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.
UTH,
No, I’ll play devils advicate here a little. McCoist did what he was asked to do. Beat the clubs put in front if him, sell the STs and jerseys (oops) and at all times maintain the pretence that you (the club) are old and big (by which I mean stage Ryan, not attendances).
He then applied the logic that if others were visibly ripping the funds out of ‘his’ club then he should do likewise – do you think had super not been paid x then x instead would have gone on players and infrastructure? No chance.
Where he fell down was not getting a copy of the StJ lad on here’s spreadsheet of two years ago that clearly forecast the ship running aground mid championship. That was when ally needed to ask the question but would anyone have listened. I suspect king/greens lap dog media would have “done a broony” on him.
This video makes Scott Brown’s ‘relaxation technique’ look positively intelligent! Beware, video provided by the Sun!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ovewdru_Jjo
upthehoops says:
March 15, 2015 at 8:24 am
McCoist is largely responsible for the on field carnage and it’s amazing how he is absolved from blame.
———————————————————
What actually amazes me is that the absolution comes from the SMSM. Actual Bears are virtually 100% united in their condemnation of McCoist as a manager and the deplorable football legacy he left behind.
Indeed even his status as a club legend has been left threadbare such is the ire of the fans at the non-stop shambles on the field and his failure to develop youngsters.
And that’s why I’m amazed at the SMSM because their support of McCoist and failure to highlight his complete failure as a manager I am certain costs them paper sales and at a time of collapsing circulation every copy sold is important.
So why the support for the cheeky-chappie? Surely it can’t simply be that he’s such good company. Another Ibrox mystery I’m afraid 🙄
Ecobhoy
Don’t see it as a mystery at all. You’re not a failure if your going through a league undefeated. Football wise, I repeat, he was doing what he was asked to do. The more I think of it the more genius I see in Greens work. The most suitably qualified in terms of rangers footballing strategy going forward, where the blatantly obvious conclusion was we will end up with no team or money circa 2015 was siting chairing the board at the time.
Brilliant.
Reference Ally, Mr D Johnstone quoted live on ssb that he would never say anything bad about Ally. Bias so openly blatant on a fans phone in. Any manager with his record ( specially in all cup competitions) would have been slaughtered in the press.
Was casting an eye over LSE RFC this morning and saw an old scotslawthoughts post of mine – which I had totally forgotten – from July 2012 was mentioned.
Worth a read especially wrt to Green’s early football connections and player contracts.
https://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/the-ties-that-bind-wayne-rooney-his-wife-and-charlie-green-guest-post-by-ecojon/
Smugas says:
March 15, 2015 at 9:56 am
Ecobhoy
Don’t see it as a mystery at all. You’re not a failure if your going through a league undefeated. Football wise, I repeat, he was doing what he was asked to do.
————————————————
His footballing legacy won’t see the league won this year and there might not even be any promotion.
The mystery I alluded to was that the SMSM have a virtually united front in preserving the McCoist Legend. Fine for his playing days but as a manager it’s belly-laugh time.
However I’m an open-minded guy and he was under a lot of pressure at Ibrox so I’ll leave my final decision on his management abilities until his next appointment in charge of a football team. I won’t hold my breath right-enuff 😎
Well, that’s the guitar away, sing song over – the dug was howling it’s heid off. I thought it was appreciation, the wife disagreed, so end of party time…. for now anyway.
I see the Herald’s golf correspondent was drafted-in to write the Rangers/Livvy match report. An unusual report 😉
However I’m sure after the writer is returned to golfing ‘fairways’ normal service will be resumed by his football brethern and the road to the rightful place will again be trod with appropriate dignity.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/new-manager-but-same-old-story-for-rangers.120668652
ecobhoy says:
March 15, 2015 at 10:16 am
Great stuff as you say Eco. Amazing how small and strange is the world these people inhabit. It’s sad that the only driver seems to be love of money. We know what the good book says about that.
I couldn’t get to the ripping yarn on the P. Stretford link though.
Came across this effort by Bill Leckie this morning. Don’t even know where to start with this. As an example going the new transparent regime explain how they intend ‘wresting’ property rights from Mike Ashley. There is also a reference to eliminating debt but elsewhere DK talks of lending TRFC the money they need to rebuild.
After the dust had settled after yet another woeful Rangers performance against bottom-of-the-table Livingston, Rangers board members gathered for an emergency meeting to discuss Rangers long term future. The strategic plan was discussed at length in a meeting which crept on until the wee small hours of Sunday morning.
Chaired by multi millionaire Dave King, the meeting involved some of Scotland’s biggest entrepreneurs and businessmen. The plan is of five year duration and its objective is simply to make Rangers the strongest club in Scotland again, both on and off the field.
King who has never hidden his admiration for Fergus McCann, also proposed a five year plan similar to which the Scottish Canadian implemented when he took over in the East End of Glasgow.
The most pressing issue facing the fallen giants is a lack of accessible cash so as to make King’s five year plan feasible. King is determined to wrest property rights from Mike Ashley and pay back outstanding loans as a matter of urgency.
As I understand it, King will personally stand as guarantor by lending a large sum of his own personal fortune to Rangers. King is anxious not to be dependent on bank loans as it would merely result in Rangers repeating historical mistakes, most notably when Rangers was under the stewardship of Sir David Murray.
King is also keen to delist Rangers from the stock exchange which he privately regards as a swamp full of predators and piranhas, ready to gobble up unsuspecting victims in its wake. King has total support from his fellow directors and all are keen to re-establish Rangers’ probity within the financial world. King has been hurt by outside criticism that Rangers cannot be trusted in fiscal matters, given what happened under Charles Green and Craig Whyte.
The new board is keen to make a break from the past and demonstrate that things have changed radically in the South side of the city.
The meeting also addressed the issue of Ibrox stadium, which needs massive investment if it is to remain fit for purpose. Complete refurbishment and modernization would according to some estimates cost the club in excess of five million pounds.
Finally, the Board addressed perhaps the most worrying aspect of Rangers’ current problems, namely the playing side and the management of the team.
Interim manager Stuart McCall will stay in place until the end of the season as there is no immediate rush to seek out a permanent, long term manager.
German legend Felix Magath has privately indicated that he would be keen to serve Rangers in any capacity on the playing and technical side.
Rangers, they accept, will have to spend big and virtually rebuild a new squad from scratch as most of the current squad will not be offered new contracts next season. Instead, emphasis will be placed in developing young, Scottish born talent instead of hiring expensive foreign flops. A mixture of youngsters and experienced proven veterans will be the King template for the next five years. Despite his words in public, King is determined that Rangers should get promotion to the SPL this season. His overriding priority is to see Rangers in the SPL next season, not least for the financial implications for the club.Failure to do so, is not worth considering for King and his board. The ultimate goal however, is that after five years Rangers have not only caught up Celtic, but have actually overtaken them.
In pure financial terms, King and his board are privately saying it will take fifty million pounds spread over five years to achieve this ambitious goal. A large sum perhaps, but given the prospect of a full stadium every two weeks and with Rangers in total control of its own properties, the final sum does not seem that much in the big picture.
The exhausted directors left Ibrox this morning safe in the knowledge that the King revolution is already underway and the Rangers’ revival is taking shape.
Just four years and three hundred and sixty four days to go and still counting.
oh dear god that bill leckie story is right up there with the succulent ones,£50 million over 5 years lol £70 million over 3 years in lower leagues,that story must have been hand written by DK
Smugas says:
March 15, 2015 at 9:27 am
UTH,
No, I’ll play devils advicate here a little. McCoist did what he was asked to do.
=============================
I don’t think the evidence he is a bad manager who made very poor use of the resources available to him can be ignored.
The only thing I will say in his defence is that most of his playing career was spent amidst the media peddled lie that Rangers were a hugely wealthy club, when in truth they simply had an overdraft limit way beyond what they should have had. The arrogance displayed by David Murray throughout that period was happily endorsed by the media. To summarise I don’t think McCoist could ever grasp the fact that without bank support Rangers are no financial giants. He lived in a bubble and thought the money would never run out.
“His overriding priority is to see Rangers in the SPL next season, not least for the financial implications for the club.Failure to do so, is not worth considering for King and his board.”
think I can see a wee flaw in the grand plan, bill.
There can be little doubt that the Rangers do need some decent forward planning, based on a rigorous assessment of what the current situation is, and what likely funds they will have available in the future. But a 5-year plan, given the context of what has been going on and the 120/127 day review, smacks of ‘jam tomorrow’.
It’s all too easy to see usual alternative interpretations, e.g.
“King is anxious not to be dependent on bank loans” = can’t get a bank to touch them;
“King is also keen to delist Rangers from the stock exchange which he privately regards as a swamp full of predators and piranhas” = they are en route to being kicked out of it in any case;
and so on.
And it still is a long way sort of answering the Llambias Questions regarding evidence of actual money.
McCoist is popular with the Scottish football media because they like him. Some of the longer-serving members remember getting quotes from the Rangers-and-Scotland-striker way back in the late ’80s. Younger ones know him as TV-celeb and Rangers manager/legend Ally. There’s a genuine personal affection there, hence the public loyalty, although even these friends probably talk more candidly behind closed doors.
Andycolo says..
Re Leckie’s article, is the £50m in addition to the approx £30m pa they currently go through or just instead?
Nope, doesn’t seem like that much at all….
I’m also a little surprised at the estimate for upgrading Ibrox, would seem a little on the low side to me.
andycolo says:
March 15, 2015 at 12:13 pm
Sounds like they’ve got a plan. Borrow money, clear debt, fill Ibrox, sign players… Sounds like a well thought out, workable plan! Or maybe just the result of sitting down after the game with a PR firm and a few bottles of South African red, then handing the resulting puff piece to the only hack still awake!
An orderly de-listing from AIM would require a 75% vote at a shareholders meeting. I would suggest Mr King has some work to do, and funds to find to bring that about.
Allyjambo@12.36 re andycolo’s @12.13pm
……………..
Earlier this very evening ( it’s about 10.52 pm at the moment in Brisbane, and something like 25 degrees) I was able to move fast enough to stamp on a cockroach.
I can say with absolute conviction that I hold that wee beastie in infinitely higher respect than I hold Leckie.
The cockroach behaves without choice, or anything like free will, or notions of right and wrong, or sense of vocational responsibility, or an understanding of truth/falsehood.
Leckie! however, actually chooses what he writes.
And what he has written is an affront to us all as perhaps the worst example of toadying PR ” journalism” we have seen since the last piece of sychophantic crap we have seen from any of the other ‘ media’ types.
John Clark says:
March 15, 2015 at 1:09 pm
Dunno John, my sarcasm meter was reporting high levels as I read it.
scapaflow says:
March 15, 2015 at 12:38 pm
=======================
An orderly de-listing yes. For a disorderly de-listing all he has to do is not find a NomAd in slightly less than 3 weeks. I suppose those with an emotional share-holding won’t be too bothered but, if this comes to pass, he will right royally have stuffed those who voted for him in the belief he had a NomAd lined up and were hoping to make a return on their investment (I know I know).
As an aside. If Mr Leckie is to be believed DCK isn’t just acting as a shadow director but shadow chairman. Maybe thats part of his aim of making sure AIM de-list
Castof Thousands@March 14 at 2.46.
…………….
I’ve just had the pleasure of reading your excellent post, and thank you for it.
But how come you get away with Shakespeareian stuff without some Essexbeancounter making some comment? 🙂
John Clark says:
March 15, 2015 at 1:09 pm
Agree with you in all you write there, except; I think it’s more likely that Leckie writes what TRFC’s PR boys tell him to write rather than what he chooses to write himself. It is, of course, his choice to sell his soul to whatever PR team he chooses 🙄
andycolo says: March 15, 2015 at 12:13pm
I see what you mean when you say you “don’t even know where to start with this.”
How about:-
“Rangers board members gathered…”?
That, to me, means they were together.
“Chaired by multi-millionaire Dave King…”?
I thought he “jetted” off the other day? Did he “jet” back? If not how did he “gather” with the Rangers board members? If he was on the telephone or Skype say so but an odd choice to chair a meeting where most attendees were in Glasgow. Maybe it’s the Traditional Way. More pertinently why was a non Board member, (indeed a non shareholder), chairing a Board meeting? I can accept that New Oasis Asset Limited, as instructed by the Family Trust Of Dave King, may mandate or proxy certain matters to Mr King but there have to be limits to the extent of the mandate or else legitimate questions may be raised over the true status of the Trust and all that flows therefrom. Still, I’m sure all the paperwork is in order. There’s no reason to doubt the bona fides of Mr King’s actings, is there?
“King has total support from his fellow directors…”?
His what? Does Bill Leckie know that before you can have “fellow directors” you firstly have to be, um, a director?
“…all are keen to re-establish Rangers’ probity within the financial world.”?
I think the “re-” in that sentence is redundant.
“King has been hurt by outside criticism that Rangers cannot be trusted in fiscal matters…”?
If true the criticism of Mr King in South Africa for over a decade must have come close to leaving him an emotional cripple.
And so it goes on…
The longer that this is the standard of pabulum served up the longer that scribes such as Mr Leckie will command no respect.
Tyke
Shareholders and their pesky rights don’t go away just because you are kicked off AIM. Further, if returning (sic) financial probity to Ibrox, is a key prerequisite to getting high worth individuals to part with their cash, getting kicked off AIM, would be an unusual strategy to employ
re. leckies latest lamb barf . .
£50m ? 5yrs x £10m .
eh . . think I see a problem (yeah I know . . just the one ? )
If the arguement that scottish foitball and in particular celtic have ‘suffered’ financially from the absence of a team playing at Ibrox has ANY credibility . .
Wont all those pesky competitors receive a tremendous cash boost from the glorious restoration of the rightful monarchs of scottish fitba ?
How do they close a gap (again particularily to celtic ) when their very presence helps MAINTAIN THE GAP ?
Some simple arithmetic . . IF a resurgent rangers sees interest and crowds increase and full houses become the norm . . celtics 10,000 extra seats x av price £25 = £250,000 x 20 (?) games per season . .
THATS a 5 million quid boost to your major cimpetitors finances . .
this £10m a year proposal might need to be doubled I suspect ,either in quantity or duration . . over to you mr. King.
andycolo says:
March 15, 2015 at 12:13 pm
Came across this effort by Bill Leckie…
“King who has never hidden his admiration for Fergus McCann, also proposed a five year plan similar to which the Scottish Canadian implemented when he took over in the East End of Glasgow.
…
As I understand it, King will personally stand as guarantor by lending a large sum of his own personal fortune to Rangers…”
================================
If you were to accept the above as truthful;
– King would be happy to put up his ‘own’ cash
– like Fergus, King would want/need to be very hands on to protect his ‘investment’, IMO
– like Fergus [IIRC], King would need to relocate to Scotland, IMO.
Maybe King is prepared to make significant lifestyle changes at his stage in life…but personally I can’t get past the first point about using his own/trust’s cash. 😕
scapaflow@1.32 p.m
……………
It never occurred to me that Leckie might have been writing in a tone of sarcasm or with tongue firmly in cheek!
If he was, he got it badly wrong. As not a few of us on this blog have discovered, attempts at written
sarcasm or irony can be disastrous.
You may be right, and perhaps Leckie was playing some wee ‘in’ game about which hack could get away with the most outrageous puff piece.
But if it reads like a puff piece, and is written by a fan………..
One is perhaps allowed to believe that it is an obliging puff piece favouring the saviour of the moment, who may distribute largesse in fond appreciation.
StevieBC says:
March 15, 2015 at 2:08 pm
Not to mention some of the more taxing issues relocating could present Mr King. However, I think you are missing the point about Geography, its 6,339 miles from Glasgow to Cape Town, but the time in Cape Town is currently 16:13 or two hours ahead, or one hour once the clocks change. Having worked on multi-continental teams
a 2 hour time difference is a breeze!
They are saying on the Rangers forums that both McCoist and McDowell have “walked” -paid up to the end of this month, but no other pay off- allegedly. I feel sorry for McDowell, if true.
A known criminal appears to have dissembled over an important matter (NOMAD) then there is direct evidence of acting without Acquiring Court required authority. Why has that not been reported on? There is a claim that many foremost business leaders are not unly in concert with him but under his chairmanship and there is no questioning of that. The mint sauce must be hallucinogenic it certainly is sophoritic!
scapaflow says:
March 15, 2015 at 1:32 pm
Dunno John, my sarcasm meter was reporting high levels as I read it.
________________________________________________
My feelings too scapa – although not as well-written as his work usually is.
Leckie is not everyone’s cup of tea, but he is not a Rangers fan. He has historically been very anti-OF, and unlike Chic Young, is an actual St. Mirren supporter.
Led Zep’s Tangerine the backdrop to the Dundee United profile on TV 🙂
scapaflow says:
March 15, 2015 at 1:51 pm
=========
I appreciate an AIM de-listing does not remove those pesky shareholder rights but what it does will make it much harder to sell their holding. For this, and by no means the only, reason it will almost certainly have an instant devaluation effect on the shares. You touched on another reason for devaluation in the lack of scrutiny ( I know, I know) from AIM certainly does not enhance the belief that financial probity be applied up the marble staircase.
Big Pink says:
March 15, 2015 at 2:45 pm
An air of resigned “Do they really expect me to believe this pish?” about it?
tykebhoy says:
March 15, 2015 at 2:58 pm
Only too true, though I would submit, watching my share value vanish before my eyes, would hardly serve to make me amenable to being generous or even reasonable if I held lucrative contracts, that you wanted me to give up
neepheid says:
March 15, 2015 at 2:32 pm
They are saying on the Rangers forums that both McCoist and McDowell have “walked” -paid up to the end of this month, but no other pay off…
————————————–
Maybe McCoist is making sure he has no encumbrances to his availability when the Sunderland manager’s position becomes available in the near future? The CV is a different matter, however.
John Clark says:
March 15, 2015 at 1:09 pm
“The cockroach behaves without choice, or anything like free will, or notions of right and wrong, or sense of vocational responsibility, or an understanding of truth/falsehood”
————————————————–
http://www.livescience.com/48676-cyborg-cockroaches-disaster-relief.html
oops it used to. 😯
maybe it was one of Kafka’s cockroaches- maybe Gregor Samsa is the mind behind Blue Pitch holdings…
neepheid@2.32 pm
“…..I feel sorry for McDowell, if true.”
…………………..
Indeed there is not a one of us churlish enough not to have some kind of empathy with ordinary, everyday people (like ourselves) who work away faithfully and honestly and loyally only to be kicked in the teeth by unfeeling, uncaring, leech-like bad bastards of ‘money-men’.
Men of absolutely no principle, not even any notion of what ‘principle’ means, except the lining of one’s own pocket at whatever cost to truth, honesty, and the welfare of others.
As ever, it is not the smart-ass directors and the Walters and Allys and DKs and CGs and Ashleys and all those types of whatever name you choose to give them that suffer.
Not to mention the creditors and tax payer.
I still cannot myself believe the enormity of the crime of SDM, who brought all this chaos and destruction to Scottish Football and the livelihoods and fortunes of so many ordinary workers, and small businesses.
.
woodstein says @3.16 pm.
……………
That was a great link,woodstein.I feel quite guilty now, though.
John Clark says:
March 15, 2015 at 1:35 pm
Castof Thousands@March 14 at 2.46.
…………….
I’ve just had the pleasure of reading your excellent post, and thank you for it.
But how come you get away with Shakespeareian stuff without some Essexbeancounter making some comment? 🙂
16 0 Rate This
===============================================================================
…because he was busy…thinking about how Mr King has conned just about every willing participant in this whole charade…!
However, I did have it in mind to mention to CastofThousands…”…et tu Brute?”
PS…JC(e)… did the Fat Yak have any influence on your turn of speed (or lack of?) in pursuit of said cockroache?
essexbeancounter@4.21 pm
…………………..
To be entirely honest, the consumption of a FatYak or three came as a result
a) of the fear and shock engendered (in me) by the wifely shriek ” there’s a cockroach!”
b) of the air-punching celebration at having got thr little pest.
These wee creatures are an evolutionary wonder, been around since forever, pretty much the same as they were milions of years ago.
Had I had a Fat Yak or two, there’s no way I could have reacted as quickly enough to get the wee sod.
Big Pink says:
March 15, 2015 at 2:45 pm
scapaflow says:
March 15, 2015 at 1:32 pm
Dunno John, my sarcasm meter was reporting high levels as I read it.
________________________________________________
My feelings too scapa – although not as well-written as his work usually is.
Leckie is not everyone’s cup of tea, but he is not a Rangers fan. He has historically been very anti-OF, and unlike Chic Young, is an actual St. Mirren supporter.
………………………………………………………
Aye…. The above was as I also read the piece… Even grinning at the final throwaway lines about only 4 years and 300+ days before it’s fine and dandy again.
Bill Leckie’s written that deadpan. No need or possibility of hyping this to make the scheming and planning appear any more fantastic than it is!
I’d cut him some slack in this…
John Clark says:
March 15, 2015 at 2:12 pm
But if it reads like a puff piece, and is written by a fan………..
____________________________
…and there is a position on the board newly become vacant…
A bit of light relief.
At yesterday’s Sunderland v Aston Villa match, with the score 4-0 in Villa’s favour, hundreds, perhaps thousands of dejected Sunderland fans were heading out of the Stadium of Light as half-time approached.
A home fan, still in the ground, telephoned a local radio station from his mobile and stated:-
“I’m staying until the bitter end, to avoid the traffic”
Requisitioned Resolutions 5-7
5. The appointment of David King as a director of the Company.
Seems a bit strange to me that having proposed this resolution, the victorious GM requistioners can just set it aside without going back to the shareholders.
redetin says:
March 15, 2015 at 7:19 pm
The share holder meeting can’t instruct the board to break the law, so the board hasn’t set the decision aside, they are merely waiting for King to meet his legal obligations.
I’ll grant that King does appear to be behaving as the de facto if not de jure chair, that no-one is questioning this doesn’t really surprise me, as a society, we have become inured to corporate malfeasance 🙁
redetin says:
March 15, 2015 at 7:19 pm
Seems that Mr King, or is it any old RRM, can get away with just about anything, in this country, at least.
Now we all knew he would have problems getting onto the board of any company with the name ‘Rangers’ in it’s title, regardless of how soft the SFA might be on FPP rules. Even if he didn’t know his legal position, I’m sure his legal advisors would, and will have let him know.
He should, therefor, have sorted his position out (he’s been hanging around for quite a while so has had plenty of time to do so) first, or have not put himself forward for any position on the board, and kept his neb out of it until such time as he had (or hadn’t) been cleared. By the letter of the law, he is currently, it would seem to a layman, breaking the law because he is clearly acting, quite publicly, as a shadow director/chairman.
To compound this, he clearly stated publicly prior to the EGM that he had a NOMAD lined up and ready to go. It wasn’t until the very last minute that he mentioned he thought that it might be better to delist from AIM, though still didn’t even hint that there was no NOMAD in the wings. He still continues to talk as though he has a NOMAD lined up, but when it suits says RIFC/TRFC might be better delisting from AIM, so won’t need one. This might suit the supporters and emotional investors, but not those who made their investment for financial reasons alone.
Forgetting everything else, in the short time since the EGM Dave King has acted publicly as a shadow director/chairman (or at least his statements, the company’s statements and the press certainly give the impression he’s calling the shots), has been economical with the truth, has avoided opportunities to address his earlier statements to explain why his attitude (towards NOMADs) has changed, and his rhetoric is just that, rhetoric, with not one concrete proposal to take the company forward. In fact he seems to be ignoring the ‘company’ concerns and concentrating on what the ‘club’s’ supporters want to hear.
I would imagine the main thrust of company law is there to protect the investors from predatory entrepreneurs (spivs) or wealthy men with their own agendas, not there to protect the customers (supporters) unless they are being misled in a way that financially benefits the board. In fact, the law isn’t there to assist a football club to be successful, it is there to stop dishonest people continuing to act in a dishonest fashion.
Nothing more than a hunch.
DK thought that to win the reveloution was to see Park, McColl, even a bank pile in on the back of resurgent crowds. I can’t decide if the Nomad thing is deliberate or unforeseen.
I get the impression the conference calling emperor overlooked the new technology of Skype. The listeners were no doubt impressed at what he was saying (especially the 5 years bit) but could not help but notice the man was sitting ballcock naked as he said it.
I would think King needs to be very careful
As things stand he is a shareholder, albeit a major shareholder, with the same rights as any other shareholder
He really shouldn’t be making any pronouncements on company policy or strategy
As for de-listing, that really is not a place he should be going
Same with a NOMAD, as that is the responsibility of the company
As I said he needs to be careful, given his history
campsiejoe says:
March 15, 2015 at 9:26 pm
I would think King needs to be very careful
As things stand he is a shareholder, albeit a major shareholder, with the same rights as any other shareholder
He really shouldn’t be making any pronouncements on company policy or strategy
As for de-listing, that really is not a place he should be going
Same with a NOMAD, as that is the responsibility of the company
As I said he needs to be careful, given his history
=================================================================
Campsiejoe…I agree entirely…but I do think he is being ultra careful…that is why he “jets” in and out…protecting his legal position…not to mention is tax status…!
essexbeancounter says:
March 15, 2015 at 10:16 pm
Jetting in & out won’t stop him opening his mouth though
I think he has such a huge ego, that he needs to be seen as being the man in charge
apologies for being off topic
” It is understood that Clarkson will firmly deny either using xenophobic language or punching Tymon when he appears before the BBC inquiry being conducted by the head of BBC Scotland, Ken MacQuarrie.”
. . . one wonders. . .
Did they decide on the basis of how good the person was at sweeping things under carpets, ignoring the truth and not being able hear or see things are offensive whilst being broadcast across the nations screens and airwaves ??
John Clark says:
March 15, 2015 at 1:35 pm
“But how come you get away with Shakespeareian stuff without some Essexbeancounter making some comment?”
——————————-
My post was from the perspective of having stepped away from the blog for a wee while. Often the fresh vantage point provided by a bit of distance between yourself and the subject helps to coalesce one’s thoughts. Auldheid’s header post is very detailed and provides something to get the teeth into.
My Shakey reference was initially inadvertent and only upon checking did I realise I was quoting the big fella. I was so tickled by the co-incidence that I felt a follow up post was merited. Such accidental allusions perhaps do not fall into the category of Shakespearean polemic and therefore did not catch the eye of your literary critic. However I noticed the financial aficionado of South Englandshire has made an appearance stage right as I transited to the bottom of the page so I shall retire northward and digest what I suspect might be a retort to your remark.
Castofthousands says:
March 15, 2015 at 10:54 pm
John Clark says:
March 15, 2015 at 1:35 pm
“But how come you get away with Shakespeareian stuff without some Essexbeancounter making some comment?”
——————————-
My post was from the perspective of having stepped away from the blog for a wee while. Often the fresh vantage point provided by a bit of distance between yourself and the subject helps to coalesce one’s thoughts. Auldheid’s header post is very detailed and provides something to get the teeth into.
My Shakey reference was initially inadvertent and only upon checking did I realise I was quoting the big fella. I was so tickled by the co-incidence that I felt a follow up post was merited. Such accidental allusions perhaps do not fall into the category of Shakespearean polemic and therefore did not catch the eye of your literary critic. However I noticed the financial aficionado of South Englandshire has made an appearance stage right as I transited to the bottom of the page so I shall retire northward and digest what I suspect might be a retort to your remark.
=======================================================================
CoT and JC(e)…I bow to both your greater literary minds and retire to my slumbers with a great big 😀 on my wee fat face…many thanks indeed to you both!
PS…”Shakey”…what a lovely moniker!
Was supporting the underdog yesterday but at the end of the day happy to see Deila winning his first trophy after all the pelters he was taking earlier on this the years while some others appeared to be beyond criticism.
Still believe his approach to the game, supported by Collins, will be good for Celtic and the rest of Scottish football.
Only comment on the match is wondering how two pushes in the back of a striker moving forward in possession of the ball inside the penalty box results in two different decisions.
Wottpi
You were doing so well too! 😈
essexbeancounter says:
March 15, 2015 at 10:16 pm
campsiejoe says:
March 15, 2015 at 9:26 pm
I am not sure whether DCK is being careful as CoT suggests or mixing up the way of life between RSA and UK – jetting in and out and not always being sure whether you are playing home or away can be damaging. At home he will see all sorts of shenanigans going on and, whilst people voice concerns between friends, beyond that the majority seem to go about their life knowing that whatever they say they can’t do anything about it. Put simply many people just don’t give a damn and so things that should not happen go on and on.In UK it is somewhat different and you are under the microscope a great deal quicker, as sites like TSFM prove, and you cannot glibly brush aside the law. One would hope that someone is watching for a major slip up that can be proved (newspaper reports unlikely to count especially if from a red top) before action is taken.
That said the silence from the MA side is deafening. Probably sitting at the head of the empire content with the onerous contracts bringing in the dosh whilst waiting for pay day at Ibrox and the Board to make their next slip up.
Just a wee follow upon T’Rangers crowd numbers following Ryans post the other day.
For the 11 home Championship League games pre King the average attendance, as reported by the BBC was 31,925. This ranges from 43,683 for the season opener v Hearts to a low of 28,053.
The post King crowds have been 35,0018 and 35,066 and this brings up the average attendance to 32,405.
At best around 3000 x £20 = £60k extra in the kitty per game so far. Just enough to cover two months of the head gardener’s salary.
Wottpi-
I understand the term involved is “managing the game”. Obviously only the ref and well placed assistants can explain their decisions, but to send off the ‘big team’ captain and award a penalty against them so early on in a final would likely be against such a concept…if it exists.
It’s all about opinions, isn’t it?
Methilhill Stroller
I agree that the silence from Ashley is curious. I am also curious as to the status of Lambias and Leach. They were thrown off the board as per the resolutions, but what of their executive positions? Are they tending the roses like McCoist, or is everybody just ignoring the obvious, elephant-shaped anomaly?
wottpi
Obviously I was hoping Celtic would win yesterday, but I think United were unlucky with the situation surrounding the first goal and the penalty claim. Of course Forrest ensured that the proper balance was restored 🙂
Big Pink, Methilhill Stroller.
Again if I was to make a completely uninformed external observation on the Ashley situation I would suggest two options in play.
He is either waiting for the board to provide some quantum to their support, after which he will dictate the ‘milking’ rate accordingly.
OR
He knows damn fine the King quantum and is just waiting till it runs out, sooner rather than later.
Edit: as I said before it is looking increasingly like that he anticipated delivering the fans and expected others to jump on board with that troublesome monetary stuff. Leopards, spots, make own sentence.
What’s on Mr King’s To Do List Today?
1. New Manager – done
2. Jettison Graham – done
3. Delay SFA/TRFC Ashley influence hearing – done
4. Discredit L&L then fire – in progress
5. SFA Fit & Proper – in progress
6. RRM Investors – in progress
7. Institutional Investors – dead
8. AIM Fit & Proper
9. Appoint Nomad
10. Challenge Onerous Contracts
11. March Pay Run
12. March Tax Payments
13. Football WATP will pay to watch
No1 son enjoyed his day out in Glasgow yesterday, though the result not so much. TBF, the only complaining when he rolled in was about the red card!
If United keep improving, Celtic will not get it their own way next season.
Congrats to RD, nice to see so many apologies to him on social media yesterday
The thing about people who tell lies, is, they tell lies! Many of them tell lies, so often, they are totally unaware they are doing so. For many, lying is a tool of their profession, though unofficial.
Some people can tell huge lies on documents and forms, and happily sign them off as being the truth, committing perjury in the process. They can end up in court and continue to tell lies, on oath, for years until found guilty of massive crimes. They can, somehow, due to their often questionably gained wealth, buy their way out of multiple prison sentences.
They can then, very publicly, down-play their convictions and make them out to be no more than an amicable settlement, to endeavour to reduce the damage to their reputation, which is the same as lying.
They will often move their business dealings to countries where they have no criminal records.
They can, again very publicly, continue to make promises and statements of things they say will come to pass, that soon prove to be, at best, half truths.
They continually make promises of huge investments and desires to produce something amazing – amazing never happens.
They are often very successfull men. Success is not evidence of honesty and not necessarily competency – in anything more than having the ability to get people to part with their money.
Yet, despite the evidence publicly available, there are always people around desperate to believe them, and to believe in them!
Somehow, no matter how badly their projects bomb, they always tend to get richer, with only the taxman able to stand in their way.
Sad really! The way these people operate and get away with it.
I always find it hard to believe the worst of their excesses are those in the public domain.
I am not writing about anyone in particulr, more some kind of Bond villain, of course.
bad capt madman says:
March 16, 2015 at 9:26 am
Big Pink says:
March 16, 2015 at 9:35 am
Celtic deserved their win but a penalty for United at that point may have given us a different game.
While earlier Van Dijk managed to use his speed to put in a legitimate shoulder charge inside the box, in Brown’s case pushing from behind as opposed to the side made it look like he was short of a yard of pace. Maybe that deep fried pizza was still lying low in his stomach 😈
Predicted Forrest was going to fire it up the middle and indeed he did with not much power. So yes balanced restored.
Re Mr King’s coronation bounce there will be secondary spend on pies programmes and so on to add to the £20 per head. However continuation of that will depend on the team’s progress. Without that and the increasing possibility of dead rubbers the post King average may be less than the pre King. The new manager appears not to have added anything to the crowd number which would worry me if I were of the Rangers inclination. The mcfc to do list has at least one thing back to front ll and l were sacked first any attempt at discrediting them are yet to come.
Congrats to Celtic yesterday, better team won. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if Utd got that penalty – purely as a neutral observer. I’m not so sure it was a penalty but it was very similar to the one at the other end later on! Something that could be debated for ever more, but this isn’t really the place for that.
But I also want to send congrats to the groundsmen. This new pitch seemed a significant improvement over the previous one. Given the short amount of time this one had been down, why was the pitch that ruined both semi finals such a stinker!!? Was the first one bought on the cheap? Hope they kept the receipt…
Seems like the Newcastle boys won’t be like the 7th Cavalry according to McCall.
“If you take the four lads [January loan signings] from Newcastle, who probably won’t kick a ball for us, out of the equation, it’s not as big a squad as you’d imagine,” he explained.
Looks like L & L may have been a wee bit naughty depending on what deal was done for the loan.
Allyjambo
So half the lies are not true,question is,which half
Allyjambo says:
March 16, 2015 at 10:40 am
The thing about people who tell lies, is, they tell lies! Many of them tell lies, so often, they are totally unaware they are doing so. For many, lying is a tool of their profession, though unofficial
__________________________________
And that is the fundamental truth. Once you have lied that makes you a liar.
In Oliver Stone’s film, Nixon, this is driven home in the line “It’s the lie that gets you in the end”. This is spoken by Nixon and he’s referring to a lie told by someone who denied they were a communist, once that lie was exposed it was possible for a dog whistling campaign to make the public believe pretty well anything including that the character was a spy. Once it was established that a lie had been told then everything else was in doubt. It’s the lie that gets you in the end. Of course different lies tumbled Nixon when he was the most powerful elected man in the world.
When it comes to TRFC the list of lies is awesome indeed. But King is a liar – he has told lies and appears still to be telling them.
It’s the lie that gets you in the end.
wottpi says:
March 16, 2015 at 11:29 am
I don’t know how much the 5 Newcastle lads are costing TRFC, if anything (I suspect they will be costing something), but I think we see here an alternative view on why dual ownership of clubs is wrong, particularly with clubs within the same cultural area ie Britain, where movement of large numbers of players is easy, as is the monitoring of their progress.
There is the obvious advantage to a club of a supply of young, or not so young, talent to boost a squad at little or no cost, giving a clear advantage over rivals. On the other hand, though, as we see at Ibrox, it can also work to the smaller club’s financial detriment, where injured, or disappointing players, are offloaded for 6 months or so, costing a lot and preventing the development of home-grown talent.
Clearly the SFA and SPFL must do everything in their power to prevent this escalating before our league becomes a dumping ground for the EPL has-beens and never-will-bees! It has been mentioned before that Ashley is using TRFC as a trial project and maybe others will be watching. Not the Man Uniteds and Chelseas, but the Burnleys, Boltons and Middlesboroughs who would welcome somewhere to ship their less promising, but expensive, players until their contracts ran out.
yourhavingalaugh says:
March 16, 2015 at 11:33 am
Allyjambo
So half the lies are not true,question is,which half
__________
It’s a lie of two halves 🙄