Rangers deny doncaster’s version

[ranger_syntax 3,795]

I sincerely hope that this all ends very badly for Doncaster.

[ian1964 10,447]

I sincerely hope that this all ends very badly for Doncaster.

 

Only to replaced by another place man

[ranger_syntax 3,795]

Only to replaced by another place man

 

Possibly. Although I think this whole episode might make the other clubs less likely to fall in to line.

[ian1964 10,447]

Possibly. Although I think this whole episode might make the other clubs less likely to fall in to line.

 

We can but hope!

[RANGERRAB 3,299]

The board must turn the heat up on Doncaster.Go after him while he's there for the taking.

 

Pushing for this review at the request of one club whilst not consulting the others should be his downfall.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Doncasters position must be untenable now.

 

 

[pete 2,499]

Doncasters position must be untenable now.

 

Don't hold your breath these guy's have a thicker skin than an American redwood.

[ian1964 10,447]

Why has Lieswell not been charged for bringing the game into disrepute?

[Uilleam 5,492]

Mick Grunt, fully paid up member of Lodge Animus, through the Chair, I believe, offers some words of wisdom, less than Solomonic, surprise, surprise, in today's Times.

 

I am unconvinced -absolutely, totally, completely- that the difference between what the SPFL Board appears to have agreed on July 24 and what Messrs Doncaster and Lawwell demanded last week is anywhere near as subtle and nuanced as Mick would have us believe, and have us believe that he believes. The relevant passages are highlighted below.

 

Call me a pedant, an over analytical anal retentive, or merely a dweller on the outskirts of paranoia, if you will, but a cursory perusal of the two passages by even blind man running in fear of his life indicates a chasm in meaning, and import, between them.

What the SPFL Board agreed to, was not something that would centre, solely, on Rangers, as Mick assumes, a default position, it seems, for that type, probably because the Ibrox omnibus has long gone, with Lord Nimmo Smith among others on board.

What is revealed is, however, a rather sinister proposition: no matter what the SPFL Board agrees re: an inquiry, the timescale to be covered, its scope, its terms of reference, etc., it will inevitably, as a matter of course, be directed against Rangers. It will be a masquerade, the purpose of which, as we know, will be to remove honours from the Club; failing this, it will be to blacken the name of the Club, so severely as to render the historical record as near to invalidity as possible.

 

I have yet to see/hear anyone from the media pose the hypothetical question: what would be the implication for governance of Scottish fitba' if Rangers had paid HMRC's account on demand, or if HMRC had agreed to a negotiated settlement with Murray, as he offered? I should suggest, "Zilch, zero, nada, fuck all." So the implication, now, can only be that all clubs must pay all tax demands, even if such requests are subjects of dispute, and that the SFA/SPFL must include this in articles of membership.

 

Mick's silence of the clubs is not political, frankly, but is down to the findings of LNS, the legal advice given to the SPFL, expense, and the likely outcome wrt to governance.

 

Deafening silence of the majority speaks volumes

michael grant

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/deafening-silence-of-the-majority-speaks-volumes-0ggbcm938 (Paywall)

 

Not for the first time in “the Rangers saga” it’s wise to keep hitting the refresh button before making any declarations about where things are heading. It’s statement season again: the SFA, Celtic, the SPFL and Hibs have all had something to say on whether or not there should be an independent judicial review on how the authorities dealt with the tax aspects of Rangers’ implosion. That’s created a sense of noise and energy, but it’s misleading. There is equal significance in how quiet the rest of Scottish football has gone on this.

 

Hearts are usually top of the league when it comes to letting their fans know where they stand. Every other club could learn a thing or two from Ann Budge’s admirable commitment to transparency and openness. But on this? Not a word. St Johnstone, Dundee, Motherwell, Partick Thistle, Hamilton and Ross County? Nothing. The omerta is contagious. At least we know where Aberdeen and Kilmarnock stand after Stewart Milne and Billie Bowie, those clubs’ chairman and major shareholder respectively, rejected a review and said it was time to move on. So that’s two clubs who issued statements and two more who spoke publicly: four out of 42. So 90 percent of SPFL clubs haven’t said one thing or another.

 

Dig a little deeper and we do discover that a few more clubs are up for this independent review, or at least they were on July 24. Hamilton, Falkirk, Morton and Stranraer? Yep, all up for it. Oh, and Rangers too.

 

We know this because calling for a review was discussed at length by the new SPFL board which was constituted at its annual meeting on July 24. The club reps around the table that day were Budge, Les Gray of Hamilton, Martin Ritchie of Falkirk, Warren Hawke from Morton, Ian Dougan of Stranraer and Stewart Robertson, the managing director of Rangers. No vote was taken but the consensus was clear and there were no dissenting voices. The SPFL chief executive Neil Doncaster has been getting it in the neck for saying their board had called for a review “on behalf of all 42 clubs”. That line sounded very dubious when Aberdeen, Hibs and Kilmarnock come out against it and any sense of overall unity seemed to fracture. But acting on behalf of all 42 clubs is exactly what the SPFL board is empowered to do. Very rarely is something thrown open to a plebiscite of every club from all four divisions. Budge, Gray and Robertson are on the board as the Premiership’s representatives. Ritchie and Hawke talk for the Championship. Dougan represents Leagues One and Two. The message they gave Doncaster back on July 24 was unequivocal: the board supports a review. And the board talks for all 42 clubs.

 

Have any of them changed their minds since then? That is an imponderable now. The general perception of the review itself has certainly changed since July.

What the SPFL called for in the summer was “an independent review concerning the way in which Scottish football’s authorities have dealt with non-payment of tax by clubs, have applied their rules and regulations, and the sufficiency of changes made to their rules and regulations in this area over the last few years.”

Compare that with

Celtic’s statement on Saturday that it was “the club’s belief that an independent review should be commissioned to consider the events that led to the liquidation of Rangers Oldco and the governance issues arising from those events. This is exactly the same position as adopted by the SPFL board on behalf of all Scotland’s 42 professional clubs.”

Spot the subtle difference? The SPFL didn’t mention Rangers and Celtic’s statement did. Maybe that doesn’t amount to much – of course any review would centre on how the Rangers scandal was handled – but this is an enormously polarising issue and at Ibrox they are hypersensitive to the suggestion of it being driven by Celtic in general and Peter Lawwell in particular.

 

Celtic’s position – that a review is essential to draw a line under everything, that not having one would amount to a failure of transparency, accountability and leadership – is shared by an unquantifiable section of supporters at other clubs including at Aberdeen and Hibs. But in the boardrooms? Plenty of the clubs simply don’t buy into the idea of the governing bodies being rotten or incompetent and they don’t have the stomach for “picking sides” in a binary conflict between Celtic and Rangers, no matter how it’s presented as something loftier than that. And without the SFA funding a review the clubs themselves won’t agree to pay a Law Lord’s fees for a judicial review which would have to last several months.

 

So when the SPFL board next meets on September 21 don’t be surprised if a statement then comes out expressing disappointment that the SFA blocked a review and reluctantly accepting that the end of the road has been reached (what Celtic say and do then will be fascinating). And don’t expect many more statements or illumination before then about what clubs really think. However exasperating it is for many fans, this is silence by political choice.

Edited September 13, 2017 by Uilleam

[Frankie 8,182]

Yeah, Cos and Hugh MacDonald were at pains to tell their listeners to put their arms around their favourite hun's shoulder on Saturday and poo-pooh the claim this was about title-stripping and/or punishing Rangers. It was for the good of Scottish football and we'd all benefit, blah-blah-blah.

 

Pull the other one.