Club and Craig Whyte to face SFA disciplinary hearings

[pete 2,511]

Mar 15 2012

 

 

RANGERS and their owner Craig Whyte will face SFA disciplinary hearings on March 29 over seven alleged breaches of the football body's rules.

 

Whyte has been issued with notices of complaint over breaches of two disciplinary rules, a week after he was ruled unfit to be a club official.

 

They involve allegations of bringing the game into disrepute and not acting in the best interests of football.

 

Rangers have been hit with notices of complaint over five alleged breaches of rules, including failing to abide by SFA regulations over the 'fit and proper person' test.

 

The notices were issued after the SFA's compliance officer processed the findings of the independent inquiry into the Ibrox club, chaired by Lord Nimmo Smith.

 

It found Whyte's failure to disclose he was banned from being a company director from 2003-2010 breached SFA rules.

 

An SFA judicial panel will hear the complaints and can hand out punishments from a warning all the way to expulsion from the organisation.

 

Whyte is alleged to have breached Rules 66 and 71 between May 6 last year and March 6 this year.

 

Rangers are alleged to have breached Rules 1, 2, 14, 66 and 71 between the same dates.

 

According to the SFA website, the rules in question are:

 

Rule 1 (b): All members shall:

 

(b) be subject to and comply with the Articles and any statutes, regulations, directives, codes, decisions and International Match Calendar promulgated by the Board, the Professional Game Board, the Non Professional Game Board, the Judicial Panel, a Committee or sub-committee, FIFA, UEFA or the Court of Arbitration for Sport;

 

Rule 2: Each member shall procure that its officials, its Team Staff and its players act in accordance with Rule 1.

 

Rule 14 (g): Full membership or associate membership may be suspended or terminated, or a fine may be issued, in any of the following circumstances:-

 

(g) where a full member or an associate member suffers or is subject to an insolvency event.

 

Rule 66: No recognised football body, club, official, Team Official or other member of Team Staff, player, referee, or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA shall bring the game into disrepute.

 

Rule 71: A recognised football body, club, official, Team Official, other member of Team Staff, player or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA shall, at all times, act in the best interests of Association Football and shall not act in any manner which is improper.

 

The SFA panel will hear the cases along with a previously announced notice of complaint over the club's failure to pay Dundee United money owed from last month's Scottish Cup clash at Ibrox.

 

The compliance officer has spent a week studying the findings of the inquiry team and awaiting any response from Whyte. It is understood there has been no response yet.

 

The inquiry had already judged that Rangers should face disrepute charges on four counts - obligations and duties of members, official return, financial records and division of receipts and payment of expenses (Scottish Cup). Rangers have not submitted audited accounts, required by the end of last year.

 

Whyte was disqualified from seven years in 2000 and did not declare this until November 31 - six months after buying out Sir David Murray's majority stake and six weeks after the penalty was publicly revealed in a BBC documentary.

 

Although Whyte has been named in the charge sheet, individuals are not required to attend in normal circumstances as cases can be heard in their absence.

 

Whyte has divided his time between Monaco, London and his castle in Grantown-on-Spey in the Highlands since leaving Glasgow on the day Rangers went into administration on February 14.

 

Rangers joint-administrator Paul Clark last week said they would look forward to stating the club's case to the judicial panel.

 

"In broad terms, we believe there are mitigating factors and we hope to demonstrate the distinction between the club and the actions of any individuals," he added.

 

If you look close enough you can always find a stick to hit with.

[der Berliner 4,137]

Yep, they all fear that Rangers disappear from Scottish football because they might get liquidated. It is essentially squeaky bums time from all 10 clubs that depend on the Old Firm to happen by two or more times a season, for the SPL and SFA to have a competition that draws some money to the game. But while the players representatives et al work their socks of to save the club that keeps Scottish football alive, they look for something to hit it even harder. What now? We have been conned by a faux-businessman. You have been conned by a faux-businessman. What could Rangers the club have done to avoid it? In this day and age of chairmen ruling the roost with no-one looking in? But leave that aside, what are they looking for? Deducting Rangers more points this season? Or, since we always make good candidates for precedents, deduct us 10 points for the next ... say 5 seasons too? Get Timothy all the wishes they want? Really, you cannot make this up, simply cannot make this up.

Edited March 16, 2012 by der Berliner

[54andcounting 0]

Obviously it's a big thing in the 'goldfish bowl' of Scottish football that the most famous club ever to emerge from the country may disappear down some drain.....it might be a long shot to plead to the sane to save our institution, but incredibly it dawns on deaf ears!

 

We are in big shit right now but fighting our corner. Hopefully we will emerge from the other side and take our place once again as a strong representative. Otherwise Scottish football will disappear into the abyss and all things Septic will follow.

[bluebear54 0]

It's quite shocking that they can be saying that CW is not fit and proper, then wanting to punish the Club for his actions - since he was totally in control of the Club. Surely the Club has a robust defence?

There are a lot of issues at play here, but one major one is the desire - as I see it - for the smaller 10 SPL clubs to change the voting rules, with all the changes that will engender down the line (redistribution of gate receipts, TV money etc.)

I don't quite think Celtic have fully sussed this one out yet, because they will essentially see their power, and eventually income, diminished.

Back to the charges, I'm not optimistic about what sanctions may be invented. Monetary ones are neither here nor there as we're in administration. I fear there will be something more sinister. But we must defend this rigorously. I do believe that the SFA and the SPL failed in their duty to ensure that we were run by a fit and proper person - despite their posturing otherwise.

[biggordy 0]

Here's an interesting blog regarding "fit and proper"

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/the-sfas-fit-and-proper-test-self-certification-for-football-clubs-a-farce-part-1-craig-whyte/

[der Berliner 4,137]

I would look at precedents here, like ... Motherwell, Gretna, and Dundee. Whether their people were fit & proper, how they were punished for becoming insolvent? I wouldn't be surprised if the SFA and SPl act together and get their grand deduction plan into motion, like "charging" us 1/3 of last season's points total as a penalty. (Coming to think of it, we should start loosing more games, so we only start next season at -28 or the like.

 

Of course, any such action is beyond all reason (IMHO) and we as a support should fight them to the bone. If they want to charge Whyte here, fair enough. If they want to hamper the club as such and make competition impossible for the seasons to come (while doing nothing towards the Hooped Horros for their continuous conduct), we should go to a higher authority.

[calscot 0]

Seems to me that if Whyte is not fit and proper then it should be the SFA and SPL who should be punished for allowing him to do what he did to Rangers. By branding him as such, they are saying that they have been negligent and/or incompetent for the last nine months.

 

I really can't see how Rangers can be fairly punished for this.

[craig 5,199]

I know many wont like this but if they continue with this vendetta against us we really should consider making application elsewhere. It is beyond a joke how anti-Rangers the "establishment" is.

 

So, Craig Whyte is not "fit and proper" - the authorities have a duty to determine that BEFORE he takes over, which means they should be sanctioning Craig Whyte and themselves, and certainly NOT Rangers. Ludicrous position to take.

 

When you think of it the SFA and SPL are actually complicit in our current position had they followed their OWN procedures properly they would have prevented Craig Whyte from becoming our owner.

[der Berliner 4,137]

I can't lose that feeling that they want to punish us because we found out about their own shortcomings.

[Danny 0]

I know many wont like this but if they continue with this vendetta against us we really should consider making application elsewhere. It is beyond a joke how anti-Rangers the "establishment" is.

 

So, Craig Whyte is not "fit and proper" - the authorities have a duty to determine that BEFORE he takes over, which means they should be sanctioning Craig Whyte and themselves, and certainly NOT Rangers. Ludicrous position to take.

 

When you think of it the SFA and SPL are actually complicit in our current position had they followed their OWN procedures properly they would have prevented Craig Whyte from becoming our owner.

 

I feel like I posted this a few times, but it's got the wrong name next to it