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.
Smugas says:
March 20, 2015 at 3:00 pm
with all due respect sir, I don’t think it is. His ‘obvious plan’ that is!
This successor club/ clumpany are in a far greater perilous state than when Craig Whyte infamously purchased the Marble Staircase for ONE POUND.
At least Whyte may have had a plan…. Securing funds by Ticketus and delaying tax payments.
Even when Green resurrected the Big House with his big paws a credit line was not forthcoming. That resurrection was brought about by promises of “moonbeams” and alleged creaming of lucrative contracts now deemed as onerous……
This currently, and even since David Murray’s tenure, is NOT a viable business. It never will be until debts to holding/ operating clumpany are satisfied and confidence in the game increases.
If I could paraphrase something PMcG (and others) often states: this is a loss making business with no form of credit line or method raising funds through the Square Mile. I think that is the most accurate state of affairs regardless of the ongoing circus.
wottpi says:
March 20, 2015 at 3:05 pm
as previously discussed, one can always complain 💡 ……”If you consider that someone is taking part in the management of a business with a prohibited name and that none of the exceptions apply, you can report it via the Insolvency Service’s complaint system at: https://www.gov.uk/complain-about-a-limited-company …..”
Gabby says:
March 20, 2015 at 10:47 am
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.
————————————————-
The question doesn’t actually stop being asked but the wording of it changes.
And it becomes: ‘Is this ref’s judgement acceptable’.
However as I mentioned originally if they don’t want to or don’t have the backbone to say: ‘I got it wrong’ then they have to have replays forced on them. And if they keep getting overturned then it’s bye bye time or relegation to a lower level.
We can’t simply sit back and accept atrocious refereeing and especially not in the top league where the whistler appear to be paid reasonable cash. Fans deserve better and I know football is a hard game and if you can’t cut it as a player there’s no sympathy – you’re gone.
It’s the same with refs who aren’t good enough. And if they are held to account for very poor decisions then we should also be able to squash or expose some of the conspiracy theories – real or imagined.
Apart from his vague statements about regulators and due diligence, this is the first acknowledgment (as far as I know), that he actually has to do this. (Although many on here pointed it out months or even years ago).
I don’t know long it will take for the case to be heard, but in the meantime:
In particular, he won’t be able to get the NOMAD he told us he had lined up. Of course, there’s nothing to stop the current directors doing it, but if there’s any connection back to him (like, for instance, telling everyone in a press conference 😕 ), then he is surely already in breach of the above rules.
There are lots of theories about what his game is here, but sometimes the simplest makes the most sense. Given that he still intended to become chairman up until a few days before the EGM, I think there’s a possibility that neither he nor his comrades were aware of the rules.
If I Was A Rich Man
If I was a billionaire and my beloved City was in the mess TRFC are in today – I might not be the richest fan – but I would pay the price, rescue my childhood club and more forward – leaving all the shysters, spivs and hangers-on behind.
Apparently the price for The Rangers is under £30mil for a Scottish institution – the very fabric of society – that is less than three per cent of one billion pounds.
The alternative is to see the farce continue, the damage increase and the price rise.
So Mr King, what is the problem, show the bears the money !
TBK,
Sorry, it being Friday and all, I don’t quite follow your tack 😳
Are you saying King is deliberately crashing the bus to get his chance at picking it up for a £1 sans debt?
Because if he is, he’s making a complete erchie of it.
TBK says:
March 20, 2015 at 3:15 pm
This currently, and even since David Murray’s tenure, is NOT a viable business. It never will be until debts to holding/ operating clumpany are satisfied and confidence in the game increases.
—————————————————-
But those debts can never be satisfied until the club is operated financially within its income. If it isn’t there will always be debts – usually increasing – run-up by the holding/ operating clumpanies.
And the only way to prevent this is to finally ditch the Rightful Place myth using other people’s money. If Bears want to continue covering the yearly shortfall to get to the place they believe they deserve to be then fine.
And it might even work at a pinch if on-field success is achieved. But with the best will in the world I just don’t see it. By the time they can afford a team capable of CL participation then the Bears will have run out of cash.
And Ibrox will have collapsed through lack of maintenance. All of their main revenue streams are effectively tied-up or subject to onerous contracts it would appear.
That only leaves ST money and I reckon that as Ashley has control of the credit card payments IIRC then if he is going to advance the next 5 mill then he’ll probably go for taking at least 50% of next season’s ST income plus the remaining 25% of Rangers Retail.
I reckon Ashley ought to diversify into the fruit juice extraction industry as he can squeeze more out of pips and skin than anyone currently in the business.
scapaflow says:
March 20, 2015 at 1:24 pm
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
==============================================
That is an interesting article.
It shows that those in the bunker are getting worried about those pesky fans and their bampot opinions.
I would regard that as a minor victory for Scotzine.
Being the victim of petty vindictiveness must be far better than being patronised or ignored. It shows that the message is getting through and they are getting worried. However, the messaage will keep getting reposted until something changes at the SFA.
I’d say Je Suis Scotzine, but I’m still in a Je Suis Churlish phase and it would be disrespectful to Keith Jackson to change so quickly.
y4rmy says:
March 20, 2015 at 3:22 pm
I think there’s a possibility that neither he nor his comrades were aware of the rules.
======================================================================
Oh dear – the first rule of cheating the rules is to know the rules better than the average bear.
I’m listening, with some incredulity to Keith Jackson in Australia, ironically at a financial forum, recount the tale of what happened to the liquidated club / holding company.
To listen to Keef lecture the Aussies about being careful not to take PR pieces and report them as fact – Craigy boys billionaire status – and then go on about all the high net-worth individuals willing to invest in the new Rangers – is staggering.
That the DR can proudly boast of this interview is almost beyond belief.
Brass necks, blow torches and the Govan mob seem totally interlinked.
If you have a spare 30 minutes have a listen; you’ll be entertained but astonished at the same time.
Truly an incredible listen and to think this guy is again being touted as the Sport Journalist of the year! This tells you everything you need to know about the SMSM. :slamb: :slamb:
For the life of me I still cannot see why anyone would want rfc … Unless I wanted to do some cleaning … 10k in attendance … Full house banked … 50k x£20
Aye/Naw ?
mcfc says:
March 20, 2015 at 3:29 pm
If I Was A Rich Man
If I was a billionaire and my beloved City was in the mess TRFC are in today – I might not be the richest fan – but I would pay the price, rescue my childhood club and more forward – leaving all the shysters, spivs and hangers-on behind.
Apparently the price for The Rangers is under £30mil for a Scottish institution – the very fabric of society – that is less than three per cent of one billion pounds.
The alternative is to see the farce continue, the damage increase and the price rise.
So Mr King, what is the problem, show the bears the money !
==================================================
That’s ok in theory, but what would DK get for his money?
The ground/other property assets?
Mechandising/catering profits?
Future transfer fees?
etc.
There are far too many known and unknown issues surrounding the group and its assets that a full unencumbered buyout must be considered as being impossible.
Hence, my initial and continuing scepticism of DK and his intentions WRT the Rangers Group.
ecobhoy says:
March 20, 2015 at 3:33 pm
TBK says:
March 20, 2015 at 3:15 pm
This currently, and even since David Murray’s tenure, is NOT a viable business. It never will be until debts to holding/ operating clumpany are satisfied and confidence in the game increases.
—————————————————-
But those debts can never be satisfied until the club is operated financially within its income. If it isn’t there will always be debts – usually increasing – run-up by the holding/ operating clumpanies.
And the only way to prevent this is to finally ditch the Rightful Place myth using other people’s money. If Bears want to continue covering the yearly shortfall to get to the place they believe they deserve to be then fine.
And it might even work at a pinch if on-field success is achieved. But with the best will in the world I just don’t see it. By the time they can afford a team capable of CL participation then the Bears will have run out of cash.
And Ibrox will have collapsed through lack of maintenance. All of their main revenue streams are effectively tied-up or subject to onerous contracts it would appear.
That only leaves ST money and I reckon that as Ashley has control of the credit card payments IIRC then if he is going to advance the next 5 mill then he’ll probably go for taking at least 50% of next season’s ST income plus the remaining 25% of Rangers Retail.
I reckon Ashley ought to diversify into the fruit juice extraction industry as he can squeeze more out of pips and skin than anyone currently in the business.
=================================================
There’s plenty to be made out of brass.
All those necks must be worth a fortune.
Perhaps SD could bring out a Rangers branded blowtorch and polishing set? 🙄
Oh Dearie Me: Oor erstwhile Jackie doesn’t seem to know when to keep stumm.
And if RD is ‘under pressure’ I can only wonder what’s going through the Dundee United manager’s mind at this time. Perhaps we might hear from him at the post match press conference tomorrow or perhaps not 🙄
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/dundee-united/314585-ronny-delias-comments-suggest-a-man-under-pressure-says-jackie-mcnamara/
ecobhoy says:
March 20, 2015 at 2:43 pm
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.
____________________________________________________________
Just a thought:
Could W.H.Ireland (former NOMAD) object?
This would keep things at arms length from Ashley.
They have a clear interest, on the basis that they felt professionally compelled to resign from the (doubtless money spinning) gig by the fact of his appointment?
If they win and his appointment is blocked that is professional vindication for them and a reputational enhancement. Probably wins some friends and influence in SD to boot.
Whereas if his appointment goes ahead uncontested, it could be argued that the opposite were true, albeit to a more limited degree.
In amidst the whole Ibrox shambles I keep wondering when Ibrox will be called to stand security for a loan. Basically there’s nothing else left other than doing a kind of downmarket Ticketus deal over ST income.
I suggested that earlier but having thought about it that would mean the club would need to still exist when STs were put on sale. I’m not sure there is any certainty about that.
So all that remains is Ibrox and with the current problems that Worthington have with AIM I don’t actually see that the threat of any legal action wrt Ibrox is still valid.
So I reckon a lender would take Ibrox as security but the value that could be raised against it in loan terms would only be a few million £ max IMO because of a remote chance of a claim.
Unless of course the place is already owned by someone else – it could well be that is another mystery which will be revealed in the not too distant future.
In the parlous state that Rangers faces then I reckon even the staunchest of Bears would accept Ibrox being used as security to get the club to ST sale time.
But then there’s that long summer with hardly a coin turned. Can they actually make it until some income starts and will it be enough – even with full houses which might be very problematic indeed especially if they are left in the Championship.
I suppose it all depends on how many more crocks MA will send north for rehab 😎
I must have missed the long post about how DCK is going to get the required moolah from SA to G51.
The SA government have strict rules on individuals taking money out of the country. Also, ISTR that as part of his “settlement” DCK had to return all funds to SA that he had placed offshore in his years of evasion. I’d also expect that he’s a “person of interest” to SARS & they’ll be monitoring his activities, both in SA & the UK.
So, if he can’t finance TRFC from SA, where’s he going to get the money from? Other people? The negatives from the past three years have put paid to that, I fear. P. Murray, Park, Gilligan, Taylor, Letham? I doubt they could afford the £20m/£30m/more required to re-boot.
As a couple of people have written, I suspect that DCK will state that he’s encountered insurmountable problems with SARS, HMRC, CoS, SFA, SPFL, LSE, SD, MASH, IKEA & B&Q. (Well, maybe not the last two 😛 ) For the sake of the club he loves (not the company, no siree 😉 ), he’s withdrawing to look after his businesses in SA, leaving the ethereal entity in the hands of Paul & Donald. He wishes them good luck & exeunt stage left. When the bus crashes, gives a few soundbites of the “It wasn’t me” variety. Remains an Ibrox legned…
[Removed]
Time to nip the green tinted moaning in the bud 😛
ecobhoy says:
March 20, 2015 at 4:31 pm
Oh Dearie Me: Oor erstwhile Jackie doesn’t seem to know when to keep stumm.
…….
Come on ecobhoy, cut him some slack. He is a young manager and a decent guy, I reckon. The pressure he attributes to RD is only a reflection of the pressure he himself feels under, I’ll wager. On the other hand when you go hunting for Bear, don’t hold back!
wottpi says:
March 20, 2015 at 5:04 pm
Well, hopefully not coming across as tangerine tinted moaning! ….but interesting to see Scotzine has been denied access by the SFA, all because of a platform given to an Arab describing the recent SFA decisions on appeals in respect of red cards as farcical!
http://www.scotzine.com/2015/03/its-all-about-opinions-until-they-ban-you-for-those-opinions/#more-28598
Nomad Watch
Well it is two full business weeks since King’s victory at the EGM.
It is also 16 days since W H Ireland resigned and the shares of RIFC plc were suspended from trading on AIM
That leave 14 days – until Friday, 3rd April – Good Friday – to appoint a replacement Nomad or RIFC plc will be de-listed from AIM. Important because:
a) it prevents a public share issue to raise working capital – without the delay and cost of re-listing
b) it cements the decrease in share value and tradability caused by suspension – very bad news for shareholders
But no one at RIFC or in the MSM, to my knowledge, has even memtioned Nomads in the pass week or so.
Is de-listing already a done deal ?
I’m going to ask the obvious question. What, in reality, would be the grounds for the Court declining King’s application to be a Director?
Presumably not solely the Insolvency Act exclusions as they are the reason he has to make the application. Presumably it would have to be something more.
Jingso.Jimsie says:
March 20, 2015 at 4:50 pm
I must have missed the long post about how DCK is going to get the required moolah from SA to G51.
………………………
On paper the rise in the share price of MMG have made him a profit of around £42 million in the last year and a half.
Now his shares are held via his family trusts. The question is where are they based and how easy would that money be to access and how much tax he would wish to pay on the profit?
Taysider says:
March 20, 2015 at 4:52 pm
ecobhoy says:
March 20, 2015 at 4:31 pm
“Oh Dearie Me: Oor erstwhile Jackie”
Better IMHO for TSFM to avoid coming across like a Celtic forum.
——————————————————————-
I would say that I have more detractors on TSFM from my own club than elsewhere because of the non-traditional lines I often take.
But it’s only football we’re talking about and that’s something I never lose sight of.
RD was under immense pressure at the start of the season and although the rational bit of my brain said he needed time and I although did buy into some of the things he was saying I had no problem in letting rip at a couple of matches when I was left bewildered by some of his decisions.
He is simply ‘different’ and OK the slight language barrier sometimes leaves me thinking did he mean that.
At the end of the day Jackie’s media piece seemed to concentrate on RD and Celtic and that’s why I put the link-up because I thought it fitted in with how the thread started – not by myself.
Still as I say I normally keep my strictly football comments for elsewhere but I thought the topic we were actually discussing here was how the media was used by players and managers. Obviously I must have got that wrong.
On that basis I would commend a piece by RD in the DR which reveals just how radical his thinking is:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/celtic-boss-ronny-deila-days-5367919
And I remember posting a link some time ago on the Alex Ferguson Harvard lectures which I found breathtaking. Numerous things take my fancy and I post on them and I just think a situation which has emerged between Celtic and Dundee United is worrying and worthy of discussion.
gogs says:
March 20, 2015 at 5:52 pm
Now his (DK) shares are held via his family trusts. The question is where are they based and how easy would that money be to access and how much tax he would wish to pay on the profit?
—————————————————
IIRC Guernsey might be the base. As to tax payable I suppose that might be a bit difficult to work out depending on how the trust was structured.
SARS would probably have difficulty in getting any of the family trust money as well in terms of it being repatriated to SA. I could well be wrong of course.
Taysider says:
March 20, 2015 at 5:14 pm
Well, hopefully not coming across as tangerine tinted moaning! ….but interesting to see Scotzine has been denied access by the SFA, all because of a platform given to an Arab describing the recent SFA decisions on appeals in respect of red cards as farcical!
http://www.scotzine.com/2015/03/its-all-about-opinions-until-they-ban-you-for-those-opinions/#more-28598
———————————————————-
Not to me 😆
As another poster has already mentioned it’s a sign that the bamppots are rattling the Hampden facade.
Hopefully they’ll be getting even more rattled shortly 😆
zerotolerance1903 says:
March 20, 2015 at 5:47 pm
I’m going to ask the obvious question. What, in reality, would be the grounds for the Court declining King’s application to be a Director?
Presumably not solely the Insolvency Act exclusions as they are the reason he has to make the application. Presumably it would have to be something more.
___________________________________________________
My understanding is that it is for him to assert reasons that he be allowed to take up the appointment, rather than for the court to assert reasons for the appointment to be blocked.
Its analogous to him trying to over turn a driving ban imposed on the basis of accumulation of penalty points accrued.
The purpose of the legislation is to prevent pheonixism.
So it could potentially be quite interesting w.r.t. OCNC debate.
I suppose he could contest on 2 fronts:
No wrongdoing when acting as a director of RFC(IL). Might struggle since PM saw fit to resign and DK didn’t. And could lead to some public laundry of happening in the blue room thereabouts. (If DK was not aware of tax non payment, he should have been!)
Or:
No danger of confusing the business of the insolvent organisation with the new company… i.e. a clear distinction. If he shouted from the roof of the Broomloan stand “It’s a New club!” he may improve his chances, there. :irony:
Resin_lab_dog says:
March 20, 2015 at 6:26 pm
zerotolerance1903 says:
March 20, 2015 at 5:47 pm
_______________________________________
Another thing the COS judge will look at when making a determination w.r.t. allowing any director of a liquidated company to take up a directorship in a new business with a similar name (successor company) is, of course, the financial health of the successor company.
Any danger of insolvency therein would probably be viewed somewhat adversely, and could form legitimate reasons for raising and objection.
So they might ask him for proof of funds!
And I shouldn’t think his orchestration of a fans boycott that damaged the financial wellbeing of the successor company would play too well in this regard either!
Stop laughing at the back!
Resin_lab_dog says:
March 20, 2015 at 6:26 pm
Or:
No danger of confusing the business of the insolvent organisation with the new company… i.e. a clear distinction. If he shouted from the roof of the Broomloan stand “It’s a New club!” he may improve his chances, there.
======================
He doesn’t have a prayer on that second count, because of the close similarity in names.
As regards his conduct as a director of RFC, he will no doubt argue that he was in South Africa, was brutally deceived, wasn’t kept in the loop by Craig, it’s all that Craig’s fault ah tell ye, it wisnae me mister, honest, a big boy did it and ran away, etc, etc.
Personally, I’ve given up completely on the Scottish judiciary (isn’t it about time for Lord Hodge?- it’s been a while), so I’ll make no forecast, and just wait and see. As some are speculating, it might well suit King to lose. He can then shrug his shoulders and jet back to SA, although no doubt remaining on Keith Jackson’s speed dial, leaving Park & Co to pick up the pieces.
ecobhoy says:
March 20, 2015 at 5:56 pm
How the media is used by managers, players etc is a legitimate subject for debate although I suspect if you do wear green or tangerine spectacles it will be difficult to be objective about the recent Celtic / Dundee United incidents. FWIW my view is that Celtic and Delia from the first match adopted a highly partisan singling out of United players with an intent to gain advantage, from Connolly’s “dive” to the airbrushing of Scott Brown’s dangerous tackle (unless being there and the pictures after deceived my eyes) and his numerous fouls rewarded not even by a yellow card. However I do recognise that my perspective is partisan. Maybe the perspective of a genuine neutral would be useful here. Just to add I’m not for a moment suggesting the better team didn’t win but that’s another matter.
My inital comments were however prompted by your reference to Oor estwhile Jackie which did come across as more for a green tinted forum to me!
I was just re-reading a post from May 2013 written by Paul McConville and smiled at this comment:
The rest of the post is at: https://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/how-section-216-of-the-insolvency-act-could-prevent-the-return-of-dave-king-to-rangers/
Taysider says:
March 20, 2015 at 6:54 pm
Obviously you don’t share my brand of humour 🙁
I noticed Ciftci on tea time telly news holding forth on how they never get any decisions at Parkhead and the refs favour Celtic.
Hardly trying to dampen-down the potential for deepening divisions. This isn’t quite the one-way street your post suggests.
However in one way I agree with Ciftci that poor refereeing was at the root of the problem IMO as I stated earlier.
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/dundee-united/314595-nadir-ciftci-celtic-always-get-majority-of-refereeing-decisions-at-home/
ecobhoy says:
March 20, 2015 at 7:21 pm
No I’m afraid I missed it (humour that is). Maybe I shouldn’t speed read this forum after being away for a couple of days!
Not sure I see it as a one way street (e.g. Ciftci has his “moments”) but as you might expect I will have a United perspective, however objective I might like to think I am, hence my reference to the benefit of a “neutral view” which neither of us have.
Dharma Bam says:
March 20, 2015 at 7:41 pm
No I don’t recall that (was this in the Tannadice game before Scott Brown’s challenge?) I think though maybe this all reinforces where I came into this which is this feels a bit “football forum” rather than TSFM for me.
If there is an issue for debate here I’d recognise Ecobhoy’s reference to managers / players using the media and how that puts pressure on officals/the SFA. To me that’s what Celtic have done from the Tannadice game and what we have seen recently is more of a United response. Don’t expect many on here to agree though! 🙂
Apologies but I have to bow out for now (or risk marital relations!)
DCK has always seemed to run away from putting his hand in his pocket and I see his application as another excuse, probably realizing the pot is empty and HMRC are likely to be on their toes. As others have said he can cite all sorts of excuses from SARS to the cat ate it. However what if Park and Letham have also seen the light (at the end of the black hole in the finances) and feel they have been duped, as indeed they may have been? Could they not resign? Could lead to collapse of house of cards but maybe they have a house far enough away?
Wrt Dave King…there’s been much comment and theorizing on his ulterior motives for applying to the COS and I want to throw in my own bit of wild speculation.
Could it be that…wait for it…he wants to be a director of RIFC PLC.
Dave As I believe I related way way back on RTC is very very definitely wedded to the Rangers.
I have no doubt at all he would burn money to save them.
However he has an absolute determination to pursue people who do not pay him what he believes he is owed.
I’ve no idea who falls in either camp right now.
I would be v surprised (my caveat being liquidity)if he didn’t pony up. It will come from his C.I. accounts.
May be way off here but could mr King be hoping that he gets refused by the court of session and in turn the sfa and can tell the people he’s very sorry but he tried his best then in turn jets back to SA away from the melee 😉
Stuart McCall on Sky Sports tonight saying that he is not bound to play Elbows regardless of form – “nonsense” he said.
Scottish Football needs a strong judiciary.
Ecobhoy says:
The question doesn’t actually stop being asked but the wording of it changes.
And it becomes: ‘Is this ref’s judgement acceptable’.
However as I mentioned originally if they don’t want to or don’t have the backbone to say: ‘I got it wrong’ then they have to have replays forced on them. And if they keep getting overturned then it’s bye bye time or relegation to a lower level.
We can’t simply sit back and accept atrocious refereeing and especially not in the top league where the whistler appear to be paid reasonable cash. Fans deserve better and I know football is a hard game and if you can’t cut it as a player there’s no sympathy – you’re gone.
It’s the same with refs who aren’t good enough. And if they are held to account for very poor decisions then we should also be able to squash or expose some of the conspiracy theories – real or imagined.
I agree, however the players and managers need to take some responsibility for this situation. Managers try to manipulate refs in the media, players dive and bend the rules to the limits and then have the hide to complain when a decision goes against them.
[]
Players try to cheat and then cry when they are perceived to be cheated against.
If players and managers want better decisions, then they should consider behaving better.
BBC at its best
Match Report
Dismissal
Anthony Stokes (Celtic) is shown the red card for fighting.
,,,,,,,,
Er….
Doesn`t it take two people to have a fight?
A quick observation on the Celtic/Arabs thing. We have allowed the debate to go forward although partisanship has a habit of contaminating the ethos we have here.
I think the debate has been on the whole respectful and free of insult. Indeed people are posting aware of, and declaring their own subjectivity. The exceptions are those who, instead of taking the time to think of something constructive, merely complain about the other side’s right to hold an opinion. However they haven’t managed to derail the blog.
I have also noted that trolls have inserted themselves into the debate with a view to turning the gas up a peep (I think we should make the word “Lennon” a trigger 🙂 ). Happy to report that they too have been unsuccessful.
I think the useful outcome is that the role managers and players play in the PR process is becoming a topic for discussion. I know first-hand for instance that Jackie McNamara has a reputation as a caricature curmudgeon, but I would bet my house that not much of what he has said in the past two weeks has been in earnest. His job as a manager is to lift his players and fan base, deflect attention from the players when necessary, and sell the game. I think both managers have achieved that very well, and however unsavoury some might regard the partisanship on display by both mangers and some players, they aren’t contributing to the domestic violence statistics, or lengthening A&E queues either.
The fact that many of us still fall for the old Cassius Clay pre-fight stuff shows that we are in fact still in love with the game.
My over-riding memory of this last few weeks in Scottish football will be that a Celtic/Dundee United tie is once again a huge event in the football calendar. I’ll take a bit of controversy as a fair price to pay for that.
GoosyGoosy says:
March 20, 2015 at 11:17 pm
BBC at its best
Match Report
Dismissal
Anthony Stokes (Celtic) is shown the red card for fighting.
,,,,,,,,
Er….
Doesn`t it take two people to have a fight?
____________________________________________
Not if Stokes is one of them 🙂
TSFM
You or anybody else spending their day worrying over Celtic Dundee Utd matters may have missed the crucial game at the other end.
Well 4 Accies nil
Oh and someone sent off, guess what bad tackle.
Controversy – None
Please take it elsewhere, TSFM deserves a break.
pie and Bovril maybees
A good point was made last night regarding the sale of season tickets for ‘The Rangers’ next season due to the fact they will most likely not know until the mid/end May what league they will be playing in.
How does the new board deal with this?
Hold season tickets at this years price, regardless of which league they are in, and start selling mid April.
It may be a gamble holding off until the end of May to try and up the price hoping that they may play in the Premiership. If they fail in the play offs then even more may walk away.
How do they budget for this in any future financial forecasts (no laughing at the back).
While we wait and speculate regarding Dave King, season ticket renewal time is fast approaching. How many will pony up while not knowing what league they will be playing in?
TSFM says:
March 20, 2015 at 11:21 pm
___________________________________
Well said.
I can only add that the discussion is largely academic in any case.
Bald men fighting over a comb in point of fact.
I mean, how can you berate the refs and managers when you yourselves have all… so to speak… taken your own eyes ‘off the ball’ quite ‘literally’… (by which I mean ‘metaphorically’ of course, as is usual within footballing parlance…!)
Because we all know in our heart of hearts, that ICT will have the final say in at least 2 of the major competitions this season… hic… 😆
Partisan?… Moi? I deg to biffer! 😉
parttimearab says:
March 20, 2015 at 9:19 pm
Wrt Dave King…there’s been much comment and theorizing on his ulterior motives for applying to the COS and I want to throw in my own bit of wild speculation.
Could it be that…wait for it…he wants to be a director of RIFC PLC.
42
2
______________________________________________________
If that is his ambition, it is one that is so very easily achieved.
He can simply suggest that his good acquaintance Paul Murray and acting Chairman of RIFC might apply to have the name of their company and operational franchises changed, such a move being readily justified on the basis of the cash injection and business acumen immediately on offer in return. Problem solved. He can carry on his merry way, and TSFM can shut down its ‘bonkers OCNC’ thread.
Alternatively he could openly concede that the associated branding, image rights etc. has a certain value which is independent of the footballing operation he has acquired, which might prevent him from simply and readily doing so.
However, I think he will find (possibly to his cost) that Mike Ashley has those branding and Intellectual property elements sewn up tighter than the proverbial gnat’s chuff, and has legitimately acquired rights and arbitrage over aforesaid that he will be more than happy to enjoy and exercise in such regards and in whatever manner he sees fit.
plink….
That’ll be the penny finally dropping.
redlichtie says:
March 20, 2015 at 10:57 pm
Stuart McCall on Sky Sports tonight saying that he is not bound to play Elbows regardless of form – “nonsense” he said.
_______________________________________________________
According to tomorrow’s Daily Mail, McCall is also confirming that the Ibrox club is paying the wages of the five “Barcode F.C.” on-loan players – and that in all probability two of them will not feature at all due to injury.
Big Pink says:
March 20, 2015 at 11:23 pm
GoosyGoosy says:
March 20, 2015 at 11:17 pm
BBC at its best
Match Report
Dismissal
Anthony Stokes (Celtic) is shown the red card for fighting.
,,,,,,,,
Er….
Doesn`t it take two people to have a fight?
____________________________________________
Not if Stokes is one of them 🙂
_________________________________________
Ooh… Harsh but fair. 😆
(quite unlike an Anthony Stokes tackle, obv) 😎
Another curiosity, if I have this right…
So Dave King has lived the most of his adult life out of Scotland – in South Africa – and presumably he is also well travelled.
That, IMO, tends to put things in perspective.
So why the hell would he want to be anywhere near the toxic brand of TRFC, regardless of any childhood nostalgia ?
Just don’t get it.
“Sevco fans can kid themselves on all they like that we Celtic supporters are running scared. The truth is, we’re not even slightly concerned about the Return of the King. He and his colleagues are … dealing with the most unreasonable, unrealistic, unforgiving fans in footbal … Hell mend them. This is a perfect marriage of selfishness and ego, and they are going to collide like two drivers playing chicken, and who are too stupid or invested in the win to actually move the wheel.”
http://www.onfieldsofgreen.com/faith-in-the-artful-dodger/
Is it not possible, as alluded to by others, that King does have a stash of cash he is willing to burn at Ibrox?
This article from 2008 states that King moved a large slice of “off the radar” wealth from the Bank of Bermuda into HSBC in order to better conceal it.
http://mg.co.za/article/2008-05-30-dave-kings-bermuda-triangle
From this perspective, his conundrum may well be working out a way of funnelling money in without unduly enriching others or alerting tax authorities.
Delisting or “Going Dark”, as it is also called, would be a useful first step if such a manoeuvre was to have any chance of succeeding.
An interesting article by Barney Ronay about the potential for large sports kit retailers (and presumably also the likes of Coca-Cola, Apple, Gazprom, Burger King etc) to run their own football clubs, not just provide funding for them.
Barcelona 0-3 Nike FC: is this a glimpse of football’s future? | Barney Ronay http://t.co/1yG4XI3gAq
StevieBC says:
March 21, 2015 at 12:51 am
Another curiosity, if I have this right…
So Dave King has lived the most of his adult life out of Scotland – in South Africa – and presumably he is also well travelled.
That, IMO, tends to put things in perspective.
So why the hell would he want to be anywhere near the toxic brand of TRFC, regardless of any childhood nostalgia ?
Just don’t get it.
————
Creating a project in Castlemilk would seem a more worthy cause. A sports centre or some such thing. Even pumping a huge amount into local teams and helping create hope and opportunity where many see none at all. That would be something.
His Ibrox obsession seems far beyond nostalgia. The idea of a launderette of sorts has been mentioned many times. Or that he may be living in a time warp. When you live abroad for an extended period you need regular returns for reality checks. Initially, you can settle into the thinking that everything you left behind stays the same.
I still have this image of the 3Bs and the various other RRM deciding on their grand plan — for a General Melchett-like ‘Big Push’ — over an extended liquid lunch. The whole thing sketched out on various napkins and empty cigar packets under the guidance of messers Haig & Walker 🙂
@ianagain, good stuff from the home team last night. Poor old Accies, though. Got to wonder about the wisdom of football allowing manager and player transfers mid-season. Dundee United and Hamilton are severely affected. Would seem much more fair to lock managers and squads for the entire season. As for the multi Dundee United v Celtic fixtures, more evidence that screams out for a bigger league.
raycharlez . .
funds being funnelled in “under the radar” ?
surely no chance . . . there would be ‘award winning’ journalists swarming all over it at the merest possibility of such shennanigans surely . . .? ?
😆
I see Stuart McCall confirming today Rangers are paying for the Newcastle loanees. Despite that, the arrogant pundits who claimed Rangers are getting these players for nothing will just start to peddle another fantasy. It is beyond me why the media simply don’t want to employ pundits who will seek out and speak the truth. Matters like this are not an opinion, so why are they allowed to invent a lie that suits them then portray it as a fact?
StevieBC says:
March 21, 2015 at 12:51 am
Another curiosity, if I have this right…
So Dave King has lived the most of his adult life out of Scotland – in South Africa – and presumably he is also well travelled.
That, IMO, tends to put things in perspective.
So why the hell would he want to be anywhere near the toxic brand of TRFC, regardless of any childhood nostalgia
=========================================================
As he was 21 when he moved he’d plenty of time for football to insert itself into his DNA.
Of course I have no idea just how deep Dave Kings love of Rangers runs but he’s gone to an awful lot of bother if it’s only skin deep.
He wouldn’t be the first businessman to put involvement in the club he supports before commercial rationality and he won’t be the last.
upthehoops says:
March 21, 2015 at 8:08 am
I see Stuart McCall confirming today Rangers are paying for the Newcastle loanees.
——————————————————-
Jeesuz I wonder what the going rate is for taking on a crocked player who might not kick a ball all season ❓
You can’t fault Ashley for getting them off the Newcastle United payroll – after all he is a businessman and it’s obvious that Rangers is simply a cash cow as it was to Green and others.
But one must ask what the Board of his associates were up to – their duty is supposed to be to Rangers and not NU.
It’s all very well berating Bears for going with DK – IMO it’s a lousy choice but I think they were convinced they had no alternative and I have to say I think if it had been my club I would probably have done the same.
This loan deal sums up everything there is to say about Ashley and football and IMO why he is so bad and possibly dangerous for the game in Scotland. We simply don’t know what his wider plan is and I have never believed it was simply restricted to Rangers.
Fundamentally king can bring in funds over the wire, through the wire or under the wire. He can use hidden money to replace clean money. The key point is if the recipient is haemhoraging badly he needs a continuous infusion. A pump primer just isn’t going to cut it any more.
“As he was 21 when he moved he’d plenty of time for football to insert itself into his DNA.”
and override his apparent fondness for cash?? not sure about that.
I have stumbled onto a couple of Rangers fan sites and I am astounded that there are fans of Rangers who are keen for the club to revert to private status, partly because they don’t like having their finances in the public domain. So let me pose the question: how did being private help you previously? I think all clubs should publish full accounts regardless of their public / private status as they primarily rely on fans money…
pau1mart1n says:
March 21, 2015 at 10:06 am
“As he was 21 when he moved he’d plenty of time for football to insert itself into his DNA.”
and override his apparent fondness for cash?? not sure about that.
============================
Not too many clubs with Chairmen/Chairwomen who don’t have a love of cash last time I looked…
On the whole it’s their love of cash that enables them to buy/invest in clubs.
jockybhoy says:
March 21, 2015 at 10:15 am
I have stumbled onto a couple of Rangers fan sites and I am astounded that there are fans of Rangers who are keen for the club to revert to private status, partly because they don’t like having their finances in the public domain. So let me pose the question: how did being private help you previously? I think all clubs should publish full accounts regardless of their public / private status as they primarily rely on fans money…
———————————————–
There is a lot less regulation of private limited companies than there is of public limited ones. That means that a lot more information is kept within closed doors and that doesn’t break the law or applicable regulations.
But it’s been a long time since Rangers were a private limited company as they were ‘public’ under Whyte and DM with share listings on (junior) stock exchanges.
I have been reading the same discussions and they all IMO arise from the delisting issue. Tbh if you can finance Rangers without being in AIM then you are better delisted and going private because you save a fortune in expenses and also have a lot less legal oversight of your activities.
Rangers IMO was probably always going to be a one-hit wonder on AIM in terms of Institutional Investment. It didn’t meet the criteria for most successful AIM companies which is that they have expanion potential and require capital to achieve that.
They can’t go straight to the main market because IIRC you need to have been trading for 3 years to qualify. But you can join AIM as basically a start-up company.
That’s why you see lots of very successful AIM companies leave that market after 3 years because they have outgrown the market and need to move-up to the main market to continue expansion.
But Rangers was a black-hole of a company as many of us predicted in investment terms. It was going nowhere and the market insiders knew that and would have been unlikely IMO to have invested further.
That basically left the fans investing for emotional reasons and prepared to lose all their money if need be. It also left those who wanted to control the company for other reasons and that has been discussed many times and will be again 😆
The moderation debate has been moved the moderation thread folks.
Thanks for your forbearance
Brenda
Same thought I had. DCK has seen the finances and onerous contracts, seen they have no security, that someone (CW or CG?) owns Ibrox, no money in bank, and if he finds loads of cash to pump in SARS might come knocking again. So for now he has a free pass to jet out (as already done) and stay in SA leaving current Directors holding the can. That is why I asked if they might not run also. Am sure DCK realises that he might not get the crumbs from administration or liquidation nor have a stadium. Weather and life in RSA looks brighter from his view and far enough away when the proverbial hits the fan. Yet again he tried!!!!!
Thanks for the input Eco – i agree with what you say regarding the insti investors, how could someone.who is responsible for running other people’s money would even look twice at the financial basket case that was their history or the back of a fag packet business plan in NewGers’ prospectus is unfathomable to me.
My point though was more along the lines of “why on earth would they be wanting less transparency over finances given what they have been through?”
jockybhoy says:
March 21, 2015 at 10:15 am
I have stumbled onto a couple of Rangers fan sites and I am astounded that there are fans of Rangers who are keen for the club to revert to private status, partly because they don’t like having their finances in the public domain. So let me pose the question: how did being private help you previously? I think all clubs should publish full accounts regardless of their public / private status as they primarily rely on fans money…
===============================
But surely DK was elected as El Presidente on a transparency ticket? :irony:
jockybhoy says:
March 21, 2015 at 10:15 am
I have stumbled onto a couple of Rangers fan sites and I am astounded that there are fans of Rangers who are keen for the club to revert to private status, partly because they don’t like having their finances in the public domain. So let me pose the question: how did being private help you previously? I think all clubs should publish full accounts regardless of their public / private status as they primarily rely on fans money…
============================
Delisting is not the same as going private.
At the moment RIFC PLC is listed (currently trading suspended) on the AIM.
If the NomAd issue were not resolved, the company would be removed from the exchange (delisted), but it would remain a PLC. The Companies Act requirements for PLCs would still apply, but the additional AIM regulations would be removed.
I have always thought and expected that RIFC PLC would end up following that route, albeit voluntarily rather than as a result of (shadow) directorial hubris.
Conversion to Ltd Co from PLC (going private) is a separate issue covered by s97 CA2006.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/part/7/crossheading/public-company-becoming-private
It would be very very unlikely that there would be sufficient shareholders in favour of that option unless there was a full takeover.
As previously stated, I think that there are too many unknowns surrounding the assets for any of the current big hitters to make that full takeover move.
Although not to do with Scottish football, IMHO this is an excellent way for fans to protest.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/31964220
Para Handy says:
March 21, 2015 at 12:59 pm
Although not to do with Scottish football, IMHO this is an excellent way for fans to protest.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/31964220
=========================================
It depends on the publicity generated, although these things tend to be a good day anyway, lightening the general mood of despondency amongst the fans of a struggling club.
The more times it happens though, the less the impact.
In effect, it is industrial action by the fans, and TFRC fans could have done something similar but their lack of organisation amongst the disparate fans’ groups made that difficult, and they settled on creating a victim myth instead.
I think we are all having great fun in trying to fathom the motivations of the ‘ money men’, especially those of Ashley and King.
Let me say straight off that when I read “Jack and the beanstalk” to the grandweans, I identify with
Jack’s financial naivety, and not with his ultimate,if
fortuitous, success.
But it seems to me that it’s likely that our best
finance people on this blog have sized up Ashley’s
motivation accurately enough.
He saw a football club in another UEFA jurisdiction
as being a useful part of an experiment worth the
effort of conducting.
An experiment which could be carried out at no
financial risk to himself, he having got the club by
the short and curlies via control of virtually all the
income generating capacities and/or the club’s
deep indebtedness to him / MASH/SD.
And it behoves us to remember that Ashley has n
criminal record.
But when it comes to trying to fathom King’s
interest, the best of our posters are scratching their
heads.
I think we all totally discount anything King may
have to SAY about his reasons ( e.g. any guff about
his love of and deep devotion to the club and its
wonderfully loyal and supportive fans and such
like.)
The man is, after all, a ………!
He is also a convicted criminal , convicted of
crimes of evasion of tax.
As other posters have pointed out in recent times,
convicted ‘tax criminals’ may have lots of dosh that
they have difficulty in moving around, even when
assisted by none -too -squeaky -clean international
banks.
Ways have to be found of moving money.
We know that cash up front concerns ( on-course
bookies, slot machines businesses, casinos,
knocking-shops,and such like things, are hard to
police).
Who knows, maybe a serial tax dodger might even
think of sheltering behind the red brick facade of a
football club .
The important thing, of course, for this blog and its
declared function and aims , is not who may end
up owning, controlling or otherwise running TRFC
Our interest lies in insisting that our Football Authorities do not for base reasons accommodate a convicted fraudster.
That is, we must insist that whatever the Court of Session may say about the ‘legal’ f&p status of a person in respect of being qualified to be a director, our Football authorities apply their own criteria, and refuse to allow a known convicted tax evader to take control of one of our football
clubs.
To do so would to compound their many crimes of deceit and chicanery (Ha!) against those of us who want a clean, unrigged sport.
–
John Clark says:
March 21, 2015 at 1:50 pm
we must insist that whatever the Court of Session may say about the ‘legal’ f&p status of a person in respect of being qualified to be a director, our Football authorities apply their own criteria, and refuse to allow a known convicted tax evader to take control of one of our football
clubs.
===========
If King is successful at the COS I think there is nothing that the SFA can to to prevent him becoming a director (or indeed chairman) at RIFC.
Not unless they fancy a trip to the COS themselves, and likely IMO a fruitless and expensive one.
parttimearab
I agree that a favourable CoS decision would be enough for the SFA to fold. However, their rules hold people to a different standard than statute, so one decision should not follow logically from the other.
Another thing that annoys greatly is the fact that the football authorities all to readily in this mess have kicked the can down the road in the hope that external bodies will take the rap on their behalf (or get them a free out of jail card).
The amount of energy they have put into NOT fulfilling their obligations as custodians of their own rule book is pretty shameful and by any objective standard a systematic failure on their part to lead.
One of Fergus McCann’s favourite early criticisms (soon to be fixed) of his (non-football) management team was that they were often guilty of applying administrative solutions to management problems.
That could be a fitting epitaph for the SFA and SPL
parttomearab says@2.42 pm.
……………..
With the greatest respect, he Court has no power to command the SFA to allow King or anyone else to be a director of any club.
The Court can merely say that as far as the
relevant law of the land iis concerned, there is no
legal barrier to someone be coming a director.
It is for the SFA to decide whether, in its own view
and under its own articles someone is a fit and
proper person.
As far as the law of the land is concerned, I
personally am ‘fit and proper’ to be a company
director. I could quite legally pay a hundred quid or
so tomorrow and set up ‘john clark ltd’ and call
myself a director!
But for reasons unconcerned with ‘the law’, I would
not exprct the SFA to accept that Ì am a fit and
proper person to hold office as a director of a
football club.