Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
tannerall

The Five Way Agreement

Recommended Posts

Totally unacceptable to me that the detail of this agreement has never been disclosed to those who support the club or to all of those who have a financial investment (shares) in the club.

I have a very strong feeling that there was a deal struck at the time which would have been totally unacceptable to the majority of our support and was probably a breach of Article 12 of UEFA  Disciplinary Regulations.  Especially part 2c.

 

Article 12:  Integrity of matches and competitions and match-fixing

1

All persons bound by UEFA’s rules and regulations must refrain from any behaviour that damages or could damage the integrity of matches and competitions and must cooperate fully with UEFA at all times in its efforts to combat such behaviour.

2

The integrity of matches and competitions is violated, for example, by anyone:

a. who acts in a manner that is likely to exert an unlawful or undue influence on the course and/or result of a match or competition with a view to gaining an advantage for himself or a third party;

b. who participates directly or indirectly in betting or similar activities relating to competition matches or who has a direct or indirect financial interest in such activities;

c. who uses or provides others with information which is not publicly available, which is obtained through his position in football, and damages or could damage the integrity of a match or competition;

d. who does not immediately and voluntarily inform UEFA if approached in connection with activities aimed at influencing in an unlawful or undue manner the course and/or result of a match or competition; e. who does not immediately and voluntarily report to UEFA any behaviour he is aware of that may fall within the scope of this article.

3

If filed after the relevant competition stage has finished, complaints regarding match-fixing can have no impact on the sporting result of the competition or match in question and, therefore, the match cannot be replayed, unless the competent disciplinary body decides otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought the 5 way agreement was known a few years ago, as when it came out Reagan signed a blank piece of paper and said I'm going for a meal with my wife  and I'm not missing it so off he went and left the others to decide our fate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, soulboy said:

Thought the 5 way agreement was known a few years ago, as when it came out Reagan signed a blank piece of paper and said I'm going for a meal with my wife  and I'm not missing it so off he went and left the others to decide our fate. 

Apparently Liewell knows nothing either.

https://videocelts.com/2019/11/blogs/latest-news/celtic-fans-cant-believe-lawwell-hasnt-seen-the-five-way-agreement/

Convenient.

Blumhoilann likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
72barca likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know about 5 way agreement, but i think dave king has signed an agreement to keep quiet and not rock the boat to get his chairmanship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, TMB said:

I think part of the 5 way agreement was Rangers giving up the right to TV monies.  Prize, transfer fee, or European participation money.  Accepting a transfer ban.  That sort of shit.

Of course, they tried to slip in the title stripping but thankfully it never happened.

What did we get out of it?  We were allowed to join the 3rd division.  What we should’ve down is ask England to fucken take us and be done with Scottish football for good. 

You can’t ask just England if you are looking to leave. UEFA rules stipulate you must also have permission of the football association of the country you are leaving 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, tannerall said:

Totally unacceptable to me that the detail of this agreement has never been disclosed to those who support the club or to all of those who have a financial investment (shares) in the club.

I have a very strong feeling that there was a deal struck at the time which would have been totally unacceptable to the majority of our support and was probably a breach of Article 12 of UEFA  Disciplinary Regulations.  Especially part 2c.

 

Article 12:  Integrity of matches and competitions and match-fixing

1

All persons bound by UEFA’s rules and regulations must refrain from any behaviour that damages or could damage the integrity of matches and competitions and must cooperate fully with UEFA at all times in its efforts to combat such behaviour.

2

The integrity of matches and competitions is violated, for example, by anyone:

a. who acts in a manner that is likely to exert an unlawful or undue influence on the course and/or result of a match or competition with a view to gaining an advantage for himself or a third party;

b. who participates directly or indirectly in betting or similar activities relating to competition matches or who has a direct or indirect financial interest in such activities;

c. who uses or provides others with information which is not publicly available, which is obtained through his position in football, and damages or could damage the integrity of a match or competition;

d. who does not immediately and voluntarily inform UEFA if approached in connection with activities aimed at influencing in an unlawful or undue manner the course and/or result of a match or competition; e. who does not immediately and voluntarily report to UEFA any behaviour he is aware of that may fall within the scope of this article.

3

If filed after the relevant competition stage has finished, complaints regarding match-fixing can have no impact on the sporting result of the competition or match in question and, therefore, the match cannot be replayed, unless the competent disciplinary body decides otherwise.

So what are Rangers going to do about it then 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ricksen92 said:

Don't know about 5 way agreement, but i think dave king has signed an agreement to keep quiet and not rock the boat to get his chairmanship.

There seems to be more and more talk regarding this ,But for me it just wouldn’t make any sense at all ,While DK is the main shareholder he doesn’t have a majority of the shares ,There would be no reason for him to demand that he become Chairman to the rest of the shareholders where he was in a position to be hamstrung by the authorities ,

What we do have though is an SFA and SPFL that is so dominated by the influence of the tarriers and they won’t be letting us do anything easily no matter who our Chairman is or indeed who owns us .

Just had a look at the 5 way agreement and there doesn’t seem to be any restrictions in it ,Just makes sure that no money came to the new company that was due ,All debts were still due and we had no way of retrospectively suing the SPL or SFA for stuff that happened pre Admin or during Admin 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, magic8ball said:

There seems to be more and more talk regarding this ,But for me it just wouldn’t make any sense at all ,While DK is the main shareholder he doesn’t have a majority of the shares ,There would be no reason for him to demand that he become Chairman to the rest of the shareholders where he was in a position to be hamstrung by the authorities ,

What we do have though is an SFA and SPFL that is so dominated by the influence of the tarriers and they won’t be letting us do anything easily no matter who our Chairman is or indeed who owns us .

Just had a look at the 5 way agreement and there doesn’t seem to be any restrictions in it ,Just makes sure that no money came to the new company that was due ,All debts were still due and we had no way of retrospectively suing the SPL or SFA for stuff that happened pre Admin or during Admin 

I still beleive they have somthing on dk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, magic8ball said:

There seems to be more and more talk regarding this ,But for me it just wouldn’t make any sense at all ,While DK is the main shareholder he doesn’t have a majority of the shares ,There would be no reason for him to demand that he become Chairman to the rest of the shareholders where he was in a position to be hamstrung by the authorities ,

What we do have though is an SFA and SPFL that is so dominated by the influence of the tarriers and they won’t be letting us do anything easily no matter who our Chairman is or indeed who owns us .

Just had a look at the 5 way agreement and there doesn’t seem to be any restrictions in it ,Just makes sure that no money came to the new company that was due ,All debts were still due and we had no way of retrospectively suing the SPL or SFA for stuff that happened pre Admin or during Admin 

Was their anything in the 5 way agreement about enduring punishments. e.g  That Rangers can't take grievances to CAS and that they have to remain with the Scottish footballing bodies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sweetheart said:

Was their anything in the 5 way agreement about enduring punishments. e.g  That Rangers can't take receives to CAS that they have to remain with the Scottish footballing bodies?

Have a read for yourself ,from what I saw nothing like that ,
 

The way I was reading it it was just a normal document almost like a contract of employment highlighting all the things you would think were common sense ,but have to be put in legal form ,

arse covering on the SFA etc side 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Rfc52 said:

The agreement didn't even have anything to do with King either 

Never said agreement had anything to do with king. Why is our board so afraid to call out the bias inept referees. We see it almost every game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ricksen92 said:

Never said agreement had anything to do with king. Why is our board so afraid to call out the bias inept referees. We see it almost every game.

In a thread about a five way agreement I can't answet that 

CoatbridgeBear likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, magic8ball said:

Have a read for yourself ,from what I saw nothing like that ,
 

The way I was reading it it was just a normal document almost like a contract of employment highlighting all the things you would think were common sense ,but have to be put in legal form ,

arse covering on the SFA etc side 

I did have a read of it but I don't understand most of their jargon.

Imho, if Rangers are limited to the footballing bodies for grievances then that is why they have said nothing officially about the ref situation. It  will need to be dealt with by CAS as there is a possibility that match manipulation could be involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, ricksen92 said:

Never said agreement had anything to do with king. Why is our board so afraid to call out the bias inept referees. We see it almost every game.

You honestly believe that’s there’s some big dirty secret king doesn’t want revealed that the SFA know about and are using it to basically blackmail him for the best part of a decade to keep quiet about referee decisions ?

Come on tae fuck mate if there was any truth in that the fenians would be all over it and would have been leaked a long time ago.

 

 

magic8ball and Rfc52 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tiger Shaw said:

You honestly believe that’s there’s some big dirty secret king doesn’t want revealed and the SFA know about and are using it to basically blackmail him for the best part of a decade to keep quiet about referee decisions ?

Come on tae fuck mate if there was any truth in that the fenians would be all over it and would have been leaked a long time ago.

 

 

That’s the problem with social media and modern forums ,Urban myths or conspiracy theories are born nearly every day ,
 

Im a right sceptical cunt and love a good conspiracy theory but I’m struggling to believe that King signed any waiver with the authorities ,I can see why that theory could occur with little public comment though ,No public comment doesn’t necessarily mean we haven’t said anything behind the scenes 

Tiger Shaw likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, TMB said:

I think part of the 5 way agreement was Rangers giving up the right to TV monies.  Prize, transfer fee, or European participation money.  Accepting a transfer ban.  That sort of shit.

Of course, they tried to slip in the title stripping but thankfully it never happened.

What did we get out of it?  We were allowed to join the 3rd division.  What we should’ve done is ask England to fucken take us and be done with Scottish football for good. 

It would be fucking fantastic to get out of this footballing shithole. 
Mind you the country as a whole is becoming a shithole thanks to the SNP 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, magic8ball said:

There seems to be more and more talk regarding this ,But for me it just wouldn’t make any sense at all ,While DK is the main shareholder he doesn’t have a majority of the shares ,There would be no reason for him to demand that he become Chairman to the rest of the shareholders where he was in a position to be hamstrung by the authorities ,

What we do have though is an SFA and SPFL that is so dominated by the influence of the tarriers and they won’t be letting us do anything easily no matter who our Chairman is or indeed who owns us .

Just had a look at the 5 way agreement and there doesn’t seem to be any restrictions in it ,Just makes sure that no money came to the new company that was due ,All debts were still due and we had no way of retrospectively suing the SPL or SFA for stuff that happened pre Admin or during Admin 

I could never understand how that could be considered legal ie no money, although due, could be given to new company, however all our debts were still due. Seems contradictory.

Blumhoilann likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Domthenbud said:

I could never understand how that could be considered legal ie no money, although due, could be given to new company, however all our debts were still due. Seems contradictory.

The way I see it is your still due football debts so you another club doesn’t get screwed over ,not just on this case but for all ,Imagine we sold a player for 10m and the new club goes into admin we don’t lose what’s still due ,

We can’t get the money the club was due through oldco as that would be bypassing the creditors pot 

I do recall something dodgy happening to the money Southampton paid for Davis though 

Domthenbud likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...