SPL step forward on Financial Fair Play


I’m very pleased the SPL have charged Hearts over the failure to pay players on time, the action shows a much needed appetite to tackle financial laxity in the game.  A battle for the hearts and minds of Scottish football lies ahead where the integrity of our competitions will be up for grabs.  Should Rangers lose their HMRC tribunal, which is due to conclude today, how the SPL reacts will forever establish if we have an open, free and fair league, or if we are cowed by a club we would all rather live without – irrespective of the cost.

We should applaud Neil Doncaster as his league colleagues for their determination not to be diverted from their course by Hearts in the face of some absolutely atrocious misrepresentation of the facts emanating from media sources close to Romanov.

The weeks ahead will require all parties to adhere rigorously to the spirit of Financial Fair Play, membership rules and precedent.

Click here to view the new issue of CQN Magazine online for free. You can support the online edition by making a discretionary donation here.

Click Here for Comments >

About Author


  1. James Forrest is Lennon on

    Let me tell you where the “smoking gun” is here, alright? Let me highlight it for you.



    The press, and SFA, are saying Whyte “discovered” this bill during due dillegence.



    That is a load of cobblers. Let’s put it in English. He “uncovered” it during it due dillegence. God knows how long the previous board had been sitting on it. God knows how long they’d be in possesion of the final demand.



    Did they disclose it to the SFA? No, they didn’t. Regan’s statement makes that manifestly clear. Rangers should not have been granted a license last season, it is plain, it is obvious, it is a pure and simple fact. Both Whyte and Regan have admitted that the bill was not disclosed to people when it arrived at Ibrox, and that asks questions as to how long it was in Rangers’ possession.



    The first we heard of it was when Rangers admitted it existed, but said that Whyte was liable for it if he bought the club. But the day when we became aware of it, which according to Regan is all that matters – shame on him for such spinelessness – is not the day on which it became payable.



    That’s what we need answers to.

  2. greenjedi says:


    18 January, 2012 at 12:29



    So for this to happen we need to know which players benefited from the EBTs.



    We need to know how much each of them benefited.



    We then need to know for each player whether the benefit was sufficient to make the difference between them signing for the huns or not signing for the huns.



    We then have to dissect every game each of these players played in and assess what contribution made to the outcome of each game.



    We the have to asses what difference it would have made to the outcome of each game had these players not been playing but had been replaced by a different player who would have been signed instead.



    We then have to recalculate the league tables for each of the relevant seasons.



    Once we have done that we need to calculate what financial benefit may have gone to the huns from each league or cup victory gained from the operation of the EBTs and then calculate what cumulative benefit they would have accrued in each succeeding season. Though we might have to factor in any period when such players were out of action through injury, suspension or international duty.



    And so on and on and on and on.



    Let’s just concentrate on making sure that right is done and that a newco huns starts at the bottom where they belong.

  3. bobbycfc says:


    18 January, 2012 at 12:20


    ‘I know there was discussion here yesterday about who was really backing Whyte in the cash stakes, not sure if it has been mentioned since but hearing that McColl from Weirs / Clyde Pumps is in the frame.


    Anyone else hearing that?’




    I’ve been saying for long enough that he is likely to be involved in a newco huns, but that’s purely supposition on my part, nothing more.

  4. JF – the 1st question from a responsible governing body would have been “what is the date on the 1st demand letter you received?”



    If we had a media fit for purpose that question would have been asked publicly.

  5. Joe Filippis Haircut on

    Saint Sivs I heard Johnnybhoy hasnt had a minute to himself recently hes been really busy.H.H.;-)

  6. Ernie



    Its not assesing the impact they made, it simply checking if they played. If even only one player with a dodgy contract played the result must be 3-0 to the opposition. See Sion as an example.




  7. ernie lynch says:


    18 January, 2012 at 12:56



    I don’t think we need to do much of that. All that needs to be done is: for each game that at least one player with two contracts played, where one of them was not declared to the SFA, we deduct three points. This is based on the accepted standard regulations regarding ineligible players.



    I understand that part, or most/all, of the HMRC case surrounds the contractual basis of side letters given to a number of players and their agents.

  8. JungleJim @ 12:39



    I hear you. Too early and pieces had to be made.



    My dog did get called out on here once and asked to sing a song, don’t let him post anymore. Have a good one mate!

  9. dirtymac says:


    18 January, 2012 at 12:31



    Here’s hoping the three honest men are a Sheep fan, a Hibee, and a rugby lover… No doubt when they do the decent thing and ask for £49M they’ll be outed as Celtic fans and the whole ruling will be thrown into question ultimately letting them off…

  10. dirtymac says:


    18 January, 2012 at 12:50




    ‘…They will have to consider each and every single contract and payment on it’s own merits so as to disallow any appeal based on an incorrect application of tax laws.’





    And they might take the view that while certain payments might on their own have been an effective use of the EBT scheme where they have been part of an operation that flagrantly breach the rules they are all tainted and deemed to breach the rules.

  11. WGS says:


    18 January, 2012 at 12:59


    can see 9 in a row ersaed from history books. Italian scnadal about to hit Scotland.




    WGS says:


    18 January, 2012 at 13:00


    Laudrup, Boli and Gascoigne part of the EBT’s?




    Where are you getting this from, or is this just conjecture on your part?



    The EBTs re the ongoing FTT did not involve any of those players, nor was it active during the fake 9.

  12. ernie lynch says:


    18 January, 2012 at 13:04



    They could.



    But any decent lawyer would traipse all over such a broad ruling. So would a poor one.

  13. greenjedi @ 12:48



    I like your style.



    An excellent example of the prudent use of new technology.

  14. dirtymac,



    still reckon that 9 in a row in witch the cardigan was part off was dodgy especially under TB era. Would not be suprised if something did come out about this. Might expllain his departue last year when Murray went. He didn’t want to retire. Got the bug like everybody else. Went cause Murray bailed out. If Murray was still in charge Smith would still be there IMO.

  15. Jungle Jim –



    Have you ever thought of changing your moniker to Coplean Road End Jim?



    Nuh? (See what I did there?)







  16. Paul67



    I wondered what your thoughts were on Regan Tweeting, that the questions regarding the rangers tax case were becoming ‘boring’.

  17. Celtic are set to play Malmo FF in a home friendly on March 6, according to the Swedish club.



    The Allsvenskan side, who knocked Scottish Premier League champions Rangers out of this season’s Champions League, will return to Glasgow as part of their pre-season preparations.



    It is not yet known whether the game will be played in public or behind closed doors. Celtic invited Malmo to Glasgow for the match, according to the Swedish club.




    They deserve a testimonial…




  18. James Forrest is Lennon @ 12:54,



    “The press, and SFA, are saying Whyte “discovered” this bill during due dillegence….”



    This has never made sense to me, Criag Whyte gave the impression that he discovered the bill during his detailed, forensic due diligence,






    He didn’t realise it came with penalties and interest payments.



    Perhaps he is so used to paying his tax bills promptly & efficiently that he didn’t know overdue tax bills come with added extras.

  19. Much as we all want to see fair play and any transgressions by Rangers to be punished appropriately, I cannot help feeling that it’s going to be just another slap on the wrist job.


    When have they ever received any serious punishment for anything?



    The SFA tell us that last year’s euro licence was all in order, nothing to see here. Even if Rangers are found guilty today, there is no way the football authorities will entertain any talk of stripping titles or cups. It won’t happen.



    No doubt Ogilvie, Regan and Doncaster etc have already formulated plans for them to stay in the SPL too. It’s depressing but it’s Scotland!

  20. If it’s a choice between the history books being rewritten with the newco huns being admitted to the SPL or the history books being left as they are with the newco huns in division three I know which I want.

  21. Celtic ‘playing’ hunskelpers Malmo in March in a closed door game.



    The whole thing will be one grand gratitude gathering, like munchkin land when Dorothy’s house lands on the wicked witch.



    Had Shaun still been with us, I could see him, James and Emilio singing ‘The Lollipop Guild’



    (during which Shaun pulls up with a hamstring)

  22. dirtymac says:


    18 January, 2012 at 13:05


    ‘They could.



    But any decent lawyer would traipse all over such a broad ruling. So would a poor one.’




    I’m not sure about that.



    If the common settlor of each of the EBTs, the huns, with the same personnel involved in arranging the payments, has been proved to have deliberately misused the concept to a degree that amounts to fraud then it would be reasonable for the tribunal to assume that the entire use of the scheme was bogus.

  23. ernie lynch says:


    18 January, 2012 at 13:27



    They could in that sense, but to deliver a verdict on the assessed figure from HMRC, they need to consider each contract and each payment made under said contract.

  24. We need to be realistic here, there isn’t a chance that history will be rewritten and suddenly we will see 4 or even 3 stars on their jerseys.