StuartD
Tour Rookie
Punishments
Have RFC been punished? The answer from me is a resounding YES………followed by a bigger resounding NO.
RFC were docked 10 points and a signing embargo placed on them by the SPL when they went into administration as per the rules. They would have also been docked 10 points for the coming season if they were still fighting for a CVA. They were also fined the maximum £50000 by the SFA in accordance with the SFA rule book.
It should also be noted that RFC have been the only Scottish club to be hit by an additional “bringing the game into disrepute†charge for going into Administration (more about disrepute charge later). The SFA can bring a disrepute on any club/person who has not acted in the best interests of the game. Why were Dundee (in Admin for second time in 5 years) not hit with a disrepute charge last season? Therefore it could be argued that RFC have had more punishments than any other club for going into Admin.
Are the received punishments enough? Of course their not, but it’s hardly RFC’s fault the SPL rule book does not provide much of a deterrent for going into Admin. In early days there were no deterrents and MFC had no points penalty and even signed players whilst in Admin. After complaints from PTFC who lost players to MFC a signing embargo for going into Admin was brought in. This was a deterrent at the time but has since been rendered pretty useless with the introduction of the Transfer Window. The SPL and SFA have had plenty of time to implement strong sanctions but have failed to do so.
The SFA disrepute charge brought a max £110,000 fine and the now infamous transfer embargo for a year. . I have no complaints about the disrepute charge as Craig Whyte deliberately set out to take the club into Admin. Some fans argue that only he should be punished as RFC previously had a good record (potential EBT charge aside) compared to other SPL clubs but in corporate law Craig Whyte is RFC and vice versa
Not sure if the disrepute fine is even payable as a result of admin but for a disrepute charge the other possible actions were Suspension from game, kick RFC out of football or a Scottish cup ban (no set period of time specified). The SFA decided to call in a judiciary panel to decide the punishment. In SFA rules a judiciary panel can bring in any sanction they see fit and ignore the listed sanctions in the rule book. Only the SFA can decide to bring in the judiciary panel and this is where the SFA rules fell down in court and they were ordered to pick a punishment from the listed sanctions in the rule book.
The signing embargo did make the possible selling of the club difficult. As a member of the RST I received a copy of the SFA report on why this punishment was selected and it stated the maximum fine was far too punitive (totally agree) and that a suspension kicking out of football was too severe (again I agree). The report made no mention of why the other possible sanction (ban from Scottish cup) was not selected. A 3 to 5 year ban could have been reasonable sanction. So why did the SFA not choose this sanction, plainly because they are looking for a new sponsor.
Where do RFC/Newco/Sevco go?
For me it has to be SFL 3. the new SPL rules on Newco (we make it up as we go along) are just a waste of time. From a sporting point of view it’s the best decision and if other SPL
Chairmen listen to their fans it is the only option. But since when have football clubs put their loyal customers first? If clubs can get over any possible short term revenue slumps, Scottish Football will come out stronger in my opinion.
It would appear that some clubs want RFC in the SPL for revenue purposes. They want RFC there but want to deny RFC their share of the revenue. Possible penalties included withholding Prize money. If Rangers got to position x in the league they are entitled to the prize money. I could take it if the money was withheld and used to fund grass roots football but it was to be distributed to the other clubs. “We need you there to provide revenue but we take your share†is not acceptable in my opinion
Souness EBT
For our friends down south the BBC documentary revealed that Souness was paid from the RFC EBT some 10 years after leaving the club. Souness refused to give an interview (maybe out of Loyalty to our ex chairman but reason is unknown) The BBC stated that he did not give an interview and they did not know why he was paid the monies but the BBC went on to state that 5 weeks later Souness signed Tugay from Rangers. No allegations were made (for obvious legal perspective) but it was obvious we were left to think this was a bung.
Could well possible be true. Souness has signed 3 players from Rangers, Tugay, Ferguson and Boumsong (for Newcastle) that I can think off. From the BBC investigation it appears he only got a fee for one of these transfers (or bung). I would say that Tugay is the one player he got a good deal on and would be far more likely to take a bung for the other 2 inflated fees he paid for either Boumsong and Ferguson.
Souness became a director and a shareholder in RFC a couple of years before he left. His shareholding at the time was one of the largest outside of Dave King and our ex chairman. What I do know from someone close to me who used to work for our ex chairman is that Souness has been paid dividends. Maybe one of these has been made through the EBT. In the interest of fairness maybe the BBC could have suggested this but it would not have been nearly as interesting would it?
Anyway time to go back to work
Have RFC been punished? The answer from me is a resounding YES………followed by a bigger resounding NO.
RFC were docked 10 points and a signing embargo placed on them by the SPL when they went into administration as per the rules. They would have also been docked 10 points for the coming season if they were still fighting for a CVA. They were also fined the maximum £50000 by the SFA in accordance with the SFA rule book.
It should also be noted that RFC have been the only Scottish club to be hit by an additional “bringing the game into disrepute†charge for going into Administration (more about disrepute charge later). The SFA can bring a disrepute on any club/person who has not acted in the best interests of the game. Why were Dundee (in Admin for second time in 5 years) not hit with a disrepute charge last season? Therefore it could be argued that RFC have had more punishments than any other club for going into Admin.
Are the received punishments enough? Of course their not, but it’s hardly RFC’s fault the SPL rule book does not provide much of a deterrent for going into Admin. In early days there were no deterrents and MFC had no points penalty and even signed players whilst in Admin. After complaints from PTFC who lost players to MFC a signing embargo for going into Admin was brought in. This was a deterrent at the time but has since been rendered pretty useless with the introduction of the Transfer Window. The SPL and SFA have had plenty of time to implement strong sanctions but have failed to do so.
The SFA disrepute charge brought a max £110,000 fine and the now infamous transfer embargo for a year. . I have no complaints about the disrepute charge as Craig Whyte deliberately set out to take the club into Admin. Some fans argue that only he should be punished as RFC previously had a good record (potential EBT charge aside) compared to other SPL clubs but in corporate law Craig Whyte is RFC and vice versa
Not sure if the disrepute fine is even payable as a result of admin but for a disrepute charge the other possible actions were Suspension from game, kick RFC out of football or a Scottish cup ban (no set period of time specified). The SFA decided to call in a judiciary panel to decide the punishment. In SFA rules a judiciary panel can bring in any sanction they see fit and ignore the listed sanctions in the rule book. Only the SFA can decide to bring in the judiciary panel and this is where the SFA rules fell down in court and they were ordered to pick a punishment from the listed sanctions in the rule book.
The signing embargo did make the possible selling of the club difficult. As a member of the RST I received a copy of the SFA report on why this punishment was selected and it stated the maximum fine was far too punitive (totally agree) and that a suspension kicking out of football was too severe (again I agree). The report made no mention of why the other possible sanction (ban from Scottish cup) was not selected. A 3 to 5 year ban could have been reasonable sanction. So why did the SFA not choose this sanction, plainly because they are looking for a new sponsor.
Where do RFC/Newco/Sevco go?
For me it has to be SFL 3. the new SPL rules on Newco (we make it up as we go along) are just a waste of time. From a sporting point of view it’s the best decision and if other SPL
Chairmen listen to their fans it is the only option. But since when have football clubs put their loyal customers first? If clubs can get over any possible short term revenue slumps, Scottish Football will come out stronger in my opinion.
It would appear that some clubs want RFC in the SPL for revenue purposes. They want RFC there but want to deny RFC their share of the revenue. Possible penalties included withholding Prize money. If Rangers got to position x in the league they are entitled to the prize money. I could take it if the money was withheld and used to fund grass roots football but it was to be distributed to the other clubs. “We need you there to provide revenue but we take your share†is not acceptable in my opinion
Souness EBT
For our friends down south the BBC documentary revealed that Souness was paid from the RFC EBT some 10 years after leaving the club. Souness refused to give an interview (maybe out of Loyalty to our ex chairman but reason is unknown) The BBC stated that he did not give an interview and they did not know why he was paid the monies but the BBC went on to state that 5 weeks later Souness signed Tugay from Rangers. No allegations were made (for obvious legal perspective) but it was obvious we were left to think this was a bung.
Could well possible be true. Souness has signed 3 players from Rangers, Tugay, Ferguson and Boumsong (for Newcastle) that I can think off. From the BBC investigation it appears he only got a fee for one of these transfers (or bung). I would say that Tugay is the one player he got a good deal on and would be far more likely to take a bung for the other 2 inflated fees he paid for either Boumsong and Ferguson.
Souness became a director and a shareholder in RFC a couple of years before he left. His shareholding at the time was one of the largest outside of Dave King and our ex chairman. What I do know from someone close to me who used to work for our ex chairman is that Souness has been paid dividends. Maybe one of these has been made through the EBT. In the interest of fairness maybe the BBC could have suggested this but it would not have been nearly as interesting would it?
Anyway time to go back to work
