Raith rovers-SFL Special General Meeting

[Steve1872 4]

Friday July 6th 2012

 

 

The club has this evening received the notice of resolutions to be voted on next Friday and we are told to expect an information pack at some time next week. We hope that this pack will present a more balanced report to SFL member clubs than they have so far received.

 

At last Tuesdayâ??s meeting, financial information provided by Neil Doncaster showed an unrealistic worst case scenario. It showed the impact of potential total loss of 3 TV contracts, all of which had been inexplicably agreed on the basis that the broadcaster could walk away if either Rangers or Celtic were not in the SPL. His information did not, however, set out the potentially positive impact of negotiating replacement contracts with other broadcasters or alternatively the much mentioned possibility of launching SPL TV (which we understand could have been launched within a matter of months).

 

Mr Doncaster warned SFL members that if these contracts were indeed lost, this would mean the annual payment to the SFL under the Settlement Agreement would either be greatly reduced or not paid at all. Raith Rovers FC believes this not to be the case, and that the SPL would remain both contractually obliged and able to pay the £1.9m â?? £2m annual sum, even in that worst case scenario. We call upon the SFL Board to clarify its view on this vital point urgently, before club boards finalise their positions on these important votes.

 

We are also concerned that there has not as yet been an opportunity for clubs to receive legal advice from the SFL and/or debate the potential consequences on the smooth running of our league in the event that the Courts are asked to annull/strike down any of the corporate transactions that have led to the current position of Sevco Scotland Ltd as owners of certain assets of the Rangers oldco. Indeed, the position as regards the potential sanctions to be applied by the Scottish FA via its Appellate Tribunal has also still to be bottomed out. In summary, we remain concerned that the SPL clubs have overwhelmingly voted to pass on this potential time bomb, which may yet explode once passed to the SFLâ??s jurisdiction, and we are being asked to accept this new company into membership, worse still in our top division.

 

Without all of this information, and the opportunity for clubs to further discuss these issues on a fully informed basis amongst themselves before the formal SGM, in a similar format to last Tuesdayâ??s meeting, we are concerned that the fairness and transparency of the process itself is at risk of being compromised.

 

Raith Rovers FC will consider its stance with regard to attendance at this meeting once we receive the information from the SFL.

[TheWeeBlueDevil 0]

 

I really don't like that horrible little club.

[Guest Bluenose80]

 

I really don't like that horrible little club.

 

Seems a fair statement to me they don't believe the BS Regan and Doncaster are trying to feed everyone about not paying the SFL money they are contractually obliged to. I can see a court case coming as the SFA/SPL have bitten off more than they can chew this time, Rangers will survive but they may be the ones to disappear with the ex SPL clubs begging to join the SFL.

[Bears 0]

I don’t see much wrong in what they have said there. When you read a statement like that you have to look at it from a neutral point of view

[pete 2,499]

SPL TV. I guess they can put that on hold for a few years.

[Bluedell 5,330]

A very informative and reasoned statement, although the bit about striking down the transactions of Sevco seems like they are just trying to put the wind up the SFL.

Edited July 7, 2012 by Bluedell

[TheWeeBlueDevil 0]

Seems a fair statement to me they don't believe the BS Regan and Doncaster are trying to feed everyone about not paying the SFL money they are contractually obliged to. I can see a court case coming as the SFA/SPL have bitten off more than they can chew this time, Rangers will survive but they may be the ones to disappear with the ex SPL clubs begging to join the SFL.

 

Most of the statement is fair enough, but still I don't like the club and I don't like their attitude towards our club. Its more my personal feeling towards Raith than anything said in that statement.

Edited July 7, 2012 by TheWeeBlueDevil

[der Berliner 3,247]

What annoys me quite a bit in this whole affair is that the reason why Rangers are on their knees is generally ignored. It's like blaming the Costa Concordia for the actions of its captain and the consequent disastrous publicity and state of the Costa Cruiser Line.

 

Rangers are the victims here, time to acknowledge that. Once the court makes a judgement with regard to Whyte et al, some people in the higher reaches of Scottish football will look to cover their backsides ...

Edited July 7, 2012 by der Berliner

[Blue Moon 1,113]

"We are also concerned that there has not as yet been an opportunity for clubs to receive legal advice from the SFL and/or debate the potential consequences on the smooth running of our league in the event that the Courts are asked to annull/strike down any of the corporate transactions that have led to the current position of Sevco Scotland Ltd as owners of certain assets of the Rangers oldco."

I think this is a very valid point. I took this to mean, that if Craig Whyte's purchase of the club is fraudulent, what does that mean for the current ownership of the club?

 

I have been saying from the beginning that the SFA should not have acted until the law had taken it's course. We only see it from our perspective, that we would be the victims of a crime and would have been punished unjustly. My fear is that they use it to say suspend us until this has played out.

 

"Indeed, the position as regards the potential sanctions to be applied by the Scottish FA via its Appellate Tribunal has also still to be bottomed out. In summary, we remain concerned that the SPL clubs have overwhelmingly voted to pass on this potential time bomb, which may yet explode once passed to the SFL’s jurisdiction, and we are being asked to accept this new company into membership, worse still in our top division."

It is an absolute nonsense that we and other clubs are entering this whole process blind as to what the levels of sanctions would be for SFL1 and SFL3. What happens if there is further fallout from these decisions after the fact? A scenario which is highly likely, with boycotts, season ticket sales affeccted, ill will and all of the other repercussions that have still to come.

 

It would seem the SFL clubs are being more circumspect and pragamtic than the SFA and the SPL.

Edited July 7, 2012 by Blue Moon

[amms 0]

I've no issue with the Raith statement, indeed I'm really surprised no one from the SFL has come out and stated 'break our agreement and we'll sue you' more publicly.

 

The point highlighted by Blue Moon is interesting. My understanding is the SFA have to ask for the appellate tribunal to reconvene, they don't just do it on their own. So if the SFA don't ask them then no further sanctions are applied, if they do then further sanctions might be applied, including suspension from the league. It isn't unfair for Raith and the other SFL clubs to ask them to clear this up first.