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.
Eco – so how does this fit into the RRM master plan theory?
Only teasing – but I’m thinking Wayne’s World with aspirations towards Bill & Ted them maybe Father Ted as a stretch goal – feck, girls, feck, feck, booze, feck.
Amazing to think that this disputed intellectual property was more or less given away by D & P.
There’s poetic justice in the heirs of the tax dodging club’s assets being deprived of something that, in a just world, would never have been theirs — at least not as part of a job lot. Sad thing is that creditors of RFC are still not benefitting from the wheeling and dealing of valuable assets.
Patience is a virtue, possess it if you can, seldom found in woman, never found in man.
Come on Brenda, join me in this 😆
ecobhoy says:
April 9, 2015 at 8:44 pm
Resin_lab_dog says:
April 9, 2015 at 8:22 pm
ecobhoy says:
April 9, 2015 at 8:10 pm
WRT BADGE TRANSFER
________________________________
From what I can see, the trademarks used to be owned by TRFC not RIFC.
Transfer from TRFC to SDH (possibly via RRL, in which SDH accrued a 75% interest enabling it to pass special resolutions by virtue of the loan agreement). Suhc a transfer might not necessitate inclusion in the RNS, since RIFC was not directly involved.
Just a theory.
Did I just dream it (no, not the Queen’s third goal) that I’d read some time ago that a number of the TRFC, or RFC(IL) as was, trademarks had been transferred to some part of the Ashley Panzer Division? When I saw the Eco post earlier I thought it was just proof of the formalisation of what had been hinted at either here or on Phil’s blog.
If there was some hint of it, even if not as seriously lost to the club as now appears, then surely it can’t have come as a total surprise to the board, or the SMSM, that they have a problem.
I may, of course, be totally wrong, though not about the Queens’ third goal!
Gary McAllister helps launch new Scottish football fans group
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32229672
As the announcement is by Paul Godwin of Supporters Direct Scotland this looks more like a re-branding / re-launch of “Scottish Fans”, although I can’t find anything specific about this on their website. http://www.scottishfans.org/
Transparency? 😯
Sometimes you just have to shake your head…
Somebody through a mobile phone , a mobile phone FFS, on to the pitch at Palmerston.
Not one of Dumfries and Galloway constabulary’s more difficult cases.
*********
Looks like the pundits prediction at the start of the season that the final game at Tynie between Hearts and them would decide 2nd place could be coming true
Yes, I know, threw not through
Those who predicted the Championship being ‘…most exciting…’ may yet be proven correct, well the battle for promotion is getting pretty hot! After tonight’s game it’s hard to predict who will play against the Premiership number 11.
Resin_lab_dog says:
April 9, 2015 at 9:15 pm
ecobhoy says:
April 9, 2015 at 8:44 pm
WRT BADGE TRANSFER
________________________________
From what I can see, the trademarks used to be owned by TRFC not RIFC.
Transfer from TRFC to SDH (possibly via RRL, in which SDH accrued a 75% interest enabling it to pass special resolutions by virtue of the loan agreement). Suhc a transfer might not necessitate inclusion in the RNS, since RIFC was not directly involved.
Just a theory.
—————————————————
All of the Trade Marks were ‘owned’ by TRFCL which means that TRFCL must have signed ownership away.
However TRFCL is a wholly owned subsidiary of RIFC Plc and I doubt if the football board would be allowed by the main board to give away the club’s valuable Trade Marks without consent from the RIFC Plc Board.
So I think RRL is a bit of a ‘red herring’ as firstly TRFCL would have needed to transfer the Trade Mark rights to RRL which is a joint venture vehicle between Rangers and SportsDirect.
And you have to remember that the transfer of 26% of TRFCL’s 51% shareholding in RRL would be happening presumably on the same day as the Trade Mark ownership – all gets a bit tricky.
Technically SportsDirect have always controlled RRL because their original 49% shareholding counted as double on any votes concerning financial matters – is there any that don’t 🙄
But I keep going back to the RNS wrt the loan and there is no mention of changing ownership of the Trade Marks. How do we know that ownership of Murray Park, the Albion and Edmiston House haven’t also been transferred?
Maybe it has ❗ Just because it wasn’t mentioned in the RNS doesn’t mean it isn’t so ❗
Apologies if mentioned earlier, but just seen Keef’s latest on the badges etc., posted on the DR at 6.36PM UK time, which included;
“…The news has stunned Murray and his new board who were completely unaware of Ashley’s grab until details of the transfer appeared on-line earlier this afternoon…”
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-board-launches-probe-after-5487885
==========================================
Is that his way of saying thanks to the Bampots / ecobhoy for the story ?!
And further proof indeed that the ‘bestest sports writer in Scotland’ monitors and plagiarises his ‘original content’ from various sites.
Mibbees Keef will dedicate his 4-in-a-row award this month to the Bampots ? 🙄
Eco
Have you issued an invoice to “The Club” for “consultancy services”?http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32244625
Inspector Closeau would feel right at home in the Great Badge Scandal. Its been the talk of the Steamie for months, but KingCo & the press were completely unaware, feckwits or economical with the actualité, you decide
A strong possibility they are both, of course
Scapa,
If you’re burning the midnight oil. I’m surprised you mention the steamie. I know you’re not a Weegie. Was the steamie in use throughout the country? Excuse my ignorance.
Back tae fitba’.
I posted at 1.17 am. I’ve just reread it. It seems terse and abrupt. The written word can do that sometimes.
It is not meant that way, just a wee question out of my own lack of knowledge.
castaway says:
April 10, 2015 at 2:13 am
————————————-
Castaway,
When you post at 1.17 am, ‘terse and abrupt’ is a result.
What’s baffling me about the Rangers trademark issue is that the sign over appears to have taken place some time after the RRM had been swept into power. Surely they would have known about it already which makes their noises this morning via pet journalists equally baffling. I don’t think Ashley would even glance at a downmarket Scottish tabloid in the Dentist’s waiting room let alone be concerned about anything it writes. Looks like it will take megabucks to get rid of Ashley but that can’t be a problem for a gentleman as rich as Dave King, can it? In the absence of his name on any rich lists we will just have to trust the Scottish media that he is indeed worth hundreds of millions.
What is even more baffling to me is the oft repeated line that the RRM had no clue what they were getting into when they forced the EGM meeting – surely it makes no sense to anyone that there was no due diligence done or discussions with other RRM like Malcolm Murray or even an off the record chat with Graham Wallace to find out what was in the 120 days review – surely now they are familiar with a copy of that report as well as the inquiry to links between Charles and Craig that was kept in-house.
Or are we led to believe that they bought a car without test driving it? Or even looking up its value?
Either they are the biggest bunch of inept business men ever or they are being shall we say rather glib and relying on their SMSM plants to repeat the lie often enough so that, as per Josef Goebbels, the lie becomes fact…..
Either way I would not want these guys running a supporters bus never mind the club/entity/company – I think the days of Graham Wallace in charge may well seem like a golden era by the time this is all done and dusted.
Some of the SSB stuff from callers is tit-for-tat (what an odd expression, archaeic form ‘tip for tap’, apparently). There was some chat about tainted trebles so it could only revolve around two clubs.
After an attempt to take any shine off Norwegian Ronny’s potential triumph from one caller a quite outspoken fan came on and tore apart the blue treble feats. The millions spent on transfers and bank-funded successes were put across as evidence that the then RFC basically had ‘no competition’.
The points came across succinctly and to the point. Pundits, to be fair, were not the worst and agreed that ‘you can only beat what’s put before you’, which still seems like a put-down of other clubs (as does the notion of ‘no competition’). Nevertheless, it was a searing rebuke of the SDM era of success and a bit of a debunking of the myth that success is only success if it’s achieved by a certain club. Call of the evening.
Btw, I heard Derek Ray repeat the highest standing floodlight pylons thing (in Scotland or UK?) and the home club being the only team mentioned in the Bible’, quoting chapter & verse from the good book. A nice touch. I tweeted him at half-time to ask about Corinthians. No response as yet. Hoping for an urgent investigation! 🙂
PS Just saw your post @Exiled. They have absolutely no excuse. To think none of this comes as any real surprise to obsessed bampots. They are looking very discount Blue Knight, if that’s possible. ‘Launching a probe’ is a new phrase, though. A nice addition to the Sevco Dictionary. It’s got more of a Nasa exploration ring to it than the mundane ‘look under the bonnet’.
Jean @ 9.08pm
I’m with you 😉
Launching a probe is both one step beyond and in the opposite direction to jetting in. One would have thought that the need to launch probes regarding financial arrangements with Mr Ashley would not have been necessary given that these arrangements must have been high on the list of priorities of the requisitioners even if only to get as much mileage out of debunking the no nomad claims as possible. Unless the launching of the probe is a public howling at the Moon after discovering that trademarks have left the building on a watertight Bosman. This is reminding me of a kind of Don King exercise in hyperbole-shall we see the skwerr go in Govan?
to suggest the current board (King/Murray….et al) knew nothing of the trademark issue is quite frankly ridiculous!
Perhaps one should consider the attributes of these directors and their suitability to actually run a PLC……
Several Register Particulars of a Charge (MR01) forms were submitted to Companies House by TRFCLtd on 17 February 2015. It was covered by the Herald and PMacG.
It takes 2mins and about £10 to download these charges.
Remember, this was 3 weeks prior to the so called “EGM”.
It appears all aspects of a due diligence/market manoeuvrings when considering the takeover of a PLC were forgotten.
Doesn’t cover them in any sort of glory that they missed this one!
Shameful in fact! …..Would I want them running my company after this basic but costly of errors?
TBK says:
April 10, 2015 at 9:21 am
to suggest the current board (King/Murray….et al) knew nothing of the trademark issue is quite frankly ridiculous
———————————————-
I agree, they will know more than we ever will in this fiasco, as these RRM are now involved IMO means they think they can still make money from this Govan club somehow.
RRM doing this for loyalty, please leave it out. Who or what other club would want or more importantly let Mr King near it?
Is Super Ally running night-school classes on ” OMG,I didn’t know anything about that, how did that happen and who are these people” type expressions ?
How will the trademark probe impact the medium to long term financial plan launch promised by Murray (P).
Will it change ambitions for the year twenty twenty two?
Will it require rapprochement with Ashley after all those horrid things they said about him, his men and his Nomad?
Will the financial plan be put into geostationary orbit over Govan until the (TM) probe has explored from the tea-rooms of Mars to the hell-holes of Uranus.
You know, what we need is some good old fashioned T H O A.
Murray (P); ”total transparency, total honesty and total openness”
King; “absolute transparency and accountability”
upthehoops says:
April 10, 2015 at 6:52 am
What’s baffling me about the Rangers trademark issue is that the sign over appears to have taken place some time after the RRM had been swept into power.
—————————————————————-
It may look like that going simply by the dates without taking into account the bureaucracy involved in the IPO actually making any changes involving Trade Mark registration details.
The key dates are that the change in ownership from TRFCL to SportsDirect is effective from 27 January 2015 but the full details of the change in ownership were received by the IPO on 12 March 2013.
That’s effectively 4 working days after the egm and which isn’t a long time given that various professionals would have been involved in the transfer.
It’s easy to assume that the ownership transfer provision was contained in the loan contract. But that isn’t necessarily the case as it could have been a separate decision by TRFCL.
It would appear that no Regulatory Notice was published on AIM to state that a valuable Rangers’ asset was being transferred to a related party. I find that a bit strange.
You also have to remember that SportsDirect and Rangers Retail Ltd are both based at the SD HQ down south so it’s unlikely any of their paperwork would be visible at Ibrox.
That leaves the TRFCL paperwork. If it was in plain sight at Ibrox and wasn’t picked-up by the new incumbents in the 4 day period then they have screwed-up big-style and deserve all they get. I haven’t got round to checking the IPO Journal to see if the change was listed there.
Normally the brand protection mechanism for any large company involves keeping an eye on the Journal to ensure no new registrations impinge on your Trade Marks. IIRC there was a change some time ago in the registration agent from a Rangers appointment to one used by SD – not that I make the slightest aspersion regarding that change which I’m sure was done for good business reasons.
And then there’s the position of highly-paid employees at Ibrox – presumably at least 1 is tasked with Trade Mark supervision. So if the change in ownership process had begun before the egm why didn’t they immediately inform their new employer about the loss of iconic trade marks?
Perhaps they weren’t aware of the change which, in turn, raises further questions.
And, of course, why hasn’t the former chairman and the two Easdales been questioned by the SMSM to ascertain what part they took or didn’t take in the transfer and even whether they knew about it.
Easy enough to do as the Easdale Camp has a highly skilled and active PR presence on tap who is always happy to issue press releases to clarify his clients’ position. If the Easdales say they know nothing about it then certainly raises issues.
As to Somers – what can I say? We already know there’s a culture at Ibrox where contracts are signed without reading them 🙄
If I was the new Board and innocent of any involvement in L’Affaire du Trade Mark I would go further than say a mealy-mouthed comment that an investigation was being conducted and state that they knew nothing about the ownership transfer but that strenuous efforts were being taken to uncover the facts which would be made public asap.
Of course for the very cynical perhaps this is all part of a long-term plan for the future of Rangers hatched between MA and DK.
Who Knows? But the Truth can set you free ❗
Christyboy says:
April 10, 2015 at 9:34 am
Is Super Ally running night-school classes on ” OMG,I didn’t know anything about that, how did that happen and who are these people” type expressions ?
_________
Absolutely!
Dear The Rangers,
Change your crest. Problem solved.
Sincerely,
RtD
Dear The Rangers,
Change your crest. Problem solved.
Sincerely,
RtD
so its simply the crest?
TBK says:
April 10, 2015 at 9:21 am
Several Register Particulars of a Charge (MR01) forms were submitted to Companies House by TRFCLtd on 17 February 2015. It was covered by the Herald and PMacG. It takes 2mins and about £10 to download these charges.
Remember, this was 3 weeks prior to the so called “EGM”. It appears all aspects of a due diligence/market manoeuvrings when considering the takeover of a PLC were forgotten.
—————————————————–
Do the charges show that ownership of the Trade Marks was transferred from TRFCL to SportsDirect?
As to due diligence – well one always has to remember the difference in diligence achieveable between a hostile and friendly takeover and this was obviously a very hostile one.
I doubt if they got to look at the bonnet never mind open it.
I expect Ashley can charge The Rangers for using his trademarks?
How fitting is it that a Rangers might have lost something important to them due to undisclosed registration (of trademark) issues? They might be looking for a reverse Bryson now!
rabtdog says:
April 10, 2015 at 9:53 am
Dear The Rangers,
Change your crest. Problem solved.
———————————————-
Not as simple: It’s every trade mark previously owned by Rangers like ‘Rangers’ ‘RFC’ ‘Rangers Football Club’ ‘Follow Follow’ ‘Broxi Bear’ ‘Ready’ ‘The Gers’ ‘Ibrox’ ‘Rangers News’ ‘Glasgow Rangers Football Club’ ‘Glasgow Rangers FC’ ‘Rangers Travel’.
It isn’t just the graphical crests.
The Rangers scroll crest with the RFC initials IIRC predates the actual incorporation of the first Rangers Football Club. No matter anyone’s stance on whether ‘history’ survices or not I think it’s fair to say the crest I am referring to is extremely important to them.
And it think that’s the case for just about every football supporter no matter what team they support.
Effectively Rangers have lost the right to use their name except under licence which may or may not be granted by SD for a small fee of course or more likely a large one 🙂
rabtdog says:
April 10, 2015 at 9:59 am
I expect Ashley can charge The Rangers for using his trademarks?
==============================================================
Shirt badge per player per match: £1000
Track suit/coat badge per match (staff and subs): £1000
Each kiss of badge during match: £1000
Broxi Bear per hour: £1000
Per logo on web site per week: £1000
Per logo per week on stadium (inside & outside): £1000
rabtdog says:
April 10, 2015 at 9:59 am
I expect Ashley can charge The Rangers for using his trademarks?
————————————————————–
He already held the worldwide exclusive licence to use them through Rangers Retail Ltd in which SD holds 75% of the shareholding.
Off the top of my head Aberdeen have had two v different crests: the original, cursive ‘afc’ then the A as a goalframe (1970s?) and this was later modernised. Crests change. Meanwhile The Rangers could fox MA by changing everything to SSFC (Sevco Scotland Football Concept). Oh, hang on…
ecobhoy says:
April 10, 2015 at 10:04 am
Effectively Rangers have lost the right to use their name except under licence which may or may not be granted by SD for a small fee of course or more likely a large one 🙂
======================================================================
Who owns Sevco 5088 and Sevco Scotland trademarks
I assume BDO control RFC 2012 plc trademarks.
However, despite all the jollity and irony I suspect the ownership transfer is a temporary one, as part security for the first tranche loan and that ownership will revert to TRFC/RIFC when the £5mil loan is repaid in full. Just Ashley being careful and thorough – possession is nine tenths of the law and all that.
I thought it was curious that it was the RFC letters crest used on the Celtic v Sevco semi-final programme cover and not the ‘Ready’ crest. The ‘Ramsdens’ cup final RRFC v TRFC programme featured the ‘Ready’ crest.
Did the SPFL or whoever issued the programme have ‘difficulty’ getting clearance to use the ‘Ready’ badge in print?
I reckon what Ashley has in these trademarks is a lever to ensure he gets whatever it is he wants from TRFC. The ‘club’ might get them back, but at cost greater than their financial value.
mcfc says:
April 10, 2015 at 10:22 am
… I suspect the ownership transfer is a temporary one, as part security for the first tranche loan and that ownership will revert to TRFC/RIFC when the £5mil loan is repaid in full. Just Ashley being careful and thorough – possession is nine tenths of the law and all that.
————
Or temporary until made permanent? What if there’s an included option to purchase them for, say, £1 when loans are paid back? That’s a nice round figure and you wouldn’t have to worry about them being used as security ever again. Safe in Mike’s big ‘ands.
But that’s being overly sceptical. No need. Everyone in this story is so above board and transparent about everything, always. :irony:
Underneath all the schadenfreude, there are two possibilities:
1. Ashley did his due diligence and decided Kingco didn’t have the cash to repay the loan
2. Ashley took advantage of an opportunity to exercise his contractual rights, to get assets he wanted.
If its 2, it has the same root cause as one, the inability/reluctance of RRM to “invest” cash in the company.
It is as if, all the RRM though they had to do was to storm the blue room, smite the ungodly with the Mighty Brogues of Truth, the ungodly would vanish in a puff of blue smoke, heralding and era of Rangersness for all.
In the real world, the ungodly said “Nice shoes”, and carried on doing what they have been doing so successfully since 2012.
Eventually you run out of adjectives, analogies & words to describe the ineptitude of Kingco.
Is there really no sensible group of supporters of the liquidated Rangers examining the FC United of Govan option now?
This was an obvious, if painful, path for them to go down as soon as the CVA was rejected in 2012, if not before. But now, with this abundance of onerousness, it’s surely the only game in town.
I also wonder how much time would need to elapse for it to be too late to try this.
rabtdog says:
April 10, 2015 at 10:16 am
Crests and badges can change over time and that usually means that they remain acceptable to the support which is ever-changing as well.
But badges which get to the ‘iconic’ status usually retain at least one element which is immediately associated with the club even at a distance and without being able to read any words.
Obviously colours play an important part too and they too can be trademarked as well as part of a logo/badge/crest. But IIRC they can’t be Trade Marked as a colour on its own – it must be combined with a shape or wording.
In the Rangers case I would say the scroll ‘RFC’ is definitely iconic and in Celtic’s for most supporters it has to be the four-leaf Clover. But in historical terms that’s fairly modern although there are links to the past which make it iconic.
But then so is the Celtic Cross although not as widely used as the Clover in recent times.
I won’t go into Celtic’s badge history but there a good link at http://www.thecelticwiki.com/page/Celtic+badge for thos who might be interested.
Danish Pastry says:
April 10, 2015 at 10:38 am
mcfc says:
April 10, 2015 at 10:22 am
… I suspect the ownership transfer is a temporary one, as part security for the first tranche loan and that ownership will revert to TRFC/RIFC when the £5mil loan is repaid in full. Just Ashley being careful and thorough – possession is nine tenths of the law and all that.
————
Or temporary until made permanent? What if there’s an included option to purchase them for, say, £1 when loans are paid back? That’s a nice round figure and you wouldn’t have to worry about them being used as security ever again. Safe in Mike’s big ‘ands.
====================================================================
Danish – I’d bet that was on the table as a condition for the second tranche but T3B’s did the necessary to avoid that particular bear trap. But it will still be there the next time they have no option but to turn to Ashley to feed the leccy meter. April payday will be most instructive vis-a-vis T3B investment and 50/50 investment. Those badges may not be lost yet but they are in mortal danger as Ashley circles – after all what else is there for RRM to trade with?
Esteban says:
April 10, 2015 at 10:40 am
Is there really no sensible group of supporters of the liquidated Rangers examining the FC United of Govan option now?
This was an obvious, if painful, path for them to go down as soon as the CVA was rejected in 2012, if not before. But now, with this abundance of onerousness, it’s surely the only game in town.
I also wonder how much time would need to elapse for it to be too late to try this.
———————————————————
I don’t believe it ever becomes too late and I have always thought/hoped that once Rangers has nothing left to offer the spivs and if it proves impossible for supporters to fund an Ibrox operation under RRM that there can be a new beginning.
However these are issues which I honestly believe are for Bears to make – but I think it’s an option that could succeed. there was a huge groundswell of feeling amongst Bears in 2012 that it was right to start fresh in SFL3 and build/develop using their own young players stiffened with league appropriate veterans as they moved-up.
That didn’t happen because there was more money to be extracted by spivs through the AIM flotation and then IMO a change in course as the realisation dawned that Ibrox didn’t need to be a quich in and out smash & grab but a cow that could be milked for a long time.
Sadly prominent and ‘staunch’ RRM played their part in selling this dream to the Bears ablys assisted by the SMSM.
There are many Bears I know now watching ‘wee teams’ all over the place. It’s too soon yet to know whether they will return to Ibrox under DK or even whether he will survive.
But if the DK Adventure collapses and there’s a return to Ashley then I think attendances will collapse and ‘rebel’ shirts in the red & black of the old Govan Team complete with new badge will be obligstory instead of SportsDirect badged kit.
I think the ones already produced have been trade marked to protect them to prevent a ‘swoop’ on them 😆
But some of the Bears I’m talking about going to junior and community matches will start to pick-up the expertise in running clubs and will be able to transfer that knowledge to a new grass roots Rangers.
Will it happen? Who knows? But it could if people have enough drive, energy and vision. But I think it would take the re-emergence of a dominant Ashley to provide the impetus to kick-start matters.
It would be great if we had Bears on here who could give a more informed view but like everyone else, including myself, I don’t think anyone can be sure what’s going to happen at Ibrox.
mcfc says:
April 10, 2015 at 10:52 am
I suspect that Kingco will find, that what Ashley wants, he gets & he keeps. Deep pockets, long arms, big hands, and a fully functioning big calculator.
What’s needed here is a sugar daddy with maybe £10mil, £30mil, £50mil to burn restoring his/her childhood club to its rightful place. Please form an orderly queue next to the brasier.
ecobhoy says:
April 10, 2015 at 11:05 am
“I don’t think anyone can be sure what’s going to happen at Ibrox.”
—
Thanks. I certainly don’t know and wouldn’t suggest otherwise for a second. However, I am not entirely sure about its never being too late. Weans need a team to support while weans if they are to become the next generation of fan-funders when they grow up.
Mummy bears and daddy bears who remember past glories have a reason to keep hauling themselves along to games at Ibrox that their weans, very soon if not already, will not have. They, the weans, will become Chelsea fans or Man United fans or Barcelona fans. Those that are accompanying parents to see smaller teams in Scotland may even become bona fide fans of those small teams.
It’s about the next generation, Eco. Will no one think of the children?
Thought I would check the status of ‘The Old Firm’ Trade Mark.
For better or ill it’s still the same with the joint owner remaining: ‘Celtic F.C. Limited and The Rangers Football Club plc’.
The Rangers Football Club plc we know went into liquidation and was renamed RFC 2012 P.L.C. I wonder what BDO will do with 50% of an oldco TM? Will they sell it to Celtic, DK or SportDirect?
Could get a good bidding war going for the benefit of Rangers’ creditors.
Or perhaps do the decent thing and declare the Trade Mark as ‘Dead’ which btw is the correct terminology used by the IPO when a TM is no longer registered as active.
Amazing where looking at Trade Marks can take you 😆
Bit off topic, but relevant all the same. Can you imagine this happening in the men’s game?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32242750
I can imagine, at a push, an order to replay an entire game, but this sounds ridiculous. Leaving that aside, is this refereeing decision any worse than not giving a blatant penalty at all? I can imagine all manner of scenarios arising out of this one! I can think of several episodes over the current campaign when a blatant referring mistake has cost Aberdeen points and indeed potentially a place in a Final, I’m sure every other team can point at similar episodes effecting them!
mcfc says:
April 10, 2015 at 10:52 am
——–
May & June, too, since any ST money must surely be ring-fenced. Got to be King’s turn to put some money in the meter. Can’t see him not doing it. Failure to do so would be more than embarrassing.
ecobhoy says:
April 10, 2015 at 11:28 am
Maybe Ashley didn’t want to take 50% of the reputational risk, represented by “The Old Firm” trademark?
The Trade Mark issue is all very interesting and highlights the bampots are on the ball, however it is still a squirrel in relation to being over a month into the new regime and still no news on how they are planning to move the club forward with the investment plans that are clearly required.
Procrastination should perhaps be used on any new badges as opposed to Ready!
Now here’s a thought:
( I was going to thank Max Bygraves for that phrase, but I can not find any appropriate references on google)
New RRM, should bury current incarnation.
Start new club/company subject to approval from SFA (no sniggering from behind the curtains)
Register all trademarks and brands in the name of the “new” entity, and hopefully make a profit (assuming you can find out who owns Ibrox)
In The Year Twenty Sixty Five
I think there will always be a “Rangers” of some sort – there are just too many people in Glasgow who want a team to support – and existing teams have no appeal for well know reasons. If this long term “Rangers” is to be stable there are two possible routes – and only two:
1) An AFC Wimbledon, FC United approach – grass root, amateur, start at the very bottom with nothing but hard work and enthusiasm for football.
2) The Ibrox outfit running as a sustainable business. Ashley seems to be the only one with this approach in mind – love him or hate him – his business only approach seems the only route to losing the WATP baggage. Austerity will bleach WATP out of Ibrox over a generation or two. It is possible that RRM could take the same approach but it would entail such radical cultural change it seems impossible to me.
Meanwhile, the RRM / MSM / SFA axis is still persisting with the imaginary third option which is WATP supremacy, financial lunacy, back to where we belong. The best it can hope to achieve is to stumble from crisis to crisis until it dies alone of embarrassment and is buried in a pauper’s grave with the vicar and pallbearers outnumbering the mourners. By that time only option 1) will be available.
But what there will be is a “Rangers” in fifty years’ time that has forgotten its WATP imperative – either through necessity or choice. The next generation will have a club and hopefully Glasgow will have an edgy but not hateful rivalry like Liverpool and Manchester. No doubt there will still be WATP thinking amongst a hopefully dwindling minority – but it will not be the essence of a big football club.
So bears, you can do this the hard way, or the other hard way or the impossible way, then the hard way. You decide – or someone else will.
Esteban says:
April 10, 2015 at 11:24 am
ecobhoy says:
April 10, 2015 at 11:05 am
Mummy bears and daddy bears who remember past glories have a reason to keep hauling themselves along to games at Ibrox that their weans, very soon if not already, will not have.
They, the weans, will become Chelsea fans or Man United fans or Barcelona fans. Those that are accompanying parents to see smaller teams in Scotland may even become bona fide fans of those small teams.
It’s about the next generation, Eco. Will no one think of the children?
—————————————————-
I take your point about ‘time’ and perhaps I should have restricted the time scale to say 10 years max but you’re right that every passing year reduces the ‘pull’.
But a lot of non-Rangers background youngsters already support a variety of EPL teams and beyond, It’s part of life. And another problem is that lots of other sports and activities are drawing people and kids away from football.
I don’t want to be doom and gloom but we really need to address all sorts of issues to ensure football at a decent level survives throughout Scotland.
Lot of difficult questions ahead and a helluva lot in particular for Rangers.
Not much follow up on the trademark story from Radar Jackson – he’s probably waiting for his stringers to do sone research and spadework to dig out the story: Eco and PMG.
Part of a thread on RM re the Trademarks:- asking how the information was obtained.
—————————————————————-
Carnegie #171
BridgeIsBlue, on 10 Apr 2015 – 03:29 AM, said
Where then?
—————————————————————-
FollowFollow via TFSM as coincidence would have it.
wottpi says:
April 10, 2015 at 11:50 am
The Trade Mark issue is all very interesting and highlights the bampots are on the ball, however it is still a squirrel in relation to being over a month into the new regime and still no news on how they are planning to move the club forward with the investment plans that are clearly required.
———————————————————-
They can take as long as they like from my perspective as a Celtic supporter. It doesn’t bother me in the slightest.
However I do recognise that their money raising plans obviously involve being accepted onto an exchange. The first step towards that has been achieved at the CoS and the next step is the ‘fit & proper’ question for the SFA.
I think these are the minimum requirements to find a new exchange and in a way the timetable is outwith the control of the new Board and DK which IMO prevents any plans being presented at the moment simply because they might not be achievable if ‘fit & proper’ isn’t granted and a new exchange can’t be found.
What’s is critically important is the monthly bridging of the shortfall because failure to achieve that just once will probably see the financial collapse of Rangers yet again.
I honstly don’t think the current incumbents care a hoot about demands for their business plans to be published from non-Rangers supporters. The problem they face is if the Bears starts demanding it in overwhelming numbers.
By that I don’t count-in a few old Board supporters who follow the line that MA and his former associates could do no wrong.
Obviously a big factor about keeping the Bears on-board is performance on the park and that took a hefty dunt at QoS. Rangers went back to their old ways and it’s hard to figure out why and I take nothing away from the excellent QoS performance in stating that.
I can’t help but wonder if the recent effervescence was created on possible promises wrt to new contracts which has now evaporated. Even footballers that play for the badge – if a team actually owns one – also tend to be interested in the dosh payable in my experience.
And I can’t help but feel the dressing room has either had bad news or no news when it was expected. I could well be wrong but the whole team performance at Palmerston was terrible.
woodstein says:
April 10, 2015 at 12:56 pm
Part of a thread on RM re the Trademarks:- asking how the information was obtained.
—————————————————————-
Carnegie #171
BridgeIsBlue, on 10 Apr 2015 – 03:29 AM, said
Where then?
—————————————————————-
FollowFollow via TFSM as coincidence would have it.
—————————————————-
In my own defence I have to say that as ‘FollowFollow’ is now the property of SportsDirect that I received no information directly or indirectly from Mike Ashley or any of his past, present or future associates 😆
ecobhoy says:
April 10, 2015 at 1:02 pm
Trouble is, take DCK out of the picture and all the “fit & proper” complications disappear. King can invest in any new fundraising opportunities, without hindering them by his presence, a win/win for Rangers, surely?
But,this ins’t merely about Rangers is it? It’s also about one man’s ego, and his legacy as a Rangers great, up there with the “men who had a dream” and Struth.
In reality, this has feck all to do with business.
Wasn’t there something about the play-offs running beyond to usual end of the season so possibly beyond the end of some expiring contracts? If very temporary contracts are being offered instead of hoped for renewals for next season, that could certainly account for a restoration of demotivation.
I’m not even sure if this is true, but it may be a contributory factor.
tayred says:
April 10, 2015 at 11:37 am
Bit off topic, but relevant all the same. Can you imagine this happening in the men’s game?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32242750
I can imagine, at a push, an order to replay an entire game, but this sounds ridiculous. Leaving that aside, is this refereeing decision any worse than not giving a blatant penalty at all? I can imagine all manner of scenarios arising out of this one! I can think of several episodes over the current campaign when a blatant referring mistake has cost Aberdeen points and indeed potentially a place in a Final, I’m sure every other team can point at similar episodes effecting them!
……………….
I wonder if “Bryson” would agree with this decision ??
Nice one Gamesabogey 😀
esteban . .
2nd or alternative clubs for bears . .
Chelsea certainly . . lots of union jacks .
but Barca ? separatists that those catalans are ? uh uh . . Royal Madrid much the preferred option in my experience .
ditto in manchester ,the perception at least being that city are more of a “blue” (ahem . . ) persuasion . . too many tricolours dotted around old trafford I believe . . I know I know . . but that is the way they see it. . . 😐
Hi all,
Another return after my silence. I would like to ask the clever folk on here, is it possible that King as the Tens of Millions, which Rangers need? He disappeared to South Africa rather quickly and quietly! How easy would it be for him to produce these millions from strange islands in strange places, which has been hidden away, for the day HE ruled Ibrox. Could it be possible that is trying to get to his money without the South African Tax man getting his hands on it? Could it be done?
Back to sleep now, thanks for all the info you guys provide.
Ron.an.Math says:
April 10, 2015 at 1:21 pm
esteban . .
2nd or alternative clubs for bears . .
Chelsea certainly . . lots of union jacks .
but Barca ? separatists that those catalans are ? uh uh . . Royal Madrid much the preferred option in my experience .
ditto in manchester ,the perception at least being that city are more of a “blue” (ahem . . ) persuasion . . too many tricolours dotted around old trafford I believe . . I know I know . . but that is the way they see it. . . 😐
=======================================================================
There have always been a lot of Rangers fans at City – I always assumed most were away from home and not keen on the Irish/Celtic connections at Utd – rather than anything about City itself. Never thought to ask – there might be just as many at Old Trafford for all I know. Stood and sat next to a fair few in my time – and nothing to report. I should mention that I had Glaswegian neighbours throughout my childhood – lovely people – so a few Rangers fans were never exactly exotic and worth enquiring about 🙂
The gift that keeps on giving,will it ever dry up,I think the scorpion has a few stings in its tail to deliver yet,one probably being that the Loan Rangers will stiff them for shocking amount more than we know to win the play off’s,you just have that feeling that the small print on these contracts has additional small print,hope they have been to specsavers
“…it would at the least comprise its name… even though these may change from time to time. In common speech a Club is treated as a recognisable entity which is capable of being owned and operated, and which continues in existence despite its transfer to another owner and operator.”
So, SD now own the Rangers name, the “recognisable entity” – a key element of the LNS definition. Does Mike Ashley therefore effectively own the “Club”?
Or put another way, if TRFC no longer own the name, does it still claim to be the owner & operator of the same “Club”?
Does TRFC have a contractual right to continue operating under the Rangers franchise?
If the TRFC board were unaware that they no longer owned the name, is it likely that they have secured the right to continue trading under the same name?
Who played QoS last night? I demand to know!!
highfibre says:
April 10, 2015 at 12:39 pm
___________________________________________________________
I think you could be on the money here.
If what was effected was a reversible sale rather than a secured loan, then it would survive admin. But I think it is maybe more subtle than that.
I believe that what was transferred might actually have been of nominal value only, so no such stipulation would be necessary. See below.
This all probably also explains why SDH has grabbed the lion’s share and controlling interest in RRL. Its where the real value – the IPR he has sought all along – actually really lies.
SDH majority ownership of RRL (as opposed to RIFC ownership) means that RRL will automatically survive any RIFC insolvency in tact.
What is more, as an RIFC insolvency arguably diminishes the value of RRL significantly, this would allow SDH to pick up the RIFC portion of RRL legitimately from out of insolvency at a knock down price in the event of collapse. There may even be a condition that in the event of insolvency RRL reverts to SDH automatically (with a corresponding clause allowing RRL to transfer to RIFC in the event of an SDH insolvency… stop guffawing!)
ergo Any new rangers would need to talk to Mike Ashley or else find a new brand identity!
Additionally, Since RRL is the exclusive licensee of the IPR, RRL is the entity where the trademark VALUE actually lay all along.
As such, it was the licensing deal with RRL many moons ago that transferred the VALUE of the IPR away from RIFC, and this was negotiated way back in the dim and distant.
So this explains the absence of this IPR transfer from TRFC to SDH from the RNS.
To summarise, this is what I am guessing may have happened:
RIFC initailly acquired the IPR from RFC(IL) and transferred this to its wholly owned subsidiary TRFC.
RRL negotiates an exclusive trademark licence with TRFC in exchange for fair consideration.
This exclusive licence is now where the IPR value actually lies.
TRFC still ‘owned’ the IPR until January, but while RRL have the exclusive rights to it, then it is worthless to them, because they can’t actually do anything with it – having already assigned the benefit of use exclusively to RRL.
(TRFC may have maintained its own limited licence to the IPR for certain uses (e.g. first team, Ibrox etc.) as part of the deal)
So only if RRL ever goes out of business, does their exclusive licence lapse, and only then would full beneficial ownership revert back to TRFC.
Since RRL is SDH backed and SDH is very solvent, that isn’t going to happen, ergo the IPR ‘owned’ by TRFC is effectively already pretty valueless, so the shareholders interests have not been compromised in any way by the transfer from TRFC to SDH.
So no RNS is needed.
The effect of the transfer of ownership would therefore be simply to protect RRL becoming encumbered by any administrator from exploiting the licence to the IPR that it legitimately acquired, in the event of a subsequent TRFC insolvency.
This seems reasonable action, in view of the going concern notice posted in the accounts.
To use an analogy, the ‘exclusive licence’ to the IPR is like a 999 year lease on a flat, while the ‘ownership’ of the asset is like the freehold on the block.
If your freehold landlord is insolvent, you may decide to pick up the freehold yourself.
The consideration will be pretty nominal.
Because it is your 999 year lease that has the real value, not the landlords freehold.
And one would think that a similar arrangement may be at play with Ibrox:
If RIFC owned the freehold to Ibrox, they’d have the deeds, and they seem to.
But if they had sold an exclusive ‘license’ on the the rights to use it for footballing purposes to a 3rd party in exchange for an equitable consideration, then the first team couldn’t play there without negotiating their right to do so from the 3rd party.
Furthermore, if RIFC went under, the rights to play football at Ibrox would remain with the license holder, not the RIFC asset holder. Only if the licensee went bust would RIFC get its rights back.
Any new Rangers would either have to play elsewhere or come to a similar arrangement with the existing license holder to the one that is crippling RIFC.
How many £100sK was it disappearing down a black hole each month again?
This is my guess at the make up of the onerous contracts.
It would certainly explain RIFCs ability to claim to own the assets, yet its simultaneous inability to raise finance off the back of them (freehold/leasehold analogy again!)
Legal. Insolvency proof.
OUCH!
Effectively – What once upon a time fucntioned as ‘Rangers’ has been split along the lines of the failed banks (post crash) into its ‘Good Bank’ (RRL) and its bad Bank (RIFC) and the ‘Good Bank’ has now very largely been sold off.
OOPS!
IPR= Intellectual property rights (trademark)
RRL= Rangers retail limited
SDH= Sports direct holdings
RNS= Regulatory Notification Statement
HirsutePursuit says:
April 10, 2015 at 1:41 pm
=====================================================================
At the end of the day, all The Rangers have done is mortgaged their trademarks to the man whose other team is sponsored by Wonga.
Remember, If you don’t keep up with your payments, your big hoose could be at risk.
Just checked out PMG to see if he has anything to say on the trademarrks situation – nothing new but a a few twitter links back to earlier blogs – guess he thinks he’s already covered the topic adequately – for anyone who cared to read.
HirsutePursuit says:
April 10, 2015 at 1:41 pm
So, SD now own the Rangers name, the “recognisable entity” – a key element of the LNS definition. Does Mike Ashley therefore effectively own the “Club”?
Or put another way, if TRFC no longer own the name, does it still claim to be the owner & operator of the same “Club”?
Does TRFC have a contractual right to continue operating under the Rangers franchise?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
If MA was minded to turn the screw he may have left a few financial booby traps for Kingco
For example
TRFC may be contractually obliged to use an SD controlled co to collect ST monies and drip feed to TRFC by mutual agreement
mcfc. . .
yeah I was only stating what I encounter in glasgow . . generalising of course . .
my own family are celtic and city fans (and but NOT ALSO liverpool ) Big mate chelsea season ticket holder is also big hoops fan . . lots of us dont accept the pigeon holing others prefer . . but in the context of looking for an alternative club for a bear . . I think certain perceptions (as opposed to facts) would inevitably come into play.. .
JimmyBeeJay says:
April 10, 2015 at 1:34 pm
____________________________________________________________
Maybe King underestimated the Onerous contracts, and is having cold feet about shovelling his millions into an black hole for no obvious advantage to TRFC.
That would be my guess.
And I suspect that in the circumstances he will do 1 of 2 things:
Either
(a) Find a reason (pretext) that prevents him from investing
(b) Try and sucker others into filling the onerous contract void on his behalf, so that he can step up later and use HIS money for what he originally envisaged (i.e. starting the process of rebuilding Rangers with OPM)
Of course there is always the 3rd & 4th possibilities:
(c) never had means or intention of investing (wallet in other jacket).
(d) Thought he saw an opportunity to make a killing out of RIFC, by distressing the asset, buying it cheap with a modest investemnt, and then building it back up (at others expense)
(Now realises he was soundly beaten to the chase on that one)
As for the 3B: I think it is a hard bed they have made for themselves.