Two questions.........

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I must admit that is one bizarre statement to me. I did wonder why you were trying to 'hang him out to dry' on a Rangers forum. This is the same guy who was the last man standing after Whyte came in "saying I will not walk out the door unless I'm pushed. The man is an imposter". Whyte struggled to get him out the door. This is the same man who was first on the scene to meet McCoist at Ibrox after Admin. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17132094

This is the man who gave the Club £20M for no return. And he is comparable to the Easdales?? Unbelievable!

 

I didn't compare him to the Easdales.

 

I just don't want ANY convicted criminal (or perhaps I should say anyone who has been convicted of a criminal offence or known associates) having anything to do with our club.

[Anchorman 0]

I didn't compare him to the Easdales.

 

I just don't want ANY convicted criminal (or perhaps I should say anyone who has been convicted of a criminal offence or known associates) having anything to do with our club.

 

Can you define that statement a bit more? Any criminal offence? Only if you have been caught? Known associates?

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Can you define that statement a bit more? Any criminal offence? Only if you have been caught? Known associates?

 

OK I can see we are getting into deep water here.

 

This is in the context of the SFA Rules in relation to being fit and proper, where the type of offences that are caught are those which would be liable to a prison term of 24 months or more.

I would draw the same line as the SFA.

[pmu 0]

That will be a squiggly line then lol...

[Super Cooper 0]

OK I admit it; I don't like Dave King any more than I like the Easdales but I can assure you that the next time I'm marching to Hampden, it will be to see Rangers in a Cup Final

 

Depending on your age Brahim, you will be lucky!

[Zappa 0]

OK I admit it; I don't like Dave King any more than I like the Easdales

 

That's a staggering comment, but not a surprise. We all have our own ideas and levels of morality and ultimately, trust though.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Depending on your age Brahim, you will be lucky!

 

Quite so. Glad you changed the subject

 

I must admit that when I started to write that post I thought the Ramsdens Final was at Hampden but fortunately double checked.

 

Hopefully I'll live long enough to see us back at Hampden and perhaps also a double or dare one dream for a treble.

 

I'm not so sure of getting my current 32 European trips up to my target of 50; although there are plenty older than me, I'm catching up fast as Phil says to Don Everly.

[RANGERRAB 3,246]

OK I can see we are getting into deep water here.

 

This is in the context of the SFA Rules in relation to being fit and proper, where the type of offences that are caught are those which would be liable to a prison term of 24 months or more.

I would draw the same line as the SFA.

 

Can someone then tell me how Whyte passed the SFA's 'fit and proper persons test' ?

Dont tell me Rhegan didn't know all about his colourful business background when he acquired Rangers in May2011.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Can someone then tell me how Whyte passed the SFA's 'fit and proper persons test' ?

Dont tell me Rhegan didn't know all about his colourful business background when he acquired Rangers in May2011.

 

I can certainly shed some light on that and in fact I am fairly sure that it is in the public domain.

 

Remember that it is up to the Club to report the facts to the SFA on their Annual Return or within 10 days of anything occurring that might be reportable.

 

Article 10.1

 

Each full member and associate member shall lodge with the Secretary not later than

1st June in each year the Official Return and shall notify in writing without delay any

subsequent changes to the details contained in such Official Return to the Secretary.

 

Article 10.3

 

In addition and without prejudice to the requirements imposed on members under

Article 10.1 (Annual Return), members shall intimate (i) any proposed changes to the details of any

person listed on the Official Return, (ii) the appointment of any person who is required

to be listed on the Official Return and (iii) any other matter relating to any person listed

on the Official Return which the member (acting reasonably) believes may be relevant

to the Board in determining whether such person is fit and proper to hold a position in

Association Football, in each case to the Scottish FA from time to time by submitting any

such proposed changes, appointments or matters to the Secretary within 10 working

days of the effective date of such proposed changes, appointments or matters arising

or coming to the attention of the relevant member, and the Board must be satisfied

that such changes, appointments or matters are bona fide before granting permission

thereto.

 

So in theory the information about Whyte should have been on the Annual Return or otherwise notified within 10 days.

 

But bear in mind that essentially Whyte was running the Club on his own at that time and the one person whose job it would have been to notify the SFA, Martin Bain, had either been sidelined or dismissed (not sure of the exact dates). Obviously Whyte would not have been keen to disclose details of his murky past; especially his previous disbarment from being a director.

 

As I have said elsewhere, bear in mind also that Regan was less than a year in the job at that time and unsure of his ground. His primary focus had been on revamping the SFA Committee structure, planning for a pyramid structure in the leagues etc. I don't know what prompted it but I do know that there was extensive correspondence back and forward with Whyte's lawyers who were obviously under instructions to use whatever delaying tactics and obfuscation they could. I know that they simply didn’t respond to some SFA correspondence. Regan would have had to follow normal procedure which would have been say to wait 2/3 weeks for a reply and then send a reminder. If the reply he got wasn’t satisfactory then same again and I k now that that went on for months. It’s easy to criticise him for that but by the same token he couldn’t just phone up Whyte and say you are hereby suspended from being a director of Rangers, a club which Whyte owned lock stock and barrel.

 

To be clear, I am not an apologist for Regan, I am just giving you my interpretation of what happened.

 

That is why I have also said that should there be any doubt in the future about a director or proposed director of Rangers being fit and proper then I think you will find that Mr Regan will follow a much more robust procedure.

[bossy 0]

I can certainly shed some light on that and in fact I am fairly sure that it is in the public domain.

 

Remember that it is up to the Club to report the facts to the SFA on their Annual Return or within 10 days of anything occurring that might be reportable.

 

To be clear, I am not an apologist for Regan, I am just giving you my interpretation of what happened.

 

That is why I have also said that should there be any doubt in the future about a director or proposed director of Rangers being fit and proper then I think you will find that Mr Regan will follow a much more robust procedure.

 

 

So much for the SFA's 'supervisory' role. Not worth the paper it was written on. In a different legal jurisdiction they would have been the subject of a class action lawsuit from the Rangers shareholders who were wiped out by Whyte.

 

With regard to a 'more robust procedure' ... does this just apply to Rangers (a bit like much of Vincent Lunny's work) or will it apply to every club? Also, given the ability to separate ownership from directorship and the club from the company that actually owns it, does the 'more robust procedure' have any substance?