Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?

ByAuldheid

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?

 

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.

Auldheid  Feb 2015

About the author

Auldheid author

Celtic fan from Glasgow living mostly in Spain. A contributor to several websites, discussion groups and blogs, and a member of the Resolution 12 Celtic shareholders' group. Committed to sporting integrity, good governance, and the idea that football is interdependent. We all need each other in the game.

5,190 Comments so far

TincksPosted on10:02 pm - Mar 18, 2015


Resin_lab_dog says:
March 18, 2015 at 9:52 pm

Thanks and I agree with just about every word. But none of this was hidden pre EGM. MA’s position was entirely out in the open.

Why go to all that effort just to get themselves in this pickle? That’s what I don’t understand, how obvious this mess is. Where they blind?

View Comment

Nuclear SheepPosted on10:04 pm - Mar 18, 2015


I’ve just watched the BBC highlights of last night’s game at Ibrox and there does not appear to have been a very big crowd there. The reported attendance is 28,902. It looks nearer to 10,000 rather than what is recorded, maybe less. Have a look and give an opinion. Maybe there were loads of people sitting high up. I could be doing them a disservice and if I have, I sincerely apologise. These must be worrying times.

View Comment

ianagainPosted on10:11 pm - Mar 18, 2015


Resin

Interesting take on current quandaries surrounding the new winner’s of the probably poisoned chalice.
The good bad bank description v perceptive.

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on10:25 pm - Mar 18, 2015


Christyboy says:
March 18, 2015 at 7:31 pm
This really is getting ridiculous. So DK&Co finally get to the top of the marble staircase, banging on about what they’re going to do, stop all the contracts, inject the team with new cash and throws off two directors from the board.Then ……nothing! No cash, no plans and no Dave !!!!!!! Not a penny between them and still looking for other people’s money. A complete blowhard. They’ve no shame, asking MA to pony up again after they’ve taken over. If ever there was a time for a club/company to just pack it in, its now . This is just embarrassing.
========================================================================
Ok…hands up all those who can honestly say…”…seen it all before…been there, done that, got all the T-shirts, including some from Mr Ashley’s designer outlet”
:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on10:37 pm - Mar 18, 2015


Resin_lab_dog says:
March 18, 2015 at 9:52 pm
Tincks says:
March 18, 2015 at 9:19 pm

Well RIFC has been now largely carved up into the solvent ‘good’ Sevco (retail) – which Mash pretty much owns, and ‘bad’ notionally insolvent sevco (football operations), which DCK and the 3B have just triumphantly wrested from out of his control.
====================================================================================
Resin_lab_dog…superbly succinct analysis…as I have said to EJ…where were you in my third year economics class at “yooni”…?

First Class honours would have been mine…quite easily… 🙂 🙂 🙂

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on10:58 pm - Mar 18, 2015


ianagain says:
March 18, 2015 at 10:11 pm

Its a good analogy, up to a point, the “Good” business, Rangers Retail is largely dependent on a continuing, reasonably successful “bad” business, the football operations.

If the football stops, or the support base declines, then the retail business will decline with it. Its a symbiotic relationship.

View Comment

indy14Posted on11:25 pm - Mar 18, 2015


scapaflow says:
March 18, 2015 at 10:5If the football stops, or the support base declines, then the retail business will decline with it. Its a symbiotic relationship.8 pm

Despite rangers retail requiring fans to purchase goods to make money, I would still suggest at this stage it be a more parasitic relationship than symbiotic. I would guess even in a no longer trading TRFC there would still be money to be made from trademarks and suchlike

View Comment

GoosyGoosyPosted on12:23 am - Mar 19, 2015


Resin_lab_dog says:
March 18, 2015 at 9:52 pm

Suppose it turns out Mash is in a position to crash the bus?
…………
I think he is…and wins either way
Because IMO
Ashley and the Onerous Spivs are in cahoots (Alternstively Ashley = Onerous Spivs)
And
The onerous contracts are structured such that a massive lump sum becomes payable in the event of liquidation This would guarantee that the onerous Spivs plus Ashley would be the biggest Creditor and thus control the Prepack Liquidator.
If the business is liquidated by the 3Bs Ashley instructs the Liquidator to sell the business to Ashley (Sarver) MA then reinstates the onerous contracts and TRFC are stuffed

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on12:50 am - Mar 19, 2015


capaflow says:
March 18, 2015 at 10:58 pm

ianagain says:
March 18, 2015 at 10:11 pm

Its a good analogy, up to a point, the “Good” business, Rangers Retail is largely dependent on a continuing, reasonably successful “bad” business, the football operations.

If the football stops, or the support base declines, then the retail business will decline with it. Its a symbiotic relationship.

__________________________________________________

Agreed. That much is obvious.
But the brand is and retail is already established.

It wouldn’t have to be THIS footballing operation working on SDM style of financial lunacy to sustain that side of things, i.e. monetising the brand.

Hearts run on a shoestring compared to TRFC. Are their fans any less loyal?
They are certainly more successful. If RIFC were doing what Hearts did…?

And it would be no problem for Mike to drip feed into A (not necessarily THE) sports opco to support the other elements (retail and branding).

In many respects the further the footballing operation falls now, and the more ‘icons’ like McCoist are found wanting, and the more ‘saviors’ like King are shown up to be mouths without trousers, the less it costs Mike to give bears the sniff of a keen 2/3rd place team in the long run, well placed to ‘do one’ on celtic now and again,(but only if enough shirts are sold to pay for the chance 😉 )

The Rangers ‘of old’ is not a model that fits with this ambition however.
There are any number of other imaginative angles that COULD be played here, nevertheless.

Hey…he could even relaunch NUFC as ‘Rangers in the Premier league’ FFS and play alternate ‘home’ games at Ibrox/ St. James, and remove the SFA from the euqation in one fell swoop. (Not likely given that NUFC shirts sell better than Sevco ones, but that is the level along which Mash’s thinking will be operating if I am any judge!… if sevconians buy enough shirts… who knows 😉 )

There are any number of contingencies if the revenue streams start to run thin. The loan signings (… think about it: increasing chances of promotion, whilst sinking claws in deeper) are an example of the calibre of management the SD has at its disposal. 👿

For crying out loud he could sell green RFC tops complete with the official ‘Rangers’ logo and ‘RIP 2012’ date emblazoned prominently, for Celtic fans to wear at the next “old firm” encounter, if he thought that would gain him a bigger net return. 😈

And no one could stop him! He would own the IP to do so!

If Mash’s people are not working on these aspect as I write, it will only be because he already worked it all out and covered all the angles ahead of time. I kid you not!

I wonder how many times he covered the ground on King, checking and rechecking that there wasn’t something amiss:

“Can these guys really be that naive?
“I know what you said Derek, but I still think they must be lulling us into a false sense of security.
“There must be another angle here! Go check! Now check again
“And Don’t forget: You are dealing with real crooks this time! Take nothing for granted”

View Comment

ZilchPosted on1:24 am - Mar 19, 2015


I am not a businessman.

I have little to no understanding of the various shenanigans that these kinds of guys are able to get up to and still be on the right side of the law.

My knowledge of these matters, such as it is, has largely been gleaned from reading the expertise freely offered on this blog (thank you!).

No, my take on the issues down Govan way are those of the average joe punter – I have absolutely no idea which twist or turn this saga will take next.

If Carlsberg did soap operas, they would struggle to beat this one…

My thoughts tonight are with the poor, presumably bewildered fans of the Ibrox club.

Don’t get me wrong, I am up front in my absolute disdain for the club they support and the ethos it represents. I believe their club is a stain on Scottish society and we would collectively benefit if it ceased to exist.

However, I still have many friends and family who supported, and in decreasing numbers, continue to support the team playing at Ibrox.

These are people I care about and would not see harm done to them.

I find myself thinking about them in much the same way as I have previously found myself thinking about poor suffering souls who have had the terrible misfortune to experience serial domestic abuse.

I think everyone has seen insecure, easily-manipulated people, sadly usually female, engage in successions of toxic relationships. From the outside you can clearly see the disastrous consequences in advance and you try to offer advice and counsel, warning against the impending disaster, saying – look – this guy is not right for you – he is going to hurt you – he is not going to look after you right – for God’s sake, please don’t let this happen again.

And all too often, blinded by love or the hope of love or the fantasy of love, you see the scenario play out again. Love and loyalty offered, is returned with cold disdain and contempt, and too often with violence. Physical and emotional torment is inflicted on the weakest and most vulnerable.

Yet when you speak to them they tell you of how much they are in love, how things are going to be marvellous and their dreams for a glorious future together.

You shake your head and wonder to yourself – how it is possible that someone so apparently bright could be so deluded?

The answer is probably some combination of love, fear and infatuation. The desperate desire to believe that somehow, against all the odds, this time it is going to work out. Sure they have been knocked about before, and yes, they know the current guy has a reputation, but if they can just connect with him, make that intangible connection that goes straight to the heart and brings out the good guy they just know is waiting to be released – you know, it is going to work out better this time. Really.

It never does.

Sadly.

We have often talked about the decent fans of Rangers. We know them and have good personal relationships with them.

Yet again, they find themselves engaged in what has all the hallmarks of another abusive relationship.

The big plan is that they will have some fabulous future, based on wishful thinking, and ignoring the very real, very obvious failings of the guys that purport to be their saviours.

The fans are swept along on a tide of emotion, not critical thinking, encouraged along the way by dubious friends in the media telling them that it is going to be great this time.

Just believe and it will be better than OK – it will be magnificent – glory and dignity awaits after the squalour of recent years.

And like the poor souls that have been battered into acquiesence, for whom the current way of life is all they are able to imagine, for whom obedience and blind loyalty has become normalised – this rotten mirage is all they can dream of.

Of this I am certain – Rangers and the various chancers, spivs and worst of all, the so-called Real Rangers Men, that have first brought the club into extinction and then fought over the scraps from the corpse – they really are a blight on society and we would be better off without them.

As for the ordinary, decent Rangers fans, the guys I know and you know, that don’t engage in the sectarian rubbish and just follow the club their Dads raised them to follow? They deserve pity and an unceasing effort to raise their aspirations to a better existence than is possible with the zombie remnants that currently reside at Ibrox.

For the record. Domestic abuse is far, far more serious than any of the rubbish that happens in Scottish football. I hope that nothing I say above trivialises the dreadful nature of domestic abuse. The victims deserve our care and support and the perpetrators need to be stopped.

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on1:37 am - Mar 19, 2015


There was recently something of deja-vu moment.

On 27th March 2012 the BBC published a report which contained the following passage:

St Mirren had asked the businessman to stand down within 48 hours or the board would call an extraordinary meeting.

The board was unhappy that McGeoch had shown confidential information to Rangers’ company secretary Gary Withey.

Gary Withey of Collyer Bristow attended a meeting in the St Mirren board room on 25 November as part of our prospective bid for St Mirren Football Club,” stated McGeoch.

“The meeting was a preliminary meeting before appointing Collyer Bristow as our legal representative and undertaking any due diligence work.

On 13th May 2012 The Telegraph reported:

Duff and Phelps have confirmed they view Green’s bid as the highest of four potential offers. And Rangers have called a press conference for 10am this morning where Green is expected to be confirmed.

Green: “The administrators are going to introduce me as the preferred bidder and we’ll do a joint press conference when things will become clearer.”

On 17th May 2012, Neil Doncaster invited journalists up to Hampden to give an interview on the Rangers situation. The Scotsman wrote:

Doncaster admits to being “baffled” that in this country such a distinction is drawn between Rangers exiting administration through a company voluntary arrangement [CVA], as prospective new owner Charles Green will attempt in the coming weeks, and doing so by moving the assets to a new company [newco] as the old one sinks because of debt, as he probably will be forced to do to effect a successful purchase.

Rules governing insolvency events at football clubs should not be determined by the “attitude of creditors”, argues the SPL chief executive, who balks at the notion of “admitting” a new Rangers. “The football club will continue to be there [in the SPL]; it’s only the corporate entity that changes. The matter for debate is on which basis the club’s football share is transferred to that new entity,”

On 1st January 2015, in an interview with Chris McLaughlin, Mr Doncaster says:

“In terms of the question about old club, new club, that was settled very much by the Lord Nimmo Smith commission that was put together by the SPL to look at EBT payments at that time.

“The decision, very clearly from the commission, was that the club is the same, the club continues, albeit it is owned by a new company, but the club is the same.”

On 2nd January 2015, the BBC reported that:

Dave King has bought a near 15% stake in Rangers International Football Club by purchasing the shares held by Artemis and Miton.
The South African-based businessman made the purchase after his funding offer was rejected by the board.

King had previously wanted his funds to go directly to the club.

But the former Rangers director had to alter his strategy following the board’s decision to take a loan from Newcastle United’s Mike Ashley instead.

On 13th January 2015, The Scotsman published an article:

AN ARGENTINE group understood to be the frontrunners to buy St Mirren has been urged to explain why.

The four-man group – led by lawyer Ricardo Pini – has lodged a £1.5 million offer.

Sources close to the Paisley club denied on Sunday that a firm agreement has been reached, although other parties are adamant a sale is imminent.

Now John White, secretary of the St Mirren Independent Supporters Association, says the South Americans need to tell Buddies fans what their plans are.

He said: “I’ve got one simple question: Why? I’d ask the same question no matter where they come from. If you do not have a St Mirren background, then why are you here? We’ve heard they are going to buy a 75 per cent stake but that gives you a lot of power.

Pini and his brother Sebastian were previously involved with Chilean club Rangers de Talca. The club was sold earlier this year following the team’s relegation to the Chilean second flight.

As it was clear from the beginning of Charles Green involvement that liquidation/purchase of assets was in the “recovery” plan, it has become increasingly likely that Dave King is following a similar route.

I don’t know if current the St Mirren angle is pure coincidence; but it certainly appeared that Whyte/Green were at least exploring the possibility of doing to St Mirren what Airdrie Utd did to Clydebank.

The only thing I am certain of, is that to have any possibility of establishing a solvent business, Dave needs to wipe the slate clean. He almost certainly will liquidate the current legal entity. If I am correct, he (like Charles Green was at the time of his “takeover”) will have been greatly encouraged by Neil Doncaster’s recent “same club” statement.

However, even if Dave does have to forego the club name and other IP (and dump the “same club” invention), he will still proceed on the premise that the fans will remain loyal to whatever “new” club plays out of Ibrox.

I would imagine that DCK purchased the shares in January with the complete expectation that MA would have pulled the plug long before the subsequent EGM.

I think he (the GASL) gambled on picking up Ibrox in a liquidation firesale.

But, now that he has “won” the EGM battle, I don’t think he has any clue what to do next.

View Comment

melbournedeePosted on3:20 am - Mar 19, 2015


GoosyGoosy says:
March 19, 2015 at 12:23 am
Resin_lab_dog says:
March 18, 2015 at 9:52 pm

Goosy,

You have been posting your theories for some time on how Mike Ashley/Sport Direct will get his hands on Rangers following a liquidation event.

I have a couple of problems with the scenario you are proposing so perhaps you could clarify the following:

1) You say: “The onerous contracts are structured such that a massive lump sum becomes payable in the event of liquidation.”

How would this ever be possible? Even if possible, surely any such contract would be disclaimed by the liquidator as being onerous.

2) You say: “This would guarantee that the onerous Spivs plus Ashley would be the biggest Creditor and thus control the Prepack Liquidator.”

Mike Ashley/Sports Direct are secured creditors and would have no vote in appointing a liquidator or controlling the liquidation.

3) You say: “If the business is liquidated by the 3Bs Ashley instructs the Liquidator to sell the business to Ashley (Sarver) MA then reinstates the onerous contracts and TRFC are stuffed”.

Now you are saying King/3B are liquidating the company. How does MA instruct the liquidators so sell the assets to any one if the liquidator is appointed by directors/shareholders/unsecured creditors? If TRFC is liquidated, how does MA reinstate spiv onerous contracts in TRFC? Surely if he or his allies buy the assets/business from the liquidator, there is no need to saddle the Newco with any onerous contracts as MA or his place men would own Newco outright?

View Comment

yourhavingalaughPosted on7:26 am - Mar 19, 2015


Big Mikes new SD store in Argyle St Glasgow is due to open shortly,better go get in the queue to pick up some early bargains,I wonder what they might be.

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on10:23 am - Mar 19, 2015


scapaflow says:
March 18, 2015 at 10:58 pm

Its a good analogy, up to a point, the “Good” business, Rangers Retail is largely dependent on a continuing, reasonably successful “bad” business, the football operations.

If the football stops, or the support base declines, then the retail business will decline with it. Its a symbiotic relationship.

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

Rangers Retail is a very small part of SD; less than half of one percent of turnover, I think.

The symbiotic relationship that makes the money for RR/SD is the lifestyle, casual clothing market, not the hardcore Ibrox attendee. Whilst that would obviously decline, it wouldn’t be at the same rate as attendances/season books. There would still be a part of that lifestyle market who would buy for heritage/history (!!!!) reasons & it would still turn a decent coin for Ashley/SD/RR.

View Comment

redetinPosted on10:29 am - Mar 19, 2015


“He will appoint a nomad next week, he says…”

That report was dated 7th March. Announcement must be imminent. But this is a case where “he says” has not been followed up by the media.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/ibrox-wedding-means-dave-king-5288676

View Comment

tykebhoyPosted on10:39 am - Mar 19, 2015


Nuclear Sheep says:
March 18, 2015 at 10:04 pm
=========================================
As you haven’t had an answer.

I haven’t seen the BBC footage but there was a bit of a social media stushie of mobile phone footage comparing the half time warm up routines of the subs. Basically Alloa’s subs were running intricate dribbling and passing routines in a fairly tight circle. T’Rangers subs were half heartedly and inaccurately humping the ball between each other at 20yards plus.

Anyway back to your point. Although the footage was half time and only about 20 seconds long I could make some observations. Firstly being half time then a fair number will have been away from their seats either purchasing refreshments or relieving themselves of previously consumed refreshments. Secondly the bottom half of the opposite stand was still about half full, although the stand behind the goal to the left was at best about a third full and maybe as low as a quarter. Given this I suspect 10,000 is probably understating it but I agree 28k is overstating it. The problem lies in the way league match attendances are reported. They include all season ticket holders whether present or not. Back at the ring fencing case the RIFC QC insisted that 23k+ season tickets had been sold. There was of course a King led boycott so its possible that figure didn’t increase too much even when half season tickets were offered towards the end of 2014. Since the boycott organiser has wrested control I believe there has even been a quarter season ticket offering and given no more boycott there may have been some upward movement. So Tuesday night saw a maximum of 5000 pay as you go tickets and probably between 10 and 15 thousand of the 23+ season ticket holders in attendance.

View Comment

Carfins FinestPosted on11:02 am - Mar 19, 2015


As it stands this morning I am truly baffled as to the reasoning behind the much trumpeted return of the King. Even more so by the return of everyone’s favourite running mate Paul Murray. There seems to be no earthly reason for these 2 to be so determined to return to the scene of their previous disasterous stewardship. It is obvious to me that they have no money, no plan, and no idea what to do next. So to my mind the desperation to get back up the marble staircase is for another as yet unknown reason. Mr Murray and Mr Park are also in line to kop for a large bill if the Club/Company is in fact, as others have pointed out, trading whilst insolvent. Meanwhile the King relaxes back in SA safe in the knowledge that he is untouchable here. A mere shareholder in a struggling company. P.Murray has been installed for a reason. There are still many ‘unknown unknowns’ in my opinion.

View Comment

GoosyGoosyPosted on11:06 am - Mar 19, 2015


melbournedee says:
March 19, 2015 at 3:20 am

,,,,,,,,,,,
Mike Ashley/Sports Direct are secured creditors and would have no vote in appointing a liquidator or controlling the liquidation.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,
As far as I understand it…in Scotland
The Co Directors are legally obliged to advise the court if the business is trading insolvently
The court would then normally appoint an Administrator/Liquidator
However
MA has a floating charge. In Scotland this gives him the right to appoint a Prepack Administrator/Liquidator in the event of insolvency
If MA(or MA plus the onerous Spivs) have a combined debt that controls the Creditor vote he can also set the terms under which a CVA or asset sale takes place and determine who gets the business or its assets in liquidation
This enables the onerous contracts to be rolled over into the post liquidation scenario for the benefit of MA and the onerous Spivs (who might have been fronting for MA all along)
`

View Comment

The Cat NR1Posted on11:27 am - Mar 19, 2015


Scottish Cup semi-final.
Sunday April 19 12.15pm Inverness CT v Celtic.

It looks like the authorities have taken on board the criticism handed out after the scheduling of last season’s Hearts v Inverness League Cup semi at Easter Road. :irony:

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on11:51 am - Mar 19, 2015


HirsutePursuit. 1.37

Doncaster’s argument that a CVA and liquidation should be given no distinction in football rules misses, unsurprisingly, an ethical point.

ND might argue that creditors who vote for liquidation might end up with more than they do if they approved a CVA and that might well be true in some cases.

But this is not a financial argument here, especially in the case of RFC.

In general terms under a CVA creditors have decided that they expect the business to recover and continue if they accept the CVA and what they will have is an agreement with the business to accept lower payments in satisfaction of the full debt.

In a liquidation creditors don’t believe a CVA will get them what liquidation will to satisfy their debts.

There has to be a reason for creditors going the liquidation route which takes you specifically to RFC.

HMRC as main creditor obviously felt the return to them via liquidation would provide more.

They obviously felt that the business with whom they would be dealing with to pay up via a CVA could not be trusted and by 2012 they had good reason to think that. There was also the precedent value to HMRC.

That same principle is why they were able to pursue the wee tax case and HMRC’s experience of how that panned out must have influenced them.

So in the case of a CVA the creditors accept that they will be paid an amount that satisfies them. in liquidation the creditors remain unsatisfied until liquidation is complete and even then might remain unsatisfied after a long wait. It is a risk the creditors take to recover what they are owed.

To ignore the right of creditors to be paid in full is where Doncaster and football fails ethically and morally.

To argue that in football terms no distinction should be made between a CVA and liquidation ignores that ethically creditors should be paid in full.

Therein lies football’s problem and if not paying debt in full is the thinking of the SPFL and it’s CEO then no wonder the game cannot get a sponsor.

Supporters in general terms have more ethics than those running the game, which is why clubs did not vote to keep RFC in the SPL, which was the SPL and SFA plan, their supporters said “No” and no amount of justification, especially from a judge who appears to have been duped or misled to his conclusion, is going to convince men of ethics otherwise.

If ethics as a concept is good and commercialism evil, then Regan was right, we are in Armageddon.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on11:54 am - Mar 19, 2015


Hard to see who benefits from an insolvency event.

Phil Mac called it right a while back in saying that he who is willing to ‘kill it’ will win the day.

That is Ashley but only to a certain extent.

As many have said this appears to be a little experiment he is running alongside other deals he has with football clubs. He is testing, poking and prodding both club and authorities here and there to see what he can get away with regarding retail/advertising deals, dual ownership, dumping second stringers etc etc

While he is definitely Billy Big Baws of the whole saga, killing off a football club (again!!) will do nothing for his reputation. Those caught in his web may become very wary of his activities and others not already caught up are likely to steer clear of any future deals.

Ashley and his operation still needs to be seen as a tough businessman but kindly ‘benefactor’ that may not bring huge success but will help keep things afloat in uncertain financial times as opposed to some of the fly by nights that get involved with some clubs only to see a mess and uncertainty develop within a couple of seasons.

I still think the outcome of all this will be the club from Govan hobbling along with a good deal of austerity, saddled by SD debt and the RRM having to put their hands in their pockets to give what limited funds they can to achieve nowhere near the level of success that has been spoken about.

No doubt a team can be put together at Ibrox that could earn a high premiership placing and a crack and European football but there appears to be a belief that the rest of Scotland and Europe are just going to lay down to the men in Blue as soon as they make it back onto the big stage.

It maybe, as I have predicted, a team will be built by a steal here and there from home grown talent playing for the closest (non Celtic) competitors may be on the cards. Ibrox still has a big pull for some players as does even a modest rise in salary. There is also the possibly of the addition of Newcastle loan players.

However the rest of Europe is not standing still.

While Deila’s Celtic is no doubt a work in progress you only have to look at the likes Maribor, Leiga Warsaw, Salzburg, Zagreb to see it is no cake walk out there. And these are just the third and second tier guys!!

As opposed to Ashley, King or anyone else, the people that will actually ‘kill it’ will be the fans themselves should they ever get tired mediocrity and enough do walking away.

View Comment

TheClumpanyPosted on12:17 pm - Mar 19, 2015


Auldheid 11:51am
Great comments. Our good friend Wikipedia has this to say about liquidation:
“In law and business, liquidation is the process by which a company (or part of a company) is brought to an end, and the assets and property of the company are redistributed”.

Whereas administration is described thus:
“As a legal concept, administration is a procedure under the insolvency laws of a number of common law jurisdictions. It functions as a rescue mechanism for insolvent entities and allows them to carry on running their business”.

It seems blindingly obvious that the administration process leading to a CVA most certainly *cannot* be equated in any way shape or form whatsoever with liquidation! Liquidation comes with a “terminal” element that can only be ignored through wilful decision or utter delusion…

Either Mr Doncaster said what he did in order to try and preserve what he erroneously perceives to be the only viable economic model through which Scottish football can operate (the Old Firm duopoly), or he really does think that Moral Hazard is an obstacle on his local golf course.

That’s enough for my first ever comment on TSFM. Keep up the good work everyone!

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on1:15 pm - Mar 19, 2015


Carfins Finest says:
March 19, 2015 at 11:02 am

_______________________________________________

‘Tis a good question.

To finish of the shredding perhaps?
One can only imagine what other shenanigans were playing out atop the marble staircase a few years back.

View Comment

The Cat NR1Posted on2:00 pm - Mar 19, 2015


TheClumpany says:
March 19, 2015 at 12:17 pm

Auldheid 11:51am
Great comments. Our good friend Wikipedia has this to say about liquidation:
“In law and business, liquidation is the process by which a company (or part of a company) is brought to an end, and the assets and property of the company are redistributed”.

Whereas administration is described thus:
“As a legal concept, administration is a procedure under the insolvency laws of a number of common law jurisdictions. It functions as a rescue mechanism for insolvent entities and allows them to carry on running their business”.

It seems blindingly obvious that the administration process leading to a CVA most certainly *cannot* be equated in any way shape or form whatsoever with liquidation! Liquidation comes with a “terminal” element that can only be ignored through wilful decision or utter delusion…

Either Mr Doncaster said what he did in order to try and preserve what he erroneously perceives to be the only viable economic model through which Scottish football can operate (the Old Firm duopoly), or he really does think that Moral Hazard is an obstacle on his local golf course.

That’s enough for my first ever comment on TSFM. Keep up the good work everyone!
===============================================
ND believes in football franchising, so the death of the legal entity only leads to the “club” franchise moving to a new entity.

That is what the 5WA first set out, the legitimisation of the franchising of the “club” within Scottish football. Whether that applies to only one “club” or all 42 remains to be seen.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on2:02 pm - Mar 19, 2015


For all you Keith Jackson fans, and I know there are many out there, here is his own very personal rewriting of history. Have a sick bag handy folks, or for those of a delicate disposition, just give it a miss. The Aussie interviewer appears to have a brain in his head, though.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/video-keith-jackson-financial-wrecking-5363311

View Comment

Carfins FinestPosted on2:13 pm - Mar 19, 2015


neepheid says:

March 19, 2015 at 2:02 pm

For all you Keith Jackson fans, and I know there are many out there, here is his own very personal rewriting of history. Have a sick bag handy folks, or for those of a delicate disposition, just give it a miss. The Aussie interviewer appears to have a brain in his head, though.
============
The Australian interviewer seems to be more up to date with the ‘Facts’ than our own Churnalist is.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on2:23 pm - Mar 19, 2015


Carfins Finest says:
March 19, 2015 at 2:13 pm

neepheid says:

March 19, 2015 at 2:02 pm

For all you Keith Jackson fans, and I know there are many out there, here is his own very personal rewriting of history. Have a sick bag handy folks, or for those of a delicate disposition, just give it a miss. The Aussie interviewer appears to have a brain in his head, though.
============
The Australian interviewer seems to be more up to date with the ‘Facts’ than our own Churnalist is.

================
Now that’s what a former colleague of mine used to call “shining against a very dark background”.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on2:36 pm - Mar 19, 2015


The Cat NR1 says:
March 19, 2015 at 11:27 am
Scottish Cup semi-final.
Sunday April 19 12.15pm Inverness CT v Celtic.

It looks like the authorities have taken on board the criticism handed out after the scheduling of last season’s Hearts v Inverness League Cup semi at Easter Road. :irony:
============
Well continuing proof that the governing bodies don’t actually control Scottish football – and don’t rate the paying punters as significant stakeholders.

The clubs get paid relative buttons from TV, but seem to be happy to continue alienating those fans who would like to attend the matches.

And we all know, it comes across really bad on TV when you watch a footie game, [or any sport for that matter], and there is hardly any crowd/atmosphere. Why should you watch a game that nobody else seems interested in ?

IMO, a season without TV coverage whatsoever of Scottish football would be worth considering – to rebalance the objectives of Scottish football, and the influence of TV money.

God loves a trier !

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on2:49 pm - Mar 19, 2015


neepheid says:
March 19, 2015 at 2:02 pm
For all you Keith Jackson fans, and I know there are many out there…

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/video-keith-jackson-financial-wrecking-5363311
====================================

“IT’S the story that has gripped Scottish football for the last five years and from day one, Keith Jackson has been the one sports reporter at the very heart of it…”

That opening sentence is correct – but unfortunately our very own Keef did his best to either look the other way or – allegedly – plagiarise from RTC, Phil, and fellow Bampots several weeks/months after we had discussed at length.

“Wealth off the radar” will haunt him forever !

But you do have to hand it to Keef though: he obviously inhabits ‘a parallel universe’ where his investigative reporting skills and brass neck are widely admired. 😉

But moving swiftly on, it does raise a question.
Now that the bears have a better idea about what has been happening to their club(s), and there has been some truthful reporting in the SMSM about their woes – would it not be a coup for the SMSM to get an article from RTC ?

He/she won an Orwell Award, the writing/analyses was pretty much focused on the numbers and behind the scenes shenanigans. Maybe even the majority of the bears would be interested in hearing his/her opinion on what has happened – and what could/should happen to help the bears recover their club.

The churnalists must have the RTC contact details ?

[Or failing that a blog on TSFM ? ]

View Comment

The_Pie_ManPosted on2:49 pm - Mar 19, 2015


Just Watched the KJ interview on Oz tv.. he called Dave King a Billionaire, Is he having a laugh again just like Craig Whyte 😆

View Comment

The Cat NR1Posted on2:52 pm - Mar 19, 2015


StevieBC says:
March 19, 2015 at 2:36 pm

The Cat NR1 says:
March 19, 2015 at 11:27 am
Scottish Cup semi-final.
Sunday April 19 12.15pm Inverness CT v Celtic.

It looks like the authorities have taken on board the criticism handed out after the scheduling of last season’s Hearts v Inverness League Cup semi at Easter Road. :irony:
============
Well continuing proof that the governing bodies don’t actually control Scottish football – and don’t rate the paying punters as significant stakeholders.

The clubs get paid relative buttons from TV, but seem to be happy to continue alienating those fans who would like to attend the matches.

And we all know, it comes across really bad on TV when you watch a footie game, [or any sport for that matter], and there is hardly any crowd/atmosphere. Why should you watch a game that nobody else seems interested in ?

IMO, a season without TV coverage whatsoever of Scottish football would be worth considering – to rebalance the objectives of Scottish football, and the influence of TV money.
====================================
Indeed.
And further proof, in any were needed, of the contempt with which they regard the paying customer following on from the Dundee v Aberdeen fixture shambles.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on3:05 pm - Mar 19, 2015


Being lectured by Keith Jackson on the ‘Rangers story’ must be similar to being lectured by rent-a-gob Katie Hopkins on how to be discreet. 🙄

View Comment

The Cat NR1Posted on3:05 pm - Mar 19, 2015


The_Pie_Man says:
March 19, 2015 at 2:49 pm

Just Watched the KJ interview on Oz tv.. he called Dave King a Billionaire, Is he having a laugh again just like Craig Whyte 😆
=========================================================
He just can’t help himself, can he?
He might not be having a laugh, but we are. Again. :slamb:

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on3:40 pm - Mar 19, 2015


The Cat NR1 says:

March 19, 2015 at 3:05 pm (Edit)

The_Pie_Man says:
March 19, 2015 at 2:49 pm

Just Watched the KJ interview on Oz tv.. he called Dave King a Billionaire, Is he having a laugh again just like Craig Whyte 😆
=========================================================
He just can’t help himself, can he?
He might not be having a laugh, but we are. Again. :slamb:
=========================
I think he was converting to Oz dollars. Listen again.

View Comment

bfbpuzzledPosted on3:41 pm - Mar 19, 2015


Mr Jackson might have been at the heart of it and taking dictation from those in power. Perhaps it would be better to have sources at the heart of things and dealing with matters disinterestedly speaking truth to power rather than being the bo-peep looking for her sheep in the succulent lamb sense. I now have a rather distressing image trying to come to the surface ugh…

View Comment

y4rmyPosted on3:49 pm - Mar 19, 2015


Just Watched the KJ interview on Oz tv.. he called Dave King a Billionaire, Is he having a laugh again just like Craig Whyte

DK is certainly off the radar at the moment, if not his wealth.

I wonder if he’s hoping to be declared unfit and improper by the SFA. It would certainly give him a Get Out of Jail free card, and he normally has to pay for those.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on3:59 pm - Mar 19, 2015


StevieBC says:

March 19, 2015 at 2:49 pm

I watched the video of the interview with Keith Jackson.

Keith is either being economical with the truth with regard to the £18M bank debt that caused liquidation or ignorant of the facts in respect of what took place in 2008 to bring about unsustainable debt.

That narrative (which I have linked to before ) is set out here in detail http://www.cqnmagazine.com/no-sporting-advantage-my-arse/ and the decision taken then by Sir David Murray in 2008 is imo what more than anything brought about RFC’s demise.

It is a narrative Keith Jackson and his colleagues in Scottish media have been reluctant to publish perhaps because it debunks The Walter Myth and we know how Walter treated Chic Young.

The cover up of the sporting consequences and sporting advantage accruing from ebts that Keith rightly speaks about, but LNS said never happened, is what this latest blog is challenging.

Keith’s newspaper of course received all the withheld evidence that enabled LNS to rule no sporting advantage.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on4:07 pm - Mar 19, 2015


One good thing from that interview is that in the QA Keith acknowledges the need for good governance in response to question about having an overseeing body in place.

Since that is what TSFM wants to see are we making progress in getting that message across?

View Comment

The Cat NR1Posted on4:24 pm - Mar 19, 2015


Auldheid says:
March 19, 2015 at 3:40 pm

The Cat NR1 says:

March 19, 2015 at 3:05 pm (Edit)

The_Pie_Man says:
March 19, 2015 at 2:49 pm

Just Watched the KJ interview on Oz tv.. he called Dave King a Billionaire, Is he having a laugh again just like Craig Whyte 😆
=========================================================
He just can’t help himself, can he?
He might not be having a laugh, but we are. Again. :slamb:
=========================
I think he was converting to Oz dollars. Listen again.
===============================
It doesn’t really matter whether DK is a bona fide billionaire abroad, in whichever currency is selected.

That wealth, real or imaginary, will remain way off the radar as far as the Ibrox financial black hole is concerned, so he may as well be called an on-paper pauper when he jets into the UK.

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on4:38 pm - Mar 19, 2015


I struggle with the idea that a dead Rangers would result in much of the way of legacy sales for the guy who would/will be blamed for its demise.

Someone, pointed out that Ashley s probably doing a bit of prototyping here, seeing what works, what doesn’t, how much he can get away with, without damaging his core business interests.

Ashley being blamed for killing Rangers, would have an impact on his core business, and would have a chilling effect on whatever plans he might have for the future.

Still some way to go before we see an end game, I think, but hey, who the hell knows!

View Comment

ProhibbyPosted on4:42 pm - Mar 19, 2015


Auldheid says:
March 19, 2015 at 4:07 pm
One good thing from that interview is that in the QA Keith acknowledges the need for good governance in response to question about having an overseeing body in place.

Since that is what TSFM wants to see are we making progress in getting that message across?
……….
Is this not just a case of Jackson spouting to suit his Australian audience rather than a ‘eureka’ moment?

View Comment

finchleyflyerPosted on4:51 pm - Mar 19, 2015


Just watched the Jackson video. Entirely predictable, all the errors of omission and commission he makes, but infuriating just the same. And he ends up by saying it would be “churlish” of anyone to say that Scottish football didn’t need Celtic and Rangers to be at the top fighting it out “like rutting stags”.

Well Keith, you can consider me churlish in the extreme.

Oh, and comparing Hearts to RFC(IL) as having suffered similar “insolvency” events just paints you as an idiot.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on5:08 pm - Mar 19, 2015


http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/on-the-level/#more-6036

Phil Mac hinting at possible splits and disquiet in the new board already.

What is it about bus operators that makes them want to become patsies down Govan way?

View Comment

neepheidPosted on5:10 pm - Mar 19, 2015


Auldheid says:
March 19, 2015 at 4:07 pm

One good thing from that interview is that in the QA Keith acknowledges the need for good governance in response to question about having an overseeing body in place.

Since that is what TSFM wants to see are we making progress in getting that message across?
================================

I think what he means can be summarised like this- there should be a body for the fans to blame if a “wrong’un” gets control of Ibrox, but God help that same body if they ever dare try to stop a Real Rangers Man (whatever his track record) walk into the Blue Room.

Only a lunatic would volunteer to serve on such a body, short of £100k per annum, and a guaranteed safe house a long way from Glasgow.

View Comment

The Cat NR1Posted on5:11 pm - Mar 19, 2015


finchleyflyer says:
March 19, 2015 at 4:51 pm

Just watched the Jackson video. Entirely predictable, all the errors of omission and commission he makes, but infuriating just the same. And he ends up by saying it would be “churlish” of anyone to say that Scottish football didn’t need Celtic and Rangers to be at the top fighting it out “like rutting stags”.

Well Keith, you can consider me churlish in the extreme.
======================================
I’m Churlish. And so’s my wife.

View Comment

BallyargusPosted on5:29 pm - Mar 19, 2015


finchleyflyer says:
March 19, 2015 at 4:51 pm

Just watched the Jackson video. Entirely predictable, all the errors of omission and commission he makes, but infuriating just the same. And he ends up by saying it would be “churlish” of anyone to say that Scottish football didn’t need Celtic and Rangers to be at the top fighting it out “like rutting stags”.

Well Keith, you can consider me churlish in the extreme.
======================================
I’m Churlish. And so’s my wife.
+++++++++++++++++
Me and my wife as well.

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on5:39 pm - Mar 19, 2015


StevieBC says:

March 19, 2015 at 3:05 pm

Being lectured by Keith Jackson on the ‘Rangers story’ must be similar to being lectured by rent-a-gob Katie Hopkins on how to be discreet. 🙄
__________________________________________________

Or, as Denis Healey rather presciently put it, “like being mauled by a dead sheep” :slamb: :slamb:

View Comment

bfbpuzzledPosted on5:54 pm - Mar 19, 2015


I am off the radar churlish

View Comment

redlichtiePosted on5:55 pm - Mar 19, 2015


Je suis Churlish!

Scottish Football needs Australia to keep our media types rather than send them back to us.

View Comment

obsessionatPosted on6:08 pm - Mar 19, 2015


Stop Press! Parma have applied to join Scottish Football.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on6:23 pm - Mar 19, 2015


I’m considering changing my blog call sign to ‘Danish Churlish’.

The idea of Mr Keith holding forth in Australia is confusing. He comes across all philosopher-like. Shouldn’t he just be called ‘Bruce’ and put in charge of the sheepdip?

PS There’s nothing Nietzsche couldn’t teach you about the raising of the wrist.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on6:43 pm - Mar 19, 2015


redetin says:

March 19, 2015 at 10:29 am

“He will appoint a nomad next week, he says…”

That report was dated 7th March.
He will appoint a nomad next week, he says, which will provide confidence to the city and potential investors over his suitability, as well as the SFA who are set to discuss the issue in early April.
Now if KJ could just give DK a wee phone call it could all be cleared up why there was no Nomad in place the following week, and put it in the next days paper the shareholders would not be grinding their teeth just now 🙄

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on6:46 pm - Mar 19, 2015


It’s illustrative that Keef had to travel all the way to Oz before he felt comfortable about spewing forth with his own ‘opinions and recollections’ of the Rangers story in person.

It would be entertaining if he could repeat his lecture nearer home next time ?
Like, anywhere in Scotland.
Maybe not.

Proud to be a Churlish Internet Bampot ! 😉

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on6:47 pm - Mar 19, 2015


Just saw this link on Phil’s twitter to Roy Greeenslade’s piece on record revisionism.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/aug/19/daily-record-rangers

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on6:51 pm - Mar 19, 2015


Danish Pastry says:
March 19, 2015 at 6:23 pm
I’m considering changing my blog call sign to ‘Danish Churlish’.

The idea of Mr Keith holding forth in Australia is confusing. He comes across all philosopher-like. Shouldn’t he just be called ‘Bruce’ and put in charge of the sheepdip?…
============================================
Is there a village looking for him ? 🙄

[My last Keef joke.]

View Comment

HaywirePosted on7:01 pm - Mar 19, 2015


Churlish is my middle name (or so my wife says!)

View Comment

ianagainPosted on7:04 pm - Mar 19, 2015


Ah yes. Was the 200k fine levied on CW ever paid?
If not why did it not become part of the ‘fitba debts paid by Charles as part of his end of the5way?
There’s been that many penalties handed down I’ve lost track.

View Comment

parttimearabPosted on7:06 pm - Mar 19, 2015


Auldheid says:
March 19, 2015 at 11:51 am

HMRC as main creditor obviously felt the return to them via liquidation would provide more.
====================================
Auldheid, is this correct?

I seem to recall that HMRC oppose CVAs, (regardless of likely financial outcomes) in all instances such as these, either, I presume, as a point of principle or “pour encourager les autres”

View Comment

yourhavingalaughPosted on7:11 pm - Mar 19, 2015


Brenda
How is SSB these days,is Keef the only one on stage this week,is Shug on holiday.

View Comment

smartie1947Posted on7:20 pm - Mar 19, 2015


For anyone surprised at King’s absence from the marble staircase since his coronation, the answer may be quite simple. Could HMRC, aware of his chequered past as a director of RFC(IL)and his “run-in” with the SA tax authorities, simply be keeping a tab on the number of days he is present in the UK in the current tax year and how that might affect his status as a non-resident?
My guess? Expect him to jet back into Glasgow on the 6th of April.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on7:28 pm - Mar 19, 2015


smartie1947 says:
March 19, 2015 at 7:20 pm

Could HMRC…simply be keeping a tab on the number of days he is present in the UK in the current tax year and how that might affect his status as a non-resident?
My guess? Expect him to jet back into Glasgow on the 6th of April.
==================================
Off the top of my head, IIRC, you’re allowed 70 days pa, and that can be averaged over a period of 3 [or 5] years ?

He could be at his days limit, but Paul Murray’s silence is puzzling.

You would think that King would be on the phone to Murray a lot, and communicating the next stage in the plan to share with the SMSM…you would expect…

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on7:36 pm - Mar 19, 2015


“The World Cup final in Qatar in 2022 will be held on 18 December, FIFA has confirmed…

It would also protect the English Premier League’s traditional Boxing Day programme on 26 December…”

http://news.sky.com/story/1448579/fifa-decides-on-qatar-world-cup-final-date
===========================================
Maybe we shouldn’t be too hard on the SFA: their inspirational masters at FIFA are an even bigger shambles !

View Comment

James ForrestPosted on7:37 pm - Mar 19, 2015


Two weeks after “taking power” the options are already narrowing for King and his people.

http://www.onfieldsofgreen.com/whispers-moans/

Trouble is in the air at Ibrox. Again.

View Comment

GoosyGoosyPosted on7:38 pm - Mar 19, 2015


Ballyargus says:
March 19, 2015 at 5:29 pm
finchleyflyer says:
March 19, 2015 at 4:51 pm

Just finished not watching the Jackson video

Boy it was good
Even better than not listening to SSB

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on7:39 pm - Mar 19, 2015


smartie1947 says:
March 19, 2015 at 7:20 pm
For anyone surprised at King’s absence from the marble staircase since his coronation, the answer may be quite simple. Could HMRC, aware of his chequered past as a director of RFC(IL)and his “run-in” with the SA tax authorities, simply be keeping a tab on the number of days he is present in the UK in the current tax year and how that might affect his status as a non-resident?
My guess? Expect him to jet back into Glasgow on the 6th of April.
=========================================================================
…complete with electronic diary/calender gizmos to count the days…!

View Comment

ProhibbyPosted on7:48 pm - Mar 19, 2015


GoosyGoosy says:
March 19, 2015 at 7:38 pm
Ballyargus says:
March 19, 2015 at 5:29 pm
finchleyflyer says:
March 19, 2015 at 4:51 pm

Just finished not watching the Jackson video

Boy it was good
Even better than not listening to SSB
………….
You will have enjoyed not hearing how Jackson and the DR courageously saved the integrity of Scottish football, then.

View Comment

crawfordPosted on7:51 pm - Mar 19, 2015


Its very simple, Keith.

If Kings a billionaire why did they go cap in hand to MA for a mere £5,000,000.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:58 pm - Mar 19, 2015


Rumours appearing in various places that a tax bill due by the club from Ibrox is overdue. They have to remain rumours without evidence, and cyberspace just loves rumours. However, let’s not forget when the previous club from Ibrox ran into tax problems the first hint was ‘rumours’ in cyberspace.

Surely HMRC would not allow this situation to develop again?

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on8:06 pm - Mar 19, 2015


crawford says:
March 19, 2015 at 7:51 pm
Its very simple, Keith.

If Kings a billionaire why did they go cap in hand to MA for a mere £5,000,000.
===============================================================================
Mibbes because King didn’t have anything smaller than a £1,000,000,000 bearer bond on him ?

[Pun intended.]

View Comment

justshateredPosted on8:36 pm - Mar 19, 2015


I posted before the EGM that, if the RRM won the day, then this was the last role of the dice.
It is bad enough investing your trust, as well as your hard earned cash, in guys like Whyte and Green only to be embarrassed, taken for a mug and let down but you can always say that they never had the best interests of the club, or clubs, at heart. However here we now have real fans, with a bit of dosh but clearly not enough, apparently fighting amongst themselves and going back to the very guy they bad mouthed for two months to get working capital.

If this is true what will the fans think?
They spent months screaming at the last board for being too close to Ashley and Sports Direct. Now it seems that the very people they put their latest quota of trust in, are running back to the very guy the fans do not want anywhere near their club. Oh, and to make matters worse, the terms of the agreement will actually be worse than they were going to be originally.

Now ask yourself this, would you feel betrayed?
How will that feeling of betrayal manifest itself?
Lower crowds?
Even lower season tickets?
Even lower merchandising?

Still I’m sure Phil’s latest is wide of the mark. King is back in South Africa emptying his children’s bank accounts to plough into ‘The Rangers’.

We all know how this ends. If you buy in players you have to pay higher wages, as well as signing on fees, and costs spiral. Spiralling costs are not good for a club already losing money hand over fist. Somebody is going to have to pay the shortfall because one thing is sure; this time it isn’t going to be the tax payer via a compliant bank!!

View Comment

neepheidPosted on9:15 pm - Mar 19, 2015


justshatered says:
March 19, 2015 at 8:36 pm

We all know how this ends. If you buy in players you have to pay higher wages, as well as signing on fees, and costs spiral. Spiralling costs are not good for a club already losing money hand over fist.

=============================
I’m sensing that you’re not fully on board yet with the Dave King business plan.

Step one, buy a brand new team using other people’s money.
Step two, treble (or depending how Celtic react, quadruple) your current wage bill.
Step three, qualify for CL Group Stages- just like that.
Step four, show a big profit with all that CL money.

That Dave King’s a business genius, and with stuff like that, I’m surprised he’s only a billionaire.

Unfortunately, he’s a bit stuck at step one, since other people’s money is proving hard to come by- apart from kindly Uncle Mike, of course, who inexplicably wants something back in return. Well, there’s nowt as queer as fowk, as Charles Green would no doubt say.

If Uncle Mike’s not laughing his socks off at this shambles (in the 30 seconds a day he actually spends thinking about it) then he should be.

View Comment

parttimearabPosted on9:29 pm - Mar 19, 2015


justshatered says:
March 19, 2015 at 8:36 pm

King is back in South Africa emptying his children’s bank accounts to plough into ‘The Rangers’.
=======================================
Ah, DK’s money….the last we heard he was prepared to poney up £10m, enough to pay off the MA £5m and probably just enough to get through to season book renewal I thought.

Then another thought struck…you can’t sell season books until you know which division your playing in….and now that the playoffs are the best they can hope for that means 31st may before they can begin the process….so probably mid June before that source of income can be tapped….

View Comment

BorrowaTennerPosted on9:33 pm - Mar 19, 2015


crawford 7:51pm.
==============

DCK may well be a billionaire. But a SA billionaire will only get 55 mil sterling. And as big chunks of this could be required for future SARS fines, I suspect it would be more important than stadium repairs in Govan.

View Comment

The Cat NR1Posted on10:17 pm - Mar 19, 2015


StevieBC says:
March 19, 2015 at 7:36 pm

“The World Cup final in Qatar in 2022 will be held on 18 December, FIFA has confirmed…

It would also protect the English Premier League’s traditional Boxing Day programme on 26 December…”

http://news.sky.com/story/1448579/fifa-decides-on-qatar-world-cup-final-date
===========================================
Maybe we shouldn’t be too hard on the SFA: their inspirational masters at FIFA are an even bigger shambles !
========================================================
FIFA are just getting ready for RCO’s arrival.

View Comment

Ron.an.MathPosted on10:27 pm - Mar 19, 2015


Ach well . . at least with the Keech and the Parp ( post apocalyptic revisionist pish ) fouling the air down under at the moment its a little sweeter smelling in old scotia for the time being eh ?
😉

View Comment

Comments are closed.