Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

I have come close to giving up on Scottish Football a few times in recent years. The whole responce to the Huns collapse was one issue as was the attempt to railroad through a 10-team SPL. I have also been stretched by the way that Hearts have bent the rules to their advantage and been allowed to get away with it over the past five years right down to the recent removal of the transfer embargo.

I will stay around for the moment but will review this decision when (or if) Sevco arrive back in the top flight.

Clearly she's a Celtic supporter, but I found this blog post to make a lot of sense

http://angelahaggerty.com/rangers-br...-a-revolution/

Has anyone read the ruling? I think if you take a step back from the emotional want to see Rangers punished, the findings and decision do actually make sense, however annoying that is.

The first thing is about there being no rule or provision in place for players to be retrospectively made ineligible - apparently there was an 'understanding' but that didn't stand up to scrutiny against the rules. Therefore, on a technicality Rangers players over that period were eligible.

The second thing was about there being no sporting advantage gained in not disclosing the side letters. This is the case - the advantage was gained through attracting the players and paying them through the legal EBT scheme. The decision to not disclose the side-letters was because (IMHO) Rangers weren't certain that what they were doing was at all above board and so they kept it quiet. However, EBT's were legal and it was how they were used that attracted the players and gave the advantage rather than not disclosing the payments. So I can see the justification in not placing a sporting sanction there.

I think the galling thing is that it's loopholes that have seen Rangers (RIP) keep the titles rather than any vindication of their actions. It was wrong, we know it was wrong, they know it was wrong, and Nimmo knows it was wrong, but the rules weren't there to deal with the situation and you can't re-write the rules retrospectively.

The decision to fine them is a complete waste of time, what is the point in that?

There is also the question of equality and fairness in the cases cited like Spartans, where they've been punished by expulsion for seemingly trivial mistakes. I don't know enough of what happened to Spartans, but I suspect if they'd had the will and the means, they'd have been able to get a legal team to challenge the decision to expel them as well, on the same grounds as Rangers.

I don't think this is about corruption or a will to see Rangers get off with anything, I think it highlights incompetence in the system and flaws in the rules which I would hope are being addressed on the back of all this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by matty_f

Has anyone read the ruling? I think if you take a step back from the emotional want to see Rangers punished, the findings and decision do actually make sense, however annoying that is.

The first thing is about there being no rule or provision in place for players to be retrospectively made ineligible - apparently there was an 'understanding' but that didn't stand up to scrutiny against the rules. Therefore, on a technicality Rangers players over that period were eligible.

The second thing was about there being no sporting advantage gained in not disclosing the side letters. This is the case - the advantage was gained through attracting the players and paying them through the legal EBT scheme. The decision to not disclose the side-letters was because (IMHO) Rangers weren't certain that what they were doing was at all above board and so they kept it quiet. However, EBT's were legal and it was how they were used that attracted the players and gave the advantage rather than not disclosing the payments. So I can see the justification in not placing a sporting sanction there.

I think the galling thing is that it's loopholes that have seen Rangers (RIP) keep the titles rather than any vindication of their actions. It was wrong, we know it was wrong, they know it was wrong, and Nimmo knows it was wrong, but the rules weren't there to deal with the situation and you can't re-write the rules retrospectively.

The decision to fine them is a complete waste of time, what is the point in that?

There is also the question of equality and fairness in the cases cited like Spartans, where they've been punished by expulsion for seemingly trivial mistakes. I don't know enough of what happened to Spartans, but I suspect if they'd had the will and the means, they'd have been able to get a legal team to challenge the decision to expel them as well, on the same grounds as Rangers.

I don't think this is about corruption or a will to see Rangers get off with anything, I think it highlights incompetence in the system and flaws in the rules which I would hope are being addressed on the back of all this.

---

I know what offence I feel is a more serious one .......

A Spartans official failing to spot that one of his players had only signed the registration document in 1 place instead of the required 2 vs the previous Hun board deciding not to disclose the side letters regarding the EBT payments and knowingly breaking the SPL rules in the process.

One is a genuine admin error punishable with expulsion from the tournament and the other is a conscious decision to break the rules as detailed in lord nimmo's findings with minimal punitive results.

:cb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wee Scottie Dug

I know what offence I feel is a more serious one .......

A Spartans official failing to spot that one of his players had only signed the registration document in 1 place instead of the required 2 vs the previous Hun board deciding not to disclose the side letters regarding the EBT payments and knowingly breaking the SPL rules in the process.

One is a genuine admin error punishable with expulsion from the tournament and the other is a conscious decision to break the rules as detailed in lord nimmo's findings with minimal punitive results.

:cb

---

I totally agree, and Spartans have been terribly hard done by. The thing is though, because Spartans appear to have been treated incorrectly, you can't then compound the issue by continuing to treat others incorrectly. If there wasn't anything to say that if a player was found to be ineligible after a game (having previously been considered eligible) then they'd be retrospectively made ineligible, then you can't make that rule up now because it suits.

It sticks in my craw as much as anyone, but you can't strip titles for fielding ineligible players if there's nothing in the rules to say that these players are now ineligible. As such, there's no grounds to take the titles away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by matty_f

I totally agree, and Spartans have been terribly hard done by. The thing is though, because Spartans appear to have been treated incorrectly, you can't then compound the issue by continuing to treat others incorrectly. If there wasn't anything to say that if a player was found to be ineligible after a game (having previously been considered eligible) then they'd be retrospectively made ineligible, then you can't make that rule up now because it suits.

It sticks in my craw as much as anyone, but you can't strip titles for fielding ineligible players if there's nothing in the rules to say that these players are now ineligible. As such, there's no grounds to take the titles away.

---

Agree , guilty is guilty in my book ........ And nimmo's report was pretty damning and clear on that front at least ...... Anyway they don't have a vote never mind titles to strip away this new 3rd div team :hibee:greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by matty_f

The first thing is about there being no rule or provision in place for players to be retrospectively made ineligible - apparently there was an 'understanding' but that didn't stand up to scrutiny against the rules. Therefore, on a technicality Rangers players over that period were eligible.

---

In some areas of law (example, rights of way) custom and practice counts for plenty. If for a hundred years everyone has believed X to be the case and peeps have always previously been punished for doing Y and no-one's ever challenged this punishment, there's often a legal case to be made that X holds irrespective of what's written down.

On this historical basis the oldhuns were ineligibubble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

Clearly she's a Celtic supporter, but I found this blog post to make a lot of sense

http://angelahaggerty.com/rangers-br...-a-revolution/

---

Sorry but no, it's just another reactive outburst. Angela Haggerty is just another bitter, myopic, Sellik-minded dweller of the lunatic fringe who does not understand the judgement and has pre-judged the whole affair and got it spectacularly wrong. She is howling her outrage because she doesn't like it.

Whilst I think Rangers behaviour was arrogant and morally questionable, I'll take the judgement of the FTTT and LNS as they have been handed down by uncompromised, qualified people who have reviewed the evidence in the cold light of day without prejudice. Certainly more so than I would accept as fact anything from the mouth of some some bitter agenda driven troll like her.

Angela was wrong about LNS and wrong about the outcome of the FTTT and she herself is guilty by association with the lunatic/bigoted fringe of Sellik axe grinders like Phil McGhiollabhain. Having read many of her outbursts before she is typical of a lot of the so-called online "in the knows" with that pop up on Twitter and the online Blogging world. You'd be as well saying " A bloke down the pub told me ....."

LNS and his 2 QCs have handed down their judgement and that is that. Well boo-hoo, Angela..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyM_1875

Sorry but no, it's just another reactive outburst. Angela Haggerty is just another bitter, myopic, Sellik-minded dweller of the lunatic fringe who does not understand the judgement and has pre-judged the whole affair and got it spectacularly wrong. She is howling her outrage because she doesn't like it.

Whilst I think Rangers behaviour was arrogant and morally questionable, I'll take the judgement of the FTTT and LNS as they have been handed down by uncompromised, qualified people who have reviewed the evidence in the cold light of day without prejudice. Certainly more so than I would accept as fact anything from the mouth of some some bitter agenda driven troll like her.

Angela was wrong about LNS and wrong about the outcome of the FTTT and she herself is guilty by association with the lunatic/bigoted fringe of Sellik axe grinders like Phil McGhiollabhain. Having read many of her outbursts before she is typical of a lot of the so-called online "in the knows" with that pop up on Twitter and the online Blogging world. You'd be as well saying " A bloke down the pub told me ....."

LNS and his 2 QCs have handed down their judgement and that is that. Well boo-hoo, Angela..

---

The more I read from all the various establishment figures, commissions, tribunals, media and footballing authorities it is becoming clear that Rangers haven't been guilty of anything, desrve no punishment and it's a huge miscarriage of justice.:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spike Mandela

The more I read from all the various establishment figures, commissions, tribunals, media and footballing authorities it is becoming clear that Rangers haven't been guilty of anything, desrve no punishment and it's a huge miscarriage of justice.:rolleyes:

---

:agree: A knight of the realm has patiently explained that it's been a witch hunt from the outset. The the huns should be invited to join the SPL right away and be paid compensation for all the anguish they've suffered. Not only should they not have old titles stripped, they should be awarded this season's SPL title on the grounds that they are the people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spike Mandela

The more I read from all the various establishment figures, commissions, tribunals, media and footballing authorities it is becoming clear that Rangers haven't been guilty of anything, desrve no punishment and it's a huge miscarriage of justice.:rolleyes:

---

:agree: Totally innocent.

Just shows the incompetence of the people who run the game that allows them tae get away with this because there is noting in their rules tae punish them for what they have done. The EBT schemes they were using may not all have been illegal but they must have thought they were doing something wrong if they deliberately chose tae hide those contracts from the governing bodies knowing full well they were breaking the rules by doing so. They intended tae use those schemes whether legal or not, they intended cheat. The thing that actually pisses me off mair than their non-punishment is that still naebody, no even this independent inquiry has the balls tae call them for what they were, cheats. They thought they were doing something dodgy, they chose tae hide it. The intent was there tae cheat by hiding those side notes, yet we get crap about clerical errors when it was nae such thing of the sort, their actions were deliberate and calculated. Why even bother coming out with garbage like that when everybody kens fine well their intention was tae cheat, who do they think they are kidding by puting out crap like that, they must think folk are zipped up the back.

Clerical errors :faf:

The strange but funny thing in all this is, Rangers could have stopped all this years ago from happening. All they needed to do was hand over the paperwork the authorities wanted to see, but they refused to cooperate.

In my opinion it was because they thought they were guilty, and were hiding the evidence. What has happened since then has been a result of their actions, their actions alone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Desperate Dan

:agree: Totally innocent.

Just shows the incompetence of the people who run the game that allows them tae get away with this because there is noting in their rules tae punish them for what they have done. The EBT schemes they were using may not all have been illegal but they must have thought they were doing something wrong if they deliberately chose tae hide those contracts from the governing bodies knowing full well they were breaking the rules by doing so, they intended tae cheat. The thing that actually pisses me off mair than their non-punishment is that still naebody, no even this independent inquiry has the balls tae call them for what they were, cheats. They thought they were doing something dodgy, they chose tae hide it. The intent was there tae cheat by hiding those side notes, yet we get crap about clerical errors when it was nae such thing of the sort, their actions were deliberate and calculated. Why even bother coming out with garbage like that when everybody kens fine well their intention was tae cheat, who do they think they are kidding by puting out crap like that.

---

To be fair DD, it was Fat Sally that said clerical or admin errors not LNS.

LNS has been pretty unequivocal about what he has judged and that is Rangers were at it. Guilty on nearly every count - they have escaped major punishment on a technicality only.

I was speaking to a Hun at work and he doesnt care that they are guilty, only cares that their titles have not been stripped. Shows you the mentality of them but dont let them forget they are guilty - Somehow they feel exonerated despite being found guilty - laughably thick Huns. Certainly not going to bother me though I agree it gives you the boak.

We should all now concentrate on Hibs, laughing at Hearts and trying to get a change in the governing bodies. Most important things going forward IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by matty_f

Has anyone read the ruling? I think if you take a step back from the emotional want to see Rangers punished, the findings and decision do actually make sense, however annoying that is.

The first thing is about there being no rule or provision in place for players to be retrospectively made ineligible - apparently there was an 'understanding' but that didn't stand up to scrutiny against the rules. Therefore, on a technicality Rangers players over that period were eligible.

The second thing was about there being no sporting advantage gained in not disclosing the side letters. This is the case - the advantage was gained through attracting the players and paying them through the legal EBT scheme. The decision to not disclose the side-letters was because (IMHO) Rangers weren't certain that what they were doing was at all above board and so they kept it quiet. However, EBT's were legal and it was how they were used that attracted the players and gave the advantage rather than not disclosing the payments. So I can see the justification in not placing a sporting sanction there.

I think the galling thing is that it's loopholes that have seen Rangers (RIP) keep the titles rather than any vindication of their actions. It was wrong, we know it was wrong, they know it was wrong, and Nimmo knows it was wrong, but the rules weren't there to deal with the situation and you can't re-write the rules retrospectively.

The decision to fine them is a complete waste of time, what is the point in that?

There is also the question of equality and fairness in the cases cited like Spartans, where they've been punished by expulsion for seemingly trivial mistakes. I don't know enough of what happened to Spartans, but I suspect if they'd had the will and the means, they'd have been able to get a legal team to challenge the decision to expel them as well, on the same grounds as Rangers.

I don't think this is about corruption or a will to see Rangers get off with anything, I think it highlights incompetence in the system and flaws in the rules which I would hope are being addressed on the back of all this.

---

I agree with most of that Matty, except the highlighted part.

If there was no sporting advantage to be gained, then why do it?

To save money? No. Because the money wasn't saved it was then spent on more players. We know this due to the increasing debt that the Huns had. If it was simply to save, then they could have been debt free.

They used the scheme to pay salaries to players they would otherwise not have been able to pay. In some cases, World Class player that no-one else in the league could afford (bar Celtic). This gave them an on-field advantage over every other team in the league.

Not only players, but managers and other staff also. IIRC the timing of these was questionable and related in some cases to transfer of players. Money that would have otherwise gone to clubs, players, agents. If so it's not just HMRC they've been cheating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jonty

They used the scheme to pay salaries to players they would otherwise not have been able to pay.

---

I agree Jonty, but the problem is that it is speculation rather than hard fact.

I think that, as Matty mentions, the whole episode was tied down with outdated rules and a blinkered SPL/SFA proven to be totally incompetent.

I also think the chaos that would have occured, had the titles been stripped, would have been weighing at the backs of the minds of those investigating. History books, lawsuits, compensation, etc. etc. .. it would have dragged on for years!

I think we have to draw a line under it, forget about it, and look to the next hurdle .. how the SFA actually log it when they eventually win something. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jonty

I agree with most of that Matty, except the highlighted part.

If there was no sporting advantage to be gained, then why do it?

To save money? No. Because the money wasn't saved it was then spent on more players. We know this due to the increasing debt that the Huns had. If it was simply to save, then they could have been debt free.

They used the scheme to pay salaries to players they would otherwise not have been able to pay. In some cases, World Class player that no-one else in the league could afford (bar Celtic). This gave them an on-field advantage over every other team in the league.

Not only players, but managers and other staff also. IIRC the timing of these was questionable and related in some cases to transfer of players. Money that would have otherwise gone to clubs, players, agents. If so it's not just HMRC they've been cheating.

---

I think it's about not clouding the issue - the sporting advantage was gained through using the EBT's, rather than in not declaring the extra payments. I think Rangers knew they were on dodgy ground with the EBT's which is why they never declared them, however it's been found that in a large number of cases the EBT's were used lawfully.

With that in mind, there is no sporting advantage gained from the specific action of not declaring the side letter. The players would have been playing for them if it had been declared or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StevieC

I agree Jonty, but the problem is that it is speculation rather than hard fact.

I think that, as Matty mentions, the whole episode was tied down with outdated rules and a blinkered SPL/SFA proven to be totally incompetent.

I also think the chaos that would have occured, had the titles been stripped, would have been weighing at the backs of the minds of those investigating. History books, lawsuits, compensation, etc. etc. .. it would have dragged on for years!

I think we have to draw a line under it, forget about it, and look to the next hurdle .. how the SFA actually log it when they eventually win something. :rolleyes:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by matty_f

I think it's about not clouding the issue - the sporting advantage was gained through using the EBT's, rather than in not declaring the extra payments. I think Rangers knew they were on dodgy ground with the EBT's which is why they never declared them, however it's been found that in a large number of cases the EBT's were used lawfully.

With that in mind, there is no sporting advantage gained from the specific action of not declaring the side letter. The players would have been playing for them if it had been declared or not.

---

OK. Given that they knew EBTs were wrong and those payments/conditions were registered, does that leave Hector free to pursue the tax which should have been paid on these salaries?

Now that's its been identified that these were salaries and should have been registered but just an "admin error". And will that fine be dumped on oldco and/or directors at the time.

Shame LNS didn't end it with "And it should be noted that these titles were won by, and remain with, OldCo." We all know that, of course, but sometimes its nice to see these things in black and white. :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jonty

OK. Given that they knew EBTs were wrong and those payments/conditions were registered, does that leave Hector free to pursue the tax which should have been paid on these salaries?

---

Isn't Hector still doing that? I was sure they'd appealed the FTTT ruling?

I think the huns were pretty much stuck in a hole with the EBT/side letter issue. They couldn't declare to the SFA as that would have invalidated the EBT scheme. There was just too much at stake otherwise. It was also a time when everyone (SPL, SFA, TV, newspapers, even other teams) were all bending over to accomodate Murray, Rangers and their "superstar" players, so a "small" admin error was the least of their worries.

Totally wrong, but that's Scottish football for you. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StevieC

how the SFA actually log it when they eventually win something. :rolleyes:

---

Already been decided. When they did the transfer of membership, the SFA officially decreed that NewHuns are OldHuns. Unless of course they're talking about anything bad for Huns of either vintage in which case they have to trot out the "company that owns the club" or other such made up bull****. It really is laughable reading articles by Hun apologists like Traynor, Roddy Forsyth, Richard Wilson etc. they repeatedly tie themselves in knots of inconsistency whenever they talk about "the club". If these ***** can't even be bothered to try and maintain farcical pretence, why should the rest of us bother?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

Already been decided. When they did the transfer of membership, the SFA officially decreed that NewHuns are OldHuns. Unless of course they're talking about anything bad for Huns of either vintage in which case they have to trot out the "company that owns the club" or other such made up bull****. It really is laughable reading articles by Hun apologists like Traynor, Roddy Forsyth, Richard Wilson etc. they repeatedly tie themselves in knots of inconsistency whenever they talk about "the club". If these ***** can't even be bothered to try and maintain farcical pretence, why should the rest of us bother?

---

You couldn't make it up. Oh wait a minute! Oscar Wilde did with his Dorian Gray. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hiberlin

You couldn't make it up. Oh wait a minute! Oscar Wilde did with his Dorian Gray. :rolleyes:

---

A trip to Ibrox confirms they all look like the picture in the attic.

And their 'club' is as selfish and corrupt as said protagonist.

Dunno if this has already been posted but just saw this comment from Lorenzo Amoruso -

"I don't understand why they couldn't be put back in the SPL? After the dual-contract verdict, I just presumed it would happen."

What's the Italian for 'how about naw, you clueless fud'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by easty

Dunno if this has already been posted but just saw this comment from Lorenzo Amoruso -

"I don't understand why they couldn't be put back in the SPL? After the dual-contract verdict, I just presumed it would happen."

What's the Italian for 'how about naw, you clueless fud'

---

So he thinks that after being found guilty of having dual-contracts and only escaping proper punishment because the SPL's rules weren't drawn up properly, they should then jump 3 divisions.

I've come to the conclusion that the LNS verdict seems technically correct. Judges have to apply laws as they're written, rather than deciding what they were intended to achieve. Sadly this means that guilty people sometimes escape their due fate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jonty

OK. Given that they knew EBTs were wrong and those payments/conditions were registered, does that leave Hector free to pursue the tax which should have been paid on these salaries?

Now that's its been identified that these were salaries and should have been registered but just an "admin error". And will that fine be dumped on oldco and/or directors at the time.

Shame LNS didn't end it with "And it should be noted that these titles were won by, and remain with, OldCo." We all know that, of course, but sometimes its nice to see these things in black and white. :greengrin

---

The FTTT held that these payments were in fact loans.

Murray Moonbeams has once again declared that they were loans.

If that's the case, I don't understand why the liquidators of oldco don't go after Barry Ferguson, Moonbeams and the rest for the repayment of these loans??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jacomoseven

The FTTT held that these payments were in fact loans.

Murray Moonbeams has once again declared that they were loans.

If that's the case, I don't understand why the liquidators of oldco don't go after Barry Ferguson, Moonbeams and the rest for the repayment of these loans??

---

The loans were from the EBT, not the club. The club made contributions to the EBT, and as such are not recoverable.

Now this takes me back to when my Granny would " invisibly mend" ma jeans!... :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

The loans were from the EBT, not the club. The club made contributions to the EBT, and as such are not recoverable.

---

What?? So, in one direction it's a tax-exempt loan, but in the other it's a non-recoverable contribution?

I am not surprised, given the financial chicanery that has gone on in the City for years, but jeez! Why have I paid taxes all these years??

I feel like a total mug and I guess I must be one.

I'm still in two minds as to whether I'll be following SPL football when the Dorian Grays rejoin the SPL..

It just stinks of corruption.

Patrick McPartlin ‏@p_mcpartlin
Rangers have reported a first half loss of £7 million in the 7 months to December 2012 (from @reuters)

:shocked::shocked:
Nice to see they have learned the lesson and are living within their means...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BarneyK

Patrick McPartlin ‏@p_mcpartlin
Rangers have reported a first half loss of £7 million in the 7 months to December 2012 (from @reuters)

:shocked::shocked:
Nice to see they have learned the lesson and are living within their means...

---

A lot of people picking up on this today. Wonderful news. Hopefully heading for another insolvency event. I can still see it ending badly with Chuckie being the man that euthanises that vile institution for good.