Two questions.........

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Had there been proper leadership at the SFA they would have decided which league we would have played in 2012-13. Instead they bottled and handed it over to SPL chairmen who voted according to their keyboard warrior supporters in cyberspace and voted us out.We then had to go to the SFL who accepted us but put us in the bottom division against the wishes of REgan who wanted us in SFL1. Regan's performance throughout was a joke. He should have been fired.

 

The SFA have no control over the membership of the SPL.

 

In theory Regan should be the single most powerful man in Scottish football but in practice he can only do what the member clubs allow him to do or give him a mandate to negotiate on their behalf. Much of the criticism of Regan comes from a misunderstanding of his power (which is virtually nil) and influence (which is only slightly more).

 

Doncaster has much greater influence and power because he represents the most powerful clubs.

[barca72 440]

The SFA have no control over the membership of the SPL.

 

In theory Regan should be the single most powerful man in Scottish football but in practice he can only do what the member clubs allow him to do or give him a mandate to negotiate on their behalf. Much of the criticism of Regan comes from a misunderstanding of his power (which is virtually nil) and influence (which is only slightly more).

 

Doncaster has much greater influence and power because he represents the most powerful clubs.

 

BH, I have no question of your integrity which you have proved on many an occasion. However, your attempt to portray these gentlemen in a favourable light may be a step too far. Their actions and statements in the past two years have shown them to be no friends of Rangers. They were willing participants in the drafting and signing of that fateful document, the five-way-agreement. That alone created a cynicism of them in the Rangers' support that may never be expunged.

[Anchorman 0]

I absolutely respect your right to form your own opinion of Mr Regan and never said anything to the contrary; but I do not understand what his brother has to do with the SFA.

I'm not saying his IRA sympathizing brother has anything to do with the SFA. However I think you are being a tad naive if you expect Rangers fans to stand back and accept wholeheartedly that Mr Regan's family background, history and sympathies could not be perceived to have a potential bearing on his personal judgement of us in any way shape or form. I think anyone doing that role should be squeaky clean of such connections. Can you imagine the shoe on the other foot - e.g. his brother is a leading member of the North West Orange Order, who has produces literature on the 'Scots Irish migrations and their fight to maintain their British status on Ulster soil'? I can imagine and his feet wouldn't touch the steps on the way out the door. To believe otherwise is naive in the extreme.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I'm not saying his IRA sympathizing brother has anything to do with the SFA. However I think you are being a tad naive if you expect Rangers fans to stand back and accept wholeheartedly that Mr Regan's family background, history and sympathies could not be perceived to have a potential bearing on his personal judgement of us in any way shape or form. I think anyone doing that role should be squeaky clean of such connections. Can you imagine the shoe on the other foot - e.g. his brother is a leading member of the North West Orange Order, who has produces literature on the 'Scots Irish migrations and their fight to maintain their British status on Ulster soil'? I can imagine and his feet wouldn't touch the steps on the way out the door. To believe otherwise is naive in the extreme.

 

I understand the perception and that it would be equal and opposite if the shoe were on the other foot as when Gordon Smith was in the same role (and for the avoidance of doubt, I know absolutley nothing about his family background).

[BrahimHemdani 1]

BH, I have no question of your integrity which you have proved on many an occasion.

 

That is greatly appreciated, I can assure you and thankfully does not just apply to your good self.

 

I do understand the perception of Messrs Regan and Doncaster in particular and don't forget Longmuir (oft touted as a "friend" of Rangers) was involved as well. However none of them are or were supposed to be friends (or enemies) of any club. I don't know who drafted the "five-way-agreement" but I suspect that whoever represented the football authorities, lawyers were involved as well? As far as I am aware the agreement has never been published but isn't it alleged for example that "that the SPL shall not . . . take or commence disciplinary proceedings against Sevco . . . in respect of any EBT Payments and Arrangements' and that this deal was struck within the 5-Way Agreement before Lord Nimmo Smith began his enquiry and before the FTTT announced its verdict on the Rangers tax allegations."; as were the rights to Rangers TV matches, which were alleged to be another major stumbling block. I would stress that I am NOT seeking to re-open the debate on the five-way-agreement.

 

But whatever came out of the agreement I am sure that neither Regan nor Doncaster nor Longmuir nor all three together had authority to approve it far less implement it without the approval of the clubs who were their employers. The Boards of all three organisations would have given them authority to negotiate an agreement and then they would have had to go back to the Boards for approval. So "participants in the drafting and signing of that fateful document"; I am sure you are correct; whether they should be condemned to fire and brimstone for ever and ever, I am not so sure.

 

I think it is worth reminding ourselves of Regan's statement in the immediate aftermath:

 

• "Of course it has been challenging for the Scottish FA and myself but it is important to emphasise the facts behind the popular misconception.
   
  
• "The Five-way agreement was exactly that. The Scottish FA played the role of peacekeeper between the SPL and the SFL along with Rangers oldco and Rangers newco.
   
  
• "Those discussions culminated in a presentation to all member clubs and the outcome was Rangers being accommodated in Division Three.
   
  
• "Throughout the process the Scottish FA's only priority was to look after the best interests of the whole of the game and to ensure 42 clubs did not suffer in the circumstances that affected one club."
  

(Partial Quotation).

 

Whether you accept the statement at face value is, of course, up to you or anyone else; but I don't think that there is any doubt that the SPL not the SFA, were in the driving seat.

 

I also understand that I might be perceived to be an apologist for Regan or Doncaster or both but as I have said before, that is not the case; these gentlemen are more than capable of being their own advocates and certainly don’t need my assistance.

 

Perhaps I should be more concerned about my public perception amongst Rangers fans and certainly if I had been then I would have led a much quieter life these past few years!

 

Lastly, I can assure you that in the period I was involved (and again I want to stress that I was not involved in any discussions directly about Rangers) I don’t think I ever agreed with Mr Doncaster about anything particularly competition and league reconstruction!

 

But that, as they say, is another story.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

imho it was pretty clear celtc wanted 3 years of points deductions. the spl said that wasn't possible after speaking to the other clubs so the spl decided on relegation. they then panicked and begged the sfl to put us in div 1 but that was a crazy notion all round.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

imho it was pretty clear celtc wanted 3 years of points deductions. the spl said that wasn't possible after speaking to the other clubs so the spl decided on relegation. they then panicked and begged the sfl to put us in div 1 but that was a crazy notion all round.

 

To the best of my knowledge and belief that is all correct; there was never any possibility of the SFL allowing us to leap-frog into SFL1.

[bossy 0]

There are a number of issues arising from this discussion where we do not really have a lot of clarity as to who was pushing for what:

 

1. The 'five way agreement" was clearly an attempt to coerce Rangers into accepting a punitive settlement and both the SFA and the SPL were complicit in attempting to extract their pound of flesh.

 

2. The transfer embargo was found in the Court of Session to be beyond the competence of the SFA and struck down yet Rangers were coerced into accepting it as the price of admission to the league.

 

3. The inquiry into double contracts went ahead despite the favourable (to Rangers) finding of the FTT.

 

4. I still do not have clarity on what happened to prize money and transfer money that was owing to Rangers around the time we went into administration.

 

5. Both Hearts and Dunfermline have gone into administration since Rangers. Dundee, Motherwell, Livingstone and others went into administration prior to Rangers. Is there any reasonable consistency and basis for comparison in the way these clubs were treated as compared to Rangers?

 

I have no doubt that Regan, Doncaster, Longmuir, etc. etc. will all have a persuasive defence for what they did and why they did it. Personally, I have zero confidence or trust in any of them. They acted the way they did for their own reasons and the interests of Rangers and the Rangers support came a very distant second.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

There are a number of issues arising from this discussion where we do not really have a lot of clarity as to who was pushing for what:

 

1. The 'five way agreement" was clearly an attempt to coerce Rangers into accepting a punitive settlement and both the SFA and the SPL were complicit in attempting to extract their pound of flesh.

 

2. The transfer embargo was found in the Court of Session to be beyond the competence of the SFA and struck down yet Rangers were coerced into accepting it as the price of admission to the league.

 

3. The inquiry into double contracts went ahead despite the favourable (to Rangers) finding of the FTT.

 

4. I still do not have clarity on what happened to prize money and transfer money that was owing to Rangers around the time we went into administration.

 

5. Both Hearts and Dunfermline have gone into administration since Rangers. Dundee, Motherwell, Livingstone and others went into administration prior to Rangers. Is there any reasonable consistency and basis for comparison in the way these clubs were treated as compared to Rangers?

 

I have no doubt that Regan, Doncaster, Longmuir, etc. etc. will all have a persuasive defence for what they did and why they did it. Personally, I have zero confidence or trust in any of them. They acted the way they did for their own reasons and the interests of Rangers and the Rangers support came a very distant second.

 

I am not sure about the link you are making in (3) but otherwise these are all good questions.

 

On (5) however, Rangers went into liquidation; the other clubs as you say went into adminstration and as we all have become experts on these issues, we know there is a world of difference between the two. One thing that certainly was very strange about the Hearts situation is how they managed to avoid the points penalty last season which would have relegated them (and saved Dundee). However, knowing the lawyer who acted for them (the same as acted for Messrs Whittaker and Naismith) I am not really surprised that he pulled it off.