Five
Today, CharlotteFakes leaked a copy of the Five Way Agreement. While not signed, given the generally high level of authenticity maintained by Scotland’s Julian Assange, there is little reason to take it as anything other than the real thing.
The Five Way Agreement is something that has taken upon somewhat mythological (or pathological, depending on what team you support) importance as the document which would clear up exactly what Rangers are doing in the Scottish League system once and for all. While it is perhaps impossible for it to clear up everything some may promise it to do so, it can be condensed to certain important concepts – Who are Rangers and how did they obtain their place in the league in spite of precedent from, for example, Gretna, that they should not be allowed to do so.
The full document is available to view at http://www.scribd.com/doc/164607084/5-Way-Agreement-As-issued-to-all-parties-for-signature but, as with my other documented blogs, rather than go through the whole thing, there will be a point by point narrative meaning it may be helpful for those with Windows 7 to do the thing where two windows take up half of the screen each or just to refer to the document while reading.
Page 2 – For those who love semantics, Rangers and Sevco Scotland are two separate entities. Take from that what you will but it would appear to lend handy documented support to those who will call Rangers a New Club and a stick to beat those who call it the Same Club with. Personally, I don’t care for that debate, but I know some do love it for it’s banterous purposes.
Page 2, Recitals B and C – Interesting to note this in terms of timeline, that the SFL at this point has 30 members and the SPL 12, suggesting that, at this point, Dundee have not been “promoted” nor Rangers “relegated”. Considering that this document was actually signed after Rangers were evicted from the SPL, it seems odd to me that neither organisation have chosen to reflect it. It would suggest that Rangers membership of the league never lapsed and that it was never in question and that, as such, the matter of league membership was not up for discussion as part of the Five Way Agreement process. Recital D staes that OldCo Rangers still owns a SPL share despite, in recital G on Page 3, it clearly stating that Rangers will be entering Division Three. This is particularly odd as the SPL share generally lapses as soon as the season is over (or, in Rangers case, should have lapsed when initially voted out of the SPL) which would suggest that precedence was ignored to allow Rangers a “share” in the league so as not to leave them without a league to play in. As the SFL works on a membership basis only and Rangers NewCo were not granted any membership status at this point (as they had, in effect, no club), without this share, Rangers would be, by default, out of the league. It would suggest that precedent was ignored to ensure Rangers still had a grip on a league spot.
Page 4, CW Enduring Acts – This is notable for making accusations not publicly made previously. Why mention bribery, match fixing, undisclosed payments to players (rather hilariously noted as an enduring act from Craig Whyte, rather than David Murray) or undisclosed payments to match officials? Why mention those things if there wasn’t something going on? By mentioning that it has to be put into this document that Rangers commit not to do these things, surely it suggests that they have in the past. While financial doping rigged the game to an extent, were Rangers rigging games in a more literal sense and if not, why is it mentioned?
Page 7, Articles 2.1 and 2.2 - More separate entity evidence – Sevco become liable for Rangers’ misdeeds but, at the same time, don’t. Note the last 5 words – full member of the SFA – Rangers NewCo were an associate member. The associate membership loophole to get Rangers into the SFL in the first place would surely apply to this also.
Page 8, Articles 2.3.1 and 2.4.3 – Commits Sevco to paying Scottish and European Football Creditors. That would appear to diminish the difference between OldCo and NewCo.
Article 2.3.2 – This, in itself, ins interesting and marks a break from the Gretna precendent once more. Sevco/Rangers renounce any right to monies owed to them by the SPL in terms of prize money from 11/12 or any other season for the SPL to dispose of as it sees fit. Gretna, of course, were given an advance on their prize money so they could complete the season. Why the change? Considering Rangers, as the team who came second in the 11/12 season, would have been entitled to a large chunk of cash, is it that the SPL couldn’t afford to pay it or just didn’t want to. And how was it disposed of? Until it was disposed of, was it sat accruing interest? If so, what happened to the interest? Were the SPL actually making a profit from the demise of Rangers?
Page 9, Article 2.4.4 – This is an interesting one. Based on UEFA rules, Rangers should be able to qualify for Europe 3 seasons post an insolvency event. This article appears that, in addition to that, they should also have to be given permission to do so by the SFA, which would seem an unnecessary bureaucratic layer to pass through and suggests Rangers can ask UEFA to bend the rules in that respect. Why?
Article 2.5.4 and 2.5.3 – This is exceptional hypocrisy. Put it in writing that Rangers not only have to pay the fines meted out by the judicial panel (fair enough) but also the SFA’s costs in administering these and then in the NEXT BLOODY PARAGRAPH saying Rangers agree not to chase the SFA for payment of costs they were awarded in the Court of Session. Staggeringly arrogant.
Article 2.6 – This begs the question, when did the share transfer and how does this affect the Brechin game played before the deadline of 3rd August given here?
Page 10, Article 3.2, also Page 11, Article 5.2 – The debate on whether players should or shouldn’t have TUPEd over to Newco is complicated here. It states that any player registered with Rangers as part of the SPL side would transfer to be part of the SFL side which would appear to reflect that the SFA were of the opinion that those players who departed the club for nothing in the Summer should not have been able to do so and that, had any left after this document was signed, the SFA could refuse the transfer. Of course, doing so would have led to an entertaining case in the European courts, but the SFA appear to be trying to weigh in on it anyway.
Article 5.1 – This, to me, is the real nitty gritty. The Gretna precedent would be to refuse entry of a liquidated club into the SFL unless they were passed fit to do so by an application panel (hence why we have Annan in the league). Instead, this commits the SFL to irrevocably take “whatever steps are necessary" to ensure Rangers take part in the Third Division. Now, while the SPL also is t take "whatever steps are necessary" to get Dundee in the SPL, it is odd language to use. Surely this could have been done without needing to state authorities were to do whatever needed doing to allow Rangers to play. While it does not suggest misdeed, it certainly suggests mistrust between Sevco and the SFA/SFL/SPL.
Page 11, Article 8.1 – Yes, the Five Way Agreement needed a Non-Disclosure arrangement aside from to say that it existed in the first place and a pre-written statement would be released on it. Stewart Regan must think he’s Tyler Durden.
Page 12, Article 10 – This would appear to suggest that, had Rangers gone back to the SPL/SFL/SFA and said they had no intention of paying footballing debts, there could be an amendment to the Five Way Agreement to ensure that they didn’t have to, that it would be swept under the carpet and that the creditors would have no say in that whatsoever. Due to the non-disclosure agreement, the creditors would also be unable to find out that this was the case. Certainly, if any football creditor of Rangers is still waiting for money, this might seem like carte blanche to try and get it from the SFA/SPL/SFL as they would appear to be complicit in allowing it to be possible for Rangers to not pay creditors and to withhold information about not having to pay creditors after initially agreeing to.
Article 12.1 and 12.2, also Page 14, Article 16.2 – That says Rangers/Sevco have no recourse to take a pop at the SPL, SFA or SFL about their conduct with regard to Rangers. This would also include that Rangers are not able to take the SFA, SPL or SFL to the Court of Session to obtain something as basic as, oh, I don’t know, the costs they were awarded by the Court of Session itself. Slippery.
Page 18 – The Registration Embargo. Here, times get mixed up. Rangers are not allowed to register a player between 00:01 on 01/09/12 and 00:00 on August 31st. The Transfer Window in Scotland ended at 23:00 on August 31st meaning Rangers’ registration ban ended after the transfer window. Now, let’s look at the SPFL rules on this (located at http://spfl.co.uk/docs/067_324__therulesofthespfl_1375800603.pdf – Page 97 is the relevant bit) – it clearly states that players cannot be registered outwith the transfer windows (article 7) unless (as per Article 9), the registration is given special dispensation by the SPFL board to do so when the player was, on the last day of the window, out of contract. That Rangers have committed to the signature of 8 players must mean that they were very confident that the SPFL would allow them to do so. Why?
It would appear, on the face of it, to be clear and blatant collusion from the SPFL to be seen to be giving Rangers carte blanche to be signing players outwith the transfer window and to guarantee that they will be given special dispensation to do so in spite of the ultimate decision being one made by the SPFL board. If that is the case, what is the point of the transfer window when the SPFL board are simply rubber-stamping everything that is put in front of them without taking a look at it. While it is hard to doubt that Rangers should be able to sign players, that they are able to sign 8 players on pre-cintract deals would suggest that the deals were assured to be given the OK by the SPFL before they were made, in spite of the fact that the SPFL’s own rules would suggest that that should be impossible. The rules on transfer windows and player registration do not appear to be worth the paper they are written on.
To conclude, in my humble opinion, this document may disappoint a lot of people. Many will enter it looking specifically for a smoking gun on behalf of Rangers. Instead, what is found is further evidence that the men running Scottish football are not fit for purpose – slippery as a fish, they appear to make up the rules as and when they want to suit them. Do Rangers want to sign 8 players outside of the transfer window? Let them. Should we pay Rangers costs they were granted by the courts? No chance. Evasive in the extreme, more inconsistent than your average Samaras season - it would seem that, in their own words, they will take whatever steps are deemed necessary to keep their grip on power.
Every team should be treated equally. The SFA and SPFL seem to think some are more equal than others. It’s time for the iron curtain that surrounds the offices at Hampden to be torn down.