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.
Still can’t get the hang of why there is a view that everything needs to get sold off for the club from Govan to survive and the constant pushing for an insolvency event being just around the corner.
Murray Park if used properly is a long term asset and is exactly where the rebuilding of the Ibrox club needs to start. Unless it was financially imperative that it needed to go it should be held onto.
My reading of the problem is that it was the reckless Big Time Charlie manner in which they place was run, along with duplication of services and associated costs at Ibrox that is the problem, not the facility itself.
Get the thing running efficiently and place it at the centre of the club’s future and you then have the start of a community based club rearing its own talent.
It really isn’t that hard. If the likes of Hibs, Hearts and Dundee Utd can develop a load of half decent young talent on relatively low budgets then it should be a skoosh for T’Rangers if they just screwed the nut and got on with some hard work.
After 10 mins of last night’s game someone obviously annoyed sent a text to BBC Sport saying loud music and fireworks was pathetic pre-match fare and for friendly vs norn iron they should have opened the bar and let everyone have a party. Finished by saying “we need a new SFA”.
Obviously the pre-match entertainment was lacking in effort and not appreciated.
Stevie BC’S comment about extracting digit to get the crowd in was spot on. People bemoan football administration in Africa but SFA are making them look good.
Honestly on current performance even if the SFA opened a bar last night they would probably have forgotten to stock it with drinks!!!!
Scottish football needs a strong Arbroath, East Fife, and HELP.
wottpi
I don’t get the “sell it all off” strategists either.
I suspect it’s what some want the Ibrox club to do for fear of what they might achieve with Murray Park if they ever get their act together.
That’s what I fear, anyway. I hope they are convinced by those who say throw money at the squad for instant desperate success whilst flogging off the one serious asset they have that could be described as a genuine investment for future growth. I’m also a fan of their approach to last minute short term funding, the legendary onerous contracts and getting as much fan representation on the Ibrox board as possible.
Not that they should do any of these things, but I’m enjoying watching them do it tremendously. Gives us Diddies a chance.
Much as I enjoy watching the same mistakes being repeated, it’s got to end some time hasn’t it?
The level of knowledge on here of law,accountancy, corporate finance and governance, financial markets and various other disciplines is very, very impressive. Like many have said, it’s an education following, or betimes hard even understanding, the strands of discussion.
But have we passed the limit of analysing parsing and forecasting possible events in our senior football, as affected by events at the new club? I think we have. I think just about every possible outcome has been dissected and put under the microscope.
Meanwhile the sad incompetents at Hampden, staggering from crisis to disaster of their own making, remain in place, I’m sure very relieved that the spotlight is directed elsewhere.
Their necks are super hard. They will not leave unaided. The untold damage they are doing to our sport can only be halted and possibly reversed if they are swept out, and soon.
Unfortunately this includes the permanent employees – secretaries, supervisors, managers, and so on, who may not have been decision makers at the top level, but must have known of and suspected all sorts of stuff going on, from the 5wA through Mr Bryson’s rules down to the person making the arbitrary decision about who plays whom after the ridiculous league split, to maintain the 19 home 19 away balance.
I think we are too easily sidetracked, and the tremendous expertise is not being put to where it will do most good – in cleaning out the Hampden stables. John Clark keeps pushing it. Auldheid is beavering away seeking justice, and apparently making progress. I hope he succeeds. Others at different clubs are talking about it on fan sites.
But in the general body of fans there doesn’t seem to be the will or the energy to do much more than discuss. Good as that is, it is unlike 2012 when the mood was entirely determined, people got moving, and the necessary result was produced. I wonder why that single mindedness in the cause of Scottish football appears to have dissipated. Can it be revived? I don’t know.
Maybe I’ve got it wrong. I hope I have. If so, apologies folks.
castaway says:
March 26, 2015 at 11:28 pm
In order to effect change at Hampden, you must first effect change at your club.
Hampden is the clubs, and the clubs are Hampden
It really is that simple, and that difficult.
scapaflow says:
March 26, 2015 at 11:35 pm
castaway says:
March 26, 2015 at 11:28 pm
In order to effect change at Hampden, you must first effect change at your club.
======================
Put like that it sure sounds simple. But is life like that?
There are many hurdles to get over, with the final one being getting your proposal past the main board, which has a built in majority of self preservationists. I wonder.
O/T but interesting
http://www.spiked-online.com/review_of_books/article/4709
And another
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/53
Re all this talk about the club from Ibrox being ‘goosed forever’ or otherwise. I personally don’t think they will be but it will take some serious out the box thinking to make it happen. Constantly looking back wont cut it, and constantly trying to beat Celtic at all costs wont cut it either. For me the biggest problem will be trying to educate the generations who have had their minds messed by the hubris of the David Murray era, which was backed up by (in my opinion) wrongful institutional and media bias. In the absence of a bank stupid enough to repeat what the old Bank of Scotland did, they will never get back to those days.
The most puzzling thing of all though is the notion that this is somehow the equivalent of Fergus McCann taking over Celtic. Just prior to takeover Celtic were run by an incompetent, self serving board without the business acumen required to move the club forward. In commercial terms Celtic was a sleeping giant and there were no onerous contracts in place to burden future earnings. McCann was able to successfully exploit the potential of the club and crucially was able to attract people to the board of a level Rangers have never been able to, and certainly don’t have currently. Commercially, what is left to be exploited at Ibrox?That’s what makes it even more puzzling how the media currently portray Paul Murray as some type of heavyweight in the world of business and finance. It only goes to prove that becoming a Rangers supporter still opens doors that remain closed to others, however undeserving that is.
Night Terror says:
Asking the questions the Media won’t ask.
Every now and then the discussions on here
take a bit of a lull, I don’t agree
with your post Night Terror but it got the
place talking 🙂
Stewart Regan has mail! From the Vanguard Bears site-
Squirrel statement o’clock this morning by “keef , in the daily record. If the Bears believe this gumf about crisis meetings at ibrox to discuss 5grand going out the door weekly to Newcastle for loanees then I’m afraid they deserve everything they get.
If keef is allowed to avert their gaze from the real problems down Govan way by printing absolute garbage like this then the games a bogey for them.
Losing millions of pounds a year, a rubbish team on the park, buildings in need of serious maintenance onerous contracts that are legally binding and a fractured fan base And in thinks all will be rosy in the garden if they just sort the 5grand a week problem.
I’m insulted on their behalf by just how little he must think of the average bear to print this stuff and expect it to be taken seriously.
As I said before , if the Bears can’t see through this , then they really do deserve what they get.
neepheid says:
March 27, 2015 at 8:27 am
Wasn’t going to get involved in all that kind of rubbish and mention Wednesday night on here but given that the VB statement here goes.
In a few pubs prior to the game and can only say that I felt the atmosphere was poisonous.
Frankly I do not want to know that these folks believe they are The People, why WWII seems to be important to them, what sash their father may have wore or that the due democratic process that led to a referendum should be stuck up my arse. Frankly a little booing (didn’t indulge myself as our group decided to hold back on route to the game to try and avoid getting too close to the morons) is the least of their worries if it comes to such whataboutery.
I keep hearing things are improving in NI, maybe they are, however on that display there is a long way still to go for some folk, including those fans who appeared to have mastered a west coast accent.
The problem with the ‘Vanguard Bears’ approach is that they totally ignore the exact same behavior from their own side which has been very prevalent in recent football matches.
By not addressing the problem as a whole they label themselves biased and single-mindedly pursuing their own agenda – which I don’t think it’s necessary to elaborate on other than to note that many Rangers Groups and individual Bears have no truck with it as they see the specific problems in NI as having nothing to do with a Scottish Football Club with a stated policy of no religious discrimination.
However, that aside, they do touch on the serious flaws in the drafting of the: OFFENSIVE BEHAVIOUR AT FOOTBALL AND THREATENING COMMUNICATIONS (SCOTLAND) ACT 2012.
It is totally unacceptable IMO that one person can be arrested and duly convicted of an offence under the act whereas 30,000 people can carry out the same offence in organised concert and simply be ignored.
You don’t have to be a legal expert to spot ‘bad law’ it’s as obvious as a barrel of stinking fish. The fault for this mess lies fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Scottish Government and its hurried knee-jerk PR reaction which created the Act.
The simplest short-term way to deal with the defficiencies in the Act is for the SFA to introduce a rule along UEFA lines that clubs can be held responsible for sectarian chants and singing of its support. I have previously laid-out my thoughts on this and the escalation with repeat offences.
However the SFA member clubs won’t vote for that. So what’s the answer? Simple the Scottish Government tells the SFA that it will get not one penny more of public money and will not continue to be recognised as the regulatory authority for football in Scotland.
The message doesn’t even need to be made public but the iron resolve must be there to back-up the message: ‘Clean-up your act or we will replace you’.
There is also the question of clubs on the issue which I will deal with in another post.
However I love the way the VB identified themselves as: ‘Fans of Member Clubs facing persecution’.
It would be more accurated to have written: ‘Fans of a Member Club facing extinction.’
And we must keep in mind what all this sabre-ratttling is all about. It’s just a wee reminder of the threatened social disorder that will engulf Scotland if a certain club isn’t ‘helped’ to its Rightful Place.
Empty drums make the most noise – however more and more ordinary Bears who are just interested in football keep the heid doon and stay silent and a lot are staying away and tbh I don’t blame them.
From The Scotsman website this morning:
“THE Ibrox board will hold it’s first official meeting today and top of the agenda will be finding out why Derek Llambias and Barry Leach sanctioned signing of all five Newcastle players without medicals.”
Good to see that the new regime have their fingers on the pulse and addressing the big ticket items at their first formal meeting.
I wonder when they will get around to discussing the many minor housekeeping items such as appointing a NOMAD, paying back SD’s loan to regain some control over the retail operations and releasing security over all the assets, organising a new share issue to lock in long term funding, arranging further loans to meet April/May payroll and tax payments, establishing a scouting department to recruit a dozen new players to replace those who will be out of contract at the end of the season, planning stadium repairs over the summer break, negotiating termination packages for their suspended CEO and Finance Director, signing off on the half year accounts to 31 December 2014, etc, etc, etc.
From Radar Jackson today:
“THE Ibrox board will hold it’s first official meeting today and top of the agenda will be finding out why Derek Llambias and Barry Leach sanctioned signing of all five Newcastle players without medicals.”
So first order of business of the new regime’s first board meeting is not “How will we pay the wages next month?”
And not “How are we going to tell the shareholders we can’t get a Nomad so your shares are waste paper?”
Certainly not “What do we do it we don’t get promoted?”
Definitely not “What if Ashley insists on putting L & L back on the board of RIFC?”
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/new-rangers-board-hold-crisis-5409376
mcfc
Great minds …
castaway says:
March 27, 2015 at 12:25 am
Every time someone goes off on a tear about Regan, Doncaster or Ogilvy, the club chairmen chortle into their G&Ts. Yes, the Three Aunt Sallys are
A) Not very good at what they do
B) Have a great deal to answer for
But there they still sit, reappointed unopposed, or stuffed with bonuses and pay rises, why?
Because the clubs are perfectly happy with everything that the have done. They are the pantomime villains, the ultimate squirrels, while the real villains are a hell of a lot closer to home. I have hopes that Anne Budge, assuming she has the time, given the work still to be done at Hearts, can be an agent of change, but, she will need support from the other clubs. So far I see absolutely no evidence, that that support will be forthcoming.
Scottish Football needs the fans to take their partisan blinkers off, and start to apply the old Celts for Change playbook. Scottish Fans for Change if you will. Scottish Football also needs many, many more Turnbull Huttons, sadly it appears they broke the mould with that one.
(Incidentally, Auldheid and his merry band of insurrectionists, are effecting change at Celtic, slowly, painfully, but, change none the less. Good on them)
melbournedee says:
March 27, 2015 at 9:14 am
mcfc
Great minds …
========================================
ah yes, but not great enough to be a prize winning journalist on a national Scottish chip wrapper 🙂
A few things this morning.
On the board meeting – There is one train of thought that this appears to be the only visible fracture in the SD/Ashley façade. If they can pull this thread to show up Ashley as, shock horror, in it for his own good 😯 then they could just turn public opinion further against him. That point aside however there is a clear need for other matters to be dealt with first, in my opinion. Like welcoming this complete stranger by video link to the board meeting, a Mr King from SA no less!
On the NI support. It is a simple fact that a major proportion were not there to see the football. That pretty much says it all!
On the offensive behaviour act. It is wrong that mob rule should sway punishment agreed, but I am not aware that mob rule changes the terms of the act as to whether or not the perpetrators are guilty of an offence.
And finally, Auldheid and his Band of insurrectionists. Are they kinda like One Direction?
Just out of interest, are the VB’s referring to the official playing of the anthem at the start? (In which case we shouldn’t be booing anyone out of politeness if nothing else) or the constant needless nonsensical chanting throughout the game?
“And finally, Auldheid and his Band of insurrectionists. Are they kinda like One Direction?”
Nah, I think of them more as an ageing Punk Rock band, reformed for one last go at bringing down the Man
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q31WY0Aobro
I’ll get my coat
upthehoops says:
March 27, 2015 at 7:04 am
Re all this talk about the club from Ibrox being ‘goosed forever’ or otherwise. I personally don’t think they will be but it will take some serious out the box thinking to make it happen. Constantly looking back wont cut it, and constantly trying to beat Celtic at all costs wont cut it either. For me the biggest problem will be trying to educate the generations who have had their minds messed by the hubris of the David Murray era, which was backed up by (in my opinion) wrongful institutional and media bias.
——————————————————————
I think the biggest difference generally between ourselves as a support and that of Bears is that we had a long history and experience of being an underdog but one that didn’t accept it’s ‘rightful place’ as the majority and Scottish establishment had decreed it without a public word ever being exchanged.
Thank goodness we have moved on in so many ways in Scotland over the last 60-70 years and I truly believe that only people of my age can truly see, understand and appreciate the societal change for the better.
There is another critical element in this process IMO and that is in the dark times when Celtic suffered some very bad years in footballing terms that we developed ‘humour’ as a shield and with it the ability to laugh at ourselves. That kept alive the flame and belief that it could only get better given time.
Rangers IMO has hardly started on the road and the fans are still bitter and lashing-out at everything and anything that they perceive to be an attack on their institutions and beliefs.
Eventually a section of the support that want to concentrate on football will start to coalesce and they will require to ditch the baggage. If they don’t I believe the club is ultimately doomed – it might take some time but it can’t survive pandering to a small and ever-decreasing – but highly vocalised and mobilised section of its support.
They aren’t representative of your average Scot or Scottish society IMO and any club with pretensions to draw support from outwith its immediate geographic location needs to attract ordinary football loving Scots no matter their religious or national identity preferences or even lack of them and relatively few Scots have much interest in the affairs of Ireland – north or south.
Against all that backdrop: If Rangers get to the Premiership next year or later then they will need to take each team as they come and fight hard for league points. The EBT era and cheap bank money that didn’t need to be repaid has gone.
Indeed it’s funny how similar the two were – neither the EBT or bank loans ever needed to be repaid. Although the taxpayer ended-up picking up the tab for both through that tax & NI unpaid on the EBTs and the taxpayer money needed to bail-out the Rangers Bank.
With the competition that Rangers will face in the Premiership they will require to beat teams which they have already had difficulties with in the Championship and beloe and even if they beat Celtic in every game and end-up a mid table team with no Euro bonanza they will struggle long-term financially to survive, rebuild and keep ST levels at the required numbers.
However furiously beating that Big Drum with the usual media coverage will drown-out the ominous creaking and groans emanating from the Ibrox facade and I don’t mean the listed red-brick one but more the very foundations of the club.
Smugas says:
March 27, 2015 at 9:29 am
the only visible fracture in the SD/Ashley façade
==========================================================
Looks like the beginning of a show trial for L&L to mask the de-listing – crucifixion on Good Friday. And obviously King’s F&P approval is delayed by the CoS bureaucracy – so what can he do? Don’t mention that King could have applied months ago if he was not a shameless and glib manoeuvrer.
Jingle Jackson never fails to astound.
These pesky Newcastle loans are draining K£40 from the piggy bank – 3 weeks gardening money to others – and that’s the top item in the first board meeting’s agenda!
Here was silly me recalling that the GLIB one said the first board meeting would take place within 5 minutes of winning the GM – was that not three weeks ago?
Yet Jackson still churns out this nonsense and expects us to believe this nonsense.
Night Terror
Dundee Utd &’Hearts have 2 of the best youth programmes in Scotland . Neither has a Murray Park.I understand they both use local University facilities.
Coaching , recruitment and the opportunity to play competitive 1st team games are key factors in developing a successful youth programme. Extravagent bricks and mortar much less so.
A few weeks ago I posted about the financial consequences of regime change . Of best case uplifts in revenue streams such as match day gate receipts , catering revenues and hospitality sales.
The best case scenario still resulted in a business losing £millions a year. Based on early indications the best case scenario isn’t close to being achieved. Both King and Murray were vocal about expecting to play in front of a full capacity stadium for the rest of the season. Those expectations now look wildly optimistic as there were 50,000 unsold seats in the first 3 home games since they took over
Therefore when I made the comment that what Rangers should do is sell Auchenhowie , it was based on business rationale . There is no fear of what Rangers might do if they get their act together. The notion that a Celtic supporter has any fear of Rangers is quite frankly laughable. Should Rangers ever run their business properly then the best case is they will gradually improve to the point of being able to provide competition. That’s hardly something to fear.
The unpleasant reality is that Rangers is a much smaller business than Celtic , with significantly less Revenue streams and a significantly weaker capacity to invest in the football squad. When Rangers were generating their best ever turnover it was still £11 million less than Celtics best ever turnover. There is an average historical financial advantage to Celtic of more than £10 million a year., from memory . I will at a later point detail the actual comparatives.
The reality is that Rangers are saddled with the mindset that they are bigger and wealthier , when the facts are that they are the exact opposite. Once Rangers fans and the board are able to adopt this reality , then they will recognise that unaffordable extravagances , like Auchenhowie, are damaging vanity projects.
Barcabhoy says:
March 27, 2015 at 10:00 am
Murray Park is a marvellous resource, which is being squandered. I, for one, would be quite happy to see it “nationalised”, with RIFC paid the market value, and actually used for the benefit of Scottish Football!
mcfc says:
March 27, 2015 at 9:53 am
Smugas says:
March 27, 2015 at 9:29 am
the only visible fracture in the SD/Ashley façade
==========================================================
Looks like the beginning of a show trial for L&L to mask the de-listing – crucifixion on Good Friday. And obviously King’s F&P approval is delayed by the CoS bureaucracy – so what can he do? Don’t mention that King could have applied months ago if he was not a shameless and glib manoeuvrer.
——————————————————–
I think it’s very important to retain an objective viewpoint on what happening down Ibrox Way.
The ‘show trial’ is very important – indeed I would say critical in many ways.
Firsly if the Board believe they have the evidence to sack DL & BL as employees for gross incompetency on the no-medical issue then there will be no pay-off saving approx £400-500K.
There will also be a Regulatory Notice on AIM detailing the Board decision and that IMO would put paid to any notion that MA or SD could simply re-appoint the two back onto the Board.
As to the NOMAD issue I have no doubt that if necessary AIM could find a way to extend the period allowed especially if the notice I mentioned above is posted on AIM wrt DL & BL.
I reckon there will be serious allegations made against the previous NOMAD by the new board – whether there would be any fact to them or not I know not.
However AIM will require to make a ‘political’ judgement on how it would handle such a hypothetical situation if it actually arose.
So if I was them I would plump for the fact that DK is doing the ‘right’ thing under AIM Regulation by applying to the CoS to have his 5 year ban lifted and that they will therefore extend the time required to appoint a replacement NOMAD.
Indeed that very point was posted as a notice on AIM by the previous Board IIRC.
It could be argued that DK could have applied to the CoS at an earlier date – that is a very debatable point IMO for a variety of reasons which in reality I think no longer matter. We don’t know the DK game plan or even the jigsaw DK is working on. But he will mainly be trying to keep MA guessing and impart as little info as possible.
I also think there might be a lot of mulling going on anyway over the whole issue of delisting and the decision on that will come down IMO to where the new incumbents intend to raise the capital they require. If it’s outwith AIM then they might well think it’s cheaper to get out of the market.
But that decision is a bit further down the line and will be determined by other factors which have yet to unfold or be revealed.
ecobhoy says:
March 27, 2015 at 10:25 am
The “show trial” is also potentially very bad news for the SFA. If it can be shown, that DL & BL were acting in the best interests of Newcastle and not Rangers, then the pressure will be on the SFA to take decisive action on the dual control issue.
That prospect, will I am sure, have the Professional Game Board and the Senior Management Team, reaching for the Rennies.
Barcabhoy
That would be interesting to see. Any chance you could repost, or even better, put it somewhere it’s much easier to find and refer to in future?
scapaflow says:
March 27, 2015 at 10:17 am
Barcabhoy says:
March 27, 2015 at 10:00 am
Murray Park is a marvellous resource, which is being squandered. I, for one, would be quite happy to see it “nationalised”, with RIFC paid the market value, and actually used for the benefit of Scottish Football!
—————————————————————–
I have some sympathy with your view.
However if we truly want to benefit Scottish Football then we have to look at the existing facilities throughout Scotland and if there are any geographic ‘gaps’ then these should be the first place to be filled.
Lots of teams have agreements with various local facilities in partneship agreements and especially with smaller clubs in lower leagues one can see the financial sense in this.
There is also a major stumbling block in whether the SFA have the dosh to take on a pretty costly venture. And I don’t think they could outbid a land bank developer. But, of course, at the moment it would all decide what Big Mike wants to do.
Perhaps sending his crocks up here was to test how good the facility is as perhaps he has a plan to run a rehab centre for injutred footballers from all over the world.
And then there is always the initial agreement whereby – I believe – Rangers were meant to share the Auchenhowie facility with local and the SFA because of the Sports Council loan. I don’t know the actual facts but I have heard many rumbliungs over the years that this didn’t work-out very well.
But if the SFA bought it then I’m sure people – rightly or wrongly – would believe that a certain team would get a helping-hand by their training facility being funded by all other Scottish Clubs.
What a snake-pit we have because we can’t trust the SFA on anything ❗
A question.
Clearly there was lamb then, lamb now and will be lamb in the future.
But to what extent are Keef and others involved in the message(s) emanating from Ibrox?
Are they simply regurgitating press releases, have they also had a chat with the relevant PR guy or are they privy to discussions on how the message arc will be managed and played out over a period of time?
scapaflow says:
March 27, 2015 at 10:32 am
ecobhoy says:
March 27, 2015 at 10:25 am
The “show trial” is also potentially very bad news for the SFA. If it can be shown, that DL & BL were acting in the best interests of Newcastle and not Rangers, then the pressure will be on the SFA to take decisive action on the dual control issue.
————————————————————-
That’s a good point. Because of course DL & BL represent ‘The Club’ technically and not SD or MA – I know, I know 😳
That might explain why the ‘Club’ hearing date was put back. And of course now that there are friendly forces occupying the Blue Room the SFA will be ever so greatful that the ‘Biggest North British Club’ is back under the control of RRM that I’m sure the fine will be minimal 😆
ecobhoy says:
March 27, 2015 at 10:42 am
Close Hampden, sell for re-development
Build a more appropriate venue for Queens Park, (planning gain could be used to advantage here, or even ground share with a certain new club, which is also stuck with an ageing white elephant)
Move the admin, coaching & refereeing etc functions to Murray Park
Murray Park, suitably renamed, becomes the home of Scottish Football
Simple, really!
Upthehoops’, Ecobhoy’s and Barcabhoy’s posts earlier this morning highlight a fundamental truth which, I believe, is at the very core of the problems engulfing everyone connected, directly or indirectly, historically or currently, to Rangers (sic).
The fundamental truth?
What they regard as their greatest strength is, in reality, their biggest weakness.
I refer, of course, to WATP.
The first requirement of reclaiming their ‘rightful place’ is to recognise, acknowledge and admit that there is no such thing, and that’s not going to happen because WATP condemns them to be forever stuck at Kubler Ross’ Denial stage.
neepheid says:
March 27, 2015 at 8:27 am
Stewart Regan has mail! From the Vanguard Bears site-
Amazing how things get viewed by folks from different places. When has the so-called “British” national anthem not been boo’d at Hampden (Commonwealth games excepted)? It certainly has every game during my lifetime, especially when we were suppose to be singing it as our “song”!
I’m not into booing it myself, but personally I find it a dreadful and offensive ditty. Nothing to do with the infamous dropped verse, but a National Anthem is supposed to speak of nationhood, of pride in your nation and yet GStQ does nothing but talk of how glorious one particular person is. It is some dated throwback to ancient times where we are expected to all be grovelling sycophants to the chosen few.
As a raging republican (how sad that as I type that I feel I have to qualify it by saying that I mean anti-royalist and not anything to do with the politics of a nearby country), I can’t imagine how anyone could sing that song with pride, it makes me cringe every time I hear it!
Perhaps the crowd were simply making clear their dislike of Lizzie, Charles, Wills, Harry and the rest of that expensive family?
Fairways says:
March 27, 2015 at 10:50 am
A question. Are they simply regurgitating press releases, have they also had a chat with the relevant PR guy or are they privy to discussions on how the message arc will be managed and played out over a period of time?
—————————————————————
The message strategy is quite simple: The object is to return Rangers to its ‘Rightful Place’ under the control of RRM and to beat Celtic at every opportunity both on and off the park and always in the SMSM.
Hacks will not be privvy to the details of the plans but will remain poised with greasy fingers from their succulent lamb munching ready to clutch the latest press release.
These releases will be regurgitated without any questions being asked to publicise significant milestones on the road back to where ‘they’ belong and to cover in glory the bloody carnage when the ‘enemy’ or ‘haters’ are over-run for having the audacity to construct roadblocks in the path of ultimate Victory.
There will also be the ‘unofficial’ press releases from ‘sources close to Ibrox’ and ‘a source within the club’. These will normally, as in days of yore, be used to attack Celtic, its ethos and employees. However they won’t be ‘official’ or named and the courageous SMSM journo will have to protect his/her sources 😆
The big difference this time IMO is that many many more clubs throughout Scotland and their supporters have had the pleasure of observing elements of the Rangers support close-up and at first hand during the journey when they were meant to provide cannon-fodder. That didn’t always work too well right enuff 😉
IMO a lot might actually revise their former opinions on Celtic paranoia as a result of their experiences. Many will be thankful to see Rangers return to its Rightful Place and leave them to concentrate on football and their communities.
Btw I remain paranoid as I think we could well be slipping back to darker days for a spell and I have absolutely no faith in the SFA doing anything to prevent or stop it.
Night Terror: If we’re talking indicative figures, let’s look at a brief overview of NewGers accounts (from The Rangers Standard(!)) analysis of the 2014 accounts:
“The operating expenses for the year totalled £33.8m (£33.7m in the previous 13-month period). That total is made up of staff costs of £14.7m and general operating costs of £16.4 (covering the running costs of the business – everything from upkeep and maintenance, heat and light, telephones, etc).
…
Staff costs in the year were £14.7m, with the 1st team squad wages stated to be £6.5m. National insurance and pensions account for £1.5m, directors’ remuneration for £787,000, with the balance of £6m being non-1st team squad players, non-playing and non-football staff. The total wages represent 58.3% of total revenue. As a comparison, Celtic’s wages were also 58.3% of total revenue.”
For comparison purposes, Aberdeen’s turnover was £11m last year. Their players wages were £6m (up from £5m because of performance related payments). Dundee United’s turnover was less than £6m.
I am not sure how much more Rangers can cut their playing wages – I would think matching Aberdeen’s £5-£6m would be the floor (Dundee Utd had a £3.5m wage bill). Even allowing for a halving of Rangers total wage bill, that’s still £23m costs. The vast majority of Rangers costs are relating to Stadium, training facility (is it now Murray, P. Park?) and hosting crowds of 30,000+ every couple of weeks.
It’s been my view for some time that the properties that everyone of a blue hue has been so keen to protect are in fact a millstone around Rangers neck in terms of refinancing and getting themselves on an even keel. Clearly “the big hoose” is non-negotiable, but it is quite frankly barking that they haven’t made efforts to sell or even just mothball what is in effect a cash bonfire.
I was at the game on Weds night. Mrs Zilch and I don’t get out much (three weans have a massive babysitter deterent effect) and she is a big fan of the Scotland matches, so I bit the bullet and agreed to go, despite my bitter regrets about providing funds to the SFA.
I vaguely remember saying Aye OK when she mentioned getting the tickets some time ago and barely registered it was going to be against NI.
Then when she reminded me we were going to the game I was kind of looking forward to it – Strachan is doing a good job and I thought there might be a reasonable atmosphere – home nations and all that. Bit like the rugby.
Couldn’t have been more wrong with the last bit.
The atmosphere was indeed poisonous. The NI fans were hellbent on making sure their political views were up front and centre. And the Tartan Army responded as you could have predicted.
In general the Tartan Army was pretty subdued, much less noise than usual and a growing sense of tension as the NI fans kept up a fairly relentless taunting repertoire of GSTQ, Rule Brittania and even doing “the Bouncy”.
When the goal finally came, the sense of relief was tangible, as was the explosion of derision directed at the NI fans.
I never bothered going to Celtic – Rangers games. I never wanted to immerse myself in the bile and hatred.
Mrs Zilch and I have been to Scotland – England matches that were nothing like as bad as Weds night.
If I had realised what Weds night was going to be like, I would not have gone.
On the way home, we walked the long way round the stadium to avoid passing the exiting NI fans – that was how bad we felt the atmosphere was.
I wasn’t going to discuss this on here (I feel very bad about giving money to the SFA).
However I think Weds night, and the VB statement following it, demonstrated a parallel with part of the on-going crisis in our domestic game.
The VB statement is frankly contemptible and is part of a concerted campaign to try to further their “one side as bad as the other” argument.
This time it is not Celtic fans etc, but the Tartan Army that are apparently victimising them.
In every case, there is absolutely no recognition of the consequences of their own actions, and the inappropriate behaviour of the group they seek to defend.
If there is any upside to this (and that is marginal at best), it is that it once more highlights the serious deficiencies of the relevant legislation and the urgent need for a proper review.
Mrs Zilch also bought tickets for the Gibraltar match. According to wikipedia their official anthem is…. GSTQ. 😥
Very much hoping we can avoid another international incident by having them play their unofficial anthem:
Gibraltar, Gibraltar,
The Rock on which I stand,
May you be forever free,
Gibraltar, my own land.
Mighty pillar,
Rock of splendour,
Guardian of the sea,
Port of hope in times of need,
Rich in history.
Gibraltar, Gibraltar,
The Rock on which I stand,
May you be forever free,
Gibraltar my own land.
God give grace to this our homeland,
Help us to live as one,
Strong in freedom,
Truth and justice,
Let this be our song.
Gibraltar, Gibraltar,
The Rock on which I stand,
May you be forever free,
Gibraltar! Gibraltar!
My own land!
I might even sing along to that one – though apologies to any Spanish friends who might find this offensive too 😥
scapaflow says:
March 27, 2015 at 9:18 am
castaway says:
March 27, 2015 at 12:25 am
—————————————
I don’t know an awful lot about it but a look at the SFA website tells me that the main board sees itself as responsible for corporate strategy and top-line decision-making. They rule the roost in other words. They have for themselves a built in majority.
Then there’s the pro game board which contains only one club chairman, Peter Lawwell. This board also has every appearance of a built-in majority in favour of the establishment. I don’t see how one man can get anything approved that those in control would rather did not pass. The non-pro game board also has its quota of connectedness, if less obvious.
That all needs to be changed. Fewer Hampden office bearers and friends on the boards, and more club representatives would be one possible beginning, with Hampden officials reporting to the boards.
Your idea of a Scottish Fans for Change group sounds good to me. Has it been tried? There are the other supposedly national groupings I know, but nobody seems to have much faith in them. Fans for Change could work. Something needs to happen, and soon.
I agree with you about Turnbull Hutton, one of a kind. But you never know: “cometh the hour…” an’ a’ that.
castaway, who has an in-built majority? And to what end?
There are least three club reps in that group and Peter L isn’t a club chairman. I think you’re suggesting that the blazerati are either involved for their own ends (or to further the interests of one club?) but I think you need to be you be a bit more specific with your concerns.
castaway says:
March 27, 2015 at 11:46 am
The various committees seem be staffed with a mixture of SFA staff, Directors/Senior Management of the clubs, with a leavening of the Great & the Good.
If there is a magic Circle of connectedness, its because the clubs have put it in place, or sat back and allowed it happen.
Like every association, the SFA is the creature its members create,
I cannot begin to describe the level of contempt I feel for the clubs who hide behind the Aunt Sallys, while whining about Big Boys who do their dirty work.
I think that the SFA has always represented itself as a quasi-legal authority which gives it a status to which it has never been entitled. The separation of office from individual club officialdom is one of the sleight-of-hand measures that allows the myth of quasi-legal status to be perpetuated. Busting that myth (that the SFA is running football for the good of the game – not as the reality suggests for the enrichment of the owners of clubs) is the first part in the process of achieving change.
Not a great leap then, in these days of “customers – not fans” and consumer democracy to imagine a construct that might regulate the sport on behalf of the consumer.
In fact just take the SFA structure and turn it into a Quango where conflicts of interest can be easily avoided. Draft a constitution which guarantees sporting integrity as the paramount consideration of all competition, and levy the clubs to fund the structure with some sports council money added to the mix to build in some public accountability.
The clubs can still have the SPFL as their marketing cartel. Fixed!
Accompanied by a celebratory flypast of RAF Pork Squadron 🙂
scapaflow says:
March 27, 2015 at 9:18 am
(Incidentally, Auldheid and his merry band of insurrectionists, are effecting change at Celtic, slowly, painfully, but, change none the less. Good on them)
______________________________________________________
As opposed to King and his merry band of resurrectionists trying to convince us all with the help of our enfeebled legislators, that the dead walk among us.
The VB believe the behaviour described underneath is an offence under the OBF Act. I don’t.
I won’t go down the road of explaining that I seldom remember a Scottish football occasion when the UK National Anthem wasn’t booed to a greater or lesser extent. But tradition, history and repetition doesn’t make it right. And the VB would do well to remember that wrt songs they support and sing.
Firstly: Even if the booing was an anti-English or anti-British statement this doesn’t necessarily mean that there is a strong case the Act has been contravened.
But let’s look at the legal technicality of the VB claim. To commit an offence under the 2012 Act a person must express hatred or stir-up hatred against an individual or group of people based on their actual or presumed membership of:
IMO it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for the above to apply to fans who perceived themselves to be English or British. I also seriously doubt that ‘booing’ could be taken as expressing hatred or stirring-up hatred. It would be difficult IMO to put it any higher than an expression of disapproval against the UK National Anthem.
People have the legal right to freedom of expression to boo their and any other national anthem as long as they don’t fall foul of the Act in doing so. Some might think it discourteous and even though they would never sing the anthem in question they simply remain silent when it is played.
That is their choice although it wouldn’t surprise me if agenda-driven others preceived this as mute insubordination and also believed it to be unacceptable and even threatening. And this is the problem because under the Act the behaviour has to be threatening or that a reasonable person would be likely to consider as offensive.
In my experience this mythical ‘reasonable person’ has been directly implicated in many of the worst legal decisions in the UK. I tend to think one man’s ‘reasonable person’ is another man’s ‘hate-filled bigot’ when it comes to the 2012 Act.
With regard to 2(a)(iii) a group has to be defined by reference to: (a) colour, (b) race, (c) nationality (including citizenship), (d) ethnic or national origins, (e) sexual orientation, (f) transgender identity, (g) disability.
It would appear that ‘(c) nationality (including citizenship)’ would have to be the ‘group’ identifier for the VB position and therein lies the problem for them in claiming the booing was anti-English or anti-British.
British Citizenship encompasses virtually everyone living in England, Scotland, Wales and Northen Ireland. Therefore if the VB are correct those doing the booing were booing themselves.
OK what about ‘Nationality’? Looking at myself: I am Scottish by Nationality although my forbears were Irish so perhaps its more correct to think of myself as Celtic. That terms applies to a lot of Scots especially on the West Coast and is not tied to any single religious affiliation.
In terms of ‘Citizenship’ I regard myself as a UK ‘Citizen’ because I have a UK Passport. However many people legally have dual citizenship.
I voted ‘NO’ in the recent Referendum but did so on mainly economic grounds and out of a Loyalty to my parents, grandparents and other relatives who served in two World Wars and in peacetime in the British Army. I don’t sing the UK National Anthem but would never boo it for a variety of reasons but mainly because my Protestant and Catholic grandads and my Catholic mother and Protestant dad sung it with pride because of the wartime service.
But I have no problem with others booing it – that is their decision and their right just like Scots who sing the UK National Anthem. I regard Floer of Scotland as my National Anthem.
At the end of the day the VB haven’t IMO shown that any potential breach of the legislation took place and I have not commented on any aspect of the poor cowed English and British who presumably were too terrified at Hampden to answer in kind 🙂
However – and it may surprise – I do have common ground with the VB when they demand of the SFA:
All I humbly request is that they add the disgusting and actually sectarian songs from the Rangers Song Book recently aired and heard the length and breadth of the UK and which actually meet the conditions for bringing criminal charges under the Act.
Of course they won’t because they are not into equality under the law but simply reigning supreme to defend a dying culture in a tiny bit of the UK that would dearly love to abandon it and will at some not too distant point. As we all know it has nothing to do with football!
Big Pink says:
March 27, 2015 at 1:09 pm
😆
Having spent, what often feels like several lifetimes, on boards (and sometimes in one meeting or so it feels
) , the divorcing yourself from the sectional interests of your parent organisation is actually very difficult.
However, I don’t think that’s the issue here. Any rational decision making process has to be evidence based. However both the SFA & SPFL seem to approach decision making from the perspective of an idée fixe. That both orgs suffer from this is hardly surprising, since they are both run by pretty much the same, small, self-selecting, self-satisfied, smug, group of people!
This problem makes implementing change much, much harder, as its not just the structures & processes you need to change, but also the people. In this case the personnel change required is to boot their smug, self-satisfied arses out the nearest window.
Oy,
Don’t bring me into it!
Eco & Scapa
Some very good points about the show trial, but my feeling is that L&L are pros not RRM. They will have acted with precision to avoid gross misconduct for the exact purpose of denying a propaganda coup to the RRM. If the new regime could have fired L&L on the spot, it would have had much more value at EGM time and would have been done by now without question. The weak aspersions being cast suggest to me that the L&L show trial will be exactly that – no due process involved, no guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Lots of bluster and lots of gardening.
As for King and the Nomad – again actions would have been more valuable earlier. I think King would prefer to delist to reduce scrutiny and then dilute Ashley’s shareholding – on the assumption Ashley will not put in more cash without terms – but that strategy relies on a sizeable cadre of RRM willing to “invest” considerable amounts over a considerable period – although the RRM regime will have the enthusiastic support of the SFA and SPFL in all they do – which Ashley didn’t seem to enjoy.
However, it is inescapable that even the best scenario with the best financial minds is still a financial lead balloon. The new regime’s inability to be honest with themselves and the masses will be the only issue that matters. Extreme austerity and survival or WATP and insolvency. There is no WATP and survival option – there just aren’t that many RRM philanthropists.
scapaflow says:
March 27, 2015 at 10:54 am
ecobhoy says:
March 27, 2015 at 10:42 am
Close Hampden, sell for re-development
Build a more appropriate venue for Queens Park, (planning gain could be used to advantage here, or even ground share with a certain new club, which is also stuck with an ageing white elephant)
Move the admin, coaching & refereeing etc functions to Murray Park
Murray Park, suitably renamed, becomes the home of Scottish Football
Simple, really!
7 20 Rate This
*******
The only people who can sell Hampden are QPFC as they are still owners.
The SFA & SPFL are merely tenants paying an annual rent which I believe is offset against some of the redevelopment costs. As far as I recall, the lease was not particularly long – 25years? (under HM Treasury rules – as a recipient of public funds – it should have been minimum 99 years or usable life of asset)
There may be break clauses in leases (normal practice would be every 5 years), otherwise the SFA are stuck with Hampden until sometime in the next decade.
PS: Corsica looked at it and said site was not particularly desirable for housebuilders due to remediation and decontamination costs so probably worthless on open market.
alzipratu says:
March 27, 2015 at 2:07 pm
Cheers, every day is a school day! ( I had thought it had been hived off to a trust, run by the usual suspects)
blu says:
March 27, 2015 at 12:10 pm
castaway,who has an in-built majority,and to what end?
There are least three club reps in that group (pro-game board) and Peter L isn’t a club chairman.
————-
4 SFA office bearers out of 7 members on the main board. Office bearers do as required of them or cease to be office bearers.
Whatever you need a majority vote for.
—————
Yes you’re right, I got the designations wrong, but the point I’m making still holds. The PG board has 9 members plus chair, as follows: SFA x 4, SFL x 2 SPL x 3 (only one from a club), SHFL x 1.
There’s a comfortable majority there for established practices. To get any reform past them, then past the main board would take two major miracles, I believe.
A clearout is needed. Sorry I didn’t make my point clearly.
“Football Number One Investment ”
How do you take the new regime seriously when they open with:
“The short-term has been about stabilising the club’s finances and we did that on Monday with the announcement of the £1.5million loan and there will be further investment in the club in the short-term as well.” [to pay next month’s wages]
and follow with:
“We are currently piecing through the figures so we understand exactly what the club’s financial obligations are.” After three weeks and a 127 day report we still don’t understand our cost base.
And the clincher:
“We are still working through timescales for our investment and it will take that amount [the £20mil that Wallace said] of money to return the club to a competitive level in the Premiership and in Europe. ”
Glorious delusions !!!
http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/8912-pm-2-football-number-one-investment
p.s. what did you decide on the first item on the agenda – have you fired L&L ?
Fairways says:
March 27, 2015 at 10:50 am
A question.
Clearly there was lamb then, lamb now and will be lamb in the future.
But to what extent are Keef and others involved in the message(s) emanating from Ibrox?
Are they simply regurgitating press releases, have they also had a chat with the relevant PR guy or are they privy to discussions on how the message arc will be managed and played out over a period of time?
=========================================================
IMO, based on the output of the print SMSM – and Keef in particular – nothing has changed.
Maybe the chat with the PR guy is restricted to : “Right Keef print this.”
The copy/paste jobs continue since pre-RTC days;
– no quotes
– unqualified statements
– lack of balance / counter points
– no subtlety, just a blunt message or deflection
– etc.
Keef has been called out / caught out so many times over the last 3 years in particular that shirley even the most loyal bear dismisses his output now ?
If anyone takes what Keef prints now as the truth, then they should forcibly have
“THICK AS MINCE”
tattooed on their forehead.
Really.
[But the real joke is that Keef will probably win 4-in-a-row at next month’s Scottish Press Awards as ‘Sports News Writer of the Year’ ! 👿 ]
Nothing changes…except the terminal decline of the print media circulations.
castaway says:
March 27, 2015 at 2:30 pm
There is an AGM every year, where clubs can bring forward rule changes, new office bearers etc etc etc. (In fact Regan brought forward some modest changes recently, only for the bar stewards to vote them down http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/scottish-clubs-vote-down-sfa-1946579)
Sorry, there is no place for the clubs to hide, the ultimate responsibility is theirs, its their association.
All the clubs need is the desire and the will to change things, there is no desire, no will to change things, because for all the private whining, they like it as it was, is, and God help us, will be.
If this is Paul’s idea of clarification, then I think I understand the underlying problem at Ibrox 🙂
Murray added: “To clarify a few things with people, this is quite a complex area and it is also a bit dry as well.
“The decision taken by WH Ireland, the previous NOMAD, to resign on March 4 triggered a suspension of the club’s shares on the AIM market on that day and you then, under that regulation, have 30 days to lift that suspension.
“There are two separate issues here, firstly the nomad replacing the previous nomad, which we are in discussions to try and do.
“But there is also the AIM regulator as well and they have to be satisfied with the company and the procedures around the company.
“We have until April 4 to do that but that timescale wasn’t to our choosing, it was actually forced upon us by the resignation of WH Ireland and we’re working very hard to comply with that timescale.
“We have said all along that Rangers International Football Club is a public company and that decision was taken some time ago, whether it should be a listed company is another question.
“We have said that we will endeavour to have the listing restarted and have the suspension lifted so that is what we will do and that is the plan we have.”
http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/8907-we-will-be-fit-and-proper
scapaflow says:
March 27, 2015 at 1:31 pm
Having spent, what often feels like several lifetimes, on boards (and sometimes in one meeting or so it feels
) , the divorcing yourself from the sectional interests of your parent organisation is actually very difficult.
____________________________________
That’s my point scapa. There is a perceived separation that doesn’t actually exist, and before any change takes place, the vested interests which are currently clinging to the hull of SS Scottish Fitba like barnacles would have be blow-torched away.
Although a progressive Scottish government could always legislate despite those vested interests couldn’t they?
Then the clubs could honestly say “it was the SFA wot dun it!” with far more plausibility than they can now.
Question: Why isn’t something so important to the life of the country already regulated?
Big Pink says:
March 27, 2015 at 2:53 pm
The pols view getting involved in the workings of fitba as a lose/lose. I’m pretty sure, in fact I know, they took note of the reaction to those from all parties, who were unwise enough to wade into the Rangers mess.
They will need some distance between them and any action, so the best you can hope for is some sort of statutory commission, producing an “independent” report, which would then be enacted in full as quickly and quietly as possible. At which point, the pols will go back to sticking their hands in their pockets and whistling.
alzipratu says:
March 27, 2015 at 2:07 pm
PS: Corsica looked at it and said site was not particularly desirable for housebuilders due to remediation and decontamination costs so probably worthless on open market.
—————————————————————
Blimey, decontamination costs? Something to do with there being Rangers ends and Celtic ends perhaps 😛
I assume that’s for the surrounding land rather than the ground itself or am I missing something!?
mcfc says:
March 27, 2015 at 2:53 pm
…
Murray added: …
“…We have said all along that Rangers International Football Club is a public company and that decision was taken some time ago, whether it should be a listed company is another question….”
I’m getting a headache now…! 😉
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32082798
The new chairman at Rugby Park, Mr Jim Mann speaks to the press.
This paragraph stood out. 💡
“Thirdly, like all sport bodies it’s about living within your means. It’s a very simple strategy about getting revenues up and cost down. I know it sounds not very earth-shattering but you’d be surprised how often that’s not the principle. I can assure you that is going to be the principle here.”
I wonder if we’ll be reading the same from the interim chairman of RIFC PLC after the first board meeting of the post EGM era. :irony:
The Cat NR1 says:
March 27, 2015 at 3:11 pm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32082798
“Thirdly, like all sport bodies it’s about living within your means….
=================================================
Cat – you had me for a monent there – thought I’d missed part of Murray (P)’s interview – LOLOL
mcfc says:
March 27, 2015 at 3:17 pm
The Cat NR1 says:
March 27, 2015 at 3:11 pm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32082798
“Thirdly, like all sport bodies it’s about living within your means….
=================================================
Cat – you had me for a monent there – thought I’d missed part of Murray (P)’s interview – LOLOL
============================
We can but hope.
Maybe we’ll read something along those lines next Wednesday though. 😀
scapaflow says:
March 27, 2015 at 12:34 pm
Like every association, the SFA is the creature its members create.
====================================
That’s it exactly. And who are the key members of influence over many years? The system has been grown mainly by those moving between Glasgow SW1/G51 and Park Place/Hampden, and back again at times, or friends and associates hoping for such a move. For whose benefit has the setup been developed?
Some things never change. The whole thing is rotten and must be cleared out if we’re to progress.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/11402097/Rangers-news-Dave-King-supplies-evidence-to-pass-fit-and-proper-test.html
“This reinforces my previous statements that WH Ireland is not a fit and proper Nomad for the club and must be removed following the general meeting. I have already, in writing and verbally, advised WH Ireland that I expect to receive their resignation immediately upon successful conclusion of the general meeting.”
http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/8907-we-will-be-fit-and-proper
“The decision taken by WH Ireland, the previous NOMAD, to resign on March 4 triggered a suspension of the club’s shares on the AIM market on that day and you then, under that regulation, have 30 days to lift that suspension.
“We have until April 4 to do that but that timescale wasn’t to our choosing, it was actually forced upon us by the resignation of WH Ireland and we’re working very hard to comply with that timescale.
=============================================
So by anyone’s reckoning Mini Murray seems to have lost a total of 2 whole days in the requistioner’s plan to change Nomad.
Telling the Nomad in advance that you thought they were not fit and proper and were going to be fired tends to make one believe (in the real world) there was a good chance they would jump before being pushed so in terms of forward planning and risk management then surely you would have that base covered.
Does a free brass neck get issued with the brown brouges, blazers and ties?
Tick Tock
mcfc says:
March 27, 2015 at 2:53 pm
“We have until April 4 to do that but that timescale wasn’t to our choosing, it was actually forced upon us by the resignation of WH Ireland and we’re working very hard to comply with that timescale.
—————————————————-
But hadn’t the King/Bear trio made a big song and dance in the leadup to the EGM that they were going to give WH Ireland the boot in short order? If so, they can hardly blame them for jumping before they were pushed.
(Edit: Snap – I took too long to send this off! I blame the cat for distracting me. Mods please delete if you wish, as the post above eloquently covers this ground already)
Adding a bit of detail to my earlier posts about the need for Rangers to start to think realistically about what is possible and also the urgent need to manage the expectations of the support.
The revenue numbers for the last 10 years of Rangers Oldco are quite a compelling argument for a bit of lowered expectation and an awful lot less bragging about falsely claiming to be the biggest club in the country.
I don’t say this to irritate anyone of a blue persuausion , rather it’s time that the facts of the matter underpinned the discussion rather than hubris and easily made and just as easily disproved claims.
The Revenue for each club in the 10 years prior to Rangers liquidation was as follows ( £Millions)
Celtic – Rangers
2010 /61.71 / 56.29
2009 / 72.58 / 39.7
2008 /72.59 / 64.45
2007 /75.23 / 41.77
2006 / 57.41 / 61.16
2005 /62.16 / 55.13
2004 /69.02 / 57.07
2003 /60.57 /49.03
2002 /56.89 / 44.81
2001 /42.00 / 47.04
The average for that 10 year period was :
Celtic £63.01 Million a year
Rangers £51.64 Million a year
That gave Celtic an average extra annual revenue of £11.37 million a year. This encompassed a period where Rangers had excellent players and largely full match day attendances. Yet Celtic still had an enormous financial advantage.
The 5 year period of 2006-2010 provided the following results.
Celtic £67.90 Million a year
Rangers £52.67 Million a year
Therefore the recent advantage to Celtic in the 5 years before liquidation was extra annual revenue of £15.23 . This was in part due to idiotic decisions taken by David Murray and partly because overall Murray wasn’t a good businessman. He was merely a silver tongued guy with friends in Banks who did not apply normal underwriting criteria. The deal that Murray did at the start of this period on Mercandising was beyond stupid and increased the gulf between the clubs.
The 5 year period from 2001-2005 was one where Rangers had normal revenue conditions in that Murray had not yet hawked off the family silver of merchandising revenue to pay for previous bad decisions he had made
Celtic £58.12 Million a year
Rangers £50.61 Million a year
Therefore its clear that even when Rangers own all of their own revenue streams Celtic still had annual revenues which were nearly £8 million a year greater than Rangers.
There are 2 lessons to be learned from these numbers.
1 Celtic are a much much bigger club/ business than Rangers. They are also a much better managed business. Once people of a Rangers persuasion understand this they can maybe reduce the rhetoric and the hubris. This isn’t to say they can’t aspire to compete and to win , but a little realism would be appropriate.
2 The current situation, and the mid term future will see even bigger gaps between the 2 Clubs. King and Murray can bang the drum for all they are worth. £20 million won’t get close to Celtic. The fundamentals of Rangers are such that they cannot afford vanity projects such as Auchenhowie. They cannot afford a Scott Brown or even a Nir Biton. They haven’t got young talent anywhere close to Liam Henderson .
Expectations of a return to parity are just idiotic, because parity hasn’t existed since MON arrived. Kings grandiose bragging about winning 55% of titles shows him in his true light. Someone who will say anything for a headline and someone who is not prepared to address the reality of the situation, and who continues to promote a false reality.
Change has to start from within if Rangers are to get close to achieving any kind of challenge
Barcabhoy says:
March 27, 2015 at 3:44 pm
=============================
Ouch! Your name will also go on the list.
A friend recently passed me filleted copies of Private Eye’s In the City column. One from the beginning of the year, entitled “Whyte Noise”, was a long analysis of the dealings in and subsequent suspension of the shares of Worthington Group.
Opening sentence: “the most spectacular London stock market performer of 2014 was Worthington Group, whose share price rose more than 2,600 per cent – and that in just six weeks between trading suspensions.”
To quote two subsequent paragraphs, the first to set the context:
“In May 2013 Eye 1339 detailed the previous business links between Worthington chairman Douglas Ware and close associates of [Craig] Whyte, the Earley brothers Aidan and Wulstan. Companies linked to both Whyte and the Earleys were or had been major shareholders in Worthington at the time share dealings resumed in August 2014.”
And the second, the penultimate paragraph of the analysis:
“The biggest holders of Worthington loan notes – £1m with the right to buy 20m shares at 5p – were the vendors of Law Financial, a company of which Craig Whyte was until last August a director. They were two offshore companies (Gold Manson and Korissa Capital) plus Liberty Capital Markets – shareholder Wulstan Earley. LCM was struck off last August. Law Financial maintains that it holds investments worth £10m, which would seem to be a legal claim to the Rangers “newco” assets – the value of which may be problematic, given the club’s desperate need for cash.”
The phrasing – “… which would seem to be a legal claim …” suggests an uncertainty on the part of the (anonymous) writer. Can any of our learned friends on TSFM add any greater certainty and provide anything substantive as regards Law Financial and TRFC ?
Murray (P); “The one thing that I would say on that is that you can rely on us to give you total transparency, total honesty and total openness. ”
Well if today’s interview is anything to go by, I think I need a new dictionary.
http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/8911-transparent-open-and-honest
Don’t tell them your name, Barca
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0V3SqxUomwk
Edit
TFIF off to the pub for Miller Time
March 2014 -King
‘My view of what it will take to make Rangers competitive again is bottom end £30m but probably £50m — over the next four years,’ King told Sportsmail.
6 March 2015 -King
“A rough figure is that more than 50% [of the upwards of £20m estimated needed for investment, will be spent on the football side].
Today – Murray
“We did say what the level of investment would probably be and we agree with Graham Wallace when he said there would probably have to be £20 million put in over three years.
How much will the required level of investment sink to next week along with what extended timescale?
scapaflow says:
March 27, 2015 at 12:34 pm
castaway says:
March 27, 2015 at 11:46 am
The various committees seem be staffed with a mixture of SFA staff, Directors/Senior Management of the clubs, with a leavening of the Great & the Good.
If there is a magic Circle of connectedness, its because the clubs have put it in place, or sat back and allowed it happen.
Like every association, the SFA is the creature its members create,
=============================================
That may be true in the early years of development, but there is an independent evolution of these types of organisation and they take on their own identity quite distinct from those involved in their setting up.
Look at government/church etc, and in a sporting environment UCI and FIA etc.
The McLeish Report was supposed to herald a new era, but nothing seems to have really happened to change the cultural mindset. Wotte has and come and gone. Lunny has come and gone. But the hot and cold ball comments still arrive every cup draw, and the perception of an absence of a without fear or favour approach remains.
This article from ten years ago shows the state that the English FA had got into.
Has the Blazer Brigade doomed football?
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2005/jul/02/newsstory.sport
Things have changed since, as the question is now “Has the Sky TV deal doomed football?”
“The Ibrox interim chairman said the new board have had no discussions with tycoon Ashley or Sports Direct since they grabbed power at last month’s EGM.”
http://news.stv.tv/west-central/315322-rangers-chairman-paul-murray-says-club-does-not-need-mike-ashley/
You know I think Ashley anticipated RIFC plc de-listing because a) King has problems with F&P and/or b) King wants less scrutiny. Once the L&L show trial is over, we’ll see how naughty Ashley is. Could he possibly re-appoint L&L as his two directors to keep an eye on the RRM? Well, why not? If the RRM don’t like it they can simply pay back the first tranche in full (£5mil). Apparently King has that much in a whisky jar by his bed.
Carlyle says: March 27, 2015 at 4:14 pm
The phrasing – “… which would seem to be a legal claim …” suggests an uncertainty on the part of the (anonymous) writer. Can any of our learned friends on TSFM add any greater certainty and provide anything substantive as regards Law Financial and TRFC ?
==========================
Worthington’s last set of accounts was published on 29/08/14 and covered the period up to 31 March 2014.
http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulatory-news.asp?shareprice=WRN&ArticleCode=pr0ic25l&ArticleHeadline=Final_Results
Law Financial and Rangers are mentioned a few times in the accounts. Here are some extracts:
The above is the source of the information that Worthington (via Law Financial and Sevco 5088) have a legal claim against TRFC, which they value at £10M having purchased Law Financial for £1M.
Separately
Following an announcement earlier this week, Worthington appear to have reached a settlement in the Jerome case, although no numbers were published.