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

Barca Bear

Well-Known Member
It's very little to do with the conclusion of the top flight IMO. Much bigger fundamental issues at play here.
correct.
this is a problem.
I have friends who follow other teams, and they see gers as trying to stop the tims getting the league.
trying to explain for them to read the report and basing it on their team.
 

Peepoday boy

Well-Known Member
Well done Rangers.
The case for an independent inquiry is made. We will soon find out wether the clubs of the SPFL have the stomach for the truth or not. Do they vote for transparency and fairness or the continuation of the "gang of thieves" culture that's currently in place.
By not turning over all the stones we will know exactly what they are and, sooner or later, will be their undoing. Too many people know where the bodies are buried for this regime to survive. There is no honour among thieves.
 

iaatpies

Well-Known Member
Tom English got a text during the Radio interview From a club chairman telling him they were bullied, but was not allowed to Question ND.
Probably down to the agreement Doncaster had with the BBC in exchange for the interview. It may not have been transmitted completely live. It may have been recorded 30 or 40 minutes before broadcast, transmitted as live and then opened up for discussion with the pundits. Alliteratively it may have been live but with the understanding that Doncaster would only talk to Richard Gordon and wouldn't take questions from the rest of the Sportsound pundits.

Pretty standard way of working tbh. Very few people are willing to discuss things on a completely open forum for fear of what they'll be asked. Most media content is managed and people are very rarely trusted to give full and frank interviews.
 

Gordy Boy

Well-Known Member
I am fine thanks.
the Email to UEFA on 4th March was not Public knowledge, that email should see Doncaster sacked alone, then he denied on Radio that he had received no complaints of bullying, but 2 clubs have stated that they complained to him regarding bullying. Why did he refuse to take calls from Douglas Park. Why did he phone Dundee at 5.38 pm and what was discussed. That’s just for starters.
Good.

I'm not denying any of this fourbus, I'm not.

I've read the document and shunned work to do so.

It's bogging, to put it bluntly but there's no 'pazaz', no 'wow factor'.

You know, I know, we know.

I'm not some tarrier sympathiser or a sympathiser in general but...

Time will tell.

Enjoy your long weekend fella, no harm meant.
 

BillStruthsGreenhouse

Well-Known Member
I have spent the last two hours reading the Executive Summary, right down to noticing a few grammatical errors and a wrong date.

On first reading there is nothing "explosive" in it that has not been alluded to, or suggested over the last few weeks.

However, seeing it all in one document with the details and the reasoning well put, I would say it is a very powerful assessment of incompetence and wrong doing which will have consequences for the SPFL.

Other than clubs who have only their own agenda to promote, I would think that any well managed football club who reads the Rangers report will have serious concerns on who is currently in power in the SPFL.

To me Neil Doncaster perhaps comes across as incompetent and out his depth rather than wilfully trying to work tricks. I don't think he is that clever. He is of course by the position that he holds very much accountable and should be removed from his role.

Rod McKenzie comes across as a real snake oil salesman, and should be removed immediately.

Murdo MacLennan is not mentioned often, but when he is, it is clear that he is at the centre of the Dundee voting debacle and threats.

Ross McArthur (SPFL Board Director and Dunfermline Chairman) and Mike Mulraney (SFA Vice President and Alloa Chairman) have their fingerprints all over the crime scene and I would not be surprised if they are the first two thrown under the bus as elected officers to try and save the full time employees - Doncaster and McKenzie.

The Celtic connection in all this - McKenzie and McLennan all day long.
 

Valley Bluenose

Well-Known Member
Probably down to the agreement Doncaster had with the BBC in exchange for the interview. It may not have been transmitted completely live. It may have been recorded 30 or 40 minutes before broadcast, transmitted as live and then opened up for discussion with the pundits. Alliteratively it may have been live but with the understanding that Doncaster would only talk to Richard Gordon and wouldn't take questions from the rest of the Sportsound pundits.

Pretty standard way of working tbh. Very few people are willing to discuss things on a completely open forum for fear of what they'll be asked. Most media content is managed and people are very rarely trusted to give full and frank interviews.
Doncaster insisted on only facing the soft option of being questioned by Gordon. No questions were permitted from anyone else. That was the deal in order to get him to appear. Gordon made that clear at the start of the show.

On the media contract question he pleaded ‘commercial sensitivity’ and dodged it.
 

Harrogate Bluenose

Well-Known Member
Having taken a tea break in reading this damning evidence.

I congratulate Rangers for not releasing evidence too soon. As it clear that outbursts from the SPFL have only added to our evidence since.

Back to reading, Im onto withholding the information on broadcasters liability to members. WoW

Worth remembering on liabilities to broadcasters, is how our inept CEO stuck his two fingers up to BTSports.
 
Last edited:

fourbus

Well-Known Member
Probably down to the agreement Doncaster had with the BBC in exchange for the interview. It may not have been transmitted completely live. It may have been recorded 30 or 40 minutes before broadcast, transmitted as live and then opened up for discussion with the pundits. Alliteratively it may have been live but with the understanding that Doncaster would only talk to Richard Gordon and wouldn't take questions from the rest of the Sportsound pundits.

Pretty standard way of working tbh. Very few people are willing to discuss things on a completely open forum for fear of what they'll be asked. Most media content is managed and people are very rarely trusted to give full and frank interviews.
you have completly missed the point, it was live as Michael Stuart claimed his Microphone had been muted, do you honestly think we would put out that without solid evidence.
 

bigwoo

Active Member
I've read the 19 pages.

As I've said already:

I believe that theres a strong case for investigating Doncaster and McKenzie for their conduct. There's a very good chance that both have acted dishonestly and have failed in their responsibilities to SPFL member clubs.

I also believe that Doncaster will go. He'll be thrown to the wolves. It's doubtful that he could survive the allegations made.

But the big question is why? Why do things improve for Rangers with the removal of Neil Doncaster and Rod McKenzie? What else has to happen for clubs to treat Rangers differently, for governance standards within the league to improve and for our lot in life to get better? And what is there in any of the 19 pages that clubs are going to put ahead of their basic sense of survival during a lockdown that has potentially catastrophic consequences for the game up here?
So what did you expect Rangers to do here?
Or to put another way
What have we done wrong?
 

jimbear

Well-Known Member
Agreed - on the face of it there’s a case to answer.

It also feels like the SPFL have treated the club and Stewart Robertson with contempt throughout this process.
My worry before the dossier went in was that it was going to be based on bluster and innuendo. It isn't and I'm pleased about that. It is a substantial document outlining a substantial case and although we will have the usual cries of "nothing to see here", there is actually quite a great deal.
 
Last edited:

iaatpies

Well-Known Member
you have completly missed the point, it was live as Michael Stuart claimed his Microphone had been muted, do you honestly think we would put out that without solid evidence.
It doesnt matter if it was live with everybody else's microphones muted or if it was delayed broadcast.

Doncaster only agreed to accept questions from Richard Gordon. He's now on record as saying during that interview that there are no penalty clauses that would cost Scottish football in the result of a shortened season. We're saying that there are. Either Rangers are correct and Doncaster has dropped the mother of all clangers on national radio or we've got that bit of our submission wrong.

It could be either tbh. If it's the former then it further undermines Doncaster's position and makes his sacking far more likely. If its the latter? I'd want to see the evidence before jumping on the whole £10million allegation.
 

deedle

Well-Known Member
Too many people are trying to talk down the significance of today’s news.

It paints a picture of deceit, arrogance and appalling corporate governance. All to benefit one club.

For once the club has stood up for itself and the support.

If we don’t take action now when would we ever?
 

Carltonblue

Well-Known Member
My worry before the dossier went in was that it was going to be based on bluster and innuendo. It isn't and I pleased about that. It is a substantial document outlining a substantial case and although we will have the usual cries of "nothing to see here", there is actually quite a great deal.
Yes. If we had set out 2 or 3 issues, it could have been dismissed as unintentional human error. But this volume of issues is a significant and highly indicative load to be laid at SPFLs door, suggesting wide scale, well, maladministration to put it mildly.
 

jimbear

Well-Known Member
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.
I also have no doubt that we will not get the other clubs to vote our way for the reasons that you state. However, the incompetence and skulduggery of Doncaster, McKenzie and McLennan has been laid bare.
 

iaatpies

Well-Known Member
So what did you expect Rangers to do here?
Or to put another way
What have we done wrong?
Right now Rangers are calling for an independent investigation into the SPFL board in general, and the conduct of Doncaster and McKenzie in particular. All well and good.

What have we done wrong? Wrong isnt really the right word. We havent done anything wrong and we've raised an issue that has to be raised.

What would I have liked us to do? Get more of the information out there, get it out a bit sooner, take away scope for the SPFL and media to spin things and start to focus on what we want to achieve in all of this beyond Doncaster and McKenzie. It's not that we've done anything wrong. It's that we havent really done anything to direct the rest of the SPFL into an outcome that they're going to care enough about to buy into and support us.
 

fourbus

Well-Known Member
It doesnt matter if it was live with everybody else's microphones muted or if it was delayed broadcast.

Doncaster only agreed to accept questions from Richard Gordon. He's now on record as saying during that interview that there are no penalty clauses that would cost Scottish football in the result of a shortened season. We're saying that there are. Either Rangers are correct and Doncaster has dropped the mother of all clangers on national radio or we've got that bit of our submission wrong.

It could be either tbh. If it's the former then it further undermines Doncaster's position and makes his sacking far more likely. If its the latter? I'd want to see the evidence before jumping on the whole £10million allegation.
Hence the reason there must be an investigation, Rangers have not gone into this blind, the Dossier has been checked legally, and we are willing to go the legal route if need be. Doncaster is up the creek without a paddle.
 

Ibroxroar

Well-Known Member
Right now Rangers are calling for an independent investigation into the SPFL board in general, and the conduct of Doncaster and McKenzie in particular. All well and good.

What have we done wrong? Wrong isnt really the right word. We havent done anything wrong and we've raised an issue that has to be raised.

What would I have liked us to do? Get more of the information out there, get it out a bit sooner, take away scope for the SPFL and media to spin things and start to focus on what we want to achieve in all of this beyond Doncaster and McKenzie. It's not that we've done anything wrong. It's that we havent really done anything to direct the rest of the SPFL into an outcome that they're going to care enough about to buy into and support us.
So the rest of the SPFL will not care about receiving less TV money next season?
 

Valley Bluenose

Well-Known Member
It doesnt matter if it was live with everybody else's microphones muted or if it was delayed broadcast.

Doncaster only agreed to accept questions from Richard Gordon. He's now on record as saying during that interview that there are no penalty clauses that would cost Scottish football in the result of a shortened season. We're saying that there are. Either Rangers are correct and Doncaster has dropped the mother of all clangers on national radio or we've got that bit of our submission wrong.

It could be either tbh. If it's the former then it further undermines Doncaster's position and makes his sacking far more likely. If its the latter? I'd want to see the evidence before jumping on the whole £10million allegation.
He didn’t say there were no penalty clauses:

And am I right in saying if the season is not completed no money would have to go back to the broadcasters?

"I'm not going to be in a position to comment on the individual deals. I'm sure you wouldn't expect me to. We will have to have some frank conversations with all of our partners as will clubs.

"No one wants to be in a position where games can't be played. We're in a situation where in the lower leagues the season has been curtailed and in the Premiership where it may yet be curtailed. And if that's the case then there will be lots of conversations and that will be with individual sponsors and clubs involved. And in the league's case with broadcasters and partners involved.

"But what I can't do and what you wouldn't expect me to is to have those discussions live on air. We have to have the space to have those discussions with our partners, who are very much looking forward to a new set of rights with Sky Sports exclusively live from this summer for five years, in the Betfred Cup with Premier Sports from this summer and of course, with the BBC, a five-year deal. So we've got those deals in place and we're very much looking forward to starting them as soon as football can return."
 

Cutty/Young

Well-Known Member
It doesnt matter if it was live with everybody else's microphones muted or if it was delayed broadcast.

Doncaster only agreed to accept questions from Richard Gordon. He's now on record as saying during that interview that there are no penalty clauses that would cost Scottish football in the result of a shortened season. We're saying that there are. Either Rangers are correct and Doncaster has dropped the mother of all clangers on national radio or we've got that bit of our submission wrong.

It could be either tbh. If it's the former then it further undermines Doncaster's position and makes his sacking far more likely. If its the latter? I'd want to see the evidence before jumping on the whole £10million allegation.
Where is the £10m coming from ?
 

iaatpies

Well-Known Member
Too many people are trying to talk down the significance of today’s news.

It paints a picture of deceit, arrogance and appalling corporate governance. All to benefit one club.

For once the club has stood up for itself and the support.

If we don’t take action now when would we ever?
Except that it doesnt. It doesnt show any benefit to Celtic beyond the SPFL having to find a solution to the incomplete premier division if football cannot resume to allow the completion of the league through playing matches.
 

iaatpies

Well-Known Member
Where is the £10m coming from ?
The allegation is that the SPFL would be liable for penalty fees with sponsors and broadcasters (almost certainly Ladbrokes and Sky) to the tune of £10million if the season isnt completed and is determined on the basis of current standing. Effectively if the SPFL call the top flight now then it ows sponsors and TV a rebate of £10million.

Doncaster has refuted that, but wouldn't confirm anything else on the basis of commercial sensitivity. Our allegation essentially paints Doncaster as having lied on national radio.
 

Taffyblue

Well-Known Member
Given the volume of credible and corroborated evidence provided, the only outcome should be an independent inquiry.

But, this being the corrupt SPFL, see you all in court.
 

BlueBuzz

Well-Known Member
It's actually a pretty decent and valid submission and certainly doesn't deserve to be mocked the way it is online and SMSM.
There are many questions that remain unanswered. If the the SMSM are indeed mocking the information reported, they as we already know are also not fit for purpose and should be denied access to Ibrox .
Only when they can report facts truthfully and impartially over a long period of time, then access to Ibrox may be allowed again.
 

George Goudie

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
This is massive, how can anyone reading this not think so.

It is been put together beautifully.
So far - agreed.

But I've not read the entire thing including the indexes... the same as @iaatpies yet he seems convinced that we have failed to force a re-vote.

I'm not so sure but will read the entire report before commenting. We should all perhaps do so and the debate will be more reasoned.
 

Disco Deejay

Well-Known Member
I am fine thanks.
the Email to UEFA on 4th March was not Public knowledge, that email should see Doncaster sacked alone, then he denied on Radio that he had received no complaints of bullying, but 2 clubs have stated that they complained to him regarding bullying. Why did he refuse to take calls from Douglas Park. Why did he phone Dundee at 5.38 pm and what was discussed. That’s just for starters.
I've been saying since the start of this that Doncaster is a qualified solicitor and you have to listen very carefully to exactly what he says and how he spins things. The inclusion or omission of one word can make a huge difference, without anyone noticing.

I previously highlighted the statement that "Deloitte had found no wrongdoing in the submission of Dundee's vote." The 'submission of Dundee's vote' ended when Drysdale hit the 'send' button. I'm more concerned about wrongdoing relating to the receipt of Dundee's vote.

In relation to the radio interview that you refer to, you miss out one sneaky key word that he slipped in. He was asked if he had received any reports of bullying. His reply was that he had received no complaints of bullying by SPFL staff. The bullying reported to him by 2 clubs related to Ross McArthur who is a Championship Rep on the SPFL Board and Mike Mulraney who is an SFA Board Member. So, neither of them are SPFL Staff, which means that Doncaster dodged the question, without lying, due to simply including the word "staff" in his answer.

That is why Andrew Neill is such a good interviewer of politicians. He pays attention to the minute detail in every answer and picks up on things like that, when they give an answer but dodge the question.

I would love to see Andrew Neill interviewing Doncaster, rather than the Dick Gordon.
 

oldtimer

Active Member
I have spent the last two hours reading the Executive Summary, right down to noticing a few grammatical errors and a wrong date.

On first reading there is nothing "explosive" in it that has not been alluded to, or suggested over the last few weeks.

However, seeing it all in one document with the details and the reasoning well put, I would say it is a very powerful assessment of incompetence and wrong doing which will have consequences for the SPFL.

Other than clubs who have only their own agenda to promote, I would think that any well managed football club who reads the Rangers report will have serious concerns on who is currently in power in the SPFL.

To me Neil Doncaster perhaps comes across as incompetent and out his depth rather than wilfully trying to work tricks. I don't think he is that clever. He is of course by the position that he holds very much accountable and should be removed from his role.

Rod McKenzie comes across as a real snake oil salesman, and should be removed immediately.

Murdo MacLennan is not mentioned often, but when he is, it is clear that he is at the centre of the Dundee voting debacle and threats.

Ross McArthur (SPFL Board Director and Dunfermline Chairman) and Mike Mulraney (SFA Vice President and Alloa Chairman) have their fingerprints all over the crime scene and I would not be surprised if they are the first two thrown under the bus as elected officers to try and save the full time employees - Doncaster and McKenzie.

The Celtic connection in all this - McKenzie and McLennan all day long.
Don't forget Mullraney in the Celtic connection.
 

Carlton The Bear

Well-Known Member
We can't prevent the current incompetents being replaced by more incompetents. Only a collective will from all of Scottish football can do that.
Agreed. But knowing that they will be called to account should mean any new “incompetents” may be somewhat slower to jump into their continual “honest mistakes”.
 

Sasquatch

Well-Known Member
On reading a bit, it seems they have withheld all the important info from clubs, and fired through cloak and dagger nonsense to Uefa to get the league tied up. It was done in an extremely alarming, underhand way. Lies galore, and before the vote when clubs knew nothing of the actual information they really needed.

Am i getting that right?
 
Top