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.
Whats the betting DK pulls out of the picture claiming he has issues in SA that will keep him out of Scotland for the immediate future?
obsessionat says:
March 19, 2015 at 6:08 pm
Stop Press! Parma have applied to join Scottish Football.
==================================================
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/31971955
I’m sure that I’ve read about something similar in the last few years, but I can’t immediately recall where.
Anyway, I’m absolutely certain that Neil Doncaster could come up with a Lazarus-esque solution to their trifling indisposition.
GoosyGoosy says:
March 19, 2015 at 10:28 pm
Whats the betting DK pulls out of the picture claiming he has issues in SA that will keep him out of Scotland for the immediate future?
=======================================================
I’m sure we can ask Blackie or Simmo for the latest odds. 😀
James Forrest says:
March 19, 2015 at 7:37 pm
Good Blog James. I’ve been asking myself some of these questions for a while.
Dave King is the type of guy who clearly resents paying a penny more than he has to….as his tax problems will testify. I don’t see any way for him, Park or the others to even get their money back on this in the short to medium term. Park, Letham and Taylor are wealthy guys but not wealthy enough to drop a few million and not miss it.
I just wonder if they made the same mistake as Whyte and Green before them. They think this club pulls in 30-40k a week, there MUST be a way squeeze some money from that…although to be fair, Green did make quite a bit out of it.
I think the plan was, get the supporters on-side and it’ll al work out. I’ve got to admit, I sometimes struggle to see how someone wouldn’t make money from Rangers but they manage it.
Interesting take on club/fan ownership the guys at Steelmenonline talk to Les H the new sort of owner.
Points
His conversation with Ann Budge.
Success = higher home gates excluding relying on visiting fans.
Shock at SMC lack of care health of player fitness.
Ditto scouting system.
Well fans its up to you don’t look to anyone else.
Its 49 mins
Have a listen. at your leisure.
https://soundcloud.com/bytheminsport/bytheminmfc-podcast-20
Broadswordcallingdannybhoy says:
March 19, 2015 at 11:27 pm
…
I also believe that the lack of level 5 moonbeams of late are because he’s been told to keep quiet.
….
______________________________________________________
… Or maybe Jim has just submitted his invoice for the work done to date, and it is currently inserted quite deep down in a very large pile, far beneath a pressing missive from Hector. 😆
(Hmmm…. “James Traynor, PR consultant and Sevco creditor” … I am liking the sound of that for some reason, that I can’t quite pinpoint) 😈
Broadswordcallingdannybhoy
Great call sign.
Methinks the one at the end of Apocalypse now more apposite to the current shambles.
Calling down the end airstrike on himself.
“BBRSTREETGANG ARCLIGHT ARCLIGHT”
They don’t make great movies anymore except on the Edmiston drive lot.
Resin_lab_dog says:
March 19, 2015 at 11:44 pm
==============================
Re Jim Traynor. It is a matter of record (unless BBC have destroyed the recording) that in 2012 he confidently forecast that at this stage Rangers would be sitting waiting to be crowned champions for the 3rd year in a row. I accept he was not the only person to say that. He then went on to predict they would enter the top league with tens of millions in the transfer kitty. Shortly after those statements he took the shilling of the man largely responsible for ensuring Rangers has to ship out much of the money it does make in onerous contracts, to no benefit of the club. During his time at Ibrox he was responsible for some outrageous propaganda which in my view cast a shadow over what had been a more than decent career as a journalist, particularly with the Glasgow Herald. Now he is back on the scene, and has already been behind the same type of outrageous propaganda on behalf of Dave King and Paul Murray, yet still the Scottish media gorge on it like a pack of dogs who have not been fed for days. Even some Rangers fans can see through it now. The Scottish media, many of whom are far from the academic elite themselves, should wake up to the fact all football fans are not stupid.
upthehoops says:
March 20, 2015 at 7:00 am
yet still the Scottish media gorge on it like a pack of dogs who have not been fed for days.
—————————
That is a great line to describe the SMSM and their hunger for a good puff piece 🙂
Just one point in respect of the notion that the club has to be successful for SD (Ashley) to make money.
The behemoth that is SD will have absorbed Rangers Retail with very likely minimal (if any) incremental cost to its existing organisation (sales/distribution/marketing etc).
Rangers are just another stock line to SD, let’s face it SD also owns that monster of a club Oldham Athletic’s retailing. ANY profit (even if it’s only £10 a year) is still good profit to Mikey Boy.
That Sevco must be successful for Mike to make money is, in my opinion, a myth. They only need to exist.
As a Newcastle fan I can comfortably state, with some certainty, that Mike likes pennies as much as he likes fifty quid notes.
At the risk of yet again being accused of being a Celtic/Rangers hater, why does Deila have to come out with this stuff (see link below)?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/31971265
Now I haven’t seen the tackle, I couldn’t tell you if it was stupid or not, I’d accept it probably was, that’s not the point.
There seems an increasing trend for this mouthing off, with Brown and Deila being at the vanguard. It seems unnecessary to me, unless the aim is simply to stoke the fires before the next showdown between the two clubs.
Trouble is here, you never know the full situation, I’d like to think he was led to giving that statement by a SMSM hack looking for a juicy tidbit. But surely, especially in a club like CFC where you are under the microscope all the time, players/managers/coaches are being trained in the black arts of fending off these kind of questions. Which does unfortunately return you to believing that the answers are being deliberate.
Surely Celtic are strong enough to be able to rise above this kind of playground antics?
I had a read of the Rangers Media website yesterday, in their ‘boardroom’ comments section. A lot of these people clearly ‘get it’, and are very clued up and hence sceptical about what is currently happening. I just wonder if it will do them any good at this stage though.
Ferguson talking keek;
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/barry-ferguson-rangers-could-struggle-5367575
Barry, you’ll be struggling to finish 4th or 5th in the CHAMPIONSHIP
Something must be afoot when even the bluest of bluenoses says that another year in the championship will be a good thing. The sweaty masses are being prepared for the bad news.
tayred says:
March 20, 2015 at 8:34 am
At the risk of yet again being accused of being a Celtic/Rangers hater, why does Deila have to come out with this stuff (see link below)?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/31971265
Now I haven’t seen the tackle, I couldn’t tell you if it was stupid or not, I’d accept it probably was, that’s not the point.
—————————————————————-
I think the point is that it’s usually worth knowing what actually happened before coming to a firm conclusion.
As most here know I’m a Celtic supporter and I would have had the same attitude towards that tackle no matter what team the recipient played for. If it was a Celtic player that had carried it out I would have emailed PL and told him that RD should be instructed on exactly what is expected from any player wearing the Hoops.
Having watched players from teams the world over it seems to me that if time and money has been spent instructing them on the black arts of PR then it’s been a waste of effort and cash.
So let’s get back to the point! It wasn’t a stupid tackle as anyone who saw it instantly realised and I was there and it says a helluva lot for the Celtic support that they didn’t take to the pitch.
It was a shocking, calculated tackle which IMO was designed to hurt and possibly cripple and perhaps even end the footballing career of a young player.
Stupid simply doesn’t cover it as it happened in the dying moments of a game where United had been demolished and played off the park.
probably nothing would have come from the move. As it was justice was well and truly done with the last goal which did much to calm the ire of Celtic fans and especially the shoulder-bumping celebration after it. It restored laughter and sanity which was so nearly lost.
IMO the horrible foul was a warning of what to expect in tomorrow’s game which is pure intimidation. I have watched McNamara closely recently and especially the statements he’s made and I have to wonder where he lost the Celtic Park ethos.
I actually thought of him as a possible replacement for NL but more likely to be one further down the line. Having listened to him recently I can only hope he never steps inside Parkhead as manager because he has shown that under stress his brain disengages and his mouth kicks-off.
It’s time he brought 3/4 players in his team into line and if he fails to do so then the only conclusion I can draw is that he is happy with their conduct.
I for one support celtic because I want to see football played – it isn’t simply about kicking opponents off the park to get a result and I know a lot of Celtic supporters feel the same.
Jackie has done plenty of media whingeing recently possibly trying to cloak his own defficiencies and that of his team. RD is not only entitled to speak-out in support of his players but has a duty to do so especially when life and limb is put at risk.
As to Brown – perhaps you have forgotten that he is Celtic Captain and also every right to speak although I have to admit after his recent kick on the head he appears to have exhibited some signs of delayed concussion.
Stokes was unfortunately unable to comment due to the smash he got in the face which is probably just as well as blood spraying all over the camera lense might have been a tad distasteful.
However I’m sure Brown will be back tomorrow doing what he does best and that’s annoying and frustrating the opposition.
I had no intention of posting on this matter but it happened under my nose and I was fully aware of the crowd and player reaction and it would be remiss of me to allow a comment to pass on the subject from a poster who didn’t see the incident.
This isn’t a PR management issue – well certainly not for United. I’m afraid it’s gone way beyond that. However as to Celtic then they will attempt, as usual, to play football tomorrow. But they will not be intimidated or cowed by those who cannot match them in that department.
Tartanwulver says:
March 20, 2015 at 8:43 am
I had a read of the Rangers Media website yesterday, in their ‘boardroom’ comments section. A lot of these people clearly ‘get it’, and are very clued up and hence sceptical about what is currently happening. I just wonder if it will do them any good at this stage though.
————————————————————-
I actually read things a bit differently from yourself.
There is tons of activity – which looks suspiciously organised IMO – supporting Ashley and the old board and pointing to the flaws in the new Board position.
What is almost completely missing is the supporters of the new board who were previously in the majority of posters and very vociferous. They have gone terribly and ominously quiet in the main as time ticks away with no real good news from anywhere.
It seems to me they are sitting hoping against hope that there will be a sign, anything from DK never mind money.
If it doesn’t happen then there could well be a total collapse in Rangers support which will make the boycott days look like a walk in the park.
I think talk of Rightful Places has now been replaced with the fear of yet another death because even an allegedly immortal club can only die so many times before it’s finally interred permanently.
tayred says:
March 20, 2015 at 8:34 am
ecobhoy says:
March 20, 2015 at 9:06 am
Have just watched said Stokes sending off and elbow to Mcgowan as he leaves the field, another retrospective red surely, compliance officer?- the Mcgowan ‘tackle’ viewed with green tinted specs is typical of those committed by Brown most weeks. Sometimes reds are given. However the reaction of the Celtic players is poor, and is it just me -but are the Delia post match antics,celebratory, incendiary or just downright embarrassing?
chill lads 😎
Mr Ferguson is Clyde manager and saying things which the manager of Clyde should not be saying about another club. at least Mr Deila is talking about things related to his own position. Correct me if I am wrong but calling Mr King ‘good people’ is evidence that at least some football supporters are stupid (disproving the state,net above that all football supporters are not stupid) This may be a sign of my clydeitis or clydeophilia to choice.
tayred
Nobody would accuse you of any such thing, however in my opinion both teams have been guilty of allowing this whole thing to blow completely out of control, egged on by the MSM who are hungry for any story which isn’t the true story of what’s happening at Rangers.
Look at Paul Paton out today telling people that Celtic are intimidating referee’s, and McGowan saying that his tackle was no worse then Browns, at this stage I’m surprised “My Dad is bigger then your Dad” hasn’t been used.
Can we please leave “tacklegate” to the respective managers, players and the drooling newshounds of the SMSM?
The whole controversy is generated to put bums on seats for the next instalment, and sell a few more chip wrappers.
Sorry to be so cynical, must be the eclipse affecting my mood.
cavansam says:
March 20, 2015 at 9:39 am
tayred
Nobody would accuse you of any such thing, however in my opinion both teams have been guilty of allowing this whole thing to blow completely out of control, egged on by the MSM who are hungry for any story which isn’t the true story of what’s happening at Ranger
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The same MSM who lead on a Wednesday with a banner headline re Forrest and Gudetti arguing over who should take a penalty the previous Sunday
Ecobhoy 9.23
They have gone terribly and ominously quiet in the main as time ticks away with no real good news from anywhere.
=========
It’s the eclipse. 🙂
So here we are in the third week of March, when L&L predicted the money would run out and Ashley’s second tranche would be needed to pay the wages and the tax – and quite possibly to avoid winding up orders and admin in due course.
If King is filling the financial gap with his own hard-earned then he is being exceptionally dignified in not telling anyone and not taking the adulation.
btw, how is that L&L “investiagtion” coming along?
ecobhoy says:
March 20, 2015 at 9:06 am
cavansam says:
March 20, 2015 at 9:39 am
I qualified my post with the “I didn’t see the tackle” because in the context of my comment I felt it was irrelevant. From what you say eco I’ll take it as read it was a shocker, I have no reason to doubt you on that. I have no time for players making such a tackle, it needs to be dealt with.
What it doesn’t need is the situation being stirred up through ill judged comments. What I maybe didn’t make clear is that I don’t just hold Celtic up as the only culprits (I read this particular BBC article and felt suitably annoyed to post with the inevitable bias against that particular story). It is becoming more and more prevalent from several managers in the game, but not all thankfully.
But, the more people are seen to get away with it, the more pressure there will be for all teams and management to wade in and mouth off about every controversial point from every game. Referees are only human, if someone keeps saying that such-and-such is a dangerous player then the guys in black will be looking out for that and will potentially over-react to any subsequent event.
We all agree, or at least all those that have seen the tackle agree, that it was a shocker. Its now up to the SFA/SPFL to deal with it, teams could and in fact should be making sure that it is dealt with appropriately (although given that the ref gave a red card, is that the end of the potential punishment?).
Eco – I do have a problem with Brown especially. He is a combative individual who is prone to making the odd silly tackle etc himself. He is undoubtedly one of those players that fans hate unless he is in your team, one of those players that all regularly winning teams have. But, I do think he frequently lets himself down with comments made to the press. A captain needs to lead for sure, but he also needs to be able to defuse situations. These two teams play again this weekend, the last three games have already produced too many red cards. All involved really should be trying to ensure this weekend passes without any further shenanigans. Stoking the fire like this just increases the risk of yet more poor behaviour, more bad tackles and simply increases the risk of someone getting seriously injured. Even looking from a CFC side I’m really not sure it is worth the risk!?
McGowan tackle exactly what should be happening week in week out when other teams are pussy footing around not playing football but doing some silly tippy tappy thing in the corner to waste time / frustrate the opposition.
The only issue with it was it was poorly timed and he seemed to have missed the ball.
Another fine whataboutery example:- 3-0 up and a minute to go.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlipCnAsi1U
tamjartmarquez says:
March 20, 2015 at 9:34 am
are the Delia post match antics,celebratory, incendiary or just downright embarrassing?
——————————————————-
Probably all three 🙄 And I suppose that’s why the Celtic support has finally taken him to their hearts. He’s shown he’s not simply a manager but a human being who cares and the support has connected.
It might all be PR and myth but while it lasts we’ll all enjoy it – that’s the way with football fans who know only too well: Sic transit gloria mundi ❗
There’s a real hope that RD is going to usher in a great period for the club and hopefully that will also help Scottish Football as a whole. I don’t simply talk in terms of success.
But also in terms of the whole football health and fitness regime he is driving – ably assisted by JC.
I laughed the other day when he proudly proclaimed that the Celtic team in the last 6 months had shed a total of 50 kilos – not quite the fare demanded by the SMSM right enuff. That’s the kind of thing he believes is important.
Before long he’ll be signing our 4XL fans for weight clinics and warning that XL will be the biggest size stocked in the Celtic Store in 12 months 😆
You can see the effect on every player – they run faster, for longer, are more mobile and increasingly are knitting as a team and seem to be enjoying their football.
It’s all good for Scottish Football and I’m sure the RD influence will be well and truly stamped on Lennoxtown which is not only good news for Celtic but again for the wider game.
And Celtic isn’t alone in going down this road as plenty of other teams see the sense in implementing similar programmes. It all makes for better, more exciting and therefore more entertaining football and hopefully more bums on seats.
The only thing that worries me about the Ronnie Roar is what happens after a defeat. Will he take to the field and bow to each section of the support three times by way of apology?
Let’s hope it doesn’t get as far as the Hara-kiri stage. He’ll probably just get his kit off 😎
I’ll also wade into “tackle-gate” despite knowing it’s best left to the respective fans forums to be all upset over. So here it is, primarily because I’ve found some of the previous commentary on it, respectively, irksome.
The Ryan McGowan tackle was poor, of that I’m in no doubt; it merited a red card in my opinion. That being said, over all three games between United and Celtic, the reactions of players from both teams to perceived injustices and tackles has been poor. Both teams have been equally guilty with regard to stoking up tensions where few should exist.
I also have a great deal of sympathy with the view that McGowan’s tackle was so similar to Brown’s in the very first game between the two teams, the one which kicked off this whole raging sense of injustice, that it does make you wonder where refereeing consistency lies in the matter of reckless challenges.
Finally, I’ve also, with tin hat firmly in place, while acknowledging Scott Brown’s many fine attributes as a footballer, reached the conclusion he is at times reckless on the field of play. And often I feel his position as captain of both Celtic and Scotland offers him a level of impunity currently not enjoyed by other players playing in Scotland.
The hard-of-thinking bears are being softened up big time for another year in the Championship with pap like this from Barry Ferguson.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/barry-ferguson-rangers-could-struggle-5367575
“That’s why it’s best they STAY DOWN” – genius Barry, “stay down” – as if they have the choice and are deciding to stay down.
Next we’ll be hearing that the play-offs would be a distraction from the journey and re-building – so it’s best not to get involved. No wonder Ibrox attracts such shysters from around the world if this is the level of psychological manipulation needed to soothe the followers and extract their cash.
tayred says:
March 20, 2015 at 10:08 am
I think one of the biggest problems we have in Scottish Football is the lack of transparency over refereeing decisions. The game has got to get into the modern age with an explanation of why a referee came to a controversial decision.
If our home grown refs don’t feel they can do that – for whatever reason – then we will require to import ones that can especially for critical matches where tensions are expected to be high.
A lot of the problems stem from poor refereeing and this current series of games between Celtic and United have been blighted by exactly that. It is also an unusual set of circumstances where so many meeting have taken place in such a short timescale with every match vital.
So there’s no time for a cool-off period. I don’t actually see any way round that. You have to remember there’s plenty of things being said out on the field and all sorts of wee niggles going on which can eventually create a flash of temper.
If they don’t want to go down that route then there has to be a rugby style replay. When you consider how much of the 90 minutes is spent with no actual play underway the time spent checking the replay would be minimal and could be added on as extra time.
And the actual replay and angles viewed should be made available for viewing. Even if we can’t force the doors open at Hampden – let’s at least open the blinds and let some light be shone on our game.
Paul, eco, and everybody else really
Colour me cynical, (and I agree with neepheid its probably the eclipse), but this whole manufactured Celtic/Dundee united rivalry stinks of “If we are not going to get the Old Firm back, can we create some aggro between Celtic & Dundee United?”
It all feels very false, very manipulative, and, more than a bit pathetic. Oh wait I’ve just described most of the football gossip columnists.
Auldheid says:
March 20, 2015 at 10:01 am
Ecobhoy 9.23
They have gone terribly and ominously quiet in the main as time ticks away with no real good news from anywhere.
=========
It’s the eclipse. 🙂
————————
I’m afraid the Dark Ages will last a lot longer than an eclipse 😆
parttimearab says:
March 19, 2015 at 9:29 pm
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….
============
Come on guys, as you know:-
Rule Set 1 applies to 41 of the League clubs.
Rule set 2 applies ONLY to Sevco.
Rule set 3 is a work in progress, created exclusively for the betterment of Sevco.
Ecobhoy
Asking Refs how they came to a decision always sounds like a good idea but you have to be prepared to hear the same answer over and over – “It is how I saw it at the time. I don’t have the benefit of replays prior to making a decison so I have to rely on my best judgement at the time”
And you can’t argue against that defence and the will repeat it over and over until the question stops being asked.
scapaflow says:
March 20, 2015 at 10:40 am
Why is it manufactured? As Eco says this is the result of two teams being competitive at the same time.
In other years it could have been Celtic v Rangers or Rangers v Utd or Aberdeen v Utd.
Surely this is what the game is about.
If teams meet regularly then niggling etc will come to the fore and build with each game.
If it was meeting of big rivals twice a season then meaty challenges and score settling can happen early on in games after players maybe waiting a good few months for the fixture.
It is just sport and the reason why people watch it.
wottpi says:
March 20, 2015 at 10:52 am
The competition is genuine, fierce and healthy, its the guff that’s surrounding it that feels manufactured.
The competition between Rangers & Celtic was healthy, the crap that was manufactured around it was not, I would very much like to avoid that happening again.
Edit
Jut read Fergusson’s piece, in footballing terms he may be right about another season in the championship, if used wisely, being for the best. Financially, its a different story , of course. But does anyone who isn’t called Jim Traynor really believe that Rangers as they are and will be, would be in the least bit competitive in the Premiership?
Oh I’ve done it again 🙂 I didn’t really mean for this to go down the route of a “tackle-gate” as such. My comment was more along the lines of certain managers and players appear to be deliberately releasing inflammatory comments out to the press. This isn’t a one club issue, but at the risk of further scratching and inflammation, the two clubs currently at loggerheads do seem to be flirting with this particular issue more than most.
My fear is, and Eco is absolutely right here, that the given lack of any feedback from referees this is the inevitable result. Clubs will feel compelled to make their views on certain aspects known, be they right or wrong (although the truth more than likely will lie somewhere in-between).
This is especially true while the power-that-be continue to show themselves as spineless buffoons, and do nothing to attempt to soothe the situation (in fact through their bumbling they tend to make things more cloudy and confused).
To me its sad that during a period when many are wakening up to the fabulous possibilities that a more competitive league offers Scottish football, that repeated situations like this latest debacle are causing some destruction of all that respect that had just started to become visible, between the fans at least, of the various clubs (unfortunately with the obvious exception of one rogue club).
gerrybhoy67 says:
March 20, 2015 at 11:24 am
In the library this morning and had a quick look through the herald and Public Notices has the bold king making his application to The Court Of Session to be a director of the sinking ship and inviting objections from anyone who cares?
========================
That’s interesting- I wonder whether he’ll jet in to Edinburgh for the hearing? Maybe Mike Ashley will lodge an objection.
Paul says:
March 20, 2015 at 10:29 am
I’ve some sympathy with the referee here – he let Dundee United play on after the Brown reckless tackle (in the first cup game). Whilst some might argue that brandishing a card right then would have prevented the subsequent nonsense, he probably did the right thing. He also didn’t kick, push, elbow or wind up anyone. Hindsight’s a wonderful thing.
GoosyGoosy
Yep another prime example, what’s worse is they think we don’t see through this garbage. 🙄
gerrybhoy67@11.24 a.m.
“…….King making his application to the Court of Session….”
…………………
excellent spot!
Not to murmur the judges, but is a book being opened on what the outcome of the application will be?
Are we free, as members of the public, to submit objections to him being allowed a director role?
I’m still on the far side of the world, but if I am allowed to object, I certainly will!
I love the Ronny Roar. It suggests to me a real effort on the manager’s part to connect with the fans and show them he appreciates their turning up and backing the team.
Enough posts on TSFM take clubs to task for their lack of consideration for the fans that take the trouble to attend matches. A gesture of thanks and appreciation of the effort and expense non-armchair fans go to should be welcome.
At the same time, academic studies have shown that, so far, no other teams’ fans have suffered any adverse effect from a Ronny Roar.
gerrybhoy67 says:
March 20, 2015 at 11:24 am
can you post a pic?
Whilst scouring the Edinburgh Gazette on line I noticed this.
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/2304153
and this
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/2304156
“Appointment of Liquidators
In the Court of Session
No P17 of 2015
MURRAY INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LIMITED
Company Number: SC192523
Registered office: c/o Deloitte LLP, 9 George Square, Glasgow G2 1QQ
Principal Trading Address: 10 Charlotte Square, Edinburgh EH2 4DR
We, Christopher McKay and John C Reid, both of Deloitte LLP, 9 George Square, Glasgow G2 1QQ, (IP Nos 14092 and 8556) hereby give notice that we were appointed as Joint Liquidators of the Company at a meeting of creditors on 11 March 2015. A Liquidation Committee was not established. I do not propose to summon a further meeting of the Company’s creditors for the purpose of establishing a Liquidation Committee unless one-tenth, in value, of the creditors require me to do so in terms of Section 143(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (as amended).
Further details contact: Kristopher Tosh, Tel: 0141 204 2800.
Christopher McKay, Joint Liquidator
11 March 2015”
Interesting what impact the winding up/ liquidation of this majority shareholder in the holding clumpany that was Rangers FC PLC…….
I couldn’t make out from the post whether he had or hadn’t, and now the post has disappeared?
neepheid says:
March 20, 2015 at 11:44 am
gerrybhoy67 says:
March 20, 2015 at 11:24 am
In the library this morning and had a quick look through the herald and Public Notices has the bold king making his application to The Court Of Session to be a director of the sinking ship and inviting objections from anyone who cares?
=======================================================
Like John Clarke, I, too would like to make a formal objection to the Court re King’s unsuitability to become a director of ANY company, but particularly TRFC.
Unfortunately I seem unable to access online the Public Notices section of today’s Herald.
Can anyone with a printed edition please post the relevant details. Many thanks.
y4rmy says:
March 20, 2015 at 12:23 pm
Couldn’t find any mention of Mr King making an application in the gazzette
TBK
Never though to check STV lol. Score one for the bampots, so much for Mr King’s vaunted I’ve been cleared by the South Africans all is well riff . Must remember to put more popcorn on the shopping lit
“confirmation” from STV………
“Dave King seeks court permission to be appointed as director of Rangers
By Grant Russell
20 March 2015 12:35 GMT
Dave King has asked the court to approve his directorship of Rangers.
Rangers’ biggest shareholder Dave King has applied to the court of session for permission to become a director of the club and its parent company.
The South African-based businessman, who gained control of the club’s board at a vote of shareholders two weeks ago, requires approval under a section of the Insolvency Act relating to his involvement in the Rangers oldco.
King was a director of the company when it went into administration, and subsequently liquidation, in 2011.
The court must give permission for the 59-year-old to take up a formal post as the Insolvency Act forbids directors from taking up a post with a phoenix company which has the same or a similar name to its predecessor.
No date has been set for the court to rule on the matter.
In a public notice published on Friday, it is stated: “Notice is hereby given that a petition has been presented to the court of session by David Cunningham King, for leave, under section 216(3) of the Insolvency Act (a) to be a director of Rangers International Football Club plc and (b) to be concerned or take part in the management of The Rangers Football Club Limited.”
King, together with his associates Paul Murray and John Gilligan were all voted onto the board of Rangers International Football Club plc by an “overwhelming” majority vote of 85% to 15%.
Murray is the club’s interim chairman until King is given leave by the court. He also requires to be passed by Scottish FA chiefs and stock market regulators as a fit and proper person.”
have we been had by a ‘ger-ry bhoy?
If so, let me be the first to wish the curse of Cromwell on him, while acknowledging that he had me going for a minute!
See me and my trusting nature!
interestingly, no mention of Paul Murray and whether he passes the SFA F&P test (I know… I know)
Now I’m not suggesting anyone does complain, let alone BDO the liquidators of the old club/company, but Mr King appears to claim it is the same club, the same business, that he was once a director and failed to resign within the proscribed period…. If I were a creditor, I’d be furious!
https://www.insolvencydirect.bis.gov.uk/ExternalOnlineForms/CompanyComplaint.aspx
Anyone else think the GASL would be mightily relieved if the judgement went against him?
I hope he gets the thumbs up. 😈
Went to fetch another cold Fat Yak there, hadn’t seen TBK’s post of 12.42.
( Sorry, gerrybhoy67 for doubting you! 😳
TBK says:
March 20, 2015 at 12:42 pm
In a public notice published on Friday, it is stated: “Notice is hereby given that a petition has been presented to the court of session by David Cunningham King, for leave, under section 216(3) of the Insolvency Act (a) to be a director of Rangers International Football Club plc and (b) to be concerned or take part in the management of The Rangers Football Club Limited.”
=====================
I wonder why STV quote the entire notice, apart only from the last part inviting objections from members of the the public? Or has the eclipse generated in me paranoia as well as cynicism?
On the DK application (now that we know that such a notice appears), isn’t kind of odd that the newspaper’s sports hacks weren’t all over it?
I mean to say, while we all know about Chinese walls in banking and finance, who ever heard of one part of a newspaper keeping quiet from other colleagues something that, by definition is meant to be public knowledge?
Would the editorial staff at the ,admittedly pale shadow of what was the Glasgow Herald, be in any way parti pris in matters to do with Mr King?
To the point of sitting on what would be a headline story for the sports pages,
One sits, and wonders, doesn’t one, when it comes to reportage of the saga in the Glasgow press?
neepheid says:
March 20, 2015 at 1:03 pm
You are absolutely correct Sir! Good spot.
Is it strange however? I doubt that very much!
The farce at Hampden continues
Free the Scotzine One!
http://www.scotzine.com/2015/03/its-all-about-opinions-until-they-ban-you-for-those-opinions/#more-28598
“The court must give permission for the 59-year-old to take up a formal post as the Insolvency Act forbids directors from taking up a post with a phoenix company which has the same or a similar name to its predecessor.”
Interesting from Grant…. Normally very ‘tight’ regards Legals….
“….. taking up a post with a phoenix company…… ”
‘Successor’ club or company would suffice and opens a can of worms legally.
On the matter of DK’S application to be a Director at TRFC:
What period will be used to make a judgement? Cutting out unwelcome evidence by date control is something we are aware of can happen.
DK could probably make a good case that after CW arrived he was kept out the picture but what about before then?
Did he for example know about SDM’S decision to mutiply debt 5 times in 2008 to buy players to get CL money to reduce the high debt level caused by the desire to play in the CL?
That story is at http://www.cqnmagazine.com/no-sporting-advantage-my-arse/ and I know it’s been linked to before.
Key questions for me would be.
a) Were you party to that decision in 2008 and were you aware of HMRC tax demands at that time?
If so do you think it was the right decision?
b) if you were unaware, given your recent statements on CL participation with its attendant costs, risks and benefits being your aim, would you agree or disagree with the decision in 2008 and why.
Unless he has had an Epiphany since the EGM no barge pole is long enough to keep him away from our game. OUR game.
amended version now up!
“Rangers’ biggest shareholder Dave King has applied to the Court of Session for permission to become a director of the club and its parent company.
The South Africa-based businessman, who gained control of the club’s board at a vote of shareholders two weeks ago, requires approval under a section of the Insolvency Act relating to his involvement in the Rangers oldco.
King was a director of the company when it went into administration, and subsequently liquidation, in 2012.
The court must give permission for the 59-year-old to take up a formal post as the Insolvency Act forbids directors from taking up a post with a phoenix company which has the same or a similar name to its predecessor.
No date has been set for the court to rule on the matter.
In a public notice published on Friday, it is stated: “Notice is hereby given that a petition has been presented to the Court of Session by David Cunningham King, for leave, under section 216(3) of the Insolvency Act (a) to be a director of Rangers International Football Club plc and (b) to be concerned or take part in the management of The Rangers Football Club Limited.
“In that petition the court made an order dated 18 March 2015 that the petition be intimated on the walls of court, advertised once in each of the Edinburgh Gazette and The Herald newspaper, served on certain parties and allowed any person claiming an interest to lodge answers to it within eight days of the last of that intimation, service and advertisement.”
King, together with his associates Paul Murray and John Gilligan were all voted onto the board of Rangers International Football Club plc by an “overwhelming” majority vote of 85% to 15%.
Murray is the club’s interim chairman until King is given leave by the court. He also requires to be passed by Scottish FA chiefs and stock market regulators as a fit and proper person.”
tayred says:
March 20, 2015 at 8:34 am
There seems an increasing trend for this mouthing off, with Brown and Deila being at the vanguard.
__________________________________________
You’d have to include Jackie McNamara in that vanguard given recent whines to the media
– Blamed Scott Brown’s tackle for all the trouble in the first game
– Demanded to see a replay of VVD challenge where Shaun Dillion sustained a cut shin in the LC Final when everyone else could see there was no case to answer – ironic considering the same player then went on to commit a “horror” tackle on Izzaguire
– also had a wee moan about not getting a penalty in the same interview.
– In the build up to Wednesday’s game had another wee moan about Celtic giving Cifti “special treatment” – a player who has a track record of getting involved in incidents and stupidly sent off against a range of teams.
Maybe Ronny Deila and Scott Brown just do what all other managers and captains do and some of us have to check the colour of the specs we’re viewing events through, whether it’s comments in the media or having a bit of fun with their own fans
“In that petition the court made an order dated 18 March 2015 that the petition be intimated on the walls of court, advertised once in each of the Edinburgh Gazette and The Herald newspaper, served on certain parties and allowed any person claiming an interest to lodge answers to it within eight days of the last of that intimation, service and advertisement.”
Given that the main loser from the Whyte/King regime at Ibrox was the UK taxpayer, may I just suggest that every UK taxpayer qualifies as an “interested party”.
I don’t think RFC paid over a penny in PAYE (not sure about VAT) for at least 9 months prior to admin. The idea that anyone who was a director of RFC during that period of deliberate non-payment can just pop up again as director of a self-proclaimed succesor company, trading under the same name from the same premises, is beyond outrageous. What is the point of the Insolvency Act restriction, if such an application is allowed? A director is responsible for the failures of the company he is a director of. I can understand exceptions where a director was suffering from some severe incapacity during the relevant period, but so far as I am aware, the applicant was legally competent throughout his tenure.
Well that’s the gist of my personal submission to the Court of Session on this matter. King has some brass neck even to apply, but brass neck is a commodity he’s got an infinite supply of. Shameless? Certainly.
The Sports Direct store in Hamilton today has “Liquidation Sale” notices all over it. Presumably, in such a Celtic-Rangers obsessed town, the Rangers fans won’t touch it with a barge pole and the Celtic fans, and anti-Rangers fans, won’t go near it because Ashley continues to prop up “Rangers”.
neepheid not only that but he is acting as a shadow director, if newspapers are to be believed, that of itself indicates contempt for the legal process.
I look forward to seeing what the SD camp do on this- they could a variety of things none of which would help the shameless one. If they object that would indicate that the £5,000,000 will not be forthcoming if they do not that might indicate a decision on the £5,000,000 will be delayed until after th court hearing. Perhaps SD are part of the churlish corps 😉
bobferris says:
March 20, 2015 at 2:01 pm
The Sports Direct store in Hamilton today has “Liquidation Sale” notices all over it. Presumably, in such a Celtic-Rangers obsessed town, the Rangers fans won’t touch it with a barge pole and the Celtic fans, and anti-Rangers fans, won’t go near it because Ashley continues to prop up “Rangers”.
______________________________________________
I’ve seen this ruse before and if you look closely you usually see that it’s a “Liquidation OF STOCK sale”. After all Liquidation of stock is the raise d’etre of the retail business.
Last I checked SD were doing very nicely thank you so the idea that the company has experienced a sudden catastrophic meltdown into liquidation seems unlikely
John Clark @ 12:53 – I’m honoured you read my post at all but to give it a 2nd thought is an accolade!No apology required.
Nope
This Application smells
Its been delayed well beyond the earliest possible date
It comes less than a week before TRFC run out of money
Its been announced before any news on the £5m loan from MA
Its been made without a PR statement from RIFC(so far)
The AIM market have not been officially informed
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
So
IMO
King is trying to be seen as making this application on his own without consulting or seeking the support of RIFC Directors
His aim is to give himself a very public quasi-legal excuse for non involvement in any RIFC decision to accept or reject the SD loan
And
More significantly
He intends to use the same excuse to avoid helping to fund the shortfall if the SD loan is withheld
,,,,,,
Or put another way
King is trying to engineer an insolvency event which can be partially blamed on MA without getting the blame for not preventing it
The 3Bs must be furious with him
If they reject MA they will probably need to fund the shortfall themselves
At best they will have to take Kings word that he will contribute funds at some future date if they reject Ashleys loan
At worse they will have to fund TRFC until they are not prepared to do so any longer.
quite frankly, if the SFA board (“at their discretion”) allow King & Murray to join the board of the successor club/ company, the game is lost!
The Articles of Association are not worth the PDF they are scrawled on!
GoosyGoosy says:
March 20, 2015 at 2:19 pm
====================================================================
What is wrong with these people – always trying to stiff someone else for the bill. Why can’t they just pay their way and play football like everyone else.
There is nothing more pathetic that someone scheming to stiff others and failing publically and appearing an utter dick to anyone who cares to look.
GoosyGoosy says:
March 20, 2015 at 2:19 pm
Why would they reject MA. He is the only show in town.
Now “what if” they were working in concert……….
WRT DK
And the next card is played.
If Ashley or DL or BL object to the court and state in their opinion DK shouldn’t be a director – which was certainly the old Board position to AIM – and the court agrees with them then DK can’t be a director.
It will be interesting to see what the Bear take is on that wrt to whether they accept that if DK can’t be a director then he shouldn’t be expected to spend the kiddies’ inheritance. Somehow I don’t see them going down that road.
But one thing’s for sure is that if DK decides this is the time to walk then the Bear rationale will probably be to turn their ire on Ashley and his lieutenants for preventing the King wearing the Ibrox Crown, saving the club and returning it to its Rightful Place.
That again boils down IMO to increased boycotting and less revenue spent on kit.
We could be at least 3/4 weeks away from a court date – I think there will be an accelerated hearing because the court will be informed that a delay could result in the collapse of Rangers through insolvency. So I reckon their Lordships don’t want that mess landing on their doorstep.
And then there’s the question of the 2nd tranche of £5 million being released. Does that mean that Ashley has reached an agreement that part of the conditions to be met require DK to be given dispensation to serve as a director on RIFC Plc or possibly TRFCL.
Lot more twists left in this corkscrew methinks 🙄
Re: the notice, I suppose King has to be seen to follow due process if he is to maintain his publicly declared desire to be the captain of a supposedly sinking/marooned ship ?
IMO, King must know exactly what he is getting into now, wrt Murray being his conduit for obtaining internal data from RIFC/TRFC.
King must know that there is an expectation amongst the bears that he will at some point dig deep into his OWN pockets to fund the basket case of a club.
But from King’s perspective that doesn’t make sense, [based on what we believe to be true at this point in time].
Unless something has been agreed with MA/DL, I would have thought that King would certainly not want to be a director. IIRC, Murray hasn’t put tuppence into RIFC, so maybe the deal was that he would be King’s unofficial stooge ?
Still don’t get King’s game plan here. ❓
Mcfc
Your textbook on entrepreneurial spirit is going to be a compelling, if short, read!
ecobhoy says:
March 20, 2015 at 2:43 pm
agree with some of that, however, the determining factor will be SFA regards ‘compliance’ AND the ultimately league position/ performance, to limp to end of season.
If they do not make the cut for the play offs, or “heaven forfend” as the Blazers at SFA would say, then some sort of insolvency event IMO would be preferred by some.
There is no reason otherwise (unless liquidation to break onerous contracts, which is still to be ratified) to put the clumpany through such difficult times when things are starting to look up for the bears….. (sly grin)
MoreCelticParanoia says:
March 20, 2015 at 2:10 pm
bobferris says:
March 20, 2015 at 2:01 pm
The Sports Direct store in Hamilton today has “Liquidation Sale” notices all over it. Presumably, in such a Celtic-Rangers obsessed town, the Rangers fans won’t touch it with a barge pole and the Celtic fans, and anti-Rangers fans, won’t go near it because Ashley continues to prop up “Rangers”.
______________________________________________
I’ve seen this ruse before and if you look closely you usually see that it’s a “Liquidation OF STOCK sale”. After all Liquidation of stock is the raise d’etre of the retail business.
Last I checked SD were doing very nicely thank you so the idea that the company has experienced a sudden catastrophic meltdown into liquidation seems unlikely
==============================================
Perhaps they are using the SMSM definition of the word liquidation?
No doubt in a few weeks it will be the same shop with the same name, having survived the liquidation sale. 🙂
Kings game plan is increasingly obvious IMO.
He would deliver the fans (at least he thought he could) and the money men would jump in on the back of it, failing to notice that the King money ship was staying in port.
Its backfired because the money men know that there is no point in ‘floating’ a hull holed vessel with the ocean going qualities of a sponge.
But, as eco points out, as an non-controlling (or is that uncontrollable) non director he isn’t caught in any net or line if it turns out they are insolvent. Park, Letham etc, now that’s a different story.
Genuinely don’t think they can afford the hulk to go down right enough, even if just for the reputations of those involved but they’re clearly not overly impressed at the option of keeping it afloat as is either.
But everyone apart from Ashley seems to be damned if they’re doing anything about ‘as is.’ (well apart from Boyd, Miller, McCulloch….. 😈 )
re Dun Utd / Celtic
My tackles bigger than your tackle debate
My only exposure to either tackle decent or indecent has been here on TSFM. .
I no longer frequent dodgy areas of the press and have therefore reduced the risk of encountering sleazy scumbags directly.. 😆
Probably best to ignore them guys . . if they are left to flash among themselves they will eventually get bored . .
From the Herald am I reading this right?
The court has made an order dated March 18, that the petition be “intimated on the Walls of Court”, advertised in the Edinburgh Gazette and The Herald and served on “certain parties”.
It allows any person claiming an interest in the petition to lodge answers to it “within eight days of the intimation, service and advertisement”.
Therefore is there a mechanism whereby an individual or group of individuals (e.g.TSFM) can put forward an argument to the court why DK’s petition should be turned down
It would be a shame to just assume that our courts will automatically know of DKs issues with SARS or be aware of the previous damming conclusions of the footballing authorities saying he appeared to do next to Hee Haw in relation to his fiduciary duties for blowing the whistle on Craig Whyte.
If possible I would suggest someone (maybe Auldheid -no pressure!!) may wish to pull together something that can be submitted on behalf of decent football fans across the country.
Smugas says:
March 20, 2015 at 2:46 pm
Mcfc
Your textbook on entrepreneurial spirit is going to be a compelling, if short, read!
=====================================================================
LOL – there’s no “entrepreneurial spirit” to write about here.
Shafting people is the mugs idea of entrepreneurial spirit. You can only do it once, maybe twice, outside Govan that is.