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.
Ecobhoy 12:25:
“I also think most of the fat has been trimmed except in the first team wages where there is a lot that could be done and has to be done.” I’m not even sure there’s that much that can be done there, certainly not if they are going to compete at the highest (Scottish) level…
I quoted Aberdeen’s accounts that had wages at £6m (up from £5m because of performance related bomnuses) – there have been various reports that state Rangers first team wage bill already to be of that level.
As you say, this is where reality begins to bite – are the Loyal Rangers supporters willing to see their club live within its means and duke it out with the rest of the Premier league (as Celtic indeed did late 80s – mid 90s, where the Bhoys came 3rd, 4th, even 5th as Rangers cantered to their 9iar)? I think we all know the answer to that, for most of the peepul at least…
I posted literally years ago, that my best outcome for where we got to with liquidation etc, was that we had a new team in blue, called Rangers, that had ditched its sectarian past and lived within its means. I stand by that premise.
https://t.co/cA7bX4JJPJ
A point of view from at least a section of the Ibrox fans.Here’s the concluding paragraph.
Very interesting (to me, anyway) to see these sorts of views expressed in a Rangers forum.
neepheid says:
March 31, 2015 at 2:32 pm
I get the impression that there is a definite grouping of fans who, while none to happy with the way things were being run, were against the boycott as they saw it ultimately damaging the club. A moan, bitch and criticize posse but one that sees the dangers of not keeping cash flowing through the clubs coffers.
scapaflow says:
March 31, 2015 at 2:18 pm
ecobhoy says:
March 31, 2015 at 1:54 pm
Tempus fugit – and I have the feeling that before long things will become much clearer for good or ill wrt the various combatants.
But nothing will shift my position that MONEY is the key to this. They either have enough of it or they don’t ❗
And – in a sense – time will tell 😉
Neepheid The tendency when such realism rears its head on the forums is for there to be a torrent of sectarian and violent abuse to be directed to that poster. The normal claim is that he or she must be a (insert sectarian term of choice) imposter or would not be saying such things. I would imagine that this drives the level of discussion further away from sanity and reasoned argument as well as deterring the sensible from posting further.
What they need are more posters who understand realities. There is a neologism for the kind of calm detachment which is often achieved with advanced years ‘gerontotranscendence’ which is evident on this forum but not on those ones- that is their loss and our gain.
Eco
You need both, but one is fixed, irreplaceable, and may be fast running out
As you say, all will become clear soon enough 😉
Whoah! Horrible 6 month figures there, Ibrox Club!
And what a lot of waffly ramblings from your chairman. And see these “traditional values and traditions of Rangers which we all hold dear” – what are they? I genuinely have no clue.
Nice shout out to all the diddy clubs you need to help by getting back to your “traditional” place in Scottish football. Cheers. We appreciate the thought.
One question to TSFMers though – where does the £900k loss per month figure come from that everyone is quoting? I’m not getting a figure quite that high on a cursory read of the numbers, adding the rental and transfer £ to the operating loss for the period.
neepheid says:
March 31, 2015 at 2:32 pm
Very interesting (to me, anyway) to see these sorts of views expressed in a Rangers forum.
————————————————————-
This bitter Battle has been going on for months between the pro-King and pro-Ashley factions.
I think most ordinary Bears have walked away from the forums and left it to those on a mission. Ordinary fans want to get back to watching football. IMO the decision to support DK is the last throw of the dice for many and if the adventure implodes then so will the support and the club.
No surprise then that there is so much agrro between the factions.
The egm result didn’t cause a moment’s cessation of hostilities in what has become a fractured support. The club is ripping itself apart.
I am always careful not to cherry-pick a particular argument/post from any Bear site – which might suit my personal viewpoint – as it is obvious that deeply entrenched agendas are at work.
I rely instead on Bears who are friends and relatives – that I know to be decent human beings – for their take on the mood of the support rather than the faux outrage of keyboard warriors.
Make no mistake! What’s happening in the Rangers Support is a Civil War and these are often the bloodiest wars of all with friends and families split and locked with each other in mortal combat.
Gym Trainer says:
March 31, 2015 at 2:09 pm
Someone like Neil Patey I think would fit the bill perfectly…
====================================================================
What about “Football financial expert David Bick, chairman of Square 1 Consulting,” who thinks King has recently put money into RIFC ?
http://www.ibroxnoise.co.uk/2015/03/financial-expert-surprised-if-nomad.html
bfbpuzzled says:
March 31, 2015 at 2:51 pm
What they need are more posters who understand realities. There is a neologism for the kind of calm detachment which is often achieved with advanced years ‘gerontotranscendence’ which is evident on this forum but not on those ones- that is their loss and our gain.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
gerontotranscendence- Thanks for that, I now have a really big word to explain to my children and grandchildren why I’m not just an opinionated old relic, and instead a wise repository of knowledge and common sense. They will be delighted, I’m sure :irony: :irony: :irony:
MSM full of the £500,000 fee to NUFC if The Rangers get promoted squirrel.
MSM carefully averting their eyes from the big red writing on the wall:
No plan then,
No plan now,
No plan forever.
Mrs C complains that I am glued to , as she puts it, ‘ that bloody blog’
I offer in support of my denial of that charge the following proof: I am reading ‘The Aboriginal Story of Burke and Wills : forgotten narratives’. (edited by Ian D Clark and Fred Cahir, CSIRO publishing, Victoria, Australia, in 2013.).
And, kind of serendipitously , I come upon this report by Professor Neumayer (fine Teutonic name) who joined the Burke and Wills expedition in 1860:
“We came as far as a place called (wait for it!) …Spivoa..”
And also mentioned is a place name , Pooncarie,which instantly reminds me of the
of the wonderful Dr Poon, of the FTTT, who showed up the ( in my opinion) ridiculously strained contortions of two Scottish legal chappies as they sought not to see the blindingly obvious.
And this prompts me to ask: do we know when HMRC’s appeal against Lord D’s cop-out decision is to be heard?
‘Deloitte’s handing in their notice is another piece of bad joss, the storm clouds appear to be darkening.’
_______________________
The above is bad enough, but to mislead people into thinking that the above ‘Deloitte’ are still handling the accounts as per normal is dicey to put it at its best.
This club is sailing very close to the wind re. Insolvency if you take out the pending sale of STs out of the equation (a future event) they are effectively trading insolvent at the moment. Loans are not investments and enter the accounts on the debit side.
I suggest that, once again, this new club are being allowed, by the relevant authorities, to trade when these same leaders should be warning fans, other clubs, tradespeople, tax authorities, face painters! Etc. that this new entity is about to go to the wall.
What has happened to the safety aspect of the stadium? As far as I can glean there has been no money set aside for normal maintenance at this stadium for several years. Which authority issues a safety cert in accordance with the regulations, who signs same cert.
Zombies are not at this club they are in fact the rest of Scottish football, who let this farce continue on its merry way.
On a footballing issue why not sign eleven loanees players until you get promotion and then let them go again – simples.
scapaflow says:
March 31, 2015 at 2:18 pm
ecobhoy says:
March 31, 2015 at 1:54 pm
I get where you are coming from, but, these guys had months to prepare for the EGM. There is & was no excuse for them not walking into the blue room, with a solid plan, with financing in place, ready to be executed. They didn’t, and all the indications are they still don’t.
—————————————————————-
Ah but did they ever think for a minute they would win the egm? I really wonder about that.
I think Sarver was the litmus test to prove to the masses whether DK’s blood actually ran blue or was negative for Rangeritis.
DK IMO ended-up with no option but to swallow the bait or finally shut-up about Rangers and stay at home in South Africa.
I still can’t figure out how he managed to persuade other seemingly ‘normal’ people to engage in the Ibrox fiasco and throw money at it.
And I still can’t figure out why the mystery ovserseas shareholders abstained in the egm vote.
It might well be that MA had decided that until the RRM were finally drained of blood and hope and their money – of course – that he would never be able to do whatever it is he wants to do with Rangers and possibly Scottish Football.
The fans would have no leader to rally round and in time MA may have thought they would rally-round albeit muttering just like the Geordies. I think he might have been wrong there right enuff.
No matter – if DK’s dream collapses then MA will be the only game in town and by Gawd is he going to extract financial revenge.
David Bick, chairman of Square 1 Consulting speaks slowly and loudly about Nomads for the hard of thinking – but without really explaining that without one AIM will tell RIFC to GTF off of my market.
http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11788/9783297/david-bick-thinks-rangers-investors-aware-of-newcastle-loan-deal
spikeyheid says:
March 31, 2015 at 11:01 am
Was the resignation of Deloitte not an AIM notifiable event?
===============================================================
I presume that Deloitte was not able to make a unilateral public announcement of its resignation for client confidentiality reasons.
However, the onus should have been on RIFC to issue a statement to that effect, at that time.
[Don’t know if that is an AIM requirement, but it should be.]
The resignation of one of the ‘big 4′ auditors is a massive red flag to current shareholders, potential shareholders, and current and potential lenders to RIFC, [& suppliers/staff etc].
Don’t think anything will happen though, but the point is that this is just yet another example of the Ibrox clubs’ continuing MO of concealment, withholding information, exaggeration, bending the rules, ignoring the rules – and downright fibbing – which has stretched all the way from the Murray days, through Whyte, Green, and assorted boards even up until today with Paul Murray and King wrt the NOMAD being appointed ‘immediately’ after the EGM win.
The numbers are bad as expected.
Massive funding is required.
But the malignant influence of this club will continue to be a stain on the character of Scottish football. We are all tainted. 🙁
A panel of experts then… one of the upright chaps from Begbies Traynor might like to join in too…
Night Terror says: March 31, 2015 at 3:07 pm
One question to TSFMers though – where does the £900k loss per month figure come from that everyone is quoting? I’m not getting a figure quite that high on a cursory read of the numbers, adding the rental and transfer £ to the operating loss for the period.
========================
I took it from the cash flow statement. A negative figure of £5.293M, funded in the main by the Share Issue £2.844M, the Mash loan £3M (less the repayment of the Letham loan £1.5M) and a reduction in the cash balance of £1.28M.
senior says:
March 31, 2015 at 3:35 pm
‘Deloitte’s handing in their notice is another piece of bad joss, the storm clouds appear to be darkening.’
_______________________
The above is bad enough, but to mislead people into thinking that the above ‘Deloitte’ are still handling the accounts as per normal is dicey to put it at its best.
On a footballing issue why not sign eleven loanees players until you get promotion and then let them go again – simples.
————————————————————-
My understanding is that Deloittes allegedly informed the old Board that they wouldn’t be continuing and therefore they are the ones who require to be questioned.
I also don’t know whether you are saying the old board or the new board were misleading people. My reading for what it’s worth is that the new Board have been open about the situation and say they are seeking a replacement as auditors.
It appears that the old Board were in the dark about the Deloittes decision which was allegedly communicated to the old Board by the auditors.
As to the number of loan players it would appear under current rules that you don’t need to have any players of your own and just lease a team which would save a fortune in the summer with no wages to pay.
Maybe they’ll wait until they’re playing in the CL before leasing a full squade plus subs.
The whole thing is an absolute farce and says all there is to say about the incompetency of the SFA.
EDIT: And also Scottish Football Clubs prepared to put up with this authorised chicanery.
Is some ways I have a sneaking and grudging admiration for the ways the Bears can manipulate events.
They post a set of results that basically are a crock do shxxx and in any other walk of life would terrify investors.
However as ever there is a squirrel and a big, bad and ugly non-RRM. In this case NUFC for having the nerve to ask for a return on their investment of a number of loan players whose qualities or lack of can be debated endlessly.
So, having published the results where’s the focus and the wrath of the Bears?
1) On the club/company for steering a rudderless ship?
2) At McCoist, McDowell and the players with their hefty contracts?
3) The Cockney bogey man and NUFC?
You can bet your last penny the radio phone ins and the papers will talk only of the K£ 500 Big Mike will earn should they get promotion and on nothing else.
For Level 5, job done.
For the poor bears fans who bought shares…..ah, well, you can’t say you weren’t warned.
PS has anyone ever seen a company publish accounts that continually refer to their contracts as onerous quite so often?
EasyJambo
Cheers sir.
The issue around Deliottes status can surely be resolved by the new board publishing the date of the resignation letter the old board must have received from Deliotte saying they were jumping ship.
Lets not forget, IIRC, Deliotte was not only acting auditor but had been taking fees for providing other advice.
I am pretty sure as a professional organisation they would have made it pretty clear whether or not they were walking away from their duties and what I recall was a healthy sum in fees.
The whole thing may be easily explained but it is just another piece of nonsense that shows there is a lack of openness and transparency regardless of who is in charge down Govan way and while that is the case pelters will be thrown.
With apologies to HRVATSKI JIM over on CQN I hope you don’t mind me reposting but this is priceless!
‘Paul Murray has signed an (interim) Chairman’s Report to an official Stock Exchange that :
Rangers Football Club, formed in Scotland in 1872, is one of the world’s most successful clubs, having won 54 League titles, 33 Scottish Cups, 27 League Cups and the European Cup Winners’ Cup in 1972.
What more does HMRC need to pursue recovery of tax debt due by the old club from the current club and its directors by making this continuation link with the old club?
Paul Murray is not just digging a hole…he is into deep water drilling now.’
”I have been informed by Deloitte, the existing auditor, that they informed the previous Board of their intention to resign following the June 2014 audit. The previous Board chose not to announce this nor did they find a replacement for Deloitte.” “The Board will make a further announcement on this subject once we have found a replacement firm for Deloitte.”
Not sure I fully understand this. Can anyone say for certain that Deloitte did resign, after intimating their intention to do so to the old board? It could read that after completing the 2014 audit, Deloitte intimated their intention to resign, but nowhere does it state WHEN they intended to resign. The fact that neither the old board or Deloitte disclosed their ‘resignation’ might mean they didn’t actually resign and as the old board didn’t appoint a replacement might Deloitte still have been there until now? Paul Murray still refers to them as the “existing auditor” and further indicates that they did the work for this set of accounts. Only at the end of his ‘Auditor’ statement does he say they are now looking for a replacement. As you’ll see from my earlier post about his Rights Issue comment, I’m suspicious of how he words things – could Deloitte have only resigned since handing over the accounts because they can’t see a business plan, available finances etc whereas before with MA they knew the money was there? Could they have wanted a more strongly worded going concern comment?
I just don’t think the way he explains it makes sense and think he could possibly be looking to shift the blame? Possible?
I think it might be helpul to state in full what Murray stated wrt to Deloittes as I think it makes the situation crystal clear. I am sure if he has got it wrong we will hear about it through a denial being issued by old Board members and Deloittes.
There are plenty of real conspiracies in this whole affair IMO without seeing them where there appears to be none.
In any case it appears there is to be a follow-up notice to come which may throw even more light on the matter if it is required.
The real question here IMO is whether there was any duty on the old Board to report the Deloitte decision to AIM.
Ecobhoy,
The wording around Deloitte’s status is curious indeed. Where an auditor resigns, the firm communicates in writing to the client, and it is the client’s (RIFC plc) responsibility to inform the Registrar of Companies. In the letter of resignation, Deloitte’s have to state whether there are any circumstances relating to their resignation which should be drawn to the attention of the members or the creditors of the company, and this can be done at an EGM if necessary.
Given the governance environment at RIFC plc, it does not surprise me that this had not been communicated to the “new” board. However, I would imagine that Deloitte’s would be on the governance ball.
I am not at all surprised that Deloitte’s have resigned – and I am assuming that they have – given that they had to take the highly unusual step of suppressing the name of the auditor in last year’s annual report.
It would be an interesting letter to see, and as to whether Deloitte’s did or did not state whether there were indeed circumstances to be brought to the attention of members and creditors. Or, whether there were not …
“Southampton made a £33.4m profit last year – the first since the club went into administration in 2009.
…
Swiss investor Markus Liebherr brought the then League One club out of administration before successive promotions earned Saints a Premier League place in 2012.”
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/32127067
===================================================
That’s quite impressive, and Southampton are currently in 6th position in the EPL.
Mibbees TRFC should give this guy a call ? 🙄
So now Level 5 have rolled out Jim McColl for a BBC interview, in which states that the club is in safe hands with the new regime. Unfortunately, the company running the club (see what I did there?) is losing money hand over fist, and there is a going concern warning. Odd how Scotland’s most successful businessman seems to be unable to read a set of accounts. Or the BBC seem unable to ask him a searching question about these dire figures.
We should also note that RIFC still has no functioning executive directors, another big red flag to AIM, the market and potential investors.
JH have a chap who specialises in operating as Virtual FD. will that be the Virtual Chairman’s next appointment?
ecobhoy says:
March 31, 2015 at 4:35 pm
Eco, sorry but I can’t see any way in which Paul Murray’s statement makes the Deloitte issue anything like “crystal clear” as you say. I’m not trying to be smart, but can you explain what you take from it that is crystal clear and makes sense?
‘Paul Murray has signed an (interim) Chairman’s Report to an official Stock Exchange that : Rangers Football Club, formed in Scotland in 1872, is one of the world’s most successful clubs, having won 54 League titles, 33 Scottish Cups, 27 League Cups and the European Cup Winners’ Cup in 1972.
What more does HMRC need to pursue recovery of tax debt due by the old club from the current club and its directors by making this continuation link with the old club?
——————————————————————-
Well what HMRC require is a link to a legal entity and Rangers Football Club ceased to be that back in 18 Canteen. The old club didn’t have any tax liability and neither does the new one. Indeed to argue that these liabilities exist IMO only strengthens the argument of the ‘continuing club’.
Also RIFC Plc has no legal liabilities attaching to it from the former Rangers Plc currently undergoing Liquidation. Some footballing liabilities were accepted by TRFCL in a tawdry deal aimed at promoting the continuing club myth.
Indeed the purchase of the Rangers business and assets in 2012 from D&P specifically excluded any tax liability arising from the liquidation of the former Rangers Plc.
The rental figure of £278k per month, the source for which is, I believe, PMG’s blog: if this £278k was paid under a lease agreement – an operating lease agreement – I would have expected a disclosure in the notes to the accounts showing a breakdown of the future years’ commitment under this lease yet there isn’t anything disclosed.
Another odd statement in the accounts relates to the provision for onerous lease contracts (re the stores). The note shows the opening balance at the beginning of the period, a top up and then a clearing out. When I first looked at it I read it is the provision being no longer required. However, the final sentence of the following narrative states: “This provision has been moved to trade and other payables at the period-end, since its amount and timing are not known.” If the provision cannot be quantified, how can it accounted for, even it if is hidden away under trade and other payables ? Odd.
Perhaps Essex and the like could throw in their tuppenceworth here, especially regarding the potential disclosure requirements relating to the “rental payment” of £278k.
nawlite says:
March 31, 2015 at 4:49 pm
ecobhoy says:
March 31, 2015 at 4:35 pm
Eco, sorry but I can’t see any way in which Paul Murray’s statement makes the Deloitte issue anything like “crystal clear” as you say. I’m not trying to be smart, but can you explain what you take from it that is crystal clear and makes sense?
————————————————————-
It’s simply a matter of perception – you have one view and I have another. As I say if Murray has erred accidentally or deliberately then he will no doubt have Deloittes and old Board members hot on his heels.
finchleyflyer says:
March 31, 2015 at 4:47 pm
So now Level 5 have rolled out Jim McColl for a BBC interview…
==================================================================
I would have thought that Jim McColl would instead have been too busy coaching McCoist on improving his gardening skills ?
[The old ones are the best ! 🙄 ]
Eco, promise I’ll stop after this one!
I don’t have a view on what it means, I have only the view that his words don’t make what it means clear. As a result, I’m speculating as to what his obtuseness might mean. Surely, if Deloitte had resigned he would say that and say when – instead he chooses (carefully?) words like ” informed the previous Board of their intention to resign following the June 2014 audit.” I have to ask why.
I simply asked what words you saw as “crystal clear”. If your view opposes my suggestion that perhaps they didn’t actually resign under the old board, have you taken from PM’s words that they did?
Carlyle says:
March 31, 2015 at 5:00 pm
Another odd statement in the accounts relates to the provision for onerous lease contracts (re the stores).
——————————————————
I did see a discussion on this somewhere a few weeks ago but for the life of me I can’t remember where. Perhaps in the DL & BL meeting with the Rangers Fan reps? I don’t have access to check at the moment.
I remember being puzzled as to why shop leases should be classed as onerous. If you close a shop that is unprofitable but the lease hasn’t expired then you are still liable to pay the rent. But that doesn’t necessarily make the leases onerous.
Both the Airport and Belfast were vanity projects by Green. Belfast to keep the NI support onside and Glasgow Airport because Celtic had a shop there and the Bears demanded parity.
Jeesuz they’ll be wanting into the CL next 🙂
No wonder they lost money – although perhaps Green’s involvement provides a pointer to onerous leases which seem to pop-up when his name is mentioned.
Hmmm, and I thought Paul Murray was obtuse!
finchleyflyer says:
March 31, 2015 at 4:47 pm
So now Level 5 have rolled out Jim McColl for a BBC interview…
==================================================================
The only relevance McColl has is whether he is going to invest and how much. Why do I get a funny feeling that won’t be touched on.
nawlite says:
March 31, 2015 at 5:18 pm
Hmmm, and I thought Paul Murray was obtuse!
———————————————-
I’ll take that as a compliment 😎
On the loan of five players with expressed aim of helping to win promotion for which the lending club makes makes a good return, is this actually fair on the other clubs wanting promotion?
If you are a “big” club and the cost to you of being promoted is 5x the weekly wage plus a 500k payout that is only paid if you can afford it from future earnings from that promotion, how is that allowable under fair play? I appreciate the rules allow it but I’m talking principles here.
Is it right not to pay the full cost of those players weekly wage (ie include the bonus)that is actually unaffordable in order to move to affordability?
If you don’t have a credit line to borrow money to buy players because of past financial foolishness, is this the way around the principle of affordability which underpins financial fair play that Scottish football seems reluctant to embrace.
If all other clubs are living by an affordability principle how is it fair that one club is able to find ways of not observing that principle going back 15 years and still operates by avoiding it?
IIRC at least one poster on here asked this question re the loan players of every Championship club and received no reply. So it would seem that the owners of these clubs including Hibs, who are likely now to miss out on promotion, are quite happy to go along with this to allow the Mythical club back to “It’s rightful position”.
Carlyle says:
March 31, 2015 at 4:36 pm
Deloittes were obviously wanting away for some time I would reckon but they were getting good fees and was another division of their’s not also involved on a consultancy basis as well?
I don’t think the issue has been quite laid to rest yet and at some stage might come together as justification for sackings which could bring the detail into the public arena.
It struck me, reading Paul Murray’s statement in the interim results, that he has taken a somewhat strange tack.
When I first read it, I took it that he was saying that he is the (interim) chairman of the Club. By which, I assumed he meant he is the chairman of TRFC Ltd – as that, of course is the company that holds memberships in both the SPFL and SFA.
But then I realised that is not what he was saying. He, at the beginning of the passage at least, seems to be making a clear distinction between RIFC plc “Rangers” and Rangers Football Club the “Club”.
When he says he is the Chairman of “Rangers”, he does indeed mean RIFC plc. He at no time claims to be “Club” chairman – though he probably is chair of TRFC Ltd.
As the regulatory announcement says:
(the single quoted ‘Rangers’ only adds to the confusion as the first paragraph appears to say that RIFC plc is the holding company for itself. But, if we take the single quotes to assign a different meaning in that sentence – namely the football Club called ‘Rangers’, it probably makes some kind of sense.)
Confused?? You soon will be!
The regulatory statement continues the idea of a non-legal entity thingy in relation to Rangers Football Club – the “Club” – that we have seen before. Formed in 1872, 54 titles, blah, blah, 🙄
As an exercise in nothing at all, I have reproduced P Murray’s statement below – replacing “Rangers Football Club” or “the Club” with “the Franchise” and any other reference to “Rangers” with “RIFC plc”.
It makes interesting reading.
ecobhoy says:
March 31, 2015 at 5:15 pm
nawlite says:
March 31, 2015 at 5:18 pm
==========================================
I don’t think you two are far apart.
Crystal clear – Murray’s wording is rather odd and so he’s probably avoiding a clear statement of simple events – why ?
Deloitte gave the old board notice of their intention to quit after June 2014 – let’s take Murray (P)’s word for that for now.
Are we talking only about Deloitte as auditors, rather than as consultants / business advisors?
Did Deloitte resign and if so when, under which board and why?
Were Deloitte fired and if so when, under which board and why?
Did Deloitte’s contract simply expire and if so when, under which board and why?
Whichever of the above happened, why has another auditor of similar credentials not been appointed?
Whichever of the above happened, who if anyone had a responsibility to tell shareholders?
Simples.
No doubt a bold SMSM chap will be along any moment to quiz Murray (P) on all of the above and more.
This may seem odd, but is Ashley applying a supportive parental hand to the affairs of RIFC. No bear with me a moment:
• He kept them out of bankruptcy, with several loans when RRM were no where to be found – yes they are secured – but that stopped the assets being frittered away or being secured by a spiv.
• He put his trusted lieutenants in charge
• He would have taken a greater shareholding if the SFA had not stopped him
• He loaned them five players to help them get promoted at a fraction of the true cost – with a realistic charge only if they go up. Hardly onerous. Avoids accusation of undue influence.
• His men did their best to warn the world about the incoming directors and their track records.
• He’s now patiently waiting to see what happens. He’s done nothing to interfere with the new regime. He could make life very difficult if he chose.
Now maybe “parental” is the wrong word. But I think there is ample evidence that Ashley wants RIFC to get on an even keel and succeed so his revenue streams are stable for years to come. Not the most altruistic and noble of motives – but better than those of many directors past and present – and definitely in the better is not best interests of The Rangers. Kind of reminds me of Windsor Davies in It Ain’t Half Hot Mum, “Lovely Boy, shoulders back!”.
senior says:
March 31, 2015 at 4:12 pm
With apologies to HRVATSKI JIM over on CQN I hope you don’t mind me reposting but this is priceless!
‘Paul Murray has signed an (interim) Chairman’s Report to an official Stock Exchange that :
Rangers Football Club, formed in Scotland in 1872, is one of the world’s most successful clubs, having won 54 League titles, 33 Scottish Cups, 27 League Cups and the European Cup Winners’ Cup in 1972.
What more does HMRC need to pursue recovery of tax debt due by the old club from the current club and its directors by making this continuation link with the old club?
Paul Murray is not just digging a hole…he is into deep water drilling now.’
==============================================
cannae be the same club – nae mention of being
league champs in 2013 and 2014. The fact that they
didnae sew on mair wee stars for these feats is further evidence. Whitmalike? Somebody stop me!
seriously though, I think thon Murray filla has
started drinking the hair laquer noo!
Somebody may have been naughty?
Companies Act 2006
517 Notice to registrar of resignation of auditor
(1)Where an auditor resigns the company must within 14 days of the deposit of a notice of resignation send a copy of the notice to the registrar of companies.
(2)If default is made in complying with this section, an offence is committed by—
(a)the company, and
(b)every officer of the company who is in default.
(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a)on conviction on indictment, to a fine;
(b)on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum and, for continued contravention, a daily default fine not exceeding one-tenth of the statutory maximum.
Thanks MCFC, in my world “crystal clear” doesn’t give rise to that number of obvious questions.
Now here’s an odd one :
“22 December 2014
Rangers International Football Club plc
(“Rangers”, “RIFC” or the “Company”)
Result of AGM
The Company announces the results of the voting by poll on the resolutions put to its Annual General Meeting held at 10:30am on Tuesday 22 December 2014 at Ibrox Stadium, 150 Edmiston Drive, Glasgow G51 2XD.
Resolutions 1, 2, and 4-8 were successfully passed.
Resolution 3 was not voted upon. Resolution 9 did not achieve sufficient votes to be passed.
The Board is disappointed that Resolution 9 was not passed as it limits its options for future funding…..
Resolution 6. To re-appoint Deloitte LLP as auditors
Votes For : 62,942,911 98.81%
Votes Against : 757,557 1.19%”
Scottish Football welcomes RIFC/TRFC’s commitment to transparency. Is anyone from the SMSM gonna ask them a real question? Like why is PM saying Deloittes “informed the previous Board of their intention to resign following the June 2014 audit” but here in December 2014 at the AGM they were being re-appointed? Why the volte face by a blue chip auditor? Where is their resignation letter? When was it received? Why was the news not communicated to AIM and shareholders either when it happened or upon discovery by DK/3Bs? What reasons did Deloittes give for resigning?
FFS this is like teaching chimps how to speak! At least they come to it with no bias…
Great pick up, Red Lichtie. Wtf is going on here?
Remember, this is our Franchise
It is now a franchise then not a club 😀
Nawlite
I think you are confusing crystal clear with transparency,have you been to specsavers recently.
neepheid says:
March 31, 2015 at 2:32 pm
https://t.co/cA7bX4JJPJ
A point of view from at least a section of the Ibrox fans…
——–
I listened to last night’s SSB and in part 2 (the bit after the ‘no one beats the pundit’ quiz) at least two Ibrox fans called in with very detailed critique of the current board. Probably some of the most quailfied, well thought-out points I’ve heard from that direction.
Stopped short of stating the obvious — that a third incarnation is probably the only way of fixing the mess long term. Someone has to mention it sometime.
Paul Murray, Interim Chairman of Rangers, commented:
“These results are historical and relate to a period before the new Board took office. I wish to draw shareholders’ attention to the fact that these interim results have been reviewed by Jeffreys Henry LLP. I have been informed by Deloitte, the existing auditor, that they informed the previous Board of their intention to resign following the June 2014 audit. The previous Board chose not to announce this nor did they find a replacement for Deloitte. With limited time to have these results reviewed the Board asked Jeffreys Henry to perform the exercise as Independent Reporting Accountants, not auditors. They have previously carried out work for the Club and therefore know the finance functions well. The Board will make a further announcement on this subject once we have found a replacement firm for Deloitte.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
These words have been carefully crafted by a lawyer
What they imply is that Deloittes did the accounts up to Dec 2014 However they were unwilling to sign them off as completed accounts and simply walked out pointing to
a previous intention to resign after the June 2014 accounts were signed off
This left the new board with unfinished accounts and a 3 week deadline to issue them
The real question is why Deloittes apparently behaved so abruptly?
Were they more concerned about upsetting SDI than the new Board?
What if…
1. Deloittes held back from resigning in June 2014 because of assurances regarding funding from MASH?
2. Deloittes didn’t actually resign until after the result of the EGM?
Would make things look a bit different from how Paul Murray is attempting to spin them.
EDIT: Goosy’s post above makes more sense than my speculation.
I have been quite surprised at the rise of Ninjaman as the go to guy to judge how the Rangers support are thinking.
I certainly listen to all sides and have read quite a number of his posts.
Possibly one that explains his position a bit more deeply is well worth a read: https://rangerssupportersloyal.wordpress.com/2015/01/29/ninjaman-gets-the-battle-fever/
The propaganda war has been in full swing for some time with both sides fully engaged in vicious attacks on each other and that’s why all of their utterances have to be treated with caution as I personally doubt that they actually speak for Bears interested in football.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/business/company-results-forecasts/rangers-international-football-club-reports-5433057
This all seems quite clear. Deloittes haven’t actually resigned, unkike the NOMAD. So no AIM announcements were required. Paul Murray will let us know who the new auditors are, once he has found someone desperate enough to take on the job, unless the company gets delisted tomorrow, in which case we’ll find out when the audited accounts to 30 June 2015 are filed at Companies House.
Interesting that Ashley’s regime engaged accountants linked to Green and Stockbridge to do the interims. I’m assuming that they weren’t engaged to do the work by the Murray/King regime- which would be even more interesting!
So are we now to take it that Deloitte is still in place as auditor (despite PM insinuating otherwise), completed the accounts, then for some reason the new board had to appoint J Henry to homologate the accounts? Can anyone come up with a reason for this other than that Deloitte was not happy to sign off the accounts?
I think liquidation will be avoided like the plague if possible.
There us no way Third Rangers will not become part of common language.
neepheid says:
March 31, 2015 at 7:32 pm
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/business/company-results-forecasts/rangers-international-football-club-reports-5433057
RIFC interim chairman Paul Murray notes the company’s auditor Deloitte, “informed the previous board of their intention to resign following the June 2014 audit”.
Murray added: “The previous board chose not to announce this nor did they find a replacement for Deloitte.”
No official announcement has been made to the stock exchange on Deloitte’s intention to step down as auditors, though Murray said Deloitte are still “officially in place”.
RIFC has now enlisted London-based accountants Jeffreys Henry to act as “Independent Reporting Accountants, not auditors”, and the board will “make a further announcement on this subject once we have found a replacement firm for Deloitte”.
RIFC state Jeffreys Henry, “have previously carried out work for the Club and therefore know the finance functions well”.
By coincidence, the London office of Jeffreys Henry is also the registered office of two new ventures launched by former RIFC finance director Brian Stockbridge: Financial Strategic Associates Ltd and International Financial Strategic Associates Ltd.
Murray said Jeffreys Henry has previously worked with Charles Green’s RIFC board.
The firm had advised RIFC on its assets valuation for its 2012 initial public offering.
This all seems quite clear. Deloittes haven’t actually resigned, unkike the NOMAD. So no AIM announcements were required. Paul Murray will let us know who the new auditors are, once he has found someone desperate enough to take on the job, unless the company gets delisted tomorrow, in which case we’ll find out when the audited accounts to 30 June 2015 are filed at Companies House.
Interesting that Ashley’s regime engaged accountants linked to Green and Stockbridge to do the interims. I’m assuming that they weren’t engaged to do the work by the Murray/King regime- which would be even more interesting!
______________________________________________________________
There is another possibility:
RIFC has no NOMAD.
One of the main roles of the NOMAD is advising the board on compliance issues.
Who is advising them now????
Could it be thet the PLC – while unable to secure a NOMAD – is as a result acting in ignorance of many Stock market rules (e.g. on advising if auditor has resigned) and as a result, flouting them willy nilly?
Should PM have announced the resignation of Deloitte’s sooner?
Did they go at the same time as W.H.Ireland?
Did they go as the result of the NOMAD resignation, or for the same reason?
If so, was the failure to announce this resignation to the AIM tantamount to serious financial misconduct on the part of the current RIFC board?
…Do they even know what they are doing?????
Or are they skiing off piste with no map?
When the “next” fatal insolvency event takes place, Paul Murray and the ubiquitous Andrew Dickson will be on the board. Two men who have revelled in their respective roles.
In Murray’s case, the front of the RRM takeover having previously owned brogues from old RFC. Dickson has been at the centre of all the bad behaviour associated with this story for decades and has thus far operated seemingly under the radar.
Neither man has suffered any personal financial pain with regard to Ibrox involvement to the best of my knowledge.
King will not be on the board. This as a result of being too late in jumping ship last time (alongside one or two other misdemeanours). He also is down a considerable sum of money.
The look on their faces as they go down with the ship this time with no opportunity to be part of the next incarnation would be a real fillip for someone who probably feels they have had it so easy despite their involvement in previous catastrophes.
Almost Goosyesque supposition.
I have been away for a while. Nothing much appears to have changed – the company/club still limping on, silence from the SFA – I would imagine with another club surviving from loan to loan they would seek some form of assurance that the club can meet its sporting commitments.
Has there been any news of when HMRC v MIH (IL) is going to the Court of Session? I need to plan my annual leave 🙂
I’ve looked at RIFC plc’s record at Companies House and there is no record of Deloitte’s letter of resignation so it looks like they have not resigned, as I had thought earlier. Hopefully the letter will appear in due course and the document will be part of RIFC’s plc public record. Although if there are circumstances that require notification to the creditors and the shareholders of the company, then RIFC can apply to court to stop Deloitte issuing such a letter.
Last entry on DueDil was the termination of the Directors and Secretary so it appears that nothing is filed as yet. However, an auditor resigning is very rare. And given the profile of this particular client, Deloitte must have a very good reason to state it was their intention to resign.
Perhaps they didn’t want to suffer negative publicity at the EGM and had hoped to keep it quiet. Fortunately for them, the SMSM will ensure that they can …
Silent Partner says:
March 31, 2015 at 7:51 pm
__________________________________________________________
Could this be sooner than you’d think?
Park et al can argue that the £1.5m loan means they weren’t trading insolently in March.
Well soon its April.
Without firm funding…. weeeeellllll…..
Whereas… if they can’t afford the £500K promotion would cost… why not take a points deduction instead and save a few bob on the onerous contracts?
It was Mash’s fault, honest.
Hmmmmm….
Resin_lab_dog says:
March 31, 2015 at 8:09 pm
Park et al can argue that the £1.5m loan means they weren’t trading insolently in March.
————————————————
‘Trading insolently’ – well quite!
Auldheid says:
March 31, 2015 at 7:45 pm
I think liquidation will be avoided like the plague if possible.
There us no way Third Rangers will not become part of common language.
———————————————————————-
Of course within 6 months “Third” will have become a sectarian term only allowed
to be written as T***d when being used in the media.
Resin_lab_dog says:
March 31, 2015 at 7:47 pm
…
Do they even know what they are doing?????
Or are they skiing off piste with no map?
============================================
I think they could be winging it !
I guess the new Company Secretary – Blair – should now be keeping everybody correct re: AIM and other regulatory requirements ? 🙄
And per link below, there are no ‘bios’ available on the 5 guys listed, so who is the acting CEO, or acting FD ?
And I presume that Park and Murray still have their ‘normal’ day jobs to deal with concurrently ?
http://www.rangersinternationalfootballclub.com/board-management/board-of-directors
Tartanwulver says:
March 31, 2015 at 8:15 pm
Resin_lab_dog says:
March 31, 2015 at 8:09 pm
Park et al can argue that the £1.5m loan means they weren’t trading insolently in March.
————————————————
‘Trading insolently’ – well quite!
____________________
😛
sorry for the malaprop.
my ‘v’ went the same way as their NOMAD, their auditor, and most of their cash, there.
On SSB a caller asked the pundits if they were aware of any developments concerning Mr King the SFA and the fit and proper procedure. The caller stated that he was aware that some progress had been made. Not sure what pundit replied (Mark or Gordon) but they replied that the SFA were going to make a final decision in a couple of days and basically Mr King was going to get the go ahead. Did anyone else pick upon this, just to make sure I heard it right?
StevieBC says:
March 31, 2015 at 8:18 pm
A follow on from the offishul website
Updated on 16/12/14 – Names Deloitte as Auditors
http://www.rangersinternationalfootballclub.com/shareholder-centre/advisers
Steve BC,
I hope he does, especially when it comes to filing the Deloitte letter ! Mind you, he should be on the ball, being a partner at Andersen Strathern LLP.
StevieBC says:
March 31, 2015 at 8:18 pm
Resin_lab_dog says:
March 31, 2015 at 7:47 pm
…
Do they even know what they are doing?????
Or are they skiing off piste with no map?
============================================
I think they could be winging it !
____________________________________________
If its a case of ‘winging it’ I would venture to suggest they are looking more like ‘penguins’ than ‘eagles’. ( flap-flap … slide…. Splash…. and dive)
StevieBC says:
March 31, 2015 at 8:18 pm
http://www.rangersinternationalfootballclub.com/board-management/board-of-directors
———–
Congrats to wee Stevie in IT – he finally updated the directors on the website required to satisfy AIM rules today. Only the Nomad and auditors to correct now.
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/the-seven-year-glitch/#more-6086 …
Nothing new to add, but hopefully the retelling adds weight. TRIFC publish interim accounts where they announce that their ‘Existing’ auditors ‘intend’ to resign and as a result their accounts have been reviewed by a separate firm. The reports structure is clear (https://www.icaew.com/~/media/corporate/files/members/practice%20centre/audit/auditor_resignation_under_companies_act_2006.ashx) and it may be that Deloitte’s have not yet resigned. If they have then the Statement of Circumstances will be extremely interesting. Even so the hand-picked ‘reviewing’ firm have highlighted ” the existence of a material uncertainty which may cast significant doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern”.
This brings me to the crux of the matter. The facts that RIFC is a basket case and Dave King doesn’t always match his words with actions are not unexpected. Neither is how the fourth estate then reports, as Monty Python would say, the bleedin’ obvious, but that is what raises the hackles. What we get is £500k payments to NUFC ‘when’ promotion is achieved and a 7 year plan when no plan is actually defined. Then again, I suppose Fergus McCann got the same easy ride. Obsession is the new Paranoia.
jean7brodie says:
March 31, 2015 at 9:09 pm
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/the-seven-year-glitch/#more-6086 …
======================================
Don’t know if mentioned earlier, but shirley the £500k should have been at least partially provided for ?
“16. Contingent Liabilities
Newcastle Player Loans
…the Club will be liable to pay a total of £500,000 to Newcastle United Football Company Limited.
As this liability is based on an uncertain future event, the Directors have not recognised this amount in these financial statements…”
===========================================================
I would argue that there is reasonable probability that TRFC will at least make the play-offs.
The club has either been at the top of the league, or in a play-off position for the entire season so far.
So, even if TRFC finishes 4th, they will have to beat 3 teams to gain promotion.
So the rough probability of promotion is 50% x 50% x 50% = 12.5%.
This £500,000 should be provided for – as a reasonably expected event within the year – at 12.5% = £62,500
IMO, but happy to be challenged.