WE CAN STILL STRIP AWAY TITLES, SAYS DONCASTER
Doncaster warns Rangers they could yet be punished for any rule breach on EBTS
THE SPL have reiterated their warning to Rangers they could have past titles stripped from them if found to have breached payment rules with their use of Employee Benefit Trusts. SPL chief executive Neil Doncaster has told the stricken Ibrox club that becoming a newco would not exempt them from any punishment for previous misdemeanours in this regard.
The SPL are refusing to commit to a timescale for the results of their investigation into EBTs, the extensive use of which at Ibrox were exposed by a BBC Scotland television documentary earlier this week.
Doncaster stresses he does not want to prejudice the findings, but did confirm that removing SPL Championship honours won by Rangers is a sanction already within their remit.
‘The nub of the issue is that our rules say all payments to players must be made within an SPL contract,’ said Doncaster. ‘In the event a case is proven, then there could be some sanctions and these are unlimited within the rules. Withdrawal of a title is one of the rules.
‘You would expect the EBT investigation would continue to bind the football club as a newco.
‘This is an enormously complicated area. There is a lot to trawl through and the lawyers are working on it. We are going through a process now.
‘What we have to do i n any disciplinary investigation is go through a chain of events. The lawyers bring a report back to the SPL board.
‘They say whether they think there is a case to answer and the board then has to decide how to progress.
‘They can hear it themselves or through a sub-committee or appoint an independent commission. There are 18 different sanctions which can then be applied for a rule breach.’
Doncaster, meanwhile, admitted vested interests coming to the fore will be inevitable when the SPL clubs meet this week to decide the severity of new financial fair-play rules.
Representatives of all 12 top-flight member will gather at Hampden on Wednesday for a general meeting which could have a major bearing on the survival of Rangers.
He emphasised that none of the proposals being voted on are specific to Rangers, but the Ibrox outfit’s plight is what has prompted a major update of the SPL’s rules to punish clubs who become insolvent.
Among the most significant items on the agenda is whether a stricken club re-emerging from administration as a newco, rather than through a Company Voluntary Arrangement, should be penalised for this distinction by a loss of points, as well as a possible reduction in central income. Doncaster is realistic enough to know that a number of club representatives sitting around the table will be making judgments based more on their own side’s future welfare rather than that of Scottish football as a whole. But he claims such bias cannot be removed.
‘Football is about vested interests,’ said Doncaster. ‘Arguably, there is no decision made round the SPL committee room table where there is no vested interest.
‘Every decision has an implication on all clubs within the competition, so I can understand the arguments about an independent commission.
‘However, what is vital is the rules are applied fairly and that will happen. There will be no special cases made for individual clubs. The rules must be adhered to and applied without fear or favour.
‘We cannot get emotional over how a club behaves. We have a rulebook. I understand some people don’t like the rulebook, but the clubs set the rules and they are what we abide by. The clubs decide what they want us to do.’
One key vote is whether the points penalty for clubs entering administration in future be increased from the current 10 points to one third of a club’s total points the previous season, a figure likely to be substantially higher.
‘ C u r r e n t l y, w e d e a l w i t h administration more harshly than England and this would be even stricter if the rule-change proposals are passed,’ added Doncaster.
‘Hindsight is a great thing and maybe you could argue there should already have been greater sanction for clubs going into administration.
‘The logic of the rule-change proposal would be that there is a proportionate impact on all clubs. What has been seen this year is that Rangers losing 10 points was actually immaterial to them.
‘For example, if they had got 90 points the previous season, their sanction would become 30 points, rather than 10. That would have been a harsher sanction, but one which relates to the size of the club. I hope it gets through.
‘This goes beyond anything, as far as I am aware, in world football. It certainly goes well beyond the rest of the UK. It is an attempt to ensure that clubs do live within their means.’
While that resolution is expected to be passed, it is less certain that sanctions on clubs whose SPL share is transferred to a newco will be approved.
Among these is whether the newco should be deducted 10 points for the following two seasons, as well as a further vote on whether for three further seasons they lose 75 per cent of their income from the SPL pot.
‘What has happened at Rangers is a huge shame for everyone involved. I have a lot of sympathy for everyone affected by this,’ said Doncaster.
‘It has happened before and no doubt there will be further club insolvencies in the future. Our role, and the role of the clubs, is to create financial fair-play rules that deal with it as fairly as possible.
‘The clubs will form their own view about what they want to do. No doubt they will focus on their own situations when they are looking at these rules.
‘If you look at most clubs in the league, losing the vast majority of their distribution is a very onerous sanction indeed.’
Doncaster denied that the SPL should instigate their own fit-and- proper-person test for future wouldbe club owners to avoid another Craig Whyte figure emerging, maintaining that the SFA will lead the way in this regard.
‘There is now speculation that St Mirren may be sold,’ continued Doncaster. ‘Ask them if they would want to come to us for pre-approval. I’m sure they would want to deal with whoever they would want to conduct business with.
‘I have yet to see a test that is foolproof, actually works and can be applied fairly and objectively. There is also a danger that you are effectively sanctioning the appointment of a director and taking responsibility for it.
‘There are hundreds of years of legal precedent which says the company is responsible for the company’s actions.
‘The rules do not allow me the luxury of forming personal views on owners and prospective owners.’