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.
sarantseville 03 says:
April 5, 2015 at 9:34 am
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???
———————-
He already stated he want’s to stay were he is 😯
With the re-emergence of Kieran Prior into the Ibrox affray I was thinking about some earlier posts I did wrt to him. He obviously has not had his troubles to seek in life at a personal health level.
I have undernoted one post from June 2013.
My analysis of his potential abilities is based strictly on his financial capabilities when it comes to the Rangers situation. There are other posts I’ll dig out as well which really leave a bit of an enigma around Kieran IMO.
I have often wondered whether he invested on his own behalf or not and still wonder about that.
My position is quite simple: I have always been wary of people who suddenly pop-up from nowhere and arrive centre-stage anywhere. But possibly more so at Ibrox given the possible wider effects on Scottish Football.
It doesn’t matter whether they be our latest anonymous lone anti-current Board blogger – allegedly representing mythical legions of discontented Bears – or the world’s most intelligent human being.
Possibly the blogger – a close associate of Bill McMurdo – will show his hand at today’s game v Hearts. However attendance today and the reaction towards the Board will say more about what ordinary Bears are thinking than frenzied internet speculation.
I do remember that Prior did say a long time ago that he would be investing more than his initial amount into Rangers. I may have missed him doing that but I wonder if he has and especially whether he did so at the issue last Autumn.
valentinesclown says:
April 5, 2015 at 9:35 am
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).
=============================================
I’m speculating wildly, but is the only thing stopping a 2nd liquidation event at Ibrox a clarification of what league the next incarnation would have to start in? In the absence of a billionaire with deep pockets how are they going to clear up the existing mess and also take the club forward?
upthehoops says:
April 5, 2015 at 9:10 am
4. On Hogmanay, Souness persuades Newcastle to part with £8M for a player who was available for free 5 months earlier.
————————————————————
Ah you’ve cracked the Ashley involvement. He wants the £8 million back 😆
redlichtie@7.38 p.m
‘…….and at the BBC where questions and comment occasionally seem to betray that they read TSFM.’
__________
BBC Radio Scotland may be biased, but deliberately so rather than out of unawareness. They will be abreast of the numbers of us on this blog who distrust their very definite decision to play down the dreadful deceit and cheating of the dead RFC under SDM and to allow staff men to try to deny the fact of King’s convictions, as well as to allow straight propaganda by Jackson and Wilson with no countervailing arguments allowed.
BBC Radio Scotland has in effect supported the knaveryof SDM and of the Scottish Football Authorities.
And I do not feel the need to add ” in my opinion’.
Ecobhoy, this is the best I can do right now regarding Prior’s shares history-
Jan 2015- “Over a million, or 1.35%” http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-investor-kieran-prior-backs-4937812
June 2013 785k, or 1.2% http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/kieran-prior-my-400k-investment-in-rangers-is-just-the-start.1371209814
So it would seem that he must have bought more shares after June 2013 but before August 2014, and then didn’t take up the rights issue.
I was hoping that Aberdeen could make it into the top six and be within 6pts of Celtic with 5 games to go – to give the title race at least an edge of respectability – but it looks like that won’t happen now, given recent results…
All the same, the Dons have done better than last season when they came third with 68pts, 31pts behind Celtic. They’re currently in second, 62pts already, 7pts behind Celtic who have a game in hand, eight games to go and looking set for runners-up spot as long as there’s no late-season collapse… No trophy this season but the team has clearly improved… ICT look as though they’ll take the other Europa League spot, they’re too far ahead of Dundee United now… St Mirren look stuffed…
The remaining questions seem to be: can Dundee get into the top six? who will end up in the play-off spot? Ross County and Motherwell have both taken 6pts from 6 in their last two games…
Back up at Pittodrie, the managerial question may start to loom though. McInnes has been in place for two years, he has taken the club to third place last season and the league cup (and they should have finished second), second place this season most likely. Given the discrepancy between budgets at Aberdeen and Celtic, it probably won’t get much better: another runners-up spot and another domestic trophy? Unless he reckons he can close the gap at the top even further in 2015/16… Fortunately he’s under contract for another two years, but who knows? Before the first week in April is up however, the top flight looks pretty much decided. Sunday morning noodling.
Resin_lab_dog says:
April 5, 2015 at 12:48 am
Gaz on RR again. Asking pertinent questions.
Have to say, He’s smarter than your average bear imo!
___________________________________________________
I haven’t a clue how ‘smart’ Gaz is but he’s asking questions which is always a good thing. Just for the record – in case it’s needed – I don’t answer as ‘pro King’ – anything but.
I try to take an objective stance on most things as I have experienced many times in my personal and professional life that things often aren’t as they appear and accepting that they are often leads to various problems.
However the crux of this is AIM: I have posted in detail on a number of occasions that it’s my belief that AIM had become a dry well in terms of raising invstment for Rangers Football Club. The reasons are many – IMO no sane investor would put money into the club.
That leaves only Bears and those seeking to control the club for whatever reason. As to Institutional Investors no chance! Although you have always to consider who might stand behind the II investment.
Wrt AIM there is also the fact that it would be obvious with anyone with an ear in The City and that particular market that delisting was an option on the cards.
So from the King Camp perspective – IMO – AIM was a busted flush and it may well be this suited them 100%. They could decamp to a cheaper, less regulated market and still get the money – apparently pledged by RRM – in the shape of share purchases.
Obviously DK has to end-up in control of Rangers to bring whatever his plan is to ultimate fruition. I believe it must entail becoming the majority shareholder or avhieving that via a small group of associates.
I still think his ultimate goal will be to return rangers to a private limited company but that’s a bit off.
And in between there’s still the critical question on what everything hinges: Will he be able to raise the money he requires to see his plan through?
It doesn’t matter whether the money was raised on AIM or elsewhere although expenses are cheaper elsewhere. It always comes down to the money in the end and always will.
I might also suggest to Gaz that he try and look into Prior’s previous history before according him Neil Patey status. And, in my experience, it doesn’t matter if you have the highest IQ in the world if you don’t have an ounce of common sense.
Resin_lab_dog says:
April 5, 2015 at 12:48 am
I meant to mention earlier but I don’t know if you remember the exchange of posts that you had back in June 2013 with Gaz on TSFM. Interesting in terms of where we are now.
However Gaz stated wrt Prior at that time:
I am assuming that that ‘Gaz’ is the same as the current Rangers Rumours one from his ‘style’. Hopefully he might still keep an eye on TSFM and it would be great to hear about the possible change in opinion wrt to Prior.
A couple of links which throw some light of Prior:
http://www.institutionalinvestor.com/Article/2318520/Trading-Archive/Kieran-Prior-The-Whiz-Kid-Challenges-Goldman-Sachs.html#.VSEGxuH2uSo
http://www.institutionalinvestor.com/Article/1930845/Being_Kieran_Prior.html#.VSEHF-H2uSo
Neepheid posted a link back in June 2013 wrt to a piece titled “Prior the Liar”, which no longer appears on the internet and as I don’t remember reading it at the time so I wonder if anyone has a copy. They can PM it to me if that suits.
neepheid says:
April 5, 2015 at 10:15 am
Ecobhoy, this is the best I can do right now regarding Prior’s shares history
——————————————
Ta Neepheid that’s helpful. It appears he paid 50p a share for his initial purchase although I’m not sure who from.
I don’t know if you noticed my mention of you and the dailyranger wordpress blog – entitled ‘Prior the Liar’ and I wondered if you had kept a copy. I can’t remember seeing it previously but it’s now gone from the internet. Of course it’s quite possible the blog was pulled if there was no jutification for the title which might well be the case.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-32165790
tcup 2012 @ 12.21 p.m
____________
Grateful to you for that link, tcup.
Fraser feels to some extent emboldened to be critical, but appears Not to have done any
questioning of the principal parties, merely said
what our own posters on this blog have said before
him!
I assume he carries a BBC press card or
whatever.Did he question, or try to question ,King
on the nomad-lined-up statement? Did he ask for a
comment from Deloitte’s, or from anyone at all,
about the auditing situation?
Did he in fact do any kind of investigative work ?
Has he ever done any kind of independent
investigation to nail the spin and lies of spinning
and lying business men, in any sector?
Even if he were only a columnist rather than a
‘journalist’ he should surely have an opinion of his
own, about what might conceivably be the King/Murray ‘ plan’.
Most of us are speculating like mad about the entire situation, yet hete we have a guy who, ‘salaried’ by us as some kind of expert, gives us nothing that we don’t already know!
Where is the bite, the journalistic curiosity, the desire to find out what the feck is the story behind all the puff and guff and internecine strife?
It simply is not there.
Perhaps that’s because of Fraser himself.
More likely because of orders from above.
ecobhoy says:
April 5, 2015 at 11:22 am
==========================
Sorry, I didn’t keep a copy of the article. The link is now dead, as you say, but maybe someone with forensic skills can recover the article? Here is the dead link address- http://thedailyranger.wordpress.com/tag/kieran-prior/
This?
http://web.archive.org/web/20130619031553/http://thedailyranger.wordpress.com/tag/kieran-prior
Bizaare refereeing down govan way today . . The Rangers captain SENT OFF at IBROX for a completely innocuos “elbow to the head ” . . . ! ?
It’ll never catch on . . . 😆
Adeste Fideles@2.13 p.m
‘ ..This?…’
________
As the great Tommy Cooper would have said ” just like that!”
How did you do that? I stand amazedly grateful for your IT skills, as I do indeed for the skills of so many different posters.
Thank you and them, for keeping the historical record of the facts relating to all and anything to do with the cheating of one club and the lies and deceit of many associated with the new club , particularly those who betrayed Sporting Integrity by cobbling up the 5way agreement.
Their act of betrayal is on permanent record in a way that they clearly had never envisaged.
And they will be forever marked,in the annals of sport, as the cheats they are.
Fascinating match at Ibrox today. I thought – until McCulloch underlined his status as a footballing liability – that Rangers were quite impressive today.
Of course I realise that Hearts fans will say their incentive was turned down significantly by their ‘job already done’ status, but I do think that Rangers fans may be ruing the failure to install a proper football manager as opposed to one who could provide the continuity myth and a season ticket base.
McCall is no miracle worker, and in my opinion is a poster boy for journeyman status (although YMMV), but he has provided a glimpse, in a few short weeks, of what may have been possible four years ago had honest choices been made and the Great Scam not been set up.
Adeste Fideles says:
April 5, 2015 at 2:13 pm
=============
Many thanks for recovering that. Much appreciated.
Big Pink says:
April 5, 2015 at 3:07 pm
That’s the point though isn’t it, in a pure footballing sense, those four wasted years will cost them dear, if McCall manages to get them though the play-offs.
Based on recent performances, that target does not look unachievable any more.
But, this squad in the top flight, even with one or two bargain basement additions, will probably be beyond McCall’s help.
The years the locusts have eaten, can never be recovered.
The requisitioners won the EGM with a landslide 85% vote, However without the high abstaining count, the percentage was considered to be much tighter. Prior to that it was speculated that Ashley wanted to hand over the reins of the football side to A.N.Other. It seems more probable than not, that if Ashley lost the vote, it would be because he wanted to.
Is that, as speculated, was his goal, then he has been largely successful. Ergo, he must have expected that he would be on the receiving end of some negative PR, to boost the ratings of an “All conquering hero”.
If his income from Sevco remains in the profit columns of his books, does he really need to do anything?
If King does it in his troosers, and Ashley’s contracts are survivable, he is hardly in a bad position. Furthermore, if King wants to, or is able to, bung the gaping holes in the hull with used fifties, why would Ashley want to impede him?
I posted earlier wrt Kieran Prior’s charity that:
Just checked on the Charity Commission website and these are the latest figures for the The Priory Trust founded by Mr Prior.
Year ended 31 March 2013: Income £146. Expenditure £8,056.
Year ended 31 March 2014: Income £ 18. Expenditure £1,387.
Two Trustees are listed for the Charity: MR KIERAN TERENCE PRIOR and EDWARD LEES neither of whom are linked to any other charities.
Had a wee look at Companies House wrt Kieran Prior while watching the Rangers/Hearts game. Some interesting pointers which I’ll need to look at in more depth.
However as a starter: We have the new company LIMMITLESS CARE LIMITED formed on 24 March 2015 at an address I don’t think is previously associated with Kieran Prior. It’s also a bit confusing because the middle name of director Kieran Prior is spelt as ‘Terrance’ whereas our Kieran has previously always been spelt in Companies House Records as ‘Terence’.
However as the year of birth for both is 1978 and its activities are listed as ‘residential care’ I think it could well be our man.
OK looking at The Priority Trust Ltd company and charity it’s worth noting that all of the original directors/trustees have resigned with the exception of Kieran. As I noted in an earlier post the last reported income figure for the charity for 12 months was £16. It would also appear that its website is no longer functioning unless its domain name has been changed.
However a new director Mr Edward Taylor Lees – an American – was appointed on 24 July 2013 and it would appear he and Kieran are now the only directors and trustees.
After taking-up his directorship with The Priority Trust, Mr Lees became a director of the non-trading NORTH SHORE PARTNERS (UK) LIMITED on 23 September 2013.
This was followed by a directorship at the now dissolved TER HEUN LTD on 3 October 2013 and then a week later on 10 October by a directorship in the newly incorporated: NORTH SHORE PARTNERS LLP.
An Edward Taylor Lees who shares the same birth year as the above Mr Lees previously held directorships in 3 now dissolved companies viz: PHYLON VENTURE PARTNERS LTD; CLEAR RIVER CAPITAL LLP; and CLEAR RIVER CAPITAL SERVICES LIMITED.
Returning to TER HEUN LTD: the company was incorporated on 3 October 2013 and dissolved on I July 2014 and its registered office was given as 145-157 ST JOHN STREET, LONDON, EC1V 4PW which is obviously close to The Priority Trust registered office at 145-157 ST JOHN STREET, LONDON, EC1V 4PY which appears to date from 15 September 2008.
The EC1V 4PY postcode has been at the centre of controversy for some time: http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/threads/beware-virtual-addresses.332756/
I don’t impugn Mr Prior or anyone else associated with this postcode and address however it does seem to have raised a number of issues and obviously a charity has got to be more careful than most IMO in guarding its reputation.
However returning to TER HEUN LTD the now dissolved company was a member of the NORTH SHORE PARTNERS LLP until 20 February 2014. Also terminated from the LLP on the same day was EREMITAGE LIMITED which was subsequently dissolved.
Peter Ulrik Fugmann who was a director in EREMITAGE LIMITED was also a director in NORTH SHORE PARTNERS LLP.
OK back to Kieran Prior who set up PRI ARC LLP on 4 May 2012 and
PRIARC CARS LIMITED on 29 November 2012 with apparently a co-director of both companies being Steven Wallace Cracknell although I cannot confirm that at the moment.
However PRIARC CARS LIMITED apparently has £58,0006 liabilities with £1 in assets – I guess the £1 subscription share – and liabilities of £58,006, It’s probably no surprise that the first Gazette Notice for a voluntary strike-off has been published.
PRI ARC LLP appears to be in a healthier state with assets of £862,675 and £850,206 in Cash with a net worth of £1,698,205 but I reckon it’ll be Tuesday before I can download the latest results.
IMO the jury’s still out on how much of a financial genius Mr Prior is or isn’t. As always time will tell.
Sorry it’s such heavy going but who knows other might be able to add to the mix and bring some light 🙂
Might be months too late.
McCullough eventually gets his comeupense
I think Rangers handled Hearts well and certainly demonstrated that they could survive possibly mid table Premiership on the bais of their performance in the last few games.
I’ve got to shake my heads and keep telling myself these are the players who have done nothing all season – well the vast majority of them.
However – although not a full house – it was a lot better than than what has become the norm. Still some empty seats but nothing like the acres of empty ones shown in previous games.
It was a good day for the new Board because the fans were happy and whether Hearts are freewheeling or not the Bears will feel they have got a bit of pride back with the result and, at the end of the day, results are what counts for the vast majority of football fans.
I saw no sign of a lone red card being raised by Ninjaman against the Board and as he is being so careful to retain his anonymity from fellow Bears then perhaps that’s understandable.
But today’s performance will give DK a bit of time although time always costs money. But the SFA and most other member clubs will probably be quietly happy with the result and some privately exuberant.
Of course the reality is still all about where the money is going to come from to continue much further and I retain my original serious doubts about that.
But I think, after today, the money from RRM might all hinge on whether they get into the Premiership. That might make some dig deep. Although the empty seats today is interesting to ponder. Is this the pro-Ashley boycotters or is this the Bears who have wandered away in the last couple of seasons.
If they didn’t come back for today’s match then I hae ma doots they’ll be back at all unless of course they couldn’t face the expected tanking from Hearts.
And of course it’s impossible to discuss the impact of this game without reference to ‘Elbows’. The guy shouldn’t be allowed on the park and I hope McCall now has cast-iron excuse to ditch him as the football Bears have been demanding for months. He could easily have cost them not only the game today but affected the play-off position vis a vis Hibs.
As his legs have gone his elbows have got more active and cowardly refereeing has let him away with murder. I hope today’s red card is a sign of the times to come and it can only be good for our game in general.
And by the way maybe Haris will be worth that £500k after all 🙄
Corrupt official says:
April 5, 2015 at 3:53 pm
The requisitioners won the EGM with a landslide 85% vote, However without the high abstaining count, the percentage was considered to be much tighter.
————————————————————
I hear what you say but I’m afraid I have no time for punters who don’t vote and moan about having no say afterwards.
I don’t think the abstention of the mystery overseas shareholders is as simple as I have seen many claim. Their line seems to be that it was a ploy hatched with Ashley to hand victory to DK & T3B to drain them of cash.
I won’t again rehearse the detailed posts I have made on the issue mainly because it’s happened and the speculation might be correct or incorrect and none of us know. That’s the simple fact of the matter.
I personally just can’t see Ashley setting himself up for a defeat – any defeat – as I don’t think that’s how he sets out his stall.
But I could be totally wrong and am happy to admit that and also accept it quite simply because nothing I did would have any effect on the outcome. I don’t think the Bears were making a decision on rational grounds but purely on emotional ones.
That’s the exact opposite of Ashley’s modus operandi as I understand it and you know sometimes cold logic and a feeling ot total and absolute invulnerability creates blindspots which allows a weaker and lesser foe to win the day.
And the Bears did win the day in terms of the egm. But that wasn’t even a battle but merely a skirmish and the war will continue for some time. I haven’t a clue who will be the eventual victor although when it comes down to straight attrition the stronger side should win.
But sometimes they don’t because something unexpected or game changing happens like the American involvement in WWI and WWII and Blucher’s march to Waterloo in 1815.
So unless DK can’t raise the monthly shortfall to pay the bills then this could continue for some time but it could also go tit’s up in the blink of an eye.
I have just noticed the undernoted response from Deloittes on Phil’s site which if it has been posted previously I apologise for the repeat.
Phil has also posted a series of supplementary questions which may or may not be answered by Deloittes.
But at least one thing is crystal clear and that’s that the old Board were told in November that Deloittes were off their mark and finished although in these situations it’s usually customary to facilitate a smooth takeover for the replacement auditors as a professional courtesy.
It does raise questions as to why AIM weren’t advised of this share price sensitive info by the old Board and one can only wonder if this was the actual straw that broke the camel’s back.
I doubt AIM have any interest now that they have waved cheerio to RFC. However I seem to remember some discussion that this also was info that should have been lodged with Companies House.
Tbh I reckon Companies House are actually more of a chocolate fireguard than AIM but it does seem that, like water dripping on a stone, that AIM was affected by the volume of RFC complaints many of which came from Bears against the old Board.
From the reply to Phil they may well have had a point. I hope other answers to Phil are forthcoming but I fear they actually verge on the client confidentiality sphere so it might not come to pass.
However I’m sure there will be much still to come to whet interest 😆
ecobhoy says:
April 5, 2015 at 5:59 pm
I doubt AIM have any interest now that they have waved cheerio to RFC. However I seem to remember some discussion that this also was info that should have been lodged with Companies House.
===========
It seems that Deloittes have not yet resigned as auditors, but are awaiting the appointment of their replacements before doing so. Only a formal resignation would trigger a notification to CH.
Whether there should have been a regulatory announcement to AIM is debatable. I don’t know the answer, but it’s certainly information I would expect to have available if I was a potential investor.
John Clark says:
April 5, 2015 at 10:03 am
redlichtie@7.38 p.m
‘…….and at the BBC where questions and comment occasionally seem to betray that they read TSFM.’
__________
BBC Radio Scotland may be biased, but deliberately so rather than out of unawareness. They will be abreast of the numbers of us on this blog who distrust their very definite decision to play down the dreadful deceit and cheating of the dead RFC under SDM and to allow staff men to try to deny the fact of King’s convictions, as well as to allow straight propaganda by Jackson and Wilson with no countervailing arguments allowed.
BBC Radio Scotland has in effect supported the knaveryof SDM and of the Scottish Football Authorities.
And I do not feel the need to add ” in my opinion’.
========================================================================
JC(e)…you appear to have mastered the (dreaded) Samsung tablet…with or without any undue partial (sic) influence of a herd of Fat Yaks…”
IMO [copyright John Clark(e)]
ecobhoy says:
April 5, 2015 at 10:41 am
Resin_lab_dog says:
April 5, 2015 at 12:48 am
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 would like some of you pro King financial “whizz kids” to consider this for a moment.
I might also suggest to Gaz that he try and look into Prior’s previous history before according him Neil Patey status. And, in my experience, it doesn’t matter if you have the highest IQ in the world if you don’t have an ounce of common sense.
=================================================================================
Ecobhoy…exactly what my wee maw (RIP) used to say to me when striving for basic and higher educational qualifications, which thanks to her inherent wisdom, I achieved!
But being turfed off is likely to carry a penalty when the company goes fundraising. It’s less regulated, so it’s probably worth less.
==================================================================================
So now the “real” journalists have taken over, to quote Mr Fraser from BBC TV Scotland…what now for the SMSM footballing churnalists…not to mention the “lamb munchers” on BBC Radio Scotland… ❓
neepheid says:
April 5, 2015 at 7:12 pm
It seems that Deloittes have not yet resigned as auditors, but are awaiting the appointment of their replacements before doing so. Only a formal resignation would trigger a notification to CH.
Whether there should have been a regulatory announcement to AIM is debatable. I don’t know the answer, but it’s certainly information I would expect to have available if I was a potential investor.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Their announcement quoted in your earlier post would render this point moot. To all intents and purposes RFC do not have auditors, Deloitte have indicated that they won’t be doing the 2015 year end audit and therefore will not have expended one billable hour beyond the completion of their 2014 audit.
“Working to ensure a smooth transition to the new firm” is standard industry speak for we’ll have a short meeting with them and maybe let them see some of the files!
In my experience those with really high iq scores tend not to advertise it and those that do advertise it tend not to have it.
Common sense is a concept which has never really resonated with me I do not understand what it means as many who I
repeatedly confirm.That is no comment on my own intelligence or lack thereof.
neepheid says:
April 5, 2015 at 7:12 pm
ecobhoy says:
April 5, 2015 at 5:59 pm
I doubt AIM have any interest now that they have waved cheerio to RFC. However I seem to remember some discussion that this also was info that should have been lodged with Companies House.
===========
It seems that Deloittes have not yet resigned as auditors, but are awaiting the appointment of their replacements before doing so.
————————————————-
As I said previously on this subject – before I knew about the answer to Phil – it’s a matter of perception.
If an auditor actually resigns it could destroy a company unless, of course, there is an acceptable reason. It’s more dangerous in a publicly listed one of course.
But when an auditor tells a company it won’t be doing any further audit work for them then that company has to get another auditor or it’s heading for problems. It is a resignation and unless the auditor has discovered issues that could constitute a criminal offence then it probably won’t be a formal written resignation.
It is enough just to say we won’t be doing any more audit work for this company.
And this brings us to the Rangers agm on 20 December 2014. We know that Deloittes informed the RIFC Plc Board in November that they weren’t continuing as Auditors.
Why oh why then did the Board put Resolution 6 to that agm to reappoint Deloittes as auditors? The resolution was passed by a large margin btw.
I can only wonder what kind of Board would do that – Deloittes had made their position crystal clear before the agm to allow the Board to source a replacement and not be embarrassed at the agm.
Indeed it’s almost like the later re-run over the NOMAD at the egm is some aspects.
So I’m left wondering are the Board stupid? Did the whole Board know? Or was it only the Executive Directors viz DL & BL? If current speculation is to be believed some might consider it was part of some MA conspiracy to lure DK & T3B into a trap to pick their pockets 🙄
I don’t believe for one minute that MA would have allowed that Resolution to go ahead if he knew about the resignation – and it was a resignation – assuming he had any power or influence over the RIFC Plc Board.
And I don’t impugn anything improper if he took that action because he is a shareholder and has a wealth of business experience. If he didn’t think it was mad and a bad judgement then I would be very surprised.
There are so many disasters IMO that the old Board was responsible for I am actually amazed that the new Board hasn’t taken more robust steps than placing the two employees on gardening leave.
Deloittes must have wondered if the Ibrox Board was operating in some parallet universe when they saw the resolution had been passed and I think strong words would have been exchanged.
I now wonder whether the old Board were forced into having to lose the egm – obviously Deloittes would need to have reported the whole matter somewhere – even possibly to the NOMAD. How do we know that wasn’t the reason for their subsequent resignation.
I doubt if the NOMAD could actually act for a company which had ignored a clear message from its auditor. Would any other auditor or NOMAD have wanted to touch Rangers with a bargepole?
Speculation is all very well but there has IMO been a helluva lot going on behind the scenes which needs to be exposed.
I see a number of posts re Rangers performance today. I watched the game and the one thing that stuck out to me is that McCall is getting far more out of the players who had previously poorly performed. Hardly a rocket science observation I admit, and I also think the fact Hearts have tied up the league will have had an influence today. However, Rangers with their resources should be romping the Championship in my view. Not only does that show Hearts up in a shining light, but also makes me wonder why (a real Rangers man like) Stuart McCall was not brought in much earlier.
upthehoops says:
April 5, 2015 at 10:38 pm
makes me wonder why (a real Rangers man like) Stuart McCall was not brought in much earlier.
——————————————————-
Tbf I think McCoist is as much a RRM as McColl which actually points me towards McCoist and McDowells’s coaching/managing abilities. But I could be unfair in that.
I have thoughts that perhaps it would be unwise to voice openly as to how a squad of wooden cut-out footie figures has turned into a reasonable bunch of players in 3 games.
Perhaps DK has brought some mystery elixir with him and sprinkled it into the Ibrox water bottles. Whatever is behind the change one might think it’s almost magical or possibly even miraculous 😆
Who knows perhaps the players had their own boycott in support of the fans – I wasn’t going to say that either 🙁
ecobhoy says:
April 5, 2015 at 10:52 pm
Tbf I think McCoist is as much a RRM as McColl which actually points me towards McCoist and McDowells’s coaching/managing abilities. But I could be unfair in that.
================================
Aye. I probably should have expanded on what I meant, which is that there are other RRM out there far more capable than McCoist.
As for McCall, he seems quite a personable guy to me. McCoist of course also appeared very personable but it didn’t take much for his guard to drop. I’ll give McCall the benefit of the doubt, as (non Rangers) people I know who have met him speak highly of him.
At the end of the day what I think matters little anyway. It’s a bank holiday tomorrow and I had a rare Sunday night visit to the pub. It was with the full blessing of Mrs upthehoops but I simply know there is a sting to come tomorrow! Such is life.
ecobhoy says:
April 5, 2015 at 10:52 pm
upthehoops says:
April 5, 2015 at 10:38 pm
makes me wonder why (a real Rangers man like) Stuart McCall was not brought in much earlier.
——————————————————-
Perhaps DK has brought some mystery elixir with him and sprinkled it into the Ibrox water bottles. Whatever is behind the change one might think it’s almost magical or possibly even miraculous 😆
================================================================
…may I venture to suggest…”California syrup of figs”…now known as “Calix”….
…and now is definitely the time for the re-appearance of the wee steaming jobby/jobbie emoticon… 😳
Listened to the ‘big game’ today on the radio …… The discussion at half-time between chick young and A N Other about the ‘elbows’ incident, chick kind of half heartedly tried to defend big jig 😕 then asked A N Other why the sending off had not resulted in a penalty for hearts?????? A N Other replied ‘well the incident took place 10 yards outside the box’ DOH!!!!! 😉
essexbeancounter says:
April 5, 2015 at 11:22 pm
Is the fixation with No2s, a waste product from joining ICAS?
scapaflow says:
April 5, 2015 at 11:39 pm
essexbeancounter says:
April 5, 2015 at 11:22 pm
Is the fixation with No2s, a waste product from joining ICAS?
==============================================================================
Scapa…me and you…ootside ‘wi the jaickets aff…square go an’ that…!
I bet your wee brother loves you…for all the wrong reasons… 😈
essexbeancounter says:
April 5, 2015 at 11:44 pm
we do tend to rip each others knitting
Though he points out that being a member of the evil empire does have its compensations, he can afford a private pilots licence, while I still, barely, have my soul 😆
Brenda says:
April 5, 2015 at 11:28 pm
…chick…then asked…why the sending off had not resulted in a penalty for hearts??????
…‘well the incident took place 10 yards outside the box’ DOH!!!!! 😉
================================
You’re a harsh lady Brenda !
At least throughout the whole RFC/TRFC saga over the last 3+ years Chick Young has been ‘110%’ consistent …and predictable… 🙄
Brenda
Over the years I was privy to quite a few of high security events,some more interesting than others,Royalty,prime ministers,Bill Clinton,at one end of a scale,other end,was a football club presently in the throes of liquidation who had turmeloules nights of player induction and fund raiser nights at one of Glasgow’s once high profile hotels,these nights where a nightmare ,Andy Cameron of the liquidating clubs persuasion had tried to control a very unruly crowd ,gave up,not before telling them why,as for wee chick,he was always there,lurking,sniffing,never the bride ,not even the bridesmaid,in any company,it seems years on from this that Chicko still has that same level circus respect,once a clown always a clown .imo,sadly
StevieBC says:
April 6, 2015 at 12:23 am
Be fair Stevie, its awfie frustrating when you have two “diddy” teams.
In some ways, it would be worth seeing Rangers go up, just to watch Chico go into meltdown on a regular basis. Maybe the BBC pays him out of the light entertainment budget these days?
The whole up down playoff thing just got more interesting.
As a ‘well fan I’m no longer worried who we meet.
I know singling out individual players on TSFM is frowned upon but we now have yet another incident of McCulloch going for a head shot, again.
I only saw the highlights and noted he already had had a go at Zeefuik’s head earlier in the half.
As discussed earlier as his legs have gone the elbows seem to be becoming more active.
My fear is that even if McCall and T’Rangers do the right thing (and many a Bear seem to have him down as a first class numpty and a disgrace to their Captain’s armband) this idiot could still have a desire to keep playing at some level and someone is going to get hurt given the obvious pattern that has shown itself this season.
If Keith Jackson did irony:
“It’s arguably the most precious commodity in football. The glue which bonds the game together.
But here’s the problem with trust. It takes years to build, seconds to destroy and once it’s gone it will never be quite the same again.
And yet all over Scotland right now there are men in positions of power who apparently see no issue with trampling all over it, while treating their own with complete and utter contempt.”
Unfortunately, he’s not commenting on the SMSM, but Dundee United. The same article also eulogises Murray (P).
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/keith-jackson-dundee-united-transfer-5465859
Footballers though out their careers always get landed with nicknames,as their careers progress the early irkes that earned them these names are ironed out of their game and young fans ask the question of how they got tagged with these names,as for Elbows ,there is no need for anyone to ask as it is evident in every game,now the ref yesterday had no hesitation and I would like to know what Stuart McCall was asking him at half time,all eyes will be on Elbows for the rest of the season,and the match refs.
Jacksons Record Story
What a guy,leads with a few lines about a story that was put to bed within hours of it breaking and then introduces a bigger story that he ,personally,has failed to ask questions,and then reverts back to the non story to finish off on,the Bears are really getting pissed on with this guy.
Phil still suggesting some legal moves in the works. Certainly has been mighty quiet after the triumph of the RRM, what with the war being won and all that.
And those rip-off loan players, eh? Whit ur they like? Coming over here, scoring important goals … who do they think they are? 😛
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/preparing-for-d-listing-day/
Keef
While your on your bonus bandwagon this week,can you ask what bonus the loan players at Rangers are on,for a win and for scoring and maybe even an appearance bonus,go on ,you know you can do this,Keef,Keeeeefff,come back here.
Wow a thumbs down right away,Keef are you out there.
Turnbull Hutton died last night
Thoughts with his family and friends
Scottish Football has lost a good and faithful servant
scapaflow says:
April 6, 2015 at 12:03 pm
====================================
Very sad news about Turnbull Hutton. He was clearly a man of principle and integrity and did more than most to reign in Regan, Doncaster and Longmuir in 2012. May he rest in peace.
scapaflow@12.03 pm
____________
My deepest sympathies to Turnbull Hutton’s familyandclose friends.
He, I think, is the only figure in Scottish Football with some insider knowledge who was principled enough to voice his conclusion that corruption could be used of the dirty dealings struck with D&P and CG to shoehorn a brand new creation into the SFA and SFL, and permit it falsely to claim the history etc of the dead club .
No doubt the shameless, unprincipled men in our Football Authorities (and they know who and what they are) will produce some wholly hypocritical public statement about a man who knew what they are like, a man who, unlike them, cared about truth and integrity in sport, as well as in business.
Somewhat taken aback by the thumbs down to the above comments about Mr Hutton. I’d really love for those that have made such a statement to step forward and make their reasons known. Importantly, I ask not so that folk can attack or deride should they disagree, but just to give us the understanding of their reasoning behind their indications. It might be very insightful to the community if they did.
For me my full sympathies go out to his family and friends, and I hope they get suitably respectful treatment from the SMSM and our football authorites.
A family has lost a loved one, that overrides everything else.
Living in Dunfermline, I couldn’t actually pay to go and support Raith, but R.I.P. Turnbull Hutton, a man whose principled stance against corruption made me at least take some action by setting up a small payment to RRFC as recognition of some feeling of fellowship.
Very sad news regarding the passing of Turnbull Hutton. Condolences to family and friends.
As others have already intimated, a lone shining light in the dark, when he correctly called out the bribing, blackmailing bullying authorities running our game as corrupt.
Sad to see the BBC piece allows Doncaster, (the opposite end of the moral spectrum) to add his crocodile tears to the report.
If only more, senior figures in our game were as principled as Mr Hutton. The Govan farce of the last 3 years would never have happened.
RIP Sir.
yourhavingalaugh says:
April 6, 2015 at 9:26 am
_________________________________________________
I’m going to stick up for Keith Jackson…. a bit. The Paul Murray stuff is up to his usual standard but I find myself in the uncomfortable position of actually agreeing with him on something. It’s not a place I’d recommend but I think he is quite correct about the situation at Dundee Utd. I’d guess if you ask Utd fans if it’s been ‘put to bed’ you might find the supporters groups who asked the original question disagreeing with you.
I wonder how much money Dundee Utd have actually saved themselves with this type of deal given that they’ve raked in a tidy sum in transfer fees recently. It’s a strange one that has the potential to reflect badly on the manager even when there is no reason to think there is any ulterior motives on his part. It puts him in a bit of a spot and leaves the fans, rightly, a bit miffed at the whole situation.
ok, I’m off to have a shower. Then a bath. Followed by another shower to scrub the Jackson off me.
normanbatesmumfc says:
April 6, 2015 at 1:09 pm
A certain type of corporate PR at work?
incredibleadamspark says:
April 6, 2015 at 1:11 pm
In this age of social media, reputaional damage can be accrued far more quickly, and wreak more havoc than ever before. An awful lot of orgs haven’t caught up with this yet, and so don’t give enough weight to it when doing the impact analysis.
An excellent example is when Dutch shipping cmpany tied to Shell, tried to name a new ship after the father of the Company’s founder. Unfortunately, the guy was also a Nazi War Criminal. They knew this, but did it anyway, thinking no-one would notice, they forgot about social media, cue huge reputational issue for Shell, and a messy name change.
The moral of the story, update your OP Risk Impact Analysis, and make sure the reputational risk is looked at from all angles.
Turnbull Hutton arguably saved Scottish football from its own greed.
His words on corruption reached supporters who told their clubs No!
He planted the idea of integrity on the steps of Hampden.
It needs watered and cared for and it has to be supporters from all clubs who take on that task because the greedy are still there at Hampden, in clubs and in the media.
In a game crying out for ethics Turnbull Hutton delivered the seeds.Its up to supporters to nurture them.
Ianagain 1.25
From what I’ve seen recently Motherwell gave the right mix of youth and experience to keep themselves up without any play off.
http://www.onfieldsofgreen.com/our-game-has-lost-a-giant/
RIP Turnbull.
http://t.co/QmdvTNlg0G
Without fear or favour
Thank you Turnbull, you will never be forgotten. RIP
Auldheid says:
April 6, 2015 at 2:11 pm
==================================
Very well put. Turnbull Hutton turned a few heads with his statement that ‘the game is corrupt’. Let’s not ever forget what the authorities were trying to do. Had they succeeded the new Rangers would have entered the top league in a strong position and no doubt many of those who did not TUPE over would have done so. The so called ‘punishment’ proposed was a ten point deduction IIRC. Thankfully Turnbull Hutton was prepared to put his head above the parapet and many other lower league Chairmen started to listen to their fans and follow suit. There is not enough people like him in our game.
BBC
Hutton was known as an outspoken chairman, often critical of the Scottish football establishment.
He led opposition against a proposal to place Rangers in the second tier of Scottish football after they suffered financial problems that eventually led the Glasgow club to the bottom tier.
,,,,,,,,,
I won`t criticise the BBC out of respect for this man of shining integrity
RIP Turnbull
Very sad news about Turnbull Hutton.
Like others here, I was most impressed at how quickly he responded to emails, and replied with both insights about the game – and a bit of humour.
Never met him, but he did come across as the sort of chap you could have a few pints with and have a really good conversation with – and learn a lot.
As Turnbull certainly made a welcome impact here, would it be an idea to send a wreath from the Bampots at ‘TSFM’ ?
[A separate donation to TSFM to fund it if required ?]
I posted this earlier on CQN.
14:15 on 6 April, 2015
A fitting tribute to Turnbull Hutton would be the renaming of the North Stand at Hampden.
When the SFA Blazers sit in their comfy seats, nothing would be more condemning of them than to look across at the wording, The Turnbull Hutton Stand.
Fitting, because it was on the steps of Hampden that Mr. Hutton made his stand.
RIP Turnbull. When will we see his like again? A very sad day for Scottish Football. Condolences to his friends and family.
TTT
Great idea to name the North stand after TH so all at Hampden could remember what he stood for.
GooseyGoosey
The rewriting of history in full flow by the BBC.
Lots of clubs have had financial difficulties and survived.
What made Rangers different is that they deceived the rest of our game with the side letter ebt stuff and no amount of judicial varnish will change that view of supporters of other clubs.
Not providing documents when obliged to by the rules has been their modus operandi.
There is proof but even without it they were caught with their hands in the till of other clubs.
That is why they were shown no compassion, it is not a value that victims can afford without creating distance between themselves and the abuser.
They abused trust, they abused the game, they abused integrity and those who valued it.
The BBC apparently don’t place high value on truth and integrity either.
Turnbull Hutton, you were our friend and our reluctant hero. Like those brave Raith Rovers men of 100 years ago, you stood up for what you believed was right.
RIP, Turnbull, your name will live on whenever integrity is mentioned within Scottish football by all who believe in it’s worth, while striking fear in those who don’t.
I am really devastated at the sad news of Turnbull Hutton’s passing.
As you will know, he invited me to his home when he agreed to be interviewed for our podcast, and on a few occasions after that.
On the podcast, he was forthright, but not strident. What came across to me more than anything was his integrity, and his deep love for Raith Rovers and the game in general. A proper fitba’ man.
Just before Christmas, when I last spoke to him, we talked of the possibility of another interview given his recently acquired Emeritus status. Sadly it was never to take place, however I don’t think he would be annoyed when I tell you that he was an enthusiastic reader and supporter (financially) of TSFM. His TSFM Podcast mug had pride of place on a shelf in his study, and he particularly enjoyed the sentiment that Scottish Football needed a strong Arbroath 🙂
He was an excellent companion, with a very dry sense of humour. He was a great conversationalist and had eclectic and cosmopolitan interests, although his attitudes were firmly rooted in working class Fife. He was also a serial SMS texter – particularly on busy TSFM days 🙂
I am very proud to have known him and to have become a friend. Of course things are all very emotional right now, but TH’s legacy left to the game in general is that he kicked off the successful fans revolt of 2012 (not forgetting the legacy he left in Kirkcaldy in the shape of a thriving football club).
Pragmatic but still possessed of great idealism, Turnbull Hutton was the Gulliver to the Lilliputians at Hampden and elsewhere. Like Gulliver he had his arms tied by the blazers and pen-pushers running the game. He was pretty much on his own in his refusal to accept the tabloid norms and the systematic rule breaking of the governing bodies. His example showed us that we needn’t accept it either.
My thoughts are with his wife Margo and his family. Of course the greater loss is theirs, but the loss to the sport that we shared a love of with him is immense.
RIP Turnbull
Big Pink says:
April 6, 2015 at 7:06 pm
===================================
Thanks for that post about Turnbull BP.