{"id":9642,"date":"2016-08-22T10:44:06","date_gmt":"2016-08-22T09:44:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/etims.net\/?p=9642"},"modified":"2016-08-22T10:44:06","modified_gmt":"2016-08-22T09:44:06","slug":"the-big-lie-exposed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/etims.net\/?p=9642","title":{"rendered":"The Big Lie Exposed"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/p>\n

There it is. The truth.<\/p>\n

The letter from UEFA which once and for all settles the debate around \u00a0of “rangers ” 2012 continuing, or having a right to claim to be, the same entity as Rangers 1872, in liquidation.<\/p>\n

First of all, lets determine the credibility of the source. Andrea Traverso, head of Club Licencing and Financial Fair Play.<\/p>\n

Who is he, and what does he do ?<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

He is the head of Club Licencing and financial Fair Play at UEFA, which \u00a0in January this year produced a report, entitled<\/p>\n

Club Licencing -Ten Years On<\/a><\/p>\n

After its publication, Traverso expressed<\/p>\n

the hope that the report can encourage more sporting organisations to adopt similar standards to those promoted through club licensing, with the aim of improving governance and protecting the interests of competition organisers, clubs, players and, ultimately, the fans.\u00a0<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

to be fair, although I’ve provided a link, you probably won’t read all of it. It would take weeks.<\/p>\n

But it seems clear that neither the SFA, the SPFL or anyone in the media has taken the time either.<\/p>\n

After all, you’re not going to spend all that time on something that will show you’ve been peddling a lie about something, indeed to the extent where you or the organisation you work for has been making money off what you have lied about for, oh, four years or so now.<\/p>\n

You know, this same club nonsense. It was the company that went bump and all the other guff spewed by those “in the know ”<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

So, having established that Traverso knows what he’s on about, lets look at what he has to say, in his summary, \u00a0about the issue…<\/p>\n

The bit about “new club\/company, for instance, requires a little clarification, so we know what we are talking about here…<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The use of the term \u201cclub\/company\u201d in the UEFA reply reflects Article 12 of UEFA FFP 2010 (and later versions) which says:<\/p>\n

Chapter 2: Licence Applicant and Licence<\/em><\/p>\n

Article 12 \u2013 Definition of licence applicant<\/em><\/p>\n

1 A licence applicant may only be a football club, i.e. a legal entity fully responsible<\/em>
\nfor a football team participating in national and international competitions which<\/em>
\neither:<\/em><\/p>\n

a) is a registered member of a UEFA member association and\/or its affiliated<\/em>
\nleague (hereinafter: registered member); or<\/em><\/p>\n

b) has a contractual relationship with a registered member (hereinafter: football<\/em>
\ncompany).<\/em><\/p>\n

2 The membership and the contractual relationship (if any) must have lasted \u2013 at<\/em>
\nthe start of the licence season \u2013 for at least three consecutive years. Any<\/em>
\nalteration to the club\u2019s legal form or company structure (including, for example,<\/em>
\nchanging its headquarters, name or club colours, or transferring stakeholdings<\/em>
\nbetween different clubs) during this period in order to facilitate its qualification on<\/em>
\nsporting merit and\/or its receipt of a licence to the detriment of the integrity of a<\/em>
\ncompetition is deemed as an interruption of membership or contractual<\/em>
\nrelationship (if any) within the meaning of this provision.<\/em><\/p>\n

Article 12 of UEFA FFP is there to protect the integrity of UEFA competition and basically prevents a club (like Rangers Football Club – RFC) that changes its legal entity (as in being liquidated) simply reforming and continuing debt free as the same club with the same continuing National Association Membership as was held by the previous legal entity. It also prevents the holding company ruse that Southampton for example tried to use to avoid ten points deduction in 2009.<\/p>\n

( http:\/\/news.bbc.co.uk\/sport1\/hi\/football\/teams\/s\/southampton\/8014811.stm )<\/p>\n

Fairly straightforward, its there to stop cheats. Or at the very least, to deter them from trying to pull off a scam. \u00a0to replace the scam they had been operating for years that caused them to go down in the first place, presumably.<\/p>\n

A UEFA licence applicant first and foremost can only be a football club either free standing as in 1(a) above as RFC were prior to liquidation or an applicant having a contractual (i.e. written down) relationship with a club who is a member of a National association.<\/p>\n

In the years prior to liquidation there is no indication that Murray International Holdings (MIH) applied via SFA for UEFA licences under a written contract with RFC although the current The Rangers Football Club (TRFC) appear to have such a contractual relationship with Rangers International Football Club. (RIFC).<\/p>\n

It\u2019s a bit like the three shell game- designed to confuse.<\/p>\n

Thus whether any future applicant via the SFA for a UEFA licence from Ibrox, whether that be from the club (The Rangers Football Club [TRFC]) or the company (Rangers International Football Club PLC [RIFC]) will be treated by UEFA as coming from a new version of the club either from<\/p>\n

\u2981 The club itself as an applicant or
\n\u2981 The company as an applicant (on behalf of the club)<\/p>\n

But in any case neither has been a member of the SFA since before the club\u2019s inception in 2012. There can only be one entity, and where Ibrox is concerned, one could successfully argue that one is enough.<\/p>\n

Therefore, the club and the company are the same thing.<\/p>\n

Despite what the experts say..<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Which begs the question, one that the media are somewhat reluctant to ask, which is convenient as the SFA\/SPFL have shown no interest in answering, \u00a0that in light of the statement from UEFA and Article 12 and its purpose to preserve integrity of the competition, how can The SFA and The SPFL justify their apparent approach of allowing TRFC continuity of membership of both SFA and SPFL in football regulation terms, the result of which future trophies\/titles may be added, in \u00a0contradiction of UEFA regulations when their own regulations (below) state the SFA are bound to UEFA regulations and the SPFL to SFA regulations?<\/p>\n

Sounds complicated, but it isn’t. The SFA\/SPFL are bound by UEFA decsions and rules.<\/p>\n

The term used by the late Paul McConville in respect of the \u201cconditional\u201d SFA membership awarded in 2012 to enable “rangers “, then known as Sevco, \u00a0to play Brechin # was \u201cultra vires\u201d -outside the rules and it looks like it did not stop since.<\/p>\n

# https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/football\/2012\/jul\/27\/rangers-relaunched-brechin<\/p>\n

THE SCOTTISH FA AND ITS MEMBERSHIP<\/em><\/p>\n

From SFA HANDBOOK 2014\/15<\/em><\/p>\n

http:\/\/scottishfa.co.uk\/resources\/documents\/SFAPublications\/ScottishFAPublications2014-15\/Handbook%202014-15..pdf<\/em><\/p>\n

3. The Scottish FA<\/em><\/p>\n

The Scottish FA is a member of FIFA and UEFA. Accordingly, it is itself obliged to:-<\/em><\/p>\n

(a) observe the principles of loyalty, integrity and sportsmanship in accordance<\/em>
\nwith the principles of fair play;<\/em><\/p>\n

(b) comply with the statutes, regulations, directives, codes and decisions and the<\/em>
\nInternational Match Calendar of FIFA, UEFA and the Court of Arbitration for<\/em>
\nSport, and the Laws of the Game;<\/em><\/p>\n

(c) recognise and submit to the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport as<\/em>
\nspecified in the relevant provisions of the FIFA Statutes and the UEFA Statutes;<\/em><\/p>\n

(d) use its best endeavours, to the extent legally permissible, to procure that in the<\/em>
\nfinal instance any dispute arising under these Articles (and which is referred to<\/em>
\nit) is determined by arbitration pursuant to Article 99; and<\/em><\/p>\n

(e) use its best endeavours to ensure that the leagues, clubs, players, officials,<\/em>
\nmatches and Players\u2019 Agents under its jurisdiction (through their statutes,<\/em>
\nlicences, regulations or any other written document) acknowledge and accept<\/em>
\nall the above mentioned obligations and agree to be bound by and observe<\/em>
\nthese Articles.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Personally, I can;t see how either of the Ibrox entities have adhered to any of these rules, but I may be wrong<\/p>\n

Duties of SFA Members.<\/em><\/p>\n

5. Obligations and Duties of Members<\/em><\/p>\n

5.1 All members shall:-<\/em><\/p>\n

(a) observe the principles of loyalty, integrity and sportsmanship in accordance<\/em>
\nwith the rules of fair play;\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

This one especially doesn’t seem to apply to them. Not even near it.<\/p>\n

(b) be subject to and shall comply with these Articles and any statutes,<\/em>
\nregulations, directives, codes, decisions and International Match Calendar<\/em>
\npromulgated by the Board, the Professional Game Board, the Non-<\/em>
\nProfessional Game Board, the Judicial Panel Protocol, a Committee or subcommittee,FIFA, UEFA or the Court of Arbitration for Sport;<\/em><\/p>\n

(c) recognise and submit to the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport<\/em>
\nas specified in the relevant provisions of the FIFA Statutes and the UEFA<\/em>
\nStatutes;<\/em><\/p>\n

(d) respect the Laws of the Game;\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Laugh out loud stuff now.<\/p>\n

(e) refrain from engaging in any activity, practice or conduct which would<\/em>
\nconstitute an offence under sections 1, 2 or 6 of the Bribery Act 2010; and<\/em><\/p>\n

(f) behave towards the Scottish FA and other members with the utmost good<\/em>
\nFaith\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Articles of Association of The Scottish Professional Football League Limited (Company Number SC175364)<\/p>\n

Click to access 067_324__articlesofassociationofthescottishprofessionalfootballleaguelimitedasat1january2015_1420461960.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

SCOTTISH FA ARTICLES Applicable to SPFL.<\/em><\/p>\n

191. Nothing in these (SPFL) Articles shall relieve any Member of the Company from its obligations as a full member club of the Scottish FA to comply with the applicable articles of association of the Scottish FA for so long as such Member remains a member of the Scottish FA. <\/em>
\n192. Each Member shall in so far as it is lawfully able and permitted by the exercise of its voting powers to do so procure that the Company observes and complies with all relevant articles of association of the Scottish FA applicable to it<\/em><\/p>\n

To sum up if UEFA have made it quite clear they regard The Rangers Football Club as a \u201cnew club\/company\u201d what is the position of the SFA and SPFL under UEFA\u2019s jurisdiction?<\/p>\n

Or, why have they ignored this stance and actually made public statements to the opposite effect ?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

We have the UEFA response, which is reproduced above, \u00a0which categorically , using the rules of the SFA SPFL and UEFA confirms they are a new club.<\/p>\n

Also carbon copied into that reply are Celtic football club, whose response we do not have, and the SFA, whose response we also do not have.<\/p>\n

Celtic need to comment.<\/p>\n

They need to put this debate to bed once and for all. The evidnce is there for them to make their views known, but it appears the willingness is not.<\/p>\n

Our board ? Unable to comment on anything except the misbehaviour of our fans ?<\/p>\n

Who’d have thought it ?<\/p>\n

If they are to be deemed worthy of a seat on the board of a club that they claim is like no oither, then they’d better start earning it.<\/p>\n

The consequences of the last four years will not stop at merely exposing the lies, but those who were complicut must be held to account.<\/p>\n

The media are there to ensure this, but it appears they still have their mouths too full of lamb to talk about it.<\/p>\n

Like those at the SFA.<\/p>\n

We are aware of a narrative from the SFA , and other notable Celtic themed websites are as well, that suggests that the SFA are growing a little tired of the antics at Ibrox, which in turn may have , or may not have, something to do with the over reaction from the new club when Stewart Regan either didn’t bother turning up for a meeting, or forgot he had one , with representatives of the club.<\/p>\n

There is obviously now conflict between the two, and its bizarre that Regan has failed to defend his corner.<\/p>\n

He too, will have seen this response.<\/p>\n

Maybe he rang his partner in crime Neil Doncaster at the SPFL, another keen to perpetuate the same club myth.<\/p>\n

Now that it has been well and truly exposed for the lie it is, can we expect them to comment ?<\/p>\n

Can we expect our own Woodwards and Bernsteins in the media to chase the story up and demand answers ?<\/p>\n

Stop laughing at the back.<\/p>\n

And the front.<\/p>\n

This isn’t about the same club ideal, its not a pop at whichever entity plays out of Ibrox.<\/p>\n

Its about how a gang of crooks, for want of a better word, were allowed to take over the assets of a club, far too cheaply, and then proclaim they were actually the same club all along, at least the bit about the history which didn’t include the accounts.<\/p>\n

Its about how they were allowed to by those who are supposed to be there to protect clubs, and fans, from these very people.<\/p>\n

They were allowed to bury \u00a0their debt and with the support of the media went on to fleece their own support by pretending them hadn’t gone bump at all, just merely restructured the club, and needed a few quid from them to do that.<\/p>\n

Notably, no-one is asking where all that money went. There sure as hell isn’t any of it left.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Now that UEFA have confirmed that they are a different club, isn’t it time for those involved to tell us why they said they were ?<\/p>\n

Can someone explain how these carpetbaggers made a mockery of the credibility of the Scottish game, and how they were encouraged to do so?<\/p>\n

It can still get worse, you know.<\/p>\n

Here’s an example. Just one of many I can think of..<\/p>\n

Lets conjure up a scenario.<\/p>\n

Puma, the German sports kit comapny, have a contract with the Ibrox club that the Ibrox club are trying to renegotiate, or even take themselves out of.<\/p>\n

Mike Ashley is at odds with them as well.<\/p>\n

What would happen if they realised they hadn’t signed up with a company that had 140 years of history, and all those titles and trophies, and instead , using the UEFA missive as evidence, or at least a start, instructed their lawyers to ask questions of the SFA\/SPFL.<\/p>\n

We need answers, and it may be that we will get them in court.<\/p>\n

It’s gone on for too long now, and no doubt the perpetrators are hoping we’ve all forgotten about the scandal that ranks as the biggest in European sporting history.<\/p>\n

Time to stop hoping it will go away, because it won;t, and time to start calling people to account.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

There it is. The truth. The letter from UEFA which once and for all settles the debate around \u00a0of “rangers ” 2012 continuing, or having…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":9644,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/etims.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/08\/quotes-1513.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2J7If-2vw","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/etims.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9642"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/etims.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/etims.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/etims.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/etims.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=9642"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/etims.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9642\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9645,"href":"https:\/\/etims.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9642\/revisions\/9645"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/etims.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/9644"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/etims.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=9642"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/etims.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=9642"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/etims.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=9642"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}