Statement on Whyte by the club

[Bluedell 5,350]

Cuellar was going before the Kaunas game which is why he didn't play in that match. We may have used the sale proceeds to pay for those purchases but I don't think they were directly linked as you suggest.

 

He was injured. It was the same injury that kept him out after his transfer went through.

[der Berliner 3,271]

Just a few simple questions here:

 

- Has the SFA ever looked into Vlad the Mad's history before he bought Hearts?

 

- Can Whyte not simply cease to be a director of The Rangers Football Club plc. and still be Rangers chairman/boss/No. 1?

 

- Has there been a previous, or will the SFA whip up a new ruling to deduct the club ... say 25 points?

[BrahimHemdani 1]

He was injured. It was the same injury that kept him out after his transfer went through.

 

I recall his non-appearnace in Kaunas was shrouded in mystery and I was always very sceptical about that "injury", and he didn't seem all that badly hurt when he climbed the stairs to the back seat of the stand at Falkirk with Novo on the Saturday.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Just a few simple questions here:

 

- Has the SFA ever looked into Vlad the Mad's history before he bought Hearts?

 

- Can Whyte not simply cease to be a director of The Rangers Football Club plc. and still be Rangers chairman/boss/No. 1?

 

- Has there been a previous, or will the SFA whip up a new ruling to deduct the club ... say 25 points?

 

I should be able to establish what penalties are available tomorrow sorry today!

[Bluedell 5,350]

I recall his non-appearnace in Kaunas was shrouded in mystery and I was always very sceptical about that "injury", and he didn't seem all that badly hurt when he climbed the stairs to the back seat of the stand at Falkirk with Novo on the Saturday.

 

As I said, it was enough to keep him out of a few games at Villa. Also, if his move was signed and sealed, would he really have gone to watch the games against Kaunus and Falkirk?

[GovanAllan 0]

I feel like you're ignoring almost everything I'm saying and taking wee small bits out of context in order to disagree with them

 

 

 

 

 

Erm, because the club only confirmed it today?! It was only strong speculation until it was announced by us. You can't investigate speculation Allan!

 

Actually Danny going by the news clip of Regan I watched last night the SFA have been in talks with Rangers for a few weeks. The question really is what can they actually do about it, very little I think.

 

I don't think for a minute the SFA ever intended to have to use this ruling for any club, you have to ask if Liewell is working Regan from behind. Then you have the farcical point that he's not fit and proper now but in 6 months he is.

Edited December 2, 2011 by GovanAllan

[ian1964 10,430]

Explained: the SFA, Rangers and Craig Whyte’s ban

 

The Scottish Football Association have asked for clarification of the Rangers owner’s past. What are the rules on disclosure?

 

Following the news that the Scottish Football Association has requested information from Rangers about their owner Craig Whyte’s financial past, questions have been raised about the “fit and proper person test”.

 

We’ve looked at the issues and rules regarding the officials at Scottish football clubs.

 

What have the SFA asked Rangers?

 

The governing body issued a statement revealing it had already spoken with Rangers about Craig Whyte’s directorship ban. It said it had requested “clarification” and “key information” regarding the Rangers owner.

 

Why are they investigating?

 

Rangers confirmed the fact to the Stock Exchange in a statement accompanying their annual financial results. It said: “Craig Whyte was disqualified to act as a director of Vital UK Limited in 2000 for a period of seven years.“

 

Why does the SFA take an interest in what someone did before being involved in football?

 

The SFA has rules regarding people who serve in an official capacity at any of their member clubs. They seek to ensure that anyone holding a key position at a club is “fit and proper”.

 

Is there a fit and proper person’s test?

 

No, there isn’t a test. The SFA decide based on information received about the individual.

 

Are there criteria individuals have to meet though?

 

There are no set criteria for what exactly makes someone fit and proper, or not, but a list of “relevant facts” is provided in section 10 of the SFA Articles of Association.

 

The list is “acknowledged to be illustrative and not exhaustive” but gives examples of information that should be provided.

It covers details of whether someone is of sound mental health, is bankrupt or already acting as an official of another club where there might be conflict of interest.

 

Part g) says it must be reported if the official “has been disqualified as a director pursuant to the Company Director’s Act 1986 within the previous five years”

 

How does the SFA know?

 

Every member club has to submit documentation by June 1 each year detailing all the official positions and who holds them. It’s up to the club to provide complete and correct information. The form asks for details of each individual to allow them to assess whether they meet approval.

 

These details are provided on a form known as the official return. Clubs obtain the form from the SFA’s Registration Department and should fill them out with reference to the Articles of Association.

 

The form can be submitted before June 1 but the regulations also state that any changes should be notified to the SFA within 10 days of taking effect. Rangers submitted their official return following Whyte’s takeover in May, in advance of the June 1 deadline.

 

So where would rules apply to Craig Whyte?

 

Part g) of the rule on a “fit and proper person” asks if the official “has been disqualified as a director pursuant to the Company Director’s Act 1986 within the previous five years”. The SFA would take that information into account when deciding if an individual is “fit and proper”. Rangers did not mention Craig Whyte's disqualification on their official return.

 

Is that five years from start of the ban or the end?

 

That’s open to interpretation and could determine whether or not Rangers have a case to answer. Whyte’s disqualification began well outwith the five year reporting period but ended just four years ago

 

If they rule there was an issue, what happens?

 

If the SFA conclude that they should have been made aware then there would be two issues at stake.

 

First, there would be a case to answer from the club as to why their official return was missing key information. There could be some discussion as to whether or not an omission was made due to a misinterpretation.

 

A second issue would be a re-evaluation of whether or not Whyte is considered by the governing body to be a fit and proper person. The disqualification, even if considered to have been within the last five years, would not automatically block an individual from being approved.

 

The rule specifically states: “The Board hereby reserves its discretion as to whether or not such a person is fit and proper, as aforesaid, after due consideration of all relevant facts which the Board has in its possession and knowledge, including the undernoted list which is acknowledged to be illustrative and not exhaustive”

 

Who rules on each?

 

The SFA Articles of Association don’t specify who would deal with incorrect information on an official return. However, the Judicial Panel would rule in the case of an individual being omitted from the Return while holding office at a club and it is reasonable to assume that they would deal with any other reporting problems.

 

In the event that an individual is left off the paperwork “a fine, suspension or both, or such other penalty, condition or sanction as the Judicial Panel considers appropriate” would be applied.

 

The evaluation of whether or not an individual is a fit and proper person is taken by the SFA Executive Board, comprised of chief executive Stewart Regan, president Campbell Ogilvie, vice-presidents Alan McRae and Rod Petrie, Scottish Premier League representative Ralph Topping and National Association representative Tom Johnston.

 

What are the sanctions?

 

For the individual, the decision may be taken no to allow them to hold office, judging them to be an unfit person.

 

The club may be punished by the Judicial Panel, though no sanctions are listed. The Panel holds the power to impose fines, suspensions and any other sanction when ruling on other matters, making it difficult to predict what would be decided.

 

FURTHER READING

 

Rangers did not disclose Craig Whyte ban to SFA

 

http://sport.stv.tv/football/scottish-premier/rangers/284537-explained-the-sfa-rangers-and-craig-whytes-ban/

[BrahimHemdani 1]

As I said, it was enough to keep him out of a few games at Villa. Also, if his move was signed and sealed, would he really have gone to watch the games against Kaunus and Falkirk?

 

I may be wrong but my recollection is that he did not travel to Kaunas. I did and it was a pissing wet miserable night.

 

I recall thinking after seeing him at Falkirk taking the plaudits of the fans (though not near as many as Novo), what a two faced ugly bast*rd he was, but a great centre half nonetheless.

Edited December 2, 2011 by BrahimHemdani

[BrahimHemdani 1]

In financial services (agreed not the same as football!) the test of being fit and proper is whether or not you are "honest, competent and solvent". In that context, as here, being dishonest i.e. not disclosing that you were disqualified within 5 years (and as I have already stated there is little doubt that that would be from the end of the period of disqualification) may well be regarded as more serious than the fact of being disqualified, because it begs the question - what else are you not telling the truth about.

 

Either Rangers have been incompetent twice: firstly in failing to disclose a material fact and secondly in saying â??Craig Whyte was disqualified to act as a director of Vital UK Limited in 2000 for a period of seven years.â?? when they should have said â??Whilst a director of Vital UK Limited in 2000 Craig Whyte was disqualified to act as a director (of any company) for a period of seven years.â?? or they have stupidly and deliberately tried to hide the truth.

 

I am not sure which I prefer to believe but whoever wrote the second statement should be sacked.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Then you have the farcical point that he's not fit and proper now but in 6 months he is.

 

That's not farcical at all. The test applies at the time he becomes a director not 6 months or a year later.

 

If you take out car insurance and fail to declare that you were disqualified from driving within the past 5 years, have an accident and the insurers refuse to pay the claim on the grounds of non-disclosure; there is no use arguing that what you failed to disclose would have been clear 6 months later.