Rangers statement on the stripping of titles

[Blue Moon 1,114]

This article would be quite at home in the Celtic View.

[aweebluesoandso 290]

It would be extremely harsh to strip us of titles on a technicality ie the side letters, especially since the EBTs were declared to the SPL every year.

 

As for the latest catchword that is getting right up my nose, "financial doping", the payment of big money signings by Celtic directors is exactly the same. The players are paid what they are paid. Our players were paid by the club, end of story. The EBts are not illegal, apparently the way we administered them was. It has been said repeatedly that this was done after consultation with experts and that the club did not knowingly administer them wrongly. In other words a technicality.

 

As for the explanation of Celtic's EBT being after The player left. Don't insult my intelligence by expecting me to believe that it was not by prior agreement ie a side letter.

 

Ours was a side thought, theirs was an afterthought, go explain.

[andy steel 0]

Ugh. That made my dinner go all queasy in my belly, and I only read the first couple of 'paragraphs'.

[Guest Bluenose80]

This article would be quite at home in the Celtic View.

 

I always thought Keevins often played one side off the other but that article makes it clear which side he is on. Shocking the way he twists everything to make Celtic and Lennon seem like the good guys propping up Scottish Football and Rangers the bad guys being jealous of them in the CL while being punished in the lower leagues totally ignoring the fact Rangers exploits in the lower leagues is the only thing keeping anyone interested.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

The Hassan Kachloul Precedent

Forgetting how we got here, pretending that this is a just, fair, honourable hearing and the respected QC's who make up the panel will come to a judgement that is in no way predetermined - then lets look at some of the facts of the case and what lies ahead;

 

Did Rangers breach the SPL rules?

 

Well for the answer to be yes, it is necessary to make a few assumptions first;

 

- Payments to players from the Remuneration Trust are considered as 'payments' and not as 'discretionary loans'.

 

- These payments are deemed to be 'in respect of that player's participation in Association Football or in an activity connected with Association Football'.

 

- Payment to the players from the Remuneration Trust did not form part of the Contract of Service delivered to the secretary of the SPL.

 

In making these fairly broad assumptions, then Rangers would certainly be in breach of SPL rule D9.3;

 

D9.3 No Player may receive any payment of any description from or on behalf of a Club in respect of that Player’s participation in Association Football or in an activity connected with Association Football, other than in reimbursement of expenses actually incurred or to be actually incurred in playing or training for that Club, unless such payment is made in accordance with a Contract of Service between that Club and the Player concerned.

 

And perhaps also in breach of rule D1.13;

 

D1.13 A Club must, as a condition of Registration and for a Player to be eligible to Play in Official Matches, deliver the executed originals of all Contracts of Service and amendments and/or extensions to Contracts of Service and all other agreements providing for payment, other than for reimbursement of expenses actually incurred, between that Club and Player, to the Secretary, within fourteen days of such Contract of Service or other agreement being entered into, amended and/or, as the case may be, extended.

 

Having been found in breach of SPL rules, the following sanctions are available to the SPL;

 

G6.1.1 give a warning as to future conduct;

G6.1.2 give a reprimand;

G6.1.3 impose a fine;

G6.1.4 annul the result of an Official Match;

G6.1.5 order that an Official Match be replayed;

G6.1.6 impose a deduction of points;

G6.1.7 award an Official Match (with such deemed score as it thinks appropriate) to a Club;

G6.1.8 order the playing of an Official Match or Matches behind closed doors;

G6.1.9 order the closure of all or part of a Stadium for such period and for such purposes as it thinks appropriate;

G6.1.10 order the playing of an Official Match or Matches at such Stadium as it thinks appropriate;

G6.1.11 subject to Rule G6.3, order that a Club be expelled from the League;

G6.1.12 withdraw or withhold the award of a title or award;

G6.1.13 order any Club, Club Official or Player to pay compensation to any Club, Player, person or party;

G6.1.14 order any Club, Club Official or Player to comply with any obligation or direction;

G6.1.15 cancel or refuse the Registration of any Player Registered or attempted to be Registered;

G6.1.16 order that a Club concerned be debarred from Registering Players for such period as it thinks appropriate;

G6.1.17 order that any person, persons or group of persons be prohibited from attending at such Official Match or Matches and for such period as it thinks appropriate;

G6.1.18 make such other direction, sanction or disposal, not expressly provided for in these Rules, as it shall think appropriate; and/or

G6.1.19 make such order as to expenses, including the expenses of the Board and/or, as the case may be, Commission and/or other party, as it thinks appropriate.

 

19 available sanctions, although that can be realistically narrowed down to 8 given the circumstances of our case;

 

G6.1.1 give a warning as to future conduct;

G6.1.2 give a reprimand;

G6.1.3 impose a fine;

G6.1.6 impose a deduction of points;

G6.1.7 award an Official Match (with such deemed score as it thinks appropriate) to a Club;

G6.1.12 withdraw or withhold the award of a title or award;

G6.1.13 order any Club, Club Official or Player to pay compensation to any Club, Player, person or party;

G6.1.18 make such other direction, sanction or disposal, not expressly provided for in these Rules, as it shall think appropriate

 

With again many of these dressed up as one and the same - the options available are in simpler terms;

 

- Warning

- Fine

- Stripping of Titles

 

So given the choice of the three what should the panel impose on Rangers?

 

Upon judging the sanction the tribunal should look at precedent within Scottish Football. The most relevant case to this was one involving Hassan Kachloul and Livingston FC in 2005.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/foot...on/4602415.stm

 

Livingston registered the player as an amateur in order to try and circumvent transfer rules, but without knowing that they could actually register the player as a professional. As such it deemed that no sporting advantage was gained, no point deduction enforced and Livingston retained their place in the SPL for the following season.

 

The SPL stated that;

 

"Livingston have been found to have been in breach of both of SFA Articles and registration procedures and the SPL Rules by registering Hassan Kachloul as an amateur player. But the Board identified that Hassan Kachloul would have been eligible to be registered as a professional player by Livingston on March 31, 2005 and to have played in league matches during the remainder of season 2004-05. "As a consequence, Livingston secured no competitive advantage by having registered the player as an amateur, rather than as a professional, since the club would have been entitled, had due enquiry been made regarding Hassan Kachloul's contractual history and his position under the rules of football, to have registered the player as a professional. For breach of the rules of the SPL, the board have severely censured Livingston FC, warned the club about their need to comply with those rules in the future, and fined the club £15,000."

 

Given the earlier assumptions made on the interpretation of 'payment' as opposed to a 'loan' in the case of EBT's, it can be decided that Rangers were in breach of SPL rules due to legal interpretation. If we simply registered the payments into the trust (which were published in our annual accounts) with the SPL we wouldn't not have been in breach of any further rules. It is therefore clear that under no circumstances did Rangers gain a 'competitive advantage'. So again, pretending that this is a just, fair, honourable hearing and the respected QC's who make up the panel will come to a judgement that is in no way predetermined - the outcome based on precedent should be absolutely no more than a censure and a fine.

[Zappa 0]

Good piece and while it's probably spot on, it's worth noting that there was no precedent for our ex fellow member clubs expelling us from the SPL and no precedent for the SFA slamming us with a transfer ban that wasn't a listed sanction in their regulations.

[RANGERRAB 3,271]

Good piece and while it's probably spot on, it's worth noting that there was no precedent for our ex fellow member clubs expelling us from the SPL and no precedent for the SFA slamming us with a transfer ban that wasn't a listed sanction in their regulations.

 

When the SPL ceases to exist, (which won't be long in coming) a condition of our re-entry to the top division (whatever it may be called) is that this ridiculous transfer embargo be abolished.

[Zappa 0]

When the SPL ceases to exist, (which won't be long in coming) a condition of our re-entry to the top division (whatever it may be called) is that this ridiculous transfer embargo be abolished.

 

The transfer embargo has never existed in the rules and regulations, so there's nothing to abolish!

[pete 2,499]

If Hearts go bust then the pack of cards could tumble and fall.

[pete 2,499]

What a pity Green didn't have the guts to sit their registration blackmail out for another few weeks.