whilst -as clubs like Clyde make clear – they go begging for basic information about what’s on offer in return for soft-landing Mr Green’s Blues.

    SFA/SPL are gambling hugely on giving Mr Green a helping Division 1 hand his own fans have rejected.

    The SPL rejected the punt. So now, as one chairman of a league club Donald Findlay put it, ‘the gun is being held to the head’ of league chairmen.

    Well, it’s an odd way to gamble – an even odder way to do business and the oddest way possible to manage and to govern.

    View Comment

  22. Cluster One 14th October 2018 at 10:09 JD Sports web site…..The retailer say's it is no longer advertising the Hummel strips online because they don't want to risk overselling them. =============================

    SORRY to anyone who now has their tea all over the screenmail

    ————————

    Yes, CO I had to read that quote a few times.

    Looks like JD has a similarly p!sh PR rep to TRFC.

    Next statement will be rushed out on Friday at 5pm;

     

    "Due to huge demand, JD Sports outlets across the West of Scotland will be closed during the day, until new TRFC stock arrives."

     

    View Comment

  23. StevieBC 14th October 2018 at 18:26
    “Due to huge demand, JD Sports outlets across the West of Scotland will be closed all day for staff training as they have never had to deal with such a high demand for football kits this late on in the year. We would just like to add our thanks to the rangers fans as because of this high demand at this time of the year. Our staff will now be well trained for the christmas rush and january sales.
    Get’s a notch on the bed for the ibrox supporters and get’s JD a free sales pitch the gullibles would lap it up

    View Comment

  24. Allyjambo 14th October 2018 at 17:10  

    I think what UTH is alluding to is, if they'd managed a CVA or found a buyer, they would have, at a later date, had to face the EBT tax bill which didn't 'crystalize' until after the Supreme Court ruling.

    ====================

    That is what I meant, or if they had managed to get to the CL group stages they might have struggled on. However the tax bill would have hit at some point. 

    View Comment

  25. As a Rangers fan I can assure you that I and the vast majority of fellow fans, particularly on forums, blame Murray above all others for our problems. Growing up I used to think he was a hero – throwing all his money into the team to give us success and great players. Little did I know he was actually spending other people's money on a vanity project and would literally cut and run the minute he got the opportunity. The mess Murray has made to Rangers and Scottish Football as a whole will never be forgotten or forgiven. There have been a number of crooks and charlatans in the game recent years who have hurt my club, but none as bad as Murray. Everything negative in the last 10 years has stemmed from his ego. 

     

    With regards to Charles Green, he is another I will never forgive or forget. At the time he took over, Paul Murray (and I can't remember the other guysname), also put an offer in for the club. Had they been successful over Green I don't believe we would have had the nonsense and moonbeams of Green (we are looking at 6 players currently at Euro 2012, we are aiming for Champions League in 4 years etc). He played to the absolute lowest common denominator within the support and made it very much a siege mentality of which is still going on to this day. A vile man who spotted an opportunity to make a few bucks out of the support who at that point had been going through the mill for months. I believe he was the person responsible for starting the victim mentality and the defiance from the fans of which we continue to embarrass ourselves time and time again. Why do Rangers fans hate the SFA? Because Green brainwashed a lot of us. Why do Rangers fans blame the other clubs? Because Charles Green brainwashed a lot of us! He stirred up hate to line his own pockets. 

     

    The other group that were in for the club (Paul Murray and his partner) I believe would have lived within their means and done what I and other fans wanted – build a foundation out of youth prospects, coming through the leagues with a bit of humility accepting what we had done, apologising for the mess and making some friends along the 'journey'. By the time we were back in the top league we could have built up a nice bit of money in the bank and without the huge chip on our shoulder and 'everyone is out to get us' mindset I'm sure there would not be the same hatred towards us now, and certainly not the financial basket case we are! So yes, that's why I hate Green and hold him second only to Murray for the problems of recent years. 

     

    Ashley was a direct result of Green and I have always despised that man long before he became involved in Rangers for the way he treats his workers amongst other things. But he would never have been involved were it not for the doings of Green and Murray so I can't really hold him responsible for doing what he does. 

    Which brings me to King. After decades of shysters, charlatans and crooks running the club, you might think the fans would have seen through the soundbites by now and maybe start looking for a Fergus McCann type – an honest businessman telling it like it us, and making us take our medicine no matter how hard it may be, until we can get ourselves on a steady footing and hopefully awaken a sleeping giant in the mid to long term? Nope, we decide to go for another Murray and Green type – the 'Going for 55', 'Everyone is out to get us', '£20m warchest' and our fans fall for it hook line and sinker. It may be that after the turmoil of the last decade that the fans just want to believe an owner is finally out to look after our club instead of their own pockets, but the phase 'fool me once….' starts getting tedious when your fooled over and over and over again! 

     

    View Comment

  26. Darkbeforedawn 14th October 2018 at 20:01
    …………………
    Thanks for your thoughts
    ……………….
    build a foundation out of youth prospects, coming through the leagues with a bit of humility accepting what we had done, apologising for the mess and making some friends along the ‘journey’. By the time we were back in the top league we could have built up a nice bit of money in the bank and without the huge chip on our shoulder.
    …………………
    But would the youth prospects have got you through the leagues? And would a fan base still go to watch a struggling youth trying and maybe not winning the leagues, all the while looking over their shoulders across the river. A dwindling fan base would have seen any nice bit of money disappear to pay the running costs.
    Also Paul Murray would have had issues with becoming a director.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2384596/SFA-rules-directors-puts-Paul-Murrays-Ibrox-power-bid-doubt.html

    View Comment

  27. I just checked and it was Brian Kennedy who was the other party member. He wasn’t a fan and I think would have looked to get us on a steady footing. 

     

    Its a good point CO, and I have no doubt the fan base would have fell by 10 or 15k but even then that would still have been healthy gates. I think the squad that was left was more than capable of working up the leagues under the right manager (ie not checkbook mccoist) and probably not taken much longer than we did. I would far rather have watched boys like Murdoch (starring for Livi), McKay and the likes than the Blacks and Sandazas we ended up with and I recon a lot of fans would have got behind that. If it was sold the right way – ‘pain today for gain tomorrow’, especially with the painful memories at the time still fresh then there would have been a large enough number of fans behind it to make it work. I have no doubt Kennedy would have been hated at the time, but would have been looked upon very fondly in time. 

    View Comment

  28.  

    Darkbeforedawn 14th October 2018 at 20:01

    Great post DBD .

    But I can't understand why you believe the same club myth which the "Vile man" Green helped to create .

    In the words of Paul Simon

    " A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest "

     

    View Comment

  29. Scotland v Portugal

    Another pathetic performance .

    I'm not talking about the football but the post match interview of Alex McLeish .He mumbled and stumbled his way through it , clearly very uncomfortable . For the sake of his health I think he should quit now .

    View Comment

  30. Darkbeforedawn 14th October 2018 at 20:01  

    '…The mess Murray has made to Rangers and Scottish Football as a whole will never be forgotten or forgiven. There have been a number of crooks and charlatans in the game recent years who have hurt my club, but none as bad as Murray. Everything negative in the last 10 years has stemmed from his ego. '

    __________________________

    Credit to you,Dbd, for that obviously sincere post.

    I have to fault it in two respects, though, or I myself would not be sincere:

    first , your use of " ..By the time we were back [ my italics]in the top league"

    and secondly, your omission of the culpability of the SFA in either being complicit in,  or wholly negligent in their duties in allowing, SDM's   master plan of deceit to get as far as it did, and in being the creator and propagator-in-chief of the Big Lie.

    The SFA had the means and authority and the duty to keep Scottish Football clean by dealing with SDM's /CW's Rangers in the same way they dealt with every other club that has gone bust: namely, publicly recognised it was bust, endingof 140 years of history and causing the cessation of any ability to participate in Scottish Football and add to its treasury of titles and honours.

    If the SFA had done what they ought to have done, TRFC Ltd would now be a six-year-old club with a respected, undeniably earned,  place in the top part of the SPFL.  

    (The problems associated with King and Co would be more or less 'internal' and not really of much more ,or less, interest to the general run of Scottish football supporters than the internal problems of any other club.)

    Sadly,the SFA Board did not have people of Integrity enough to put the Integrity of Sport above their personal hysteria and panic and God knows what else emotional state.

    There is still time for the SFA and the SPFL to do the right thing, the proper thing: announce that TRFC Ltd is NOT to be recognised by the public or Press as being the old Rangers, or as having a sporting history older than 6 years, and ensure that the record books reflect that position.

    All would then be sweetness and light and forgiveness, as Truth would be is restored, and we would have meaningful sporting competition back again.

     

     

    View Comment

  31. Darkbeforedawn 14th October 2018 at 20:34
    I think the squad that was left was more than capable of working up the leagues under the right manager (ie not checkbook mccoist)
    ………………..
    There lies the problem straight away, as from what we found out at the craig whyte trial Ally had a golden contract and if you wanted to get rid that bit of money would have been in the negative before the show got off the ground.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-40110475

    View Comment

  32. Paradisebhoy 14th October 2018 at 20:57
    1 0 Rate This

    Scotland v Portugal

    Another pathetic performance .
    ……………….
    We had Warburton for England, how long before steven Gerrard for scotland?

    View Comment

  33. I’ll try and answer as many points as I can without getting into OC/NC. I don’t believe it was Charles Green who first came up with the idea of continuation. There had been talk of White trying to agree a Phoenix club, the Blue Knights had the same backup plan as Green if the cva was disagreed and then there was Bill Millars ‘incubator’. Whilst I’m not condoning anything that went on, and none of the events of 2012 sit well with me, it was at the time completely unprecedented events. You had the Scottish government leader actually coming out and asking HMRC to go easy on Rangers and a fan base of more than 50k which made any previous comparisons to other liquidated clubs hard to compare. At that time the ‘Fiorentina’ model was mentioned a lot on blogs and forums and I guess that’s why I wasn’t as overly worried at the time as others. I knew a CVA would never be accepted and a Phoenix club was the only alternative and I guess I accepted that. I read a lot about Fiorentina and felt a bit more reassured that a Rangers would continue. 

     

    What I and im sure everyone on here has issues with,  is the SFA making up rules as they went along. From the farce that was the transfer embargo (and the fact Rangers fans couldn’t see that was actually in hindsight a favour and the worst thing for us was when they delayed it and let the borrowing to buy players commence again!). It seemed every Friday there was another ‘meeting’ and rushed decision, only for a backtrack within days later. They could have done themselves a favour by stating “we won’t make any instant decisions and will take our time to weigh up the next step”. Instead they tried to shoe-horn us back into the SPL and later the first decision. Again as I had accepted we needed to take our medicine and follow the Fiorentina model, neither of those options were acceptable to me and the third division was the only way I wanted it to play out. 

     

    I think under another owner, the outcome (failed CVA, Phoenix club third division, still carrying on the name “Rangers” and the history) would have been the same; the only difference is I would have hoped a bit less hubris, a bit more humility and acceptance that what had happened was all OUR doing, and that by accepting a Rangers into the leagues was a favour by all the other member clubs and the SFA. I guess that’s why I never use the term ‘demoted’ as other Rangers fans regularly do. In my mind we went bust pushing a David Murray vanity project, we restarted from the bottom division as a Phoenix and were kindly allowed to continue the footballing history. 

     

    And again getting back to the reason I blame the SFA for a lot of this is the fact it is now on record that they knew about the perilous state of the club for a long long time before it came out in the mainstream. Even before the season started White was discussing the idea of an insolvency event and a Phoenix yet they sat back as White continued to spend £3m+ on individual players and buried their head in their hands. Did they also know the extent of the problems under Murray and also sit back and let it happen? And if so how can I ever trust they are not currently in discussions with King over another insolvency event? 

    View Comment

  34. upthehoops 

    14th October 2018 at 19:09  

    Allyjambo 14th October 2018 at 17:10  

    I think what UTH is alluding to is, if they'd managed a CVA or found a buyer, they would have, at a later date, had to face the EBT tax bill which didn't 'crystalize' until after the Supreme Court ruling.

    ====================

    That is what I meant, or if they had managed to get to the CL group stages they might have struggled on. However the tax bill would have hit at some point. 

    ==================================================

    Surely at a CVA the debt owed to a creditor is the debt at that time.

    They put a claim in and the administrator accepts or rejects it. If the CVA is agreed and the appropriate payments are made by the administrator then that is a clean slate. That is the whole point of trying to save the company and getting it back operating again. That was certainly the intent of the Enterprise Act as I understand it. To save companies and jobs.

    The idea that someone could come back in and claim a huge debt, relating to the pre CVA period seems counter intuitive to the intent of Parliament.

    I am more than happy to be told I am wrong on this, it is really not my area. Every day is a school day for those willing to learn.

    View Comment

  35. Darkbeforedawn 14th October 2018 at 21:35  

    ======================================

    Do you think the SFA were of the same view as many fans, many in the media, that Rangers were simply too big to fail, that someone would step in and it just wouldn't be allowed to happen? 

    View Comment

  36. Darkbeforedawn 14th October 2018 at 21:35
    I blame the SFA for a lot of this is the fact it is now on record that they knew about the perilous state of the club for a long long time before it came out in the mainstream. Even before the season started White was discussing the idea of an insolvency event and a Phoenix yet they sat back as White continued to spend £3m+ on individual players and buried their head in their hands. Did they also know the extent of the problems under Murray and also sit back and let it happen?
    ………………..
    Which takes us back to why the ibrox fan base hates the SFA so much.Maybe we have all got it wrong all along, and the only reason the ibrox fan base hate the SFA is that they know the SFA knew how perilous a state the club was in all along and they sat back and said nothing and the SFA were of the same view as many fans, many in the media, that Rangers were simply too big to fail, that someone would step in and it just wouldn’t be allowed to happen?
    Thanks to UTH who i borrowed that last part from.

    View Comment

  37. upthehoops14th October 2018 at 21:55  

     

    0

     

    0

     

    Rate This

     

     

    Darkbeforedawn 14th October 2018 at 21:35  

    ======================================

    Do you think the SFA were of the same view as many fans, many in the media, that Rangers were simply too big to fail, that someone would step in and it just wouldn't be allowed to happen? 

    I think there was definitely an element of that but with the SFA with what went before and came after I think it’s more a fact they burry their heads in the sand and put of dealing with anything until they absolutely have to. They are a shambles of an organisation from top down. Even with the continuation had they been upfront and said they were using the Italian model where at least four of their clubs had went bankrupt and started again with history attached, there might not be this same outrage now. But they didn’t – they just hoped by saying nothing everyone would just forget about it and move on. 

    View Comment

  38. That said, I don’t think we can look to blame the SFA for what has happened to Rangers. Sadly I have to admit the only person to blame for what happened to Rangers is Rangers.

    View Comment

  39. Couldn't be @rsed watching the game but saw the goals: the third (?) Portugal goal was great – and Naismith's goal was well worked.

    But saw a bit of the McLeish interview: very unimpressive.

    And if he believes that a Finals qualification "is not what they said" then just what are his own KPI's.

    On completion of HMRC payments…?

    To repeat: it's not his fault. He accepted the first job he was offered after 2 long years in the football wilderness.

    The failure is with the SFA – to state the bleedin' obvious, again.

    If I – unwittingly – met the SFA President or CEO in a bar I guess they would be the type of people who have a high regard for themselves and believed they know better than anyone else…we've all met them.

    Not bad people, but you quickly assess they are thick as shit and have no idea about what is happening globally, in the general sense.

    But you are a polite Bampot, smile and nod…and after you finished your drink, it's a sharp exit!

    And footy is/was the working man's game…?  Inclusive before we learned about being 'PC'. 

    Rant over.

     

    View Comment

  40. There is a podcast up on E Tims at 

    http://etims.net/?p=13509 

    that discusses where matters stand  on the JPDT investigation into the granting and retention of the UEFA licence to Rangers in 2011.

    I read some welcome comments regarding the culpability of SDM on this blog and the SFA having dumped all the blame on Craig Whyte are still at it in the JPDT. You do wonder what hold Murray has over Scottish football.

    The following is from the comments section on E Tims to help understand the discussion.

    The UEFA licence was only granted because of false proof offered to the UEFA Licensing Committee at end March 2011 by Grant Thornton, RFC auditors.

    By then the liability had become a payable as RFC asked the bank for permission to pay following accepting the liability on 21st March..

    The payable did not meet the 4 criteria that would prevented it being overdue so was an overdue payable.

    During May 2011 from 5th to the 20th, three3  HMRC letters that confirmed it was a payable and not a potential liability was not provided to SFA as required by the rules.

    That allowed SFA to inform UEFA of clubs granted a licence on 26th May.

    The false narrative that failed to describe  the liability as a payable at end of March continued in the June and September monitoring points.

    SDM regime started the falsehood. CW regime continued it.

    The behaviour meets the description of fraud. In particular the proof offered at end of March.

    This is the dilemma that Celtic, the SFA and UEFA now face and why the can has been kicked down the road from the day Sherriff Officers turned up at Ibrox.

    As events have shown football karma did what the SFA didn’t and took away the UEFA income Rangers had relied in since 2008 when they spent money owed to taxpayers on players that then won 3 titles. Had Karma not intervened in the shape of McCoist in 2011 no one would have been any the wiser.

    HMRC would have been paid the £2.8m. Rangers would have paid the PAYE and VAT they stopped paying in Sept 2011 that eventually caused insolvency, all from CL participation.

    The desperation to keep a version of Rangers in the game has manifested itself since 2012, so why would Rangers not risk fraud in 2011 and how desperate would the SFA be to deny them the chance of survival?

    Chancers one and all.

    The only questions are:

    Where does blame start?

    Where does it end?

    How many Scottish journalists wages depend on not investigating and reporting what took place?

    <

    p style=”margin-left:0px; margin-right:0px”>How do we know it will not happen again with a club who hold the rules in contempt and an SFA who allow them to?

    View Comment

  41. Whilst IMHO it seems pointless looking back, (cheating aside),

    If I suddenly realized that my own team I had supported for years was a sham…

    And I had conveniently forgotten the social aberrations of this team for the preceding 100+ years…

    I would be embarrassed.

    I would be angry.

    I would feel stoopid!

    I would wise up.

    I would have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with said team in future.

    I wouldn't waste my time on social media trying to justify being a supporter of – never mind being associated with – such a deviant club.

    Pre-internet, I was probably happy in my ignorance of Scottish football politics.

    In 2018 everybody who supports a Scottish senior football club is informed.  If not, then they don't want to be informed.

    So, my point is;

    RFC effectively died in 2012.

    No favours should have been made for its b@stard, Frankenstein offspring.

    Scottish suffered before 2012.

    It has suffered since 2012.

    All because of one dishonest, perennially cheating team from Ibrox.  The PC Brigade seem to have avoided anything connected to the social cesspit of Ibrox.

    I would personally prefer a financially poorer, less TV attractive, less sponsor appealing football league…but one which was transparently honest.

    The idiots at Hampden have to be wheeled away first though…

    View Comment

  42. Extracted from the DR, but assuming it is an accurate, direct quote from McLeish;

    "…We had one or two sniffs around the goals without being tremendously dangerous. There was a lot for me to take out of the game. After that horrible result [losing 2-1 to Israel/sic] it was a wee bit of a lift. [losing 1-3 at home to Portugal/sic]

    But McLeish’s record in his second term in office has now suffered another black mark. It now reads played eight, lost six, won two…"

    ==================

    McLeish might be a crap manager, but he has been dealing with the sports media as player and manager for 30+ years.

    That quote above reflects – IMO – his inability to deal with the media today.

    It is worrying for him, and worrying for any player who wants to play for Scotland… but who has serious reservations about McLeish's competency.

    For example: Robertson being managed daily by Klopp, played in the Champions League Final in May…then having to play for McLeish?  

    View Comment

  43. Auldheid 15th October 2018 at 00:46  

     

    The behaviour meets the description of fraud. In particular the proof offered at end of March.

     

    I imagine in that case CAS would be the last place King wants this to go. My money was originally on the SFA going for the 'we've taken the advice of senior Counsel and blah blah blah'…we know the rest. They would be 100% backed by the media were they to do that.  However if that is an option why have they not done so already? Has senior Counsel already informed them otherwise? Have Celtic informed them that if they do, then they will publish the damning evidence the Res 12 people worked so hard to establish on the club website? Celtic must still answer Res 12 via an AGM in any case. 

    View Comment

  44. Darkbeforedawn 14th October 2018 at 20:01

     

    …The other group that were in for the club (Paul Murray and his partner) I believe would have lived within their means and done what I and other fans wanted – build a foundation out of youth prospects, coming through the leagues with a bit of humility accepting what we had done, apologising for the mess and making some friends along the 'journey'. By the time we were back in the top league we could have built up a nice bit of money in the bank and without the huge chip on our shoulder and 'everyone is out to get us' mindset I'm sure there would not be the same hatred towards us now, and certainly not the financial basket case we are! So yes, that's why I hate Green and hold him second only to Murray for the problems of recent years…

    _________________________-

     

    A very good post, DBD, but this part is very much something that didn't happen, and it didn't happen because the people involved did not come up with enough money to satisfy the CVA (they were a long, long way off) and, as far as we know, did not offer anything in the event the CVA failed. They only wanted the real Rangers football club, and, as men (in your opinion) were not steeped in the same level of spivery as Charles Green, and so did not have the crass dishonesty to come up with fanciful claims of continuation.

     

    It was Bill Miller, the American, who first came up with the 'incubator' idea, but, from memory, his idea was to buy the 'club' before the CVA was refused. Even his idea was fanciful and was built on his own experiences of the American Football franchise system. It was, of course, the support that you suggest would have (eventually) accepted an impoverished club that chased him away.

     

    As things stand, there is no evidence that anyone other than Charles Green was going to buy the club's assets in the event of no CVA, and with the media and everyone surrounding Rangers accepting that no CVA meant no Rangers, it took a liar of the highest degree to push the media to change their minds without explanation.

     

    Charles Green came up with the £5.5m for the club's assets, no one else came close to that figure, nor did they offer their cash upfront – even for the club as a going concern. So the idea that someone else would have been able to cobble it all together, convince those they had to convince that it was the same club, then keep enough supporters onside to finance a team and the upkeep of that crumbling stadium can only be wishful speculation.

     

    Whether or not we accept the idea that Charles Green 'saved' Rangers, he was the only man who came up with enough money, at the most critical moment, to buy the assets and to continue with a club playing out of Ibrox. Had he not done that in the manner it was done, then a process of buying the assets (advertised as the assets of RFC(IL) would have taken place and, if dealt with properly, it could have taken months, or even years, to complete, and there would now be no club playing out of Ibrox claiming to be the continuation of your beloved club.

     

    By the way, the name Brian Kennedy has hung around as a potential buyer almost from the off, and continues to be named from time to time as an incoming Blue Knight, but has never put hard cash on the table, and even if he had, there is no evidence to suggest he would have done a great job, just ask the Stockport County fans, who see him only as an asset stripping publicity seeker!

     

    In short, Charles Green was the only man in a position to continue (almost seamlessly) with a football team at Ibrox, and for anyone who believes that Rangers still play there, it must surely be considered that he did 'save' the club.

    View Comment

  45. Auldheid 15th October 2018 at 00:46  

    '…Had Karma not intervened …. no one would have been any the wiser'

    _____________________________

    Karma's intervention certainly frustrated the overall aim of those  people which was to pay their debts with monies to which they were not entitled and which they obtained (it is alleged) by deceit and conspiracy to defraud.

    Given that there is a strong prima facie case against both the SFA Licensing Committee and RFC 2012 plc( formerly known as Rangers Football Club plc) (IL), I suggest that Celtic plc now has a duty to its shareholders ,and indeed to the public at large, to ask the  Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to institute  a criminal investigation.

    It may be no common law or statutory crime to cheat at 'games': it certainly is a crime to swipe some millions of pounds by dishonesty.

    If, as should surely happen, the Res 12 issue is on the agenda for the Celtic plc AGM next month (is it?), and debated, I expect that the overwhelming majority of those attending will , after debate (which, I submit, the Chair will have to allow) call for a report to the COPFS to be made.

    And I further submit that the 'big' holders of vote-carrying shares better not think of dodging the column and voting against such reference to the COPFS. The seriously founded allegation that Celtic plc has been the victim of  crime MUST be investigated, and it would not be for the majority shareholders to shrug their shoulders and say that they do not wish to get involved.

    Their failure to engage first time round in 2013 solved nothing: the sport stinks, its governance stinks, and the longer term future of every club will be affected if action to return to integrity is not taken.

     

    View Comment

  46. I see the name Brian Kennedy being mentioned again. If I recall correctly he is a Hibs fan who was attempting to help because his wife's family is steeped in Rangers. He also seems to be far removed from the type of characters who have come and gone at Ibrox. He didn't make his fortune by throwing good money after bad, and I am certain he would have demanded Rangers live within their means. In short, he is not what the average Ibrox patron seems to want. 

    View Comment

  47. Incidentally, I got a text from Oz at 3.15 a.m this morning warning me of a scam email doing the rounds, saying it has 'two tickets' for the next Scotland home game. DO NOT OPEN, is the warning: because it does contain two tickets for the next home game!

    View Comment

    1. View Comment
    2. Homunculus 14th October 2018 at 21:48  

       

       
       

      upthehoops 

      14th October 2018 at 19:09  

      Allyjambo 14th October 2018 at 17:10  

      I think what UTH is alluding to is, if they'd managed a CVA or found a buyer, they would have, at a later date, had to face the EBT tax bill which didn't 'crystalize' until after the Supreme Court ruling.

      ====================

      That is what I meant, or if they had managed to get to the CL group stages they might have struggled on. However the tax bill would have hit at some point. 

      ==================================================

      Surely at a CVA the debt owed to a creditor is the debt at that time.

      They put a claim in and the administrator accepts or rejects it. If the CVA is agreed and the appropriate payments are made by the administrator then that is a clean slate. That is the whole point of trying to save the company and getting it back operating again. That was certainly the intent of the Enterprise Act as I understand it. To save companies and jobs.

      The idea that someone could come back in and claim a huge debt, relating to the pre CVA period seems counter intuitive to the intent of Parliament.

      I am more than happy to be told I am wrong on this, it is really not my area. Every day is a school day for those willing to learn.

    3. ______________________
    4. I do not think the intent of parliament was to provide businesses with a way of shedding debt currently going through the courts by going into administration before a final ruling is made (on the contingent debt). At the same time I think it would be equally wrong for a contingent creditor to be able to vote and block a CVA when it might later be found to be owed nothing. I suspect that in a case where a CVA is achievable, but a contingent liability exists, that the purchaser of the company would have to accept the contingent liability as part of the deal. It would then be up to the purchaser to decide whether or not he considers the risk worth it. Like you, Homunculus, I have no knowledge on the matter, but, if I am wrong, then however it might work, someone would surely be unfairly disadvantaged.

     

    View Comment

  48. 'Darkbeforedawn 

     

    14th October 2018 at 21:35  

     

    …Whilst I’m not condoning anything that went on, and none of the events of 2012 sit well with me, it was at the time completely unprecedented events…'

     

    …Except it wasn't.

     

    What happened at Ibrox in 2012 is an everyday occurrence in the business world. Companies go bust every day. (How many companies associated with Murray, Whyte & Green have ceased trading over the years?)

     

    The football authorities attempted to manage their part of it as an in-house sporting matter. Why they did that, with their highly-paid CEO & hard-headed businessmen on their committees has always puzzled me. 

     

     

    View Comment

  49. As far as Brian Kennedy is concerned I agree he would not be what the average bear would have wanted, but dare I say he is what we needed? Someone who is not emotionally invested and who would make us live within our means. I would not have expected the same soundbites out of him as the chancers who followed. We would have been made to live within our means, and the fans told we should just be glad we still have a football team to support. How different things could have looked today…

    View Comment

  50. From Companies House today – some movement in the arrangements with Close?  :

    THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED

    15 Oct 2018 Satisfaction of charge SC4251590012 in full. (This document is being processed and will be available in 5 days.)

    This refers to :

    13 Feb 2018 Registration of charge SC4251590012, created on 12 February 2018 (Close Leasing Ltd – security over car park (?)/Edmiston House))

    Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.

    View Comment

  51. John Clark

    UpThe Hoops

     

    Res 12 has been mentioned every year from the top table at the AGM since 2014.

    Typically it was 'the matter was at some stage of investigation so wait" either with SFA in 2014/15, then when that failed to get satisfactory answers ,UEFA in 2016 which again raised more questions than answers, but provided enough information in terms of dates licence granted and UEFA informed of clubs granted to continue pursuit after a hiatus waiting for the Craig Whtye trial to come out with what the evidence already suggested and (for LNS) the Supreme Court decision.

    The testimony at the CW trial in summer of 2017 led to the Compliance Officer investigation that took seven months to lay charges in May for a Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal to scrutinise, but TRFC claimed in July the matter was one for CAS.

    That was after fresh evidence was presented to the previous Compliance Officer in June this year which in effect made investigation unnecessary as it basically provided a narrative covering the whole of 2011 from March to September, which was what Res12 was looking to achieve.

    As the podcast says, Res12 was prompted by the question " How come Sherriff Officers turned up on 10 August 2011 if there was no overdue payable at end March? 4 months seemed a short time to go from not owing HMRC anything to HMRC taking final measures to collect.

    Thus previous statements at the AGM were joint ones with shareholder's rrepresentatives because information was still being sought and at last year's AGM, although unhappy at further delay, it was difficult to argue with Celtic's stance of waiting for the Compliance Officer process to establish what took place. No one expected it to take 7 months.

    That stance in view of how the SFA Judicial Process has ran into the ground is going to be difficult to justify, particularly since no further formal investigation is needed.

    As long as no one has come up with a Bryson type interpretation of the rules that explains how the licence was granted in accordance with them, then difficult questions need to be answered by the SFA to satisfy Celtic shareholders to prevent the further action of taking the issue outside football law as it was never designed to deal with dishonesty at the level that occurred from 2000. 

    View Comment

  52. Unless I have picked it up wrong…

    Phil's latest is suggesting that RIFC is considering issuing a Corporate Bond.

    Off the cuff: I think this is simply a non-starter.

    Corporate Bond issuers are sold, highly reputable organisations, with strong cashflow like Apple, GE (in the past), etc.

    Yes, the Bonds typically pay higher than bank rate, but risk is low for Bond buyers, with lower initiation costs for the Bond issuer.

    RIFC has no such reputation WRT financial management and cashflow.  With 'going concern' red flags, who would even buy an RIFC Bond? (Bears aside.)

    And with all their poor corporate reputation, Shirley the FCA would take an interest?

    View Comment
1 12 13 14
 

Comments are closed.