I became well acquainted with the inner workings of Scottish football at a young age. The company my father worked for printed the matchday programmes during the 80s and early 90s. His boss was former Motherwell captain, Matt Thomson, a great man, who was enormously generous and it was not uncommon to find an ex-football player, having fallen on hard times, been given a job by the former full back.
Many a time I recall my father lamenting Jim Farry’s position as the SFA chief executive and, even then, it was widely known how corrupt and self-serving the SFA was. As a young teenager I recall my father calling me into the factory to aid in rectifying a printing error in a batch of programmes. A copyright symbol had inadvertently been replaced by a two-fingered peace sign (no doubt the work of a good Tim on the factory floor !) and Farry had threatened to sue if it wasn’t removed.
I earned 50 quid that day, spending an hour or so blotting out, with a black marker, the sign that Farry found so litigious. In years to come, Fergus would take a similarly offensive two-fingered sign and jam it right back up the SFA. The result was Farry being given his books in 1999, having being found guilty of deliberately stalling the registration of Jorge Cadete.
Current events are directly reflective of the standards (or lack thereof) that were implemented during the Farry era. The governing body of Scottish football continues to be mired in cronyism and pork barrel-style politicking. When Stewart Reagan was appointed in 2010, I was skeptical. He navigated the referee strike, but I felt he came across as largely impotent and bumbling. Only under the weight of massive outside pressure did Reagan, in his first real test of resolve, sack Hugh Dallas for circulating an email linking the Pope with child abuse.
Following this, celebrity scientist Richard Dawkins thought it appropriate to demonstrate his ignorance outside the biological sciences and damned the decision, describing the email as a “joke”. While I respected Dawkins’ defence of free speech, he unfortunately neglected to put his brain into gear before he put his mouth into motion.
What he failed to grasp was the context of the situation and how it removed the notion of any impartiality on the SFA’s behalf whilst stoking the flames of an already volatile, fractious religious divide in Glasgow. Innumerable incidents since have been unsuccessful in dispelling the notion that the SFA is simply not fit for purpose.
In the case of Reagan, I think he simply lacks the qualifications and mettle for a job that is way out of his league. Alex Thomson’s recent dissection of him was painful viewing as he continually stuttered at the interviewer’s questions and deflected blame.
Thomson a direct, well-respected, award winning journalist deserves praise in the face of criticism (from, well not the sharpest tools in the box) regarding the significance of his role in the Rangers debate. In my mind, the significance of Thomson is not how much fresh material he has generated, but the fact that he has brought the debate to a wider audience and, hopefully, encouraged UEFA to keep a closer eye.
The SPL and SFA are currently doing everything in their power to ensure Rangers survive. It is the most shocking display of prejudice and favouritism I’ve ever witnessed in sport. The SPL rules are undergoing revision that would allow a phoenixed Rangers to re-enter the top level of Scottish football with penalties, laughingly, regarded by some as overly punitive.
Considering the unpaid tax and debts they’ll leave behind, it’s a mere slap on the wrist. While the assertion is that Rangers survival is financially critical to the survival of the SPL, the real reason is far simpler. Rangers are the establishment team. Extrapolate further; their fan base in Scotland is a huge proportion of the electorate. The SPL, the SFA and the government all have to collude to allow them to survive in some form.
Scottish football fans were recently surveyed on how they would act if Rangers liquidate and are allowed to transfer their SPL league share to a Newco (http://www.splsurvey.co.uk/). Result ? They will vote with their feet. Any doubt of fair play in the Scottish game will be removed. If so, the governing bodies of the game will have achieved what they apparently sought to prevent by protecting their favourite club; the death of Scottish football.
Great article though the ‘protecting’ their favourite club line – not just by you but by others as well – is getting a bit a over dramatic and I feel that in all the hyberbole and mis-information that Franchise SPL and the SFA are actually quite hamstrung due to lack of foresight and legislation and are getting a raw deal.
Off course I’m not fully backing them. God NO! Though, I do think they are working with a shit hand but are making a shit attempt to bluff their way out off it.
Below is a excerpt from the Celtic Trust noted regarding their meeting with Neil Doncaster and Iain Blair. I think this clarity was needed. We might not like it but we need to grasp it and turn our attentions to the greed clubs who will vote for money.
My views are in bold…
***********************************************************************************************************
The meeting opened with an agreement that matters should only be discussed which could be reported back to CT members and the wider Celtic support. With the exception of two minor issues nothing which was discussed is excluded from this record.
We began by outlining our concerns that the way the Rangers case was being handled could potentially lead to a loss of faith in the integrity of the Scottish game; we indicated that this was particularly relevant if a Newco is allowed back into the SPL; we indicated the strength of feeling of supporters and the possible response by supporters if a Newco is allowed direct entry to the SPL. The SPL acknowledged that there was a great deal of strength of feeling around this but they felt it was based on a misunderstanding of what was happening or what could happen. The position of the SPL as outlined by ND and IB is that all the matters which are at issue ie all the alleged wrongdoings of Rangers have been dealt with, or are being dealt with, under the existing rules of the SPL , the SFA and in terms of the relevant legislation. Specifically ND outlined the following:
· EBT/Tax case – being dealt with by HMRC
Aye, true…no shit there. It’s the fallout the SFA and SPL will need to deal with.
· Extra Contract allegation – subject to an SPL investigation which, if a prima facie case is established would then either refer it to an independent commission to investigate and decide the punishment if they are found guilty, or it would be done by the SPL Board or a sub-committee of the SPL Board
Being investigated. How long does this take and if a Newco is formed then as it has no legal link to the Oldco then no punishment can be brought on the club apart from the stripping of titles from a dead body. It’s like grave robbing.
· Last year (ie the period between the Craig Whyte takeover and administration) – SFA had imposed a 12 month registration embargo (not a transfer embargo so players can go out to a Newco for instance)
The severity of this surprised the lot of us. The appeal will be interesting after the fear and intimidation put on members of the commity but Fat Sally and Fat Huns.
· Administration – 10 point penalty as stated in SPL rules
Fuck me, they can read the rule book.
ND stressed that Rangers were being subject to exactly the same rules and sets of sanctions as any other club in the same position and that nothing was being ignored. When asked how this maintained sporting integrity, ND stated that they were being punished according to the rules – the debate on whether this was sufficient punishment was another issue but it was the same rules as would apply to any club. He further noted that existing legislation applied to any other type of business would also allow for a transfer of assets and a shedding of debt via a newco.
ND further argued that the distinction between a CVA route out of administration and a Newco route was ‘fine’. In the first case debt would be shed as a result of creditors taking a percentage in the pound; the HMRC has no special standing under existing legislation (2006 Enterprise Act); the Club would not face any additional penalties unless it remained in administration into a new season.
Further 10 point deduction if still in admin, as per the rules.
In the case of a Newco, the new owner would buy all the assets (ground, players etc) and transfer them to a newco; the oldco would either be liquidated or it would seek a CVA and pay out its creditors effectively the same pence in the pound using the money from selling its assets to the Newco owner and thereafter could potentially merge with Newco; in either event, the Newco could apply for entry to the SPL. At that point, under the existing rules, the 4-man SPL Board would deal with the application. If the proposed rule change to be discussed on 30 May is passed then that decision will be taken by all the member clubs of the SPL. A number of points were stressed:
a) The creditors would, in all likelihood, receive the same amount in either case
b) The sanctions imposed on Rangers (Oldco) would not pass to the Newco
Here’s the biggie. Admittance that legally the Oldco has no link to the Newco. How can history transfer then if this is the case? This is the only bit of hypocrisy the Doncaster has indulged in since he first started looking like a startled deer on a road.
c) Newco would be obliged under the TUPE regulations to take on all employees (who wanted to transfer) on the same terms and conditions – so they would, in fact, have all the player registrations.
Fair enough. Most players will leave when they realise that their full wages canny get paid.
d) The application to join (ie to have the Rangers share passed to Newco) could be on the basis that they would shoulder the sanctions imposed on Rangers or it could be that they would not shoulder this responsibility – this may influence whether or not the share transfer is approved. (our emphasis)
So, they will ask them if they want sanctions imposed for the share? Well, they can’t impose them as the Old club doesn’t exist hence the need for the Newco sanctions proposed below.
The other regulations to be voted on include:
2A in which all 11 clubs have to vote, which states that if there is a transfer of the share to a Newco there would be a deduction of 10 points in each of the following two seasons
2B, which only requires 8 votes, states that a Newco would lost 75% of all fees for the next three seasons
If a new Rangers is created before this vote takes place, these regulations would not apply to it. The new regulations will only apply to those clubs who go into administration from the beginning of next season and won’t be applied retrospectively. The SPL Board would attempt to sanction the Newco, this is just misleading.
It’s clear that the only punishment that a Newco can have at this time is non receiving of the Oldco share. This means they need to apply to the SFL. The SPL know that the chairmen won;t vote not to take Newco back into the league. This is a desperate attempt to ensure some sort of punishment. Problem is can we trust the clubs to do the right thing?
A number of other points arose in the discussion:
a) The total amount of the debt will not make a difference as it will just be part of the CVA – so the final determination in the big tax case won’t affect the range of possible outcomes
b) If liquidation does take place (and that does not necessarily have to happen for a Newco to be in place as outlined above) then that gives the administrators greater investigatory powers going back to the old Rangers regime, and this may or may not lead to criminal charges.
c) UEFA are not involved in this at all except in relation to their own competition. In that regard, a CVA would lead to a one year ban from European competition and a Newco would have a three year ban (as a consequence of having to provide three year’s accounts to take part in the competition). UEFA are currently looking at increasing the CVA penalty to three years and ND/IB interpret this as UEFA saying that there is little difference between the two possible routes out of administration.
UEFA have clear rules. That will never catch on.
In all of this, it appears that the main issue for supporters is not what rule changes take place, as the Trust, together with the CSA, the GB , the Affiliation and the North American Federation had originally thought when we collectively wrote to the Club Chairman last week.
On the basis of what was stated today, the only discretionary element in the process, and therefore the point where sporting integrity will either be upheld or not, seems to be the point where a Newco Rangers applies to have the Oldco Rangers’ share transferred to it and the conditions, or lack of them, which might be applied at that time. That will, in all probability, be decided by all the clubs collectively.
The delay in the vote becomes more clear now. They know that no Newco will be ready by the 30th May.
ND/IB appealed for fans to make their decisions at the point where the final decision is made and the position becomes clear. They were concerned about misunderstandings clouding the views of supporters and seemed keen to spend as much time as possible to dispel any such misunderstandings.
However, the supporters and their organisations might take the view that our interests are best served by seeking to influence the outcome of such an application to ensure that sporting integrity is maintained. How we would do this needs to be discussed now and communicated to those in whose hands the decision will lie.
While we emerged from the meeting with a clearer understanding of the rules and how they would apply, we are left essentially in the same situation as when we went in, which is that either there is a game in which wholescale wrongdoing is properly punished or, for whatever reason (including the lack of effective regulation of companies in the UK and the perception by Club Chairman that their financial interest lies in ensuring that Rangers in some form survives), we will see a debt-free unpunished Rangers playing in the SPL next season. Who they will be playing in front of is a matter for supporters and their organisations to determine.
All of the above is mute if the Newco don’t get an SFA license. As has been pointed out the SFA have their own failings. They have already stated that the registration punishment applied to Rangers 1872 is transferrable if they get transferred the old membership. Again, admittance of a break in timeline.
For a Newco to get a brand new license they would need certain conditions to be dropped by the SFA (not going to happen) or they could buy an ailing club with a license….Rangers Of Cowdenbeath.
Cheers. The closing sentences were purely self-indulgent dramatic licence 🙂 but you can’t deny there’s been shady bias in the upper tier.
One point about the Newco and “transferring history”. Assuming they lose the FTT, any affiliation the Newco had with an Oldco would make the former responsible for the crimes of the latter. All this talk of incubating the history is total nonsense.
Correct.
collusion is not an illusion …..its on amural in the bogside in derry we have been putting up with it for years
Indeed. Know a lot of boys from Derry over here in SF. Great guys, brilliant banter. Cheers.
Two things,
Doncaster is salami slicing Rangers offenses to make it all appear like a “normal” insolvency which is less damaging in isolation and the punishments correspondingly reduced.
No decision should be taken on a Newco until all the charges are investigared and judgement reached. Punishment should take account of the scale and damage to Scottish football with deterrents built in.
The SFA are aiding and abetting, they must surely have records of what contracts Rangers registered and could add he investigation to the case the Nimmo enquiry. Being the next Appeal level argument is a load of justifying crap. Rangers could have gone to UEFA. Leaving it all with SPL was a convenient slicing device.
On the SFA: will Rangers in any form get a club license? That aspect is covered at
http://celticunderground.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=916:club-licensing-whats-the-point&catid=47:season-2011-2012&Itemid=83
I really wonder if the recent meeting to decide on a Newco etc. was just a show of face because, as you’ve said, no decision should be made before that. It doesn’t make sense.
I’m interested to see when UEFA step in. As you mention in your own article, Platini/UEFA cannot be seen to allow a blatant contravention of rules they have so publicly extolled.
Would have preferred to put this comment on your article, but can’t see how to register. Will copy over if my brain re-engages.
I should know better but I heard Mark Guidi on Radio Clyde last night and `there will be a Rangers in the SPL next season` and `the transfer ban must be lifted`. I`ve decided to go with this and if it gets worse for them I can consider it to be a bonus! 🙂
Come on you Bhoys in green! and
Stand up for the Champions!
Forza
Listening to Radio Clyde ?! That might merit a comment ban ! 😉
I like your logic.
Bursting for us to lift the trophy on Sunday.