Gers could face a ban from SFA

[ian1964 10,416]

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/...-sfa-1.1151165

 

SFA chief executive Stewart Regan has revealed Rangers could be booted out of Scottish football if they are found guilty of giving players two contracts.

The governing body is currently conducting an independent inquiry into Craig Whyteâ??s controversial takeover of the crisis-hit Ibrox club.

However, Regan has confirmed other issues have arisen during the course of the far-reaching investigation which will also be looked at in greater detail.

It has been speculated that Gers players had two contracts with the Glasgow club when EBTs were in use between 2001 and 2009.

And last week ex-Rangers director Hugh Adam claimed that specialist payments were being made to playing personnel as far back as the mid-1990s. Under the SFAâ??s articles of association, clubs are only allowed to give players one contract of employment.

Regan admitted on Friday that the allegations made by Adam, who was ousted from the club board by former owner Sir David Murray, would be looked at. And he outlined the range of punishments available to the organisation if Rangers are found to have breached their strict guidelines.

 

He said: â??If you look at our articles of association, it shows a range of powers that the judicial panel has.

â??What will happen is that the matter will go to the Scottish FA main board and will then pass through to the judicial panel.

â??Thereâ??s a whole range of things from suspension to termination of membership at the extreme end to fines and ejection from the Scottish Cup or other such penalties the panel deem appropriate.

â??It (Hugh Adamâ??s claim) is one directorâ??s take on things, but, as a board, we have to examine it.â?

Regan added: â??The inquiry covers primarily the Craig Whyte era, but in digging into facts it has take us into other areas.

â??Itâ??s thrown up matters which are of interest to the committee. Iâ??m there representing the board. Weâ??ve got into the meat of what has been going on at Rangers and now the inquiry has gone in different directions.

â??The inquiry isnâ??t judge and jury. The process is one of investigation and presenting the facts.

â??The board will consider the facts and if the board feels the facts are compelling they will pass that to the compliance officer and it will go through the normal disciplinary process.â?

Regan refused to dismiss the possibility of a separate inquiry being launched specifically into allegations of double contracts at Rangers in the future.

He remarked: â??That will depend on the boardâ??s view of the facts and what information there is. The situation is changing daily and new information is emerging all the time.

â??Weâ??ve got our hands on certain pieces of information and weâ??re exploring it and asking for further information. If itâ??s the boardâ??s opinion that they want a fuller investigation then that will be an option.â?

Meanwhile, Regan has confirmed that SFA president Campbell Ogilvie, whose role at Rangers during the Murray era has come under scrutiny, will not be involved in any investigation into secret payments.

He saud: â??I think itâ??s pretty obvious that he (Ogilvie) is heavily conflicted. Campbell wonâ??t play any part in any meeting, discussion or conclusion on any activities surrounding Rangers.â?

[BlueMazza 0]

trying hard not to, but I'm reading that and my mind is screaming 'witch hunt'.

[Zappa 0]

Seems to me like the SFA are just posturing and playing to the crowd. I doubt if anything will come of their shitty wee investigations.

[Danny 0]

Even this nonsense is ridiculous because the SFA know the SPL will collapse without Rangers.

 

That all said, if we have been breaking the law or SFA rules, it is worthy of punishment. But I agree on the witch hunt notion because if we have, I'll bet other clubs have too.

[der Berliner 3,247]

Yes, so on the one hand they are brooding over the amount of points deducted if we go into liquidation or may be in administration come next season. And if that does not come to pass, we get chucked out of the SPL for supposedly giving players two contracts. Aha. The end result for them when losing us would be the same, but that will aparrently not matter right now.

 

BTW, it should be those who gave them such deals (if any) and those who did such deals (if any) who should be banned from football, not the "club as an institution".

 

Dunno, but Bluedell recently related that Celtic is actually a double-company-club, with one owning the ground and the players, while the other receives all the gate money and pays staff and players. All a touch strange ...

[Jim White 0]

The Scottish Football Association and Scottish Premier League have confirmed they will investigate payments made to players by Rangers.

 

More...

[Bluedell 5,330]

I remember Darryl King saying that 2 contracts were common. One related to playing and one to image rights. I don't know whether that's correct or not, but would seem to make sense.

 

Good luck in investigating it, Regan. I'd expect all accounting records up to and including 2004/5 would now be destroyed.

 

Is there an investigation as to why it took the SFA so long to perform an adequate fit and proper test on Whyte? Regan should be resigning.

Edited March 5, 2012 by Bluedell

[calscot 0]

Could we sue him?

[ascender 352]

This isn't a "head in the sand" answer, but I find it amazing in a small parochial country like Scotland, in the small world of Scottish football and in the even smaller goldfish bowl of Glasgow, that something like this would have been kept quiet for so long with all those who must have been aware of it. Between this, the rumours of wrongly registered players and the side-letters for the EBTs, surely something more concrete than that single draft letter that the Sun ran with must exist? Given all the players who were allegedly involved, along with agents and middle-men, many of whom I'm sure didn't leave Ibrox on good terms, I'd have thought journalists and anyone linked with Celtic who got an inkling of any of this would have been all over it.

 

The Rangers Tax Case site is being praised for running with stories that some of the media apparently knew about but weren't willing to print, I'm assuming because of the lack of actual evidence that may mean they were leaving themselves open to litigation?

 

Even when last week's Hugh Adam interview was released, it didn't actually contain any hard facts or evidence, but was being heralded as some sort of smoking gun because it backed-up the rumours.

 

The rumour about wrongly registered players again seems strange because of how many people looking after their own interests and being paid to look after their clients respective interests would surely spot such fundamental errors in a process they'll all have been involved in multiple times.

 

I'm ready to be proven wrong on some or all of the allegations and then for us as a club to face the music, but many seem to be getting carried away while forgetting there's not actually been anything proven as of yet. The outcome of the big tax case hasn't even been announced, yet we've seen rampant scaremongering around the possible liability being taken as fact. A fact which has seen the amount of tax + interest raise from 12M to 25M to 49M to 75M and beyond. Its just ridiculous.

[ascender 352]

And the more I read about certain clubs wanting to see us penalised season after season if the worst happened and we were liquidated just makes me hope that any new owner is seriously considering looking at the viability of just starting from the bottom division.