Sevco and Rangers and “Conditional” SFA Membership – Me at Scotzine

I note that Sevco Scotland Ltd have been given “conditional membership” of the SFA.

Does that actually exist?

I have posted some quick thoughts over at Scotzine, which you can reach here.

I am writing a piece which will make three or four posts (at least) looking in depth at the SFA/SFL/SPL/Sevco joint statement, and the various comments emanating from Ibrox.

They will go up as they get done.

Advertisements

23 Comments

Filed under Football Governance, Me at Scotzine, Rangers, SFA

23 responses to “Sevco and Rangers and “Conditional” SFA Membership – Me at Scotzine

  1. Paul, your last sentence could well describe the future of Sevgers – ‘they will go up as they get done’ – given the expected progress of the club through the divisions and the expected timescale of litigation etc…

  2. mick

    Its constant shifting of goal posts to suit sevco its out of order they cheated and ruined or game and national game for nearly 20 years , A just hope they go to the wall for xmas there the mosted dispised team in the world and they are not even a month old there not there on merit ,its the old handshake all over agian ,no accounts no money no players probably no insurance its a farce and makes a mockery of sport ,they are financially doping div 3 with trialists from top leagues its disgusting just like the dodo they were born out of

  3. mick

    old co new co sevco tempco tesco

  4. mick

    well in paul good see some 1 in this pointing out the wrongs in it all

  5. Alan Gillen

    As ever a good review. Article 14 says that the request for transfer is reviewed by the SFA Board which has “complete discretion to refuse or grant such application on such terms and conditions as the Board shall think fit.” The SFA reviewed it and granted the application, the terms/condition being that it was on a temporary basis.
    The question is what is “a temporary basis”? Given previous SFA dealings this is likely to be until they have arranged the reconstruction of the leagues later in the year which will allow Rangers to join the principal league (whatever it is called) at the start of the next season.

  6. David C MacKenzie

    A silly question. I place a bet, in good faith, on Brechin reaching the second round, not necessarily on them beating Rangers, but on them getting to the second round. I have reason to believe that the way in which it was facilitated by the powers that be is a fiction, and that if the rules had not been twisted out of all recognition, Brechin would have gone through to the next round. Can I do anything about it? I assume that the answer would be ‘no’, but it would be fun to stir things up.

    On the topic at hand. “Conditional membership” should not be given at this stage; it is, of course, a joke, especially when “whats it’s name” FC(?) have surely already brought the game into disrepute through the actions of the Manager and others over the past few months, for such actions as trying to stop an ongoing investigation into dual contracts, trying to have their cake and eat it by getting to get all the good bits, and the benefits therefrom by a curious method that seems to filter out the bad bits that should go over by the same principle.

  7. Grabthegrass

    What I don’t get is why the transfer of the SPL share could take a few days? Surely ask it needs is the correct signature on the document and green should have had this in his back pocket ready to plonk on the table. The only possible thing I can think of is that the 5.3 million sitting in the d and p client account hasn’t yet made it into rfc ia and d and p won’t transfer the share until it has?? Has any one heard if the sfa plan to make public the shareholders and funding plan. You will need to add to your Earlie post on finances that sevco now need to pay all the football debts. Has the AT sat yet? Do the SFA board still need to meet? How much have the SPL paid for the spl media rights? This saga won’t end yet.

    • ecojon

      @Grabthegrass

      I think the SFA would have only have been shown the financial information in confidence and therefore cannot themselves reveal it.

      It has been blogged by Leggo today that Malcolm Murray, Rangers Chairman, doesn’t know the investors in Rangers and if that is true then I doubt that the SFA know.

      • Marching on Together

        Wahey. The Ken Bates school of not admitting to knowing who owns your club. The parallels are really uncanny.

  8. SPORTSFANNZ

    if sevco have agreed to pay football creditors as part of their agreement on membership where does this leave other creditors of Rangers ? I thought that Scotland didn’t have an English style football creditors rule. I know that this is not the defunct Rangers (ia) preferentially treating football creditors but someone is making it come about and they are getting that preference through the back door. Would normal creditors have any comeback under the law ?

    • Niall Walker

      Scotland doesn’t have a football creditors rule and it only applies in CVAs, once a company is liquidated then its irrelevant. The newco is paying the footballing creditors as a condition of the membership transfer, nothing to do with other creditors. Think of it as a pennance.

  9. Niall Walker

    As far as I am concerned the only contentious wording is in relation to the EBTs, I just don’t believe CG gives a hoot about old titles. He has reached a compromise with the SPL so they don’t strip Rangers of the titles until after the season tickets go up for sale. Its pure showmanship,he is pretending to play hardball for the fans who do care, just handing them over without a fight is hardly going to endear him with his only source of revenue.
    The bottom line is there would be anarchy in Scottish football if Rangers were not punished, although I feel the SPL clubs rejection of Rangers newco into the SPL was a form of punishment for a mutitude of sins( EBTs included).

    The only punishment left open is to strip titles, and it will take place after the season tickets are sold, it wil not cost them any money.

  10. SPORTSFANNZ

    maybe it would cost them money if they were stripped of titles …
    would Glasgow Rangers (ia) have to pay back the prize money they earned (which would be sizeable !) ? In the Olympics people stripped of their titles have to hand back their medals.
    The return of inappropriately obtained prize money could be deemed to be a football debt (to the SFA/SPL) would it then be covered by this transfer of membership agreement ?

  11. redetin

    Paul, is the SFA answerable to anyone. UEFA and FIFA I suppose, but in Scotland are they just answerable to themselves? Is there no higher governance other than the law courts? And that being so, who can take action against them?

    • Marching on Together

      Only any other club who is a member of the SFA can take action. Even if there is a breach of the rules (I don’t agree that there has), it does not matter if no-one who has title to do anything about it, fails to do so.

  12. mick

    the ebts was 2 mil short who got it cardigian or sal or both thats why hes in on it and hes cardigians puppet as he is the master sal is in it for the money just like the rest of them ,also whos the secret backers its a scam so in a few year there back its sick and sinister just like the team they were cloned from the good thing is sals in an old wooden dugout the mora so that is some justice lol

  13. mick

    if you here vile songs report it its on alba 3.05pm

  14. Niall Walker

    Evening SPORTFANNZ,

    If there was a financial liability it would be passed onto the oldco but not the newco, I believe the SPL has a better chance of successfully suing and getting paid out from the oldco than the new. In reality the complexity of working out who won and who lost out financially would be exhausting, and I think its a non starter.

    • SPORTSFANNZ

      The point that I was making was that it would be Rangers (ia) debt not Sevco Rangers at least to start with. But if Sevco have agreed to take on all footballing debts to get the transfer of membership it could become Sevco’s depending on the wording … it would be a nasty sting in the tail if it ever came to pass (how ironic would that be !). An outside chance but not implausible.
      the working out is very simple for the league. Rangers (ia) would have to give back every penny and everyone would move up one place and get the prize money for that place – half hour job at most. For the cup they would just have to hand back the prize money to the SFA coffers.

  15. Gobsmacked

    When in 7 days (real time not Green time) Newco get the unconditional license, will the SFA be dumb enough to issue to statement to confirm that Newco are squeeky clean and have a solid financial structure ? Or will we get some version of “The License has been granted following extensive talks, presentations and assurances by Sevco”. That gives them the out later should the Newco find themselves struggling to service a wage bill and a stadium on Div3 income.

    Mr Green could score big points with the SFA / SPL by publicly reprimanding Ally. Problem is of course that he can’t predict the reaction of the fans, nor does he seem able to control the loose mouth of a high profile employee, This issue seems to have arisen from a “lack of leadership !!!” Can’t remember who accused the SFA of that.

  16. Chriske

    I wrote the comment below on this very Forum 4 days ago, when I speculated that the SFA may suspect RFC of wanting to walk away now they are in Div 3.

    “If the SFA get the impression that RFC are engineering a failure to agree over the license, then the SFAs best response is to offer a “temporary conditional license” to RFC so that they can park any controversial issues on both sides. That way, at least RFC can do some planning with confidence and the RFC exit strategy is taken off the boil. It also means that the fans will get to see some football, albeit Div 3.”

    I would send them a Consultancy bill but I just know it wouldn’t get paid.

  17. Marching on Together

    Paul

    With respect, I do not agree with your analysis over on Scotzine. Art 14 provides that the SFA has “complete discretion to refuse or grant such application on such terms and conditions as the Board shall think fit.” As you know, you need to be careful treating press releases as the absolute precise truth of what has been decided. IMHO the SFA Board has granted the transfer of licence under the condition the the duration of that licence is 7 days. I do not see that as being outwith the terms of Art 14 and the discretion given to the SFA Board.

    In the case of Leeds Utd, a High Court judge in an arbitration under FA Regulation K, effectively held that a similar discretionary power to the Football League could be exercised in a very wide manner indeed, and I do not see the courts rushing to restrict the discretion of the SFA Board, even if someone with the title and interest to do so did in fact go to court.

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