Jump to content

RFWG reply to Regan accusations


Recommended Posts

I am sure you have all seen or read the media release from Mr Regan regarding our meeting last week. As expected, their picture of events is not accurate. The meeting was attended by 6 reps from the Rangers Fans Working Group, all very experienced at these meetings and the same group have been involved in successful and positive meetings with Assistant Chief Constable Corrigan, other Senior Police officers, Messrs Doncaster and Blair from the SPL, Rangers officials, lawyers, media experts, MP’s, MSP’s and many more, and never has our conduct been called into question. We have asked tough questions in a professional manner at all times, as is expected by the Rangers fans we try to represent to the best of our ability, and most professional people we have dealt with have been able to accept why we are asking such questions and give appropriate answers, and we have had to agree to disagree on many occasions in the past without anyone taking the huff and storming out.

In view of the attack on our character by Mr Regan, we have decided to make public an extract from our internal report into the meeting, which was written after the meeting from extensive notes taken at the meeting. Below is the report and we ask you to make your own mind up about Mr Regan’s conduct.

EXTRACT OF REPORT FROM MEETING WITH STEWART REGAN AT SFA ON 29 MARCH 2012

The meeting was going along fine for 45 mins discussing our work in the areas of the new legislation, and while he certainly was not as complimentary on our work as other parties have been, the meeting was fairly routine and amicable. SR, on taking up the position would have preferred the UEFA approach to offensive behaviour but is happy to go along the SPL approach for now. We discussed the pros and cons of this and we agreed to take matters further in other meetings.

It was in the second part of the meeting that the atmosphere noticeably changed.

We asked him about the fit and proper person rules and we discussed CW's breaking of these rules. He declared that he knew that CW had broken these rules in October after BBC documentary. That very week they started communications with CW's lawyers but they really got nowhere. SR declared that the breaking of these rules were facts, as proven in the BBC documentary and in follow-up enquiries. He stated that no interview with CW was required. However rather than press charges in October, he has waited until RFC are in administration. We asked why there was a need for Nimmo Smith's enquiry when SR had already declared as fact that CW was guilty, and why there was a 5 hour meeting going on that very same day when SR had just explained why CW was guilty to us in 10 mins. He said that if that was the way we were going to go there was no point continuing the meeting and slammed his notebook shut and stood up to leave.

We were stunned at this petulant outburst but we managed to calm him down and continue.

We went on to ask why the SFA were holding these enquiries at this time, when the info was 5 months old, and when Rangers has no working directors in a position to defend the club. He said there was no defence needed as the facts proved we were guilty of the breaches as charged. A new owner would not change the outcome. He asked him to see the difference between CW and the club. Our club had nobody other than CW to look over these things as he had got rid of all the other Directors and was essentially a one man show. SR stated that as Rangers was a plc, they would be held responsible in law for CW’s actions. We said that this was not a court of law but a football association and there should be a clear difference in the SFA’s actions between CW and RFC. He refused to accept this.

We asked if the SFA would consider putting these cases off until a new owner was in place, or at least the summer, and were told it would make no real difference and SR actually tried to reason that it would be easier to sell the club with all this out the way. We replied that Murray managed to sell the club with the BTC hanging over us, and while that is still not resolved we look like being sold again so we didn't agree with his argument that the resolution of this case would help a sale.

We then asked that as Scotland’s most successful club, most famous club, the club that has provided most players to the national side and put the most money into the SFA coffers, what was the SFA doing to help us? He said he couldn't do anything to help Rangers any more than any other club. We asked again, have you done anything at all to help the club since Feb 14? He said he had taken some calls, perhaps half a dozen, from the administrators and been as helpful as he could be to them. We stated we were aghast that the CEO of the SFA had done nothing in his power to help the country's biggest club, apart from a few phone calls which were no doubt about technicalities and not assistance.

He then asked us what we thought he should have done. We replied that they could have deferred all charges until after the club exited admin, that they could have offered to pay other SFA members what they were owed at this time out of the SFA's vast coffers, and agree repayment with Rangers either out of SFA/SPL prize money or the admin/new owners. Any help would not be forgotten by Rangers fans, and there could certainly have been a deal put in place with the club to guarantee repayment.

He refused to consider these points and again stated that Rangers had breached articles and had to be punished accordingly. We said that there was a PERCEPTION amongst Rangers fans that the SFA were acting unsympathetically and were taking this opportunity to attack the club, and his answers to date at this meeting would not discourage those with this mindset. At this time he again got angry and stood up and said he wouldn't continue with the meeting if we were going to accuse him of bias. When it was pointed out that we were not doing this, merely pointing out that those we were representing would infer this, he sat down again, albeit temporarily.

We then said that there were perhaps up to half a dozen clubs on the verge of admin/bankruptcy and we wanted the lessons of Rangers to be learned and that no fans of other clubs will have to go through what we have went through.

We asked if he could confirm that if a Kilmarnock or Partick Thistle were to follow us into administration, that the SFA would immediately look to its articles to see if they had breached anything and could be charged, and would offer no help to these clubs whatsoever? SR didn't like this question and when he meekly responded that he was there to uphold the articles and take action accordingly, we said we didn't believe that answer was a viable one.

He said he had had enough and stood up and started to walk towards one of our group to shake hands, and angrily remarked 'quell surprise' to nobody in particular.

We were astonished and angered that he would show himself up in this way. That type of childish remark was grossly insulting and indicated that he had thought all along that we would be there to accuse him of bias, despite the fact that he had asked us directly three times if we were accusing him of bias and three times we had said we did not. That clearly was not enough. SR had clearly come into the meeting with a closed mind about what he was about to face, and in hindsight it is abundantly clear he was looking to get out of the meeting ASAP.

SR was out the door and being closely followed by DB when on of our group called after him "away to report back to Lawwell?" It must be made abundantly clear that SR was already through the doorway, with DB close behind when this happened, so to say that that was the final straw is an outright lie, and we therefore call for Mr Regan to withdraw this accusation immediately and to apologise for his behaviour in storming out at a difficult question. Our member apologised to the rest of the group for this outburst but it was in sheer frustration at the indignant way SR had just conducted himself, and to the answers we got from him during the meeting which in our mind clearly state his intentions to hammer Rangers hard for CW’s lies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 116
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

What an embarrassing display from the man running the SFA.

He is weary with this as the tims constantly bombard him on twitter (an account he should close immediately) and seems to have taken it out on you guys after perfectly reasonable questions.

The SFA should be considering if they have the right man for the job, it doesn't sound like he has the temperament for it. Although the last comnment was not required, you had won that arguement and gave him a comeback

Incidentally have you sent him a copy of these notes and has there been any kind of rebuttal ? I have been out the country for the best part of two weeks and missed most of this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So he was annoyed at being accused of what he thought was bias.

You managed to calm him down.

Then gave him a hypothetical about Kilmarnock or Thistle which essentially accuses him of bias. He "meekly" gives the same answer about "upholding rules", you reply something about viability of his answer, in other words accuse him of bias again, and you wonder why he walked out?

I'm no fan or Regan, but what did you think would be gained with a hypothetical question which basically accuses him of bias again?

You'd already made your point that you didn't think the SFA was doing enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A good read, but making the actual minutes of the meeting public would be a much better way to show up Regan for the petulant finger puppet that he is than typing up an account of the meeting based on those minutes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don't get is if he knew Craig Whyte was not a 'fit and proper' person in October then why was this not raised in October?

A case of sticking another boot in while we are down? :rolleyes:

This is the biggest thing. In amongst the smokescreen of accusations of bias etc, how on earth can Regan declare the club and Whyte guilty of anything before the due process of investigation?! If he isn't denying saying what is described here then THIS is the point on which those wishing to get rid of him should be focusing!!

If this summary is correct he is admitting to prejudicing the investigation that he ordered! This is basic stuff. In fact if this can be proved I believe the club would have a great case to appeal any punishment sent our way as a result of this 'investigation'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

SR was out the door and being closely followed by DB when on of our group called after him "away to report back to Lawwell?" It must be made abundantly clear that SR was already through the doorway, with DB close behind when this happened, so to say that that was the final straw is an outright lie, and we therefore call for Mr Regan to withdraw this accusation immediately and to apologise for his behaviour in storming out at a difficult question. Our member apologised to the rest of the group for this outburst but it was in sheer frustration at the indignant way SR had just conducted himself, and to the answers we got from him during the meeting which in our mind clearly state his intentions to hammer Rangers hard for CW’s lies.

Asking if he was heading to report back to Lawell seems a perfectly valid question - no need for an apology and, in fact, a question that Regan should have answered.

Given his behaviour and responses - it seems the perception that persists of the SFA refusing to help when they could do so is well earned by the man in charge.

Many thanks to the RFWG for acting on our behalf!

Link to post
Share on other sites

how the fuck does some english chump whos career has consisted of management & admin positions at breweries & cricket clubs (basically anywhere with a decent salary) end up being in charge of scottish football. fucking shambles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it we have some no-mark Englishman in charge of our FA?

I'm all in favour of the Union and such, but having this twat in charge of our National game is ludicrous - and he's fucking shite at his job.

Dont think his nationality matters. Only that he is a fucken arsehole. The problem being, he is a fucken arsehole with power. Which makes matters worse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So he was annoyed at being accused of what he thought was bias.

You managed to calm him down.

Then gave him a hypothetical about Kilmarnock or Thistle which essentially accuses him of bias. He "meekly" gives the same answer about "upholding rules", you reply something about viability of his answer, in other words accuse him of bias again, and you wonder why he walked out?

I'm no fan or Regan, but what did you think would be gained with a hypothetical question which basically accuses him of bias again?

You'd already made your point that you didn't think the SFA was doing enough.

You've got this wrong. The discussions were that even if he wanted to continue with this course of action for us, we didnt want any other club to suffer the same way that we have. This was quite clear and he knew it, but chose to spit the dummy out all the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have been out manoeuvred by the anti rangers brigade, we have zero influence in the sfa and within the so called corridors of power. SR should be top of the list for getting his jotters, he has achieved nothing and is under the influence of liewell.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have thought he SHOULD have been expecting a hostile meeting - tensions are running high and fans want answers, and as far as I have seen all my life, most supporters don't do polite and flowery when they are wound up.

His job is to deal with situations as they arise and he has failed at that.

Seems like an incompetent to me, with his behaviour more like that of some old bowling club committee member getting pissed off cause one of the lads accuses him of being an edjit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find all this sfa controlled by peter lawell stuff to be cringeworthy to the extreme....

Why in what other League would someone so critical of the SFA be ushered onto their board the very next season.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the BBC website on 20th July 2011...........................

"Celtic chief executive Peter Lawwell has accepted a place on the Scottish Football Association's new professional game board".

So why the fuck is there a problem wae him being asked the question about reporting back to Lawell, who is clearly a member of the SFA Board? Seems like a reasonable enough question tae ask.

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.

 Share

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found

×
×
  • Create New...