Baxter Parp Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 You just know that the SFA would do f**k all to thwart any potential new owners bid even if Genghis Khan rolled up to buy Rangers. Yes, because they would welcome another disaster on this scale, wouldn't they? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 What disaster? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 What disaster? Are you Denis Healy in disguise? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Yes, because they would welcome another disaster on this scale, wouldn't they? Don't believe everything Jim Traynor & Chic Young tell you ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pollymac Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 You just know that the SFA would do f**k all to thwart any potential new owners bid even if Genghis Khan rolled up to buy Rangers. Yup. In late 2009, Lloyds Banking Group placed a man on the Rangers board. Around that time, HMRC decided (on the back of an 'almost' unlinked investigation) decided to investigate all SPL clubs tax, erm, 'policies'. Within a couple of months, HMRC landed a somewhat large bill at the foot of the marble staircase on Edmiston Drive. Both of these facts were publicly known, indeed the manager at the time would lament that 'the bank was in charge'. Yet, at no time did the SFA decide to ask "Haud on, the bank are in charge and you've received a tax bill of £36m for dodgy payments to players, what are you doing?" Instead, they buried their head in the sand using the 'members trust' argument to deflect flak regarding their governance or lack thereof. Stewart Regan has largely admitted that this is, in fact, exactly the same tack used regarding the 'fit and proper persons test', i.e. that there is no test, instead the SFA are wholly reliant on using the trust of the member club. Essentially, what they are hoping for is a bit of honest introspection from prospective directors who may or may not be as crooked as a 5-bob note. The rules regarding the 'fit and proper person test' are as shambolic as much else regards the governance of our game, most especially the 'bankrupt in the last 5 years' section, which are so ambiguous as to be almost utterly worthless and certainly so in the case of Craig Whyte, who despite being bankrupt during the last 5 years, was not declared bankrupt during that time (see Neill Lennon concurrent/consecutive suspension also). SFA? Fit for purpose? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 So Craig Whyte isn't a fit or proper person. Neither is Dave King. Neither is Paul Murray. Who's next to ride in and save Rangers - Lex Luthor? President Ahmadinejad of Iran and President Assad of Syria have been asked to come on board but are fearful an association with Rangers would sully their reputations. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Don't believe everything Jim Traynor & Chic Young tell you ! I would say that any club going into admin with the possibility of liquidation is a disaster for the SFA, not just Rangers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pollymac Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 I would say that any club going into admin with the possibility of liquidation is a disaster for the SFA, not just Rangers. Why? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Why? It's a PR disaster for a start, it calls their competence into question, throws the leagues into disarray and often results in people losing their jobs. HTH! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pollymac Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Another gem from the SFA 'fit and proper person test'... (j) he has been a director of a club in membership of any National Association within the 5-year period preceding such club having undergone an insolvency event; This actually covers the following people: Rangers directors dating to Feb 15th 2007 (inc John Greig, Paul Murray, etc) Livingston directors from 4th Feb 1999 to 3rd February 2004. Livingston directors from 25th July 2004 to 24th July 2009. Airdrie directors for the five years preceding administration and liquidation (including George Peat) Dundee directors etc Of course, the SFA rules do have the caveat... The Board hereby reserves its discretion as to whether or not such a person is fit and proper, as aforesaid, after due consideration of all relevant facts which the Board has in its possession and knowledge... Which gives them a convenient get out clause, much along the lines of "aye, but they're no that bad" (google 'George Peat Chris Honor', or recall him running a club into the ground, then give him the Presidency of the SFA cos he's no that bad). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pollymac Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 (edited) Actually, just thinking about that, it possibly absolves Peat, in that Airdrie are no longer a 'club in membership of any National Association'. Which is probably even worse. Edited March 13, 2012 by pollymac 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelegendthatis Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 (edited) Yup. In late 2009, Lloyds Banking Group placed a man on the Rangers board. Around that time, HMRC decided (on the back of an 'almost' unlinked investigation) decided to investigate all SPL clubs tax, erm, 'policies'. Within a couple of months, HMRC landed a somewhat large bill at the foot of the marble staircase on Edmiston Drive. Both of these facts were publicly known, indeed the manager at the time would lament that 'the bank was in charge'. Yet, at no time did the SFA decide to ask "Haud on, the bank are in charge and you've received a tax bill of £36m for dodgy payments to players, what are you doing?" Instead, they buried their head in the sand using the 'members trust' argument to deflect flak regarding their governance or lack thereof. Stewart Regan has largely admitted that this is, in fact, exactly the same tack used regarding the 'fit and proper persons test', i.e. that there is no test, instead the SFA are wholly reliant on using the trust of the member club. Essentially, what they are hoping for is a bit of honest introspection from prospective directors who may or may not be as crooked as a 5-bob note. The rules regarding the 'fit and proper person test' are as shambolic as much else regards the governance of our game, most especially the 'bankrupt in the last 5 years' section, which are so ambiguous as to be almost utterly worthless and certainly so in the case of Craig Whyte, who despite being bankrupt during the last 5 years, was not declared bankrupt during that time (see Neill Lennon concurrent/consecutive suspension also). SFA? Fit for purpose? Answer to last question is no, no, no. Regarding Lloyds role. Rangers were in hock to them to the tune of £18million. Lloyds wanted their money back and despite (the usual) waffle, bluster and vague promises from Murray, nothing was happening that would deal with it. At that point they could have moved to have the club would up, but that would not have been good PR. So they put a guy in to help get their money out which meant getting the Rangers business tidied up so it could be sold. Obviously during that tidying up period they unearthed the 'dodgy payments' information. This must have created many serious meetings within Lloyds. Once they knew this was going on, should they keep quiet in the hope they could deal with it as part of their due diligence. However once they realised the scale they had no option but to speak to HMRC, at the very least to know the scale of the problem. If they hadn't done this once they knew about it the individuals from the bank would start to have personal liability, and potentially the bank itself. They had no other option. That same liability applies to others who knew at the time (board members especially) but chose to do nothing about it. (Given this morning 6 people "were arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice" in the phone hacking case, I would expect arrests on a similar basis to happen to ex Rangers board members at some point.) I can't believe for a minute that Lloyds did not inform the SFA at the time. And then http://tinyurl.com/8yn6j3m I suspect those of you into conspiracy theories will read this appointment as an admission of guilt. I couldn't possibly comment Edited March 13, 2012 by thelegendthatis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madwullie Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Would be farcical if Whyte was vilified for not being a "fit and proper person" while Murray was able to ride in and "save the day" no bother. Would almost be enough to accuse the SFA of populist motivated hypocrisy you might suggest. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pollymac Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 (edited) List of not fit nor proper persons based on the SFA rules (please bear in mind there is very little defence any of the following can offer regards the direction they steered Rangers over the last 5 years): Craig Whyte Dave King Andrew Ellis Gary Withey Phil Betts John Greig John McClelland Martin Bain Donald McIntyre Alastair Johnston Paul Murray !!!!!!!!! Donald Muir Michael McGill James Wilson Sir David Murray edit: to reference Paul McConville Edited March 13, 2012 by pollymac 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pollymac Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 It's a PR disaster for a start, it calls their competence into question, throws the leagues into disarray and often results in people losing their jobs. HTH! It's not a PR disaster for the SFA; more for the previous owners of the club, i.e. those who decided spending £150m or thereabouts more than they earned over a 12 period was a good idea. The SPL have rules regarding the non-relegation of a team upon liquidation of another, the SFL admit one new club - disarray avoided - job's a good un. People lose their jobs every day and on a much greater scale than is likely at Ibrox. The only disaster(s) in this sorry story are those being faced by employees utterly reliant on their wage from Rangers. This will number in the 'tens' of people, which as stated, is a very small number in the grand scale of things. Imagine the number of jobs that could be created from around £4m per year unpaid taxes, or from £9m if you prefer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macshimmy Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/2702817/You-wont-get-Rangers-on-cheap.html story ran 28 Oct 2009, you have to say in retrospect David Murray is the most shameless mutha scottish football has ever seen. Whyte might be a spiv, but Murray was a con artist. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenockRover Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Answer to last question is no, no, no. Regarding Lloyds role. Rangers were in hock to them to the tune of £18million. Lloyds wanted their money back and despite (the usual) waffle, bluster and vague promises from Murray, nothing was happening that would deal with it. At that point they could have moved to have the club would up, but that would not have been good PR. So they put a guy in to help get their money out which meant getting the Rangers business tidied up so it could be sold. Obviously during that tidying up period they unearthed the 'dodgy payments' information. This must have created many serious meetings within Lloyds. Once they knew this was going on, should they keep quiet in the hope they could deal with it as part of their due diligence. However once they realised the scale they had no option but to speak to HMRC, at the very least to know the scale of the problem. If they hadn't done this once they knew about it the individuals from the bank would start to have personal liability, and potentially the bank itself. They had no other option. That same liability applies to others who knew at the time (board members especially) but chose to do nothing about it. (Given this morning 6 people "were arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice" in the phone hacking case, I would expect arrests on a similar basis to happen to ex Rangers board members at some point.) I can't believe for a minute that Lloyds did not inform the SFA at the time. And then http://tinyurl.com/8yn6j3m I suspect those of you into conspiracy theories will read this appointment as an admission of guilt. I couldn't possibly comment 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted March 13, 2012 Author Share Posted March 13, 2012 If this Paul Murray bloke is serious about buying Rangers, the SFA decision to award him 'fit and proper' status will be very simple. They'll see that no other cnut is willing to touch Rangers with a 10 foot bargepole, so they'll award Paul Murray and his group instant fit and proper accreditation. Simples. Next problem please... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pollymac Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/2702817/You-wont-get-Rangers-on-cheap.html story ran 28 Oct 2009, you have to say in retrospect David Murray is the most shameless mutha scottish football has ever seen. Whyte might be a spiv, but Murray was a con artist. Haha, top find. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 If this Paul Murray bloke is serious about buying Rangers, the SFA decision to award him 'fit and proper' status will be very simple. They'll see that no other cnut is willing to touch Rangers with a 10 foot bargepole, so they'll award Paul Murray and his group instant fit and proper accreditation. Simples. Next problem please... Exactly......The SFA aren't going to risk being blamed for any team going to the wall due to the prospective buyer failing their "fit and proper" test. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.