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.
This use of this “offensive” term malarkey could have serious complications.
I for one am increasingly finding myself offended by the SFA.
To whom can I complain?
Could the compliance officer cite the SFA for not adhering to its own rules? What then?
Straight to the CoS? Court of Arbitration? Or is there a suitable pool of panel members already on standby?
I’m just back in from a night at the opera with Mrs TheCat NR1, and it seems that those zany comedian brothers at Hampden have been have been up to some monkey business and served up a duck soup or horse feathers of a charge against John Guidetti.
My first reaction was probably the same as most others, a mixture of surprise, anger and whataboutery. However, the move by the “independent” compliance officer fits in perfectly with what we have seen in the past few weeks. There seems to be a definite attempt at a divide and conquer approach from both the authorities and the SMSM. The artificially inflamed playground gainsaying between Celtic and Dundee United following some farcical honest mistakes was an attempt to reignite the damp squib of an attempt to generate a spat after the Armstrong and Mackay-Steven transfers back in January. The Guidetti charge has inflamed many posters on the Timternet, with several calling for some form of retribution such as withdrawing players from the national squad.
I would like to hope that this divide and conquer attempt fails and that the collective TSFM eye, and those of all fans and clubs, be kept well and truly on the ball of the inability and unwillingness of the MSM to call out the SFA and their animal crackers administrators. Even the SFA can produce a squirrel when required to divert attention from the elephant that is still in the sixth floor corridor.
Strange how the SFA can call to account John Guidetti….yet can openly condone racist and sectarian singing by a certain clubs support on live TV…this is about the fair and balanced governance of our game…
Not fit for purpose…
briggsbhoy says:
March 23, 2015 at 11:00 pm
Can’t blame the accountants for this one, Kelvin MacKenzie on the other hand has much to answer for, when it comes to the low esteem that the red tops are held in
Ok, so RIFC PLC (Rangers or the company, but not the club) has borrowed £1.5M interest free from Park, Letham and Taylor, which is a whopping £500K each.
I assume that money will disappear straight into the black hole that is the wholly owned subsidiary TRFC Ltd (Rangers or the club), never to be seen again.
Haven’t they been there before? Easdale(A) (twice)/Letham (again)/MASH off the top of my head. And of course SD’s £5M is still sat on the balance sheet awaiting repayment.
All that £1.5M does is keep the lights on for another fortnight, without making a jot of difference to the fundamental issue of the hemorrhaging of cash due to the inherent loss making nature of the business. I’ve read some moonbeams about DK having some kind of end of the rainbow pot of Krugerrands that he’s just desperate to convert into a warchest for SMcC and simultaneously rebuild Ibrox stadium, albeit sans hoverpitch (perhaps that was in part 2).
How will DK get this totally clean and limitless supply of money into TRFC Ltd? A simple question, yes. A simple answer, is there one?
Loans? Buy shares? A gift? A bulk purchase of surplus SD stock at way in excess of net realisable value? Shirt sponsorship of the Gerdie five until the end of the season?
Other than delisting and then going private having bought enough shares to pass the 75% required for the resolution and turning the group into a pet project, I can’t see how. He would of course then encounter a glass ceiling as the UEFA FFP rules would come into play in the event of UCL/EL qualification and the level of debt would become an issue as debt/equity swaps are taken into account even if he chose that route.
Perhaps his best bet would be to eat humble pie and ring up
and ask him for the Dallas Cowboys and Adidas details, although maybe he already has equally exciting partnerships lined up. :irony:
Cluster One says:
March 23, 2015 at 10:50 pm
jimmci says:
March 23, 2015 at 10:18 pm you did in the course of a interview given to the Dutch Television Programme FC Rijnmond, make comment of an offensive nature”.
——————
In it, he repeats a chant sung about him by the Hoops support: “Oh John Guidetti, puts the ball in the net-y, he’s a Super Swede and the h#ns are deid, walking in Guidetti wonderland.”
——————
SFA compliance officer Tony McGlennan has accused the 22-year-old Swede of breaching disciplinary rule 73, stating that “on or around March 6, 2015, you did in the course of a interview given to the Dutch Television Programme FC Rijnmond, make comment of an offensive nature”.
How will the compliance officer work this one out? What word was offensive? and will his findings be made public. ie offensive to who and why. Who was it offensive to and why was it offensive to them and this is your punishment for saying such a word.
could that not open a whole can of worms. Or will we never find out what part of the song the compliance officer deems offensive?
rants over back to lurking
==========================
It seems we are exporting the right to be offended.
Where does it end? if JG had said the same thing in Oz would distance have diminished the offense?
Were the Dutch offended? How would they respond if I were offended by their attitude to marijuana? Smoke another spliff and blow the smoke in my face I imagine. (between laughing)
In the context of the JG interview is there evidence that offense was the intent?
Has football become a modern day Canute attempting to hold back waves of varying sizes of offense? Is it the wave labelled “deid” or the one beginning with “H” that is the problem or both?
Will the SFA back the Compliance Officer by demonstrating how the legal entity operating out of Ibrox is in fact the same as the legal entity in the course of being dismantled and therefore is not “deid”?
What proof will they use?
This could get interesting.
Somebody at the SFA is either incredibly stupid at opening up this can of worms or incredibly clever in bringing back the same club debate for resolution. The balance of probability veers sharply towards stupid.
On the other term – the three letter word beginning with “H” it is a word I rarely say and when I think it, it describes to me a mindset with recognisable traits – intolerant, bigoted, closed to reason or the reality of difference. It crosses religious and tribal divides and comes in all colours and I know such a person when I meet one and tend to keep my distance no matter the outward symbology of their allegiance.
Meanwhile back in the Whataboutery War, The Gotcha Game, how shall Tims (is it still ok to say that?) retaliate?
Could “taig” be the next term heading for the Right To Be, indeed Want To Be, Offended list or are we all going to grow up?
PS If I were a bluenose which to me is a person supporting TRFC who displays none of the characteristics that I attach to the “H” word mindset, I would be offended or annoyed at being labelled and so misrepresented as such, hence my grown up avoidance of the term.
Although TRFC do not have a line of credit with a bank, they must use a bank.
Does that bank not have a responsibility to ensure that sources of money deposited are legitimate?
How much checking do banks have to do to satisfy themselves of true sources of funding? Did the 3 Bears just have half a million each lying around doing not much?
(This -for my wee sister – is what happens when you watch the full series of Breaking Bad twice )
I’d like another wee emoticon type thingy . . . a pointing finger specifically . .
for instances like the gary keown article . . you know when a snigger just isnt enough and only a “point and laaafff ” reactiion will do ?
As a celtic fan I would find it useful combined with the “glum face ” too .. Say when referencing the morgue like demeanour of the media when contemplating the prospect of a celtic treble . . I give you Rob McLean on the League cup final coverage for example . .reminded me so much of glum gordon (smith) gritting his teeth thru another champions league glory night . .
Call me paranoid by all means but just watch the body language over the coming weeks . . . it will be drooping shoulders and furrowed brows accompanying forced pleasantries all round for studio anchor men and trackside reporters alike . . . c’mon . . puleeeze . . let me point and laaf at wee chick eh ? ? please ?
😆
In the Guidetti non incident, newspapers, particularly red tops need to stop calling him a Swede. Everybody knows that the good people of England refer to a turnip as a swede. In other words, they’re calling big John a tumshie. This is offensive to all concerned, and to all people from Sweden everywhere.
Would the tumshies at Hampden get a grip of themselves: what a bunch.
Auldheid says:
March 24, 2015 at 1:02 am
Cluster One says:
March 23, 2015 at 10:50 pm
jimmci says:
In it, he repeats a chant sung about him by the Hoops support: “Oh John Guidetti, puts the ball in the net-y, he’s a Super Swede and the h#ns are deid, walking in Guidetti wonderland.”
————————————-
PS If I were a bluenose which to me is a person supporting TRFC who displays none of the characteristics that I attach to the “H” word mindset, I would be offended or annoyed at being labelled and so misrepresented as such, hence my grown up avoidance of the term.
——————————–
hence my grown up avoidance of the term.
Me also, that is why the wee star in the middle “h#n” just incase i offend anyone.
ok definitely back to lurking.
Auldheid – Under money laundering regulations, banks automatically inform HMRC of any deposits of 5k or more, and they must also notify any transactions which they deem to be suspicious. They cannot advise the client that they are referring any transactions. If a worker thinks something is suspicious and does not refer it to the money laundering officer, they can be jailed.
Without getting into the rights and wrongs of Guidetti and the h*n word.
A lot of Aberdeen fans now refer to the club from Ibrox and their fans as Hums.
Looks and sounds the same but is completely different.
I think it might catch on 😛
Auldheid says:
March 24, 2015 at 1:02 am
——–
I had to find the complete Guidetti interview, and sure enough there’s a lot more than the 11-second clip of him singing his song.
It’s almost 25 minutes of Feyenoord related chat. Guidetti himself comes across as a typical Swede, thoughtful, well-spoken with excellent English. He’s certainly got a bit of longing for Holland. Talks up the Dutch game.
His singing response to the question was the song he could remember (there are a few, apparently?). Your last paragraph sums it up @Auldheid, but to drag this young lad to Hampden for this is a bit of a joke. There’s not a hint of gloating, malice or bitterness in him when he sings it, he’s merely communicating a fan song. Must be some very bitter and small-minded people in that building who are aching to find something, anything that can be portrayed as evening up the behaviour of the likes of Chris Graham the massed choirs. I put it down to swallowing too many camels, in the biblical sense :irony:
Will chucks “original french” type defence be accepted ??
Apropos my earlier post and that of paulmac2 should the compliance officer not be citing himself for not acting on the many obvious instances of mass sectarian singing on live TV?
He is patently part of a problem that brings the game into disrepute.
Just asking …
As I recall, it was King, Murray, and Gilligan who skipped on the park at Ibrox, held the press conferences, and generally soaked up the adulation as saviours and smiters of the evil Ashley. Yet it is the quiet, almost anonymous Park, Letham (again), and Taylor who have stumped up the cash to pay the bills and prevent (or at least delay) insolvency. Go figure, as they say.
Dear Mr McGlennan,
I have found repeatedly being called an illegitimate sheep-sha**er offensive. Please can you investigate every game Aberdeen have played since the early 80’s. I can provide a list of games attended if that would help?
I have absolutely no doubt you will be able to heavily fine everybody that Aberdeen have played in that time (outside the angelic Hums of course – oh that every supporter/member of staff from every other club was so inoffensive!).
I realise I am taking a risk in this stance in that it may of course be found that Aberdeen are completely at fault and as such stand liable for a multi-million pound fine. We do of course live within reasonable commuting distance of said sheep so the claims made by the song are perhaps irrefutable. In our defence it should be pointed out that a) sheep can run quite fast and so many of us have no chance of taking part in said pursuit, and b) it gets quite cold up here and as such running around fields chasing the delightful Flossie is simply not for many of us.
Many thanks for your consideration.
Tayred.
Seriously folks, luckily, my fellow sheepies decided to turn an offensive chant around, take ownership of the term and “laugh it off” in a grown-up way. Not stand there pointing fingers like a wee bairn bleating about the bad boy calling them names. Playground survival 101. Of course, in reality no supporter should have to stand there and have such “banter” directed at them, to that extent almost any song belted out at almost any game could be declared “offensive”.
Still, this latest round of compliance nonsense is just pathetic, what a embarrassing country we are becoming 🙁
Scotland & Scottish football needs to wake up before it destroys itself.
Radio Shortbread reporting Guidetti is being pulled up for ‘making fun’ of the Ibrox club’s demise.
But the football authorities have always implied the club never died so how can you be done for making fun of something that apparently never happened??????????????????????????
For what its worth…..reading Paul Murray’s statement….the following questions should have been asked of him rather than allow him to speak via a PR release….
(1) Why did you not demand to see Graham Wallace’s 120 review as part of the “successful takeover”?
(2) How could you state how much money and how long it would take to regain “the rightful place” when you had no idea of the true status of the financial state.
(3) Did you request SD to give their 2nd 5 million loan – was it denied or as a blogger has intimated (thanks Phil) SD refused to give any answer to you.
So for no 3 it looks as if it were as if I told my mates I was getting a new car, went to the bank for a loan, got laughed at by the manager and now I am telling my mates I changed my mind and bought a bus pass instead….
For no 1 and 2 – no way would anyone with any sense (let alone business sense) buy shares to force an EGM without knowing the budget once they achieved their goals – or is this why Barry (SD/TRFC director) accused the 3 Bears of messing themselves when it looked as though they would win….
For me – they are trying to get to ST time – hope the faithful return in droves and keeping their fingers crossed that they get past Hibs and Motherwell to get promoted…
For the avoidance of doubt a similar plan ran aground when Malmo/Maribor put paid to that……..and of course DK who was on the RFC (NIL) board would have learnt from that mistake…..if only he was on the current board to advise them LOL
While perusing Rangers Media a year or two ago to discover what was exercising the Bear mind I came across a thread discussing the H word.
One poster from the East Scotland stated that the particular word was used frequently by them to describe themselves.
They considered it Badge of Honour.
Your Name Will Also Go On The List!
Paul Murray’s poor man impersonation of Charles Green’s rabble rousing across the SMSM today displays an unfortunate lapse in memory about his previous directorship of an Ibrox-based clumpany.
It also displays the SMSM’S pathological aversion to using the words what, why, when, how, why and who near anyone wearing a blazer and brogues.
At the end of the day, Murray is lambasting Llambias and Leach for blowing a few hundred thousand at most, when £70mil is missing (see Wallace 127 day report) and Murray’s own previous directorship left debt in the region of £100mil – tbc.
These are very stupid words from Murray aimed at very stupid punters. Unless King can deliver tens of millions PDQ to fund Murray’s pomposity, they will live in comedy history along side “Don’t tell him Pike”.
jockybhoy says:
March 24, 2015 at 9:28 am
[edit]
Scottish Football needs the authorities to take a reality check and cut out all this nonsense. What if 1000 fans chant the nasty word? Are they let off under the “Regan Doctrine”? No picking out of ringleaders? So why is one guy from another club singled out? I know where I would levy a charge of bringing the game into disrepute.
Regarding the term JG used…..a slightly OT story…
Was meeting with a RFC(NIL)supporter friend of mine in Edinburgh about 12 years ago and we walked into a bar halfway down Leith Walk for a pint one Sat and we ordered our drink, whereupon one of the regulars spun round on his bar stool and said “Are you two hot cross buns?”. Since we had no clue if it was rhyming slang or a reference to the cross on the buns, I sensibly told him we were on holiday from Holland and did not know what he meant – apparently it was the latter LOL.
Shall I report him for sectarianism 12 years later?
We are constantly reminded that Scottish Football is embarrassingly short of commercial sponsors. Ironically our other national drink producer has just entered into a deal with the English Championship and Leagues 1 and 2.
However imagine you were an executive of a company and you look at the shenanigans of Scottish football and its’ senior executives.
Would you even consider giving that lot the kids pocket money let alone a lucrative sponsorship deal?
Embarrassing does not even come close to describing their “management” capabilities. They are totally unfit for purpose and becoming ever more so by the week.
Thank God for Gordon Strachan – the SFA’s only shining light.
jimmci says:
March 24, 2015 at 9:40 am
Even wee Gordon isn’t a shining example given some of the [edit] statements he has come out with over the last year or so. I seem to recall him claiming that we “needed” them back in the top division.
OK folks. We’ve had some fun with the H word. Can we get back down to not calling people names?
Personally, I don’t lose sleep being called a “Fenian b*****d”. It’s not a nice thing to say, and the addition of the F word in this context lets me know exactly where the hatred comes from.
Anyone calling me this belittles themselves.
Someone, or even thousands of someones, singing that they want to be “up to their knees in Fenian blood” – has, IMO, crossed over the line into genuinely offensive behaviour. By this I mean going beyond personal offense and into the realms of offensive to the general public.
The difference is the implied threat of violence.
It would be so easy to come up with a list of nicknames for other fans that could be deemed offensive:
Aberdeen : Sheep Sh****rs (Alleged ruminant relationships issues)
Hearts: Jam Tarts (loose morals there – careful now!)
Partick Thistle: Jags (are we saying they are p***ks?)
Dundee United: Arabs (who knows, but surely offense is to be found here somewhere – the middle East is a nightmare!)
Might be fun to see if we can complete the list?
In fact, I would feel sorry for any club that did not have a distinctive fan’s epithet – a measure of insignificance surely?
OK. So there are some more differences.
The word Fenian refers to an Irish revolutionary group that fought against British rule. It is therefore a direct reference to the Irish conflict, something which continues to plague Scottish (and obviously Irish) life to date.
In common modern use in Scotland it has come to broadly mean any catholic, with the implication that they all support militant Irish republicanism – and are therefore, in the minds of those that use the word, legitimate targets for violence. We are slowly emerging from the NI Troublees where this was a real feature of the conflict.
The H word (can I even write it?) refers to “Older Slang: Disparaging and Offensive. a contemptuous term used to refer to a German, especially a German soldier in World War I or II. The disparaging and offensive use of this term likens the Germans to the barbarous and warlike Huns of the 4th and 5th centuries.” (a dictionary definition).
The term has been in use wrt Rangers fans for so long, that its origins are a bit hazy, but there is no doubt that it includes associations with violent behaviour and lack of culture. I know of no religious significance to this word. It is only directed at Rangers fans (though perhaps they self-identify as being synonymous with protestantism?) and I have heard it being directed at Hearts fans, mainly due to some of their fans having a reputation for dual allegiance with Rangers etc.
I have heard the word used in the context of loyalist parades, but this is also a consequence of the prevalence of Rangers tops at such events. There are many other words used to describe the people organising and participating in such events, but the H word is not one of them.
I do believe that there is a significant difference in the use of the F and H words, with one directly conflating the hatred with the Irish coinflict and the other directly conflating the hatred with the “Old Firm” (as was).
The current attempt to have the H word added to the list of sectarian offensive terms is a desperate attempt to continue the both sides equally bad myth. Sad, but true (IMO).
Personally, it is not a word that I think anyone needs to feel any great attachment to using.
In the context of the John Guidetti song – it is easy to replace the word with e.g. Gers, Bears etc and the meaning is still the same –
Rangers died by their own hand.
And this is the ultimate truth that Rangers fans will never be able to change and that fans of every other club will taunt them with forever.
Moving on…
Personally I find the Sheep Sh****rs epithet more offensive than any of the others and cringe when I hear it. But the way that the Dons fans have defused it by embracing it is genuinely funny – blow up sheep being bounced around the crowd are hard not to laugh at.
If it was us being called the H word, I am pretty sure we would all turn up wearing those ridiculous WWI German helmets with the spikey thing on top and strut about saying daft German stuff, wearing mad moustaches as well.
But I guess it is hard to have a sense of humour when your world view is that of social supremacy. The peasants laughing at you? How very dare they!
They really should get used to it. Because the Gers ARE deid…
Sorry TSFM – posted before I saw your last comment. Feel free to delete if not appropriate.
TSFM says:
March 24, 2015 at 9:46 am
OK folks. We’ve had some fun with the H word. Can we get back down to not calling people names?
—————————————————————–
But Sir, Sir!! They started it!! 😉
Point taken. Apologies for any offence.
Auldheid says@1.02 a.m
“……Is it the wave labelled ‘deid”or the onebeginning with ‘H’ that is the problem?”
______________
For my money,the Scottish Football aithorities are so far steeped in the iniquity of the ‘Big Lie’ that they are morally incapable-like so many of the SMSM liars-of facing up to the truth
They must at all costs attempt to crush any expresion of what theu know to the truth,namely, that thr Rangers Football Club is in fact deid,and has been replaced by TRFC, which has only one
thing in common with the Rangers of SDM: a readiness to lie and cheat, in its pr etence to be the
old Rangers and tnus claim its history,while
disowning any liability for the debts of that defunct
club.
They insistently and persistently try to make us accept the Big Lie, even by compromising their own supposedly independent ‘quasi judicial’ disciplinary.
Make no mistake, denial of the death pf SDM’s Rangers ,even if couched in an amusing couplet,
which includes a word that by no stretch of the English language could be said to be religiously sectarian, is the offence that is being targeted.
In my opinion.
The lying sods in the SFA cannot abide being reminded of their shame and disgrace.
But reminded of it they will be.
It’s the ‘d’ word and I don’t envy any judicial panel and the inevitable appeal tribunal the task of squaring that particular circle.
@jimmci
The deal signed was to be “Official Soft Drink Supplier” to (English) Football League.
The already have an equivalent deal with the SPFL.
It is about getting wider brand recognition across UK – so not really money that might otherwise have been invested in Scotland, which I think is what you are implying.
As usual the Guidetti manner is confused because Radio Shortbread seem to be reporting on ex compliance officer Lunny’s views on what the charge may be as opposed to what the current compliance officer McGlennan may be pulling him up for.
Maybe time for Bryson to step in and offer an interpretation?
Haggis Makes Sponsor Morris Dancing
As a scurry of squirrels distracts the SMSM, let’s remember that the Scottish football governing bodies are so dysfunctional that the most Scottish of Scottish brands has just sponsored English football. That even trumps Barry Hearn’s judgement of their ineptitude. IRN BRU – made in Scotland from girders, and not soft enough to deal with the SFA and SPFL.
Imagine this
. . . Rangers *
Celebrating the history of Third Lanark !!
http://www.followfollow.com/news/tmnw/third_lanark_history_night_857825/index.shtml?
stewartj84 says:
March 24, 2015 at 10:35 am
. . . so not really money that might otherwise have been invested in Scotland, which I think is what you are implying.
=====================================================================
That SPFL drink deal began in Oct 2013, replacing the expired sponsorship of the lower leagues – a decrease in commitment – with no money value mentioned – so assume it was embarrassingly low. The drink deal ends Oct 2016 – only time will tell if IRN BRU renew. Meanwhile the English deal is their “biggest ever”. Are you seriously saying that the SFA / SPFL did not competed for this money?
http://spfl.co.uk/news/article/spfl-announce-partnership-with-irn-bru/
TSFM says:
March 24, 2015 at 9:46 am
It should be acknowledged that this is quite a clever, and sadly successful, campaign designed to deflect attention from the Rangers songbook, and the attitudes which underpin it.
That the best they could find to fixate on, to suit their needs, was the H word, is also a backhanded compliment to both Celtic and their fans. The campaign serves as a testimonial to how far Celtic and their fans have travelled, but it is also an indictment of the retrograde movement that Rangers and their fans have made, especially over the last couple of years.
Ricky Sbragia on leaving out Real Madrid’s Jack Harper from his U-19s: “I’ve gone for a physical side and runners”
🙄 🙄
😥 😥 😥
I’m hoping TSFM will cut me a wee bit of slack.
Surely the line ‘the hvns are deid’ pretty much conclusively proves that the H word is a reference (perhaps derogatory) to all things Rangers & Sevco rather than a sectarian term for a protestant. It is the only interpretation that makes any kind of sense. Fans of the Ibrox club, of course, dispute that Rangers died, but surely they are not denying that the vast majority of fans of the other clubs believe the opposite. Protestantism is clearly not dead or even deid.
I am aware that the charge is of causing offence rather than use of sectarian language, and some Rangers and Sevco fans (although I think most realise how silly this is) may have been offended, but the basis of the offence is the incorrect belief that the word is sectarian, so we are left with absolutely nothing.
Then factor in that the player was simply reciting a song about himself sung by his club’s supporters and it was on a Dutch TV station. Just when you thought the SFA could not appear any more ridiculous.
Is there a sporting authority anywhere in the world that can come close to this utterly unique combination of shameless corruption and staggering incompetence?
shameless corruption and staggering incompetence
I’ll take this one – is it because, being Real Rangers Men, King, Murray and Gilligan expect other people to put their hands in their pockets?
andygraham.66 says:
March 24, 2015 at 11:19 am
Just checked, he really did say that! I thought the u19’s were about development, getting players ready for being a full international, not necessarily about putting out a team to win. I like Ricky Sbragia and I’m going to assume Jack Harper has been left out for some other reason….god I hope so.
Dutchmul says:
March 24, 2015 at 7:47 am
Auldheid – Under money laundering regulations, banks automatically inform HMRC of any deposits of 5k or more, and they must also notify any transactions which they deem to be suspicious.
—————–
That explains the delay. At £4999 a day, it will take ages to transfer £30M (“off the radar”, if you will).
neepheid says:
March 23, 2015 at 9:16 pm
ianagain says:
March 23, 2015 at 8:44 pm
I believe DK merely has a liquidity issues right now. Fully expect him to blow and I mean blow (without any return) a fair sum. He really does have it. As in “A doctor writes” kind of way.
=========================
King requisitioned the EGM on 16th January, and I’m guessing he didn’t decide to make the move that morning, but had some sort of plan when he bought his stake on 2nd January. So he has now had almost 3 months to get his cash together. I’ve no doubt that he’ll astonish me by suddenly producing £50m that he can afford to throw away, but I just can’t understand why T3B are being forced to dig deep, apparently in desperate circumstances, while King just watches from afar.
…………………………….
It is pure theatre, surely! Reminiscent, I suggest, of General Horrocks address to his subordinates just before launching Market Garden as portrayed in A Bridge Too Far – with words something like “… and they (the 1st Airborne Division) are the beleaguered homesteaders in Arnhem ( = shattered and war torn Ibrox) and XXX Corps (= King and his millions) is the cavalry riding to the rescue just in the nick of time.”
Now, how did that rescue work out again?
If another Ibrox clumpany is liquidated, what story will the numpties on the sixth floor be telling of their part in the proceedings ?
Let’s be clear, Ashley is already millions ahead on the deal, the whole shebang is peanuts to him, the brogues make a habit of insulting him and his men, and at any moment he could just say gtf and pulled the pin. He’s already proved himself a more patient, more tolerant man than me :-).
Those sixth floor chaps had better do some world-class brainstorming and pronto.
Prohibby says:
March 24, 2015 at 1:05 pm
They almost made it, but the lead tank unit, under a young Lord Carrington, wouldn’t advance in the dark, along the one lane road. Montgomery maintained that the operation was 90% successful, which is probably the tack Kingco would take. The operation was a great success, but, the patient died sort of thing.
I’m confused,again,is the rule not that someone outside of McGlennans office reports an incident and he will the investigate and make a balanced decision on the next step,do we know who reported the player singing and what content was the complaint made on,this might have been previuosly answered so apologies
Kicker Conspiracy says:
March 23, 2015 at 7:51 pm
I brought this up earlier in the season but can’t remember if anyone knew the answer.
What happens if a team undergoes an insolvency event during the playoffs?
Is a points deduction applied and, if league positions are affected, the playoffs restarted?
Or do we just carry on as if nothing happened?
——————————————————–
The season ends on the day of the last league game (or as otherwise determined by the League).
The play-offs take place in the close season.
Mid-season insolvencies are punished in the season in which they occur; close season insolvencies are punished in the following season, so a mid-play off insolvency shouldn’t mean the play-offs being restarted (but would ramp up the pressure on the players).
There are a couple of slight anomalies. Clearly play-offs start whilst the Premiership hasn’t completed (although relevant divisions may have done so) so technically the season hasn’t ended.
A team may complete its fixtures whilst other clubs in the same division have games (possibly irrelevant to the final standings) outstanding.
I think the wording should be amended to clarify that the season for clubs in a particular division has ended once the regular fixtures for that division are complete (or as otherwise determined by the league, to allow for the possibility of some irrelevant games never being played due to postponements, etc.)
Do you remember the days of Charlotte Fakes, LNS and HMRC? Intrigue, conspiracy, leaked documents, legal process, a myriad theories and a cast of thousands? Is this the same soap that now hinges only on who can feed the meter each month whilst conflicted administrators and the professionally uncurious try to distract us from the probability that the lights will go out. Reminds me of the latter days of Brookside – ever more desperate narratives – localized air crashes, cul-de-sac plague, then gone.
scapaflow says:
March 24, 2015 at 1:11 pm
Prohibby says:
March 24, 2015 at 1:05 pm
They almost made it, but the lead tank unit, under a young Lord Carrington, wouldn’t advance in the dark, along the one lane road. Montgomery maintained that the operation was 90% successful, which is probably the tack Kingco would take. The operation was a great success, but, the patient died sort of thing
……..
Probably “A Bridging Loan Too Far”, as General ‘Boy’ Browning would have said!
McCaig`s Tower says:
March 24, 2015 at 1:18 pm
There are a couple of slight anomalies.
========================================================
Don’t you mean enormous scope for discretion ?
Prohibby says:
March 24, 2015 at 1:32 pm
Aye, with the bampots playing the part of the young G2 Major, sent on sick leave for telling the brass, that they are walking into a disaster.
General “Boy” King: “Yes, those do look like Ashley’s tanks, but they are probably unserviceable, I wouldn’t worry about it, a mere detail, old boy”
scapaflow says:
March 24, 2015 at 1:43 pm
Prohibby says:
March 24, 2015 at 1:32 pm
……..
And then there were the crippled reinforcements parachuted in too……..
yourhavingalaugh says @ 1,18 pm
“…..Is the rule not that someone outside of MacGlennan’s office…”
________
This is the SFA we’re dealing with,yhal.
The concept of ‘rule’ as something other than pure
panicky and arbitrary and deflectively spiteful and
vengeful action is alien to the SFA.
The SFA is thirled to the salvation of the notion that
their false creature, TRFC, must always be
regarded as the Rangers of old. The Big Lie must not be challenged.
And TRFC must not, like bastards such as Adolf and some modern day equivalents, be made fun of.
One can see why it is that our individual clubs are feart to be seen to be challenging the regime.
There are powerful, rotten- to- the- core influences that they are afraid of.
Influences which, instead of being honestly exposed by the SMSM, are protected by them.
McCaig`s Tower says:
March 24, 2015 at 1:18 pm
I think the wording should be amended to clarify that the season for clubs in a particular division has ended once the regular fixtures for that division are complete (or as otherwise determined by the league, to allow for the possibility of some irrelevant games never being played due to postponements, etc.)
===========================
Rules (like laws) should be clear and unambiguous. The SFA rules are both unclear, and ambiguous. Sadly, that is exactly how our clubs (who are the SFA) apparently want them to be.
How about a clear, unambiguous set of SFA rules as an objective for this forum? It’s clearly what the high heid yins really don’t want, so that surely proves it to be a worthwhile objective?
There’s been a few comments on Irn Bru’s sponsorship of the English Football League. Perhaps the SFA & SPFL should be talking to Barr’s and taking advice on how to market themselves better.
I left Scotland in 1990, for London, and only stayed because I found a shop that sold Irn Bru locally, but back then it was seen as very much a Scottish drink, for Scottish people, with our bad dental hygiene.
Look at it now, it’s a household brand across the UK, due to a clever marketing strategy, which differentiated it from it’s competitors, and now appeals to a completely different demographic, yet still remains popular with it’s core customer.
Guys like Doncaster and Regan are too busy telling us what we can’t do, but we need someone with a bit of vision, and girders, to show us what can be achieved.
Folks,
I don’t want to put a stop to the debate on offensive words. Lot of common sense and a lot of interesting stuff has come out of that. It’s just that pejorative language, whilst being a usefully sharp tool, can be blunted very quickly with overuse 🙂
http://mattleslie74.weebly.com/blog/crown-weighs-heavy-on-a-paper-king good summing up of the current state of play.
PMG restating the obvious for the financially naive:
“The importance of giving”
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/the-importance-of-giving/
And The Rangers confirm the depth of their cash flow crisis:
“Gers Launch Four Match Package”
http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/8894-gers-launch-four-match-package
jimlarkin says:
March 24, 2015 at 11:09 am
Imagine this
. . . Rangers *
Celebrating the history of Third Lanark !!
http://www.followfollow.com/news/tmnw/third_lanark_history_night_857825/index.shtml?
=================================
Worrying times indeed.
Are they preparing themselves for their own Third Rangers, by immersing themselves in the culture and history of Thirdism?
Just catching up with the JG ‘offensive’ comment, and IMO it simply adds yet another inconsistency which could come back to bite the SFA in the bum.
It might not be this JG charge that does it, [which you think could be quietly punted into the off season, and then dropped – especially if he leaves CFC], but somewhere along the line the SFA is going to be seriously embarrassed, IMO.
Don’t know if JG is allowed legal representation, but could he simply present a few short video clips of
– the Berwick game [with accompanying apology from the commentator for the offensive TRFC singing]
– a few more recent games with audible offensive TRFC fans’ singing
– and read out the comments issued by the SFA along the lines of ‘too many people’ to approach in the crowd re: offensive singing.
Then in closing, claim that the SFA is victimising JG as he is ‘an easy target’ and charge should be dropped.
The SFA in its infinite wisdom finds JG guilty of offence anyway and fines/bans him.
JG then reverts to the Court of Session for an opinion, [a la RFC/TRFC].
No punishment was given to RFC/TRFC, so none expected for JG in copying this route.
CoS states that the SFA are a bunch of didd!es, and their standards of governance could be improved by a ‘stringent, independent review’ in the first instance.
SFA then has a much bigger problem to deal with internally.
Could be fun. 😕
Just seven short busienss days left for King to turn expensive, sharp, unabsorbant toilet paper back into share certificates by appointing a Nomad, avoiding de-listing and reversing the share suspension.
As miracles go, it’s an easy one to get started with.
And on a positive RFC/TRFC related note…
Good to see Giovanni van Bronkhorst get the Feyenoord job.
Always thought he was a super player for the old Rangers.
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/rangers/former-rangers-star-set-gio-for-feyenoord-job-201152n.121391439
With the JG singing farce, they will probably have charged him as a pro footballer mocking fellow pros at another club.
Pretty tenuous but never stopped Traynor before, he has previous.
From memory also was GioVB not the only EBT recipient who, on confirming that he wouldn’t be requiring a loan from the Trustees, you know 😉 to do up his kitchen 😉 😉 , but instead asked of the Trustees what the investment strategy was for his kids trust? To be met with whatever sound tumbleweed actually makes.
Just on the Gudetti thing.
Firstly I’m quite sure all celtic players will receive media training complete with a list of words not to say. [edit]
That said, if I understand the situation correctly, it appears he was singing ‘his’ song to the dutch interviewer, presumably on request, which doesn’t stop my first point from being any less important.
The song appears to have contained two words that potentially could have given rise to the complaint. The first, the H word, is a situation on-going and no further comment is required. If it is the ‘D’ word they have an issue with then that is your real can of worms right there. It just smacks of We’re not deid, we’re not, we’re not, we’re not, and you can’t say we are because it makes us sad.
Finally, whilst I accept that it is the role of the same man to police both, I don’t believe you can compare a situation of a paid employee of one club and the ranks however massed, of the support of another under the same framework.
wottpi says:
As usual the Guidetti manner is confused because Radio Shortbread seem to be reporting on ex compliance officer Lunny’s views on what the charge may be as opposed to what the current compliance officer McGlennan may be pulling him up for.
Maybe time for Bryson to step in and offer an interpretation?
______________________________________________________
That’s an excellent point. Surely since the comment wasn’t found to be offensive at the time Mr Guidetti can’t be punished for it now?
CatNR1
My point exactly. If it is the dead inference they are trying to act on then they have a major problem. As I’ve said many times on here the only group (save for the creditors!) who have to deal with reality as opposed to ethereal thingies that we all wave flags at and about are the SFA. They have rules. Rules do not apply to ethereal cloudy thingies. They apply to reach out and touch them real life legal thingies.
See, this law stuff’s easy!
As I’ve pointed out before Rangers fans used to call Celtic supporters ‘H*ns’ before we used the term for them.
It goes back to their belief that the RoI assisted the Germans in WW2 – I have no intention of sparking that particular debate other than to point-out the origin afaik.
In view of the disgusting terms which a largish section of the Rangers support now use to describe Celtic supporters and have done for some time it would appear they no longer think ‘h*n’ is offensive enough to be used to describe Celtic fans.
I simply hope that PL will be making it clear that this one is going all the way to the CoS if the SFA are so stupid as to proceed with the matter.
It’s been clear since the egm victory that one of the main demands of Rangers’ fans has been for action to be taken by the club against those perceived to be ‘Rangers Haters’ – in other words anyone who tells the truth about their club.
You might think the Bears would be more interested in knowing how their club is going to be rebuilt and how the task will be financed. You might even think that they might have a passing interest in the filling of the vacant NOMAD post.
There are just so many issues at Ibrox that require to be tackled urgently and yet the Number 1 priority is currently JG – they must really hate him.
Was he wrong to repeat a song that Celtic fans sing? Well afaik ‘h*n’ isn’t a legally prohibited word nor classed as sectarian.
JG used the song in a TV interview to explain a point and there was no sign of any nastiness IMO. One thing for sure: Should they actually manage to creep through some Premiership back door then every time they’re at Parkhead they’ll be sick of hearing the song.
And it won’t matter whether JG is still with the club or not the song will live on 🙂
Of course it will be interesting to see whether the SFA regulations are changed to be able to fine a club for what its fans are singing. Now there’s an interesting thought 😆
RST Statement on Sectarian Language
We welcome the SFA’s decision to charge Celtic’s John Guidetti for singing a sectarian song on a widely circulated internet video from Dutch TV. Sectarianism and racism have no place in Scottish football and it is extremely disappointing that yet another high profile Celtic player has been caught engaging in such behaviour.
Celtic’s statement that they are surprised by this outcome is typical of their approach to the problems they have had with racist and sectarian behaviour from their employees and fans over many years. This behaviour has more often than not been directed at Rangers fans. The word “Hun” is not simply offensive, it is sectarian. In 2001 , Celtic themselves warned their staff and fans that use of the word “Hun” was sectarian and offensive and they banned it from being used. 14 years later, after failing to deal with the consistent sectarian and pro terrorist chanting of their fans, they now choose to defend a player doing the same.
Anti-sectarian charities agree that Hun is a sectarian term. The courts have prosecuted Celtic fans for using the word “Hun”. Are those who defend its use telling us that when “Kill all Huns” is scrawled on walls in Belfast there is no sectarian meaning? Celtic’s attempt to back pedal from their own stated, but never enforced, position and deny the true nature of their sectarianism problem is disgraceful. This will not be swept under the carpet. Celtic are fostering a culture of racism and sectarianism by consistently defending the fans and employees who take part in such behaviour.
We hope the SFA continue to treat this matter seriously and are not pressured by influential Celtic figures within their boardroom to make light of this charge. The only surprise that should be present in anyone’s mind is about why the police are not involved in closely examining Guidetti’s behaviour. We have recently seen fans jailed for precisely the same thing, why is this being treated any differently?
The Rangers Supporters Trust remains committed to eradicating all forms of sectarianism from Scottish football but, until these issues are dealt with without fear or favour by press and politicians, there will be no lasting solution. We will be seeking a meeting with the new Rangers board as soon as is practical to discuss how the current disparity in treatment and coverage can be addressed.
– See more at: https://www.therst.co.uk/news/rst-st….RE7lfbt4.dpuf
_____
they have no self awareness at all
“Barcabhoy @Barcabhoy1 3m3 minutes ago
Campbell Ogilvie fails in bid to get into UEFA committee. A word in the right place still brings results. Ogilvie hopelessly lightweight”
Looks like we are stuck with the blighter, nobody wants him, except the Scottish Clubs it seems
Here’s one for Trading Standards
“as the new Board continues the rebuilding of the Club.”
Any tangible evidence of that happening ?
scapaflow says:
March 24, 2015 at 4:48 pm
“Barcabhoy @Barcabhoy1 3m3 minutes ago
Campbell Ogilvie fails in bid to get into UEFA committee. A word in the right place still brings results. Ogilvie hopelessly lightweight”
Looks like we are stuck with the blighter, nobody wants him, except the Scottish Clubs it seems
==============================
Our (non) loss is everyone else’s gain.
Interesting RST statement only in so far as they major purely, and exclusively on … And have no issue at all with being deid!
andy says:
March 24, 2015 at 4:43 pm
RST Statement on Sectarian Language
======================================
Is that the Rangers Supporters Trust that has the former Rangers International Football Club director as a member?