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.
tcup 2012 says:
March 9, 2015 at 9:41 am
To be fair to King he has always been talking of ‘soft loans’ and ‘fan investment’.
Therefore in my view that rules out the city and any serious investors as these days people just don’t throw their money down the pan that is operating a football club unless there is that emotional attachment or, in the case of the real big money men, an ego trip of wholly owing a club.
Paul Murray is perhaps correct that with the right strategy of maximizing ticket income and keeping costs under control that will give T’Rangers a team that will be competitive in Scotland. The issue is however that to make the next jump and have any kind of success in Europe that generates additional money takes a huge input of cash.
I’m not sure there is the will to immediately put in the millions that are no doubt required.
Dougals Park issued a statement the other day saying “.. there can be no outlandish promises and unrealistic timescales”
I think all those emotional investors will find that their kid’s inheritance funds are going to run dry pretty quickly and when that happens where does the money come from?
Bill Millar’s man Pritchett spoke of a £10m black hole that needed to be filled most years. I for one can’t see emotional investors coming up with that type of cash year on year.
The Scottish press has made for truly depressing reading over the last few days. Can Scottish journalism really have sunk to a new level (5)? Level 5 can only mean 5 levels below rock bottom. There should be a total boycott of this garbage by every Scottish football fan who does not support the Ibrox club, because it is clear that the Scottish MSM has been totally subverted by Traynor and his paymasters.
I have frequently posted links to articles which I considered might be of interest, but never again will I give the oxygen of publicity to the likes of the excruciating Jackson in the Record.
I can’t adequately express the utter depression I feel having read some of today’s articles, and then compared the sycophantic treatment of the “New Regime” at Ibrox with the way Lawell’s latest press conference was handled by the same bunch of lackeys. Simply nauseating.
It is easy to break the habit of buying newspapers-I did after nigh on 50 years try it all you have to lose are your chains.
Might I also say that reference to a newspaper as the Daily Retard is improper veering towards the sneeringly nasty. Folk have enough difficulties without use of such abusive language. Am I being PC here? I guess that I am but that is one of the advantages from learning from one’s children.
Furthermore pish is merely onomatopoeia as well as being a great old scots word down with the bowdlerising of it I say.
bfbpuzzled says:
March 9, 2015 at 10:05 am
Absolutely, the R word is currently on the naughty step, being led by various groups working with anybody, who presents with physical or mental impairments & rightly so.
Kevin Kilbane recently reported the West Ham fans for using the M word, in relation to Harry Kane, because it’s a derogatory term used primarily, in relation to people born with Downs Syndrome. Kevin has a Daughter born with DS
wottpi says:
March 9, 2015 at 9:26 am
What chance of a separate area of the site to store lamb munching articles from Friday onwards to see how many stories come true and if the headlines actually match the content.
———————————————–
And to have a space left empty, to be completed in two years time, noting the ways in which those same papers claim to have always been in the vanguard of those who were sceptical, and who questioned the credentials of the various ‘saviours’, at the time.
wottpi says:
March 9, 2015 at 9:58 am
tcup 2012 says:
March 9, 2015 at 9:41 am
///////
My point was about the dreams of those in the MSM but wholly agree with you about the emotional investors
I also see you mention the King’s Speech
The problem I have with this so called plan is
1. Soft,hard or slightly under cooked loans Is still a loan and will still need garuntees and repayment
A loan is a loan no matter what you call it
2. Fan investment. With the company being suspended (at the moment ) and king also mentioning Delisting I find this option very problematic
I also believe the 5m or so Green managed to squeeze out of the fans to be about top wack
The other problem with this is the mentality of the fans. Its now RRM in charge and RRM will pay for everything and don’t need their money
They are RRM ffs
And that’s the way the fans minds work
Sorry about my unfinished post earlier
Bloody phone and work lol
wottpi says:
March 9, 2015 at 9:58 am
Ticket income is all they have, and even that income is allegedly encumbered with “onerous” payments to the mysterious beasties in the Sevco Triangle, which allegedly kick in when attendance levels cross certain thresholds.
Prince Philip once described owning a racing yacht as being akin to standing fully clothed in an ice cold sea water shower, ripping up fivers. Kingco are going to find that “owning” Rangers Football Club provides a similar experience. If that’s how you get your kicks, buying a copy of 50 Shades of Grey would be much more cost effective.
Even a league reconstruction will not bring about a strong, healthy Rangers, (though I do wonder if Rangers were the 98th worst team in Scotland, if the bar stewards on the SFA/SPFL boards would consider a 100 team premier League
). At the moment , the only way I can see getting a strong Rangers into the Premeirship, would be to levy all the other Premiership teams for their two best players, insist that the parent teams continue to pay the wages, and then assign the conscripts to Rangers.
Even then, if either Magath or Smith really are the football management future, Rangers would still get the proverbial wooden spoon.
scapaflow says:
March 9, 2015 at 10:47 am
wottpi says:
March 9, 2015 at 9:58 am
At the moment , the only way I can see getting a strong Rangers into the Premeirship, would be to levy all the other Premiership teams for their two best players, insist that the parent teams continue to pay the wages, and then assign the conscripts to Rangers.
==============
Hmmm, a form of handicapping. Well I suppose it’s one of the few things they haven’t yet tried. And we know they monitor this forum… naughty Scapa. 😆
scapaflow says:
March 9, 2015 at 10:47 am
Your suggestion of getting two best players from each club is probably what we will see come the next transfer window.
There is not going to be enough cash to splash on a huge rebuild but offering a few key players from other teams a wee bit better than they are on just now could get a team capable of being second given the old tactic of weakening the competition.
My suggestion to Premiership clubs and Hearts and Hibs is hold steady boys and nail down any prospects with a decent mid to long term deal before the season is out.
Tcup,
I know what you mean but a soft loan whilst technically repayable, is essentially long term funding akin to equity (doesn’t stop it being secured of course). Where it falls short is whether you trust the Loan Grantor to stand good and not ‘effect’ repayment. Now Mike Ashley I would trust. I know damn fine he is creaming it in other ways and I know damn fine he doesn’t need the money back anyway, so, on balance, if he says he’s putting in a soft loan as he has then I believe him. King (and Murray) on the other hand..?
One hand giveth…
wottpi says:
March 9, 2015 at 9:26 am
What chance of a separate area of the site to store lamb munching articles from Friday onwards to see how many stories come true and if the headlines actually match the content.
/////////////////
Great idea wottpi
Only problem is do we have enough space?
Would probably have to hire another server to acomidate it all lol 😀
A very small postscript to the masterly synthesis by Auldheid is to wonder where the term ‘wee tax case’ came from – and the consequence of its use. It seems to characterise a set of events as minor and marginal. Was it really that ‘wee’? Had the label been something like’ (for example) ‘acknowledged tax improprieties’ it would not seem so ‘cuddly’.
smallchange says:
March 9, 2015 at 10:59 am
In the unlikely event the men who run Scottish Football and/or the men who currently run Rangers actually say something sensible, I will treat it seriously.
Until that day, laughter is the best medicine, any other response is bad for the blood pressure!
alexander276 says:
March 9, 2015 at 11:09 am
Tax evasion is the phrase your searching for, time to call a spade a fecking shovel on that one
At the end of the day nothing else really matters IMO than whether this new Board can raise the capital and income necessary for Rangers’ survival whether that be in the Premiership, Championship or elsewhere.
The fans have made their decision and now the fate of their club depends on what cash can be raised. Even if wrongdoing is discovered by an examination of the books then clawing-back any compensation will be both costly and take a long time even with a reasonable to good legal case.
So I really doubt whether that approach will fill the coffers. There is the issue of what the Easdale proxies are going to do especially if they hold onerous contracts. However a contract might be onerous but not necessarily illegal so again I don’t expect huge sums to be magicked out of what I suspect will be very thin air.
And then MA – I doubt if anything he has done isn’t legally watertight and above board so they will simply have to wait until the contracts run out. A few bob might be earned from Ashley paying Rangers a bit more on kit sales in return for some kind of endorsement of SportsDirect. The new Board might think that’s a step too far for the Bears of course.
The Board can certainly regain the various assets pledged in security for loans but that will mean repaying MA. Again it simply comes down to money – but where do you find it?
It doesn’t matter what the Board state or claim or how accurately that is presented in the SMSM. It’s only hot air being produced to gonflé the support and squeeze as much money as possible from them.
Once the Board has discovered a half-engine under the bonnet and reality strikes home then I have the feeling that a curtain will start to fall on the promised transparency.
Of course I could be totally wrong and they might have pledged money ready to gush from the Ibrox wazoo. But if I’m not then the coming months will become very interesting especially if there’s a dearth of cash-burning announcements for the succulent lamb barbecue.
It’s always been about the money and still is and as long as the club operates at a loss then it always will be. Nothing else – particularly empty rhetoric – means anything. Promises are cheap but action requires cash especially when loan facilities might be problematic.
And meanwhile I suspect that MA will keep a watching brief because he has the money to outwait everyone not just at Ibrox but all of Scottish Football. But like an iceberg any potential danger to football in this country is mainly hidden from view.
And indeed he may even become the Saviour of our declining game and it wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if he sponsors the SPFL Big Style ❗ I’m sure it’s tax deductible 😆
Cygnus X-1 says
March 9th 2015 at 9.43 am
———————————–
Are you referring to the John Guidetti video clip from Dutch TV and the “spontaneous” campaign to have the H*N word outlawed?
I strongly suspect this is a co-ordinated PR blitz by Level-5 in the wake of Traynor getting the Sevco gig from the recently crowned King. It is no co-incidence that multi articles and tweets are appearing this morning as if by magic.
Perhaps the SMSM’s strings are being pulled to try and get the H*N debate into the public eye as a means of deflection away from the recent upsurge in the Ibrox songbook.
Celtic F.C. should not get involved in this matter, as it is not limited to their supporters alone, however much the media try to portray it as such. For that reason the Celtic board should, if challenged, be prepared to bat away the Guidetti video claim. Nevertheless, I would like to see a high profile test case finally putting this nonsense to bed once and for all.
tcup 2012 says:
March 8, 2015 at 10:05 pm
Jingso.Jimsie says:
March 8, 2015 at 7:28 pm
/////….///////./
As far as I have been led to believe Their contracts run out
On the day of the last league game of the season. The playoffs are not apart of the official league season and are in fact a separate competition
They were actually discussing this very point on Saturday on radio Scotland
=========================================
Apologies for continuing to push this, but the Scottish Cup Final (which was one of Mr. McCoist’s targets for this season!) is on the 30th of May. Are we to assume that TRFC would have put out the Under-20s for the Final had they qualified because the majority of the first team had left (or been out of contract) after the 2nd of May?
What would happen if Hibs are in the Scottish Cup Final & the Play-off Finals? Games on 28, 30 & 31st May, that’s what…
neepheid says:
March 9, 2015 at 10:03 am
The Scottish press has made for truly depressing reading over the last few days. Can Scottish journalism really have sunk to a new level (5)? Level 5 can only mean 5 levels below rock bottom. There should be a total boycott of this garbage by every Scottish football fan who does not support the Ibrox club, because it is clear that the Scottish MSM has been totally subverted by Traynor and his paymasters.
I have frequently posted links to articles which I considered might be of interest, but never again will I give the oxygen of publicity to the likes of the excruciating Jackson in the Record.
I can’t adequately express the utter depression I feel having read some of today’s articles, and then compared the sycophantic treatment of the “New Regime” at Ibrox with the way Lawell’s latest press conference was handled by the same bunch of lackeys. Simply nauseating.
========================================================
neepheid.
What you suggest, has been raised many times. However there is only one way to answer these “journalist’s”.
That is plain and simple do not buy the so called “newspapers” which print the dross.
We would not know about the anti Peter Lawwell propoganda, unless we bought the broadsheet toilet paper.
STOP BUYING OR READING IT!
An interesting fact I came across was that for the Daily Record their sales are on a downward trend of 9.2% from this time last year. And further, a drop of a mere 69% from 1985, you remember – Frank McAvennie was scoring that 90th minute goal at Hampden Park against DU to lift the Scottish Cup.
But allow me to sum up.
DONT BUY THE PAPERS!!!
Hi Folks,
I have not contributed much to the blog for a long time. Auldheid has captured all the wrongdoing in a remarkable way, Thanks.
I wonder if the blog could consider trying Change.org. I have seem many cases I would never have known about through this organisation. Maybe, an edited highlights version of Auldheids work could be used to underline how useless the SFA is, and bring it to a wider audience?
I don’t know if this would be a suitable way of getting attention, or even if it would get any publicity? I guess that the main problem is who the signatures would be sent to? I think that the experts on here would know better than myself if this is a road worth considering?
Keep up the good work, and thanks to all you regulars, who keep me busy reading and comparing what the media are reporting!
Jingso.Jimsie says:
March 9, 2015 at 11:51 am
tcup 2012 says:
March 8, 2015 at 10:05 pm
Jingso.Jimsie says:
March 8, 2015 at 7:28 pm
////////////
Not a problem jingso
There is already 1 player who has signed a Pre contact agreement with Dundee ( can’t remember his name or club 😳 ) Who may or may not be able to play depending on Dundee’s or his own position
As for the Trfc players
I will repeat as far as I am led to believe they are Out of contract by the time the playoffs kick off
You must remember most of these players signed there contracts before the playoffs came into being
Edit
You also have to consider the position some of these players are in or could be in
Do they risk injury while not having a club? Or if they have a club lined up?
Also on the pre contact agreement
I remember a couple of years ago Celtic signed a player on a pre contact agreement . The player subsequently got injured before the end of the season . Turned out it was quite serious and would be injured for sometime. Celtic canceled the agreement
tcup
“You must remember most of these players signed there contracts before the playoffs came into being”
That is probably the real cause of this issue for Rangers, compounded by a chaotic regime, which probably didn’t have the cash to re-negotiate, had McCoist or one of the string of Company Secretaries noticed there was an issue.
Edit
A thought on this, given that this was a complex change, wouldn’t the experts at the SFA/SPFL include a check-list of potential issues, & wouldn’t checking your players contracts/registrations be high on the list? Especially if your President for Life is a World Record Breaking Football Administrator? just asking!
Scapa
I think that most chairmen in the championship div 1 ect are making sure they cover the playoffs in player contacts now
Well at least I hope they are
tcup 2012 says:
March 9, 2015 at 12:46 pm
One would hope so
The professionalism of the Professional Game Board, is a wonder to behold 🙄
With all the shenanigans going on at level 5 to protect their own bottoms, and secure the rise and future of the boys in blue, there must be an independant body or commission here in the UK or in Europe who have a DUTY to ensure fairplay for all in Sport.
Do Police Scotland not have an obligation to ensure that the Administrator’s of our national game do just that, Administrate without fear or favour. Would the allow the Mafia to control it?
With all the flaws we have at the moment, and a load of work required to fix them how can Campbell Ogilvie possibly be allowed to retain his office and infuence.
It is up to the fans again to start a programme of informing 41 club chairmen what is, and what is not acceptable for an honest and fair game of football in 2015 Scotland.
I reckon if the English FA were commissioned to look at the game North of the Border they could have it fixed within THREE months. Whatever their bill, get it paid by return post. Otherwise the game will continue to favour one club and DIE!
normanbatesmumfc says:
March 9, 2015 at 12:53 pm
//////
Sorry but don’t get what you’re point really is
As a Celtic fan and especially a football fan
I know and respect the fact that no team has the god given right to win every game (its what makes football so great 🙂 well for me anyway)
And in a cup competition it doesn’t matter who you are drawn against Every team must be beaten to win it
JimmyBeeJay says:
March 9, 2015 at 12:17 pm
Hi Folks,
I have not contributed much to the blog for a long time. Auldheid has captured all the wrongdoing in a remarkable way, Thanks.
I wonder if the blog could consider trying Change.org. I have seem many cases I would never have known about through this organisation. Maybe, an edited highlights version of Auldheids work could be used to underline how useless the SFA is, and bring it to a wider audience?
I don’t know if this would be a suitable way of getting attention, or even if it would get any publicity? I guess that the main problem is who the signatures would be sent to? I think that the experts on here would know better than myself if this is a road worth considering?
Keep up the good work, and thanks to all you regulars, who keep me busy reading and comparing what the media are reporting!
===================================================
JimmyBeeJay.
Having had a quick look at the https://www.change.org/ website, I reckon one of our more polished contributors, could quickly knock out a protest page and get the Scottish Football bias and deception brought to the attention of a slightly wider audience.
I’m not entirely sure how Peter Lawell thinks the TV deal affects Celtic the way he thinks it does.
The vast majority of Celtic’s TV appearances are away from home. Non Saturday 3pm kick-offs will be an inconvenience for the Celtic away support certainly, but how does this diminish Celtic FC’s finances exactly?
A quick check shows Celtic’s next three TV appearances as away from home. Surely it’s the home team who lose out due to Celtic fans having a wee cosy get together in the pub, instead of actually going to the game (as stated in Ecobhoys post this morning)?
Not to mention the home team supporters who decide to watch it on the box instead of attending, affecting the gate receipts of the club hosting Celtic.
Being a participant in the Europa league requires moving any Saturday games to a Sunday. Is Peter suggesting that Celtic will no longer be playing in the Europa league as he sees Saturday 3pm kick-offs as the panacea?
.
Radiccio says:
March 9, 2015 at 1:41 pm
I’m not entirely sure how Peter Lawell thinks the TV deal affects Celtic the way he thinks it does.
The vast majority of Celtic’s TV appearances are away from home. Non Saturday 3pm kick-offs will be an inconvenience for the Celtic away support certainly, but how does this diminish Celtic FC’s finances exactly?
///////////
In the TV deal every team in the premiership is contracted to show the same amount of home games (4 I think)
The TV companies pick which home games they are going to show Which are mainly against Celtic as they are persevied to be the biggest draw outside Scotland
What PL was alluding to was that he could sell these games for more via Celtic TV or other means and that the home crowds at a sellout Parkhead for the 4 home games would bring in the same if not more than the 2m they get from the TV companies
tcup 2012 says:
March 9, 2015 at 2:24 pm
My memory may be failing, but wasn’t Doncaster given a committee of the great & the good to assist him in negotiating the tv deal and wasn’t you know who on that committee?
Wrt the TV deal, why don’t the senior clubs agree that at the end of the current deal(s) they choose to have a break from TV ?
All – or most games – at 3pm on a Saturday, and see how it goes for a season.
It could give the governing bodies an idea about how many punters would return to the game – and also reinforce to the TV companies that they don’t run Scottish football, [I know 😕 ]
Then, if they do negotiate a new TV deal, the clubs will be in a stronger position to reject unreasonable kick off times for away fans, like 12.30.
God loves a trier… 🙄
I wouldn’t spend too much time trying to calculate how or whether Celtic could cover the cost of a lost £2 million income from Sky. Rather i would focus on why both Peter Lawell and Ronny Deila have made thinly veiled anti Sky comments in recent days.
The catalyst for this in my view is the disclosure that Sky have an option to extend for a further 2 years. The paucity of the current rights contract will sting , especially as the EPL continue to disappear of the horizon, with the beneficial trickle down effect to lower leagues in England.
However the disclosure that we are potentially trapped with a hugely undervalued contract until 2019 will be a serious annoyance at Celtic. Peter and Ronny are now using some of the language that fans have been using to comment on Sky. When the CEO of the Scottish Champions publicly comments about Sky being 10% funded by Scottish money yet receiving only 1% back in return , you know that there is now desire to break from the negative stranglehold held over our game by Sky.
More ‘positive’ PR p!sh copied/pasted from Jingle Jangle…
“Felix Magath jets in for talks with Dave King as Rangers chiefs look to give promotion hopes a shot in the arm…”
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/felix-magath-jets-talks-dave-5296337
==================
Jackson trying to be funny with the ‘jets in’, as opposed to flying in for mere non-TRFC mortals.
Don’t think I can take any more of the DR nonsense…
:slamb: :slamb: :slamb:
Scapa
Yes PL was on the committee that negotiated the TV deal
But you must remember that the deal was for all Scottish football and he was there representing the SPFL as a member of the SPFL board
The comments he made recently were about Celtic and on behalf of Celtic as a member of the Celtic board
We all must try to remember to differentiate between both boards which PL clearly does
tcup 2012 says:
March 9, 2015 at 2:58 pm
Absolutely, one of the reasons that Scottish football governance is such a clusterfeck is that those responsible for the governance, seem to believe that Chinese Walls are only found in China!
However, the deal is bloody awful for everyone not just Celtic, an acknowledgement that he was one of those who originally negotiated the deal, would actually enhance both his reputation, and give more credibility to his complaint.
tcup 2012 says:
March 9, 2015 at 2:58 pm
================================================
So it’s all about Celtic then? No matter which board he is representing with his comments, the club is still one part of a collective league.
As Scapaflow indicated, Peter was part of the negotiating process. If his plan could earn more for all then why didn’t he propose this at the time. But it isn’t about more for all, just more for Celtic?
Regarding games sold on Celtic TV, I’m assuming that the revenue created via these means would be equally shared with the team hosting the game? It takes two to tango as they say.
Are you serious about the four home games would sell out if they weren’t televised? It’s been a while since Celtic has managed that domestically. And if you sell enough season tickets, the home televised games shouldn’t make a difference?
As there really is no great kudos these days in flying by jet, whenever one of the football hacks uses the ‘jetting in’ phrase, I always imagine the person in question to have arrived in James Bond style (or maybe Iron Man style if you’re younger), flying through the air by virtue of a jet pack firing from their back.
Not that that would be one of the most bizarre things to have happened in Scottish football over the last few years.
Totally OT, but yet another sad reminder of how poor our SMSM has become.
This is the headline from the ‘quality’ paper ‘The Herald’, [as at the above time].
“Thief tries to snatch bag from partially bling pensioner.”
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/thief-tries-to-snatch-bag-from-partially-bling-pensioner.1425910308
=================================================================
If the ‘journalists’ can’t be bothered checking the crap they produce/paste: the sooner the papers are gone the better.
…and it begs the question: what does a ‘fully bling’ pensioner look like…? 🙄
tcup 2012 says:
March 9, 2015 at 3:32 pm
=============================================
Stop being a drama queen, no-one is saying it’s Celtic’s fault. But Celtic wanting the lions share for themselves is.
I thought Peter Lawell was talking about the recently renegotiated deal that he was part of, not the Setanta deal?
The majority of clubs took the biggest offer on the table from Setanta, heaven forbid! It was one of the few SPL votes that Celtic and oldco couldn’t veto to suit themselves.
Hindsight is 20/20.
@StevieBC – you asked what a fully bling pensioner looks like – I give you this 69 year old… http://www.bobbygeorge.com/bobbythedartsman.html
You can summarise the overall intention of Dave King as achieving parity, at the very least, with Celtic in as short a time as possible. His thinking will be that this will happen sooner if Celtic are effectively weakened and distracted and so move “backwards”, relatively speaking, towards the “advancing” Rangers. Effective PR is not just about promoting your clients brand it’s also about undermining the opposition’s. Anyone who does not consider that what has happened recently are simply separate parts of the same PR strategy, planned, implemented and directly linked is being naive.
Gym Trainer says:
March 9, 2015 at 3:54 pm
@StevieBC – you asked what a fully bling pensioner looks like – I give you this 69 year old… http://www.bobbygeorge.com/bobbythedartsman.html
=============================================================
Good one ! 😆
He should be in a museum !
I have sent this (below) to the SFA, maybe we could all send the same message to:
info@scottishfa.co.uk
Good afternoon,
Having read the following on a Scottish football fan website I would be very concerned if the allegations contained within the piece were true.
The case made appears to be very precise, well researched and, to be honest, pretty damning.
Could you possibly forward this e-mail to someone who could assure me there is not a shred of truth within the accusation(s)?
I very much look forward to your response
Many thanks in advance:
Mr. Bawsman
Fylde Riviera
Lytham
(Club Season ticket holder and Scotland football supporter)
(I have ‘Copied and pasted’ the Guest blog for TSFM by Auldheid)
=============================
Got the following standard response:
Thanks for your message.
It will be passed to the appropriate department and we may contact you
in due course.
Scottish FA
Hampden Park
Glasgow G42 9AY
0141 616 6000
Best wishes
The Scottish FA
All quiet down Govan way today.
Any chance the new board are living up to Leach’s implication the other day and some are stuck in the toilets cacking themselves from the initial look under the bonnet?
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/celtic/113014-neil-doncaster-and-peter-lawwell-in-london-as-spl-tv-deal-talks-continue/
Here’s a link to the TV deal negotiations.
Let me put it this way
PL is now talking from a position of strength as Celtic CEO
And telling everyone that they can make more from TV than they are getting
In other words scottish football is stronger now and not in the desperate need it was in after the setsnta debacle
So to all TV companies he is saying give us what we deserve and don’t come anywhere near if you are going to offer that pittance again
Good for Celtic yes but also good news for Scottish football as a whole
Or in other words the rangers factor doesn’t wash any more
Now cough up
Taking responsibility for your actions is a huge part of the leadership thing. Its been my experience that when those who would lead do that, the response is overwhelmingly positive.
No Nomad in place after Mr King’s first full business day in charge. 5 days gone, 25 days to go to de-listing.
normanbatesmumfc says:
March 9, 2015 at 4:14 pm
==========================================================================
Norman, what you describe above may be paranoia but I have to say that I so hoped Ricky Ross would pick up one of the balls yesterday, drop it and exclaim “That’s bl**dy hot!”.
Scottish Football needs clubs to start putting some pressure on the SFA/SPFL to put a cap on this nonsense emanating from Govan way and ensure that RIFC/TRFC are treated the same as everyone else.
A good starting point would be a declaration that Paul Murray and Dave King are not considered fit and proper due to their having previously been party, in the very recent past, to a management strategy that ended up with the club concerned being liquidated. Mr King’s criminal convictions for tax evasion surely just put the icing on that particularly ironic cake.
Auldheid
World record,over 2000 thumbs up in the first 10 hours of the new post being up,congrats.
“Investigation begins into where £70m has gone at Rangers”
How long will Mr Park take to track down the £70mil and publish the results in the spirit of “absolute transparency and accountability”.
Mr Wallace spent 127 days on his review. That must cover most of the £70mil – so why not publish that now as a taster.
http://www.themag.co.uk/2015/03/investigation-begins-70m-gone-rangers/
“The following information set out below is being disclosed for the purposes of Rule 26 of the AIM Rules for Companies:”
http://www.rangersinternationalfootballclub.com/
Good to see the new board is taking its AIM responsibilities seriously. Or is AIM slipping off their list of priorities.
http://www.rangersinternationalfootballclub.com/board-management/board-of-directors
Just had a look at today’s “Scottish football gossip” on the BBC website. The first 6 stories relate to a second tier club. Is that another new world record?
mcfc says:
March 9, 2015 at 5:18 pm
Given that Mr King has not taken up his directorship, let alone chairmanship of Rangers Mk II, pending resolution of his regulatory issues, he ain’t in charge of anything surely?
From a new article Telegraph that tries to hammer home that Mr. Ashley was the problem at the Ibrox club:
“The three new directors [King/Murray/Gilligan] called a staff meeting inside the stadium in order to introduce themselves and outline the first steps to recovery – only to be astounded at how few employees remained.”
Astounded? Last year, Mr. King called for fans to boycott The Rangers. Thousands of them heeded his call by not renewing their season tickets and by staying away from the matches. The Rangers, with a dramatic drop in income, had to cut costs or else. So staff was let go.
Cue Mr. King’s reaction today when he saw how few are currently employed at Ibrox. Instead of running to the MSM to say he’s “astounded,” shouldn’t he be patting himself on the back for a job accomplished?
I don’t recall ever hearing Mr. Ashley calling to hurt the club via boycotts.
tcup 2012 says:
March 9, 2015 at 10:42 am
A loan is a loan no matter what you call it
————————————-
I am sure you will find all those recipients of a Rangers EBT will respectfully disagree………..
scapaflow says:
March 9, 2015 at 5:40 pm
Given that Mr King has not taken up his directorship, let alone chairmanship of Rangers Mk II, pending resolution of his regulatory issues, he ain’t in charge of anything surely?
====================================================================
Details dear boy, details 🙂
mcfc says: March 9, 2015 at 5:24 pm
“Investigation begins into where £70m has gone at Rangers”
How long will Mr Park take to track down the £70mil and publish the results in the spirit of “absolute transparency and accountability”.
Mr Wallace spent 127 days on his review. That must cover most of the £70mil – so why not publish that now as a taster.
http://www.themag.co.uk/2015/03/investigation-begins-70m-gone-rangers/
============================
Here’s the expenditure that the 120 day review identified.
Summary of Expenditure 29 May 2012 – 31 December 2013
Expenditure ….. £m
Purchase of the Club
Purchase of the Club …… 5.5
Repayment of OLDCO Debt ….. 3.0
Commissions and introduction Fees IPO/Pre IPO ….. 2.7
Pre Acquisition Payroll and other Expenses ….. 1.2
Broker Commissions & Stamp Duty ….. 1.2
Corporate Finance and Fund Raising Advice …… 1.1
Legal & Accountancy Fees ….. 0.7
Other Professional Services ….. 0.5
Professional Fees of Purchase and Incorporation ….. 0.4
Football
First Team Payroll Costs ….. 10.4
Other Football Related Payroll Costs ….. 5.6
Termination of Player Contracts ….. 2.3
Purchase of Players ….. 1.5
Operations
Central Administration and Overheads ….. 8.6
Matchday and Direct Costs ….. 8.4
Non Football Payroll Costs ….. 7.0
Purchase of Fixed Assets ….. 5.6
Director’s Severance Costs ….. 0.9
Investigation Fees ….. 0.6
Cash Balance at December 2013 ….. 3.5
Total Expenditure ….. 70.7
mcfc says:
March 9, 2015 at 5:18 pm
We must remember, Dave King has taken a step back and is complying with the law of the land by having nothing to do with the running of RIFC or TRFC until he is given clearance by the court to do so. I am sure that he, like all non-board members, is relying solely on the facts that are printed in the newspapers to keep up to date with the day to day workings of RIFC/TRFC. He is a dignified member of RRM and would never dream of going against his word, so publicly given!
Oh wait, a judge once said…
feeder club for Newcastle?
Mark Walker
Sunday 8 March 2015
NEWCASTLE UNITED’s board have admitted they are considering making Rangers their feeder club, by confirming it at a fans’ forum.
NEWCASTLE UNITED’s board have admitted they are considering making Rangers their feeder club, by confirming it at a fans’ forum.
Sorry, you must sign in before you can print full articles.
Custom byline text:
Mark Walker
The Ibrox club are under new ownership with Dave King grabbing power last week. But St James’ Park billionaire owner Mike Ashley still has considerable influence at the Championship club.
Five Newcastle youngsters are currently on loan at Rangers, although only Haris Vuckic has made any kind of impact so far, with the rest currently injured.
Newcastle board members answered questions, verbal and written, from their supporters at a fans forum at St James’ Park last week.
And they have also revealed Ashley would ensure Newcastle take preference over Rangers should both clubs qualify for Europe at the same time – UEFA rules state two clubs cannot both qualify for Europe if one man has influence on both clubs.
In response to a question from Newcastle fan David Maudlin, who asked if ‘Rangers could be a feeder club for Newcastle United similarly to the relationship between Premier League clubs and those in Europe?’
The Newcastle board replied: “We are exploring the possibility of strategic partnerships with a number of clubs. A number of Premier League clubs already have this type of arrangement/relationship. The purpose of this would be to send players to these clubs to aid their development with the ultimate beneficiary being Newcastle United.”
Maudlin also asked: “How does the club see the issues surrounding Rangers? UEFA and the FA seem to be sitting on the fence with regard to potential Europa League qualification?”
The response from the St James’ Park board was: “The board is aware of the UEFA regulations regarding the situation. The club and its owner would not put Newcastle United in a position where it would lose a European place because of Rangers.”
All this talk from the TRFC board room about being back at the top challenging for Europe is quite interesting.
Presumably it will be accomplished without any problems with UEFA’s FFP rules?
mcfc says:
March 9, 2015 at 5:28 pm
http://www.rangersinternationalfootballclub.com/
‘Rangers International Football Club plc is a football club based in Glasgow, Scotland.’
Just how many football clubs are based at Ibrox? RIFC, TRFC, the celestial club?
But seriously, this says that the holding company is, in fact, the club, does it not?
Is this a statement they’ve been forced to make, confirming that the company and club are as one, and hope it’ll slip under the radar?
Nice one, though, from the new board (I presume, timewise, that it’s from the new board) handing such a coup to the company=club argument! I cannot believe, with this debate going on for so many years, that anyone can be so stupid as to publish such as this if they could possibly avoid it!
Madbhoy24941 says:
March 9, 2015 at 6:00 pm
tcup 2012 says:
March 9, 2015 at 10:42 am
A loan is a loan no matter what you call it
————————————-
I am sure you will find all those recipients of a Rangers EBT will respectfully disagree………..
/////////////
I don’t think they would
Now if you called them wage’s on the other hand 🙄
Allyjambo says:
March 9, 2015 at 6:37 pm
Nice one, though, from the new board (I presume, timewise, that it’s from the new board) handing such a coup to the company=club argument! I cannot believe, with this debate going on for so many years, that anyone can be so stupid as to publish such as this if they could possibly avoid it!
==========================================================
I think this is unchanged from the site being set up for the IPO – similar pages have a date stamp “Updated: 10/09/2013”, but not this one.
However, they are consistent – this one “Updated: 02/01/2015” says the same: http://www.rangersinternationalfootballclub.com/shareholder-centre/business-overview
Oh, and what is this, they do have a Nomad: http://www.rangersinternationalfootballclub.com/shareholder-centre/advisers
Paperwork has never been their strong suit 🙂
Allyjambo says:
March 9, 2015 at 6:20 pm
We must remember, Dave King has taken a step back and is complying with the law of the land by having nothing to do with the running of RIFC or TRFC until he is given clearance by the court to do so. I am sure that he, like all non-board members, is relying solely on the facts that are printed in the newspapers to keep up to date with the day to day workings of RIFC/TRFC. He is a dignified member of RRM and would never dream of going against his word, so publicly given!
Oh wait, a judge once said…
————————————————————
I wasn’t going to post this from Saturday night on the Bear’s Den, even though it made me laugh out loud. It came up in a thread about the signings Rangers will make now that the RRM are in charge. Some were suggesting full teams, made up of the likes of Ryan Dow, young Paterson at Hearts etc, because Rangers will just do what they always do – offer other teams’ players just more than they’re getting from those diddy teams. Some posters were wisely arguing that this version of Rangers didn’t have money to spend and what little they have shouldn’t be spent going back to the old ways. The following exchange was, I think, completely devoid of irony (or awareness, obviously).
Poster A – “Dominating Scottish football is not miraculous. DK has said he has up to £50m in investment for the club. His words. The SPFL can be won with a quarter of that.”
Poster B – “Ah that old chestnut as the basis of your belief. Enough said.”
Poster A – “Are you calling him a liar? We should all truly hope he is true to his word. If he isn’t we all know the fans will start again…..”
“Are you calling him a liar?” I almost fell off the chair!! As I said, I wasn’t going to post it because I didn’t want to annoy the likes of Ryan, but there are honestly just so many who refuse to see any of the truth.
sickofitall says:
March 9, 2015 at 6:24 pm
NEWCASTLE UNITED’s board have admitted they are considering making Rangers their feeder club, by confirming it at a fans’ forum.
===========================================================
Wonder what it’s like to be a feeder club to a club with no ambition ?
easyJambo says:
March 9, 2015 at 6:16 pm
Here’s the expenditure that the 120 day review identified.
=======================================================
Excellent – thanks – the truth is out there.
wottpi says:
March 9, 2015 at 9:26 am
What chance of a separate area of the site to store…
The many managers names who will be linked with the ibrox club.
Walter.
Davie Weir.
Dougie Freedman.
Stuart McCall.
Derek Mcinns
“Felix Magath
And it is only monday 😯
then we can look back and see who they could have had
Not only is RIFC an FC on their website if one follows the business overview link it is clearly differentiated from RFC as well as being confirmed to be an FC.
Events in parliament today, give a nice illustration of why I have done a 180 in my attitude towards the SFA’s responsibilities vis a vis King’s FPP status.
A few short months ago, parliament in it’s wisdom, appointed Ms Rona Fairhead chair of the BBC Trust. Many of us familiar with Ms Fairhead’s career at HSBC, looked askance at the decision, that quickly turned to WTF when Ms Fairhead announced she was hanging on to her lucrative HSBC directorship post-appointment to the BBC.
Today Ms Fairhead was giving evidence to the Public accounts committee, Tax Evasion, Money Laundering & Mexican Drug Cartels were among the topics on the agenda. It ended with the redoubtable Ms Hodge suggesting to Ms Fairhead that she really aught to resign from the BBC.
What has this to do with the SFA, I hear you not asking?
Well,
If the FCA & The Bank of England cannot ensure that the people who run our banks are unimpeachably fit and proper;
If parliament cannot ensure that the people it appoints to our public bodies are unimpeachably fit & proper is it fair to demand a higher standard of the SFA?
The SFA doesn’t have the resources or the judgement proof rule book to make an adverse FPP ruling stick, presuming Mr King gets past the other hurdles.
There is clearly a problem with the calibre, (for want of a better word), of many of the people running our public companies & organisations. Solving that problem will require a culture shift in parliament and some tricky primary legislation.
Its not something I feel I can reasonably demand of the SFA.
scapaflow says:
March 9, 2015 at 7:59 pm
A few short months ago, parliament in it’s wisdom, appointed Ms Rona Fairhead chair of the BBC Trust. Many of us familiar with Ms Fairhead’s career at HSBC, looked askance at the decision, that quickly turned to WTF when Ms Fairhead announced she was hanging on to her lucrative HSBC directorship post-appointment to the BBC.
______________________________________________________
You mean this BBC!!! 👿
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/08/bbc-whistleblowers-jimmy-savile …
jean7brodie says:
March 9, 2015 at 8:15 pm
One might ask about HSBC’s attitude to whistle blowers during Ms Fairhead’s tenure as a director, & especially during her period as Chair of the Bank’s Risk committee, yes, one might indeed ask….
scapaflow says:
March 9, 2015 at 7:59 pm
I think from the example you give that the conclusion you reach is very valid. It is a sad indictment of the society we live in that very intelligent and very well educated people find their way into jobs, at the very top of a very lucrative pile, that should demand people of the highest integrity. It is a very long time since people of genuine integrity got anywhere near the top of the pile.
It’s the same at every level below, in every pile, where such things as integrity are viewed as a lead weight to an ambitious person. You won’t find integrity in any of those ‘top’ jobs, and you definitely won’t find morals. Though they will use those words to describe themselves, whenever it suits.
In that respect, the people running Scottish football are no worse than their counterparts everywhere else. Sadly they just aren’t very good at what they do to make up for their lack of integrity!
Doesn’t excuse them, though!
mcfc says:
March 9, 2015 at 7:15 pm
sickofitall says:
March 9, 2015 at 6:24 pm
NEWCASTLE UNITED’s board have admitted they are considering making Rangers their feeder club, by confirming it at a fans’ forum.
===========================================================
Wonder what it’s like to be a feeder club to a club with no ambition ?Every club is a feeder club to somewhere.
==============================
Dundee Utd seem to be my clubs feeder club of choice at the moment, saying so will greatly pee off the Arabs on here but they can have a wee rue smile that my club seems to be Southampton’s feeder club. 🙁
The people at the very top of the food chain seem to react with incredulity when its suggested that what they have done is criminal (tax dodging), and they should face punishment for even attempting it.
It’s a game to them, get away with it and they get massive doses of cash. Fail to get away with it, find a new accountancy firm……….then get massive doses of cash.
We should ALL be taxed on INCOME in the place you earned it.
scapaflow says:
March 9, 2015 at 5:40 pm
mcfc says:
March 9, 2015 at 5:18 pm
Given that Mr King has not taken up his directorship, let alone chairmanship of Rangers Mk II, pending resolution of his regulatory issues, he ain’t in charge of anything surely?
28 0 Rate This
================================================================================
I would refer the Honourable member (of this glorious blog!) to my earlier post, indicating that my fellow CA and member of ICAS, Mr Paul Murray, will assume Mr King’s chairman and director’s duties until such time….(as it suits Mr King!)
…’nuff said!