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.
nawlite says:
April 3, 2015 at 3:47 pm
I mentioned I had been in touch with Darryl Broadfoot re the John Guidetti citation.
——————————————————————
What can I say other than Bravo ❗
I don’t know if you saw my post which tried to discover where under the OBA an offence could have been committed and was unable to do so to my satisfaction. That was me using an oblique way of coming at it.
Really though – and DB responses to yourself confirm my thinking – I am now more interested in deciding what mechanism came into play that set the whole process in motion.
Does it emanate in the Compliance Officer’s napper with no external input? Or does one or many complaints spark things off? Can complaints be initiated by anyone else at Hampden?
The reason I feel that transparency is important is because of the defining of ‘groups’ in the OBA and in Rule 73 in the SFA Rules. Obviously the making of a complaint isn’t confined to the named gtroups.
But if the complaint comes from outwith the named groups then IMO we have to be very careful about what would be recognised as an additional group worthy of protection.
Otherwise the gates are simply open to malicious or deranged individuals to fire in complaints. But what makes the Compliance Officer decide what complaints should be scalated? Does he take advice from anyone or does he just flip a coin?
We have a guy just in the job and – although I am a Celtic supporter – I genuinely don’t think watching the whole interview rather than just the song that Guidetti was being gratuitously offensive.
Although I take the point that will be a matter for the actual tribunal to determine. I would like Celtic to take this one all the way because I don’t think we will get clear answers from the Compliance Officer and even the tribunal judgement might be unclear or simply be a Guilty Stamp.
Big problem is that Guidetti is unlikely still to be at Celtic so there might be no real appetite from him or the club to get caught-up in a long running legal process especially if he is playing abroad.
So even at the end of it all we might be none the wiser which is par for the course when the SFA hands down its diktats.
Seems like a match that was made in Heaven – wonder where it all went wrong 😆
ecobhoy says:
April 3, 2015 at 5:21 pm
Seems like a match that was made in Heaven – wonder where it all went wrong 😆
The committee (Scottish Select Affairs) had called for Ashley himself to appear, to explain the endemic employment of people on zero-hours contracts and the administration of a subsidiary, USC, in which 83 workers at a warehouse in Dundonald were sacked in January having been given only 15 minutes’ notice.
Sports Direct had removed its stock from the warehouse and bought USC assets back from administration in a “pre-pack” deal, leaving suppliers owed £50m, £575,000 in unpaid taxes and, according to the committee chair, Ian Davidson, the taxpayer “shafted” to meet the workers’ redundancy costs.
___________________________________________
You do wonder where he got the idea from?
Deplorable.
But legal.
USC was without question genuinely insolvent, and he elected not to waste his cash keeping it going.
You could argue that SD reputationally may take a bit of a hit on the back of this, but since ‘cuddliness’ never really seemed to be very high up among their chosen brand values anyway, I am not so sure.
If Mike shows up (which will only happen in the event that he is compelled to, I would assume) he will no doubt ask the committee to explain which laws they think he violated and how!? … before politely reminding them that the job of creating legislation lies with them, and not him.
CONCLUSION: Insolvency and employment laws both need seriously beefed up.
Resin_lab_dog says:
April 3, 2015 at 5:28 pm
To be fair to the SLab MPs, labour is making zero hours contracts a big feature of their campaign. Ashley is a poster child for this and other bad corporate citizen behaviours, I’m not a labour supporter by any means, but, I hope Ashley refuses to attend and gets carted off to chockey.
scapaflow says:
April 3, 2015 at 5:48 pm
Resin_lab_dog says:
April 3, 2015 at 5:28 pm
To be fair to the SLab MPs, labour is making zero hours contracts a big feature of their campaign. Ashley is a poster child for this and other bad corporate citizen behaviours, I’m not a labour supporter by any means, but, I hope Ashley refuses to attend and gets carted off to chockey.
______________________________________________
Alas, I think he is too well advised and chokey is not in the frame.
But I do think government action on ZHC is something all decent folk should support.
A race to the bottom helps no one.
It’s Humpty Dumpty time
To take advantage of a lease break is all well and good but the subjects would then revert to the landlord oops no stadium – which might be a good thing if the stadium is an albatross round the neck of the occupier- think Broadwood and Clyde or any other example which might leap to mind
Good work nawlight.
I’ve engaged Mr Broadfoot a few times on social media and in person, and had a similar experience to you. A rather glib series of replies that seem to wilfully ignore the nub of the question, with particular emphasis to rulebook references that he doesn’t seem to have read or fully understood whilst airily dismissing the prospect that I might have read and grasped perfectly well whatever he was quoting at me.
Once any such misapprehensions on Mr Broadfoot’s part have been cleared up in the course of the exchange (oh no, you’re very welcome Darryl) and it is clear what I am getting at, the communication channel on Mr Broadfoot’s side seems to go dead.
I would be delighted if Mr Broadfoot’s abilities were as high as he apparently assesses them to be, but for now there does seem to be a significant gap between the two. I salute your efforts to help Darryl close it, and I hope his employers are equally impressed.
From Dundee Utd re Commissiongate- apologies if it has been posted already.
Ot but well remember my old pal John who I used to drive with at a company frae Castlemilk. On pay day we would finish off topping up the vans with oil on a Saturday lunchtime and head down to Govanhill/Vicky road which at that time was where the nearest pubs were.
Immediately on entering a Happy day and a Banana rum were placed in front of John. Never fancied it and stuck to lager. I used to then head to Fir Park, Ibrox, or Parkhead (wherever our lot agreed to congregate). John always said he was off to see the Celtic. “Catch up with you son”. It was only at his funeral I found out when he hit on this mixture he would inevitably go missing for the weekend along with his paypacket. And I got the bloody blame!
Caught a bit of Celtic’s favourite Norwegian in between Andy Murray’s second set against Berdych. To the question, ‘What about Rangers, do you want do see them promoted?’, he gave a brilliant answer along the lines of believing that the best teams should be in the top tier and that Rangers have still not proved that they deserve promotion. Well, bravo Ronny for not trotting out the usual PC answer that Mr Sutton was fishing for.
Heja Norge!
neepheid says:
April 3, 2015 at 8:00 pm
From Dundee Utd re Commissiongate- apologies if it has been posted already.
====================
“It is important to note that the Manager has not received bonuses anywhere near the highly misleading figure of £500k stated publicly this week.”
Interesting bit of spin here as IIRC neither ARABtrust or the federation of supporters had suggested where the money had gone.
The incentive element of JMac’s package (but not any sum) had leaked out online prior to the supporters groups statement.
While the board disputed the accuracy of the £500k figure the supporters groups suggested had gone in “commission” I can’t help but notice that they have not supplied an alternative amount.
Looks like spin and when I see spin I wonder what people are trying to hide – while I have some sympathy with the United board they haven’t half made life hard for themselves this year through poor communications and a lack of transparency.
I’m afraid this one will run for a bit yet.
SFA Compliance Officer Tony McGlennan offers Leigh Griffiths a 10 match ban for eating a Tunnocks Teacake before kick off in Celtic’s match with St Mirren.Manager Ronny Deila says Celtic will not appeal the decision and the matter will be dealt with ‘in house’.
neepheid says: April 3, 2015 at 8:00 pm
From Dundee Utd re Commissiongate- apologies if it has been posted already.
parttimearab says: April 3, 2015 at 9:06 pm
=================================
The Arabtrust have hit back once again.
http://www.arabtrust.co.uk/news/statement-from-the-board-of-arabtrust-and-the-committee-of-the-federation-of-dundee-united-supporters-clubs—3rd-april-2015
helpmaboab says:
April 3, 2015 at 9:39 pm
SFA Compliance Officer Tony McGlennan offers Leigh Griffiths a 10 match ban for eating a Tunnocks Teacake before kick off in Celtic’s match with St Mirren.Manager Ronny Deila says Celtic will not appeal the decision and the matter will be dealt with ‘in house’.
————————————————————
I nearly did myself an injury laughing last night as did the rest of the pub when he slipped the Tunnocks’ Treasure straight from his pocket into his mouth without a crumb or a smear of chocolate remaining.
It didn’t touch anything on the way and was truly well-disguised to ensure no one else got a touch of the tea cake never mind a bite.
There was a really quiet moment in the crowd and one wag commented: ‘I see Ronnie’s work on developing passing skills is going down a treat’.
I think every one of us could relate to our own ‘naughty boy’ moment when we swiped a goodie off the table and hid underneath it to devour it hurriedly and greedily.
Despite my robust denials the chocolate or crumbs always gave me away.
Methinks I know who’ll be sitting next to Ronnie on the bench in future and I can just imagine the lecture to come from JC centering round the calorific value of a TTC and how much fat it generates if not immediately burnt off in energy when you don’t get to play 😆
A simply priceless moment ❗
Morning all. Interesting statement from a Rangers fans site. If true, the mainstream media look ever more ridiculous by the day.
https://rangerssupportersloyal.wordpress.com/2015/04/03/board-knew-of-delist-on-day-of-egm/
easyJambo says:
April 3, 2015 at 9:54 pm
neepheid says: April 3, 2015 at 8:00 pm
From Dundee Utd re Commissiongate- apologies if it has been posted already.
parttimearab says: April 3, 2015 at 9:06 pm
=================================
The Arabtrust have hit back once again.
http://www.arabtrust.co.uk/news/statement-from-the-board-of-arabtrust-and-the-committee-of-the-federation-of-dundee-united-supporters-clubs—3rd-april-2015
—————————————————————
It’s an interesting dilemma which I think we could see more of with increasing fan involvement in the business side of clubs especially in Scotland where fan £s might be the only way for a club to survive.
But there really is a potentially divisive chasm between the business interests of the ‘company’ and the fans’ who put their club’s football performance first.
I can’t comment on the specifics of the Dundee Utd case but similar issues are popping-up in a number of clubs which all track back to the divide I mentioned above.
IMO it’s likely to be something which grows in importance and I’m not sure the conflicting aims are easily wedded together. Increasing fan ownership and representation will continue to crank-up the pressure IMO.
But those running the company have legal duties wrt governance and other issues which don’t necessarily mesh with some fan objectives.
parttimearab says: April 2, 2015 at 8:54
“TBH delisting was in many ways a sensible option. Cuts down on the expense/time spent on complying with AIM rules.”
Delightful irony there PTA!
upthehoops says:
April 4, 2015 at 8:10 am
Morning all. Interesting statement from a Rangers fans site. If true, the mainstream media look ever more ridiculous by the day.
from them being ————————————————————–
Rangers Supporters Loyal has certainly jumped into centre stage in the last few days. Who are they and who do they represent?
I have watched equally dramatic claims from the guy who seems to run it being made on Bear sites. So far demands for hard evidence have been ignored afaik.
Doesn’t mean the claims aren’t true but they remain highly speculative without any facts.
When RSL started a year ago with the assistance of McMurdo its aim was for fans to simply get together and support Rangers the team and the Board. Obviously that brough them into conflict with the boycotters.
I see merits in both arguments as long as they are coming from genuine fans. But as a non-Bear I don’t actually feel that I require to determine which is the correct or besr route and they might not be the same thing.
However what I find strange about RSL is that the keystone of their very existance ia to support the Board come what may. Instead they seem to be launching bitter attacks on the installed Board.
At the end of the day there was a shareholders’ vote at the egm which overwhelmingly rejected the old Board. It might have been the wrong thing to do but it’s ‘Democracy’ in action so to speak.
Bears will have to live with the consequences of their decisions and actions and, as yet, we can’t be sure where the process will end-up whether for good or ill.
I personally have serious doubts that enough money can be raised to keep the club going and I know a lot of Bears feel the same. But they don’t want Ashley – they simply don’t want to be another Newcastle – what is it 60 years since their last major top flight title? My memory may have let me down there but I’m sure someone will correct me 🙂
Indeed in an earlier post I did this morning on the stooshie at Dundee Utd then I could well have pointed to the Toon situation whereby the business side have a directly opposed view as to how the club should be run as opposed to the fans. I think it would be difficult not to sympathise with the fans on this one.
Of course with Rangers’ fans there are so many other issues that it’s nigh impossible for a lot of other supporters and especially Celtic ones to sympathise. Indeed ‘glee’ in various degrees IMO is the overwhelming emotion. And yet if they get promoted Parkhead will be choc-a-bloc to see them soundly beaten. And I have no doubt we’ll see a jump in ST sales as well to ensure a ticket for the much anticipated battles.
That IMO is the reality of football – a lot of it doesn’t make much rational sense especially the day after.
Re Phil Mac saying he has been told Ashley may make a move next week, have we forgotten the two SD director slots? Now would be a good time to have placemen on the inside to protect your investment and contracts. Either that or just to put pressure on to get your £5m back given all the money that will be sloshing around over the next few months.
broganrogan
@Barcabhoy1 @moo_ted have a read https://rangerssupportersloyal.wordpress.com/2015/04/03/delistings-debacles-and-endgames/ …
Worth a read
jockybhoy says:
April 4, 2015 at 8:58 am
parttimearab says:
April 2, 2015 at 8:54
“TBH delisting was in many ways a sensible option. Cuts down on the expense/time spent on complying with AIM rules.”
——————————————————–
In a stricly business sense there was no point in remaining on AIM for the reasons you give as well as the fact that no institutional investor would have put money into a further share issue.
I tend to think that they wouldn’t have even worried about dilution and therefore wouldn’t have participated in a Rights Issue. The only people that would have bought shares are ordinary Bears and those interested in taking control or retaining control.
On that basis the mystery overseas investors may have taken-up their allocation in a Rights Issue but possibly only if they were of the onerous contract variety.
And I tend to think as last year ended and we came into 2015 there was much more covergare down south about Rangers and I think AIM Regulation were getting decidely twitchy. Everything to do with the listing seemed to have a shambolic air hanging over it. A revolving cast of Directors and NOMADS, serious liquidity issues and wall to wall negative media covergare.
AIM doesn’t need to seek problems it already has plenty knocking on its door without RFC. But typical of AIM it did nothing and didn’t take any action to block DK as a director despite the Regulatory Notice issued by the old Board.
I think the NOMAD resignation was a godsend to AIM as it was to DK. It handed him the opportunity to buy-out existing shareholding blocs on the cheap and if he spends any money that’s where he will spend it.
I don’t know what his plan is but he has a plan and he will have back-ups. On the move to the cut-price exchange it means the people likely to invest in new shares can still do so at a fraction of the AIM cost and with virtually zilch oversight compared to AIM.
DK IMO has no intention of limping along for years with a financially crippled Rangers being dragged behind him. He will get overall control of the shareholding either as an individual or with key allies and a foreign investor will come in and buy the club.
Pie in the sky thinking on my part? Possibly but DK is one for the big gestures and I think that’s the way he’ll head. He and the other RRM will be left in control and running the football side with restored income streams.
Will it all work – I suppose it all depends on who buys Rangers from DK and what their motivation is. I’ll retain an open mind on that for now.
I could have got it totally wrong and maybe DK is as thick as two short planks. Maybe he’s hopelessly infected with Rangeritis which has totally skewed his judgement.
Could be but somehow I don’t think so. And, of course, let’s not forget Ashley. I think he made a mistake with DL. He might have got away with it in Newcastle but IMO he met his match at Rangers and some of his decisions and utterances seemed peculiar to say the least.
However I will repeat: Expect the Unexpected and you won’t be surprised.
And keep taking Big Archie’s tea cakes but don’t swallow speculation as easily without looking at the motives of the purveyor.
It’s hard to atach a health warning when the facts are unknown and possibly non-existant.
wottpi says:
April 4, 2015 at 9:28 am
Re Phil Mac saying he has been told Ashley may make a move next week, have we forgotten the two SD director slots? Now would be a good time to have placemen on the inside to protect your investment and contracts. Either that or just to put pressure on to get your £5m back given all the money that will be sloshing around over the next few months.
——————————————————————-
Obviously Ashley will do whatever he decides to do. As to placing his two directors then I have never seen too many happy faces volunteering for a stint in the Siberian saltmines.
I would reckon his two nominated directors would simply be kept out of the loop wrt any real info. Ashley will rely on the courts to enforce his legal contracts.
Will he go down the road of court action to try and recoup the loss on his investment. Interesting one and if he does I wonder how that will be viewed especially in The City.
Some might say it enhances his hard-nosed, tank parking reputation. Others might think he is becoming obsessed with a tiny part of his business empire to its greater detriment.
I’m not sure that they can put any pressure on for an early loan repayment. It will be a very tightly drawn-up legal document and I imagine this would be the case with all Ashley dealings.
But the thing about that initial tranche is the tales surrounding it that there is no fixed repayment date and no interest payable. This means of course that there is no immediate repayment required from Rangers/DK/T3B and therefore no pressure to repay the £5 million.
Unless of course there is a need to free the assets used for security on the £5 million loan. Don’t see the world-famous Albion carpark or the crumbling Edmiston House being in that category. But perhaps Murray Park might be if DK wants to sell it.
So it will be interesting to see if there is any clause that can come into play which does specify provision for earlier repayment to Ashley.
If there is and Ashley pushes that button do we end-up in a liquidation scenario?
Lots still to happen perhaps 😎
valentinesclown says:
April 4, 2015 at 9:31 am
broganrogan
@Barcabhoy1 @moo_ted have a read https://rangerssupportersloyal.wordpress.com/2015/04/03/delistings-debacles-and-endgames/ …
Worth a read
—————
One of the best things about that piece is the lack of preoccupation with the traditional ‘enemies of Rangers’ nonsense.
Even the comments are quite moderate on that score.
And yet the whole thing is still based on the myth. I suppose somewhere down the line fans who have put money in for the past three years may realise they were duped by the SFA and non-thinking journos into pumping cash into Sevco Scotland, when, in reality, they could have renamed an off-the-shelf company of their own choosing ‘Rangers’. The official facilitators of the myth face the burdon of responsibility. A suspension of the licence some time ago would have caused outrage, but could have saved the genuine fans much wailing and gnashing of teeth, not to mention £ x millions that could have created a proper newco. Still half-expecting a breakaway entity at some point.
Well done to the Arabtrust for at least getting the ball rolling on the “bonus from transfer fees story”. I am sure that these types of deals with managers and other club (clumpany) officials and office holders is not unusual or limited to transfers. The fact is that where there is money sloshing around then people will find ways to get a slice and I suppose (with some reservations) that this is ok, it’s the capitalist, neo-liberal society we choose to live in. In football it tends to be particularly prevalent around players wages (especially in the EPL) and transfer fees. The latter in particular because, even for wee teams, some big numbers can be involved. The problem for me is that the majority of football fans are not aware that their financial support of their club is merely an enabler for a few folks to coin it in over and above the substantial wage they get. Even bonuses are accepted by most as being worth it as it has obviously (?) reflected some success. Speculation over onerous contracts and other modes of creaming off the dosh from Ibrox has opened a few eyes. I believe that Arabtrust’s initiative here may get some more of us thinking about how bonuses can be tied to anything and that tying it to transfer fees might explain how a few deals pan out over the season. I don’t like it, can you imagine if you were a manager of a commercial enterprise and you got a bonus every time someone leaves? Regardless of the associated income that’s not right.
ecobhoy says:
April 4, 2015 at 9:09 am
Rangers Supporters Loyal has certainly jumped into centre stage in the last few days. Who are they and who do they represent?
I have watched equally dramatic claims from the guy who seems to run it being made on Bear sites. So far demands for hard evidence have been ignored afaik.
=================================
indeed. I suppose in that respect RSL are no different from the mainstream media.
Re Phil Mac saying he has been told Ashley may make a move next week, have we forgotten the two SD director slots? Now would be a good time to have placemen on the inside.
——————————–
Before the new board arrived the SMSM would have the two new directors when they arrived as front page top,top business men (remember Wallace, Mather, Somers etc.) Now these two directors will de the Devils in desguise 😀
Danish
Oh deary me,re the Rangers loyal and the ninja mans piece,I think Keef had better jet back to Oz or bunker up with his billionaire pal in SA, the ball is well and truly bust for him and his fairytale scribblings,constant deflecting of the truth and feeding the loyal numpties horse manure while he dined on the succulent lamb,what goes around Keef comes around
Say hello to skippy for me
upthehoops says:
April 4, 2015 at 11:23 am
ecobhoy says:
April 4, 2015 at 9:09 am
Rangers Supporters Loyal has certainly jumped into centre stage in the last few days. Who are they and who do they represent?
I have watched equally dramatic claims from the guy who seems to run it being made on Bear sites. So far demands for hard evidence have been ignored afaik.
=================================
indeed. I suppose in that respect RSL are no different from the mainstream media.
———————————————-
Couldn’t have put it better myself. They are certainly operating from the same type of press releases/briefings IMO but perhaps from the other side than that favoured by the SMSM.
Civil Wars are the dirtiest kind of fight and often there’s nothing left standing when they have been fought to a standstill and that might well end-up the position wrt Rangers.
Of course the whole thing about the Ashley loan is that it has the assets tied up and gives him shirt sponsorship revenue in Years to come. It may suit to have the £5m debt rolling along but at some point it will be one an issue.
DCK may have shady investors and other RRM in the background but who will invest without security. Even Letham wanted a slice. Same with Kennedy.The 3bears have been forced to go unsecured to keep the lights on.If DCK pulls off more investment from new mugs he will be a better snake oil salesman than Charles of Normandy.
RD is making some important observation about the Scottish Game needing decent pitches at: http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11781/9788054/celtic-boss-ronny-deila-scottish-pitches-are-terrible-and-creating-fighters-not-footballers
I wonder if he will face disciplinary action for upsetting other clubs. Might be more of a case against him than Guidetti.
nawlite says:
April 3, 2015 at 5:01 pm
Quoting reply from SFA wrt rules on transfer of cards:
—–
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.
Nawlite adds: “… 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.”
========================================
Well done Nawlite for driving a response. Assuming that the various working groups, committees, club reps. etc. would have to take agreed proposals back to their various assemblies, it would be interesting to see minutes of the SPL/SFL/SPFL, and SFA Boards’ meetings where these issues were eventually discussed, if they were.
Is there any good reason not to publish minutes (observing rules on confidentiality of course) of these meetings? Can fans of the professional game without whom it is nothing, nearly to quote big Jock, be kept in the dark any longer?
ecobhoy says:
April 4, 2015 at 12:17 pm
RD is making some important observation about the Scottish Game needing decent pitches at
I watched the match on the telly last night and I thought the pitch looked great for this time of year.(up close it might have been a different story though)
ecobhoy says:
April 4, 2015 at 9:46 am
____________________________________________
Eco, what you describe may well have been his plan, and may still be his intention. But there are a couple of fairly big rakes in the grass for him to navigate.
1. It will get him control of the club (RIFC PLC). But – ST sales & TV money aside- it will not get him control of the merchansising income streams that – from the murmerrings of Phil combined with available evidence of various players – are sewn up tighter than a drum with deals that would survive any insolvency.
2. This plan – in light of the orchestrated boycott, the AIM delisting etc. could open him up to the serious charge of share price manipulation (i.e. rampaging fraud) that could place him in serious hot water, possibly even opening him up to criminal sanctions. In light of his past history, the chances of some of that mud sticking are not insignificant.
There are VERY strict rules on takeovers with the express purpose of preventing exactly the type of underpriced acquisition that DCK may be trying to effect in your scenario.
DCK & the 3B if deemed to be acting in concert to take control of the club should have offered to buy out all other shareholders at the highest traded price in a given window, once their combined shareholding exceeded 25%. in order to legally effect a takeover. They either did not want to (understandably) or did not have the money (again, understandably) to do this. But this is the way in which they could have effected a ‘legal’ takeover of RIFC. It is not what they did.
So its not beyond the realms of possibility that DCK could end up hosting some of the board meetings for the still skint entity from within the walls of Barlinnie.
I am wondering if the Mash tactic here has simply been to pay out enough rope to the requisitioners so that they can string themselves up. Never disturb your enemy while he is making a mistake, and all that!
scarecrow666 says:
April 4, 2015 at 12:49 pm
ecobhoy says:
April 4, 2015 at 12:17 pm
RD is making some important observation about the Scottish Game needing decent pitches at
I watched the match on the telly last night and I thought the pitch looked great for this time of year.(up close it might have been a different story though)
________________________________________________________________
Belated, yet timely dig at the SFA beaks?
Remember Hampden in the Celtic TRFC match!?
And Isn’t there another Hampden semi due soon?
And this time it involves 2 of the best performing clubs in Scotland at present 😀 , so pitch condition will be even more important, it can be argued.
(Not that any of our fans will be able to get there for a midday kick off, now that some fool has put a load of speed cameras on the A9 such that it will be full of caravans travelling at 40mph)
ecobhoy says:
April 4, 2015 at 9:09 am
upthehoops says:
April 4, 2015 at 8:10 am
_________________________________________________
Good points eco.
But I would throw this into the mix.
There is a fine line between Mash style club economics and Fergus McCann style club ecomonics.
Fans tend to cheer Minty moonbeams (SDM economics) because its easy to focus on the football rather than the balance sheet.
The thing that Mash & McCann club economics have in common is sustainability, which is what Minty moonbeam economics lacks. Don’t forget Brookes Mileson at Gretna was running the show on ‘minty’ economics and it was very successful for a while, until the whole edifice cam crashing down.
Fans don’t like it but Mash has made Newcastle financially very sustainable and stable. The word ‘profitable’ is not inappropriate. Now the fans are rightly miffed because they are the source not the beneficiary of these profits.
But in finace terms, the club is now bombproof.
Mash economics produces profit to extract.
McCann economics produces profit to invest.
Minty econimcs creates losses to grow bigger.
Meanwhile, the rest of the EPL are running on moonbeams and minty economics that could come crashing down at any point.
So If Mash sells out (and he has indicated a willingness to) and an owner can be found who wants to re-invest the profit made in the football on the park, we are looking at a celtic style success story – McCann style economics, at St. James.
I think it is would be quite hard for TRFC to get from Minty economics to McCann economics without first going through the pain of mash economics.
What TRFC fans seem to always demand – and all they have seemed willing to accept thus far – is ‘Minty’ economics while giving lip service to sustainability.
‘Minty’ economics and ‘sustainability’ are antonyms.
It is now 10.14 pm in Brisbane. I have had a wonderful grandparently day with the family at Seaworld on the Gold Coast.
I looked at the various sharks swimming with those predatory, evil, eyes behind the glass and thought of people who , like, say, SDM thought themselves free to predate on their associated SPL members by lying to the SPL and the SFA.
And thought with deep contempt of the SMSM as the equivalent of the wee fish that seem literally to lick the ars.s of the sharks.
But that’s by the by.
What I really want to say relates to ecobhoy’s obsersvation at 11.58 a.m that ” ..civil wars are the dirtiest kind of fight”
I think he was referring to the in-fighting between the what appear to be deeply divided factions of the supporters of a dead club in the matter of which of the moneymen to support in trying to save the which artificial construct of the dead club
John Clark says:
April 4, 2015 at 1:39 pm
You have just jogged my memory, I saw this and I thought of you. 💡
https://www.brewtoad.com/recipes/fat-yak
Fat Yak
An All Grain Specialty Beer by rangaz :irony:
How I dislike tnis cheapo cheapo feckin Samsung tablet.And/or my ineptitude at using the feckin thing.
What I was going on to say was that the more serious civil war beingfought is the one that we are waging on hehalf of sporting integrity against tnosr who have so behaved in r
espect of their DUTY to uphold the concept as to have demonstrated their utterly venal partisan contempt for simple truth.
woodstein@1.58
___________
That’s great!
The important thing, of course, is whether a beer is an honest beer, whoever may be the brewer.
And I’m quite happy with an honest ‘rangaz’!
yourhavingalaugh says:
April 4, 2015 at 11:45 am
Danish
Oh deary me,re the Rangers loyal and the ninja mans piece,I think Keef had better jet back to Oz or bunker up with his billionaire pal in SA, the ball is well and truly bust for him and his fairytale scribblings,constant deflecting of the truth and feeding the loyal numpties horse manure while he dined on the succulent lamb,what goes around Keef comes around
Say hello to skippy for me
________________________________________________
There’s no point on us on here accusing Sevco 1/2/3 of inaccuracies when we ourselves are remiss in that department.
Skippy was born and reared in the Florida Keys USA
yourhavingalaugh,
a thousand apologies, it was flipper who comes from Florida!!.
senior says@2.48.pm
“..skippy was born and reared in the Florida Keys…”
___________
Aw, come on!
I’m here in Oz.I’ve MET Skippy!
I think the pretendy Florida one is Sevcoskippy.
John Clark says:
April 4, 2015 at 2:39 pm
Could that be an oxymoron ? 😐
The thing about Jim Spence I feel is that if he were not in the mainstream media he would be on here posting or blogging.
He cares about his club but is balanced, he cares about the game and loves both.
He was talking on Sportsound there about Dundee United being caught on the back foot on the matter of the make up of the managers contract in respect of player sales.
The conversation turned to transparency and for football to catch up in realising it has to become more transparent in its dealing with supporters.
What football has not realised is that transparency is already here but in a form that makes us slow to realise it.
The medium is social media and the ability to share but contained by Slow Glass.
Slow Glass from a short story by Bob Shaw slows down the light passing through it.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_of_Other_Days
In the story and others you have Slow Glass of different thickness in terms of the time it takes for the light to emerge.
You have Glass a day thick/long to Glass ten years and more thick/long.
Thus the Utd story was captured by Slow Glass about 3 or 4 weeks thick. Maybe more or less as I don’t know the detail but you get the drift.
The Rangers story will emerge in full over 10 years thick glass.
The LNS story will take at least another year before the truth will emerge that shows it to have been a sham.
Res12 if measured from the Celtic AGM in 2013 will take two years for the truth to emerge.
The thickness/slowness of the glass depends to a large extent on main stream journalist removing the dust of PR that slows the light, but light is inexorable.
It can do nothing but shine.
The sooner authority and not just football realise that transparency is already here emerging via Slow Glass the thinner the Glass will become.
No more waiting years for the truth to emerge, which might just make folk act truthfully and honestly in the first place. It will be an interesting future as social media replaces mainstream as music downloads replaced CDs ( that replaced tapes that replaced records that replaced cylinders)
In the meantime let’s keep our football Glass polished and hasten the emergence of light in our own landscape.
Happy Easter too.
thmthetim says 1.15 pm:
______
You’re bang about the oldsters, among whom I count my old man ( S Company, Scots Guards, seriously wounded on Monte Piccolo in 1944) ,
who had an innocent partiality for the stuff, and its use as a wee bolster in the absence of any water of life.
Auldheid says:
April 4, 2015 at 3:15 pm
No more waiting years for the truth to emerge, which might just make folk act truthfully and honestly in the first place.
________________________
I think that is an excellent point, Auldheid, and I agree with it totally. It’s just so sad that perfectly clean glass will never be found, for as soon as it looks like it will be put in place, we will be told a lie such as ‘it doesn’t work’, and because enough of the powerbrokers want it to remain so, it will be locked away – from all our sight!
It’s not money that makes our ‘world go around’, it’s the lies that create the money/wealth that does that!
John Clark says:
April 4, 2015 at 3:34 pm
You’re bang about the oldsters, among whom I count my old man ( S Company, Scots Guards, seriously wounded on Monte Piccolo in 1944) ,
who had an innocent partiality for the stuff, and its use as a wee bolster in the absence of any water of life.
——————————————————————
John,
Having made your acquaintance at certain legal proceedings in the Capital, I was pretty sure that you were sprung from strong stuff – now I’m convinced!
However, I would dearly like to hear your everyman’s definition of ‘innocent partiality’. Does it indicate that your father was not aware of the consequences, for example?!
I’m never slow to criticise the media, but fair play to Graham Spiers today who has called out Dave King in his Times column. In the inevitable twitter onslaught which followed, Spiers noted that that ‘…the blind love for DK is eerily similar to some aspects of CW’s early reign.’
As a Celtic fan I will always be accused of bias when commenting on Ibrox matters, and like all football fans bias tints my views at times. What I do believe though is that most fans of all clubs would prefer to see the media and authorities strongly questioning people with a dubious history getting involved in the Scottish game. In King’s case he has also become involved with a club which has significant influence over Scottish society. I expect that influence to ensure he is passed as suitable by the SFA. Then we will have a convicted tax evader in charge of a club which no longer has to conduct the majority of its business under public scrutiny. Does that mean wrongdoing will happen? Of course not, I have no evidence at all to suggest that will be the case. What is beyond doubt though is Dave King has 42 criminal convictions for tax evasion, and as Graham Spiers says, benefits from large scale blind love. I just can’t see why people like King should be allowed anywhere near our game, with any club.
Haywire@3.47 pm
‘..does it indicate that your father was not aware of the consequences..’
_________
Truth to tell, Haywire ( and I hope to meet up with
you at tbe Supreme Court hearing of the HMRC
appeal hearing, whenever it takes place) my dad
was a very moderate drinker.
But he liked what he liked, and wouldn’t drink any
old rubbish just for the sake of a drink.
As a family man, he knew where his priorities lay,
and in my childhood and early adulthood I think I saw him ‘ drunk’ only a handful of times.
He knew pretty well both what his alcohol tolerance level was and his financial capabilities were.
I honour him now for his self restraint.
John Clark says:
April 4, 2015 at 3:34 pm
thmthetim says 1.15 pm:
______
You’re bang about the oldsters, among whom I count my old man ( S Company, Scots Guards, seriously wounded on Monte Piccolo in 1944) ,
who had an innocent partiality for the stuff, and its use as a wee bolster in the absence of any water of life.
2 0 Rate This
*******
John,
Such was the reputation of the Wee Heavy and Strong Ale that I chickened out of trying them in my youth.
Us young fellas had an unwritten rule that we would never try and out drink our fathers, out of respect.
Why oh why in all the Dundee Utd stushie, are not the journos screaming well what about Souness? For gods sake it led to a polis raid!
Ianagain
Souness,how dare you,how absolutely dare you.
WOT
Yon Graham (absolutely blameless~)~ Souness.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-468934/London-police-arrive-Ibrox-corruption-probe-gathers-pace.html
http://t.co/GOIbY0dvgZ
A good article in the Guardian by David Conn about Ashley’s spell at Newcastle. “Newcastle United under Mike Ashley: billboard for cheapness or empire of hopes and dreams?”
Thinking about Brora’s quandary with regard to their own playoffs – and I recall many stories in the past of Arbroath not wanting promotion too – I wondered if a solution was at hand?
Could they possibly get a certain five loanees from TRFC and actually play them in the games?
Is there a “Bryson Bamboozle” that they could use?
Scottish Football is at yet another one of those critical points and fans need to ensure that the SMSM and footballing authorities are fully held to account. I detect cracks in the SMSM and at the BBC where questions and comment occasionally seem to betray that they read TSFM!
ianagain says:
April 4, 2015 at 6:16 pm
WOT
Yon Graham (absolutely blameless~)~ Souness.
This prompted me to look up Boumsong on wikipedia. From the description of his time at Newcastle
‘He had a mixed time during his stay on Tyneside in regards to his form. During his first season at Newcastle he was praised for his defensive abilities and partnership with Titus Bramble. His popularity led to fans shouting the first syllable of his name, elongating the sound in a similar way to Arsenal fans chanting Nwankwo Kanu’s name.’
upthehoops says:
April 4, 2015 at 4:18 pm
___________________________________________________
Do we really think someone with DCK’s track record would be allowed to become involved in any one of the other clubs in Scotland?
See the ‘good of the game’ and the ‘good of the establishment club’ are entirely indivisible in the eyes of our corrupt adminsitrators.
And it says a great deal about their lack of competence that – despite the fact this is self evidently their axiomatically held belief, they have still manifestly failed to prevent the club in question from falling ever deeper into the mire, and have in fact at every turn – whether by action or omission – merely facilitated the ends of those who would drag it down still deeper.
How they persist with such relative impunity is completely beyond my comprehension.
If they are bent on being so overtly corrupt, they should at least achieve a modicum of competence in going about it.
Alternatively, if they are going to be so blatantly incompetent, they should at least maintain some figleaf of integrity when so being.
Their egregiousness on both fronts is quite simply staggering.
They give all the appearance of ill intentioned idiots.
Now what does that make us for having them in charge of our sport?
spikeyheid says:
April 4, 2015 at 7:43 pm
ianagain says:
April 4, 2015 at 6:16 pm
__________________________________
Boumsong was woeful at NUFC.
If he had a solitary redeeming feature it was in showing up Titus Bramble (who was merely poor) in a better light, by dint of comparison.
I remember him from my visits there at the time.
Boumsong was the worst signing of the worst manager ever to sit in the dug out at St. James.
GS succeeded Robson, and spent £50m taking NUFC from 5th top to 5th bottom of the EPL, while the Blackburn he vacated moved the same distance in the opposite direction.
A fair chunk of it went on Boumsong and Luque. Both complete mingers.
I’ve never quite been able to grasp why a fan of any club would want a DCK character to hold a meaningful stewardship role within their club. No matter how it begins, it can never end well when you consider the decisions made in the past and the absence of any evidence of a shift in those value judgements.
Having Good Friday off here, it was a rare treat to catch a Celtic game live at my local with my wife for the 2.45pm kick-off.
Was hoping that Griffiths would start, as despite his off pitch ‘difficulties’, he comes across as an enthusiastic player who puts in a full shift and at least is a nuisance to the opposition.
And to top that off – as you do, we got talking to folks whilst watching the game, and only found out about ‘Teacakegate’ this morning.
[And that would probably have been the highlight of the game, IIRC. 😕 ]
Might not be as lucrative as being sponsored by Gillette, Calvin Klein etc, but maybe he has his next personal endorsement lined up ?!
When Scotland goes surreal, she goes all in . Teacakegate?, seriously, its a feckin gate now? This has been a weird day, surprised the SFA didn’t use it to bury some bad news, no one would have noticed.
Gardening done, (unpaid I might add), time for some beers.
Test
It looked to me like plain chocolate so not as much of a doping offence as milk iirc
John Clark says:
April 4, 2015 at 4:47 pm
Haywire@3.47 pm
‘..does it indicate that your father was not aware of the consequences..’
_________
Truth to tell, Haywire ( and I hope to meet up with
you at tbe Supreme Court hearing of the HMRC
appeal hearing, whenever it takes place) my dad
was a very moderate drinker.
But he liked what he liked, and wouldn’t drink any
old rubbish just for the sake of a drink.
As a family man, he knew where his priorities lay,
and in my childhood and early adulthood I think I saw him ‘ drunk’ only a handful of times.
He knew pretty well both what his alcohol tolerance level was and his financial capabilities were.
I honour him now for his self restraint.
————————————————————
Hello again John,
I wasn’t being too serious when I enquired about ‘innocent partiality’. I’m sure that your father knew exactly what he was drinking and the likely effect. It’s just that I liked the phrase, and, with your permission, will use it to (hopefully) good effect in several scenarios in the future. I even suspect that some of the the Bears may well be suffering from a surfeit of innocent partiality (and I’m not entirely sure about the innocent aspect!)
Gaz on RR again. Asking pertinent questions.
Have to say, He’s smarter than your average bear imo!
___________________________________________________
04 Apr 2015 00:26:40
I’ve never claimed to be a financial guru, I have a degree in consumer and management studies with a background in accounts, it still doesn’t make me a financial guru. I use common sense and public perception in the main part of my thinking. However I would like some of you pro King financial “whizz kids” to consider this for a moment.
“It’s naive of Dave to believe he can fund the infrastructure requirements of Rangers without access to capital available on the AIM market.”
For the record these aren’t my words, they come from Kieran Prior, you know, the REAL financial whizz kid who a lot of you no doubt salivated over when hearing he invested. Is he wrong now? Or does the loyalty to the club tie wearers (whoever they are, whatever they say) outweigh even this respected opinion? Bear in mind he backed the requisitioners, has no axe to grind and no doubt took King on his word.
Gaz I
Radio Clyde often is slagged on here. However I listened to the Well Killie game on Clyde 2 the day and the commentary was bang on the money. Better than open all by a country mile . chick just give up would you.
As this is the Scottish FM, it should be recognised, IMO, that a Scottish player scored a fantastic goal in arguably the best league in the world.
Charlie Adam, IMO, was having a bit of a nightmare of a game and looked unfit, [or injured ?], and then pops up to score a sensational goal from his own half – and against a very highly rated keeper in Courtois.
And it wasn’t your typical ‘lob it high & hard’, but an actual shot – with a bit of swerve added.
A player with that awareness and ability should be doing much better. Has he just been unlucky with managers and/or injuries ? I don’t know.
But what would the reaction have been – globally – if it was a Neymar or Ronaldo doing the same in La Liga ?
Well done Charlie Adam ! 🙂
scapaflow says:
April 4, 2015 at 8:38 pm
When Scotland goes surreal, she goes all in . Teacakegate
____________________________________________
You may scoff… but think of the example being set to our youngsters?
It starts with the odd surreptitous teacake… and who’s that harming? yez ask.. well afore ye know it, someone will suggest a caramel wafer “tae be cool”, and soon they’ll be onto them bars by the 6 pack, and then its only a matter o’ time before they’re on the streets, shoving the Aldi own brand version down their gullets in broad daylight like there’s no tomorrow. Oh the indignity!!!!
Haywire@12.01a.m.
_
I came across as a trifle po-faced in observation
s about my old man, Haywire.
He’d have been the first to wonder who I was talking about, he having once nearly got us all
barred from getting on the boat one Glasgow Fair , having had a snifter or two and arguing the toss
with the purser over the matter of a ‘ berth’ on the Derry boat.
I took no offence, of course,at your post.
John Clark says 05/4/15 @4.43
“The Derry boat”
Aahhh The Lairds Loch of blessed memory.
Broomielaw to Lough Foyle in a week and a half !
ianagain says:
April 4, 2015 at 5:55 pm
Why oh why in all the Dundee Utd stushie, are not the journos screaming well what about Souness? For gods sake it led to a polis raid!
==========================================
Without accusing anyone of anything, a wee reminder of the Boumsong timeline.
1. It is announced in the media Rangers are interested in Boumsong who is available on a Bosman. As an aside the media who previously knew nothing about him said he is one of the best defenders in Europe.
2. Rangers sign him, with an EBT making it possible.
3. He plays half a season for Rangers, where even the most partisan fan would struggle to say he set the heather alight. Not tested in European football.
4. On Hogmanay, Souness persuades Newcastle to part with £8M for a player who was available for free 5 months earlier.
Bonkers!
ianagain says:
April 4, 2015 at 5:55 pm
Why oh why in all the Dundee Utd stushie, are not the journos screaming well what about Souness? For gods sake it led to a polis raid!
=======================
A great example of the SMSM’s approach to anything to with Ibrox back then- anything vaguely positive, hold the front page! Anything negative, rapidly swept under the carpet. Then if something turns up 10 years later, well that’s just ancient history, of no interest to our readers, let’s just move on chaps, what are you? Obsessed?
Souness has had Real Rangers Man status conferred on him by the media. No hard questions will ever be asked about him by any Scottish newspaper. In any other country, the facts surrounding Boumsong and the Souness EBT paid to him after he had left the club, would have any decent journalist aching to just join the dots, ask the questions, and blow the whole shabby mess apart.
But not in bonny Scotland, or even in Englandshire, it seems. It would be nice to live in a country with an objective press, who set out to find out the facts and inform their readers. Unfortunately we don’t, and sadly the poison extends a lot further than the sports sections.
What a goal scored by Charlie Adams..How long before one of our MSM ask him if he would consider resigning for a resurgent Gers on their way back to their rightful place at the top???
What will smsm or the fans of Govan team do if say the rrm in charge of the Ibrox club take them into administration/ or liquidation 2. Funny liquidation 2 (only in Scotland).