SSNews saying he has been sacked no great surprise. Peter Houston will be a possible contender I suppose
Scottish Fitba Thread (Part 21)
47 of 126
Forthone saying by "mutual consent" in other words sacked! Mad Vlad strikes again.....
Poor timing with cup final coming up. Feel sorry for Mr Potato Head!
Poor timing with cup final coming up. Feel sorry for Mr Potato Head!
Rangers Oldco being fined £250,000.
In other words, nothing's happening. Unless the SPL say that to claim Rangers' history, Sevco must pay up...
In other words, nothing's happening. Unless the SPL say that to claim Rangers' history, Sevco must pay up...
"The commission has ruled it was necessary for Rangers to declare the payments and, as such, has declared players improperly registered were ineligible to participate in league matches"
From stv story
From stv story
Originally Posted by StoneColdSaysSo:
“Both parties have the right to appeal as well, I doubt this will be the end of this saga.”
“Both parties have the right to appeal as well, I doubt this will be the end of this saga.”
If LNS has deemed the players to be ineligible then where does that leave Scottish Football? - SFA throw teams out of the Scottish Cup for a form missing a date or signature.
So the oldco are guilty of playing unregistered players but only get £250K fine.
Scottish Football still corrupt as ever!!
Scottish Football still corrupt as ever!!
If I was one of the numerous clubs that have been thrown out of cup competitions or had results forfeited over the years for fielding ineligible players I'd be getting the lawyers number out.
I know this is an SPL investigation but didn't the SFA say they weren't going to investigate since the SPL already were? Thus I would think that this decision has set a precedent for Scottish football, feel free to field ineligible players if you don't mind paying a wee fine.
I know this is an SPL investigation but didn't the SFA say they weren't going to investigate since the SPL already were? Thus I would think that this decision has set a precedent for Scottish football, feel free to field ineligible players if you don't mind paying a wee fine.
LNS and the other commission members didn't think any competitive advantage was gained from fielding ineligible players.
Originally Posted by grps3:
“not guilty
54 and counting”
“not guilty
54 and counting”
Not guilty of what?
Details now online - includes the side letters given to Bonnisel, Capucho, Arveladze and Steven Davis.
Pretty sure these "ineligible" payments were detailed in our accounts - which the SPL then signed off. So not sure how they can try and move the goalposts several years down the line ... which is what happened.
Originally Posted by crofter:
“Pretty sure these "ineligible" payments were detailed in our accounts - which the SPL then signed off. So not sure how they can try and move the goalposts several years down the line ... which is what happened.”
“Pretty sure these "ineligible" payments were detailed in our accounts - which the SPL then signed off. So not sure how they can try and move the goalposts several years down the line ... which is what happened.”
It's the side letters that made the payments 'improper' - LNS has ruled they should have been submitted as per the rules of player registrations.
Ogilvie's evidence is alarming for someone in his position.
LNS blames those in charge of the OldCo for all rule breaches.
Poorly worded SPL rules means the players can be eligible despite the club not submitting the full contracts to the SPL.
Quote:
“From the SPL Rules...
D1.13 A Club must, as a condition of Registration and for a Player to be eligible to Play in Official Matches, deliver the executed originals of all Contracts of Service and amendments and/or extensions to Contracts of Service and all other agreements providing for payment, other than for reimbursement of expenses actually incurred, between that Club and Player, to the Secretary, within fourteen days of such Contract of Service or other agreement being entered into, amended and/or, as the case may be, extended.”
“From the SPL Rules...
D1.13 A Club must, as a condition of Registration and for a Player to be eligible to Play in Official Matches, deliver the executed originals of all Contracts of Service and amendments and/or extensions to Contracts of Service and all other agreements providing for payment, other than for reimbursement of expenses actually incurred, between that Club and Player, to the Secretary, within fourteen days of such Contract of Service or other agreement being entered into, amended and/or, as the case may be, extended.”
Any other club would of been in trouble but this is scotland where the establishment club are bound by a different set of rules.
Quote:
“There is no evidence that the Board of Directors of Oldco took any steps to obtain proper external legal or accountancy advice to the Board as to the risks inherent in agreeing to pay players through the EBT arrangements without disclosure to the football authorities.
The directors of Oldco must bear a heavy responsibility for this. While there is no question of dishonesty, individual or corporate, we nevertheless take the view that the nondisclosure must be regarded as deliberate, in the sense that a decision was taken that the sideletters need not be or should not be disclosed. No steps were taken to check, even on a hypothetical basis, the validity of that assumption with the SPL or the SFA. The evidence of Mr Odam (cited at paragraph [43] above) clearly indicates a view amongst the management of Oldco that it might have been detrimental to the desired tax treatment of the payments being made by Oldco to have disclosed the existence of the side-letters to the football authorities.
[108] Given the seriousness, extent and duration of the non-disclosure, we have concluded that nothing less than a substantial financial penalty on Oldco will suffice. Although we are well aware that, as Oldco is in liquidation with an apparently massive deficiency for creditors (even leaving aside a possible reversal of the Tax Tribunal decision on appeal), in practice any fine is likely to be substantially irrecoverable and to the extent that it is recovered the cost will be borne by the creditors of Oldco, we nevertheless think it essential to mark the seriousness of the contraventions with a large financial penalty. Since Issues 1 to 3 relate to a single course of conduct, a single overall fine is appropriate. Taking into account these considerations, we have decided to impose a fine of £250,000 on Oldco.”
“There is no evidence that the Board of Directors of Oldco took any steps to obtain proper external legal or accountancy advice to the Board as to the risks inherent in agreeing to pay players through the EBT arrangements without disclosure to the football authorities.
The directors of Oldco must bear a heavy responsibility for this. While there is no question of dishonesty, individual or corporate, we nevertheless take the view that the nondisclosure must be regarded as deliberate, in the sense that a decision was taken that the sideletters need not be or should not be disclosed. No steps were taken to check, even on a hypothetical basis, the validity of that assumption with the SPL or the SFA. The evidence of Mr Odam (cited at paragraph [43] above) clearly indicates a view amongst the management of Oldco that it might have been detrimental to the desired tax treatment of the payments being made by Oldco to have disclosed the existence of the side-letters to the football authorities.
[108] Given the seriousness, extent and duration of the non-disclosure, we have concluded that nothing less than a substantial financial penalty on Oldco will suffice. Although we are well aware that, as Oldco is in liquidation with an apparently massive deficiency for creditors (even leaving aside a possible reversal of the Tax Tribunal decision on appeal), in practice any fine is likely to be substantially irrecoverable and to the extent that it is recovered the cost will be borne by the creditors of Oldco, we nevertheless think it essential to mark the seriousness of the contraventions with a large financial penalty. Since Issues 1 to 3 relate to a single course of conduct, a single overall fine is appropriate. Taking into account these considerations, we have decided to impose a fine of £250,000 on Oldco.”
Laughable, it really is.
Originally Posted by misawa97:
“Any other club would of been in trouble but this is scotland where the establishment club are bound by a different set of rules.”
“Any other club would of been in trouble but this is scotland where the establishment club are bound by a different set of rules.”
But, SPL have to seek revocation of player registrations - it seems the SPL deemed it automatic if these rules were broken.
The commission have ruled based on the rules provided to them - blame the SPL rulebook for not having rules on retrospectively revoking a player's registration - if they had then it would be a different story.
Originally Posted by bhoy07:
“Not guilty of what?
Details now online - includes the side letters given to Bonnisel, Capucho, Arveladze and Steven Davis.”
“Not guilty of what?
Details now online - includes the side letters given to Bonnisel, Capucho, Arveladze and Steven Davis.”
my club is guilty of nothing
oldco got fined for paying players a wee bit extra on the side ....whats wrong with that
Quote:
“ (5) Although the payments in this case were not themselves irregular and were not in breach of SPL or SFA Rules, the scale and extent of the proven contraventions of the disclosure rules require a substantial penalty to be imposed;”
“ (5) Although the payments in this case were not themselves irregular and were not in breach of SPL or SFA Rules, the scale and extent of the proven contraventions of the disclosure rules require a substantial penalty to be imposed;”
Quote:
“ (6) Rangers FC did not gain any unfair competitive advantage from the contraventions of the SPL Rules in failing to make proper disclosure of the side-letter arrangements, nor did the non-disclosure have the effect that any of the registered players were ineligible to play, and for this and other reasons no sporting sanction or penalty should be imposed upon Rangers FC;”
“ (6) Rangers FC did not gain any unfair competitive advantage from the contraventions of the SPL Rules in failing to make proper disclosure of the side-letter arrangements, nor did the non-disclosure have the effect that any of the registered players were ineligible to play, and for this and other reasons no sporting sanction or penalty should be imposed upon Rangers FC;”
Quote:
“ 7) As noted in the Commission's earlier decision made on 12 September 2012 there is no allegation that the current owner and operator of the club, The Rangers Football Club Limited ("Newco"), contravened the SPL Rules or could be held responsible for any breach by Oldco;
In all the circumstances the Commission has imposed a fine of £250,000 on Oldco”
“ 7) As noted in the Commission's earlier decision made on 12 September 2012 there is no allegation that the current owner and operator of the club, The Rangers Football Club Limited ("Newco"), contravened the SPL Rules or could be held responsible for any breach by Oldco;
In all the circumstances the Commission has imposed a fine of £250,000 on Oldco”
Originally Posted by bhoy07:
“But, SPL have to seek revocation of player registrations - it seems the SPL deemed it automatic if these rules were broken.
The commission have ruled based on the rules provided to them - blame the SPL rulebook.”
“But, SPL have to seek revocation of player registrations - it seems the SPL deemed it automatic if these rules were broken.
The commission have ruled based on the rules provided to them - blame the SPL rulebook.”
Scottish Football seems to find ways of proving to everyone else why its 'mickey mouse' football. The people that run the game cant even do things correctly.
Originally Posted by grps3:
“my club is guilty of nothing
oldco got fined for paying players a wee bit extra on the side ....whats wrong with that”
“my club is guilty of nothing
oldco got fined for paying players a wee bit extra on the side ....whats wrong with that”
You've been found guilty of improperly registering players.
Only people like you could say that means 'not guilty'
The failure to have proper rules on revoking player registrations means the players were improperly registered but can't be deemed ineligible at this time.
Originally Posted by bhoy07:
“You've been found guilty of improperly registering players.
Only people like you could say that means 'not guilty'”
“You've been found guilty of improperly registering players.
Only people like you could say that means 'not guilty'”
my club is guilty of nothing
the company that ran it previosuly maybe are , but thats f all to do with us now
..oh and good luck getting fine from an company going through liquidation with no assests....what was the point in even wasting time on the charade(maybe they will deduct it from the money they stole us from us finishing 2nd last year)now we can wait on the real news....spl accounts
insolvent anyone? this charade mustv cost them a few bob
edit ....reply to last remark
rangers can,t be held accountable for failure of spl to have rules
This decision only confirms why we should all forget about Scottish football and let Rangers compete on their own, they are quite obviously untouchable!
The only real punishment Rangers have suffered in this fiasco has been self inflicted!!!
The only real punishment Rangers have suffered in this fiasco has been self inflicted!!!
Originally Posted by grps3:
“edit ....reply to last remark
rangers can,t be held accountable for failure of spl to have rules”
“edit ....reply to last remark
rangers can,t be held accountable for failure of spl to have rules”
No they can't, hence why LNS deems the players eligible.
In effect the rulebook deemed 'not fit for purpose' has come to Rangers rescue. You broke the rules, but the rules mean you can't be punished as per the norm in football.
The fact that Campbell Olgive is still president of the SFA tells you everything you need to know about Scottish Football.
around 91 players were on the lists that LNS and co. deemed to be improperly registered.
An 'Administrative Error' according to Dingwall - LNS deemed is deliberate.
An 'Administrative Error' according to Dingwall - LNS deemed is deliberate.
47 of 126
