Just a reminder that even though it’s a step forward – The Scottish Football Monitor

Just a reminder that even though it’s a step forward …

Comment on Look Back to Look Forward by nawlite.

Just a reminder that even though it’s a step forward for liquidation to at least be mentioned in the media, that still isn’t an acknowledgement by anyone that matters (in a publicity sense) of new club. They are happy to mention liquidation of the company,but believe that the separate club is still ‘returning’ to the top flight.
When they confirmed to me that Rangers hadn’t been relegated but started afresh in the bottom tier, even the SPFL couched it carefully in terms of ‘the company’…..
1. Had Rangers Oldco been able to agree a CVA with its creditors, then it should have been able to emerge from administration (as did Hearts and Dunfermline) without further sporting sanctions. However, a CVA was rejected by Oldco’s creditors. This led to Oldco being liquidated. Newco applied for membership of the SFL and was granted associate membership but on condition it started in SFL Division Three. Newco bought the assets of Oldco from the administrations and took Rangers FC into the SFL. Rangers FC were not relegated from the SPL.
2. The European place that would otherwise have gone to Rangers for finishing 2nd in the SPL could not be taken up by Rangers FC due to UEFA Rules applicable in circumstances where the owner of a club goes into liquidation.
They refused to answer my follow up asking how the club was separate.

nawlite Also Commented

Look Back to Look Forward
Of course we all know that, Homunculus, and I was just confirming that the question was asked and not answered (for the reason you rightly reiterate).


Look Back to Look Forward
I’ve been nursing this one for a while. It’s a bit naughty, but thought it was nice to turn one of their fave songs against them. (You’ll know the one I mean!)
Hullo, hullo, that club used EBTs
Hullo, hullo, they brought it to it’s knees
They were up to their necks in side contracts
and so they had to lie
The dead club used them EBTs 


Look Back to Look Forward
BP did your Celtic official understand the argument that by supporting Res12 and the fact that TRFC* is not RFC, Celtic could easily regain that ‘integrity soviet’ of season book fans?


Recent Comments by nawlite

To Comply or not to Comply ?
Dunderheid, as AFC finished second, they join at the second qualifying round.


To Comply or not to Comply ?
TheLawMan2June 5, 2018 at 16:39 
NAWLITEJUNE 5, 2018 at 16:25Lawman, you readily acknowledge that McLennan has done nothing you are aware of to make you think he is biased toward CFC and claim that none of the other club affiliates mentioned have ever done so either. With that in mind, it seems you would rather have people who are going to be ‘obviously’ biased toward their team in preference to someone who does not have obvious biases. Is that right?__________________________________________________________________________No thats not right. Not right at all. Thats a few people trying to put words in my mouth.When there is a known conflict of interest, there is a methodology that can prevent them influencing it. So for example, if Hearts did something wrong in the league and lets say the SPFL were considering sanctions then im confident and sure that Anne Budge would be removed from making a decision because of her obvious COI.If however, hypothetically, Ian Maxwell was a Non Exec Chairman of Parks Motor Group and he was asked to consider an issue in relation to Rangers and Douglas Park, then there is a clear and undeniable “potential conflict of interest”. The “potential conflict” does not of course mean he would do anything sinister, but in my opinion, the existence of it, should be known to all parties.
==============================================================
Apologies, I wasn’t trying to put words in your mouth, rather trying to clarify what it was you objected to re McLennan. My take now is that you believe those whose allegiances are known DON’T need to disclose while those whose allegiances aren’t known should proactively disclose. Is that right?
How far do you take that, though, to make it effective? You (or rather Dave King who started all this) suspect that McLennan may (be coerced to) make decisions that favour Celtic. I hope you agree that’s effectively the reason for King calling McLennan out in the Press. The key word is ‘suspect’ given that nothing McLennan has yet done has been in favour of Celtic. As you know, suspicions are rife in Scottish football – Who is your second team?; have you sided with XXXX club on this issue so you can get a favour returned on another issue (E.g. Petrie looking for presidency); is he a moderniser or siding with the blazers; are you doing that because you’re friends with Mr Xxxxx?
I think that sort of suspicious speculation is equally as valid as King’s/your suspicions about McLennan. By that I mean none of it can be valid/proven? Should all that be disclosed? Spiers’ piece on McLennan where he judges it right that McLennan should disclose because who knows what he’s capable of while discounting any possible wrongdoing by Ogilvie/Smith because he knows them and they’re nice guys makes the point that we are all just going on rumour, suspicions, speculation and feelings here, none of which are enough imo to force anyone to make disclosures.
If we can force enough transparency so that we can see how decisions are made and by whom, then we can wait for some sign of wrongdoing before we accuse people without evidence which to my mind is what is happening here. 


To Comply or not to Comply ?
Lawman, you readily acknowledge that McLennan has done nothing you are aware of to make you think he is biased toward CFC and claim that none of the other club affiliates mentioned have ever done so either. With that in  mind, it seems you would rather have people who are going to be ‘obviously’ biased toward their team in preference to someone who does not have obvious biases. Is that right?


To Comply or not to Comply ?
Lawman, you didn’t answer my question from yesterday. Are you suggesting that an unknown potential CoI (i.e. McLennan’s) is worse than an obvious potential CoI (i.e. any of the club affiliates in top positions at the SFA/SPFL, such as Lawwell, Ogilvie, Petrie, Smith etc)?


To Comply or not to Comply ?
No ‘angle’ Lawman. You seem to be suggesting that it’s worse when we can’t tell if someone has an affiliation. Is that right?


SSL Certificates