It has been over two weeks since Rod McKenzie of Harper MacLeod was good enough to respond to our letter in our previous blog concerning documents withheld from the SPL lawyers charged with the commissioning of an Independent Enquiry into the incorrect registration of players with the SFA by Rangers F.C.
His response, which was published on 14th March, fully explained the position of Harper Macleod with regard to side letters but the final para in the reply asked:
“Accordingly, I am not clear in what respects it is being suggested that the Commission was “misled” as regards any of the Specified Players in particular and/or in relation to the participation of Specified Players in EBT Payments and Arrangements in connection with the Rangers Employee Benefit Trust.
For the Commission to have been misled it would be necessary for it to have been induced into a false belief by the actions or inactions of a party and/or third party and for it to have relied on that false belief in coming to its various decisions.”
Since its publication on the previous blog there have been various comments by TSFM contributors that have looked at the full response as well as the final paragraph. Using those (and with the help of specialist input for which we are all grateful), our reply has been constructed and mailed to Mr McKenzie, and copied to the SPFL CEO and the members of the SPFL Board.
Whilst not the most entertaining prose ever to have appeared on TSFM, our reply is an exhaustive and comprehensive commentary of our views and conclusions, and takes the form of detailed responses highlighted in bold/italics to the issues mentioned in Mr McKenzie’s letter, together with a covering letter summarising those points and the conclusion they lead to.
What happens next is an opportunity for those in charge of Scottish Football’s to convince us that our game is indeed an honest one, honestly led. A game where honesty and integrity in all its forms take precedence over convenience, commercialism and dishonesty.
It represents a challenge not only to football authorities but to the silent Scottish main stream media to ask the questions that will set the record straight without fear or favour. Let’s have the truth and no more lies and concealment. Mistakes have been made, it is time they were admitted and explained. Maybe then, from a position of honesty, our game can move onwards and upwards, for it is our game, the supporters’ game.
The governors and media are but the custodians.
Harper MacLeod
The Ca’d’oro
45 Gordon Street
Glasgow G1 3PE
29 March 2014
Dear Mr Mackenzie
The Lord Nimmo Smith Inquiry (“the Inquiry”)
I refer to your letter received on 14th March in response to my letter which was posted to you on February 19, 2014. I am very grateful to you and your client that you have been able to respond.
I enclose with this letter comments and observations highlighted in bold/italics on the points raised in your letter with our references to the Decision in grey. The purpose of this letter is to summarize those comments and their importance.
The key issues that require to be addressed coming out of the Inquiry are as follows:-
(a) the decision taken at some point between March 5, 2012 (when the Commission was announced) and August 2012 to restrict the scope of the Inquiry to matters arising only on or after November 23, 2000 and thus to exclude any matters in the period from July 1, 1998 to November 22, 2000 (“the Earlier Period”). I would understand the decision to restrict the scope of the Inquiry to have been taken as a result of the failure by the administrators of Oldco to provide necessary and key documentation relating to the Earlier Period.
(b) the decision to treat the MGMRT and the earlier REBT (“the Earlier Trust”) as one and the same. At para 35, the Decision states “we are not aware that they were different trusts”. Given that the Decision (in the immediately prior sentence) states that the MGMRT had been “preceded” by the Earlier Trust, It is not easy to understand how the authors of the Decision can then state that they are “unaware” that they were different trusts.
The decisions to (i) exclude the Earlier Period; and (ii) to treat both trusts as indivisible, had important consequences.
From the Decision (para 40), it would appear that the President of the SFA gave evidence only as to his knowledge of the MGMRT (not the Earlier Trust). The annexes provided with my original letter, clearly show that the President had knowledge of the Earlier Trust (and indeed was active in its setting up). I am obviously unaware of the extent to which the President was in fact examined on any issue relating to the Earlier Trust.
It is stated in the Decision (at para 104) that the Inquiry proceeded on the basis that the EBT arrangements (by which it meant the use of the MGMRT) were “lawful”. It could do so (at least partly) as a result of the outcome of the FTT decision which was announced in November 2012.
Because the Inquiry treated the MGMRT and the Earlier Trust as one and the same, this meant that the Inquiry failed to distinguish between the two trusts and necessarily treated the Earlier Trust as also being lawful (without however having properly investigated its operation). However, the MGMRT and the Earlier Trust were two separate trusts and there was no necessary reason to treat them as one and the same. Had evidence relating to the Earlier Period been produced and examined, the Inquiry could hardly have treated them as “the same trust”
By the time of the Inquiry, Oldco had already conceded liability in what has become known as “the Wee Tax Case” (which related to the Earlier Trust). Having regard to the wording at para 104 of the Decision (where it is said that to arrange financial affairs in a manner “within the law” is not a breach of the SFA/SPL Rules) the clear implication, must be that to arrange financial affairs in such a way that they are not lawful, is a breach of the rules.
Given the admission of liability in the Wee Tax Case, payments made in respect of the Earlier Trust were not “lawful” (to employ the language used in the Decision).
It will be obvious from the above that the importance of the Earlier Trust has been masked as a result of:-
(a) the failure by the administrators of Oldco to provide the documentation required of them;
(b) the decision to restrict the scope of the Inquiry; and
(c) the failure of the President of the SFA to provide to the Inquiry his own knowledge of, involvement in, and understanding of, the position relating to the Earlier Trust.
Had the Earlier Trust been the sole subject of the Inquiry (rather than in effect not being examined at all) the following must have been different:-
(i) the President could hardly have failed to give testimony of his knowledge and involvement;
(ii) the Inquiry could not have held that the use of the Earlier Trust was lawful;
(iii) given the clear history of deliberate non-disclosure by Oldco/its controllers, it is not easy to see how paragraph 107 (wherein it is stated that there is “no question of dishonesty”) can have remained;
(iv) given the use of payment arrangements to employees that were not “lawful”, no other member clubs could have used such arrangements. This raises the issue of a “sporting advantage” having been obtained.
In the circumstances, given the information now available to your clients, the Earlier Period cannot remain unexamined. There is no reason why such period should be excluded from any scrutiny.
The Decision requires to be revisited with the Earlier Period forming part of the Inquiry or alternatively, the Earlier Period should now be the subject of a separate inquiry.
This letter, a copy of which has also been sent by e-mail and comments will be published on our Scottish Football Monitor web site and a reply should be sent to our e mail address at (address supplied). Copies have been sent to the SPFL CEO and SPFL Board members by e mail and/or hard copy.
Yours faithfully
TSFM
Dear Sir,
I confirm receipt of your undated letter, addressed to me and copied to Mr Doncaster which I have discussed with my client. I do not know your name or address or the position which you have with the TSFM and am unable to address you as other than ‘Sir’.
The SPL Commission Decision of 28 February 2013 (“the Decision”) deals, amongst other matters, with the failure by “Oldco” (as defined in the Decision) to provide relevant information at Issue 4 on page 33 of the Decision.
Whilst I was only able to secure and provide to the Commission copies of a number of the ‘side letters’ the list of those players who had received such letters was in the public domain and for the purposes of the ‘Issues’ before the Commission it was not suggested by Oldco or Newco that the fundamentals of the side letters were significantly different over the 10 years or so that Oldco had given such letters to each of the individual players involved.
Whilst the role of the side letters (or side agreements in HMRC terminology) per se might fundamentally have been the same in terms of the ebt arrangements, there were two types of ebt involved in the specified period from 1 July 1998. It would appear from para 35 of the Decision that no evidence was led to distinguish between the two trusts even although the President of the SFA (one of the witnesses) clearly had that knowledge, having established the Rangers Employee Benefit Trust (REBT) and later been a beneficiary of the Murray Group Management Remuneration Trust. (MGMRT). Equally Oldco had that knowledge.
The Commission was provided with evidence regarding the existence of both the Murray Group Management Remuneration Trust and the Rangers Employee Benefit Trust. This is referred to at paragraph 35 of the Decision. The Commission chose in its Decision to group these together as “MGMRT”.
Was the evidence provided the same as the evidence supplied with the TSFM letter of 19th February?
If it was the same evidence why was the fact that at least two players were involved in a type of scheme which was found by an FTT to be outside the rules (and so payments using it to be irregular and whose operation was described by HMRC as either fraudulent or negligent), not used to raise questions on which SPL rules were broken and why? At para 104 of the Decision it is stated that it is not
“ a breach of SPL or SFA rules for a club to arrange its affairs – within the law- so as to minimise its tax liabilities”
The payments to those two players were accepted by Oldco as having not been in conformity with the law. That would imply a very serious breach of Rules.
If the evidence provided on 19th February by TSFM was not supplied in March 2012, did the failure of Oldco or Newco to clarify at any time and especially when asked to provide documentation that would do so, not mislead the directions given to the SPL and so the terms of reference for the Independent Commission?
Both are referred to in the published accounts of Oldco and copies of those accounts were provided to the Commission.
Did the accounts provided to the Commission make a distinction between regular payments and irregular payments or give any indication that there was a difference between the schemes that would have led anyone to consider that they should not be treated as continuous?
“We note that the MGMRT was preceded by the Rangers Employee Benefit Trust, but we are not aware that they were different trusts. We shall treat them as a continuous trust, which we shall refer to throughout as the MGMRT.”
This seems a very odd decision. One trust is preceded by another trust and yet the Commission decided to treat them as one continuous trust.
If the documents accompanying the letter of 19th February, which were specifically requested in respect of ebts and any correspondence relating to them, had been provided to the SPL would Harper MacLeod still have advised the SPL in the way that they did, and would the terms of reference have remained as initially envisaged in the SPL announcement of 5th March 2012 i.e. starting from 1st July 1998?
I refer you to the Annex to the Decision which includes six lists of Specified Players, 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3A and 3B. The numbering relates to 3 periods during which different regulatory regimes applied. The A reference is to players for whom we had a copy “side letter” and the B reference is to players for whom we did not have a copy of a side letter but in respect of whom there was other evidence that a side letter had been issued by Oldco. The Commission proceeded on the basis that with respect to the Issues the position of all of the Specified Players was the same except where specifically identified in the documents and other evidence.
The Commission was provided with copies of “side letters” relating to the players whose names appears in the A lists of Specified Players and whilst the Commission and I did not have copies of the side letters for those players whose names appear on the B lists, the evidence of side letters having been issued by Oldco to each of the players listed in the three groups of B Specified Players was also disclosed to the Commission.
At paragraph 36 of the Decision the Commission held that the same general arrangements applied in respect of all of the Specified Players whilst the details and precise form of the individual side letters varied over the years.
Since the involvement of Specified Players in EBT Payments and Arrangements with Oldco and the existence of side letters given to each of them was known to the Commission and included in the Decision it is not readily apparent what substantive new allegations with respect to the actions of Oldco in relation to EBT Payments and Arrangements under the earlier Rangers Employee Benefit Trust so far as relates to the Issues are now being made.
Your letter does not suggest that the scheme of the EBT Payments and Arrangements was different as between the first and second trusts and associated sub-trusts so far as concerns the player registration matters with which Issues 1, 2 & 3 were concerned. The Commission does not suggest in the Decision that it determined the Issues before it on the basis that any of the Specified Players had not been part of EBT Payments and Arrangements during the period of their employment by Oldco and/or that one or more of them had not received a side letter from Oldco.
Accordingly, I am not clear in what respects it is being suggested that the Commission was “misled” as regards any of the Specified Players in particular and/or in relation to the participation of Specified Players in EBT Payments and Arrangements in connection with the Rangers Employee Benefit Trust.
For the Commission to have been misled it would be necessary for it to have been induced into a false belief by the actions or inactions of a party and/or third party and for it to have relied on that false belief in coming to its various decisions.
It is accepted that for the reasons given the missing side letter of 30 August for R De Boer is not of itself significant in the findings of the Commission as it was commissioned and that had it been supplied originally and the scope of the Commission been set to begin from 30 August rather than 23rd November, the Decision would have been the same.
However the information provided on 19th February shows that the failure of Duff and Phelps (who were of course at that point, the sole controllers of Oldco) to provide all the documentation requested and the subsequent failure of the investigation process to make a distinction between the irregular nature of payments in the REBT and the payments into the MGMRT that have been considered “regular”, suggests that the investigating team responsible for the commissioning itself were misled.
When the investigation was announced in March 2012 the SPL said
“The SPL Board has instructed an investigation into the alleged non-disclosure of payments made by or on behalf of Rangers FC to player s from 1st July 1998.”
It is clear from the Commissioning papers that Duff and Phelps were asked to provide all documentation relating to ebts (no distinction between REBT and MGMRT being made or indeed possible at that point) including any documents from HMRC. The information supplied on 19th February by TSFM contains documents after 1st July 1998 and before 23 Nov 2000 that relate to ebts and side letters/agreements, one of which was supplied but not apparently the other, as well as
- The genesis of the DOS scheme through the REBT for which Rangers accepted liability in March 2011,
- Why that scheme involved an irregular means of payment; and
- The reason why Rangers accepted that liability (i.e. exposure of deliberate concealment of the two side letters from HMRC when the latter specifically asked if they existed and of course from the SFA.)
It will be obvious that Oldco’s involvements with EBTs has contained various episodes of non-disclosure of relevant facts to relevant authorities.
In the absence of any input to the contrary, the side letters and ebts were being treated as part of contracts for service which were not fully disclosed to the SPL/SFA. This meant that for registration purposes the ebts could be treated as the same or continuous. However the side letters/agreements are not the issue nor indeed the registration (or misregistration). The issue being raised is that two of the contracts for service, whilst involving misregistration, had an additional factor and that additional factor is that they were irregular in that they were not lawful.
The failure to provide the missing documents or any advice from those involved in the REBT/ DOS arrangement, caused the commissioning to focus on misregistration because the documents that would have altered that focus were not supplied by Duff and Phelps, whether by accident or design, when requested.
The significance and consequence of this can be found in The Decision when Lord Nimmo Smith himself said
4) The relevant SPL Rules were designed to promote sporting integrity, by mitigating the risk of irregular payments to players;
It follows therefore that if sporting integrity had been circumvented by an irregular means, then sporting advantage would accrue.
And then went on to conclude
(5) Although the payments in this case were not themselves irregular and were not in breach of SPL or SFA Rules, the scale and extent of the proven contraventions of the disclosure rules require a substantial penalty to be imposed;
The documentation supplied clearly shows that two players were paid by an irregular method for which Rangers accepted responsibility in March 2011, a full year before the investigation into side letters and player registration began.
The rules that were broken in respect of irregular payments, the penalty for doing so and what to do about the failure of Duff and Phelps that misled the investigators needs to be reconsidered. It may be prudent to wait for the results of HMRC’s appeal to the UTT concerning the regularity or otherwise of payments made under the MGMRT before embarking on any premature decision regarding the “lawful/regular” nature of the REBT payments. You may wish to refer Duff and Phelps apparent failing to BDO the liquidators of RFC.
You will note that the Commission determined at paragraph [111] (1) that there had been breaches by Oldco with respect to all of Issues 1, 2 and 4 and in respect of most of 3. The excerpted parts of 3 are stated in the paragraph. The finding of breach extends to the Registrations with the SPL, as it then was, of all of the Specified Players; i.e. all of those for whom we had copy side letters and for those for whom we did not but in relation to whom it was known that side letters had been given by Oldco and that whether in respect of the first and/or second trusts.
The breaches in Issues 1 to 3 relate to non-disclosure of side letters/agreements and misregistration which were the focus of the commission because of the limited material provided.
However issue 4 for which an admonishment was given refers to
“Failure to respond timeously to legitimate requests for the provision of information is a serious breach of the rules.”
However what has been demonstrated in the evidence supplied with the letter of 19th February is not a failure to respond timeously but a failure to respond FULLY and that failure or inaction, for whatever reason, has produced a judgement which appears seriously flawed and undermines the legitimacy The Decision by the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission might lay claim to.
TSFM 28 March 2014
JimBhoy says:
April 1, 2014 at 3:55 pm
9 1 Rate This
Dundee Utd sell 10,500 tickets…
———————————————
Well done United 🙂
Aberdeen have sold 13k tickets on first day of sale for the other semi
Re the Griffiths Notice of Complaint
Smugas says: April 1, 2014 at 5:27 pm
———————————————
As far as I’m concerned, Griffiths was just a fan on Sunday.
The overwhelming view of Hearts fans is that the SFA decision is ridiculous, despite the fact that he was also caught on camera singing a mildly racist song that Hibs fans sing about Rudi Skacel.
Gary Locke was alo questioned about the video during his media conference and said: “I haven’t seen it. Obviously you read about it and, according to reports I’ve heard, he is not a very good singer.”
Now I wonder what sanction the SFA will impose on the Assistant Referee that flagged for offside when Jordon Forster “scored”. SFA priorities are all wrong.
Nice. I am increasingly of the opinion that to simply sack/sideshift/put on gardening leave the horrendously compromised President will no longer suffice ergo better sack him quick, batten down the hatches and hope for a less than ill wind to blow things over for them.
Power to your pens guys and gals.
Great post TSFM.
I hope I am wrong; but since it appears to me that the points you raise are unanswerable on the facts, I fear that your latest missive will remain largely unanswered.
However, having replied to your previous effort with Auldheid. complete silence now will be seen as an admission of “guilt”. I expect – like the LNS Commission itself – the SPFL (via HP) will give answers to questions that you haven’t asked.
Since it has been laid out so clearly, perhaps someone from the SMSM can extract an “exclusive” from your work!
EJ
I’m not quite sure of the point you’re making? I would love to live in a world where Griffiths could just be a fan, could sing (badly) a mildly rascist song about an opposing player in jest in appropriate adult terms that those around him did not find offensive. Unfortunately neither I, nor he, do. And the day he signed for Celtic, like it or lump it, he made that situation ten times worse.
A wonderful epistle – Thank You Sir @TSFM.
I would hate to have received that letter.
The devil being in the detail.
Well done to all the Sirs who crafted it.
easyJambo says:
April 1, 2014 at 6:22 pm
Mr Grifuths is not just a fan though, which is why the club have taken appropriate action for the embarrassment caused to his employers. However, I hope that the club statement means that their defense of Mr Grifiths before the SFA will be full throated, with no mercy,
The idiocy has to stop, and only the clubs can stop it.
A lot to consider above, relating to Harper MacLeod and the (in)actions of our FA. I’ll take my time and will possibly still be left floundering.
Yet, perhaps TSFM’s “An Honest Game? Convince Us” challenge has already been answered with the notice of complaint being issued by the Scottish FA against Leigh Griffiths. Aye, the guy was daft, but not malicious or sleekit in the manner of McCoist several times, or Charles Green on many occasions, who demonstrably could be cited for “not acting in the best interests of Association Football”
Or Regan (‘Armageddon’), Ogilvie (‘EBT’) and Bryson (‘variably fallacious’).
scapaflow says: April 1, 2014 at 6:31 pm
I’ve no problem with Celtic taking action against him as an employee and ambassador for the club.
My issue is with the SFA compliance officer involving himself in a matter of negligible significance in the wider scheme of Scottish football, when there are many other issues, I consider to be much more significant, that are ignored.
Fantastic stuff TSFM. Thanks to all who composed/worked on this magnificent dispatch.
easyJambo says:
April 1, 2014 at 6:43 pm
EJ,I do wonder if anyone in Hampden does a sanity check, cos anyone with any common sense would have said gonnae no dae this Vincent surely?
This sort of idiocy simply confirms the view of many that the SFA and all its senior managers are not fit for purpose
TSFM says
01 April 2014 6.02 PM
“Whilst not the most entertaining prose ever to have appeared on TSFM…”
—————————————–
I thought it read fine TSFM and anyone with reasonable knowledge of these affairs would have clearly understood the thrust of the argument.
I think the counter argument might be that since REBT (wee tax case) formed only a small part of the overall remuneration scheme, it might be overlooked for the sake of convenience. However the law does not operate in this fashion. In judicial proceedings an ill drafted charge or decision would be open to challenge. Inconvenient inaccuracy is no excuse for expediency in my opinion.
Of course these were not judicial proceedings (a court of law) but quasi-judicial. They took guidance from the structure of statute and applied it in an environment that would benefit from this established rigour. LNS, having made reference to various legal statutes to outline his process and having cited the judicial proceedings in the FTT seems to have bound himself into a legal framework that would not easily admit to fudging.
I think you tied in the ‘sporting advantage’ argument effectively. Again mitigation might be claimed in that the wee tax case was a minor part of overall considerations but if the process is to be seen as rigorous then this element cannot be easily glossed over.
Quasi-judicial proceedings such as these are not often undertaken by sporting governing bodies so some leeway should be recognised in recompense with the unfamiliarity of the process. However I think you have asked questions that deserve a response and should certainly provide food for thought for many.
I was a bit concerned about your caveat:
“It may be prudent to wait for the results of HMRC’s appeal to the UTT concerning the regularity or otherwise of payments made under the MGMRT before embarking on any premature decision regarding the “lawful/regular” nature of the REBT payments.”
This might present an opportunity for the whole thing to be kicked into the long grass. I think it is a reasonable position to assert but you probably already have enough information to undermine the decision and could press for some satisfaction on the information already highlighted.
HirsutePursuit previously posed the pertinent question ‘what do you want to get out of this approach’ (to paraphrase) and it might be worth cogitating on this currently. It may not be reasonable to have a new commission. It might be useful to have the decision revisited on the basis of the wee tax case outcome only. Any new rulings arising for this could then be used as a model for further revision should the UTT outcome demand it.
scapaflow says:
April 1, 2014 at 6:53 pm
“EJ,I do wonder if anyone in Hampden does a sanity check, cos anyone with any common sense would have said gonnae no dae this Vincent surely?”
————————————-
It does appear to be a rather petty use of authority. Clubs and therefore their employees (and even employees agents) are required to abide by various rules concerning their behaviour. However, there must be multiple instances of football players in attendance at games as fans joining in singing that could place them in disrepute. Does this charge mean that any similar future instances will be similarly pursued? This could potentially block up the whole disciplinary process with pointless considerations.
Still, Lennon’s punishment for swearing from the dugout does seem to have eradicated bad language from the audible realms of football management. 😉
Re Leigh Griffiths. As a Celtic fan I am happy enough that the club fined him as it could be viewed he was bringing them into disrepute by his actions. My employer sends me the company code of conduct to my home address every year as a reminder of my responsibilities, including out of work.
What I can’t and never will accept though is the SFA charge that Griffiths was not acting in the best interests of football. Where on earth do you start with that? The SFA inaction on a large number of people involved with Rangers alone makes this seem very murky indeed.
Excellent letter, TSFM!
Does anyone get the feeling VL cherry picks what misdemeanors he ‘deals’ with, let’s face it what Leigh did was a bit naughty but there have been many, many other cases (not naming names 😕 ) that are still hanging around that cherry tree 😉 the sfa really have to get a grip ………… No?
Long time lurker, since way back in RTC days and I feel compelled to comment on the correspondence with Harper McLeod.
I doff my hat to all involved in the above letters, it is plain to see that the governors of our game have been allowed to abuse the trust given to them by the fans, from wee Sandy right through to Campbell O. And as anyone knows who has been on one side of a broken relationship, once the trust is gone there is…………well there is hee haw……… nothing……..zilch!
we have a governing body who cannot say whether a certain club is new or not, simply for fear of being on the wrong side of a violent attack as a result. ” it is up to the fans to decide” is how i recall SR answering such a question on Sportsound. This is from the CE of the SFA and he refuses to state the truth. Because in governance in sport, any sport there is only truth as it is impossible to govern using vague terms since governance requires clarity so that everyone knows the rules of play.
The game in Scotland is in total disrepute!
so a question to anyone who may know – by what process does an incorporated club become un-incorporated? or cn re-incorporate?
AYM
Good response TSFM and your helpers.
But as this response is even more specific and detailed, we might not get a response.
…but it reads to me like a clever move/trade-off to start turning the screw on President Ogilvie…?
@EasyJambo
Bizarre decision for Lunny to issue a notice of complaint against Leigh Griffiths for singing about Hearts being in Administration.
============================================================================
Pathetic but pretty much as expected it was on the telly, in the papers and he went for a beer after with his Hibs buddies..Crime of the season..
Regan hails armageddon, social unrest, IMO he brought the game into disrepute…Rangers allow soldiers in their ground (ALLEGEDLY) p!ssed singing sectarian songs, holding scarves of a dubious nature all on tv and in the papers. What happened there again..!!! Scottish football circus…
Great response. Fair set the cat among the pigeons with that one.
If not already posted…
==================
“Celtic Football Club statement
By: Newsroom Staff on 01 Apr, 2014 18:12
THE SFA today served a notice of complaint on Leigh Griffiths, alleging a breach of disciplinary rule 86 – not acting in the best interests of Association Football by singing in public about Heart of Midlothian FC in administration.
Following the incident, the player publicly apologised for his actions. Celtic have fined the player and the Club has also apologised to Hearts, an apology which they have accepted.
Therefore, the Club feels there is no need for any further action, and this is something which we will defend.”
http://www.celticfc.net/newsstory?item=5650
As Leigh Griffiths is a Hibs supporter, I can fully understand why he participated in a pub sing along with fellow supporters prior to the recent Edinburgh Derby.
As Leigh Griffiths is a Celtic player, I can fully understand why he has been fined for a breach of club discipline, by participating in a pub sing along about another team.
While his actions may well be regarded as unwise, the subsequent actions by the SFA Compliance Officer is nothing short of an absolute joke.
This is the same “organisation” that have broken, bent and ignored all existing SFA rules and made up new rules where necessary to accommodate a dead football club who defrauded HMRC and hundreds of innocent creditors of at least 70million pounds plus the disputed EBT Tax Case.
This same discredited SFA have continued to take no action whatsoever against the supporters of TRFC who continue to sing sectarian “folk”songs at every away ground in Scotland that they visit.
The same discredited SFA that has taken no action whatsoever over the manager of TRFC who has assaulted a SPL manager and has made verbal threats to be told the names of SPL Panel members investigating his dead club.
Until the entire SFA organisation is relieved of its responsibilities, there is no hope that Scottish Football can move forward to the benefit of all clubs and supporters, rather than one preferred reincarnated club.
The problem we all have, is how do we achieve this!
M8Dreamer says:
April 1, 2014 at 8:41 pm
Maybe Andy Chung’s parody of Devil in Disguise – Jambo in Disguise is really about Vincent ?
I’ll get ma coat
An Honest Game? Convince Us.
More power to your pen.
great post.
Brenda says:
April 1, 2014 at 7:32 pm
Does anyone get the feeling VL cherry picks what misdemeanors he ‘deals’ with, let’s face it what Leigh did was a bit naughty but there have been many, many other cases (cont. p94)
——
Aye, whataboutery Mr Lennon’s suspended sentence for incursions into the playing area which was not revisited following his leaping about on the pitch at Pittodrie recently? 😉
Griffiths is a silly boy, and needs to teach himself that playing for one of the OF (yes, yes, I know, but it’s so convenient) brings far greater scrutiny and responsibility. He cannot have a private life in public whilst in the role of a Celtic player. He was saying as much himself in recent interviews, in which he promised he’d wised up.
Anyway. Very impressed with the correspondence from TSFM reproduced above. Well done.
Just in from the pub, very drunk, and don’t like Griffiths as a person/man. Not actually sure what the problem is with what he sang at Tynecastle on Sunday, but the overwhelming opinion on Jamboskickback is, ‘so what?’ However, he is a Celtic player now, and if Celtic, or their supporters, have been embarrassed by him, it is up to Celtic, and only Celtic, to take action.
Mind, you, he is an easy target. Perfect for Scottish football’s authorities to take action against.
I read on the train on the way to the pub to watch (with a crooked neck) both CL games that the appointed referee for the semi at Ibrox was a season ticket holder at said ground
6 pints later can someone confirm this to be the case or is it twitter nonsense
keith jackson @tedermeatballs 9m
Hearts fans, news from lithuania in tomorrow’s record. And for once it’s not all bad.
An Honest Game? Convince Us.
TSFM | April 1, 2014
_________________________
A well laid out and argued case.
My forecast is, if Harper McLeod reply at all, any response will be in excruciatingly tortuous English which will make the eyes bleed.
Such exchanges can, and often do, run for years causing frustration, and mainly not much satisfaction.
I wish I knew what the answer is to bringing the whole saga to a satisfactory end, but I don’t.
No matter what evidence is produced, OldCo and its lawyers will never confess or admit to anything.
That has been the experience up until now, and I don’t see that changing.
nowoldandgrumpy says:
April 1, 2014 at 10:36 pm
keith jackson @tedermeatballs 9m
Hearts fans, news from lithuania in tomorrow’s record. And for once it’s not all bad.
_______________________________
Wow, from Keith Jackson, I’m sure all Jambos, myself included, are feeling much better now. Scotland’s leading, ha ha ha, sports-writer giving us hope!
Anyway, thanks nowold, just really hope he has got this one right, though suspect it might be some story about Vlad 😯
I can just envision the Mcleods, Sfa, Spl types dining in the Rogano now and saying “whit have we got to do to get rid of this TSFM lot”. Another bottle? Why not its their (the footballing publics) money!
Seriously I’m going to be looking hard at the SFA SPFL “consultants” costs when their accounts come out. so should you.
Re Harper etc , I believe that they will throw on the cloak of client confidentiality as the reason why they cannot reply. The best will be a referral back to their client ….
…. Still a very compelling piece of correspondence ….
….. The sequence is clear, ensure that a fair hearing is obtained in the wee tax case , which sets the principle that cheating will be punished. If the UTT finds against Sir David then a new LNS will be required ………
Another excellent piece of correspondence. Hopefully it will receive the reply it deserves.
M8Dreamer says:
April 1, 2014 at 8:41 pm
Until the entire SFA organisation is relieved of its responsibilities, there is no hope that Scottish Football can move forward to the benefit of all clubs and supporters, rather than one preferred reincarnated club.
The problem we all have, is how do we achieve this!
______________________________________________
A rallying call and one which I fully endorse.
So what do we do? Can we please mobilise some sort of protest now.
jean7brodie says:
April 1, 2014 at 11:45 pm
Edit
Lest we forget:
It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.
Dolores Ibarruri et al
For three years now we the public have been the victims of obfuscation. The opposite of transparency. The imperative for such behavior is the credo that “Rangers” must endure and be one and the same no matter what logic, law, reason, administration and liquidation cause in the real world. There are people who believe that you can fool all the people all the time and that news cycles do not endure beyond a week.
They fail to appreciate the resilience and tenacity and intelligence of the core of TSFM.
They will attempt to a) seek to allow European football for ” The Rangers” should they win the Cup
b) allow the club to emerge unstained and with all its history after next month second administration.
c) pretend that the next Phoenix club is the same Phoenix club is the “Rangers”
They do not realise that they are under the microscope and that we have the big battalions on our side.
Eternal vigilance.
All we want is an honest game.
TSFM and co-authors of the response to Mr Mackenzie – thank you!
TSFM at its very best.
It’s late, time for bed and time for a stand down of the Tartan Army until this Collection of ‘Blazers’ get starved of cash and get disbanded.
SFA ARE UNFIT FOR PURPOSE! 😎
Allyjambo says:
April 1, 2014 at 10:45 pm
=======================
Despite who the messenger is I do hope you get some good news. The whole administration thing surrounding Hearts, from the attitude of the Administrator to the fans has been a lesson in governance, humility, and a desire to move on to a genuine fresh start. It is all the complete polar opposite of what we have witnessed, and still witness coming out of Ibrox.
Anyone know who I can complain to about the SFA regarding them ‘not acting in the best interests of football?’ It is their own rule after all.
Being in knowledge that a member club was not paying its taxes for months before it became public knowledge and doing nothing. Is that acting in the best interests of football?
Attempting to install a new club directly into the top league, then subsequently league 1, against all principles of fair play and having no rules in place to do so. Is that acting in the best interests of football?
Awarding a European licence to a club despite that club owing money to a tax authority beyond dispute. Is that acting in the best interests of football?
I suppose I could sit here all day, but work beckons. Oh how thankful Regan and co. must be that Scotland has such a Rangers friendly media. If that media had any sense of fair play at all, the SFA as they currently stand would have been gone long ago.
THIS is what sickens me most about Scottish Football right now.
A player from team X goes to watch a match between Team P and Team Q; in the company of some fans from Team P he sings a song critical of Team Q. The SFA decide to haul him in front of them and presumably he will be punished.
A player from Team H is caught betting on over 100 matches. Some of these bets involve matches in which he played, for team H and for earlier teams. The SFA / SPFL give him a small fine and a 7 match ban.
Clubs A and B consistently and over a period of many years make statements about the fact that they are too big for Scottish Football and are considering moving to a league in a different country. The SFA does and says nothing.
All of the above instances bring the scottish game into disrepute but some do so more than others.
UpTheHoops @ 7:17
To know t
On the subject of Regan. Am I alone in being entirely dissatisfied with his recent ‘explanation’ of the decision concerning the cup semi final and final venues?
I would be very interested in William Hills’ take on the supposed meeting six months ago where Mr Regan seemed to imply that they needed to know this so far in advance.
To me, this
………
To me, this just doesn’t wash.
It would be good if any journalist (real or ‘scottish sports’) reading this would approach them. Even just to find out if this ‘meeting’ ever took place.
(Off now to have words with this phone.)
Excellent letter, TSFM, though I fear you have taken a hostage to fortune with your UTT appeal caveat. The legitimacy of EBTs as a tax avoidance mechanism or otherwise is moot in this case, which is about the laws of football being broken.
Having said that, it will be interesting to see if the SMSM, which rushes to publish every deranged whine from any of the myriad “Rangers” supporters’ groups, will have the intestinal fortitude to publish this correspondence from a website representing all fans of the Scottish game.
If they ignore this, then we should bombard them on this topic alone on every phone-in and Twitter exchange from now till doomsday. You have given them no place to hide. Congratulations and many thanks.
I was totally underwhelmed by Regan’s comments on Sportsound at the weekend trying to justify the semi final debacle. Do the SFA not understand how badly damaged their reputation is and how critical it is for them to be seen to act transparently in an impartial way? Are they stupid, incompetent or contemptuous of supporters? I’m not sure which option is the most concerning!
Just to add a very good letter and I hope it gets the response it deserves but based on experience to date it may be that only one form of supporter action will have any influence.
Apparently if Griffiths found guilty he faces a football ban !!!
Wasn’t there a big ‘ands Yorkshire man on TV at the rangers first game clapping along to ‘If you hate Neil Doncaster’ clap your ‘ands..’ ?
The only prob I see with Griffiths singing is that it refers to Hearts GOING bust, when they effectively went bust, pedantic I know 😉 However I have been nothing but impressed with how the Jambos have behaved in their recent troubled times and i hope they will come back stronger for their bad experience.
Regan’s abject statements regarding the semi-finals at Ibrox, Lunny’s latest piece of selective enforcement, his total failure to address a myriad of issues surrounding the Ibrox club, its fans and its management, the LNS fiasco, the continuing Ogilvie outrage, etc, etc- exactly when do the clubs who make up the SFA intend actually doing something about the situation? We have now reached a point where the SFA has lost any respect it ever had from the vast majority of fans.
I applaud Auldheid’s efforts to cast some light on the shadowy dealings of the SFA, and good luck to him and to TSFM in that venture, but once again, where are the clubs? Why are they allowing an unacceptable state of affairs to continue? Dare I suggest that in any other country in Europe, there would have been a total clearout of the SFA midden, starting at the top with Regan and Ogilvie? What is it about Scotland, that the clubs think it is just fine that the fans, who pay for the whole show in the end, have now totally lost confidence in the impartiality of the ruling body?
Dundee Utd are now paying the price for leaving Ogilvie in post last year. I wonder if they now regret not putting forward an alternative candidate? But of course, it’s always the problem with being a member of a corrupt organisation, and turning a blind eye because you’ve not been directly affected. Sooner or later the day comes when it’s your turn to be on the wrong end of the partiality that seems to be woven into the very fabric of the SFA. And when it happens to you, you stand alone, because this is Scotland, and that’s the way things are.
Until the clubs get a grip of this, Scottish football is heading rapidly down the pan. Still, not to worry, Ogilvie will be off to UEFA soon, mission accomplished in Scotland, and I’m sure Walter Smith will be happy to fill the vacancy.
Angry Young Man62 says:
April 1, 2014 at 7:33 pm
so a question to anyone who may know – by what process does an incorporated club become un-incorporated? or cn re-incorporate?
———————————————————————————————————————————————————
There really is no such thing as an incorporated club – in real terms that just means that a company that now holds the assets that were previously owned by a club. Sometimes we talk about a sole trader or a partnership “incorporating” (all we mean by that is that a new company is being set up and the relevant business and assets are acquired by the new company). There is no change in legal status of any legal entity. In my example, the partnership remains a partnership (it just doesn’t have a business) and the new company is a company but it now holds the business and assets previously owned by the partnership.
Similarly – a company cannot “unincorporate”.
This is what will have happened to many football clubs at the end of the 19th century/start of the twentieth century I expect. The assets of a club will have been transferred to a limited company.
Taysider says:
April 2, 2014 at 9:38 am
Do the SFA not understand how badly damaged their reputation is and how critical it is for them to be seen to act transparently in an impartial way?
“Are they stupid, incompetent or contemptuous of supporters”?
_________________________________________________
All of the above.
A boycott of William hills betting shops is called for until they let the fan’s know why the decision had to be made 6 months in advance,
Good Afternoon.
An excellent post TSFM. I would not hold my breath for a reply as they may rely on client confidentiality but we can live in hope.
While I do not condone what Mr. Griffiths did, as I said yesterday , he is an individual with human rights and free speech is a fundamental right.
Once again the SFA have proved selective in their rules,when and to whom they should be applied.
Without indulging in whataboutery we all know of the calling out of McCoist and the shameful sectarian signing which has been broadcast on national TV.
Not only did McCoist bring the game into disrepute but he placed the members of the panel at risk and yet not a word from the SFA.
In my opinion only the chairmen of the clubs can rid the game of the compromised and the corrupt.
The SFA has a board and has control and power over it’s employees including the compromised one at the top.
I believe that as fans we must put pressure on our clubs to urge our chairmen to hold the SFA to account.
There needs to be an EGM with an agenda designed to rid the game once and for all of the miasma of corruption.
Perhaps Aulheid or other more versed in the rules could point us in the direction which the clubs need to take to achieve the aim of cleaning up the game.
The game itself is I believe intrinsically honest but the self interest of conflicted ones is dragging the game into the gutter and we have become a laughing stock.
What we need is a revolution.
We need someone of strength,vision and integrity to take the governance of the game by the scruff of the neck and drag it back out of the gutter.
If any one of us working for a large organisation was behaving in an inappropriate manner we would be hauled up before our managers and dealt with and if it was a manager then he would be hauled up before the directors and dealt with.
It is time for the directors, our club chairmen to get together and deal with their employees now.
If it means paying compensation to rid the game of these peole so be it. As a fan I would be happy to contribute to their redundancy money.
They must go and go now!
This has already gone on too long.
Barcelona and the Spanish FA (RFEF) punished for U-18 signing issues.
From the BBC website – “The RFEF has been given a fine of 500,000 Swiss Francs (£340,000) and told to “regularise its regulatory framework and existing system concerning the international transfer of minors in football” within a year”. Barca also have a transfer ban imposed.
Maybe someday someone will “regularise” the SFA.
@FIFA that maybe making an assumption that what the SFA said was not just BS in an attempt to get them out of a hole.
From what I hear and read I do not think fans of ANY teams think the SFA have done them any good whatsoever, in fact the total opposite in most cases. The ineptitude, lack of balance and fairness is turning fans away from financially backing their teams, exasperated by continued recession fans can do better with their hard earned rather than paying the inflated sals, bonuses and generous expenses of those supposedly looking after the interests of Scottish football…
Enough is enough..!!! 👿
The three choices are not mutually exclusive
Police have dropped the investigation into alleged abuse of NL by Aberdeen fans. What was that all about? MSM were quick to accuse and repeat accusations of Dons fans of spitting and throwing coin and drink. Seems there is no case to answer; can’t see this making front page news.
http://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/news/local/police-drop-probe-into-claims-dons-fans-abused-neil-lennon-1.298209
neepheid says:
April 2, 2014 at 11:47 am
31 0 Rate This
=============================
Excellent post NH.
Would some carefully crafted correspondance sent “from” TSFM to all SFA Member clubs asking if they understand and care to comment on the failures and challenges of the current SFA regime be in order?
redetin says:
April 2, 2014 at 1:14 pm
Police have dropped the investigation into alleged abuse of NL by Aberdeen fans. What was that all about? MSM were quick to accuse and repeat accusations of Dons fans of spitting and throwing coin and drink. Seems there is no case to answer; can’t see this making front page news.
http://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/news/local/police-drop-probe-into-claims-dons-fans-abused-neil-lennon-1.298209
—————————-
“no case to answer” does not mean “it didn’t happen”, in saying that, I believe the press blew it way out of proportion.
Neephead The only thing that will get the clubs to act is a threat that fans will boycot season ticket buying if no action is taken.
Agreed, Madbhoy. But what was “it” that did or didn’t happen that had Chick Young squawking like a craw on the radio, but that no one that was in the stand observed.
(And I’ll admit I participated in the past in some chants at a certain Mr Souness at Pittodrie.)
redetin says:
April 2, 2014 at 1:48 pm
Agreed, Madbhoy. But what was “it” that did or didn’t happen that had Chick Young squawking like a craw on the radio, but that no one that was in the stand observed.
(And I’ll admit I participated in the past in some chants at a certain Mr Souness at Pittodrie.)
—————————–
I remember thinking at the time (based on NL’s own account) that this was much to do about nothing and was down to a couple of drunks getting carried away.
The media choose what they want to report for their own agendas, they report that NL leaves the game early because of the abuse and he left at the normal time for those sort of games, shortly before it finishes. Yet they choose to ignore the “real” abuse that he has been receiving for a number of years.
Aberdeen were an easy target and a distraction in my opinion.
Matty Roth says:
April 2, 2014 at 1:28 pm
…………… some carefully crafted correspondance………………………….
————————————————————————————————————————
“crafted” 😯
redetin says:
April 2, 2014 at 1:48 pm
Despite reporting on a match in Paisley, Chick came on air about ten minutes after the match had finished in Edinburgh to state “this is a sad, sad day for Scottish football”. Aberdeen reach their first final in circa 15 years and he couldn’t get in quick enough to dampen the high spirits of Dons fans.
Clearly, as we all know Chick is a “reporter” with an agenda. A permanent embarrassment and frequent disgrace!
CAMPBELLSMONEY says:
April 2, 2014 at 12:11 pm
Rate This
Angry Young Man62 says:
April 1, 2014 at 7:33 pm
so a question to anyone who may know – by what process does an incorporated club become un-incorporated? or cn re-incorporate?
———————————————————————————————————————————————————
There really is no such thing as an incorporated club – in real terms that just means that a company that now holds the assets that were previously owned by a club. Sometimes we talk about a sole trader or a partnership “incorporating” (all we mean by that is that a new company is being set up and the relevant business and assets are acquired by the new company). There is no change in legal status of any legal entity. In my example, the partnership remains a partnership (it just doesn’t have a business) and the new company is a company but it now holds the business and assets previously owned by the partnership.
Similarly – a company cannot “unincorporate”.
———————————————–
“There is no change in legal status of any legal entity”
Oh yes there is. An extract from WRU (Welsh Rugby Union)
———————————————————————————————
An Unincorporated Association is the most common structure used by many sports clubs. The members come together and agree to establish a club with rules and operating procedures. These are then set down in the Constitution. It is the simplest form of club structure, the easiest to operate, and the one that most members will be familiar with.
Important bit:-
**An unincorporated club has no legal identity of its own. It is run by a committee and it will be member(s) of the committee that have to enter into contracts on behalf of the club. **
WRU advice:-
Converting the club to a Limited Company enables your club to become established as a legal entity in its own right, separate from the individual members
—————————————-
Similarly – a company cannot “unincorporate”.
It winds up the Limited company and forms a new unincorporated association.
—————————————————————————————————————————————-
When I was asked to call on a member of the Clubs and Institute Union (WMCIU) and obtain a new completed Insurance proposal form, because they had decided to incorporate and change their legal status to a limited liability company, the reason was that the Life Assurance Act 1774 had established a legal principle that prohibited insurance contracts if no insurable interest could be proven.
The original policy in the name of “The Trustees of the Wheel Tappers and Shunters club” was no longer valid and had to be updated to the new legal entity “WTS Ltd. “ It had changed its legal status.
Otherwise if the club burned down they would have had no legal claim. (no insurable interest).
In the USA they take it even further and grant a new legal status of a living entity.
“A company or association of persons can be created at law as legal person so that the company in itself can accept Limited liability for civil responsibility and taxation incurred as members perform (or fail) to discharge their duty within the publicly declared “birth certificate” or published policy”
woodstein says:
April 2, 2014 at 2:19 pm
——————————————————————————————
Thanks for this.
The WRU are probably not the relevant source for advice on matters of corporate law. When they say “Converting the club to a Limited Company ” all they mean is setting up a new company and transferring assets to it. It is not the “conversion” of a club at all.
With regard to “unincorporation”
you say this is done by – “It winds up the Limited company and forms a new unincorporated association.”
But that is not “unincorporating” a limited company at all. That is liquidating a limited company after transferring its assets to an unincorporated body. The limited company does not “unincorporate” – it “dies”
I think you are confusing (i) the business and assets held by a company; and (ii) the company itself.
Torquemada
There are three underlying aims here.
1. The total unreliability of the LNS Commission as a precedent in any form on any of the issues it ruled. It simply cannot be quoted as a justification for no sporting advantage or player eligibility. Football should be embracing the escape route from the sheer perversity of the LNS Decision. Waiting for the UTT makes no difference to the irregularity of the RED DOS ebts but if the UTT find for HMRC then those ebts become as irregular as the DOS ones. That way the enquiry becomes what it should have been with the DOS ebts, which is whether a means of making irregular payments was used on a grand scale depriving taxpayers of millions. Simply setting LNS aside will be easier for SPFL if there is a good reason to wait for corrective action. No point risking making the same mistake twice.
2. Having BDO find out why the new evidence was never supplied by D&P. Was it simply negligence or were they told of its significance? I understand BDO are scathing of D&P ‘ s handling of the administration and that story will come out. A chapter on them misleading LNS should surely feature.
3. Getting Campbell Ogilvie to explain his silence on the DOS ebts. His story on the MGMRT ebts ( basically he knew little about them) does not work for the DOS ones and if he sat on the policy group that authorised their use then he surely knew a lot more about ebts than he has said in public since it became known he had a MGMRT ebt.
The narrative suggests that LNS was engineered to produce the perverse result that it did, but that would have been impossible if the nature of the DOS ebts was understood. Ogilvie has definitely benefited from their concealment but he may have a credible explanation that would satisfy sceptics and clear him. Silence has served him well but he has been allowed to remain silent.
In that respect can I suggest folk find out the e mail addresses of sports desks or influential columnists, point them to the latest blog and ask why they are not asking questions.
In 2012 Michael Grant wrote an article that said Ogilvie would have questions to answer on ebts but no one did. I have asked him by e mail if he will take up where he left off. Early days for a response but the more who ask the merrier. If we get no replies we know who are complicit in maintain this harmful silence.
Let’s make things happen rather than waiting for it. Write to SFA sponsors, journos, broadcasters make them aware the days of the silence of the succulent lambs are over.
Auldheid says:
………………April 2, 2014 at 3:48 pm2. Having BDO find out why the new evidence was never supplied by D&P. Was it simply negligence or were they told of its significance? I understand BDO are scathing of D&P ‘ s handling of the administration and that story will come out. A chapter on them misleading LNS should surely feature.
———————————————————————————————————————————————.
Auldheid – I doubt BDO will care – BDO will be concentrating on issues that impact upon (1) the law of the land (and depite what I heard on “Super”SB t’other night “rubbish made up fitba law” stuff does not have primacy over real law); and (2) creditors.
LNS is neither of those things.
It would be nice if BDO had a wee aside though.
😛
Campbellsmoney
Probably but perhaps to encourage other football administrators not to play more for the football team than the creditors?
On contacting the media there is a short list on the Contacts page for External media contacts.
Maybe the list can be extended?
Auldheid says:
April 2, 2014 at 4:25 pm
1 0 i
Rate This
Campbellsmoney
Probably but perhaps to encourage other football administrators not to play more for the football team than the creditors?
————————————————————————————————————————————-
According to Voltaire, the British Navy were in the habit of executing an admiral from time to time “pour encourager les autres”.
I don’t think other insolvency practitioners truly need a BDO report to tell them where their duties actually lie.
Hoopy 7 says: April 2, 2014 at 12:55 pm
In my opinion only the chairmen of the clubs can rid the game of the compromised and the corrupt.
______________________________________________________________________________________
In my opinion only the FANS can rid the game of the compromised and the corrupt.
Only a united and organised nationwide fanbase – including Scotland fans –
has any chance of forcing reform at the SFA,
and that by means of staying away from International matches as a first step
and then Cup matches,
and so on till the SFA cry ‘enough’.
Is it going to happen ? I would love to think so, but I don’t believe it will.
For that reason the SFA and Sevco will stand all day every day
and continue to piss on the fans, just like they’ve been doing for decades.
The Chairmen aren’t going to sort this – not in a hundred years.
Squirrel questionnaire results in…
http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/6663-ready-to-listen-phase-1-results
Very uninspiring…
A lot of sites suggesting Imran Ahmad lost out to rangers yesterday, spin it as you like but if there is anything in the docs he has access to that shows a consistency of him in line for a percentage of sales I reckon the judge will have no option other than to get his lawyers the full set of docs he requested.
Hardly a victory, more accurately a good start point to put his ringfencing MO in play..
I believe you can have a verbal contract in Scots law, If he gets his pal Chico to say it was so and he was CEO at the time, IMO that might be enough and he could be due more than £500k. It could be the last straw.
Maybe a no show at Scotland games will show the SFA that there is unrest amongst the tinternet bampots and keyboard clatterers…
manandboy says:
April 2, 2014 at 4:44 pm
For that reason the SFA and Sevco will stand all day every day
and continue to piss on the fans, just like they’ve been doing for decades.
The Chairmen aren’t going to sort this – not in a hundred years.
==================
I agree, the Ogilvie coronation finally convinced me of that, but what I simply cannot understand is why? An element of their paying customers, people like me, will (if they haven’t already done so) just walk away in disgust, never to be seen again. Is that what they want? And where is the upside for them? I would like somebody to take me to one side and gently explain to me the reason for this behaviour by the clubs, slowly and simply, so that even an old fool like me can grasp it. Because it really is beyond my understanding.