Article Appendices to Rangers submission to the SPFL AGM, Parts 1-7

Incredibly professional in its production. My bedtime reading.

The section on voiding the season and the risks that will cause a problem with uefa qualification next season and sponsorship contra charges. This highlights the deficiencies that Rangers referred to in the main report - why did they not point out the £10m risk of ending the season early? We know why. It would mean that many clubs would not be willing to take that risk and end the season early - effectively tipping the balance resulting in rejection of the resolution.

Re the supplication letter to uefa (, which Rangers have shown was autonomously sent by the SFA Vice Chairman) who:

A) cosigned that letter with the spfl and B) threatened 2 Championship Clubs that they could potentially lose prize money if they voted against the resolution.

This should ensure that mullraney gets nowhere near the CEO post of the SFA - he's next in-line and he's nothing but a gangster that refers to Rangers supporters as h+ns.

He must be blocked from ever serving on the board again. I hope he is the next target in our cleansing of Scottish football.

He should be sacked from the sfa now to remove the stench of corruption.
 
Last edited:
@mdingwall can you retrieve my post from the thread you chopped please mate. It was the first reply after the appendices.

That last paragraph from the QC is a cracker.

Goodbye Mr Doncaster. Don't let the door hit your behind on your way out the building.

The WhatsApp messages are also a killer blow i.e. "just had a call from mm. I didn't have the stomach to take the call so I didn't.

This just shows the fear of these people.
 
Last edited:
mdingwall said:
No. :)

Esp as there was no post of yours in the duplicate thread I chopped.

There is a post of yours as post 10 in this thread.
Click to expand...

Apologies sir. The forum is moving too quickly for my old brain.

This report is fantastic in its depth. It seems to contain a wealth of damning evidence. Now to digest all of the above additional posts.

Btw. How the hell did Rangers get copies of all these conversations? Surely we have more than one club allied with us if they've provided them as evidence.

Well done The Rangers - really impressive professional efforts have been made in it's production.
 
Good grief. Mullraney threatened a 10 way split of the premiership prize money if Eric Drysdale (and untold others) did not agree to the resolution.

Why is mullrany not a target? Why are we not calling for his expulsion from the board and declaring him 'not fit & proper' to serve on a club board?

IMO we have 4 targets: Doncaster, fat rhod, shifty mcgifty and mullraney.

The credibility of the SPFL has completely gone and the SFA have been shown as complicit in the corruption.
 
The quotes from Jacquie L of Thistle that the SPFL is an entity that is used to getting it's own way and often to the detriment of clubs - and she wants to hug the others for standing up to them - she's spot on.

The other messages from Dundees secretary just highlights he has been complicit in this duplicity - honest to god I didn't plan this with John Nelms - he says.

These messages makes for horrific reading - MM and the SPFL have been so unprofessional. Scott Gardener is correct when he says his position is now untenable.

There should be a minimal requirement for serving on a board - you should at least have an IQ greater than your shoe size.
 
Last edited:
Wow. There's surely no way out for these snakes now. Cant imagine Doncaster and Co will rest easy tonight. Im no expert but i cant help but be impressed with the way we have presented this report, looks squeaky clean. Proud of the club for finally spotting an opportunity and standing up to these shower of crooks.
 
When you read the full transcripts of the whatsapp messages it is abundantly clear that member clubs are not being served by the SPFL board in an even handed way .

I mean how can you have member clubs saying they basically don’t want to deal with board members ,it’s broken .

it’s clear there WAS bullying as mentioned several times .
 
Just read through that there. I’m not usually a nighthawk but I couldn’t sleep so I spotted these and read through them.
I’m no lawyer, but I wouldn’t be saying this is some “he said, she said” nonsense. This is proper put the boot in stuff.

Plenty of evidence there to implicate not 1, not 2 but at least 3 people here on charges of bullying, coercion, malpractice, maladministration and poor corporate governance.

the language used in the legal opinion would suggest that even though there’s smoke there, there’s a big fire causing it!

mike mulreany for me has always been number 1 head honcho to get the boot or to at least be found out in an official capacity as someone who has an agenda to support one club and one club only.
He is the head of the snake for me, peters puppet.
doncaster is a man who is in the wrong movie, he will be for the chop, and the incompetent lawyer should be for the boot again for serving only one club who shall not be named but are very clearly driving what’s going on here.

damning, powerful and right on target for me.
Can’t say much more than that, apart from well done rangers, keep playing the long game as this is what’s required.
 
You read all of that and it is a compelling case. Yet most in the media haven’t even read it but are prepared to come out with their opinions. Barry Ferguson the latest but also clowns like Gordon Dalziel yesterday and many others. If these guys don’t want to read it and digest it then they should keep their mouths shut. You don’t need to be a lawyer or the like to read that and see how outrageous it all is.

If it were any other organisation then Doncaster and others would have resigned yesterday if not before. It is absolutely outrageous. It may take time - including being dragged through court - but I can’t see any way Doncaster survives this. But in truth there should be a dozen or so of them all resigning. It is an absolute scandal. The second scandal is the complicity of the media. Whilst I am not surprised at that - we have known it for years - it doesn’t make it any less wrong.
 
Have read the first 3 appendices and the main thing I've taken away is,

- Legal advice stated no difference from a commercial perspective between voiding the season and calling it as is
- The SPFL note to clubs repackages this advice and states that 'voiding' the season is not possible commercially, but calling it as is, is possible commercially
- From the legal advice, force majeure would likely apply to any commercial contracts, however the potential liability was not disclosed

The main thing is the SPFL have lied to clubs about the legal advice to force clubs down a narrow vote to vote for their preferred option (to benefit one club clearly). It is scandalous
 
iaatpies said:
And the spfl will counter that as the vote did not end either the top flight or the Scottish cup, it would not be at risk of creating any potential liability. There would be a potential liability if the top division was ended prior to the 45th day of suspension but that wasn't part of the spfl proposal. They'll further argue that discussion of any liability for TV payments would be discussed prior to a vote to end the top flight season, at which point the force majeure or frustration/unjust enrichment advice would suggest that the league wouldn't incur any liability.

There is a clear issue with payments for next season. Corona can't affect that contract as it hasn't yet started. The spfl may well receive far less money next season if football can't resume for a full season or if TV doesn't agree with reconstruction of the league's.

It isn't a strong part of the case. There are far stronger arguments and far better evidence elsewhere.
Click to expand...

There you go with that ‘the vote did not end the top flight‘ stuff again. The vote was as much about the top flight as any other division. Once they had won it they immediately enacted the powers that the vote gave them for the lower divisions. The fact that they haven’t done so yet in the top flight isn’t because the vote did not give them the power to do so. It did and it has.

You are deliberately missing the entire point. The issue is not the potential for any liability. The issue is that it was a material fact that the members should have been made aware of prior to the vote. Do you not think they should have been made aware of the advice the SPFL had received?
 
boracay ranger said:
The liability is disclosed. £10m of rights not received is in Appendix 1 page 14 of 24 second paragraph.
Click to expand...
is this not to the board of SPFL i.e. robertson and others. what Rangers claim is that the other 42 clubs weren't made aware of this?
 
iaatpies said:
On the issue of the potential £10mil repayment of TV rights. Even our legal advice suggests that the spfl would likely have a robust defence and would not have to repay money. The vote occurred prior to the 45 day point where either force majeure or frustration would apply but there was no rprospect of football returning by the 45 day trigger. Also worth noting that the 2 competitions attracting coverage from subscription TV - the premier league and the Scottish cup - are still technically suspended rather than ended.

I'd have rather we concentrated on the operation of the vote, the conduct of spfl board members and the Uefa letter as I believe that they are stronger basis for the removal of Doncaster. The TV money issue doesn't diminish our complaint against the spfl board but our own legal advice certainly doesn't strengthen it.
Click to expand...
This is simply not true. The SPFL’s own QC says they may have a defence under contract law with the Sky contract but the concept in Scots Law of unjust enrichment means that they will have to make refunds
iaatpies said:
And the spfl will counter that as the vote did not end either the top flight or the Scottish cup, it would not be at risk of creating any potential liability. There would be a potential liability if the top division was ended prior to the 45th day of suspension but that wasn't part of the spfl proposal. They'll further argue that discussion of any liability for TV payments would be discussed prior to a vote to end the top flight season, at which point the force majeure or frustration/unjust enrichment advice would suggest that the league wouldn't incur any liability.

There is a clear issue with payments for next season. Corona can't affect that contract as it hasn't yet started. The spfl may well receive far less money next season if football can't resume for a full season or if TV doesn't agree with reconstruction of the league's.

It isn't a strong part of the case. There are far stronger arguments and far better evidence elsewhere.
Click to expand...
i don’t know how you can read page 10 of 24 and conclude they wouldn’t incur any liability.
The QC opinion clearly states he can’t rule out refunds under unjust enrichment.
The main issue for me is they ruled out null and void on the basis of risk of significant liabilities but their own resolution carries the same risks.
The 45 day rule you mention relates to Force Majeure and ruling out a claim for damages under breach of contract. It doesn’t rule out claims for refunds.
 
Hats off to the SPFL, Michael Stewart, Spends for being able to read the dossier and appendices with a matter of minutes and dismissing it out of hand
 
Wow the devil is in the detail - thanks for posting these.

It’s not now about being on Rangers or Celtics side - it’s about doing the right thing ethically to support good corporate governance.

Any club, media outlet or anyone else connected with Scottish Football that don’t see that should take a long hard look at themselves in the mirror.

Proud that Rangers have stood up to them.
 
rtid said:
Wow the devil is in the detail - thanks for posting these.

It’s not now about being on Rangers or Celtics side - it’s about doing the right thing ethically to support good corporate governance.

Any club, media outlet or anyone else connected with Scottish Football that don’t see that should take a long hard look at themselves in the mirror.

Proud that Rangers have stood up to them.
Click to expand...
When it was put to him that this was seen as a Rangers Celtc thing, Robertson should have replied by asking why should that be the case, because that would be like suggesting that the SPFL in their disputed actions were somehow acting on behalf of Celtc, which Robertson could then have added, would surely be a ridiculous suggestion.
 
boracay ranger said:
This is simply not true. The SPFL’s own QC says they may have a defence under contract law with the Sky contract but the concept in Scots Law of unjust enrichment means that they will have to make refunds

i don’t know how you can read page 10 of 24 and conclude they wouldn’t incur any liability.
The QC opinion clearly states he can’t rule out refunds under unjust enrichment.
The main issue for me is they ruled out null and void on the basis of risk of significant liabilities but their own resolution carries the same risks.
The 45 day rule you mention relates to Force Majeure and ruling out a claim for damages under breach of contract. It doesn’t rule out claims for refunds.
Click to expand...

@iaatpies appears to have been 'culled' by Admin on this thread. All his posts have disappeared.
 
bustergonad said:
Hats off to the SPFL, Michael Stewart, Spends for being able to read the dossier and appendices with a matter of minutes and dismissing it out of hand
Click to expand...

You are quite right. I have read through most of this ( I must admit I did not read 100% of the material)
and it took me ages. The SPFL must have some kind of speed reader to have gone through this and format a reply as quickly as they did.

p.s. I didn't know Michael Stewart could even read!
 
Nice one. The devil is detail. Looks like some of them have been taken with a spy camera.

I have visions of someone climbing through windows at three in the morning with a black turtleneck on and leaving a box of Milk Tray.
 
rtid said:
Wow the devil is in the detail - thanks for posting these.

It’s not now about being on Rangers or Celtics side - it’s about doing the right thing ethically to support good corporate governance.

Any club, media outlet or anyone else connected with Scottish Football that don’t see that should take a long hard look at themselves in the mirror.

Proud that Rangers have stood up to them.
Click to expand...

One club will not see this "as doing the right thing"! Looking in a mirror and seeing their own reflection will not bother them one iota as they live by moral standards that the vast majority of the population would not lower themselves to! Maybe I 'm tired, thick or both, but what has Mulreaney got to do with the SPFL? I thought he was SFA! also looks like the real stuff is in the appendices not to be learned by a quick glance at the main body of the account.
 
Leeonell Tidy said:
One club will not see this "as doing the right thing"! Looking in a mirror and seeing their own reflection will not bother them one iota as they live by moral standards that the vast majority of the population would not lower themselves to! Maybe I 'm tired, thick or both, but what has Mulreaney got to do with the SPFL? I thought he was SFA! also looks like the real stuff is in the appendices not to be learned by a quick glance at the main body of the account.
Click to expand...
Agreed that “one club” won’t vote for it as they have no morals.

What about the rest - surely they will see how incompetent our governing body is. If they don’t then my point is they have let themselves down by accepting such a poor level of governance.
 
George Goudie said:
Incredibly professional in its production. My bedtime reading.

The section on voiding the season and the risks that will cause a problem with uefa qualification next season and sponsorship contra charges. This highlights the deficiencies that Rangers referred to in the main report - why did they not point out the £10m risk of ending the season early? We know why. It would mean that many clubs would not be willing to take that risk and end the season early - effectively tipping the balance resulting in rejection of the resolution.

Re the supplication letter to uefa (, which Rangers have shown was autonomously sent by the SFA Vice Chairman) who:

A) cosigned that letter with the spfl and B) threatened 2 Championship Clubs that they could potentially lose prize money if they voted against the resolution.

This should ensure that mullraney gets nowhere near the CEO post of the SFA - he's next in-line and he's nothing but a gangster that refers to Rangers supporters as h+ns.

He must be blocked from ever serving on the board again. I hope he is the next target in our cleansing of Scottish football.

He should be sacked from the sfa now to remove the stench of corruption.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the break down on that mate
Folk seem to be thinking that the 19 paged release yesterday was all we had
 
rossgers said:
Absolute dynamite.
Appendix 5 showing McKenzies total dismissal of the Rangers loan resolution would get any employee/adviser in the land sacked immediately.
I'd be surprised at any club not wanting these individuals gone.
Click to expand...
Appendix 5 shows just how disingenuous and obtuse McKenzie was being. Absolutely farcical that anyone reasonable, with no vested interest, could think that is reasonable corporate governance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top