Homer Thompson Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 I think that you appear to being, deliberately, obtuse. I have replied to each of your points below. 1) The governing bodies oversee football. They set the rules and govern the members. If the members break the rules then they are punished in accordance with them. That doesnt, however, make the governing body responsible for the members actions. Oh yes it does, if the organisation can not be seen to have used it's best endeavours to ensure that their rules/regulations/law of the land were complied with! Ignorance of a member's behaviour is no defence if it was not monitored correctly. OK. So where is the evidence that is wasnt monitored correctly? None of the governing bodies have any obligation to pour over the financial goings-on of any of its members. Is the referee responsible if a player is sent off? Are the police responsible for the acts criminals commit? Or the judges who sentence them? You would be better asking yourself why Football Clubs are held liable for the behaviour of their supporters! Well, no not really. The footballing authorities can hardly punish individual fans, but they can punish the clubs. How its relevant to what you are trynig to claim I dont really know 2) As the rules stand, its up to the member to submit their "fit and proper person" information fully. Whyte didnt and was punished for it. Again, in what way are the governing bodies responsible for the, deliberate, non-disclosure of a member? So, you would appear to believe that if an Insurance Company (say) was to employ a convicted fraudster, as it's CEO, then the company would have no liability for, his/her subsequent, fraudulent acts. Is that correct? IMHO that argument would be laughed out of court! Clubs arent employees of the SFA, nor are the SFA in any way the equivalent of the CEO of a company. Amazingly false analogy. You state that "Whyte was punished for it". The only way that the SFA/SPL could have retained any credibilty (and absence from liability) would have been if they had reversed their position that he was a "fit & proper person". For a senior official to be quoted as saying "nobody told us" (about his, previous disqualification) only makes matters worse and demonstrates negligence. [/b] Err, they did reverse their position and have said he isnt a "fit and proper person". Its in the findings of the original disrepute panel, along with his fine and ban. Again, the rules, as they stand, are that anyone wishing to own a football club has to submit that they are a "fit and proper" person. Whyte didnt, he was punished. The SFA give no guarantee, nor are they under any obligation, to do further checks. Whether or not they should be is a whole other argument, but one thats irrelevant in this context. Theres no liability on the governing bodies, under the current rules. Lets take a look at what you actually said though ... If you'd like to point to where in the SFA or SPL rules it states that the governing bodies are responsible for monitoring the financial goings on of its members or how the "fit and proper person" test wasnt carried out according to the current rules Id be very interested to see it. Until then, we'll have to presume youre talking rubbish In the light of what I've posted above, I don't think that I need to respond to that one. To be honest, I thought we'd got past all this "it was the SFA/SPLs" fault about 4 months ago Maybe, you wish - the use of a smug smiley does not make you correct and can only make people question your knowledge/objectivity! This line was peddled months ago, by Rangers fans, desperately looking for a way out. It was wrong then and its wrong now ... hence the smiley 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBKillie Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Losing £16,000,000 might be the best thing that ever happens to Scottish football. I'm a golden age thinker, but maybe with this money gone our teams will breed their own talent and, like 30 years ago, we'll have teams in the top division fielding ten or eleven Scottish players. The new millenium saw everyone in the SPL get themselves into debt after throwing cash at duds from overseas. Sky money is where it all started going wrong, IMO. The thing is that, apart from most of their stats being unsubstantiated, I don't think we would be looking at a £16m loss even following their thinking. This number appears to be 1 year of the projected new Sky deal (i.e. £80m divided by 5 years) and as Sky have already said that they won't walk away (unlike some others...), the worst case is a reduction in the £16m per year. Mind you, if this is the case, I don't see why they have picked 1 year as, if Sevco is consigned to SGL3, we would actually be looking at minimum 3 years loss of Sky money. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgecutter Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 (edited) I have supported Forfar for nearly 40 years, even though I have not lived in the area since I was 18, and it has cost me a fortune in petrol/diesel costs following them across the lower leagues. I wouldn't change my allegiance to another club - I'd be lost to Scottish football altogether. I may only be one voice, but if enough "one voices" together, we will form a choir that Scottish football cannot ignore. I'm drafting a letter to the chairman which will be in the post tomorrow. With regret, I feel exactly the same about following Brechin. Edit: An English guy asked me earlier "what's this whole deal with Rangers? Are they going out of business?". Where the hell do you even begin in order to answer that?! Edited June 29, 2012 by Hedgecutter 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madwullie Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Losing £16,000,000 might be the best thing that ever happens to Scottish football. I'm a golden age thinker, but maybe with this money gone our teams will breed their own talent and, like 30 years ago, we'll have teams in the top division fielding ten or eleven Scottish players. The new millenium saw everyone in the SPL get themselves into debt after throwing cash at duds from overseas. Sky money is where it all started going wrong, IMO. Utterly bonkers. Clubs were splashing mega bucks on foreign players who were worse than the cheap Scottish players they weren't playing? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 The thing is that, apart from most of their stats being unsubstantiated, I don't think we would be looking at a £16m loss even following their thinking. This number appears to be 1 year of the projected new Sky deal (i.e. £80m divided by 5 years) and as Sky have already said that they won't walk away (unlike some others...), the worst case is a reduction in the £16m per year. Mind you, if this is the case, I don't see why they have picked 1 year as, if Sevco is consigned to SGL3, we would actually be looking at minimum 3 years loss of Sky money. The current deal has 2 years to go. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Jean King Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Can the old ailing corpse of RFC be relegated within the rules as they stand - would this relegation be classed as a "punishment" and if so for exactly which offence. Be interested to know which of the rules of the SPL cover such an action. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madwullie Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 The current deal has 2 years to go. St Mirren statement specifically mentions exit clauses that sponsors could use. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Can Scottish football not show it's own games? There's no way Sky are paying more than they perceive they're making. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgecutter Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Can the old ailing corpse of RFC be relegated within the rules as they stand - would this relegation be classed as a "punishment" and if so for exactly which offence. Be interested to know which of the rules of the SPL cover such an action. If that's the case, surely the almost-liquidated-Ranjurs don't even have a stadium to play in if Green's Sevco owns it now? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Denmark vs Germany Borys The women's game has it's knockers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archie guevara Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Lachlan may have only got a handful, but I can assure all that the Ayr support have emailled quite a few. I must say I am shocked the Lachlan Cameron has looked up from his Pina Colada long enough to do the right thing. So thats: Stewart Milne (Aberdeen) Turnbull Hutton (Raith Rovers) Doulas Rae (Morton) Lachlan Cameron (Ayr United) Where are the rest? David Beattie (Partick Thistle) is still blinded by the cash, both short and long term. Thistle fans need to up the pressure. More e mails please. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgecutter Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 I never realised that those were body-paint 'tops' when browsing on my phone! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBKillie Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 The current deal has 2 years to go. Good spot! But my point remains, we would not lose ALL the £16m. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 I never realised that those were body-paint 'tops' when browsing on my phone! Did you think they had off buttons? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymores Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 I never realised that those were body-paint 'tops' when browsing on my phone! Does that mean you'll be getting back home to check on the laptop laters?????? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Can the old ailing corpse of RFC be relegated within the rules as they stand - would this relegation be classed as a "punishment" and if so for exactly which offence. Be interested to know which of the rules of the SPL cover such an action. That was one of the first questions to come up - on what basis would the SPL be able to relegate Rangers 3.0. Im not sure its actually been answered. I never realised that those were body-paint 'tops' when browsing on my phone! I wonder if they need a kit man? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Northerner Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 That was one of the first questions to come up - on what basis would the SPL be able to relegate Rangers 3.0. Im not sure its actually been answered. I wonder if they need a kit man? Juch a touch-up every now and then 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Good spot! But my point remains, we would not lose ALL the £16m. Of course we wouldn't, the SPL clubs have 2 years to downsize, if they can't/don't manage it in that timeframe they don't deserve to avoid admin themselves. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted June 29, 2012 Author Share Posted June 29, 2012 Exclusive: Rangers / Sevco to do a 'Third Lanark' on March 20th 2013. http://uk.news.yahoo.com/un-declares-day-universal-joy-223223816.html 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laeotaekhun Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 How many forensic accountants would it take to check out every shareholder and every director of every Scottish Football Club, and who would pay for them? The SFA can only rely on the information they are given, and act when it it is shown to be false. This blaming the SFA for their troubles is another wheeze dreamt up by the Entity formerly known as etc.... I'm not blaming the SFA/SPL for the troubles of RFC. However, what I am suggesting is that both organisations may/could be held, legally, liable because of their negligence. I have no allegiance to the former RFC, or any other Scottish Club, I was only speculating upon the way that HMRC might view matters, in an attempt to maximise recovered revenues. No more, no less. 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.