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

GodStruth

Well-Known Member
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.
As you will be aware, Celtic under the lead of Lawwell are crafty that way. Create a situation which can only benefit them (follow the money), but let others carry the stink
 

iaatpies

Well-Known Member
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."
That wasnt his first attempt at answering the question of penalty clauses in contracts. His first statement was that there were no penalty clauses in the contracts with SPFL partners. When Gordon pushed him on it, he then came back with talk of commercial sensitivity and not discussing specifics in public. Unfortunately the actual broadcast isnt available on the BBC Sounds player and the transcript on the BBC sport website looks incomplete.
 

clubdeckcharlie

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
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?
Spot on.
 

Valley Bluenose

Well-Known Member
That wasnt his first attempt at answering the question of penalty clauses in contracts. His first statement was that there were no penalty clauses in the contracts with SPFL partners. When Gordon pushed him on it, he then came back with talk of commercial sensitivity and not discussing specifics in public. Unfortunately the actual broadcast isnt available on the BBC Sounds player and the transcript on the BBC sport website looks incomplete.
I heard the interview and the transcript look fine to me.

SPFL: Neil Doncaster's Sportsound interview in full
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52515606

EDIT: You can hear it in this link (I’ve not listened to it again to confirm).

 

TynesideTrueBlue

Well-Known Member
I may be wrong, but that statement is a taster to get the Independent Investigation against the corrupt Kunts , it is very damaging against the SPFL Governance being run like cowboys and unprofessional in our game.
This highlights corruption going on without saying it but also let’s these kunts sweat I see this going to Court now.
 

SouthLDNBear

Well-Known Member
I remember the the guy who got the bullet because of one lie regarding a ref which led to Celtic placemen taking over the SFA and SPL (then)
This is a lot more than one wee lie. I think there is more than enough to shed our league of these charlatans.
I think there's enough if we push it, but equally wouldn't be surprised if they batton down the hatches and put their fingers in their ears and hope it all goes away.

We made a lot of noise about maclennan previously and that was the approach they took. Eventually it just sort of fizzled out. Hope the same doesn't happen this time
 

Barca Bear

Well-Known Member
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.
we said that the resolution had a ''if the season is null and void, we COULD be liable to £10m liability to broadcasters and partners''
we said that another part was edited out, ''if the season is stopped, we COULD be liable to £10m liability to broadcasters and partners''
 

Barca Bear

Well-Known Member
That wasnt his first attempt at answering the question of penalty clauses in contracts. His first statement was that there were no penalty clauses in the contracts with SPFL partners. When Gordon pushed him on it, he then came back with talk of commercial sensitivity and not discussing specifics in public. Unfortunately the actual broadcast isnt available on the BBC Sounds player and the transcript on the BBC sport website looks incomplete.
that's what I heard mate.
 

bigwoo

Active Member
I have to say I agree with Spiers. It is well put together, concise, and flags a number of concerns, but there is nothing immediately shocking that would result in heads rolling in the short term. Absolutely nobody will be walking on the basis of our submission - there is nothing in there that would result in any of these cunts holding their hands up and accepting that they have been caught out.

Dungcaster and the rest will hope this goes away, stay quiet, and hold firm. If it goes to the courts then it might be a different story, but it will take time.
Really
 

ALADOU34

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
I think there's enough if we push it, but equally wouldn't be surprised if they batton down the hatches and put their fingers in their ears and hope it all goes away.

We made a lot of noise about maclennan previously and that was the approach they took. Eventually it just sort of fizzled out. Hope the same doesn't happen this time
Yeah you’re right but I think this time they have no chance of doing that. If they do the game up here will be damaged beyond repair but then again it’s already halfway down that road
 

Chocolateleftfoot

Well-Known Member
we said that the resolution had a ''if the season is null and void, we COULD be liable to £10m liability to broadcasters and partners''
we said that another part was edited out, ''if the season is stopped, we COULD be liable to £10m liability to broadcasters and partners''
This, for me, is absolutely massive. There was relentless pushing of the narrative that null and void meant financial consequences. Week after week of "not on the table, because of severe consequences for clubs."
Now, as it turns out, the consequences are the same no matter what. But that's not what we've been told. Over and over again. For weeks.
 

iaatpies

Well-Known Member
that's what I heard mate.
I've listened to it again. The BBC transcript isnt quite accurate. Gordon actually opens his question with "I'm right in saying that" rather than "am I right in saying that". The distinction being that when it went out live, Doncaster wasn't challenged as to whether or not the league would owe money if the season was called to a conclusion early. He dodges the assertion with the commercial confidentiality line. The question then moves to the issue of the new contract with Sky.

The BBC transcript isnt verbatim. It's been cleaned up, arguably to make it cleaner to read, but unhelpfully to remove nuances from the conversation.
 

SouthLDNBear

Well-Known Member
Yeah you’re right but I think this time they have no chance of doing that. If they do the game up here will be damaged beyond repair but then again it’s already halfway down that road
Yes I agree we have a case which can ultimately be successful through court action, will take time though - can't see any of these donkeys stepping down of their own accord
 

deedle

Well-Known Member
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.
They changed the rules to benefit Celtic. Clubs like Thistle and Falkirk were thrown on the scrap heap as collateral damage.

Celtic stand to gain from the boost in merchandising.


I’ve been highly critical of the club in the past for failing to defend itself.

What is the point of being critical today? I don’t get it.
 

Ibroxroar

Well-Known Member
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.
If Andrew Neill interviewed Doncaster he and his cronies would probably be gone by now.
 

CarlukeBear

Well-Known Member
The thing that stands out for me is that its clear to see that the SPFL/SFA are not seeking the best interests of all their member clubs. They are clearly working to an agenda that needs investigated, their intentions are not being made clear to all of the member clubs in the proper manner. We have put together a very good case in this respect. Well done Rangers
That is the elephant in the room, when you introduce the bias towards the scum it takes on a more sinister complexion.
 

The_Hammer1990

Well-Known Member
Another thing. The SPFL board are meeting today at 2pm to discuss the dossier right. So who then issued the statement released earlier ? It couldn’t have been the board as they hadn’t met so who was it and what authority did they have ? Why was it released without the boards approval or consent ! Do Doncaster McKenzie and McLellan just do what they want ?
Basically aye. That’s the problem.
 

Ibroxroar

Well-Known Member
Its exactly the right time to be critical. Properly, robustly critical. Simply saying that it's brilliant from the club or that it's rubbish does nothing. Fans will rightly be very happy that the club are doing something. Some fans will feel that given the build up that was allowed to happen in the media, the actual summary report is underwhelming. Both sets of fans are right to some extent. The rest of the SPFL aren't going to look at this with the same tinted glasses. They'll be critical. They'll examine the information and make a judgement on it. Criticism is a good thing so long as it's constructive and has a purpose. It's not about tearing down what the club are trying to do, only looking at it with a degree of objectivity and trying to look at what happens next. Thats the point of being critical. The whole of Scottish football will look at this with a critical eye and there will be consequences regardless of what happens next - some potentially very positive but there's definitely a chance that we could be further harmed from this if it doesnt go our way.

All I ever ask in all of this is that there's a clear strategy, clear purpose and that we can build enough of a consensus within Scottish football to actually achieve what we want. A big part of that is convincing the rest of Scottish football that what we want is something that they should all want too. The last thing I want from all of this is for the rest of Scottish football to react by asking why it should care?
The rest of Scottish football are not remotely interested in being convinced. We won't build a consensus but any fair minded person will see we have a strong legal case. Let the spfl answer questions in court to a judge, that's harder than running rings round sportsound presenters.
 

Theciscokid

Active Member
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.
Think your last sentence speaks volumes almost Everyone has some form of prejudice against our club. You couldn't trust any of them to do the right thing which is sad.
 

last minute signing

Well-Known Member
I was initially underwhelmed by the bullet point summary from The Sun, it felt like a regurgitation of information we already knew. The only new point being the letter to UEFA. After thinking about this, in conjunction with the other items, it feels like we are going down the route of the vote having been fixed to come out this way, no other outcome was to be accepted. The SPFL are operating like an African election.

Having read the report a couple of times, I feel it’s rather good. It’s not opinionated, rather it’s fact based, something a good investigation should always be. There is a lot of good questions there that the SPFL should be answerable to. One question I felt was missing was “Who are the “big hitter” friendlies against and who offered this concession in exchange for a yes vote?”. Could that be considered a breach of The Bribery Act?

It will not be enough to see the backing of 75% of clubs at the EGM, however I never thought it would be. I feel if we went to court, we still may not get an independent investigation, however it would leave the SPFL and their malpractice widely exposed.

Stage managed interviews by Doncaster on Radio Scotland and threatening open letters by various SPFL members do nothing further than indicate guilt and point toward a cover up. Let’s hope this goes to court, feck them.

"It is easier for the world to accept a simple lie than a complex truth." - Alexis de Tocqueville.
 

fourbus

Well-Known Member
I was initially underwhelmed by the bullet point summary from The Sun, it felt like a regurgitation of information we already knew. The only new point being the letter to UEFA. After thinking about this, in conjunction with the other items, it feels like we are going down the route of the vote having been fixed to come out this way, no other outcome was to be accepted. The SPFL are operating like an African election.

Having read the report a couple of times, I feel it’s rather good. It’s not opinionated, rather it’s fact based, something a good investigation should always be. There is a lot of good questions there that the SPFL should be answerable to. One question I felt was missing was “Who are the “big hitter” friendlies against and who offered this concession in exchange for a yes vote?”. Could that be considered a breach of The Bribery Act?

It will not be enough to see the backing of 75% of clubs at the EGM, however I never thought it would be. I feel if we went to court, we still may not get an independent investigation, however it would leave the SPFL and their malpractice widely exposed.

Stage managed interviews by Doncaster on Radio Scotland and threatening open letters by various SPFL members do nothing further than indicate guilt and point toward a cover up. Let’s hope this goes to court, feck them.

"It is easier for the world to accept a simple lie than a complex truth." - Alexis de Tocqueville.
If this goes to court, im pretty sure our legal team will be asking a lot of questions of Mr Nelms esp who the big hitters are, im sure he will tell the truth since he will be under oath.
 

frazz

Well-Known Member
If this goes to court, im pretty sure our legal team will be asking a lot of questions of Mr Nelms esp who the big hitters are, im sure he will tell the truth since he will be under oath.
Funny thing is a lot of people don't realise your calls texts whatapps, data transmissions, locations have to be kept and stored in the UK I think a min of 12 months... Delete doesn't really work anymore snoopers charter stopped that
 

Crispy Bacon

Well-Known Member
Funny thing is a lot of people don't realise your calls texts whatapps, data transmissions, locations have to be kept and stored in the UK I think a min of 12 months... Delete doesn't really work anymore snoopers charter stopped that
Except WhatsApp has end-to-end Encryption and specifically state that messages are not available to authorities, only profile data, last seen info and contacts - and the only messages stored on their servers are the undelivered ones, for 30 days.

 

Ibroxroar

Well-Known Member
If this goes to court, im pretty sure our legal team will be asking a lot of questions of Mr Nelms esp who the big hitters are, im sure he will tell the truth since he will be under oath.
And what influence have the big hitters had on Dundee. Can be answered in a court not on sportsound.
 

Spin City

Well-Known Member
There should have been an independent investigation before this was released and definitely after.

Think some people were expecting too much which is partly our fault for going for a big reveal.
Isn't it the point that the only chance there will be an independent enquiry is if it is forced in response to the release of this dossier..?
 

Spin City

Well-Known Member
And given that the vote concerning the bottom 3 divisions in Scottish football didnt disadvantage Rangers in the slightest, how does any of the summary achieve a level playing field? The only way we get a level playing field is if we have enough influence within Scottish football that fellow club chairmen will listen to us.
You get a level playing field by removing corrupt individuals who think they are answerable to no-one but themselves (and the Tarriers) and sending the message to the next incumbents that their actions will be properly scrutinised. For sure we get nowhere - or indeed go backwards - if these placemen are left in-situ.
 

clubdeckcharlie

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
Thanks for that but I was primarily thinking about the mone. If a judicial review was applied for would that not have the effect of freezing payments to clubs until the matter was resolved? I n other words force a lot of clubs into administration
It would take them a day to set up a new resolution, which would be passed, just the same as the original, however, the difference is that ND and RMcK would be forced out.
 
Top