Many comments here and on other football blogs have indicated that the whole Rangers issue can’t and won’t progress towards a resolution within Scottish Fitba until the grown-ups publish the ‘5 Way Agreement’ in full.
A statement including a summary was produced, but not the agreement itself. Arguably, this may be due to some extent to an air of secrecy by the SFA, SPL and SFL, but at the least the absence of full publication is not desirable for an atmosphere of honesty, openness and trust to cut like spring sunshine through the current dank air that’s about our beautiful game.
In the spirit of the age old tradition of applying a bit of pressure until something breaks, I would like to invite guesses and speculation as to what is in the 5 way agreement. Many contributors may have done so somewhere in the blogosphere already. These can be formulated by looking at what has transpired or what may have transpired via some indicator or another. Here’s my clumsy attempt first.
Carl’s Clumsy Example 1.
Rangers started this season in SFL3 as a new club with a new owner operator of an existing entity. The precise application of the rules would have precluded this since 3 years of accounts are required. I would venture a guess as to some form of words that say the following:
‘The existing rule on 3 yrs accounts is to prevent clubs being admitted to the league that then might fail to fulfil their fixtures due to some commercial reason. Mr Green’s Blues will not be subject to the literal interpretation of the rule but are subject to the spirit of the rule. The governing body and the league bodies require assurances/evidence that the business plan is sound and fixtures can be fulfilled for this season and a number of subsequent seasons.’
Carl’s Clumsy Example 2.
Rangers were not treated as a continuation of last season’s SPL second placed team since they started in the earlier rounds of the Scottish Cup – last season’s SPL second placed team is entitled to start The Scottish Cup in round 3. I guess some form of words were used to clarify this such as:
‘Mr Green’s Blues will enter the various cup competitions in line with being treated under the relevant rules as a new entrant club.’
These examples neither confirm nor deny either side of the Survivalist or Extinctionist debate.
Carl’s Clumsy Example 3.
FIFA and UEFA frown on the national associations being taken through the civil courts. The SFA are aware of this, and are not happy that Mr Green’s Blues took the action they did. Mr Green’s Blues might have been given the Hobson’s Choice of accepting the registration ban despite it having been declared as ultra vires by Lord Glennie:
‘Our own rules may not specifically set out that we can impose a registration embargo, but its oor baw. Given that the next step up from just a fine alone is expulsion from the game, you will accept such an embargo or else face such an expulsion.’
I also would hazard a guess that some kind of future proofing wording by the administrators is in there regards acceptance of footballing punishments or penalties that may come to light, and the acceptance of footballing debts as debts now of Mr Green’s Blues. Also, from Mr Green’s side, some kind of time limit would be placed on these, and some kind of limit of total financial liability too.
That’s as far as I’m going with such guesses at the moment. I invite others to join in.
If the learned and informed observers of the Rangers Saga, who are at all interested were to respond reasonably, sensibly and fairly, I think we could end up being able to set out a mock document (a mock-ument?) which would clearly and obviously not claim to be the actual document, but instead would list a number of interesting educated guesses…
… one of the guesses might be read by one of the formulators of the real thing and think, ‘damn, I wish I had thought of that’!
Posted by Carl31