BBC Scotland has learned the SFA are investigating...

[Scudd 0]

Does this mean they could stop us trading in Scottish Football ?

[boss 1,941]

Does this mean they could stop us trading in Scottish Football ?

No.

[A.T.G 10,773]

We're dooomed a tell ya

DOOOOOOOMED!!

[gunslinger 270]

No.

but they can sieze the club and return us to murrays control. right?

[clelandhattrick 8]

Am I the only person who thinks the BBC documentary contained a lot of legitimate information, and that Whyte is the one we should be obsessing over? People seem to be stuck in a paranoid, tim-style mindset. So it turns out that Whyte was banned but most people focus on the SFA?

Hope I'm wrong about Whyte, but it seems to me that there's a real lack of decent discussion on here about him and people instead fall back on the cringeworthy "the BBC/SFA/whoever is against us" line.

That said, I know fuck-all about business.

Whatever.

[Colonel Mustard 380]

Am I the only person who thinks the BBC documentary contained a lot of legitimate information, and that Whyte is the one we should be obsessing over? People seem to be stuck in a paranoid, tim-style mindset. So it turns out that Whyte was banned but most people focus on the SFA?

Hope I'm wrong about Whyte, but it seems to me that there's a real lack of decent discussion on here about him and people instead fall back on the cringeworthy "the BBC/SFA/whoever is against us" line.

That said, I know fuck-all about business.

Whatever.

You are correct about knowing fuck all about business.

Why did you bother with the rest of your post? It's kind of pointless when you're going to admit your ignorance at the end...am I right?

[ForeverBlue_Since91 2,895]

Am I the only person who thinks the BBC documentary contained a lot of legitimate information, and that Whyte is the one we should be obsessing over? People seem to be stuck in a paranoid, tim-style mindset. So it turns out that Whyte was banned but most people focus on the SFA?

Hope I'm wrong about Whyte, but it seems to me that there's a real lack of decent discussion on here about him and people instead fall back on the cringeworthy "the BBC/SFA/whoever is against us" line.

That said, I know fuck-all about business.

Whatever.

I think you could be right. Everyday there seems to be something new about whyte that no one else knew about.

[Colonel Mustard 380]

but they can sieze the club and return us to murrays control. right?

Yes. I think they are on the verge of telling Murray to get a pound out of his pocket, and buy the club back.

[Colonel Mustard 380]

I think you could be right. Everyday there seems to be something new about whyte that no one else knew about.

Like what?

[clelandhattrick 8]

You are correct about knowing fuck all about business.

Why did you bother with the rest of your post? It's kind of pointless when you're going to admit your ignorance at the end...am I right?

Terribly sorry.

I won't do it again, sir.

[Colonel Mustard 380]

Terribly sorry.

I won't do it again, sir.

Why do it in the first place?

[clelandhattrick 8]

Why do it in the first place?

Ah, the eternal question of all those have wronged others. The guilt will never cease eating away at me.

[ForeverBlue_Since91 2,895]

If this is just an agenda against Craig Whyte then, why didn't the BBC etc do a documentary on David Murray?

[Zappa 358]

If this is just an agenda against Craig Whyte then, why didn't the BBC etc do a documentary on David Murray?

They did a documentary on Romanov that was a lot nastier tbh, but then, they had more amo on mad Vlad because he really IS a crook.

[BawdeepLoyal 94]

Liewell and Regan are both tarriers and abused turned abusers = You can forget any fair treatment from the SFA.

Liewell will do anything to further Celtics agenda/aims. Personally I hope Whyte is watching closely and learns that we have to fuck them over at every turn, on and off the park. The bitterness and hatred will only grow between the supports the more they feed the flames. I am happy to obliged and return that hatred.

I just hope Ally keeps his eye on the task in hand - keep winning, and keep fucking them up.

[boss 1,941]

Whyte took legal advice and has complied with the SFA Articles, so the Daily Rhecord story is pathetic - from the Evening Times:

A source close to Mr Whyte said: “No regulations have been broken. This relates to a matter that dates back to 1996, well beyond the five-year fit-and-proper person rule the SFA has over club ownership.

“Mr Whyte took full legal advice on the issues and regulations while putting the deal in place, and complied with all the SFA regulations.”

[CanadianBacon 2,088]

follow follow and loyal. what do those words mean to you? to me its attending as many games as i can watching the team.

As a travelling supporter myself kplfishtank I can vouch for your take on this - however, I can sympathise with those who call for us to call a halt to the tail wagging the dog in Scotland.

A stand has to be taken at some point.

[disgruntled_bear 157]

Explained: the SFA, Rangers and Craig Whyte’s ban

The Scottish Football Association have asked for clarification of the Rangers owner’s past. What are the rules on disclosure?

The SFA is seeking clarification over Craig Whyte's past. Pic: ©SNS Group

Following the news that the Scottish Football Association has requested information from Rangers about their owner Craig Whyte’s financial past, questions have been raised about the “fit and proper person test”.

We’ve looked at the issues and rules regarding the officials at Scottish football clubs.

What have the SFA asked Rangers?

The governing body issued a statement revealing it had already spoken with Rangers about Craig Whyte’s directorship ban. It said it had requested “clarification” and “key information” regarding the Rangers owner.

Why are they investigating?

Rangers confirmed the fact to the Stock Exchange in a statement accompanying their annual financial results. It said: “Craig Whyte was disqualified to act as a director of Vital UK Limited in 2000 for a period of seven years.“

Why does the SFA take an interest in what someone did before being involved in football?

The SFA has rules regarding people who serve in an official capacity at any of their member clubs. They seek to ensure that anyone holding a key position at a club is “fit and proper”.

Is there a fit and proper person’s test?

No, there isn’t a test. The SFA decide based on information received about the individual.

Are there criteria individuals have to meet though?

There are no set criteria for what exactly makes someone fit and proper, or not, but a list of “relevant facts” is provided in section 10 of the SFA Articles of Association.

The list is “acknowledged to be illustrative and not exhaustive” but gives examples of information that should be provided.

It covers details of whether someone is of sound mental health, is bankrupt or already acting as an official of another club where there might be conflict of interest.

Part g) says it must be reported if the official “has been disqualified as a director pursuant to the Company Director’s Act 1986 within the previous five years”

How does the SFA know?

Every member club has to submit documentation by June 1 each year detailing all the official positions and who holds them. It’s up to the club to provide complete and correct information. The form asks for details of each individual to allow them to assess whether they meet approval.

These details are provided on a form known as the official return. Clubs obtain the form from the SFA’s Registration Department and should fill them out with reference to the Articles of Association.

The form can be submitted before June 1 but the regulations also state that any changes should be notified to the SFA within 10 days of taking effect. Rangers submitted their official return following Whyte’s takeover in May, in advance of the June 1 deadline.

So where would rules apply to Craig Whyte?

Part g) of the rule on a “fit and proper person” asks if the official “has been disqualified as a director pursuant to the Company Director’s Act 1986 within the previous five years”. The SFA would take that information into account when deciding if an individual is “fit and proper”. Rangers did not mention Craig Whyte's disqualification on their official return.

Is that five years from start of the ban or the end?

That’s open to interpretation and could determine whether or not Rangers have a case to answer. Whyte’s disqualification began well outwith the five year reporting period but ended just four years ago

If they rule there was an issue, what happens?

If the SFA conclude that they should have been made aware then there would be two issues at stake.

First, there would be a case to answer from the club as to why their official return was missing key information. There could be some discussion as to whether or not an omission was made due to a misinterpretation.

A second issue would be a re-evaluation of whether or not Whyte is considered by the governing body to be a fit and proper person. The disqualification, even if considered to have been within the last five years, would not automatically block an individual from being approved.

The rule specifically states: “The Board hereby reserves its discretion as to whether or not such a person is fit and proper, as aforesaid, after due consideration of all relevant facts which the Board has in its possession and knowledge, including the undernoted list which is acknowledged to be illustrative and not exhaustive”

Who rules on each?

The SFA Articles of Association don’t specify who would deal with incorrect information on an official return. However, the Judicial Panel would rule in the case of an individual being omitted from the Return while holding office at a club and it is reasonable to assume that they would deal with any other reporting problems.

In the event that an individual is left off the paperwork “a fine, suspension or both, or such other penalty, condition or sanction as the Judicial Panel considers appropriate” would be applied.

The evaluation of whether or not an individual is a fit and proper person is taken by the SFA Executive Board, comprised of chief executive Stewart Regan, president Campbell Ogilvie, vice-presidents Alan McRae and Rod Petrie, Scottish Premier League representative Ralph Topping and National Association representative Tom Johnston.

What are the sanctions?

For the individual, the decision may be taken no to allow them to hold office, judging them to be an unfit person.

The club may be punished by the Judicial Panel, though no sanctions are listed. The Panel holds the power to impose fines, suspensions and any other sanction when ruling on other matters, making it difficult to predict what would be decided.

http://sport.stv.tv/football/scottish-premier/rangers/284537-explained-the-sfa-rangers-and-craig-whytes-ban/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

A few of the questions answered by STV.

[boss 1,941]

A few of the questions answered by STV.

Read it earlier - it's a very good summary, although for me it didn't emphasize enough that actually Whyte and Rangers have probably done nothing wrong.

[disgruntled_bear 157]

Read it earlier - it's a very good summary, although for me it didn't emphasize enough that actually Whyte and Rangers have probably done nothing wrong.

We probably haven't, but. Can see why the SFA are checking since Craig Whyte comments about being banned.

[boss 1,941]

We probably haven't, but. Can see why the SFA are checking since Craig Whyte comments about being banned.

I wonder if Rhegan has taken legal advice as to the application of Article 10(2). I suspect not.

Had he done so, he might have found that there was no reason to check up with Whyte/Rangers at all.