Traynor On Rangers EBTs'

[Kenzie1 0]

"The SPL are investigating the ADMINISTRATIVE side of the EBT's - were they declared correctly & were there secondary contracts. "

 

The EBTs were declared properly to the appropriate authorities from the word go. Nothing was underhand. Nothing was hidden. If any questions were raised in anyone's mind, they have had ample opportunity to question their provenances. Oh, wait a minute, Liewell wasn't running the SFA and the SPL then.. Silly me.

[Steve1872 4]

Chris Graham‏@ChrisGraham76

Here at TRS towers we're hearing two other SPL clubs outside Celtic may have EBTs. Unconfirmed yet so no names. No doubt be in paper soon...

[amms 0]

What can a company do to influence investigations into the past finances of a different company at a time when the first company didn't even exist? It may be going ahead but partaking in it will not help and only give it a false credibility.

 

You know you might be right, I'm no expert.

 

I'm not sure we can claim to be a 'different company' but the same club though. Whatever legal definitions are made we're still 'Rangers' and those titles are still 'ours'. In my opinion that is. I'm uneasy about not being represented, simply not recognising their authority doesn't mean they don't have any whether we like it or not.

[GovanAllan 0]

It's getting more and more laughable with every day, the rest of Europe must be laughing up their sleeves at Scottish Football.

[andy steel 0]

Two things puzzles me from that herald piece.

 

1)Adam interview raises EBT issue therefore

2)SPL judgement is completely impartial

 

How do the two follow? I like trying to read the runes when statements like this come out, since the writer(s) can usually be placed fairly accurately in one camp or another. We know where Grant pitches his tent; so, we can take this guff as the party line. But is that it? Is that really it? 'We can't be stitching you up, it was a Rangers director who revealed it?'

 

I know football panders to the lowest common denominator but even by SPL standards that's as shite a rationale as I've heard. But if that's really it...not bad. Coming after the lousy attempt by Roger Mitchell last week to answer Charles Green, it does give you a smdgin of confidence.

[andy steel 0]

It's getting more and more laughable with every day, the rest of Europe must be laughing up their sleeves at Scottish Football.

 

There's a book about the fascinating island group of St Kilda, called 'Islands on the Edge of the World'. Well, that's probably how Europe regards Scotland, if it regards it at all.

[GovanAllan 0]

There's a book about the fascinating island group of St Kilda, called 'Islands on the Edge of the World'. Well, that's probably how Europe regards Scotland, if it regards it at all.

 

Probably right Andy, but you can just imagine the last 10 seconds of the sports news around Europe, and for some light relief we will head to Scotland and see what the crazies have been to this week.

[stewarty 1,877]

Jim Traynor: my new favourite Scottish sports journalist.

 

I'm guessing if I read messrs McGoollygillygoblin, McNally, McConspeople, etc; this article will be part of a coordinated "lets get Rangers off the hook" conspiracy.

[GovanAllan 0]

Jim Traynor: my new favourite Scottish sports journalist.

 

I'm guessing if I read messrs McGoollygillygoblin, McNally, McConspeople, etc; this article will be part of a coordinated "lets get Rangers off the hook" conspiracy.

 

His windows are on the hit list as we speak.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

saw this on ff.

 

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.