26 March 2012
Mr S. M. ReganChief Executive
By email only: sandra.buchanan@scottishfa.co.uk
Your Ref:Our Ref:E.Mail:Direct Dial:Direct Fax:
SMR/SBRMN/262563-00001r.macneice@ashfords.co.uk0117 321 80710117 321 8021
Dear Sir
Craig Whyte
We refer to your letter dated 19 March 2012 addressed to Mr Fernandes. Please note this matter has been transferred to Mr Mac Neice and accordingly, please address all future correspondenceto him.In your letter of 18 March 2012 you assert that the Board of the Scottish FA is satisfied that it hasfulfilled its obligations regarding service of its letter of 7 March 2012 on our client. The Board'ssatisfaction misses the point.The SFA has a duty to ensure procedural fairness in its dealings. That duty includes therequirement to arrange and administer its internal proceedings in compliance with the general law.Minimum standards of procedural protection to participants include the obligation to fully and fairlyinform those subject to a complaint or disciplinary procedures of the precise nature of thecomplaint against them and to give them a proper opportunity to put their case to it. That dutyincludes the obligation to inform the subject of a complaint of the matters that are to be consideredincluding the evidence on which the governing body relies.In respect of this matter, the SFA to date has wholly failed to conduct itself in a manner thatdischarges its duty to act fairly and in accordance with the general law.By way of illustration despite corresponding with others on this matter since apparently October last year you chose only to correspond directly with our client by your letter of 9 March 2012following the SFA Board's decision that our client was not a fit and proper person by reference tothe terms of Article 10. In that letter you informed our client of the following:-1.That the SFA had not received a substantive response from either Rangers FC or thatClub's former lawyers to correspondence sent to those parties by the SFA.2.That following Rangers FC entering into administration the SFA had established whatyou refer to as an Independent Committee to "
determine whether or not
(our client was)
a fit and proper person to hold a position within Association Football in accordance witharticle 10 of the Scottish FA's Articles of Association
".3.That the Independent Committee had published a report which had been considered "
indetail
" by the Board of the SFA at their meeting held on 8 March 2012.4.That the Independent Committee's Report indicated the Committee's opinion that therewas what you term prima facie evidence that our client was not a fit and proper personwithin the meaning of Article 10.2.5.That the Committee did not wish to make a determination on the issue and consideredthat a determination should be made by the Scottish FA Board only after what youdescribe as "
due process
".On the basis of that chronology we make the following comments:-1.You have elected to conduct this investigation without any reference to our client nor did you invite our client to comment or to assist you in November or December lastyear.2.That is despite the fact that following the BBC's transmission of a television programme,that we understand prompted your investigation, you and Mr Campbell Ogilvie attendeda private dinner with our client and Ali Russell during which matters relating to RangersFC were discussed including the financial difficulties being experienced by the Club. Weare instructed that during the dinner you told Mr Whyte he had been open with the SFAand you expressed your appreciation of that openness telling our client that the SFAwas there to help. In respect of Mr Whyte's director disqualification, you indicated to Mr Whyte that the issue would not prevent our client from remaining involved with RangersFC. Our client specifically recalls that you indicated to him that he should not worryabout his previous disqualification as a director.3.Given these matters we consider that you have failed to properly separate theinvestigatory function into this matter from what you purport to be the Board's role inmaking a final determination not least in circumstances where it would appear that twomembers of the Board discussed this matter with our client during a private dinner andwould be likely to be called as witnesses in circumstances were Mr Whyte to be givenan opportunity of putting his case at a hearing. That is particularly the case given thatwhat we are instructed was said by you at that dinner appears to directly contradict your statement to the press on or about 8 March 2012 which we refer to later in this letter.4.You refer in your letter of 9 March 2012 to the requirement that a determination of thematter be made only after "due process". On any basis the SFA has failed to followeven basic or minimum standards of procedural protection in respect of our client.Instead the SFA has purported to commission an Independent Committee's Report, thecontent of which, it has determined, it will keep secret from our client. In circumstanceswhere the SFA Board has refused to disclose the content of that Report, the evidenceon which the Committee relied or even the terms of reference under which the
Committee operated the admission in your letter of 19 March that evidence waspresented to the Committee causes our client very considerable concern. Pleaseprovide a clear written explanation as to who gave evidence before or to theCommittee, the nature of that evidence and copies of all documents and other materialdisclosed to the Committee.5.In these circumstances the SFA Board has denied our client the opportunity of understanding the case that he has to meet, has refused to provide him with theevidence on which the SFA Board relies in asserting that our client is not a fit andproper person within the meaning of Article 10.2 and has instead chosen to publish it'sfinding that our client is not a fit and proper person in circumstances where he has beenafforded no opportunity of answering the case against him.6.The reference in the third paragraph of your letter of 9 March 2012, that theIndependent Committee "
was of the opinion that there is prima facie evidence that youare not a fit and proper person
" suggests that the matter has been pre-determined.That concern is confirmed when your statement published on 8 March 2012 atwww.telegraph.co.uk"
Craig Whyte is not a fit and proper person
to own Rangers saysScottish FA"
is considered. That article referred specifically to a statement issued byyou which stated, amongst other things:-"
Principally it is the belief of the Board taking into account the prima facie evidence presented today, that Mr Craig Whyte is not considered to be a fit and proper person to hold a position within association football
".7.That statement issued by you entirely undermines what you said in your letter of 9March and serves as clear evidence that the SFA Board had in fact already made adetermination on this issue at the time you wrote that letter which is entirely at odds andcontradicts your approach at the private dinner with our client late last year. It alsocontradicts what you say in your letter of 19 March 2012, that the Board will consider this issue on 5 April 2012. In fact the Board, as evidenced by your own statement, hadalready considered this issue, made a determination on it and published a statementsetting out the result of that determination.Next StepsFor the avoidance of doubt, our client wishes to be afforded the opportunity of answering theallegations which appear to have been made against him in the Independent Committee's Reportwhich the SFA Board has so far refused to disclose to him. In those circumstances we requireimmediate disclosure of the following:1.An entire copy of the Independent Committee's Report including the Committee's termsof reference,2.Details of the identity of those who gave evidence before the Committee and the natureand content of their evidence3.Copies of all statements, reports and other material placed before the Committee,
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
More From This User
Notes
Load more