Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?

 

Thoughts and observations from watching and reading a transcript of Alex Thomson of Channel 4’s Interview with Stewart Regan (CEO of the SFA) Broadcast by Channel 4 on 29 March 2012.

http://www.channel4.com/news/we-run-football-were-not-the-police-sfa-boss

Introduction. I came across the above interview recently and listened to and transcribed it again as it reminded me of questions it raised then that the passage of time since has provided some insight into.

There is a lot to digest so the blog is broken into four sections.  Three parts cover the Interview plus what they seem to tell us now, knowing what was not known then viz:

  • Why No independent or independent element to the enquiry that became the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission. given the potential extent of the corruption at play?
  • Why no effective fit and Proper Person scrutiny and the absence of real governance?
  • EBTS and whether they constitute wrong doing and why that mattered so much and still does. plus
  • The “hard to not to believe” conclusions about the whole exercise with the benefit of what we ken noo.

There is also an Annex at the end with excerpts from the Lord Nimmo Smith Decision for ease of reference:

The comments (in bold italics) are based on what Regan said then and what we ken noo, either as facts or questions arising from them. It is a long read but hopefully readers will be enticed by this introduction to stay the course.

In the following “SR” is Stewart Regan CEO of the SFA and “AT” is Alex Thomson of Channel 4 News.

No Independent Enquiry?

SR No

AT I’m just curious as to why they wouldn’t. With something as big as this potentially this is the biggest corruption scandal in British sport, which is – a thought – and yet the SPL deem themselves fit to investigate themselves.

SR Well I think you are calling it potentially the biggest corruption case, at this stage there has been no wrongdoing proven.  There is an investigation going on

AT But you would accept that potentially, potentially that if guilty there is no question this is the biggest corruption scandal in British sport.

SR There is no wrongdoing as I said at the moment and there is nothing yet that has been established as far as the club registering players without providing the appropriate documentation, so I think it would   be wrong to jump to conclusions and even use words like corruption. You know there are a series of issues here. There are some footballing matters which are being dealt through the football authorities and there are tax mattes which are being dealt with through HMRC and there is to be a Tax Tribunal due to be heard as I’m sure you are aware in April.

So even before the investigation got underway Mr Regan was saying that it would be incorrect to assume that any wrong doing took place in terms of the registration process and use of ebts. He later expands on this point in relation to EBTs as a legitimate tax arrangement device. Given that the FTT did not rule until November 2012 that the ebts issued under the Murray Management Group Remuneration Trust (MMGRT) were legal then this stance by Mr Regan appears justifiable at the time of interview – but more on that later. 

AT I’m just wondering why at no stage anybody seemed, or perhaps they did, to think we need an independent body coming in this is big this is huge, potentially  we need somebody from the outside  or we are going simply going to be accused of investigating ourselves.

SR Well I think that might be one for you to ask the Scottish Premier League as far as their Board..

AT Well they appeal to you so I’m asking you.

SR   No as you said we are the right of appeal so if the club is concerned with any punishment it has been given well then they can choose to appeal to us. We as a body have the provision in our rules to carry out independent enquiries, indeed we did so very recently by appointing the Right Honourable Lord Nimmo Smith to carry out our own investigation into Rangers and we are part way through disciplinary proceedings and they will be heard on 29 March.

Given that player registrations are ultimately lodged with the SFA where Sandy Bryson has been doing the job for some years, I did wonder why the SFA were not the body taking the lead. They had the expertise on what turned out to be a key issue, the eligibility of players if misregistration occurred.  Indeed Sandy Bryson was called in to give a testimony to Lord Nimmo Smith that most folk involved in running a football team from amateur level upwards (as I was) had difficulty accepting. The Bryson interpretation suggested us amateurs had been daft not to take the risk of being found out if we did not register players correctly if only games from the point of discovery risked having results overturned. The Bryson interpretation on eligibility made no sense against that experience and it still does not to football lovers. I’m not sure if the rules have been amended to reflect the Bryson interpretation yet, but cannot see how they can be without removing a major deterrent that I always thought proper registration was there to provide.

The point about their having to be a body of higher appeal sounded plausible then, but could the Court of Arbitration on Sport not have been that body?  Or did that risk taking matters out of the SFA’s control even though it would have introduced an element of the independence that Alex Thomson raises in the following paragraphs in his interview?

AT But did anybody at any stage at the SFA say to you I have a concern that we need an independent body, that the SPL can’t and shouldn’t handle this?

SR Well under the governance of football the SPL run the competition

AT I’m not asking, I’m saying did anybody come to you at any stage and say that to you. Anybody?

SR No they didn’t as far as the SPL’s processes is concerned. The SPL ,

AT Never?

It is notable here that Alex Thomson pushes the point about lack of independence, which is where we enter “wit we ken noo territory”.  

Given that it is now known that SFA President Campbell Ogilvie sat on the Rangers FC Remunerations Policy Committee in September 1999 where it was decided Discount Option Scheme (DOS) ebts would be used as a matter of club remuneration policy using the Rangers Employee Benefit Trust (REBT).

Given that we know that Campbell Ogilvie instigated the first ebt payment to Craig Moore using the Discount Options Scheme.

Given that Ronald De Boer and Tor Andre Flo had both been paid using the same type of DOS ebt as Moore from 2000 to 2002/03 but accompanied by side letters, later concealed from HMRC  in 2005 and of course the SFA from August 2000.

Given that Mr Ogilvie was also in receipt of the later MMGRT ebts disputed by HMRC in the big tax case on which the FTT had still to rule

Given that Mr Regan must have been aware at time of interview that Sherriff Officers had called at Ibrox in August 2011 to collect payment of a tax bill, which means even to a layman that it must have gone past dispute to acceptance of liability and so crystallised sometime after 31st March 2011.

Given that Craig Whyte had already agreed to pay the wee tax bill in his public Takeover statement in early June 2011.

Given that on 7th December 2011 Regan had written to Andrew Dickson at RFC, who had sat on three of the four SFA/UEFA Licensing Committee meetings in 2011, to approve a draft statement by Mr Regan on the SFA’s handling of the UEFA Licence aspect of the wee tax case, which arose as a direct result of the use of the DOS ebts to Flo and De Boer during Dickson’s ongoing tenure at RFC from 1991.

Given that Campbell Ogilvie accompanied Stewart Regan to meet Craig Whyte at the Hotel De Vin on 15th December 2011 as a result of an invite stemming from that consternation causing draft that RFC thought likely to cause problems for the SFA (having agreed before the hotel meeting that no comment should be made on the wee tax case)

Given that the wee tax case was a direct result of those early types of DOS ebts being judged illegal by an FTT considering an appeal by the Aberdeen Asset Management company in 2010.

Given all of these facts, how credible is it that no conversation took place between Regan and Campbell Ogilvie on the requirement for an independent enquiry?

If a conversation did not take place as claimed, the question has to be should it have?

Given the foregoing facts on the early ebts, how credible is it Mr Regan during this interview did not know as a result of his involvement with the overdue payable and the UEFA licence in 2011 of the illegal and therefore wrong doing nature of those early EBTS with side letters concealed from the SFA and HMRC in 2005 just before Mr Ogilvie left RFC?

SR The SPL run, the SPL run the rules of The Scottish Premier League and they apply that. There are a whole host of people raising issues on internet sites and passing comment s about various theories that they have about Scottish football particularly in the West of Scotland. I think it’s important to establish that governance of Scottish football is managed by the appropriate body whether it is the Premier League, The Football League or the overall governing body. So that as far as we are concerned we let the   Scottish Premier league manage their own rules and if those rules are then broken and the club is charged they have the right of appeal to us as the Appellant body.

Given all of the now known facts listed above how credible is it that the reason given by Stewart Regan to Alex Thomson for the SFA being the appeal body was indeed the only one?

Given the foregoing how credible is it that Mr Regan was not aware that he was being economical with the truth during his interview or had he indeed been kept in the dark by others in the SFA?

Fit and Proper Person and Absence of Governance

AT Let’s talk about Craig Whyte. Ehm   – Presumably when Craig Whyte was mooted as coming in as the new owner – for the grand sum of £1 – for Rangers Football club, presumably the SFA took a keen interest in this and did some kind of due diligence on this man.

SR Well we have under our articles, Article 10.2, we have a process which sets out a number of criteria for what defines a fit and proper person within football. Now as you know we cannot stop people getting involved with a business and we cannot stop people getting involved with a PLC, all we can stop them doing is having an involvement with football, so what we do as part of that process is we ask for a declaration from the Directors of the club that they have a copy of the Articles,, that they have gone through the conditions and criteria within Article 10.2 and they have confirmed to us that they meet those criteria. If subsequently those criteria are breached then of course we take appropriate action.

AT You keep quoting rules back to me that’s not what I’m asking, I’m asking is did the SFA conduct any due diligence on this individual.

SR No we asked for a self-declaration from the Directors of the club and the individual himself.

AT Forgive me that sounds absolutely incredible this is the biggest club in Scotland which has been brought to its knees by a whole range of fiscal mismanagement, it is all on the record and proven. A new man comes in claiming all kinds of things, just like the previous man, and the SFA did not check or do any due diligence whatsoever.

SR That is part of the process of governing football, we

AT That’s, that’s NOT governing football that’s the exact opposite to governing football that’s running away from governing football.

SR No if you let me, if you let me finish my answer the point I am about to make is we govern the entire game from the top of the game down to grass roots. We have changes of Directors we have changes of ownership throughout the course of the year. I’m sure that if we were to spend football’s well earned money on doing investigations into potentially every change of Director, then there would be a lot of unhappy Chairmen out there.

AT You could have easily have googled (?) for free

SR Well we rely on the clubs telling us that the Articles have been complied with and that is the process we undertake.

AT This is extraordinary I say to you again  you have years of fiscal mismanagement at Rangers Football Club, a new man comes in you are telling me that nobody at The SFA as much as got on to Google  to get any background information nobody did anything ? That is extraordinary.

SR Well you refer to alleged years of financial mismanagement. I think it’s important to separate out the previous regime at Rangers and the new owner.

AT Rangers were a mess financially everybody new that

SR But I think it’s important in the case of the point you are raising regarding the fit and proper person test, to separate out the previous regime from the new owner. The club was in the process of being sold, they were challenging a tax bill that had been challenged by HMRC,* and the club had been sold to a new owner. That new owner had come in, he had purchased the club, the paper work for that sale had gone through and the club had complied with our Articles of Association. We run football we don’t, we are not the police we don’t govern transactions, we don’t govern fitness, we run football and we had asked the club to declare whether or not that person was fit to hold a place in association football. They had gone through the articles they’d signed to say that they had read those articles and that there had been no breaches of any of the points set out there. That included whether a Director had been disqualified. That wasn’t disclosed to us, indeed it did not come out until the BBC did their investigation back in October of last year.

(* note that in spite of all the “givens” listed earlier,  Mr Regan fails to distinguish (or appreciate) that there is more than one tax bill at play and the one for the wee tax case was not under challenge or Sherriff Officers would not have called in August 2011 to collect it.)

 AT So the BBC did due diligence on fitness (??) not the SFA?

SR No, as I said it came out in October 2010 primarily as a result of a detailed investigation. We then have to respond to potential breaches of our articles and we did that We entered into dialogue with the solicitor who was acting for Mr Whyte and we were in dialogue until February 2011 (?sic)  of this year when the club entered administration.

AT What I’m simply asking you to admit here is that the SFA failed and it failed Rangers in its hour of need over Craig Whyte and it failed Scottish football.

SR We didn’t fail.

AT You didn’t do anything, you said you didn’t do anything.

SR We complied with the current processes within our articles. That said I think there are a number of learnings and I think the same goes for football right across the globe. People are coming into football into a multimillion pound business and I think football needs to take a harder look at what could be done differently. We are currently exploring the possibility of carrying out due diligence using the outgoing regime to make sure that there is a full and rigorous research being done before the transaction is allowed to go ahead.

AT Do you feel the need to apologise to Rangers fans?

SR I don’t need to apologise because we complied with our articles. I don’t feel there is a need to apologise whatsoever. I think….

AT You need some new articles then don’t you?

SR Well I think the articles

AT Well let’s unpack this. You said there is no need to apologise because we followed the rule books so that’s all right. So you must therefore admit you need a new rule book.

SR No well I think it’s easy at times to try and look around and find a scapegoat and try and point fingers at where blame is to be apportioned. I think perhaps it might be worth looking at the previous regime who for four years when they said they were selling the club, said that they would sell it and act in the best interests of the club. With that in mind I think the previous regime also have to take some responsibility for selling that club and looking after so called shareholders of Rangers football club and those people who that have put money into the club over the years.

AT ??  (Interrupted)

SR the Scottish FA, as I said have a process, that process has been place for some time. It has worked very very well until now I think there are learnings undoubtably and as I said we will review where we can tighten up as I know is happening across the game right now.

The above segment on Craig Whyte and Fit and Proper  Persons is a timely reminder to supporters of all clubs, but particularly of Rangers FC of what happens when those charged with governing Scottish football hide behind the letter of the rules when convenient, rather than apply the true spirit in which those rules were written. It is the approach of The Pharisees to make a wrong , right.

To be fair to the SFA though, I doubt anyone could have imagined the degree of deceit and deception that they had allowed into Scottish football in May 2011 and how useless their rules were as a result, but I am not aware to this day if the SFA have apologised to Scottish football generally and Rangers supporters in particular, not only for failing to protect them from Craig Whyte, but also failing to protect them from the consequences of the foolish financial excesses of Sir David Murray, especially from 2008 when the tax bills in respect of the MMGRT ebts began to arrive at RFC . Some intervention then, assuming something was known by some at the SFA, who also held positions at Rangers, of  those  huge tax demands,  might have cost Rangers three titles from 2009, but what Ranger’s supporter would not give all of that up to protect their club from the fate that the failure of the SFA to govern has caused?

Also to be fair the SFA have changed the rules so that the outgoing regime is responsible for doing due diligence on any new club owners rather than relying on self-certification by the incoming club owner, but we know that did not work particularly well when Rangers Chairman Alistair Johnstone did due diligence on Craig Whyte , but then again Sir David Murray  was under pressure to sell and the guy coming in, everyone was told, had wealth off the radar.

The Nature of EBTS.

AT Let’s look at EBTs. Did nobody question ebts in the Scottish game in the English game come to that simply because nobody thought they were illegal in any way and indeed are not illegal in any way if operated correctly? Is it as simple as that?

SR There is nothing wrong with ebts when used correctly and ebts are a way of providing benefits to employees and if managed in a correct manner are perfectly legitimate. I think that the issue that we know is under investigation at the moment by both HMRC as part of the large tax case and the SPL as part of their own investigation into potential no disclosure of side letters is whether or not there has been any wrong doing and I think the issue at hand is that wrongdoing or potential wrongdoing has been discussed with HMRC for some time for several years in fact so we would not get involved in anything that there is no wrongdoing   taking place and ebts are, as I said, a legitimate way of doing business when used correctly.

Again taking the “givens” into account, particularly the significant event of Sherriff Officers calling to collect unpaid tax in August 2011 and the logical deduction that the SFA President must have known of the difference between the two types of ebts Rangers used, (and perhaps why they were changed) why the insistence at this point that all the ebts used by Rangers had been used correctly? Mr Regan at the time of the interview was either kept in the dark by his President, given he claims to have spoken to no one about the independence of the enquiry, or being economical with the truth.

The whole of Lord Nimmo Smith’s judgement made months after this interview, where Mr Regan stressed again and again there is no wrongdoing in the use of ebts if arranged correctly (or lawfully) is predicated on all ebts with side letters used by Rangers since 23 November 2011 actually being used correctly and in Lord Nimmo Smiths words on being “themselves not irregular”. (Para 5 of Annex 1). It is almost as if Mr Regan knew the outcome before Lord Nimmo Smith.

(In fact the ebt to Tor Andre Flo had a side letter dated 23 November and it related to a tax arrangement that had not been used correctly (using Regan’s own words) The irregular ebt for Ronald De Boer with a side letter of 30 August was placed beyond the scope of the Commission because in spite of it meeting the criteria specified by Harper MacLeod in March 2012 asking to be provided with ALL ebts and side letters and any other related documentation from July 1998 to date (including the HMRC letter of Feb 2011 that fully demonstrated that those particular ebts under  the Rangers Employee Benefit Trust (REBT) were not used correctly) and so were unlawful, NONE  of that documentation was  provided when requested.

This enabled Lord Nimmo Smith to state in para 107 of his Decision “while there is no question of dishonesty, individual or corporate” which is a statement he could not have made had he had all the requested documentation denied to him either by dishonesty or negligence during the preparation of his Commission.

How would he have had to judge one wonders if deception and dishonesty was indeed the factor we now ken that it is?

 

What exactly were the consequences of the failure to provide Lord Nimmo Smith with the required documentation?

It is stated in the Decision (Annex 1 para 104) that the Inquiry proceeded on the basis that the EBT arrangements (by which it meant the MGMRT ebts) were “lawful”. As it transpired the outcome of the FTT decision announced in November 2012 was that the MGMRT ebts indeed were (although this is still under appeal by HMRC.)

However, because Lord Nimmo Smith treated the MGMRT and the Earlier Trust (REBT) as one and the same, (para 35 of Decision) this meant that the Inquiry failed to distinguish between the two trusts and necessarily treated the Earlier Trust as also being lawful (without however having properly investigated its operation). However, the MGMRT and the earlier REBT were two separate trusts and there was no necessary reason to treat them as one and the same. Had evidence relating to the REBT been produced and examined, the Inquiry could hardly have treated them) as “continuous” or allowed Lord Nimmo Smith to say “we are not aware that they were different trusts“(Annex 1 para 35)

From the Decision (Annex 1 para 40), it would appear that the President of the SFA gave evidence only as to his knowledge of the MGMRT (not the REBT). We know now that the President of the SFA had knowledge of the Earlier Trust (sitting on the RFC remuneration policy committee that agreed to their use in 1999 and indeed was active in its setting up). Why the President failed to volunteer such crucial information is surely something he should now be asked?

By the time of the Inquiry, Rangers FC had already conceded liability in what has become known as “the Wee Tax Case” (which related to the now unlawful REBTs). Having regard to the wording at para 104 of the Decision (that is an echo of what Regan stressed to Alex Thomson about ebts) where it is said that to arrange financial affairs in a manner “within the law” is not a breach of the SFA/SPL Rules) the clear implication, must be that to arrange financial affairs in such a way that they are not lawful, must be a breach of the rules.

Given the admission of liability in the Wee Tax Case, payments made in respect of the REBT could not be “lawful” (to employ the language used in the Decision) or disputed, but Mr Regan presumably did not enquire too much into the history of the wee tax case before agreeing to talk to Alex Thomson.

It will be obvious from the above that the unlawful nature of REBTs had been masked from SPL lawyers and Lord Nimmo Smith as a result of:-

(a) the failure by the Administrators of Rangers FC to provide the documentation required of them;

(b) the failure of the President of the SFA to provide to the Inquiry his own knowledge of, involvement in, and presumably as a result of it, an appreciation of the differences between the two types of ebts and the consequences thereof for the investigation.  

Had the REBT been the sole subject of the Inquiry (rather than in effect not being examined at all) the following must have been different:-

(i)            the President could hardly have failed to give testimony of his knowledge and involvement;

(ii)          the Inquiry could not have held that the use of the REBT ebts was lawful;

(iv)       the “no sporting advantage” decision given in respect of the lawful ebts could not have been applied to unlawful ebts.

The real issue in the case of the unlawful ebts was not one of misregistration (Annex 1 para 104) which in turn justified the no sporting advantage decision in paras 105/106 but of paying players by an unlawful means which “constitutes such a fundamental defect (Annex 1 para 88) that the registration of players paid this way (i.e. unlawfully) must be treated as having been invalid from the outset.

Had the true nature of these early ebts been known to SPL lawyers the Terms of Reference of the Investigation would have to have addressed the wrong doing that Mr Regan was so keen to argue with Alex Thomson had not actually occurred (long before Lord Nimmo Smith agreed with him) or had President Ogilvie made the distinction in his testimony, it would have been impossible for Sandy Bryson’s to advise as he did regarding the effect on eligibility. He would have to have been asked questions about two types of ebts not one. Finally Lord Nimmo Smith could not have treated both as continuous.

Finally, given this incidence of non-disclosure by the Rangers Administrators (an identifiable trait of RFC dealings with authority from August 2000 to date), it is impossible to see how paragraph 107 (wherein it is stated that there is “no question of dishonesty”) can be allowed to remain unchallenged.

Of course the failure to supply the key evidence could just be an oversight given Rangers Administrators were hardly likely to have established of their own volition the importance of the documents to the enquiry and yet, had they been supplied, the enquiry could not have been based on the defence Stewart Regan was at such pains to stress in his interview with Alex Thomson at a time only 3 months after Mr Regan and Campbell Ogilvie had joined Craig Whyte for dinner as a result of an invite prompted by questions on the SFA UEFA Licence handling of the wee tax case , created by the very same unlawful ebts.

AT But as the governing body why did you not say to Rangers “look guys this this smells really bad, this looks bad you look (and you have admitted you have not paid your tax) you know we can’t do this, we have got to be open and above board, it looks bad.

SR Well think you need to look at what is legal and above board. At the time the club, were in dispute with HMRC. There was a tax case ongoing the new owner was in discussion with HMRC. In fact he has made comments and the club have made comments to that effect and because the amount was not crystallised under UEFA guidelines, whilst ever it’s in dispute it’s not classed as overdue.

AT Sometimes

SR So you need to separate out the licensing requirement, which is what the Licensing Committee did, from the tax that was owed to HMRC which is as we know what is still ongoing.

Mr Regan was not being accurate here.  The Big Tax case was in dispute and the bill has not crystallised as a result. However the wee tax case crystallised in mid June 2011 and at 30th June 2011, the UEFA licence checkpoint under Article 66 of UEFA FFP, did not meet the conditions to excuse it as being an overdue payable to HMRC. Quite how the SFA handled the processing of the Article 66 submission from RFC is subject to a resolution asking UEFA to investigate put to the Celtic AGM in November 2013 which is still in progress. As has been mentioned twice before Mr Regan has either been kept in the dark or was being less than honest with Alex Thomson. Interestingly Andrew Dickson who has been at Rangers in various administration and executive capacity since 1991 sat on 3 of the four UEFA Licensing Committee meetings during 2011. He may of course have excused himself from any discussions on this matter as the rules allowed, but was a full explanation why he did so, if indeed he did, offered? Would such an explanation have enlightened Mr Regan of what he was dealing with?

AT Sometimes things can be within the rules but from a PR point of view, indeed from a moral point of view, hate to introduce morality to football but can be the wrong thing to do. You would accept that?

SR Well I think that football around the world is going through a difficult time, clubs are in difficult financial circumstances, not just in Scotland, you look down into England and look at the clubs in Administration at the moment. You know Portsmouth and Port Vale in recent times and I think Plymouth is as well again. As far as that is concerned you know that indicates that clubs are living from hand to mouth and there are deals being done all the time with HMRC, payment plans being agreed. There is huge amounts of debt in football.

AT I’m just inviting you to accept that sometimes things can be within the rules but just look bad because morally, they are bad.

ST I think when taxes aren’t paid ehm VAT in particular, National Insurance Contributions of course that’s bad and I think we accept that and we know that in the current regime there is evidence to suggest that Rangers has not paid its taxes since Mr Whyte took over the club. That’s wrong that is against the spirit of the game and certainly we would look to deal with that and stamp out that type of behaviour which is not acting with integrity.

If Carlsberg did irony!

End of Interview.

The Hard Not to Believe Conclusions

There is always the danger in examining anything of finding what you want to be there rather than what is there and it is a danger any writer has to be aware of, but given the responses from Harper MacLeod on TSFM and the total lack of response from the SPFL and SFA when being informed of the missing evidence along with what has been written here it is hard not to conclude that the Lord Nimmo Smith Inquiry was deliberately set up in such a way as to produce two results

  • The minimising of the wrongful behaviour that had taken place from 1999 to 2012 when The Commission sat
  • The avoidance of the consequences of admitting that serious wrongdoing in the form of illegal payments had been made via irregular EBTs, which consequently made the players involved ineligible from the outset, making the Bryson ruling inapplicable in those cases with the consequences of that ineligibility on trophies and remuneration won.

The reader will find it hard not to conclude that either

  • there was a huge screw up by the SPL lawyers charged to set up the Commission which they might be able to defend
  • or
  • Vital knowledge was concealed within the SFA itself in order to achieve the above two results and
  • This knowledge was deliberately concealed because had it not been The Inquiry could not have come to the conclusion it did on player eligibility, not only because unlawful ebts were used in early instances, but also because the deliberate concealment from HMRC of the side letters to De Boer and Flo, the former also kept from Harper and MacLeod, suggests Rangers knew all along and in 2005 in particular that what they were doing since 2000 was morally wrong and against the spirit of the game. It perhaps also explains why HMRC is determined to push an appeal all the way.
  • This failure to supply all documents meant that the line being taken by Mr Regan in March 2012, when the Commission was being set up into the use of ebts and failure to register them with the SFA, came to fulfilment in the Decision of Lord Nimmo Smith himself, achieving the two aims suggested above.

Given that Harper MacLeod have said they passed on to the SFA in September 2014 the evidence kept from them by Rangers Administrators, has Stewart Regan spoken to either Ogilvie or Dickson since then about keeping him in the dark? Or did he know all along?

Of course these hard to believe conclusions could be discounted as delusional ramblings if either the SFA or SPFL were to say they would investigate the evidence kept from Harper MacLeod. It would also help if only one of the thirteen main stream journalists would look at the hard copy of the concealed documents they were provided with, because until someone who values sporting integrity does, the stench of corruption will hang over Scottish football for years to reek out anytime the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission is used as a justification for anything that it contains.

Annex One – Extracts from Lord Nimmo Smith Decision

[5] Although the payments in this case were not themselves irregular and were not in

breach of SPL or SFA Rules, the scale and extent of the proven contraventions of the disclosure rules require a substantial penalty to be imposed;

 

Outline of the Scheme

 

[35] As we have said, a controlling interest in Oldco was held by David Murray through the medium of Murray MHL Limited, part of the Murray Group of companies. Murray Group Management Limited (MGM) provided management services to the companies of the Murray Group. By deed dated 20 April 2001 MGM set up the Murray Group Management Remuneration Trust (the MGMRT). (We note that the MGMRT was preceded by the Rangers Employee Benefit Trust, but we are not aware that they were different trusts. We shall treat them as a continuous trust, which we shall refer to throughout as the MGMRT.)

 

[40] Mr Ogilvie learnt about the existence of the MGMRT in about 2001 or 2002, because a contribution was made for his benefit. He understood that this was non-contractual. Although as a result he knew about the existence of the MGMRT, he did not know any details of it. He subsequently became aware, while he remained director of Oldco, that contributions were being made to the MGMRT in respect of players. He assumed that these were made in respect of the players’ playing football, which was the primary function for which they were employed and remunerated. He had no involvement in the organisation or management of Oldco’s contributions to the MGMRT, whether for players or otherwise. He said:

“I assumed that all contributions to the Trust were being made legally, and that any relevant football regulations were being complied with. I do not recall contributions to the Trust being discussed in any detail, if at all, at Board meetings. In any event, Board meetings had become less and less frequent by my later years at Rangers.”

He also said: “Nothing to do with the contributions being made to the Trust fell within the scope of my remit at Rangers”.

However it should be noted that Mr Ogilvie was a member of the board of directors who approved the statutory accounts of Oldco which disclosed very substantial payments made under the EBT arrangements.

 

[88] In our opinion, this was a correct decision by Mr McKenzie. There is every reason why the rules of the SFA and the SPL relating to registration should be construed and applied consistently with each other. Mr Bryson’s evidence about the position of the SFA in this regard was clear. In our view, the Rules of the SPL, which admit of a construction consistent with those of the SFA, should be given that construction. All parties’ concerned – clubs, players and footballing authorities – should be able to proceed on the faith of an official register. This means that a player’s registration should generally be treated as standing unless and until revoked. There may be extreme cases in which there is such a fundamental defect that the registration of a player must be treated as having been invalid from the outset. But in the kind of situation that we are dealing with here we are satisfied that the registration of the Specified Players with the SPL was valid from the outset, and accordingly that they were eligible to play in official matches. There was therefore no breach of SPL Rule D1.11.

 

[104] As we have already explained, in our view the purpose of the Rules applicable to Issues 1 to 3 is to promote the sporting integrity of the game. These rules are not designed as any form of financial regulation of football, analogous to the UEFA Financial Fair Play Regulations. Thus it is not the purpose of the Rules to regulate how one football club may seek to gain financial and sporting advantage over others. Obviously, a successful club is able to generate more income from gate money, sponsorship, advertising, sale of branded goods and so on, and is consequently able to offer greater financial rewards to its manager and players, in the hope of even more success. Nor is it a breach of SPL or SFA Rules for a club to arrange its affairs – within the law – so as to minimise its tax liabilities. The Tax Tribunal has held (subject to appeal) that Oldco was acting within the law in setting up and operating the EBT scheme. The SPL presented no argument to challenge the decision of the majority of the Tax Tribunal and Mr McKenzie stated expressly that for all purposes of this Commission’s Inquiry and Determination the SPL accepted that decision as it stood, without regard to any possible appeal by HMRC. Accordingly we proceed on the basis that the EBT arrangements were lawful. What we are concerned with is the fact that the side-letters issued to the Specified Players, in the course of the operation of the EBT scheme, were not disclosed to the SPL and the SFA as required by their respective Rules.

[105] It seems appropriate in the first place to consider whether such breach by non-disclosure conferred any competitive advantage on Rangers FC. Given that we have held that Rangers FC did not breach Rule D1.11 by playing ineligible players, it did not secure any direct competitive advantage in that respect. If the breach of the rules by non-disclosure of the side-letters conferred any competitive advantage, that could only have been an indirect one. Although it is clear to us from Mr Odam’s evidence that Oldco’s failure to disclose the side-letters to the SPL and the SFA was at least partly motivated by a wish not to risk prejudicing the tax advantages of the EBT scheme, we are unable to reach the conclusion that this led to any competitive advantage. There was no evidence before us as to whether any other members of the SPL used similar EBT schemes, or the effect of their doing so. Moreover, we have received no evidence from which we could possibly say that Oldco could not or would not have entered into the EBT arrangements with players if it had been required to comply with the requirement to disclose the arrangements as part of the players’ full financial entitlement or as giving rise to payment to players. It is entirely possible that the EBT arrangements could have been disclosed to the SPL and SFA without prejudicing the argument – accepted by the majority of the Tax Tribunal at paragraph 232 of their decision – that such arrangements, resulting in loans made to the players, did not give rise to payments absolutely or unreservedly held for or to the order of the individual players. On that basis, the EBT arrangements could have been disclosed as contractual arrangements giving rise to a facility for the player to receive loans, and there would have been no breach of the disclosure rules.

[106] We therefore proceed on the basis that the breach of the rules relating to disclosure did not give rise to any sporting advantage, direct or indirect. We do not therefore propose to consider those sanctions which are of a sporting nature.

[107] We nevertheless take a serious view of a breach of rules intended to promote sporting integrity. Greater financial transparency serves to prevent financial irregularities. There is insufficient evidence before us to enable us to draw any conclusion as to exactly how the senior management of Oldco came to the conclusion that the EBT arrangements did not require to be disclosed to the SPL or the SFA. In our view, the apparent assumption both that the side-letter arrangements were entirely discretionary, and that they did not form part of any player’s contractual entitlement, was seriously misconceived. Over the years, the EBT payments disclosed in Oldco’s accounts were very substantial; at their height, during the year to 30 June 2006, they amounted to more than £9 million, against £16.7 million being that year’s figure for wages and salaries. There is no evidence that the Board of Directors of Oldco took any steps to obtain proper external legal or accountancy advice to the Board as to the risks inherent in agreeing to pay players through the EBT arrangements without disclosure to the football authorities. The directors of Oldco must bear a heavy responsibility for this. While there is no question of dishonesty, individual or corporate, we nevertheless take the view that the nondisclosure must be regarded as deliberate, in the sense that a decision was taken that the side letters need not be or should not be disclosed. No steps were taken to check, even on a hypothetical basis, the validity of that assumption with the SPL or the SFA. The evidence of Mr Odam (cited at paragraph [43] above) clearly indicates a view amongst the management of Oldco that it might have been detrimental to the desired tax treatment of the payments being made by Oldco to have disclosed the existence of the side-letters to the football authorities.

Auldheid  Feb 2015
This entry was posted in General by Auldheid. Bookmark the permalink.
Auldheid

About Auldheid

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

5,190 thoughts on “Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?


  1. John Clark says:
    March 21, 2015 at 3:10 pm

    So King simply sits on and Chairs the RIFC board, which is wholly separate from the TRFC board, and there is feck all the SFA can do!

    Seriously, partimearab has called it correctly IMO, the SFA’s mickey mouse rules would be laughed out of court, & they know it, which is why Ashley got a tap on the wrist, and why they will never test them.


  2. scapaflow@3.19 pm
    ………….
    No, tje aricles

    scapaflow@3.19 pm
    ……………
    The pusillanimity of the SFA is one thing: they might like the craven sods they are look to any Court ‘s view as a get-out.
    but under their own articles, it is for them to decide as masters of their own association of businesses whether anyone meets their own criteria.
    King is not asking the court to tell the SFA that he
    must be allowed to be a director of Trfc/RIFC but that they say that he does not in general fall foul of
    the legal proscriptions that forbid someone from
    being a company director under company law, not
    under SFA articles.


  3. That he has to go to the CoS at all should be sufficient to fail the SFA test. The court application is an admission of guilt on the Phoenix issue, add in his other history including the dissembling over the Nomad issue, which are outside of the Court remit, adds to the case against.


  4. I’m not sure if I’ve been following the discussion correctly, so apologies if I’ve missed or misinterpreted anything said.

    Isn’t the fundamental issue here that if King gets the ok from the legal authorities, the SFA will absolutely hide behind that decision and agree. There is no other outcome that wil be entertained, it is as obvious as night follows day. To be taken to court for disagreeing would open up the whole story to scrutiny.

    Additionally, it must not be forgotten that it will be the clubs’ chairs that will agree this course of action.

    It’s not only the Rangers fans that are being routinely played in this saga.


  5. Today I have been very nearly listening to ‘Off the Ball’ at approximately 17:35.

    But I have not been listening as Richard Wilson is a guest and i simply won’t give him my time of day any longer.


  6. Big crowd at Celtic Park today. 3pm Saturday kick off. Coincidence? It’s time for all Scottish Football Fans to say Bye Bye to Sky!


  7. John Clark says:
    March 21, 2015 at 3:10 pm
    parttomearab says@2.42 pm.
    ……………..
    With the greatest respect, the 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.
    =============
    John (and others), with respect you need to turn this around.

    The SFA has no power to determine who should or shouldn’t be a company director

    if the court has decided that there is no legal barrier to DK becoming a director then what would happen if the SFA put a block on him becoming a director?

    If DK went to court to challenge this the SFA would presumably have to show that governance of a football club required higher standards than that of an AIM listed company (good luck with that given some of the characters that have graced the boardrooms of Scottish football in the recent past).

    Also if we accept that DK’s conviction is a barrier to him being a director how long should that last…presumably not in perpetuity…so how long?

    IMO the courts would look to the rehabilitation of offenders act and, if I’m right, then in DK’s case that would be one year from conviction.


  8. Did I see that right tonight?.

    Given the six nations was not going to be decided until after the England v France game the SRU steamed that game to Murrayfield and allowed the Irish fans and others to stay behind, watch the game then see their team be presented with the trophy.

    A lesson on how to treat travelling fans and having respect for your sport.


  9. I meet with a few of the guys every Sat around 4ish this has been a regular thing if no one has a family occasion,then it’s same old ,same old,well this afternoon sprung a new insight into the club from Govan,stay with me on this,one of the guys came in and asked what the results where today,after being told he then says it would be a good thing if the club from Govan did not go up,there was a bit of discussion and agreement that this might not be a bad thing,then the knockout punch came,he said after Charles taking the club into liquidation it’s now better that the new team in charge take the club forward,honestly you could have knocked me over with a share certificate,when explaining to him that that was what happened with Mr Whyte,the reply was no it wasn’t ,it was Charles that done this to their club,drove them into liquidation,I kid you not,Keef you are not going to be flavour of the month when someone writes the truth,you better not hurry back from oz,unbelievable.


  10. Wottpi – Agree. Great performance by SRFU today. Ireland had a cutting edge to attack and we did not but congrats on 6 Nations title to them.

    Separately Scottish football still needs a strong Arbroath; commiserations to Red Litchie for today’s result but you still look ok for play-offs.


  11. paulsatim says:
    March 22, 2015 at 1:26 am

    As was aft said in the RTC days:

    ‘Wow’


  12. Anyone in need of having their spirits lifted today should have a read at this article from Charlie Green in today’s Sun. I reckon it will bring a smile to the saddest of faces.
    ===================

    Charles Green last night put the boot into Rangers’ new regime by claiming Mike Ashley was still the club’s main money man — and they were using his cash to make their coffee.

    Green, 61, insisted the Sports Direct tycoon’s £10million emergency loan was keeping the club alive.

    And aiming a jibe at Dave King and his board — who won a landslide victory for control of the club earlier this month — he insisted: “Mike Ashley hasn’t gone away.

    “The reality is that today Rangers are making a cup of coffee using Ashley’s money.

    “He’s put a loan in there and as far as I’m aware — and I do apologise if things have changed in the last couple of days — but the money they are spending today, the wages they paid yesterday, they used Ashley’s money to pay that.”

    The Yorkshireman — sacked as chief executive in April 2013 — was speaking for the first time since South Africa-based King swept into power earlier this month.

    King appointed Paul Murray as interim chairman and turfed billionaire Ashley’s allies Derek Llambias and Barry Leach off the board.

    But Green claims if King and Murray do have the funds they should pay back Ashley or accept his choices into the boardroom — which he said was part of the Newcastle owner’s loan deal.

    And Green hints he could be a shock contender for one of the slots.

    He said: “Of course, if Paul Murray and Dave King have really got cash, I suspect this week they’ll pay Ashley his money back and then put their money in instead to replace it.

    “If not, I suspect on Monday, they’ll be inviting Ashley to appoint two new directors. For me, he has to have two on the board because you can’t have people, like Sandy Easdale and him say, with 34 per cent of shares sat on the outside.

    “Whether you listen to them when they’re in or whether you ignore them, that’s a different matter. But what you can’t do is run a club without representation from over a third of your shareholders.

    “Let’s be really clear about this, if Mike Ashley really wants to get back in Rangers, the whole of Scotland will die before you can starve him out. He’s a billionaire, the 15th richest man in Europe. You can’t starve him out.

    “If you’ve seen him on TV he’s a big guy. He don’t look as if he’s starving to me.”

    He added: “My understanding is that Ashley’s loan requires that he has two people on the board.

    “Well, I’m happy to go back and represent Ashley. I can imagine that being fun, can’t you?”

    Green also questioned whether King and Murray will be given the green light by footie chiefs to work at the helm of the new-look board because of their previous associations with the club.

    King was a director when Gers crashed into administration in February 2012 under shamed owner Craig Whyte before the company was liquidated eight months later.

    And Murray served on the board under ex-owner Sir David Murray — until he was ousted just weeks after Whyte’s £1 takeover.

    He claimed: “Is this still the same Paul Murray who sat there when Craig Whyte sat there and ran the club into the ground?”

    France-based Green said he remains gutted he never got a chance to see through his vision for the crisis- hit club.

    But he admits he was never fully accepted by some Gers supporters because he wasn’t born a Bluenose.

    And he claims he would have prevented the club from getting into deeper financial trouble if he’d been allowed to carry on.

    He said: “I’ve always believed there is a huge faction of Rangers fans that think that unless you were born within spitting distance of the Clyde, you can’t really be a Rangers man.

    “I disagree with that. Over the period I was there I developed a great affinity towards the club.

    “Just because you’re a Rangers fanatic doesn’t mean you’ll always make the best decisions. Roman Abramovich had no connections with Chelsea. Sheikh Mansour’s the same at Manchester City.

    “I’m happy to stand anywhere with anyone and defend what I did for that club.

    “And all I ever did was based on what was right and wrong for Rangers.” He added: “The history is why I bought Rangers — but you can’t take the club forward on history.

    “The average annualised wage bill when I left was close to £4million but within six months it was over £10million for no reason.

    “People haven’t learned any lessons from what got Rangers into all this bother in the first place.

    “I was on the Tube last year and four big guys in suits stood round me and said ‘Mr Green, how are you?’.

    “I said ‘I’m sorry, you must have mistaken me for someone else’ and this guy laughing said ‘No, Charlie boy, it’s you. How you doing?’.

    “He went on to tell me ‘you shouldn’t have left, you should be back’ and I said ‘If I came back tomorrow all the season tickets you’ve just bought would be withdrawn because it’s a disgrace that their price has not been increased’.

    “I told those guys ‘I’d have increased the prices so that’s why you don’t want me back’ and one said, ‘No, that’s exactly why we want you back because you’re a b*****d, but we know you are’.”

    Green told how during his early days at Rangers he once laid a bet with fans unhappy with his running of the club.

    He says they confronted him after ex-player John Brown suggested his consortium didn’t own Ibrox.

    He recalled: “At the start when Brown was causing bother I was confronted by three or four young fans.

    “They were screaming, ‘Will we play at Ibrox?’ “I said, ‘I’ll bet you £20 we play here this year.’

    “One guy said, ‘We don’t have £20.’ So I gave them 20 quid and said, ‘Keep this — if we’re not playing here, you’ve won the bet.’

    “Before our first game at Ibrox they turned up to give me £20 but I said, ‘Have a beer on me.’

    “That showed me how honest Rangers fans are — and how much it meant to them that we delivered what we’d promised.”


  13. Charles Green is a parasite. It disgusts me that he was involved, and still maybe involved in Scottish football.


  14. Charlie boy just rolls it of without blushing,what a guy to have on your side when your backs to the wall,I have been weaning myself of the popcorn and now this happens,I am going to cancel my sky entertainment subscription from the 1st of next month,seriously,the dates just a coincidence


  15. emusanorphan says:
    March 21, 2015 at 7:17 pm
    Big crowd at Celtic Park today. 3pm Saturday kick off. Coincidence? It’s time for all Scottish Football Fans to say Bye Bye to Sky!
    ==========================================

    It was the first 3PM kick of at Celtic Park for months. We were discussing this yesterday and the general view was Scottish football would be better off with a highlights only TV deal. Fans want games on a Saturday at 3PM. I don’t know how we ever got to the stage in Scottish football where the attending fan is bottom of the food chain but that is where we are. The 12:15 kick off in the forthcoming ICT v Celtic semi final is a case in point. A significant number of people will be travelling a distance to see that game, yet the authorities have basically chosen to tell them they don’t count. I have always maintained it is unlikely that football authorities in any other democratic country treats its paying customers with the contempt the SFA and SPFL do.


  16. The Scotsman printing about a bigger league, the sun printing about Charles Green coming back, keep an eye on the ball BAMPOTS


  17. vansen says:
    March 22, 2015 at 7:17 am
    Charles Green is a parasite. It disgusts me that he was involved, and still maybe involved in Scottish football.

    ………………………………

    Well…
    How did he get involved?
    Why did he get involved?

    Because he was part of a master plan to ditch £90,000,000
    of debt racked up by an over inflated ego of a football club’s
    “Rightful place” mindset.

    Charles Green and his mates knew that the SFA were desperate to maintain a “Rangers” for the ‘income’ and exposure 50,000 fans would otherwise be lost, and Charles Green and his mates knew if they (with the help of the SFA) could get away with pretending the New Rangers were the same as the Old Rangers, then the 50,000 punters would be able to be fleeced and everyone in Scottish football “would be a winner”.

    And so it continues…


  18. Regarding the Celtic v Inverness Caledonian Thistle
    Scottish Cup Semi-final

    I’m sure I read somewhere that if you were taking the first available train from Inverness to Glasgow on the day, the game would be already started before your train even arrives in Glasgow!!

    Absolutely shocking treatment of the ICT fans
    (and indeed any Celtic fans from the north)!


  19. upthehoops says:
    March 22, 2015 at 7:35 am
    emusanorphan says:
    March 21, 2015 at 7:17 pm
    Big crowd at Celtic Park today. 3pm Saturday kick off. Coincidence? It’s time for all Scottish Football Fans to say Bye Bye to Sky!
    ==========================================

    It was the first 3PM kick of at Celtic Park for months. We were discussing this yesterday and the general view was Scottish football would be better off with a highlights only TV deal. Fans want games on a Saturday at 3PM. I don’t know how we ever got to the stage in Scottish football where the attending fan is bottom of the food chain but that is where we are. The 12:15 kick off in the forthcoming ICT v Celtic semi final is a case in point. A significant number of people will be travelling a distance to see that game, yet the authorities have basically chosen to tell them they don’t count. I have always maintained it is unlikely that football authorities in any other democratic country treats its paying customers with the contempt the SFA and SPFL do.
    ——————————————————–
    I was sitting waiting for the match to start and wasstruggling trying to remember the last 3 o’clock kick-off I’d been at.

    We knew Aberdeen had dropped potential points, the sun was shining and we were rewarded with great football from Celtic and a great atmosphere from a big crowd which just got better and better.

    It wasn’t Barcelona but for me it will be one of those matches I always remember.

    It’s that kind of experience that keeps fans coming back and attracts new ones. Why oh why can’t the authorities recognise the importance of the fans and deal with the things they can improve.

    Like kick-off times to suit fans and not TV companies for a piddling pay-off. Fans – are like everone else these days with more complex and busier lives. They want to know when a game will be played to fit-in work, family and travel.

    I find almost nobody who doesn’t want 3 o’clock Saturday as KO time and those who don’t usually have work reasons.

    And then Summer football – we have got to have a Winter break ❗


  20. upthehoops says:
    March 22, 2015 at 7:04 am

    Anyone in need of having their spirits lifted today should have a read at this article from Charlie Green in today’s Sun. I reckon it will bring a smile to the saddest of faces.
    ————————————————-
    What a load of tosh and drivel but it did make me laugh 😆

    I really should know that the Sun is incapable of sinking any lower journalistically.

    But with all the pressing issues and questions that not just Bears but the rest of Scottish Football currently have about Rangers to be served-up this tripe is beyond parody.

    And Charlie having a right old laugh to himself and, as usual, leading the SMSM by the nose. He’s so bloody good at what he does because he loves doing it and was worth every penny the hidden masterminds behind the scenes paid him for being the Panto Villain.


  21. Aiden Smith in the Scotsman now calling for reconstruction of the leagues again so we somehow manage to get Rangers into the top flight.
    In itself pathetic though not surprising.
    Then comes this beauty…..
    ” Hearts are certainties, of course, a brilliant effort from the mobilised maroons and, sorry Ronny Deila, but unless Derek McInnes scoops you to the Premiership title, Robbie Neilson is the manager of the season.”

    I agree Robbie has done a terrific job this season for Hearts but why are the SMSM so reluctant to award the main prize to the Celtic manager? Effectively Smith is saying cantering to win the greatest second league in the world could potentially better winning a treble unless someone other than Celtic win our premier league championship in which case that manager beats both Deila and Neilson to MOTY.

    Remarkable stuff.


  22. Stan Collymore ‏@StanCollymore Feb 24
    I believe Scottish football admin/football journalism is fundamentally corrupt.

    And will be prove thus in time.

    Scots, keep outing them.
    ——————————
    I also believe the above tweet from Mr Collymore to be true.


  23. http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl-lower-divisions/aidan-smith-scotland-needs-a-bigger-top-league-1-3725170

    Aidan Smith in the Scotsman- Scotland Needs a Bigger Top League. The start of the softening up process?

    I would prefer a bigger top league, with 3pm kick offs, standing areas in every ground and a January break.

    However the current regime at the top of the game must be cleared out first. Until trust is restored between the fans and the authorities, nothing else should be changed. We wouldn’t trust the current lot to tell us the right time, never mind reorganise the leagues, or negotiate a TV deal.

    Whatever this lot do, will be seen to be for the good of one club only. That suspicion is totally rational, given the events of 2012, and the desperate efforts to shoehorn a replacement “Rangers” into the league, at as high a level as could possibly be achieved. Hasving seen that, nobody will ever again trust those currently running Scottish football.


  24. Does anyone have any links to the predictions made by Scottish football hacks at the start of the season that Celtic would win the premier division by a mile (hence their victory would be worthless) while the championship division would be a hotbed of tension as Rangers, Hearts and Hibs slugged it out, and so was bound to be a much better contest? It would be interesting to know who it was that made the prediction, even if just to be on the lookout when the journo(s) in question attempt to perform the ‘Jackson manouevre’ and claim that they always knew the Premier would bring out the best in a challenger to Celtic, and that Hearts would romp away with the championship!


  25. Sorry for the length of post but I think a lot of things wrt to DK have been wrongly conflated and I have tried to separate the separate issues as far as that’s possible. I have no more idea than anyone else how this will turn out and have tried to give as impartial a viewpoint as I can.

    Starting point:

    ‘Notice is hereby given that a petition has been presented to the Court of Session by David Cunningham King, for leave, under section 216(3) of the Insolvency Act (a) to be a director of Rangers International Football Club plc and (b) to be concerned or take part in the management of The Rangers Football Club Limited.’

    But we have to be clear that there are three distinct possible ‘barriers’ facing DK: Getting clearance under section 216(3) of the Insolvency Act; Passing the SFA fit and proper person test; Facing an AIM investigation.

    Let’s look at the Court of Session ‘test’ firstly. The term ‘Phoenix Company’ is bandied about repeatedly wrt DK. So what actually is a Phoenix Company:

    ‘. . . insolvency legislation to prevent directors from leaving behind a trail of debt while continuing to trade in phoenix companies – businesses which fold only to rise again, often under a slightly different name in the hands of the same directors and management’ [Financial Times]

    There is no doubt in my mind that RIFC Plc isn’t a ‘phoenix company’ and afaik the term doesn’t actually have any legislative status.

    DK is applying to the CoS on a narrow legal issue viz ‘section 216(3) of the Insolvency Act’ which states:

    (3) Except with leave of the court or in such circumstances as may be prescribed, a person to whom this section applies shall not at any time in the period of 5 years beginning with the day on which the liquidating company went into liquidation:-

    (a) be a director of any other company that is known by a prohibited name, or . . . ‘.

    I have actually seen it posted that the very fact that DK has applied to the CoS proves his ‘guilt’. That is simply WRONG. Directors who have held office in a limited company which has failed routinely are allowed through appeal under section 216 to hold directorship or management functions in the new successor company even with a ‘prohibited name’.

    So what will the CoS decide? Hard to say as we don’t know who will appear or submit evidence pro or con and what the evidence will be. It’s worth noting that: ‘The Secretary of State or the official receiver may appear and call the attention of the court to any matters which seem to him to be relevant’.

    I think the CoS will restrict itself as to DK’s stewardship as a NED with oldco in the time running-up to the CW admin. Without knowing the evidence to be presented I haven’t a clue what their decision will be.

    I’m sure they will keep strictly away from the SFA ‘fit and proper’ procedures as they will be mindful that they may become involved in that process at a later stage. And I also am intrigued to know what, if any, credence they give to the SA tax conviction.

    They might well feel that is an issue which would be more suited for any AIM investigation to pursue. But it will be interesting to see how the SARS matter is treated.

    Then there’s the SFA ‘test’ which I will gloss over because I’m sure that’s exactly what the SFA and most other clubs will also do as long as the CoS allows DK director status. I don’t agree with that approach but I am also a realist and that’s why the SFA must be gutted. But that involves the clubs listening to fans and fans making their voices strong enough not just to be heard but also heeded.

    And lastly: AIM and it’s position. Obviously the appointment of a NOMAD is currently time critical. However I’m sure AIM could find a way to delay delisting until both the CoS and SFA pass judgement.

    From an AIM perspective DK’s ‘home’ stock exchange has no problem either with the collapse of his previous company or the SARS conviction and that will weigh heavily IMO with AIM.

    there is also the fact that 85% of shareholders voting at the recent egm supported the DK takeover against the now ousted Board. And there can be no argument that shareholders were unaware of the ‘charges’ against DK because they were posted on AIM as Regulatory Notices.

    So all shareholders knew the score and had a choice to reject DK but they overwhelmingly supported him by 85% to 15% IIRC. The fact that around 25% didn’t vote is neither here nor there and the presumption that DK will argue for is that they couldn’t have been that bothered about his background.

    There could also be an ‘endorsement’ by that stage from the CoS and SFA and by extension Scottish Football. I have never seen AIM Regulation as having teeth or baws and I doubt there is much chance of them taking a stand.

    My conclusions aren’t necessarily what I would like to see happen nor indeed what I think is morally correct or even the best thing for Rangers or Scottish Football, But I think it might all pan-out as I have predicted.

    Of course there are other possibly much more serious issues swirling about. Primarily where is the money coming from to keep this circus on the road. Unless that’s sorted soon then the wheels will come off big style.

    And that might well be the end-game desired by the major players – no matter what side – and all the legal foreplay might simply be a distraction. One thing for sure is that the SMSM is either incapable or will for its own reasons do absolutely nothing to dispel the PR fog created by the smoke and mirrors in play.


  26. Watching the Sunday Supplement on Sky:

    One of the journalists was explaining why a manager, with whom he had a good working relationship, was somewhat disgruntled by a negative report on some aspects of the club.

    The journalist then explained that sometimes the newspaper’s editor asks for information on why certain things are happening at a club.

    wrt the SMSM, as the Sunday Post might pronounce – ’nuff said!!!


  27. In the Scotsman piece, the writer’s best pal, a Jambo, stated

    “Back where we belong”

    this disease is spreading.


  28. Afternoon all. A couple of interesting tweets from Darryl Broadfoot today, in response to the splendidly-named @Sevcoholic

    Tweet 1:
    “@Sevcoholic: @DarrylBroadfoot @TheClumpany Darryl i have nothing against u and I appreciate you replying to my tweet but someone has to start telling 1/2”

    Tweet 2:
    “@Sevcoholic: @DarrylBroadfoot @TheClumpany the truth about what’s going on in our game and you could be that guy”

    Darryl Broadfoot’s first reply:
    “@DarrylBroadfoot: @Sevcoholic @TheClumpany I find the word corrupt contemptible. Understand clubs/fans not liking decisions but Judicial Panel is independent”

    Darryl Broadfoot’s second reply:
    “@DarrylBroadfoot: @Sevcoholic @TheClumpany Also bear in mind we not always happy with outcomes, hence why established right of appeal from this season”

    So that’s all OK then. Hope everyone is enjoying their footballing weekend!


  29. Personally, I find Daryl’s use of the word ‘contemptible’ a corruption its actual meaning 🙂

    I have already put my cards on the table with regard to DB. I think he is a good guy, and as a journalist, in a totally different universe to KJ. However his bar-room tactics on social media are to my mind inappropriate. His cheeky-chappiness, whilst charming, is just not a good fit for the po-faced SFA.

    He certainly has taken some the heat away from his bosses but he will eventually be the sacrificed. And his resentment if he gets another print gig will be reserved for those people he has led up the garden path on behalf of those who canned him.

    I really hope that he does not end up embittered as a result of this experience, because I really do rate him as a writer.


  30. I’ve only just clicked on Neepheid’s much appreciated link to the Aidan Smith piece ( neepheid at 10.35 a.m ).
    What are we to make of someone who thinks-
    a) that the old, historic ‘Old Firm’ games are
    anything other than a relic of the past that cannot
    in reality be resurrected, because one of that firm
    ceased to exist
    b) that in any sense whatsoever, those ‘Old Firm’
    games of olden times ( i.e. before RFC was
    consigned, with such honourable history that it may have had, to the history books, having been
    killed to death in consequence of the cheating
    actions of SDM) were in any sense ‘ our raison d’etre’?
    Aidan Smith is fairly skilful with words, and is therefore not unintelligent.
    And what that suggests to me, is that his piece is a pernicious, almost evil, championing of wrong-doing.
    In my opinion, he is a defender of and propagandist for the biggest sporting cheatery ever carried out by a Scottish football club ( now happily dead) , and of the most outstandingly brazen act of administrative corruption (among several) perpetrated by the Football authorities.
    It appears to me that Smith is a creature less deserving of respect than that poor little in nocent and morally clean cockroach that I stamped upon the other day.


  31. Can any of our resident Hibees tell me my Hibs have binned their traditional strip this season? I’m not a Hibs fan but I do prefer Hibs teams to look like Hibs teams!


  32. My understanding is that RIFC, whilst having their listing suspended and being presently without a NOMAD, are still members of the AIM and as such are required to adhere to the various rules and regulations.

    This includes providing information via Regulatory Notices on issues of concern to the business especially where such issues have been highlighted in previous Regulatory Notices.

    On 3 March 2015 RIFC issued RNS Number 4489G :

    “The Board of Rangers announces that the Company has commenced the process of satisfying the conditions for drawdown of the second tranche of the facility announced on 27 January 2015 with SportsDirect.com Retail Limited and associated companies (“SD”) (the “Facility”) in order to meet its cash requirements for the third week of March. Drawdown of the second tranche of the Facility is subject to due diligence by SD. Shareholders should be aware that there are other conditions of drawdown which include a material and adverse change and/or significant, adverse event condition which could impact upon the willingness of SD to release the funds. If the funds are not able to be drawn down from the Facility, alternative sources of external funding will be required.”

    We are now about to enter the fourth week of March and no announcement has been made about whether the drawdown of the second tranche was successfully completed or if alternative sources of external funding have been secured.

    As the consequences of a failure to achieve either could affect the lifting of the suspension and/or potentially result in an insolvency event when will RIFC issue a Regulatory Notice to cover this matter?

    I am sure that shareholders who now find their investment effectively stranded would very much like to know what the situation is. I would also have thought that the Scottish football authorities and other competing clubs would also like to know whether RIFC/TRFC can complete the season.

    Scottish Football needs the SMSM to ask the appropriate questions on this critical matter with extreme urgency.

    PS thanks Methilhill Stroller. Fit a game this is…. (shaking head icon)


  33. @upthehoops;

    seem to remember some criticism on social media at the start of the season regarding choice of strip (it looked more like a training top than Hibernian colours). IIRC criticism aimed at the new boss for choosing the all green for costs.


  34. With regard to Ecobhoy’s of 11:00 a.m. today, there is fourth case, albeit perhaps one not applicable to Mr King, namely that of an outright ban on any company directorship. Such a ban may have been imposed on Mr Whyte.

    It would seem sensible for different degrees of misconduct to have different sanctions that may be applied – from the banning from all companies, through the banning from listed companies, to the banning from one specific company.

    I think it is a false logic to interpret any possible court ruling that there is no impediment to a directorship, as being a green light to participation in football. It would simply not be a red light. There may be other reasons why participation is inappropriate. It is entirely possible to ban people from one industry without banning them from other industries.


  35. McCaig’s Tower @1.50 pm
    ………………
    I think you have expressrd my views better than I did, and I thank you for so doing.
    The court can only say that someone is not legally barred from being a director.
    It cannot say that someone must be,or is entitled to be, a director of any business wwhich is governed by the organisation of which it is a member, havong signed up to the rules of that organisation, association, or whatever.


  36. John Clark says:
    March 22, 2015 at 2:22 pm

    The court can only say that someone is not legally barred from being a director.
    ======================
    Agree but if the SFA decide that he’s not F&P then that will conflict with his right to take up a directorship.

    If it then went back to court the court might say – yes their rules, their decision – but I doubt it.

    Their much more likely to be asked if the SFA decision was excessive and I suspect that this is where the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act would come into play.

    Unless someone knows of some wrongdoing on DK’s part that were not aware of then his conviction for tax evasion will be the issue.

    Will the SFA argue that this should bar him from holding directorship of a football club in perpetuity…and if not then for how long? What criteria would they use? Why should football be different from other businesses?


  37. Congratulations to Hearts. They’ve shown the way to come back, with humility and hard work, investment in youth and they seem to be set on making the most of the financial lessons they have learned. A positive story for the season.


  38. McCaig`s Tower says:
    March 22, 2015 at 1:50 pm

    With regard to Ecobhoy’s of 11:00 a.m. today, there is fourth case, albeit perhaps one not applicable to Mr King, namely that of an outright ban on any company directorship. Such a ban may have been imposed on Mr Whyte.

    It would seem sensible for different degrees of misconduct to have different sanctions that may be applied – from the banning from all companies, through the banning from listed companies, to the banning from one specific company.

    I think it is a false logic to interpret any possible court ruling that there is no impediment to a directorship, as being a green light to participation in football.
    ——————————————————–
    On the issue of an outright ban on DK I didn’t touch on that because DK is not currently subject to a ban as a director because of his personal conduct.

    The severity of a director ban is dealt with through the length of ban imposed by the Insolovency Service with a current maximum of 15 years which is what CW is serving IIRC. I don’t think a life ban can be imposed but am happy to be corrected if wrong.

    It’s also worth remembering that the length of any ban can be appealed in court. Any ban as a company director is universal and not specifically limited to named companies. I think the loophole which would be left open if it was only for named companies is self-evident.

    But it must be remembered that the 5 year ban which currently applies to DK under Section 216 of the Insolvency Act has nothing to do with his action or inaction as a former director of oldco Rangers. It is a ban which in DK’s case applies only because of the similarity in names between RIFC Plc and TRFCL.

    Obviously the CoS may well take his stewardship of oldco Rangers into account in deciding whether to lift, reduce or leave the 5 year statutory ban automatically imposed in a prohibited name scenario.

    As to your mention of ‘false logic’ I would agree and trust I made that crystal clear in my original post where I stated:

    Then there’s the SFA ‘test’ which I will gloss over because I’m sure that’s exactly what the SFA and most other clubs will also do as long as the CoS allows DK director status. I don’t agree with that approach but I am also a realist and that’s why the SFA must be gutted.

    But that involves the clubs listening to fans and fans making their voices strong enough not just to be heard but also heeded.


  39. parttimearab says:
    March 22, 2015 at 2:58 pm
    John Clark says:
    March 22, 2015 at 2:22 pm

    The court can only say that someone is not legally barred from being a director.
    ======================
    Agree but if the SFA decide that he’s not F&P then that will conflict with his right to take up a directorship.

    If it then went back to court the court might say – yes their rules, their decision – but I doubt it.

    Their much more likely to be asked if the SFA decision was excessive and I suspect that this is where the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act would come into play.

    Unless someone knows of some wrongdoing on DK’s part that were not aware of then his conviction for tax evasion will be the issue.

    Will the SFA argue that this should bar him from holding directorship of a football club in perpetuity…and if not then for how long? What criteria would they use? Why should football be different from other businesses?
    ————————————————————-
    Tbh I’m not so sure that Rehab of Offenders would be what is uppermost in their Lordships’ Minds. Possibly more on European Legislation involving Human Rights and Restraint of Trade type issues.

    However I think you’re right that the crux of it for the SFA would need to be the Tax Case in South Africa. Especially if DK is successful in having his Section 216 ban reduced from 5 to 3 years wrt oldco Rangers.

    I think an SFA Judicial Review could possibly accept he was clear on that issue. So we could have him potentially barred not for his previous performance as a director at Ibrox but for his tax convictions abroad.

    I simply don’t think the SFA have the bottle or inclination to go down that road. They might be praying for the CoS not reducing the ban or hoping the DK bid founders on financial backing.

    But I don’t think they will be. They want a RRM back in the saddle at Ibrox leading the Bears back to their Rightful Place and saving Scottish Football in the process. Of that I have no doubt and the SMSM will be in full cry to achieve those ends IMO.


  40. The irony here is surely that, had Sevco Scotland not changed their name to The Rangers FC on that fateful July day, Dave King would have no Insolvency Act Section 216 related issues? I’m running a book on the first member of the MSM drunk or insane enough to mention this. I’m also taking bets on the Loch Ness Monster dancing a cha cha cha with Shergar down the Main Street in Brigadoon. That being the likelier prospect.


  41. Tartanwulver says:
    March 22, 2015 at 3:12 pm

    Congratulations to Hearts. They’ve shown the way to come back, with humility and hard work, investment in youth and they seem to be set on making the most of the financial lessons they have learned. A positive story for the season.
    ============================

    Truly remarkable they have won a league so early. Leaving aside the probable reasons the media were bigging up the Championship, I think most people expected it to be far tighter than it has been.


  42. Congrats to all of our resident Jambos. I think the good wishes of all of us here are genuine.

    Full of admiration for the remarkable turnaround in a short space of time, and what have turned out to be good choices made at the right time, by the fans, the players, the management and ownership of the club.

    Hearts will be returning to their rightful place, because they have earned that place.


  43. TSFM says:
    March 22, 2015 at 6:07 pm
    Congrats to all of our resident Jambos. I think the good wishes of all of us here are genuine.

    Full of admiration for the remarkable turnaround in a short space of time, and what have turned out to be good choices made at the right time, by the fans, the players, the management and ownership of the club.

    Hearts will be returning to their rightful place, because they have earned that place.
    ————————————————————————————
    And with no help from the SMSM , how is that possible ?
    Oh yeah…… By being above board, doing the correct things on and off the park, it’s not that difficult all the other clubs are doing it apart from one that I know of !


  44. For those arguing the SFA can’t buck a precedent set by the CoS if they decide he is fit and proper.

    Admittedly while there is no court decision on fit and proper. Massimo Cellino (SP?) has been prevented, by authorities in Englandshire, from involvement with Leeds United until his conviction for tax evasion has been “spent”. I think the spent in Italian law for VAT fraud is ridiculously low at only a year but it is what it is. Does anybody know when a South African conviction is regarded as spent? Despite being vociferous about it Leeds/Cellino have not pursued through the courts despite no court ruling that he wasn’t fit and proper which could be regarded as equivalent to a CoS ruling that DCK is able to take up a Director post at a company with a prohibited name.


  45. March 22, 2015 at 7:05 pm

    TSFM says:
    March 22, 2015 at 6:07 pm
    Congrats to all of our resident Jambos. I think the good wishes of all of us here are genuine.

    Full of admiration for the remarkable turnaround in a short space of time, and what have turned out to be good choices made at the right time, by the fans, the players, the management and ownership of the club.

    Hearts will be returning to their rightful place, because they have earned that place.
    ————————————————————————————
    And with no help from the SMSM , how is that possible ?
    Oh yeah…… By being above board, doing the correct things on and off the park, it’s not that difficult all the other clubs are doing it apart from one that I know of !

    ______________________________________________________

    The players had a hard job to do. The rewards of success were not guaranteed. The costs for failure were considerable. They dug deep. They stood up and were not found wanting.

    The on field management had a very difficult task. Limited budgets. Prevailing economic conditions. Competitive environment. The rewards of success were not guaranteed. The costs for failure were considerable. They dug deep. They stood up and were not found wanting.

    The off field business management and admisitration had a near impossible task. Extricating the club from the black rocks it had been grounded out upon. Tough decisions. Financing the operation in a harsh environment. Balancing the need for investment and prudence. The rewards for success were not guaranteed. The costs of failure were immense. They stood up. They led the way. They were not found wanting.

    And the fans had a nightmare journey. All through the turmoil, the difficult decisions and set backs. They dug deep. They turned out. They paid up. They cheered on the their team. They got behind their backroom staff. They supported their club financially. They did not carp and moan about painful decisions. They did not engage in whataboutery. They did not look to anyone else to fix their clubs problems. They got on with it. They maintained dignity. They dug deep. They were not found wanting.

    Anyone of those elements could have derailed the journey. But by working together and for each other, not against each other, they made it work.

    Never before has any title anywhere been more deservedly won in my view.

    There are lessons for all of us there.


  46. tykebhoy says:
    March 22, 2015 at 7:11 pm

    Admittedly while there is no court decision on fit and proper. Massimo Cellino (SP?) has been prevented, by authorities in Englandshire, from involvement with Leeds United until his conviction for tax evasion has been “spent”. I think the spent in Italian law for VAT fraud is ridiculously low at only a year but it is what it is. Does anybody know when a South African conviction is regarded as spent?
    =================================
    The EFL took the rehabilitation of offenders act into account (which is why I’ve been banging on about it).

    The act considers the disposal, not the offence (there will be some exceptions – not relevant in this case).

    For a fine the conviction is considered spent after one year.


  47. Just a bit of nonsense but what if…..Dave King is passed by all and sundry to take his place at the helm of TRFC. The second tranche of Mike Ashley money having been drawn down Mikey decides to place 2 people on the Board of Directors as agreed. What if he chooses Sir Davie Murray and maybe Alistair Johnstone. King and Paul Murray gracefully move aside to allow SDM to run the show. Now with our Knight of the realm back in place and with a bit of out of the box thinking maybe between them the money issues will ease. Delisting may help this process somewhat. Appoint Walter or wee Dick as manager and viola…all back to where they should be. Wont happen but what if…..


  48. id just like to say, am sick to the stomach of the staging by the scottish football authorities and newco.
    if we want the corruption to stop now then we as fans must get organized.
    spread the word, don’t buy your season ticket until we have ousted regan, doncaster, etc from the game or we shall remain witnesses to further shenanigans and only have ourselves to blame IMO.
    we cant be taken in by false words/hopes from them either such as proposing more clarity etc.

    we have to be direct and take them out with such precision that this can never occur ever again with transparency being the key word at all times in our goal for justice

    who can direct the fans to achieve this, jim spence? my preference would be a fan or a party of non celtic persuasion to have the most effect,i would like to think most celtic fans would agree with me on this, lets not give them the opportunity to say it’s just celtics obsession or paranoia etc.

    a rather simplistic post ,i know, but i have just had enough of this, our club directors unfortunately are part of the problem as am sure many of you are aware. 🙁

    unite to the fight!

    rant over.


  49. Excuse me a moment of self indulgence while I celebrate the phenomenal achievements of HMFC only a year or so after we truly faced extinction. All done on a relative shoestring with the same bunch of kids we went down with last year. Maybe even the Glasgow media will admit we’ve been great value, played great football and scored some fantastic goals.

    I know we’re not Rangers but you can’t have everything.

    PS Sad to see some players have given the Glasgow media a great excuse to take the shine off. Tut, tut, guys. Shoulda known better.


  50. Just read a very interesting post on the Celtic Quick News site by Brogan Rogan Trevino & Hogan. I won’t post the link to it but if anyone wants to see it they can get it from Auldheid’s twitter timeline. Although the article starts by talking about the present and the future for Celtic, there is some content which I believe will be of real interest to all fans. Suffice to say it appears that justice and getting rid of those who failed to apply it seems a long way away. As the article suggests, the media could burst the dam if it chooses, and it appears that proof of yet another story of wrongdoing may now be in their hands. Will they ever do the right thing?


  51. Carfins Finest says:
    March 22, 2015 at 7:27 pm
    ——————————-
    Reast easy – DM will never be back at Ibrox for the simple reason that this time he would need to throw away his own money and not that of the bank and ultimately the UK taxpayers.


  52. tykebhoy says:
    March 22, 2015 at 7:11 pm

    For those arguing the SFA can’t buck a precedent set by the CoS if they decide he is fit and proper . . .
    ———————————————————-
    I certainly accept that the SFA can make any decision it wants to regarding DK irrespective of what the CoS decides.

    However I haven’t a shred of doubt that the Hampden Bunker will be praying for a smoke signal from Edinburgh that DK is legally free to become a director at RIFC Plc and take part in the management of TRFCL.

    If the CoS find against DK being allowed to become a director, however, it will become much more awkward IMO for the SFA to allow him to be involved in the management of Rangers in a non-directorial function such as say Club President.

    But I’m sure they’ll man-up for the challenge – not to favour Rangers you understand. But to bring much-needed stability to the Scottish Game and, dare I say it, guaranteed riches for all participants with the Establishment team back in its Rightful Place and distributing largesse on its journey to the top and beyond.

    OK I’m having a bit of a laugh. But the serious side to all of this is we haven’t a clue whether Rangers is in danger of imminent financial collapse within days or before the end of the season.

    We simply don’t know if the RRM now tenuously ‘in control’ have the money or the inclination to throw it into the Ibrox financial blackhole.

    And the SFA better think very carefully about their next step because if they aren’t going through the Rangers’ financials like a dose of Epsom Salts then there will be no hiding place for them when it all goes tits-up again.

    The Greater Good of Scottish Football requires all of OUR club chairmen to provide the backbone that our spineless Hampden football officials and officers obviously lack.

    If our individual clubs fail in their duty then they will do no favours for the Scottish Game and almost inexorably ensure a further financial disaster at Ibrox.

    It’s become a soap opera – they need to nail DK down and learn his plans but they can’t, at least not officially, because that would prejudice the ‘fit & proper person’ proceedings.

    So I have no doubt that whispered conversations will be taking place in the corridors of power – aka the Hampden toilets – between intermediaries with nothing written down that can later be produced as evidence to the verbal guarantees.

    Those at the top of Hampden will be screaming out for reinforcements to bolster their isolated and under-fire position assailed on all sides by clattering bampots.

    I would love to see their faces when DK sends them the equivalent of three and fourpence in South African Rand 😆

    For those not old enough to know what I’m wittering on about – have a laugh and read: http://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/08/26/reinforcements/


  53. Can we expect Statements from the SFA and the SPFL confirming that no action will be taken concerning the Hearts players singing of a version of Yellow Submarine?
    Such would be on the basis of recent precedents; namely, that the Club had taken all reasonable steps to prevent such occurring.
    If a further reason for taking no action is deemed necessary we may hear that there were too many involved.


  54. Re my earlier post on a lack of info coming out of the Govan club here’s a non-exhaustive bullet point list for the SMSM to work on :

    • Has the 2nd loan from MA been accessed?
    • What are the terms?
    • Was Charles Green being serious in his latest interview?
    • Who else might MA’s nominated directors be?
    • If the loan has in fact fallen through, and on the basis that the nasty bills haven’t gone away, who is now putting their hand(s) in their pocket(s)?
    • Where is DK?
    • Has he been acting as a shadow director and thus more than jeopardising his recent court application?
    • Are the 3Bs still united?
    • What are the implications for the 3Bs if DK fails in either his court application or his F&PP test?
    • Are the SFA/SPFL not worried that a club tells AIM that they need a £5M loan for the third week in March to pay the bills then it all goes silent as we head into the fourth week?
    • How did TRFC get saddled with four crocks and a bit-part player in a cosy loan deal with NUFC?
    • Where’s the promised NOMAD?
    • If a NOMAD is not to be appointed and the share suspension becomes a delisting what about all the fans’ and others’ good faith investment – pretty much stranded and awaiting an insolvency event?

    C’mon SMSM – Where’s the Beef?

    Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.


  55. redlichtie says:
    March 23, 2015 at 8:43 am

    Och don’t be silly.

    Wee Stuart McCall (and well done to him BTW) seems to have kicked a few backsides and got his highly paid squad playing for the jersey again. A bit of effort, a few goals and lots of badge kissing and everything is going to be OK.

    PS Hibby relations tell me the song book was out again yesterday with a volume that suggested a good number of the 3500 away fans joined in.

    Another thing to add to Red Lichties list for the SMSM

    PPS Don’t know if anyone heard Off the Ball and the Motherwell fan saying that if they end up in the relegation play-offs he would prefer to play Hibs. Not for any footballing reasons but just as it would avoid two matches where the songbook would spoil any enjoyment of the games.


  56. ecobhoy says:

    March 23, 2015 at 7:10 am

    Carfins Finest says:
    March 22, 2015 at 7:27 pm
    ——————————-
    Reast easy – DM will never be back at Ibrox for the simple reason that this time he would need to throw away his own money and not that of the bank and ultimately the
    ———–
    Eco. I am well aware of the reasons why SDM cannot/will not return to the scene….I was just being a wee bit silly on a quiet Sunday.


  57. jean7brodie says:
    March 22, 2015 at 9:39 pm
    Very disappointed for all Hibees
    ………….
    Thanks Jean but as follower of 60 plus years standing, it’s what Hibs do and what I have come to expect and come to terms with. It’s great to win but the game wouldn’t be worth playing if there couldn’t be losers – and if there has to be losers, you shouldn’t be involved in the game if you cannot live with losing. I’ve never felt there was in any shame in losing but only in poor sportsmanship and lack of commitment and effort. I doff my auld bunnet to Hearts on their success this season and hope they continue that success next season. As for the Hibees, my hope is that they will pick themselves up and show that they can cope with losing and move forward wiser and stronger for the experience.


  58. Prohibby says:
    March 23, 2015 at 10:39 am

    it’s what Hibs do and what I have come to expect and come to terms with. It’s great to win but the game wouldn’t be worth playing if there couldn’t be losers.
    ——————————————–
    And I would add that it also wouldn’t be worth watching because it’s the memory of the terrible lows when you get beat – especially in important games – that ignite the highs when you win and make them so sweet.

    I listened to quite a bit of the game on steam radio yesterday and it seems that McCall’s game plan was to frustrate Hibs and stop them playing a flowing game of football.

    He also seems to have got quite a few players to actually turn in a shift for the first time in a long while. Stubbs might not have expected the fight that came from the Rangers players and he certainly – on radio – appears to have failed to counter McCall’s gameplan although it sounded as though he was getting there in the second half.

    The refereeing decision at the end certainly killed the match but as I didn’t see it then I can’t comment on it.

    But that’s football as we all know and love – well some of the time 🙄


  59. Re the song book I think the sky tv crowd effects mic man might have RSI from turning down the lyrics aimed at me and my kin. There is a health and safety issue here with the possibility of an industrial injury.


  60. AP01 20/03/2015 DIRECTOR APPOINTED MR JOHN GILLIGAN
    AP01 20/03/2015 DIRECTOR APPOINTED MR PAUL MURRAY

    TM01 20/03/2015 APPOINTMENT TERMINATED, DIRECTOR BARRY LEACH
    TM01 20/03/2015 APPOINTMENT TERMINATED, DIRECTOR DEREK LLAMBIAS
    TM01 20/03/2015 APPOINTMENT TERMINATED, DIRECTOR DAVID SOMERS

    AP03 20/03/2015 SECRETARY APPOINTED JAMES BLAIR

    Companies House announcement appears to put the tin hat on claims doing the rounds that the egm elected directors haven’t been able to take-up their positions.


  61. Wow, wow,

    How much lamb do you get for writing this piece?
    Gary Keown in ‘The Herald’

    “HE was the last of the Rangers players to walk to the supporters behind the goal. Like everything else in a fine afternoon’s work, he knew exactly what he intended to do, the statement he intended to make.

    Lee Wallace reached for the left breast of his shirt, took that revered, blue fabric within his fist, raised the badge high and then placed it to his lips. The punters roared their approval, but he urged them to calm down before exhibiting his allegiances again. It was his way, it seemed, of showing this was no cheap gesture.

    There was a controlled anger smouldering within Wallace from start to finish at EasterRoad. There has been a controlled anger about him all week, a determination to show that enough is enough as this club he stuck with through thick and thin has lurched from one bout of humiliation to another.

    The Ibrox vice-captain had played like a man possessed throughout the 90 minutes. He deserved his moment. Lord help any man who gets in his way of his rampagingruns up the flank in this form and in this frame of mind.”


  62. Thumbs down for the lamb above in approval of the post ? I feel nauseous after it – still, not many Scottish teams win a league match so the excitement is permissible.


  63. jimmci says:
    March 23, 2015 at 12:42 pm

    Wow, wow,

    How much lamb do you get for writing this piece?
    Gary Keown in ‘The Herald’
    ——————————————
    That’s borderline pornographic. Freud would have had a field day with that text!


  64. jimmci says:
    March 23, 2015 at 12:42 pm

    How much lamb do you get for writing this piece?
    Gary Keown in ‘The Herald’
    —————————————————
    All I can say is that the many fine journalists who used to work at the Herald must be saddened.

    To think it used to be Scotland’s ‘Paper of Record’ and now it seems to be competing to out-tabloid the tabloids. I doubt if that will help shore-up the rapidly collapsing circulation.


  65. The wee boys have stuck their collective thumb, in the hole in the dam.

    “Andy Newport ‏@AndyNewportPA 2m2 minutes ago
    Rangers agree £1.5m loan deal with Three Bears Douglas Park, George Letham and George Taylor”

    Will that even get them to the end of the season, never mind the Hogmany edition of Only an Excuse?

    Edit

    Should have added the loan is interest free until 31st December


  66. scapaflow says:
    March 23, 2015 at 2:05 pm

    The wee boys have stuck their collective thumb, in the hole in the dam.

    “Andy Newport ‏@AndyNewportPA 2m2 minutes ago
    Rangers agree £1.5m loan deal with Three Bears Douglas Park, George Letham and George Taylor”

    Will that even get them to the end of the season, never mind the Hogmany edition of Only an Excuse?

    0

    0

    Rate This

    ________________________________________________________

    My view?
    This amount will probably get them off a charge of insolvent trading.
    What it won’t do is go anywhere near either paying off uncle Mike, or seeing them past the next month and into the close season.


  67. scapaflow says:
    March 23, 2015 at 2:05 pm

    The wee boys have stuck their collective thumb, in the hole in the dam.

    “Andy Newport ‏@AndyNewportPA 2m2 minutes ago
    Rangers agree £1.5m loan deal with Three Bears Douglas Park, George Letham and George Taylor”
    ————————————-
    Security-free presumably? And no share from DK?


  68. RNS Number : 1815I
    Rangers Int. Football Club PLC
    23 March 2015

    23 March 2015

    Rangers International Football Club plc
    (“Rangers”, or the “Company”)

    Loan Agreement

    The Company is pleased to announce that it has entered into loan agreements with Douglas Park, George Letham and George Taylor for facilities totalling £1.5m. The proceeds of the loans are available generally for the purposes of the Company and will be used for working capital. The loans are being made available until 31 December 2015 which will provide the Company with time to deliver a longer term funding solution. No interest or fees are to be charged in respect of the facilities and the loans are being provided on an unsecured basis.

    Provision of the loans is classified as a Related Party Transaction under Rule 13 of the AIM Rules for Companies. The independent directors of the Company (being its Board with the exception of Mr Park who is excluded from such decisions being a related party in respect of the loans) consider that the terms of the loans are fair and reasonable insofar as the shareholders of the Company are concerned.

    The Company also announces that it has ceased the process of satisfying the conditions for drawdown of the second tranche of the facility announced on 27 January 2015

    For further information please contact:

    Rangers International Football Club plc
    Tel: 020 7148 6143
    Paul Murray

    Newgate

    Tel: 020 7148 6143
    Roddy Watt

    This information is provided by RNS
    The company news service from the London Stock Exchange
    _______
    must be a monthly instalment 😀


  69. andy says:
    March 23, 2015 at 2:13 pm

    The independent directors of the Company (being its Board with the exception of Mr Park who is excluded from such decisions being a related party in respect of the loans) consider that the terms of the loans are fair and reasonable insofar as the shareholders of the Company are concerned.

    _______________________________________________

    Fair and reasonable??

    “Flaming charitable” would be my assessment.
    And quite possibly “begrudged!”

    We shall see, no doubt.

Comments are closed.