Charles Green last night defended himself against a Scottish Football Association charge of bringing the game into disrepute.
The Rangers chief executive was also cited for not acting in the best interests of the game for questioning the integrity of the Scottish Premier League's independent commission into Rangers' use of Employee Benefit Trusts.
However, Green claimed he was careful not to criticise the panel itself when he said earlier this month that Rangers would not co-operate with the commission. He again accused the SPL of having pre-determined the outcome of any findings, since the original five-way agreement between the club and the various governing bodies involved during summer negotiations over the club's SFA license involved Rangers agreeing to titles won during the EBT years of 2000 to 2010 being stripped in return for staying in the top flight.
"We made very clear in the statement that we made that we have never questioned the integrity of the panel. That is beyond reproach," Green said. "What I do have an issue with is the fact that the SPL has relentlessly been pursuing a fixed and predetermined agenda on EBTs from the moment they realised that they would not be able to get Rangers back into the SPL without a fan revolt. Until that moment, the SPL were looking to trade SPL status for an admission of guilt on EBTs and a sanction of stripped titles. We couldn't and didn't give them that."
Earlier yesterday, the SFA issued the two notices of complaint to Green. He was given five days to respond to Vincent Lunny, the SFA's compliance officer. Green was cited for saying the club would not attend meetings led by the commission, chaired by Lord Nimmo Smith. "[Rangers] are not turning up at supposedly independent hearings where the SPL appoint the jury, set the outcome, and set the punishment before we have the trial," he said, although his remarks were carefully drawn up to explicitly avoid directly questioning the integrity of the commission itself.
"You need look no further than the initial draft of the five-way agreement," Green added last night. "There is reference in that to EBTs and the outcome was stripping titles but if I make a statement that the SPL is pursuing a predetermined outcome then I'm bringing the game into disrepute. From the moment that SPL status for Rangers was off the agenda we've been heading for stripped titles.
"What I'm doing is using free speech to tell the fans exactly what has happened and I am now on disrepute charges for matters of fact. The words that seem to have upset the SFA so much are that 'the SPL appoint the jury, set the outcome and set the punishment before the trial' - those things are true and I stand by them. If [the SPL] Chief Executive and lawyers were drafting agreements that contained definitions of titles that would be stripped in late June/early July long before a Commission was even thought about, how can anyone say they are not pursuing an agenda and a predetermined outcome?
"I would ask the SFA and the SPL to release the first draft of the five-way agreement put together by their lawyers to reveal all of the sanctions. Stripping of titles was definitely within that document. What I said before is that this commission is not independent because the SPL have set it up. Saying that they are not independent is not saying that they are not impartial."
The commission is due to meet again on November 13, and a provisional date of October 4 has been set for his hearing in front of the SFA's compliance officer. Green was charged last month with bringing the game into disrepute for claiming that bigotry was behind some the decisions made about Rangers' fate during the summer, and was censured by the SFA.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article