Thoughts and observations from watching and reading a transcript of Alex Thomson of Channel 4’s Interview with Stewart Regan (CEO of the SFA) Broadcast by Channel 4 on 29 March 2012.
http://www.channel4.com/news/we-run-football-were-not-the-police-sfa-boss
Introduction. I came across the above interview recently and listened to and transcribed it again as it reminded me of questions it raised then that the passage of time since has provided some insight into.
There is a lot to digest so the blog is broken into four sections. Three parts cover the Interview plus what they seem to tell us now, knowing what was not known then viz:
- Why No independent or independent element to the enquiry that became the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission. given the potential extent of the corruption at play?
- Why no effective fit and Proper Person scrutiny and the absence of real governance?
- EBTS and whether they constitute wrong doing and why that mattered so much and still does. plus
- The “hard to not to believe” conclusions about the whole exercise with the benefit of what we ken noo.
There is also an Annex at the end with excerpts from the Lord Nimmo Smith Decision for ease of reference:
The comments (in bold italics) are based on what Regan said then and what we ken noo, either as facts or questions arising from them. It is a long read but hopefully readers will be enticed by this introduction to stay the course.
In the following “SR” is Stewart Regan CEO of the SFA and “AT” is Alex Thomson of Channel 4 News.
No Independent Enquiry?
SR No
AT I’m just curious as to why they wouldn’t. With something as big as this potentially this is the biggest corruption scandal in British sport, which is – a thought – and yet the SPL deem themselves fit to investigate themselves.
SR Well I think you are calling it potentially the biggest corruption case, at this stage there has been no wrongdoing proven. There is an investigation going on
AT But you would accept that potentially, potentially that if guilty there is no question this is the biggest corruption scandal in British sport.
SR There is no wrongdoing as I said at the moment and there is nothing yet that has been established as far as the club registering players without providing the appropriate documentation, so I think it would be wrong to jump to conclusions and even use words like corruption. You know there are a series of issues here. There are some footballing matters which are being dealt through the football authorities and there are tax mattes which are being dealt with through HMRC and there is to be a Tax Tribunal due to be heard as I’m sure you are aware in April.
So even before the investigation got underway Mr Regan was saying that it would be incorrect to assume that any wrong doing took place in terms of the registration process and use of ebts. He later expands on this point in relation to EBTs as a legitimate tax arrangement device. Given that the FTT did not rule until November 2012 that the ebts issued under the Murray Management Group Remuneration Trust (MMGRT) were legal then this stance by Mr Regan appears justifiable at the time of interview – but more on that later.
AT I’m just wondering why at no stage anybody seemed, or perhaps they did, to think we need an independent body coming in this is big this is huge, potentially we need somebody from the outside or we are going simply going to be accused of investigating ourselves.
SR Well I think that might be one for you to ask the Scottish Premier League as far as their Board..
AT Well they appeal to you so I’m asking you.
SR No as you said we are the right of appeal so if the club is concerned with any punishment it has been given well then they can choose to appeal to us. We as a body have the provision in our rules to carry out independent enquiries, indeed we did so very recently by appointing the Right Honourable Lord Nimmo Smith to carry out our own investigation into Rangers and we are part way through disciplinary proceedings and they will be heard on 29 March.
Given that player registrations are ultimately lodged with the SFA where Sandy Bryson has been doing the job for some years, I did wonder why the SFA were not the body taking the lead. They had the expertise on what turned out to be a key issue, the eligibility of players if misregistration occurred. Indeed Sandy Bryson was called in to give a testimony to Lord Nimmo Smith that most folk involved in running a football team from amateur level upwards (as I was) had difficulty accepting. The Bryson interpretation suggested us amateurs had been daft not to take the risk of being found out if we did not register players correctly if only games from the point of discovery risked having results overturned. The Bryson interpretation on eligibility made no sense against that experience and it still does not to football lovers. I’m not sure if the rules have been amended to reflect the Bryson interpretation yet, but cannot see how they can be without removing a major deterrent that I always thought proper registration was there to provide.
The point about their having to be a body of higher appeal sounded plausible then, but could the Court of Arbitration on Sport not have been that body? Or did that risk taking matters out of the SFA’s control even though it would have introduced an element of the independence that Alex Thomson raises in the following paragraphs in his interview?
AT But did anybody at any stage at the SFA say to you I have a concern that we need an independent body, that the SPL can’t and shouldn’t handle this?
SR Well under the governance of football the SPL run the competition
AT I’m not asking, I’m saying did anybody come to you at any stage and say that to you. Anybody?
SR No they didn’t as far as the SPL’s processes is concerned. The SPL ,
AT Never?
It is notable here that Alex Thomson pushes the point about lack of independence, which is where we enter “wit we ken noo territory”.
Given that it is now known that SFA President Campbell Ogilvie sat on the Rangers FC Remunerations Policy Committee in September 1999 where it was decided Discount Option Scheme (DOS) ebts would be used as a matter of club remuneration policy using the Rangers Employee Benefit Trust (REBT).
Given that we know that Campbell Ogilvie instigated the first ebt payment to Craig Moore using the Discount Options Scheme.
Given that Ronald De Boer and Tor Andre Flo had both been paid using the same type of DOS ebt as Moore from 2000 to 2002/03 but accompanied by side letters, later concealed from HMRC in 2005 and of course the SFA from August 2000.
Given that Mr Ogilvie was also in receipt of the later MMGRT ebts disputed by HMRC in the big tax case on which the FTT had still to rule
Given that Mr Regan must have been aware at time of interview that Sherriff Officers had called at Ibrox in August 2011 to collect payment of a tax bill, which means even to a layman that it must have gone past dispute to acceptance of liability and so crystallised sometime after 31st March 2011.
Given that Craig Whyte had already agreed to pay the wee tax bill in his public Takeover statement in early June 2011.
Given that on 7th December 2011 Regan had written to Andrew Dickson at RFC, who had sat on three of the four SFA/UEFA Licensing Committee meetings in 2011, to approve a draft statement by Mr Regan on the SFA’s handling of the UEFA Licence aspect of the wee tax case, which arose as a direct result of the use of the DOS ebts to Flo and De Boer during Dickson’s ongoing tenure at RFC from 1991.
Given that Campbell Ogilvie accompanied Stewart Regan to meet Craig Whyte at the Hotel De Vin on 15th December 2011 as a result of an invite stemming from that consternation causing draft that RFC thought likely to cause problems for the SFA (having agreed before the hotel meeting that no comment should be made on the wee tax case)
Given that the wee tax case was a direct result of those early types of DOS ebts being judged illegal by an FTT considering an appeal by the Aberdeen Asset Management company in 2010.
Given all of these facts, how credible is it that no conversation took place between Regan and Campbell Ogilvie on the requirement for an independent enquiry?
If a conversation did not take place as claimed, the question has to be should it have?
Given the foregoing facts on the early ebts, how credible is it Mr Regan during this interview did not know as a result of his involvement with the overdue payable and the UEFA licence in 2011 of the illegal and therefore wrong doing nature of those early EBTS with side letters concealed from the SFA and HMRC in 2005 just before Mr Ogilvie left RFC?
SR The SPL run, the SPL run the rules of The Scottish Premier League and they apply that. There are a whole host of people raising issues on internet sites and passing comment s about various theories that they have about Scottish football particularly in the West of Scotland. I think it’s important to establish that governance of Scottish football is managed by the appropriate body whether it is the Premier League, The Football League or the overall governing body. So that as far as we are concerned we let the Scottish Premier league manage their own rules and if those rules are then broken and the club is charged they have the right of appeal to us as the Appellant body.
Given all of the now known facts listed above how credible is it that the reason given by Stewart Regan to Alex Thomson for the SFA being the appeal body was indeed the only one?
Given the foregoing how credible is it that Mr Regan was not aware that he was being economical with the truth during his interview or had he indeed been kept in the dark by others in the SFA?
Fit and Proper Person and Absence of Governance
AT Let’s talk about Craig Whyte. Ehm – Presumably when Craig Whyte was mooted as coming in as the new owner – for the grand sum of £1 – for Rangers Football club, presumably the SFA took a keen interest in this and did some kind of due diligence on this man.
SR Well we have under our articles, Article 10.2, we have a process which sets out a number of criteria for what defines a fit and proper person within football. Now as you know we cannot stop people getting involved with a business and we cannot stop people getting involved with a PLC, all we can stop them doing is having an involvement with football, so what we do as part of that process is we ask for a declaration from the Directors of the club that they have a copy of the Articles,, that they have gone through the conditions and criteria within Article 10.2 and they have confirmed to us that they meet those criteria. If subsequently those criteria are breached then of course we take appropriate action.
AT You keep quoting rules back to me that’s not what I’m asking, I’m asking is did the SFA conduct any due diligence on this individual.
SR No we asked for a self-declaration from the Directors of the club and the individual himself.
AT Forgive me that sounds absolutely incredible this is the biggest club in Scotland which has been brought to its knees by a whole range of fiscal mismanagement, it is all on the record and proven. A new man comes in claiming all kinds of things, just like the previous man, and the SFA did not check or do any due diligence whatsoever.
SR That is part of the process of governing football, we
AT That’s, that’s NOT governing football that’s the exact opposite to governing football that’s running away from governing football.
SR No if you let me, if you let me finish my answer the point I am about to make is we govern the entire game from the top of the game down to grass roots. We have changes of Directors we have changes of ownership throughout the course of the year. I’m sure that if we were to spend football’s well earned money on doing investigations into potentially every change of Director, then there would be a lot of unhappy Chairmen out there.
AT You could have easily have googled (?) for free
SR Well we rely on the clubs telling us that the Articles have been complied with and that is the process we undertake.
AT This is extraordinary I say to you again you have years of fiscal mismanagement at Rangers Football Club, a new man comes in you are telling me that nobody at The SFA as much as got on to Google to get any background information nobody did anything ? That is extraordinary.
SR Well you refer to alleged years of financial mismanagement. I think it’s important to separate out the previous regime at Rangers and the new owner.
AT Rangers were a mess financially everybody new that
SR But I think it’s important in the case of the point you are raising regarding the fit and proper person test, to separate out the previous regime from the new owner. The club was in the process of being sold, they were challenging a tax bill that had been challenged by HMRC,* and the club had been sold to a new owner. That new owner had come in, he had purchased the club, the paper work for that sale had gone through and the club had complied with our Articles of Association. We run football we don’t, we are not the police we don’t govern transactions, we don’t govern fitness, we run football and we had asked the club to declare whether or not that person was fit to hold a place in association football. They had gone through the articles they’d signed to say that they had read those articles and that there had been no breaches of any of the points set out there. That included whether a Director had been disqualified. That wasn’t disclosed to us, indeed it did not come out until the BBC did their investigation back in October of last year.
(* note that in spite of all the “givens” listed earlier, Mr Regan fails to distinguish (or appreciate) that there is more than one tax bill at play and the one for the wee tax case was not under challenge or Sherriff Officers would not have called in August 2011 to collect it.)
AT So the BBC did due diligence on fitness (??) not the SFA?
SR No, as I said it came out in October 2010 primarily as a result of a detailed investigation. We then have to respond to potential breaches of our articles and we did that We entered into dialogue with the solicitor who was acting for Mr Whyte and we were in dialogue until February 2011 (?sic) of this year when the club entered administration.
AT What I’m simply asking you to admit here is that the SFA failed and it failed Rangers in its hour of need over Craig Whyte and it failed Scottish football.
SR We didn’t fail.
AT You didn’t do anything, you said you didn’t do anything.
SR We complied with the current processes within our articles. That said I think there are a number of learnings and I think the same goes for football right across the globe. People are coming into football into a multimillion pound business and I think football needs to take a harder look at what could be done differently. We are currently exploring the possibility of carrying out due diligence using the outgoing regime to make sure that there is a full and rigorous research being done before the transaction is allowed to go ahead.
AT Do you feel the need to apologise to Rangers fans?
SR I don’t need to apologise because we complied with our articles. I don’t feel there is a need to apologise whatsoever. I think….
AT You need some new articles then don’t you?
SR Well I think the articles
AT Well let’s unpack this. You said there is no need to apologise because we followed the rule books so that’s all right. So you must therefore admit you need a new rule book.
SR No well I think it’s easy at times to try and look around and find a scapegoat and try and point fingers at where blame is to be apportioned. I think perhaps it might be worth looking at the previous regime who for four years when they said they were selling the club, said that they would sell it and act in the best interests of the club. With that in mind I think the previous regime also have to take some responsibility for selling that club and looking after so called shareholders of Rangers football club and those people who that have put money into the club over the years.
AT ?? (Interrupted)
SR the Scottish FA, as I said have a process, that process has been place for some time. It has worked very very well until now I think there are learnings undoubtably and as I said we will review where we can tighten up as I know is happening across the game right now.
The above segment on Craig Whyte and Fit and Proper Persons is a timely reminder to supporters of all clubs, but particularly of Rangers FC of what happens when those charged with governing Scottish football hide behind the letter of the rules when convenient, rather than apply the true spirit in which those rules were written. It is the approach of The Pharisees to make a wrong , right.
To be fair to the SFA though, I doubt anyone could have imagined the degree of deceit and deception that they had allowed into Scottish football in May 2011 and how useless their rules were as a result, but I am not aware to this day if the SFA have apologised to Scottish football generally and Rangers supporters in particular, not only for failing to protect them from Craig Whyte, but also failing to protect them from the consequences of the foolish financial excesses of Sir David Murray, especially from 2008 when the tax bills in respect of the MMGRT ebts began to arrive at RFC . Some intervention then, assuming something was known by some at the SFA, who also held positions at Rangers, of those huge tax demands, might have cost Rangers three titles from 2009, but what Ranger’s supporter would not give all of that up to protect their club from the fate that the failure of the SFA to govern has caused?
Also to be fair the SFA have changed the rules so that the outgoing regime is responsible for doing due diligence on any new club owners rather than relying on self-certification by the incoming club owner, but we know that did not work particularly well when Rangers Chairman Alistair Johnstone did due diligence on Craig Whyte , but then again Sir David Murray was under pressure to sell and the guy coming in, everyone was told, had wealth off the radar.
The Nature of EBTS.
AT Let’s look at EBTs. Did nobody question ebts in the Scottish game in the English game come to that simply because nobody thought they were illegal in any way and indeed are not illegal in any way if operated correctly? Is it as simple as that?
SR There is nothing wrong with ebts when used correctly and ebts are a way of providing benefits to employees and if managed in a correct manner are perfectly legitimate. I think that the issue that we know is under investigation at the moment by both HMRC as part of the large tax case and the SPL as part of their own investigation into potential no disclosure of side letters is whether or not there has been any wrong doing and I think the issue at hand is that wrongdoing or potential wrongdoing has been discussed with HMRC for some time for several years in fact so we would not get involved in anything that there is no wrongdoing taking place and ebts are, as I said, a legitimate way of doing business when used correctly.
Again taking the “givens” into account, particularly the significant event of Sherriff Officers calling to collect unpaid tax in August 2011 and the logical deduction that the SFA President must have known of the difference between the two types of ebts Rangers used, (and perhaps why they were changed) why the insistence at this point that all the ebts used by Rangers had been used correctly? Mr Regan at the time of the interview was either kept in the dark by his President, given he claims to have spoken to no one about the independence of the enquiry, or being economical with the truth.
The whole of Lord Nimmo Smith’s judgement made months after this interview, where Mr Regan stressed again and again there is no wrongdoing in the use of ebts if arranged correctly (or lawfully) is predicated on all ebts with side letters used by Rangers since 23 November 2011 actually being used correctly and in Lord Nimmo Smiths words on being “themselves not irregular”. (Para 5 of Annex 1). It is almost as if Mr Regan knew the outcome before Lord Nimmo Smith.
(In fact the ebt to Tor Andre Flo had a side letter dated 23 November and it related to a tax arrangement that had not been used correctly (using Regan’s own words) The irregular ebt for Ronald De Boer with a side letter of 30 August was placed beyond the scope of the Commission because in spite of it meeting the criteria specified by Harper MacLeod in March 2012 asking to be provided with ALL ebts and side letters and any other related documentation from July 1998 to date (including the HMRC letter of Feb 2011 that fully demonstrated that those particular ebts under the Rangers Employee Benefit Trust (REBT) were not used correctly) and so were unlawful, NONE of that documentation was provided when requested.
This enabled Lord Nimmo Smith to state in para 107 of his Decision “while there is no question of dishonesty, individual or corporate” which is a statement he could not have made had he had all the requested documentation denied to him either by dishonesty or negligence during the preparation of his Commission.
How would he have had to judge one wonders if deception and dishonesty was indeed the factor we now ken that it is?
What exactly were the consequences of the failure to provide Lord Nimmo Smith with the required documentation?
It is stated in the Decision (Annex 1 para 104) that the Inquiry proceeded on the basis that the EBT arrangements (by which it meant the MGMRT ebts) were “lawful”. As it transpired the outcome of the FTT decision announced in November 2012 was that the MGMRT ebts indeed were (although this is still under appeal by HMRC.)
However, because Lord Nimmo Smith treated the MGMRT and the Earlier Trust (REBT) as one and the same, (para 35 of Decision) 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 REBT were two separate trusts and there was no necessary reason to treat them as one and the same. Had evidence relating to the REBT been produced and examined, the Inquiry could hardly have treated them) as “continuous” or allowed Lord Nimmo Smith to say “we are not aware that they were different trusts“(Annex 1 para 35)
From the Decision (Annex 1 para 40), it would appear that the President of the SFA gave evidence only as to his knowledge of the MGMRT (not the REBT). We know now that the President of the SFA had knowledge of the Earlier Trust (sitting on the RFC remuneration policy committee that agreed to their use in 1999 and indeed was active in its setting up). Why the President failed to volunteer such crucial information is surely something he should now be asked?
By the time of the Inquiry, Rangers FC had already conceded liability in what has become known as “the Wee Tax Case” (which related to the now unlawful REBTs). Having regard to the wording at para 104 of the Decision (that is an echo of what Regan stressed to Alex Thomson about ebts) 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, must be a breach of the rules.
Given the admission of liability in the Wee Tax Case, payments made in respect of the REBT could not be “lawful” (to employ the language used in the Decision) or disputed, but Mr Regan presumably did not enquire too much into the history of the wee tax case before agreeing to talk to Alex Thomson.
It will be obvious from the above that the unlawful nature of REBTs had been masked from SPL lawyers and Lord Nimmo Smith as a result of:-
(a) the failure by the Administrators of Rangers FC to provide the documentation required of them;
(b) the failure of the President of the SFA to provide to the Inquiry his own knowledge of, involvement in, and presumably as a result of it, an appreciation of the differences between the two types of ebts and the consequences thereof for the investigation.
Had the REBT 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 REBT ebts was lawful;
(iv) the “no sporting advantage” decision given in respect of the lawful ebts could not have been applied to unlawful ebts.
The real issue in the case of the unlawful ebts was not one of misregistration (Annex 1 para 104) which in turn justified the no sporting advantage decision in paras 105/106 but of paying players by an unlawful means which “constitutes such a fundamental defect (Annex 1 para 88) that the registration of players paid this way (i.e. unlawfully) must be treated as having been invalid from the outset. “
Had the true nature of these early ebts been known to SPL lawyers the Terms of Reference of the Investigation would have to have addressed the wrong doing that Mr Regan was so keen to argue with Alex Thomson had not actually occurred (long before Lord Nimmo Smith agreed with him) or had President Ogilvie made the distinction in his testimony, it would have been impossible for Sandy Bryson’s to advise as he did regarding the effect on eligibility. He would have to have been asked questions about two types of ebts not one. Finally Lord Nimmo Smith could not have treated both as continuous.
Finally, given this incidence of non-disclosure by the Rangers Administrators (an identifiable trait of RFC dealings with authority from August 2000 to date), it is impossible to see how paragraph 107 (wherein it is stated that there is “no question of dishonesty”) can be allowed to remain unchallenged.
Of course the failure to supply the key evidence could just be an oversight given Rangers Administrators were hardly likely to have established of their own volition the importance of the documents to the enquiry and yet, had they been supplied, the enquiry could not have been based on the defence Stewart Regan was at such pains to stress in his interview with Alex Thomson at a time only 3 months after Mr Regan and Campbell Ogilvie had joined Craig Whyte for dinner as a result of an invite prompted by questions on the SFA UEFA Licence handling of the wee tax case , created by the very same unlawful ebts.
AT But as the governing body why did you not say to Rangers “look guys this this smells really bad, this looks bad you look (and you have admitted you have not paid your tax) you know we can’t do this, we have got to be open and above board, it looks bad.
SR Well think you need to look at what is legal and above board. At the time the club, were in dispute with HMRC. There was a tax case ongoing the new owner was in discussion with HMRC. In fact he has made comments and the club have made comments to that effect and because the amount was not crystallised under UEFA guidelines, whilst ever it’s in dispute it’s not classed as overdue.
AT Sometimes
SR So you need to separate out the licensing requirement, which is what the Licensing Committee did, from the tax that was owed to HMRC which is as we know what is still ongoing.
Mr Regan was not being accurate here. The Big Tax case was in dispute and the bill has not crystallised as a result. However the wee tax case crystallised in mid June 2011 and at 30th June 2011, the UEFA licence checkpoint under Article 66 of UEFA FFP, did not meet the conditions to excuse it as being an overdue payable to HMRC. Quite how the SFA handled the processing of the Article 66 submission from RFC is subject to a resolution asking UEFA to investigate put to the Celtic AGM in November 2013 which is still in progress. As has been mentioned twice before Mr Regan has either been kept in the dark or was being less than honest with Alex Thomson. Interestingly Andrew Dickson who has been at Rangers in various administration and executive capacity since 1991 sat on 3 of the four UEFA Licensing Committee meetings during 2011. He may of course have excused himself from any discussions on this matter as the rules allowed, but was a full explanation why he did so, if indeed he did, offered? Would such an explanation have enlightened Mr Regan of what he was dealing with?
AT Sometimes things can be within the rules but from a PR point of view, indeed from a moral point of view, hate to introduce morality to football but can be the wrong thing to do. You would accept that?
SR Well I think that football around the world is going through a difficult time, clubs are in difficult financial circumstances, not just in Scotland, you look down into England and look at the clubs in Administration at the moment. You know Portsmouth and Port Vale in recent times and I think Plymouth is as well again. As far as that is concerned you know that indicates that clubs are living from hand to mouth and there are deals being done all the time with HMRC, payment plans being agreed. There is huge amounts of debt in football.
AT I’m just inviting you to accept that sometimes things can be within the rules but just look bad because morally, they are bad.
ST I think when taxes aren’t paid ehm VAT in particular, National Insurance Contributions of course that’s bad and I think we accept that and we know that in the current regime there is evidence to suggest that Rangers has not paid its taxes since Mr Whyte took over the club. That’s wrong that is against the spirit of the game and certainly we would look to deal with that and stamp out that type of behaviour which is not acting with integrity.
If Carlsberg did irony!
End of Interview.
The Hard Not to Believe Conclusions
There is always the danger in examining anything of finding what you want to be there rather than what is there and it is a danger any writer has to be aware of, but given the responses from Harper MacLeod on TSFM and the total lack of response from the SPFL and SFA when being informed of the missing evidence along with what has been written here it is hard not to conclude that the Lord Nimmo Smith Inquiry was deliberately set up in such a way as to produce two results
- The minimising of the wrongful behaviour that had taken place from 1999 to 2012 when The Commission sat
- The avoidance of the consequences of admitting that serious wrongdoing in the form of illegal payments had been made via irregular EBTs, which consequently made the players involved ineligible from the outset, making the Bryson ruling inapplicable in those cases with the consequences of that ineligibility on trophies and remuneration won.
The reader will find it hard not to conclude that either
- there was a huge screw up by the SPL lawyers charged to set up the Commission which they might be able to defend
- or
- Vital knowledge was concealed within the SFA itself in order to achieve the above two results and
- This knowledge was deliberately concealed because had it not been The Inquiry could not have come to the conclusion it did on player eligibility, not only because unlawful ebts were used in early instances, but also because the deliberate concealment from HMRC of the side letters to De Boer and Flo, the former also kept from Harper and MacLeod, suggests Rangers knew all along and in 2005 in particular that what they were doing since 2000 was morally wrong and against the spirit of the game. It perhaps also explains why HMRC is determined to push an appeal all the way.
- This failure to supply all documents meant that the line being taken by Mr Regan in March 2012, when the Commission was being set up into the use of ebts and failure to register them with the SFA, came to fulfilment in the Decision of Lord Nimmo Smith himself, achieving the two aims suggested above.
Given that Harper MacLeod have said they passed on to the SFA in September 2014 the evidence kept from them by Rangers Administrators, has Stewart Regan spoken to either Ogilvie or Dickson since then about keeping him in the dark? Or did he know all along?
Of course these hard to believe conclusions could be discounted as delusional ramblings if either the SFA or SPFL were to say they would investigate the evidence kept from Harper MacLeod. It would also help if only one of the thirteen main stream journalists would look at the hard copy of the concealed documents they were provided with, because until someone who values sporting integrity does, the stench of corruption will hang over Scottish football for years to reek out anytime the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission is used as a justification for anything that it contains.
Annex One – Extracts from Lord Nimmo Smith Decision
[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;
Outline of the Scheme
[35] As we have said, a controlling interest in Oldco was held by David Murray through the medium of Murray MHL Limited, part of the Murray Group of companies. Murray Group Management Limited (MGM) provided management services to the companies of the Murray Group. By deed dated 20 April 2001 MGM set up the Murray Group Management Remuneration Trust (the MGMRT). (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.)
[40] Mr Ogilvie learnt about the existence of the MGMRT in about 2001 or 2002, because a contribution was made for his benefit. He understood that this was non-contractual. Although as a result he knew about the existence of the MGMRT, he did not know any details of it. He subsequently became aware, while he remained director of Oldco, that contributions were being made to the MGMRT in respect of players. He assumed that these were made in respect of the players’ playing football, which was the primary function for which they were employed and remunerated. He had no involvement in the organisation or management of Oldco’s contributions to the MGMRT, whether for players or otherwise. He said:
“I assumed that all contributions to the Trust were being made legally, and that any relevant football regulations were being complied with. I do not recall contributions to the Trust being discussed in any detail, if at all, at Board meetings. In any event, Board meetings had become less and less frequent by my later years at Rangers.”
He also said: “Nothing to do with the contributions being made to the Trust fell within the scope of my remit at Rangers”.
However it should be noted that Mr Ogilvie was a member of the board of directors who approved the statutory accounts of Oldco which disclosed very substantial payments made under the EBT arrangements.
[88] In our opinion, this was a correct decision by Mr McKenzie. There is every reason why the rules of the SFA and the SPL relating to registration should be construed and applied consistently with each other. Mr Bryson’s evidence about the position of the SFA in this regard was clear. In our view, the Rules of the SPL, which admit of a construction consistent with those of the SFA, should be given that construction. All parties’ concerned – clubs, players and footballing authorities – should be able to proceed on the faith of an official register. This means that a player’s registration should generally be treated as standing unless and until revoked. There may be extreme cases in which there is such a fundamental defect that the registration of a player must be treated as having been invalid from the outset. But in the kind of situation that we are dealing with here we are satisfied that the registration of the Specified Players with the SPL was valid from the outset, and accordingly that they were eligible to play in official matches. There was therefore no breach of SPL Rule D1.11.
[104] As we have already explained, in our view the purpose of the Rules applicable to Issues 1 to 3 is to promote the sporting integrity of the game. These rules are not designed as any form of financial regulation of football, analogous to the UEFA Financial Fair Play Regulations. Thus it is not the purpose of the Rules to regulate how one football club may seek to gain financial and sporting advantage over others. Obviously, a successful club is able to generate more income from gate money, sponsorship, advertising, sale of branded goods and so on, and is consequently able to offer greater financial rewards to its manager and players, in the hope of even more success. Nor is it 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 Tax Tribunal has held (subject to appeal) that Oldco was acting within the law in setting up and operating the EBT scheme. The SPL presented no argument to challenge the decision of the majority of the Tax Tribunal and Mr McKenzie stated expressly that for all purposes of this Commission’s Inquiry and Determination the SPL accepted that decision as it stood, without regard to any possible appeal by HMRC. Accordingly we proceed on the basis that the EBT arrangements were lawful. What we are concerned with is the fact that the side-letters issued to the Specified Players, in the course of the operation of the EBT scheme, were not disclosed to the SPL and the SFA as required by their respective Rules.
[105] It seems appropriate in the first place to consider whether such breach by non-disclosure conferred any competitive advantage on Rangers FC. Given that we have held that Rangers FC did not breach Rule D1.11 by playing ineligible players, it did not secure any direct competitive advantage in that respect. If the breach of the rules by non-disclosure of the side-letters conferred any competitive advantage, that could only have been an indirect one. Although it is clear to us from Mr Odam’s evidence that Oldco’s failure to disclose the side-letters to the SPL and the SFA was at least partly motivated by a wish not to risk prejudicing the tax advantages of the EBT scheme, we are unable to reach the conclusion that this led to any competitive advantage. There was no evidence before us as to whether any other members of the SPL used similar EBT schemes, or the effect of their doing so. Moreover, we have received no evidence from which we could possibly say that Oldco could not or would not have entered into the EBT arrangements with players if it had been required to comply with the requirement to disclose the arrangements as part of the players’ full financial entitlement or as giving rise to payment to players. It is entirely possible that the EBT arrangements could have been disclosed to the SPL and SFA without prejudicing the argument – accepted by the majority of the Tax Tribunal at paragraph 232 of their decision – that such arrangements, resulting in loans made to the players, did not give rise to payments absolutely or unreservedly held for or to the order of the individual players. On that basis, the EBT arrangements could have been disclosed as contractual arrangements giving rise to a facility for the player to receive loans, and there would have been no breach of the disclosure rules.
[106] We therefore proceed on the basis that the breach of the rules relating to disclosure did not give rise to any sporting advantage, direct or indirect. We do not therefore propose to consider those sanctions which are of a sporting nature.
[107] We nevertheless take a serious view of a breach of rules intended to promote sporting integrity. Greater financial transparency serves to prevent financial irregularities. There is insufficient evidence before us to enable us to draw any conclusion as to exactly how the senior management of Oldco came to the conclusion that the EBT arrangements did not require to be disclosed to the SPL or the SFA. In our view, the apparent assumption both that the side-letter arrangements were entirely discretionary, and that they did not form part of any player’s contractual entitlement, was seriously misconceived. Over the years, the EBT payments disclosed in Oldco’s accounts were very substantial; at their height, during the year to 30 June 2006, they amounted to more than £9 million, against £16.7 million being that year’s figure for wages and salaries. There is no evidence that the Board of Directors of Oldco took any steps to obtain proper external legal or accountancy advice to the Board as to the risks inherent in agreeing to pay players through the EBT arrangements without disclosure to the football authorities. The directors of Oldco must bear a heavy responsibility for this. While there is no question of dishonesty, individual or corporate, we nevertheless take the view that the nondisclosure must be regarded as deliberate, in the sense that a decision was taken that the side letters need not be or should not be disclosed. No steps were taken to check, even on a hypothetical basis, the validity of that assumption with the SPL or the SFA. The evidence of Mr Odam (cited at paragraph [43] above) clearly indicates a view amongst the management of Oldco that it might have been detrimental to the desired tax treatment of the payments being made by Oldco to have disclosed the existence of the side-letters to the football authorities.
Alex Smith in todays Evening Express stating now that rangers have stability he hopes they are promoted ahead of Falkirk. He admits that fans of other teams won’t agree but we must understand that the premier league should only have the big teams. With rangers back European glory will be much more likely blah blah blah.
I’m one of the mugs that has been putting money into the game since 1970 to keep the likes of Smith in employment and they have nothing but contempt for any of us
Pretendygers (related) court cases due some time soon:
FTT appeal by HMRC. Jurisdiction unsure.
Jerome Worthington Ors The Charlotte case Rolls England.
CW himself and ors in Scotland.
Is DK going to add to this already interwoven and complex mess by chipping in his we wont pay we don’t know what we own tuppence worth?
I think the shareholders need to know.
Cluster One says:
March 13, 2015 at 10:19 pm
easyJambo says:
March 13, 2015 at 2:24 pm
Grant Russell @STVGrant 14s14 seconds ago
Rangers’ judicial panel hearing over Mike Ashley’s influence at club has been moved to April 16 at request of club. Was due to be March 16.
————–
also in April will be the SFA meeting to see if king is fit and proper.
could Easter holidays kick these dates further down the road?
12 0 Rate This
==============================================================
I doubt very much if the SFA will be asked to make any ruling on DCK status as a FPP in April.
Before he can be involved as a director or shadow director of the new club, he must be granted leave of the court to re-use (what is for him) a prohibited name. If he does seek leave of the court (and I am not certain he ever will), the liquidators of the old Rangers FC must be notified and given the opportunity to make a representation to that court. I would have thought that this process would take several months and I would be extremely surprised if this process was completed to Mr King’s satisfaction in time for the next SFA board meeting in April.
By contrast, Paul Murray bears no legal impediment in holding a directorship in the new club as his directorship in the old club ended more than a year before it went into liquidation. However, and importantly for Mr King, Paul Murray should still fail the FPP test as the general guide says that 5 years is the relevant period for the SFA.
My best guess is that Mr King will wait to see how the SFA board deal with Mr Murray before he even begins to address the legal obstacle which prevents his involvement in the new club.
If Paul Murray is told that he fails the FPP test and this decision is upheld through the subsequent appeals process, there would be little point in Mr King going to court.
I have a vague suspicion that this precise outcome will be neither surprising nor entirely unwelcome for Mr King. It may be more so to some others who are seeking to prevent the new club from facing the same fate as its predecessor.
I see nothing SFA SPL Dave King related slated for review ergo it will not happen as per usual and his Kingship will continually jet in and out, drop some guff to the PRs and leave (again) ad nausem.
Borrussiabeefburg 4.16
Andrew Dickson. Well spotted. I think we will be hearing more from the man who sat on 3 of the 4 Licensing Committee meetings in 2011.
When it came to RFC did he excuse himself from discussions as rules required which is very convenient as he may have had the sort of information, like the distinction between the early DOS irregular EBTS and the later ones which as you say he benefited from, to inform the Committee. .
His reaction to a proposed draft by Regan to explain the granting of the 2011 licence is quite revealing as are the comments from those to whom it was circulated.
Still he managed to sort things out with Regan before arranging dinner for Regan, Ogilvie and Craig Whyte.
Is he on the new TRFC Board? Is he fit and proper?
stewartj84 says:
March 13, 2015 at 4:49 pm
Not being an accountant or of that kind of mind I avoided trying to work out exactly how FFP would apply in Scotland.
If as you say the debt has to be less than £5M before the rules kick in then it should have some controlling impact on TRFCs dreams of eurogeld.
I would still like a domestic version scaled to Scottish football economics.
Bruce Curry
Thanks for the kind words. I got your PM just before I dashed out to the CQN fund raising dinner at Celtic Park.
We were reminded there of the good use the money raised last March was put to. Quite inspiring.
I’ll pick up on your PM later today.
Back in the early RTC blog days, myself and another RTC poster (Nighterror I think his posting name was) engaged with Chris on his website – we were trying to encourage him to read and debate the latest RTC disclosures – asides from being dismissed out of hand as nutters, his main argument against RTC was that he/she was anonymous and afraid to use a real name like he was doing and until that happened, he would not have any comment – we were then blocked from further discussions with him! Irony is he and others spent a lot of time and effort trying to “out” RTC – and one incident with someone on a bus going to East Kilbride tax office reading the RTC blog caused them to post his name and photo as the RTC spy – which of course was nonsense. Ironic that his dream job crumbled due to the lack of anonymity he decried in others on his website – including Imran posting on his website allegedly using a posting name.
The real issue lies with the folks who put him in the position – DK seems not to have been prepared at all for the tasks on hand given that he had at least a week since his declared landslide to have everything lined up – finance, AIM nomad, board members and a finance plan – but instead he “jetted” (@SMSM – as RRM don’t fly) back to South Africa to leave Paul Murray in charge. Strange!
Ends
Strange. Contact numbers are the same….
For further information please contact:
Rangers International Football Club plc
Tel: 020 7148 6143
Paul Murray
Newgate
Tel: 020 7148 6143
Roddy Watt / Ed Treadwell
Nothing against Scott Brown or any other player having a night out on the lash, as long as we all just sit back and accept that if that’s the way it is in Scotland don’t waste hours of our lives complaining about the lack of success on the euro/world stage at club and national level.
The Exiled Celt says:
March 14, 2015 at 6:20 am
===============================
Back in the day I actually bought newspapers, my Sunday choice was Scotland on Sunday. That was until they handed a column to Chris Graham for a few weeks, which contained some stuff more suited to a fans website or a fanzine. I wrote to the Editor to explain why I was stopping the paper and received no reply. The fact Chris Graham, despite his social media activity, was so indulged by the Scottish media tells me everything I need to know. It will be interesting to see if they continue to fawn over him. I would not be at all surprised.
Freedom of speech is one thing, but it comes with a responsibility. As for the media, balanced reporting is something they really should try from time to time. No fan of any other club is ever deemed worthy by them – bizarre!
easyJambo says:
March 13, 2015 at 2:24 pm
Grant Russell @STVGrant 14s14 seconds ago
Rangers’ judicial panel hearing over Mike Ashley’s influence at club has been moved to April 16 at request of club.
——————————————–
That’s the month and day for the hearing covered…any confirmation if the year was specified as well?
HirsutePursuit says:
March 14, 2015 at 12:05 am
Before he can be involved as a director or shadow director of the new club, he must be granted leave of the court to re-use (what is for him) a prohibited name.
———————————————————-
There is a much quicker, much simpler and totally non-problematic route.
All that needs done is to change the name of RIFC Plc to something which doesn’t have ‘Rangers’ in it.
And if the company is going to be delisted then it could well be the plan is to turn it back into a private limited company anyway with the appropriate anodyne name.
Perhaps this has always been the plan although we obviously can’t be sure how far back the blueprint was drafted.
TRFCL would keep its name and DK wouldn’t be a director of it until the 5 years were up.
What is it another two years to go? Considering the things that happen day to day at Ibrox that’s a helluva long time and a lot longer than a week in politics.
We could well have a change in Monarch within two years – I should point out that Lizzie will still be there IMO 😆
At what point does the SFA/SPFL accept that the ‘saving’ of an Ibrox club at all costs is NOT in the best interests of Scottish football ?
In the absence of a spendthrift, thick, billionaire struck down with ‘Rangersitis’, everyone knows that the numbers simply don’t stack up.
The idea that the ‘Rangers’ brand is now toxic to Scottish football, is IMO, an irrefutable fact.
The idea that there is a majority of ‘Rangers’ supporters who are not only disconnected from Scottish football, but reality too, is an irrefutable fact.
The idea that the governing bodies of the SFA and SPFL choose to focus on ‘restoring Rangers to its rightful place’ is both abhorrent and short sighted.
If TRFC was a ‘normal’ company it would have been objectively terminated long before now.
But the real scandal is that all the other 41 senior Scottish clubs, the junior clubs, amateur clubs and juvenile clubs are tainted by the presence of a thoroughly disreputable club from Govan.
The ‘guardians’ of the beautiful game at Hampden should be ashamed of themselves, [I know].
I would prefer TRFC to disappear permanently, not because I dislike the club, but because I have a higher regard for the rest of Scottish football – at all levels.
wottpi says:
March 14, 2015 at 8:13 am
Nothing against Scott Brown or any other player having a night out on the lash, as long as we all just sit back and accept that if that’s the way it is in Scotland don’t waste hours of our lives complaining about the lack of success on the euro/world stage at club and national level.
================================================
Totally agree wottpi.
If any athlete was ‘blootered’ in their off season it would still be a bit off, but not a big deal.
But a few days before a major final ?!
Poor judgement.
easyJambo says:
March 13, 2015 at 2:24 pm
Grant Russell @STVGrant 14s14 seconds ago
Rangers’ judicial panel hearing over Mike Ashley’s influence at club has been moved to April 16 at request of club.
==========================================================
A result of regime change at Ibrox
Unsurprising that new board should request, necessary, legally, for SFA to accept the request I would have thought.
Very much a non story.
RyanGosling says:
March 13, 2015 at 9:21 pm
TSFM,
I don’t really know what you’re talking about. The forum is traditionally quite quiet late at weekend nights. Therefore feeding trolls at least guarantees some activity!
Trolls are actually quite useful I think. If you get someone appearing who just wants to argue with everything you say, it gives you a chance to practice your arguments. Probably how most of our posters feel about me!
——————————————————-
Trolls IMO often appear on a blog for a purpose which can be widely varied depending on which agenda they are pushing.
Some simply just feed off any aggro they create and others appear to want to waste the time and energy of other posters.
They can be an indicator of things that are emerging []
However most IMO seem to be using old, well-worn and rehearsed boiler-plate scripts with nothing new to tickle the search for knowledge for its own sake.
I suppose it could be argued that, in a way, we are all individually trolls but we can coalesce into significant groupings which can start to form the ethos and direction of a blog.
Those who don’t agree remain trolls for better or ill 😉
But I think you actually identify the most negative aspect of a troll viz: ‘Anyone who wants to argue with everything you say’. I invariably find they are unable to debate effectively and simply chant their mantra incessantly.
They have no wish to learn from discussion and possibly even alter their position and that for me is proof that they have little or nothing positive to give to any blog.
Sometimes you have to engage with the cleverer ones to spot that but it never takes that long because of their inflexibility.
Eco,
Blue pitch holdings?
“I personally wouldn’t go near AIM with a fifty foot bargepole.”
at 51ft you should be fine. or don’t take the pole?
Decision time next week for the new board on where the immediate cash needs of the business will be sourced.
From the statement of 3rd March:
How many days since Lambias asked ‘Where’s your money Mr King…where’s your Nomad?’
The silence of the media lambs is deafening.
With another announcement to the stock exchange re. Chris Graham from the poweres that be down ibrox way.
Are the powers that be down ibrox way keeping the folk on the stock exchange busy in a job.
Or do the folk at the stock exchange sigh. Not another blinking announcement from the powers that be from ibrox.
The do after all look as if they have an announcement every 10 min. would this amount of announcements look to anyone in the stock exchange as a strange and worring thing for a new company, or is it the norm?
Cluster One says:
March 14, 2015 at 12:53 pm
That there is no sign of a NOMAD being appointed -> share suspension lifted, says it all really.
AIM is the is the dodgy casino you stagger into at 3am, barely able to say your name, hoping for a free sandwich, that you leave at dawn potless
Cluster One says:
March 14, 2015 at 12:53 pm
With another announcement to the stock exchange re. Chris Graham from the poweres that be down ibrox way.
Are the powers that be down ibrox way keeping the folk on the stock exchange busy in a job.
Or do the folk at the stock exchange sigh. Not another blinking announcement from the powers that be from ibrox.
The do after all look as if they have an announcement every 10 min. would this amount of announcements look to anyone in the stock exchange as a strange and worring thing for a new company, or is it the norm?
—————————————
World Record………..probably :irony:
Cluster One says:
March 14, 2015 at 12:53 pm
With another announcement to the stock exchange re. Chris Graham from the poweres that be down ibrox way.
Are the powers that be down ibrox way keeping the folk on the stock exchange busy in a job.
Or do the folk at the stock exchange sigh. Not another blinking announcement from the powers that be from ibrox.
The do after all look as if they have an announcement every 10 min. would this amount of announcements look to anyone in the stock exchange as a strange and worring thing for a new company, or is it the norm?
=========================================
The problem is that they are not “the powers that be”, they are in fact “the powerless that be”.
The good ship Rangers Group is now drifting rudderless in an ocean of unresolved issues, with DK having jetted off into the sunset and MA sitting just over the horizon letting them stew in the juices of their self-inflicted “RRM landslide”.
The SMcC squirrel changes nothing.
Why is the MSM still not asking DK the question that they should have been asking months ago, where’s the money, Dave?
The Cat NR1 says:
March 14, 2015 at 1:53 pm
Why is the MSM still not asking DK the question that they should have been asking months ago, where’s the money, Dave?
————————————-
I can’t remember which of them it was, but one of the SMSM papers last week published a list of questions that would need to be answered once King had ascended to his place atop the pile. There was some comment (including from me) as to why the journalist was not asking the questions before King’s coronation. As King is now in place as the apparent head honcho, I wonder if the same paper has followed up, and will shortly be publishing King’s responses.
Smugas says:
March 14, 2015 at 9:58 am
Eco,
Blue pitch holdings?
————————————————-
Sorry Smugas – I’m not with you.
Back to the header post.
A draft 5 way agreement document has been published that indicated that Rangers were to be stripped of titles and cups as a result of their misregistration offences.
Third page down on the right hand side of this link where paragraph is highlighted.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8029/8017271667_d0ccc1340f_o.jpg
From Auldheid’s header blog (though I think the hotel in question might have been Hotel Du Vin, previously called 1 Devonshire Gardens).
We know Craig Whyte had a predisposition for discreetly recording meetings he attended. It is reasonable conjecture to suggest that he may have audio from this meeting also. The potential reputational damage for the SFA and its employees from details of private discussions with a prominent and distressed member club being made public is difficult to assess. However it might be so substantial that to avert such a calamity the level of compromise introduced might explain the volte face witnessed.
We went from title and cup stripping to ‘no sporting advantage’ and a £250,000 fine which I’m not sure was ever paid. What else could explain such a turn of events? Have the governing authorities been so acutely compromised that they are actually little more than administrators of the game and enablers of Rangers return to their rightful place? If this was the case, we no longer have a sport worthy of the name.
Are Rangers so morally bereft that obtaining victory in a situation where all measures, legitimate and corrupt, have been employed to enable such a victory will be greeted as a triumph?
We already know that old Rangers were indeed willing to circumvent all manner of rules to retain their prominence. It has long been alluded that the new version of Rangers has been unable to break old habits.
Where is the dignity? It is an complete farce and deserving of utter ridicule.
I stepped away from the blog for a few weeks as I felt it was unable to escape its Rangers-centric orbit yet as soon as I return I find myself drawn to the same outlook like a moth to a candle. Is this because I am so weak willed and simple minded that I cannot think for myself? Or is it because the conclusions are so stark and obvious that not to call them out for what they are is merely to continuously stumble over the enormous elephant in the room?
The lie is so enormous that it is difficult to believe that anyone could sink so low as to perpetuate it. Yet that appears to be exactly what has happened. Scottish Football has been pawned in an attempt to resurrect the reputation of one prominent club. I doubt the price of its redemption will ever be recompensed.
Former Rangers Director Hugh Adam at least had the moral fibre to recognise right from wrong and was willing to state this publicly. Never mind the real Rangers men that failed to save their club, what about the real Rangers men that would be happy to sit atop a mound of utter corruption and turpitude. Is there not one sinew of decency remaining that might tweak their conscious into a response?
Somebody needs to get a grip here. This way lies only madness.
In the mode of the current internet psyche of revelling in one’s own conceit, I thought I’d check out my last line to see if I had inadvertently quoted someone. The results of the Google research were very interesting. I think perhaps the human subconscious is capable of making all sorts of connections that our conscious mind would find impossible. Then again it might all be co-incidence.
http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/that-way-madness-lies
My recollection of King Lear is thin even though I have read it two or three times. The explanation of the quote in the above link advises that it was Lear’s offhand treatment of his daughters that caused them to rebel his authority. I can read Lear as being Scottish Football, cast out into a storm by Regan and Goneril. The old King dies broken hearted having intially ruled wisely and with great respect. Perhaps like Lear, Scottish Football attained a prominence that could not be sustained and his innate character flaw was that Lear could not recognise this. His daughter Cordelia, who possessed his more appealing attributes, was rejected for telling too stark a truth. Her scheming sisters eventually brought about the ruin of his kingdom I suspect.
A bit off topic but the Bard has long been revered for his ability to provide insights into the human condition.
RyanGosling says:
March 13, 2015 at 7:19 pm
——————
Ryan,
The Barca players are model professionals. They are however not trappist monks. I have seen a number of the players who have had more than a few too many . This is with the permission of the club as they are aware of the pressures of the job. Blowing off steam is a necessary release on occasion. The issue is how you conduct yourself if you’ve had a few too many. Brown didn’t appear to do anything OTT .
Elite athletes have a recovery time which is much quicker than normal folks. So i I agree the whole thing is very much a non story
Castofthousands says:
March 14, 2015 at 2:46 pm (Edit)
Thanks. Hotel name rectified.
Castofthousands
On your main point about what is holding the truth back this is the advice from a media house perspective on receipt of that consternation causing draft by Regan.
” We should put some pressure on the SFA from a high level, from Ali [Russell] or Andrew [Dickson] 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
Its all in the Timeline sent to BDO.
PS The same Andrew Dickson mentioned earlier by borrussiabeefburger
Barcabhoy says:
March 14, 2015 at 3:20 pm
The picure I saw of Brown wasn’t very flattering but it did make me question what sort of sad individual would lower themselves to take a ‘photo of someone in such a state? That person should be embarrassed. Back to Cowdenbeath now!
Comments on the BBC’s standards of reporting receive a mixed reception on here, but I do feel compelled to comment again.
The standard of reporting from Ibrox today has been appalling, and in my view not justifiable. Unsurprisingly it is Chick Young and his reporting would be far more at home on the partisan Rangers TV commentary. Given a stranger may have thought Rangers had taken the lead in the 9th minute against Barcelona, it is strange how such a ‘reborn’ team are sitting at 1-1 at half time at home against the bottom club. This is not a go at Rangers, and they may well go on to win the game, but I do feel moved to comment that public money is funding very biased reporting. The BBC need to do better.
Prohibby says:
March 14, 2015 at 4:06 pm
Barcabhoy says:
March 14, 2015 at 3:20 pm
The picure I saw of Brown wasn’t very flattering but it did make me question what sort of sad individual would lower themselves to take a ‘photo of someone in such a state? That person should be embarrassed. Back to Cowdenbeath now!
===============================
I think the really sad ones are the Sun for making it front page news, and those ridiculous media commentators who have somehow become a moral compass for us all.
PS I see your team is doing well at half time. Big Stubbsy is turning things around well.
Eco
The suggestion of blue pitch holdings was in response to your comment of 8.59am
I always felt king supposedly keeping his nose clean mid tax case couldn’t resist the ironically titled anonymous investor.
Tbc I have nothing to back this up, and king hardly has exclusivity on irony in this affair.
upthehoops says:
March 14, 2015 at 4:13 pm
Prohibby says:
March 14, 2015 at 4:06 pm
Barcabhoy says:
March 14, 2015 at 3:20 pm
……
PS I see your team is doing well at half time. Big Stubbsy is turning things around well.
……..
Another 3 points earned with a fairly competent performance under not very favourable conditions. Stubbs is doing well, I think. He has built well with the limited funds available to him and brought confidence back to E.R. Still a work in progress though!
Guys. Give it a rest. They don’t show boards in the championship and Dallas also chopped off an RFC winner. Tiresome.
One of the very few people to have been involved in The Rangers and make an exit with any real ‘dignity’ intact has been Kenny McDowall.
He struck me as a very honest person who got trapped in a very awkward position, following the sharp exit of the millionaire Mr McCoist.
I don’t think it was a fair reflection on his abilities that he was forced to accept an awful squad of players and be under immense pressure to turn things around.
He is one of the very few people in this pantomime that I hope gets fairly compensated for his loss of position. I also hope he manages to find a job that he enjoys.
Todays reporting from Clyde SSB reminded me of a Rangers supporter phoning in from Australia delighted at the arrival of Dave King.
It prompted this Tweet from me to SSB today.
“The reality of Rangers current situation is on the park. There is no magic wand. No wizard of Oz.”
I think that reality is starting to sink home with the pundits as well and one would hope the SFA/SPFL.
There is an opportunity for a new beginning at Ibrox and it should start with a bit of honesty about what brought them to this pass.
However you simply cannot fix a problem with the same thinking that created it, yet that seems to be the chosen path.
That thinking needs exposed to the useful thoughts expressed here and in doing so new ideas and ways of seeing reality can get fertilised.
The game may have lost x thousand supporters, that is reality to be faced as most clubs have, why not TRFC? It is staring them in the face.
Nuclear Sheep says:
March 14, 2015 at 6:28 pm
I haven’t seen any details of KMcD’s leaving, NS. All I’ve read is that he has left. Whether that means he has gone on gardening leave like AMcC, or has walked without receiving a payment I simply don’t know. As a result, I’m not sure why you think he has left with dignity.
I can’t see that anyone would leave a well paid job without some form of compensation, but equally I don’t think TRFC can afford to give him a payoff – if they did, I’m sure it would have been reported loudly, so I believe he has been put on gardening leave while being paid just like AMcC, who hasn’t exactly been lauded as ‘dignified’ either here or on Rangers sites. If you’ve seen a report that explains your view of him leaving in a dignified manner, please post it.
Btw I’m not for a minute suggesting KMcD isn’t dignified, just that I haven’t seen anything reported that suggests he is doing anything different from AMcC.
Barcabhoy says:
March 14, 2015 at 3:20 pm
The issue is how you conduct yourself if you’ve had a few too many. Brown didn’t appear to do anything OTT .
===================================================
Barca, I hear what your saying, and I’m having to rely on the accuracy of the Sun report (not something I’m comfortable with), but footballers staggering around seedy strip clubs are (imo) OTT.
Not I think acceptable behaviour in a game where Neanderthal attitudes towards women are all too often in evidence.
I assume the absence of denial wrt the context of his wee bender speaks volumes.
A sad and disappointing episode that speaks to much that is wrong with Scottish football and its so called professionalism.
Smugas says:
March 14, 2015 at 4:55 pm
Eco
The suggestion of blue pitch holdings was in response to your comment of 8.59am
—————————————————————-
OK I get it now 😀
It’s possible DK could be involved with BPH but on balance I don’t think he is.
But the SFA should know because they carried out an investigation in 2012 into who the mystery investors were.
I’ll try to stop laughing at the SFA from the cheap seats in the Gods 😆
parttimearab says:
March 14, 2015 at 8:22 pm
Barca, I hear what your saying, and I’m having to rely on the accuracy of the Sun report (not something I’m comfortable with), but footballers staggering around seedy strip clubs are (imo) OTT.
Not I think acceptable behaviour in a game where Neanderthal attitudes towards women are all too often in evidence.
I assume the absence of denial wrt the context of his wee bender speaks volumes.
A sad and disappointing episode that speaks to much that is wrong with Scottish football and its so called professionalism.
————————————————————-
I have posted earlier at length on what I think about the incident and feel no need to repeat it.
I don’t actually care about why people go to a strip club whether they be a football player or anyone else. I actually know women who go to strip clubs.
I also know a helluva lot more women who go to watch male strippers. It’s actually known as freedom of choice.
As to relying on the accuracy of anything the SUN states as evidence then I’m proud to be with the whole of Liverpool on that one.
WRT absence of denial I would reckon Celtic as a club have a lot more important matters to deal with at this stage like 3 games against Dundee United.
That is the priority and not what Scott Brown decides to do in his spare time and apparently without breaking any law or even club rule. OK so he made an ass of himself apparently – so what? I believe he’s human. Although I expect players who have to face him have a reasonable argument in dispuiting that.
I think it’s also important to look at the pics and discussion taking place on Celtic sites comparing the pics taken of SB at Hampden on Monday and the pic used in the SUN. Many have wondered if he was wearing a wig.
What I do know for a fact is the SUN is capable of doing anything for a story and I mean anything and it always has been.
Silence from Celtic at the moment doen’t necessarily mean that action won’t follow in the near future. We’ll see.
If Brown got pissed knowing he had a day off next day – what is the problem? I don’t want the guy leading the line at Celtic to be a cypher. I want a blood and guts human being who will give his all on the field of play. I expect him to do that tomorrow and in the next two important matches for the club.
And it has to be said in his defence – he didn’t have any chips 🙄
Off to hampden tomorrow for the first time in ages as I hate the soulless place. Bit of a last minute decision, but managed to get a ticket.
Looking forward to what promises to be a decent game. I hope I’m no doon the front!!
On that terrible chap, Scott Broon, alledged to have
beeen ‘staggering’ around ‘Seedy’ strip clubs now, no less. They must be worse than the non-seedy ones, eh?
If he goes on to play a blinder as has been suggested, I wouldn’t put it past the Sun, etc to try and claim the credit. You couldnae mark their necks with a blowtorch!
Hope it’s a game to remember – for all the right reasons!
Regarding the true ownership of Blue Pitch (and Margarita), the new Board at Ibrox will by now surely be in possession of the full facts. The fans have been promised a new era of complete transparency. So how about it, Mr Murray (P)?
upthehoops says:
March 14, 2015 at 4:09 pm
Comments on the BBC’s standards of reporting receive a mixed reception on here, but I do feel compelled to comment again.
The standard of reporting from Ibrox today has been appalling, and in my view not justifiable. Unsurprisingly it is Chick Young and his reporting would be far more at home on the partisan Rangers TV commentary.
——————————————————————-
Well there is a spare blazer up for grabs 😆
Chick has always been regarded as a laughing-stock by his fellow sports hacks. Real journalists simply ignore him although to be fair they are a dying breed in the SMSM.
Every court needs a jester although it’s unusual for them to be paid maundy money from the public purse.
neepheid says:
March 14, 2015 at 9:09 pm
Regarding the true ownership of Blue Pitch (and Margarita), the new Board at Ibrox will by now surely be in possession of the full facts.
——————————————————————-
The only person who might know the answer is CG and even that is problematic because his info could well be out of date. Investors in these kind of ‘vehicles’ often change.
Rangers as a commpany is not alone in not having a clue as to the actual identity of many of its investors.
I even doubt if Easdale – who wielded the proxy vote for them – knows who the individual investors are. he will have received his instructions from ‘front men’ IMO and not the actual investors.
I could be wrong but I doubt it.
OK – off to bed as I’ve got a big and heavy day tomorrow. I’ll be the guy in the SUN totally rat-assed in the Gallowgate clutching my fish supper: Win, Lose or Draw 😆
ecobhoy says:
March 14, 2015 at 9:30 pm
Just dinnae try mooching free sannies at the casino!
Today I have been watching Jerry Maguire.
Show me the NOMAD.
Interesting tweet? Onerous contracts?
ibroxnoise.co.uk/2015/03/why-lee-mcculloch-always-plays.html?m=1 …
I note that the BBC report has rthe crowd at Ibrox as 35066. Not much of an uplift in crowd or performance on the park. Still choppy waters ahead on all fronts down Govan way.
ecobhoy says:
March 14, 2015 at 9:19 pm
I even doubt if Easdale – who wielded the proxy vote for them – knows who the individual investors are. he will have received his instructions from ‘front men’ IMO and not the actual investors.
=====================
That is theoretically possible, but I think it is unlikely that Easdale would wield the proxies without having any idea who he was acting on behalf of. I suppose the obvious link man between Easdale and BP/MH was Charles Green. I assume Green told Easdale some story about the owners of BP/MH, but then Green has been prone to “inaccuracies” at times. However Easdale is now history.
What the current Board will have access to is the Pinsent Mason report, which should certainly have investigated the beneficial ownership of all significant share blocks- they charged plenty for their work and have a good reputation. The Board should also have access to whatever was provided to the SFA in 2012 regarding ownership of Sevco.
Wottpi,
35,066 is a massive uplift on c. 12,000 who were attending a couple of weeks ago.
I’m also pretty sure that if you offered a crowd of 35,066 at a lower tier home game to any other club in the country bar one they’d bite your hand off for it.
http://t.co/m7afBvJhk1
Coincidentally, I just noticed this article on Ibrox Noise. The title is “Why Lee McCulloch Always Plays” Here’s an extract-
Interesting if true, but I have no way of verifying any of it. However it does take the notion of “onerous contracts” to a whole new level. Imagine as manager being forced to play every week. I’m starting to feel sorry for McCoist- well, OK, maybe not.
jean7brodie says:
March 14, 2015 at 10:22 pm
Interesting tweet? Onerous contracts?
======================================
Good spot Jean and if accurate very interesting.
Wrt the board ‘tweaking’ the contracts as suggested in the article they may be able to drop the player but would presumably have to pay them in full if fit and available for selection.
Would help McColl but not the finances.
RyanGosling says:
March 14, 2015 at 10:39 pm
That Ryan, is a perfectly fair & accurate statement.
As for the contracts, well, I’m enjoying Better Call Saul at the moment!
“neepheid says:Interesting if true, but I have no way of verifying any of it. However it does take the notion of “onerous contracts” to a whole new level. Imagine as manager being forced to play every week. I’m starting to feel sorry for McCoist- well, OK, maybe not.”
He certainly didn’t get it inserted into his old contract when he tuped over. In October 12′ he was given a new contract for less money but a longer timeframe as it was expiring that season. He might have got it inserted in that contract though.
Also I recall some discussion in the past wrt the onerous contract and what assets they could relate to.
I don’t think anyone came up with player contracts.
Makes you wonder what other creative gems are still to be uncovered.
Lucky you Scapaflow. Having been utterly obsessed with Breaking Bad I now live in an area with terrible broadband coverage so can’t get netflix therefore can’t watch Better Call Saul. You don’t know how lucky you are!
RyanGosling says:
March 14, 2015 at 11:16 pm
Try one of the “ar jim lad” places 😉
RyanGosling says:
March 14, 2015 at 10:39 pm
Can’t argue with that. If you have seen some of my previous posts I have long said that all clubs bar one in Scotland would love the number of fans and the potential income that can be generated down Govan way.
However that is not what all the hubris was about last week. This was to be the return to the goodv old days of a full 51k stadium and millions coming into the coffers. A show of strength that all was OK now Real Rangers Men were in charge. As discussed even though the crowd mid week was 35k some folks were exaggerating the attendance and predicting 40k to 50k today.
Well it didn’t happen. Folks have gotten out of the habit and others don’t like the product on the park.
Every little helps but there is a long way to go.
RyanGosling says:
March 14, 2015 at 11:16 pm
To get the stadium full, will require uniting the fans behind the current regime, which among other things will require improving the product on the park.
Its one of those chicken and egg things isn’t it?
wottpi@12.21a.m
scapaflow@12.30 a.m
………..
And, of course, there will be many who know that, despite the constant thrusting and pushing and brainwashing attempts by the ‘Authorities”’ and those many SMSM hacks who are essentially liars,to stand truth on its head and foster the Big Lie , that the Rangers of their fathers and grandfathers and its sporting achievements died, and that what now claims to be ‘Rangers’ is only a make-believe simulacrum.
RyanGosling says:
March 14, 2015 at 10:39 pm
Wottpi,
35,066 is a massive uplift on c. 12,000 who were attending a couple of weeks ago.
I’m also pretty sure that if you offered a crowd of 35,066 at a lower tier home game to any other club in the country bar one they’d bite your hand off for it.
__________________________________________
erm… yes and no.
I’d rather send 2000 home delighted than 35000 in a stinking huff, truth be told.
In the natural order of things football would be a meritocracy not a democracy.
But SFA seem to think it is about bums on seats and are happy to throw away any rule book to appease the mob, however poorly said mob seem to be upholding the ideals of the game.
Not surprising, given that the SFA and the baying mob are – it seems- one and the same.
From the outside at least!
RyanGosling says:
March 14, 2015 at 10:39 pm
Wottpi,
35,066 is a massive uplift on c. 12,000 who were attending a couple of weeks ago.
I’m also pretty sure that if you offered a crowd of 35,066 at a lower tier home game to any other club in the country bar one they’d bite your hand off for it.
28 12 Rate This
_____________________________________________________
Come now gents! You are being churlish. The gentleman in questions was obviously upset and emotional.
Afterall, his beloved St. Mirren lost today !
Tartanwulver says:
March 14, 2015 at 2:01 pm
The Cat NR1 says:
March 14, 2015 at 1:53 pm
Why is the MSM still not asking DK the question that they should have been asking months ago, where’s the money, Dave?
_____________________________________________________
Keep up!
The can’t talk when their mouths are full!
:slamb: :slamb: :slamb: :slamb: :slamb: :slamb: :slamb: :slamb: :irony:
Another two points gone. The place up for grabs is getting further and further away. Hibs are fairly revving their motor, Hearts are beyond catching and that new team are stuttering like an old jalopy. Bleeding cash at an alarming rate, the only solution the fans see is DK pumping in millions.
Hearts and to a lesser degree Hibs, have shown how it should be done. Gretna imploded with an over reliance on a sugar daddy as did Rangers, sugar daddy being the bank aka, Gavin Masterton. Do the board actually believe that they should be a ‘special case? If this is the logic within the walls at Ibrox, then the sooner they’re gone, the better it will be for all football fans.
Hasn’t Mike Ashley kept his own counsel in the past week. I would expect a dagger through T3Bs heart any day now. After all, it was one of his loanees who secured that valuable point yesterday. It ain’t over yet as far as MA is concerned, I’d bet my house on it.
Better Call Saul’s main character sums up the way the fans have been feeling down Govan way the last 10 days
Saul Goodman
Sunderland fans not at all happy with their lot,scarf and season books being thrown at the dug out,wouldn’t happen here,would it!!!
From today’s Observer “said and done”
Cameo of the week
6: Days between new Rangers director Chris Graham predicting “as far as the boardroom is concerned, the turmoil is over”, and resigning for tweeting a picture of the prophet Muhammad performing a sex act on Jar Jar Binks.
• Owner Dave King’s week-one pledge to fans, before the reshaped board’s early setback: a focus on long-term credibility. “It’s not just a question of plugging a hole over the next couple of weeks. That’s the easy part.”
Auldheid says:
March 14, 2015 at 7:37 pm
Todays reporting from Clyde SSB reminded me of a Rangers supporter phoning in from Australia delighted at the arrival of Dave King.
===================================
Archie MacPherson made an interesting statement on Clyde SSB last night. Discussing just how poor Rangers are on the pitch, Archie said (I paraphrase a little)
‘…there are a number of people apparently willing to help rebuild this club for nothing. Perhaps it’s time Ally McCoist gave up his wages.’
Forget the various spivs, fly-by-nights and assorted chancers who’ve come and gone in the boardroom. McCoist is largely responsible for the on field carnage and it’s amazing how he is absolved from blame.
RyanGosling says:
March 14, 2015 at 10:39 pm
Wottpi,
35,066 is a massive uplift on c. 12,000 who were attending a couple of weeks ago.
———————————————————————-
Ryan,
Ibrox attendances this year have been
Championship
02 Jan vs Dumbarton 30,031
13 Feb vs Hibs 29,769
10 Mar vs QOS 35,018
14 Mar vs Livingston 35,066
Scottish Cup
08 Feb vs Raith 11,422
The uplift in paid attendances is only around 5,000 – all the league attendance figures include season ticket sales of around 23,000.
The 12,000 figure you mentioned was the Scottish Cup game where season ticket doesn’t gain you entrance to the match, so reflects actual bums on seats.
The 5,000 additional fans will be adding around £100,000 to Rangers coffers, which I’m sure is welcome, but I think Mr King and his fellow investors would have been expecting double/treble this increase.
The danger is one or two more disappointing results like yesterday will quickly see attendances slide.
Personally, I still think that Stuart McCall can lift the team’s performances and the other Newcastle loanees could still prove to be a useful resource. Next Sunday’s match against Hibs could define the whole season for Rangers.
good morning one and all. the sun is shining, i’ve had my bacon rolls, got the guitar out and having a few wee songs before I venture forth. And don’t worry – i’ll have it back oot for a few more tonight – win, lose or draw.
This is what it’s all about!