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.
easyJambo says:
March 30, 2015 at 10:28 am
I wonder if we will see the interim accounts that are due to be published by tomorrow, or if that will be another excuse for de-listing.
=======================
I will be very surprised if interim accounts appear by tomorrow. If they don’t, it’s certainly another very good reason for any prospective NOMAD to do walking away. I think that the whole NOMAD issue highlights a complete lack of honesty in dealing with the shareholders. I posted a while ago that suspension/delisting could have a serious downside for medium size shareholders. Yet assurances were given by King in advance of the EGM that turn out to have been worthless. I think King favoured delisting all along, but we will see for sure by the end of the week. I don’t expect to be surprised.
In other news, Newcastle United post record profits:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32113614
mcfc :
March 30, 2015 at 10:52 am
AFAIU it it the SFA’s position, that under article 10 of The Articles of Association, it is the outgoing boards (Llambias / Leach/ Easdale) responsibility to ensure F&PP status and that THEY need to approve King AND Murray to be on the Footballing Company Board. (“Rangers the Club”, which is TRFCLtd not the PLC)
Ashley doesn’t need to do ‘diddlysquat’ at the moment……
Whether or not the AIM deadline is running out for appointment of a NOMAD, it has clearly expired for the G&SL who said (acc Daily Record, dated 7th March).
“He will appoint a nomad next week, he says, which will provide confidence to the city and potential investors over his suitability,…”
https://archive.today/qDwfS
easyJambo:
March 30, 2015 at 10:28 am
IIRC did the old Rangers not do this (delay) and subsequently the new Rangers do same. Its something to do with ‘GROUP’ accounts ?
I’m not sure of my facts here, so happy to be corrected / educated.
Does King still need a positiive CoS ruling if RIFC plc are delisted ?
Could he simply take up his position as Chariman of a privately held RIFC
plcLtd ?The Easter timing could be highly symbolic for a Messiah.
Is anyone cynical enough to suggest the timing would not be pure coincidence ?
Auldheid says:
March 29, 2015 at 8:54 pm
“That core sporting notion has been lost in treating football like each club is a stand alone independent business. That is clearly unreal and as I say reality always asserts itself.”
=====================================================
Very true Auldheid. There needs to be greater collaboration. Football leagues like ours, and maybe the “big” leagues even more so, look tailor made for this kind of co-operation in competition.
Co-opetition’s the only game. It needs a great deal of trust – not easy to come by where money’s involved – tied in by contract of course.
On 5th May next from 4pm to 5pm, Harvard Business Review is running a webinar on the subject, titled “You Can’t Collaborate Unless You Agree on the Problem”. Maybe that’s where our fitba’ needs to start.
There should be some good relevant stuff on there. Ford and Toyota and other giants of industry have managed to deal. Can 42 professional, and 45 or so amateur clubs do likewise?
mcfc says:
March 30, 2015 at 12:37 pm
I’m not sure of my facts here, so happy to be corrected / educated.
Does King still need a positiive CoS ruling if RIFC plc are delisted ?
=============
The listed status is irrelevant, the Insolvency Act makes no distinction. The crucial point is whether the new company trades under a similar name to the insolvent predecessor. I don’t think there is any doubt that it does. So he needs court clearance before becoming a director.
mcfc:
March 30, 2015 at 12:37 pm
No, still needs Court approval for successor company involvement. Otherwise he easily could have been on the board of the “Footballing Company”, TRFCLtd ……
TBK says:
March 30, 2015 at 12:55 pm
neepheid says:
March 30, 2015 at 12:55 pm
======================================================================
Thanks – both for putting me straight.
TBK says: March 30, 2015 at 11:06 am
easyJambo:
March 30, 2015 at 10:28 am
IIRC did the old Rangers not do this (delay) and subsequently the new Rangers do same. Its something to do with ‘GROUP’ accounts ?
=========================
Not to my knowledge. The interim accounts were published on 27th March last year.
The publication of interim accounts is a requirement of a listed company. Should RIFC de-list then there would be no requirement and they could revert to annual accounts only.
You think BBC Scotland reporting is bad.
WSL 1: Birmingham City Ladies 0-0 Manchester City Women
Someone on Radio 5 Live, not certain who, described Birmingham Ladies as finishing with “ten men” after Freda Ayisi was red carded.
Ibrox Noise getting worried about a Nomad without ecxplaining why but gaining some solace from the “fact” that negotiations are held in confidence so boardroom silence is not necessarily a bad sign. I don’t remember King being shy about predicting the appointments of a Nomad ( or plan to fire one).
http://www.ibroxnoise.co.uk/2015/03/nomad-time-is-running-out-fast.html
The time to start thinking about a replacement Nomad was 16th Jan when King was proposed as a director – but King said all the right things and no-one asked him to explain.
http://rangers.g3dhosting.com/regulatory_news_article/454
Will Ashley use delisting as the reason for appointing his two directors to the RIFC baord – to ensure scrutiny that is no longer required on AIM. Who could object to that. Whoever he chooses will be fully briefed by L & L so will probably be more knowledgeable and possibly more qualified/professional than the rest of the board.
easyJambo:
March 30, 2015 at 12:59 pm
Thanks EJ. I thought it was something to do with the 13month account period. Not my field I’m afraid. Just recall something about previous delays.
“He will appoint a nomad next week, he says, which will provide confidence to the city and potential investors over his suitability,…”
King & Co can’t be blamed for making this statement. After all they were “sunk into a large leather sofa” when the G&SL said it. It was the sofa made them say it. That large leather sofa is worse than succulent lamb.
https://archive.today/qDwfS
6th March, Evening Times
King said: “I think the point I wanted to make is it’s not my Nomad. The club has to have a Nomad.
“I think Llambias should understand that. He’s confusing the AIM listing with the club. It’s the club that has to have the Nomad.
[[I think King is confusing the club with the plc, mcfc]]
“All I have done is, in advance of the change of board, ensured there is another Nomad willing to come in. The club has to appoint them so that process can only happen after the general meeting.
“I’ve got one [lined up] who has done due diligence on the individuals but the key component for any Nomad is the club itself.
“Nomads are concerned about the financial affairs of the club. It’s the one area where I’ve been able to give no more input than what I’ve read in the newspapers.
“If we succeed [today], and I think we will, then we will get it immediately. It’s a process that would be done in a day or so.”
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/rangers/king-nomad-will-be-in-place-for-rangers-rebuilding-job-199432n.120044477
Loved this line from breathless Gary Ralston on the day of the “coronation”.
“The public celebration of the club’s new powerbrokers was moved to the press room, where the lights from TV cameras meant King cast a shadow over the Sports Direct logo behind his shoulder.”
————-
Now here was silly Me thinking the SD Logos were looking over at the GLIB one with MA and his team probably having a nice wee chuckle.
Ah, the Daily Record, another gift that keeps on courageously giving. :slamb:
From that same article, 6th March, Evening Times. Did excitement at getting a new blazer get the better of King ?
He [King] said: “The arrangement that I’ve had in the proposals that I gave to the boards was that I would take on 50% of the funding and that I expected other individuals to take on the other 50%.
“That’s where your Paul Murrays, George Lethams, Brian Kennedys and Douglas Parks all come in.
“It would be a 50/50 split but I don’t see me as carrying the sole burden. Initially we thought £16m to £20m would be the right level for the next couple of years … but right now my indication is that the figure would be higher.”
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/rangers/king-nomad-will-be-in-place-for-rangers-rebuilding-job-199432n.120044477
To be a good public liar you need a good memory – a better memory than the internet.
The issue is limited liability not public listing, should he benefit from that when, even in the last month statements have been made which appear to deviate from factual accuracy, not only that but the pre EGM and post EGM differences in position are such that if the accurate position had been known pre EGM the outcome could gave been different. Rather than rubbishing the statement about suspension and delisting its accuracy could have been accepted. So what should have been said was that yes the company will be delisted and your small share holdings will be rendered effectively worthless. Many would have regarded that as a price worth paying others might have been relying on getting the money spent back to pay for the weans Christmas -a bit like that catalogue company that went bust. In either case the information should have been known pre EGM to allow informed decision making.
The acceptance of delisting in these circumstances as a good thing despite what has been said is undignified and looks like wilful blindness.
And finally, 6th March, Evening Times.
The former Light Blues director has been at the forefront of the fight for many years and knows a significant job awaits as he looks to turnaround Rangers’ fortunes on and off the field.
He said: “I am ready. It is something I have been working on for a couple of years.
“It is a little bit daunting to think of what we now have to do. The one thing that is clear to me, when I look at the club now versus last year when I tried to get in, I think the club is broken.
“It is not just the team. The stadium, the infrastructure, the whole value system within the club has disappeared.
“That is why I think it is absolutely critical that we hit the ground running. After [today] we have really got to go and kick-start it and inject a bit of energy.”
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/rangers/king-nomad-will-be-in-place-for-rangers-rebuilding-job-199432n.120044477
mcfc says:
March 30, 2015 at 2:05 pm
“It is not just the team. The stadium, the infrastructure, the whole value system within the club has disappeared.
—————————————————————–
Poor souls, to think he could have bought the entire club for peanuts back before the team the stadium, the infrastructure, the whole value system (eh?) within the club had disappeared.
Why did he let Green in to do his worst? The SA court case maybe? Sickening isn’t it when things go pear shaped just cos you dabble in some minor criminal tax evasion…
LSE forum contributors counting down to delisting and the end of their debate. Hope the trolls don’t move here they’ve been very motivated (paid?) and successful disrupting sensible discussion of the prospects of the shares.
http://www.lse.co.uk/SharePrice.asp?shareprice=RFC
the conclusions section of this ….http://epapers.bham.ac.uk/1725/1/2013-05_E_Kashefi_Pour_and_M_Lasfer.pdf ……. may be an interesting read for some.
“5. Conclusions
We find evidence that firms delist voluntarily from the London Alternative Investment Market when they are not able to raise equity, their growth opportunities and profitability are low, and they generative negative returns.
In contrast, firms that transfer to the Main market generate positive returns and have high growth potential, suggesting that these firms move to the larger and more regulated stock market to increase their choice probability of raising external financing, even though this entails higher regulatory costs.
Firms that delist because of breach of regulation and those that delist through reverse takeovers generate also negative returns……….We show that firms that could not raise further equity capital are more likely to opt for voluntary delisting……..”
Voluntary delisting, as in ‘deliberately’ not appointing a NOMAD 😉
TBK says:
March 30, 2015 at 2:16 pm
Voluntary delisting, as in ‘deliberately’ not appointing a NOMAD 😉
==================
I think that by voluntary delisting, they mean a company whose shareholders actually vote to delist (75% vote required).
RIFC are close to being booted out for failure to obey the rules of the AIM market. If only Scottish football worked in a similar way.
Does a plc have to issue an AIM announcement that it is de-listing from AIM, with reasons, or will the masses be left to hope/trust that the board still have a rabbit to pull out of a hat?
neepheid:
March 30, 2015 at 2:23 pm
Apologies, it was my attempt at humour.
mcfc :
March 30, 2015 at 2:36 pm
No. AIM will put up a notice http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail/12270223.html
TBK says:
March 30, 2015 at 2:40 pm
No. AIM will put up a notice http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail/12270223.html
========================================================
Thanks – Am I right to think that will be Thursday pm – rather than Tuesday am ? Assuming that Murray (P) is not about to earn the nickname “Houdini” !
At the beginning of March I wrote the following:-
Yerevan says:
March 4, 2015 at 3:18 am
Just submitted an online complaint form to the BBC concerning the misleading and inaccurate article by Richard Wilson where he implies King is exempt from the Insolvency Act s216.
I also requested that the article be corrected.
Watch this space.
273 3 Rate This
This morning I received the following reply:-
Thank you for contacting BBC Sport.
We have now amended the copy and appreciate your feedback.
Kind regards,
Colin,
BBC Sport
The “offending” inaccuracy I complained about was contained in the paragraph “Section 216 of the Insolvency Act prevents directors of a company that enters liquidation from becoming directors of a company with a similar name. There are exceptions, though, including if directors are being appointed to a company that has been using the name for more than 12 months, as is the case with Rangers International Football Club Plc.”
The article I now see has been amended to now read:-
“Section 216 of the Insolvency Act prevents directors of a company that enters liquidation from becoming directors of a company with a similar name. King has applied to the Court of Session for permission to become a director of Rangers International Football Club.”
Although it’s taken almost 4 weeks to receive a (curt) response to my complaint, it does demonstrate that if challenged about inaccurate articles then they (BBC) will respond.
Perhaps even Richard Wilson will be more careful in his use of Level5 pr issued propaganda in future.
mcfc@1.01pm
………..
geez, at this time o night ( 1205 am Brisbane time, Tuesday) you’ve brought s nostalgic, faintly Fat Yak beerish tear to my eye, recollecting the kind of
gaffes of David Coleman, famously recorded by
‘Private Eye’ as “Colemanballs”.
The tear is not so much for Coleman himself, but
for the days when I believed that sport generally,
and football in particular, were clean.
That a monstrous cheat of the likes of SDM –
who,let us remind our own club owners and
directors,cheated them for years with a
fat,hubristic,lying smile on his face-should not only
arise, but should be worshipped and arselicked by
media trash that would have been spat upon by
Coleman, has actually been an emotional punch in the guts.
And the fact that the slimy thing has avoided any kind of public censure?. Tells us a lot about our media men here . None of it good.
mcfc says:
March 30, 2015 at 2:16 pm
============================
I’ll have you know I’m already here. I’ve been posting on the LSE site for a couple of months trying to throw a spanner in the works of and rain on the triumphalist parade of the pro king lobby led by Cambridgeblue. I’ve been a little mischievous in pointing out some inconveneient facts for them.
Well done, Yerevan. Without suggesting a need to organise TSFM ‘campaigns’ I honestly feel that we all need to do much more of this individual challenging of some of the sh*t we see reported as facts, or even when reports aren’t clear enough as to be understood fully by the man in the street. (I hope to be able to post tomorrow on my exchange with Darryl B on the John Guidetti charge.
Even if it seems like there is no public acknowledgement of the error or change to an article, we must let them know that whatever they do is under scrutiny. That might be enough to curb some of the excesses, be that in the SFA, SPFL SMSM wherever.
mcfc says:
March 30, 2015 at 2:16 pm
————————————————————
i like Tom Winnifith’s description of that lse forum as the ‘asylum’. very appropriate. It is infested with posters who clearly have vested interests. their arguments would be torn down in seconds over here.
the RFC and WRN boards have particularly high levels of comedy.
mcfc :
March 30, 2015 at 2:48 pm
I would reckon it will be Tuesday. There is also the small matter of 6mth accounts due this week.
From STV, the team who doesnt really want promotion.
====
Brora Rangers chairman John Young says his club will take part in the first ever SPFL Pyramid Play-Off match after exploring all options to avoid competing.
Brora retained their Highland League title this weekend after beating Turriff 2-1 to set up a showdown with Lowland League winners Edinburgh City.
The winner of the two-legged clash will then face the 10th place side in League 2, currently Montrose, to gain a spot in the league system.
Many at the club have voiced their concerns over leaving the Highland system and chairman Young admits he would prefer not to feature in the end of season showdown.
Speaking to STV, he said: “We’ve looked at all options and there’s no way we can avoid competing. We meet SPFL criteria for entry level so we can’t opt out, we’ve got to go for it.
“There could be quite severe penalties [if we opt out] so we don’t want that.
“My personal thoughts are that I’d rather we stay where we are but as a club we’ve got to move forward and we will be trying our best to get through into the SPFL.
“Our players are professional and they always want to win every game. If we get through, we get through.”
Asked about his concerns about stepping up, Young added: “Our major concern is finance. We’re a small village of 1,200 people.
“It’s quite hard to sustain ourselves in the Highland League so to travel longer distances, get players off work etc is going to cost the club sustainably more money in our view anyway.”
Clubs must meet SPFL membership criteria or have secured necessary approval or period of grace from the SPFL board to compete in Play-Off matches. Failure to comply or secure this would prohibit clubs from playing.
Young confirmed Brora’s Dudgeon Park ground is subject to licence at the moment, adding: “The criteria for the SPFL is bronze level for floodlighting, which ours may or may not be.
“We’ve just upgraded our lights so we need to get them tested but we get a period of grace to get them up to the standard.”
Brora can count former Inverness CT players Ross Tokely and Gavin Morrison in their squad alongside ex-Ross County midfielder Stuart Kettlewell.
Despite his own concerns, Young admits manager Davie Kirkwood is desperate to make the step up but not all of the playing squad feel the same.
He said: “I’ve spoken to the manager and yes he appreciates where we’re coming from but he would like to go up and compete at a higher level.
“We have players that have come down from a higher level to come play with us because they didn’t want all the travelling etc and even some of our younger players, who I thought would jump at the chance, are not that keen.
“If we get there [SPFL] then we might have to rebuild the team, which is not helpful.”
tykebhoy says:
March 30, 2015 at 3:35 pm
mcfc says:
March 30, 2015 at 2:16 pm
============================
I’ll have you know I’m already here. I’ve been posting on the LSE site for a couple of months trying to throw a spanner in the works of and rain on the triumphalist parade of the pro king lobby led by Cambridgeblue. I’ve been a little mischievous in pointing out some inconveneient facts for them.
————————————————————————-
cambridgeblue and stuzeeuk are hilarious. they have to be most obvious DK/ level 5 plants you’ve ever seen.
are you posting as sitonfence over there?
I used to pop into the LSE site, but it really was pointless. The moonbeams were quite remarkable over there. And it also eventually did my head in that everyone started new threads, presumably in an attmept to keep them disjonted and fragmented and hard to follow. Very suspect site.
What we have to remember is that Mr.DC King is only a “glib and shameless liar”, with a penchant for “mendacity” in South Africa.
Character defects like that don’t travel to other jurisdictions, across many borders.
They only apply when he has jetted back to SA.
Therefore, as the SMSM would no doubt agree, the Unnomaded One, is a fine example of an upstanding member of the International business community and hopefully the Courts and the SFA will look upon the tycoon and and judge him accordingly.
Scottish fitba’ needs…….
Jake Cantona says:
March 30, 2015 at 11:00 am
In other news, Newcastle United post record profits:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32113614
=================================================
That is quoting a turnover of GBP 130M, with AFTER tax profit of GBP 19M, or 15%.
On the face of it, [& quality of team and Ashley loans aside], those look like bloody good numbers – and especially for a football club.
Rather than chase Ashley away, mibbees the TRFC fans should have lobbied the SFA to allow him to put their club on a sustainable footing. Looks like he will just be sucking money out of the TRFC retail side instead. Less hassle I suppose… 😉
yerevan@3.19 pm.
……
Excellent!
And I agree with nawlite: even one letter of complaint to the BBC has significance.
There is some rule of thumb used by the likes of the BBC that if one person goes to the bother of actually complaining, there must be a thousand, or tens of thousands, who share his view but don’t vo to the trouble of expressing it.
That’s the BBC London based viee.
Here in Bonnie Scotland? I n relation to matters to do with their beloved , sadly departed, RFC, a different ethic seems to be in force.
But, as you have shown, even the partisan Pacific Quay folk , however reluctantly and through gritted teeth, MUST acknowledge the simple truth .
jockybhoy says:
March 30, 2015 at 4:12 pm
I used to pop into the LSE site, but it really was pointless. The moonbeams were quite remarkable over there. And it also eventually did my head in that everyone started new threads, presumably in an attmept to keep them disjonted and fragmented and hard to follow. Very suspect site.
——————————————————————
It was relatively OK in the beginning but descended into utter mayhem 🙄
Worth a read of following to see what can be happening behind the scenes on share bulletin boards and that’s before you add crazed football fans into the mix 😆
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_manipulation
tykebhoy says:
March 30, 2015 at 3:35 pm
I’ll have you know I’m already here. I’ve been posting on the LSE site for a couple of months trying to
===============================================================
How did that go – I couldn’t even stand to read most of the tripe on there 🙂
They might consider you a troll but we certainly don’t.
From the Keef article above
==============================
“…readmission to the Stock Exchange.
Now this will not be at all easy, especially given that over this last year Rangers have the dubious honour of being tagged officially as the single most complained about company on AIM’s books…”
==============================================
I don’t know where he gets the ‘officially’ from, as I have searched without success.
However, there must be some truth that AIM must know all about RIFC from the number of Bampot generated complaints, [& the number of RIFC issued statements and subsequent ‘clarifications’.]
Therefore, you would think that AIM would be much more thorough when dealing with RIFC – if only to cover their own backsides.
So, submitting complaints – even without receiving any response – is still worthwhile, IMO.
AIM are not thorough in dealing with anything. there are far bigger frauds than RIFC listed on there.
Complaining to AIM won’t get anyone anywhere.
they don’t call i a casino for nothing!
EasyJambo
AllyJambo
I was looking at when Ali Russell ex CEO at RFC joined RFC from QPR and saw from a DR article that he had been at Hearts before then.
Probably nothing in it as he was appointed by CW in 2011 and his job terminated by Duff and Phelps in 2012 but do you know:
when was he at Hearts,
in what capacity and
did the time coincide with Campbell Ogilvie’s time there?
Remind me please did Ogilvie get involved in any way with ebts at Hearts?
Why would anybody concern themselves with the £5k cost of feeding five Geordies. The fact that we now have a player in Haris Vuckic who knows what the back of a net is there for is the important thing. Although £5k is £5k, we need a lot of pennies to pay for the regular loyal stars, McCulloch, Moshni, Black, Daly, Miller, Boyd who have become a constant drain on funds.
I’m not so worried about £5k going out the door every week, after all I’m still waiting for any set of director’s to inform us all why we wave goodbye to £278,000 each month. Bad as the money walking out the front door is, I’m just becoming a little concerned why SFA, SPFL and UEFA or The Bill have so little to say about it all. How much longer will they be silent.
Those bandits in the smsm are real dodgy characters you know, your best friends one minute, and then trying to wine and dine Lawwell the next, trying to sell more papers I suspose. Although I don’t think that plans working very well, they must realise not everybody likes succulent lamb.
Heard a wee story that dck has lost his passport and will therefore be improving his suntan for a little bit longer, that will be the reason for the Nomad still being a nomad.
John Clark
Looking back the BBC did respond to a complaint I made re Chic Young and the Referee’s strike.
Their reply to is at
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B62m3ggkEX2RckZ2VXF6QUp0SE0/view?usp=sharing
I think I went back to them and got a written reply that told me I was wasting my time. That is not what it said of course but I can read BBCmanadarinese. 🙂
So, three working days to unlisting – defintely a case of unintended consequwences for shareholders who supported the new regime and were thinking their RIFC shares were an asset that might be exchanged one day – for money.
@ Beanos
No not sitonfence, nothing like as prolific. He/She has an anti king agenda but wasn’t a big fan of the old board either and probably is a troll
@Jockybhoy
I think the new thread thing is something to do with the thread setting on the site and complicated by mobile devices. AmateurExperts is incapable of adding to an existing thread.
@MCFC
It gives ammunition to aquaboo, SoF and one or two others but the rest pretty much ignore me, but then they have a habit of ignoring the actualite and believing the spin. Unlike JohnBhoy I am covert and have an ironic user name cos most of the bears there can’t spot irony
I do wonder whether the website will let the forum continue even if the Exchange who’s acronym it bears removes RIFC from it’s junior exchange
Auldheid says:
March 30, 2015 at 5:03 pm
Hope this helps; CO left Hearts in 2010 after 5 years and AR left in 2008 so they clearly worked at the club at the same time. I’ve written before that I believe (purely on conjecture and dot aligning) that CO was at Hearts, it could have been any club, to be distanced from Rangers, and Murray, before moving to the SFA.
There has been no reports, or even rumours, of EBTs at Hearts, and I’m sure we would have read the gleefull reports if there had been!
I’ve no doubt EJ will have more info for you than I’ve been able to provide.
Auldheid says:
March 30, 2015 at 5:03 pm
EasyJambo
AllyJambo
I was looking at when Ali Russell ex CEO at RFC joined RFC from QPR and saw from a DR article that he had been at Hearts before then.
==========================
Ali Russell was commercial director at Hearts between Aug 2004 and Jan 2007.
Campbell Ogilvie was at Hearts from November 2005 as Operations Director, then Managing director from March 2008. He left in June 2010.
Ogilvie was replaced by David Southern who left just last year and the latest recruit was Scott Gardiner, another with Ibrox connections.
None of the above were actually on the Hearts Board of Directors though.
Who needs AIM – a new market for trading your RIFC shares:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/Share-Certificates-Bonds-/72381/i.html?_from=R40%7CR40&_nkw=&_dcat=72381&Region=UK%2520%2526%2520Ireland&LH_PrefLoc=1&_sop=2
Allyjambo says: March 30, 2015 at 6:13 pm
There has been no reports, or even rumours, of EBTs at Hearts, and I’m sure we would have read the gleefull reports if there had been!
=================================
There were no EBTs at Tynecastle, although RTC did alert me about their own tax avoidance scheme, which involved paying the bulk of some players wages in Lithuania with only a token amount in Scotland.
The scam apparently came to light when a player applied for a mortgage, but his payslip only showed him to be earning £17K p.a. He then told the lender of his offshore income.
Hearts ultimately settled on a repayment figure of approx. £1.5M with HMRC, but went into administration before much, or any of it, was repaid.
How many AIM records do RIFC plc hold.
• Most Complaints ? – according to Radar
• Most CEOs per year ?
• Most Nomads per year ?
• Most Directors per year ?
• Shortest Directorship ?
• Most official clarifications ?
• Most venomous EGM announcement ?
If a company is suspended from AIM with little warning and is then delisted,the shareholders have much greater difficulty in trading their shares
I`m wondering if shareholders have any legal redress against the Board?
Also
Could Ashley (Sarver) still make a public bid to buy shares from anybody wanting to sell?
Bloomberg; “Rangers Football Club May Delist Shares Following Suspension”
“The board is currently considering the merit of maintaining its listing . . ”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-01-09/rangers-football-club-may-delist-shares-following-suspension
deja boooom !
Auldheid says:
March 30, 2015 at 5:15 pm
=============================
The conduct of BBC Sportsound at the time of the Referee’s strike was in my opinion a low point in their history. There was a complete lack of balance. Chick Young and Jim Traynor were two who could not hide their anger. I won’t derail this forum as TSFM (rightly) won’t allow it, but an abiding memory of the time was when ex Celtic director Michael Kelly was on and basically wiped the floor with them by reminding both of them what they had failed to condemn in the past. A YouTube search returns the clip for those who want to hear it.
GoosyGoosy says:
March 30, 2015 at 7:29 pm
If a company is suspended from AIM with little warning and is then delisted,the shareholders have much greater difficulty in trading their shares
I`m wondering if shareholders have any legal redress against the Board?…
===========================================================================
As usual, there was a lot of confusion and counter-claims made pre/post the EGM between the Boards.
Having checked back, and assuming that he has been accurately reported by STV, IMO, King could be personally accused of misleading / deceiving the RIFC shareholders wrt the nomination of a NOMAD, and maintaining the liquidity of the shares in RIFC.
“…Yes but when you say ‘I have a Nomad’ ….I think we’ve addressed the money issue. I think the point I wanted to make is it’s not my Nomad. The club has to have a Nomad.
…
“All I have done is, in advance of the change of board, ensured there is another Nomad willing to come in. The club has to appoint them so that process can only happen after the general meeting.
“I’ve got one [lined up] who has done due diligence on the individuals but the key component for any Nomad is the club itself.
“Nomads are concerned about the financial affairs of the club. It’s the one area where I’ve been able to give no more input than what I’ve read in the newspapers.
“If we succeed tomorrow, and I think we will, then we will get it immediately. It’s a process that would be done in a day or so…”
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/312774-dave-king-insists-he-has-a-nomad-lined-up-ahead-of-rangers-takeover/
==============================================
But, as we have seen so many times in the RFC/TRFC saga, this will probably be just another side story which gets lost as further events unfold at Ibrox.
Easy Jambo
Ally Jambo
Thanks. I was just wondering.
ecobhoy says:
March 30, 2015 at 9:33 am
Fisiani says:
March 30, 2015 at 8:46 am
However, how do we crack the code so to speak? Well can our accountant posters explain how this money – if the theory is correct and if it is legit – is leaving Ibrox and where would it be explained in the accounts. After all it is £3.34 million per annum and Rangers hasn’t got that big a turnover.
=============================================================================
Ecobhoy…as always, you ask so many probing articulate questions, mostly going unanswered, particularly by the SMSM.
However, I would venture (and that is the word!) that whatever form the £278k per month/£3.4m per annum 😯 contract in respect of the Ibrox premises takes, it will be perfectly legitimately expressed, and written in terms of Scottish/English Law, signed by the appropriate officers/directors of RIFC/TRFC and documented by an official board minute, even possibly lodged at Companies House, (no laughing at the back) if there is an appropriate/relevant charge over the freehold/heritable property.
The contention that such financial outgoings aka “onerous contracts” may be subsumed into the annual accounts within the financial “Bermuda Triangle” is another irrelevance and not subject to any form of (former) exchange controls, nothwithstanding the anonymity of the recipients 👿
Such expenses are not disclosed in the published accounts of RIFC/TRFC, “group” or otherwise, since there is no statutory obligation to do so under the Companies Act 2006 ❓
I do stand to be corrected on any of these matters, particularly by the blog’s resident analyst EasyJambo…
On the basis of my last post, which is, I sincerely hope factually based, may I ask why, within less than a minute of posting, I get a TD?…is there a Russian around? 👿
I think any balanced look at Rangers and delisting must take into account various scenarios.
It’s obvious that the new Board could never manage to get the 75% vote required to voluntarily delist.
So if there is a belief that the best interests of ‘The Club’ would be best served by delisting how could that possibly be achieved? Well it might well be that someone who isn’t a director of the club makes it clear that the current NOMAD is getting their jotters come the egm.
I would add that this is pure speculation on my part of course. So the NOMAD decides to jump ship and if there is a failure to find a replacement then RIFC Plc is automatically delisted. So mission accomplished.
But why? There are a variety of reasons which would make it attractive to delist from AIM to an incoming Board. Privacy and saving on the cost of AIM membership being high on the list. But there’s also the question of control if some shareholders decide it’s time to hit the road and sell-out for whatever price they can get and we are talking about pennies.
I still doubt that a 75% majority could be achieved that way unless the 25% or so of mystery overseas investors decide to sell-out. But why would they if they hold onerous contracts?
That’s the bit I can’t figure out. It might be because most delisted companies seem to end-up in liquidation and therefore these shareholders might see the end of their lucrative contracts in sight.
Obviously the position of MA must be looked at as well and key to that are the securities he holds over various bits of the Ibrox operation and in particular his grip on Rangers Retail Ltd; trademarks and advertising at Ibrox.
There is also the ‘small’ matter of the £5 million loan which give rise to the various securities he holds. MA runs silent and deep so it’s probably impossible to work-out what his action plan is.
But, at the moment, that’s also true of DK and other RRM perhaps a little uncharacteristically right enough.
The problem I see for the new Board with delisting is the grief they could face from Bears who have bought shares in their ‘club’ which of course they haven’t but life’s too short to go back there.
There is a way that angst could be resolved and that’s if a private limited company successor to RIFC Plc issued shares to the fans to replace – at least to some extent – the ones lost in the public limited company.
This might not be as crazy as it sounds btw. I think most Bears would be delighted to hold share certificates in a company run by RRM rather than one where nameless and faceless spivs pull the strings from overseas tax havens.
Of course – for a company in Rangers position – IMO you would never delist unless you thought there was no are almost no chance of raising any more dosh out of AIM share sales.
But that begs the question as to how the RRM can fund what the substantial sums required to see Rangers taking its first step towards its ‘Rightful Place’.
I just wonder if there is a dream-team out there with an actual alliance with MA?
It’s easy to scoff but I was always certain that if MA took control at Ibrox he would delist anyway as there’s absolutely no point in him having Rangers on AIM – simply because he can fund the club out of his pocket change.
I just don’t believe DK is as stupid as some seem to believe – he has to have a plan and I’m sure it will be far from obvious. And I very much doubt if we would have seen the pump-priming investment just made and which would be necessary probably every month.
That is madness and can’t work and I don’t believe the RRM involved at this stage are daft enough to throw money away on a total fantasy. I could be wrong but I can’t see it.
As I have said before: Expect the unexpected rather than simply accept without question that DK is a clown. He might well be but I just feel there are layers in this whole saga that have yet to be exposed.
‘Heard a wee story that dck has lost his passport and will therefore be improving his suntan for a little bit longer, that will be the reason for the Nomad still being a nomad.’
________________________________________________
Je..s lucky for his family inheritance it was in SA he lost the passport!!!!
On a more serious note if he lost it in UK he would have had time to invest millions in the club – life a bitch, at least that’s what my grandchildren say.
essexbeancounter says: March 30, 2015 at 8:45 pm
I do stand to be corrected on any of these matters, particularly by the blog’s resident analyst EasyJambo…
===============================
Oi! I resemble that remark 🙂
I’m grateful to the bean counters on TSFM and on RTC previously who have helped my understanding of company accounts and what to look for in terms of the unusual. I still have problems with some elements though, but given a few more years experience I might manage to exceed my “O Grade” in “Principles of Accounts” (I’m showing my age there).
essexbeancounter says:
March 30, 2015 at 8:45 pm
Thanks for that essex – It will be interesting to see if the new Board will provide transparency on this issue.
John Brown was the lone voice in the wilderness. Few listened and many mocked him but it seems somehow or other he got a grip of some info that was dynamite.
But other Rangers Men calmed the fears of the Bears and encouraged them to buy STs and shares. I hope the masses wake-up at some point because vigilance is urgently required IMO.
easyJambo says:
March 30, 2015 at 9:11 pm
Ach! O Levels? – you’re just a stripling. Lowers in my day 😆
essexbeancounter says:
March 30, 2015 at 8:53 pm
On the basis of my last post, which is, I sincerely hope factually based, may I ask why, within less than a minute of posting, I get a TD?…is there a Russian around? 👿
————————————————————
Ah but is it a Russian troll or doll of the Matryoshka variety 😆
Auldheid says:
March 30, 2015 at 8:22 pm
Easy Jambo
Ally Jambo
Thanks. I was just wondering.
1 0 Rate This
****
Ali Russell – erstwhile tea-boy at QPR (Bernie Ecclestone’s views on him were particularly colourful as I recall).
QPR – erstwhile football club of our old friend Andrew “Canary” Ellis.
Just another of those crazy coincidences that keep popping up in the Great Sevconian Mystery.
The sound of lots of pennies dropping tonight 😉 a few callers ‘TRFC’ fans asking very pertinent questions re …… Nomad……DCK investment….. AIM listing…….etc a few are concerned that all is not well ??? HK & DJ surprisingly didn’t comment much 😉 the truth and facts are scary to these 2.
*****
King is no daftie, but we should remember how he acquired the bulk of his wealth. He’s a spiv just like Whyte, Green, etc. and proven (and convicted) to be just as economical with the truth.
essexbeancounter says:
March 30, 2015 at 8:45 pm
That’s an entirely reasonable response. If there was anything dodgy about the “onerous” contracts, then they would be a damned sight easier to deal with. That there has been no triumphal cry of “Got the B’stards” from this board, or the previous one, tends to support the case, that these contracts, whatever the terms, and, whoever the beneficiaries, are legal, binding, and therefore, expensive and time consuming to break.
GoosyGoosy says:
March 30, 2015 at 7:29 pm
If a company is suspended from AIM with little warning and is then delisted,the shareholders have much greater difficulty in trading their shares
I`m wondering if shareholders have any legal redress against the Board?
Also Could Ashley (Sarver) still make a public bid to buy shares from anybody wanting to sell?
——————————————————————-
I don’t see how the Board would be liable as the NOMAD did resign and AIM Regulations kicked-in automatically. I’m not sure that there would even be an onus on the Board to try and find another NOMAD.
It seems to me that as long as the Board hasn’t formally passed a resolution to seek a delisting then they don’t even need to make any regulatory announcement.
I think however if the Board were being clever they will have covered their back and approached at least one NOMAD and had a KB. That NOMAD may well have stated that unless DK got CoS approval there was no way any other NOMAD would accept.
So they have good cover for sitting doing nothing wrt a replacement NOMAD until the CoS Decision. I think by then we may see the actual plan unfold.
Shares can still be bought and sold even when a company is delisted but it’s in private deals and obviously not through the exchange. Smaller lots are harder to shift but then I don’t think ordinary Bears will be selling anyway.
Bigger lots can be sold although the price can drop substantially but price depends on whether someone wants to assemble a controlling interest. Obviously if there’s no demand value is rock-bottom
Is Dave proving the SA judge’s description of him was spot on, only 16 opening hours left to prove otherwise,tick tick,tick tick.tock.