Leading the field
We’ve noted before that it’s flattering to see the grown-up media pinching this blog’s stories. Sometimes it’s possible to put it down to innocent coincidence, such as the Guardian’s report today on the sweatshop conditions of workers producing London Olympic mascots – something Wings Over Scotland readers were reading about almost a month ago. At other times, though, the plagiarism is rather more obvious.
We picked up a lot of traffic on Sunday with an observation about the SFL rules with regard to associate membership, which appeared to have interesting potential ramifications for the Charles Green’s newco Rangers. Being proper journalists, we followed the story up on Monday, and noted in the comments yesterday evening that the SFL had in fact clarified that the “assets of the League” mentioned in the rule referred only to a situation where the League was being dissolved. (But see below.)
Sadly, such basic fact-checking appears to be beyond Scotland’s professional media. The Scotsman swiped the story, reporting this morning that:
“There has been conjecture over how Rangers’ initial status as associate members of the SFL would affect their share of any TV deal. The SFL’s Rule 19 states that an associate member “shall have no financial interest in the assets of the League”.
However, Rule 68.1 clarifies that monetary awards from commercial agreements will be made to “each member and associate member in the three League Championship competitions”.”
In fact, Rule 68.1 doesn’t actually mention “commercial agreements” – the full text is “The League shall make monetary awards to each Member and Associate Member in the three League Championship competitions” (our emphasis). Subsequent clauses in section 68, however, go on to clarify the distribution. A fixed sum from the League’s profits (the “Capped Limit”, currently around £1.2m) is divided between “Members and Associate Members” – 75% of it shared equally between the League’s 30 clubs, with the other 25% paid out according to league positions.
Interestingly, however, the remainder of the League’s trading surplus beyond that £1.2m – the “Excess” – is specifically described (in Rules 68.4.3.1 to 68.4.3.3) as being paid out to “Members”, with no mention of Associate Members.
Given that the SFL currently has no TV deal, it seems clear under Rule 68 that the Capped Limit currently takes no account of money from media rights. Therefore, any new revenues the League manages to secure from broadcasting Sevco FC games would naturally be extremely likely to fall into the Excess rather than the Capped Limit, meaning that Sevco FC would have no right to a share.
The Daily Record, meanwhile, is evidently also following this blog, though on this occasion it reaches a slightly different conclusion. In a story today, it reports that:
“Newco Rangers have been granted only associate membership of the SFL. As a result, under Rule 19 of the SFL’s constitution, they aren’t entitled to a share of the sale of those rights – even though it’s their involvement which has produced a bidding war. The rule states: “An Associate Member shall have no financial interest in the assets of the League and shall not be accorded any voting rights.”
“However, SFL chief executive David Longmuir hinted last night a compromise may be reached which will allow the club to gain a much-needed cash injection from the transaction. He said: “We will work in a collaborative fashion to operate in the best interests of the League.””
It’s not made clear in the piece whether the Record has actually obtained this quote by specifically asking David Longmuir about the implications of Rule 19. (It seems likely that it didn’t – normal practice in a newspaper would be to say “David Longmuir told the Record last night that…”, and in the absence of similar phrases it’s usually safe to assume that the quote has simply been lifted from a press release or interview with another news source.)
But in any event, as our follow-up enquiries of Monday morning have shown, Rule 19 is a red herring. Rule 68 is where the action is in terms of the SFL’s distribution of monies, and it appears to plainly suggest that Sevco Scotland Limited will, as the rules stand, NOT benefit from any TV money its presence brings to the League.
It is, of course, entirely possible that the SFL will agree a discretionary payment, or a special extension of the Capped Limit, to take account of the increase in revenue brought about by the Ibrox club’s presence, although we can in fact find no mechanism in the rules for doing so – Rule 68 only provides for an alteration to the Capped Limit to take account of inflation, and for no other reasons.
But to find out more about that, the Scottish media would have to actually undertake some journalism, rather than just nicking stories off blogs. So don’t hold your breath.
Stick with the Frosties out the box and the gummed up keyboard, Fatso. 
Stuart, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the biggest issue future punishment for EBT’s abuse. If foung guilty of operating dual contracts, would that not be the biggest scandal in Scottish Footballs history?
If so, bearing in mind we are all now aware of the SFA’s four methods, would that not lead to a minimum of e.g. 1 years suspension of licenece? Even if they received a licenece, they could be banned from playing next year. Maybe that was McCoist’s reason in his latest outburst?
I keep expecting shenanigans and therefore I expect they’ll find a way of giving some of the money to Rangers, however they do keep managing to make the right decisions (even if their journey to get there wasn’t the right one!) so maybe it’ll be done right. Certainly If I was a chairman of another club I would not want to see rules being bent or even broken so that large sums of my money could go to another team.
As for McCoist, he has his own charges to face, so shouting his mouth off isn’t really wise, but I believe he thinks they’ve been punished enough. Well, the only punishment they are getting is a £160,000 fine and a four week transfer embargo. The ten point deduction made no diffrence to thier finishing position, Players leaving is a side effect of Liquidation (and why would they expect any more loyalty from people who worked for 25% of thier salary for four months and were then labelled GREEDY! by the club) and entry to division three for a brand new company is doing them a massive favour.
If he thinks a £160,000 fine is sufficient punishment for a club that ran up £134 MILLION of debt, dragged the good name of Scottish football (don’t laugh) through the mud and has spent the last five months generally being beligerent and refusing to play nice at a time when it needs the help of oter clubs the most, well, I look forward to seing what he makes of his own punishment, and any future punishment for the dual contracts.
“Well, the only punishment they are getting is a £160,000 fine and a four week transfer embargo. The ten point deduction made no difference to their finishing position”
Without wanting to sound like some sort of Sevco apologist, in fairness, it’s not their fault the 10 point deduction didn’t make a difference. Motherwell in particular had a chance to leapfrog them, but failed to do so. So yeah, it was certainly a crap punishment (didn’t Dundee get 25 points deducted by the SFL for entering administration?), but it was a punishment.
What it wasn’t, however, was a punishment for their EBT irregularities, and they need to be punished for that. They would have been in administration even without the EBTs, and would thus have been given the 10 point deduction anyway.
If I find this “borrowing” on the part of others when it comes to your writing I can only imagine how it must make the original creators like yourself feel.
Yet the same mould of writers would likely happily write a piece about why we need more draconian laws to stop piracy…hmmm. This kind of snatch and grab is far worse than bums or teens torrenting games or porn as they are both pretending to be the creators of it and are making money and furthering their careers in the process.
I’m now bored by newcoOldHun but
link to bbc.co.uk
cheers
charlie
Doug,
Dundee were deducted 25 points as this was the 2nd occasion they had gone into administration.
Oldco are technically still in administration so if their membership is to be transferred and they remain so at the start of the season then I expect newco will also be deducted a further 25 points. : \
Some strong words from the SFL at the time of Dundee’s troubles…
“Clubs have to realise that they can’t treat their Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs tax obligations as something akin to a credit card.”
link to news.bbc.co.uk