by Auldheid for the Scottish Football Monitor
On these pages at least there is a mounting lack of trust that the Scottish Football Association can or will govern our game in a fair and honest manner that recognises the principle of sporting integrity as paramount.
This mistrust is equalled only by the frustration at being unable to do anything to change the attitude and action of those at the SFA (and Leagues) responsible for that governance, a frustration compounded by the reluctance of the mainstream media to focus on the very issues of trust and integrity that concern us.
Back in early 2010 Celtic supporters represented by the Celtic Trust, various Association groups and individuals felt the same frustration and found a way to make their voices heard at the SFA – by using their club as a channel of communication to articulate their concerns.
A resolution was agreed and passed to Celtic to convey to the SFA and it was heeded by the club. There is no reason in why a similar conduit cannot be used by supporters groups of all clubs.
The enormity of the task, to get the majority of trusts and associations of all clubs to support this approach and give it sufficient weight, should not be underestimated, but in the interests of amplifying our voice, it is worth the effort.
Based on that 2010 experience, and on the discussion that has taken place on TSFM we have arrived at a (now amended) resolution below under the auspices of TSFM and which has been sent to all representative club supporters groups.
We believe one of the reasons the SFA and SPL were able to mislead (or simply fail to provide leadership) was because of the lack of clarity surrounding who should take provide that leadership and what principles should have been paramount.
The SFA were as tied to the commercial impact of Rangers demise as the SPL and indeed had to be reminded by the supporters of the importance of that sporting integrity. In the aftermath of the Rangers implosion, both the SFA and Leagues on the face of it appear still too commercially oriented to act in a way that balances commercialism and sporting principles.
We have attempted to address this in the resolution below. It also contains additional points raised already on TSFM and elsewhere. It is designed to assist in the widening of accountability in the sport.
We are not wed to the draft or the language. It is there to be revised but we hope it contains enough food for thought to be acceptable to the supporters groups and the clubs.
As recently as today, the SFA has published a Fans Charter. We welcome this development, and although it does not address our specific concerns with respect to governance it is a step in the right direction (http://www.fanscharter.com/).
Some of the principles published are;
- Challenge is to make a National Fans Charter known, accepted and influential
- Getting fan involvement in drafting charter important to acceptance, influence and growing awareness.
We think our resolution is an even bigger step in the direction of those principles.
DRAFT Proposal for Representative Supporter Groups e.g. Trusts or Associations to send to their club to convey to the SFA/SPL/SFL Boards.
We [Insert Association/Trust name here] and in association with fans’ groups of other clubs, ask [Insert Club name here] to convey the following to the Scottish Football Association, SPL and SFL on our behalf.
1 We believe that the commercial viability of Scottish football at the professional level depends absolutely on the belief by supporters that sporting integrity is at the heart of all competition, and that those governing them and the rules by which they exercise governance, must hold sporting integrity as paramount above ALL other concerns. This belief can be summed up in the one word “trust” Without trust in those responsible for governing Scottish Football, commercial viability will suffer, to eventual ruin of our game.
2 There is a perception (accompanied by some dismay and anger) among football supporters throughout Scotland that those who were charged with upholding the rules of the SFA and SPL/SFL, only did so partially – and even then only because of the threat of supporter action if they did not.
3 There appears to be no distinction or order of hierarchy between those governing the game (the SFA) for whom we believe preservation of sporting integrity should be the prime purpose, and the leagues (SPL/SFL) for whom commercial aspects are (understandably) uppermost. As a result sporting integrity lost its primacy and it was left to supporters to insist on it.
4 Consequently many Scottish football supporters have lost confidence that the Scottish Football Association will fulfil their purpose of safeguarding the sport. Indeed their silence following the revelation of a 5 way agreement last summer on the future of the liquidated Glasgow Rangers has exacerbated this loss of confidence in the SFA’s ability to administer professional football in Scotland in a manner that reflects their duty of care to all aspects of the game and everyone who takes part in it.
5 Decisions and deals have been taken by the SFA, SPL, and SFL without any public scrutiny. The operations and decisions of those bodies lack transparency and they are not accountable in any recognisable form to the football supporters throughout the land, without whom there is no professional association.
6 In our view this loss of trust can only begin to be restored by the SFA publically committing itself to:
(i) The production of an unequivocal “mission” statement of purpose/intent which will state (in whatever form they may exist) that maintaining sporting integrity is and will always be their prime goal. The statement will also describe how they intend to ensure this principle is followed in their interactions with Leagues and Clubs, particularly when commercial decisions that might undermine sporting integrity are implemented by the Leagues. (e.g. In the case of TV contracts, sponsorship or any significant league reconstruction).
(ii) Further: in recognition of the inability of some individuals to provide leadership during the past year simply because of conflicts of interest, take steps to remove any such conflict, and in doing so enable the organisation and its office bearers to function unhindered.
(iii) In the interests of transparency, publish the “five point agreement” that allowed The Rangers entry into SFL and SFA, provide a supporting rationale for entering into the agreement, and confirm that the terms have been or are being complied with.
Along with other trust restoring measures (see attached Annex) these steps should mark the end of the continuing lack of trust in the authorities.
7. We appreciate that it may be the start of next season before there is any visible evidence of our concerns being addressed although the statement of purpose/intent by the SFA (i) and action at (ii) can be readily put in place – would be a welcome early development.
8. All club’s supporters groups will be watching closely for signs of progress before advising our members and our other supporters if we feel the necessary trust restoring steps are being taken and advise that they can purchase their season books for 2013/14 knowing that sporting integrity is once more absolutely paramount in Scottish football to the betterment of our game.
Signed __________________________ on behalf of
[Insert supporter trust/association name here]
Date ______________
Annex to resolution.
The following is a list of other measures that the SFA should take in order to satisfy supporters that they should be entrusted with the job of governing Scottish football.
- To increase transparency and accountability in a meaningful way – possibly via creation of an active supporter’s liaison group drawn from representative supporter groups of each club. Its remit, using an agreed consultative mechanism to generate dialogue, to hear supporters’ concerns and consider them before key decisions are made. In an industry that is totally interdependent it is folly to exclude a major stakeholder from key decision making.
- A tightening of and an annual and independent audit of the process for granting UEFA Club (FFP) and National Club licensing reporting to the representative supporter liaison group as well as other SFA members to ensure all clubs are living within their means.
- Introduction of a rule requiring all Scottish football club directors to declare any financial interest/shareholding in any club other than their own and to rule that disposition of those shares/interest should be a part of a fit and proper assessment of a person’s qualification to hold office at an association club.
- A feasibility review of Scottish refereeing to assess the potential for creating a professional service that the SFA provide to the leagues by recruiting and training referees, but where the leagues monitor and reward consistently good performances to an agreed standard. Given the sums dependent on referee decisions, the current system must change for everyone’s sake including the referees.
- A full explanation about the circumstances (including dates) surrounding the award of a UEFA Club licence to Rangers in spring/summer of 2011 when there was unpaid social tax that prime facie did not meet the conditions for deeming the granting of a licence acceptable under the UEFA FFP rules on unpaid tax (the wee tax bill).
The [Insert Club Name here] Trust/Supporters Association asks [Insert Club Name here] to convey our concerns above with their provenance to the appropriate authorities as they see fit viz:
- Football Authority in Scotland (The SFA)
- Europe (UEFA)
- Scottish Government (on the issue of accountability to supporters and proper checks and balance governance.)
David McCloy
Indeed the fact will be easier to prove and if what was revealed in the FTT decision is fact then the rules where broken.
However it is the punishment that depends on intent and that is a matter of judgement based on reasons given for ongoing non disclosure. I suggest possible intent cannot be removed from punishment meted out but further that the lack of willingness to seek clarification from SFA is an indicator and the FACT of not doong so was denying the SFA the opportunity to advise on the very rule that was being broken.
LNS might however just take the route suggested in another post and that is mete out the same scale of punishment for ommiting a date from a form but further up that scale given the frequency.
It will be interesting to see how this chalice is supped.
Wootpi
I know the 3rd party argument has been dealt with but I was wondering if at the time the decision not to disclose was made was it done with the same certainty then as there is now?
As was said it could be the questions were not asked for fear of the answers
allyjambo says:
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 17:24
I agree with what you say. However when it comes down to the finer points of tax law and the like, one thing does not necessarily lead onto another in the way that common sense would have you believe.
When the lawyers are involved it tends to get disected into tiny little bits, which is why Heidi Poon thought it more relevant to look at the big picture.
Given there are lawyers involved in the footballing authorities then my fear is that the same approach might be taken and the bigger picture where most people know they were ‘at it’, will get missed once again.
Also
I think it was discussed at the EBT verdict but I agree that the loans appear to be due tax as benefits in kind and perhaps someone needs to ask some of the more ‘open’ EBT recipients like Dodds or Rae if HMRC has come knocking.
At that time I also questioned if the SFA themselves may have been victims of insurance insurance fraud if claims by the oldco for players injured on International Duty were based on their whole renumeration package as opposed to the lower registered ‘salary’ figure.
Just another question not being asked. Perhaps someone will after LNS has concluded?
at the start, would it have been up to the greatest living football administrator to ask the sfa ?
latterly there was no need to ask the sfa, since the prez was up to his knees in his ebt.
Auldhied, Has the SFA responded at all to Alex Thomsons article ?
http://edinburghnapiernews.com/2013/01/22/media-mondays-the-rangers-story/
AT an MD pocast
wottpi says:
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 19:17
I agree that my post was based on limited knowledge and that the lawyers will challenge and confuse many issues, it’s how they make their money 😉 We can only hope that Lord Nimmo, at least, will use a fair amount of common sense when judging what is right. I’ve a feeling that he will do his best to ensure a fair and just result, but may be hamstrung by the custodians of our game.
Just a small point on player insurance. Could it be that the reason scrupulously correct registration is so important to the SFA, and other FAs, is that an improperly registered players insurance might be considered invalid in the event of a claim for injury? I would imagine a copy of each players contract will be lodged with each insurance application and be examined in the event of a claim. I don’t know if this is a major consideration in ensuring proper registration, but I could well imagine a loss adjuster turning down payment of a claim should he discover any discrepancies. It is, after all, their job.
nowoldandgrumpy says:
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 17:47
Probably already known on here but I thought I would post it anyway.
http://thedemiseofrangersinpictures.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/charles-greens-hold-over-sfl.html?spref=tw
————————————————————————————————————————-
I think I might know the author of this piece from Twitter. I’ve reposted this elsewhere in case
it needs a closer look. Cheers for that.
Have we found out for sure if Chuckle’s Security Company is part of the RIFC Group yet, or is
the money going straight to Mr Stockbridge and his, erm, associates?
StevieBC says:
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 15:26
10 0 Rate This
I’m slightly perturbed by the silence down Govan way, wrt LNS.
A week to go and no grandstanding from Charlie – who has never knowingly missed an opportunity in the past to play to the hordes.
So why is it so quiet now, when they were gnashing their teeth loudly not so long ago that ‘their titles would never be stripped from them’ ?
Does Charlie know something the Internet Bampots don’t about the LNS Inquiry ?
Or is it a deliberate change in strategy to a more conciliatory approach ?
Getting confused again !
_____________________________
he mentioned last week that he was going to australia soon
must be why there is no BS coming out this week
wottpi says:
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 19:17
I think it was discussed at the EBT verdict but I agree that the loans appear to be due tax as benefits in kind and perhaps someone needs to ask some of the more ‘open’ EBT recipients like Dodds or Rae if HMRC has come knocking.
========
HMRC won’t be knocking on the players’ doors until the tax case is finally decided, if at all. I believe that HMRC are extremely confident of winning this case on appeal, and now that they have started the appeal process, they will go to the Supreme Court if they have to. It is HMRC’s strong and consistent view that these “loans” are nothing of the sort. Their focus is on the PAYE route, hopefully with the intention of attaching personal liability to SDM and the other directors during the relevant period.
re the loans being benefits in kind, my understanding was the loans were discounted – the players were loaned say £1m on the basis they would pay back (I know, I know) £1.2m. Thus the loans were technically interest bearing, thus no benefit in kind.
Auldheid says:
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 15:51
…………………………………………………………..
You are correct on each point Auldheid…
The very clear guidelines make it unquestionable that the additional payments should have been declared to the SFA in line with the rules that govern world football.
The fact someone chose not to can only suggest 1 thing and 1 thing only…they knew it was not within the rules as laid down by FIFA…they knew they were in breach.
TallBoy Poppy (@TallBoyPoppy) says:
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 21:23
Have we found out for sure if Chuckle’s Security Company is part of the RIFC Group yet, or is
the money going straight to Mr Stockbridge and his, erm, associates?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
TallBoy Poppy
Actually
It doesn’t matter any more
Apparently under the 2006 Act
(Subject to confirmation from a real Accountant)
As long as Garrion have a turnover below £6.25m and RIFC have the right to appoint Garrion Directors they can be a “subsidiary undertaking” of RIFC without being owned by RIFC
Meaning
The hard earned profits from Garrion don`t go through RIFC books and can be siphoned directly into the pockets of whoever owns them
So it appears the Ibrox Security bill can go up to £6m pa without the embarrassment of Garrion having to disclose this in monthly accounts to the RIFC Board
What a great wheeze
(if correct of course)
In fact
It’s so great, it must be happening with some other “subsidiary undertakings” not owned by RIFC but ones where RIFC have the right to appoint the Directors
If there’s one thing better than Fairyland
It’s Spivland
allyjambo says:
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 20:51
The SFA/SPL/SFL probably require paperwork on all payments so that they know that a club can fulfill its financial responsibilities and not bring the game into disrepute by being unable to pay NI, Tax and other bills as they came due.
Although I am very sceptical of the part our governing bodies have played in this debacle but even they will have to cover themselves in the eyes of UEFA.
nowoldandgrumpy says:
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 20:35
7
0
Rate This
http://edinburghnapiernews.com/2013/01/22/media-mondays-the-rangers-story/
AT an MD pocast
Thanks for that strongly advise everyone to listen in. Fascinating.
Thinking back to Poon’s various what-ifs in her dissenting opinion. I remember she highlighted one impact of non declaration of payments being that SFA imposed fines were a multiple of a player’s declared ‘income.’ Ultimately this would be small beer in the bigger scheme of things. However she then made an open ended comment re player insurance, and in the event that one was injured that a claim would need to be made by the club stating a ‘salary claimed against’ figure. I remember at the time thinking this could grow arms and leg namely:
1/ were claims made stating total payments (salary plus loans) which would give LNS his verdict there and then?
2/ These claims would need to be made by an individual on the Ibrox staff at the time. Did, for instance, an individual in a highly paid job with the SFA make a claim?
Now if I think it might be a thread to pursue, are you telling me every single member of the MSM decided it wasn’t? Or let me guess. It pricked their interest, they made enquiries but Walter told them it wasn’t an issue and to hurry up and play their shot.
I seem to remember a rangers goalkeeper claiming he only earned £1000 per week during a court case in the mid 90s. That was his weekly salary.
smugas says:
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 23:18
Thinking back to Poon’s various what-ifs in her dissenting opinion
Very good point that may interest insurers.
goosygoosy says:
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 23:00
========================================================================
Thanks, goosygoosy.
So, that’ll be £6.2million in security costs.
Auldheid
Your getting a mention again by AT. abot an hour 5 mins in.
chipsandblog says:
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 19:46
Auldhied, Has the SFA responded at all to Alex Thomsons article ?
_______________________________________
I understand he will be blogging tommorrow and we’ll know more then.
Very intersting that LNS has no evidence from BBC Mark Daly. So what have they got that he doesnt have?
My faith in journalism in this country is slightly restored by that wee discourse.
Who actually represents Rangers at the LNS enquiry as surely Mr Green and those at Ibrox now have he haw to do with Oldco ? If a lawyer is there on behalf of the liquidated club, who pays for the lawyer, BDO ?
paulmac2 says:
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 22:43
Many thanks Paul. Maybe this point will come out on your blog?
briggsbhoy says:
Wednesday, January 23, 2013 at 00:43
6
0
Rate This
Who actually represents Rangers at the LNS enquiry as surely Mr Green and those at Ibrox now have he haw to do with Oldco ? If a lawyer is there on behalf of the liquidated club, who pays for the lawyer, BDO ?
=======================
It is my understanding that neither Oldco nor Newco will be represented at the LNS Hearing. LNS will judge on evidence put before him by the law firm appointed by the SPL.
I may well be wrong.
Auldheid (@Auldheid) says:
Wednesday, January 23, 2013 at 00:05
……………………………………………………………….
2 things Auldheid…
I am not the same Paul Mac you are alluding to..
Secondly…if they have stated it was a technicality…that resulted in the payments not being declared…then they have confirmed that A) they should and B) They didn’t
Technically is a polite word organisations and individuals use when they get caught…
‘technically you are correct officer…I should not have been doing 105 mph on the motorway’…’I know the legal limit is 70 mph but I didn’t notice my speedo was up at 105 otherwise I would have slowed down’
chipsandblog says:
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 23:27
1
Rate This
I seem to remember a rangers goalkeeper claiming he only earned £1000 per week during a court case in the mid 90s. That was his weekly salary.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………..
That was a certain Mr Andy Goram, see bellow.
Article Excerpt
Byline: SIMON HOUSTON
TO his thousands of Ibrox Park admirers, Andy Goram is worth every penny of the lucrative salary he receives as Rangers and Scotland goalkeeper.
His heroics between the posts have placed him among the top earners in Scottish football.
It was therefore with some surprise that those present at Linlithgow Sheriff Court on Monday appeared to hear different. The star became the latest in a long list of Ibrox players to be banned for drink-driving. He admitted being two and a half times over the limit when his Honda was stopped by police in October last year.
However, it was when, during his plea of mitigation, Mr Goram’s lawyer informed the courtroom of his client’s salary prior to a sentence being imposed, that onlookers showed surprise.
`Andy Goram earns only £1,000 a week?,’ were the words on most people’s lips after the case was completed.
Other players at Rangers have negotiated for a considerably higher salary than that figure. Add to that the sponsorship endorsements, win bonus payments – and the £30,000 collected when the club qualified for the European Champions League – and Goram’s salary seemed meagre in comparison.
In the end the player was banned from driving for 18 months and fined £1,000, which Sheriff Graham Fleming was told was his weekly wage. He was given three months to pay.
Just dropped of my wife at church, regular attendee, Massive crowd building up for Sean Fallon’s funeral. Police presence, A. Ferguson rumoured for eulogy.
twitter
Further, from the Daily Record archive (1996):
—–
Booze-shame soccer star Andy Goram yesterday claimed he struggled by on pounds 1000 a week.
The Scotland keeper said he earned pounds 15,000 a week LESS than bad-boy Paul Gascoigne.
But Goram’s pay packet is topped up by a pounds 250-a-week sponsorship deal.
His earnings were revealed at Linlithgow Sheriff Court, where he became the third Rangers player in three months to be fined and banned for drink- driving.
Goram, 32, was convicted of driving while two-and-a-half times the legal limit in his top- of-the-range club car.
The Honda – which will now almost certainly be taken from him by chairman David Murray – was seen weaving about the road as Goram made his way home.
Police were tipped off when he got into his car after a function at Linlithgow’s West Port Hotel in October last year.
June Gilchrist, prosecuting, said: “His breath smelled of alcohol and his eyes were glazed.”
Sheriff Grahame Fleming fined Goram, of Penicuik, Midlothian, pounds 1000 and banned him from driving for 18 months.
After hearing what he earned, the sheriff gave him three months to pay.
Goram’s wages are well down on those of other international players at Ibrox. Gazza is top of the pile on pounds 16,000 a week.
Brian Laudrup picks up around pounds 10,000, with skipper Richard Gough on about pounds 8000.
New signings Jorg Albertz, Jocky Bjorklund and Erik Bo Andersen all earn pounds 5000 a week – the same as veteran striker Ally McCoist gets under his new deal.
But these sums pale next to the bumper pay packet Gianluca Vialli gets from Chelsea – he’s paid a staggering pounds 27,000 a week.
Last night, a top Scots-based soccer agent, who didn’t want to be named, said: “Andy is well down the league in terms of salary.
“If I was negotiating a deal for an up-and-coming star with one of the bigger clubs, I’d be looking for around pounds 2000-plus a week.
“I suggest that Andy negotiates a new deal.”
McCoist was fined pounds 2500 and banned for 15 months in August for early-morning drink-driving in Glasgow city centre.
John Brown got a pounds 1500 fine and a 15-month ban in August. He was twice the legal limit as he drove home from watching a game at STV.
nowoldandgrumpy says:
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 20:35
15 0 Rate This
http://edinburghnapiernews.com/2013/01/22/media-mondays-the-rangers-story/
————
I’ve just listened to this too. Excellent Q&A with Thomson and Daly. Haven’t heard this referred to on Sportsound. Would be a good subject for SC and his panel looking at he blogs and new media stories.
Just imagine eh, a staggering £27,000 per week. Or up to 2pm on Monday for Tevez.
nowoldandgrumpy says:
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 20:35
15 0 Rate This
http://edinburghnapiernews.com/2013/01/22/media-mondays-the-rangers-story/
————
I’ve just listened to this too. Excellent Q&A with Thomson and Daly. Haven’t heard this referred to on Sportsound. Would be a good subject for SC and his panel looking at he blogs and new media stories.
________________________________________________________________
Just listened to it also, not a bad listen.
TallBoy Poppy (@TallBoyPoppy) says:
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 23:28
goosygoosy says:
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 23:00
========================================================================
Thanks, goosygoosy.
So, that’ll be £6.2million in security costs.
===============================================================
You’re obviously forgetting the increased costs will be due to the world record attendances!
NEW AT blog up
http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/fan-power-fore-scottish-football/3896
http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/fan-power-fore-scottish-football/3896
SFA mission statement
Our Mission
The Scottish FA leads the national game with integrity and innovation to breed a culture of performance, unity and trust.
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/StrategicPlan/Scotland%20United.pdf
SFA mission statement
Clearly, Stewart Regan thinks he is the man to reshape Scottish Football.
With Campbell Ogilvie’s assistance I presume.
They are going to . . . . lead the national game with integrity . . . . .
Meanwhile, Lance Armstrong is to take up a new post as Director of The Tour de France Anti-doping Agency.
I like the performance (world ranking under his tenure), unity (Excuse me, what?) and trust (Seriously?) bit best.
Stuart can look forward to his staff appraisal meeting with, oh hang on, that’ll be Campbell dishing out high fives all round I’m sure. Its not like its his money.
Not sure if this is relevant or not:
“Charles Greens company were pensions brokers for the SFL and the SPL.
Now Charles Green must have been privy to sensitive information, maybe tax loopholes, off shore accounts. Obviously the good people of the SFL and SPL wouldn’t want this information made public.
“Your scratch my back and I’ll scratch your back” springs to mind!”
http://thedemiseofrangersinpictures.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/charles-greens-hold-over-sfl.html?spref=tw
Okay was it Hans Christian Andersen who wrote that SFA document?
T h e S c o t t i s h F A l e a d s t h e
n a t i o n a l g a m e w i t h i n t e g r i t y a n d
i n n o v a t i o n t o b r e e d a c u l t u r e o f
p e r f o r m a n c e , u n i t y a n d t r u s t .
Trust
The Scottish FA takes its values seriously. Without values, the vision will be
blurred and the goals unfulfilled. Values are more than a set of words: they
represent a mirror for the organisation as a whole, its staff members and
volunteers to ensure the highest standards of professionalism are achieved
and maintained. The Scottish FA’s values should be reflected in all that we do,
both internally and externally.
We are open, honest and trusted to do the right thing, in a
manner that reflects the highest standards of integrity
nowoldandgrumpy says:
Wednesday, January 23, 2013 at 15:33
and the president of the SFA admitting he has been unable to do his job for the best part of a year because he owes a member club nearly £100k and can’t get involved in any decision affecting them is ” the highest standard of professionalism”
really?
SFA mission statement
“Trust
We are open, honest and trusted to do the right thing,”
Since you are so open and honest, may I have that copy of the five way agreement that I asked you for 5 months ago, and could that be now, please? Otherwise I might not trust you, or I might even think that you didn’t do the right thing.
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Wednesday, January 23, 2013 at 15:41
nowoldandgrumpy says:
Wednesday, January 23, 2013 at 15:33
and the president of the SFA admitting he has been unable to do his job for the best part of a year because he owes a member club nearly £100k and can’t get involved in any decision affecting them is ” the highest standard of professionalism”
really?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
He owes the EBT not the club.
The SFA document is worrying not only because it’s so contradictory to how they are viewed (NTHM’s comment at 15.41 being an excellent example), but because it feels so dated in business terms. I mean the bank I worked in was using Good to Great (among others) as a management guide some 10-15 years ago!! Given that this is the only title mentioned, is this book what they are basing their management strategy and culture on? Gawd!
While it is encouraging to see that Messrs Thomson and Daly have not given up on the issues concerning us, I am not surprised in the least by the SFA continued stonewalling.
Over the last week or two it is becoming increasing frustrating that still no definitive statements are forthcoming, especially as ongoing discussion here has witnessed some division. I feel we need to close ranks and centre our focus on the SFA.
I think we should ask our champions in the media, (Thomson, Daly and Cosgrove) or anyone else brave enough, to approach the SFA with requests for definitive statements on say a handful of focused questions. With the clout they seem to have, (at least the get the courtesy of a reply!) it might bring about some clearing of the air wrt recent events.
I am sure many of the astute minds on here could frame these questions/requests/demands much more proficiently than I could ever manage, however I feel our best hope of achieving results lie in collective focus via these brave souls.
Suggestions for the answers or actions sought could be pooled here with the most pertinent 3, 4 or 5 put forward to a media champion. While I am aware we should not approach this from a purely Rangers angle, I must admit the questions I have all concern the Ibrox saga.
Here are two of mine;
1. Publish the 5-way agreement in it’s entirety on the SFA website.
As taxpayers, Scottish football supporters indirectly fund the SFA via grants from the Scottish Government. I think it is scandalous that the SFA have been party to an agreement such as this but fail to publish the agreement in full. How on earth does that build trust and what happened to transparency?
2. As far as the SFA are concerned; Are the Rangers team currently playing in the 3rd division a new club or the same club as went into liquidation in June this year?
While everyone and their dog will have their own opinion on this, the SFA’s failure to answer this question definitively has created a huge gulf in Scottish football which I doubt will ever now be bridged.
Perhaps these demands or questions could be framed more appropriately, or even more appropriate requests made, however I believe the SFA should be pushed for clarification via a more focused approach rather than allowing them to hideaway in their ivory towers.
The SFA’s mission statement states everything they would strive to be and how they should always act. This is totally opposite of evrything that I have witnessed from this body for more years than I care to remember. ‘To see ourselves as others see us’ should now be their default position.
ismellafix says:
Wednesday, January 23, 2013 at 16:05
Your question 2 from another angle. If official member 1 is liquidated and official member 2 takes its place can member 2 hold the same official title as 1 held previously (never mind trading names, that’s just the magical ethereal continuity club brand thingy that the papers quote).
Re: Various posters on drink driving
—————————————————————————————————–
I’m unclear as to what relevance news from 1996 has to any current situation especially when it involves criminal convictions which are most likely spent and certainly will be no longer on the driving licences.
I’m not condoning the offences in any way but the relevance escapes me as does the wages being paid.
As to Goram, his personal problems at the time were well-known as was the reason for the wage he was paid. I’m a Celtic supporter and I would hate to think this has been dredged-up because of the vile, possibly sectarian attack, allegedly carried out by a so-called Celtic fan. As to past behaviour by Goram I just don’t believe that two wrongs make a right.
I can only observe that while Scottish Football could be collapsing through the actions of the ‘suits’ that we seem to be more interested in quite a sad guy who has paid his price to society, We all have a lot more to worry us.
“THE RANGERS STORY:UNPEELING THE ROTTEN ONION
Mark Daly BBC Scotland Investigates
Alex Thomson Chief Correspondent Channel Four News”
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/mark-daly-and-alex-thomson-at-napier-university-important-info/
apols for above post.
wrong timescale.
Not long on line and interesting to see the SFA are aware of the draft and have provided their mission statement.
What I find astonishing is their inability to actually meet that mission when they say they have no jurisdiction over the leagues!
We not only asked them to make sporting integrity paramount we asked how they would do so and, to my reading, they are saying the cannot.
They appear to be no more than an expensive blog or forum were matters are debated but no power to make change happen exists.
It looks like no one is responsible for proper governance of Scottish football and that surely cannot be true. If it is and there is no means of providing checks and balances is it any wonder the game is in a mess?
A review of the relationships between the leagues and SFA in order to produce a mission statement that means something more than words on a paper or screen is surely required?
ecobhoy says:
Wednesday, January 23, 2013 at 16:35
———————–
i believe the situation with goram has been dragged up because of the AMOUNT of his reported wages at the time – £1000 a week when they were chucking 20k around at players.
this is relevant because it relates to a point raised by Heidi poon and also the coming LNS case
if Goram claims his wages are £1k and that is what is lodged with the sfa, then a fine for indiscipline would have been based on the wage lodged with the sfa
but if he was getting 10k a week, 1k in wages/paye route and 9k via hidden ebt route – then a 2 week fine should have been 20k and not 2k
hope that explains the appearance
bogsdollox says:
Wednesday, January 23, 2013 at 15:58
1 0 i
Rate This
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Wednesday, January 23, 2013 at 15:41
nowoldandgrumpy says:
Wednesday, January 23, 2013 at 15:33
and the president of the SFA admitting he has been unable to do his job for the best part of a year because he owes a member club nearly £100k and can’t get involved in any decision affecting them is ” the highest standard of professionalism”
really?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
He owes the EBT not the club.
___________________________________________________________________________________
He owes the EBT not the club.
Let’s get this sorted.
I’ve got two brothers. The first, Cammy, says to me, on the phone, ‘lend me 500 quid’. I agree and on my way out to work, I give the 500 quid to the other brother, Wullie, to give to Cammy.
Now, months later, Cammy still owes me 500 quid, but Wullie says Cammy owes him the 500 quid ‘cos it was him that gave it to him. Eventually, I had to get a lawyer. But Wullie slipped the lawyer a brown envelope, so now the lawyer says Cammy owes Wullie the 500 quid.
The lawyer says one thing, but we all know the truth.
HMRC think the RFC EBT was a scam – as do the rest of the population, except emloyees and fans of RFC(IL).
Let’s face it – it was an RFC EBT, not an M&S EBT nor a BBC EBT. It was RFC’s money.
Ps. If CO didn’t get the 90 grand from RFC, why has he not been able to do his job at the SFA.
Former employee ?
Shareholder?
Slightly OT Sorry.
I recently noticed that I had attracted a celebrity follower on Twitter. None other than Mr Dickson from TRFC (@RFC_Dickson) As I have not tweeted in some time and when I do it is normally nonsense or jokes I have to deduce that Mr Dickson picked up my details from the few comments that I have left on this site recently. So Mr Dickson as you are probably well aware all points of view are welcomed and discussed on this site. Please feel free to participate. I am sure your views would be most enlightening.
Re: Posts on players insurance
———————————————————————————————————-
I am a bit out of date but an insurance company pay-out to say an injured player would be based on his salary and the actual premium charged would be based on that salary. So if only the contract figure was used and the EBT amount was ignored then the injury pay-out would be approx 50% of what it would have been if both sources had been combined and declared. For simplicity I have ignored PAYE and NI.
However, often in a Group Policy, the individual wages for an insured group would be aggregated and the premium based on that. So an unscrupulous company, and I am sure that Rangers would not fall into that category, could aggregate the contract wages but when a player was injured the company could claim compensation for the gross amount of contract and EBT payments.
So why doesn’t the insurance company spot it? Simple, everyone is on different wages and there won’t be many claimants. So the insurance company has no reason to question the paperwork submitted by the company. There is also a strong argument for player confidentiality which would tend to see premiums based on a group figure rather than on an individul one.
Of course any irregularities could be blown wide open by checking the insurance company records to see the wages claimed for an injured player and the wages actually paid under the contract in place at the time for that player pre-injury. If the difference equates to the EBT amount then BINGO especially if the Group Policy premium was calculated on the lower contract wages for players.
I’m sure Poon does make a reference in the FTTT but I had a quick look and couldn’t spot it.
The SFA Mission Statement – just released.
I do not know when it was drawn up, but the photograph of Craig Levein among the graphics means it certainly wasn’t yesterday. Levein was sacked on Nov 5th.
Any professional would have had that photo replaced with one of GS.
But we’re not dealing with professionals, are we.
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Wednesday, January 23, 2013 at 16:55
Re: Goram’s wages
—————————————————————————————————
I still see no reason to go into the convicion details which are not relevant IMHO.
I will assume that you are not aware of the personal circumstances and I know that the simplistic reporting of the case does not portray the full facts and I know the situation would actually be of no or very little assistance re the EBT issue. However I have made my point.
eco – fair enough. I wasn’t aware that there was a valid reason for Goram’s low wage.
Meantime, it’s interesting that his “assailant” had his collar felt so swiftly, when little seems to be getting done about the ongoing episode involving Peterhead player Steven Noble (a Celtic supporter), who has received over 200 malicious messages since making a joke on Twitter about a foul he committed in the game against TRFC at the weekend.
Some of these tweets are surely actionable (e.g. step forward, Matty Simpson, 21 Jan)?
https://twitter.com/snoble1988
manandboy says:
Wednesday, January 23, 2013 at 17:00
bogsdollox says:
Wednesday, January 23, 2013 at 15:58
As discusssed earlier HMRC ‘see thru’ the middle man trustees and view the loan from an EBT as being an ’employment related loan’.
However if it was considered that CO owes the EBT and not the oldco the £90k, then why is there a conflict?
Let us not forget that it was not the fans who put this into the open, it was Stewart Regan, CO’s own Chief Exec who said the following (5 March 2012 just a matter of weeks after Craigie boy putting RFC inot administration).
“Campbell won’t play any part in any meeting, discussion or conclusion on any activities surrounding Rangers,” SFA chief Stewart Regan claimed. “I think it’s pretty obvious that he’s heavily conflicted.
“We’ve been aware of the issue for a while. We’ve been aware that people have views and believe that pieces of evidence exist. What we’re trying to do at the moment is get hold of as much information as we can”
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/monday-morning-blues-likely-for-ibrox-staff-as-clock-ticks-nearer-deadline-day.16934981.
In fact according to Regan as soon as admin was mentioned in 14 Feb CO was ‘off the case’
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/324964/Regan-backs-Ogilvie-over-EBT-scandal
As I have said before on here, people that I know who have met CO say he seems to be a decent upstanding bloke.
Maybe the day will come when he can do the decent thing and tell fans of both RFC and the rest of Scottish Football what he knows about the biggest thing to hit the sport he has been an expert administrator in for decades. And I for one believe he at least knows something of the way SDM ran RFC and the EBTs.
However on current form and from the responses given to date with regard to his (it wisnae me, I know nothin) role within Rangers I don’t have much faith in him as an administrator on the top of his game nor that he is someone who has the leadership qualities that Scottish Football needs at this time.
He may well be a decent guy and it may well turn out he just got caught in the SDM cross fire, however if he were truly competent and a man of integrity, in the position he now holds he should have blown the gaff to get this sorted out longtime ago instead of hiding behind committees and the likes.
Update on Auldheid’s resolution.
The positive news is that Alex Thomson has given it the air of publicity which will undoubtedly assist – and in fact has elicited what was probably (or am I being unduly surly) a reluctant response.
The ICT trust will try to have the resolution discussed at their upcoming AGM, but as yet, there has been no response from any of the others.
We sent the resolution directly to St. Johnstone FC as they co-ordinate fan groups in-house.
I was unable to send to the Killie Trust as they only have a contact form with no way to send attachments. I have contacted (on Saturday) them to ask for an email address, but have received no reply. Any Killie fans out there know of an address, I’d appreciate it please.
We have sent copies of the resolution to fan groups of every Scottish club except those listed below, where nonesuch existed.
If fans of any of these clubs have contact details for their fan associations, please let us know
Ross County
Cowdenbeath
Dumbarton
Alloa
Brechin
Forfar
Stranraer
Queen’s Park
Montrose
Peterhead
Elgin
Annan Athletic
Stirling Albion
I won’t post the link.
SPL Tribunal – Good News and More Questions
By Chris Graham
7
Next week will see the resumption of the SPL tribunal into so called “double contracts” at Rangers. I say double contracts but I believe the terminology now used is “side letters”, or indeed whatever terminology gives the greatest likelihood of a negative result for Rangers. Whatever the terminology, the tribunal has already been hugely undermined by the result of the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) which found that Rangers had conducted their EBT scheme correctly with only a handful of administrative errors. Those errors have been clung to by those wishing to continue the SPL’s vendetta against the club but there have been a number of pieces of good news which have come to the attention of the Rangers Standard ahead of the tribunal, and a number of unanswered questions for those at the SPL intent on continuing this witch hunt.
The first piece of good news is that Rangers will now be represented at the tribunal. Charles Green has quite rightly taken the view that this tribunal has no authority or relevance to the new company running the club and under the terms of insolvency obligations it was always unlikely that the old company would defend the charges. This is because the liquidators cannot be seen to spend money on legal action which brings no benefit to the creditors.
However, the Rangers Fans Fighting Fund (RFFF) have now stepped into the grey area in which the SPL have been trying to operate and have agreed that they will underwrite the legal costs of a solicitor and a QC to attend the tribunal and fight the charges. It had been thought that the RFFF statement made last week involved costs for a subsequent legal challenge but the funds are being used to fight these charges at every step. This is a big leap forward because the SPL lawyers, Harper MacLeod, have been relying on the fact that nobody would be present to challenge their ridiculous assertion that Rangers have been “cheating”.
The next piece of good news comes from the FTT decision. It was widely reported at the time that Rangers were found to have conducted the vast majority of their EBTs correctly. This included the tribunal members confirming that the EBT payments did in fact constitute loans, were not emoluments and therefore did not need to be declared to the SPL as they were not contractual. The tribunal was very specific on this point and it was a huge blow to the SPL’s case. However, it is also now possible to clarify the remaining point that those who have been seeking to damage the club have been clinging to.
Those who have spent months, and in some cases years, attempting to blacken the name of the club, latched on to the fact that five players were found to have had their EBTs wrongly administered and held this up as ‘evidence’ that the club were guilty of breaching SPL rules and that they would therefore have titles stripped for the years in which those players were employed.
In fact, entirely the opposite is the case. Once again, in their rush to attack Rangers, they have got their information completely wrong. The cases of the five players involve circumstances where they were incorrectly paid for contractual obligations through an EBT. The payments were detailed in their contract but, instead of being paid using standard methods, were paid using an EBT. This has caused them to be singled out by the FTT as administrative errors but has completely the opposite effect for this SPL tribunal as the payments in question were detailed in the players’ contracts and lodged with the SPL. So the smoking gun that the internet hordes have been clinging to for the past few months actually works in Rangers favour.
The EBTs themselves have been shown by the FTT to be above board, correctly administered and loans, not emoluments, for the purpose of the SPL tribunal. The only EBT payments to fall foul of the FTT were in fact detailed in contracts and lodged with the SPL, so they have no reasonable recourse against either the EBTs or these contractual payments. The SPL case is dead in the water.
However, there are still issues for the club to face because, as with the SFA tribunal which imposed an unlawful sanction on the club, this SPL tribunal is essentially a law unto itself. Nobody is casting doubt on the integrity of Lord Nimmo Smith or the two QCs who have been chosen to sit on the tribunal. I am sure they will do their job with the utmost adherence to fairness and the law. The one thing which cannot be legislated for however is the SPL’s rulebook and their lawyer’s interpretation of it.
As with the SFA tribunal, these learned, legal figures are being asked to make judgement based on a set of rules which were never designed to deal with situations such as this. In fact the SPL rules on player registration were designed to protect the players and ensure they were always paid their contractual entitlement. They are now being bent to a different purpose by those in the SPL who wish to see Rangers punished.
The legal minds on the tribunal have to take guidance from the SPL (and Celtic) lawyers Harper MacLeod on the interpretation of the rules and, just like the SFA tribunal, are somewhat at the mercy of those who wish to twist and bend the wording of the rules for their own means. It would appear that, in order to be successful, the SPL lawyers will have to convince the tribunal that any benefit given to a player has to be lodged with them – not just those which are contractual.
If they are successful then this should lead to a review of every club in Scotland who give their players a company car, put them up in a hotel the night before the game or even give them a free pie or a drink in the bar after the game. That is before we even get started on image rights. This may sound ridiculous but this is now what the SPL case is based on. This is the level they will be stooping to during this tribunal and we all know that this interpretation of their rules, if successful, will only be applied to Rangers. We have already seen this in action with Ian Blair’s convenient dismissal of questions regarding the payments to Juninho by Celtic. No tribunal; no “low level paper gathering” by Harper MacLeod partner Rod McKenzie, minimal press coverage, case dismissed.
However, it may be that the SPL themselves have some tricky questions to answer when they meet for their monthly board update the day before the tribunal starts. There are several chairmen starting to question just exactly how much this witch hunt being carried out on behalf of Celtic is costing the SPL. They are also wondering whether they are being kept up to date on the costs.
The bill to date for Harper MacLeod’s “low level paper gathering” is estimated to be around £150-200k. This works out at around £15-20k for each of the 10 lever arch files of ‘evidence’ delivered to the SPL tribunal – not bad work if you can get it. The tribunal costs themselves, including the fees for the members of the tribunal, lawyers’ attendance and further preparatory work are likely to double this figure. Can the SPL, currently in huge financial difficulty, really afford to spend up to £400k in order to attempt to steal some titles for Celtic that they were unable to win on the pitch?
Even if they can afford it, have the SPL board been keeping their members informed of the price of this action? Every month the board members are given a pack of information for their meetings which includes a breakdown of the costs for that month. Included in these are the figures for fees to Harper MacLeod. They obviously carry out a lot more work for the SPL than just this tribunal action but has the work related to the tribunal been included? Are only select members of the SPL board aware of the true cost of this witch hunt? I am sure Celtic would see £400k as a small price to pay to buy a few titles they couldn’t win on the pitch, but we have to assume they are not bearing the cost of this themselves.
It would be a worthwhile exercise for the press and broadcast journalists who read this to go to those chairmen who are not part of the inner sanctum at the SPL and see if they can confirm any knowledge of just how much this is costing them. After all, there is no prospect of the SPL being able to impose a fine against the old company which ran Rangers in order to recoup costs. That comes from no less an authority than Lord Nimmo Smith himself, who made it clear the SPL tribunal was not a legal process for the purposes of the Insolvency Act, and that court action would likely be required if the SPL wished to levy a fine on the company currently going through liquidation.
The bottom line is that Rangers are now well represented thanks to the money the fans poured into the RFFF and have a very strong case. Unless the SPL are allowed to engage in the same underhand action that the SFA took when they imposed an unlawful transfer ban on Rangers, then the club should emerge from this tribunal with titles intact and completely vindicated. I have faith in the members of the tribunal to act with integrity but I cannot say the same about the process which brought this about and that is where my concern lies.
We will see what the outcome is soon enough but it will be a bleak day for Scottish football if the small cabal running the SPL get their way. In fact it would effectively end any chance for reconciliation in the Scottish game – reconciliation which is looking difficult enough to achieve as it is.
Here’s a contact link for Stirling Albion
http://www.safctrust.org.uk/contact-us/
thanks Chris, i’m surprised the TRFFF are bothering to spend money defending such an open and shut case. Looks like you have cleared it all up for us and thats the end of that then
we can all get back on with our lives now
Chris Graham there, once again showcasing the genuine remorse felt by fans of his club and their ruthless pursuit of reconciliation with the rest of Scottish football.
“The cases of the five players involve circumstances where they were incorrectly paid for contractual obligations through an EBT. The payments were detailed in their contract but, instead of being paid using standard methods, were paid using an EBT.”
——
I understood that these EBTs were used to make loans to players, and that these loans had to be requested.
How could a contractual payment be “accidentally” made through such a scheme – surely an entirely different procedure would have to be followed?
Loans. Payments. Two entirely different things.
Mr Graham may have recognised some sort of defence in a broad sense there, but his constant inappropriate spitting of the “Celtic” word through gritted teeth lets him down badly.
Further – Mr Green has already declared, as Mr Graham says, that TRFC/RFC will not be represented at LNS.
I wonder why Mr Green has now accepted that RFFF will pay for the legal representation that he did not want, and I wonder why the Bears went against the wishes of Mr Green when they have been so quick to back his demand that no TRFC fans attend the Tannadice game, threatening violence and disgrace on those who do attend against the club’s wishes?
P.S. Mr Graham – I understand that HMRC have apparently appealed the Big Tax Case decision. I wouldn’t be quite so quick to claim that RFC got away with it if I were you. Lessons from history and all that.
If only HMRC had heard of the mind that is Chris Graham QC earlier, think of all the taxpayers money they could have saved.
Seems, according to Chris Graham anyway, Rangers knew enough about contract registration to include EBTs on 5 of their players contracts. Was that by mistake, I wonder, or because they knew it was the right thing to do? I wonder, too, if these players were signed, or had signed new contracts, at the beginning or at the end of the EBT use. Perhaps tipped the wink 😉 by someone inside the SFA. Stiil, it kind of blows the lid, should the contracts be found to be illegitimate, on any defence of ‘we didn’t know EBTs should be included’ and could leave no other conclusion than it was a deliberate deception.
I was interested to read on AT’s blog that the SFA have no control over the leagues that operate under their control.
What was all the talk of them not getting involved because they were the organisation that there would be an appeal to.
Why would you appeal to a body that has nothing to do with you?
Also there has never been an investigation launched into the claim that these side payments were common place at Ibrox from the mid-nineties.
The smoke screen that has focused this investigation only during the time of the SPL is another aspect of this debacle.
The dubious payments go back further than 1999.
SPL Tribunal – Good News and More Questions
By Chris Graham
However, it may be that the SPL themselves have some tricky questions to answer when they meet for their monthly board update the day before the tribunal starts. There are several chairmen starting to question just exactly how much this witch hunt being carried out on behalf of Celtic is costing the SPL. They are also wondering whether they are being kept up to date on the costs.
………………………………………………………………………………………..
Why are fans of a newco in SFL3 even slightly bothered about what this costing the big clubs? We’ve got loads of money!!!
Do not listen to SSB so cannot verify this tweet.
No Pasaran @NCCMick
New reconstruction deal on the table to appease Sevco claim ssb;
nowoldandgrumpy says:
Wednesday, January 23, 2013 at 20:29
Suggestions from RM land via Charles Green that authorities are now considering 14 14 14 setup.
nowoldandgrumpy says:
Wednesday, January 23, 2013 at 19:26
A couple of points.
If the defence is based on the FTTT findings that a loan is not a payment then as the FTTT is not yet final LNS should say they will have to wait until it is.
If however LNS takes the view that money changed hands making it a payment by one party to another, as it was at the time, regardless if it was to be repaid or not (requiring another payment back) then LNS can then look to see if SPL rules were followed.
The second one is the assertion as a fact that a full declaration of payments was to protect players. I asked the purpose of the rule earlier and got a different answer that meant it was to protect football NOT the player.
The intent of the rule is important, note the intent of the rule, NOT Rangers intent in not disclosing, as the rule’s intent will govern why not declaring all payments breached the game’s integrity and so cannot be treated as a clerical error.
This argument was predictable.
does the logic of the 5 being in the contract and apparently declared to the sfa (and therefore just kushty) not just mean that all the rest fall foul then ?
cake or eat it.