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 9, 2015 at 6:16 pm
mcfc says: March 9, 2015 at 5:24 pm
“Investigation begins into where £70m has gone at Rangers”
How long will Mr Park take to track down the £70mil and publish the results in the spirit of “absolute transparency and accountability”.
Mr Wallace spent 127 days on his review. That must cover most of the £70mil – so why not publish that now as a taster.
http://www.themag.co.uk/2015/03/investigation-begins-70m-gone-rangers/
============================
Here’s the expenditure that the 120 day review identified.
Summary of Expenditure 29 May 2012 – 31 December 2013
Expenditure ….. £m
Purchase of the Club
Purchase of the Club …… 5.5
Repayment of OLDCO Debt ….. 3.0
Commissions and introduction Fees IPO/Pre IPO ….. 2.7
Pre Acquisition Payroll and other Expenses ….. 1.2
Broker Commissions & Stamp Duty ….. 1.2
Corporate Finance and Fund Raising Advice …… 1.1
Legal & Accountancy Fees ….. 0.7
Other Professional Services ….. 0.5
Professional Fees of Purchase and Incorporation ….. 0.4
Football
First Team Payroll Costs ….. 10.4
Other Football Related Payroll Costs ….. 5.6
Termination of Player Contracts ….. 2.3
Purchase of Players ….. 1.5
Operations
Central Administration and Overheads ….. 8.6
Matchday and Direct Costs ….. 8.4
Non Football Payroll Costs ….. 7.0
Purchase of Fixed Assets ….. 5.6
Director’s Severance Costs ….. 0.9
Investigation Fees ….. 0.6
Cash Balance at December 2013 ….. 3.5
Total Expenditure ….. 70.7
35 0 Rate
=======================================================================
EJ…your analytical skills are on a par with those of Auldheid…ultimate respect dear boy!
However…£700,000 for audit, accountancy and related services…where was I when this was put out to tender?….
I am sure StevieBC, myself and a few others on this blog could have “got together” and made the relevant decision makers a much cheaper offer…. 😈 😡 🙄
…sorry forgot the “…the other professional fees”… £500,000 FFS… 😳
…oh to be a “…professional…”….!
essexbeancounter says:
March 9, 2015 at 8:56 pm
Yeeees, ICAS, what can one say, well, um, Neil Patey, **cough** Paul Murray **cough** didn’t Groucho Marx have something to say about club membership?
essexbeancounter says:
March 9, 2015 at 9:04 pm
EJ…your analytical skills are on a par with those of Auldheid…ultimate respect dear boy!
__________________________________________
I fully concur with this sentiment.
Brilliant work as always EJ. You are a credit to this site.
mcfc says:
March 9, 2015 at 7:15 pm
sickofitall says:
March 9, 2015 at 6:24 pm
NEWCASTLE UNITED’s board have admitted they are considering making Rangers their feeder club, by confirming it at a fans’ forum.
===========================================================
Wonder what it’s like to be a feeder club to a club with no ambition ?
……………………..
A bottom feeder, I suppose!
essexbeancounter says: March 9, 2015 at 9:04 pm
—————————
There was no analysis involved.
The document can be found here……
http://www.rangers.co.uk/images/staticcontent/documents/RangersBusinessReview.pdf
…..and on my laptop 🙂
EJ
Whenever I read that document, this always comes to mind
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xC-Ft-Ijew
scapaflow says:
March 9, 2015 at 7:59 pm
Events in parliament today, give a nice illustration of why I have done a 180 in my attitude towards the SFA’s responsibilities vis a vis King’s FPP status.
A few short months ago, parliament in it’s wisdom, appointed Ms Rona Fairhead chair of the BBC Trust.
………..
The same trust that upheld the complaints of Sevconians.
The same trust which let Jim Spence hang out to dry for telling the truth.
The same trust which decreed that their “journalists” should be explicit about whether they are writing about “the Club” or “the Company” (which the journalists never do since the ruling)
I’m a bit late to the party but there is no harm in saying once more what an outstanding blog this is from Auldheid.
EJ, a timely post on the 120 day review and the £70m spend. If I recall correctly it was Graham Wallace who first made mention of the existance of onerous contracts but gave no details.
Since the 120 review there has been much talk of the onerous contracts but precious little detail. OK, we know the retail contract is weighted in SD’s favour but the Ranger’s Retail deal has been out in the open since the beginning.
Phil MacG, has given the only real hints as to the more secretive contracts that are suposed to exist. Money disapearing into the “Sevco Triangle” is the phrase used. But again, if I am correct the only actual figure mentioned is a £278,000 monthly bill linked to the use of Ibrox.
I’m guessing that money could be hidden under Central Administration and Overheads £8.6m or Matchday and Direct Costs £8.4m.
EssexBC has raised an eyebrow or two at the level of professional fees this evening. Could some of the onerous contract costs be hidden under these headings.
If these onerous contracts do in fact exist in the numbers and for the ammounts that have been rumoured then GW hid the outgoings under the headings contained in the figures posted by EJ. Are there any clues in these figures? Anything that just doesn’t look right?
Whilst we all known that Ally was on a good wedge does that explain this? First Team Payroll Costs £10.4m – Other Football Related Payroll Costs £5.6m. Over 33% of your football payroll for other than players?
easyJambo says:
March 9, 2015 at 9:52 pm
essexbeancounter says: March 9, 2015 at 9:04 pm
—————————
There was no analysis involved.
The document can be found here……
http://www.rangers.co.uk/images/staticcontent/documents/RangersBusinessReview.pdf
…..and on my laptop 🙂
7 0 Rate This
===========================================================================
EJ…such modesty….!
I have to “blame” you for my laziness in not reading the published statutory accounts of RFC(IL) and its successors…!
Scottish football needs a revolution. As we know the media won’t agitate for it, that the governing bodies won’t deliver it and the clubs themselves don’t seem to want to bring it about … it falls, at last, to us, the fans.
http://www.onfieldsofgreen.com/the-need-for-leadership/
In defence of tax evasion/avoidance etc. I give you:
The following report has been sent in the form of a letter/complaint to the Public Accounts Committee.
It is also in the possession of a leading MSM outlet in Scotland.
It is the summary of 3 years research and investigation – its now up to others to do their duty.
SETTLEMENT
It is now a matter of record that Sir David Murray offered, unsuccessfully, to settle with HMRC in relation to Ranger’s use of EBT’s. HMRC themselves emphasise the importance of measures outside litigation.
http://www.publicati…acc/458/458.pdf
18.
We queried whether HMRC’s litigation strategy for avoidance cases is too cautious. We have heard in the past from the major accountancy firms that they would CONTINUE to promote avoidance schemes even when there was a 50% chance of these being successfully challenged.34 HMRC told us that last year it defeated 30 avoidance schemes and protected £2.7 billion through litigation. It said it is proud of its 80% success rate in avoidance cases, arguing that its high level of success is an important deterrent 35 HMRC emphasised the importance of measures outside of litigation. For example, it has not taken Employee Benefit Trusts to court, and sees reaching a settlement as the most effective way of resolving them. Unlike marketed avoidance schemes which often have a large number of followers , Employee Benefit Trusts tend to be bespoke, making individual case – by – case litigation costly.
Such alternatives are laid out in HMRC’s document:
How we resolve Tax Disputes,
The Tax Assurance Commissioner’s
Annual Report 2013-14
https://www.gov.uk/g…e_JULY14_V2.pdf
and include measures such as Resolution via Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution which includes either mediation of facilitated discussion between the parties.
As a shareholder I would be interested to know if any of these alternatives to litigation were pursued by HMRC in the case of Rangers, and if not why not, given their written commitment to such processes.
DUTY OF CARE/EARLY INTERVENTION/INFORMATION SHARING
This section reflects on opportunities missed, perhaps due to absence of protocols, clear pro-active guidelines and policies on early intervention.
http://www.dailyreco…e-being-3992415
I have spoken personally to the journalist who wrote that article, Mr Keith Jackson of the Daily Record & Sunday Mail. He still has in his possession the relative documentation which substantiates the veracity of that article. These documents can be made available to the Public Accounts Committee should they be required.
I would also direct you to the summary of Craig Whyte’s Directorship Disqualification.
https://www.insolven…number=SC004276
and would highlight the following extract:
All of the foregoing liabilities had arisen in the period between 01 September 2011 (after the limited company acquired the majority shareholding in RFC and he was appointed as a director of RFC) and February 2012, a period of five and a half months. Tixway UK Limited (“Tixway”) 2. Mr Whyte failed to ensure that Tixway maintained and/or preserved adequate accounting records, or if such records were maintained, he failed to deliver them up to the Liquidator. As a consequence of his failure to comply with his statutory obligations, the Liquidator has been unable to establish what has happened to apparently substantial assets of Tixway or, more generally, to verify the business activities and TRADING history of Tixway. In particular, the Liquidator has been unable to: 2.1 account for the substantial change in position as between Tixway’s last audited accounts (for the period to 31 January 2010) which showed Tixway as having fixed assets of £1,103,190 represented by “INVESTMENTS” and total current assets of £1,403,658 (comprising DEBTORS of £923,856 and cash at bank and in hand of £479,802), and its current position which, according to the Liquidator’s latest estimated statement of affairs, is a deficiency of £3,017,918; 2.2 identify the investments recorded as owned by Tixway as at 31 January 2010 such that he is unable to account for or realise those assets for the benefit of Tixway’s creditors; 2.3 identify the debtors recorded in the accounts to 31 January 2010 and establish whether such debts remained outstanding or seek to collect the DEBTS FOR the benefit of Tixway’s creditors; 2.4 identify the location of any cash sums held on behalf of Tixway and collect such sums for the benefit of Tixway’s creditors, only one BANK ACCOUNT in the name of Tixway having been identified by the Liquidator which account held a balance of only £51,340 as at 31 January 2010; 2.5 verify the nature and purpose of transactions recorded in the one known bank account or establish that such transactions were for the legitimate purposes of Tixway’s business, credits to the known bank account over the period 01 April 2008 to 27 June 2012 totalling £1,955,709 and debits over the same period totalling £2,072,994; 2.6 establish whether Tixway had any employees, (HMRC having informed the Liquidator that Tixway did not operate a PAYE scheme) and/or whether any remuneration was paid to you (the known bank account showing payments to Mr Whyte personally totalling £100,875 over the period from 20 July 2009 to 22 May 2012);
There appears to have been a considerable failure of DUE DILIGENCE by Sir David Murray with regard to Mr Craig Whyte. The latter’s failure to declare to the Scottish Football Association, a previous directorship disqualification (Vital UK Ltd for a period of 7 years) whilst his fraudulent scheme involving Ticketus came to fruition (for which he now faces criminal prosecution) saw him gain control of Rangers. His stewardship of Rangers was characterised by a course of conduct which had brought him previously to the attention of HMRC i.e. failure to contribute to PAYE and VAT payments.
Throughout this series of developments and perhaps worthy of future consideration and exploration, is that the fact that at this time HMRC were in possession of information which, had the Scottish Football Association been granted access to, or been made aware of, may have prevented much of the subsequent damage and carnage which unfolded. This is in no way an attempt to apportion blame onto HMRC but more an exploration of the mechanisms such as information SHARING protocols which may provide both shareholders and potential creditors a measure of protection from unscrupulous characters such as Craig Whyte. At what point, if any, is a government investigative agency, holding information which may afford protection to a company, its shareholders and those with whom it trades, obliged to share such information to beneficial parties? If the answer is never then perhaps that failing needs to be explored.
The ramifications of Craig Whyte’s stewardship of Rangers have been calamitous for all of Scottish Football, resulting in reduced revenue, reduced sponsorship and job losses.
Sue Walton, head of HMRC’s anti-avoidance group writing in the Tax Journal 21 April 2011:
http://www.taxjourna…ompliance-24781
“Realistically, though, we know that there will always be a need for TARGETED intervention to respond to the way that particular customers choose to behave.”
Later in the same article she states:
“To recap then, HMRC’s approach to compliance is, first and foremost, to minimise the need for enforcement – it is in everyone’s interests to do that. But where a risk of non-compliance is identified, we aim to detect that as early as possible and resolve it as quickly as we can.”
Given HMRC’s knowledge of Craig Whyte and the way he was likely to behave, why did it take them a full 9 months to intervene in the case of Rangers, by which time a huge bill had been allowed to accrue?
With HMRC’s failing to act in accordance with their own written commitments it is not hard to understand why many Rangers shareholders feel that quite simply HMRC were giving Craig Whyte “sufficient rope to hang himself” and both the club, the company, the shareholders and the subsequent creditors were all considered worthy collateral damage in bringing that to fruition.
BREACHES OF CONFIDENTIALITY/MISDIRECTION
As alluded to by yourself during the aforementioned Public Select Committee, the Rangers FC tax travails received considerable media attention.
As shareholders in the company many of us were particularly concerned by one particular aspect of such coverage, and that was coverage which had at its heart material relating to the business dealings of the company which would normally be considered “confidential”
Two sources were of particular concern:
(1) The Rangers Tax Case Blog – This was an anonymous blog on the internet which featured almost daily fresh material of a confidential nature relating to Rangers tax dealings. It also offered “interpretation” of the confidential material it was publishing, and normally such interpretation was particularly slanted to infer Rangers guilt. To understand both the scope and effect of this website allow me to quote from journalist Tom English writing in the Scotsman newspaper on 25.11.2012
“If you wanted to know the latest news on their tax travails, rangerstaxcase was a place you went because, unlike newspapers or radio stations, rangerstaxcase was connected to the heart of the FTT and everybody knew it.
It had documents and detail that were beyond dispute. When illustrating one point it was making it would summon up information that could only have come from somebody within, or very close to, the tribunal”
In 2012 the Rangers Tax Case Blog won the Orwell PRIZE, the judges citing was as follows:
‘The 2012 Blog Prize showed that not only could blogs comment on current events, they could drive stories forward. Rangers Tax-Case takes what might be a dry topic – the tax affairs of a sports team – and shows how a striving for transitory success has severely distorted sporting, legal and ethical boundaries. Displaying focused contempt for those who evade difficult truths, and beating almost every Scottish football journalist to the real story – Rangers Tax-Case shows how expertise and incisive writing can expose the hypocrisies the powerful use to protect themselves from the consequences of their actions. It is a worthy winner which not only proves that independent blogging is as healthy as it ever was, but also offers a mirror in which our times are reflected.’
Following the decision of the Upper Tax Tribunal in favour of Rangers the anonymous blog not only shut down, but also deleted all its files.
(2) The Men Who Sold the Jerseys – BBC Scotland Documentary. This documentary was broadcast on national television (BBC Scotland & Northern Ireland) on the 23rd March 2012. Again at the heart of this documentary were numerous confidential documents which BBC Scotland later published on their website.
This documentary was also a recipient of an award – the Foreign Press Awards Sports Story.
HMRC have a legal duty to protect such information.
http://www.hmrc.gov….ut/privacy.html
“SECURITY
HMRC has a legal duty to protect the confidentiality of taxpayer information. HMRC take all reasonable steps to protect any information you submit via the website, both online and offline, in accordance with legislation such as the Data Protection Act 1998.
HMRC take all appropriate steps to protect your personally identifiable information as you transmit your information from your COMPUTER to the HMRC site and to protect such information for loss, misuse, and unauthorised access, disclosure, alteration, or destruction. HMRC use leading technologies and encryption software to safeguard your data, and operate strict security standards to prevent any unauthorised access to it.”
These two outlets of confidential information were the subject of numerous complaints to HMRC from Rangers shareholders clearly concerned about the breaches of confidentiality.
To say HMRC’s response to these complaints was underwhelming is a considerable understatement. Shareholders received the same generic response from HMRC – “HMRC do not comment about speculation about breaches of confidentiality”
Further complaints to Government Ministers such as David Gauke MP and Danny Alexander MP were referred to HMRC’s Ministerial Correspondence Unit (Keeley Spindler) who again offered the generic response aforesaid.
I would have thought that HMRC’s pledge to take “all appropriate steps” would have included taking complaints from shareholders seriously, and not dismissing an award WINNING web blog publishing “documents and details which were beyond dispute” and a BBC Scotland documentary, broadcast on national television, as mere “speculation”.
Did HMRC investigate these complaints from Rangers shareholders highlighting various instances of breaches of confidentiality?
The seizing of documentation by HMRC in the Rangers Tax Case would have involved the cataloguing of evidence for future use. Did HMRC cross reference their catalogued evidence against the confidential information appearing in the public domain?
If so what were their findings and what action did they take? Furthermore what duties and responsibilities are placed upon them in the event of the theft or loss of evidence?
In February 2013, the SPL’s Independent Commission, chaired by Rt Honourable Lord Nimmo Smith, assisted by Nicholas Stewart QC and Charles Flint QC, published its conclusions following its investigation into EBT use by Rangers in what is referred to as the SPL Independent Commission Report. Section 98 of their Report contained an extraordinary revelation.
“Meanwhile, BBC Scotland came, by unknown means, into possession of what they described as “dozens of secret emails, letters and documents”, which we understand were the productions before the Tax Tribunal. These formed the basis of a programme entitled “Rangers – The Men Who Sold the Jerseys”, which was broadcast on 23 May 2012. BBC Scotland also published copious material on its website. The published material included a table containing the names of Rangers players, coaches and staff who were beneficiaries of the MGMRT, and how much they received through that trust.”
The term “productions” is of course legal jargon for evidence.
Therefore one of the outlets of confidential information (BBC Scotland) which was the subject of complaints from Rangers shareholders, which HMRC dismissed as “speculation about breaches of confidentiality,” appear to have sourced that confidential material courtesy of evidential items seized by HMRC for use in the tax tribunal. Whilst I obviously cannot confirm it, I think it is safe to assume that the unauthorised removal of evidential items would be facilitated by theft.
Were HMRC aware of such a theft and what were their duties and responsibilities with regard to this?
Following the ruling of the First Tier Tax Tribunal in November 2012, both Sir David Murray and I lodged criminal complaints with, what was then, Strathclyde Police in respect of the various breaches of confidentiality. This led to the subsequent instigation of a Police criminal enquiry. The fact that this was the instigation of a Police enquiry would suggest that no previous complaints had been received in respect of either breaches of confidentiality nor theft of evidence.
In view of the foregoing, I would also ask you to consider, at what point a public body, is so neglectful, so grossly incompetent, that their behaviour warrants consideration of criminal negligence.
On Wednesday 16th July, 2014, you participated in a question and answer session with executive level officers from HMRC as part of the compilation of the HM Revenue & Customs Annual Report 2013-14.
http://data.parliame…oral/11443.html
At question 54 you table a question to Mr Jim Harra, Director General Business Tax, HMRC, who suggests the question in itself is a “misapprehension” and responds as follows:
“It has been in the media. This dispute on employee benefit trusts was not the reason why Rangers went into liquidation. It was for non-payment of their standard pay-as-you-earn and VAT obligations.”
I would respectfully suggest that is wholly inaccurate. Rangers FC [Oldco] went into liquidation due to a series of events in which HMRC themselves played an integral part, some of which forms the subject of this report, culminating in their rejection of the CVA proposed by Mr Charles Green, and furthermore, that the original question tabled by yourself, represents a far more accurate summary of the sequence of factual events.
In conclusion it is clear there are several areas of inconsistency with regard to public commitments made by HMRC and the actual service level delivery of such commitments. There are also serious concerns as a consequence of HMRC’s apparent dismissal of bona fide complaints highlighting serious breaches of confidentiality.
Many thousands of Rangers supporters and shareholders have previously signed a petition requesting a full and public Government Enquiry into this whole affair. The recent high profile arrests and forthcoming prosecution of 4 individuals, will once again put the events into the media spotlight, but additionally, it will also make available facts and circumstances previously unknown to the general public.
Whilst I feel the gravity of the concerns highlighted herein would be best served by way of full and public Government Enquiry, I fully accept that the Public Accounts Committee be aware of information that the general public are not privy to.
If you do not feel that the interests of the public would be best served by such an enquiry, I would at least respectfully request that the various concerns and inconsistencies outlined above would be directed to executive level officers via the Public Accounts Committee.
BLUEDIGNITY, lancedeangers1, MosesMcNeil and 27 others like this
#2 Hmrc & Rangers Tax Cases: post #2 ritchieshearercaldow
Davie Cooper
Club Legend
8,788 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Kilbarchan
Posted 07 March 2015 – 06:54 PM
HMRC are answerable to no one, they are imbasils of the highest class, a law unto themselves
Well done to those who keep up the fight.
they are imbasils” 🙄
Sickofitall, you really shouldn’t post the phone number. Even the poster on Bears Den has now removed it. Mods, can you fix, please? Re the post itself, is it serious?
Well thought out article to help us understand what remains unresolved in these matters. I am sure that the new transparent and open board of RIFC will be willing partners in taking this well thought out analysis forward.
Excellent piece Auldheid,
apologies for my cynicism.
Well not all of the smsm are unaware of the dangers of lunacy. (Keep doing the same thing and expect a different result)
Good article by Andrew Smith of The Scotsman.
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl-lower-divisions/dave-king-on-rangers-learning-from-past-mistakes-1-3712465
Dave King on Rangers learning from past mistakes
by
ANDREW SMITH
published 00:00 Sunday 08 March 2015
RANGERS may be under a new regime but the rhetoric offered up by those in charge yesterday seemed strangely familiar. Worryingly familiar, you might even say. Meeting members of the Sunday press in the less than salubrious surroundings of Cowdenbeath’s stadium yesterday, what major shareholder and power behind the throne Dave King and new interim chairman Paul Murray had to say about again making Rangers grand had echoes of an old, ill-starred plan.
In essence, both reiterated that Rangers will need to spend beyond their income levels to be restored to their previous standing. That is precisely what got this incarnation of the club into its current mess, and what put paid to the last incarnation.
The task facing the new men, who were joined by amiable new director John Gilligan, following their victory at the club’s general meeting on Friday, is hellishly difficult. They have to square the circle, in essence. Reduce costs, grow income and improve quality.
If the average wage bill for a lower-tier Rangers now scrabbling around in the Championship hadn’t been around £6 million in the three years since liquidation, maybe King, Murray, Gilligan, new fellow board member Douglas Park and would-be backers wouldn’t have such a arduous entry point. Yet King almost defended the post-liquidation Green regime for their strategy to push up the leagues.
“The idea from a couple of years ago, which hasn’t been executed properly, is that Rangers would operate with a higher cost level to the other clubs, and part of that was to win the leagues and slowly improve the squad so that, when they re-entered the Premier League, there wasn’t a huge gap to restructure. It hasn’t happened,” said King.
“[And] even if we end up playing in this league for another season, I still think we have to be looking ahead to the Premier League, start focusing and start getting players who can play at Premier League level. What we don’t want to be doing is moving up the league then trying to rebuild another team. It has to be a seamless process from now onwards. Walking through the club without seeing the numbers, it wasn’t obvious to me how you could take costs out of that. In fact, the opposite seems to be true. Perhaps the money has been spent in the wrong areas, but the club looked absolutely desolate walking through it.”
Desolation and, Gilligan mournfully reflected, “despondency” was what the three men had a palpable sense of when they met the staff at Ibrox and Murray Park. Staff they said had been essentially ignored and abused by the various asset-strippers who have filed through in recent years.
The alchemy required is to grow the assets without placing Rangers in financial peril or leaving them pursued by HMRC, which pretty much sums up the past decade for the club. Yet, within that era, Murray believes Rangers had a sustainable business model, with the direct access to the Champions League afforded them by league wins in 2009, 2010 and 2011 allowing the club to post healthy profits.
“This thing about cutting costs. You have to remember that when myself and Dave were on the board previously, the reasons we brought the debt down was not just about cutting costs,” Murray said. “It was about a business model where we ran the club – latterly when Alastair Johnston was chairman – basically breaking even on domestic matches. The Champions League income led to an investment fund and we used that to invest in infrastructure and players. That is a model I think should be sustainable.”
Murray sought to downplay the added difficulties presented by the fact that Mike Ashley remains in control of the club’s retail contracts through his Sports Direct empire, which has been preposterously presented as some sort of serfdom by his critics. The sums are permanently disputed, but it has been quoted in some quarters that Rangers took in only around £1.5m for the deal last year. Murray could draw on the past to give insight into how this is hardly the be all and end all.
“Latterly [in my time before], we didn’t have that [great returns] either, with JJB having an arrangement with the club. We only got £3m a year,” Murray said. “It wasn’t as if it was a massive amount of money. It was welcome but not earth shattering.”
On radio on Friday night, former chairman Johnston said, through his friendship with Celtic’s largest shareholder Dermot Desmond, that he was sure the Irishman would welcome the regime change at Rangers.
King said: “Celtic’s business model is an exact mirror of Rangers’ business model. For Celtic to be successful commercially requires a strong Rangers. Rangers winning nine in a row is great for the fans, but it isn’t good for the club financially, just like dominating isn’t good for them financially. Celtic need us to be competitive with them and we need the same.”
As much as business acumen, central to success for any club is having football acumen in the dug-out. Murray, as he had on Friday, maintained again that there would be no rush to appoint a permanent successor to Ally McCoist for a job that has only been held by 13 people.
“I haven’t sat down and spoken to Ally and Kenny [McDowall] about their positions,” said Murray. “We can’t have a public discussion about their contracts of employment. We will sit down with them but I’m sure they are delighted with the changes.”
If Celtic’s business model mirrors TRFC does that mean that they do things the opposite way round? If so that explains lots of things.
sickofitall says:
March 9, 2015 at 10:54 pm
Not my field so I’m genuinely puzzled how this fits with things like public liability insurance, in terms of:
If a gallant volunteer gets hurt
If the work is shoddy and a member of the public gets hurt etc etc
Amateur hour stunts have become almost de rigueur at Ibrox, but this is plumbing new depths.
James Forrest says:
March 9, 2015 at 10:47 pm
Scottish football needs a revolution. As we know the media won’t agitate for it, that the governing bodies won’t deliver it and the clubs themselves don’t seem to want to bring it about … it falls, at last, to us, the fans.
—————————-
All very laudable James. Just a small point, you post a link to your website and an article on inclusivity when tackling the misgovernance of Scottish football and you emphasise the need for a united fans approach from all clubs. Might I suggest you stop referring to Rangers fans as Sevco Rangers fans.Whatever the truth of such nomenclature it is surely for another day.
James Forrest says:
March 9, 2015 at 10:47 pm (Edit)
Scottish football needs a revolution. As we know the media won’t agitate for it, that the governing bodies won’t deliver it and the clubs themselves don’t seem to want to bring it about … it falls, at last, to us, the fans.
http://www.onfieldsofgreen.com/the-need-for-leadership/
======================
I agree with this James, particularly a set of objectives but you need something for it to coalesce around.
I note reservations expressed by Alzipratu re The Scottish Football Supporters Association see http://scottishfsa.org/downloads/sfsa-sponsorship-intro.pdf
but it might save having to reinvent a new wheel if it provides enough spokes to run with.
I recall a small group from CQN getting together in 2010 over a number of issues. At the same time the CSA and CST had held an Open Meeting looking at much the same issues so we just piggybacked on that.
(Had ah kent then wit ah ken noo 🙄 )
One thing that annoys me no end on this blog when I look in a few hours later is to see posts quoted with name and time and when you scroll back, what do I find? The bl**dy post has been deleted. Either the original poster has second thoughts and asked for it to be scrubbed or the Mods have beaten him to it.
On a sustainable business case for TRFC: here is one I prepared earlier, last year before I knew about onerous contracts or how good Hearts and Hibs would be and how bad would TRFC be. If you scroll down it tells you the level of player wages the projected income less expenditure that TRFC could afford each year.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B62m3ggkEX2Rcm9YWm1udWxvMnM/view?usp=sharing
The point is it needs updated and I don’t have the time. If anyone with spreadsheet experience wants the original to play around with and wants to review the figures get in touch auldheid046@gmail.com
ekt1m says:
March 10, 2015 at 12:15 am
Assume you’re referring to this, (id info has been removed)
“IBROX REFURBISHMENT:
“I am looking to collate a list of volunteers who are willing to give up a few hours or days of their time to help with essential work at Ibrox Stadium and Murray Park. Tradesmen in all trades are especially required but there is also plenty work for the unskilled. This is our chance to show Rangers fans simply are the best by helping our club in its hour of need. If you are willing to muck in and help get our stadium back to its best. Give me a call on . Tradesmen in Joinery , Electricians, Welders, Painters, Plasterers , Bricklayers etc are especially welcome. Even if just for a couple of hours per week. Join up with Ibrox refurb today and lets get our club back where we belong . I m waiting for your calls.””
Northbhoy says:
March 9, 2015 at 11:12 pm (Edit)
Well thought out article to help us understand what remains unresolved in these matters. I am sure that the new transparent and open board of RIFC will be willing partners in taking this well thought out analysis forward.
Excellent piece Auldheid,
apologies for my cynicism.
========================
Actually I was intrigued by an article in the DR that said DK would carry out a forensic scrutiny of events at TRFC during the CW era in the interests of transparency.
I look forward keenly to his findings on the UEFA 2011 licence submission in June/July 2011 and, if it embraces what went on under the Adminstrators, how they missed the evidence of the true story of the DOS Ebts in 2012.
My cynicism has a sense of humour 😉
Re the missing millions:
We’ve had Phil Mac talking about £200K+ going offshore every month. If he is correct then that would most likely be the largest onerous contract.
There are also little snippets in the accounts that give a clue to where some of the other money has gone.
£411K excess stock purchase
£422K onerous leases (Airport & Belfast shops)
£594K auditors fees for additional advisory services in 2013
£600K for the Pinsent Masons investigation
The intercompany balance between TRFC and RIFC actually fell by £496K between 2013 and 2014, so that money has gone somewhere via RIFC.
RIFC itself has made losses totalling £848K in the past two years, but is hidden in the accounts as RIFC doesn’t report separately.
Directors emoluments are also a bit excessive.
RIFC reported costs of £1.371M in 2014 and £787K in 2013 (7 months).
TRFC reported costs of £1.126M in 2014 and £1.756M in 2013 (13 months).
So the best part of £1M went to directors of TRFC in the six months before RIFC was created. There are various severance payments and option costs included, but it looks like the football club has been paying much more for its directors than the parent company.
The costs of the initial purchase and the IPO also to a large slice as indicated in the 120 day review figures posted earlier, particularly the commissions and professional fees.
Tonight at Ibrox there will undoubtedly be a high attendance, most likely 45-50,000 in my view. This will no doubt be used as evidence of a solid foundation for Rangers to rebuild. In tandem with that though is the very poor team they have, and the very real possibility they won’t be promoted this season. In that event large crowds will simply reduce the loss, or at best they will stand still. The onerous contracts will remain, and we do not know just how linked they are to high attendances. King & Co may have to throw in millions just to get out the other end and still have nothing in the kitty for the top league. Given the current situation I believe we should be on high alert re the claim posted on here the other day that the SPFL are considering urgent league reconstruction. The claim was made via a Rangers fans site and only they know the accuracy or otherwise of their source. If these talks are happening then they are doing very well in this modern world of communication technology to keep them a secret. I also believe if they are happening it is for one club’s benefit only. It would be just like the ill advised thoughts of Gordon Strachan earlier this season coming to pass. Will it be enough to spark a fans revolt like we saw in 2012? Personally I hope so, because the principle is exactly the same.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/id-love-see-walter-smith-5302701
And so another day begins 🙄
A wee bit late, but thanks Auldheid for the huge effort!
I have to be honest and say I read and
re-read but my brain near exploded each time with all the details – I’m simply one of those guys that find it impossible to keep track if the plot is anything more than simple. The parcel of brogues wish there was more brains like me, and less like you!
I can’t retain a picture of what’s going on when the plot thickens with red herrings, squirrels etc. I smell a rat, but can’t explain it if asked.
I don’t really read long posts on the blog because of this – nothing personal against the long posters, it’s me.
When it comes to films, I’ve never
went much further than old cowboy movies – plain and simple, and easy to enjoy.
What I’m getting at is, could someone sum up, maybe with bullet points the main points of ‘Whit Regan kens noo’ to help the likes of me? Or maybe I’m the only dunderheid? Thanks.
upthehoops says:
March 10, 2015 at 7:10 am
……….. Given the current situation I believe we should be on high alert re the claim posted on here the other day that the SPFL are considering urgent league reconstruction. The claim was made via a Rangers fans site and only they know the accuracy or otherwise of their source. If these talks are happening then they are doing very well in this modern world of communication technology to keep them a secret. I also believe if they are happening it is for one club’s benefit only. ……….
……………………………………
They really wouldn’t dare, would they? How many teams would have to be promoted to be sure of TRFC getting to “where they belong”, you have to wonder.
My team would probably be a beneficiary of such scheming but, I have to say that if any clubs gets promoted without earning promotion by demonstrating competence, they are being done no favour in the longer term.
Hibs needed this season to rebuild from the ground up and are heading in the right direction but, as I see it, they have still not demonstrated they are ready for the top flight. They may well be by the season’s end but they still have to demonstrate an ability to dominate and win games week in and week out. Hearts, so far are the only Championship side to have done that – except when they play Hibs – and well done to them!
Rangers’ fans, Board and sycophantic camp followers in the press and footballing authorities must surely recognise that promotion without competence will lead only to prolonged floundering at any level. As such, further instability on and off the field is inevitable and can never, in any way, be considered beneficial to Scottish football. Where does this insane and irrational belief come from, that by just getting back into the top flight, everything will work out just fine?
It appears that the Level 5 task for today is to prepare the ground for the triumphal return of Walter Smith. Now this man was chairman of the Board while money was being hoovered out of Ibrox at maximum flow rate, yet he is absolutely blameless so far as our compliant press are concerned. Llambias and Leach arrived in late November at a point when there was no money left, were directors for about 12 weeks, yet they are universally vilified as rats, vermin, and all sorts of bad words I can’t expose you to on this forum for reasons of decorum. What’s that all about?
It strikes me that King’s plan is to bring back the old regime in its entirety- John Greig, no doubt, Ally McCoist in some non-job, Alistair Johnson can be brought into the circle, culminating in the return of Sir David as club president, or some such. All to the background of constant cheerleading by our fearless corps of sporting journalists. I’m sure Jackson will be happy to lead the press parade in miniskirt and twirling pom poms if he thinks it will assist his heroes in any way.
So back to the future, would anyone be surprised? The new board more or less the same as the old board, jobs for the boys all round, Real Rangers Men back in charge, dignity and staunchness restored, the circle squared, so to speak.
It’s just the fact that there’s no money whatsoever that is getting in the way. Bears, it’s milking time again! What Green took off you last time is small change compared to King’s spending plans this time round. And no institutions to fleece, this time, it all has to come from the fans. Prepare to dig deep.
Thoughts on the idea of TRFC becoming a Newcastle United feeder club;
sounds to me more like Ashley putting them in (rather than returning them to) their ‘rightful place’! A bit of a parting (from the boardroom) shot rather than a genuine possibility, and a reminder that he still has strings to pull. There’s also more than a hint of ‘I can keep you (TRFC) out of Europe!’ It might be a hint, it might be a reminder, it might be a threat, of what might happen should the new board try too hard to rock Mike Ashley’s onerous boat. On the other hand, it might just be his way of saying ‘no hard feelings’ to the men on the new board who have made much public celebration of their victory over him! I’m sure it will be the latter, as hard, hard businessmen, like Ashley, are usually magnanimous in defeat 🙂
If Mr King is forced to de-list from AIM because no Nomad will take the gig at any price, then how will the shareholders interpret Mr King’s action – givien that it will greatly reduce the value and tradeability of their shares.
a) no problem, the King is back, it was a price we’re happy to pay
b) regrettable, but King was let down by the Nomad he had lined up
c) King knew he would never get a Nomad so de-listing was inevitable – he misled shareholders in a mendacious manner by concealing this
.
Two quick things.
Neepheid, don’t underestimate the minor technicality that re-establishing the old order is difficult when you have no money (unless you’re telling me they would do it out of the goodness of their heart 😈 ). Equally, to every potential donee please note this is the kind of crap your money will be going on.
Secondly, purely thinking aloud, if I was a league ‘strategist’ and I’m given the brief of getting them up I doubt I would be foolish enough to attempt it this year (although nothing with this crowd would surprise me) but if I was able to build in now a cast iron guarantee that they would get up next year by virtue of a top four place then that would give these teams :wink:, all four of them you understand 😉 , the chance to do what they should have been doing anyway and start afresh now with a young eager squad a la hearts Autumn 2013.
The interesting downside is simply that I’m not sure if those teams 😉 all four you understand 😉 can wait/have the funds for that long.
C.
He never had a nomad and the more he can hide from shareholders and fans the better it is for him
He has and never had any intention of putting money in the pot (IMO)
So the darker things are the more he smiles
gunnerb says:
March 10, 2015 at 12:10 am
All very laudable James. Just a small point, you post a link to your website and an article on inclusivity when tackling the misgovernance of Scottish football and you emphasise the need for a united fans approach from all clubs. Might I suggest you stop referring to Rangers fans as Sevco Rangers fans.
——————-
I agree! The team currently playing out of Ibrox are named Rangers. They are (IMO) not the same club and the name change signifies that more than anything but the fact remains, they are currently called Rangers.
And while we are on the subject, The Daily Retard is not part of the SMSM, the Daily Record is (although they should not be given the standard of journalism they demonstrate sometimes), so live with it and use the correct names of Clubs, Media and Individuals if you/we want to be taken seriously.
Congratulations Mr King
Yes congratulations for taking The Rangers back to their rightful place in Scottish football in just a few short days:
· back to pomposity and overbearing entitlement
· back to hiring old pals who failed the last regime
· back to providing the MSM with easy, lazy, error strewn copy
· back to insulting all the diddy friends made along the journey
· back to financial la-la-land where balanced budgets are for wimps
· back to world class tiki-taka football to embarras Real and Barca.
· back to reality, Ibrox style
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TB54dZkzZOY
Onerous contracts are despicable and vile abominations when other people own them – but simply just reward for selfless, courageous investment when you own them. Could this form any part of Mr King’s thinking on the financial future of The Rangers?
I enjoyed the musical interlude mcfc, originally released at a time when we were right at the start of (S)DM’s alternative reality.
I’m no psychologist but I do wonder what a study would reveal of how your average Rangers fan views their current reality. Paul Murray clearly has delusions of grandeur . . . .
The mercenary world of football owes TRFC no favours . .
The mercenary world of football has not stood still waiting for the newest club in Scotland to catch up.
Outside factors which impact on all clubs , like the obscene
sums being thrown at the EPL and its subsidiaries, will handicap the new clubs bargaining/purchasing power even mote than it did the original club.
Having to pay “over the odds was one of the factors which bankrupted murrays club.
The new club will struggle to implement an old strategy of buying their competitors best talent when these very players are the ones likely to be offerred better options by new financial powerhouses (relatively) such as Burnley or Bournemouth !
The generation of players now in the game are motivated first and foremost by £ signs . . it was ever thus perhaps .
But none outwith the died in the wool bluenose will play donkey to newco’s Shrek and shout “Me ,me . . pick me pic
k me . . ! ” without a big fat onerous check changing hands .
I honestly don’t know whether King believes what he says or whether he thinks by saying it he banks some kind of goodwill credit at Parkhead.
In a way it might tie-in with arrows in the wind over league reconstruction being launched on some Bear sites. Irrespective of whether a new league configurstion would suit Rangers or not it will need the nod from celtic and a majority of the other SPFL Clubs. They will all vote IMO on whether the change suits their own club financially or not.
There could be a fan revolt which affect individual club decisions and I have no intention of attempting to speak for any group of fans on the issue but the appetite for celtic fans to watch the recent Hampden match probably paints its own picture.
We also have PL reiterating the other day that Rangers not being in the top flight costs Celtic £10 million per year. It seems a lot but I have no access to the figures so am not in a position to challenge them.
There is also the recent comments on the TV deal to be factored in as well as a sign of possible change in the air.
But I think the key bit of what King states is that Celtic’s business model is the mirror image of what Rangers now intend to pursue. Before turning to that I would say that I personally don’t have thoughts either way about how Rangers chose to get through the tower leagues back to the top league.
Many Bear friends and relatives wanted a team based on their own youngsters siffened by ‘league appropriate’ journeymen to do the job with wages kept tight and only the odd addition of a ‘quality’ player for the top flight along the way.
That of course didn’t happen and that’s why so much money went down the plughole. Firstly there was Green’s screw-up over Tupe which he totally misunderstood. It had the effect of some players walking for virtually zilch and also the inability to shunt other players without large pay-offs.
There was also the dropping of the Edinburgh duo into the Championship which has been critical at halting Rangers progress especially as it has coincided with the majority of its players giving-up the ghost.
I’m not sure there was any real alternative to how they began the journey player-wise. The big problem of course is that McCoist and his team were useless at their job. There was attempts to bail him out with more excessive spending on players. Essentially Rangers are left with a playing squad that requires to be gutted and will take serious money to replace whether they remain in the Championship or go up and the same is true of the football management team.
However back to the mirror: When you’re all spivved-up and gaze into a mirror to ask: ‘Who is the fairest of us all?’be careful not to believe your self-delusion. And if in a circus or fairground you have to be even more careful about the distortions presented by mirrors as reality.
What King has failed to recognise is that Celtic’s business model has changed and is no longer the one now to be pursued by Rangers. As a club we have lived within our means for quite some time and despite declining attendances are not in trouble financially because the Board is managing the decline and that has included the absence of Rangers.
I think – despite Celtic’s great run in the CL over recent years – that there is a realisation that getting to the Group Stages is increasingly difficult for a Scottish Club and getting beyond is almost a dream IMO.
That’s the hard realities of playing football in Scotland and I don’t see any realistic chance of Celtic going anywhere else anytime soon. And it would be madness to build the club’s business model on believing CL money is a given – it isn’t. I do think we still have the resources to do well in the Europa League though.
But the bottom line is that Celtic has the backbone of a team which can compete in Europe; a manager who appears to have settled well; a club in control of its revenue streams; and saleable assets. And despite falling crowds they are still respectable and some great football is being served-up when we aren’t faced with playing on cow fields.
Rangers may well wish they had that business model but they don’t and won’t have for some time and therein lies their biggest problem which is having the cash to put it in place. It all comes down to money and, as yet, there is no evidence as to where it will come from and how much will be provided.
Whether Celtic or other Scottish teams feel Rangers is essential to their fiancial health is a moot point. IMO there’s no doubt that Rangers need Celtic but that doesn’t make the reverse true.
I have been quite intrigued by the voting figures at the egm for the requistitioner director ‘slate’ which by and large appears to have been adopted universally by the shareholders who voted.
I had observed the intense campaign against Paul Murray mounted on some Bear sites for some time. It struck me that he seemed to be perceived as the weak link and singled-out for special treatment.
And I genuinely thought that he might well poll significantly less votes at the egm than his colleagues. But that simply didn’t happen and raises the issue of how true to life seeming internet reality is to what actually happens in the real world.
rougvielovesthejungle says:
March 10, 2015 at 10:12 am
I enjoyed the musical interlude mcfc, originally released at a time when we were right at the start of (S)DM’s alternative reality.
I’m no psychologist but I do wonder what a study would reveal of how your average Rangers fan views their current reality. Paul Murray clearly has delusions of grandeur .
////////////////////
No need for a study 😥
The average rangers (IL) fan hateed Lambiais and the rest of the old board not because of Mr Ashley but because they were cutting costs 🙁 When they didn’t have a team on the park putting 20 past the diddies
The average rangers(IL) fan believes that they have the Right (the right to what? God only knows)
The average rangers(IL) fan Believes that now RRM (what ever the hell that is) are in place they will want for nothing and Billions upon Billions are there waiting just for the RRM asking and the fans will NEVER have to put their hands in their pockets
Why you ask?
Because they are RRM. And the whole world knows that and want to fling their money Ibrox way 🙄
Case study over 🙁
I’m confused. Didn’t Dave King say before the EGM that he had a NOMAD all lined up and ready to go? And didn’t King “hope” that this new NOMAD would be unveiled yesterday?
What I don’t understand is why, if King really did have a Nomad lined up, there should be any problem naming this mysterious creature straight away. But then hasn’t King more recently said that it doesn’t actually matter if the company is delisted?
Is this what “mendacious” looks like?
mcfc says:
March 10, 2015 at 9:23 am
If Mr King is forced to de-list from AIM because no Nomad will take the gig at any price, then how will the shareholders interpret Mr King’s action – givien that it will greatly reduce the value and tradeability of their shares.
——————————————————————
Most clubs that joined the rush to raise money on Stock Exchange markets some years ago have delisted for a variety of reasons.
I dealt with the subject in more detail back in July 2012: https://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/07/17/has-green-got-the-right-aim-for-rangers-footballing-share-issues-guest-post-by-ecojon/
Raising money on AIM for Rangers is relatively expensive but if you have no other facilities to do so there is little alternative.
We have seen various ‘softish’ loans provided for Rangers in the last couple of years – including from Ashley – which have been secured on assets. However the only apparently ‘unsecured’ asset left is Ibrox although there is the audit qualification.
However it’s been clear from the recent ShareProphet revelations that may well be an issue that disappears and we should get an update shortly from the court hearing between ShareProphet and Worthington. And, of course, Worthington has its own issues with AIM as well.
But leaving that aside – Personally I don’t believe that recent and possible future investors buying shares in Rangers will be that bothered about ‘value and tradeability’. The people I talk about are investing on an emotional basis because they support the club. For a lot of them their investment was about wresting control from MA.
It has worked in the short-term but will come to nought in the longer-term without the injection of fairly substantial tranches of cash. And if Rangers delists then it won’t come from publicly offered share issues.
The question is quite simple: ‘Where is the money coming from to fund Rangers and how much is available?’.
And no matter what wishes/dreams there might be to return to the ‘old ways’ or not the quality of the road ahead will depend on whether the cash availabe can build a new one.
If not then it will be a case of make and mend repairs and perhaps tackling some of the potholes that threaten to halt travel. That will ultimately delay arrival at the final hoped-for destination and indeed it might never be reached if the money runs-out.
I have no probs with Bears basking in the glow of hoped-for success for a spell. However just how much they have learnt over the last few years will soon be apparent and will be signalled when they start asking questions about where the fresh money is coming from and how much there is.
All the talk about business plans, Rightful Places, and everything else means absolutely nothing in the real hard world of finance. And if Bomber Brown has to demand: ‘Show us the money’ then I’ll know there’s a real problem at Ibrox.
I genuinely believe chasing money that has gone and is most likely irrecoverable is a total waste of time and effort at an absolutely critical period for Rangers.
I also think the onerous contracts could well remain intact legally. This all raises other issues but I doubt it will provide any pots of gold at the end of a rainbow – especially not a circular one.
AT: “that’s NOT governing football that’s the exact opposite to governing football that’s running away from governing football.”
Sadly that statement pretty much says it all.
neepheid says:
March 10, 2015 at 11:06 am
I’m confused. Didn’t Dave King say before the EGM that he had a NOMAD all lined up and ready to go? And didn’t King “hope” that this new NOMAD would be unveiled yesterday?
What I don’t understand is why, if King really did have a Nomad lined up, there should be any problem naming this mysterious creature straight away. But then hasn’t King more recently said that it doesn’t actually matter if the company is delisted?
Is this what “mendacious” looks like?
_________________________________________________________________________________
Only in the glibbest and most shameless sense of the word.
neepheid says:
March 10, 2015 at 11:06 am
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/rangers/dave-king-cleared-by-sars-ahead-of-bid-for-rangers-throne-196837n.118118895
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It was also confirmed in Friday’s announcement that the Nomad of RIFC plc, WH Ireland, will resign as the company’s broker should the King alliance succeed in their bid to topple the board.
King revealed last week he had already held talks with firms with a view to replacing WH Ireland, who took over from Daniel Stewart when they lost their licence last year.
King said: “I have already, in writing and verbally, advised WH Ireland that I expect to receive their resignation immediately upon successful conclusion of the General Meeting.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Therefore King was expecting WH Ireland’s resignation by end of play last Friday. By not having a NOMAD ready to take over 1st thing Monday morning he therefore must have known (even without WH Ireland resigning before the EGM) the trading of shares were going to be suspended.
Would it not have been a good idea to tell shareholders such news in an open and transparent manner? Note that this is exactly the situation WH Ireland and the board told shareholders would happen.
But then again let us recall the words of the SA court
“As his evidence progressed, it became clear that he has no respect for the truth and does not hesitate to lie, or at least misrepresent the facts, if he thinks it will be to his advantage,”
mendacious
mɛnˈdeɪʃəs/Submit
adjective
not telling the truth; lying.
“mendacious propaganda”
synonyms: lying, untruthful, dishonest, deceitful, false, dissembling, insincere, disingenuous, hypocritical, fraudulent, double-dealing, two-faced, Janus-faced, two-timing, duplicitous, perjured, perfidious
I love Google 😀
tcup 2012 says:
March 10, 2015 at 11:26 am
mendacious
mɛnˈdeɪʃəs/Submit
adjective
not telling the truth; lying.
“mendacious propaganda”
synonyms: lying, untruthful, dishonest, deceitful, false, dissembling, insincere, disingenuous, hypocritical, fraudulent, double-dealing, two-faced, Janus-faced, two-timing, duplicitous, perjured, perfidious, chairman in waiting
Wottpi
I guess this is from TRFC Ltd.
http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/8766-club-statement
Club Statement
RANGERS Football Club announce today that Derek Llambias, Barry Leach and Sandy Easdale have been suspended from their duties pending an investigation.
It is also noted that Mr Llambias and Mr Leach, along with Sandy Easdale, have been advised that a resolution to remove them as directors of the Company has been received by the Company. A meeting may be required for this purpose but it is hoped that this will not prove necessary.
Acting Chairman Paul Murray, fellow directors Douglas Park and John Gilligan, and the Club’s Head of Football Administration Andrew Dickson have been appointed to the Board of the Company.
wottpi says:
March 10, 2015 at 11:19 am
Started as he intends to go on! Who could that be?
Clue; he started in the same way a very wise man from the southern hemisphere once described him.
The King Of The Jungle never had spots to change, the King of The Rangers only has black marks, too ingrained to remove!
Only the herd mentality keeps the lion’s prey going down the same road, time after time! You’d think they’d learn!
Unskilled volunteers on a large building site without the proper certification working with possibly uninsured tradesmen in the presence of asbestos old wiring improper handling of heights other such dangers produces a whole range of really bad real immediate and potential risks.
The sentiment in the call for volunteers is laudable but opens up a whole lot of potential liability for a whole range of folk. It is easy to envisage scenarios where the whole site might be shut down licences lost and more. Cawing canny to the max is needed here,
easyJambo says:
March 10, 2015 at 11:53 am
Andy Devlin @AndyDev28 14s14 seconds ago
Sandy Easdale, Derek Llambias and Barry Leach suspended by Rangers pending an investigation
Who’s been naughty boys then?
……………………….
I hope they have Imran’s Lawyer on speed dial !?
“Suspended by Rangers pending an investigation”
——————————-
Needless to say it will be one of these ‘internal’ investigations that Sevco and the SFA are so fond of.
Or am I a cynic and all will be revealed in this new found climate of transparency as promoted by Mr Park and Mr Murray 🙄
easyJambo says:
March 10, 2015 at 11:53 am
Bull in a china shop approach, works every time! I wonder if/how/when MA will react, especially now his men aren’t around to look after his interests. I can’t imagine anything incriminating, if there ever was anything, will have been left around for the new boys to find, and MA’s men will know everything there is to know that’s worth knowing. Interesting times ahead.
I’m not in the least bit surprised by the suspensions. It gets the three of them off the premises while any decisions are made re financing, share issues et al.
easyJambo says:
March 10, 2015 at 11:53 am
Andy Devlin @AndyDev28 14s14 seconds ago
Sandy Easdale, Derek Llambias and Barry Leach suspended by Rangers pending an investigation
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Either
Ashley has hung out LLambias and Leech to dry
Or
Some major counterstroke is looming which will bury this story
bfbpuzzled says:
March 10, 2015 at 12:00 pm
Unskilled volunteers on a large building site without the proper certification working with possibly uninsured tradesmen in the presence of asbestos old wiring improper handling of heights other such dangers produces a whole range of really bad real immediate and potential risks.
The sentiment in the call for volunteers is laudable but opens up a whole lot of potential liability for a whole range of folk.
———————————————————————————-
Well if you paying £500k+ for gardening it does not laeve alot in budget for other trades!
Now the new board has taken the huge step in publically stringing-up Ashley’s lieutenants, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to deduce the King faction neither want or need Ashley on their team. It would appear they are going out of their way to provoke Ashley into some action.
The question is, what are they trying to provoke Ashley in to doing?
Paul says:
March 10, 2015 at 12:40 pm
I would think that declaring war on your biggest creditor, who has security over many of your assets, and control of key income streams, is a novel, if not unique strategy.
If one were conspiracy minded, one might believe that the intention was to provoke an insolvency event, without the appearance of being responsible.
Could someone please tell me
What board is investigateing what board?
Is it RIFC board investigateing TRFC
Or TRFC investigateing RIFC ?
bfbpuzzled says:
March 10, 2015 at 12:00 pm
Unskilled volunteers on a large building site without the proper certification working with possibly uninsured tradesmen in the presence of asbestos old wiring improper handling of heights other such dangers produces a whole range of really bad real immediate and potential risks.
—————————————————————–
The twitter ad I saw IIRC wasn’t asking just for unqualified volunteers but qualified tradesmen and obviously to meet various statutory tests they would requite appropriate certification.
As you say the sentiment is laudable but tbh the biggest problem I see is the actual ‘management’ of the volunteers. That would require the hiring of more people and I doubt at the end of the day whether for most things it would be cost-effective compared to sub-contracting the task – as long as onerous contracts aren’t employed.
Ordinary maintenance tasks can be carried out with suitably qualified volunteer workers and I’m sure many Bears would fall into that category and have appropriate certfication. They would obviously require to be added to the existing insurance policy at Ibrox and that is another cost factor.
However many football clubs as well as those covering a variety of other sports have no problem in having volunteer workers doing jobs at venues week in and week out.
There is no real barrier to the proposal as long as the normal Health & safety guidelines are observed but for a variety of reasons I genuinely believe it’s probably more trouble and expense than could be saved.
Afaik this isn’t coming officially from the club but is merely a Bear making a suggestion. Of course being the cynic I am he might just be compiling a register of tradespeople to flog to employment agencies.
With the internet one never knows 🙄
Thinking out loud.
Now that Sandy Easdale, Derek Llambias and Barry Leach have been suspended by Rangers and are out of the big hoose, Dave King can now quietly bring in a potential NOMAD on the QT to have a wee look under the bonnet.
If all looks ok to them then he has a new NOMAD (and Dave tells everyone this was my NOMAD all along).
If not then they walk away (everybody keeps quiet) and Dave just makes up more stories and delist from AIM blaming all and sundry except himself and RRM.
Scottish Football needs more millionaire gardeners
easyJambo says:
March 10, 2015 at 11:53 am
Andy Devlin @AndyDev28 14s14 seconds ago
Sandy Easdale, Derek Llambias and Barry Leach suspended by Rangers pending an investigation
————————————————–
I can see the reasoning behind DL and BL quite simply because they were executive directors and given the clearly stated intention of looking under the bonnet with a microscope then I would think it fairly normal that directors/employees in the position they held/hold would be suspended until time as the investigation is complete.
I am however surprised at Sandy Easdale and wonder what the rationale is there.
And it will be interesting to watch Ashley’s reaction. Of course for all we know things may have already taken place off-stage which has brought about the suspensions and that’s without ascribing any fault to the individuals concerned.
bfbpuzzled says:
March 10, 2015 at 12:00 pm
Unskilled volunteers on a large building site without the proper certification working with possibly uninsured tradesmen in the presence of asbestos old wiring improper handling of heights other such dangers produces a whole range of really bad real immediate and potential risks.
The sentiment in the call for volunteers is laudable but opens up a whole lot of potential liability for a whole range of folk. It is easy to envisage scenarios where the whole site might be shut down licences lost and more. Cawing canny to the max is needed here,
——————————-
I’m sure any property owner would be concerned if their tenant proposed doing this sort of thing. As would their insurers.
Taking One For Team Ashley
While the RRM are on the hook for the exponential growth of RIFC, why would Ashley force admin and disrupt his revenue streams.
L & L are pros and this will be like water of a duck’s.
Their reward will not be in Govan.
Flocculent Apoidea says:
March 10, 2015 at 1:02 pm
I’m sure any property owner would be concerned if their tenant proposed doing this sort of thing. As would their insurers.
============================================
Anyone seen The Money Pit – good research for the Ibrox Safety Officer if this goes ahead.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091541/
mcfc says:
March 10, 2015 at 1:04 pm
On the other hand, Ashley is not ego-less, I would expect retribution at some point, if they piss him off enough. I don’t think an insolvency event is likely, but, one never knows.
There is nothing like a bit of manufactured faux chaos, to give cover for doing things you’d like to do, but can’t because of opposition.
In the spirit of “absolute transparency and accountability” …
. . . the new board forgot to mention the reason for the suspension of DL, BL and AE and hence the remit or duration of the investigation.
They also omitted to mention who submitted “a resolution to remove them as directors of the Company” and why.
This “absolute transparency and accountability” lark is looking a lot like my new year’s resolutions – laudable in intent but laughable in execution.
Looks more and more like King and Co know that they need either Admin and a CVA or Liquidation in order to take their plans forward. Seems they are trying to provoke Ashley into doing the dirty deed for them.
Banzai:
Either. Dave King has a superbly worked out master plan that is being executed with military precision to outflank and outfox Ashley.
Or. Ashley has laid the deepest bear pit (pun intended) for King and is just waiting to pull the lever?
Place your bets now.
essexbeancounter says:
March 9, 2015 at 9:04 pm
“Here’s the expenditure that the 120 day review identified.
Summary of Expenditure 29 May 2012 – 31 December 2013
Expenditure ….. £m
Purchase of the Club …… 5.5”
pedantic I know, but Sevco/TRFCLtd did not purchase the ‘ethereal entity’……. 🙄
Is it strange that 3 directors of the Club (Sevco/TRFCLtd) have been suspended pending an investigation into these denied onerous contracts?
Why not just have a chat with Big Mike as Paul Murray said he was going to do, then investigate?
Or have they already discovered the closet of skeletons under the marble staircase………….?
scapaflow says:
March 10, 2015 at 1:10 pm
There is nothing like a bit of manufactured faux chaos, to give cover for doing things you’d like to do, but can’t because of opposition.
============================================
absolutely, on faux chaos. Suspending L&L and a show trial humiliation are text book and totally predictable for this regime.
But I don’t think Ashley will “react” to anything the RRM do. Like any dead-eyed, cold blooded predator waiting in ambush, Ashley will choose the time of the strike, when the prey is least expecting it.
IMHO thoughts of Ashley’s ego-driven impetuosity are over played.