There’s an industry of deliberate misunderstanding in Scottish football (and on the pages of CQN). One of the last vestiges of this is the SFA’s fabled Fit and Proper Test. There is no test, never has been a test and in all likelihood, never will be a test. It was almost certainly a figment of some under-informed journalist, who provided the concept enough currency for it to endure in the imagination, despite many, many, people explaining reality.
To be a director of a football club you need to be Fit and Proper, you do not sit or pass a test.
It’s a bit like:
To do a job you need to speak English, you do not sit or pass an English language test.
If you accept the above job assuring your employer you can speak English, and you can’t, you are likely to be fired.
If you accept a job as a director of a football club, assuring the SFA you are Fit and Proper, and you aren’t, the SFA will ban you from football and discipline the club for failing to ensure a director was Fit and Proper before appointment.
This morning the incessant campaign continues to throw reputational damage on anyone who would be inclined to point out that Dave King contravenes the eligibility rules on becoming a football club director. This is different from being Fit and Proper, which is a subjective assessment, Mr King is simply ineligible.
The reasons for his ineligibility (he was a director of a football club which was liquidated within the last 5 years), and other matters, most notably, his 41 convictions for breaking the tax law in South Africa, and the blame laid at his door by the SPL’s Lord Nimmo-Smith report, make up material reason why the SFA may consider him not Fit and Proper to run a football club.
After targeting Peter Lawwell yesterday, the campaign today turns direct to the SFA, who are accused of allowing Craig Whyte to “bluff his way through the Hampden [non-existent] ‘test’ by simply filling out an official SFA form”.
As should be patently obvious to anyone with a dozen or more brain cells, the SFA form is neither a ‘test’ nor a certification of appropriateness from the SFA.
The obligation to ensure a football club appoints Fit and Proper directors lies with that club’s board. If the board fail in their duty to the game, the club is liable to sanction from the SFA.
So who was on the board which appointed Craig Whyte as a director of Rangers?
Our emerging heroes, the men who chased away the billionaire, Dave King and Paul Murray. As non-executive directors of Rangers they had a responsibility to the club’s stakeholders that their interests were being protected.
The Institute of Directors factsheet on the role of non-execs quotes the Cadbury Report, saying they “should bring an independent judgement to bear on issues of strategy, performance and resources including key appointments and standards of conduct.”
It was the Rangers board’s responsibility to instruct the necessary checks on Craig Whyte’s appropriateness to be a director of the club. They either failed to do this, or if they did, failed to act on the information, or withdraw their names from the club’s register of directors.
Sir David Murray may have controlled the majority of shares, but as recent boardroom events at newco demonstrate, there is a great deal non-execs, when in a majority on the board, can do to inhibit major shareholders if they believe the interests of other stakeholders are being jeopardised.
Non-execs are not there to wear the blazer and attend supporters’ events, they are the eyes and ears of the supporters, shareholders, employees and creditors who are not privy to the inner workings of the club. In this respect, Mr King and Mr P. Murray failed Rangers on a cataclysmic level.
They are, in every respect possible, perfect for the job of running newco. My prediction (no inside info) is the SFA will fold under sustained media pressure, set aside their ineligibility rules and allow Mr King and Mr P. Murray to work their magic one more time.
793 Comments- Pages:
- «
- 1
- ...
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- »
Methinks they don,t want the pass marks or promotion. They realise they are f- cked either way. He’ll scud it into them. Hh
Methinks they don,t want the pass marks or promotion. They realise they are f- cked either way. He’ll scud it into them. Hh Bugger this piece of shit, ” hell” scud it into them.hh
Regarding the Traffickers in Indonesia being executed .To me the authorities have to send out a message to those who deal in drugs.these rats have a good life out of the misery of addicts.Prisons here are a joke.drugs seemly are available. how can that happen.to soft with these criminals. If we can’t be rid of these drug peddlers.do what they done to a couple of Glasgow boys in the Isle of Man Birch Them
As for prisons.its suppose to be a punishment. Well design these prison were its going to be tough.No X boxes etc.then hope fully by getting very little privaliges they will think twice in dealing drugs.Bad people seem to have the upper hand.
Criftci has the ability, perhaps not the attitude or even fitness levels, but certainly the ability. Looks like the type RD likes to develop.
Rooney, no thanks from me, this season’s Higdon.
JAMES FORREST
Excellent article on the SFA and Ogilvie in particular.
Ya vindictive swine,you trashed the rep of everyone you name-checked apart from the likes of Auldheid and Canamalar obviously. That takes some doing,ell done!
More shocking journalism in the Daily Record. In the headline too.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-collision-course-spfl-play-off-5600337
Ciftci?
Yesterday’s news on http://www.cqnmagazine.com – literally.
To save giving the DR hits, here is article BMCUW linked:
Rangers on collision course with SPFL in play-off row as they prepare to flaunt rules and allow season ticket holders in for free
07:41, 29 April 2015 By Colin Duncan , Michael Gannon
GERS are set to be joined in their revolt by Hibs and Motherwell thus denying the governing body desperately needed income.
Daily Record
RANGERS last night threw down the gauntlet to the SPFL in the £1million battle to allow their 25,000 season-ticket holders free entry to the play-offs.
The Ibrox club put themselves on a collision course with the Hampden beaks when revealing they’ll blatantly flaunt the governing body’s rules.
And Rangers are set to be joined in their revolt, with Hibs and Motherwell also planning to follow suit, therefore denying the authorities income they desperately need.
Under existing rules, clubs must charge fans an entry fee with the SPFL also entitled to take 50 per cent of the gate proceeds from the six play-off ties for redistribution among its member clubs.
If Rangers are involved in all three rounds then the SPFL could miss out on the cost of 75,000 tickets at around £30 per head which equates to £2.25m.
Senior officials at Ibrox firmly believe they have the SPFL over a barrel and are confident of winning this latest skirmish with officialdom.
They will argue a precedent was set 12 months ago when Hibs did not charge season-ticket holders for the second leg of their play-off clash against Hamilton and escaped without punishment.
A Rangers club statement said: “The Board of Rangers International Football Club has today informed the SPFL of their intention that Rangers season-ticket holders will not be charged to attend the play-off matches at Ibrox.
“These games are to be played between May 9 and May 31 and the club believes supporters who bought tickets for the entire season should not be asked to pay more.
“It is fundamentally wrong to ask supporters to pay for season tickets and then, at the end of the campaign, expect them to pay again to watch what will now be the most important matches of that same season.”
Rangers are also planning to slash admission prices for non season-ticket holders which will further reduce the levy to be paid to the SPFL.
Their statement continued: “The club wishes to express its gratitude to all of those who bought tickets and also point out that a sensible pricing policy for play-off tickets, other than season tickets, will be announced soon so that as many Rangers fans as possible can be at Ibrox to help drive their team towards the Premiership.
“We have gone through the correct channels and it should also be made clear that Rangers will comply fully with Rule C26 and pay a levy of 50 per cent of the other ticket prices. Rangers recognises fully the SPFL’s desire to help their member clubs but as well as having a responsibility to the game in general Rangers has to be mindful of their own fans at all times.
“Even so, it should be noted that Rangers is not the first club to allow season-ticket holders into the play-offs free of additional charge.
“The SPFL Board gave Hibernian permission to allow their season-ticket holders free entry into their play-off match last season therefore setting a precedent.”
Last night the SPFL were locked in talks with lawyers as they contemplated what their next move would be.
A spokesman said: “This matter is under active discussion and we expect to arrive at a definitive position in the next few days.”
Motherwell had already decided to take a stand with general manager Alan Burrows confirming they will also reward their most loyal fans if they fail to haul themselves out of the relegation play-off spot.
He said: “We fully accept there are rules and regulations in place but in the eventuality we are in 11th place come the play-offs then it is not our intention to charge our season-ticket holders
for the play-off final at Fir Park.”
Drew Roberton, general secretary of the Rangers Supporters Association, also welcomed the stance taken against the SPFL.
He said: “I think it’s a tremendous gesture by the club. It’s no secret the club needs investment at the moment. I am sure that any revenue they get from the play-offs will be welcome.
“There’s a common sense approach to the paying public at work here as well. There could be up to six games to go to. Fans might have to shell out in the region of between £120 and £140.
“I am sure the fact that the SPFL were going to pocket 50 per cent of the gate money from the play-off games stuck in the throats of an awful lot of Rangers fans.”
The SPFL play-offs dates have finally been set in stone – and all six games will be live on TV.
The quarter-final first leg will take place on May 9 with the return on the 17. The semi-final legs are on May 20 and 23.
The two-legged final will be held on Thursday 28 and Sunday 31.
Lads……………please don’t post links to the Rekord…….
bad craic.
There’s nuthun in it for us……………..
If you must – c&p as JJ has done……….svp.
HH
“bankiebhoy1
09:07 on
29 April, 2015
Lads……………please don’t post links to the Rekord…….”
Quite agree. I am surprised that BMCUW did so. Perhaps because Michael Gannon was the journalist ?
JJ
11 pages in on the DR before I found out that the baby hoops had won last night, I knew that of course as if thems had won it , it would have been plastered with story’s if more new Inaesta McClouds coming through on the back pages,
Lurking Huns girfuy. GG&W
I’m struggling to understand what’s going on with the play-off tickets.
As I see it, the clubs first approached the SPL unhappy at having to split the gate 50/50 with the body and attempted to renegotiate the deal. Figures quoted are in the region of a £2 millions for the games.
Having failed to renegotiate the deal the clubs now want to let their season book holders in for free and thus starve both themselves and the SPL of funds.
The fans get an bonus on their SB’s but it defeats the point of having this end of season mini tournament.
cv
So once again the Huns (and I use that term widely here) decide which rules they want to follow and when they would line to follow them. This is then backed up with reporting that suggests the money is going to the football authorities when in fact it’s being redistributed to other clubs. I may or may not agree with this but all the clubs signed up to this.
Can you imagine if celtic had the audacity to do this?
And so it continues.
I listened to SSB last night. Their reason why they felt the SFA should ignore their fit and proper rules? Dos it would be good for Rangers and therefore scottish football.
Hunbelievable.
While we are awaiting The verdict on the JG show trial what happenned to the referees report and charge against the Huns for REAL sectarian singing? That seems to have gone missing.
Aw Naw
For the sake of your sanity it might be best for you that Res12 does not produce anything positive.
I don’t recognise the people at Celtic whom you describe. The ones I’ve spoken to have acted with integrity and honesty.
I can only judge on that basis.
I believe Sevco are right not to charge ST holders.
There I’ve said it!!
However, they are rewarding the fans who ignored King and were vilified for being STs, while those who have to pay will be the ones who followed King’s instructions to boycott.
Irony CSC.
Árd Macha
cathedral view
I agree, but the SFA facked up AGAIN, by letting Hibs do it last season, so they have blew it.
Losing it in public.
Udinese 1 – Inter 2.
Udinese down to 9 men after @ 60 mins Inter scored the winner with 25 minutes to go.Thereafter they downed tools .
Mancini had a flakey at the post match press conference –
” Shameful , lazy , stupid and utterly unacceptable…5 of those players went to their beds after we went 2 – 1 up.In an ideal world those players would never play for this club again.”
Big sun / blue sky / cold wind way down south.
My friends in Celtic,
I can see both sides of the death penalty debate, however to quote God in a moral argument about taking life can be construed either way. Sure did the bible not quote” an eye for an eye”
HH.
*buying* not being.
Árd Macha
Cathedral view you are correct, the first attempt is greed to keep all the money. The second attempt is a scorched earth approach. If we can’t get all the money you will get none. All dressed up as rewarding season ticket holders (ignoring the first attempt to keep all the money). All backed up by a compliant media.
In Scotland rules only apply when it suits and never to the Huns.
Auldheid
09:28 on 29 April, 2015
___________________
Would that be the same ‘integrity & honesty’ that was on display when, the same individuals tried and – failed – to serve-up the Green Brigade to the ‘impartial-police-force’ during the, Paul McBride QC era…..?….or, was that PL….?
Kevjungle
Justice for Gingers :-)
Ard Macha while we may feel some sympathy with not charging ST holders as I said earlier the early attempt by the hun was to keep the money. So they aren’t really doing this for the right reasons. And in any case rules were agreed. It’s just rules are optional for Huns.
Herbo
09:37 on 29 April, 2015
___________________
:)…………aye.
BOBBY MURDOCH’S CURLED-UP WINKLEPICKERS
08:50 on 29 April, 2015
Now if the journo was doing his job he would be talking about how the paybill will be paid tomorrow, if at all. But no he produces this dross.
On a similar topic, I was chatting to folk at work yesterday and wondered…….if you didn’t have access to the internet and relied on the MSM what a different world you would live in…………………………………..
Tell the spfl to go and take a flying flack to them selves, and no one seems to care, everyone is all low key about it.
Send a letter to the SFA asking about clarity on a missed penalty call? And BOOM!
Neganon2
“All dressed up as rewarding season ticket holders (ignoring the first attempt to keep all the money).”
Very well said. I wonder how many who ` are not influenced by the Media` will notice what you have?
JJ
Kevjungle
No idea. I was not involved in that.
I am only speaking about my own experience .
NegAnon2.
Thanks, can you point me to your post, I’m juking in from work.
The Hibs game last season set a precedent and this now leaves the Scottish football authorities in a weak position. Are they ever in a strong position regarding the hun?
Árd Macha
tonydonnelly67
09:39 on 29 April, 2015
___________________
Celtic shouldny be sending wee-jessie-letters about a penalty….Ronny should have asked during one of his ‘total-football’ interviews…have Celtic appointed a manager with no b#lls just like the board…?
Then again….maybe ‘merlin-Ronny’…dodged the issue coz of all the passengers in his team ‘that’ day….?
Ronny should have asked about the penalty then said…”…if I get a fine for this…good…fine me as much as you want…I’ll be paying none of it.!
Craig Leveine – CSC
Fair to say Hibernian set the precedent last year when they didn’t charge season ticket holders for the play off game versus Hamiliton.
It also seems Motherwell – if they finish 11th – will do the same.
So in fairness to Sevco they are only doing what has been done before them.
Talking about fair ticket prices…Interesting that tickets for the Scottish Cup Final are so cheap, would be nice if we got the same consideration when we next make the final….I won’t hold my breath though.
Auldheid
09:44 on 29 April, 2015
___________________
………ok.
JUNGLE JIM HS
Nope,nothing to do with him. It’s a poor article,and an even worse headline. I thought you’d have spotted it,given your profession(!)
tonydonnelly67
The difference in the Play Off scenario is that it looks like 3 clubs are standing together on this which makes their case stronger.
Interestingly Leeann Dempster from Hibs put a resolution to the SPFL board to share the money from the play offs differently and it was knocked back and she said they were happy with the way their case was handled and accept the decision even though they were not happy.
Now the media are saying Hibernian will not follow the rules of the SPFL and allow seaosn ticket holders in free.
Motherwell are also being quoted as doing the same.
If QoTS are the only club to follow the SPFL rules they should be promoted.
The SFA and SPFL are losing total control of Scottish football on and off the pitch. If the punters in my work are to be believed Budge and Dempster have spent a lot of time together socially. There is a football revolution brewing in the East and these two women have done a lot of good in 1 year through here than some of the chairman and top men have done in Scottish football in decades.
LB
no body should have the right to kill anyone in cold blood, regardless of whether a court says its ok or some 2000 year old book has a statement that could be interpretted as saying that.
if some harm comes to criminals while they r in the act of committing their crimes then thats tough, thats a different matter altogether.
for example if someone stole my car and killed themselves by crashing it into a tree then i wouldnt shed a tear
but if they got arrested and tried for stealing it then that doesnt mean i want the court to impose the death penalty
same with drug traffickers. if they get killed in a police shoot out while trafficking then thats tough. but once they are arrested then any death is in cold blood and cant be justified
Herbo
Justice for gingers? Ffs
What did we do now
Scottishleaf@09.46 hrs.
Careful too much sense will upset some people.
HH.
Kevjungle
That would make us as bad as thems, rules are rules, we play by them to keep the integrity of the game, they twist and bend them to suit thems, the cream will come to the top soon enough, but you must at all times play with a straight hand.