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.
Regarding 216 again (sorry )
Even if Sevco had not changed its name, 216 would still apply because the company trades as Rangers. 216 strikes at trading names as well as company names.
Mr King has made great play today of how s216 is a little known piece of legislation. And how the old board have referred to it.
His intention in doing so is of course to suggest that but for the old board raising the issue, he would not have had to bother going through the court to get leave to be involved in a Rangers company.
Well funnily enough, the law applies whether or not anyone knows about it. In fact, if he didn’t know about it until the old board mentioned it he should perhaps say thank you.
.
Re: the Rangers player whose contract extension is linked to CL football.
Is it possible that the contract was negotiated and agreed when the club/company thought it was still going to be in the Premier Division or 1st Division and that CL football was perhaps technically possible? (no laughing at the back)
If I had half a brain – which my wife would dispute – was a TRFC fan, and had witnessed the nonsense from Whyte, Green, etc, then at this very late stage in proceedings I would certainly not be putting all my hopes on one Mr. Dave King.
I would be shell-shocked, and more inclined to not ‘walk away’ but run away from the Ibrox club, and spend my money and leisure time fishing, ten-pin bowling, or hill-walking, etc. with the weans !
IMO, which might be unfair/cruel, those who choose to stay with the Ibrox club are deluded/blinded by their loyalty to a club that is no longer there. It’s not about sport.
I would have had sympathy in July/August 2012.
I don’t have any sympathy now.
As time marches on, I think that even the neutral could not surmise that Scottish football doesn’t need an Ibrox club – and indeed Scottish football would/could flourish without an Ibrox club.
Say from tomorrow, all mention of TRFC was omitted from the SMSM ?
The negativity would be gone, in the main.
There are a lot of positive stories out there – and not just in the SPL.
Personally, I would like to know more about the lower league clubs and their history: it would probably encourage me to visit their grounds as they are an integral part of the Scottish game – even if their last trophy was won a hundred years ago !
Scottish football should be doing much better, and should be more confident about its options and future. IMHO.
If the idiots at Hampden put business above sporting integrity, then they should be focused on looking forward. Tradition is in the past and gone. Times change, and per the old adage: adapt or die.
The dinosaurs on the 6th floor are overdue a hit by an asteroid or some such clearout event…IMHO… 🙄
Rant over !
Stevie BC
There’s a lot in what you are saying Stevie,this season has seen a few of us going to watch one of the Glasgow Junior clubs,a mixture of senior clubs supporters,the entertainment both on & off the park has been very refreshing,the chat in the city centre bar where we all drink has been revived,an insight into how decent junior clubs run and the struggle they have each season to survive,one real winner is the 2pm Saturday kick off times,If BBC Alba where to get involved or the main Channels in showing recorded highlights of these games it would encourage a new generation to the game at an affordable cost for a family,the club I am talking about is St Rochs or The Candy to give them their nickname,they are at home this Saturday,try it,you won’t be disappointed
Campbellsmoney says:
April 9, 2015 at 1:04 am
Mr King has made great play today of how s216 is a little known piece of legislation. And how the old board have referred to it.
—————————————————————-
In some ways I was surprised at the comment because my gut feeling is that DK didn’t know about the legislation then he should have and if he thinks it’s ‘little-known’ then he better call for Patey for a crash course in Company Law.
However if he really didn’t know about it then he severely under-estimated Green and his mystery overseas backers who are still basking in their tax havens.
They couldn’t wait to replace Sevco Scotland with something, anything that had ‘Rangers’ in the title.
Why? Because they knew all about Section 216 and knew it effectively disbarred oldo Rangers directors from being a director or involved in the management of newco Rangers.
I can’t believe that CW wasn’t also aware of that formidable roadblock he faced. So the question uppermost in my mind that won’t go away is: What could he do to retain an element of control over the newco?
I don’t know the answer to that but my brain keeps throwing up an image of Ibrox Stadium 🙄
Has Mr Lawwell been speaking to Mr Black or Mr Simmonsen?
http://news.ladbrokes.com/football/scottish-football/newcastle-loanee-keen-rangers-celtic-involved_231015.html?
Cluster One says:
April 8, 2015 at 8:47 pm
Metro free paper.
Cleared king to join the Club Board, (is it not the company board 😕 ).
———————————————————————
Good question! King IIRC requested 2 things from the CoS: Firstly to allow him to be a director of RIFC Plc and also to be involved in the management of TRFCL without specifically asking leave to serve as a director.
I would say that the second point could well be academic given that the first request was granted as was the second.
Of course that doesn’t clear-up the issue of what company is also ‘Rangers Football Club’ or what that means other than as a trading name or an archain anachronism in Scottish football rule books which can only exist until they are brought into the modern era in line with the UEFA Definition of ‘club’.
But it appears that we have the strong possibility that there are acftually two separate ‘Rangers Football Clubs’: One for TRFCL and one for RIFC Plc.
Of course perhaps it’s just a shared trading name and it is trademarked of course. And therein might lie a major problem ❗
CHEERIO TRADEMARKS
It would appear that all Rangers Trademarks are now owned by SportsDirect.com Retail Ltd.
I wonder how the Bears will react to that and what does it mean for players kissing the badge?
The Government Trademark Register states for all former Rangers Trademarks:
Talking actual football for a minute, some very interesting comments on the politiken.dk football podcast this week.
Could have been Scottish pundits as they were bemoaning the odd kick off times caused by TV deals and also the fact that the spring part of the season is starting a bit earlier (shorter winter break) which they feel drives families away since freezing to death on a Monday night in mid-Feruary puts kids off 🙂 One of them had actually been to match at 3pm on a Saturday afternoon recently and said he felt ‘liberated’. General feeling was that fans and clubs were just minor cogs in a great big money machine.
Also, concern expressed that traditional domestic football periods such as Easter (usually a lots of league matches here over Easter, hit by internationals this year) and the Cup Final day (the cup final is traditionally on Ascension bank holiday weekend) are being taken over by UEFA who now sit on so many dates for internationals and Euro competitions. The Danes, like the Scots, tend not to challenge UEFA by putting on league and cup matches on Euro dates, although the pundits noted that bigger nations – among them England, France and Germany, flout UEFA’s rule and are willing to take the consequences. None so far, apparently.
No real solutions offered or alternative thinking aired, which was a bit disappointing. But since the Danes have a slightly long-ish summer break there is the possibility, as there is in Scotland, to go for more sunny-weather fitba. Funnily enough, they even mentioned the pitches and felt it was important to play when the grass was green and growing. I’ve heard the argument about protecting the pitches in then summer growing season, but how many actual grounds staff actually preach that?
Oh well, that concludes the voting of the Danish jury.
TRADEMARKS
I had assumed that under the terms of the first tranche £5 million loan that SportsDirect would continue to hold a licence to use the Rangers Trademarks.
Silly me! I hadn’t thought this through. They now control Rangers Retail Ltd obviously as part of their security. But I had never guessed that they owned the trademarks.
Do those trademarks revert back to TRFCL when and if the loan is repaid? What happens if SportsDirect and Rangers reach a ‘deadlock’ situation over Rangers Retail Ltd and SportsDirect exercise their purchase option of paying-off Rangers with a payment of 50% of the last annual profits of Rangers Retail Ltd.
That may even have been reduced to 25% in the negotiations surrounding the £5 million loan.
So now we have Rangers with its training ground in hock, The world famous Albion carpark in hock; a deteriorating rooten-tooth Edmiston House in hock; stadium advertising in hock; a rumoured rental for a hocked Ibrox allegedly going on a monthly trip to the Bermuda Triangle.
Of course 75% of rangers Retail Ltd is also in hock allegedly for the duration of the £5 million loan. And now the famous Rangers trademarks all in hock – perhaps permanently.
I wonder if the new boys at Ibrox have discovered that little tit bit yet in their forensic accounting exercises.
Can it actually get any worse? I’m afraid the answer has got to be YES! What else is hidden under the skirts of the Old Lady I wonder?
The fizz soon went out of the new Ibrox regime’s champagne. Maybe it was cheap South African Soda Streamed plonk in a recycled bottle.
What steps have been taken in the oft mentioned “rebuidling of Rangers”
Where is King’s 50/50 investment?
Where is the medium to long term financial plan?
Where is the DIY Army?
Where is the L&L investigation?
Where is the new Nomad?Where is the ISDX listing?
Where is the new auditor?
Where is the warchest?
Where is Murray (P)’s;”total transparency, total honesty and total openness”?
Where is King’s; “absolute transparency and accountability”?
So much promised, so little delivered.
Brysonian paradox -The rules refer to an offence liable to imprisonment for 2 years. 42 offences is not an offence therefore the rule does not apply. BP 2 if the offence was repeated 42 times and no jail time was served that must mean that the offence was trivial and therefore the rule does not apply. BP 3 if the offence was repeaten 42 times and no time was served the judges must have been having a laugh over the entire thing there fore the rule does not apply. BP 3 also means that anything that the judges said was for comic effect so if one had been the defender in such circumstances then one could quite reasonably talk about favourable outcomes and mean that one was exonerated without stain on one’s character rather than escaping a long shift in the Big House by the proverbial butterfly’s wing. That is not to be confused with any other big house dilapidated or not.
ecobhoy says:
April 9, 2015 at 9:38 am
The Government Trademark Register states for all former Rangers Trademarks:
=======================================================
Eco – does the assignment list the individual trademarks covered? There was some debate a while ago about different ownership of the “Ready” roundel and the RFC script shirt badges.
yourhavingalaugh says:
April 9, 2015 at 6:31 am
Stevie BC
There’s a lot in what you are saying Stevie,this season has seen a few of us going to watch one of the Glasgow Junior clubs…the club I am talking about is St Rochs or The Candy to give them their nickname,they are at home this Saturday,try it,you won’t be disappointed
===================================================================================
Yourhavinalaugh…memories of the short cycle ride to watch the “Candy” up at the “Rock” park, via the old railway marshalling yards…the dressing rooms were so basic…crowd was an entertainment in itself!
I even played on that dreadful clinker pitch in my teens….thanks for the memories, which also extend to other junior clubs in the north of Glasgow, Petershill, Ashfield and Perthshire (how did they come by that name?)…run no worse than the current Govan fiasco… 😈
No RIFC trading at J P Jenkins yet. What dioes this mean? Share dealing enquiries: 0207 469 0938 🙂
http://lmmx.co.uk/companies/profile/rangers-international-foofball-club-plc/
A follow up to my post at 18:04 last night
(please assume that the word allegedly precedes every statement that I am about to make)
Ticketus paid approximately £25 million as an advance on future season ticket sales.
Those monies did not go to the club/company, they went to a company called “Wavetower” owned by Mr Whyte or an associated company owned by his father.
Approximately £18 million of that money was used to pay off the bank (Lloyds?) that had a debenture/legal charge against the assets of the club/company
Wavetower (or whatever the legal vehicle was actually called) did not specifically pay off the Lloyds debt, they paid £18 million but, crucially, had the debt assigned to that vehicle, so that instead of owing Lloyds £18 million the club/company owed Wavetower that sum of money.
As a final twist to this tale was were,at any time, Duff and Phelps be actively chasing Mr Whyte for the Ticketus money, or getting the onerous charge against club/company assets written off?
Here are the trademarks Ecobhoy noted above:
https://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmownerid/search?domain=1&id=48839&app=1&name=SPORTSDIRECT&postcode=
One trademark now registered to Sportsdirect.com Retail Ltd will be of particular interest to Mark Dingwall, I think:
https://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmcase/Results/1/UK00002226611
😐
mcfc says:
April 9, 2015 at 9:58 am
I see your updated list of requests wrt the new Board at Rangers.
IMO the old Board also require to answer a lot of very pertinent questions as well? As do other former administrations at Ibrox.
As to the old Board why did they put the re-appointment of the Auditors on the December agm agenda when the Auditors had already told them in November they wouldn’t be continuing to audit Rangers’ books.
In many ways the new Board interest me least because I believe the most interesting bits of the story from February 2012 don’t really involve them as individuals other than peripherally.
What the new Board do now IMO is largely a matter for Bears to accept or reject. Of course there are some important issues involving the SFA and football governance which need to be examined.
As to the roller-coaster ride of whether DK will escape various traps and pitfalls: It has a certain excitement to it and reminds me a bit of Steve McQueen in ‘The Great Escape’.
But actually in the whole scheme of what has been perpetrated on Scottish Football DK, so far IMO, remains a bit player. To me – his scrabble to control Rangers – whether for personal, possibly financial reasons or because he loves the club is neither here nor there.
What’s important for me are the wider issues and trying to cleanse the Hampden pigsty. I’m afraid IMO becoming fixated on one relatively minor player doesn’t do justice to the real experts who have been and still are at work patiently gutting Rangers while the SFA make all the wrong decisions about how to deal with the ‘problem’.
I am not a Rangers Hater and have no doubt that some form of Rangers will exist as long as football is played in Scotland. I have absolutely no problem with that as long as they are subject to the same rules as everyone else and if the break them that they are similarly punished.
However it’s up to the Bears whether they want to put their money into the DK vision of Rangers or not. They know his background and so far the overwhleming bulk of fans appear to be with him,
A few posters – almost all linked with the PR campaign waged against Celtic over the ludicrous State Aid claims – support the old Board. They will get no traction in the wider support because even if DK fails no one wants Ashley. I couldn’t care who wins the battle for control although as I have previously stated I do worry whether Ashley’s interests in Scotland is wider than just Rangers.
y4rmy says:
April 9, 2015 at 10:34 am
One trademark now registered to Sportsdirect.com Retail Ltd will be of particular interest to Mark Dingwall, I think:
https://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmcase/Results/1/UK00002226611
————————————————————
Indeed. However IIRC that trademark was disputed back in DM’s time and rangers took control of it although possibly MD was allowed limited use. It’s so long ago I can’t remember and tbh wasn’t of any actual interest to me at the time.
But what is fascinating is the major trademark which doesn’t appear to be registered anywhere. I have posted about it at length on previous occasions.
And it still hasn’t turned-up in all of the rest transferred to the Ashley stable.
I don’t think Ashley is the type to have missed it – so who has it. It has to be remembered that there isn’t actually a requirement to register a trade mark.
It does assist in terms of proving ownership in any dispute. But obviously by not registering it you hide ownership although you would have to be confident you could prove your ownership rights.
That might be provided by the existance of an onerous contract between Rangers and the mystery owner of the trade mark I talk about where the contract acknowledges the ownership.
So many mysteries and so many mystery contracts 🙄
y4rmy says:
April 9, 2015 at 10:34 am
https://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmownerid/search?domain=1&id=48839&app=1&name=SPORTSDIRECT&postcode=
===============================================
y4rmy – thanks for that – so all the meaningful trademarks are covered “ready”, “rfc”, “rangers”, “broxy”, “follow follow”.
grail14 says:
April 9, 2015 at 10:22 am
In view of the criminal and civil actions which possibly surround the issues you refer to I would be very wary. And using ‘allegedly’ doesn’t necessarily provide a defence.
mcfc says:
April 9, 2015 at 9:58 am
While some of the ‘to do list’ might take time to implement, those relating to transparency, openness, honesty, accountability etc could have, and should have, been evident immediately. Instead all we hear is blame placing and claims of the board being ‘fit and proper’ without producing any evidence – other than the PR piffle in the SMSM. In fact, no evidence has yet been produced for any of their claims, relying solely on their revered ‘Real Rangers Men’ status and a fawning press who ask no questions they’ve not been given permission to ask.
They are very fortunate to have seen the rise in the club’s football fortunes put a gloss on their triumphal march as it has deflected a lot of the hard of thinking bears’ attention, and I’m sure that is giving the new board a great sense of relief, as it’s the Neanderthals that they have real cause to fear!
I do wonder just how many more loans will be required before we see any real investment into the club, and how much of that investment is used to pay back the loans before any is spent on sorting the ever growing mess out!
mcfc says:
April 9, 2015 at 10:13 am
ecobhoy says:
April 9, 2015 at 9:38 am
The Government Trademark Register states for all former Rangers Trademarks:
=======================================================
Eco – does the assignment list the individual trademarks covered? There was some debate a while ago about different ownership of the “Ready” roundel and the RFC script shirt badges.
——————————————————
The Register covers every Rangers TM I am aware of with the exception of 1 which I have mentioned in a post just above. And I see y4rmy has included a link to the full list – exlcuding the one I mention.
I’m trying to dig-out my old posts on the missing one as it has always intrigued me 😆
ecobhoy says:
April 9, 2015 at 10:46 am
IMO the old Board also require to answer a lot of very pertinent questions as well? As do other former administrations at Ibrox.
===============================================================
Eco – what fascinates me is that the SFA and MSM are so apparently, some would say intentionally, inept in their respective roles – in defence of all things Ibrox. In their desperation to restore the Ibrox supremacy they are blind to the harm they have done and a re doing not only to Scottish football, but also to Scotland’s reputation and ironically to the Ibrox club itself.
The role of regulators is to insist on minimum standards of behaviour and to make it clear that certain behaviours will not be tolerated in the interest of all their members. The SFA has singularly failed in this role.
The role of the MSM is to ask difficult questions to uncover the true intention of those at Ibrox, Hampden etc so the public can make a reasoned judgement about their continued financial support for the Ibrox club. The MSM has singularly failed in this role.
IMO the old board / new board debate is a huge red herring. By having a whole series of boards and CEOs and directors and investigations and sacking and scandals the spivs have arranged a ready scapegoat for each and every action of the public listed company that is the holding company of the football club that plays at Ibrox. Heroes and villains change on a daily basis to finesse the soap opera and give the masses bread and circuses. Which board did what is of secondary interest to the lack of accountability required by the Scottish establishment of one of its supposed great institutions and the national sport.
My list of questions is simply a fatuous attempt to highlight the extreme depths of deflection and deceit that is acceptable at Ibrox – and specifically acceptable to the SFA and the MSM.
THE MISSING TRADEMARK
From a post of mine on
October 24, 2014 at 11:58am
Looks as though the mystery gets deeper by the day 😉
ecobhoy says:
April 9, 2015 at 11:41 am
Looks as though the mystery gets deeper by the day 😉
============================================================
My guess FWIW is that Charles Green (who bought the history) devised the five stars plus oldest RFC badge to support the continuity myth and that he has some / all ownership rights. There may even be onerous contract terms that require its preferential use and hence royalties to the owner – pure speculation you understand. In which case the non registration would make perfect sense.
Eco I have a distant memory when these were being discussed that Mr Green owned one of the trademarks! can anyone else remember this?
Allyjambo says:
April 9, 2015 at 11:05 am
While some of the ‘to do list’ might take time to implement, those relating to transparency, openness, honesty, accountability etc could have, and should have, been evident immediately. Instead all we hear is blame placing and claims of the board being ‘fit and proper’ without producing any evidence – other than the PR piffle in the SMSM. In fact, no evidence has yet been produced for any of their claims
—————————————————————-
I doubt if the new Board at rangers are any different from any other football club or indeed business.
There are matters and issued which are commercially sensitive and which should remain confidential to the business involved and often that means it remains within the Boardroom.
Like it or lump it that’s what happens in well-run companies. It’s easily arguable that Rangers at least since DM took the helm has been anything but a well-run company and in the last few years the Boardroom has leaked like a sieve.
The problem as I see it currently is that DK is either operating to a detailed Masterplan or is simply ‘winging-it’ being blown hither and thither when hit by Fortune’s cruel winds 😉
Tbh I honestly haven’t a clue which it is or whether it’s just a dolly mixture.
What I do know is that it all depends on whether the new Board can raise the necessary dosh to continue given the monthly financial black-hole faced by the club.
I have serious doubts that the money can be raised. But then I ask: ‘Why has DK got involved if the money isn’t there and why are the other RRM supporting him and injecting dosh?’.
No matter whether its the masterplan or winging-it scenario I wouldn’t expect any detailed explanations at this stage.
We have a situation whereby an interested-party could financially squash those currently in charge of Rangers and they would be fools to allow any financial info to leak out that could be used against them.
This is a serious struggle and it might be to the death so you don’t show your cards unless you have to. The obviously IMO PR-inspired campaign on some Bear websites to discredit the new Board and laud the old is merely what it is.
As you say the recent on-field performance has probably defecled most of that campaign but it was always ‘dodgy’ through the involvement with McMurdo and some of his acolytes and Merlin’s perceived links to Jack Irvine.
That’s why we’ve had the recent Ninjaman rebranding but Bears these days have become very suspicious of ‘anonymous leaders’ and they have every right to be.
And I think this is one of the major problem in dealing with this objectively wrt DK and the new Board. Whether he deserves it or not he basically has the trust of the vast bulk of the support.
That could easily change because it’s football we are talking about and especially wrt Rangers the fans are understandably volatile.
‘Fit and Proper’ status is important because if that is awarded by the SFA then – on top of DK’s favourable CoS decision – it makes it more more likely Rangers will get a listing on the new exchange complete with authorised advisor.
The SFA are under enormous pressure to issue a decision quickly and they will be getting told that delay is preventing access to share issues and raising cash to save the club. They have got to reach a dercision and if it’s favourable to DK then I would expect that the new listing would follow shortly.
Obviously discussions will be underway between Rangers and the proposed exchange and a possible advisor. A lot of discussions and action will currently be underway but I doubt if we will get any info other than staged PR releases. Nothing new there of course 🙄
I have no problem with speculation if it is grounded on at least some facts. But I think we have to retain a bit of distance and accept that patience is required if we are to make any sense of what’s happening at Ibrox.
As I have said earlier my interest in whether the DL incarnation succeeds or fails is minimal. I am much more interested in all the other deals that took place from at least February 2012. In that context I see what is happening currently as small beer.
As to providing instant answers I have a wee smile at the 120-day Wallace Review which IIRC ended-up at 160 days and I don’t actually remember any answers.
By that yardstick the new Board has a wee bit to go 😆 And the interesting thing is that I didn’t see any demands from the pro-Board till I die group questioning the delay.
Indeed MA has been about Rangers longer than most people – back to being an original investor in TRFCL in the summer of 2012 and IIRC doing kit deals as well. I don’t remember him ever uttering a word personally about Rangers but that appears to be acceptable to those Bears who are anti the current Board.
However all that stuff to me is internal Bear on Bear action and merely a sideshow although it can be hilarious at times.
It (Green’s ownership of the badge) would also tie in with Green’s typical modus operandi and secondly with the rental payment being made per PMG – a fixed charge for using the badge, with Ibrox held in some kind of negative pledge for non payment to keep under the ‘security radar.’
Just a thought.
Allyjambo says:
April 9, 2015 at 11:05 am
While some of the ‘to do list’ might take time to implement, those relating to transparency, openness, honesty, accountability etc could have, and should have, been evident immediately.
==============================================================
Ally – I think King and Murray (P) might just as well have promised the bears and MSM quarks, strangeness, charm and bosons given the level of understadning of transparency, openness, honesty and accountability down at the G51 Large Reality Collider.
gerrybhoy67 says:
April 9, 2015 at 12:29 pm
Eco I have a distant memory when these were being discussed that Mr Green owned one of the trademarks! can anyone else remember this?
————————————————————–
I have never seen any evidence of that although it’s possible that he claimed that he did.
However defining fact from fiction in Aulde French is tricky and I’m still working on Green’s school sprint records but haven’t found the time to go down to Yorkshire to nail his running shoes to the track once and for all 😀
As I posted above the only ‘missing’ TM I know of is the iconic RFC scroll crest surmounted by the 5 stars.
ecobhoy says:
April 9, 2015 at 12:41 pm
‘Fit and Proper’ status is important because if that is awarded by the SFA then – on top of DK’s favourable CoS decision – it makes it more more likely Rangers will get a listing on the new exchange complete with authorised advisor.
============================================================
Eco – you raise the issue of ISDX listing requiremnts. here are a couple of primers for anyone interested:
Primary Market Rules
http://www.isdx.com/regulation/primarymktrules.aspx
ISDX Growth Market Rules for Issuers, 23 March 2015
http://www.isdx.com/files/pdf/201503_ISDX_GrowthMarket-RulesForIssuers.pdf
Floating on AIM or the ISDX markets
http://www.welbeckassociates.com/resources/tips-succeeding/business/floating-aim-or-isdx-markets
Stevie,
I would urge you to seek out the lower leagues. You’d be surprised at the entertainment on offer.
There’s the obvious kudos for forgoing the easy thrills of the SPL to follow the rarely rewarded fortunes of your local team, but more than that, there is much to admire further down the leagues outside of your own side.
I follow Clyde, and this season has been no picnic, but I’d still follow them over the bigger teams because I’m from Cumbernauld, and feel that they’ve somehow come to represent me. (I can almost hear other Bully Wee fans spluttering into their tea at the very notion of Clyde ‘representing’ Cumbernauld…). They do a lot of good work in the local community in terms of youth teams and such like.
I’ve also found myself going to see Stirling Albion and Albion Rovers on occasion when I’ve been able to make a game, but Clyde have been on the other side of the country that day. Stirling are another well run side, but Albion Rovers are the heart warmers. They, again, engage incredibly well with the local community, their ‘pay what you can’ schemes are a credit to them, not to mention their donation to ‘Cash for Kids’ off the back of the Rangers Scottish cup game last season.
However, more than the above, the standard is better than you’d think. You get a lot of young managers cutting their teeth down the leagues, trying to impose better standards and passing football. It also tends to be a match filled with ‘Christ, is he STILL playing?!?’ moments, when you recognise the veteran in his late thirties, pinging the ball about in a classy manner.
But more than that, it’s fun. Defeats hurt, but you still feel better for having gone! I can safely say that I’ve never come out of a ground fearing for my safety, as there is a level of respect for other fans at that level.
BTW I’m not saying lower league would be a better experience than SPL for everyone, just that it’s different. If you’ve got a spare Saturday, go along and see your other local sides, you might be surprised!
ecobhoy says:
April 9, 2015 at 12:41 pm
I have absolutely no expectation of honesty, transparency etc from the RICF/TRFC board and agree that all companies can’t for various reasons divulge too much information. The new board, however, have made great capital (the only capital yet from King) of their Rangersness and their promised transparency, but haven’t, yet, even paid lip service to this. They have, in reality, already shown a readiness to be economical with the truth/facts most notably over the unlined-up NOMAD.
If, knowing that they cannot provide it, the board swept to victory on a ‘transpareny’ ticket, it just adds to the ‘NOMAD’ farce and highlights that it’s just another case of ‘meet the new board, same as the old board’.
All this is, of course, no problem for supporters of all other clubs, the promises were not made to us, but it is important that the game’s governors realise that nothing much has changed at Ibrox since the days of Craig Whyte (they’d never see the days of DM as a problem) and that they should not continue to hold the game at risk on the word of RRMs, just because they are RRMs! A forlorn hope, I know.
In the whole Ibrox saga I used to beleive that The Truth Will Out. But I’ve learned to beleive that is not necessarily the case. But what is definitely the case is that The Money Will Out.
No amount of deflections, deceit, duplicity and corruption can change the simple ebb and flow of pounds sterling. In fact these traits are the enemies of good sustainable business.
“And so castles made of sand, melt into the sea, eventually.”
Jimi Hendrix
Smugas says:
April 9, 2015 at 12:42 pm
It (Green’s ownership of the badge) would also tie in with Green’s typical modus operandi and secondly with the rental payment being made per PMG – a fixed charge for using the badge, with Ibrox held in some kind of negative pledge for non payment to keep under the ‘security radar.’
Just a thought.
———————————————————
The problem with ‘ownership’ of the RFC Crest topped with the 5 stars Trademark IMO lies with the RFC scroll crest which is registered as a trade mark on its own.
It’s arguable whether the 5 stars could be legally trademarked as not being specific – after all there are other clubs out there who have won 5 European Titles 😆
But for sure the scroll crest element couldn’t be trademarked in anyone’s name unless permission was granted by the owner who used to be TRFCL.
That owner is now a SportsDirect subsidiary but that is for: Trade Mark UK00002207358.
The interesting point is that the same RFC Scroll Crest is also trademarked under: EU002557387. Even more interesting is that the owner isn’t listed as the SportsDirect subsidiary but as TRFCL.
It seems to be the sole TRFCL trademark owned by TRFCL that hasn’t been transferred to the Ashley Stable.
So has that simply been missed by the normally legal-eyed or should that be eagle-eyed Ashley minions. Their track record with Rangers’ details is looking a bit tarnished these days right enuff.
Or is there a specific reason that that scroll crest remains apparently the property of TRFCL with a European TM registration number whereas SportsDirect hold the UK registered one?
And we mustn’t forget that the RFC scroll crest is the crest used in the seemingly non-registered trade mark with the addition of the 5 stars.
Building-up the anomlaies on this one – ah probably just coincidence – I’m sure it doesn’t mean anything. Still I’ll need to check the European register now – IIRC it’s based in France or perhaps Spain 😆
New Ibrox Board, tell us the full trademarks story.
Murray (P); ”total transparency, total honesty and total openness”?
King; “absolute transparency and accountability”?
ecobhoy says:
April 9, 2015 at 1:41 pm
The problem with ‘ownership’ of the RFC Crest topped with the 5 stars Trademark IMO lies with the RFC scroll crest which is registered as a trade mark on its own.
=========================================================
There is absolutely no reason why TRFC/RIFC could not have sold a new trademark, derived from an existing trademark to someone without surrendering/prejudicing the existing trademark. For example, TRFC/RIFC could have sold full rights to the new trademark to a CEO and owner of history for approximately 100 pennies. And why not – entirely legitimate. Equally they could have granted rights to the derived trademark to anyone for a fixed/variable period in all/some territories for some/no money for some/all uses.
What is interesting is that the obvious suspects do not claim the five star RFC and it is not registered. Which leads to sinister speculation of dodgy dealing – like so many topics at Ibrox.
AmFearLiathMòr says:
April 9, 2015 at 1:12 pm
I’ve managed to get to quite a few of the local junior team’s games this season. Brazil, or even Ron’s beloved Blue Brazil they are not
, but the passion for the game, along with the crack at the game and after, have made it a joyful experience, which I don’t often get at the spfl games.
mcfc says:
April 9, 2015 at 1:45 pm
New Ibrox Board, tell us the full trademarks story.
Murray (P); ”total transparency, total honesty and total openness”?
King; “absolute transparency and accountability”?
————————————————————
Jeesuz – Again I think you would be better served directing the question at the Old Board – in fact all the old boards going back to Green.
It might help to ask SportsDirect as well although I doubt you’ll get an answer there either.
I have the funny feeling the new Board will be snowed under with all the things they already know about never mind the blizzard about to hit of all the things they don’t know about.
ecobhoy says:
April 9, 2015 at 2:27 pm
Jeesuz – Again I think you would be better served directing the question at the Old Board – in fact all the old boards going back to Green.
===========================================================
Eco – you seem to miss the point old chap. This is a new era. No previous regime has promised absolute adherence to the four pillars of RRM dignity: transparency, honesty, openness and accountability.
The new regime has the access and wherewithal to explain to those who care so much, what has been done in their name, when, by whom, how and possibly why. It is in their gift to right wrongs, undo injustice, pursue wrongdoers and wipe clean the slate for a better and glorious future.
It is only fair that we encourage them as they strive to educate and reassure the paying masses.
I’m not sure why you think these questions would be better directed to former and discredited meployees when King and Murray (P) have volunteered their services with such clarity to this noble quest.
Just checked the European OHIM Register which shows that the RFC scroll crest (EU002557387) is still shown as being owned by TRFCL.
However the UK Register shows the same scroll crest as formerly owned by TRFCL but now owned by Sportsdirect.com Retail Limited. The graphic for this TM looks as though it was daubed by a toddler in play group 🙄
And I’m sure the new Board will be assisted in providing full answers for all points raised particulalrly with regard to the transfer of ownership of Rangers Trademarks to SportsDirect.
I have no hesitation stating that because presumably all the Board minutes, files, sundry paperwork and computer records at Ibrox will be intact and methodically filed thanks to the efficiency of the terminated directors.
http://www.welbeckassociates.com/resources/tips-succeeding/business/floating-aim-or-isdx-markets
Now if I remember correctly, the RIFC plc AIM float cost 15 times this upper estimate. So does that mean that the proposed ISDX float could cost maybe 15 times £100k (£1.5mil) to raise a max of £10mil?. At the risk or irking Eco – T H O A – I gots to know
Another one of my ambitions has come true, being slapped across the knuckles by Ecobhoy or was it Ecojohn on Paul’s blog
Nearly 50 years ago I told Mrs Grail that I aspired to earn £1000 pounds a year.
I am still striving to each that elusive target (that is what I tell the divorce lawyers!)
As regards your comments about allegedly my comments were in the public domain, any other thing that I mused was a question.
And if push comes to shove:
I am an ex jobbing accountant who is technically skint and who has no fixed abode.
The words pipe and smoke it come to mind
I wouldn’t get too carried away with the latest squirrel…. What would be interesting to know is…….if the new board could comment on whether these are still in effect and whether the charge has been satisfied ….. News travels slowly to the IPO…….
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/confirmed-mike-ashley-is-the-new-rangers-retail-ruler-with-security-over-club-tradema.118843843
Confirmed: Mike Ashley is the new Rangers Retail ruler with security over club trademarks
Martin Williams
Senior News Reporter
Thursday 19 February 2015
NEWCASTLE owner Mike Ashley now owns the Rangers’ retail operation and has a security over many of the club’s precious trademarks, it has emerged.
Fresh financial papers for Rangers Retail reveal that from January 27, the Sports Direct founder and owner has been the “ultimate controlling party” of Rangers Retail, which handles the club’s merchandising and stores. It confirms the switch has been made from the previous controllers, the club holding company The Rangers International Football Club plc.
The accounts reveal that while Rangers Retail turnover quadrupled from £1.2 million in the year to April 2013 to £4.8m in the year to April 2014, profits only doubled from £434,312 to £877,662. That is because the costs of the sales soared by eight times that of the previous year from £546,656 to £4.2m.
It is understood most of that money has gone to Sports Direct as Rangers Retail is buying Rangers merchandise, including replica kits, gifts, polo shirts and track suits from the Ashley-controlled firm for use in club outlets.
Sports Direct confirmed to the Herald that Rangers Retail has provided over £3.8m to Sports Direct in the year through such sales.
Notes filed over Rangers Retail with Companies House reveal: “This transfer in ownership is a result of a loan issued by Sportsdirect.com Retail Limited to The Rangers International Football Club plc initially for £5 million.”
Mr Ashley’s control over retail and trademarks comes as a by-product of his £10m emergency loan to Rangers made last month.
New documents have come to light that show that a host of Rangers and club-related trademarks and logos including the famous
RFC Scroll crest and the Ready logo are being held by Mr Ashley and Sports Direct as security against that loan which is payable on demand.
Details provided by the board to the Rangers Fans Board reveal that Mr Ashley gave up the stadium naming rights he bought for £1 in 2012 in favour of 25 per cent of the Ibrox advertising rights.
When Rangers Retail, a joint venture with Sports Direct, was confirmed by the club under then chief executive Charles Green in August 2012, it was promoted as enabling Rangers “to once again control its retail operation and give supporters the chance to buy direct from the club and in doing so, continue to invest in its future”.
Rangers Retail run the club’s entire retail operation, including the Rangers Megastore, and hold the rights under licence to the club’s famous crests.
When details of the Ashley loan first emerged, the RIFC board admitted it was forced to pay Sports Direct £1.6m, its share of a Rangers Retail dividend, over the “cessation of onerous leases” in relation to the closure of club shops.
Under the previous 10-year retail agreement with JJB struck by Sir David Murray in 2006, Rangers accepted an initial £18m from the sports firm, while it was also guaranteed a minimum royalty fee of £3m per year until 2016.
As a result, JJB held exclusive rights to design, develop, source and retail merchandise associated with the club.
It has been confirmed that Mr Ashley has been called to give evidence before the Scottish Affairs Committee regarding the role Sports Direct played in the treatment of workers at its fashion chain USC.
mcfc says:
April 9, 2015 at 3:25 pm
Now if I remember correctly, the RIFC plc AIM float cost 15 times this upper estimate. So does that mean that the proposed ISDX float could cost maybe 15 times £100k (£1.5mil) to raise a max of £10mil?. At the risk or irking Eco – T H O A – I gots to know.
—————————————————–
Being ‘Irked’ is not an emotion I suffer from nor am I ever likely to.
I think the costs given relate specifically to AIM and ISDX charges as an exchange. IIRC the ludicrous charges paid by RIFC Plc for their float in December 2012 comprised a whole series of commissions and payments to various anonymous parties for numerous unspecified services in connection with the flotation.
No Rangers Board has actually detailed these costs or identified the recipients afaik. However no doubt the demand can be added to your ‘transparency’ shopping list for the new Board 😆
what is unclear, and SHOULD be asked of King & Murray is…. Do these charges reflect the agreement for the loan, or the additional 26% holding in RRLtd, or is the “deal” permanent……..
Why has King & Co not cleared this (paid back the loan) to open the revenue streams associated with the I.P.?
If only we had an inquisitive SMSM…. perhaps they could wait until a new shirt deal is announced….
ecobhoy says:
April 9, 2015 at 3:00 pm
I have no hesitation stating that because presumably all the Board minutes, files, sundry paperwork and computer records at Ibrox will be intact and methodically filed thanks to the efficiency of the terminated directors.
=================
Is it just me, or were not the Ibrox shredders allegedly running red hot under a regime of which King (D) and Murray (P) were a part? Was it perhaps that regime that failed to supply the full documentation required by the SFA in connection with a judicial enquiry? And certainly did not supply the SFA with full information on player remuneration over a period of years?
I’m clearly getting toally confused in my old age- it must have been nasty Leach and Llambias who are responsible- even if they weren’t around at the time. It could never, under any circumstances, have been the case that any blame ever attaches to any “Real Rangers Men”. I’m so glad that’s all cleared up.
It is worth remembering, perhaps, that Leach and Llambias were in post for just 4 months, from November 2014 until March 2015. Yet these guys are getting crucified in the SMSM, having saved TRFC from certain liquidation during their short tenure.
If there was any hint or indication that boardroom paperwork had gone astray during those 4 months, then I’m sure that we would have heard all about it already from that most trusted inside source to all matters King, Keith Jackson.
Eco, since your comment above about the SFA’s earlier view of Mr King, I’ve been googling and searching the SFA website for a link, but I can’t find anything. It would be good to see what they said and, indeed, I might even remind them of it before any announcement. Do you have a link to it at all? Thanks.
TBK says:
April 9, 2015 at 3:43 pm
—————————————
What would be interesting to know is…….if the new board could comment on whether these are still in effect and whether the charge has been satisfied ….. News travels slowly to the IPO…….
—————————————————————–
Considering that £1.5 million was needed as a drip-feed loan at the end of last month to pay the wages and possibly near enough the same will be needed this month I doubt if the £5 million first tranche has been repaid.
As there is apparently no interest payable and no payment date fixed I would tend to think repayment was not on the new Bpoard’s priority list. That may have changed if they didn’t realise that ownership of their trade marks have gone.
I also struggle to understand why any charge made against assets as security for a loan requires ownership to pass hands.
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding what you’re saying but I find it difficult to believe that the Ashley Empire now owns: Murray Park, Albion Carpark; and Edmiston House.
Perhaps a Floating charge can’t be put against Trade Marks and therefor ownership has to pass – but that strikes me as a dangerous move for the former owner especially with the apparently very one-sided agreement that Ashley can buy-out the joint venture Rangers Retail Ltd almost on a whim.
I accept things might move slowly in the world of the IPO but the change of ownership was received by them on 12/03/2015 and published on 25 March.
The other curiosity is that the ownership of the licences wasn’t transferred to Rangers Retail Ltd – the joint venture company where SportsDirect hold 75% of the shareholding IIRC as a result of the conditions applying to the £5 million loan – but to Sportsdirect.com Retail Limited.
Obviously without reading the contract documents relating to the loan conditions it’s difficult to judge the permanency of the ownership transfer.
The Herald piece also throws no light on the RFC Scroll crest surmounted by the 5 stars – which appears not to be registered on any TM databases.
nawlite says:
April 9, 2015 at 4:07 pm
I have it on a previous drive which I don’t have access to right at this moment. But I’m sure someone else will have it to hand. It was posted on here recently so perhaps a google on TSFM King director SFA might bring it up.
neepheid says:
April 9, 2015 at 4:04 pm
I’m afraid that you mistake my intent. All previous Boards have to be looked at with a critical eye right back to DM.
I think to concentrate on what DK might or might not do at Ibrox in the future to the exlusion of all else would be foolish.
I have no doubt that DK will, in turn, provide much to be considered. After all he has previous history for making the bampot radar bleep.
ecobhoy says:
April 9, 2015 at 3:44 pm
Being ‘Irked’ is not an emotion I suffer from nor am I ever likely to.
=========================================================
Eco – if you haven’t tried being irked then you should – cathartic and good for the soul 🙂
But seriously this old board / new board stuff is so oldco/newco. King and Murray promised a new dawn and it is conspicuous by its absence.
Their first major step was to confirm suspicions of deceit and duplicity over the Nomad – with the utmost charity their mothers could not describe it more favourably than half-truths. If they have a thorough plan and they work it as Ashley does then it will be interesting. But my guess is any business skills they pssess are polluted with RRM thinking. Will their cunning plan involve further blindsiding of investors, regulators and fans? And as for my fatuous questions – Scottish football needs more fatuous questioning – not less.
Just in from work and seeing evidence that Ashley owns Rangers trademarks. I’m guessing Radio Clyde and Radio Scotland will ignore it and instead tell tales about packs of bears being led to the land of milk and honey. This is all so similar to the early days of Craig Whyte.
Regarding the trademark debacle…
Surely insertion of an I in the famous scroll badge with 5 stars would sort it…and the badge would then be trade marked by the current franchise holders…the I for International could be explained away easily as being inclusiveness with regard to the 500m fans across the planet and beyond, in some cases…
After all RIFC IS the club isn’t it….or is it the other company that is the club?…
Anyhow…they’ll do what they want and it’ll be okay…
‘Cos that’s how it appears to work! 😆
Ashley must be itching and twitching to know what is happening in the board room. I assume it has been thoroughly swept since the EGM – and I don’t mean hoovered. Ashley has a strong vested interest in optimal ST sales so I speculate that he might have to bide his time to appoint his two place men at the top of the stairs. Doing so too early could really scare the horses before ST sales get underway. And there is always the risk that King is plotting to pony up enough to pay off the £5mil first tranche to deny Ashley his place men altogether – titter ye not! Hey but Ashley would still have the consolation prize of that lovely retail revenue – that won’t be available to waste on overpaid, under-motivated, long ball journeymen.
abigboydiditandranaway says:
April 9, 2015 at 6:19 pm
____________________________________________________
Not so.
Trademark infringement is a bit like patent infringment.
Firstly, any attempt to register a new trademark that is broadly similar to an existing trademark can be objected to by the owner of the existing trade mark. I suspect this would happen in this instance.
It is likely that an R’i’FC logo would fall foul of this provision unless it was sufficiently distinct w.r.t the existing trademarks – a judgement arrived at easiest by amicable agreement between the parties, but ultimately as defined before a judge in the event of dispute.
So its unlikley this new trademark could easily be registered.
Secondly, you can’t just tag something onto an existing trademark to get a new one and try and use that to get around the existing trademark – as the new still ‘uses’ the old.
Any trademark that contained the main recognisable elements of, or could be confused with the existing trademark could be objected to.
And any use of such a design could be deemed trademark infringement.
Moreover, it would be deliberate infringement, since the infringer could not reasonably plead ignorance of the prior art (existing trademark) in this case.
Deliberate infringement allows for punitive – in addition to restorative – damages to be awarded against the infringer.
So basically – not worth the risk!
If you don’t have the agreement of the trademark holder, its better to design something from scratch.
I really wasn’t being serious about the badge…
It was a Sandy Bryson moment!
I meant this at the end of my post 🙂 for everyone involved in this utterly amazing story from the start…and I would include a lot of those in other clubs…they should all be ashamed!…but they’re not,and that my friends, is just about the saddest part of this entire omnishambles 🙄 🙄
RFC Trademark:
Owner sports Direct. Exclusive licensee RRL
https://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmcase/Results/1/UK00002655880?legacySearch=False
Well it looks as though someone at Ibrox keeps tabs on TSFM.
Apparently the new Rangers Board has lauched a probe into the fact they no longer own their Club badges and other trademarks.
From RM:
And interim chairman Paul Murray has demanded an immediate probe to discover how Ashley finally ended up with the club’s crown jewels.
In a statement a club spokesman confirmed to Record Sport: “The board is currently conducting a review of all contractual documentation but this particular issue has become a matter of urgency.”
Even poor Broxi Bear has been traded and no longer belongs to Rangers. Animal rights activists are reportedly flocking to the Free the Bear campaign 🙂
Radar Jackson “The digital documents also confirm that transfer from Rangers Football Club Ltd to Sportsdirect.com Retail Ltd was fully assigned on March 25 – less than three weeks after Llambias and Barry Leach, a former Sports Direct boss, were booted out of power.”
So that will be 19 days into the new regime’s review of contracts then – nineteen days – one nine days. What took them so long to look at the key assets. Did they start with the paperwork from 1872 – have they got to the EBTs and side letters yet? God, they are in for a shock. Wait until they get to Valentine’s Day 2012 – there’ll be hell to pay.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-board-launches-probe-after-5487885
Paul Murray just asked on BT Sport about the club badges.
Nice to see the bampots and clatterers are still way ahead of the SMSM ❗
I thought they all paid attention when Phil wrote this in JANUARY!
Whats the surprise about?
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/slow-lingering-near-death/#more-5785
ecobhoy says:
April 9, 2015 at 7:40 pm
Paul Murray just asked on BT Sport about the club badges.
Nice to see the bampots and clatterers are still way ahead of the SMSM ❗
_______________________________________________
See that Mash…. he’ll have the shirts off their very backs.
Quite literally as well as figuratively in this instance.
The idea of Murray (P) “launching a probe” is ripe with comic possibilities – this could be self harming through the medium of colonic irrigation or Slim Pickings riding the nuke in the closing scenes of Dr Strangelove.
WRT BADGE TRANSFER
It’s important to remember that the effective date of assignment of ownership given by the Intellectual Property Office is 27/01/2015 which is obviously long before the egm on 6 March 2015.
It certainly seems that the new Board has been caught by surprise and appear not to have known that ownership of the Club Trade Marks had been transferred.
On looking at the RNS dealing with the £5 million loan I can’t see any reference to the transfer of the Club Trade Marks. perhaps I got it wrong earlier and perhaps the Ibrox filing system isn’t as efficient as I thought it would be.
I’m absolutely sure there was nothing underhand about what has happened and it may simply be that the previous Board left in such a hurry that they forgot to leave a note to say there were no badges left 🙁
Surely not though – I mean you would expect it to be in the loan contract and I would have thought that the decision to give-up ownership of the club badges would be a matter for a Board discussion which would require to be minuted.
I’m sure it will all come out in the wash eventually 😎
April 9th a principal hearing for Guidettie and his use of the word deid 😉
Or is it all about the badges. Mrs BROWN AND THE FRECKING BADGES.
The Mrs Brown sketch just popped into my head, sorry about that
Resin_lab_dog says:
April 9, 2015 at 7:58 pm
ecobhoy says:
April 9, 2015 at 7:40 pm
Paul Murray just asked on BT Sport about the club badges.
Nice to see the bampots and clatterers are still way ahead of the SMSM ❗
_______________________________________________
See that Mash…. he’ll have the shirts off their very backs.
Quite literally as well as figuratively in this instance.
————————————————-
I think he’s already had the shirt off their backs and now he’s come back for the badges 😉
I see he’s got the ‘Ready’ logo as well – Probably won’t be missed down Sleepy Valley Way.
Wonder if MASH knows he’ll need a Dangerous Wild Animals Licence to own Broxi Bear.
ecobhoy says:
April 9, 2015 at 8:10 pm
WRT BADGE TRANSFER
________________________________________________
Would imagine that the transfer formed part of the loan facility agreement.
Was this what they got instead of the Ibrox Security they had asked for initially to secure the 2 x£5m SD finance facility that would get TRFC through to seasons end?
Remember this facility was required to keep the lights on! We were expecting them to miss payroll otherwise. And only Ashley was interested enough in keeping the lights on to actually advance real cash. And even then, this was probably only to keep the dosh rolling in on the merchandising deals.
And If Ibrox was not available, there would have been little left of value. From what I remember this really was a crisis loan. I’d have thought there was little choice, and SD will have held the whip hand.
And there was that big song and dance about ‘No security on Ibrox’. Didn’t they actually paint this as a victory over Ashley at the time???? Hmmmm….
I suspect that for all PMs smoke, they will find that this transfer was legitimate, equitable and enforceable.
ecobhoy says: April 9, 2015 at 8:10 pm
WRT BADGE TRANSFER
Fixed that for you Eco
I’m sure it will eventually not come out in the whitewash 😎
Alzipratu – are you there?
http://thirdforcenews.org.uk/tfn-news/management/oscr-asked-to-investigate-the-kiltwalk
. . . (Strange that) – this charity may be investigated over the high running costs and the ‘coincidence’ that a charity event was taking place in Brazil around the same time as the World Cup.
Yet, the Rangers ‘Charity’ seem not to have to answer
…why running costs are so high
…why was a rafting event organised for a whole family
…is it not strange that the rafting event ‘coincides’ with the North American supporters (of a certain ‘Team’) event in North America around the same week !!??
jimlarkin says:
April 9, 2015 at 8:24 pm
Alzipratu – are you there?
___________________________________________________
Good News everyone: 🙂
The Rangers Charitable Trust still own THEIR 2 trademarks. (ribbon designs) 😉
Mike Ashley DOES have a heart, despite what those gainsayers say about him. :irony:
(… there are some levels to which you just don’t stoop, and stealing from charity is right up there, eh guys!? 😳 …)
Resin_lab_dog says:
April 9, 2015 at 8:22 pm
ecobhoy says:
April 9, 2015 at 8:10 pm
WRT BADGE TRANSFER
________________________________________________
Would imagine that the transfer formed part of the loan facility agreement.
———————————————-
Wasn’t mentioned in the RNS wrt the loan. All the other securities given didn’t involve giving away ownership.
It looks as though the new Board knew nothing about this. That doesn’t mean there’s anything dodgy but could mean the documentation was processed before they arrived and sent to IPO/SportsDirect.
It’s only come out today because I happened to check the IPO for something else and hey presto there it was. So I don’t see PM making any ‘smoke’. I don’t think he had a clue about it and that doesn’t mean he has failed in any way.
As I say I’m sure it will all come out in the wash and it’s one we need a bit more info on but I can see why matters have to be kept under wraps as the issue may require internal investigations involving employees.
Patience is a virtue 😆
I can just see Ashley logging onto Twitter tonight and getting the fright of his life at this tweet from one of King and Murray’s top attack dogs