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.
gunnerb says:
March 25, 2015 at 11:49 pm
Auldheid says:
March 25, 2015 at 5:49 pm
____________________________________________________
Alive or dead?
What is NOT in dispute is that this particular ‘schrodinger’s’ cat STINKS to high heaven.
And the smell is very fishy in nature.
For those fans of Douglas Adams, I would say that – among disinterested parties like the ASA- this whole issue has come to resemble Dirk Gently’s fridge, more than schroedinger’s box.
“keith jackson @tedermeatballs 26s26 seconds ago
In an exclusive interview Gael Bigirimana reveals he was diagnosed with serious illness BEFORE Rangers loan deal..”
Another reason, as if any were needed, for closing down the Ashley Experiment
DELAHUNT /SSB
Ach , theres always a bright side . .at least now he can say sevco . . . !
In fact a taxi passed me earlier with someone leaning out the back window yelling SEVCO ! SEVCO ! THHBPPPTT ! !
Couldnt have been . . could it ? 😆
(for avoidance of doubt I just made that bit up . . )
One serious note . . this may cause another breach in the dam . .I’m convinced a genuinely decent (if imperfect) guy like Jim Delahunt must have been already more than a little pissed off at the lack of support from his “fellow journos/pundits” in the face of the flak he took from the same club lobby.. .
He may be less inclined to toe any party lines from here on in. . .
Perish the thought that he might take jabbas 30 pieces of silver though . . he wouldnt would he ? 😥
gunnerb says:
March 25, 2015 at 11:49 pm
Auldheid says:
March 25, 2015 at 5:49 pm
Remember the advert in the Sunday Herald re how Celtic fans viewed TRFC?
————————————————————-
‘As explained in our previous ruling, we accepted that although run by a different legal entity, that Rangers Football Club (RFC) was still the same football club.
In this instance, the ads are providing the opinion that Celtic supporters consider Rangers Football Club to be a new club, based on the legal entity of the club.
‘Therefore, they are not making claims that are in breach of our previous ruling about a different related ad.
We accepted that the club had been liquidated so the advertiser is allowed to state this.
(Taken from http://www.cqnmagazine.com/asa-the-different-entity-uefa-rules/)
Is this the Shcrodingers cat thingy that I have heard so much about? Rangers are both dead and alive until you really.. really open the box and see for yourself.
Seems a lot of folk are awfully reluctant to focus on the photon.”Open the box..”…”no..no take the money!”
==============================
This ambiguity is whatever folk want to make of it and folk can present their perspective, feline or otherwise as they choose, but the serious part for me is not the status of RFC/TRFC as the same club, but where the SFA stand with UEFA on sporting integrity.
It is pretty clear UEFA do not see TRFC to have the necessary three years uninterrupted membership of the SFA.
The question to the SFA should not be are TRFC and RFC the same club? The question should be has there been an interruption in SFA Membership requiring a fresh start from which three years membership can be measured?
UEFA clearly think so in TRFC’s case by applying their Article 12. Does the SFA?
UEFA treat membership as broken because under Article 12 and, particularly in RFC’s circumstances, not to have done so could only have been deemed to be to the detriment of the sporting integrity of their competition. Otherwise had sporting integrity not been at risk UEFA could have made an exception.
Are the SFA saying that they see no detriment to the sporting integrity of domestic competition by differing from UEFA’s reasons for requiring 3 years uninterrupted membership?
The SFA/SPL’s efforts to parachute TRFC into the top then second top tier tell us the SFA’s idea of sporting integrity appears to differ from UEFA’s.
Since that parachute effort failed I don’t see what the SFA think they have to gain in terms of being trusted to protect the integrity of their competitions by not aligning themselves with UEFA and telling it how it is with regard to any club being liquidated in the circumstances under which RFC were. This included 10 years of improper registration, tax evasion, non payment of tax due and entering into unsustainable debt from 2008 to get access to CL money and being economical with the truth to retain the advantages of their mis-behaviour.
In refusing to make such a statement that they share UEFA’s principles and method of protecting sporting integrity and that they got it badly wrong with RFC, they continue to damage themselves and the integrity of Scottish football.
The DR quotes a crowd of 28K for the Scotland game.
OK, it was only a friendly, but that still leaves c.24K empty seats at Hampden.
In the absence of qualification for any finals in the last 17 years, one would think that the SFA would be looking to encourage a full Hampden at every/any opportunity.
If/when it all goes pear shaped Regan will just move back down south and Ogilvie will maybe retire. Why should we wait ?
These Hampden blazer idiots seem hell bent on killing the peoples’ game, and should be chased out of Hampden ‘for the good of Scottish football’.
[And that is not to denigrate Strachan’s encouraging start to his Scottish management career: he deserves better support at Hampden – and from the 6th floor at Hampden.]
Haha, didnae huv tae dae ma sums tae log oan!
That Keith Jackson exclusive can’t really be that exclusive, can it? I suppose if they’ve had a face-to-face with Gael Bigirimana, fair enough, but another newspaper had something along the same lines yesterday:
http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/sport-opinion/sorry-saga-newcastle-uniteds-rangers-8911228
Keith indicates lots going on and ‘wiggery-pokery’, whatever that means. Maybe it’s a bit of squirrelly-whirrly?
StevieBC says:
March 26, 2015 at 3:05 am
It also doesn’t help that the “peoples game” isn’t broadcast on terrestrial tv, only those with the money to buy into Sky (and the willingness to support that particular evil empire), or the ability to head to the pub, get to watch Scotland these days.
I recall not so long ago you could expect highlights of every single Scottish international. I have yet to see anything of this newly revived Scottish team, bar the goals on Breakfast tv (or the goal against Germany on a Polish website). Interestingly, the Scottish regional BBC news this morning only carried the score, while the national sports bulletin did have the goal (hardly one to worry the goal of the season judges, but hey, it still counts!).
By not showing highlights, you are not going to tempt any of the long term-disillusioned back to watch Scotland – certainly not at those prices! I just accept now that I’m not going to see anything, I just don’t bother looking. You get out of the habit and find something else to entertain, something else that is invariably cheaper warmer and up until the recent Strachan times almost certainly more rewarding. I don’t miss turning up for national games anymore, but then I don’t know what I am missing so….
If the SFA can’t raise enough energy to attempt to sell highlights to a national broadcaster then how can they expect the fans to stump up for travel to the South of Glasgow, massively overpriced tickets to sit in a half-empty stadium where you can barely see what going on from one end of the pitch to another. It sounds like we have a team worth shouting about again, please advertise that fact, shout it out, let the people see it!
Or did they sign some locked in deal with Sky.. you know in a typically short-sighted minimal effort:minimum gain type agreement.
Sigh….
The more I think about the five players on loan from NU not allegedly being subject to a medical before the deal was signed the more I think that whoever was responsible for this at Ibrox – and it might be more than one person – is surely if not grossly incompetent then must be only a whisker away.
And of course even if he wasn’t involved in the decision then the buck has to land on DL’s desk – that’s where it has to stop as the Rangers chief executive and a key figure on its Board of directors.
His previous past links with NU – bought by Ashley in 2007 – go back to the summer of 2008 when he became a Newcastle director. He appears to have acted as Newcastle’s effective chairman running the club on a day to day basis.
Llambias’s sudden exit in June 2013 was apparently a direct consequence of club owner Mike Ashley’s decision to re-appoint Kinnear as football manager.
It’s understood Llambias was not involved in this appointment and did not appreciate Kinnear’s suggestion that, from now on, the MD would restrict himself to financial rather than footballing matters.
On his departure Llambias stated: ‘I will reflect with great fondness on my time in the North East and, in me, Newcastle United have a lifelong supporter.’
Some very cynical Bears might ask: ‘Well what’s changed?’.
So we have a Rangers board member and chief executive who apparently signs not just 1 but 5 players on loan without any of them allegedly getting a medical.
Were they passed ‘fit’ for purpose at the Newcastle end? I suppose it’s possible if they didn’t stipulate the purpose was to play ‘full-time, professional football’.
But one thing is quite clear which is that Llambias has in-depth footballing knowledge and experience running an English Premiership club. I can only wonder on current evidence how many of the NU players passed or where even subjected to a medical before being signed for the Toon Army?
It really is all very strange. If I was in charge at Ibrox at the moment then I would ascertain exactly who was involved in the ‘NO MEDICAL’ decision and instantly sack them for gross negligence with no pay-off.
They would of course have the legal recourse to an employment tribunal but then the whole tale would be picked-over in public and that would obviously be a factor in any decision they took wrt contesting a sacking which they claimed to be an unfair dismissal.
I have no time for DK for a number of reasons plus I don’t think he has the money or inclination to throw money into Rangers unless he is certain he can’t lose it. But looking at those who see Ashley as a saviour all I would remark is that this latest vignette just further stokes my curiosity on what Ashley is all about when it comes to Scottish Football in a wider sense.
He may well be a kind of Saviour for Ibrox but what might be his legacy for our game?
tayred says:
March 26, 2015 at 8:18 am
Couldn’t agree more tayred. Remember as a kid all Scotland games on tv, pre terrestrial of course 😆
Wasnt the recent Poland qualifier free to view sponsored by Vauxhall? why not repeat this format? for friendlies a decent pricing policy for fans attending is a must. No excuse for empty seats for National games. Especially when it appears the quality of product is improving. well done gordon strachan.
Haven’t watched Scotland. in the flesh,at Hampden since a young maradona played there and Scotland faced a Brazil side in the Rous Cup.There was a novel idea inviting a South American side to flog a dead horse a bit longer.
The EPL will come up with something similar when interest in the current circus stagnates, again I cant remember last time I watched an EPL game other than it providing a poor substitute for pub ambience. In England my local has got rid of Sky, and only has BTsport, SKY not paying its way.
Watch full Jambo games on HeartsTV. As the horror tackle on young Nicholson at almondvale showed, the quality of the tv coverage at even championship games is good, well done Livi, and lacks the crass punditry of sky and BT.
But sadly as we all know sport has been sacrificed on the alter of greed. and its not about to change alas.
ecobhoy says:
March 26, 2015 at 9:11 am
If I was in charege at Ibrox at the moment then I would ascertain exactly who was involved in the ‘NO MEDICAL’ decision and instantly sack them for gross negligence with no pay-off.
They would of course have the legal recourse to an employment tribunal but then the whole tale would be picked-over in public and that would obviously be a factor in any decision they took wrt contesting a sacking.
——————————————-
Then again, there is probably only so far DK and his merry men wish to go in poking Mike Ashley with a stick.
ecobhoy says:
March 26, 2015 at 9:11 am
If I was in charege at Ibrox at the moment then I would ascertain exactly who was involved in the ‘NO MEDICAL’ decision and instantly sack them for gross negligence with no pay-off.
==================================================================
Eco – I’m also puzzled / confused / intrigued, but if things are as they appear I think L&L would have been out the door two weeks ago rather than being under protracted “investigation” on full pay at the expense of the three bears. I’d be inclined to ask:
Who is paying the players wages and expenses? Free unfit players – big deal
Who do we rely upon that the players did not have medicals?
How unfit are the players, and who do we rely upon for this information?
Are different fitness standards applied north and south of the border?
And most of all – cui bono – who benefits from this story filling column inches whilst silence reigns at Ibrox on the month by month funding of the clumpany.
Re : No Medicals for Newcastle Five
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-loanee-gael-bigirimana-knew-5400265
I bet they don’t complain about the goals scored by one of the five players. That would be typical Sevco, selecting the bits that suits their story.
As a matter of interest how many goals has whatshisname scored for them ?
Was getting players on loan from NUFC not going to be brilliant ?? Vuckic goals now a bad thing ??
From Radar Jackson’s “exclusive”, Gael Bigirimana:
“But I do hope Rangers get back where they belong.”
Everyone is saying that in Burundi these days, everyone.
Clumsy Mr Traynor, very clumsy.
Can anyone enlighten me? What illness is Gael Bigirimana suffering from which allowed him to play under the FA’s rules, but prevents participation in games played under the auspices of the SFA?
I do see he’s now suffering from Rangersitis, however.
It really is hard to take anything in the DR at face value these days. So what’s new, it was ever thus. Seems a desperate attempt to remain relevant and hang on to whatever devotees the paper has. Still, more developments over the next few days promised by Keith. That will no doubt keep the hits up and assure advertisers that the DR is a worthwhile platform for ads.
Media Planning
If RIFC plc is de-listed from AIM on Good Friday – in the absense of a replacement Nomad – which appears to be a reasonable possibility – what will the distraction and deflection be from Ibrox? It will need to be fairly substantial:
· Who will get sued?
· Who will be condemned as a hater?
· Who will get fired?
· Who’s reputation will be crucified?
· What onerous horrors will be laid bare?
· What further unjust punishment will be revealed to the masses?
Over to you Mr Traynor.
Regarding Bigirimana, the headlines on this appear to be overreaching a bit. Reports I’ve seen quote the guy saying that he knew he was ill before he left Newcastle BUT that he didn’t believe it was going to impact his ability to play. If true the move would still have been in good faith.
borussiabeefburg says:
March 26, 2015 at 10:22 am
Can anyone enlighten me? What illness is Gael Bigirimana suffering from which allowed him to play under the FA’s rules, but prevents participation in games played under the auspices of the SFA?
I do see he’s now suffering from Rangersitis, however.
==========================
The article is just so typical of Jackson, never asks the important questions, and slants the whole thing to favour the King regime. The question posed by Borussia is a good one.
I read the first sentence of the article- “SFA rules ensure midfielder will not be allowed to kick a ball before short-term deal ends as Govan side continue to pay his wages.”, then settled down to read the rest, looking forward to an explanation of the relevant rules in Scotland and England, and how they apply in this case. Nothing. Not a word.
Then there is the question of the diagnosis. Here is Jackson again-“And Dave King’s new board will be particularly outraged at learning Bigirimana’s current condition was diagnosed by doctors when he was still part of Newcastle’s set-up.”. Let’s pass on the matter of whether it’s King’s personal board. Surely the unasked question is whether NUFC were aware of the diagnosis before the deal was signed. There is not a scrap of evidence in the article that NUFC were aware of the diagnosis. The fact that the player was playing hours before the deal was concluded might indicate the opposite, but can’t this Sports Journalist of the Year frame an obvious quest, like- did you tell NUFC about your diagnosis before the loan move? Seems simple, doesn’t it? Of course you never ask a question if you fear the answer won’t fit your agenda, do you? Well not if you’re Keith Jackson, apparently.
On other matters, each loannee is costing £1000 a week. Isn’t that rock bottom bargain basement stuff? If Ashley’s aim was to screw over TRFC, he’d be charging 5 times that, surely?
Is it standard practice for the borrowing club to give loan players a medical? Who is the actual employer- the lender or the borrower? I’m guessing that £1000 a week isn’t the full wage of these guys, so are Newcastle still the employer, and TRFC just paying NUFC the £1000 per week per player?
So many unasked questions. Oh for a real journalist, writing in a real newspaper. There is a strong whiff of Level 5 hanging around this story.
I am not so sure if the medical is as important as it is being hyped. Asa Hartford had a hole in his heart, Danny McGrain is diabetic Even the transfer of Colin Hendry to Derby sprung controversy. I am sure there will be a host of others.
It would appear there is a great deal of discretion wrt medicals and we need look no further than Craig Gordon, medical or not, nobody would touch him.
Then there is the fact the boy (I wont try to spell his name) played the night before travelling to Ibrox.
It is not his medical condition(although he may well be ill) preventing him from playing, but SFA rules, as he was clearly free to play down south.
@zero I just noticed the sub-head that implies that ‘SFA rules’ do not permit the young lad in the story to kick a ball in anger.
SFA rules, eh? Discretion overrides rules for 3 years but now it’s the letter of the law, and confidentiality forbids transparency as to why. True to form, if nothing else. How much Ashley bashing will it take before he gets seriously miffed?
I also see that the Daily Record article references a social media rumour of Hep C which is denied by the player. Presumably an illness preventing him from being allowed to play would haver to be of this ilk.
Don’t really understand why the SFAs rules on this would be different from anyone else though 😕
Haver and Daily Record in same post. Typo or Freudian slip 😳
Ecobhoy
I had a brief exchange on Twitter with Keith Jackson and asked if the suggestion was Lambias had deliberately loaded TRFC with the wages (or part wages)of the 5 players to take the cost of the NU wage bill and increase the debt owed to MA.
Now either that was exactly what he was thinking when he replied my theory was “interesting” or he had not thought about this angle.
(I responded my theory was based on no evidence and I could come up with better ones that were evidenced based but of course he never asked for an example.) 🙂
http://www.gersnet.co.uk/index.php/latest-news/325-why-the-billy-boys-will-never-surrender?
Completely off-topic, but talk of Asa Hartford reminded me of this David Coleman classic:
http://www.clivejames.com/chewingsporran
Danish 10:50
“@zero I just noticed the sub-head”
Not only zero mate, It was the SFA who rubber stamped their transfers. Now how can that be possible when under their rules, his illness apparently rules him out of playing in Scotland.
Would it not be at least on a rudimentary SFA Q&A form….
Any history of….check
Allergies………check
Family history.,..check
And somebody, somewhere, must be insuring him.
y4rmy says:
March 26, 2015 at 11:37 am
David referred to him as a ‘whole-hearted player’,
====================================================================
Wow, instant recall – I remember it like it was yesterday – how many brain cells have I been using to store that away for over 40 years?
Aye, and is he insured for his whole salary, or just the bit he’s declaring? 😈
Is it 2012 again?
Auldheid says:
March 26, 2015 at 11:13 am
I think the claimed £1k – £5k a week (if I understand correctly) is the least of their worries. Its another non-story from the DR.
It’s equivalent to loosing tuppence out of a hole in your front pocket as a glib & shameless thief dips your back pocket for your wallet with £200 in cash in it……
mcfc says:
March 26, 2015 at 12:11 pm
y4rmy says:
March 26, 2015 at 11:37 am
David referred to him as a ‘whole-hearted player’,
====================================================================
Wow, instant recall – I remember it like it was yesterday – how many brain cells have I been using to store that away for over 40 years?
—————-
Makes me wonder,mcfc. I have this clear memory of former Hibs player Colin Stein, then a Gers player, hoofing a ball over the bar and when turning away with a big clear mouthful of expletive, BBC’s late David Francey commented “…and there’s Colin Stein saying “Dear, oh dear, how did I miss that?”.
There’s a lot of fascination and barely disguised glee regarding the trouble they’re having at Ibrox making their monthly bills right now, and the assumption that this will be an ongoing problem into future seasons.
Has anyone done a rough estimate of how they will stand month to month once all those inflated player contracts expire in June? If one were to assume replacements were to be found at division appropriate levels, paid at market rates, and avoiding transfer fees, y’know, like everyone else does at the Ibrox Club’s current and likely level next season, how close would they be to break even?
If the fans get behind the new board and increase attendances & season ticket sales, and McCall does a similarly good job on a restricted budget that he did at Motherwell, why shouldn’t things be looking a whole lot rosier next season down Ibrox way?
Assuming they get to next season that is.
Netting a Nomad
If you absolutely needed to appoint a Nomad to avoid de-listing – what would you do? It would seem that essentially nothing has changed since the EGM – King is persona non grata when it comes to RIFC plc directorship. The CoS judgement may change that, but not soon enough. The SFA still need to rule – we all know that is a formality – and that may help a little. However, any Nomad doing their homework cannot ignore the RNS comments on record from L&L on King’s unsuitability. Why do you think L&L made such a formal song and dance about it?
So to net a Nomad, RIFC would need to create clear blue water between the board and executive and King. I assume a solemn, legally binding undertaking would be required with the Nomad that he will have no influence up the marble stairs and will not ghost in from time to time to adjust Murray (P)’s thinking. So King would need to resign as a nominated director and Murray (P) or another would need to become the fully fledged chairman.
That could be quite a loss of face for the Messiah who said – in a rather haughty way – that he had it all sorted.
Oh and where’s that 50% “investment” you promised? ”Well I’d love to, but, you see the Nomad won’t let me, I’ve made this solemn undertaking.”
So one problem solved, one face lost – plenty more to focus on – problems that is.
Night Terror says:
March 26, 2015 at 12:44 pm
If the fans get behind the new board and increase attendances & season ticket sales, and McCall does a similarly good job on a restricted budget that he did at Motherwell, why shouldn’t things be looking a whole lot rosier next season down Ibrox way?
==================================================================
It they took that approach – quiet at the back – they would be just another club with a big potential gate, a raw untested squad, an appalling merchandise deal, a massive decrepit stadium, major contracts that verge on embezzlement and a totally unrealistic following.
They could probably get by financially with high quality professionals in charge and a fair wind. But up against clubs with established squads, sound finances and reasonable expectations – they’d struggle.
Night Terror says:
March 26, 2015 at 12:44 pm
“..There’s a lot of fascination and barely disguised glee regarding the trouble they’re having at Ibrox making their monthly bills right now.”……… Its called ‘Karmic Schadenfreude’ for years of misleading, misrepresenting and down right cheating!
In answer to your question, NO!
eg. In year 2012-13 with “WORLD RECORD” crowds there was a £14.4 million loss.
The overall income was £19 million. Player-salary scale, at £8 million.
Since then, to present day, the crowds have dwindled slightly, the player wages scale has not diminished. The prize money and sponsorship has not increase by any significant amount. The debt has risen.
This is a failing business that relies on bums on seats just to limit its losses. It’s a classic Catch 22, unless VAST sums of money are piled into the hole.
Years of prudence and mid-table mediocrity will reduce interest and ergo… bums on seats… ergo ….. money. It’s a cyclic thing!
Motherwell finished consistently second and third on a playing budget a fraction of what even a soberly run squad under McCall would cost at Ibrox.
Lee McCulloch’s wages alone might cover the entire playing wage bill of each of the bottom half of the SPL clubs.
They seem to have a huge amount of room to play with regarding building a competitive squad at a fraction of current cost.
Unless, unless the intention is to blow Celtic out the water next season (perhaps even from the distance of the second tier) which would, you would think, be obviously mental, I’m struggling to see how finances won’t improve massively next season.
Sure, it sounds like they’ve got other contract problems but it’s very hard to know the scale of these from the outside.
Educated guesswork on the playing side is possible though, and that has all got to be positive if sanity prevails.
And why wouldn’t sanity prevail?
Educated guesswork on the playing side is possible though, and that has all got to be positive if sanity prevails.
And why wouldn’t sanity prevail?
==================================================================
When did sanity last prevail at Ibrox?
Seriously – name a year!
Name the board!
Night Terror says:
March 26, 2015 at 12:44 pm
Has anyone done a rough estimate of how they will stand month to month once all those inflated player contracts expire in June? If one were to assume replacements were to be found at division appropriate levels, paid at market rates, and avoiding transfer fees, y’know, like everyone else does at the Ibrox Club’s current and likely level next season, how close would they be to break even?
========================
Good questions. I used to keep a track of that kind of thing on the back of a fag packet, but I gave up long ago.
Yes, they can get some expensive rubbish off the books in July, but assuming promotion, they will need replacements, and given King’s expressed ambitions, I don’t think they will be cheap, but hopefully they should be better. The cost of buying them could well be an issue, though. Warchest required, I think.
However I don’t think that player wages are the real problem here. Money is bleeding out in every direction, so even if savings could be made now on player wages (and the time for that was really back in 2012) it would now make very little difference- in my opinion.
I don’t know the truth about the “onerous contracts”, but if that is really where the money is going, then the company is in very big trouble. Expensive to buy out, expensive to litigate. I’m just very glad my money isn’t involved, which says it all, really.
TBK
You answer NO! to a question I’m not sure I asked.
I’m well aware of all the problems of the past, and current, down Ibrox.
However, for all those predicting doom ongoing, I’d like to see if those predictions have been tested against possible ways the club could reasonably be expected to run in the future.
Nobody wants to be blinded by confirmation bias regarding our Ibrox chums, do we? Why, that’s exactly what many suspect has been the very problem amongst the Ibrox faithful over the past few years in the face of alternative unwelcome predictions of how things may pass for them financially.
mcfc says:
March 26, 2015 at 1:26 pm
Educated guesswork on the playing side is possible though, and that has all got to be positive if sanity prevails.
And why wouldn’t sanity prevail?
==================================================================
btw – the RIFC plc chairman elect has said specifically that is NOT his strategy – that is NOT acceptable – that is NOT the The Rangers way.
Night Terror says:
March 26, 2015 at 1:30 pm
It was in answer to : “why shouldn’t things be looking a whole lot rosier next season down Ibrox way?”
Night Terror.
As TBK suggests they need bums on seats to limit losses at the moment. A reduced squad cost may lead to breakeven (but not all onoerously contracted players are out of contract this season and those remaining may have massive inflations built in should they reach the Premiership).
But there is more than one problem to putting bum on seats. As we have seen this season the fare on the pitch has seen attendances dwindle even though for the most part 2nd to Hearts. Next season while the fare might improve I suspect second is beyond McCall with Aberdeen, Dundeee United and Hearts in the mix (not belittling the other Premiership clubs either). So will the crowds dwindle again when struggling to breach the the top 4 let alone hump Celtic at every meeting. Another problem to bums on seats may also arise unless as TBK suggests vast sums are poured in. DK has already provided an estimate for repairs to the stadium. How long before parts of the stadium have to be closed due to a lack of even remedial repairs let alone the major ones that will show up at some stage.
Night Terror:
March 26, 2015 at 1:30 pm
‘Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result.’
— Albert Einstein
I have seen nothing different, both in the boards attitude and the fans expectations, to change this.
The so called “peepil” do not do mediocrity…. particularly if it involves getting back to their so called “rightful place”. It will take at least £20m + injection to compete mid table in Premiership (if they make it). They could possibly compete at Championship level with the alleged £10m rights issue. Outside of that its back to relying on a sugar daddy. History often repeats…There is no such place as a “rightful place”, especially for *Rangers. Any place is earned. They have earned nothing and learned nothing IMO.
Would a youngish, renewed squad (at much lower cost) fighting it out with DU, ICT & Aberdeen this season, playing decent football and showing vigour and commitment despite the lack of top dollar talent really be such a turn off to the paying punters at Ibrox on their first season back in the top tier?
At root, they’re football fans, and most fans react well to a team doing their best despite limitations.
I don’t have the same low expectations of how Ibrox potential attendees would react to such fare it would seem.
StevieBC says:
March 26, 2015 at 3:05 am
The DR quotes a crowd of 28K for the Scotland game.
OK, it was only a friendly, but that still leaves c.24K empty seats at Hampden.
==============================
I am sure there are hundreds if not thousands like me.
I care a lot less about Scottish football and the National side than I used to.
I actually went to the game in Dortmund in September; and am thinking about going to Dublin.
But I would never consider giving a single penny to the SFA so have banned myself from Hampden for both internationals and cup finals.
So I’ll never see the Hibs lift the Cup in my lifetime either. 🙁
TBK
I agree my sober approach is not the one mooted by King and every other new Ibrox savour as they have taken the reigns.
But why wouldn’t such an approach work?
Even on the most basic level – it barely seems possible they could use the wages due to be freed up in June in a less productive way.
For the sake of two or three league positions (assuming promotion this season) next year it seems insane that the club would put themselves in the position of having to raise £10m just to survive for a year. Especially when, without doing anything they are about to get a large bit of breathing space in the player budget with little detriment to the quality of the squad.
Whether they go the sensible route or not – it’s possible, wouldn’t you agree?
Two problems for me. (I’m sure theres a monty python sketch in there somewhere, something to do with Romans?)
Firstly you correctly state that with SPL commercial returns (whatever that is) plus healthy attendances plus reduced player budget things should improve. Correct. They will improve from downright disastrous to something better. How much better? Good question but I doubt in the foresseable future without straight forward directors gifts with zero chance of repayment that the answer includes the words “break” and “even,” not with the overhead base, big club culture and onerousnous hanging around.
Secondly you could make a fairly accurate prediction of where its at in about August. Unlike other teams RFC traditionally sell a higher percentage of their gate as STs. So the focus from bums on seats drops since they’ve already paid their dues. Motherwell, Utd and Aberdeen (to use your examples, what about ICT btw) have proven that improved performances improves attendances improves profits. Sevco are more restricted in that respect, and its unlikely they will have flexibility of a euro run either tbh (shocking endorsement of the rest of us if they do btw!). Save for possible cup runs, revenues will be pretty much forecastable before the first game, as will most costs. The deficit will be there for the board to see. Question is how do they fund it? I think the thinking bears would actually club together quite well with a bit of honesty. I’m certain they would respond better if the prospectus this time around (nomad issues permitting) simply said “We’re at A, we need this much to get to B to achieve a realistic C” as opposed to “Dangnabbit, CL winners need money so cough up, again.”
Night Terror says:
March 26, 2015 at 1:46 pm
Would a youngish, renewed squad (at much lower cost) fighting it out with DU, ICT & Aberdeen this season, playing decent football and showing vigour and commitment despite the lack of top dollar talent really be such a turn off to the paying punters at Ibrox on their first season back in the top tier?
=================================================
Your theory is built on tha assumoption that The Rangers can attract young Prem level talent at knock down prices. Other than blue blood, why would these players not be signing for better teams at higher wages – including down south and abroad.
It seems like you are applying Rangernomics and then wondering why the real world won’t adapt.
Night Terror says:
March 26, 2015 at 1:57 pm
But why wouldn’t such an approach work?
==============================================
For the same reason that pure Marxism doesn’t work – human nature, human nature and human nature.
Night Terror:
March 26, 2015 at 1:46 pm
I have always held high regard and respect for many followers in Scottish Football who support their team regardless of position or perceived wealth/glory/fan numbers. etc. The so called “diddy teams”…… (A term I find quite disrespectful and common place amongst certain sections of the media and no doubt twinned with readership) …. fans are to be applauded IMO.
For most, football IS about winning! Its about playing with the best hand you have. Its about battles not wars. Its about competing! Being better than the rest over the season.
Teams like Aberdeen and Dundee Utd, even St Mirren were strong in the eighties yet did not have the pull of the so called big two (of which *Rangers used to be one). They were well run, with great (local) talent and moderate support. They did it up until the Murray era where the landscape of Scottish Football change for ever.
Currently, there is a “big one”. Celtic.
I say that with no disrespect to any other team in the Premiership.
The competitive nature of the league has shown some, not all, but some, of the current teams chasing 4th/3rd/2nd place….. (as well as Aberdeen hot on our heals for 1st)….. suggests to me the game, the competitiveness, is healthy.
To suggest a solution to *Rangers woes is simply to compete with DU, ICT & Aberdeen belittles them and the other stronger squads like Hearts & Hibs and will not sit well with the *Rangers support. They currently cannot compete with Hearts or Hibs with a vastly oversized budget.
They, have only one team in their sights. Celtic.
Their fans demand it! Their fans expect! Not only to compete with Celtic, but to beat them.
There-in lays the problem for *Rangers!
Night Terror:
March 26, 2015 at 1:57 pm
….. anything, is possible!
‘Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.’
— Robert Heinlein 🙂
But I can say with certainty, IF (and that is a big IF) *Rangers make it into the top flight, their fans will demand they compete with Celtic. No other team matters.
Picture a 3rd, 4th, 5th placed *Rangers at the ‘top table’. I’d give it a matter of months before crowds dwindled to the amounts witnessed in the Greig management years.
They have been bred, cultured on perceived “success”. The nine-in-a-row years, which nearly bankrupted my club, DID bankrupt theirs. For the last 30years they have promoted this ‘sugar daddy’ model. They know nothing else. They are at the back of the class regards learning. ICT, DUtd and Aberdeen are in the front row. Class A students.
It will not do. It never will.
Rangers 1872 died chasing the European dream. £140m of other peoples money for a modicum of success. (I call that period, *tainted)
They may die again chasing a domestic dream, never mind Europe. I reiterate…. It will not do. It never will!
Chris Graham out doing his thumbs down again? 😯
It seems that Sports Direct and Mark Dingwall (aka Grandmaster Suck from Follow Follow) are involved in a court battle after Dingwall requested a copy of the SD register of shareholders
http://www.followfollow.com/news/tmnw/mike_ashley_rangers_and_the_sports_direct_share_register_857955/index.shtml
TBK says:
March 26, 2015 at 2:41 pm
Night Terror:
March 26, 2015 at 1:57 pm
…
Picture a 3rd, 4th, 5th placed *Rangers at the ‘top table’. I’d give it a matter of months before crowds dwindled to the amounts witnessed in the Greig management years…
=============================
Absolutely ! 🙄
And that was when Ibrox, IIRC, was a ‘state of the art’ stadium, [and Parkhead was a shocking stadium], and yet hardly any Rangers fans wanted to support their team in their hour of need, during a period of relatively poor form.
Why would anyone expect anything different from the Ibrox support 30+ years later ?
“Dundee United footballer Paul Paton is set to stand trial accused of assaulting Celtic goalkeeper Lukasz Zaluska…”
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-32070236
Interesting – anyone got an RIFC plc share ?
http://www.followfollow.com/news/tmnw/mike_ashley_rangers_and_the_sports_direct_share_register_857955/index.shtml
easyJambo says:
March 26, 2015 at 3:05 pm
It seems that Sports Direct and Mark Dingwall (aka Grandmaster Suck from Follow Follow) are involved in a court battle after Dingwall requested a copy of the SD register of shareholders
http://www.followfollow.com/news/tmnw/mike_ashley_rangers_and_the_sports_direct_share_register_857955/index.shtml
==============================
Looks like SD goes immediately for the jugular at everything it does !
Don’t think Dingwall would be daft enough to leave himself potentially liable to unquantified costs.
Guess he’ll quietly drop his request.
But interesting all the same to see how SD operates…
StevieBC says:
March 26, 2015 at 3:42 pm
easyJambo says:
March 26, 2015 at 3:05 pm
It seems that Sports Direct and Mark Dingwall (aka Grandmaster Suck from Follow Follow) are involved in a court battle after Dingwall requested a copy of the SD register of shareholders
http://www.followfollow.com/news/tmnw/mike_ashley_rangers_and_the_sports_direct_share_register_857955/index.shtml
==============================
Looks like SD goes immediately for the jugular at everything it does! Don’t think Dingwall would be daft enough to leave himself potentially liable to unquantified costs.
Guess he’ll quietly drop his request. But interesting all the same to see how SD operates…
———————————————————
I think we know how they operate at least if we listen to what some MPs appear to think.
Was there not a massive ring-round of Rangers shareholders prior to the egm by a PR company allegedly merely asking how people were going to vote. I did notice quite a few posts on Bear sites suggesting that posters felt pressured.
I wonder how the ‘pollsters’ got the list of shareholders and what Rangers charged for it?
If I was Dingwall I think I would be sticking in a complaint to AIM and the DTI or whatever it’s called these days.
Has the so called “State Aid bigot” Mr PZJ_1 been outed?
I’m sure the Police and Celtic’s Lawyers would like a word with him…..
StevieBC says:
March 26, 2015 at 3:09 pm
“Dundee United footballer Paul Paton is set to stand trial accused of assaulting Celtic goalkeeper Lukasz Zaluska…”
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-32070236
—————————————————————
I assume – depending on the outcome – that this may form the basis of another SFA off-field charge. I wonder where this is all going to end-up?
“Why would anyone expect anything different from the Ibrox support 30+ years later ?”
The apparent rise of NI political influence and Loyalism. It’s more pronounced now than it was then.
This isn’t football folks but a culture that perceives itself as under threat.
The SMSM must be worried / confused / disappointed that the one lesson King seems to have learned from Ashley is vegetarianism – if not veganism – when it comes to explaining himself in the media.
King said what he needed to say and threw out the necessary meaty morsels in order to win the EGM – but since acheiving that objective he has jetted back to SA – and pickings have been slim down Ibrox way.
So many big issues to resolve – so little interaction with the faithful conduits.
The conduits must be brimming over with questions. If only they could remember how to ask them.
Night Terror,
The problem with your suggestion as to how Rangers could run at break even is that the infrastructure and underlying costs at Ibrox work against that. Even if they halved the playing budget.
This is a club with a 50,000 capacity stadium and a hugely expensive training ground. These come with rates and police charges appropriate to establishments of that size. They also require more maintenance and security than say Easter Rd or Pittodrie.
Add in onerous contracts,lack of retail and merchandise revenue and European income and you have a Mathematical conundrum that Alexander Grothendieck would pass on.
Fundamentally this is a club that is caught in the perfect storm. The only way to generate the income required to cover the running cost of the business is to have significant UEFA income. To achive that requires a huge spend on players. That plan has been tried and failed.
A sensible approach would be to sell Murray Park and take a 3 year view on building a team. Increase season book prices to 2011 levels and force all onerous contract holders , especially McCoist , to sue for what they claim they are due.
Can you see that happening ?
Night Terror says:
March 26, 2015 at 1:46 pm
Would a youngish, renewed squad (at much lower cost) fighting it out with DU, ICT & Aberdeen this season, playing decent football and showing vigour and commitment despite the lack of top dollar talent really be such a turn off to the paying punters at Ibrox on their first season back in the top tier?
At root, they’re football fans, and most fans react well to a team doing their best despite limitations.
I don’t have the same low expectations of how Ibrox potential attendees would react to such fare it would seem.
=================================
That scenario would be anathema to the “Short Stature Fletchers”.
StevieBC says:
March 26, 2015 at 3:07 pm
TBK says:
March 26, 2015 at 2:41 pm
Night Terror:
March 26, 2015 at 1:57 pm
…
Picture a 3rd, 4th, 5th placed *Rangers at the ‘top table’. I’d give it a matter of months before crowds dwindled to the amounts witnessed in the Greig management years…
=============================
Absolutely !
And that was when Ibrox, IIRC, was a ‘state of the art’ stadium, [and Parkhead was a shocking stadium], and yet hardly any Rangers fans wanted to support their team in their hour of need, during a period of relatively poor form.
Why would anyone expect anything different from the Ibrox support 30+ years later ?
____________________________________________________________
A bit unfair IMHO as low attendances were not excusive to Rangers at this time. The Greig years were from 1978-1983 and Rangers never won the league but won 2 SC and 3 LC. Celtic won the league 3 times, 1 SC and 1LC. Aberdeen won the league twice and 3 SC and Dundee Utd won the league once and 2 LC. Here are the Celtic and Rangers attendences over that period of time:
1978-1979 Celtic att: 25,469 Rangers att: 25,014
1979-1980 Celtic att: 28,499 Rangers att: 22,265
1980-1981 Celtic att: 22,836 Rangers att: 22,055
1981-1982 Celtic att: 22,718 Rangers att: 18,519
1982-1983 Celtic att: 23,740 Rangers att: 17,969
1983-1984 Celtic att: 18,390 Rangers att: 22,428
http://www.fitbastats.com/celtic/club_records_league_attendance.php
http://www.fitbastats.com/rangers/club_records_league_attendance.php
From 1978-1981 Ibrox was being redeveloped and its capacity would eventually be 44,000 and Celtic park had a capacity of around 60,000. Unfortunately I can’t find attendance stats for Aberdeen or Dundee Utd over this period of time. Traditional ‘big’ clubs always suffer a drop in attendances when they’re not winning things and a strong Aberdeen and Dundee Utd saw a challenge to the old firm dominance and the old firm fans voted with their feet.
smartie1947 says:
March 26, 2015 at 4:37 pm
possibly racist and certainly anti-Islam
———————————————-
What does the post have to do with Scottish football and are we to assume that Islamic football supporters are not welcome here but that possible racists might be?
Charlie Adam want’s to stay at stoke City.
Has he not read the scottish papers over the last couple of days. Will he now be put on a list of rangers haters?
incredibleadamspark says:
March 26, 2015 at 5:08 pm
StevieBC says:
March 26, 2015 at 3:07 pm
TBK says:
March 26, 2015 at 2:41 pm
Night Terror:
March 26, 2015 at 1:57 pm
…
Picture a 3rd, 4th, 5th placed *Rangers at the ‘top table’. I’d give it a matter of months before crowds dwindled to the amounts witnessed in the Greig management years…
=============================
Absolutely !
And that was when Ibrox, IIRC, was a ‘state of the art’ stadium, [and Parkhead was a shocking stadium], and yet hardly any Rangers fans wanted to support their team in their hour of need, during a period of relatively poor form.
Why would anyone expect anything different from the Ibrox support 30+ years later ?
____________________________________________________________
A bit unfair IMHO as low attendances were not exclusive to Rangers at this time…
================================
Fair play: good retort.
There were a few very low turnouts at Ibrox, but must admit I didn’t realise the average was relatively high.
Interested to attend a meeting today in same building as Supporters Direct offices in London. Wonder why they moved from half a floor in Sport England hq to six desks in a shared charity mezanine (only two of which were in use)? If they’re the rich relations, what state SD Scotland?
The last time there was financial reality at Ibrox was prior to Lawrence Marlborough. He sold the club, and it’s then manageable debt, to Murray. Then the insanity started.
Hopefully we’re on a journey back to early eighties:- no real debt and more than two clubs regularly winning the league.
Much as I want the treble, that will be better for the geme.
Barcaboy
Maybe so, but let’s at least see an attempt at showing how the numbers might work before asserting that.
Take whatever they’re losing per month now, lose the June overpaid contract players and replace them at a third of the cost, add a bit extra season ticket money, SPL prize money, TV.
How close does that get it?
Without even trying to see what it would take to make the Ibrox Club sustainable, it’s hard to give as much credence to the overwhelming opinion on here that they’re goosed in perpetuity.
Night Terror says:
March 26, 2015 at 8:23 pm
Seem to remember Auldheid ginning up a spreadsheet, plug your guesstimates in to the model and see how much brown smelly stuff pours out the other end.
Barcabhoy says:
March 26, 2015 at 4:47 pm
A sensible approach would be to sell Murray Park and take a 3 year view on building a team. Increase season book prices to 2011 levels and force all onerous contract holders , especially McCoist , to sue for what they claim they are due.
Can you see that happening ?
=============================
They may have little choice but to go down this route.
The key thing though is bums on seats….If they can get back to 40k ST holders at increased prices then who knows ❓
If they manage to get through the play offs it’ll be interesting to see how ST sales go over the summer.
I’ve speculated before that liquidation, three years out of the top flight and the financial shenanigans may have caused a disconnect between fans and club….a quiet walking away as it were.
A generation of fans used to the sound of Zadok the Priest may find it difficult to connect to an austerity Rangers…then again the pre boycott numbers were pretty impressive…if the subsequent numbers were due to the boycott and not the on pitch performance.
.
Night Terror says:
March 26, 2015 at 8:23 pm
Without even trying to see what it would take to make the Ibrox Club sustainable, it’s hard to give as much credence to the overwhelming opinion on here that they’re goosed in perpetuity.
=============================
Nobody thinks that they are goosed in perpetuity. But they are goosed so long as people like King are in charge, saying they must at least treble their wage bill until it at least matches Celtic’s. That’s the kind of “thinking” that got them to where they are now.
Starting out from where they were after the IPO in December 2012, any sensible management team would have arrived at March 2015 with a bright young group of players, and most of the IPO money still in the bank. That would not have been very difficult. So there was a viable business in there somewhere.
However I wonder how much damage has been done to that underlying business, both financially, in terms of onerous contracts and stripping out the retail side, and maybe more importantly, in terms of losing customers who might never come back.
In terms of the long term health of the “club”, an honest fresh start in 2012 would have been a much better bet. All we have seen since is a series of SMSM approved vultures picking over the scattered bones. Putting the skeleton back together, never mind putting any flesh back on the bones, will be both difficult and expensive. Do the latest lot have the skill and the money to do it?
We’ll find out soon enough, but it will cost someone a load of money, that’s for sure. And they will never see that money again, in my opinion. But I might be wrong- I’m not a billionaire, after all.
I suppose in one way TRFC has already drastically reduced its sights: signing McCall as manager ‘on a free’ is by far the lowest profile manager at Ibrox in modern times.
And if he stays on, he does not have the experience, or the internal influence of e.g. a ‘Walter’ type personality.
IMO, if TRFC secures promotion this season – or even next season – there should be an initial surge in interest at Ibrox. ST sales will be boosted on the back of ‘settling old scores’ with the SPL teams.
But in the absence of SPL-grade players in their squad, TRFC’s first season in the top flight could be extremely underwhelming – even embarrassing – for an expectant support.
Then the question is – what happens in the following season in the absence of decent additions to the squad ?
If the money is not made available, then the level of support could wither back to the core diehards – which I doubt is the financial scenario that King & the 3B’s are planning.
Currently, it looks like King has to dig deep into his own pockets to make a real difference at TRFC – but somehow I just don’t see that happening.
But I could be wrong of course.