What Happens Now to the SPL and SFL re Sevco Rangers?

In which I comment on an historic day in Scottish football, and what it means for the SPL and SFL. In addition, I pose some questions for all three governing bodies in Scottish football. Answers would greatly help clarify matters, although I suspect no one will put them to Messrs Doncaster, Regan and Longmuir.

Formal confirmation was short, but no less momentous for that.

The SPL released a statement saying merely:-

“At today’s General Meeting, SPL clubs today voted overwhelmingly to reject the application from Rangers newco to join the SPL.”

I think that this day probably qualifies as appropriate for use of the cracked crest.

For the first time in the history of Scottish football, there will not be a team called Rangers playing in the top division in the coming season. Rangers proclaimed itself the most successful football team in the world. Subject to any disciplinary procedures carried through by the SPL and SFA, which could result in the stripping of trophies, that team accumulated 54 league titles, plus numerous cups. However, that long run has come to an end with the decision, by an overwhelming majority, to reject the application to register the transfer of the SPL share from Rangers Football Club PLC (RFC PLC) to Sevco Scotland Ltd.

Whilst 13th February 2012 was a vital day, when Craig Whyte indicated an intention to appoint administrators, and after the intervention of HMRC 14th February was even more so as administrators were appointed, even the failure of the CVA proposal is less important going forward than today’s vote.

Despite spin and pressure, the SPL teams stuck to their already stated positions. All but Kilmarnock voted against the motion. Kilmarnock abstained, which was in fact as effective as a no vote. The only vote in favour was that held by Mr Green as proxy for RFC PLC. The apparent efforts to nudge the SPL clubs into deferring the vote failed.

So what happens now?

The SPL 

I am working on the basis that, in some miraculous Flash Gordon, “with one bound he was free” way, Sevco Rangers do not manage to get back into the SPL.

Even Flash Gordon would struggle to extricate Sevco Rangers from its current predicament.

On that basis, the team slotting into the fixture list as Club 12 should be Dundee. That might cause some re-jigging of the fixture list as there are eight occasions prior to the SPL split where Club 12 and Dundee United are scheduled to play at home at the same time. However, the problem could be solved by splitting the games over a weekend.

Dundee is in pole position because of the SPL rules which specify that if there is the failure of a team during a season, then there is no relegation, and one team is promoted, as normal from SFL1. As Rangers made it to the end of the season, according to the SPL Rules, Dunfermline were then relegated, so, on that basis, the team finishing second, Dundee, will go up with the champions, Ross County.

However Dunfermline have staked a claim to the position as well, and at least from a natural justice point of view one can see why. As I have discussed before, the failure by Mr Whyte to meet RFC PLC’s tax bills from August/September 2011 saved the company nearly £14 million. When D+P were called in. there was just over £3 million in the bank. Therefore, in a simplistic analysis, the remaining sum of £11 million stayed in RFC PLC’s coffers and was spent by it, both on paying the wages of players who RFC PLC could not afford and who ought to have been sold, and on keeping the company from liquidation by paying wages and football liabilities up to the point of administration. If the tax had been paid, then it is probable that the RFC PLC juggernaut would have hit the buffers earlier.

In that case, and it had failed to get to the end of the season, Dunfermline would have stayed up, there being no relegation.

So should Dunfermline go back into the SPL, as the team most affected by Rangers actions, already determined by an SFA Tribunal as “bringing the game into disrepute”?

Or should Dundee leapfrog over them by virtue of being the team in second place, and therefore first in line for a vacancy?

One consequence of the delays and general messing about caused by the Rangers mess is that the best solution, namely a football match (remember them?) between the two is impractical. There would not be time for both teams to get their squads together and have them go though pre-season training to be ready for such an important game. The season starts with the Ramsdens Cup in three weeks, and the SPL kicks off in four.

The perfect way to resolve the issue of who goes up to the SPL, but is there time…

The SPL and SFL will hopefully agree to whom the place should be offered. It is possible however that the SFL would choose to send up one team, whilst the SPL would be inviting the other. This issue has the potential to become very messy very quickly, with the possibility of court action very close.

Both sides have good claims on the place, so it might be as well to convene a meeting of all SPL and SFL members together and agree that the vote of the remaining 39 football clubs in Scotland would be binding on them. Perhaps there would be the need to offer the “losing” team a financial compensation for this taking place. That might be difficult standing Mr Doncaster’s prior predictions of Premier penury.

If the teams cannot play a football match to decide, then I would suggest that both Dundee and Dunfermline be asked to sign up to the proposal I have proposed. If a suitable agreement is drawn up, then neither party would have recourse to the courts if unsuccessful, as long as there were no irregularities in procedures.

Whether we see SPL football at Dens Park, or at East End Park, remains very much to be seen.


One way or another there will be a vacancy in the SFL. It will be initially in SFL1, and the question for the SFL clubs next week will be whether to allow Sevco Rangers to start its existence in SFL1, subject to the various disciplinary matters ongoing.

The practice regarding this is clear. Any new team needs to start at SFL3, and as Mr Longmuir of the SFL said only a couple of weeks ago, it was intended to have a vote about the applicants, as happened when Annan Athletic replaced Gretna, for example.

However, clarity of procedures can give way to expediency. As a consequence it appears that the SFL will consider whether to place Sevco Rangers straight into SFL1, or to put it into SFL3. The SFL official comment which came after the meeting of clubs on 3rd July said:-

“The Scottish Football League in an ordinary meeting of clubs, held a full and forthright debate on the current issues affecting Rangers F.C. and the potential impact on The Scottish Football League.

It was a meeting where all clubs were fully briefed on a number of scenarios and given all the necessary information that we have at our disposal to allow them to have an informed position with their boards and their fans.

We are now allowing clubs time to reflect on the information before asking them to make any formal decision.”

The SFL members have been given till 12th July to reflect.

Rule 9 of the SFL Rules states:-


The League in general meeting may upon such terms and conditions as it may think fit admit any club as an Associate Member or Member of the League and may expel any Member or Associate Member or terminate such membership or may accept the retirement of any Associate Member or Member, but subject always to Rule 126 (Reversion of Transfer of Registration Rights). Upon admission as a Member or Associate Member, the club so admitted shall become bound by and be subject to these Rules and any other Rules or Bye-Laws made by the League for the time being in force.”

This gives the SFL more flexibility in decision making than the SPL had.

The SFL admission is dependent upon SFA membership. If admitted to the SFL, a new team has 14 days to apply to the SFA for membership, and if not granted, membership of the SFL lapses.

Therefore the question is to what extent the SFL members might view this as really a decision for the SFA and vice-versa. There might even by a rush by the SFA to decide the issue prior to 12th July. If granted, it would leave matters entirely in the hands of the SFL. As we have seen from Mr Hutton of Raith Rovers, he believes that the members are being bullied by corrupt influences.

No truth in the rumours that these gentlemen have been visiting SFL Chairmen to assist in their deliberations

What therefore will the SFL be asked to decide?

What the meeting procedure will be and what it should be might be two different things.

As far as I am concerned (for what little that is worth) the process should be as follows.

1                     The SFL decides whether the vacancy is in SFL1 or SFL3.

2                     If the vacancy is in SFL3, the members then decide whether to accept applications from other clubs or simply to decide on Sevco Rangers application for membership.

3                     If the former then they set a date for applications and a further meeting.

4                     If the members decide the vacancy is in SFL1, they decide if Sevco Rangers get to fill it, and if not, revert to step 2 above.

The problem is one of time. Is it possible for teams to apply for a place in SFL3, and to have this decided by a general meeting of members before the SFL season starts with the Ramsdens Cup before the end of July?

The process I suspect will be followed will be like this.

1                     Will the SFL admit Sevco Rangers to SFL1?

2                     If not, will the members admit Sevco Rangers to SFL3?

3                     If not, then when will the application process take place and be determined?

When previous new members have been admitted, this has been on a simple majority. However that has been in the context of two or more teams competing for a place.

Here if the question is – “Rangers – yes or no?” different considerations apply.

Bearing in mind the pending Appellate Tribunal, and the ongoing SPL illegal registrations investigation, together with the nebulous status of Sevco Rangers (i.e. is it the old Rangers or a new team) the SFL members could be forgiven for leaving matters up to the SFA. That, after all, is meant to be the supreme governing body of Scottish football.

There are also various issues about who can vote in the SFL ballot. I will come back to these in another post, as it seems that the decision to bar Dundee, for example, has no sound basis.


Scottish football needs some very quick answers from its ruling bodies to the following questions.

More questions than answers

1                     To the SFA – when will the application by Sevco Scotland Ltd for membership be considered and determined?

2                     To the SFA – when will the Appellate Tribunal regarding Rangers Football Club be re-convened?

3                     To the SFA – will any sanctions imposed by the Appellate Tribunal be applied to Sevco Rangers, if it is granted membership?

4                     To the SFA – is Sevco Rangers a continuation of Rangers Football Club or not?


5                     To the SPL – what is the status of the illegal registration inquiry?

6                     To the SPL – will the disciplinary procedures promised to start before the season commences involve Sevco Rangers or not?

7                     To the SPL – is Sevco Rangers a continuation of Rangers Football Club or not?

8                     To the SPL – as Rangers Football Club is no longer a member of the SPL, will you continue with the investigation, or pass it on to either the SFL or SFA?


9                     To the SFA – if the SPL passes the illegal registration inquiry to you, what will you do with it?


10                 To the SFL – is there time for other clubs who wish to enter the SFL to apply, without the start of the season being delayed?

11                 To the SFL – are you happy to make a decision regarding Sevco Rangers whilst all of the above matters remain to be resolved?




Posted by Paul McConville





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

53 responses to “What Happens Now to the SPL and SFL re Sevco Rangers?

  1. Joseph

    You’ve again hit the nail on the head Paul. First class. On another matter if anyone wishes to thank Turnbull Hutton for showing courage and upholding integrity he can be contacted at info@raithrovers.net

    • Pensionerbhoy

      Done Joseph. He deserves the thanks of all supporters of the game for his forthrightness. It is a first from anyone in his position in Scottish football in my fairly long lifetime. We should all acknowledge that. I wanted to and you have provided the ideal way. Thank you.

      H H

    • Steveo

      Yeah also done. I would also urge any cellic fans who reside near kirkcaldy to make an effort to get along to stair park when not following the bhoys.

  2. Jim

    Paul, as nicely put as always. One thought, yesterday, green said they had submitted an application to the SFL. However, by its own rules, the SFL can only accept membership when a space arises, and as of this morning, there are still 30 members – so no free spaces. How can they therefore apply, until there is a space?

    I wonder what would happen if the SFL refused to let Dundee or dunfermline leave (unless promoted, they need 2 seasons notice).

    • Marching on Together

      Differentiate between the time the application is made and the time it is considered. An application can only be considered if there is a vacancy, but an application can be made at any time, and if there is no vacancy would be rejected, or if there is a pending vacancy, held until there actually is a vacancy.

  3. josephmcgrath112001809

    This is the opportunity for the football authorities to move the focus away from bringing in loads of money from broadcasters over to developing a healthy game in Scotland. With less money from the broadcasters they would need to concentrate on developing local talent – surely that is what a national body should be aiming to do.
    With a more open game there could be higher attendances at matches with corresponding income. With more local talent being brought on the national team could go on to greater things.

  4. Gobsmacked

    I found this SFA rule book lying in the bin does anyone know how it got there ? Thought provoking again Paul.

    • Justice

      Its become increasingly frustrating reading Pauls excellent analysis of scottish footballs rules as they seem to have no relevance at the moment with Regan demanding Sevco in the 1st division with no reference to any process or rules.

  5. Boss Hogg

    Mr Doncaster’s prophecy of doom may well have revealed a great deal more than he intended. Let’s be generous and describe his “end is nigh” statement not as scaremongering but as a worst case scenario. He quantifies that as £15m loss of revenue to the SPL over three years.

    Tellingly, he goes on to blurt out that a one year absence of Ibrox from the SPL venues list equates to a loss of £5m and this appears to be, if not exactly welcomed, sustainable.

    What if his worst case scenario for one reason or another fails to materialise in its most severe form? Either because he has over egged the pudding or because a more competitive SPL stimulates the remaining fans’ interests or because some former Rangers supporters continue to visit SPL grounds. Then the accumulation of lost revenue to the SPL over three years might be closer to the sustainable figure than to the doomsday one. And in the meantime SFL clubs would have enjoyed a windfall of increased revenues, and full grounds on some occasions with all the benefits that brings to morale.

    Why on earth would SFL club chairmen vote to have only one year of a boom when they could have three? So that they might ensure SPL revenues are restored as soon as possible? I suspect they may find this a resistible offer.

    • pete

      The biggest problem I see as an outsider to Scottish football is TIME. Basically there is not enough time to get it sorted before the start of the season. My pragmatic solution would be to run the SPL with a club short for this season and at the end of the season have no relegation from the SPL. Therefore the SFL would have no decisions to make immeadiately as they would have no vacancy. What would happen to Ranges Newco you ask. Well let them try and arrange friendlies for a season provided that they can raise a team, pay the players etc. You might ask who they could play, well a SPL club has a free date each weekend. At the end of the season the SFL will have a vacancy and they invite applications as normal.

      • gomes

        running without a club in club12 would mean lose of 38 games… all that income gone! no fans, no money, no game for tv, no goals ?

        celtic are not going out and spend spend spend, as we hear its cut cut cut – there is a recession on – so money tight for all – so maybe its a lot closer

        celtic did not win the treble last year (neil seems to freeze in finals!!!)

  6. riw1

    Confronted with a batch of month end figures & in revealing that I am older than time, I find my mind drifting to a social comment written in the 70’s by Gill Scott Heron. “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised”. There is much to juxtapose within this 40 year old poem & current farce. While the specific details of this lyric are long outdated, the moral certainly is not.

    I find an irony in that the current revolution will be televised, in HD, 3D & super fast broadband. There will be much interest & profit associated with triumph over adversity, lest that is how it will be perceived by some. Disney may well be waiting in the wings.

    Though utterly irrelevant, some may point to Gill Scott Herons father playing for Celtic, albeit briefly, in the late 40’s. This is unlikely to have influenced the offspring who by all accounts spent most of his time trying to best Timothy Leary !

    “The revolution will be live brothers !”… & now back to the reality that is profit & loss !

  7. redetin


    “One way or another there will be a vacancy in the SFL.”

    Is the above statement correct? A nice analysis as usual but c’mon if the rules are followed:

    1. The fixtures for all 4 leagues have been agreed.
    2. The SPL should play season 2012-13 with 11 teams; Club 12 to remain unassigned. No rushed decision on promotion need be made.
    3. Divs 1, 2 and 3 should play season 2012-13 fixtures as already agreed.
    4. Other solutions require a special “rangers rule” to be created, the very thing we fans are complaining about and will disrupt Divs 1, 2 and 3.
    5. Subject to a vacancy in the lowest division being created, clubs who meet the required criteria can apply for membership in the season 2013-14.

    Surely the fair solution is an 11-club SPL for a season.

    • Dave

      As a neutral, I understand this argument. As I understand, Dunfermline were relegated and have a case that this should not have happened due to Oldco Rangers. If Dundee are promoted and Dunfermline relegated and Newco rangers are voted to Div1, surely this new incarnation of Rangers will limit Dunfermline’s chances of regaining promotion in their first season and therefore leave them in Div1 for possibly 2 seasons and with the lack of revenue this may spiral downwards and leave them there for considerably longer?

  8. redetin

    From the point of view of yesterday’s vote, Charles Green was said (by Doncaster) to have the proxy vote for RFC (in Admin) as well as presenting on behalf of Sevco. Is Clause 4.21* of the CVA Proposal still in force? It appears so and presents a clear conflict of interest.

    *4.21 From 6 June 2012, Charles Green will be appointed to assist in the day-to-day management of the business of the Company (at no cost to the Company or the Joint Administrators), in order to manage the ongoing trading costs of the Company and allow for a smooth transition in ownership.

    • Marching on Together

      What’s the conflict? It was in the interests of both RFC(IA) and Sevco to have the share transfer approved by the SPL. No actual conflict there.

      • redetin

        Green’s personal interests (shareholder of Sevco companies) and his professional interests (assisting administrators of RFC) are conflicted.

        • Marching on Together

          How? Are you saying that while it is in the interests of Green as shareholder to have the transfer effected, it is not in the interests of Rangers (IA) to have the transfer effected? You cannot just assert a conflict of interest, you have to specify what it is is or what if gives the appearance of being. There are other areas where there will be a conflict, but this is not one of them.

  9. degough

    Would it not be better for Sevco Rangers to apply for a place in Division 1 for the 2013-14 season? This would give everyone a year to answer all the questions. No rushed through answers. All the pending decisions would be decided and the year out would be deemed as fulfilling the sentences passed down on them.

    • redetin

      There is no “place” available in Division 1 and there is no rule that allows such an application. There is no time to create such a rule, nor a rule to promote another club, nor rules to decide promotions from the 2nd or 3rd. The pre-season training has started and even travel arrangements have been made for many pre-season games. The leagues will have to manage with current fixtures.

  10. Peter

    Surely the first question is why is Stewart Regan still in his job. His extraordinary set of statements are surely a resigning matter.

    He appears to have pre-judged the EBT double contracts case and the PAYE/NI non-payment case.

    Or has he decided that guilty verdicts on Ranger plc will lead to punishments for Sevco 5088/Sevco Scotland so insignificant that they will not risk causing relegation below SFL Div 1.

    • gomes

      newco is now a NEW share application – so one can argue that it gains none of the benefits from rangers unless it gets into DIV1 – where penalties for dual contracts etc – could again mean expulsion.

      new entry to div3 without penalties – as new co ! seems easiest.

      Then all that remains is to strip titles from a club that no longer exists, or not.

      • Peter

        The whole SFA / SPA / SFL mess centres around the absence of specific rules for reasonably foreseeable scenarios such as administration, cheating, fraud, conflict of interest etc etc etc.

        Of course, In a corrupt institution, you don’t know the rules until you know who is accused. You don’t want to get trapped into treating your friends too harshly by applying rules that aren’t open to wide interpretation by the great and the good.

        The mess is so big now because this approach has allowed it to grow and grow and grow over decades.

  11. I am intrigued and concerned in equal measure about the assumption being made that placing Sevco Rangers in the first division equates to them being out of the SPL for a season. But at the moment I can only wonder aloud what will happen if, on next season’s last day, Sevco Rangers are three points outside promotion contention…

  12. Robert D Bruce

    Two contributors have already given a pointer to the authorities on how this should be dealt with and I wholeheartedly agree with them.
    An 11 team SPL.

    If the Appellant tribunal had by this time reconsidered their verdict on Rangers – this should have happened by now but had been delayed by the SPL’s fear of the outcome – then there may already have been a ready made solution.
    I don’t think anybody seriously believed that the Tribunal would have expelled Rangers from the league and therefore the only other solution open to them would have been suspension from the SPL, with a one year ban being the most likely outcome.
    Given this scenario the SPL would already be 1 team short and with suspension, not expulsion, no other team would be invited to make up the numbers, enforcing an 11 team league.
    This solution has its merits in that it allows Rangers to be seen to be punished – I don’t think even the most ardent anti Rangers fans would argue that this punishment would not be sufficient – It would allow Rangers a “year out” allowing them sufficient time to put their house in order and would leave the SFL clubs to concentrate on SFL business.
    After completion of the punishment of a year’s suspension Rangers, assuming they are financially viable and ready to compete, could be readmitted to the SPL.
    Had the SPL had the integrity to impose their own rules the situation we are presented with now would not exist. We would be contemplating the new season with a slightly diminished SPL calendar which could be accommodated quite easily by giving teams free weeks and / or an extended winter break (no bad thing) and the SFL clubs would be unaffected.
    The result of the EBT fiasco could be properly investigated and debated during Rangers year out and any punishment which may be forthcoming could be incorporated into their next season within the league. This would allow time for the debate, the questions, the anger, the apologies et al to have dissipated by the start of season 2013 / 2014.

    Justice done and the league substantially unaffected.

    Win / Win?

    • Ernesider

      This solution has its merits in that it allows Rangers to be seen to be punished – I don’t think even the most ardent anti Rangers fans would argue that this punishment would not be sufficient – It would allow Rangers a “year out” allowing them sufficient time to put their house in order and would leave the SFL clubs to concentrate on SFL business. After completion of the punishment of a year’s suspension Rangers, assuming they are financially viable and ready to compete, could be readmitted to the SPL.

      Not buying it Robert. I don’t think they have been punished at all. In fact they seem to have got away with not paying a possible £100 million. For which you say to suspend them for one year and then business as usual. They should consider themselves extremely lucky to get into SFL Div 3 this year. I would admit a more deserving applicant and let Rangers wait until the next vacancy arose.

      • Robert D Bruce

        Ernesider, I have absolute sympathy with your view regarding their non payment of tax, NI and VAT etc but the powers that be i.e. HMRC must deal with that how they see fit. Rangers F.C. Plc and their former directors will not escape severe scrutiny (at the very least) and HMRC will have their day in court no doubt.
        Paul has expressed some doubts about the corporate nature of Rangers Football Club as opposed to Rangers FC Plc or Sevco Scotland and I tend to hold the view that they are separate i.e. that there is a club which plays football and there is an owner of that club.
        If there are two separate entities then I would be inclined to think that the corporate entity (Rangers FC Plc / Sevco Scotland) are responsible for all of the corporate governance – Tax, NI, VAT etc – and the football club is responsible to the SFA and SPL and for all on field matters. If the corporate entity does not fulfil it’s part of the bargain to the football club then the football club can be hugely affected, as we have seen throughout this whole sorry episode. This does not in my mind absolve the football club part of the partnership from any responsibilities or blame, as many Rangers supporters would like to think.
        If the football club, for whatever reason, fields an ineligible player for instance, then it is they who must accept the footballing punishment.

        This division of responsibility sits well with the situation facing Rangers at this time. The corporate entity, having tried over a number of years to manipulate Scottish football using dubious tax dodges, has been caught out and will be punished accordingly. The football club having been complicit in this manipulation of Scottish football have also been caught and will suffer footballing punishments. As I have suggested in my original piece the SPL Appellate Tribunal could have resolved this at the outset by applying the rules as they apply to the football club. They should have only considered one of two punishments, either suspension or expulsion. Had they upheld their duty and applied a suspension for a year we would now be looking forward to the beginning of the season with an 11 team SPL.
        The SFL would be totally unaffected ( I can hear some supporters now saying WE WISH!)

        What happens in the corporate world, while having the ability to affect football clubs has its own set of rules and governance. Rangers “corporate’s” inability to sustain it’s running costs, pay it’s taxes, default on creditors, cheat suppliers, change owners and generally run roughshod to the tune of £100,000,000 over other businesses is for others to sort. My own views on that would take far more time and space than this blog allows me. Suffice to say I fully agree with the sentiments you express.

        Foisting Rangers onto SFL to deal with is not an option that anybody should be considering. If it is felt that punishment of a years suspension is inadequate, I’m afraid someone has to bite the bullet and expel the football club from the League they are now in. This is the only other relevant punishment available.
        I won’t hold my breath waiting on that outcome and therefore I stick by the idea that an 11 team SPL this year with suitable punishments for a returning Rangers is by far the best way forward.

    • Brian Jeffrey

      Great in theory. In practice though I suspect that Newco Rangers could not survive without any income for a year. No season ticket, or sponsorship, or TV, or any other income! What would happen to the registrations of their current players? With no money coming in they would need to be made redundant and would become free agents. Rangers would have no players to even attempt to survive on a series of friendly games. How would they finance a new pool of players for the start of season 2013-14? The newco would most likely face another “insolvency event” and the club would be subject to further sanctions as a result. If newco Rangers are suspended for a year or find themselves without a league the club will die. They need to contrive a situation where the 12 month transfer embargo is reinstated and bite the bullet for a year in whichever league they find themselves in. I have my doubts though as to whether it is even legal for them, having sought the Judicial Review, to now ignore it’s findings and accept the initial ruling. I also doubt whether or not Lord Carloway would be minded to reinstate a punishment which the court has said is unlawful, even although he personally disagrees with the ruling. I suspect that he would see it as a contempt opf the judicial process to reinstate the same punishment.

      • degough

        The players would be sent to other clubs on loan. There would be staff cuts at Ibrox and Murray Park. Money could be made from player sales as well to help finance the running costs. Green could sell to someone that sees the big picture and is willing to go the long haul. Short term loss long term profit.

      • Robert D Bruce

        Sorry but it is not for anybody other than Sevco Scotland to decide how they survive a year out of the game. If they cannot survive then so be it. Why should the SFL provide them with a living, however meagre that may be. If the rules had been followed at the outset Rangers would either be suspended from the SPL or expelled. No other option should be considered.

    • Marching on Together

      Absolutely spot on. Regan is effectively saying that the Appellate Tribunal cannot suspend or expel Rangers, and any punishment for the EBT case cannot do so either.

      Despite the fact that the SPL could not take into account the EBT case in their deliberations yesterday, it is clear that the SFA are trying to have the removal of Rangers from the SPL as being that punishment.

      There is now no way in which the SFA can act as the appeal body from the decision of the SPL in the EBT case.

  13. ecojon

    On Q8 I think the SPL should continue with the investigation as Rangers was a member of that League when the offences took place. I realise this does raise an issue with any penalties as I don’t know if the SPL could impose penalties on Rangers if it was an SFL member by that time. There is also the tricky point as to whether, if the sevco newco is deemed to be a new legal entity, whether penalties relating to the old Rangers could be applied – I realise this is further complicated with the ‘club’ concept which is more amorphous than say a limited company with a distinct legal persona.

    On the Dundee question I really wonder about the conflict of intererest question – It could be said that Rangers had a conflict of interest and shouldn’t have been allowed to vote yesterday although I would have thought that fair play must allow any club to put its case and vote in favour of that position.

    However then I look at the SFL3 clubs and must conclude that every club in it has a vested financial influence in rejecting Ranger’s entry into SFL1 – therefore it seems to me that the SFL1 and SFL2 clubs should only be allowed a vote in their own league division and not in the other.

    I also feel the scare tactic warning of possible civil disturbance should Rangers cease to exist to be the most despicable bullying threat to date. Should such an unlikely event come to pass it is not an issue for the ‘suits & blazers’ to deal with. It will be dealt with by the police who usually have to pick up the pieces of civil disturbance – throughout Scotland – after every Old Firm game.

    And as a Celtic Supporter I have no hesitation in saying that Rangers will never cease to exist because they have enough decent supporters to ensure the club will survive at some level – even outwith the SFL if need be – and they will fight to climb to the top league yet again. How do I know this would happen – dead simple – It’s what the vast bulk of decent Celtic supporters would do if we were in the position that Rangers supporters might end up in.

  14. Mick

    Well Paul great article agian ,surely after all the bullying the sfl will say no to sevco why sevco and not cove rangers?they have 3years accounts sfa and spl have upset the diddy teams ,a feel they are going to vote no due to the fact of all the upsets placed on them it’s been sinew week with the msm spin and all the lying in the media Scotland has had enough and wants to bury sevco rfc .its no no no any were sevco go .

  15. ecojon

    @Robert D Bruce

    Just to say I meant to vote for your suggestion but hit dislike by accident – apologies.

    • redetin

      You can double thumb up to correct a thumb down 🙂

    • mick

      a thumps up my self from desk top then iphone lol send a copy to friends and tell them to thump you they might be frightened to come back to you for coffee if you dont mention not thumb me but the statement you make lol

  16. degough

    I see that a Westminster committee is to hold an inquiry into the state of Scottish football starting next week. Should be fun when Craig Whyte gives evidence. The TV rights should be sold to Sky to avoid the “meltdown”.


  17. JimBhoy

    It seems it is now Regans turn to have a bit of foot in mouth….


    Are these guys not meant to be impartial….So facts are: A fair number of SFL chairman coming out against a move to SFL1. The majority of Rangers fans from their own Poll saying they want to start fresh in SFL3. A start in SFL1 contravening the rules that they apply. The appellate case and dual contracts on the horizon with punishments that really should see no football at ibrox. Rangers cannot buy players (apparently) and have a small squad which would be best suited to the SFL3 as they will probably languish in SFL1 for a couple of seasons, no teams want to do business with them, pre-season games cancelled all over the shop. Infighting at the club, no guarantee of fans wanting the new product. Is there a good chance of insolvency again? These factors should all see Rangers go to SFL3. But Regan, consistent with Doncaster and Longmuir now has the podium to show he has the self same characteristics of ineptitude.

    Why don’t Rangers do as the SPL chiefs did and listen to their own fans,,

    As a Celtic fan I would love to see Rangers in SFL1 because they would really struggle and it would be a very negative experience for them for a few seasons and would IMO have ramifications. SFL 3 would give them some success in promotion etc.

    • Marching on Together

      The Rangers fans poll had the option of them starting in SFL3 with no sanctions for the EBT case for the Appellate Tribunal. Doubt if many Rangers fans would vote for SFL3 and sanctions.

  18. degough

    Duff and Phelps, administrators of The Rangers Football Club plc (in administration) issued the following statement today.

    “We have written to all shareholders of The Rangers Football Club plc (in administration) to provide notice of a general meeting of the Company to be held at Ibrox Stadium on July 31.

    “The resolution to be put forward at that meeting is to change the name of the Company to RFC 2012 plc and there will be no other business on the day.

    “This is a procedural measure in order for Sevco Scotland Limited – which acquired the business and assets of the Company from the administrators on June 14 – to change its name simultaneously to The Rangers Football Club Limited.”

    I thought Green owned RFC 2012? Maybe wrong, I think this means Green can change the name of Sevco Scotland to The Rangers Football Club.

    • p groom

      hang on, ” The Rangers Football Club plc (in administration)” is due to be liquidated any day now by bdo. can you change the name in these circumstances? so the liquidated company becomes RFC 2012 plc…. adds another layer of complexity when trying to apportion blame penalties etc etc. also “there will be no other business on the day” but immediately goes on to inform us of another sigificant event which will take place. why are d and p still being allowed to influence affairs and rack up their fees ?

      • Marching on Together

        The asset sale agreement between D&P and Sevco will contain provision that D&P have to do this at the request of Sevco. Pretty straightforward if you as the buyer want to be able to continue to use the name of the brand you are buying in all its forms.

  19. Pingback: Sevco Rangers – Promoting Football The Regan Way – Lingering Death, Social Unrest and Problems for Society | Random Thoughts Re Scots Law by Paul McConville

  20. Ledj

    Regarding which division Sevco plays in, it would I think be appropriate that if, as it looks likely, the SFL teams vote no to Sevco in SFL1, to pre-empt the threat of a SPL2, they should also agree to kindly refuse any invitation to join any SPL2. Thus leaving Sevco no option but to apply to join the 3rd Division – unless of course they would prefer to have a league to themselves!

  21. Pensionerbhoy

    I have suspected for a long time that the governing bodies of Scottish football were steeped in corruptive shenanigans of every sort. Recent events and the statements of some club chairmen have not only confirmed this but have been a glint of light from normally dark and secretive corridors of power. Could there be hope of new brooms? What the current football association and league chaos have proved is that the people in charge of Scottish football are so incompetent and so dishonest that, in their maniacal rush to protect their prize pig and their own unstable power bases, they have been incapable of providing their usual covert protection for their deviousness. Unwittingly they have mouthed their threats and nonsense from outside the bunker and failed to shoot some chairmen before they could give the game away. Yes, come the end game they have shown themselves to be totally useless little Nazis. However, they have not as yet mutually agreed to blow each others corporate brains to smithereens, so we need to be prepared for further egotistical and autocratic pronouncements. There will be more warnings about the rape and pillage about to descend on Scottish football structures if the ‘red’ army of sensible clubs and supporters should win the day in their fight for justice and integrity. In fact, declarations will be made by mien fuhrers with the connivance of their Gurings, Geobbels, Himlers, Hesses etc., etc. that will demand obedience even if contradicting their own shambolic regulations and the advice and votes of their generals. Perhaps then will be the opportune time for the allies to show a united front and take the war to the European theatre. If not, the invasion may drag out far beyond a practical and warranted time- scale. The present Hampden pill boxes need to be demolished so that the fans’ army can remove the dictators from office. The power of the ground troops must now focus upon ridding Scottish football of its incumbent tyrannical leadership. The war is now against manipulation for the sake of one favoured entity and the commercial interests besotting the authorities. A united front must act swiftly to clear football at all levels of the destructive forces that currently control it. Only then can Scottish football breath pure, clean air once again and start to regain some of the pride that has been sucked from its heart by the most flagrant abuse of power and position. By August 4th. we should expect a V for victory and not a return to the ignominy of the status quo.

    H H

  22. Marching on Together

    The SPL’s threat to not make payment of the annual sum to the SFL if they don’t vote to admit Sevco to SFL1 is quite outrageous. They claim that this is because they would nopt have the money to pay it. Yet the SPL entered into a contractual arrangement with the SFL to pay it, and cannot wriggle out of that arrangement without facing court action from the SFL. If the SPL do not have sufficient resources to meet their obligations, then they should find the resources by reducing payments to their own shareholders i.e. the other SPL clubs.

    Failure to honour their creditors, and seeking to shaft them – its all very reminiscent of Craig Whyte and Rangers, not paying HMRC as a bargaining chip over the EBT case, is it not?

    Stinking hypocrites.

  23. David C MacKenzie

    Call in the Administrators. Duff & Phelps need some work. 😉

  24. Ken

    Astonishing (or maybe not!) that a decision on ‘Club 12’ could not have been made immediately following conclusion to the decision on denial of petition by Newco to transfer SPL membership share. Certainly given public declaration of sufficent quorum of clubs at least a week ago, preparation could certainly have been laid following the formal confirmation
    i.e. Since all SPL members would be present, invite Dundee & Dunfermline to present their case on the premise that if/should there be an opening, determined solely in event of failure by Newco to acquire said share, and the 11 members to vote accordingly.
    Too hard? Surely not?

  25. ian lewis

    The whole situation is summed up by the Black Affair.Hearts can’t afford to retain their most important player because Rangers owe them £800000 which they can’t pay while at the same time they propose to sign Black for the coming season with an alleged annual salary cost of £400000.

  26. p groom

    according to the stenhousemuir statement the sfa cannot and will not allow newco to join div 3. ( not even if the sfl clubs vote for it? NO! and to make sure they dont vote for it we will not allow them a vote! ) thats pretty clear then, the affected clubs will not have a say unlike those in the spl who decided not to let newco in to their league! ( normally I dont like exclamation marks but this exceptional case calls for them). a more clearer example of dictatorship you could not find anywhere in or outside the third reich. and you dont have to be a celtic…. etc

  27. p groom

    referring again to the stenhousemuir statement, sfa’s projections are littered with “potentially this and potentially that outcomes will occur”. how reliable is this sort of information? potentially none of them could occur. ” the loss of sky/espn/sportfive/sponsorship money (£15.7 m) on the basis that all have termination clauses should either of OF not be in spl ” . do they actually have such clauses right now or are sfa speculating and thereby scaremongering. the credibility of sfa is shot to pieces. how can it possibly be right to impose their rules strictly to the letter on clubs like gretna and others but ditch them for this particular newco? by implication they would also include celtic in this rule-exemption category. these projections ( 99% doomladen) are being made by an organisation to justify the outcome they want and intend to impose. I think it is called conflict of interest. how about one simple fact to justify the opposite outcome , such as ” follow your own rules” . the sfl clubs now need to challenge sfa and demand a vote on allowing newco into div 3.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s