After the Rangers verdict, there should be changes at the top

[ian1964 10,459]

Alasdair McKillop

 

 

Last Thursday was one of those days, characterised by off-the-park events, which now seem to be the main source of excitement for the prisoners of Scottish football. A commission, which was appointed by the board of directors of the Scottish Premier League and chaired by Lord Nimmo Smith, delivered its highly anticipated verdict on Rangers' financial activities as they related to the rules of Scottish football.

 

The commission decided that side letter arrangements detailing the operation of employee benefit trusts should have been disclosed because they formed part of the players' financial entitlement. Non-disclosure by the board of Rangers Football Club plc was deliberate and wrong, but this judgement is complicated somewhat by the fact that the details of the EBT scheme were a matter of public record having been published in the annual accounts of the company.

 

It was the opinion of the commission that non-disclosure did not render players ineligible and it noted in section 86:

 

Even if it had been a breach of SFA [scottish Football Association] registration procedures...the registration of a player was not treated as being invalid from the outset, and stood unless and until it was revoked.

 

It went on to suggest that Rod McKenzie of Harper MacLeod, the solicitors for the SPL (and, on other occasions, Celtic), had misunderstood the construction of SPL rule D1.13 relating to player registration, quite a fundamental point as far as the outcome was concerned. The most important part of the report in terms of the sanction to be applied was section 106 which read:

 

We therefore proceed on the basis that the breach of the rules relating to disclosure did not give rise to any sporting advantage, direct or indirect. We do not therefore propose to consider those sanctions which are of a sporting nature.

 

'Sanctions of a sporting nature' might have included the notorious and oft-mentioned stripping of up to five league titles, a prospect that was of grave concern to Rangers fans and a source of great excitement to some others. The non-disclosure incurred a penalty of £250,000 for which the so-called 'oldco', now in liquidation, is liable. It is unlikely, therefore, that much of this will be recouped because there are a number of creditors crowded round a small pot.

 

Most media outlets and commentators framed the outcome as a guilty verdict. This was perhaps understandable but doesn't explain why Rangers fans were happy with the verdict while, if social media was anything to go by, Celtic fans were bitterly aggrieved. The explanation for these contrasting and apparently contradictory responses requires reference to the level of hyperbole and speculation that had, for a considerable length of time, been swirled around the commission.

 

There was a belief that it would merely be an exercise in establishing the extent of Rangers' terrible cheating, while the 'title stripping' talk had long been common-place and had become more than a little tiresome. Rangers fans were almost resigned to their fate while others seemed to be expecting the verdict denied to them by the First Tier Tax Tribunal in November 2012.

 

The media were culpable in terms of creating this impression and irresponsibly heightening expectations. A couple of examples might be provided to illustrate this point. First, Hugh Keevins, writing in the Daily Record on 19 July 2012, stated: 'An independent commission will decide which titles Rangers will lose over the dual contracts system that gave them an unfair advantage over opponents'. According to Keevins, it was simply a matter of deciding the level of Rangers wrong-doing: how off-the-chart would it be? In addition, it was only a matter of how many titles Rangers were going to lose.

 

Second, Alex Thomson of Channel 4 News wrote in his blog on 29 January this year that a guilty verdict would represent 'beyond question one of the biggest cheating scandals in the history of British sport'. According to my copy of the Oxford English Dictionary, to cheat is to act dishonestly or unfairly to gain an advantage. How does Alex Thomson square his statement with section 106 of the report quoted above?

 

The talk now is of reconciliation and moving on. In this respect the statements from Rangers' chief executive Charles Green should be welcomed for being conciliatory as opposed to triumphalist. But no one should underestimate how elusive reconciliation is likely to prove. Scottish football has become intoxicated because of a miasma of bitterness, recrimination and hyperbole and the scars are likely to be visible for some time to come. This is not likely to please many but it is an honest assessment based on an observation of the passions that have been aroused.

 

It is clear that any meaningful reconciliation process is going to have to involve a substantial change in personnel at the top of Scottish football. Stuart Regan and Neil Doncaster, chief executive of the SFA and SPL respectively, are irredeemably compromised. Both are tainted by attempts last summer to have Rangers returned to the SPL or the first division of the Scottish Football League. This was a move designed to benefit clubs in the SPL and was resented by the Scottish Football League, Rangers fans and fans of other clubs.

 

Raith Rovers director Turnbull Hutton said at the time that clubs were being 'lied to, bullied and threatened' by the SFA and SPL and that what was being proposed was 'corrupt'. These claims didn't seem to pose any serious threat to the position of either Doncaster or Regan.

 

But it is the alleged attempt to strip Rangers of titles in return for a licence to play football that now deserves the most serious scrutiny in light of the finding of Lord Nimmo Smith. If the SPL deemed the issues raised by Rangers' financial activities as serious enough to merit investigation by a commission, then why was it considered acceptable to try and strip Rangers of titles before the matter had been investigated and a verdict delivered? That the fact that Neil Doncaster wasn't even in Scotland for the verdict of the high-profile commission speaks volumes.

 

League reconstruction might herald some sort of new beginning for Scottish football despite the 12-12-18 format having few genuine supporters. Reconstruction will, however, be tainted by association if it is not preceded by the introduction of some new faces at the very top of our game.

 

 

http://www.scottishreview.net/AlasdairMcKillop65.shtml

[aweebluesoandso 290]

It's abundantly clear that Regan and Doncaster's position are untenable, why is our club not making this a precursor to moving on?

[barca72 440]

Didn't the SFL chairmen have a proposal, that was seconded, to call for a 'no-confidence' vote in Regan at their meeting last year and Ballantyne held it in abeyance? Could that proposal be acted on now?

[RANGERRAB 3,307]

We need a total clearout at the 3 current bodies in Scottish football i.e. SFA, SPL & SFL. That also includes all club chairmen & CEO's currently holding positions within these bodies too.

We need a single body to run Scottish football which is both transparent & democratic and is never again allowed to be hijacked and run the way both the SFA & SPL have been during this past year.

[Gribz 743]

Whats concerning is the SFL coming out with statements like "we dont know whether we will go with 12-12-18 or invite 2 more clubs to make it 12-12-10-10". The SFL hold so much cards at the moment and should be pushing for what they want.

[Zappa 0]

Whats concerning is the SFL coming out with statements like "we dont know whether we will go with 12-12-18 or invite 2 more clubs to make it 12-12-10-10". The SFL hold so much cards at the moment and should be pushing for what they want.

 

They do hold some cards, but the money men must have them by the short & curlies and are pressing their buttons, otherwise they wouldn't even consider the insane 12-12-18 proposal.

[RANGERRAB 3,307]

The last thing Scottish football needs is another 2 clubs if this 12-12-10-10 nonsense were to go ahead. There's too many clubs as it is

[Guest nvager]

Heads should roll but will they as that would be admitting something was wrong. However the Board of the new merged SPL/SFL/SFA body has to be voted in and that may cause a few changes, hopefully.

[GovanAllan 0]

No one from the last year should still be their today, its that simple.