Juxtaposition: the fact of two things being seen or placed close together with contrasting effect.
Despite the best efforts of Scottish football governance to conceal the contents of the five party agreement, with various posts being removed on the Scribd platform, I have seen the entire document, with only the total sums owed to three Scottish Football creditors being redacted. RFC(formerly Sevco) would honour debts to Heart of Midlothian PLC, The Dundee United Football Club Limited and Aberdeen Football Club PLC FC. The following text in bold is a selection of the verbatim clauses in the agreement.
There are five parties to the agreement.
The Scottish Football Association Limited
The Scottish Premier League Limited
The Scottish Football League
The Rangers Football Club PLC (In Administration, DW & PC of Duff & Phelps)
Sevco Scotland Limited
The clauses of most interest are those denoted thus:
G. Sevco will apply for and be admitted into membership of the SFL and during season 2012/2013 shall play in the first division of The Scottish Football League.
H. Dundee FC will resign from the membership of the SFL and will have transferred to it by RFC the one share in the SPL held by RFC and during season 2012/2013 shall play in The Scottish Premier League.
I. Rangers FC is to be the subject of SPL EBT sanctions,SFA EBT sanctions and the SFL EBT sanctions arising out of EBT Arrangements and Payments.
n.b. The SFL were during the period 2000-2011, specified in the agreement the owners and operators of The Scottish League Cup.
The SFA, SPL, SFL, RFC and Sevco have agreed to give various undertakings and to contract as set out in this agreement.
In regard to EBT, the Agreement clearly defines the scope as follows:
“EBT Payments and Arrangement” means payments paid by RFC into an Employment Benefit Trust for the benefit of players employed by RFC and playing for Rangers in the Scottish Premier League, the Scottish Cup and The League Cup during the period from 2000 until 2011 inclusive and the arrangements relating to such payments between RFC and those players which were not included in the written contracts of employment of those players and were not notified prior to such payments being made and at the time when such arrangements were entered into to either the SFA or the SPL.
The SPL EBT sanctions means the withdrawal from Rangers FC, RFC and Sevco of the award and status of Champion Club (as defined in SPL Rules) of the Scottish Premier League for each and all of Seasons 2002/03, 2004/05, 2008/09, 2009/10 and 2010/11.
In regard to the SFA EBT sanctions means the withdrawal from Rangers FC, RFC and Sevco of the award and status of the Scottish Cup for each and all of Seasons 2001/02, 2002/03, 2004/05, 2007/08, 2009/10 and 2010/11.
The SFL EBT sanctions means the withdrawal from Rangers FC, RFC and Sevco of the award and status of winner of the League Cup for each and all of seasons 2001/02, 2002/03, 2007/08 and 2008/2009.
In return for honouring the Scottish football debts, and accepting the EBT sanctions, the SFL , in a general meeting, will have consented to the admission of Sevco into the Scottish Football League such that Rangers FC shall play in the first division of the Scottish Football League during season 2012/2013.
This agreement, signed by all parties, including David Whitehouse and Paul Clark representing The RFC plc (in administration) included provision for the stripping of five SPL league titles, six Scottish Cup titles and four Scottish League Cup titles. Had the SFL not rejected Sevco as RFC taking Dundee FC’s place in the first division (now Scottish Championship) fifteen titles would have been stripped.
It follows that the SFA, SPL and the then SFL came to the conclusion that Rangers had clearly breached their rules and had to surrender these titles. Of course Mr Green later denied signing this agreement with Mr McCoist delivering his ‘dignity’ soliloquy. These were merely squirrels to deflect attention from their failure to be admitted to Division One as planned. Mr Green and Mr McCoist would have us believe that they preferred to commence the ‘journey’ from SFL2 to protect these fifteen titles, despite the unequivocal fact that they agreed to relinquish them. Charles Green was planning an IPO and he knew that his prospect of successfully raising £24.5m and listing on the LSE AIM exchange would be significantly enhanced by Sevco Scotland/RFC playing football in Division One. Had this occurred he may have raised more by releasing the equity at a higher price to the 70p that was subsequently realised. Mr Green bit their hands off when offered this agreement. He had no regard for the fifteen titles whatsoever. It would have been spun as how he valiantly managed to secure 49 league titles with only the loss of five, with an SPL return in one season. Green knew he could sell this to the Ibrox faithful.
Of course, by the time we arrive at the LNS commission, the SFA, SPL and SFL have engaged in a remarkable volte face. The omissions from the written contracts of employment no longer justify the withdrawal of fifteen titles. These titles were apparently won with no unfair competitive advantage, and as opposed to withdrawing these titles it was proposed that the contracts were imperfectly registered.
In summary, the SFA, SPL and SFL decided to award all titles of RFC plc to Sevco Scotland with the exclusion of fifteen titles that unequivocally breached their rules. When the SFL members did not consent to their plan, with Sevco/RFC starting in SFL2, title stripping is no longer on the agenda at the subsequent LNS enquiry with the transfer of all titles remaining intact.
Should we commend the SFA/SPL/SFL for their attempts at sporting integrity, notwithstanding the elevation of a new club to the second tier of Scottish professional football? Or should we condemn them for not consistently applying the conditions of the Five Way Agreement by way of the whitewash of the LNS recommendations? In my considered opinion, their juxtaposition renders all of those who were party to the 5 Way Agreement , and their subsequent subversion of an allegedly independent commission, as unfit for purpose.
