Why the SPFL Decision to Deduct Points from Clyde FC For An administrative Error is Raising Eyebrows In Social Media and Encouraging Dancing Around The Lord Nimmo Smith Elephant in the Main Stream.
It was reported in the news that Clyde have been deducted points for fielding an ineligible player in two matches, news that has raised supporter eyebrows when a comparison is made with SFA and the then SPL treatment of ten years of imperfect players registration by the then Rangers FC and caused a bit of dancing in main stream media around the LNS Elephant.
When the existence of side letters that formed part of a players remuneration contract was revealed in March 2012, it prompted an investigation by the SPL into the eligibility to play football of players who had been provided side letters by Rangers FC that indemnified them from any loss should the ebt schemes , through which their main remuneration flowed, be deemed unlawful by HMRC.
The issue for the SPL then was were those players properly registered under SPL rules?
The common belief held until then being that incorrect registration made a player ineligible to play and any game an incorrectly registered player played in was void:
- Presumably on the basis the errant club had gained an on field advantage from incorrect registration and/or
- to act as a deterrent to clubs to deliberately conceal full registration details from the football authorities.
The result of games in which such a player played was treated as a 0-3 defeat and the 4 points gained deducted and 3 points each granted to their opponents.
To get answers the SPL, after seeking evidence of side letters accompanying any type of EBT from Rangers FC, established the Lord Nimmo Smith (LNS) Commission to identify if a breach of registration rules had occurred and what were the consequences in sanction terms.
It is interesting therefore to compare the following from the LNS Commission in respect of sanctions against Rangers FC for a breach covering ten years of incorrect registration with the sanctions against both Clyde FC over 2 games and Hearts over one game, based on what Lord Nimmo Smith said in his findings at 107 and 108 of his Decision.
Findings that 7 years later have caused social media eyebrows to raise to Roger Moore levels because of apparent contradictions arising from the justifications given for a financial sanction only in the LNS Decision.
LNS Decision basis 107 /108
[107]
We nevertheless take a serious view of a breach of rules intended to promote sporting
integrity. Greater financial transparency serves to prevent financial irregularities. There is insufficient evidence before us to enable us to draw any conclusion as to exactly how the senior management of Oldco came to the conclusion that the EBT arrangements did not require to be disclosed to the SPL or the SFA. In our view, the apparent assumption both that the side-letter arrangements were entirely discretionary, and that they did not form part of any player’s contractual entitlement, was seriously misconceived. Over the years, the EBT payments disclosed in Oldco’s accounts were very substantial; at their height, during the year to 30 June2006, they amounted to more than £9 million, against £16.7 million being that year’s figure for wages and salaries. There is no evidence that the Board of Directors of Oldco took any steps to obtain proper external legal or accountancy advice to the Board as to the risks inherent in agreeing to pay players through the EBT arrangements without disclosure to the football authorities. The directors of Oldco must bear a heavy responsibility for this. While there is no question of dishonesty, individual or corporate, we nevertheless take the view that the nondisclosure must be regarded as deliberate, in the sense that a decision was taken that the sideletters need not be or should not be disclosed.
No steps were taken to check, even on a hypothetical basis, the validity of that assumption with the SPL or the SFA. The evidence of Mr Odam (cited at paragraph [43] above) clearly indicates a view amongst the management of Oldco that it might have been detrimental to the desired tax treatment of the payments being made by Oldco to have disclosed the existence of the side-letters to the football authorities.
[108] Given the seriousness, extent and duration of the non-disclosure, we have concluded that nothing less than a substantial financial penalty on Oldco will suffice. Although we are well aware that, as Oldco is in liquidation with an apparently massive deficiency for creditors (even leaving aside a possible reversal of the Tax Tribunal decision on appeal), in practice any fine is likely to be substantially irrecoverable and to the extent that it is recovered the cost will be borne by the creditors of Oldco, we nevertheless think it essential to mark the seriousness of the contraventions with a large financial penalty. Since Issues 1 to 3 relate to a single course of conduct, a single overall fine is appropriate. Taking into account these considerations, we have decided to impose a fine of £250,000 on Oldco.
Compare this with the Clyde FC case where ineligibility was admitted from the outset so there was no question of dishonesty yet they received a sporting sanction in form of a points deduction, whilst Rangers avoided such a fate on account of the Bryson interpretation that meant that a player whilst not fully and correctly registered was nevertheless eligible to play until the errors were discovered.
What Clyde FC said in their defence of their error was
“We are deeply disappointed with the outcome of yesterday’s hearing as, despite the fact that we admitted the breach of the SPFL rules, we feel that we put forward a robust and cogent case as part of our defence. The case concerned a player, Declan Fitzpatrick, who has been registered with Clyde since September 2018 and was recently on loan at Clydebank.
“The breach occurred as a result of a genuine oversight and a gap in the administrative procedures. This error was not the fault of any individual.
“We feel that the sanction imposed was unprecedentedly harsh.
The result of Clyde honestly admitting to an administrative error was a twin football and sporting sanction of £1500 and 4 points deduction for being honest.
Hearts had a similar administrative error defence when they said:
“ Due to an administrative error on the club’s part at the end of the January transfer window, Andrew Irving entered the field of play in the 65th minute as an unregistered player. Andrew was given an extension contract in January, 2018 and his extension paperwork was all properly completed and in order. However, it was not loaded onto the online SFA registration system at the time. His official registration, therefore, ran out on 9th June, 2018. Unfortunately, this was not picked up in advance of last night’s game.”
Hearts, as a result of their honesty, were deducted two points and fined £10k.
Yet in the case of Rangers FC, LNS judged the decision to withhold side letters was deliberate and because, as a result of non-disclosures of evidence to the contrary, he was able to decide there was no question of dishonesty.
The size of the penalty £250k recognised the longevity of what he was able to treat as an administrative error, but because LNS treated it as such and because the SFA advised that a flawed registration, apparently even if deliberate dishonesty was the reason for that flaw, was accepted by a blindsided SFA, then a player was eligible to play and so no points deduction sanction was applied.
The question of the validity of a deliberate and dishonest registration was never address by LNS although he did say in para 88 of his decision:
“There may be extreme cases in which there is such a fundamental defect that the registration of a player must be treated as having been invalid from the outset. But in the kind of situation that we are dealing with here we are satisfied that the registration of the Specified Players with the SPL was valid from the outset, and accordingly that they were eligible to play in official matches.”
What exactly constitutes an extreme case?
Had LNS seen the HMRC letter of 23 February 2011 or the HMRC letter of 20th May 2011 (that incidentally should have been in the SFA’s hands immediately on receipt under UEFA FFP rules before UEFA were notified of clubs granted a UEFA licence in 2011) would he have been duty bound to consider if a fundamental defect had taken place?
In those letters HMRC justified their pursuit of the wee tax case liability of £2.8M under their Extended Limit rules on basis that when they sought evidence of side letters for DOS ebts in April 2005, Rangers had responded dishonestly and that on sight of that response Rangers QC Andrew Thornhill advised them in early March 2011 not to appeal.
Does that evidence, which was not disclosed by Rangers Administrators Duff and Phelps to then SPL lawyers in April 2012, not point to such a fundamental defect in registration that a player’s registration should be regarded as being invalid from the outset?
However regardless of the rights or wrongs in the construction of the LNS Commission and subsequent Decision based on that construction, the salient point is that Clyde FC and Hearts were deducted 4 points and 2 points respectively, after both admitted to an honest mistake in their registration process and both received twin financial and sporting sanctions. Why Hearts were not deducted the 3 points gained as a consequence of beating Cove Rangers is unclear, although a 3 point reversal would have made qualification out of the group impossible.
Hearts were able to overcome the effect of the two-point deduction and still qualify for League Cup final stages so are unlikely to want to revisit the SPFL decision of points deducted.
However a £10k fine for an honest mistake in one game might be worth appealing on the basis that if a £250k fine for every match Rangers fielded incorrectly registered players was apt in the circumstances that LNS was led to believe existed that on a pro rate back of a fag packet basis this amounts to £695 per game over 10 seasons of 36 games a season, a £10k fine is excessive but would Anne Budge budge?
Anyhoo lets compare the three cases to highlight why eyebrows were raised.
Clyde FC
- honest mistake admitted – financial sanction and points deduction
Hearts FC
- honest mistake admitted – financial sanction and points deduction
Rangers FC
- Deliberate decision taken not to fully register a player’s details with SFA.
- Evidence of dishonest motivation to not fully registering a player registration concealed by Rangers
- financial penalty but no points deduction.
It was always going to be the case that what took place in 2012 under the cloak of the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission would unravel in time as it set a precedent that flew in the face of sporting integrity principles and a common held belief that incorrect registrations attracted a sporting sanction, a belief rekindled by the recent decision to deduct points from Clyde FC.
Perhaps there is a rules based difference that justifies the LNS Decision that can be used by the SFA to explain to the common man why no sporting sanction was applied, but what the common man will ask is it more or less likely that in light of the LNS Decision clubs will be honest with the SFA in future if a player falls foul of the registration process or will appeal on the basis that LNS set a precedent against which all clubs should be judged and then sanctioned.
In a nutshell if an honest mistake is admitted how can a points deduction be justified unless the SFA can show the mistake was a deliberate one carried out by a club to give them a sporting advantage.
The LNS Commission was always a can of worms waiting to be opened which is probably why the SFA rejected the SPFL’s request of September 2017 to revisit the SFA handing of Rangers use of ebts and side letters. Have the SFA introduced a moral hazard in the form of the LNS Decision that will continue to undermine the integrity of Scottish football as long as they allow it to?
Oh what a tangled web we weave eh?
Bogs Dollox
In this case, I would agree with you if you were right.
I really don't care what Brown did or did not do.
I really don't care if it was Brown, Green or Black. The FACT is that a player was physically attacked on 3 separate occasions. At his work!
We have all discussed strict liability in the last few weeks and the danger of a player being injured by a ned running onto the park. In this instance the neds were actually playing on the park.
That is the story that is being swept under the carpet. That is the point you are missing.
It's the same old 'he brought it on himself' nonsense I've heard before. How dare Brown put his face into my elbow when I'm swinging it.
You eloquently explained the reasons for the indiscipline of the sevco players. That is the problem that the SFA created when they failed to censure Gerrard over his referee comments and rescinded Morelos's red card. It was a slap in the face to every other SPFL manager and player.
Anyway. Post or don't post. It's up to you. I won't goad you into it in case I get a smack in the face
paddy malarkey 2nd April 2019 at 16:26
%%%%%%%%%%
The link has this:
"Rangers: Ryan Kent offered ban for lashing [ my bold]out at Celtic captain Scott Brown
Rangers' Ryan Kent faces a two-game ban after being charged for shoving [ my italics]Celtic captain Scott Brown.
Footage showed the winger, 22, lash out at Brown in the aftermath of James Forrest's late winner for the hosts at Celtic Park on Sunday."
What kind of garbage reporting we are now getting from BBC Scotland!
There is no way Kent's swing at Brown could be construed as a 'shove' , and it was some crass idiot of a sub-editor who let such a contradictory report leave the keyboard.
Bogs Dollox 2nd April 2019 at 15:33
I also don't see things through blue or green tinted specks (the Old Firm is no more – one side died ).
There's videos online showing Morelos bumping Brown prior to the clip of heels .It's the way the two of them go about their business. There was also a video on Sportscene the other week of Morelos raking McKenna's ankle (Aberdeen) and McKenna ignoring it and moving on .Maybe Morelos could have learned something there . In the Kent incident , the referee was busy up the park with team celebrations and was minutes away from restarting the game . He over-reacted to being wound up . A lot of players are not mature enough to handle the pressures of these games . I think a lot of the problem was that it was last-chance saloon for one club , and their players were too hyped up to behave rationally . Everybody knows , since the SC final v Hibs , that any percieved "taunting"of the Ibrox fanbase is met with violence , and other club's fans are happy to give them the opportunity to disgrace themselves . A Scott Brown apology for any offence caused would be the biggest wind-up of all , and I'm surprised he's not done it . He's not my kettle of fish but players at other clubs are just as astute at gamesmanship .
https://celtsarehere.com/celtic-in-sfa-fine-shocker-reports/?fbclid=IwAR0nsqZQfsa8g3sKylVFQGmlYOvg-SqAm5SQUx38XqxsimPfnABOg7jsDZk
Seems weird.
shug2nd April 2019 at 16:30
Yes I did see the Morelos nudge on Brown but it's not a matter of who the protagonist is for the application of the Laws of the game because straight after it Brown kicks Morelos off the ball. Don't forget Morelos was sent off for exactly that crime against Aberdeen.
You are trying to exonerate straightforward foul play and in doing so displaying double standards.
Whether Lennon is happy or not with unprofessional behaviour doesn't come in to it. Anyway he's not exactly the most professional manager in the SPFL.
Jingso.Jimsie2nd April 2019 at 16:46
All of that is utterly irrelevant to what we were discussing regarding Brown's unprofessional and unecessarily provocative behaviour.
Why take the ball of the spot?
finnmccool 2nd April 2019 at 16:49
'…That is the problem that the SFA created when they failed to censure Gerrard over his referee comments and rescinded Morelos's red card..'
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
The SFA, by cobbling up the 5-Way Agreement to accommodate cheats lost all moral authority, and has several times been given the finger with impunity by the chairman of RIFC plc.
The SFA supped with the devil, and is now seen for what it has become- in effect, a bent cop, with no moral authority over the baddies they so eagerly aided and abetted and continue to aid and abet in the deceit of the Big Lie.
(As for BBC Scotland, I wonder whether Chris McLaughlin's recent promotion was the beginning of an attempt to appease TRFC Ltd by discreetly removing McLaughlin from the list of reporters who would be sent to Ibrox , thus giving in to TRFC ?)
Finnmccool2nd April 2019 at 16:49
Your comment that you don't care what Brown merely demonstrates your bias and inability to look at two sides of an incident. At no point btw have I failed to condemn the physical violence of the Rangers players.However, Brown is in no way innocent in all this – he kicked an opponent off the ball! But you choose to ignore that.
Your final comment about me somehow meeting out physical violence to you is childish and deeply insulting and I would like an apology.
Are you making the false assumption that I'm a Rangers fan and therefore automatically capable of it. Im not a Rangers fan.
However, your slur is hardly fair to the many sensible non violent Rangers fans. One of whom came on here recently and made some reasonable points but as usual received a barrel load of thumbs down probably just because he's a Rangers fan.
Bogs Dollox 2nd April 2019 at 17:10
Jingso.Jimsie2nd April 2019 at 16:46
All of that is utterly irrelevant to what we were discussing regarding Brown's unprofessional and unecessarily provocative behaviour.
Why take the ball of the spot?
================================
I'm certainly no lover of Scott Brown, but are you suggesting that taking the ball of the spot was in some way sufficient provocation for being punched in the face?
Taking the ball off the spot is simply a means of delaying the restart of the game, just as happens multiple times during every game, either kicking the ball away (even a few yards), picking the ball up – retreating into a defensive position – then releasing it, or standing over the ball to prevent a quick free kick.
I'd guarantee that both sides demonstrated similar behaviour many times during the game, but only one resulted in a punch being thrown.
easyJambo2nd April 2019 at 18:16 5 0 Rate This Bogs Dollox 2nd April 2019 at 17:10 Jingso.Jimsie2nd April 2019 at 16:46 All of that is utterly irrelevant to what we were discussing regarding Brown's unprofessional and unecessarily provocative behaviour. Why take the ball of the spot? ================================ I'm certainly no lover of Scott Brown, but are you suggesting that taking the ball of the spot was in some way sufficient provocation for being punched in the face
================
So despite my previous posts condemning the violent conduct of Morelos, Kent etc you can still ask me that question. Poor show on your part but for the avoidance of doubt, of course it's not sufficient provocation.
Bogs Dollox 2nd April 2019 at 15:33
If I was Brown’s manager I would not be happy about his professionalism and the unnecessary wind up behaviour.
In the Morelos incident Brown clips his his heels from behind and off the ball.
In the Kent incident he withholds the ball to prevent the restart of the game.
In the Halliday incident I can’t comment as the TV footage is not good but it looks to me that at least two other Rangers players should have seen red cards.
I stand by my comments about Brown but I have a concern that you are conveniently overlooking facts in an effort to exonerate poor sportsmanship.
………………..
Brown made star man in the SPFL player player of the week.
In the Morelos incident… Better a clip on the heels than a boot in the Ba**s, Brown remembered.
In the Kent incident he withholds the ball to prevent the restart of the game.
Happens in every game of football ever played all around the world. What does not happen, is the player doing it gets a punch in the face.
In the Halliday incident I can comment. What the feck was he doing running towards Brown with his face all contorted?
Ps. Not a big fan of Halliday but credit where credit is due.
When the ball went out of play for an injury and the shy was taken and the rangers players never returned the ball, when it was played to Halliday he returned it.
'Bogs Dollox 2nd April 2019 at 17:10
Jingso.Jimsie2nd April 2019 at 16:46
All of that is utterly irrelevant to what we were discussing regarding Brown's unprofessional and unecessarily provocative behaviour.
Why take the ball of the spot? '
##################################
I don't know why Brown picked the ball up when the game was effectively stopped. You'd need to ask him that. While you're at it, ask him if it was 'unprofessional' and 'unnecessarily provocative' for him to do so.
However, you clearly stated that Brown picking up the ball prevented the game restarting. I outlined in my reply at 1646hrs that Brown didn't prevent a restart as neither team nor the referee was in position for that event to take place prior to Kent's lash-out under the Laws of the game. You claim that the points I made are irrelevant. I fail to see how they are.
Perhaps it's better if I just leave it there & I'll discuss the matter no further.
Bogs Dollox 2nd April 2019 at 17:05
When we were in the same division ,Morelos and Liam Lindsay were called together by the referee at Firhill for roughly the same thing – a off the ball bump and a bit of retaliation . During their lecture , Moelos twice kicked Lindsay on the shins , right under the nose of the referee . Nowt done . He's handy enough at dishing it out but can't accept it being done to him .
My pet hate in my playing days was your opponent holding the ball out to you only to drop it or throw it when you reached out to take it . Fair wound me up .
Bogs Dollox 2nd April 2019 at 18:51
So despite my previous posts condemning the violent conduct of Morelos, Kent etc you can still ask me that question. Poor show on your part but for the avoidance of doubt, of course it's not sufficient provocation.
================================
All good, but why then did you post "……………….. we were discussing regarding Brown's unprofessional and unecessarily provocative behaviour. Why take the ball of the spot?"
My interpretation of what you posted was that you considered Brown was being provocative throughout the game and you linked his taking the ball off the spot as being an example of that.
If that is all you meant then I agree with you. However if you view that Brown's antics justified some sort of a response from Rangers players, then I disagree. If any of the officials saw Brown's "provocation" as anything other than minor, then I would expect them to take action.
All I pointed out was that the action of delaying a restart is common-place throughout a game. Celtic had just scored late in the game. It's hardly a surprise that they would do anything thereafter to slow down the game. The reaction was completely disproportionate to Brown's "provocation".
Some players do seek to wind up their opponents and provoke a reaction. It is part of the game, sometimes physical like an "accidental" elbow in the ribs or standing on a player's foot at a set piece, or it can be verbal like slagging off a wife/girlfriend.
There are a couple ways to get even. You can do it physically by perhaps leaving a foot in at the next tackle, or much more effectively by demonstrating that you are a better footballer than them. What you don't do is to retaliate at the time. More often than not you will be one that gets done for it.
Mr King and Mr Gerrard must be loving all the Morelos and Scott Brown stuff.
A great deflection from the Ashley court case on the horizon, and questions being asked of Mr Gerrard having a win ratio no better than than the man that resigned/was sacked and are more points behind celtic at this time than they were a year ago, but many millions having being spent.
As Mr King said, Dave King gives backing to Steven Gerrard: ‘A winner is a winner’
……..
Until he is not a winner, then deflection is paramount.
easyJambo2nd April 2019 at 21:33
Bogs Dollox 2nd April 2019 at 18:51
So despite my previous posts condemning the violent conduct of Morelos, Kent etc you can still ask me that question. Poor show on your part but for the avoidance of doubt, of course it's not sufficient provocation. ================================ All good, but why then did you post "……………….. we were discussing regarding Brown's unprofessional and unecessarily provocative behaviour. Why take the ball of the spot?" My interpretation of what you posted was that you considered Brown was being provocative throughout the game and you linked his taking the ball off the spot as being an example of that. If that is all you meant then I agree with you.
===============================
Yes that is exactly what I meant. At last. I'm merely pointing out that there are two sides to this. And if you want to grade it in some way then the behaviour of the Rangers players was off the scale compared to Brown.
=================================
However if you view that Brown's antics justified some sort of a response from Rangers players, then I disagree. If any of the officials saw Brown's "provocation" as anything other than minor, then I would expect them to take action.
==============================
That is not my view and that should have been obvious from my previous posts which is why I got annoyed at your accusation. I can only assume you never read them or didn't grasp what I was saying.
=================================
All I pointed out was that the action of delaying a restart is common-place throughout a game. Celtic had just scored late in the game. It's hardly a surprise that they would do anything thereafter to slow down the game. The reaction was completely disproportionate to Brown's "provocation". Some players do seek to wind up their opponents and provoke a reaction. It is part of the game, sometimes physical like an "accidental" elbow in the ribs or standing on a player's foot at a set piece, or it can be verbal like slagging off a wife/girlfriend. There are a couple ways to get even. You can do it physically by perhaps leaving a foot in at the next tackle, or much more effectively by demonstrating that you are a better footballer than them. What you don't do is to retaliate at the time. More often than not you will be one that gets done for it.
===============================
Yes I agree players resort to the sort of gamesmanship you describe. It doesn't make it acceptable or in fact within the Laws of the game. There is too much of it from the stuff you describe to diving, faking injury etc
Anyway I'm pleased we have cleared that one up. Let the barrage of thumbs downs commence.
Cluster One2nd April 2019 at 21:58
You give the PR machine too much credit. The chatter about Morelos and Brown will have died our by the end of the week. So it won't be a deflection from the court case.
The poor record Gerrard has will be played up by the PR machine with the assistance of the MSM because they want him to go and that may provide the smokescreen whilst the court case runs but I'm sure there will be other squirrels released round about then.
Bogs Dollox 2nd April 2019 at 22:12
I’m sure there will be other squirrels released round about then.
…………
Agreed and if the early rounds of the PR machine are anything to go by those squirrels will be something to behold.
Bogs Dollox
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear.
This should help:
Ironic humour: How to lose people and alienate cats
https://rudhro.wordpress.com/2011/08/07/irony-as-humour/
Of course, when you have to explain it, it's not a joke anymore.