Article The executive summary of Rangers submission to the SPFL AGM - download

iaatpies said:
..
The £10million potential liability. Is that allegation absolutely cast iron? Would ending the lower 3 leagues in the SPFL really give rise to a liability of £10million? Include the top flight in that and between Ladbrokes league sponsorship and TV rights there could be a significant cost, but £10million based on ending the Championship, League One and League Two? I'd love to see the actual evidence because it's a pretty strong claim that seems more than a bit outlandish.
Click to expand...

On this point my reading is that the substance of our argument is not about whether the liability exists or not but the fact that there may be a potential liability was not made available to clubs voting on the resolution. Nor was the fact that one of the means of making up the shortfall, should it be necessary, was that the SPFL were going to give Sky FREE sponsorship of the league. The resolution applied to giving the SPFL Board the right to end ALL their leagues, not just the lower leagues. There's no question that, but for Rangers intervention, the Premiership would already have been called. It may well be imminently in any case.

The very fact that the SPFL were discussing how to deal with any shortfall as a result of the liability arising indicates that they were treating such an outcome as a real danger. Clubs should have been aware of that fact and the information was withheld. They should also have been aware that one of the SPFLs contingencies was effectively giving away League sponsorship for free. In fact, I suspect that it will only be upon receipt of our dossier that some of them will realise this threat remains.

After all the earlier hysteria I'm actually, unlike you, a bit calmer after reading the summary. The case for an Inquiry is clear. We won't win the vote but all the evidence is there to justify the calling of an Inquiry.
 
Antsy said:
I found that pretty damning to be honest. Particularly the failures in corporate governance stuff about Doncaster and the list of issues with McKenzie. There's more than enough to see them suspended and investigated, which is what we asked for.
Click to expand...

Yes! It may be that we cannot prevent the season from being concluded but if we can break up the cabal at the SPFL then that is a win.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
On this point my reading is that the substance of our argument is not about whether the liability exists or not but the fact that their may be a potential liability was not made available to clubs voting on the resolution. Nor was the fact that one of the means of making up the shortfall, should it be necessary, was that the SPFL were going to give Sky FREE sponsorship of the league.

The very fact that the SPFL were discussing how to deal with any shortfall as a result of the liability arising indicates that they were treating such an outcome as a real danger. Clubs should have been aware of that fact and the information was withheld. In fact, I suspect that it will only be upon receipt of our dossier that some of them will realise this threat remains.

After all the earlier hysteria I'm actually, unlike you, a bit calmer after reading the summary. The case for an Inquiry is clear. We won't win the vote but all the evidence is there to justify the calling of an Inquiry.
Click to expand...

The potential liability exists or it doesnt. If ending the Championship and Leagues One and Two didnt risk triggering such a liability then there would be no need for disclosure as there would be no potential liability to disclose. I suspect that any liability would involve the resolution of the top flight and the Scottish cup as those 2 competitions would draw far bigger income than the outcome of League Two.

We need to remember that the vote was about the resolution of the lower 3 leagues of Scottish football. All of this may raise questions over the honesty and competency of members of the SPFL board, but how does that progress the here and now of Coronavirus and a potential tainted title?
 
There looks to be clear stonewalling from Mackenzie and doncaster with regards to the facts apropos the resolution to end season.
mulreany is up to his neck in it. In his capacity as Alloa exec, he’s fully entitled to be involved, but not to the level he was. In his capacity as co chair of SFA might tell a different story.

mom comfortable with the clubs stance after reading this.
Many questions to be answered, to the courts we go
 
Ok, some observations.

1. It took me longer to read that than it did the SPFL to have tweeted their rebuttal, being in copy of the full submission (somehow...)
2. I have no doubt of the veracity of it, what I doubt is the appetite for the Timlickers in Scottish football to act like turkeys during December. Because it’s clear there’s quite a few names popping up well beyond Hampden. Funnily enough, not anywhere near the Fat Japanese. He’s too shrewd for that.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
On this point my reading is that the substance of our argument is not about whether the liability exists or not but the fact that there may be a potential liability was not made available to clubs voting on the resolution. Nor was the fact that one of the means of making up the shortfall, should it be necessary, was that the SPFL were going to give Sky FREE sponsorship of the league. The resolution applied to giving the SPFL Board the right to end ALL their leagues, not just the lower leagues. There's no question that, but for Rangers intervention, the Premiership would already have been called. It may well be imminently in any case.

The very fact that the SPFL were discussing how to deal with any shortfall as a result of the liability arising indicates that they were treating such an outcome as a real danger. Clubs should have been aware of that fact and the information was withheld. They should also have been aware that one of the SPFLs contingencies was effectively giving away League sponsorship for free. In fact, I suspect that it will only be upon receipt of our dossier that some of them will realise this threat remains.

After all the earlier hysteria I'm actually, unlike you, a bit calmer after reading the summary. The case for an Inquiry is clear. We won't win the vote but all the evidence is there to justify the calling of an Inquiry.
Click to expand...

If we won't win the vote then there will be no inquiry and little action taken against Doncaster or MacKenzie.
 
iaatpies said:
The potential liability exists or it doesnt. If ending the Championship and Leagues One and Two didnt risk triggering such a liability then there would be no need for disclosure as there would be no potential liability to disclose. I suspect that any liability would involve the resolution of the top flight and the Scottish cup as those 2 competitions would draw far bigger income than the outcome of League Two.

We need to remember that the vote was about the resolution of the lower 3 leagues of Scottish football. All of this may raise questions over the honesty and competency of members of the SPFL board, but how does that progress the here and now of Coronavirus and a potential tainted title?
Click to expand...

No it wasn't. The vote gave the SPFL Board the power to conclude the top flight as well as the other divisions. They haven't done so yet but they can do so whenever they like having been given that power by the resolution. From the SPFL website:

"SPFL clubs are to vote on a resolution recommending the termination of the 2019/20 season in the Ladbrokes Championship, Ladbrokes League 1 and Ladbrokes League 2, with final season placings determined by points per game in league matches played to date by each club.

The resolution also recommends that matches in the Ladbrokes Premiership remain postponed for the time being, to give the best possible opportunity for the remaining 2019/20 fixtures to be played.

However, if the SPFL Board determines that the remaining Premiership matches cannot be played, the Ladbrokes Premiership would also be terminated, with final season placings determined on the same basis."
 
Last edited:
Antsy said:
I found that pretty damning to be honest. Particularly the failures in corporate governance stuff about Doncaster and the list of issues with McKenzie. There's more than enough to see them suspended and investigated, which is what we asked for.
Click to expand...

I am on page 11 and couldn't agree more. This was never about providing pictures of Doncaster with a bag saying swag on it, merely about proving why we need an independent investigation.

I am so happy that we are fighting the good fight. It is pretty clear to me here that Rangers are acting in the interests of everyone. It's not some selfish wee side show in order to stop Celtic being made champions. We have a legitimate case to be made for the governance of Scottish Football, for reasons only they can know, acting in a unsuitable manner. That is what we are going after and it would take someone prejudice against us to see we haven't proved that here.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
No it wasn't. The vote gave the SPFL Board the power to conclude the top flight as well as the other divisions. They haven't done so yet but they can do so whenever they like having been given that power by the resolution.
Click to expand...

Did it?

The original resolution that was voted for gave the SPFL power to end the Championship, League One and League Two and to postpone the top flight until a conclusion could be found, including the possibility of resuming fixtures in the future. They only have the right to end the top flight if a solution could not be found that would complete the remaining fixtures.

The resolution therefore essentially removed the null and void option for the time being. The only other thing it did with regards to the top flight is kick the can down the road. It didnt give them the right to end the top flight season on a whim.

The big problem remains. If the SPFL top flight teams cannot play the current season to a conclusion then how will the league conclude the season?
 
Simply a Bear said:
So if the resolution was passed, clubs would be liable for £10 million bill to sponsors and broadcasting ?

Have i read that correctly?
Click to expand...

The gist of it is the difference between the league being Calling the league or Voiding the league.

Were members clubs made aware of the consequences of both actions?
 
At the very least this narrative & chronology must impact potential sponsors' view of the competence of the SPFL; they bring themselves into disrepute.
If those clubs named agree they were 'bullied' then maladministration is proven.
And in any event, there can be no question that officers of the SPFL attempted to influence UEFA. Why/for whose benefit are the outstanding questions.
 
iaatpies said:
Did it?

The original resolution that was voted for gave the SPFL power to end the Championship, League One and League Two and to postpone the top flight until a conclusion could be found, including the possibility of resuming fixtures in the future. They only have the right to end the top flight if a solution could not be found that would complete the remaining fixtures.

The resolution therefore essentially removed the null and void option for the time being. The only other thing it did with regards to the top flight is kick the can down the road. It didnt give them the right to end the top flight season on a whim.

The big problem remains. If the SPFL top flight teams cannot play the current season to a conclusion then how will the league conclude the season?
Click to expand...

See my edit mate. I've quoted the SPFL website. As soon as they (SPFL Board) determine the games can't be played they can call it. I'd call that a 'whim'.

On how they conclude the season we all know how they will conclude it. That's gone, the Dhims will be gifted the title. That's not what this is about any more (if it ever was).
 
Valley Bluenose said:
On this point my reading is that the substance of our argument is not about whether the liability exists or not but the fact that there may be a potential liability was not made available to clubs voting on the resolution. Nor was the fact that one of the means of making up the shortfall, should it be necessary, was that the SPFL were going to give Sky FREE sponsorship of the league. The resolution applied to giving the SPFL Board the right to end ALL their leagues, not just the lower leagues. There's no question that, but for Rangers intervention, the Premiership would already have been called. It may well be imminently in any case.

The very fact that the SPFL were discussing how to deal with any shortfall as a result of the liability arising indicates that they were treating such an outcome as a real danger. Clubs should have been aware of that fact and the information was withheld. They should also have been aware that one of the SPFLs contingencies was effectively giving away League sponsorship for free. In fact, I suspect that it will only be upon receipt of our dossier that some of them will realise this threat remains.

After all the earlier hysteria I'm actually, unlike you, a bit calmer after reading the summary. The case for an Inquiry is clear. We won't win the vote but all the evidence is there to justify the calling of an Inquiry.
Click to expand...
 
I'm impressed by the detail and formulation of Rangers argument and in any other country I'm confident there is more than enough to justify a fully independent investigation.

Most of the usual media hacks will focus only on the lack of direct evidence regarding bullying but they are (intentionally) missing the point massively as a pathetically transparent misdirection tactic.

There's more than enough in that dossier to set alarm bells ringing.
 
iaatpies said:
The potential liability exists or it doesnt. If ending the Championship and Leagues One and Two didnt risk triggering such a liability then there would be no need for disclosure as there would be no potential liability to disclose. I suspect that any liability would involve the resolution of the top flight and the Scottish cup as those 2 competitions would draw far bigger income than the outcome of League Two.

We need to remember that the vote was about the resolution of the lower 3 leagues of Scottish football. All of this may raise questions over the honesty and competency of members of the SPFL board, but how does that progress the here and now of Coronavirus and a potential tainted title?
Click to expand...

Whilst the liability arises if we curtail the Premiership (and that's one reason why that was held back) the liability affects all clubs, hence they should have been told when they voted to allow the Board to end all leagues


"
The resolution also recommends that matches in the Ladbrokes Premiership remain postponed for the time being, to give the best possible opportunity for the remaining 2019/20 fixtures to be played.

However, if the SPFL Board determines that the remaining Premiership matches cannot be played, the Ladbrokes Premiership would also be terminated, with final season placings determined on the same basis."

"
 
Last edited:
Well, it took me a good hour to read the 19 page summary properly, which makes a mockery of others saying there is nothing in it, having allegedly seen the 200 page version shortly after it was released and feeling able to comment on it.

Some have said that there is no 'smoking gun', which I assume means that there is no real evidence of a 'hidden hand' controlling the SPFL. I don't think that could ever be proved, however the report needs to be read holistically as it makes it abundantly clear that there is a complete lack of transparency, accountability, governance and democracy within the SPFL. From a company perspective, it is clear that members have been purposely denied information needed to make proper decisions.

My main interest is to consider what Rangers intend to do next. I have no doubt that many of the clubs will only be interested in their own short term survival and may not wish to support the call for an independent investigation. Rangers have the option of seeking judicial intervention to declare that the vote in favour of the SPFL resolution was unlawfully achieved, however, I'm not sure what this will achieve, in practice, other than to try destroy the credibility of ND and RMcK and to force their resignations; their positions becoming untenable. Maybe that is what they do seek and that would do me for starters.
 
Last edited:
I do wish some posters would stop thinking that this will end like an episode of Scooby Doo. Old man Lawwell being unmasked as the guilty party and we all go home happy. There is enough in the Executive Summary for the 3 stooges to be sacked for gross incompetence and potentially face legal charges. How anyone, including sponsors, could place any faith in these 3 going forward is beyond me. This is the first significant battle in our campaign to re-establish Rangers as the top club in Scotland on and off the field. It will, however, only be accomplished when we are once again champions. Until then, seeing those 3 fall would be enough for me.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
See my edit mate. I've quoted the SPFL website.
Click to expand...

Which again comes back to what we actually want from this?

Doncaster to be gone? Absolutely. He's incompetent, potentially deceitful and isnt capable of administering Scottish football.

What do we want beyond that? We're not suddenly going to have more influence in the SPFL and we still face the question of how we conclude the season if football cannot resume and the fixtures cannot be completed? Nobody wants Celtic to be handed a title. Null and void doesnt appear to be a particularly viable option, particularly if there would be a significant financial cost to Scottish football.

Waging war on Doncaster is all well and good but it doesnt really do much to determine what happens with the 19/20 season and from 20/21 forward.
 
HMS.Temple.Garden said:
Seeing as the embarrassing word is getting tossed about often today, those posters using that "smoking gun" patter are embarrassing themselves with that patter.
Click to expand...

Fair few of them flying about atm using that patter. I never heard Rangers say anything like that.

Weird init.
 
Read that in it's entirety .

A shocking state of affairs. if that's who is running our game then we are f*cked . There's at least 6 people mentioned that should have absolutely no involvement in football whatsoever , ever again .

Rangers , on the face of it , have done a tremendous job here .
 
How anyone can read that and say it's not explosive and damning, is quite frankly off their rocker.
These rats have the gall to immediately put out a statement saying they see no reason to suspend Doncaster et al.

There could be video out there of Doncaster snorting crack in a gimp suit whilst sending out emails to Dundee and these fuckers would still deny wrongdoing.
The place is fucked, reeking and unfit for purpose.

I wish we could get to f uck out of this shite hole.
 
Looks like a pretty comprehensive piece of work.
The potential loss of £10m that was not advised to clubs and the SPFL executive's apparent willingness to take this hit begs the obvious question why if they were so relaxed about this did they not advise member clubs.
What would be or who would stand to benefit to the extent that they were willing to risk potentially losing £10m.
 
The Aberdeen part is interesting. It seems to say they requested a guarantee regarding finalising the league that was granted to them but not made known to anyone else. This being made clear to everyone could have scuppered the SPFLs plans as teams could vote for the resolution to receive money but know they have a later separate vote to decide the league outcome.

Could this be why Aberdeen changed their vote?

I may have misread that as I had skim quickly due to the fact I'm supposed to be working
 
clubdeckcharlie said:
Well, it took me a good hour to read the 19 page summary properly, which makes a mockery of others saying there is nothing in it, having allegedly seen the 200 page version shortly after it was released and feeling able to comment on it.

Some have said that there is no 'smoking gun', which I assume means that there is no real evidence of a 'hidden hand' controlling the SPFL. I don't think that could ever be proved, however the report needs to be read holistically as it makes it abundantly clear that there is a complete lack of transparency, accountability, governance and democracy within the SPFL. From a company perspective, it is clear that members have been purposely denied information needed to make proper decisions.

My main interest is to consider what Rangers intend to do next. I have no doubt that many of the clubs will only be interested in their own short term survival and may not wish to support the call for an independent investigation. Rangers have the option of seeking judicial intervention to declare that the vote in favour of the SPFL resolution was unlawfully achieved, however, I'm not sure what this will achieve, in practice, other that to try destroy the credibility of ND and RMcK and to force their resignations; their positions becoming untenable. Maybe that is what they do seek and that would do me for starters.
Click to expand...
I agree with this word for word. 100%.
There was never going to be any “smoking gun” and there was never going to be any damning photographic evidence implicating bribery and bullying. These folk aren’t idiots, at the end of the day they will be smart enough not to get caught eating the pie, but have been caught with their fingers in the pie, rangers clearly have evidence of this.
there’s enough there to rid the spfl of doncaster and Mackenzie for sure, and call for the removal of maclennan too, as he oversees all this malpractice. And has a clear conflict of interest that’s been proven and on public record.
 
Shengus Malengus said:
How anyone can read that and say it's not explosive and damning, is quite frankly off their rocker.
These rats have the gall to immediately put out a statement saying they see no reason to suspend Doncaster et al.

There could be video out there of Doncaster snorting crack in a gimp suit whilst sending out emails to Dundee and these fuckers would still deny wrongdoing.
The place is fucked, reeking and unfit for purpose.

I wish we could get to f uck out of this shite hole.
Click to expand...
Defensive tactics from the off isn’t it? They were always going to take this stance
 
iaatpies said:
Which again comes back to what we actually want from this?

Doncaster to be gone? Absolutely. He's incompetent, potentially deceitful and isnt capable of administering Scottish football.

What do we want beyond that? We're not suddenly going to have more influence in the SPFL and we still face the question of how we conclude the season if football cannot resume and the fixtures cannot be completed? Nobody wants Celtic to be handed a title. Null and void doesnt appear to be a particularly viable option, particularly if there would be a significant financial cost to Scottish football.

Waging war on Doncaster is all well and good but it doesnt really do much to determine what happens with the 19/20 season and from 20/21 forward.
Click to expand...

I must stop editing my posts whilst you are quoting them. :)

On how they conclude the season we all know how they will conclude it. That's gone, the Dhims will be gifted the title. That's not what this is about any more (if it ever was).

We are clearly coming at this from different angles. I don't see it as being about this season. I've given up on that and know fine well how it will be concluded. Other than the Dutch, nobody appears to have any interest in N&V - and even the Dutch are likely to end up in Court battles. I've moved on from N&V and 'season incomplete'. I don't see either happening.

What we are seeking is regime change at the SPFL and an awareness in the rest of Scottish football that we will no longer tolerate the shite that goes on. If we get Doncaster, I'd describe it as a 'draw'. Any more than him - eg McKenzie and/or MacLennan - then I'd argue it was a 'win'. If either or all of those things happen before they end the season who knows what chaos could ensue.
 
HMS.Temple.Garden said:
getting used by many posters on here today.
Click to expand...

That and certain posters trying to make out that its all an attempt to prevent them being handed a title. I feel 100% confident that if the resolution had passed without all the skulduggery we'd just have accepted it and moved on. This has hee haw to do with who is being handed the title and everything to do with the behaviour of SPFL executives and certain member clubs leading up to the vote.
 
Rangers have made very serious allegations and there is a substantial 'prima facie' case presented. It is not up to Rangers to act as judge,jury and executioner (leave that to Sinn Fein,IRA,SPFL, RC church, SNP and other fascist minded groups).
Those accused must answer the allegations and refute them if they can. Childish name-calling, ignorant comments and cheap derisive sneers, while ignoring all the salient points, are not an answer in any shape or form.

The only way to answer these allegations is to hold an independent and wide-ranging investigation. That is exactly what Rangers are calling for, and anyone who tries to prevent this is behaving in a disgraceful manner, Those named in the document should defend themselves in an appropriate mannner, or forever be condemned.
 
Mad John said:
Read that in it's entirety .

A shocking state of affairs. if that's who is running our game then we are f*cked . There's at least 6 people mentioned that should have absolutely no involvement in football whatsoever , ever again .

Rangers , on the face of it , have done a tremendous job here .
Click to expand...
Well said. All posters need to read the document, not the BBC or SPFL’s opinion on it.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
I must stop editing my posts whilst you are quoting them.

On how they conclude the season we all know how they will conclude it. That's gone, the Dhims will be gifted the title. That's not what this is about any more (if it ever was).

We are clearly coming at this from different angles. I don't see it as being about this season. I've given up on that and know fine well how it will be concluded. Other than the Dutch. nobody appears to have any interest in N&V - and even the Dutch are likely to end up in Court battles. I';ve moved on from N&V and 'season incomplete'. I don't see either happening.

What we are seeking is regime change at the SPFL and an awareness in the rest of Scottish football that we will no longer tolerate the shite that goes on. If we get Doncaster, I'd describe it as a 'draw'. Any more than him - eg McKenzie and/or MacLennan - then I'd argue it was a 'win'. If either or all of those things happen before they end the season who knows what chaos could ensue.
Click to expand...

It never was and the evidence we have was never described by Rangers as being "the knock out punch" or "the silver bullet" or any of the other shite being parroted around this forum today.

Sniff fucken sniff I say.
 
iaatpies said:
Did it?

The original resolution that was voted for gave the SPFL power to end the Championship, League One and League Two and to postpone the top flight until a conclusion could be found, including the possibility of resuming fixtures in the future. They only have the right to end the top flight if a solution could not be found that would complete the remaining fixtures.

The resolution therefore essentially removed the null and void option for the time being. The only other thing it did with regards to the top flight is kick the can down the road. It didnt give them the right to end the top flight season on a whim.

The big problem remains. If the SPFL top flight teams cannot play the current season to a conclusion then how will the league conclude the season?
Click to expand...
Yes it was, the SPFL resolution was to also give them the power to end the premiership, a point highlighted within the document when referring to the concession given to Aberdeen.
 
Getstiffed said:
That and certain posters trying to make out that its all an attempt to prevent them being handed a title. I feel 100% confident that if the resolution had passed without all the skulduggery we'd just have accepted it and moved on. This has hee haw to do with who is being handed the title and everything to do with the behaviour of SPFL executives and certain member clubs leading up to the vote.
Click to expand...

This is not about the title, it never was, though to some it is, Rangers stated they wanted all options about finishing the season.

this is purely about corporate governance. And there are certain farters in certain quarters tuning up like a brass band just now!
 
I am very encouraged by reading the executive summary
Any fair minded person would recognise the need for what rangers request
The problem as recognised by many is that not enough clubs will support it because they not are not fair minded or see themselves in some way benefiting from these decisions

Rangers must keep going as this crystallises in plain sight just how corrupt the spfl are and how sfa may be similarly tainted
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top