Mr McCoist made some comments regarding the forthcoming appeal, which were reported on Rangers.co.uk as linked to below. As the report comes from an official Rangers source, I have commented on both Mr McCoist’s statements and those of the article.
My comments are in bold.
MANAGER Ally McCoist is hopeful that the three-man SFA Appeals Panel will over-turn a season-long transfer embargo imposed last month.
McCoist knows that the draconian sanction would be disastrous for him on two levels.
Surely “disastrous for the club”…
Obviously he would not be able to bring any new players in but the effect would be that existing players would depart leaving McCoist with a decimated squad largely made up of young players.
So the existing players will depart (if there is a club from which to depart) because of the SFA decision, and not because of the deals with D&P or because of a need to cut costs, or a need to raise funds by player sales? All the players would have stayed if not for the SFA sanctions?
At the very least it would render Rangers virtually uncompetitive.
And why shouldn’t it! Based on the findings of fact of the SFA Panel, which cannot be challenged on appeal and in fact were not challenged by Rangers at the initial hearing, Rangers this session gained an “unfair advantage” as described be Neil Doncaster, and this on a massive scale. Rangers were very lucky that they were not suspended or even expelled.
As the Panel pointed out, they had no information from Rangers about financial matters to assess the appropriate financial penalty, despite giving them the chance to do so. The effect of the penalty was also not part of their deliberations.
The SFA today released the full written Note of Reasons for all of the sanctions imposed on Rangers and Craig Whyte which runs to 100 pages.
100 pages? My copy is 63 pages!
The main thrust of the argument appears to be that the Judicial Panel feel other employees or directors of Rangers must have known what Craig Whyte was doing – or not doing as in the case of PAYE and VAT.
I like that – the thrust “appears” to be…The main thrust is that, in law, Rangers are liable for the actions of Mr Whyte. IN ADDITION, other responsible people at Ibrox failed to act when they could have done.
As I pointed out before, Rangers also benefited from the non-payment of tax by Mr Whyte, thus obtaining the “unfair advantage”.
McCoist is hopeful that Rangers’ appeal against the transfer sanction will be compelling enough for the Appeals Tribunal made up of Lord Carloway, the chairman of Spartans Craig Graham and former Partick Thistle chairman Allan Cowan.
He said: “I’m delighted that the SFA have named the three men to sit on the appeals panel because as I said before all I want is transparency and clarity.
The statement that he hopes for a successful appeal against the transfer sanction, rather than the financial sanctions or the verdict of guilty is an implied admission of guilt on the part of Rangers. Does Mr McCoist know the basis of Rangers’ appeal? Is it only against the penalties imposed?
If Rangers accept guilt, which, other than the appeal to “equity” it seemed to at the hearing, surely that would be appropriate to mention, and indeed to offer some contrition?
And as for “transparency and clarity” I suspect that Rangers might have been happier for the reasons not to be published, so damning they are! Transparency? Rangers were told who were going to sit on the panel before the hearing took place so that, if it wanted, an objection could be made. There was no such objection.
Equally there was no objection to the fairness of the proceedings as they went ahead.
It is a pity that Mr McCoist could not ask the head of Football Administration, or the Financial Controller, or Mr Bain, or Mr McClelland, or Rangers lawyers, or the admin people writing up the appeal notes and dealing with the SFA correspondence, who was on the panel before he publicly demanded their names. It would have saved an awful lot of bother.
“They have a decision to make and we hope that it’s a good one for us. However, we will react to it when we get it.
“I have to say I haven’t ploughed through the 27000 words of the notes of reason for the Judicial Panel’s decision but I will get the key bullets from it.
So he has neither read the judgement nor, when offering his comments on it, even seen the bullet points?
“It’s fair to say that a transfer embargo would damage us like you have no idea.
As mentioned above, the Panel did not look at what “damage” the penalties would cause. In fact, bearing in mind how serious the Panel viewed the matter, the more Rangers talk about the effect on them, the more the sanctions seem appropriate.
“If that worst case scenario unfolded and the embargo remains and half of our players leave then we will be in a pretty depressing situation.
Ally, the worst-case scenario is far worse than what you describe.
“I’m scared to forecast anything at the moment but we will get a fair hearing.
“I am very hopeful that the appeal will go our way.”
Good to see an acceptance that there will be a fair hearing! Maybe, in the spirit of transparency and clarity, Rangers will publish its grounds of appeal, and also notes of the evidence given by its witnesses?
Posted by Paul McConville
19 responses to “SFA v Rangers – Part 3 – Ally McCoist’s View”
“Transparency and clarity” – Which side of the table moved that the FTTT be heard in private? That would be the appellant methinks.
The whole concept of a punishment is to disadvantage you in some way
I am sick to the back teeth of this mob whinging, it’s not fair, we aren’t going to be competitive etc etc etc, ad nauseum
For once in your rotten club’s history, stand up and act like men
Their birthright is to have a “successful” Rangers. It’s in the natural order of things. I watched the Fellowship of the Ring last night – Orcs aren’t nice!
Ally clearly thinks warp is
Who are these people?
Ally very quiet of his part in ebt????????
Oooo I hate spellcheckers
Ally clearly thinks watp is:…..
A couple of bullets for Ally:
– as serious offences against the ordinary standards of corporate governance as one could imagine
– the breaches struck at the heart of good corporate governance and social and financial probity and responsibility.
– They brought the game into serious disrepute.
Any reasonable person reading the SFA Notes objectively would come to the conclusion that this club should have been expelled from the SFA.
There must be a mountain of documentation that will reveal the depth of the breaches; there must be numerous e-mails that can be offered in mitigation to show that individuals tried their best to identify the wrongdoing. Was nothing produced by Rangers?
Surely legal action will follow?
He probably got a briefing from Scoop Jackson meaning that there was no need to read the report. Hopefully the bullets strike home and it is good bye to these self pitying rogues.
“They have a decision to make and we hope that it’s a good one for us. However, we will react to it when we get it.”
Ally should be aware by now that his words are read by the bampot friinge.
He should emphasis that their reaction will be within the rules of the SFA or the Scottish legal system and there it will rest. It would even be to Rangers advantage as they are hanging by a thread and the SFA may do the unthinkable and ban or suspend them if there is any attempt to influence the panel.
My question is do the appeals panel have the power to impose the ultimate sanction and ban them?
“I’m delighted that the SFA have named the three men to sit on the appeals panel because as I said before all I want is transparency and clarity.”
“The timing of this SFA document being released is strange. It’s not ideal.
Whether it prejudices the appeal or not there’s probably only three men who could tell you.You would hope it wouldn’t but you would have to say the timing of it, at best, would be questionable”
Did the same person really make those 2 statements?
I’ve lost all respect for McCoist – the sense of entitlement dripping from his words is unbelievable. No team is entitled to be challenging for honours every year – feel lucky that you’ve had that experience, even if history shows potentially underhand methods were used to allow the club to win what they have in recent years.
Welcome to the real world Mr. McCoist, where you have to balance your spending against your income.
McCoist also still doesn’t seem to realise that a 12 month embargo is not the biggest problem in his club – does he really think that if the appeal overturns the ban then all his problems will go away, that all the existing players will be allowed to stay on their existing wages and that the new owner will give him millions to spend on new players?
100 pages? Must have been the large print version with illustrations.
You’re a cruel man!
For transparancy purposes would Ally please advise the media all the names of RFC employees who were beneficiaries of EBT’s and the sums involved
He doesn’t need to, wasn’t it all of the players and all of the directors?
For the sake of Scottish football Rahgers should have the same treatment as would be given to any other club in the same circumstances.I recall Murray’s imput when Airdrie went to the wall which was anything but supportive to a club in trouble
To be fair it is probably cruel to dissect what Ally says. It is generally not thought through, somewhat garbled and rarely coherent. This probably explains the empathy he gets from the MSM.
Frankly i’m surprised McCoist is allowed to speak in public. His constant mood swings , from “Very hopeful” to Fearing the worst” are text book symptoms for someone close to losing his mind.
He seems remarkably clueless to the reality of the situation, and is clearly not “In the loop” nor has he read a single document properly.
Still, the MSM in Scotland will have him up for a knighthood for “leading” rangers during their darkest hour.
Only in Scotland.