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.
andy says:
March 24, 2015 at 4:43 pm
RST Statement on Sectarian Language
============================
Let he who is without sin etc.
Stones/glasshouses etc
They really are in position of the brassiest of collective brass necks coupled to the ultimate in irony bypasses. They can’t have a single mirror to look into between the lot of them.
mcfc says:
March 24, 2015 at 4:49 pm
Here’s one for Trading Standards
“as the new Board continues the rebuilding of the Club.”
Any tangible evidence of that happening ?
===========================================
Someone phoned up Screwfix for a catalogue yesterday morning.
Allegedly.
Oh I hadn’t realised that Lunny has been drafted back-in to try and get the SFA off the hook that it and his replacement have been impaled on.
So according to Lunny it isn’t the ‘h*n’ word but the ‘deid’ word. And the reason is because players and others in football shouldn’t be making fun of teams in financial trouble because people can lose their jobs through it.
Well Mr Lunny – I really don’t care what you think but you’ve got it wrong. Most of the redundancies have come in the last few months under the new holding company trying to financially restructure but plenty others have been doing very nicely out of the new club financially thank you very much.
And this is not only a new company but a new club as well and Celtic fans are well aware of this as are just about every fan from every other Scottish club. So when we sing about a ‘deid club’ it can’t be the new club which as I have pointed out has shed many more staff than the deid club did.
So if we sung a song glorifying the new club wouldn’t that be an insult to all those that have been made redundant by the club that is still alive. I grant you that it might not be for much longer 🙁
The SFA used to be a pantomime and now its become a farce 🙄
I wonder if the recent Hearts sing-song has made the SFA realise it’s walked into a quagmire. Of course the Hearts’ players I assume were enthusiastically singing about the new club’s footballing abilities – does that get them off the hook?
What next ❓
blu says:
March 24, 2015 at 4:55 pm
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?
______________
current chairman is a member
Jan 20th
Sky Sports Scotland
@ScotlandSky
Former Rangers director Paul Murray joins Rangers Supporters Trust and Rangers First @rangersfctrust @RangersFirst @RangersFC
And now Murray has joined them, saying: “I have today taken out life membership of both the RST and Rangers First.
“Whilst I would like to make special mention of the RST, who have supported our cause tirelessly over the last few years. I wish to make it known that I fully support these two groups in their desire to help safeguard the future of our club.
On the points penalty for insolvency events during the play-offs – as the season has “ended”, the penalty would apply the following season. However, the season has not actually concluded, therefore the penalty will apply during the play-offs. This is, of course, a knock-out competition so the deducted points have no effect.
Happy to help
N Doncaster
Fudge, anyone?
All JG has to do to debunk the charge is to ask the SFA who they think he was referring to wrt the word H*N. His simple return explanation that he was referring to the discredited Rangers FC 2012, who are in fact Deid should put it to bed, as they cease to exist and have no legal standing.
If the SFA insist he was calling T’Rangers the H*N word,(who are not yet deid) then he should ask the SFA for an explanation as to why they consider old H*N to be the same as new H*N.
Were they not supposed to be separate company/club.
Therefore ladies and gentlemen of the jury all derogatory comments made are being directed at Oldco. A non existing entity.
Two can play at that game.
The interesting part would be if they thought the Premiership with a points penalty was a goer. I would give them more chance of top four championship starting from minus 15 (or 25???) than staying up. It would certainly be a guide how much the extra profile would be worth, for them and the rest of us.
RST statement beggars belief. Going back to LC semi 25,000 fans of Govan club sang continuous sectarian / racist songs. This is a fact which SFA/SPFL admitted and no punishment was administered as in the words of our Governing Football body the clubs (both) had taken enough precautions before the game. Absolutely ludicrous approach, they heard it and it did offend but no action taken. IMO there is a faily good chance that members of the RST attended that game (if not they may have watched it on TV), I do not recollect them condemning any of the songs. Hypocrisy springs to mind.
Now if the issue is with JG and the term deid well well let us wait and see.
That RST statement just shows why Scottish football would have been infinitely better off with Mike Ashley in charge at Ibrox. That statement is the work of Chris Graham, no doubt, and will have had the full backing of P Murray (and presumably D King). This is the future, folks, and I don’t like the smell of it.
ecobhoy says:
March 24, 2015 at 5:07 pm
I’ve been trying to get my head around this, but the clocks are starting to melt.
In the unlikely event that this actually goes anywhere, I hope Celtic manage to find the balls to fight it all the way, but I won’t be holding my breath
From BBC Scotland:
Jeesuz imagine the SFA thinking it knows what’s appropriate behaviour in public. I’m actually surprises that Broonie has escaped – well so far – a charge of bringing Scottish Football into serious disrepute and serious damage to a pizza in a public place.
It seems to be totally lost that Guidetti wasn’t doing anything ‘in public’ but in a broadcast situation. OK it was meant for public consumption but was done very much in an explanatory way rather than a GIRUY and I’m sure we all know the difference.
Lunnie trully sounds like a bit of a woose IMO – I would like to think that no Celtic fan or even JG have any intention of making fun of people who have lost their job through what may indeed be proven to be criminal actions at Ibrox.
And to even suggest that is the case as Lunny has done is truly shocking, infantile, totally wrong and misguided IMO.
However Lunny also excused the sectarian singing by massed choirs even though the word used there is grossly offensive to a large section of the Scottish population and also a criminal offence in the context of the song. Yea just turn the sound down and it’ll all go away.
Just to change the subject, Ogilvie’s second term as SFA President ends shortly, and on current rules ( 🙄 🙄 🙄 ) he can’t stand for a third term. So runners and riders for the new SFA President. They have spoken about opening it up to a wider field than the usual appartchiks, so how about Walter Smith? Or Alistair Johnston? (Other Real Rangers Men are no doubt available).
Corrupt official says:
March 24, 2015 at 5:26 pm
———————————————
Indeed Mr Guidetti has opened the road for a fresh beginning with the thinking Bears of the new club by clearly distinguishing them from the old ways associated with the now ‘deid’ club.
I think Guidetti should be lauded and appointed the SFA Envoy to bring both sides even closer together – indeed I see a real opportunity for a joint choir to be formed to sing and chant SFA approved ditties. After all the Swedes are renowned throughout the world for their diplomatic skills 😉
To be fair I do agree, as I said earlier, that he is correct to distinguish between player and fan.
It’s about the only thing he got correct right enough!
That Lunny quote above ?
Getting really confused now.
– So what if JG states that he is a fan first and foremost – he was a CFC supporter from childhood. He just so happens to be a player for CFC this season ?
– And IIRC, you cannot defame / slander the dead.
…and the SFA numpties keep digging away !
Can see this JG charge being ‘delayed’.
🙄
neepheid says:
March 24, 2015 at 6:16 pm
Just to change the subject, Ogilvie’s second term as SFA President ends shortly, and on current rules ( 🙄 🙄 🙄 ) he can’t stand for a third term. So runners and riders for the new SFA President. They have spoken about opening it up to a wider field than the usual appartchiks, so how about Walter Smith? Or Alistair Johnston? (Other Real Rangers Men are no doubt available).
______________________________________________________
You forgot Gordon Smith… Ideally qualified (Former Director of RFC(IL) who knew nothing.)
You Pay Their Salaries
The SFA’s sole ambition is evidently to get an Ibrox club back in the top flight ASAP at any cost – with deflectors set to eleven for as long as necessary. No doubt they believe that achieving this will restore the old order and all will become hunky dory. What they seem to have missed is that, by then, the whole world will see that Scottish football is “governed” by people with the morals of Robert Mugabe and the business skills of Marie Antoinette. This is already happening. Sponsors will run a mile, investors will smile and turn away, broadcasters will have little interest when advertisers see only a putrid brand.
And that is the best outcome for them.
The more likely scenario is more and more blatant favouritism and inconsistency until Scotland replaces Paraguay and Nigeria as a bye word for corruption and deceit.
Maybe it’s time to grasp the nettle and stop contributing to the salaries of these people via your club – until your club finds the courage to stop watching passively and speaks up for fundamental values of honesty, morality, integrity and fairness.
You may think that’s fine for me to say because my club is not in Scotland – but the choice is an unpleasant one between tacit support of this disgraceful state of affairs and doing what you can to accelerate its end.
Oxford English Dictionary –
{…} – A member of a warlike Asiatic nomadic people who invaded and ravaged Europe in the 4th-5th centuries. Derogatory to German.
Deid – Scottish form of dead.
What’s the charge again Mr C.O.? (you can complete this to suit e.g. Compliance Officer or The Great Administrator!
Resin_lab_dog says:
March 24, 2015 at 6:41 pm
neepheid says:
March 24, 2015 at 6:16 pm
…
You forgot Gordon Smith… Ideally qualified (Former Director of RFC(IL) who knew nothing.)
=================================
I would have to second that nomination for SFA President.
Gordon Smith has operated at an incredibly high level of consistency and reliability when it comes to ‘knowing nothing about anything’ over the last few years.
‘Absolutely’ a shoo-in for the role, and he is guaranteed to maintain the world class level of administration enjoyed at the SFA…
So crazy it might just happen !
If he says he meant “indeed”instead of “are deid” I think it should be fine with sfa.
STV TRFC Propaganda channel in magnificent form tonight.
How to turn a press conference about Sco v NI friendly into one about TRFC
– Ask ex Rangers players from both countries (Naismith/Davis/Lafferty) if they would “return” to the club at some unspecified point in the future (maybe Gordon Smith would suggest after their careers are over?)
– Take predictable non-committal bland “I love playing for Everton/Southampton now but couldn’t rule anything out in the future anything can happen” type responses
– Turn this into a breathless headline to open your sports segment introducing it as “Ex Rangers stars refuse to rule out a “return” to the club” based on nothing more than your own fantasy fishing expedition
Absolutely staggering. No North Korean aparatchik could teach these guys anything about manufacturing propaganda. Well apart maybe from a bit of subtlety…
Well it would be staggering if it wasn’t so predictable
Obviously nothing else of note worth talking about re TRFC either :slamb: :slamb: :slamb: :slamb: :slamb:
Andy @ 5:13, I give you one Chris Graham, RST board member, formerly RIFC director.
scapaflow says:
March 24, 2015 at 4:48 pm (Edit)
“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
=====================
Perhaps folk, TSFM contributed? Ya never know.
https://scottishfootballmonitor.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/fair-play-at-fifa/
That first approach was answered thus
” The Chairman of the Investigatory Chamber of the FIFA Ethics Committee has decided not to initiate further proceedings at this time. Please note that the Chairman is open to revisiting his decision upon review of any additional material that you believe substantiates your allegations, including your belief that the alleged conduct violated the FIFA Code of Ethics.”
So TSFM went back on April, June and Oct of 2014 with the LNS stuff. We never got a reply to the additions and have no idea if we did influence matters but as I said Ya Never Know.
If we did influence that would be proof that infinite patience produces immediate results. 😎
You forgot Gordon Smith… Ideally qualified (Former Director of RFC(IL) who knew nothing.)
=================================
I would have to second that nomination for SFA President.
Gordon Smith has operated at an incredibly high level of consistency and reliability when it comes to ‘knowing nothing about anything’ over the last few years.
‘Absolutely’ a shoo-in for the role, and he is guaranteed to maintain the world class level of administration enjoyed at the SFA…
So crazy it might just happen !
____________________________________________________________
As I alluded to in my earlier post, my favourite all time Gordon Smith moment was when he called BBC Scotland phone in to vociferously deny Barry Ferguson and Alan McGregor had been given life bans from the Scottish national team explaining they were only career bans. OK, then…
However with TRFC and SFA the delusion and brassnecks are strong, so seriously wouldn’t rule it out either although there are probably RRM men ahead of him in the queue – Longmuir?
Jim Boyce retires from FIFA this year. As Cliftonville chairman, he did more than most to try and take sectarianism out of N.I. football. He is a wise man, and knows his way round football committees. Surely he could have recognised Dear Campbell Ogilvie as a great administrator and a straight as a die guy?
Auldheid says:
March 24, 2015 at 7:14 pm
scapaflow says:
March 24, 2015 at 4:48 pm (Edit)
“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”
…
==========
So TSFM went back on April, June and Oct of 2014 with the LNS stuff. We never got a reply to the additions and have no idea if we did influence matters but as I said Ya Never Know.
==========
So it’s your fault Auldheid we are stuck with Ogilvie ?! 😉
Joking aside, maybe your/TSFM efforts did actually have some influence.
Now, how can we ensure that the SFA rules aren’t changed to allow Ogilvie to stay on for a third term + ?
By trying for a UEFA role Ogilvie has indicated he is not yet ready to retire.
Auldheid
Well done CO at EUFA would be ten times more dangerous there than retiring hopefully from where he (unfortunately) is.
StevieBC says:
March 24, 2015 at 7:40 pm
Stevie, the miserable feckers at the SFA have enough dumb ideas of their own
Guys of my generation can generally find a parallel between anything in modern life, and a Monty Python sketch. I was strangely drawn, today, to a spoof panel game called Prejudice, where Michael Palin has invited viewers to suggest a derogatory term for the Belgians. After commending several promising efforts – Sprouts, Phlegms, just ignoring them – the prize is given to a lady who suggested “miserable fat Belgian b*****ds”.
Given that there is little that the Sevco support can stand to be called nowadays, including “the Sevco support”, they might want to be careful of what they wish for.
Auldheid
On second thoughts I Hope CO thought when he got the rejection letter “They internet bams that was my payday”.
Laughing Policeman time?
Limeade no more also
I thought I’d share this that I came across by chance on Google.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/3492846/Rangers-chairman-Sir-David-Murray-accuses-Celtic-counterpart-John-Reid-over-Famine-Song-attack-Football.html
It was a response by Sir David Murray to a statement made by John Reid at the Celtic AGM in 2008.
I smiled as I read it but this bit had me laughing.
” I think there’s a strong argument, especially in the west of Scotland that to have a politician in charge of a football club is verging on the dangerous.”
Another if Carlsberg did irony moment.
StevieBC says:
March 24, 2015 at 7:40 pm (Edit)
I’m betting CO will go quietly with a confidentiality clause.
Is it now going to be an offence for a player to say that “Sevco Ltd” played Brechin on 29 July 2012?
Regarding the RST statement on John Guidetti.
The first comment I ever posted on a blog/article (can’t remember where it’s that long ago) was when David Murray still owned Rangers and had put them up for sale but despite many fabulous offers was resolutely holding out until the right individual came along who could take them forward to a new blah blah blah. At the time there was a good deal of discussion in various places about the merits of the Rangers fans putting together an offer to take over the ownership of the club. Other fan groups have obviously been successful in club takeovers in the intervening period. I said it then, in my first post, and I’ll say it again here, the very last people you would want owning Rangers or exerting any kind of significant power in the Boardroom are their fans. Murray’s hubris was the root cause of everything that has befallen Rangers since but his one positive legacy, driven partly commercial considerations, was to break their sectarian signing policy and publicly, at least, call out the “F**K The Pope Brigade”. Ordinarily fan power can be seen as a very positive thing but that’s just not the case with Rangers. Read their last statement -which it intends to raise with the club in the expectation of support- and tell me that if it had been the fans in charge at the start rather than Murray they would have agreed the signing of Mo Johnson…or if the club still wouldn’t still be defending the singing of sectarian ditty’s. The last thing Scottish football or society needs is Ranger’s fans running Rangers.
GoosyGoosy says:
March 24, 2015 at 9:31 pm
Is it now going to be an offence for a player to say that “Sevco Ltd” played Brechin on 29 July 2012?
==============================
“Rangers then, Sevco now for a few days, TRFC forever until liquidation”
I am so sick of this whole debacle.
RST statement portends I’ll for the future. Let those who cast sectarian epithets not cast the first stone especially when that first stone is made of fecal matter. The virulence of their sectarianism has got me agreeing with James Macmillan after a long term belief that things were getting better hereabouts. This is the 21st century, the world has problems enough without adding such racist invective when we are one pf the most stable and rich countries in the world. They definitely know not what they do.
GoosyGoosy says:
March 24, 2015 at 9:31 pm
Is it now going to be an offence for a player to say that “Sevco Ltd” played Brechin on 29 July 2012?
Goosy
I’ve always wanted to see the official team sheet for that day. As any other name for the team playing Brechin than Sevco would have been, well an administrative error. And we all know how serious the sfa take these! Teams have been expelled from competitions for less, much less.
I should have qualified my last statement. I’m f***ing!! sick of this whole debacle!
I’m sick of reading/hearing/talking about bias.
I’m sick about the corruption in football and every walk of life.
I’m sick about the pretence that things are equal when they’re not.
FFS I’m just sick about not getting anywhere no matter what we feel and what we say.
neepheid says:
March 24, 2015 at 6:16 pm
Just to change the subject, Ogilvie’s second term as SFA President ends shortly, and on current rules ( 🙄 🙄 🙄 ) he can’t stand for a third term. So runners and riders for the new SFA President. They have spoken about opening it up to a wider field than the usual appartchiks, so how about Walter Smith? Or Alistair Johnston? (Other Real Rangers Men are no doubt available).
was quoted as saying “I’m happy to go back and represent Ashley, I can imagine that being fun.”
==============================================
CG
Is the SFA gig what he had in mind, rather than ascending the marble staircase of eternal dignity again?
To be honest, none of the garbage that we get from the bunker is any worse than what CG came out with in his Ibrox heyday. CG was a msater of overstatement and moonbeams, whereas the bunker dwellers are masters of running down the game and producing incomprehensible or contradictory drivel.
The Cat NR1 says:
March 24, 2015 at 10:36 pm
neepheid says:
March 24, 2015 at 6:16 pm
Just to change the subject, Ogilvie’s second term as SFA President ends shortly, and on current rules ( 🙄 🙄 🙄 ) he can’t stand for a third term. So runners and riders for the new SFA President. They have spoken about opening it up to a wider field than the usual appartchiks, so how about Walter Smith? Or Alistair Johnston? (Other Real Rangers Men are no doubt available).
was quoted as saying “I’m happy to go back and represent Ashley, I can imagine that being fun.”
==============================================
CG
Is the SFA gig what he had in mind, rather than ascending the marble staircase of eternal dignity again?
To be honest, none of the garbage that we get from the bunker is any worse than what CG came out with in his Ibrox heyday. CG was a msater of overstatement and moonbeams, whereas the bunker dwellers are masters of running down the game and producing incomprehensible or contradictory drivel.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Never forget that CG was prepared to play the NI orange card in public when it suited him
The current incumbents are unlikely to be quite so blatant
Jean @ 10.20pm
DITTO 😕
The whole thing stinks
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/rangers-finances-not-the-worst-but-failure-to-win-promotion-would-be-horrendous-says-.121514838
Rangers finances ‘not the worst’ but failure to win promotion ‘would be horrendous’, says football finance chief
Doug Gillon
Sports writer
Tuesday 24 March 2015
DESPITE their well-publicised financial problems, Rangers are not the worst-off club in Scottish football.
Yet if the Ibrox side do not gain promotion this season, the consequences of their spending a further year outwith the top flight, “will be pretty horrendous” for the rest of Scottish football, according to the Red Flag Alert Football Distress Report.
Published by Begbies Traynor, the business rescue and recovery specialists, it shows a significant upturn in the national game from two years ago, when the comparable document warned that one Scottish club in eight faced financial failure.
The report provides annual snapshots of financial distress in 72 English and 32 Scottish clubs. The latest figures reveal just three clubs in the English Championship and Leagues One and Two are in serious financial distress, and just one in Scotland, where the game is “in good overall health”.
Only one club in Scotland’s top three divisions shows signs of critical financial distress, down by two thirds since a year ago, and by 75% since 2012.
“Rangers isn’t technically the most financially stressed club in Scotland, as a result of the recent cash injection,” said Begbies’ Ken Pattullo. He declines to name the club concerned, “but there is another club in Scotland which is financially worse off than Rangers”.
“Rangers don’t actually have that much debt at the moment, other than their Sports Direct liabilities. However, the rest of Scottish football has unquestionably suffered financially due to Rangers’ absence from the top league. The financial consequences would be pretty horrendous for Rangers if they don’t go up this season, and probably also for the rest of Scottish football.
“You see the amount of TV money available since Rangers left the SPL. It would be financially very, very difficult for Rangers if they were not to go up. And whatever happens, only two of the big three, if you like, can currently make it out of the Championship. Hearts are up, and whether it is Hibs or Rangers who join them remains to be seen.
“How damaging will it be if it’s nor Rangers? Very is the short answer. From the point of view of the Scottish game, the sooner Rangers get back into the top league, the better. Hibs’ fans might not want to hear this, but that’s the unfortunate reality. Scotland is very dependent on Rangers, Celtic, Hearts and Hibs being in the top league. Not having them there is doing nobody any good except the clubs who are there instead.
“The future of the Scottish game is very dependent on the financial salvation of Rangers.
“It is bound to be financially damaging for whichever team fails to go up, but from a Rangers point of view, they have at least stabilised themselves. Dave King has now bought in, and the previous fans’ boycott now seems to have stopped. Would it be a catastrophe if Rangers did not go up? Would it lead them them back into administration? Probably not.
“Would it put Hibs into administration if they don’t go up? Probably not. Hibs have stabilised their position as well, but if they don’t go up it would unquestionably be more damaging to them.”
Given the astronomical money now available through TV in the English game, with no apparent prospect of approaching that in Scotland, does the game here not face a slow and irreversible decline?
“I think that’s overly pessimistic,” said Pattullo. “The vast sums in England and the reduction in Scotland have coincided, because Rangers are not in the top league. I think when you see Rangers back, whether next season or in two years’ time, you will see Sky and other broadcasters offering more money. The unfortunate reality is that for anyone outside Scotland, all they care about is the Rangers v Celtic game. I think decline will be reversed when Rangers are back in the top league.”
The implosion of Rangers’ finances has prompted increased wariness among other big clubs to spend heavily on transfers, he says. “Good business planning in the boardrooms has stabilised what was a really dangerous situation for the sport in Scotland. With the dearth of TV money, clubs have been wisely cutting their cloth accordingly, and largely avoided splashing out on players in the last two or three transfer windows.”
In England, Financial Fair Play, the fit and proper test of club owners. has been tightened up considerably. Owners are taking action earlier where there are problems, with clubs being offered for sale or investment ‘off market’ before the business fails.
The five percent drop in average attendances across the Scottish Premier, Championship and Leagues One and Two, since last year’s report, is due in part to the recent boycott of Rangers matches – a further demonstration of the importance of Rangers. But nobody should delude themselves. The story would be the same were Celtic to have gone down the same road.
GoosyGoosy says:
March 24, 2015 at 10:40 pm
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Never forget that CG was prepared to play the NI orange card in public when it suited him
The current incumbents are unlikely to be quite so blatant
===============================================
CG did what he had to in order to allow the grand fleecing to occur.
He’s a chameleon that would argue black was white or vice versa, depending on whichever was required to elicit the desired outcome. Morality or ethics are for the others in the shark pond in which CG and his ilk choose to swim. That CG was able to get away with it so easily is a damning indictment of those that publicly profess to have the best interests of “Rangers” at heart, but in reality act in exactly the opposite way.
That’s your lot Jackson, if you’re reading in search of next month’s reheated “exclusive”.
Essex is Ken Pattullo one of yours? This is a classic:
“Rangers isn’t technically the most financially stressed club in Scotland, as a result of the recent cash injection,” said Begbies’ Ken Pattullo.”
When is a cash injection, not a cash injection, when its a fecking loan, this guff certainly meets the Iron Pyrites standard of financial advice we have come to expect, help ma boab
Can’t say I have much confidence in Ken Pattullo. He was the guy who was waxing lyrical about Ibrox finances pre EGM and couldn’t even be bothered to get one of his lackeys to double check the terms of the SD loan before making an arse of himself.
I do however agree with him that Scottish football is better for clearing its debt and living within means. Apart from the one club who he says are in financial trouble who is the other club heading down the same old path that brought the house down last time!!
I know I have had a go at some Hoops fans in the past for their paranoia but when you see mince like this you have to wonder about who is looking out for who!
wottpi says:
March 25, 2015 at 12:05 am
There are sectoral reports that people within industries and the analysts who follow the industries take very seriously. I can’t believe that anyone would take this guff seriously, though, that kinda begs the question of whether Scottish Football is a serious industry, maybe we get an Iron Pyrites service, cos that’s all it merits?
jean7brodie says:
March 24, 2015 at 10:20 pm
I should have qualified my last statement. I’m f***ing!! sick of this whole debacle!
I’m sick of reading/hearing/talking about bias.
I’m sick about the corruption in football and every walk of life.
I’m sick about the pretence that things are equal when they’re not.
FFS I’m just sick about not getting anywhere no matter what we feel and what we say.
=================================================
Nil illegitimi carborundum as my school latin master most definitely would not have said.
Rome wasn’t built in a day, and Scottish football will not be rebuilt in a day either.
However, it will eventually come to pass that Doncaster, Regan, Ogilvie (perhaps McGlennan should be added to the roll of dishonour after his stunning recent performance) and the rest of the sixth floor incompetents and conspirators will eventually be brought to book or even just removed from office in a Berlin Wall style way.
It took the Hillsborough campaigners over 25 years to defeat a conspiracy that went all the way to the very top, and there are signs that the united facade is beginning to crack in the Scottish football conspiracy. The Guidetti charge may turn into a spectacular own goal and Resolution 12 is still ongoing, so things are not all doom and gloom. If they see that we bampots are giving up, they will dig in for the final push, but if we keep up the pressure the dam will burst eventually.
However, when I see hypocritical bullsh*t like the RST statement, it does make me annoyed for a short while, until I realise the sheer ludicrousness of it and the tortured and convoluted logic that must have been used to arrive at such a viewpoint. After a wee bout of self-congratulatory laughter, I then adopt a patronising feeling of pity for a few seconds before resuming the default feeling of utter bewilderment that Neil Doncaster got that SPFL job.
The most frustrating thing is that other than Turnbull Hutton, there don’t seem to be any
scapaflow says:
March 24, 2015 at 11:52 pm
Essex is Ken Pattullo one of yours? This is a classic:
“Rangers isn’t technically the most financially stressed club in Scotland, as a result of the recent cash injection,” said Begbies’ Ken Pattullo.”
When is a cash injection, not a cash injection, when its a fecking loan, this guff certainly meets the Iron Pyrites standard of financial advice we have come to expect, help ma boab
=====================================
To be fair, it is a cash injection, and it does allow the group to carry on trading for another month.
However, in a month’s time they will be back to square one unless they can get proper long-term financing AND a proper cyclical matching of revenue and expenditure. We await Dave’s business masterplan with baited breath.
I’d be interested to know which is now “technically the most financially stressed club in Scotland” following TRFC’s loss of that moniker, and how much of the £1.5M will they need to burn through before they can reclaim their title.
The Cat NR1 says:
March 25, 2015 at 12:13 am
=======================================
Sorry, I seem to have cut off half that final sentence, and left it hanging like a “to be continued” cliffhanger. It should have said:
The most frustrating thing is that other than Turnbull Hutton, there don’t seem to be any really outspoken supporters of integrity and ethics, or critics of the cack-handed system of “governance” outwith the bampot community.
Celtic did not instruct their staff in any way shape or form about the use of the “H” word in 2001. If they did, they must have missed me out on that instruction. People who worked for Celtic were imbued with enough common sense not to use that word because it was derogatory – not because it was sectarian.
What did happen in 2001 was that there was a Celtic IRC channel which an outside party had been running on behalf of the club.
I was asked by that company to set up some rules for the channel – specifically if the H word was to be allowed – as at that time I was involved in building the live Internet TV platform.
I asked them to ban the word as it was an official club channel. The discussion never got as far as the CE at the time, and I only discussed it with the Head of Multimedia (who was my immediate boss).
There was never any announcement to staff, nor was the word sectarian ever used on behalf of the club in relation to that word – certainly not between 2000 and 2007.
It was a pragmatic decision designed to distance official club channels from the language of the pub. It was presented to the IRC group as a club decision, but without fuss, and no explanation was given.
Not a decision I was happy to take given the abuse I got from the assembled Tims on the IRC channel, but we simply wanted to keep the club above reproach on matters of good taste. To say it was recognised by Celtic as sectarian is simply not true.
If the comments attributed to the RST are true…then legal action should follow.
Is it possible gudetti was mis-heard and what he ACTUALLY sang was :
“the shunned are deid ” ? . .
After all they have been SHUNNED by the BANKS .
SHUNNED by the NOMADS
and going by recent attendances . .
SHUNNED by a healthy percentage of their former support . . . 😆
neepheid says:
March 24, 2015 at 10:54 pm
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/rangers-finances-not-the-worst-but-failure-to-win-promotion-would-be-horrendous-says-.121514838
…
Published by Begbies Traynor, the business rescue and recovery specialists…
“…The future of the Scottish game is very dependent on the financial salvation of Rangers…
Given the astronomical money now available through TV in the English game…”
============================
A sweeping statement that TRFC is the ‘saviour’ of Scottish football. And no numbers to support this assumption either.
The English TV money is irrelevant.
And all us Bampots know, [thanks to stevensanph’s meticulous Euro TV revenues analysis], that Scottish football was already seriously undervalued when Rangers was in the top flight.
Embarrassing advert – IMO – on the quality of Begbies Traynor output.
You are all distressed and you’re all missing us, I mean them, you are you are you are!
Surely time for a toddler in a huff smiley TSFM.
Once again, I don’t doubt for a second that the top league is worse off for lacks of a 2nd club carrying 30k crowds. But their inclusion over the last 10 years has been proven to be only down to their curious one way borrowing policy (ignoring their conduct vis a vis the actual rules) and their exclusion is down singularly and exclusively to their own fault and conduct.
I suspect the comments pages under that article could be a beezer today.
jean7brodie says:
March 24, 2015 at 10:20 pm
FFS I’m just sick about not getting anywhere no matter what we feel and what we say.
———————————————
Endurance is needed, and it’s the way of the world that there will always be new, developing, and hidden injustices being perpetrated. The thing that links the worst of these (the ones we know about anyway) like Hillsborough, potential child abuse at the top of government, HSBC, etc is that a relatively small number of people kept banging on about them, and that persistence has resulted in a wiser reassessment of what has really been going on. In that wider context, the Rangers story is small fry, but the same principles apply.
And there have been successes, most notably the resistance to the Rangers being forced straight back into the top (or even second or third top) divisions, but also the education offered by sites such as this one into the financial and legal sleight of hand used by vested interests, passed by our supposed guardians, and given cover by a compliant media, which has made me for one a far more aware citizen.
The Rangers story has been a microcosm of many such issues. I believe that this site provides a hugely important forum for developing awareness of such issues as they occur, and for facilitating resistance in calling out, or even just discussing, the lies and spin we are presented with on a daily basis. Along with other sites along the way (such as RTC, Paul McConville) it also provides a record of what was said and done at the time, which makes it harder for those with a dubious agenda to come along at a later point with their own revisionary take on what happened.
Things are certainly unequal, but we may yet prove capable of levering some more significant changes in the Scotish football landscape. And at the very least, we have a forum for rational discussion and good humour, which is to be treasured in itself.
Just re read the patullo piece. Confess I missed the last two sentances first time around. Is that patullo speaking, or the herald? To whom is he referring as deluded? And to what end does the Celtic comparison bring? Unless if course it’s the old if you meet quota on rangers references you have to add a Celtic one for balance.
Oh, and I suspect (unless it’s maybe livvie) that his more-distressed-than-rangers club have possibly done spectacularly well this season hence his no further comment approach?
(Not to mention his deliberate denial of the RIFC TRFC funding structure – that if you ignore the 17m loan they actually have low debts).
Good news story from Begbies Traynor (although not much evidence supplied in the excerpt provided on their website)
http://www.begbies-traynorgroup.com/assets/uploads/pdfs/Scotland%20Football%20Report.pdf
wottpi says:
March 25, 2015 at 12:05 am
==============================
He says in one para that clubs in the top league have improved their financial positions in the last 2 years but in a later para says they need Rangers back at the top. How? If they got better without them?
Personally I don’t think we need them at all. They may bring in some extra money (but as has been shown by that St Johnson supporter not much via attendance) only through the extra TV money that may accrue due to the “spectacle” but I don’t believe the minimal amount from this that would be scattered through the clubs is in any way worth it. I’d much rather the SFA would try to do something for ALL the clubs in the league by thinking of real ways of helping them do what they need to do but I won’t hold my breath.
Yon Herald guff piece:
I started writing a long piece taking a look at each point raised that I didn’t agree with. Then I realised I didn’t agree with any of it. Honest to god, there has been some awful stuff written with respect to aspects of this whole Sevco saga, but this has to be up there with the worst.
The one line that is buried in amongst the pro-TRFC abomination of an article that should have formed the basis of a good news piece is this:
“Only one club in Scotland’s top three divisions shows signs of critical financial distress, down by two thirds since a year ago, and by 75% since 2012.”
Now, tell me how you turn that good news into the tale of woe and terror being spun by the so-called journalist.
So to summarise my thoughts on the article, I wouldn’t use it to line the hutch of my Daughters rabbit with. She deserves so much better than that.
The only accurate piece of comment in the Beggbies Taylor report is…if TRFC do not get promoted…’it will be horrendous’…translated they (TRFC) will be phecked…no one else just them!
Interesting article from a few years ago.
Lord Hodge
“Unusual” actions from an insolvency practitioner
Quantum
Conflict of interest
http://www.scotsman.com/news/judge-critical-of-leading-liquidator-s-wind-up-of-firm-1-2698941
That Begbies Traynor analysis is an absolute belter and could be ripped apart line by line.
The thing I find most striking is the long repeated mistake of aggregating all attendances or turnover of all clubs in Scottish Football and noting a decrease overall. This decrease is generally correctly attributed to the consequences of the travails of one club which dwarfs every other club in the country bar one.
Is it really such a hard cognitive leap to then acknowledge that the main impact on this one large club’s problems is on that one club alone?
The reduction in attendances across Scottish football of 30,000 every two weeks would indeed be a crisis if this was evenly spread across all clubs, but it’s quite obviously not. Reduced income and attendance at Ibrox has no effect whatsoever on any other club. For a proper analysis of the health of Scottish football this figure needs to be excluded. It’s a distorting outlier that screws all attempts at sensible analysis and recommendation.
Why is this so hard to grasp for so many people purported to have looked at the finances of the Scottish game? Even Henry McLeish comes out with such statements.
As it stands, Ken Pattullo seems to have summed up a bunch of football pundits’ and ex-pros views very accurately, but as a professional financial diagnosis of Scottish football’s problems it is inaccurate, shallow and highly misleading. It should be of deep embarrassment to his employers Begbies Traynor. I wonder if it is.
Note: above comments based on Gillon Herald article, not the subsequently linked Begbies’ document.
To the four directors of Begbies Traynor located in the Glasgow office – see http://www.begbies-traynorgroup.com/our-people
To: john.baird@begbies-traynor.com; john.maclean@begbies-traynor.com; thomas.mckay@begbies-traynor.com; simon.watson@begbies-traynor.com
CC: ken.pattullo@begbies-traynor.com
Subj: Rangers finances ‘not the worst’ …
Gentlemen,
This article in The Herald, 24 March, consists primarily of quotes from a report by Mr Pattullo. If casts Begbies Traynor in a very poor professional light: poorly researched, poorly structured and poorly reasoned.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/rangers-finances-not-the-worst-but-failure-to-win-promotion-would-be-horrendous-says-.121514838
yours
mcfc
The Cat NR1 says:
March 25, 2015 at 12:32 am
Point taken 😆 Though this advance on next season’s ticket money solves nothing.
The tone of piece is deeply misleading
Rangers are 6 days away from an automatic de-listing, they have no NOMAD in place or even in sight, and there is not a single functioning executive director.
Think about that, there is, in effect, no Senior Management Team in place, to execute the Kingco Rescue Plan, assuming that Kingco have a rescue plan.
You eventually reach a point where you run out of adjectives to describe the ineptitude being displayed.
A compelling case can be made that Rangers now urgently require a Rescue Team, to save them from the Rescue Team.
Tartanwulver@7.26 a.m
——————–
Allow me to congratulate you on that very fine post, which puts heart into those of us who want simple sporting truth to prevail, and for our game to be
restored to integrity by denunciation of the 5Way Agreement, and the denial to TRFC /RIFC of titles and honours legitimately won by RFC, as well, of course, as those that were won only because of SDM’s cheating.
For a word to be sectarian it must be a disparaging reference to members of a sect. A sect is a closed group with adherence to a definable theology. (I differentiate here from a Church which is not closed in the way a sect is.) Do we have such a reference in the current case? We might have, however I know that the RST statement is Level5 white poetry and I mean level 5 in as many ways as you can jalouis for your good selves.
White poetry a Freudian auto correct there whitabootery was what I meant or deflection
scapaflow says:
March 25, 2015 at 10:34 am
A compelling case can be made that Rangers now urgently require a Rescue Team, to save them from the Rescue Team.
—————————————————–
Do you mean (Rangers) International Rescue!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDX5Mlz46Vg
bfbpuzzled says:
March 25, 2015 at 10:50 am
Dunno, you may just have created a new art form. I eagerly await the appointment of Jim Traynor as the Rangers Makar in Residence.
(Anyone who dares to compare this heir to the tradition of the McGonnagall, to Matt McGinn’s time as poet in residence to the UCS work-in will get pelters
)
wottpi says:
March 25, 2015 at 10:58 am
If David Milliband is the answer, there is something wrong with the question 😉
scapaflow says:
March 25, 2015 at 10:34 am
The Cat NR1 says:
March 25, 2015 at 12:32 am
Point taken 😆 Though this advance on next season’s ticket money solves nothing.
The tone of piece is deeply misleading
Rangers are 6 days away from an automatic de-listing, they have no NOMAD in place or even in sight, and there is not a single functioning executive director.
Think about that, there is, in effect, no Senior Management Team in place, to execute the Kingco Rescue Plan, assuming that Kingco have a rescue plan.
You eventually reach a point where you run out of adjectives to describe the ineptitude being displayed.
A compelling case can be made that Rangers now urgently require a Rescue Team, to save them from the Rescue Team.
===========================
Indeed Scapa.
DK’s more of the same mantra will solve nothing.
The whole group financial structure appears to be a complete shambles.
six and a half business days to de-listing and the Daily Mail is talking about a share issue – did I miss something?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3010296/Rangers-shareholders-planning-10m-rights-issue-start-season.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490
Meanwhile, should not the Chairman of a PLC (albeit interim) be saying something about delisting, rather that throwing tantrums about the behaviour of previous directors of the PLC he is meant to promote.
Anyway, I’m off to stock up on humble pie because I’m sure Mr Murray (P) will make fools of us all given his track record.
mcfc says:
March 25, 2015 at 11:36 am
six and a half days to de-liting and the Daily Mail is talking about a share issue – did I miss something
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3010296/Rangers-shareholders-planning-10m-rights-issue-start-season.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490
Meanwhile should not the Chairman of a PLC (albeit interim) be saying something about delisting, rather that throwing tantrums about previous directors of the PLC is is meant to promote.
Anyway, I’m off to stock up of humble pie because I’m sure Mr Murray (P) will make fools of use all given his track record.
==============================================
The comment about Naisy in the sub-headlines does nothing to enhance the credibility of that story.
Delisting would not affect the ability to have a share issue, although it would be a costly undertaking given the number of small shareholders in the PLC. That story implies that following delisting, they intend to retain PLC status rather than revert to a Ltd Co. That could provide some interesting shareholder on shareholder action. the share price could plummet if the increased capital base were not reflected in the trading performance. The share price at suspension of 35.5p seems way too high anyway, so it would be interesting to see what the proposed premium would be, if this ever comes to pass.
A propos of not a lot other than that…
… a character I’ve just seen in a New Yorker cartoon (like the kind of figure who might be a business consultant) is leaning over a desk (like the kind of desk to be found at the top of a marble staircase ) advising a CEO about tweaks to a serious business document…
“Then we carefully disguise the bribes as legal fees by changing the word ‘bribes’ to ‘legal fees.’ ”