McCoist and Rangers FC – Their Stance on SFA and SPL Sanctions

A piece dealing with Mr McCoist’s statement yesterday and the pressure his comments place on his Chairman and Board. Mr McCoist is positioning himself, it appears, as the One True Voice of Rangers, taking over from John Greig as the “Greatest Living Ranger”.

I take a good look at the “penalties” imposed so far, and point out a number of errors in his analysis of the situation.

Finally, it is remarkable that Rangers FC feel able to “demand” that matters are not investigated. Some one seems to have forgotten that Rangers FC is not a member of the SPL, and only an Associate Member of the SFL. In any event, when is it the prerogative of the accused to decide what will and will not be investigated?

 ———————————————–

I wrote earlier about what could have been a carefully crafted PR strategy between Sevco Scotland Ltd and the SFA, designed to appeal to and appease the Rangers FC support, and to put pressure on the SPL.

However, if that was the case this intricate and attractive strategy was then torpedoed by none other than Mr McCoist, and on the official Rangers FC website too!

In the days of Soviet Russia, experts known as Kremlinologists pored over the minute and apparently trivial details of who stood where on the podium at military ceremonies in Red Square. Did a move one step away from the President suggest that the Politburo member in charge of Tractor Production had blotted his copybook?

Notice that the Commissar in charge of Grain Production (eleventh from the right) is now situated to the left, rather than the right, of the Under-Secretary for the Red Army…

Was the fact the a speech by the Mayor of Moscow had been printed on the front page of Pravda, above that of the Deputy Premier, indicate his star was rising?

Maybe these experts, unemployed since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of Communism, can re-brand themselves as Ibroxologists now.

——————————————–

On Saturday, the following statement appeared on Rangers.co.uk:-

ALLY McCOIST has come out strongly in relation to proposed sanctions against Rangers which are being demanded over the club’s membership of the SFA.The manager is unhappy that the SFA released a statement last night when an agreement had not been reached.

He contends that a signing ban is not an appropriate action and he has vowed that he will contest vigorously any attempt to strip Rangers of any titles. McCoist had hoped to lead his depleted squad into action in friendlies in the coming days but the lack of SFA membership has prevented him from doing so.

The manager said today: “I am extremely disappointed that the SFA chose to release a statement last night when the Club has not actually signed any agreement.

“The club is trying to get to a position where we can plan for the season, which starts in only eight days.

“We have had meetings with the SFA all week to discuss membership but I had to leave the final meeting as I could not support the sanctions they were trying to impose.

“The decision has already been taken to place Rangers in Division 3 and we have accepted that, along with many more punishments. However, operating with an embargo on an already depleted first team squad – even with a window to sign players – will make the task ahead an extremely difficult one.

“It is important to remember we have already had a 10 point deduction from the SPL, lost our Champions League place for finishing second last season, had a £160,000 fine, been refused entry to the SPL, been relegated to Division 3 and lost the majority of our first team squad – yet still the governing body has chosen to impose further sanctions.

“The transfer ban has been strongly resisted by me, the management team, the Directors and supporters. Indeed The Rangers Fans Fighting Fund appointed a QC to defend the Club’s position as the sanction was not available to the Appellate Tribunal.

“From a business point of view I can understand the position the Board has been placed in and ultimately they felt they had no choice but to accept some sanctions in order to move forward – as one of the alternatives could have led to the extinction of the Club.

“The Rangers fans have been magnificent throughout this entire process and on behalf of everyone at the Club I would like to thank them once again for their loyalty.

“I can also assure every Rangers fan I will not be accepting any talk of stripping the Club of titles. That is something we will never accept and everyone at the Club shares this view.

“We all need to get back to focusing on football but again my plans have been hampered as we have had to cancel a tour in the Highlands this weekend that would have helped us prepare for the season ahead.

“This is still Rangers Football Club and the supporters will continue to back us as they have always done. There will be difficult times ahead but I know with the support of our fans we can emerge stronger and rise to the challenge.

“Talks will continue next week and we all hope common sense will prevail to allow us to get back playing football.”

It appears that Mr McCoist is angry…you won’t like him when he’s angry…

——————————————–

Here we have a statement by the Manager of Rangers FC, on the official Rangers FC website, where he impliedly (and in fact just about explicitly) criticises the decision of his Board. Bearing in mind his frank comments at the recent RFFF meeting that he did not yet trust Mr Green and his band, as a result of not having known them long, is Mr McCoist trying to distance himself from the negotiations ongoing?

Let’s take a closer look at what he had to say.

“I am extremely disappointed that the SFA chose to release a statement last night when the Club has not actually signed any agreement.”

Here he is “on-message” and in fact using the same phrase as his Chairman. He is not saying that there is no agreement, simply that it has not been signed.

“We have had meetings with the SFA all week to discuss membership but I had to leave the final meeting as I could not support the sanctions they were trying to impose.”

Mr McCoist walked away from the last meeting with the SFA as he could not support the sanctions the SFA wanted to impose! Bearing in mind that his Chairman stayed, was this a gesture by Mr McCoist directed at (a) the SFA (b) the Rangers FC fans or (c) Sevco Scotland Ltd?

It can do Mr McCoist’s reputation no harm if he is left looking like the one person inside Ibrox prepared to stand up and be counted.

On the other hand, if matters were still up for negotiation, why did he walk out? Was it because an impasse had been reached, and the SFA insisted that the sanctions and undertakings required of Sevco Scotland as far back as 22nd June or so were still being insisted on? In that event, one month of discussion had failed to shake the SFA’s resolve.

“The decision has already been taken to place Rangers in Division 3 and we have accepted that, along with many more punishments. However, operating with an embargo on an already depleted first team squad – even with a window to sign players – will make the task ahead an extremely difficult one. It is important to remember we have already had a 10 point deduction from the SPL, lost our Champions League place for finishing second last season, had a £160,000 fine, been refused entry to the SPL, been relegated to Division 3 and lost the majority of our first team squad – yet still the governing body has chosen to impose further sanctions.”

Let’s look at the punishments which Mr McCoist clearly believes are at best sufficient and at worst excessive and vengeful.

1                    Ten point penalty in the SPL – an academic penalty to be frank. It made no difference to the outcome of the SPL as the chaos and mess surrounding Ibrox would almost certainly have taken its toll anyway. So this penalty was imposed in accordance with the rule book, but it was akin to giving penalty points to a driver who is at the same time being banned from driving for five years. It goes on the record, but makes not a jot of difference.

2                    Lost the Champions League place for finishing second in the SPL – it might be semantics, but Rangers FC never had such a spot, for the simple reason that the absence of audited accounts and the existence of taxes owing meant that it was not entitled to a UEFA licence and therefore not qualified to play in Europe in 2012-2013. In addition, the fact that Sevco Scotland Ltd has taken over the assets and business of Rangers means that UEFA treat it as a new club, requiring three years accounts (unlike the SFA who see it as a continuation and are willing to accept the accounts of Rangers Football Club PLC as satisfying the requirements. The licence issue was entirely under the control of Mr Whyte and then of Duff and Phelps. Indeed Mr Whyte pointed out to D+P just before they stepped in that the licence needed to be applied for by 31st March. Even if it had, the tax owing meant that it would not have been issued anyway. Is this a punishment? It is a consequence of what happened but not a punishment. Rangers FC were not entitled, come 1st April, to take part in European football in the coming season – that is not a “penalty” imposed by the SFA.

 

3                    £160,000 fine – correct. Although this was part of a penalty described as being for the worst offences apart from match fixing, and equal the sale proceeds of less than 10,000 tickets? One of the concerns of the Judicial Panel which imposed the registration embargo was that the fine seemed, even at the maximum amount, to be a drop in the ocean of Rangers finances and therefore a disproportionately light penalty. Has the fine been paid yet? When will it be paid?

 

4                    Refused entry to the SPL – as with point 2 above this is a misconception. The SPL place was in the control of Rangers Football Club PLC. It was sold to Sevco Scotland Ltd. In terms of the SPL Articles, the SPL needed to consent to that transfer. The default position therefore was that the transfer would not be granted without a positive vote. Sevco’s application was refused. The effect is the same as what Mr McCoist describes, but the mechanism was not.

 

5                    Relegated to SFL3 – again Mr McCoist is not quite right here, or indeed right at all. Rangers FC have never been relegated. What happened here was that, having had the application for transfer of the SPL share refused, Sevco Scotland Ltd asked the SFL to be allowed to play Rangers FC in the SFL. The clubs decided to have Rangers FC start at the bottom, as with any other new member who had not been relegated.

 

6                    Lost the majority of the first team squad – that was not a sanction, penalty or punishment imposed. Was it so when Motherwell, or Dundee or Livingston, or Portsmouth or Leeds …. Went into administration and made players redundant straight away? No.

Mr McCoist’s complaints about the severity of the “punishment” inflicted on Rangers FC suggest that they have suffered the footballing equivalent of being sent to Devil’s Island …

Mr McCoist seems to be confusing effects of the financial imbroglio at Ibrox with punishments for offences against football’s rules.

Bearing in mind the alternatives to a registration embargo, namely being suspended from Scottish football or expelled, it was to the Judicial Panel’s credit that they found a penalty which fell short of the “death sentence” but was serious enough to mark the gravity of the offences. The fact that, as the court decided, that was ultra vires was unfortunate. Ironically it might be one of the factors to doom Rangers FC playing this season, as it remains as a huge loose end flapping about. If it had been accepted at the start of the process, then at least that complication would have been disposed of.

So his “punishment” moan is without foundation.

“Operating with an embargo on an already depleted first team squad – even with a window to sign players – will make the task ahead an extremely difficult one”.

A cynic might say that that is designed (a) to emphasise how crippled Rangers FC are being by the unfair antics of the SFA and (b) to give an alibi for a failure to proceed through the SFL3 as predicted.

For all the talk about the hard bitten journeymen in SFL3, and the callow youths who might end up playing for Rangers FC, does anyone seriously think that, with the resources available to Rangers FC, restricted though they are now by SPL standards, or by historic Rangers standards, they will not sail through SFL3?

Mr McCoist should not need an alibi for potential failure.

“The transfer ban has been strongly resisted by me, the management team, the Directors and supporters. Indeed The Rangers Fans Fighting Fund appointed a QC to defend the Club’s position as the sanction was not available to the Appellate Tribunal.”

Strongly resisted, but ultimately accepted it would appear…

“From a business point of view I can understand the position the Board has been placed in and ultimately they felt they had no choice but to accept some sanctions in order to move forward – as one of the alternatives could have led to the extinction of the Club.”

Here I think Mr McCoist starts to diverge from his chairman. He could have said that he accepts the registration embargo. He could even have phrased that in the same terms as the Board’s acceptance of the position.

However his marker has been put down – he did not want the registration embargo – he did not accept it – he is the only man willing to stand up for Rangers.

The PR suggests this is the only man who is willing to stand up for Rangers…

The implication of the above quote is that he would, if the responsibility was his, have stared out the SFA and challenged them to prevent the team taking the field. He has the added advantage of having implied that would have been his position, but without actually having to risk the decision going against him.

I also think that his phrase “from a business point of view” is telling. The Board, he implies, might have to think about business, but true Rangers men, like him, know there is something more to football than mere “business”.

This makes matters problematic too for Sevco Scotland Ltd if it actually gets a team on the field. Mr McCoist will look above matters of “business” in running the team. If he insists on funds being released to buy players (as after all the players acquired now have to last until the winter break in 2013-2014 at the earliest) how will Mr Green and Mr Murray look if they refuse?

“I can also assure every Rangers fan I will not be accepting any talk of stripping the Club of titles. That is something we will never accept and everyone at the Club shares this view.”

Here we have the declaration which should worry Messrs Murray and Green. Mr McCoist makes it clear that he will not countenance “stripping of titles”. The addition of the comment that everyone at the club shares this view ties the Board to a commitment which clearly they do not want to make.

Of course, the SPL “dual contract” inquiry still has a long way to go. Once proceedings commence, as the SPL promised would happen before the season started, Rangers FC will contest the matter. It is possible that, as the matter overlaps to a certain extent with the “Big Tax Case” (remember that?) Rangers FC could ask the independent commission hearing the case to await the outcome of those proceedings. Whilst it is a red herring, and it does not follow that a finding against Rangers at the Tax Tribunal = guilt over “dual contracts” there is enough of a connection for it not to be unreasonable to seek a delay on that basis.

If guilt is established, then the sentence needs to be considered.

Few observers, other than Rangers FC partisans, seem to think that, if there has been widespread breach of registration regulations, the penalty should not involve losing titles, whether SPL or Scottish Cup.

Whether such stripped titles should be awarded to someone else is another question, for another day.

Bearing in mind how seriously football authorities treat the playing of ineligible players, it is hard to see how a guilty verdict could lead to less than that.

Alternatively, in the event of a guilty verdict, the commission could decide that, rather than interfere with history, the present Rangers FC should be expelled. On that basis I suspect even the most die-hard fan would accept loss of titles rather than loss of their team.

What Mr McCoist has done puts Murray and Green in a precarious position. If, as seems to be the case, the SFA are insisting that Rangers FC should accept any penalty and verdict assessed by the independent commission, and the Board “surrender” then what future would they have?

They would be seen as having betrayed their manager, and bearing in mind the problems they are having with getting fans to buy season tickets already, that could be a further nail in the Sevco coffin, and at the same time Mr McCoist is poised in pole position to remain as figurehead even should Sevco have to sell up.

What Happens Now?

According to the BBC :-

“BBC Scotland understands two obstacles remain before a deal can be agreed.

Rangers want the Scottish Premier League to drop their investigation into dual contracts and the SPL wants the SFL to hand over Rangers’ media rights.

There must be a five-way agreement between the SFA, SPL, Scottish Football League, old Rangers and new Rangers before any deal is ratified.

The SPL want an independent commission to rule on whether Rangers broke the rules during previous campaigns by paying players with so-called side contracts. They are due to hand over their findings to that commission on 10 August.

But Rangers fear an independent commission could strip them of titles and believe they have already been sufficiently punished. It is understood the club will not sign up to the agreement with that threat hanging over them.

However, the SPL are digging their heels in over media rights. They (the SPL) say that without the broadcasting deal in place, they cannot pay the SFL their annual £2m settlement fee that was agreed back in 1999 when the top clubs split from the league to form the SPL.”

——————————————–

Almost universally there is astonishment at the suggestion Rangers FC are refusing to agree to the matter being investigated.

The SFA said at the end of its statement on Friday :-

“The imposition of conditions relating to transfer of membership was made on the basis that the Scottish FA, as the governing body, has an obligation to protect the integrity of the national game and to ensure that all member clubs operate within the Articles of Association.”

Therefore, in a situation where the SFA operates to “protect the integrity of the game” and to ensure that “all clubs operate within the Articles”, the party against whom there is a prima facie case is refusing to agree to there being proceedings!

There is a quick way that Sevco Scotland could have ended this saga – by explicitly stating that “Rangers FC” today was nothing to do with the old Rangers, and did not claim history. To use Mr McCoist’s example, that would make sense from a narrow business sense, but in fact would not even work there, as it would result in huge displeasure amongst Rangers fans, and possibly that would be the final straw for the support.

It makes no sense, nor is it consistent with integrity, to allow the party against whom there is a prima facie case to dictate whether or not it is subject to proceedings.

“No way judge! I will not allow the prosecution to investigate the case against me, nor to bring proceedings against me and there is no way you are going to try me.” The Rangers Gambit

Why is there talk of a five way agreement? Any dispute over the price of SFL media rights between the SFL and SPL ought not to affect the rights of Rangers FC to play, or not, in SFL3.

What has oldco Rangers got to do with it either? Presumably there was a clause in the agreement selling the assets and business of Rangers obliging the administrators to proceed with a transfer of membership to Sevco.

There is a week to go before Rangers FC plays its first competitive match in the Ramsdens Cup.

As things stand Sevco Scotland Ltd does not have an SFA membership.

It has a wage bill to pay imminently.

Has it paid the insurance premiums for all of the matters required both by law and under rules of football?

What players are going to take the field for them?

With such a short time to go, can it realistically be resolved in that time?

Will we be talking next week about further disciplinary action against Rangers FC, this time for failing to fulfil its fixture?

Posted by Paul McConville

About these ads

44 Comments

Filed under Charles Green, Football, Football Governance, Rangers, SFA, SPL

44 responses to “McCoist and Rangers FC – Their Stance on SFA and SPL Sanctions

  1. NumbNuts

    “…UEFA treat it as a new club, requiring three years accounts (unlike the SFA who see it as a continuation and are willing to accept the accounts of Rangers Football Club PLC as satisfying the requirements.”

    Can SFA and UEFA really have an inconsistent position on such a fundamental issue? Thereby if Rangers FC win another European trophy, UEFA will record/report it the first for the club whereas SFA & Rangers FC will recognise it as their 2nd? Sounds odd…

    • Grabthegrass

      To be fair the SFA are working within Theo rules on transfer of a share and we should all thank the SPL for putting in their rule book a distinction between club and owner which forced the vote. I don’t doubt for one second that they never thought it would happen to one of the old firm and that they just wanted to guard the spl image, but it has been the start point for all that has passed and but for the outpouring of supporter sentiment could have been passed without any real opposition.

  2. Perhaps Mr. McCoist fears things will not go well on the field (and perhaps off it.) He is distancing himself from the percieved disasters to come. “It’s no my fault. I told yez before the start of the season I would have fought on.”

    • Carntyne

      I agree. Although I’m with Paul on most things I am not convinced Sevco will ‘waltz’ through division three.

      I did not think McCoist showed himself to be a good manager with the better players he used to have, and feel he will implode with players of a third divison standard.

      Getting promoted to the second division may take more than one year, and this could lead to rock bottom attendances, which in turn will mean less money to spend on better players.’

      Any thoughts that I’ve painted a very black picture would be correct.

  3. mick

    fantastic article Paul ,the bit that raises the most concern is the health and safty issue the liability insurance for players injured in on field tackles thats a massive point am sure tony higgins will want this answered before a ball is kicked .

  4. ian lewis

    Sevco will have the Davis dosh arriving to keep them open.Why did Southampton pay a transfer fee?

    • Fozzy

      Not sure how Sevco can receive the money for Davis. Firstly, they are not a member of the SFA so not entitled to any transfer fee. Secondly, legal opinion seems to be that Davis and others were entitled to refuse the TUPE transfer which would mean they have never been employed by Sevco.

      If any transfer fee should be paid (and this seems debatable), surely it would have to be paid to old Rangers and therefore be due to be paid out the creditors who have been stitched up in this farce.

      I can see BDO being very interested in the Davis transfer fee and may try to reclaim this for the creditors.

      • Calcagus

        It’s Sevco, not old Rangers, that are claiming ownership of the player. While they have no case whatsoever (it’s not debatable – they have no case for a transfer fee at all under my understanding of the law), if Southampton FC decide to make a voluntary payment to get them to go away, they can do so. If it’s a voluntary payment, not a transfer fee ordered by a tribunal, presumably it doesn’t matter that Sevco aren’t a member of the SFA.

  5. Schneeb

    I suspect a late call for Spartans to fill the empty space if they cannot fulfil the fixture. But if this is fudged and the season starts with Sevco FC then a whole other mess is created.

  6. mick

    uefa has been very quiet on it all as well as fifa its rule breaking after rule breaking to suit tv deals ,5 need to agree theres bound to be 1 spitting the dummy am thinking ,its taken a new twist

  7. Ignatius

    Ally and all others associated with Schrodinger Utd should be grateful for place in SFL3 and shut the f**k up in case the proper rules are applied and they end up playing junior football.

  8. Steve

    (Deleted at poster’s request)

  9. Alex Doherty

    perhaps mccoist is living in never never land what is he on about rangers they are not part of football in this world why talk about them

  10. Hectors army

    Excellent Post.

  11. Grabthegrass

    The key phrase here is “this is still rangers football club..” If it is then the take over by Sevco is a business deal and all the football issues remain. Someone needs to tell him to get a grip and realise that the game is up and stop acting like you can have your pies whilst not paying for them. As for having a five way agreement, where in gods name did this arrive from? I’ve noted no named sources on that statement, which is not surprising as it’s complete Bollocks. I’m convinced some compromise will be sorted out at the last minute but at the expense of dignity and making all look like complete amateurs.

    • mick

      great point grab the grass they dont seem to grasp company house number change ,they are trying to stir up drama so they can get there own way next week ,theres a pattern to it and in my eyes its bulling via the media a just hope all involved show some back bone and put sally and co in there place

  12. Dhougal

    I’ve counted thats six toes Sallys’ shot off ………. wonder when he’ll aim at the other foot ?Must be about time to start the ovens…………for the cremation of the corpse…….not the infamous pies !! KEEP IT GOIN PAUL CHEERS

  13. cmh64

    Given that Charles Green still seems to be representing 2 of the parties that have to agree, if oldco and newco are at odds then the meeting will at least be entertaining. The whole thing is ridiculous and hardly fair on any of the teams expecting to play “Rangers” (whichever- I’ve lost track) in the next week or so. I still can’t believe Sevco will kick a football next weekend.

    • mick

      how can oldco have say there dead its a joke the evidence is there they cheated simple as that thats why scotland skelped them to div3

  14. mick

    who ate all those pies the” fans have the right to know”a cant wait to see sally punished for that comment at start it cost the police a lot of money raith rovers ground was under police guard and the rest of the panel were given protection he caused the panel great anxiety and if you done that on civvy street the judge would put you in prison also at parkhead with neil he caused drama hes a bad role model and has no place in a universial scotland its only thick bigoets that like him most rangers fans think hes a dxxk excuse the lingo due to all the times they were put out the cup last season .what will he say when tesco step in and build a massive super store lol

  15. Schneeb

    Schroedingers cat – years of education and I could not understand the concept. It’s all so clear now…

  16. Steve

    Please delete my comment above

  17. mick

    a just thought there has sally had a ebt there was 2mil not count for ???maybe he wants it dropped as it might come out he got 1 and walter was well in it to, assit.mangers got ebts to the ebts run to 2011 what did he get ???

  18. mick

    sallys karma time for being a twat in the media the whole countrys laughing at him lol

  19. mick

    Sevco were accepted as ‘Associate members’ of the SFL. (We know they’re not there yet, but run with it)

    An Associate member is basically a probationer for 4 years (Rule 19), the significant part of which states “An associate member shall have no financial interest in the assets of the league, and shall not be accorded any voting rights”

    Now assuming the ‘assets’ of the league include media rights, if the SFL want to sell on the media rights to anybody, not only will Sevco not have a say in the matter, but have no claim on any money either and this rule applies to sevco new kids in div 3 this is what the dramas over lol

    • Ernesider

      Paul Wrote:

      According to the BBC:

      There must be a five-way agreement between the SFA, SPL, Scottish Football League, old Rangers and new Rangers before any deal is ratified.

      Mick Wrote:

      An Associate member is basically a probationer for 4 years (Rule 19), the significant part of which states “An associate member shall have no financial interest in the assets of the league, and shall not be accorded
      any voting rights”

      Reminds me of:

      “On 25 May 1410 Baldassarre Cossa was consecrated pope, taking the name John XXIII. He had been ordained priest only one day earlier”
      (Wikipedia)

  20. Pensionerbhoy

    Ally Bally, Ally Bally Bee
    sitin’ on ye’r mammy’s knee
    greetin’ f’r a wee baw bee
    tae buy some fitba players
    - tae kick a ba’ in division 3.

    H H

  21. Althetim

    I suggest everyone prints Pauls’ article and circulates it amongst the Rangers(IA)/Sevco supporters at work tomorrow, if you’re fortunate enough to be employed these days. Might help them “get it”.

    Excellent Paul, superb piece.

    • Ernesider

      And perhaps, as background music:

      Johnny Cash/Ray Charles song “Busted”

      Last line”

      “I’m broke, no bread, I mean like nothing,”

  22. Goosy

    Its sticking out like sore thumb
    All this SFA nonsense and posturing by Sevco is simply aimed at increasing the sell on value of the assets Meanwhile Sevco timewastes until either its too late to play next season in Div 3 or Sevco folds in mid season
    The CW transfer of the RFCG floating charge over RFC assets to Liberty Corporate was aimed at clearing the decks for liqudation of RFCG
    I bet the Ticketus obligation was also “bought” by Green but is now redefined under Scots Law to cover both Sevco and any subsequent owner of the assets
    I also bet the purchase of RFC assets by CG included purchase of the RFCG floating charge over the same assets. Its the only explanation that D&P could use to legally justify selling these assets for peanuts
    The next move will be liqudation of RFCG and Sevco which gives Liberty Corporate a clean title to the assets but with an obligation to honour the Ticketus ST debt
    Any future club playing at Ibrox will be saddled with debt for years

  23. timerocket

    The BBC sports/football news on both television and internet still has both Rangers and Dunfermline ( and not Dundee or Ross County) as SPL clubs on their info channels – has no one told them or do they know something everyone else does not know………………..is there another twist in the tale ?
    Will they correct this before ( and if ) a ball is kicked at Brechin next Saturday ?
    By the way , Brechin City are still playing Dundee next week according to the BBC as of this evening – Spooky

  24. ADM

    Yes, Paul, this sums up beautifully where we are. Key sentence is “Almost universally there is astonishment at the suggestion Rangers FC are refusing to agree to the matter being investigated.” The first time I read it, I assumed I’d misread it and/or it had been misreported, but apparently not.

    There has been goodwill towards Rangers/Sevco and people have been willing to work to try to keep them active in senior Scottish football – indeed, some posters on this blog (and a higher proportion over at RTC) are borderline incandescent at how far people have already pushed the rules to try to keep an active Rangers team in the senior game. Some of us, conversely, are willing to accept everything that has happened to date as a reasonable price for keeping Rangers alive as, despite everything that’s happened, an important part of the Scottish game. But now we have to draw the line – it cannot be that Rangers tell the authorities what investigations they’re willing to accept. If the SFA or SPL let go of that principle, we really are in deep, deep trouble.

  25. p groom

    ally in de nile again.. …does he never learn from his mistakes? his days are numbered I reckon.. ” come in ally sit down… we are going to have to let you go as you are not toeing the party line and also we just dont have the dosh to pay your vast wage which is ludicrously way over the top for a div 3 manager. ( I’ve checked the going rate…) however if you could see your way to take a 75% permanent cut we could look again at your position”.

  26. Brilliantly put together Paul – one of your best.

    McCoist is really beginning to worry me. OK, he’s patently unable to think things through before speaking, and is giving a lot of people a good laugh with his nonsense (although I have posted that this may just be a genius plan to back a ‘diminished responsibility due to lack of brains’ plea in eventual court proceedings) – but his utterings such as those stated above may well incite some pretty nasty happenings somewhere along the line if they continue to go unchecked.

    If this is how he’s talking when all at stake is a transfer embargo (which should not in any way impede his team’s progress through Div3 – THE FOURTH TIER of Scottish football), how is he going to react when faced with REAL penalties, however justified they will no doubt be?

    Given that he has already caused near civil unrest with his comments on the identities of the people who gave out the original transfer ban, I think it’s time that someone (Walter the Legned perhaps?) sat him down and properly gave him ‘the news’, before the McCoist gob starts causing some real problems.

  27. Ernesider

    Paul Wrote

    “It makes no sense, nor is it consistent with integrity, to allow the party against whom there is a prima facie case to dictate whether or not it is subject to proceedings.”

    But would not be the first time?

    As allegations mounted against BAE, Britain’s Serious Fraud Office began investigating the arms deal in September 2003 but dropped the case in late 2006 after then prime minster Tony Blair directly intervened.

    Blair defended his decision to shut down the inquiry for national security reasons on the grounds that the Saudis could stop cooperating with Britain on vital terrorism intelligence.

  28. Ernesider

    Sorry

    Information gathered from FrontLine World website.

  29. Mick

    McCoist is preparing the way for his walking away statement with this “release” “Intolerable….impossible position…. Not Rangers way…. Tradition…..blah blah blah

  30. Waterygrave

    Forgive me but I need an explanation. I can understand the SPL still being able, quite rightly, to continue with the dual contract investigation/tribunal, however why does the SPL have any say on the Newco transfer of membership from the SFA. Surely it is the clubs within the SPL that have the say, as members of the SFA, but not the SPL itself?. Can someone please clarify?.

  31. ian lewis

    Ally “doesn’t do walking away”particularly when he’s under contract.

  32. ADM

    @waterygrave – you’re right, the SPL (either the SPL executives or the club members) has no say on the SFA licence decision nor – so far as we can tell – are they asking for a say. What’s going on here appears to be exactly the other way round. Sevco/Rangers are asking, as a condition of accepting the transfer embargo condition on their licence, that all other investigations that could lead to punishment are dropped, regardless of who’s running them. This of course ignores the fact that the SFA – as the potential appellate body – cannot possibly tell the SPL to drop their dual contracts investigation. So the request isn’t coming from the SPL, it’s coming from Sevco/Rangers, and it’s wholly nonsensical.

  33. miki67

    McCoist has become the Obadiah Slope of Scottish football,or the Uriah Heep of….etc,etc.,.
    Me? I like to see him more as Aqualung.
    He does seem to get away with an awful lot of threatening and incitement….not to mention smirking,craven toadying. His protection appears divine and his self-righteous confabulation,epically fantastic.
    Alone,he IS the peepul personified. Ascendancy to god-like-status must surely await him. He expects it. And,according to his Hollywoodesque scriptwriters dreams,who are we,mere peasants,to deny him?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s