Beware the angry Shareholders — they might just demand an answer!

Bybroganrogantrevinoandhogan

Beware the angry Shareholders — they might just demand an answer!

Good Evening,

Whilst it is understandable that the continuing events at Ibrox remain a hot topic among all Scottish Football Fans — especially given the views of some sections of the press on such events– the never ending rush down the marble staircase is certainly not the only show in town.

The other morning we were treated to the “scoop” that Alistair Johnstone is afraid that Craig Whyte– the once proclaimed Multi Billionaire from Motherwell- may well still be pulling all the strings at Ibrox! This is a fear which is shared by those who walk the corridors of Hampden Park as they, too, are terrified of the prospect of Whyte returning in some shape or form and coming back to haunt them, especially as he has been deemed unfit and proper, banned sine die, and generally ridiculed for his past actions.

However, the Hampden jackets know fine well that their realm only stretches so far and that if by means of the proper application of company law, contract or some other piece of paper Whyte controls the shareholding of the self proclaimed “parent company” to the football club then they are in a fix. In fact, I will wager that they just would not know how to deal with such a situation as after all RIFC PLC neither holds a licence to play football nor is a member of the SFA and so, on the face of it, who owns it has nothing to do with them.

At this juncture, no one in authority knows who Blue Pitch Holdings are and, strangely, no one in authority knows who Margarita Holdings are either! Yet these two “holdings” whoever they may be, may well hold all the power down Govan way…… with the SFA completely powerless to find out who they are let alone get into any dialogue with them. All the SFA can do is talk to the appointed Directors and officers of The Rangers Football Club Ltd.

This, is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs.

Meanwhile, they will have no difficulty in finding out who the new shareholders of Dunfermline Athletic are. Those shareholders will come from the fanbase and will be clearly registered at Companies House, with the result that ultimately those fans/shareholders will appoint Directors who will then attend meetings and speak and opine on their behalf and in essence be the ” Voice of Dunfermline” at Hampden.

Perhaps, similar will follow from Heart of Midlothian?

However, those at Hampden — if they have any sense at all– will be most wary of events happening in the east end of Glasgow come November.

In the middle of the month, Celtic PLC will hold its AGM and amidst the items on the agenda is the fan driven notion that the Club— through its Directors—- should go further in holding the SFA to account and enquire into the granting of club licences, and in particular how it granted Rangers a club licence that allowed entry to the Champions League in 2011 when the small tax case was outstanding.

The Celtic board have deemed this motion as “Unnecessary” and in support of that contention have released documentation showing that they raised this very issue with the SFA on behalf of the shareholders and fans. Further– and here is the rub— The Directors reveal that they were not satisfied with the SFA response and have disclosed that they took the matter further and wrote to UEFA.

Ultimately, UEFA also provided a reply, which backed the SFA approach and which Celtic had little option but to accept  in the absence of admissible contradicting evidence..

It is on this basis, that Peter Lawell and Co say the AGM motion is not necessary. Note that saying that the motion is not necessary, is not at all the same thing as saying that what the motion seeks to achieve is not necessary or does not have the support of the board!

There will be those at Hampden who severely hope that the Celtic Board are successful in voting this measure down as obviously they deem their original reply sufficient and would like to end the discussion there.

However, my own view, is that whether the motion is successful or not, there are those within the SFA who will recognise there is trouble staring them in the face here. Real Trouble!

Let’s recap for a moment and draw some threads together.

Celtic’s past Chairman, Dr John Reid, said only a couple of years ago that the SFA was clearly not fit for purpose. He did so in the context of events surrounding Neil Lennon and other matters, but was unshakably robust in his condemnation of an institutionalised uselessness which he saw pervaded the Hampden ranks.

Prior to that, Henry McLeish produced a report which stated that he too had concerns about the Governance of Scottish Football and called for openness and transparency.

In the intervening period, we have seen Mr David Longmuir, former Chief Executive of the Scottish Football League, find himelf without a position following reconstruction– and this partly as a result of club chairmen being apparently kept in the dark about his payment, bonuses and expenes. I understand that there was considerable anger from some at the way in which they had been treated by Mr Longmuir.

Then there is Mr Campbell Ogilvie, El Presidente, who himself benefited from a Rangers EBT and who held sway at Ibrox during a period of time when Rangers– by their own admission— made unlawful and illegal payments to three high profile players in breach of tax laws and SFA/SPL rules. It is these breaches and the consequent Wee Tax Bill which has caused all the angst among Celtic fans and has lead to the highly regulated legal step of tabling a motion at the club’s AGM.

Basically, the position seems to be, that as at the due date when the appropriate documents and declarations were made for a Euro Licence by Rangers for 2011, the wee tax bill was outstanding and due. If it was overdue, then the SFA could not and should not have granted them a licence……. and potentially Celtic should then have been put forward as Scotland’s representatives in the Champion’s League.

However, that did not happen, and Ranger’s were granted a licence– something that the Celtic Directors clearly felt was not correct.

They may have disagreed with the awarding of the licence because there were those at Rangers at the time who declared that a payment to account had been made to the tax office– allegedly £500,000– and that they had entered into an agreement to make payment of the balance by instalments. Had that been so, then all would have been hunky dory and no more would have been said.

Alas, however, no such payment appears to have been made at all, and no such agreement was entered into and so, on that basis, the tax bill was overdue and outstanding as at 30th June in terms of Article 66 and as such no Euro Licence should have been granted.

However, the argument does not end there.

Auldheid, has posted frequently on these pages about the ins and outs of the licensing provisions and the mechanism and so I will leave that detail to him as he is far more expert in these areas than me.

Now, one of the SFA functions is to have an auditor– someone who can check books, contracts, paper work and so on, and it is part of the SFA licensing function to be satisfied that all the paperwork is of course correct and in proper fashion before they issue any licence.

In this case, it is alleged that the SFA did not perform their function properly.

In relation to the wee tax case, it is said that either they did not make sufficient enquiry of Rangers re the payment to account or the agreement which they were told was in place. At the time it was mooted in the press that no such agreement was in place as at the relevant date ( June 30th ) and a simple check with the revenue would have shown the truth of the matter.

Yet, for whatever reason, no such check appears to have been made, and if you recall a Radio Scotland interview with Alistair Johnstone, Rangers submitted the forms, the SFA replied with one or two enquiries about the BIG tax case which were answered, and thereafter the Licence appears to have simply dropped through the letter box without further ado.

You will also recall that the existence of the wee tax case became known BEFORE Craig Whyte bought David Murray’s shareholding in May 2011. In fact it was the subject of News Paper headlines weeks before the deal was completed, and so the fact that there was a wee tax bill was well and truly in the public domain.

When it came to filling in the appropriate forms,either, the SFA were mislead by those then at Rangers with regard to that tax bill, OR, they simply failed to do the requisite checks and make reasonable enquiries before they issued the licence.

However, the uncomfortable fact also remains, that one of the chaps who must have been in the know re the admittedly unlawful and offending side letters, contracts and payments to the three players concerned  was Campbell Ogilivie who was on the Rangers Board at the relevant time when the contracts and irregular payments were made under the Discount Options Scheme  from 1999 to 2002/3. Indeed he may even have initiated the first payment to Craig Moore in 1999. I reiterate that no one has ever contested that this was an unlawful scheme, and the irregular payments and paperwork are not denied in relation to that scheme.

There are Celtic shareholders who believe, rightly or wrongly, that when it came to the granting of the Euro Licence, the SFA did not play them fair on this occasion and that the wheels within Hampden were oiled in such a way that Rangers were favoured and Celtic were disadvantaged. It is a point that looks to have already been considered by the Celtic Directors in 2011, with the result that they concluded that they should formally write to the SFA and seek clarification.

However, we now have the prospect of those same directors having to go back to Hampden and say   ” Sorry, but I am forced to bring this up by my shareholders. I have a legal duty to them to enquire further”. Even if the motion is refused, the point has been made– there are shareholders who are demanding answers– just as shareholders of other clubs demand answers about the ever so secret 5 way agreement and other matters which have hitherto been not for public consumption.

The SFA have nothing to fear of course as they can simply repeat their previous answers,demonstrate that all was above board, and rest easy in their beds.

Except that answer did not satisfy the Celtic Directors on a previous occasion as they decided to take the matter to UEFA, and it would appear that some Celtic shareholders remain dissatisfied with the known stance of the SFA and so they want the Directors of the club to delve further. Without wishing to point out the obvious, if it turns out that the 2011 Licensing process was somehow fudged and not conducted rigorously or that those at Hampden were in any way economical with the truth or omitted certain details from the previous explanation, or covered up a failure in procedures—- well such omissions have  a habit of becoming public these days whether that be through the internet or otherwise.

The point here is that the actions of Hampden officials are coming under organised, legal and planned corporate scrutiny over which they have no control. The Blazer and club mentality that was once so widespread within the governing bodies is under increasing attack and is being rendered a thing of the past.

In short, the move by Celtic shareholders, is making it plain that they will demand proper corporate governance from their club in ensuring that any alleged failure in corporate governance by the SFA or SPFL is properly investigated and reported on.

Of course, if it turns out that the 2011 Licensing process was somehow fudged and not conducted properly for whatever reason, then it could be argued that Celtic were disadvantaged in monetary terms along with other clubs who may have been awarded Europa League licences, then the consequences could be cataclysmic. Hence a tendency to circle the wagons rather than admit to failures in the process that need addressing.

It is this reluctance to come out and accept that the licensing process appears to have failed, say at what point the process failed and what needs to be done to address those failures that in many ways has driven the resolution. It is clear to all that something is amiss but the SFA will not admit it, probably from fear of the consequences of doing so?  Perhaps some form of indemnity, a lessons learned enquiry with no prejudice might help?

It would come as no surprise to me at all if there were those at Hampden who live in dreaded fear of admitting that their processes were flawed and that a grave mistake was made. Under these circumstances, there may well be those at Hampden who simply wish that Celtic and their fans would just go away!

 

About the author

broganrogantrevinoandhogan author

Boot wearing football, sport & total nonsense fan-- Gourmet, Bon Viveur and eedgit! - Oh and I write a bit occasionally!

4,365 Comments so far

eddie ricePosted on11:00 pm - Oct 18, 2013


Podium?

View Comment

eddie ricePosted on11:09 pm - Oct 18, 2013


“The Celtic board have deemed this motion as “Unnecessary” and in support of that contention have released documentation showing that they raised this very issue with the SFA on behalf of the shareholders and fans. Further– and here is the rub— The Directors reveal that they were not satisfied with the SFA response and have disclosed that they took the matter further and wrote to UEFA.”

Where is this documentation?

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on11:10 pm - Oct 18, 2013


eddie rice says: (39)
October 18, 2013 at 11:00 pm

Yes Eddie podium!

View Comment

Tic 6709Posted on11:12 pm - Oct 18, 2013


Outstanding as usual, pulled all the threads together .
People are a wee bit too quick to jump to conclusions about Celtic’s real position at the time.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on11:21 pm - Oct 18, 2013


“there may well be those at Hampden who simply wish that Celtic and their fans would just go away!”
+++++++

That is the engrained culture of the SFA, and has been for at least the last 50 years.

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on11:21 pm - Oct 18, 2013


BRTH
Even I can understand all of this, thanks. Brilliant 😀

View Comment

eddie ricePosted on11:22 pm - Oct 18, 2013


“In relation to the wee tax case, it is said that either they did not make sufficient enquiry of Rangers re the payment to account or the agreement which they were told was in place. At the time it was mooted in the press that no such agreement was in place as at the relevant date ( June 30th ) and a simple check with the revenue would have shown the truth of the matter”

In relation to the wee tax case Stewart Regans position was that the bill was still in dispute and had not “Crystalised” at 30 June and therefore there was no issue with granting license. I will have to check my twitter account for relevant dates but this is my understanding from an exchange of tweets last year.

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on11:25 pm - Oct 18, 2013


The main issue for me at least is how and why the SFA board arrived at the decision they did. There is a secondary issue around why Celtic stopped at writing to UEFA, is this not the sort of dispute that CAS is setup to deal with? However, I can understand why the Celtic board might have felt it was not in the company’s interest to pursue it, – a judgement call, and you can make a case either way.

The SFA board, however, have no such escape route.

View Comment

No1 BobPosted on11:25 pm - Oct 18, 2013


It is not the original flawed decisions that bring you down. It’s the cover up that gets you in the end.

Keep shining the light in the dark places.

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on11:26 pm - Oct 18, 2013


eddie rice says: (41)
October 18, 2013 at 11:22 pm

That is The Great Administrator’s Apprentice’s position

View Comment

valentinesclownPosted on11:29 pm - Oct 18, 2013


BRTH thanks for putting into words the failures of the SFA. ( as IMO they have aided and abetted the Govan club since as long as I can remember)
How many times must we say CO is conflicted (probably not as many times as Chic has stated he is a nice man) before the SMSM quiz him correctly?
Pressure must be put on the SFA and EUFA until the truth prevails, I can wait a bit longer

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on11:30 pm - Oct 18, 2013


eddie rice says: (41)
October 18, 2013 at 11:22 pm

“a simple check with the revenue would have shown the truth of the matter”
Is this not easier?

View Comment

SmugasPosted on11:31 pm - Oct 18, 2013


Tic 6709 says: (471)

October 18, 2013 at 11:12 pm

People are a wee bit too quick to jump to conclusions about Celtic’s real position at the time.
==========================================
So, when LNS announced his verdict that (and yes I know I paraphrase grotesquely here) the tax cases (note the plural) didn’t matter as they were subject to appeal hence no sporting advantage I am wrong to jump to the conclusion that CFC were perfectly placed to say “Complete and utter horsesh!t” no?

The problem with telling lies is you have to have a good memory. And that applies to all the clubs equally, not just CFC.

View Comment

tearsofjoyPosted on11:33 pm - Oct 18, 2013


Celtic fans , quite rightly , demanding openness and transparency – of Scottish football authorities. Looks likethey need to be demanding the same from their club. CFC already protested the decision , took it to UEFA but told no one ? Not very open of them. Good luck with the meeting guys. You deserve it .

View Comment

eddie ricePosted on11:35 pm - Oct 18, 2013


jean7brodie says: (316)

October 18, 2013 at 11:30 pm
Of course it would but that isn’t what SFA did, so it’s important we know what their position was. If we can ascertain what position was then we can ask how they came to hold that view.

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on11:43 pm - Oct 18, 2013


In case anyone is wondering who the Great Administrator’s Apprentice is…..

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-aC128b_XMq0/T8BBQ37ofzI/AAAAAAAATSc/qyL1MP3SPwg/s1600/mickey-sorcerers-apprentice.jpg

View Comment

Tic 6709Posted on11:43 pm - Oct 18, 2013


Smugas says: (448)

October 18, 2013 at 11:31 pm
Tic 6709 says: (471)

October 18, 2013 at 11:12 pm

People are a wee bit too quick to jump to conclusions about Celtic’s real position at the time.
==========================================
So, when LNS announced his verdict that (and yes I know I paraphrase grotesquely here) the tax cases (note the plural) didn’t matter as they were subject to appeal hence no sporting advantage I am wrong to jump to the conclusion that CFC were perfectly placed to say “Complete and utter horsesh!t” no?

The problem with telling lies is you have to have a good memory. And that applies to all the clubs equally, not just CFC.
===================
If my memory serves,did PL not come out and say that he was surprised at the verdict.
I know that wasn’t enough for a lot of people, but it was the first time I had ever heard him say anything about any decision concerning Rangers (IL).
Celtic have had to play the long game for 126 yrs,against a very stacked deck.
Let’s see what happens at the AGM

View Comment

selfassessorPosted on11:43 pm - Oct 18, 2013


Personally, I’ve never really been one for bull fighting.

However.

Where we are now with the tribute act ……. I feel that somebody needs to put it out of its misery. The final sword needs to be inserted by Paco Camino, El Cordobes or Craigo Whytez.

As much as I will be sorry to see the gift that keeps on giving give no more, I think it’s time. My sides have not much more to give, although I will miss it.

…… Am I alone?

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on12:13 am - Oct 19, 2013


BROGANROGANTREVINOANDHOGAN – thank you!

View Comment

Drew PeacockPosted on12:17 am - Oct 19, 2013


neepheid says: (850)
October 18, 2013 at 11:21 pm

“there may well be those at Hampden who simply wish that Celtic and their fans would just go away!”
+++++++

That is the engrained culture of the SFA, and has been for at least the last 50 years.
================================================================

My dad was a big trade unionist and socialist. Active in the days when ordinary people wanted proper reward for their labour,, transparency in the workplace and more democracy. In those days advances were made. He also ran a Youth football team and more often spoke of the autocracy of the Blazers than the Bosses, as they were on the back foot . He knew Ernie Walker too.

View Comment

SFTBPosted on12:44 am - Oct 19, 2013


“However, the Hampden jackets know fine well that their realm only stretches so far and that if by means of the proper application of company law, contract or some other piece of paper Whyte controls the shareholding of the self proclaimed “parent company” to the football club then they are in a fix. In fact, I will wager that they just would not know how to deal with such a situation as after all RIFC PLC neither holds a licence to play football nor is a member of the SFA and so, on the face of it, who owns it has nothing to do with them.”

I am puzzled by this paragraph.

Yes, there are restrictions on the reach of the SFA into the realm of legitimate shareholding and Board accountability but the SFA did not sit idly by and let events unfold as they were powerless to intervene. They, sure as hell, intervened and were signatories to a secret 5 way agreement without having received cast iron assurances or even having sought them in any rigorous manner. They have implicated themselves with the conspiracy and there was no need to do so. The rules that were seen to be perfectly adequate to deal with administration events at Livingston, Motherwell and Dundee could have been implemented. The rules governing liquidation events at Third Lanark, Airdrieonians, and Gretna could have been applied equally here with the result that a new club would have to have been created.

Instead, working on the basis of the Clydebank share sold to Airdrie United principle, they actively cooperated in the fiction that a club could be sold to itself after liquidation and, uniquely, this time their history would not die or be adopted by another club.

This was not a sin of omission; it was palpably a commissioned event.

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on12:54 am - Oct 19, 2013


The Funky Gibbon putting the boot into the rusting hulk currently aground on the Tail o the Bank, and its not the Captayannis :mrgreen:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/glenn-gibbons-rangers-drift-into-dangerous-waters-1-3148751

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on1:07 am - Oct 19, 2013


http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/GettingInvolved/Petitions/judgesmasonregister?UserAdvice=true

I have no beef with the masons.
Most are upstanding citizens.
But if – for example- I was being tried in a court or facing a quasi judicial structure where everyone but me was a member of the same institution (whether that was the Catholic church, the orange lodge, or the boy scouts!), I would like to at least know about it, in case there was the possibility of unintentional cognitive biases coming into play.
From my knowledge of clinical trials (Double blinding exists for a reason!!) I know that such pitfalls are genuine.
Therefore this seems like a sensible and uncontroversial prophylactic measure to me.

View Comment

Drew PeacockPosted on1:13 am - Oct 19, 2013


Resin_lab_dog says: (199)
October 19, 2013 at 1:07 am

I have no beef with the masons.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Not even with the Chycophant? It’s either that or he is on the payroll?

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on1:15 am - Oct 19, 2013


Resin_lab_dog says: (199)
October 19, 2013 at 1:07 am

There are some positions where being a member of a secret society, however benign, has to be a complete no no. The Judiciary and the Police are two obvious examples.

We don’t conscript people into either position, they volunteer, it should be a condition of employment.

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on1:35 am - Oct 19, 2013


scapaflow says: (1045)
October 19, 2013 at 1:15 am

0

0

Rate This

Resin_lab_dog says: (199)
October 19, 2013 at 1:07 am

There are some positions where being a member of a secret society, however benign, has to be a complete no no. The Judiciary and the Police are two obvious examples.

We don’t conscript people into either position, they volunteer, it should be a condition of employment.
________________________

I hear where you are coming form but disagree.
The point is that – if forced to disclose membership within positions of influence (politicians, government office holders, those serving on judiciary panels or apportioning public funds etc. -even football referees ) – the society ceases to be secret…
I have no probelm with individuals secretly joining the masons or the boy scouts or the carrot growers club of Glasgow if that is there choice. It is their freedom and I would support it absolutely. I would rank it alongisde religious freedom. It is only where the secret nature of this freedom creates a potential conflict because of the authority that the post holder exercises that disclosure becomes necessary to prevent the possibility of bias… whether intentional or otherwise (clinical trials!).
If A&B are both judges (or referees) , A is a mason and B is not , we can compare the sentencing (or whistling) of both if this membership is disclosed and if it turns out that A is more lenient on defendents who are also masons – or from a certain ethnicity for example as compared to B… well then… we can either proscribe membership or insist on other COI measures as appropriate, because we would have good reason to do so. But otherwise there is no reason to interfere with the freedoms of individuals. The point is that – unless we have the information that disclosure provides, we have no way of knowing!.
That is all that is being asked for and honest persons from all persuasion have – I believe- an ethical duty to support that aim.

I am not a mason. I am a member of a trades unionSo long as my employer does not recognise my union, I believe I should be entitled to keep this a secret unless and until I need to disclose it: so as not to compromise my employment. I did so.

But if I was standing for election, or giving evidence in an industrial tribunal, or – as recently happened- acting as a representative in a redundancy situation – I believe that I should honestly disclose that affiliation. And I did just that. And I did so prior to my election as representative. – And I did so… lest I subsequently stand accused of representing those who were not affiliated to a given union less effectively than those who were (I didn’t!). I disclosed. They had a choice. They elected me.

Its really not hard this stuff – assuming you are fundamentally honest!

And I would say that this has to apply equally and fairly to all conceivably confliced affiliations. (Churches, pressure groups, political affiliations, trade unions). It is not that any of this stuff should be proscribed, merely that it should be open to challenge from the point of view of bias and COI.

Privacy is a fundamental right. Secrets must be allowed. But we all have a responsibility to society. So conspiracies – even unintentional ones – the most insidious – need to be proscribed.

Duty of Disclosure – in the event of potential COI – is both the weapon and the shield in that war.
This extends to membership of freemasonry for those in position of judicial influence. QED.

View Comment

Drew PeacockPosted on1:39 am - Oct 19, 2013


Resin_lab_dog says: (200)
October 19, 2013 at 1:35 am
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Well said Brother.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on1:45 am - Oct 19, 2013


eddie rice says: (42)

October 18, 2013 at 11:22 pm

Quantcast

“In relation to the wee tax case, it is said that either they did not make sufficient enquiry of Rangers re the payment to account or the agreement which they were told was in place. At the time it was mooted in the press that no such agreement was in place as at the relevant date ( June 30th ) and a simple check with the revenue would have shown the truth of the matter”

In relation to the wee tax case Stewart Regans position was that the bill was still in dispute and had not “Crystalised” at 30 June and therefore there was no issue with granting license. I will have to check my twitter account for relevant dates but this is my understanding from an exchange of tweets last year.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
I would like to see what you have in your twitter account.

In the one I saw Regan says “The licence was granted in line with SFA and UEFA guidelines. the tax matters were not crystalised at the point it was granted.”

Two points on this. The point of granting was 31 March under Article 50 of UEFA FFP.

The demand to pay was dated 20th May 2011, although acceptance of liability was in early March 2011, so Regan was right. However whilst he tax matterS in relation to the big tax case had still not “crystalised” , it had for the wee tax case on 20th May.

The question is was it overdue by 30th June under Article 66? If it was not paid by then, then it was overdue as it related to back tax. Especially if, as reported, Sherriff Officers served a demand on Rangers on behalf of HMRC in relation to the bill on 2nd June.

Rangers strategy internally under CW from the off was to conflate the wee tax case with the big tax case that was subject to appeal. HMRC were having none of it and would not let the matter drift..

Conflation of both muddied the waters and perhaps the SFA innocently fell for the ploy of treating both as the same, but as BRTH says, with CO on the premises and his knowledge of the difference, having instigated what was possibly the first DOS payment in 1999 and later received an EBT payment, credulity is stretched beyond breaking point.

What has changed since 2011 is the emergence of contradicting but at this point inadmissible evidence of actual dates which the SFA never provided in response to public questioning as well as Rangers conflation strategy and the tone and content of communications between the SFA and Rangers.

If and when these become a matter of public focus, the case for clarity will be overwhelming.

View Comment

readceltPosted on3:08 am - Oct 19, 2013


Just caught the tail end of moneyball on FX. A quote stood out from the film where John Henry of the boston Red Sox (Liverpool owner) has a meeting with Billy Bean of the Oakland A’s and delivers this line.
‘I know you’ve taken it in the teeth out there, but the first guy through the wall. It always gets bloody, always. It’s the threat of not just the way of doing business, but in their minds it’s threatening the game. But really what it’s threatening is their livelihoods, it’s threatening their jobs, it’s threatening the way that they do things. And every time that happens, whether it’s the government or a way of doing business or whatever it is, the people are holding the reins, have their hands on the switch. They go bat shit crazy.’
The smsm and the blazers anyone?

On an altogether different topic, I’m on holiday with limited wifi access and a 5 hour time difference. It’s doing my head in! Also, moneyball is a great book and a decent movie. Very pertinent in terms of painting the picture of how a team competes with very limited resources.

View Comment

FisianiPosted on5:10 am - Oct 19, 2013


The SFA is just ‘Rangers at Hampden’. I have been bemused by the lack of ANY sanctions imposed on a club that systematically cheated their way to trophies for a decade. The sleight of hand to transition from old club to new club to same club leaving vast creditor debts but a debt free club was worthy of a magician. The wee tax case is the Achilles heel for the SFA and they hope it will just fade from memory. The tenaciousness of the Internet Intelligensia is formidable but I see no legal professional with the fortitude to expose the corruption and partisanship which has occurred. I fear that The Rangers believe they are above law and rules and will be proved correct.

Imagine there’s no Rangers,
it’s easy if you try.
No SPHell below us, above us only BSkyB
Imagine all the people , living life in peace.
You may say I’m a dreamer.
But I’m not the only one
I hope one day You’ll join us and football will live as one.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on5:42 am - Oct 19, 2013


BEWARE THE ANGRY SHAREHOLDERS — THEY MIGHT JUST DEMAND AN ANSWER!

OCTOBER 18, 2013 BY BROGANROGANTREVINOANDHOGAN 29 COMMENTS
Good Evening ….
———–

Clear and to the point. I wish the Celtic fans involved every success in raising this topic. It’s about far more than their own interests, and all credit to them for that. Hope they’ll be like the proverbial dog with a bone on this issue.

View Comment

yakutsukiPosted on7:30 am - Oct 19, 2013


BRTH, brilliant! Put in terms that even dunderheids like me can fully take in.

Eddie, podium shmodium! Wrong blog ma man.

View Comment

Henry ClarsonPosted on7:33 am - Oct 19, 2013


“The Celtic board have deemed this motion as “Unnecessary” and in support of that contention have released documentation showing that they raised this very issue with the SFA on behalf of the shareholders and fans. Further– and here is the rub— The Directors reveal that they were not satisfied with the SFA response and have disclosed that they took the matter further and wrote to UEFA.
Ultimately, UEFA also provided a reply, which backed the SFA approach and which Celtic had little option but to accept in the absence of admissible contradicting evidence..”

I have always believed that the Celtic board were – to put it mildly – unconvinced by SFA’s handling of the matter and I strongly suspect that they were reluctant to make a louder public noise about it partly because of the numerous threats of deadly violence that were directed at Celtic employees and supporters.

Nevertheless, I feel that Fergus McCann would have done to Campbell Ogilvie and Stewart Regan exactly what he did to Jim Farry – finished their careers before it was time for lunch.

If the supporters at the AGM can succeed in forcing the issue back on to the club’s things-to-do list, the board will have no excuse for not making a better job of it this time. If nothing else, the credibility of the SFA should be loudly and uncompromisingly disparaged at every public opportunity. Every press conference should include at least a couple of side swipes at the farcical corruption at the core of the national game, including things like pointed references to the millions of pounds which Celtic (and other clubs) can’t spend on signings because the money was stolen by Rangers.

I could understand and support a board policy of keeping quiet in public while working hard behind the scenes to get some long overdue justice. However, if the board has given up hope of securing a just outcome through the proper channels then the very least I expect is that it makes a loud noise about it.

The unopposed re-election of a heavily conflicted SFA President is an ominous indication that the white flag has been raised and there is no stomach for the necessary cleansing. I still find it appalling that not one dissenting voice was raised against Ogilvie’s application for a further term in office.

Good luck to the shareholders’ attempt to get this matter to the centre of the stage where it belongs. It’s a defining moment for the whole of Scottish football. Do we or do we not want to root out corruption from the game? Do we or do we not have the balls to point to those who are responsible and call them for the stinking cheats that they are?
Neither the SFA nor UEFA are above the law, despite what they might think. There was a time when UEFA, with its customary arrogance and disdain for justice, refused to accept that European Law applied to the transfer of footballers’ registrations from club to club. An unemployed Belgian footballer called Jean-Mark Bosman took UEFA all the way to the European Court of Justice, won his case and forced seismic changes on the entire economic model of professional football. Bosman was determined to fight on a point of principle and eventually he prevailed, despite UEFA’s relentless and arrogant insistence that its own rulings must not be challenged in courts of law.

I believe that part of the reason that Mr. Bosman had the tenacity to see his case through to the very end was because he himself had absolutely nothing to hide. I very much fear the possibility that the lack of such a clear conscience may well explain why not one of our professional clubs has shown the necessary resolve to cast the first stone against the SFA.

It remains the case that the only time that club officials stood up to Rangers was when they were terrified by the very real threat that supporters would not renew their season books. Had it not been for that intervention by the fans, I am absolutely certain that Sevco would have started life in the SPL and club chairmen and CEOs would have wrung their hands, saying, “We tried all we could but there was just no way of preventing it. And, in any case, UEFA have confirmed that it’s all above board”

Unfortunately, an opportunity to put that sort of pressure on club directors only comes round once a year. An AGM may be the next best thing but it will take something very special to galvanise a board which tends towards brinkmanship.

View Comment

yakutsukiPosted on7:40 am - Oct 19, 2013


BRTH, reading your writings on the SFA, a stranger to the saga would get the impression that they the powers at Hampden were incompetent, or maybe just not fit for purpose.

If only it was as simple and innocent as that! We all know from their past dealings with lesser mortals
and non peepils that they can be extremely efficient, researching and going through paperwork with a fine toothed comb it would seem – but only when it suits them. A parcel of brogues in a nation!

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:52 am - Oct 19, 2013


Good morning. I notice at 12:13 AM I managed a resounding ‘thank you’ to BRTH for another outstanding piece of work, which it is. Even in my more sober state now I think there’s little more needs to be said, other than I’m really glad this forum exists with the quality of contributor it attracts.

I’m looking forward to seeing my team play Hibs at Easter Road today (will watch on telly). Nobody has to love either of the clubs, but they serve as a timely reminder of two clubs among many that are managed in a proper way and pay their dues to society among others. The media really need to start giving credit to the majority of the clubs who are honestly run, rather than desperately trying to promote the well being of the Ibrox farce.

View Comment

fergusslayedthebluesPosted on8:59 am - Oct 19, 2013


If anyone is in any doubt as to what Celtic and the rest of the Scottish football clubs are up against regarding sorting this mess out .
Just think how much influence a club has to have in a country to have EVERY single news media (stations and press ) to point blank refuse (and on most occasions blatantly lie ) that a liquidated football club is the same club ,without one single dissenting voice .

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on9:03 am - Oct 19, 2013


I’m afraid “a simple check with the revenue” is unlikely to have worked, unless Rangers themselves had authorised that.

In any case it should have been unnecessary, at least from the point of view of the claimed payment to account. A simple request from the SFA, to Rangers for proof of payment would obviously have been the way to go. Bank documentation would have been the simplest thing and taken days, or even hours to provide.

The bottom line is though, if Rangers told the SFA that they had made a payment of £500,000 to the revenue and it is not true then they lied, plain and simple. That could easily have been established by the SFA had they wanted to.

Clearly the SFA chose not to check this and to issue a very lucrative licence to a club which had already admitted tax cheating for the “wee” case (wee compared to their other one, but large in the context of Scottish football) and had a huge one outstanding. A business which was in real difficulties financially and had the bank putting directors in place to look after their interests. A club which was owned by a businessman whose own financial difficulties (hundreds of millions of pounds) was well reported at the time.

How can that possibly be justified.

View Comment

Greenock JackPosted on9:16 am - Oct 19, 2013


fergusslayedtheblues
Just think how much influence a club has to have in a country to have EVERY single news media (stations and press ) to point blank refuse (and on most occasions blatantly lie ) that a liquidated football club is the same club ,without one single dissenting voice
——————————————————————-
What gets me is that we are told how irrelevant and poor the SMSM are but the same people hang on to their every word.

View Comment

fergusslayedthebluesPosted on9:29 am - Oct 19, 2013


Greenock jack
I think you will find that they are described as such because their output is POOR and as a result their circulation is dropping making them more and more irrelevant .
If you want to know how much they still influence just ask any Sevco fan if they think they are the same club and ask why they think they are .
On every occasion I have done so ,they almost all repeat the MSM mantra verbatim .

View Comment

davythelotionPosted on9:45 am - Oct 19, 2013


Let’s assume the following:
Rangers operated a DOS which paid for players they could not otherwise afford, thereby giving them a huge advantage over domestic and European rivals.
Rangers paid employees ‘off the books’ and specifically players, without declaring these payments to the SFA using a scheme which was at best dubious, this allowed them to sign players they could not otherwise afford, thereby giving them a huge sporting advantage over their domestic and European rivals
Rangers accounts were vastly inflated, on the plus side, by a ridiculous, but legal, valuation of Ibrox and Murray Park, this allowed them to borrow money to pay for players they couldn’t otherwise afford…..
Ranges behaviour forced rivals to try and compete, this led to a spiral of overspending, debt and ultimately cost-cutting thereby increasing the gulf in quality of player between Rangers and the rest.
Rangers were assisted by compliant regulatory bodies, on at least one occasion it was shown that a rival’s playing squad had been deliberately weakened by delaying, wrongly, a player’s registration
Rangers were assisted by a compliant, complicit media. They reported palpable fantasy uncritically and failed, on numerous occasions to challenge the delinquent financial behaviour which allowed them to dominate domestic competition.
Even after it became clear that CW, CG et all were Bengal Lancers of the first water the media conspired to continue the myth that all was above board
Rangers were allowed to walk away from their debts, and, in the eyes of the Scottish Press, reform in the 3rd division where they were able to pay players in excess of the rest of the division’s combined budget thereby giving them a huge advantage over their rivals
Rangers were allowed to treat a transfer embargo with total contempt, by signing ‘trislists’ thereby giving them a huge advantage over their rivals….
The REAL SCANDAL is that despite all of the above advantages (and more besides), instead of bestriding the European stage like Barcelona or Man Utd, the owners, whoever they are, continue to make a total haw maws of it!!

View Comment

EKBhoyPosted on9:47 am - Oct 19, 2013


BRTH

Excellent piece …. The SFA get out is of course , we were duped!

The gentleman who (still) runs the Finance function at Ibrox was adept at keeping HMRC at bay for years, a mere terminological in exactitude in an email to the SFA, who got the answer they wanted , all in a days work.

I suspect the SFA are mere paper pushers , box tickers , and they have no skills to do anything other than what they are provided with by the clubs. Now that it has been exposed that we have a serial cheat in our midst , should the SFA be completely ripped up and put back together to handle this one cheat?

Seems to me that the SFA has no power in the sense that if the clubs want to appoint a bunch of nut jobs to run their club into the ground then by all means go ahead – however this is under-mining full-time professional football in this country , and the only solution is to isolate the SFA and for the SPFL to manage more if it’s own affairs and apply its own rules.

The test for the SFA is when Rangers get liquadated again, I am working on the assumption that chaos is just around the corner, will they let them back in , suspend them , or rip up their license? Surely, they cannot be allowed to win leagues with money they do not have – can they?

Looks like tricky conditions for the games today…..

View Comment

wottpiPosted on9:50 am - Oct 19, 2013


Good point being made over in the Bear’s Den that the Easdales stash of shares were bought post IPO therefore they have yet to put any money into the club as their cash went into other’s pockets.

Therefore as Green, Ahmed, Hughes etc seemed to have sold up and others like Sally got the shares at a discounted price, the list of individual names that actually put money (even the smallest amounts) in the ‘club’s’ coffers is pretty small.

So no one individual at this time can really take the high ground. As usual it seems everybody wants the glory of running the club by spending others money.

View Comment

FinlochPosted on9:53 am - Oct 19, 2013


“there may well be those at Hampden who simply wish that Celtic and their fans would just go away!”
……………………………………….
No matter what happens to this motion in the Celtic AGM and no matter how the MSM spin it as a Celtic vs Rangers spat the reality is that the underlying questions will not go away until they are addressed.

Mr Regan and Mr Ogilvie et al, – as a non Celtic supporting football fan I can confirm that the Celtic Shareholders are not just working on behalf of some lost revenue at their club.
They are working on behalf of all of us and it is really about governance and not pound notes.

There can be no closure for our game till transparency and honesty prevails.

View Comment

BarcabhoyPosted on9:57 am - Oct 19, 2013


The doggedness and determination by those who refuse to let this issue rest , particularly Auldheid, has to be applauded. If it wasn’t for their investigative zeal, this would not have seen the light of day.

I though have some questions about what the motion hopes to achieve.

1 Is there a concern over the way the issue was handled by the Celtic board ?

2 Is there an expectation that Celtic and other clubs can be financially compensated for the incorrect awarding of the licence to Rangers

3 Is there a desire that those in the SFA who participated in the award are disciplined for failing to deal accurately and possibly fairly with the issue

4 Do we want a new system of oversight for the awarding of Licences. Both european and national.

Taking each question in turn

1 It is difficult to see what more the Celtic board could have done. They obviously had no qualms about confronting the SFA and subsequently judging their response to be self protecting and flawed. Uefa will , as i have said before on here, not support an individual club against a member national association, if there is even a 1% grey area.
I suspect UEFA will be saying privately Rangers deceived the SFA, and the SFA would not have been able to get an answer from HMRC, who won’t discuss anyone’s tax affairs , not even with the UK government. We all know it stinks of cronyism and coverup, however getting a result is a very different matter. It would have involved Celtic taking Uefa and the SFA to the CAS, and that is an incredibly high risk action

2 If the aim is to be financially compensated, it isn’t worth the effort. The SFA do not have the money, not even close to enough to satisfy a successful claim

3 This is a key area for me. There will be some within the SFA who will not be to blame for this. There are however at least 3 key employees or office holders who’s position is untenable. Top of the list is Campbell Ogilvie, as BRTH’s article has shown & as Auldheid has previously demonstrated, Ogilvie wasn’t just part of the process of rule breaking he was also part of the deception to cover it up. His silence was critical. He should be dishonourably discharged from office.
Regan is reponsible in the same way Mather’s position was untenable once the requisitioners won their court battle. He didn’t have a robust enough organisation to prevent the fraud by Rangers & he has done nothing since it became clear the SFA were deceived.
The final individual is the executive responsible for licencing. I believe that , at the time , was David Findlay.

Removing the guilty from office is a very worthwhile objective of this motion, if indeed that is an objective

4 If the SFA had demanded a bank statement from Rangers , which showed the £500,000 claimed payment to HMRC, then you could have believed they took an appropriate step to verify that claim. It should be mandatory that every club produces it’s TAX and VAT returns, and provides proof of payment. The fact that the SFA did not do this, and do not do this, is evidence that their procedures are flawed.

Enabling a more robust procedure would also be a worthy objective of the motion

View Comment

CarlisleCeltPosted on10:08 am - Oct 19, 2013


An excellent read! Let us hope it does not go the way of every other case (so far) against the cheats from Govan and that there is finally, realistic punishment handed out!

View Comment

Angus1983Posted on10:08 am - Oct 19, 2013


fergusslayedtheblues says: (155)
October 19, 2013 at 8:59 am

Just think how much influence a club has to have …
——
To be fair, Fergus, it’s evidently not entirely down to that club’s influence.

I believe the potential, nay evinced, behaviour of parts of their fanbase has something to do with it as well.

View Comment

Lord WobblyPosted on10:12 am - Oct 19, 2013


Contrast and compare this story, about a conviction and narrowly avoidance of jail for the theft of £3000 by an ex-Celtic boys club treasurer, with the way the story of Dave King’s conviction and narrowly avoiding jail by paying circa £45m for FORTY ONE counts has been reported…

http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland/top-stories/ex-celtic-boys-club-treasurer-guilty-of-theft-1-3148720

Try Googling “ex-Rangers director guilty”

http://www.google.com/search?q=ex-Rangers+director+guilty&client=ms-opera-mini-android&channel=new&prmd=ivnsu&source=univ&tbm=nws&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=SUxiUpaBIcTL0QXqmIGQDg&ved=0CAsQqAI

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on10:18 am - Oct 19, 2013


Are supporters of any other club aware if their boards made representations to the SFA / UEFA with regard this issue.

If not, have their shareholders taken any action to let their board know how they feel about it.

If as now seems pretty much certain Rangers should not have been granted a European licence that year then one club lost out on getting a licence. One would have thought that at least that one club would also be chasing this matter up.

View Comment

BarcabhoyPosted on10:27 am - Oct 19, 2013


A follow up to my last post

David Findlay was head of administration at the SFA. He had a 30 year career there. He left shortly after Rangers were awarded their Euro Licence

All of the above may be completely co-incidental

View Comment

BarcabhoyPosted on10:42 am - Oct 19, 2013


Just in case anyone wonders why Celtic fans are rightly suspicious of the SFA

http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/?p=5097

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on11:09 am - Oct 19, 2013


Barcabhoy says: (243)

October 19, 2013 at 9:57 am
3 This is a key area for me. There will be some within the SFA who will not be to blame for this. There are however at least 3 key employees or office holders who’s position is untenable. Top of the list is Campbell Ogilvie, as BRTH’s article has shown & as Auldheid has previously demonstrated, Ogilvie wasn’t just part of the process of rule breaking he was also part of the deception to cover it up. His silence was critical. He should be dishonourably discharged from office.
Regan is reponsible in the same way Mather’s position was untenable once the requisitioners won their court battle. He didn’t have a robust enough organisation to prevent the fraud by Rangers & he has done nothing since it became clear the SFA were deceived.
The final individual is the executive responsible for licencing. I believe that , at the time , was David Findlay.
_______________________________________________________________________________

In the light of your commentary over #3, does that not tie in to some extent with #1 given the subsequent unopposed re-election of Ogilvie? The Celtic board, since they had concerns over the issue, are I assume pretty clued-up. If they had arrived at the same conclusion as you have regarding CO, it seems a bit like self-harming that he was elected unopposed.

The angry Celtic fan in me will jump to the conclusion that Celtic’s recently disclosed “concerns” were merely a device to see off the resolution at the AGM, but I prefer not to make that leap in ignorance. The conspiracy theorist in me, and a kinder inference of Celtic’s motives, might suggest that there is a much bigger can of worms luring underneath which would be catastrophic for the game as a whole and on which Celtic think the lid should be firmly closed?

View Comment

csihampdenPosted on11:12 am - Oct 19, 2013


I am intrigued by both the resolution raised by the Celtic shareholders, and in the boards reported response. It raises several questions however for me, perhaps those who understand can answer these.

Firstly, I think it is fantastic that the Celtic shareholder group have, through proper channels that cannot be dismissed, put forward this resolution for the AGM. More power to them.
Also thanks to BRTHs excellent summation blog post.

But here are my questions:
1. If the Celtic board did question this in the first instance, all the way to UEFA, but did not have enough evidence to convince UEFA at the time that the wee tax case bill remained totally unpaid – why, in the light of “new” evidence that this is indeed the case, has it taken a shareholder resolution to raise the issue again? If the CFC board pursued this fastidiously the first time, why not now that there is new evidence, without the need for a resolution at the AGM?
2. Is it because in fact they are, and are in the process of building the case? If they did it the first time “in secret”, are they doing the same now? Is it possible that, having been to UEFA before and found, basically, no interest in the case, they are now, with new evidence, looking at other channels – legal recourse for example? In line with Barcabhoy’s post above, I’m not suggesting that this would be at all desirable from a financial perspective – but the mere threat that this could eventually be played out in a court might be seen as persuasive enough for the SFA to remove those responsible and change their procedures. Remember – it was Farry’s downfall under cross-examination from his OWN QC that persuaded the dinosaurs then that he should not be involved with the organisation any further, rather than stick him in front of Celtic’s. But is this why Celtic’s board have allowed themselves to be quoted as having described the resolution as “unnecessary”? I do find the description hints at not being required AT THE AGM – and that work is going on out of public view to address this anyway.
3. Finally, linked to the question above, and to Barcabhoy’s post above also, and given UEFAs apparent disinterest previously – would the resolution have better been requesting that the Celtic board should seek legal recourse together with other clubs disadvantaged by this decision (for example, judicial enquiry)? That way, this would not become a Celtic-only issue, it raises the spectre for the SFA as indicated above, and it also removes the UEFA stonewall – which may have allowed the double-speak “unnecessary” quote from the Celtic board (i.e. this is unnecessary, as we’ve tried UEFA before, and were unsuccessful)

I understand those that say Celtic have to tow a fine line here – but wasn’t that the same line that Fergus had to tow when he basically accused Farry of cheating Celtic out of a player who could have played against Rangers?

View Comment

Greenock JackPosted on11:35 am - Oct 19, 2013


Barcabhoy at 10:42
Did the email that the CQN article refers to ever come to public light ?

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on11:35 am - Oct 19, 2013


Barcabhoy says: (242)

October 19, 2013 at 9:57 am

Quantcast

The doggedness and determination by those who refuse to let this issue rest , particularly Auldheid, has to be applauded. If it wasn’t for their investigative zeal, this would not have seen the light of day.

I though have some questions about what the motion hopes to achieve.

1 Is there a concern over the way the issue was handled by the Celtic board ?

2 Is there an expectation that Celtic and other clubs can be financially compensated for the incorrect awarding of the licence to Rangers

3 Is there a desire that those in the SFA who participated in the award are disciplined for failing to deal accurately and possibly fairly with the issue

4 Do we want a new system of oversight for the awarding of Licences. Both european and national.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
A most excellent post. Barcabhoy.

My consistent goal has been the restoration of trust in those who administer Scottish football and in respect of Item 1 I have no issues with Celtic’s handling of the issue as I understand it. The SFA were never going to supply Celtic with key information like dates because of the confidentiality arrangement surrounding club licencing. So my reading of Celtic’s position is that they were given the same response as individual enquirers were i.e. the crystallisation point and that due process was followed. When UEFA back that up (but only from what the SFA told them) what else could Celtic do? If I have a complaint it is that the enquiry in 2011 was never made known to the public to my knowledge (I might have focussed some of my time elsewhere) but I do understand why it was kept private.

I think much of the suspicion about Celtic’s possible complicity comes from a) it is traditional amongst some of our support but b) more tellingly, an overestimate of Celtic’s power and the complexities of the rules that can render a valid point irrelevant in moral terms. So I would rule out this as the purpose of the resolution, although default positions will still be clung to.

2. Whilst justice might demand compensation, I think that the very idea of it is a barrier to getting at the truth. Apart from the pragmatic point about where the money would come from, I think removal of any idea of punishment is essential for arriving at the truth. That does not mean a legal case could not be made, but for the greater good of our game, and as a shareholder who could demand pursuit of lost revenue if rules were broken, that would defeat the whole point of the exercise for me.

For me this is your point 4 in pursuit of restoration of trust by reviewing processes, particularly on the gaining of proof side. If the info cannot be gained from HMRC, even with a clubs permission, then the club must be required to submit evidence of correspondence between them and HMRC to back up any claims of exemption under all the exemption criteria. This part definitely needs addressing and HMRC, who lost £2.8m because it appears not to be covered, should be a willing partner in closing a loophole. As a taxpayer I would expect no less. Getting HMRC to look at their stance would be a welcome if unintended consequence of any investigation into processes.

On a review of the licensing process I am already on record on this (as on restoration of trust) and whilst I think it will take a couple of years for clubs to adjust to the rigours, no membership should be granted unless a club licence has been granted first and the club licensing folk should have an overseeing body separate from the SFA to guard the guards. Such an arrangement had it been in place from say 2000 would have prevented our game hitting the buffers and stopped Rangers being liquidated and then taken over by spivs.

On point 3 I can think of no greater visible sign of moving towards the restoration of trust than resignations of named individuals for the good of the game. I do not see that as a punishment but a natural consequence of reaching the truth if the truth is they were at fault. If not surely they should be happy to be cleared?

If I can add.:

This resolution should be supported by all those who love our game, particularly decent Rangers men (cheers Glen, can you get the message across to your fellow supporters) but also the media, whose energies have been focussed on saving a victim of the absence of proper policing, rather than looking at those doing it and who really should brush up on the difference between membership and licencing before saying it is about questioning the granting of membership to The Rangers. The resolution relates ONLY to club licensing under the aegis of UEFA FFP 2010 which The Rangers have not yet been subject to, the less demanding but still useful National Club Licensing being applicable.

View Comment

Greenock JackPosted on11:40 am - Oct 19, 2013


BigPink
In the light of your commentary over #3, does that not tie in to some extent with #1 given the subsequent unopposed re-election of Ogilvie? The Celtic board, since they had concerns over the issue, are I assume pretty clued-up. If they had arrived at the same conclusion as you have regarding CO, it seems a bit like self-harming that he was elected unopposed.
————————————————————-
An interesting point which leads to an obvious and valid question.
I hope it is asked at the AGM as a follow up.

On the face of it, it doesn’t make sense.
Elections are part of a democratic system, that give the electorate or members the opportunity to hold people accountable.

Horse-trading ?

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on11:40 am - Oct 19, 2013


Barcabhoy says: (244)
October 19, 2013 at 9:57 am

Barca an excellent post, with much food for thought.

Casting my mind back to last Spring, I am reminded of Mr Regan’s assertion that the “conflicted” Mr Ogilvie had recused himself from all business relating to Ranger’s difficulties. This seemed the very least that should happen at the time, though I still think gardening leave would have been more appropriate. However, I am now left wondering if this was in fact an innovation, if prior to that point Mr Ogilvie had been playing a full and active role in the deliberations around the licence. If so, given that we now know that the Great Administrator was also the Great Architect of the events that led to the Wee Tax Case, one has to wonder just what did the SFA board know and when did they know it?

Operational Risk comes in many forms, reputational, organisational, and financial being among the most common. There is an old saying that Project Risk can kill your project, but, Operational Risk can kill your business.

I am left wondering, if the Celtic Board let the matter drop because they believed that the Reputational risk in doing so, was outweighed by the Financial Risk to them, arising from the Organisational Risk to the SFA from pushing the issue to, say CAS. I wonder if the calculation was we may well win, but, the result could well also see the SFA being sanctioned, possibly by a European Club ban.

Having always argued that the rules should be applied without fear or favour, while I have sympathy with the Celtic Board, it might have been better for Scottish Football as a whole if they had pursued it, and then lived with whatever consequences transpired.

Why? Well, because I believe these events set the pattern for what followed. Dealing with the problem then would have been painful, but, not as painful as dealing with the situation they face now may prove to be. (However, there is a bit of hindsight in all of this)

View Comment

CarntynePosted on11:42 am - Oct 19, 2013


fergusslayedtheblues says: (155)
October 19, 2013 at 8:59 am

Just think how much influence a club has to have in a country to have EVERY single news media (stations and press ) to point blank refuse (and on most occasions blatantly lie ) that a liquidated football club is the same club, without one single dissenting voice.
_____________________________________________________

The following from Glenn Gibbons in today’s Scotsman suggests at least one person has broken ranks.

The most ludicrous – indeed, scandalous – point of the indiscretions, and a series of others throughout the short history of The Rangers International Football Club plc. is that no director, from the chairman and chief executive down, appears to have been aware of their illegitimacy, or had the power – or the authority – to prevent them.

View Comment

TailothebankPosted on11:59 am - Oct 19, 2013


If the above SFA email is real…it truly is a despicable communication..
Does anyone know if the perpetrator was removed from office by Peat et al?
If not why not?. it is inconceivable in any modern day organisation that such a communication could be tolerated..this should be media front page stuff!
If my memory serves me right was Dallas not undone at the SFA by some puerile internal email when it went mainstream?l

PS, agree with Finlochs post above…re appreciation from other clubs
..I posted a few weeks ago the CFC AGM resolution was a dam buster..it sure is and glad to the see the big brains on the case big time

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on12:00 pm - Oct 19, 2013


Tif Finn says: (561)

October 19, 2013 at 9:03 am

Just a clarification. The £500k claim was made after the licence was granted and at Checkpoint 3 30th Sept under Article 67. This does not affect the point you or BRTH are making re proof of payment or yours on mendacity. (always wanted to get a Sandersonism in there) 🙂

View Comment

BawsmanPosted on12:01 pm - Oct 19, 2013


My own, and my daughters voting cards, posted off this morning to Celtic for the AGM.

You just never know, this may very well be the pebble in the pool to start the ripple effect.

View Comment

FIFAPosted on12:03 pm - Oct 19, 2013


Have the Easdales been duped by Charles per chance ,there is something not sitting right with their share purchase.

View Comment

Greenock JackPosted on12:10 pm - Oct 19, 2013


Tailothebank
I asked BB if the email was ever made public.
Had it been, I’d have thought it would have already featured on TSFM.

If CQN had the alleged email, I would be interested to know why they didn’t make efforts to make it public beyond CQN.

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on12:11 pm - Oct 19, 2013


I think Barcabhoy’s excellent summary of the situation casts a spotlight on exactly what is needed here. The spin being put on the resolution by those not in support is that it is yet another “kick at Rangers”.

What he resolution could realistically hope to achieve is far more important than anything else. I don’t think that financial redress is realistic – or even desirable. However, I think it is vital to achieve, in order of importance, the following;
a) proper oversight that gives fans the confidence that this scandal (in all of its aspects) can never be repeated, and in order to help achieve this
b) sanctions against those who were complicit, who covered it up, or whose incompetence allowed it t happen.

Proper oversight will never be achieved without effective accountability. As things stand, there is absolutely no barrier to history repeating itself ad nauseam. As things stand, I am convinced that those who conspired to stand Scottish football on its head to assist one member club to the detriment of others, will be encouraged to do exactly the same thing again.

If cleaning house can only be achieved at the expense of UEFA sanctions against the home association, the that is what is required. We have argued the toss with Rangers fans that the club is not blameless, but in fact accountable for the actions of its owners and executives. Likewise, Scottish football is accountable for the transgressions of its members and officials. We can’t argue both sides of the same argument.

View Comment

BigGavPosted on12:12 pm - Oct 19, 2013


Carntyne says:
October 19, 2013 at 11:42 am

The following from Glenn Gibbons in today’s Scotsman suggests at least one person has broken ranks.

The most ludicrous – indeed, scandalous – point of the indiscretions, and a series of others throughout the short history of The Rangers International Football Club plc, is that no director, from the chairman and chief executive down, appears to have been aware of their illegitimacy, or had the power – or the authority – to prevent them.
————————–

However, RIFC plc is not ‘the club’, and it is undeniably true, even to the most blinded Sevconian, that the company has a short history.

While I’m here, congratulations and thanks to BRTH for an excellent post and also to Auldheid and Barcabhoy for their contributions on the topic.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on12:47 pm - Oct 19, 2013


Auldheid says: (975)
October 19, 2013 at 12:00 pm

=============================

Thanks for that.

The bottom line then is that their argument is Rangers stated “We have entered into an arrangement with HMRC in order to repay the outstanding taxes”. This allowed SFA to grant the licence, because otherwise it should have been rejected.

If there was no payment made at that stage, then the only question remaining is whether they were telling the truth when they said they had entered into that arrangement. That is even simpler for the SFA. Provide us with a copy of the agreement between yourselves and HMRC. That would have taken hours, if not minutes to provide.

Given the circumstances, as outlined earlier it is absolutely astonishing that this request for verification was not sought. Whoever made that decision, whether it was dereliction of duty, or deliberate inaction, should be sacked. They are clearly not fit for the post.

That’s if they are still there of course.

View Comment

No1 BobPosted on12:52 pm - Oct 19, 2013


The website scribd is a good source of information. If you haven’t already then you should search it’s database.

I wonder if the SFA recalls this exchange from 07/12/2011:
Ali/Andrew
Further to my discussion yesterday with Andrew on the matter of Rangers FC’s European licence I would like to release the following statement. I believe this will be in the interest of both the club and ourselves and I hope you agree. Please can you confirm that you are happy with the content. If so, I would propose to issue this later today at an agreed time with yourselves.
Thanks Stewart
‘In light of persistent speculation across all media, the Scottish FA would like to clarify the position in regard to Rangers FC’s licence to play in Europe as governed by Article 50 of the UEFA Regulations.
It is noted from the report submitted to the Licensing Committee by Rangers FC’s advisors Grant Thornton UK LLP, dated 30th March 2011,
that: “All the recorded payroll taxes at 31 December 2010 have, according to the accounting records of the Club since that date been paid in full by 31 March 2011, with the exception of the continuing discussion between the Club and HM Revenue and Customs in relation to a potential liability of £2.8m associated with contributions between 1999 and 2003 into a discounted option scheme. These amounts have been provided for in full within the interim financial statements.”
Since the potential liability was under discussion by Rangers FC and HM Revenue & Customs as at 31st March 2011, it could not be considered an overdue payable as defined by Article 50.
We are satisfied that the evidence from all parties complied with Article 50 and, on that basis, a licence was awarded for season 2011-12.
Add editor’s notes. (Include Article 50 here from UEFA Regulations)
Stewart M. Regan
Chief Executive The Scottish F.A.
Craig, however, was not impressed:
It would be crazy for them to put this out. Ali, please call me on this.
Neither was Ramsay:
All
We should put some pressure on the SFA from a high level, from Ali or Andrew to say we do not believe this is a good idea the SFA putting out such as statement. It stirs up the issue again. What they should do is if they get a legitimate media inquiry respond to it by saying there is no issue whatsoever with Rangers licensing arrangement with the SFA.
If they persist they will only cause issues for themselves as much as Rangers.
Ramsay
Ali (no, not that one!) suggests this:
Stewart, Tried to phone you.
Would prefer no comment or the following “We have looked at this matter and there is no issue with the licence granted to Rangers from the SFA. “
I look forward to speaking to you later,
Ali
Ali sorts it out:
All sorted – Held until further notice and I have agreed we will meet Stewart and Campbell for dinner in the next couple of weeks to discuss bigger issues. I also made it clear we were very unhappy with the approach the SFA took last week! Hopefully we can move forward now.
Kind Regards, Ali
A dinner date:
Craig, just to confirm that the dinner with Stewart Regan/Campbell Ogilvie, yourself and Ali will be on the 20th @ 7.00pm.

So, there you have it.
“These amounts have been provided for in full within the interim financial statements.”
The SFA are putting all the blame on Grant Thornton. Their hands are clean.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on12:52 pm - Oct 19, 2013


BigGav says: (46)
October 19, 2013 at 12:12 pm

=================================

RIFC PLC may not be “the club” but the club is approximately 6 months older than the PLC which owns it.

http://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC425159/THE-RANGERS-FOOTBALL-CLUB-LIMITED

Company Register

Status Rating Suspended – Negative Press Event
Registered date 29/05/2012
Company number SC425159
Type Private limited with Share Capital
Country of registration GB
Previous Names

Previous name SEVCO SCOTLAND LIMITED
Date changed 31/07/2012

http://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC437060/RANGERS-INTERNATIONAL-FOOTBALL-CLUB-PLC

Company Register

Status Active – Newly Incorporated
Registered date 16/11/2012
Company number SC437060
Type Public limited with Share Capital
Country of registration GB
Previous Names

Previous name RANGERS FOOTBALL PLC
Date changed 27/11/2012

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on12:58 pm - Oct 19, 2013


“Since the potential liability was under discussion by Rangers FC and HM Revenue & Customs as at 31st March 2011, ”

This is sophistry at it’s best.

If HMRC had raised their assessment then the tax was due, ongoing discussions may have led to HMRC not enforcing the debt, but that does not make it any less of a debt.

That is really the key, whether or not HMRC had raised an assessment for the outstanding tax.

View Comment

SouthernExilePosted on1:53 pm - Oct 19, 2013


No1 Bob says: (12)
October 19, 2013 at 12:52 pm
3 0 Rate This

The website scribd is a good source of information. If you haven’t already then you should search it’s database.
—————————————-
scribd seems good…..this stuff came from charlotte…..is all her stuff there?

View Comment

No1 BobPosted on2:34 pm - Oct 19, 2013


SouthernExile says: (132)
October 19, 2013 at 1:53 pm

Charlotte published under 2 names. CharlotteFakes and CharlotteFakes2.

Both of these accounts have been deleted but like everything on the web information never disappears. I posted a link yesterday to a group of 55 documents in scribd but the moderator did not like it. The post disappeared within 2 minutes!

In the search box type Charlotte and go to collections. Other docs have been reposted under other names. Once you find one document it does lead you to others.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on2:53 pm - Oct 19, 2013


The coronation of Ogilvie, with not a squeak from CFC, still utterly mystifies me.

There are lots of wise words from much cleverer people than me on this thread, but none of those words explains this little enigma- did the Board at CFC not foresee that this exercise in North Korean style realpolitik might disillusion some of their more profitable customers?

On the day that Ogilvie was “re-elected”, the money supply from this old eegit dried up completely after 55 years of uninterrupted and unquestioning support. Am I the only one? Maybe, in which case it doesn’t matter, but I don’t think I’m entirely on my own in this.

I asked the club months ago, as a shareholder and ST holder of many years standing, for an explanation. I haven’t had one, and clearly won’t be getting one.

So good luck at the AGM. If anyone has the time, opportunity and inclination, just ask the Board how it is that Ogilvie was re-elected unopposed. That interests me much more than the RFC licence point, which probably makes me a bitter, petty old man. But until that specific question is answered to my satisfaction, I won’t be back, no matter what the cost to me in emotional terms .

View Comment

SmugasPosted on3:17 pm - Oct 19, 2013


Confined to barracks today so might as well put the time to good use!
Re Barca’s points

1 Is there a concern over the way the issue was handled by the Celtic board ?

No. They appear to have done what they felt they safely could over the issue in the knowledge that there was/still is a baying pack of hounds desperate to blame the ills of others especially in late 2011 at CFC’s door.

2 Is there an expectation that Celtic and other clubs can be financially compensated for the incorrect awarding of the licence to Rangers

No.

3 Is there a desire that those in the SFA who participated in the award are disciplined for failing to deal accurately and possibly fairly with the issue

I’ve said all along CO in particular should have fallen on his sword from his public office for being perceived to be conflicted. Whether he was subsequently proven to be conflicted as Charlotte appears to have is by the by.

4 Do we want a new system of oversight for the awarding of Licences. Both european and national.

I want continued improvement made against a background that if complacency (and I’m being generous there) sets in then the board seats will be reassigned.

To be honest I am less concerned with CFC’s handling of the information at the time – if anything I’m impressed they didn’t fall into an MSM trap whereby they simply have been represented as the petulant child. What interests me is in acknowledging the existence of these concerns in 2011 in 2013 one has to ask the question why nothing was said at key moments between the two dates. I specifically refer to the LNS decision where the isolation of the WTC seemed to fly in the face of Bryson et al. I appreciate PL expressed surprise. I appreciate no-one else said anything. In addition, and probably linked to the above, the uber puzzling complete silence at the CO reaffirmation and again that’s not just aimed at Celtic. Why did CFC (and for that matter RFC according to the Email string above) have concerns in 2011 that didn’t merit mention in early 2013?

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on3:25 pm - Oct 19, 2013


neepheid says: (851)
October 19, 2013 at 2:53 pm

I think your reaction exemplifies the risk that the board accepted, in order to avoid what they felt was a potentially much greater adverse outcome.

However, like everyone else involved in this saga, they underestimated, or more likely never considered the possibility of, the rise of the Internet bampot.

Thanks in no small part to Auldheid and others, that Reputational Risk has not only crystallised into a Reputational Issue, but the other Risks they were so keen to avoid are back in play. As Ramsay said in his email “If they persist they will only cause issues for themselves as much as Rangers”, and no, i don’t think he was referring solely to the SFA.

I don’t think anyone knows where this will all end, but it seems perfectly clear that those running Scottish Football are not part of the problem, they are the problem.

View Comment

john clarkePosted on3:27 pm - Oct 19, 2013


neepheid says: (851)
October 19, 2013 at 2:53 pm
‘..So good luck at the AGM. If anyone has the time, opportunity and inclination, just ask the Board how it is that Ogilvie was re-elected unopposed.’
——
It would surely be better if you attended the AGM personally, and asked the question in the ‘open forum’.

Or, at least, asked why it was that you had not had the courtesy of a reply to your earlier question.

To walk away unsatisfied is not , perhaps, the best response; it leaves you unhappy and dissatisfied , it let’s some underling get away with disrespectful behaviour to a shareholder ( something which Ian Bankier would not tolerate if he knew about it- good business manners cost nothing).

I would suggest that a hand-written letter personally addressed to Ian Bankier and sent by recorded delivery would elicit a courteous reply at least, even if it did not provide you with anything like a full answer to your query.
Better that than to run the risk of becoming ( you are surely not yet) ‘a bitter, petty old man’.

View Comment

slimshady61Posted on3:47 pm - Oct 19, 2013


Good post Brth and excellent comments from Barcabhoy.

The canard that Celtic had been complicit in the licence issue has of course previously been laid to rest.

As for Rangers (RIP), whilst tax on the DOS scheme was due, no one has shown incontrovertible evidence that it was overdue at 30 June 2011 just as no one has shown whether the late Rangers did pay £500,000 on account. Perhaps BDO’s report will eventually furnish some evidence for or against.

On Campbell Ogilvie, my preferred view is that since there is obviously more grief to come over Sevco, Peter Lawwell and co may well have taken the decision to let him twist in the wind until the inevitable happens. No one would want to take over this post with another major insolvency event looming.

E 2nd

There is no point in Celtic pursuing financial compensation because there is

View Comment

Comments are closed.