garydavidson Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 From the BBC - "SPL commission, chaired by Lord Nimmo Smith "Between the years 2000 and 2011 The Rangers Football Club Plc (now known as RFC 2012 Plc (in liquidation) and referred to in the decision as "Oldco"), the owner and operator of Rangers Football Club ("Rangers FC"), entered into side-letter arrangements with a large number of its professional players under which Oldco undertook to make very substantial payments to an offshore employee benefit remuneration trust, with the intent that such payments should be used to fund payments to be made to such players in the form of loans (2) Those side-letter arrangements were required to be disclosed under the Rules of the Scottish Premier League ("SPL") and the Scottish Football Association ("SFA") as forming part of the players' financial entitlement and as agreements providing for payments to be received by the players; (3) Oldco through its senior management decided that such side-letter arrangements should not be disclosed to the football authorities, and the Board of Directors sanctioned the making of payments under the side-letter arrangements without taking any legal or accountancy advice to justify the non-disclosure; (4) The relevant SPL Rules were designed to promote sporting integrity, by mitigating the risk of irregular payments to players; (5) Although the payments in this case were not themselves irregular and were not in breach of SPL or SFA Rules, the scale and extent of the proven contraventions of the disclosure rules require a substantial penalty to be imposed; (6) Rangers FC did not gain any unfair competitive advantage from the contraventions of the SPL Rules in failing to make proper disclosure of the side-letter arrangements, nor did the non-disclosure have the effect that any of the registered players were ineligible to play, and for this and other reasons no sporting sanction or penalty should be imposed upon Rangers FC; (7) As noted in the Commission's earlier decision made on 12 September 2012 there is no allegation that the current owner and operator of the club, The Rangers Football Club Limited ("Newco"), contravened the SPL Rules or could be held responsible for any breach by Oldco; In all the circumstances the Commission has imposed a fine of £250,000 on Oldco."" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstar101 Posted February 28, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 All I see there is Blah blah blah blah blah Blah blah blah blah blah Blah blah blah blah blah Blah blah blah blah blah Blah blah blah blah blah We shat it Smarmy Arab, ryangordon86, templeofsaints and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBored Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 To be honest, if all the panel was deciding if Rangers broke rules by not declaring the EBTs to the SFA then I reckon the fine is about right....never mind it will never be paid. The club didn't gain an advantage by not declaring the 'side letters' to the SFA. The side letters would still have been there whether they were declared or not, so I agree its an administrative error, hence the fine. The bigger question is whether the EBTs should have been allowed in the first place. My understanding is the big tax case (currently under appeal) found they were ok to use....so I don't see where people think there is an issue of 'cheating'. IF the tax case had gone against them (or is turned on appeal etc) then THAT would be an issue to strip titles etc over. nips 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indicator Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 (edited) No more than expected, however... I've just had a quick read through but it seems to me that the prosecution [sFA/SFL] submitted a deliberately obscure watered down charge which may have left LNS no option when coming to a decision. "First of all, as a result of the way the Notice of Complaint was phrased, the Commission did not consider that Rangers had been properly “charged” with the offence of playing ineligible players in the period before 23rd May 2005. Accordingly it was only the period from that date which was considered". "The Commission has found Rangers Football Club PLC, (now RFC 2012 PLC) which is in liquidation and which the Commission referred to as “oldco” as will I, guilty on all four counts, namely three of breaching the rules regarding non-disclosure of information regarding payments to players, and the fourth of failing to co-operate with the SPL by providing information when requested to do so". [i.e. Destroying evidence by, shredding and burning of, which should have been available to present to the courts] The relevant rule as regards ineligible players states:- “Any Club playing an ineligible Player in an Official Match and the Player concerned shall be in breach of the Rules.” "The key to the Commission’s decision on this point, which in fact changes how the rules regarding registration were thought to act previously, comes from the evidence of the SFA Head of Registrations, Alexander Bryson". Aha! A change in the interpretation of the rules... what a surprise. He said that "Once a player had been registered with the SFA, he remained registered unless and until his registration was revoked". Therefore, according to this evidence, is it not correct that even if there had been a breach of the SFA registration procedures the registration of a player was not treated as being invalid from the outset, and stood unless and/or until it is revoked. So, have I got this right? Are they in fact saying that any club that has in the past been thrown out of a competition after having advanced and then shown to have fielded an ineligible player, can now appeal the decision? Because obviously if the player was registered at all with the SFA, by the new way of interpretation, it must have been valid until it was proved not to be so - and then revoked at a later dat. Surely not. Edited February 28, 2013 by Indicator Tranmere Saintee 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calypso Kid Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 Yep, you're either registered or unregistered. There's no middle-ground. Inevitably the hard of thought will see this as a victory for Rangers or The Rangers or whatever guise they're in now... but the reasoned observer will note a bizarre legalistic slant on the situation. The 'prosecution' as such did not present enough evidence to highlight the probability of a competitive advantage being gained by non-disclosure, as required by the rules. Essentially, the payments to players have been deemed lawful by the tax tribunal, therefore no material advantage has been exercised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indicator Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 (edited) Actually a brilliant move by the SPL when you think about it. By appearing to shoot themselves in the foot, i.e. by changing the perceived interpretation of the rule on player registration they themselves took the decision regarding inelligible registrations out of LNS's hands. He was then able to say... "We will ignore any issue of ineligible players, as there were no ineligible players". If there were no ineligible players SFL doesn't have to rule upon titles or trophys, thus getting themselves out of another jam. But of course none of us should be surprised, I'm sure nearly everyone expected this sort of outcome. I just won't be making many trips north of the border to watch any senior football in the near future. Edited February 28, 2013 by Indicator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calypso Kid Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 Worth remembering they were found guilty on all points and dished out the largest fine in Scottish football history. Don't let anyone tell you they got away with it. A wise man once said something about kicking mad dogs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuck_saint Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 "Sir" David Murray - we all await your response.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calypso Kid Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 "Sir" David Murray - we all await your response.... He's already responded, despite this investigation slating his operation he welcomed the findings and felt it was vindication of sorts. Again, titles weren't removed so it was a success. Even Lord Nimmo acknowledged the fine was a token gesture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indicator Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 A token gesture was probably all he was left with. You could say the same about the evidence that our mighty football authorities saw fit to provide for the prosecution. Their hearts clearly weren't in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevensan Posted March 1, 2013 Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 I wonder how Spartans are feeling tonight, having been kicked out the scottish cup for the massive sporting advantage gained by playing a striker, registered for 10 years, who had recently signed a new contract and had only signed it once, instead of twice. The decision makes a mockery of the rule book. Essentially the decision says that once you have registered a player, he stays registered whether he was registered correctly or not. EG, if Saints signed Ronaldo, but, say, filed out the registration form as 'Joe Bloggs', Ronaldo would be eligible to play in all games for Saints, even after it was discovered his name on the form wasn't correct. And there is no way for the SPL to 'remove' the registration. Basically, the SFA have changed their interpretation of the rules to suit the situation. This was probably cooked up years ago by Oglive and Co, who, lets not forget are still in charge of things. I just wonder what a few European clubs will think now that it was clear the players were not registered in accordance with the rules... I wonder if UEFA and FIFA will agree with the SPL interpretation of the rule book, when a lowly European side takes the SFA to court for failing to uphold the rule book, and allowing a strengthen Rangers to deny them champions league football... Football today proved its as corrupt as cycling was. At least in cycling they had the guts to try and right the wrongs. Steve Zissou, Dylan-Saints, rik2304 and 3 others 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ancientsaint Posted March 2, 2013 Report Share Posted March 2, 2013 Good auld Celtic and Neil Lennon -----They know what they want to say but obviously cant...........Charles Green stating "I dont tell lies and IF I do I apologise" Classic p**h. But who really cares ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul N Shark Posted March 2, 2013 Report Share Posted March 2, 2013 Does anybody know what Lodge Lord Nimmo is a member of ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOODLUM65 Posted March 2, 2013 Report Share Posted March 2, 2013 Mighty East Stirling 1 up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOODLUM65 Posted March 2, 2013 Report Share Posted March 2, 2013 Ref. trying to let sevco back in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babychunder Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 Results out today have three key figures in them. - in the last seven months of 2012, they have lost £7m at operating level - at the end of 2012, their cash in the bank was £21.2m - in December, they raised £22.2m in a share listing on the LSE Now this means (£21.2 - £22.2) that they would have been bust without the share issue. And also at current burn rate, they will need another cash injection by Christmas next year. HOODLUM65 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOODLUM65 Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 Results out today have three key figures in them. - in the last seven months of 2012, they have lost £7m at operating level - at the end of 2012, their cash in the bank was £21.2m - in December, they raised £22.2m in a share listing on the LSE Now this means (£21.2 - £22.2) that they would have been bust without the share issue. And also at current burn rate, they will need another cash injection by Christmas next year. Obviously no lessons learned so far. Paying premier wages for third division games. Wendy Saints 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevensan Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 Accounts here Speechless... They were trading insolvent as of Dec 15! If they hadn't have had the cash injection of the share issue (these are unaudited, so they may not have 21m in the bank either!) http://rangers.g3dhosting.com/regulatory_news_article/296 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calypso Kid Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 · Undertaking of debts of former Rangers Football Club plc of £2.8m (£251,000 remains to be paid in accordance with the terms agreed) Is this the recently levied fine that was issued to the Old company? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nips Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 · Undertaking of debts of former Rangers Football Club plc of £2.8m (£251,000 remains to be paid in accordance with the terms agreed) Is this the recently levied fine that was issued to the Old company? I'm not 100% sure, but it will probably be the last installment due to Hearts for Lee Wallace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babychunder Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 Accounts here Speechless... They were trading insolvent as of Dec 15! If they hadn't have had the cash injection of the share issue (these are unaudited, so they may not have 21m in the bank either!) http://rangers.g3dho...ews_article/296 Funny there's an echo round here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calypso Kid Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 I'm not 100% sure, but it will probably be the last installment due to Hearts for Lee Wallace. Quite possibly, although I thought Hearts had accepted 400k a few weeks back rather than the 500k balance in the summer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wendy Saints Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 Obviously no lessons learned so far. Paying premier wages for third division games. I disagree, they have learned that they can pretty much do as they please and get away with it, so no change there then. How on earth they are allowed to behave in such a cavalier way ... Even this £250,000 fine it'll never be paid....they will hide behind old co new co guff. Meanwhile the powers that be stand back & let a fiscally unsound team carry on as recklessly as before. It will be interesting to see how the SPL/ SFA handle the car crash that is about to happen with Dunfermline & Hearts. Will they too be allowed to enter league 3 next season if the inevitable happens...I think not! Just when you thought Scottish football couldn't sink any lower! Jacques Cousteau eat your heart out.........? Smarmy Arab 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smarmy Arab Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 Results out today have three key figures in them. - in the last seven months of 2012, they have lost £7m at operating level - at the end of 2012, their cash in the bank was £21.2m - in December, they raised £22.2m in a share listing on the LSE Now this means (£21.2 - £22.2) that they would have been bust without the share issue. And also at current burn rate, they will need another cash injection by Christmas next year. Perhaps we should have a whip round to ensure tRFC survive? Every club could contribute a chunk of season ticket cash next summer, all prize money should be redirected to tRFC, and they should get all TV cash, just for being more pure magicer than ever before, tRFC should get first dibs on all players in the Scottish leagues, and can pay them in brown envelopes stuffed with cash, (tax free!)................. maybe then they will forgive us? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sleepless Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 I Perhaps we should have a whip round to ensure tRFC survive? Every club could contribute a chunk of season ticket cash next summer, all prize money should be redirected to tRFC, and they should get all TV cash, just for being more pure magicer than ever before, tRFC should get first dibs on all players in the Scottish leagues, and can pay them in brown envelopes stuffed with cash, (tax free!)................. maybe then they will forgive us? Surely, as a gesture of reconciliation, we should be offering to buy all their fans their half time bovril and pies for the duration of the season. And wipe their faces for them when they dribble it down their chins. fazman1977 and Smarmy Arab 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.