Comment on We’re Gonny Need Another Baw. by Auldheid.
This excellent article by Fanswithoutscraves is well worth drawing attention to in terms of SFA Reform..
My general comment is that the system of regulation in place was a tick box one that depended on trusting clubs would act honestly and in good faith.
That trust was broken in 1999 by Sir David Murray and there is a cost to replacing the system with a more rigorous one which arguably, if it is ever done, would make Scottish football another creditor of Rangers FC if a figure were put on it.
Auldheid Also Commented
We’re Gonny Need Another Baw.
Homunculus 12 .46
The vicious circle. How to increase attendance to watch lesser quality players as result of reducing the wage bill that impacts on going for anything?
Perhaps acting like Killie or Aberdeen or Hearts etc might provide a clue.
Stop acting Billy Big Baws and join the same league on the same sustainable basis as everyone else.
The risk of TRFC''s "business model", where a tap is more than a jersey, is the danger of collateral damage to the other clubs in the league.
At what point do they agree to domestic version of financial fair play that protects all clubs?
They are derelict in their duty to themselves and each other. Hell mend them.
We’re Gonny Need Another Baw.
I would have to check the latest rules but there is a points deduction for entering administration.
The principle behind points deduction is that a club cannot benefit in sporting terms from paying money to players it should have paid to creditors, especially if all other clubs were paying creditors what is owed at expense of footballer quality.
Of course we can never rule out a Brysonesque interpretation that says as long as the administration is unnoticed then until it is, the club going into administration is eligible to keep the points until an administration event takes place.
That is as absurd as the ruling on player eligibility so it could happen again if rules aren't clear.
We’re Gonny Need Another Baw.
John Clark 13.18
Only two possibilities exist:
Either the licence of March 2011 to RFC was correctly granted under ALL of UEFA FFP articles or it wasn't.
Why it has taken over 5 years to establish which applies is for the SFA to answer and consequently in the absence of a decision we cannot rule out that the licence was correctly granted.
However the time taken to address the issue suggests the last thing the SFA (and possibly Celtic) want is a decision that it wasn't correctly granted because the consequences put the SFA in the dock much more than the new club/ company (to use Traverso's justification for not applying sanctions to RFC in 2012) who took the place of RFC in Scottish football.
Why TRFC are asking the matter go to CAS (as we understand it) is a mystery. It has nothing to do with TRFC as a new football club/company that replaced RFC, although some of the same individuals employed in 2011 by RFC are still there.
The narrative will show that the whole Compliance Officer regime under the Judicial Panel Protocol is worthless when it comes to providing justice and there has to be independent oversight of the SFA and SPFL that forces accountability to restore any semblance of trust in the SFA as a governing body responsible for policing and enforcing the rules.
Accountability is the last thing ALLclubs want as it will take away their comfort zone, hence the resistance and so the need for persistence.
Recent Comments by Auldheid
Tangled Up In Blue by Stephen O’Donnell (Book Review)
My thoughts on UEFA doing the SFA's job against the responsibilities of the SFA to UEFA.
In essence are the SFA following UEFA rules in the spirit and letter that UEFA intend with regard to protecting the integrity of professional football in Europe?
Here are the relevant UEFA FFP Articles from UEFA FFP 2018. What intrigues me is the terminology as in no mention of any holding company anywhere in UEFA FFP, which raises the questions:
Are RIFC PLC a football company ?
Do they have a written contract with The Rangers FC Ltd?
Whose name is now on the application from Ibrox for a UEFA Licence, The Rangers Football Club Ltd or Rangers International Football Club Plc ?
(in 2012 pre administration when The Rangers Football Club PLC applied for UEFA licence (that was refused) the applicant named on the application template was Rangers Football Club.
Article 45 – Written contract with a football company
1 If the licence applicant is a football company as defined in Article 12(1b), it must
provide a written contract of assignment with a registered member.
2 The contract must stipulate the following, as a minimum:
a) The football company must comply with the applicable statutes, regulations,
directives and decisions of FIFA, UEFA, the UEFA member association and
its affiliated league.
b) The football company must not further assign its right to participate in a
competition at national or international level.
c) The right of this football company to participate in such a competition ceases
to apply if the assigning club’s membership of the association ceases.
d) If the football company is put into bankruptcy or enters liquidation, this is deemed to be an interruption of membership or contractual relationship within the meaning of Article 12. For the sake of clarity, should the licence already be granted to the football company, then it cannot be transferred from the football company to the registered member.
e) The UEFA member association must be reserved the right to approve thename under which the football company participates in the national competitions.
f) The football company must, at the request of the competent national
arbitration tribunal or CAS, provide views, information, and documents on
matters regarding the football company’s participation in the national and/or
3 The contract of assignment and any amendment to it must be approved by the
UEFA member association and/or its affiliated league.
Article 12 and 1 b says.
Article 12 – Definition of licence applicant
1 A licence applicant may only be a football club, i.e. a legal entity fully responsible
for a football team participating in national and international competitions which
a) is a registered member of a UEFA member association and/or its affiliated
league (hereinafter: registered member); or
b) has a contractual relationship with a registered member (hereinafter: football
I'm not au fait with detail of break even requirements or the detail of TRFC Ltd accounts re their income streams, but this article sets out the principles when UEFA first introduced the break even concept and how that has softened over the intervening years.
The link is to Part 1 which then links to Parts 2 and 3 and it's a very informative read in terms of the underlying principles at play.
In terms of a club operated by a separate company I know there has to be a written contract between the 2 parties and if memory serves me well if insolvency occurs the UEFA licence granted is not transferable but I'll copy the actual UEFA Article.
Between the two readers should get an idea of the principles UEFA intend their rules to uphold and the distance between those principles and those of the Scottish Football authorities.
Here is a link to CQN article.
Today’s CQN blog is an informative one on DK and SDI/MA judgement and what it tells us.
There is however a bigger picture in which all of this operates as I’ve set out in this response.
Whilst I appreciate the sentiment of keeping a fool in charge of Rangers I cannot reconcile that with keeping fools and liars in positions to cause widespread damage to society.
These are the people ok, People of the Lie (read M Scott Pecks book of that title).
Plausible physcopaths who live in an unreal world that they think they can make real.
At a Res12 meeting two Christmas’s back I said Celtic were dealing with a criminal organisation and if that reality hasn’t dawned on Celtic by now (and other clubs who have turned a blind eye) then the game, like the wider UK society under Boris and his gang, are heading for hell in the same hand cart as Trump.
Where is domestic fair play? Where are the stiffer rules on independent licence policing? Res12 was intended to provide leverage to make that happen. A Dougie , Dougie moment writ large. Why wasnt the lever pulled?
What if Rangers Ltd go bust again? Will it be rinse and repeat and will those responsible for protecting the name of Scottish football repeat the insanity of the 5 Way Agreement in the hope doing the same thing will produce a different result?