Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?

 

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.

Auldheid  Feb 2015
This entry was posted in General by Auldheid. Bookmark the permalink.
Auldheid

About Auldheid

Celtic fan from Glasgow living mostly in Spain. A contributor to several websites, discussion groups and blogs, and a member of the Resolution 12 Celtic shareholders' group. Committed to sporting integrity, good governance, and the idea that football is interdependent. We all need each other in the game.

5,190 thoughts on “Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?


  1. I may have had a moment of clarity regarding the £278,000 monthly sum leaving New Rangers and the strange case of the stadium not being available to MASH as collateral.

    When the Clumpany Rangers Intergalactical FC was formed and Sevco Scotland Ltd transferred ‘stuff’ over to it, I think they forgot to move the stadium.

    My legitimate copy of ‘The Deeds’ purchased direct from Registers of Scotland (public document) has the Owner as Sevco Scotland Ltd on it, have RIFC been in rented accommodation since birth?


  2. This stuff about Celtic being properly run, with billionaires on the board, decent corporate governance and big-name non-execs while The Rangers are just a basket case run by chancers? Well, yeah. Obviously. It’s because Celtic are an establishment club; The Rangers just think they are, aided by the Scottish media 😉


  3. essexbeancounter says: April 2, 2015 at 10:07 pm

    Not surprised, just angry and disgusted that those you mention are still acceptable to ICAS.


  4. sannoffymesssoitizz says:
    April 2, 2015 at 10:14 pm
    essexbeancounter says: April 2, 2015 at 10:07 pm

    Not surprised, just angry and disgusted that those you mention are still acceptable to ICAS.
    ================================================================================
    …not to me they certainly are not 😡 especially when they threaten to “drum me oot” for a minor administrative hiccup, like forgetting to fill a form in… 😳


  5. James Doleman says:
    April 2, 2015 at 8:39 pm

    Of all the mistakes made by the various custodians of the blue room in recent years this has the potential to be the worst.
    ——————————————————————–
    I think the problem with AIM is that it’s a start-up incubator for new businesses or even older businesses which come up with a new product or want to diversify. What they all need is cash and that’s why they come to AIM.

    The other reason they end-up there is they can’t join the main exchange until they have 3 years satisfactory trading on AIM.

    By the way I’m not talking about fly by night get rich quick flotations which the AIM Casino abounds with and which are subject to all the usual boiler room scams and tactics.

    The original Rangers IPO in December 2012 was about £5 million less than expected. Then the issue at the back-end of last year couldn’t even hit its £4 million target and raised just over £3 million IIRC.

    Since then it’s been more and more bad news for the club in public and on AIM. I doubt if another share option would generate a worthwhile return set against costs of raising it. No Institutional Investor would now invest in AIM IMO.

    In any case whether King planned delisting or not the fact that they couldn’t/didn’t replace the NOMAD sealed their exit from AIM. It was Hobson’s Choice in the end.

    Football Clubs generally are traditionally a lousy investment and almost every one of the dozens of clubs who joined the rush to float have long since delisted.

    I have absolutely no doubt that if Ashley had been able to increase his shareholding and hadn’t had his SFA ‘problems’ then he could well have delisted Rangers from AIM. He didn’t need AIM for raising dosh so could save on the relatively heavy expenses for membership if he wanted to own/control the club.

    King can’t match Ashley for cash and the real question is whether he can raise enough direct from HNW RRM to keep Rangers operational. I have serious doubts that he can. But I also believe that AIM was a busted flush for Rangers and no longer a viable option to raise enough cash to continue.

    So King and T3B have either got their sums right or wrong. They should know what cash has been pledged and for how long by Bears with serious cash. Smaller Bears investors are important as a revenue source as all their monthly standing orders add up. But they won’t match the financial firepower of the HNWIs which is needed to kerp the club alive and restructure it.

    If King and the others have got their sums horribly wrong then such is the monthly burn rate of cash that reality won’t take long to hit home.

    If the sums pledged aren’t enough then taking over the club is an act of folly. DK might be totally driven but I have tended to think the others who have joined with him are much more sober businessmen who should have cast a critical eye on the plan.

    If it fails then sore as that will be for many decent Bears it might be a blessing in disguise by clearing away all the bloody baggage and making football the priority of whatever emerges from the much anticipated debacle.


  6. Aquinas says:

    April 2, 2015 at 10:07 pm

    I may have had a moment of clarity regarding the £278,000 monthly sum leaving New Rangers and the strange case of the stadium not being available to MASH as collateral.

    When the Clumpany Rangers Intergalactical FC was formed and Sevco Scotland Ltd transferred ‘stuff’ over to it, I think they forgot to move the stadium.

    My legitimate copy of ‘The Deeds’ purchased direct from Registers of Scotland (public document) has the Owner as Sevco Scotland Ltd on it, have RIFC been in rented accommodation since birth?
    ==========================================================
    Yes but from the true owner (as I’m sure we will soon hear in court) Sevco 5088 (owner Craig Whyte/nee Worthington). Damn I forgot the defining word. Fiscally Charles attempted to defenestrate him and despite multiple attempts to bury 5088 it survives. Hence the nervousness of auditors.


  7. upthehoops says:
    April 2, 2015 at 9:28 pm

    David Murray, along with those from the Bank of Scotland who backed him, have caused untold damage.
    ———————————————————-
    And this is the biggest disgrace in Scottish Football.

    Rangers has run at a loss for decades and has only survived by burning investors money or not paying tax, NI and VAT. And it has cost its supporters dear financially.

    And for all these decades the vast majority of the SMSM has kept its collective eyes and mouth firmly shut. And the SFA has presided over the dung heap claiming everything smells of roses.

    It’s actually hard to decide whether to cry or collapse in hysterical laughter.


  8. What kind of press must we have if this quote can go totally without comment in this article?

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/switch-to-summer-football-being-seriously-looked-at.122305112

    The quote:

    “Conspiracy theories that Scottish football’s governing bodies would find a way to lever Rangers into the top division if the Ibrox club fails to win promotion via the play-offs were also kicked into touch by Mulraney.

    “There won’t be change this summer. If Rangers don’t get promoted, they don’t get promoted. I remember Charles Green once talking to me about paying Alloa not to get promoted so Rangers could – what a load of rubbish. If you want to get promoted, win your games. It will always be like that.

    “The bottom line is there will be no change this year as there is an embargo against it. I understand how it works in Scottish football with conspiracy theories and the like. It’s all balderdash and bunkum of the type we’ve come to expect over the years.””

    What kind of sporting authority could fail to act upon such a quote?

    Interesting that Mike Mulraney should belittle those who believe in the conspiracy theories with a story that smacks of, well conspiracy!

    I’m sure, if pushed, ha, Mr Mulraney would insist it was only a hypothetical point being made by Charles Green. But Charles Green is now acknowledged by all, I think, to be a man whose hypotheses would more often than not fall into the ‘sounding out’ category.

    Regardless, the very least the SFA should be doing is ‘sounding out’ Mr Mulraney, while stretching further that lumpy bit of the carpet in readiness, of course!


  9. essexbeancounter says: April 2, 2015 at 10:19 pm

    I note from a cursory glance (in case my eyes began to bleed) that the http://icas.org.uk/ethics/ICAS-code-of-ethics/ includes the following:-

    The Code establishes the five fundamental principles of professional ethics for all professional accountants:

    Integrity 😕
    Objectivity 😉
    Professional competence and due care 😳
    Confidentiality 😐
    Professional behaviour ❓

    It provides a conceptual framework [whatever that might be 🙄 ]that professional accountants shall apply to ensure adherence to these fundamental principles. This conceptual framework requires professional accountants to use their professional judgement to identify and evaluate threats to compliance with the fundamental principles, and then apply safeguards to eliminate the threats, or reduce them to an acceptable level.

    From Oxford Dictionaries· © Oxford University Press

    integrity [ ɪnˈtɛgrɪti ] NOUN The quality of being honest and having strong moral principles: “a gentleman of complete integrity”

    synonyms: honesty · uprightness · probity · rectitude · honour ·

    It looks like this Code of Ethics was drafted by the same sort of people that drafted the SFA Articles of Association and Rules.


  10. Allyjambo says:
    April 2, 2015 at 10:38 pm

    What The actual Feck? Talk about bringing the game into disrepute :mrgreen:

    @Essex

    nil desperandum illegitimi carborundum

    @hoopy

    The sentiment is to be applauded, as is the support for summer football, but if Green really made such an offer, then Mulraney had an obligation to report it to the proper authorities.


  11. Allyjambo says:

    April 2, 2015 at 10:38 pm
    What kind of press must we have if this quote can go totally without comment in this article?

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/switch-to-summer-football-being-seriously-looked-at.122305112

    The quote:

    “Conspiracy theories that Scottish football’s governing bodies would find a way to lever Rangers into the top division if the Ibrox club fails to win promotion via the play-offs were also kicked into touch by Mulraney.

    “There won’t be change this summer. If Rangers don’t get promoted, they don’t get promoted. I remember Charles Green once talking to me about paying Alloa not to get promoted so Rangers could – what a load of rubbish. If you want to get promoted, win your games. It will always be like that.
    ====================================

    Well said Mike Mulraney. In my view all real football fans will agree totally with his view, and It doesn’t matter whether they support a big or small club – the principle remains the same.


  12. essexbeancounter says:
    April 2, 2015 at 10:19 pm
    sannoffymesssoitizz says:
    April 2, 2015 at 10:14 pm
    essexbeancounter says: April 2, 2015 at 10:07 pm

    Not surprised, just angry and disgusted that those you mention are still acceptable to ICAS.
    ================================================================================
    …not to me they certainly are not 😡 especially when they threaten to “drum me oot” for a minor administrative hiccup, like forgetting to fill a form in… 😳

    8 0 Rate This

    *******
    Fear not Essexbean…….

    I have Sandy Bryson on speed dial and he will clear up your wee admin error.


  13. In the car this evening when I tuned to talksport…I caught the end of the conversation..

    Basically Danny Kelly was stating to darren gough…’it’s incredible…I’ve seen the details and if Rangers get promoted…because of the players they’ve loaned them…they have to give Mike Ashley 2.5 million pounds…how does he get away with that?’

    Has Danny got his facts right?…and if he has…wow…or have I missed a page in the last 2 days?
    So


  14. Paulmac2 says:
    April 3, 2015 at 12:49 am

    ________________________________________________

    Maybe if they don’t get promoted they only have to give him £2m.?

    Fact is the only reason they are trading today is because Mike bowled up as lender of last resort and offered them terms that they accepted.

    They could have chosen liquidation mid season instead.
    They were utterly worthless, a few months ago.

    He chucked a few coppers in their direction – like a speculator at a car boot sale picking up a piece of rusty junk that was bound for the skip, and offering a £5 note he can afford to lose on the off chance it turns out to be a unique, valuable piece of highly collectable industrial victoriana worth thousands to someone.

    Maybe they are a fake? Maybe they are the real thing?
    Either way, he owns their bahookies.
    They can like it or lump it.
    Pay him or cease trading.
    He doesn’t give a stuff either way, rest assured. But its going to be one of the two.

    That is the long and the short of it.


  15. Allyjambo says:
    April 2, 2015 at 10:38 pm

    ________________________________________________

    Of the 3 wise monkeys running the SFA, I would venture to suggest that the aforementioned will be placed under the jurisdiction of ‘hear no evil’ monkey.

    Only because ‘See no’ and ‘Speak no’ are far too busy working on Dave KIngs FPP clearance, you understand.


  16. ecobhoy says:
    April 2, 2015 at 10:20 pm

    James Doleman says:
    April 2, 2015 at 8:39 pm

    __________________________________________________

    This makes sense.
    But I think the ‘pledges’ made by ‘RRM’ investors were probably based on false information.

    Specifically the onerous contracts.

    No doubt they will try and pin the blame for these on the holders.
    But look at it objectively:
    Imagine you are SD.
    Someone offers to sell you a Ferrari for a fiver. They have a pressing need to dispose of this vintage automobile for various reasons.
    You smell a rat.
    First you kick the tyres.
    The you check the paperwork.
    And you verify it isn’t stolen.
    You confirm the vendors title is valid.
    Mileage???
    And when all of this checks out… you buy it!
    And then… you own it.
    Costs a bloody fortune to run. mind you.
    This is where Mash sits.

    Now what the 3B have ‘bought’ and paid for in effect is the right to hear the engine note, in exchange for putting fuel in the tank whenever this is needed.

    Whereas, what DCK sold them on was ownership of Mike Ashley’s Ferrari!

    And now the donkey is well and truly up the minaret.
    Anyone seen DCK lately?


  17. Allyjambo says:
    April 2, 2015 at 5:49 pm

    scapaflow says:
    April 2, 2015 at 5:31 pm

    If I was a Rangers supporter, I wouldn’t want the club I’d once been so proud of to be considered the same as this shambles!

    _______________________________________________________

    Yes AllyJ.
    But you are a Hearts fan.
    So that’s easy for you to say.

    Its all right for you lot sitting there on your high horses, pontificating to Rangers fans & all and sundry ( the rest of us )… with your new found Social Justice ethos, your living wage, your shiny new championship trophy, your ‘Save the children’ sponsorship deal, your dignified triumph over adversity in exceptional circumstances, your acceptance of past mistakes and all round unified resolution to work harder and come back stronger, taking nothing for granted on the way, and generally leading by shining example, striving to be better, hiding nothing, never putting a foot wrong, respecting opponents, to say nothing of your top draw management and spectacular on field performances in straitened circumstances.

    The word ‘Smug’ doesn’t begin to cover it!

    But by heck you lot deserve to be!

    I look forward to Caley hopefully pumping some of that smugness out of you next season on the Park.

    Because once upon a time we looked at your club with despair. Now it is sheer (well intentioned) envy.

    Congratulations and well done guys! Truly Inspirational stuff at Tynecastle these past 12 months.


  18. Resin_lab_dog says:
    April 3, 2015 at 2:44 am
    Allyjambo says:
    April 2, 2015 at 5:49 pm

    scapaflow says:
    April 2, 2015 at 5:31 pm

    If I was a Rangers supporter, I wouldn’t want the club I’d once been so proud of to be considered the same as this shambles!

    _______________________________________________________

    Yes AllyJ.
    But you are a Hearts fan.
    So that’s easy for you to say.

    Its all right for you lot sitting there on your high horses, pontificating to Rangers fans & all and sundry ( the rest of us )… with your new found Social Justice ethos, your living wage, your shiny new championship trophy, your ‘Save the children’ sponsorship deal, your dignified triumph over adversity in exceptional circumstances, your acceptance of past mistakes and all round unified resolution to work harder and come back stronger, taking nothing for granted on the way, and generally leading by shining example, striving to be better, hiding nothing, never putting a foot wrong, respecting opponents, to say nothing of your top draw management and spectacular on field performances in straitened circumstances.

    The word ‘Smug’ doesn’t begin to cover it!

    But by heck you lot deserve to be!

    I look forward to Caley hopefully pumping some of that smugness out of you next season on the Park.

    Because once upon a time we looked at your club with despair. Now it is sheer (well intentioned) envy.

    Congratulations and well done guys! Truly Inspirational stuff at Tynecastle these past 12 months.

    ******************************************

    Exception!!!

    Who is this “Caley” you refer to???


  19. Dodgy stuff in British football is certainly not a recent development.

    “…The Football Association said the players had sought to undermine the whole fabric of the game and discredit its honesty and fairness…”

    Slightly OT, but must admit I hadn’t heard of this match-fixing scandal involving a ManU v. Liverpool game…100 years ago today !

    [The article continues / scroll down.]
    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-32152534


  20. Interesting comment by Martin Samuel

    In reply to:
    Jesus, talk about hyping someone up just so that you can destroy them when they eventually fall. Muzza98, London.

    Yes, that’s what we’re hoping – that Kane fails miserably, so we can write up another dismal World Cup campaign, hold another inquest and sell fewer papers. Those boys in the press box in 1966, they often tell us how much more rewarding it was to cover the dead end campaigns in 1974 and 1978. And as someone who reported on the Ashes tours in 2010-11 and 2013-14 I can confirm how rewarding it was, having seen England win so handsomely, to then record, day after day, the same story of relentless slaughter by Australia with no end in sight, and only the occasional premature retirement or nervous breakdown to interrupt the monotony. It isn’t unsatisfying at all. Just like that last Cricket World Cup. It wasn’t as if interest back home fell off a cliff once England were revealed to be the lousiest big team there. It wasn’t as if the cricket writers covering the event began to notice that nobody was interested, that they were being asked to provide fewer words, that their space in the newspaper was shrinking. Because journalists love that: covering something that is a forgettable irrelevance. So, obviously, we’re desperate for Kane to fail. Seriously, mate, do you have even the tiniest inkling how this job works? We want to be read. We want to sell newspapers. Success sells newspapers. Failure doesn’t


  21. ecobhoy says:
    April 2, 2015 at 10:33 pm

    upthehoops says:
    April 2, 2015 at 9:28 pm

    David Murray, along with those from the Bank of Scotland who backed him, have caused untold damage.
    ———————————————————-
    And this is the biggest disgrace in Scottish Football.

    Rangers has run at a loss for decades and has only survived by burning investors money or not paying tax, NI and VAT. And it has cost its supporters dear financially.
    =========================================

    For me the part the Bank of Scotland played, while under Scottish ownership, will always remain the biggest disgrace of all. It allowed Rangers players and success way beyond what they would have had and effectively bought them a nine-in-a-row to equal that of Celtic, whose own achievement was through a mixture of a great manager, some great players, and many other very good players. The fact is during Celtic’s nine-in-a-row period Rangers were more than able to compete with them financially. In terms of what players were paid, other larger Scottish clubs of the time were also able to pay far closer to what the big Glasgow clubs paid. Going back to when Aberdeen and Dundee Utd were winning the league in the 80’s they were not able to hold on to some of the star players they did by paying peanuts.

    However the Bank of Scotland changed everything by lending David Murray £6M to but Rangers in 1986. Only 8 years later, the same bank was willing to put Celtic out of existence for a debt of the dame level. Fergus McCann is on record as saying the behaviour of the bank at the time gave him the impression they did not want him to succeed in his bid to rescue Celtic, although if that was the case it was an attitude which backfired spectacularly. The almost unlimited lending to Rangers allowed a myth to grow that they were actually a very wealthy club, or that David Murray was financing it all via his personal fortune. Never once did a compliant media dig to see where the money was coming from, or question the unfair advantage if was providing. The bank bought Rangers nine-in-a-row, and it appears they also tried to buy them the Champions League. During the same period they tried to put Rangers biggest rivals out of business. In my view it was not just a shameful period in Scottish football history, but in Scottish history itself. What we are now left with are people from the Ibrox boardroom to the Ibrox stands who believe their club has a divine right to that type of existence.


  22. upthehoops says:
    April 3, 2015 at 7:22 am

    For me the part the Bank of Scotland played, while under Scottish ownership, will always remain the biggest disgrace of all.
    —————————————————————————–
    The biggest disgrace of all IMO is the protection rangers got then and even to this day. Protectors like the bank then, smsm forever and our governing body the sfa (bearing in mind they self appoint their CO). Paranoia then but factual now. The club is a disgrace and the fans who blame everyone else for their downfall are a disgrace.
    Douglas Fraser stated on radio last night that the situation with no NOMAD and the history of the last 2 years on AIM makes them toxic, I could not agree more


  23. I see we now have a change on the menu,the succulent lamb has been replaced with porky pies,the chateau du pape with cider vinegar,but as ever our journos will continue to gorge from the table of deceit ,enjoy boys,this is the last supper time.


  24. The thing I have most difficulty understanding is Ashley’s continuing support. He is routinely vilified and blamed for all ills, yet it is only his 5mill loan that has got them this far. Surely he should simply demand it be repaid, and if they can’t then collapse the whole venture. He has all the rights to Rangers trademarks sewn up, would effectively control the liquidation, and would show what happens to anyone who messes with him, as a warning to any others who might try and mess with his plans in future.
    Unless of couse Ashley is a patient, all forgiving benefactor.


  25. valentinesclown says:
    April 3, 2015 at 8:11 am
    ===============================

    It was refreshing to hear Douglas Fraser use the phrase ‘chucked out of AIM’ last night, compared to some of the apologists he was with in the Sportsound studio. We need more people to speak the blunt truth.


  26. upthehoops says:
    April 3, 2015 at 8:23 am
    valentinesclown says:
    April 3, 2015 at 8:11 am
    ===============================

    It was refreshing to hear Douglas Fraser use the phrase ‘chucked out of AIM’ last night, compared to some of the apologists he was with in the Sportsound studio. We need more people to speak the blunt truth.
    ——————————————————————————
    I agree totally, Douglas told it as it is. Well worth a listen to (about 10 mins in)

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/scotfoot#playepisode1


  27. UTH @ 7.22

    I’ve been saying for ages that the biggest scandal in all of this is the part played by the BoS.
    Ready to fund their friends “on the level” and “on the square” (and we’re not just talking ‘Charlotte’ here) yet ready to pull the plug on CFC in 24 hours.
    Back in the day I worked for RBS and IIRC Celtic banked with BoS at Glasgow Cross.
    I’ve always said that the best thing Fergus ever did was take their account away from BoS.
    IIRC almost every club in Scotland banked with BoS back then.
    I have always felt that client confidentiality was bypassed and that dossiers on competitor’s finance and business plans were readily available to ‘interested parties” in the football business.
    IMO I have to stress.
    OT now, but been lurking here Down Under for a few weeks.
    Not managed to get my hands on any Fat Yak as yet.
    Question has to be asked: has JC drunk it all??


  28. They were relegated from aim, its what they wanted anyway & the ISDX is the most competitive index.


  29. I see the DR is saying Keiron (I’ll look under the bonnet) Pryor is naming Cantor Fitzgerald as the spoil sport NomAd.

    Hope the firm is using the Easter weekend to plan for the onslaught of angry Bears.


  30. valentinesclown says:
    April 3, 2015 at 8:44 am
    upthehoops says:
    April 3, 2015 at 8:23 am
    valentinesclown says:
    April 3, 2015 at 8:11 am
    ===============================

    It was refreshing to hear Douglas Fraser use the phrase ‘chucked out of AIM’ last night, compared to some of the apologists he was with in the Sportsound studio. We need more people to speak the blunt truth.
    ——————————————————————————
    I agree totally, Douglas told it as it is. Well worth a listen to (about 10 mins in)

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/scotfoot#playepisode1
    ———

    Thanks for the heads up on that. Good stuff from Douglas F. A wee example to the SSB chaps and chapesses that you don’t need to start your broadcast moaning, ‘Aw naw, none of us are financial experts’ and proceed to speak ill-informed gibberish for two hours. How difficult can it be to phone a financial expert during working hours, record the conversation and then include that in the programme? SSB producer, where art thou?


  31. Finally caught up with the blog – been Bolt-like in its pace over the last few days.

    Still nothing but silence from the clubs re my loan-related questions but more on that anon.

    Laughed out loud at

    pau1mart1n says:
    April 1, 2015 at 5:19 pm
    Is 2022 vision better than 2020 ?

    But it did make my think – is 2022 vision yet another new world record?


  32. I know that’ the CantorFitzgerald link is only coincidental but it adds to the insanity. If ever anyone has a few minutes if is worth looking up Edward Fitzgerald the 7th Duke of Leinster who would have been a superb fit for TRFC among other adventures he sold the rights to income from the family estates for next to nothing thinking that he would not inherit those rights when he did he became pot less and went to America to find an heiress to marry he bet huge sums of money he did not have on races between cars and trains and Increasingly mad cap schemes he made Mr Green look like the tony of sober propriety.


  33. Kieran Prior, the world’s most intelligent man, breaks cover again in the Daily Record, but I fear he has now gone seriously off message.

    http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-board-facing-legal-battle-5450368

    Prior supported King when he made his move to overthrow the previous board and is surprised at claims AIM wanted to wash their hands of the new regime.

    He said: “Dave was always clear he would do his utmost to maintain the AIM status. Paul Murray told me in a phone call this morning the prospective Nomad was Cantor Fitzgerald and I don’t know why this has not been made public.

    “I call on the board, for reasons of openness and transparency, to reveal the paper trail that outlines discussions with Cantor Fitzgerald.

    “They should reveal details of the discussions with the Stock Exchange that led to the prospective Nomad being unable to take up their appointment.

    “As long as checks and balances were put in place, under new company management, to ensure there was no repeat of past issues, I can’t see why Rangers would be denied AIM membership. I’m looking at my legal options. I don’t need my money back. My investment is in the institution of Rangers itself and our attempts to return to the most prominent position possible, not just in Scottish football but Europe.

    “That goal could suffer as a result of these actions. It’s naive of Dave to believe he can fund the infrastructure requirements of Rangers without access to capital available on the AIM market.”


  34. mungobboy@8.51 a.m.
    “……has JC drunk it all…?”
    __________
    I’ve had a fair few Fat Yaks, to be sure, mungoboy, but the brewery keeps making more, so you should be a’right.
    It suuits my taste wonderfuly well, I have to say, and packs a useful wee punch.Rightly or wrongly in my memory, it reminds o’ Fowlers Wee Heavy. But that’s an old memory.
    Cheers.


  35. Now, hopefully, a short wait till some spirited shareholder shakes the tree and tries to sell a few thousand shares via a matched deal.

    What % of the 70p initial price will they make. The last close was 35p. I’m guessing they are heading for pennies.


  36. As stated by Douglas Fraser, T’Rangers were turfed out of the AIM to limit their risk to reputational damage. This being the case, should the SFA not be considering a charge of bringing the game into disrepute, and protecting, or at least trying to restore, the reputation of Scottish fitba’


  37. valentines clownn@8.11 a.m ( and subsequent posters on Douglas Fraser:
    _________
    I was critical of Fraser in the past, for not being right into the saga as a business story with football connections. I think we then got a whisper that ,like the business staff on the dailies, the story had to be left to the ‘ sports’ desks.
    BBC Radio Scotland is as likely to have tried to protect ‘Rangers’ of any description as the DR by leaving coverage of fairly intricate business matters to numpties who shoved all that aside as being really irrelevant.
    Perhaps even the Pacific Quay aprons/blazers have sussed that the pretence is over?


  38. John Clark says:
    April 3, 2015 at 10:25 am
    mungobboy@8.51 a.m.
    “……has JC drunk it all…?”
    __________
    I’ve had a fair few Fat Yaks, to be sure, mungoboy, but the brewery keeps making more, so you should be a’right.
    It suuits my taste wonderfuly well, I have to say, and packs a useful wee punch.Rightly or wrongly in my memory, it reminds o’ Fowlers Wee Heavy. But that’s an old memory.
    Cheers.
    ====================================================================
    JC(e)…”Fowlers Wee Heavy”…? At a very young age my wee da (RIP) barred me from even thinking about that stuff…firewater boy…!


  39. Any know why RIFC is suspended on the ISDX secondary market?


  40. upthehoops says:
    April 3, 2015 at 7:22 am

    The almost unlimited lending to Rangers allowed a myth to grow that they were actually a very wealthy club, or that David Murray was financing it all via his personal fortune. Never once did a compliant media dig to see where the money was coming from, or question the unfair advantage if was providing. The bank bought Rangers nine-in-a-row, and it appears they also tried to buy them the Champions League. During the same period they tried to put Rangers biggest rivals out of business. In my view it was not just a shameful period in Scottish football history, but in Scottish history itself. What we are now left with are people from the Ibrox boardroom to the Ibrox stands who believe their club has a divine right to that type of existence.

    I think it important to remember that the SMSM have no excuse for their failure to act professionally during the Murray Era.

    There were Bears raising very awkward questions over Murray’s finances and the way that Rangers was being run. There were only a few of them and they were mainly members of one fan grouping.

    They were shouted down at any agm or meeting where they raised the matter and the usual heavy threats employed. But the media knew about the disquiet and I’m not talking just about sports journos.

    Unlike Ashley, Murray worked his PR well, was available to the Press and everything was always smoothed over. But it actually went way beyond football and embraced ‘The Scottish Establishment’.

    Not quite in the way people, in the know, who lived through the era understood it. It was more hung-on: Here is a brilliantly successful Scottish businessman doing great things for Scotland with his drive and entrepreneurship. An absolute perfect role model for others to follow.

    He wasn’t a demi-God he was the full bhoona. Ibrox was all part of the facade and a cherry on the cake where bank employees and potentially useful business contacts were inculcated into the money-making machine that could do no wrong.

    The Bankers brought their new business prospects to Ibrox to feed off the hospitality tables although I still laugh eather wryly when I think back to a Rangers contact who bemoaned that towards the end of the 9-in-a-row period that hospitality numbers were getting thinner on the ground as the novelty wore-off for guests 🙄

    Oh to have had that problem – at the time – as a Celtic Supporter 😥

    However I digress. What I’m trying to say is that it wasn’t simply the spending of Bank investors’ money that created the WATP mentality. Now one tends to see it as a manifestation of deluded lower class supporters. But back in the Murray Era it included the captains of Industry, Commerce and finance.

    The Bank-financed Murray Era was a significant factor in creating a Blue Tartan MacMasters of the Universe grouping where Rangers allowed rising business stars to meet and do deals in a heady atmosphere where drink and passion flowed. Having a shared interest simply made deals easier and there never was any money issues to throw a spanner in the works.

    That IMO is where this sense of entitlement flowed fuelled by the Bank of Scotland being cut-in to all sorts of business deals. We all know why it came crashing down but it’s worth remembering that if certain external factors hadn’t come into play it could have lasted a helluva lot longer.

    Of course a major factor for the collapse was Murray who has been shown by events IMO to be a lousy businessman who could only simulate ‘success’ by burning huge sums of money invested by the Bank of Scotland shareholders and other such as ENIC and even DK as well as ordinary Bears.

    But he was by no means alone as many other Scottish businessmen are tied-into the same timeline and the Ibrox magic roundabout that kept the money spinning round in the same circle. The problem was that global factors dictated that the roundabout had to keep increasing its speed way beyond aothorised safety limits until it finally jumped the tracks.

    And as we survey this train wreck of a club so do the RRM who did well in the era I talk of. The loyalties forged in the Ibrox hospitality suites are going to be tested to the outer limits in coming weeks.

    Personally the more I see and hear the more I believe they won’t fund the attempt to revive the Old Ways. They have grown older and probably have largely handed over their business reins to a younger generation.

    If they had been younger their hearts could well have overuled their heads IMO but I think they will distance themselves from the Ibrox money pit as it would connect them to a time they don’t want to be associated with and they want to hold onto their loot.

    So perhaps DK will provide a service to Scotland and Scottish Football that will never be forgotten. He might be the Man to finally break the shadowy links to the Scottish Establishment which IMO still operates to favour one Scottish Football Club.

    The whole conspiracy that corrupts Scottish Business to this day could be excised tomorrow by the Scottish Government authorising an enquiry into various aspects of the collapse of the Bank of Scotland. Only then will the stink of corruption be removed and all businesses – including football clubs – be able play on a level playing field.


  41. neepheid says:
    April 3, 2015 at 10:25 am

    “The delisting is down solely to the actions and conduct of past regimes.”
    Paul Murray (c) Level5 PR
    ___________________________________________________________

    So Paul, you now appear to be suggesting that the fans boycott you & King orchestrated was unsuccessful, and did not harm the financial interests of the RIFC plc in any way, and therefore had no material impact on the subsequent delisting?
    Is this what we are now to believe?

    “Some bigger boys did it and ran away!”

    Heard it all before Mr Murray… yawn!


  42. John Clark

    Nothing beats a few Fat Yaks on a hot and humid Autumn Day.


  43. John clark .
    Fowlers wee heavy . . ?
    we used to call them “happy days” . . a wee fowlers added to a shandy type measure pint INSTEAD of the lemonade . . A couple of them and it was indeed happy days ! 😆
    Or as I now realise happy DAZE !


  44. Saw this on Rangers Rumours from a very clued up Bear calling himself ‘Gaz’.
    All credit to him. Sums it up very well imo.

    _______________________________________________________________

    02 Apr 2015 11:03:49
    Have any of you saw the movie Se7en? There is a scene near the end where John Doe (Kevin Spacey) has just handed himself in. The cops Somerset (Morgan Freeman) and Mills (Brad Pitt) are rightly puzzled by this, only 5 deaths instead of seven, what’s the script, what’s his end game? They prep themselves for the meeting in the desert in a washroom and the veteran cop says to Mills. “If John Doe’s head splits open and a UFO flies out I want you to have expected it.”

    And that is the point regards the new board at Ibrox. As collective boards, not individual members, it is hard to say with any accuracy when the last incumbents, as a whole, had the best interests of Rangers at heart. We certainly knew it wasn’t true of the previous regime and to tie it in with Somerset’s line surely to hell so did King and his colleagues.

    Nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, should have surprised them as they entered that boardroom and got a full look at the accounts. Dave King isn’t lily-white we know it, the South African judicial system can more than confirm it. I suspect he could have hazard more than a good guess as to what he would find and what the previous board would do in certain instances. Maybe Douglas Park is new to all this and is in essence the rookie cop, all business dealings above board, every I dotted, every T crossed and this has been just a mind melt for him but I doubt it of King.

    And it shows at best naivety if they thought this whole usurpation of the previous board was going to take place with sunshine and lollipops all round. King had already stated he was going to fire WH Ireland as NOMAD, sure they said they would stay for a smooth transition. Really? You’re going to get fired, what debt do you owe them? The previous puppet master is a billionaire who can give you any amount of work in the future and your going to play with a straight bat with a guy whose going to sack you the second he gets his feet under the door? Why would you and more’s the point why would King expect you to? On your word? Oh right that long since dead commodity surrounding most things inside Ibrox for several years.

    If King bought into that then he is naivety personified, if being the key word. So all this nonsense of this was done not at a time of our choosing is just that, nonsense. At worst it should have been expected and a plan B in place, if of course the LSE is their intention.

    I suspect King never wanted to go down the LSE (AIM) route but that remains to be seen in the next day or so.

    As for the rest of it, some journalist described what has been found as “Booby-trapped” and I think that’s a fair description. No auditors in place, the cost of the EGM, the dubious contracts for the Newcastle players, I’m sure there will be more. But the point is King legally and illegally didn’t get where he is today by being squeaky clean, we aren’t guessing this, we know this. Nothing witnessed should have surprised him. If ever a new board had to hit the ground running it was this one and I’m sure they had a pretty good idea of what they would find.

    He has said long and weary he’d invest from the get go regardless of his own position on the board, he doesn’t need SFA approval to invest and claiming he is showing the SFA respect by waiting on their process while also going to court to see if he can is a smidge contradictory. But neither preclude him from investing right at this minute, if for no other reason perhaps one huge injection to stave of the hand to mouth stuff which has been the diet of late.

    It was an investment remember, he doesn’t need collateral to back it up, this was a dyed in the wool Rangers fan prepared to chuck £30m at the problem, remember that? He doesn’t need a rubber stamp from the SFA for that, nor a single deed as security, this he could have done on day one as an act of good faith. It would give any conceivable outside investor faith that the club is on a far more secure financial footing, has legitimate backers and the regimes of the past are long gone which in itself would increase investor confidence.

    Buy into King if you want but I’ve saw nothing yet that tells me he isn’t looking out for Dave King or simply he can’t cash the cheques his mouth writes and that adds him to a long list broken promise makers in recent years doesn’t it?

    Gaz


  45. Popped on last night’s SSB podcast for a wee chuckle and I have to say Guidi us a piece of work and possibly the thickest pundit going – given the heavy competition no mean compliment 😛
    Last night’s gem was when he was talking about the damage Ashley was doing Rangers – where do you start there? – they never, ever talk about the unpaid loans.
    Anyway the thrust he had was that King and Murray need to sit down with Ashley or his people to rip up/renegotiate their contracts because they’re unfair to poor old Rangers.
    What????? This is the same clown who tells us repeatedly that Rangers need to pay up Ally.
    Why should they do this? Because they agreed a contract and we all know contracts need to be honoured. Except when……..

    How do these guys ever get a gig? I truly despair


  46. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/11512798/Rangers-news-Dave-King-faces-uncertain-future-as-Ibrox-club-shares-are-delisted-from-stock-market.html

    Jack Irvine states:

    “Today’s statement from Rangers is a masterpiece in obfuscation, presumably with the intention of disguising the fact that the shares will trade at a massive discount.”

    Ah yes let’s bring back the days of press releases from Rangers penned by Jack – they were so transparent they were a joy to behold and wonder at how he had the bare-faced cheek to charge his client a fortune for saying absolutely nothing.

    At least Jim Traynor is providing much sport and mental exercise for us bampots trying to work out what his clients are saying or not saying and the 1,000 shades of grey in-between.

    As to the massive loss the Easdale Camp proxies are facing on their shareholding – what about the massive losses that all shareholders in Rangers have faced down the ages in their investment.

    For a PR who has been intimately acquainted with the dark workings of Ibrox it should come as no surprise that investors get played at Ibrox and often lose their pot.

    I’m sure you will have warned your clients to think very carefully before investing in Rangers. Of course there’s a difference between the ordinary Bears who ponied-up 70p a share for love of their club and mystery overseas investors who only paid 1p a share in the hope of making a financial killing.

    Even if they sell-out at 2p a share they’ve doubled their money and, of course, some will still have their onerous contracts to hold onto for a while.

    There are many squirrels let loose in this story to deflect from the critical issues. Whether Rangers survives financially under DK or not is totally immaterial in my view.

    I will continue to concentrate on what I consider to be the underlying areas of critical importance which are the governance not only of football but the duty of the Scottish Government to act.

    Obviously they are tied-up with the forthcoming General Election but for Scotland to move forward we have many issues that require tackling by Holyrood as Hampden is too paralysed by corruption of its rules IMO to act.

    The circus at Rangers will raise and lower its Big Top quite a few time yet. It’s only a side show no matter how many banners or flags are flown and has no actual importance other than the smoky window it provides into the SFA and the reasons for its cowardice or partiality.

    Dealing with that will deal with Rangers and clean-up our game for all fans and I include Bears – of good intent – in that as well. In fact good intent is required from all Scottish Football supporters but that must be backed by and open and fair governance where the paying customers have rights to be heard and have questions answered.

    And our clubs must also join with us otherwise they and our beautiful gamer has a limited lifespan and could end-up as a collection of rarely visited clips on you-tube.

    I haven’t mentioned the SMSM as I usually do. I think that’s because they and their product really have finally ceased to have any relevance. Their death can be laid at the door of failing to critically analyse the DK ‘plan’ for Rangers.

    They have failed themselves; they have failed ordinary Bears; and they have failed every other football supporter. And they wonder why their circulation is plummeting 🙄

    Even Roddy in the DT who I have some respect for reports the earth-shattering news that Rangers will need another cash-injection this month to pay its bills. No Shit! Sherlock.

    Well that’s what happens when you operate a seriously loss-making business and this is the crux of the whole story. How is DK going to fund both the short and medium term capital requirements?

    I can see why he might not want to make Ashley privvy to his plans but at the very least he has to be taking to task on the various earlier announcements he has made about investment levels he personally was apparently going to make.

    And as to ‘obfuscating’ statements from PM – well any newspaper with a backbone has a duty to question that kind of PR Handout and get to the real truth. If PM or his PR Guru refuses to go down that road then they should be told not a word of the statement will be used.

    They then print their reasons for not doing so and actually will rocket up the credibility scale and I’m sure will have no problem next time. For those journos and editors too young to know what real journalism is all about – take note and grow a pair while you still have some readers left to notice.


  47. immci says:
    April 3, 2015 at 12:29 pm

    Popped on last night’s SSB podcast for a wee chuckle and I have to say Guidi us a piece of work and possibly the thickest pundit going – given the heavy competition no mean compliment 😛

    How do these guys ever get a gig? I truly despair.
    —————————————————–
    They get a gig because people listen to them and then complain about them on social media which actually attracts others to tune-in. The more complaining done the more successful they are viewed as being by the station.

    It really is that simple and that’s why I never listen to them because I know what the game being played is all about.


  48. JC,
    Fowlers Wee Heavy was popular in the 50’s and early 60’s.
    It was from the time, during and post war, when whisky was scarce and the traditional whisky drinker would have to settle for his pint.

    To compensate, he would add the odd strong ale into his pint, for the extra “wee kick”.
    It was still a custom amongst the old lads when I worked in a bar in 1970.
    However, when I think of Fowlers Wee Heavy, I think of former Scottish International right back, Bobby Shearer, although he was actually a wee heavy fouler!
    Groan!!!


  49. Resin_lab_dog says:
    April 3, 2015 at 12:21 pm

    Saw this on Rangers Rumours from a very clued up Bear calling himself ‘Gaz’. All credit to him. Sums it up very well imo.
    ———————————————————
    I would agree sounds more like a thinking Bear than one driven by a PR agenda.

    Possibly the only bit I would have had a stronger opinion on is when the author states: ‘I suspect King never wanted to go down the LSE (AIM) route’.

    I have no doubt that it wasn’t a question of having a Plan B but that Plan A was to have the NOMAD resign and get the automatic release from AIM Listing.

    The DK support of boycotters for me proved that a major part of the strategy was to get hold of shareholding control as cheaply as possible until the Sarver cameo appearance IMO changed the plan.

    I think if DK invests his own cash in Rangers it will be to buy shares on the cheap if Rangers can move exchange. It will be interesting to see if he would make any move to intervene at the matched-bargain stage but I doubt it. And I doubt if he’ll spend a penny anyway if the CoS refuse his petition.

    Rangers has predominantly been an illiquid share since it floated and I wonder just what significant blocs are left to be traded.

    Once again the mystery overseas investors have a crucial position IMO. Why should the ones that paid buttons for their shares and for some that was 1p – before the December 2012 Flotation – sell-up.

    Why not just sit tight and even more so if they hold any onerous contracts. We don’t know whether some or all of these will survive an insolvency event. But even if they don’t then for every month Rangers is still trading these contracts provide wonga to the holders.

    I suppose we now all have to switch to the fine print of the rules & regulations of the new exchange aka The Promised Land to learn what percentages are important 😉

    EDIT: Gaz rings true because he does post on Rangers Rumours and on football and has for a wee while.

    And he seems a realist from this earlier post on RR:

    30 Aug 2014 18:46:20
    Not everyone is happy to pay to watch this dross – overpaid players struggle against supposedly weaker opposition week in week out whilst the club are hemorrhaging money which the board cant/wont explain; seems simple to me why people don’t want to turn up anymore
    Gaz.


  50. ThomTheThim says:
    April 3, 2015 at 1:15 pm

    JC,
    Fowlers Wee Heavy was popular in the 50’s and early 60’s. It was from the time, during and post war, when whisky was scarce and the traditional whisky drinker would have to settle for his pint.

    To compensate, he would add the odd strong ale into his pint, for the extra “wee kick”. It was still a custom amongst the old lads when I worked in a bar in 1970.
    —————————————————————
    Ah a walk down memory lane 😎 Yea the shortage of whisky after WWII when every drop produced was exported mainly to USA to earn dollars to pay off our Lend-lease debt to America.

    My dad after demob from the Royal Navy spent a few years on the whisky boats crossing the Atlantic.

    And Fowlers Wee Heavy – the real hardened drinkers would often add one to their Newcastle Brown. Being a youngster who could only afford and manage the odd pint of light at 8d IIRC – eight old pennies equal to around 3 new p – I’ll never forget the one and only Newcastle/Fowler concoction that I ever drank which nearly blew my head off.

    Ah the good old days 🙄


  51. ecobhoy says:
    April 3, 2015 at 1:42 pm
    ThomTheThim says:
    April 3, 2015 at 1:15 pm

    Edit
    ******
    ecobhoy says:
    April 3, 2015 at 1:42 pm
    ThomTheThim says:
    April 3, 2015 at 1:15 pm

    JC,
    Fowlers Wee Heavy was popular in the 50’s and early 60’s. It was from the time, during and post war, when whisky was scarce and the traditional whisky drinker would have to settle for his pint.

    To compensate, he would add the odd strong ale into his pint, for the extra “wee kick”. It was still a custom amongst the old lads when I worked in a bar in 1970.
    —————————————————————
    Ah a walk down memory lane 😎 Yea the shortage of whisky after WWII when every drop produced was exported mainly to USA to earn dollars to pay off our Lend-lease debt to America.

    My dad after demob from the Royal Navy spent a few years on the whisky boats crossing the Atlantic.

    And Fowlers Wee Heavy – the real hardened drinkers would often add one to their Newcastle Brown. Being a youngster who could only afford and manage the odd pint of light at 8d IIRC – eight old pennies equal to around 3 new p – I’ll never forget the one and only Newcastle/Fowler concoction that I ever drank which nearly blew my head off.

    Ah the good old days 🙄

    *******

    Do you think that is what left us the way we are today, or is it just auld age? 🙁


  52. Resin_lab_dog says:
    April 2, 2015 at 5:01 pm

    Interesting to see who they are gonna sue?
    ________________________________________________________

    Thankyou for your prompt and transparent response to my enquiry Mr. Easedale.

    The trap is sprung it seems!

    “… insisted he had been “quite excited” by the promises made by King’s group and that the delisting “came as a bit of a shock”

    … while trying desperately to keep a straight face but corpsing, badly.

    The games afoot. Popcorn at the ready!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32171135


  53. Ron.an.Math says:
    April 3, 2015 at 12:20 pm
    John clark .
    Fowlers wee heavy . . ?
    we used to call them “happy days” . . a wee fowlers added to a shandy type measure pint INSTEAD of the lemonade . . A couple of them and it was indeed happy days ! 😆
    Or as I now realise happy DAZE !
    ===============================================================================
    …”…a wee heavy an’ a hauf pint” is the expression I seem to recall in north Glasgow howfs…not my taste though, I always obeyed my wee da… 😳


  54. Resin_lab_dog says:
    April 3, 2015 at 2:29 pm

    Phil Mac suggesting on twitter Ashley may be up for a bit of legal shenanigans as well!


  55. Aquinas says:
    April 2, 2015 at 10:07 pm

    I may have had a moment of clarity regarding the £278,000 monthly sum leaving New Rangers and the strange case of the stadium not being available to MASH as collateral.

    When the Clumpany Rangers Intergalactical FC was formed and Sevco Scotland Ltd transferred ‘stuff’ over to it, I think they forgot to move the stadium.

    My legitimate copy of ‘The Deeds’ purchased direct from Registers of Scotland (public document) has the Owner as Sevco Scotland Ltd on it, have RIFC been in rented accommodation since birth?

    ===================================================

    Aquinas, good afternoon to you. I would welcome a few pointers (for this nutter) to lead me to this very facinating document you speak of. Trust this is not inconvenient. Thanking you.


  56. wottpi says:
    April 3, 2015 at 2:43 pm

    Resin_lab_dog says:
    April 3, 2015 at 2:29 pm

    Phil Mac suggesting on twitter Ashley may be up for a bit of legal shenanigans as well!

    __________________________________________________

    Lets look at the form of the contenders as they line up:

    Mike Ashley:
    Long arms and Deep pockets.
    Says not much.
    Does exactly what he says he will.

    Paul Murray.
    Mostly armless. Totally pocketless
    Talks an awful lot.
    Then does not very much at all.

    Dave King.
    Short arms.
    Left his wallet in his other jacket.
    Says one thing. Does the complete opposite.

    …. place your bets…


  57. essexbean counter. .
    It was very much youthful experimentation . . (for the amusement of the old worthies at the bowling club I now realise ! )
    As a virtual t-totaller nowadays . . cant say I’d reccomend it . . but heh we were all young and daft once . . . 😳


  58. BorrowaTenner says:
    April 3, 2015 at 2:51 pm

    Sevco Scotland changed its name to The Rangers Football Club LTD, which in turn is a wholly owned subsidiary of Rangers International Football Club LTD,a mantra we can all probably recite in our sleep :mrgreen:

    Bit puzzled as to why no-one appears to have updated the deeds at the time of the name change?


  59. BorrowaTenner says:
    April 3, 2015 at 2:51 pm
    Aquinas says:
    April 2, 2015 at 10:07 pm

    I may have had a moment of clarity regarding the £278,000 monthly sum leaving New Rangers and the strange case of the stadium not being available to MASH as collateral.

    When the Clumpany Rangers Intergalactical FC was formed and Sevco Scotland Ltd transferred ‘stuff’ over to it, I think they forgot to move the stadium.

    My legitimate copy of ‘The Deeds’ purchased direct from Registers of Scotland (public document) has the Owner as Sevco Scotland Ltd on it, have RIFC been in rented accommodation since birth?
    ===================================================
    Aquinas, good afternoon to you. I would welcome a few pointers (for this nutter) to lead me to this very facinating document you speak of. Trust this is not inconvenient. Thanking you.
    ——————————————————-
    I wouldn’t get too excited as the document referred to can be purchased from the Land Registry and afaik Sevco Scotland is till the name it bears.

    That is because when the Green consortium purchased the business and assets of Rangers from D_P back in June 2012 the purchasing vehicle was Sevco Scotland Ltd.

    RIFC Plc didn’t exist until approx 6 months later.

    There are obviously questions over the role of Sevco 5088 Ltd but that’s another issue which unless Worthington get their act together on AIM or hive-off the legal claim threat they purport to have purchased via a subsidiary seems likley to die a death and indeed I think there were references to this in the recently published Rangers accounts.

    I should have mentioned for completeness that Sevco Scotland was renamed TRFCL later in the summer of 2012 prior to the RIFC flotation.


  60. scapaflow says:
    April 3, 2015 at 3:11 pm
    BorrowaTenner says:
    April 3, 2015 at 2:51 pm

    Sevco Scotland changed its name to The Rangers Football Club LTD, which in turn is a wholly owned subsidiary of Rangers International Football Club LTD,a mantra we can all probably recite in our sleep :mrgreen:

    Bit puzzled as to why no-one appears to have updated the deeds at the time of the name change?
    —————————————
    Didn’t see your reply until after I posted. Wrt the change of name it could be something devious or mean nothing. They have been a bit busy after all with all the Board and director changes and AIM notifications 😆

    I remember when I looked at the Business Rates valuation roll that the names hadn’t been updated there. Can’t remember now if that was for Ibrox or Murray Park or both. But it seems clear that there can be legal attachments which apply to property that don’t require to be mentioned in the Land Registry.

    A poster gave chapter and verse on it here recently and it certainly sounded kosher.


  61. ecobhoy says:
    April 3, 2015 at 3:27 pm

    The business rates roll is a bugbear for another fora, local government at its most incompetent :mrgreen:

    The deeds not being updated is probably just a sign of the state of Rangers, “Hopeless, but not serious” as the Urban Voltaire might have put it 😉


  62. If dck plans to crash the bus (as I read above), I presume Rangers(3)2015 will have to present a case, and business plan, along with a multi-million bond along with their application to SPFL.

    Can the smsm not fill a couple of column inches with some enquiry to the appropiate body regarding this companies attempt at a world record Club10.


  63. Why do I get the feeling SARS have revived their interest in the glib one, did he realy think they ended their interest after the court case was over, word of advice Dave ,this normaly is the beginning of a long but unwelcome relationship, it’s the way they operate.
    Scotland needs a strong SARS type dept


  64. I mentioned I had been in touch with Darryl Broadfoot re the John Guidetti citation. Given the important stuff of the last day or two, I wasn’t going to post it in case it took the blog away from discussing the delisting, the consequences and credibility. As we’re onto discussing hauf and hauf pints
    however, I thought I’d do it so I can delete the emails. When the citation was reported, I asked

    I wonder if you can help me clarify something in your role as Head of Communications. I realise these questions should be addressed to the SFA Compliance Officer, but I believe his role is non-customer facing hence my approach to your good self. If it is easier for you to pass my questions to him for a direct response, that would be fine by me.

    I am referring to the citing of John Guidetti for making a “comment of an offensive nature”. I am particularly interested in what the Compliance Officer deems specifically to be the offensive part of Mr Guidetti’s comment and I would really appreciate absolute clarity on this. The charge makes it clear that the offence arose during his interview with the Dutch media and appears to refer to his singing of the song sung by Celtic FC fans in his favour.

    I would ask the Compliance Officer to state specifically what it is that is deemed offensive.

    – Is it the whole song that is deemed offensive?

    – Is it the word ‘hun’ that is deemed offensive? If so, would the song be deemed inoffensive if that word was replaced with, say, ‘gers’?

    – Is it that the song implies that Rangers FC is no more that is deemed offensive? If so, would the song be made inoffensive by changing the words ‘are deid’ to something stupid like, say, “can’t read”

    I would be glad if the Compliance Officer could please clarify.

    Darryl’s first response was the same as usual.

    Hi, since it is an ongoing case it would be inappropriate to prejudge. It will be for an independent panel to determine. D

    I don’t know if by doing that, he hopes fans will go away, but I followed up with

    But Darryl, I’m not asking anyone to prejudge the outcome of the hearing. Surely the Compliance Officer can clarify the reasons he felt it appropriate to cite Mr Guidetti without prejudicing any decision.

    In all offences there has to be an action, which someone deems worthy of a charge. Subsequent to that charge, there is a trial/hearing to decide if the charge can be proven. At the time the charge is made, it is worded in such a way that everyone understands exactly what the ‘suspect’ is being charged with.

    All I am asking is that the Compliance Officer explains specifically which action of Mr Guidetti has led him to be cited. I am not questioning Mr Guidetti’s guilt or otherwise. The SFA’s corporate strategy document states “We are open, honest and trusted to do the right thing” and I would hope that in the interests of transparency, the Compliance Officer will provide a transparent explanation of what Mr Guidetti has been ‘charged’ with.

    Darryl replied, saying that “It states in the case notes online re Rule 73.” To be honest, it doesn’t say much in Rule 73, certainly nothing specific about the reason for the citation, so I tried again

    Thanks for that, Darryl.

    So Rule 73 says:-

    “No recognised football body, club, official, Team Official or other member of Team Staff, player, match official or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA shall in an interview, a ‘blog’ on the internet, on a social networking or micro-blogging site, or in any other manner calculated or likely to lead to publicity, make comment(s) of a discriminatory or offensive nature based on, but not limited to, race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or disability, or that endorse or encourage foul play or violent conduct or are otherwise offensive. There shall be a presumption that any material published in such a manner was published in the name of and/or with the authority of the person or body bearing to have published the material.”

    To my mind Mr Guidetti’s song did not “encourage foul play or violent conduct”, so I therefore assume that his comment was deemed to be “of a discriminatory or offensive nature based on, but not limited to, race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or disability”. Can you confirm I am correct in that assumption, please?

    Based on that assumption, I conclude that from my original 3 questions below, it is the singing of the word ‘hun’ that is deemed offensive, because 1) it surely can’t simply be the whole song and 2) Rule 73 does not prevent Mr Guidetti from singing words that imply Rangers are dead. Can you confirm I am correct in that conclusion, please?

    Can you let me know under which of “race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or disability” Mr Guidetti’s use of the word ‘hun’ was deemed to be offensive? I imagine I know but would appreciate confirmation.

    As I hadn’t received a reply a few days later, I chased again

    Hi Darryl,

    After your quick response to my initial enquiries, I don’t seem to have received a response to my email below at 10.10am yesterday. I appreciate you may simply be busy, or perhaps liaising with the Compliance Officer so look forward to a response shortly.

    I see that the Compliance Officer’s predecessor, Mr Lunney, has now waded in on the issue and has publicly given his view that Mr Guidetti has been cited due to his song implying that Rangers are dead. He publically states “It would appear that their focus is on the comment attacking Rangers or making fun of Rangers for having gone into liquidation back in 2012. It is, I think, significant that there’s no mention of it being sectarian or otherwise based on religion. Leigh Griffiths this time last year was sent a charge for singing ‘Hearts are going bust’.”

    Mr Lunny’s view clashes with my conclusion. You pointed me toward Rule 73 – nowhere in that rule does it cover the action of making fun of another club as far as I can see. I would think that as an ex-employee, Mr Lunny is no longer privy to the thinking behind SFA decisions, so can only assume that he is, like me and many others, simply guessing at the specific reasons for Mr Guidetti being cited (though I acknowledge that he does at least use past precedent – Leigh Griffiths’ case) to inform his guess.

    As it is clear that I am not the only one wondering about the reasons for this citation, I really would appreciate a clarifying response, Darryl. Indeed, I think the publicity this issue is raising proves beyond doubt that there is a real need for the SFA to publicly clarify the specifics of why Mr Guidetti has been cited. You only need to read back this email to see how many times I use the words assume, guess etc to see that nothing here shows the SFA in a good light in terms of transparency.

    Darryl replied saying

    Hi, if you check your emails you will see I responded for the final time at 6.46pm. Please see below:

    Hi, it seems you have given this a lot of time and effort. The rationale is outlined in the complaint published and it is for an independent panel to consider the merits of the complaint. D

    I responded

    Sorry Darryl,

    I seem not to have received that email, but thanks for sending it again.

    From the SFA website, this is all I can find about the complaint. http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=3209&newsCategoryID=1&newsID=14500 and had already seen that before my initial contact with you.

    It states “Disciplinary Rule 73: In that on or around 6th March 2015 you did in the course of a interview given to the Dutch Television Programme FC Rijnmond, make comment of an offensive nature”, but that does not answer my question as to nature of the “offensive comment” i.e. is the citation because he used the word ‘hun’ or is the citation because – as Mr Lunny suggests – he is seen to be mocking Rangers’ liquidation.

    Is this something you can clarify? I don’t see how telling me that could possibly prejudice the outcome of his hearing, to be honest.

    Thanks again, Darryl.

    After another 3 chasers over the next few days, I received no further reply. It seems transparency is still a real issue at the SFA, despite the fact that I give Darryl credit for at least trying to engage. I’m not sure if the SFA genuinely feels explaining the reason for the citation WOULD prejudice the outcome (though I still can’t think why it would), or if the communication goes dead because the SFA doesn’t want to clarify. Reasons for that could be:-
    – If it’s for the use of the h*n word, they are loathe to be challenged on it being offensive to any of the groups they list under Rule 73. I.e is it really aimed at a religious group, or just Rangers fans?
    – If it’s for mocking Rangers’ liquidation, Rule 73 definitely doesn’t cover it, so they can’t justify it.

    Once again, I’m sorry that there’s no real end to my post!


  65. nawlite says:
    April 3, 2015 at 3:47 pm
    ____________________________

    Bravo nawlite, I applaud your tenacity.


  66. upthehoops says:
    April 2, 2015 at 9:28 pm

    neepheid says:
    April 2, 2015 at 9:20 pm

    Personally, I think King is in deep trouble already on the wider front……. not on board with King/Murray’s latest 2022 plan for world domination.

    ===========

    Have they got a contingency plan when the landlord for Ibrox decides to increase the monthly rent in stages to £300k, followed to £400, then up to £500k monthly, an easier sum for one of his hourly contracted accountancy staff to deal with.


  67. Oh Dear! I hope the Easdale Camp has thought-through the legal action threat.

    If it’s simply a bluff and a bit of PR shadow boxing then who cares as at the end of the day it will all come to nothing.

    It appears that individuals rather than the club will be the target of the legal action. Well at least ‘individuals’ have legal entities that can be sued.

    ‘Clubs’ don’t have and can’t be sued although to be fair to many who have trod the hallowed Blue Axminsters in the inner sanctums at Ibrox there seems to be an abiding failure to actually grasp that fact.

    I’m sure the Easdale Camp lawyer will provide the necessary guidance.

    Sandy stated: “They were given several options to keep the listing but decided to move forward with Dave heading it up.”

    What were the ‘options’ and did that exclude a major shareholder viz DK from being allowed to join the Board or was he only to be excluded from ‘heading it up?’.

    And then the nugget: “We were quite willing to let the new board build the club, but we thought that the club would still be listed on AIM.

    “Our consortium thinks that this move would undervalue the sales that were purchased at certain prices.”

    I can’t help but wonder who the ‘we’ are and have the mystery overseas investors – presumably living or operating through offshore tax havens – become a ‘consortium’. Jaysuz next they’ll be giving concert parties for passing tourists walking on silver sand Caribbean beaches and selling flegs.

    I had never realised that the proxies held by Easdale constituted a ‘consortium’ and had just thought it was a collection of disparate – but now seemingly desparate – investors with no fixed common objectives.

    But there you go I’m not skilled in the ways of gambling in casinos or on AIM not that there appears to be much difference to my mind.

    One thing I do know about AIM is that it’s advisable to DYOI and when it comes to investing in Rangers a cursory glance at the history of the club down through the ages is that anyone wanting to invest in it hasn’t IMO taken due heed of the club’s history and performance.

    I suppose though that if members of a consortium only paid a penny for a share then if they get tuppence they should be delighted at doubling their money.

    And if they happen to have one of these rather mysterious and elusive onerous contracts then they really have won a watch.

    I had to smile at the gracious decision to ‘let the new board build the club’. How very sporting of the ‘consortium’. I can only assume they didn’t read the AIM regulatory notice which absolutely tore apart those pushing for Board change – it was an excoriating attack by the old Board but perhaps the Easdale Camp might have walked before then and had no input into the attack.

    It could be that the Easdales have lost quite a bit of dosh on their gamble but even beginners know you invest at your own risk and shares can go up and down in price with no guarantees. Indeed the clever hucksters can make more money off a falling share price than a rising one.

    If you don’t understand that then you should clearly reconsider whether investing in AIM is a hobby you can afford 😈

    Obviously if anyone has done anything illegal which may have adversely affected a company’s ahare price then I full support that an investigation should be carried out by the appropriate authority and the requisite punishment meted out in due course.

    And for private investors who have lost their shirt then go fot it if you can afford it.

    I know the Easdale Camp didn’t invest to make money but did so as supporters as can be evidenced with not making money off soft loans that they made.

    However I personally have always wondered how they ended-up holding this anonymous ‘consortium’ proxy vote which has long been of concern to Rangers supporters.

    However hopefully if this trial ever get before a Scottish Court we can all get the opportunity to hear the answers to a whole host of questions.

    It’s a pity that all the SMSM feels able to do just now is run a PR Puff that ‘shock horror someone being sued’. There are dozens of pertinent questions that could be asked of the Easdale Camp NOW and I can only wonder at the SMSM silence yet again.

    Obviously we at least seem to have an answer to the question of why the Easdale Consortium abstained in the egm vote: They decided to give the new guys a chance.

    Well that seems to have been a very bad business decision in retrospect and one that will prove to be very costly if my reading of the runes and tea leaves is anything to go by.


  68. BorrowaTenner says:
    April 3, 2015 at 4:09 pm

    Have they got a contingency plan when the landlord for Ibrox decides to increase the monthly rent in stages to £300k, followed to £400, then up to £500k monthly.
    —————————————————————
    Well for any lease to remain payable then it has to be legal and I tend to believe that what makes the onerous contracts to difficult to deal with is that they are legally watertight and would survive legal challenge.

    That means that increases which aren’t in the contract or that haven’t been negotiated between the parties can’t be imposed.

    Only someone with access to the contract would know the exact position. Depending on the length of a lease there are often break clauses,

    Until then it’s simply speculation. At the end of the day without a football club playing football at Ibrox I doubt if the place is worth that much so I doubt if your scenario will ever come into play.

    Indeed the old Board has repeatedly stated that Rangers own Ibrox and it would appear that most posters seem to accept the old board position on most things.


  69. You want an answer from Darryl Broadfoot? What country do you live in? If the answer is Scotland, then perhaps the sighting of Halley’s comet on its next visit will get you closer to a reply. I still have emails from about 3/4 years ago–I can look them up–asking why that bastion of fair play Elbows McCullough was not cited for banjoing an Aberdeen player in full view of TV, linesman, referee et al. Darryl spun, obfuscated, twirled, duked, ducked–add your own–I know you want to. I thought it was an episode of Strictly Come Dancing. The SFA are rotten from top to bottom. Look at the difference in treatment given to “Ally” (or Alaistar, if you prefer) and Neil Lennon. Look at Livingstone, fined and deducted points, Spartans—–.Don’t start me on the standard of refereeing. I am going to get a half dozen Draught Guinness, chill them, then get the football on later. Here in N. Ireland the pubs open at 5 and shut at 11 o’clock on Good Friday. After than I’ll go back onto TSFM and see if any other shenanigans have occurred.


  70. Raymac says:

    April 3, 2015 at 4:39 pm

    So far, I’ve found that he is good at replying but is always careful to only go so far. I can understand that to an extent, though I am frustrated that the conversation seems to end when the questions get difficult. I think so long as we are polite and reasonable, he will try to respond, though perhaps being polite and reasonable makes it easier for him to fudge things. Around the same time as the Guidetti thing, I questioned the ‘mistaken identity’ red card and he acknowledged and clarified that.

    I have just seen the BBC’s online report of the English FA’s handling of a ‘mistaken identity’ red card in the weekend’s match between Manchester City and West Brom. If you haven’t seen the report, here is the link http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32023806.

    The report shows that the English FA has transferred the red card issued in error to Gareth McAuley to the actual guilty party, Craig Dawson. In the real world, most people will see this as the right thing to do. If someone is punished for a crime, but later proves without a shadow of a doubt that the crime was carried out by another party, people would agree that the person punished in error should be ‘unpunished’. Equally, with evidence now proving definitively who DID carry out the crime, people would rightly expect that person to be punished in the same manner.

    In the recent Paul Paton/Calum Butcher incident, the SFA went only so far as to right the wrong done to Paul Paton, but for some reason felt unable to transfer the punishment to the actual guilty party, Calum Butcher. I have been unable to find a transparent explanation as to why this was the case. The BBC reports that the SFA “was keen to punish the 24-year-old “, “But its rules prevent it switching punishment retrospectively”. The online list of SFA Judicial Panel Hearings does not provide any information.

    Can I ask you to clarify:-
    – What was the SFA rule that prevented the SFA transferring the punishment when, according to the BBC, it wanted to do so
    – Has that rule now been changed or are there plans to make such a change
    – Why weren’t the SFA rules written in such a way so as to allow for this type of error? Given that the English FA rules appear to have been better written to cover such eventualities, is the SFA suffering from poorer foresight than its English counterparts?

    His answer? “a) Rules are only changed during a revision process involving clubs, club reps, league bodies, PFA Scotland, Referee Association and Coaches and Managers’ Association. The FA have an express rule which enables “the transfer of a red card” in the case of mistaken identity. There is no such provision in our rules and, therefore, any attempt to do so would be outwith them and challengeable. An amendment will be in place for next season, proposed by the afore-mentioned Judicial Panel working group.
    b) Given that the rules are not written solely by the SFA but proposed, amended and discussed by its members (ie clubs and leagues), then perhaps your question should be widened out.

    To me, that’s fair enough – they know they should have something in place, are proposing it now and we shouldn’t look only at the SFA but at the clubs too.

Comments are closed.