Jump to content

St Mirren's stance on SFA EBT


notabuddie
 Share

Recommended Posts

On ‎12‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 2:25 PM, TPAFKATS said:


Again that's not what the legal review found. I'm not saying I agree with nimmo Smith, but that was his finding.

BTW, the last paragraph is whataboutery.

2 points

1. Rangers hadn't lost the big tax case at the time of Nimmo's findings. The fact that they have now lost the tax case changes everything. Rangers had a massive advantage that wasn't available to any other club.

2. The SFA (backed by Celtic) gave contrived evidence at the Nimmo hearings regarding the improper registration of the Rangers players (ie the side letters weren't disclosed to the SFA). On the basis of that dodgy evidence, Nimmo has his hands tied. Again, the fact that Rangers subsequently lost the tax tribunal brings this whole issue into question again.

The fact of the matter is that Rangers field ineligible players for over a decade. They haven't been punished for that. The Nimmo hearings have been blown out of the water because of the subsequent tax tribunal decisions and, in addition, the SFA (backed by Celtic) lied at the Nimmo hearings.

All the stuff Celtic are coming out with just now is a smokescreen aimed at placating their supporters. Celtic did everything they could to keep the other half of the Old Firm in business. Without Rangers, Celtic cannot exists as they currently do.

Scottish football should not have allowed the new Rangers back into the league. Celtic would then have withered away and Scottish football would have been saved.

As it is, the Old Firm are back in business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


6 minutes ago, Warwick Hunt said:

2 points

1. Rangers hadn't lost the big tax case at the time of Nimmo's findings. The fact that they have now lost the tax case changes everything. Rangers had a massive advantage that wasn't available to any other club.

2. The SFA (backed by Celtic) gave contrived evidence at the Nimmo hearings regarding the improper registration of the Rangers players (ie the side letters weren't disclosed to the SFA). On the basis of that dodgy evidence, Nimmo has his hands tied. Again, the fact that Rangers subsequently lost the tax tribunal brings this whole issue into question again.

The fact of the matter is that Rangers field ineligible players for over a decade. They haven't been punished for that. The Nimmo hearings have been blown out of the water because of the subsequent tax tribunal decisions and, in addition, the SFA (backed by Celtic) lied at the Nimmo hearings.

All the stuff Celtic are coming out with just now is a smokescreen aimed at placating their supporters. Celtic did everything they could to keep the other half of the Old Firm in business. Without Rangers, Celtic cannot exists as they currently do.

Scottish football should not have allowed the new Rangers back into the league. Celtic would then have withered away and Scottish football would have been saved.

As it is, the Old Firm are back in business.

Old Firm........they don't exist, seemingly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:


A lot of this was sorted at the time, including being voted through by the other clubs.

A review of the governing bodies us long overdue though

I don't actually agree that it was "sorted". It was muddled through with Armageddon being the CLAIMED alternative. The honesty I mentioned certainly wasn't to the fore. Clubs' directors voted with their wallets. Fans forced them to vote for slightly less than they wanted. We still get the nonsense spouted that rangers were demoted. That was clearly not the case as, even today, Rangers are still being liquidated.  I know folk will go on about rehashing but that is not the case. It's a new ball game since the highest court in the land has decreed that rangers were guilty of tax avoidance. I reiterate that I don't care how many titles they might lose because they can't win any more.

I admit I still smart when I think of what our board had to do to gain entry to the top league and what they had to sacrifice. In the end it culminated in us losing our ancestral home. Yet fans of the govan mob can still attend the same ground when it should have been sold off along with their car park and training ground to pay the old clubs debts.

But that is not the sole motive for my hope for the investigation. Honesty and integrity are fast becoming even more a second concern to cash and it would be good to redress the balance at the top of our game.

Edited by stlucifer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS
I don't actually agree that it was "sorted". It was muddled through with Armageddon being the CLAIMED alternative. The honesty I mentioned certainly wasn't to the fore. Clubs' directors voted with their wallets. Fans forced them to vote for slightly less than they wanted. We still get the nonsense spouted that rangers were demoted. That was clearly not the case as, even today, Rangers are still being liquidated.  I know folk will go on about rehashing but that is not the case. It's a new ball game since the highest court in the land has decreed that rangers were guilty of tax avoidance. I reiterate that I don't care how many titles they might lose because they can't win any more.
I admit I still smart when I think of what our board had to do to gain entry to the top league and what they had to sacrifice. In the end it culminated in us losing our ancestral home. Yet fans of the govan mob can still attend the same ground when it should have been sold off along with their car park and training ground to pay the old clubs debts.
But that is not the sole motive for my hope for the investigation. Honesty and integrity are fast becoming even more a second concern to cash and it would be good to redress the balance at the top of our game.

Yeah, sorted as in the club's and governing bodies 'sorted' it at the time. It's difficult to now revisit most of that - tax case appeal aside.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The key evidence at the Nimmo hearings came from Sandy Bryson, head of registrations at the SFA.

His evidence stated that once a player was registered then that was it.

The fact that the full contracts (the side letters) were not disclosed was irrelevant. The fact that the players were not registered properly was irrelevant. They were registered.

This is obviously a pile of shite concocted by the SFA (and Celtic) to avoid Rangers being found guilty.

Had they been found guilty of not registering players for a decade then I can't imagine that any punishment other than a sine die ban could have been handed down.

Nimmo was a whitewash which the SFA and Celtic planned in order to save the Old Firm.

Scottish football is a joke. There is no competition. It's no better than wrestling!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those that are asking what has this got to do with St Mirren, I would say we are a member of the SFA and were a member of SPL when this was going on. Rangers have been found guilty of using EBTs as a way of paying players and staff without being taxed on national insurance and income tax on those payments for 11 years. By paying over 50 players in this way for 11 years and by having side contract letters all those 50 players were incorrectly registered ON PURPOSE by the club.

St Mirren got a £25k fine reduced to £12k for having 1 ineligible unused sub in 1 cup game and the penalty for that offence was later changed (while Rangers were still using EBTs) to mean that in future any club making the same honest mistake would lose the game. Dunfermline were knocked out the cup after winning a tie for falling foul of the same rule. Rangers broke the same rule deliberately for 11 years in every league and domestic cup game and won 17 titles in that time. The prize money, TV money and sponsorship money won at other SPL / SFA clubs expense will have run into tens of millions of pounds. The money earned from competing in the Champions League and Europa league while fielding ineligible players also runs into tens of millions of pounds. The only fine Rangers got for 11 years of deliberate cheating in every game was £250k and I can't remember if they ever paid it! 

St Mirren's penalty for an accidental rule break in 1 game with an unused sub = £25k reduced to £12k on appeal versus Rangers deliberate rule break with over 50 players over 11 seasons in every competitive game (around 500?) - 10 times more than our original fine for winning 1 game against Annan! Our penalty most likely wiped out any profit for winning the tie and facing Gretna in the next round. Rangers fine of £250k for 11 years of cheating and winning tens of millions in prizemoney while cheating.

While I have some sympathy with those that say we should move on and let Rangers keep their titles and leave the fine at £250k - Rangers were a club who were liquidated owing over £100m in unpaid taxes and other debts and several of their old board are in leading positions on the new club's board and they continue to run up huge debts - there is talk yet again of them needing injections of new lending to see them until the end of the season while signing some players on £30k per week. I would be all in favour of stripping them of titles since we are talking about cheating on an industrial scale for over a decade.

But my biggest sense of injustice, as a St Mirren fan, is the feeling that the SFA and SPL (as it was then) let Rangers play by a different set of rules to all the other member clubs and failed to govern Scottish football in a fair manner. Rangers have been liquidated with over £100m of debts while in the SPL? Let's see if we can let their newco back in to the SPL the following season with a points deduction (unlike Gretna who were booted out the SPL and SFL for owing much less)? That's not acceptable? Let's try and see if we can float the newco into the Championship so they can be back in the SPL after 1 year? 

There is a lot of evidence which has been published showing that Rangers should never have been allowed to play in the Champions League in 2011 and did not qualify for a licence from the SFA that season - no audited accounts and an unpaid HMRC bill (the wee tax case still had not been paid despite the club agreeing to settle). The SFA gave Rangers a licence to play in Europe this season while no fully accounts had been published and while they still fall foul of financial fair play rules and have a convicted tax cheat as their chairman and a board member when they were liquidated owing over £100m. 

The issues for me that I feel have to be sorted for the benefit of Scottish football going forward are: Stewart Regan lied on 2 occasions to UEFA to give Rangers and The Rangers licences to play in UEFA competition when they were ineligible. Campbell Ogilvie is still SFA president despite having received and never repaid an illegal EBT from Rangers and despite being club secretary at Rangers and drafting player contracts and side letters for their EBTs. 

I can't think with Regan and Ogilvie would not want the SFA to co-operate in any new review of how the SFA, SPL and SFL dealt with Rangers and their EBTs or liquidation.

As a member club of the SFA we should be seeking the immediate resignation of Regan and Ogilvie and urging the SFA to comply with the new review otherwise it looks like the governing body of Scottish football does not care about Rangers cheating for over a dozen years (if we include the scheme used in the wee tax case as well as the big tax case) and about the SFA granting Rangers a licence THIS SEASON to play in Europe (the lols almost compensated for it).

I don't care whether Rangers or Celtic have more 'genuine' league titles. I don't think Celtic would have done much better in the Champions League in 2011 and doubt Hearts would have gone far in the Europa League this season either but do care that when ANY CLUB cheats in Scottish football that some of our top officials in the SFA are happy to break rules of governance and help 1 club cheat by involving themselves in the cheating and then will not be questioned about their actions.

Time for SMISA to get GLS to act.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/09/2017 at 9:02 AM, Froggie said:

I have always been under the impression that the old firm always had a sporting advantage over the others. They steal fans from other clubs, consequently have bigger gates and more income, then historically buy the best players from their rivals. I cant see what has changed in recent years other than the fact one of them outspent the other (its reversed at present) Teams have always been able to get extra effort from players by paying win bonuses, even by underhand methods.

I have no truck with either of those teams but cannot deny a slight schadenfreude over the fury that Celtic fans possess in their attitude to their rivals. They cannot live without each other, despite what they say. To counter balance things though, I would like there to be a J  Review which may heap even more misery on Rangers if the findings go against them. Am I being a cruel frog, or what, lol ?

Steal fans from other clubs!!!??? Really? Where do they keep them locked up? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Dibbles old paperboy said:

Time for SMISA to get GLS to act.  

How can SMISA possible act when at least one of their board members voted to back Stewart Gilmours proposal to treat Rangers differently to how Airdrieonians, Gretna, and Third Lanark had been treated before them? They'd be guilty of hypocrisy at the very least. 

It wasn't a proud moment in Scottish Football history. A lot of clubs sullied their reputations bending over backwards to accommodate Charles Green and the Rangers board at the time - not least St Mirren. Scottish Football owes a massive debt of gratitude to guys like Turnbull Hutton and to the boards at lower league clubs like Clyde FC who risked a great deal to go public to give their reasons for refusing to back the SPL reconstruction plan that would have allowed Sevco to join the league in the Second Tier. 

That said I don't really see what is to be gained from further investigating what happened. Rangers no longer exist. Whether you strip them of titles or not it doesn't matter. To sine die them is going to have no effect because the club concerned has already been liquidated. All that's left is to try to oust administrators and those in the SPL and the SFA who were complicit and whilst I'd love to see a number of heads roll there's never going to be much stomach from that from club chairmen because too many of them would be directly implicated in the fall out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Bellside Bud said:

How can SMISA possible act when at least one of their board members voted to back Stewart Gilmours proposal to treat Rangers differently to how Airdrieonians, Gretna, and Third Lanark had been treated before them? They'd be guilty of hypocrisy at the very least. 

It wasn't a proud moment in Scottish Football history. A lot of clubs sullied their reputations bending over backwards to accommodate Charles Green and the Rangers board at the time - not least St Mirren. Scottish Football owes a massive debt of gratitude to guys like Turnbull Hutton and to the boards at lower league clubs like Clyde FC who risked a great deal to go public to give their reasons for refusing to back the SPL reconstruction plan that would have allowed Sevco to join the league in the Second Tier. 

That said I don't really see what is to be gained from further investigating what happened. Rangers no longer exist. Whether you strip them of titles or not it doesn't matter. To sine die them is going to have no effect because the club concerned has already been liquidated. All that's left is to try to oust administrators and those in the SPL and the SFA who were complicit and whilst I'd love to see a number of heads roll there's never going to be much stomach from that from club chairmen because too many of them would be directly implicated in the fall out. 

While clubs like Airdrie, Gretna and Third Lanark also went out of business before I must have missed the bit where those clubs did so after owing over £100m and via deliberate cheating in every single game for around a dozen years won 17 titles and 'earned' tens of millions of pounds in prizemoney as a result of being allowed to cheat (making the fact that Rangers managed to leave a trail of debt of over £100m all the more remarkable given the fact they were playing to packed houses at Ibrox and earning from the Champions League and Europa league every year in that timeframe).

No one doubts that the SFA and SFL / SPL acted correctly in the cases of Airdrie. Third Lanark or Gretna. Even fans of The Rangers would accept rules were overlooked strictly speaking to allow them, as a new club, straight into the bottom tier of the SPFL. If anyone points out The Rangers fans don't accept rules were bent to accomodate their club they are of the disposition that tries to maintain they are the same club. When the new Rangers were promoted from the Championship did they not sell season tickets on the basis of 'help the club chase title no. 54' or whatever number of titles it is? As far as Rangers and their board and fans are concerned, "Rangers no longer is exist" is not a statement they believe or accept.

Why should GLS speak up rather than follow sheep like Petrie and Milne? Regan, Ogilvie still run the SFA, Doncaster still runs SPFL, and Dave King, Paul Murray and Alisair Johntson still run the board at the new Rangers. Not one of them should be governing at 'Rangers' or the SFA or the SPFL. Given that Rangers are still run by several crooks or got the previous version of the club liquidated after not paying £100m in taxes and are running up more debts again do you really think Doncaster, Regan and Ogilvie are up to applying the rules when the newco go bust again at some point in the next season or two? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dibbles old paperboy said:

While clubs like Airdrie, Gretna and Third Lanark also went out of business before I must have missed the bit where those clubs did so after owing over £100m and via deliberate cheating in every single game for around a dozen years won 17 titles and 'earned' tens of millions of pounds in prizemoney as a result of being allowed to cheat (making the fact that Rangers managed to leave a trail of debt of over £100m all the more remarkable given the fact they were playing to packed houses at Ibrox and earning from the Champions League and Europa league every year in that timeframe).

No one doubts that the SFA and SFL / SPL acted correctly in the cases of Airdrie. Third Lanark or Gretna. Even fans of The Rangers would accept rules were overlooked strictly speaking to allow them, as a new club, straight into the bottom tier of the SPFL. If anyone points out The Rangers fans don't accept rules were bent to accomodate their club they are of the disposition that tries to maintain they are the same club. When the new Rangers were promoted from the Championship did they not sell season tickets on the basis of 'help the club chase title no. 54' or whatever number of titles it is? As far as Rangers and their board and fans are concerned, "Rangers no longer is exist" is not a statement they believe or accept.

Why should GLS speak up rather than follow sheep like Petrie and Milne? Regan, Ogilvie still run the SFA, Doncaster still runs SPFL, and Dave King, Paul Murray and Alisair Johntson still run the board at the new Rangers. Not one of them should be governing at 'Rangers' or the SFA or the SPFL. Given that Rangers are still run by several crooks or got the previous version of the club liquidated after not paying £100m in taxes and are running up more debts again do you really think Doncaster, Regan and Ogilvie are up to applying the rules when the newco go bust again at some point in the next season or two? 

I'm not sure where you are going in your opening paragraph. All four clubs were liquidated. The size of the debt isn't important. They should all have been treated in exactly the same way and ultimately they were thanks to the bravery of a number of amateurs who were running lower league clubs at the time. St Mirrens official involvement in all of that saw Stewart Gilmour break from his holiday to contact the Scottish Press to berate those brave people for causing "Armageddon" and everyone knows about the show of hands amongst St Mirren fans - including SMISA board members - that saw them vote to back Stewart Gilmours stance on making sure Rangers made as quick a return as possible to the top flight.  For anyone at St Mirren to be angling to now hold someone to account for what happened back in 2011 would be hypocrisy of the highest possible magnitude. 

I'm also not sure what rules were overlooked to allow "Rangers" as a new club into the senior leagues. Perhaps some were regarding the election of new clubs but was there ever a doubt that "Rangers" in some way shape or form would be back? All they had to do was follow the Airdrie United model of buying up another league club - several were up for sale at that time including St Mirren! I'm of the somewhat pragmatic opinion that what actually happened was probably the best anyone could realistically hope for. It certainly afforded a large number of clubs to enjoy their biggest cash injection through the turnstyles in many years and it secured the future of a number of clubs that had previously been teetering on the brink of administration themselves. 

The events of 2011 are not Scottish Footballs finest moment. There are many culpable of acting in their own self interests and not many come out of it with any great credit. I don't think I'd trust many involved in the running of Scottish Football, whether currently in the SFA or not, of ever applying justice without first looking after their own self interest and greed to do the right thing if history ever was to repeat itself. And at "Rangers"? Well their fans, board and marketing team can believe whatever they want. We should by now all know the truth. The old club is dead. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bellside Bud said:

I'm not sure where you are going in your opening paragraph. All four clubs were liquidated. The size of the debt isn't important. They should all have been treated in exactly the same way and ultimately they were thanks to the bravery of a number of amateurs who were running lower league clubs at the time.

 

 

I must have missed the bit where The Gretna, The Third Lanark, and The Airdrie were re-admitted straight away as SFA and SFL/SPL members and continued playing at the same ground, with the same board members running them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Dibbles old paperboy said:

I must have missed the bit where The Gretna, The Third Lanark, and The Airdrie were re-admitted straight away as SFA and SFL/SPL members and continued playing at the same ground, with the same board members running them.

Do you know know what I must have missed? Your regular posts from 2011 condemning Stewart Gilmour and the collective St Mirren boards behaviour during that period. I must have missed your public condemnation of Kenny Morrison who admitted this year that the only reason he voted in favour of Gilmours proposal to accelerate "Rangers" rise to the top flight was that the meeting had over run and he wanted to move on. And I must have missed your condemnation of the self appointed club super fan who runs this website who also raised his hand to back Gilmours proposal because he believed Gilmours claim that St Mirren couldn't survive financially without a Rangers in the top flight. 

Back in 2011 clubs were elected into the senior ranks. I can't remember if other applicants were sought and considered or if any put forward an alternative option. Like you I wasn't particularly happy to see a club back in Govan but I was pragmatic enough to understand that it would have had to have been a rather spectacular alternative for any other club to present a better model than one which would see a club with a 50000+ all seated stadium, around 20,000+ season ticket holders, national interest and the backing if the TV companies. Even more so when you know that if the weren't elected to the league you would be jeopardising the history and the existence of another league member as "Rangers" would simply have followed the historic principle of buying a franchise and relocating and rebranding it as Airdrie United did with Clydebank or indeed as Clydebank did with East Stirlingshire. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 16 September 2017 at 3:09 AM, Warwick Hunt said:

2 points

1. Rangers hadn't lost the big tax case at the time of Nimmo's findings. The fact that they have now lost the tax case changes everything. Rangers had a massive advantage that wasn't available to any other club.

2. The SFA (backed by Celtic) gave contrived evidence at the Nimmo hearings regarding the improper registration of the Rangers players (ie the side letters weren't disclosed to the SFA). On the basis of that dodgy evidence, Nimmo has his hands tied. Again, the fact that Rangers subsequently lost the tax tribunal brings this whole issue into question again.

The fact of the matter is that Rangers field ineligible players for over a decade. They haven't been punished for that. The Nimmo hearings have been blown out of the water because of the subsequent tax tribunal decisions and, in addition, the SFA (backed by Celtic) lied at the Nimmo hearings.

All the stuff Celtic are coming out with just now is a smokescreen aimed at placating their supporters. Celtic did everything they could to keep the other half of the Old Firm in business. Without Rangers, Celtic cannot exists as they currently do.

Scottish football should not have allowed the new Rangers back into the league. Celtic would then have withered away and Scottish football would have been saved.

As it is, the Old Firm are back in business.

Can a case be brought to a club who folded. Meaning Rangers today are a new club does that not make then scott free so to speak ? I know to fans they are still the same club how does law view them ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Isle Of Bute Saint said:

Can a case be brought to a club who folded. Meaning Rangers today are a new club does that not make then scott free so to speak ? I know to fans they are still the same club how does law view them ?

That's the very crux of the matter. They CLAIM to be the same club. Their followers CLAIM it's the same club. The inept custodians of our game openly allow the new club to display the badge and the list of "honours" from the old club to be brandished everywhere, including on their shirts to further maintain the illusion that it's the same club. Those in power are just hoping the rest of us get fed up and go silent so they don't find themselves being caught complicit in the lies and wrongdoings of the old club and it's now proven deceitful methods of player recruitment. They hope everybody will move on from the fact they allowed a brand new club with no historical trace to  be catapulted into the league set up at the expense of clubs who have been waiting years to have the privilege. It's astounding that they are getting away with this. At the very least, an open, honest enquiry will prevent this lot from repeating the folly when, and I do believe it's when, the newco jumps over the financial ledge with their lemmings in  tow.

ETA.

If there are any lemmings in any doubt

RANGERS ARE DEED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited by stlucifer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stlucifer said:

That's the very crux of the matter. They CLAIM to be the same club. Their followers CLAIM it's the same club. The inept custodians of our game openly allow the new club to display the badge and the list of "honours" from the old club to be brandished everywhere, including on their shirts to further maintain the illusion that it's the same club. Those in power are just hoping the rest of us get fed up and go silent so they don't find themselves being caught complicit in the lies and wrongdoings of the old club and it's now proven deceitful methods of player recruitment. They hope everybody will move on from the fact they allowed a brand new club with no historical trace to  be catapulted into the league set up at the expense of clubs who have been waiting years to have the privilege. It's astounding that they are getting away with this. At the very least, an open, honest enquiry will prevent this lot from repeating the folly when, and I do believe it's when, the newco jumps over the financial ledge with their lemmings in  tow.

ETA.

If there are any lemmings in any doubt

RANGERS ARE DEED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ardrieonians are also dead. Yet if you go have a look at their website today their Club History section says the club was founded in 1878 and details their Scottish Cup win and their league runs in the 1920's. They did change their name and their club crest when they were Airdrie United but in 2013 the SFA allowed them to revert back to their traditional name and their traditional club crest. Did anyone complain? Well if they did they must have done it pretty quietly, I certainly can't find any evidence of a furore over the decision online, and I don't remember anyone complaining about it in the press either. It seems everyone has saved that anger for "Rangers" which for me shows the double standards. The allegation being levelled at the SFA is that "Rangers" have been given preferential treatment, yet those making the claim are singling "Rangers" out for special treatment when they were happy to ignore what Airdrieonians were doing. 

I'm not against the idea of an enquiry to make sure that what happened in 2011 doesn't happen again - I just find it odd that people who were happy to keep quiet in 2011 while their Chairman berated the likes of Turnbull Hutton have now taken up the pitchforks and are demanding that we burn the witches who were only in their positions because of the collective vote of football boardrooms up and down the country.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Bellside Bud said:

Ardrieonians are also dead. Yet if you go have a look at their website today their Club History section says the club was founded in 1878 and details their Scottish Cup win and their league runs in the 1920's. They did change their name and their club crest when they were Airdrie United but in 2013 the SFA allowed them to revert back to their traditional name and their traditional club crest. Did anyone complain? Well if they did they must have done it pretty quietly, I certainly can't find any evidence of a furore over the decision online, and I don't remember anyone complaining about it in the press either. It seems everyone has saved that anger for "Rangers" which for me shows the double standards. The allegation being levelled at the SFA is that "Rangers" have been given preferential treatment, yet those making the claim are singling "Rangers" out for special treatment when they were happy to ignore what Airdrieonians were doing. 

I'm not against the idea of an enquiry to make sure that what happened in 2011 doesn't happen again - I just find it odd that people who were happy to keep quiet in 2011 while their Chairman berated the likes of Turnbull Hutton have now taken up the pitchforks and are demanding that we burn the witches who were only in their positions because of the collective vote of football boardrooms up and down the country.  

I always call them 

THE AIRDRIE UNITED FC (2002)

I was livid when they were permitted to call themselves after a dead Club. 

They never will be Airdrieonians in my mind. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS
I must have missed the bit where The Gretna, The Third Lanark, and The Airdrie were re-admitted straight away as SFA and SFL/SPL members and continued playing at the same ground, with the same board members running them.

Serious question - what's your point regarding this?

The other member clubs allowed this to happen at the time. Are you expecting retrospective action and if so how would this happen?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bellside Bud said:

Ardrieonians are also dead. Yet if you go have a look at their website today their Club History section says the club was founded in 1878 and details their Scottish Cup win and their league runs in the 1920's. They did change their name and their club crest when they were Airdrie United but in 2013 the SFA allowed them to revert back to their traditional name and their traditional club crest. Did anyone complain? Well if they did they must have done it pretty quietly, I certainly can't find any evidence of a furore over the decision online, and I don't remember anyone complaining about it in the press either. It seems everyone has saved that anger for "Rangers" which for me shows the double standards. The allegation being levelled at the SFA is that "Rangers" have been given preferential treatment, yet those making the claim are singling "Rangers" out for special treatment when they were happy to ignore what Airdrieonians were doing. 

I'm not against the idea of an enquiry to make sure that what happened in 2011 doesn't happen again - I just find it odd that people who were happy to keep quiet in 2011 while their Chairman berated the likes of Turnbull Hutton have now taken up the pitchforks and are demanding that we burn the witches who were only in their positions because of the collective vote of football boardrooms up and down the country.  

I have to admit Airdie's change was done quietly enough as to escape my attention but, if I had heard about it, I would have suggested a motive for doing so and it wouldn't have been to placate those who support the new diamonds. Think about the timeline Bud.

ETA. I certainly was vocal in decrying ANY attempt to get the rangers into the league and I wasn't alone on here or on other platform.

Edited by stlucifer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, stlucifer said:

I have to admit Airdie's change was done quietly enough as to escape my attention but, if I had heard about it, I would have suggested a motive for doing so and it wouldn't have been to placate those who support the new diamonds. Think about the timeline Bud.

ETA. I certainly was vocal in decrying ANY attempt to get the rangers into the league and I wasn't alone on here or on other platform.

I know the timeline. It was before the Nimmo Enquiry and aye it may well have been to set a precedent but where was all the gnashing and wailing at a new club being allowed to revive the traditional name, branding, and to adopt the honours of the dead club in 2013? Why are "Rangers" getting the special treatment?

If people want to demand a further inquest into what happened why not start at your own club first? Why not look at the shameful way Stewart Gilmour in particular behaved in May, June and July of 2011? He told us not to put pressure on those amateur Chairmen at lower league clubs because he feared that the stress might be killing them - then after the vote he waded in attempting to boot each one of them in the bollocks just because they had the balls to ignore the huge amount of pressure that was being put on them by SPL clubs, like St Mirren.  Why not look at the way some supposedly influential St Mirren supporters voted on that fateful night? One of them even had the affront to stand for election as SMISA representative on the club board and he actually got quite a few votes too which defies belief. Imagine letting him in as a decision maker at the club! What would he do at an SPFL meeting if the same circumstances arose again? Would he do as he was being told because the meeting had overrun and he wanted out? Is that the route to sporting integrity? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 16/09/2017 at 11:09 AM, Warwick Hunt said:

2 points

1. Rangers hadn't lost the big tax case at the time of Nimmo's findings. The fact that they have now lost the tax case changes everything. Rangers had a massive advantage that wasn't available to any other club.

2. The SFA (backed by Celtic) gave contrived evidence at the Nimmo hearings regarding the improper registration of the Rangers players (ie the side letters weren't disclosed to the SFA). On the basis of that dodgy evidence, Nimmo has his hands tied. Again, the fact that Rangers subsequently lost the tax tribunal brings this whole issue into question again.

The fact of the matter is that Rangers field ineligible players for over a decade. They haven't been punished for that. The Nimmo hearings have been blown out of the water because of the subsequent tax tribunal decisions and, in addition, the SFA (backed by Celtic) lied at the Nimmo hearings.

All the stuff Celtic are coming out with just now is a smokescreen aimed at placating their supporters. Celtic did everything they could to keep the other half of the Old Firm in business. Without Rangers, Celtic cannot exists as they currently do.

Scottish football should not have allowed the new Rangers back into the league. Celtic would then have withered away and Scottish football would have been saved.

As it is, the Old Firm are back in business.

point 1. they have now 

point 2 sounds dodgy. lets have an inquiry.

The old firm is dead mate.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...