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.
Allyjambo says:
March 16, 2015 at 11:57 am
Not just same cultural areas.
Just look at the shenanigans with Mad Vlad and Hearts!!
Would the likes of Nicolson, Walker, King have got a look in when Vlad was picking the team?
wottpi says:
March 16, 2015 at 12:34 pm
Very true, though I think, in this case, Hearts were the ‘big’ team and the aim was to benefit them. I think, too, Vlad was signing players for Hearts through Kaunas as part of his tax ‘plan’ ha, as opposed to depriving Kaunas or dumping duds on Hearts!
It would be a benefit to our game if the SFA made a proper stand, ha!, to prevent it happening again, and they have the opportunity now to at least make a start as they can see with their own eyes the potential for the Scottish game as a whole, or individual clubs, to be advantaged or disadvantaged by dual ownership. Especially, though not exclusively, when that dual ownership involves a club from the greedy giant below our border!
At a time when fan ownership is taking off, it’s time the governors of our game took steps to protect the initiative by securing the game against these predators.
Another potential ‘nasty’ of dual ownership could come about if, say, TRFC develope a great young player who, with a year of his contract left, is attracting good offers from the EPL. Ashley’s men turn down all offers and he is transferred at the end of his contract for peanuts to Newcastle! To my mind it is important that the SFA take the steps now to close this door, before it’s too late.
Just out of interest can anyone tell me just exactly what companies Dave King is involved in and his role in them?
I hear this oft repeated tale of the South African government being ‘one of his biggest clients’, but how? Any idea of the worth and amount of work involved in that contract?
I know about his families 83% holdings in MMG and the 1000% price rise in the last year and a half (£40 million paper profit, no bad), is that family Trust UK or SA?
How easy is it for him to access that profit?
Anyone with a better take on delving into the world of business interests than I do, would be most greatful? 🙂
Some strange goings on with the loanees
Andy Newport @AndyNewportPA
Stuart McCall says he is “astounded” to see injured Newcastle loanee Shane Ferguson in the Northern Ireland squad
Rangers midfielder Harris Vuckic out of Tuesday’s match with Alloa with calf strain. Seb Faure out too. Keeper Cammy Bell back in the squad
Tartanwulver says:
March 15, 2015 at 3:08 pm
At the weekend my dad showed me a cutting from a newspaper which listed the win percentage of RFC and TRFC managers. It was titled McDowall’s unwanted record. KMcD’s magical number was a lowly 30%.
What stood out however was a certain AMcC percentage of 73% which was above the 68% in second place of Advocaat.
Pretty good CV material.
Re the future of Rangers, I am at a loss. There are two key players in the immediate future, DK and MA.
Has DK actually got a plan or is he winging it? Does he have finance lined up? If not is this a failure to provide/secure that financing or quite deliberate? If the bus crashes will it be as a result of such failure or a deliberate act as part of a greater plan?
Is MA letting DK walk into a carefully laid trap, or, with his retail income secure has he “walked away” and simply not bothered what happens? If DK keeps the show on the road he has his retail money and if it crashes then MA cherry picks what else he wants from the rubble?
Re the governance of Scottish Football.
Since coming to RTC and hence TSFM I have been shocked as to how obviously there is an “Establishment” team. Sorry if that upsets any of the Rangers minded readers/contributors here. I have no dog in this fight it is simply my opinion (for what that is worth) looking in form the outside.
I realise this is a strong statement to make and that there are societal issues that sit alongside the governance issues.
There has been much talk of the poor price paid to televise Scottish Football and the lack of sponsorship. But if I can discern this elephant in the room from a lap top in Essex then those within major corporations who allocate their marketing spend and research all options thoroughly will surely come to the same conclusions.
Anyone looking to sponsor Scottish Football will soon be aware of the 5WA, LNS and the general lack of governance. Add in an unpleasant undercurrent of sectarianism and I doubt very much than any established name with a big budget would risk the possible reputational damage of associating themselves with Scottish Football.
When there are so many positive signs, most clubs sorting out their finances, bringing through youth and playing an attractive brand of football this is little short of tragic. The clubs have to grasp the nettle and appoint new administrators with one objective above all else. To draw up a new rule book that enshrines financial fair play at its core. Rules that are clear and unequivocal that can be applied without fear or favour to all.
The Scottish Football Authorities can’t be responsible for wider societal issues but again, the rule book can set out in crystal clear terms the escalating scale of sanctions that will apply to clubs when their supporters engage in sectarian singing/displays.
The Clubs have to wake up to the reality that for the time being Scottish Football is damaged goods and the world looking on can see this. Have they the courage to make the necessary change?
Scottish Football needs more Turnball Huttons and Auldheids.
futbol says:
March 16, 2015 at 3:06 pm
I doubt if we will ever know whether McCoist would have made a good football manager or not. From Green’s peculiar perspective, McCoist was the right man for the job, from a footballing perspective I think history will show that he was not.
Smith’s record, (finance issues aside), is impressive, but even Smith’s most ardent fan wouldn’t claim that he was a “development” manager. Smith was McCoist’s mentor, and a pale imitation of Smith is what Rangers have had.
During McCoist’s tenure, the coaching system atrophied, the scouting system disappeared, and the wonderful asset of Murray Park was squandered.
McCall, if he is given the time and resources to rebuild the infrastructure, may actually be what Rangers need, whether he will get either is a another matter.
If the lunatic Magath is put in over him, I wouldn’t blame him if he was out the door 30 seconds later
I proffered a possible strategy for MA this morning Tincks that he was either:
1/ Waiting to see what finance DK had lined up or,
2/ Knew fine what DK had, i.e. a limited pot, and was waiting for it to inevitably run dry given the operating model chosen.
I would now offer a third possibility of course, this time from the perspective of the DK camp – that they can’t get any funds in (regardless of the method, 75% vote required, AIM status etc), because of the risk that MA could have the power to crash the bus, taking the limited funds with it.
MA can sit and wait it out so the silence doesn’t surprise me. Can DK? Particularly with the potential impact of the on-field slump? And MA knows it!
“Sunderland have sacked manager Gus Poyet after a run of just one victory in 12 Premier League games.
The Black Cats are one point above the relegation zone after Saturday’s 4-0 home defeat by Aston Villa.
“Sadly, we have not made the progress that any of us had hoped for this season,” said chairman Ellis Short.”
The former Sunderland player and recently released Rangers manager Ally McCoist is believed to be the front runner for the manager position.
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/31902933
==============================================
[Just made that last sentence up for a laugh. 🙄 ]
futbol says:
March 16, 2015 at 3:06 pm
What stood out however was a certain AMcC percentage of 73% which was above the 68% in second place of Advocaat.
Pretty good CV material.
—————————————–
Hmmmm…not exactly a comparison of like with like might be the flaw in that argument! We’ll never know how much better Advocaat’s percentage stats might have looked if he had been able to pick teams of international players against the proverbial butchers, bakers and candlestick makers of the lower divisions.
As they saying (almost) goes, there are lies, glib lies, and statistics.
Smugas says:
March 16, 2015 at 3:32 pm
I would now offer a third possibility of course, this time from the perspective of the DK camp – that they can’t get any funds in (regardless of the method, 75% vote required, AIM status etc), because of the risk that MA could have the power to crash the bus, taking the limited funds with it.
=========================================================================
I’ve always been dubious about another public offering because, given the last couple of years, the propsectus would receive microspic analysis and some of the trick pulled at the IPO could not be repeated. And then there’s the question of who would be dumb enough toexpose their cash to this proven shambles – the bears can’t be relied upon to provide meaningful cash.
But then again, I said that last time and had to take my hat of to Mr Green.
Smugas says:
March 16, 2015 at 3:32 pm
I would now offer a third possibility of course, this time from the perspective of the DK camp – that they can’t get any funds in (regardless of the method, 75% vote required, AIM status etc), because of the risk that MA could have the power to crash the bus, taking the limited funds with it.
MA can sit and wait it out so the silence doesn’t surprise me. Can DK? Particularly with the potential impact of the on-field slump? And MA knows it!
===========================
…and of course, MA/SD had two of his trusted lieutenants in place for a few weeks to ascertain the actual severity of the RIFC/TRFC situation.
“Knowledge is power” indeed.
Wowe
Is this really the record?
Where is the :slamb: ?
Is their photocopier broken, or summat?, because – bizarrely – I think this guy might have typed this up himself!?
And…what’s more – using words that came out of his brain, in response to sounds that entered his ears and pictures that went in front of his eyes.
It’ll never catch on :irony:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/opinion/sport/record-fc-hearts-im-hoping-5344968
😉 well done caller Robert on SSB 😉 mr Guidi slightly rattled ……. 🙂
StevieBC says:
March 16, 2015 at 3:47 pm
________________________________________________
To be fair, possibly the only thing that could lift NUFC fans from their own disappointment at having MASH as an owner, would be the glee they would feel at the look on the faces of the mackems were McCoist to be unveiled.
http://www.nufcblog.com/2012/09/05/sunderland-road-sign-for-football-follow-newcastle-true/
Heard it to Brenda great call gudi never answered any of his points though
Another example this evening that the football authorities and clubs care not a jot about their customers the fans.
The Dundee v Aberdeen game scheduled for next Monday 23rd and live on BT sport has been moved back to 1245 this Saturday 21st. This is due to international call ups.
5 days notice ffs!
Don’t they realise fans plan in advance ie book buses,trains accommodation etc
I know a good friend who has not missed a dons game for 25+ years is going to a stag do in Amsterdam but getting back on the monday and was going straight to the game.
I understand games are liable to get changed but 5 days before!!!
Bill1903 says:
March 16, 2015 at 7:39 pm
Another example this evening that the football authorities and clubs care not a jot about their customers the fans.
———————————
Bill, I couldn’t agree more. I have long been of the view that fans who actually attend games are the worst treated of all.
It goes without saying though that the authorities in Scotland reserve an extra special type of contempt for fans. A level of contempt I doubt exists anywhere else.
Are we all forgetting this gem, from an announcement to AIM of March 3rd?
‘The Board of Rangers announces that the Company has commenced the process of satisfying the conditions for drawdown of the second tranche of the facility announced on 27 January 2015 with SportsDirect.com Retail Limited and associated companies (“SD”) (the “Facility”) in order to meet its cash requirements for the third week of March. Drawdown of the second tranche of the Facility is subject to due diligence by SD. Shareholders should be aware that there are other conditions of drawdown which include a material and adverse change and/or significant, adverse event condition which could impact upon the willingness of SD to release the funds. If the funds are not able to be drawn down from the Facility, alternative sources of external funding will be required.’
IIRC, it was widely believed at the time that the third week reference was a far from coded way of saying that major bills were falling due well before payroll. Dosh required, SD to stump up, do behave. Since then, delisting, MASH appointed (but we may assume SD approved) directors binned, new and bizarre board appointments made, some of them fleeting. Of the cash required, nothing concrete.
It is now the third week in March. I’m just some ordinary bloke with an eye on the world, but could some enterprising hack with time on their hands and a column to fill not string some sort of narrative from the above? I’d pinned my hope on some mention of Section 216 of The Insolvency Act and its ramifications in the current scenario, but clearly the code of Omertà inherent in the continuity myth is too strong. We get a great deal of ‘former Ibrox director’ Dave King, with no reference to what he was a director of, or what happened to them.
I can only hope the SMSM reap what they sow.
Tartanwulver says:
March 16, 2015 at 4:08 pm
Precisely. The TDs suggest I should have made use of a sarcasm smiley!
I am curious about what goes into an application for a Manager role in football. The fish wrappers would have you believe you just take your mobile off vibrate and wait for it to ring.
I trust the “due diligence” applied to Board members is not the yardstick or else that winning percentage could be enough to leave the influence one to abandon one’s garden … hell mend em …
futbol – sarcasm duly noted. It can’t be beyond the wit of smiley makers to do one with its tongue in its cheek perhaps? Maybe there is one, most of the time I cant work out what they’re supposed to signify anyway
8 hours since the last comment,something big must be brewing.
yourhavingalaugh says:
March 17, 2015 at 6:27 am
8 hours since the last comment,something big must be brewing.
======================
Big Mike?
Maybe everyone was preoccupied watching the royals book a trip to Wembley last night?
Everybody was at the Steven Wilson gig last night in Edin. Spoke to 2-3 of the inhabitants of this website last night,including a Jambo & a Hibee.
Bill1903 says:
March 16, 2015 at 7:39 pm
Another example this evening that the football authorities and clubs care not a jot about their customers the fans.
——————————————————————
Bill, any word on whether those that have already bought tickets but cannot go to the re-arranged game will be able to get refunds?
Absolutely ridiculous organisation. How long have we all known about this international date? Why was a game scheduled for Monday night in the first place? I also find it strange that suddenly BT sport are able to show this game on a Saturday? Ok 12:15 is a crap kick-off time, maybe not so bad for relatively short travel such as Aberdeen/Dundee.
That said this weekend will also be a stinker due to the rugby international at Murrayfield (k.o. 2.30). The trains/buses will be absolutely rammed!!
Have Mr King and Mr Murray (P) fallen into one of the black holes they found in the accounts? For a club that lives and breathes hubris, can prolonged silence be a good sign of confident progress towards their rightful place?
mcfc says:
March 17, 2015 at 9:10 am
Have Mr King and Mr Murray (P) fallen into one of the black holes they found in the accounts? For a club that lives and breathes hubris, can prolonged silence be a good sign of confident progress towards their rightful place?
=====================
Dignity, old chap, dignity! Well, it is a bit more dignified than daily statements and counter statements, I suppose, but I’m getting the strong sense that transparency is the first casualty in the new regime’s war with Ashley.
Which is why King is strongly attracted to the delisting option. Everything kept within the Blue Room, minimal disclosure requirements, and favoured members of the press fed with a strictly rationed supply of press releases.
With a listed company, financing is a public matter, as we have seen over the last 6 months. As a private company, all these messy details can be kept “in house”. No interim accounts required by 31 March either, which will save a fair amount of money, and avoid a few more embarrassing disclosures about how skint they really are. A shame for any small shareholder wanting his money out, though.
Apologies for OTness…
Following their destructive rampage throughout Libya’s most significant heritage sites, Islamic State are believed to have embarked on a War on History. It must be noted that this conflict should not be confused with the ongoing situation at Ibrox.
deathflaps says:
March 17, 2015 at 9:32 am
Apologies for OTness…
Following their destructive rampage throughout Libya’s most significant heritage sites, Islamic State are believed to have embarked on a War on History.
It must be noted that this conflict should not be confused with the ongoing situation at Ibrox.
…………
Q – Are they buying or selling the history?
I think you’ll find that only the holding structures have been destroyed.
Regarding history, there’s something about being doomed to repeat it.
The past week has seen: ChrisGraham oot (for obvious reasons he should never have been in), chief repairman Allan Woods withdraw from public gaze for more obvious reasons, and the chap out of jail after the bomb threats sitting in Ibrox with his wee flag, for less obvious reasons. I also read that ‘The Dennistoun Rangers Flute Band’ (when did my childhood home get a Rangers flute band?!) were having a wee OW warm up on Sunday on the Gallowgate and Duke Street. I find that last one hard to believe because the city council wouldn’t allow that on Cup Final Day, surely, with so many Celtic supporters filling the streets and pubs.
Lively SSB yesterday. I find Gerry M. a very decent host in a quite difficult job. Lifts the show out of mediocraty, in spite of the pundits.
The @shareprophets guy, Tom Winnifrith, seems to have won his court case against Craig Whyte’s old pal, Aiden Earley. More expenses for Earley.
Quiet, because a deal being done with Mike Ashley by one or other group of Real Rangers Men?
neepheid 9:29.
============
‘Morning to you, Neepheid.As we are all aware that if the King keeps it all in the Blue Room, he is not only deceiving the companies suppliers and customers he is keeping some dirty little secrets from HMRC.
HMRC are working away in the background, as we know, to get it 100% right — before they go in for the kill.
One thought has crossed my mind a few times recently is this, to my understanding the small tax case has never been settled, if so, would Ibrox not be in hock to HMRC, until some progress is made with this debt?
http://www.ibroxnoise.co.uk/2015/03/boyd-mccall-wont-make-any-difference-to.html?
Ohh, Krissy Krissy
BorrowaTenner says:
March 17, 2015 at 11:36 am
One thought has crossed my mind a few times recently is this, to my understanding the small tax case has never been settled, if so, would Ibrox not be in hock to HMRC, until some progress is made with this debt?
==============================0
The small tax case is a matter between HMRC and BDO, the liquidators of RFC PLC, old Rangers if you like. The only issue HMRC will have with the current Rangers is timely payment of VAT and PAYE. I am guessing that HMRC will be on red alert for any missed payments, having been criticised for not taking earlier action when Whyte decided to take a tax holiday.
Of course the very fans who have criticised HMRC for lack of early action against the Whyte regime would take their permarage to hitherto unseen levels of fury, should HMRC ever dare to issue a winding up order while King is in charge.
I understand that 5,000,000.00 was recently contributed to the Rangers survival fund. How long would it likely last, and what will it have been used for?
How much longer is it likely that MA will undertake to meet the club’s running costs? And when are they likely to start work on the maintenance requirements?
I don’t believe that the fans will be asked to dig deep, and be taken for a ride again? Will they?
With the amount of repairs and maintenance being spoken about, could we be approaching an “health and safety” question?
Did I hear a wee rumour that D&R may Jet out to SA for talks with the King?
I remember the days when our judicial system was held in the highest esteem but today have seen the reports of 3 judges being sacked for viewing porn at work.
However that was down south so everything’s fine here. Or is it?
The fight to create a full register of interest for members of the Scottish Justiciary – many of whom are totally opposed to any transparency – can be found at: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/gettinginvolved/petitions/registerofjudicialinterests
The pressure for a Register of Interests has heightened with the recent downfall of the Heather Capital hedge fund which collapsed with a £400 million loss.
Recent legal moves saw the suspension of Sheriff Peter Watson from the bench – he was formerly a partner at the Glasgow based law firm of Levy and McRae – now being sued for £28 million wrt their alleged involvement by Heather’s liquidator, Ernst & Young.
Peter Watson has of course been involved with legal issues involving Ibrox – which have no connection with Heather Capital as far as I am aware.
After being debenched Mr Watson said: “Proceedings are live which prevents fuller comment other than to say these proceedings are being robustly defended and any allegations of impropriety are denied.”
His old company Levy & McRae afaik still provides legal advice to the Herald & Times Group.
More info at: http://petercherbi.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/capital-judge-as-top-judge-suspends.html
neepheid@9.31a.m
“…….King is strongly attracted to the delisting option…”
……………….
And, indeed, who with megalomaniacal tendencies would not be attracted by the possibility of running a private business in virtual secrecy?
How wonderful, not to have to explain oneself to anyone in public., or have to publish stuff that one really rather would not like to be in the public domain.
In such circumstances one does not need to go to the bother of publicly lying.All the lies can be told in private.
As many of us on this blog now do as a matter of routine self-education, I look up things that are mentioned in order to get some notionof what they mean.
I came across this item ,aptly entitled “Delisting:the great escape” at http://www.growthbusiness“.
I think it makes neepheid’s observation about King’s intentions entirely accurate.
He wants control, at minimum personal expenditure, and as out of sight of regulatory authorities as it’s possible to be.
And tough titty to smaller shareholders who may not be able to sell their shares, and who have little hope of any dividend return on their ‘investment’.
Strange how we couldn’t get that Christopher Graham fella off the TV or out of the Papers?
Don’t see so much of him now?
Has he been caught with his hand in the till, or something?
No loss mind you, never thought he had the attributes to be on that Board!
I have had a look at some of King’s previous statemrents, and found this King interview with Keith Jackson from a year ago quite instructive-
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/dave-king-insist-hell-not-3279689
A couple of excerpts-
and-
There you have it folks, the essence of the Dave King business plan, laid out for you by the man himself in March 2014. Spend at least as much on wages as Celtic. And the shareholders voted for him? Astonishing.
Gogs says
March 16, 2015 at 2:29pm
You can probably find out more about DCK on FIN24.com as they have covered a lot of his past – should be any number of articles on there about him and offshore holdings such as Ben Nevis.
If in doubt also look at other sites such as companycheck.co.uk and search for DCK to see what is in UK. Did a quick check on this and found
“The combined cash at bank value for all businesses where David holds a current appointment equals £0, with a combined total current assets value of £0 and total current liabilities of £0. Roles associated with David King within the recorded businesses include: Director
Read more at: http://companycheck.co.uk/director/909548037”
So given the above, and Fin24 articles I remember citing the issues of the SARS case, most of his funds (Ben Nevis etc) sitting offshore and an investment in one of Gary Player’s studs (on which they had a high value dispute circa 2000 which I think was only resolved last year!), I suspect there might be some movement soon given silence of late from DCK and co, and pay day/VAT etc due.
The money is certainly in MA’s account but what do the new Board in the blue room have available and where?
BorrowaTenner 12:12 pm
D&R? Do you mean Doncaster and Regan? Just as well you didn’t choose R&D as those two numpties are the precise antithesis of research and development.
I agree with those commenting that the next crucial event at Ibrox will be making March’s bills & payroll and how this relates to the loans from Ashley.
Found this in the Mail which has Dave King acknowledging the £10m loans but essentially shrugging them off as no big deal as he can match them if Ashley proves awkward.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2981952/Dave-King-insists-Rangers-cope-Mike-Ashley-call-10million-loaned-Scottish-Premier-League-club.html
Now is the time that Ashley might prove to be awkward (and with they way his placemen have been treated, who could blame him?), so for the first time King may be obliged to actually put some cold hard cash into the Ibrox money eating machine.
I recall an old article (possibly web-only) that itemised how King got back more than the £20m he supposedly invested and lost back in the early 2000’s. Anyone got a link to that, or did I just imagine it?
PS – thanks for the recent shout out, Exciled Celt. It was interesting and instructive engaging with the apparently reasonable Mr Graham, wasn’t it?
ecobhoy@1.26 p.m:
………
“…of the Scottish Judiciary-many of whom are totally opposed to any transparency-….”
………………..
And we are back to things like the sudden quietness about the ‘ magic circle’ and the Fairbairn and what’s his bloody name, Leon Brittan?, sort of stuff.
If I may speak frankly, there are bad men in among the good , and , as ever, the baddies appear to rule.
For the moment.
And,of course, they know in their hearts that they are baddies.
neepheid@1.37 pm
……….
neepheid, those extracts are conclusive proof that the learned South African judge knew the kind of lying, manipulative type he wad dealing with.
In olden times we used the expression ‘ govan guttersnipe’.
God save the mark that it should have to be changed to the Castlemilk guttersnipe.
As an addendum to that mention of corresponding with Chris Graham, I found this old quote I took from his blog, now sadly unavailable online:
Acht, we all get things wrong sometimes.
Night Terror says:
March 17, 2015 at 2:04 pm
Perhaps this one? https://henryclarson.wordpress.com/tag/dave-king/
There was also some discussion in recent times about a claim with BDO or some statement by BDO in relation to a recent creditors report. I think the bean counters (Essex and others) were better able to pull that one apart.
Cheers @futbol, but it was a much more specific piece on how King got lots of £ back in various forms.
Night Terror says:
March 17, 2015 at 2:40 pm
As an addendum to that mention of corresponding with Chris Graham, I found this old quote I took from his blog, now sadly unavailable online:
“…Does anyone doubt that McCoist or Gordon Smith have the best interests of the club at heart? Do they really think if Whyte was trying to pull off some sort of swindle then they would stand by and watch it happen?…”
=====================================================
With Graham’s confident statements, judgement and self-assurance, he was wasted at Ibrox.
He should really be at Westminster. 🙄
…and Gordon Smith ???!!!
Danish Pastry says:
March 17, 2015 at 10:18 am
…
Quiet, because a deal being done with Mike Ashley by one or other group of Real Rangers Men?
=============================
Was thinking that myself DP.
I thought that the ‘best’ option was for King and the RRM to lobby the SFA/SPFL to let them start a ‘new Real Rangers’, [agreed though, that MA wouldn’t just stand by and watch].
And despite King’s public rhetoric, IMO, he can’t afford to make an enemy of MA.
So maybe King is building bridges with MA/DL in the background ?
I still think there could be a very public ‘kiss & make up’ between King and MA/DL, which won’t change anything significantly re: TRFC’s lack of cash, but it will be a positive message to the bears.
Something along the lines of ‘King has negotiated hard with MA, who has backed down and is now willing to work with King and the RRM’, or some such tosh.
@StevieBC
Chris Graham believes what he wants to believe. One moment he is railing against Scottish sports journalists for not having the financial savvy to interrogate D Murray, Whyte, P Murray et al competently about the goings on behind the scenes at Ibrox in the past, then the next moment he puts his faith in financial oversight within Ibrox at the current time (9 days before admin)with Ally McCoist and Gordon Smith.
It’s a real shame he didn’t get longer on the Ibrox board. He could have learned so much.
More re Chris Graham:
I love the comment “we have little choice but to believe him” regarding Whyte’s stated plan for financial stability at Ibrox.
Such credulousness from the most articulate of the self-appointed leader of the fans must have marked him out for deserved higher things within Ibrox.
I’m sure we’ve not seen the last of him.
John Clark says:
March 17, 2015 at 2:08 pm
ecobhoy@1.26 p.m:
………
“…of the Scottish Judiciary-many of whom are totally opposed to any transparency-….”
………………..
And we are back to things like the sudden quietness about the ‘ magic circle’ and the Fairbairn and what’s his bloody name, Leon Brittan?, sort of stuff.
If I may speak frankly, there are bad men in among the good , and , as ever, the baddies appear to rule.
For the moment.
And,of course, they know in their hearts that they are baddies.
=============================================
Ah yes, the “Magic Circle” enquiry. Conducted by William Nimmo Smith QC & JD Friel.
http://scottishlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/curious-case-of-magic-circle-gay.html
highfibre says:
March 17, 2015 at 12:43 pm
If by the end of the month the company can get their hands on sufficient money to satisfy immediate cash flow requirements and sign off a set of interim accounts as a going concern, then there is a chance they will not be delisted. The appointment of a Chief Executive and a Finance Director will most likely also be necessary, as the company does not have a single executive director at the moment. They will also need to find a new Nomad.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Isnt that incredible?
We have a Co in crisis thats running out of money and still haven`t appointed anybody as CEO or FD
GoosyGoosy says:
March 17, 2015 at 4:36 pm
—
What do you think will happen, Goosy?
GoosyGoosy-
Maybe DK is a shadow director, shadow chairman, shadow FD, and shadow CEO.
No need for many pesky meetings to jet into.
Result.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/31930320
Michael Chopra signs for Alloa and could make his debut tonight
(Unless his registration is held back) !!???
GoosyGoosy says:
March 17, 2015 at 4:36 pm
Isnt that incredible?
We have a Co in crisis thats running out of money and still haven`t appointed anybody as CEO or FD.
——————————————–
Rangers can’t hire anyone because they already have a CEO and FD. If Rangers appoint replacements for them then they are constructively dismissed.
Llambias and Leach possibly already have enough to claim constructive dismissal but if replacements are hired they have a stonewall case. They will then file for unfair dismissal and go to court to have their pay-off money ring-fenced because of the company’s financial state.
They might well have the evidence to back-up their claims 😆
Anyway they are probably due £500k between them IIRC – has Rangers got the money to pay them off? Has McDowell and McCoist been paid off? Or are they on a promise? Good luck to them if that’s the case.
It’s all simply down to how much money the new Board can or is prepared to raise. It’ll be money down the stank anyway IMO and time is marching on relentlessly.
http://t.co/0grEZAyxlE
Esteban says:
March 17, 2015 at 4:49 pm
GoosyGoosy says:
March 17, 2015 at 4:36 pm
—
What do you think will happen, Goosy?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
THe onerous contracts will cbleed the club to death if nothing is done about them.
They can`t be removed without liquidation or a massive buy out
King and the 3Bs need a plausible reason to blame MA if they trigger a liquidation event
Alternatively
MA may own the onerous contracts or have a deal to buy them in the event of liquidaton.If so he has the ability to suddenly increase his debt in a liquidation event to make himself the largest creditor whatever King does
i.e.
If King goes for liquidation “blind” as to the size of MAs debt he could find himself in a Prepack situation under which an Ashley (Sarver) bid acquires the assets and milks the co forever more
My money is still on an insolvency event with MA the victor
If a company is delisted and is also insolvent, what price per share? How do you work that price out?
Even if not delisted but essentially insolvent, what price the share?
Did those RRM who bought shares realise that they may be kissing their hard-earned cash goodbye? Perhaps there is such a medical condition as ‘Rangersitis’ — a type of fiscal insanity.
GoosyGoosy says:
March 17, 2015 at 6:16 pm
My money is still on an insolvency event with MA the victor
—————————————————-
You may well be right. But how much of a ‘victory’ will it be for Ashley if no one goes to Ibrox and no one buys his merchandise?
And tbh I could see that happening if the new Board lose control in an insolvency event.
I have reached the stage where I think it’s impossible to call what’s going to happen but I can’t see it being that long away before it all becomes much clearer. Time like money is running out IMO.
GoosyGoosy says:
March 17, 2015 at 6:16 pm
…
My money is still on an insolvency event with MA the victor
==============================================================
If that occurs, would that not be proof positive that Ashley has had a continuing ‘undue influence’ over TRFC, as per the SFA rules ? [I know]
IMO, the only asset of real value which “could, possibly” be out of the direct control of either MA or King is the actual football license(s).
Could there be a scenario where MA controls the insolvency event – but King and the 3B’s get the football licence to start afresh ?
Just thinking aloud, and this doesn’t explain why DK & the 3B’s acquired RIFC shares – so could be talking mince, again… 😉
ecobhoy says:
March 17, 2015 at 6:56 pm
GoosyGoosy says:
March 17, 2015 at 6:16 pm
My money is still on an insolvency event with MA the victor
—————————————————-
You may well be right. But how much of a ‘victory’ will it be for Ashley if no one goes to Ibrox and no one buys his merchandise?
And tbh I could see that happening if the new Board lose control in an insolvency event.
I have reached the stage where I think it’s impossible to call what’s going to happen but I can’t see it being that long away before it all becomes much clearer. Time like money is running out IMO.
___________________________________________________________
My view:
The difference between MASH and King?
MASH had an awareness of the situation, a plan (one the bears didn’t like) the money to execute it, a raft of contingency positions, and alot of silence, and very limited aspirations.
King had some words (which the bears liked), and unlimited aspirations, but none of the other things.
…any day now, we should hear the outcome of this, I shouldn’t wonder.
They voted.
“The onerous contracts will bleed the club to death if nothing is done about them. They can`t be removed without liquidation or a massive buy out”
Can I just point out if it wasn’t for the “onerous contracts” the people in question would not have put money into the club and it would have died (again).
You can rail against the injustice of these contracts all you like but there was a cause and effect so to speak…
Whatever his faults (refer to South African judiciary for details), I have always worked on the assumption that King isn’t stupid. However, the events of the last couple of weeks do leave me wondering. I don’t mean the disastrous Chris Graham appointment, I assume that was the genius that is Paul Murray’s doing.
But where is the business plan? The new Board face exactly the same problems as the old Board, but seem less well equipped to deal with them. Plus, they have an additional problem, that without the promised NOMAD, the company delists by default in a fortnight.
Delisting undoubtedly suits King in one way, since he does not relish the scrutiny of the markets, or having to comply with all their silly rules. But without a listing, where is the money going to come from? So far as I am aware, King and the 3 Bears have put precisely nothing into the company so far. They bought a load of shares, but not a penny of that has gone to the company. Since the company is loss-making, and has run out of money, Ashley must be paying the bills, either from the residue of his first £5m, or the start of his second £5m.
So what’s the plan? King boasts about getting rid of the onerous contracts. The contracts may well be onerous, but they may also well be legally watertight. I would be amazed if they aren’t. I assume that any failure to pay will result in an immediate winding up order. Wallace looked into all this, and it seems he concluded that nothing could be done. So is liquidation the plan, to wipe the slate clean and start again? But Ashley has a floating charge, and he will insist on getting his money back. So not such a clean start. King’s options appear to be-
1) King puts in a huge amount of cash, pays off Ashley, buys in a load of new players, totally refinances the business, and wipes the floor with Celtic, leading to Champions League glory, to the strains of Zadok the Priest (plus some stuff from the “songbook” no doubt), with Charles Green and his grandchildren watching from the directors’ box. That will cost King, and anyone stupid enough to buy in, a minimum of £50m. Let’s call that one the fans option, because that is the scenario that most of them believe is imminent.
2) King is too tight to lob in loads of his own money, and nobody else is daft enough. So insolvency is the name of the game, shareholders wiped out (again), Ashley collects on his charges, either in cash or kind, and King starts all over again. What I don’t get is that the target is the same (CL, Zadok, etc) and all this saves is the onerous contracts. It will still cost King at least £30m to get where he wants to be, and will take longer.
3) Is there a third way? I can’t see it with King in charge. Without a listing, outside finance via shares seems impossible. My own third way would involve selling off everything (apart from Ibrox) and cutting costs (including wages) to the bone. Get all those youngsters into the team on wages that actually reflect their worth. See out the onerous contracts (they can’t last forever, surely?) and build from the bottom. If someone had taken that approach 3 years ago, I think they would now be in a strong position financially, and with a much better team on the park. Just not “The Rangers Way” apparently. It had to be top wages all round, luxury hotels overnight in places like Brechin, Ally as manager,and all that garbage.
So I’m back where I started. Either King is very clever, and has an amazingly clever plan that I can’t even begin to work out, or he’s one of those very rich people who just got lucky, but isn’t really all that smart. Time will tell.
StevieBC says:
March 17, 2015 at 7:14 pm
Could there be a scenario where MA controls the insolvency event – but King and the 3B’s get the football licence to start afresh?
Just thinking aloud, and this doesn’t explain why DK & the 3B’s acquired RIFC shares.
———————————————————————-
There is always the possibility that DK has voluntarily taken the role of ‘sacrificial pawn’ but I think it’s a very slight one. But in the scenario T3B would have no probs being awarded the football licence.
As we know only too well ‘The Club’ can survive insolvency – what really counts is the licence to play football because without it even an immortal club can’t survive or at least take to the park.
I just can’t see Ashley being granted the footballing licence under any circumstances by the SFA/SPFL. I don’t believe the Hampden suits have the courage for that.
However beyond that the permutations of what might/could happen become mind-boggling – we simply don’t know but I’m sure there must be some contact/discussions between both sides going on. But whether DK is involved or not is another matter.
As to the acquiring of shares I tend to think there’s a fair chance that it was because of the Sarver move. Of course we don’t know whether there was any link between Sarver and Ashley or whether the timing was simply coincidental.
neepheid says:
March 17, 2015 at 7:30 pm
But without a listing, where is the money going to come from?
=========================================================
Don’t think delisting makes much difference wrt getting money in.
Any ‘investor’ at this stage is likely to be motivated by emotion rather than gain and as far as the fans go I’m sure the board would rather they bought season tickets.
neepheid says:
March 17, 2015 at 7:30 pm
——————————————
On the delisting from AIM it makes sense in some ways if it’s decided that Rangers raising any significant funding on AIM simply isn’t a starter. There’s the fairly high costs of AIM membership never mind the red tape and disclosure requirements.
Obviously delisting is often a stage on the way to insolvency but that isn’t automatic. The fans have put their money in as an emotional investment and mentally wrote it off. They never thought they would ever get a dividend either.
But I really don’t think there’s that much more to come from fans via AIM and who else would buy shares in Rangers?
Ashley never needed AIM to finance the club and I thought originally that DK did. But I’m no longer sure of that because Rangers are clearly a basket case and what Institutional Investor of HNWI in their right mind whoud buy shares.
So maybe DK and T3B think they can do it with soft loans from RRM but I really find it hard to believe they can get enough and certainly not to bridge the shortfall for 2/3 years.
So I’m like you I haven’t a clue what’s going down. Always worth remembering of course that if they delist and re-start as a limited company then shares can be sold in that.
Indeed it might even be possible to come to a deal with the PLC shareholders to swap their shares for Ltd company ones at an agreed price. The opposite happened when Rangers was floated on AIM with a 1-for-1 swap of TRFCL shares for RIFC Plc ones.
I keep getting the feeling that we are about to have a brand new chapter of financial jiggery-pokery revealed to us mere mortals 😆
jockybhoy says:
March 17, 2015 at 7:24 pm
Can I just point out if it wasn’t for the “onerous contracts” the people in question would not have put money into the club and it would have died (again).
—————————————————–
I think actually it probably would have been bought by the Blue Knights but chances are it would still have died again before now.
Eco: I think actually it probably would have been bought by the Blue Knights but chances are it would still have died again before now.
They had the chance, ok was a smaller window than they expected but they didn’t put up the readies… No this whole scenario has been everyone of a blue persuasion waiting for some one else to put the money in and them to join the bandwagon. Is this our traditional Scottish reluctance to be profligate (I note Celtics major investors are Irish ) or is it a reluctance to back a lame horse…
Ashley might just have been willing to run with the new regime a few weeks ago,but now,after the glib and shameless one has spouted off,Ashley might just be wondering if the SA judge might have actually been holding back on his comments and will now re think his plan A,I would imagine guys like Ashley always have a plan B,so what is it,if there has been a draw down he has 2 aces to play,if the draw down has not been brought into play then the new guys better have their ducks in a row as there can be no gaps to fill as there will no one to fill them,they are now drifting in the life boats as the good ship Sevco has been scuttled and King will need to Pirate a different ship to board with his motley crew,interesting 2 weeks ahead me hearties.
neepheid says:
March 17, 2015 at 7:30 pm
It’s probable that Mr King is rediscovering, (assuming that ICAS teaches it, (CIMA used to)), the old Change Management proverb:
Assumption is the Mother of all Feck Ups.
There are still bits missing, but, the next ten days or so should be enlightening, whose hand will go into whose pocket?
@neepheid
That one came up on SSB tonight via a little historical revisionism from Gordon Dalziel. A little too late, especially as Alloa go one up at Ibrox in front of a sparse crowd.
jockybhoy says:
March 17, 2015 at 8:32 pm
I doubt if the Blue Knights would ever have been allowed to purchase the assets and business back in 2012. However in view of impending criminal court cases I doubt that we can discuss the matter. Still it will be nice to see if any light is eventually thrown on the issue.