Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?


Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?


Thoughts and observations from watching and reading a transcript of Alex Thomson of Channel 4’s Interview with Stewart Regan (CEO of the SFA) Broadcast by Channel 4 on 29 March 2012.


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?


AT I’m just curious as to why they wouldn’t. With something as big as this potentially this is the biggest corruption scandal in British sport, which is – a thought – and yet the SPL deem themselves fit to investigate themselves.

SR Well I think you are calling it potentially the biggest corruption case, at this stage there has been no wrongdoing proven.  There is an investigation going on

AT But you would accept that potentially, potentially that if guilty there is no question this is the biggest corruption scandal in British sport.

SR There is no wrongdoing as I said at the moment and there is nothing yet that has been established as far as the club registering players without providing the appropriate documentation, so I think it would   be wrong to jump to conclusions and even use words like corruption. You know there are a series of issues here. There are some footballing matters which are being dealt through the football authorities and there are tax mattes which are being dealt with through HMRC and there is to be a Tax Tribunal due to be heard as I’m sure you are aware in April.

So even before the investigation got underway Mr Regan was saying that it would be incorrect to assume that any wrong doing took place in terms of the registration process and use of ebts. He later expands on this point in relation to EBTs as a legitimate tax arrangement device. Given that the FTT did not rule until November 2012 that the ebts issued under the Murray Management Group Remuneration Trust (MMGRT) were legal then this stance by Mr Regan appears justifiable at the time of interview – but more on that later. 

AT I’m just wondering why at no stage anybody seemed, or perhaps they did, to think we need an independent body coming in this is big this is huge, potentially  we need somebody from the outside  or we are going simply going to be accused of investigating ourselves.

SR Well I think that might be one for you to ask the Scottish Premier League as far as their Board..

AT Well they appeal to you so I’m asking you.

SR   No as you said we are the right of appeal so if the club is concerned with any punishment it has been given well then they can choose to appeal to us. We as a body have the provision in our rules to carry out independent enquiries, indeed we did so very recently by appointing the Right Honourable Lord Nimmo Smith to carry out our own investigation into Rangers and we are part way through disciplinary proceedings and they will be heard on 29 March.

Given that player registrations are ultimately lodged with the SFA where Sandy Bryson has been doing the job for some years, I did wonder why the SFA were not the body taking the lead. They had the expertise on what turned out to be a key issue, the eligibility of players if misregistration occurred.  Indeed Sandy Bryson was called in to give a testimony to Lord Nimmo Smith that most folk involved in running a football team from amateur level upwards (as I was) had difficulty accepting. The Bryson interpretation suggested us amateurs had been daft not to take the risk of being found out if we did not register players correctly if only games from the point of discovery risked having results overturned. The Bryson interpretation on eligibility made no sense against that experience and it still does not to football lovers. I’m not sure if the rules have been amended to reflect the Bryson interpretation yet, but cannot see how they can be without removing a major deterrent that I always thought proper registration was there to provide.

The point about their having to be a body of higher appeal sounded plausible then, but could the Court of Arbitration on Sport not have been that body?  Or did that risk taking matters out of the SFA’s control even though it would have introduced an element of the independence that Alex Thomson raises in the following paragraphs in his interview?

AT But did anybody at any stage at the SFA say to you I have a concern that we need an independent body, that the SPL can’t and shouldn’t handle this?

SR Well under the governance of football the SPL run the competition

AT I’m not asking, I’m saying did anybody come to you at any stage and say that to you. Anybody?

SR No they didn’t as far as the SPL’s processes is concerned. The SPL ,

AT Never?

It is notable here that Alex Thomson pushes the point about lack of independence, which is where we enter “wit we ken noo territory”.  

Given that it is now known that SFA President Campbell Ogilvie sat on the Rangers FC Remunerations Policy Committee in September 1999 where it was decided Discount Option Scheme (DOS) ebts would be used as a matter of club remuneration policy using the Rangers Employee Benefit Trust (REBT).

Given that we know that Campbell Ogilvie instigated the first ebt payment to Craig Moore using the Discount Options Scheme.

Given that Ronald De Boer and Tor Andre Flo had both been paid using the same type of DOS ebt as Moore from 2000 to 2002/03 but accompanied by side letters, later concealed from HMRC  in 2005 and of course the SFA from August 2000.

Given that Mr Ogilvie was also in receipt of the later MMGRT ebts disputed by HMRC in the big tax case on which the FTT had still to rule

Given that Mr Regan must have been aware at time of interview that Sherriff Officers had called at Ibrox in August 2011 to collect payment of a tax bill, which means even to a layman that it must have gone past dispute to acceptance of liability and so crystallised sometime after 31st March 2011.

Given that Craig Whyte had already agreed to pay the wee tax bill in his public Takeover statement in early June 2011.

Given that on 7th December 2011 Regan had written to Andrew Dickson at RFC, who had sat on three of the four SFA/UEFA Licensing Committee meetings in 2011, to approve a draft statement by Mr Regan on the SFA’s handling of the UEFA Licence aspect of the wee tax case, which arose as a direct result of the use of the DOS ebts to Flo and De Boer during Dickson’s ongoing tenure at RFC from 1991.

Given that Campbell Ogilvie accompanied Stewart Regan to meet Craig Whyte at the Hotel De Vin on 15th December 2011 as a result of an invite stemming from that consternation causing draft that RFC thought likely to cause problems for the SFA (having agreed before the hotel meeting that no comment should be made on the wee tax case)

Given that the wee tax case was a direct result of those early types of DOS ebts being judged illegal by an FTT considering an appeal by the Aberdeen Asset Management company in 2010.

Given all of these facts, how credible is it that no conversation took place between Regan and Campbell Ogilvie on the requirement for an independent enquiry?

If a conversation did not take place as claimed, the question has to be should it have?

Given the foregoing facts on the early ebts, how credible is it Mr Regan during this interview did not know as a result of his involvement with the overdue payable and the UEFA licence in 2011 of the illegal and therefore wrong doing nature of those early EBTS with side letters concealed from the SFA and HMRC in 2005 just before Mr Ogilvie left RFC?

SR The SPL run, the SPL run the rules of The Scottish Premier League and they apply that. There are a whole host of people raising issues on internet sites and passing comment s about various theories that they have about Scottish football particularly in the West of Scotland. I think it’s important to establish that governance of Scottish football is managed by the appropriate body whether it is the Premier League, The Football League or the overall governing body. So that as far as we are concerned we let the   Scottish Premier league manage their own rules and if those rules are then broken and the club is charged they have the right of appeal to us as the Appellant body.

Given all of the now known facts listed above how credible is it that the reason given by Stewart Regan to Alex Thomson for the SFA being the appeal body was indeed the only one?

Given the foregoing how credible is it that Mr Regan was not aware that he was being economical with the truth during his interview or had he indeed been kept in the dark by others in the SFA?

Fit and Proper Person and Absence of Governance

AT Let’s talk about Craig Whyte. Ehm   – Presumably when Craig Whyte was mooted as coming in as the new owner – for the grand sum of £1 – for Rangers Football club, presumably the SFA took a keen interest in this and did some kind of due diligence on this man.

SR Well we have under our articles, Article 10.2, we have a process which sets out a number of criteria for what defines a fit and proper person within football. Now as you know we cannot stop people getting involved with a business and we cannot stop people getting involved with a PLC, all we can stop them doing is having an involvement with football, so what we do as part of that process is we ask for a declaration from the Directors of the club that they have a copy of the Articles,, that they have gone through the conditions and criteria within Article 10.2 and they have confirmed to us that they meet those criteria. If subsequently those criteria are breached then of course we take appropriate action.

AT You keep quoting rules back to me that’s not what I’m asking, I’m asking is did the SFA conduct any due diligence on this individual.

SR No we asked for a self-declaration from the Directors of the club and the individual himself.

AT Forgive me that sounds absolutely incredible this is the biggest club in Scotland which has been brought to its knees by a whole range of fiscal mismanagement, it is all on the record and proven. A new man comes in claiming all kinds of things, just like the previous man, and the SFA did not check or do any due diligence whatsoever.

SR That is part of the process of governing football, we

AT That’s, that’s NOT governing football that’s the exact opposite to governing football that’s running away from governing football.

SR No if you let me, if you let me finish my answer the point I am about to make is we govern the entire game from the top of the game down to grass roots. We have changes of Directors we have changes of ownership throughout the course of the year. I’m sure that if we were to spend football’s well earned money on doing investigations into potentially every change of Director, then there would be a lot of unhappy Chairmen out there.

AT You could have easily have googled (?) for free

SR Well we rely on the clubs telling us that the Articles have been complied with and that is the process we undertake.

AT This is extraordinary I say to you again  you have years of fiscal mismanagement at Rangers Football Club, a new man comes in you are telling me that nobody at The SFA as much as got on to Google  to get any background information nobody did anything ? That is extraordinary.

SR Well you refer to alleged years of financial mismanagement. I think it’s important to separate out the previous regime at Rangers and the new owner.

AT Rangers were a mess financially everybody new that

SR But I think it’s important in the case of the point you are raising regarding the fit and proper person test, to separate out the previous regime from the new owner. The club was in the process of being sold, they were challenging a tax bill that had been challenged by HMRC,* and the club had been sold to a new owner. That new owner had come in, he had purchased the club, the paper work for that sale had gone through and the club had complied with our Articles of Association. We run football we don’t, we are not the police we don’t govern transactions, we don’t govern fitness, we run football and we had asked the club to declare whether or not that person was fit to hold a place in association football. They had gone through the articles they’d signed to say that they had read those articles and that there had been no breaches of any of the points set out there. That included whether a Director had been disqualified. That wasn’t disclosed to us, indeed it did not come out until the BBC did their investigation back in October of last year.

(* note that in spite of all the “givens” listed earlier,  Mr Regan fails to distinguish (or appreciate) that there is more than one tax bill at play and the one for the wee tax case was not under challenge or Sherriff Officers would not have called in August 2011 to collect it.)

 AT So the BBC did due diligence on fitness (??) not the SFA?

SR No, as I said it came out in October 2010 primarily as a result of a detailed investigation. We then have to respond to potential breaches of our articles and we did that We entered into dialogue with the solicitor who was acting for Mr Whyte and we were in dialogue until February 2011 (?sic)  of this year when the club entered administration.

AT What I’m simply asking you to admit here is that the SFA failed and it failed Rangers in its hour of need over Craig Whyte and it failed Scottish football.

SR We didn’t fail.

AT You didn’t do anything, you said you didn’t do anything.

SR We complied with the current processes within our articles. That said I think there are a number of learnings and I think the same goes for football right across the globe. People are coming into football into a multimillion pound business and I think football needs to take a harder look at what could be done differently. We are currently exploring the possibility of carrying out due diligence using the outgoing regime to make sure that there is a full and rigorous research being done before the transaction is allowed to go ahead.

AT Do you feel the need to apologise to Rangers fans?

SR I don’t need to apologise because we complied with our articles. I don’t feel there is a need to apologise whatsoever. I think….

AT You need some new articles then don’t you?

SR Well I think the articles

AT Well let’s unpack this. You said there is no need to apologise because we followed the rule books so that’s all right. So you must therefore admit you need a new rule book.

SR No well I think it’s easy at times to try and look around and find a scapegoat and try and point fingers at where blame is to be apportioned. I think perhaps it might be worth looking at the previous regime who for four years when they said they were selling the club, said that they would sell it and act in the best interests of the club. With that in mind I think the previous regime also have to take some responsibility for selling that club and looking after so called shareholders of Rangers football club and those people who that have put money into the club over the years.

AT ??  (Interrupted)

SR the Scottish FA, as I said have a process, that process has been place for some time. It has worked very very well until now I think there are learnings undoubtably and as I said we will review where we can tighten up as I know is happening across the game right now.

The above segment on Craig Whyte and Fit and Proper  Persons is a timely reminder to supporters of all clubs, but particularly of Rangers FC of what happens when those charged with governing Scottish football hide behind the letter of the rules when convenient, rather than apply the true spirit in which those rules were written. It is the approach of The Pharisees to make a wrong , right.

To be fair to the SFA though, I doubt anyone could have imagined the degree of deceit and deception that they had allowed into Scottish football in May 2011 and how useless their rules were as a result, but I am not aware to this day if the SFA have apologised to Scottish football generally and Rangers supporters in particular, not only for failing to protect them from Craig Whyte, but also failing to protect them from the consequences of the foolish financial excesses of Sir David Murray, especially from 2008 when the tax bills in respect of the MMGRT ebts began to arrive at RFC . Some intervention then, assuming something was known by some at the SFA, who also held positions at Rangers, of  those  huge tax demands,  might have cost Rangers three titles from 2009, but what Ranger’s supporter would not give all of that up to protect their club from the fate that the failure of the SFA to govern has caused?

Also to be fair the SFA have changed the rules so that the outgoing regime is responsible for doing due diligence on any new club owners rather than relying on self-certification by the incoming club owner, but we know that did not work particularly well when Rangers Chairman Alistair Johnstone did due diligence on Craig Whyte , but then again Sir David Murray  was under pressure to sell and the guy coming in, everyone was told, had wealth off the radar.

The Nature of EBTS.

AT Let’s look at EBTs. Did nobody question ebts in the Scottish game in the English game come to that simply because nobody thought they were illegal in any way and indeed are not illegal in any way if operated correctly? Is it as simple as that?

SR There is nothing wrong with ebts when used correctly and ebts are a way of providing benefits to employees and if managed in a correct manner are perfectly legitimate. I think that the issue that we know is under investigation at the moment by both HMRC as part of the large tax case and the SPL as part of their own investigation into potential no disclosure of side letters is whether or not there has been any wrong doing and I think the issue at hand is that wrongdoing or potential wrongdoing has been discussed with HMRC for some time for several years in fact so we would not get involved in anything that there is no wrongdoing   taking place and ebts are, as I said, a legitimate way of doing business when used correctly.

Again taking the “givens” into account, particularly the significant event of Sherriff Officers calling to collect unpaid tax in August 2011 and the logical deduction that the SFA President must have known of the difference between the two types of ebts Rangers used, (and perhaps why they were changed) why the insistence at this point that all the ebts used by Rangers had been used correctly? Mr Regan at the time of the interview was either kept in the dark by his President, given he claims to have spoken to no one about the independence of the enquiry, or being economical with the truth.

The whole of Lord Nimmo Smith’s judgement made months after this interview, where Mr Regan stressed again and again there is no wrongdoing in the use of ebts if arranged correctly (or lawfully) is predicated on all ebts with side letters used by Rangers since 23 November 2011 actually being used correctly and in Lord Nimmo Smiths words on being “themselves not irregular”. (Para 5 of Annex 1). It is almost as if Mr Regan knew the outcome before Lord Nimmo Smith.

(In fact the ebt to Tor Andre Flo had a side letter dated 23 November and it related to a tax arrangement that had not been used correctly (using Regan’s own words) The irregular ebt for Ronald De Boer with a side letter of 30 August was placed beyond the scope of the Commission because in spite of it meeting the criteria specified by Harper MacLeod in March 2012 asking to be provided with ALL ebts and side letters and any other related documentation from July 1998 to date (including the HMRC letter of Feb 2011 that fully demonstrated that those particular ebts under  the Rangers Employee Benefit Trust (REBT) were not used correctly) and so were unlawful, NONE  of that documentation was  provided when requested.

This enabled Lord Nimmo Smith to state in para 107 of his Decision “while there is no question of dishonesty, individual or corporate” which is a statement he could not have made had he had all the requested documentation denied to him either by dishonesty or negligence during the preparation of his Commission.

How would he have had to judge one wonders if deception and dishonesty was indeed the factor we now ken that it is?


What exactly were the consequences of the failure to provide Lord Nimmo Smith with the required documentation?

It is stated in the Decision (Annex 1 para 104) that the Inquiry proceeded on the basis that the EBT arrangements (by which it meant the MGMRT ebts) were “lawful”. As it transpired the outcome of the FTT decision announced in November 2012 was that the MGMRT ebts indeed were (although this is still under appeal by HMRC.)

However, because Lord Nimmo Smith treated the MGMRT and the Earlier Trust (REBT) as one and the same, (para 35 of Decision) this meant that the Inquiry failed to distinguish between the two trusts and necessarily treated the Earlier Trust as also being lawful (without however having properly investigated its operation). However, the MGMRT and the earlier REBT were two separate trusts and there was no necessary reason to treat them as one and the same. Had evidence relating to the REBT been produced and examined, the Inquiry could hardly have treated them) as “continuous” or allowed Lord Nimmo Smith to say “we are not aware that they were different trusts“(Annex 1 para 35)

From the Decision (Annex 1 para 40), it would appear that the President of the SFA gave evidence only as to his knowledge of the MGMRT (not the REBT). We know now that the President of the SFA had knowledge of the Earlier Trust (sitting on the RFC remuneration policy committee that agreed to their use in 1999 and indeed was active in its setting up). Why the President failed to volunteer such crucial information is surely something he should now be asked?

By the time of the Inquiry, Rangers FC had already conceded liability in what has become known as “the Wee Tax Case” (which related to the now unlawful REBTs). Having regard to the wording at para 104 of the Decision (that is an echo of what Regan stressed to Alex Thomson about ebts) where it is said that to arrange financial affairs in a manner “within the law” is not a breach of the SFA/SPL Rules) the clear implication, must be that to arrange financial affairs in such a way that they are not lawful, must be a breach of the rules.

Given the admission of liability in the Wee Tax Case, payments made in respect of the REBT could not be “lawful” (to employ the language used in the Decision) or disputed, but Mr Regan presumably did not enquire too much into the history of the wee tax case before agreeing to talk to Alex Thomson.

It will be obvious from the above that the unlawful nature of REBTs had been masked from SPL lawyers and Lord Nimmo Smith as a result of:-

(a) the failure by the Administrators of Rangers FC to provide the documentation required of them;

(b) the failure of the President of the SFA to provide to the Inquiry his own knowledge of, involvement in, and presumably as a result of it, an appreciation of the differences between the two types of ebts and the consequences thereof for the investigation.  

Had the REBT been the sole subject of the Inquiry (rather than in effect not being examined at all) the following must have been different:-

(i)            the President could hardly have failed to give testimony of his knowledge and involvement;

(ii)          the Inquiry could not have held that the use of the REBT ebts was lawful;

(iv)       the “no sporting advantage” decision given in respect of the lawful ebts could not have been applied to unlawful ebts.

The real issue in the case of the unlawful ebts was not one of misregistration (Annex 1 para 104) which in turn justified the no sporting advantage decision in paras 105/106 but of paying players by an unlawful means which “constitutes such a fundamental defect (Annex 1 para 88) that the registration of players paid this way (i.e. unlawfully) must be treated as having been invalid from the outset.

Had the true nature of these early ebts been known to SPL lawyers the Terms of Reference of the Investigation would have to have addressed the wrong doing that Mr Regan was so keen to argue with Alex Thomson had not actually occurred (long before Lord Nimmo Smith agreed with him) or had President Ogilvie made the distinction in his testimony, it would have been impossible for Sandy Bryson’s to advise as he did regarding the effect on eligibility. He would have to have been asked questions about two types of ebts not one. Finally Lord Nimmo Smith could not have treated both as continuous.

Finally, given this incidence of non-disclosure by the Rangers Administrators (an identifiable trait of RFC dealings with authority from August 2000 to date), it is impossible to see how paragraph 107 (wherein it is stated that there is “no question of dishonesty”) can be allowed to remain unchallenged.

Of course the failure to supply the key evidence could just be an oversight given Rangers Administrators were hardly likely to have established of their own volition the importance of the documents to the enquiry and yet, had they been supplied, the enquiry could not have been based on the defence Stewart Regan was at such pains to stress in his interview with Alex Thomson at a time only 3 months after Mr Regan and Campbell Ogilvie had joined Craig Whyte for dinner as a result of an invite prompted by questions on the SFA UEFA Licence handling of the wee tax case , created by the very same unlawful ebts.

AT But as the governing body why did you not say to Rangers “look guys this this smells really bad, this looks bad you look (and you have admitted you have not paid your tax) you know we can’t do this, we have got to be open and above board, it looks bad.

SR Well think you need to look at what is legal and above board. At the time the club, were in dispute with HMRC. There was a tax case ongoing the new owner was in discussion with HMRC. In fact he has made comments and the club have made comments to that effect and because the amount was not crystallised under UEFA guidelines, whilst ever it’s in dispute it’s not classed as overdue.

AT Sometimes

SR So you need to separate out the licensing requirement, which is what the Licensing Committee did, from the tax that was owed to HMRC which is as we know what is still ongoing.

Mr Regan was not being accurate here.  The Big Tax case was in dispute and the bill has not crystallised as a result. However the wee tax case crystallised in mid June 2011 and at 30th June 2011, the UEFA licence checkpoint under Article 66 of UEFA FFP, did not meet the conditions to excuse it as being an overdue payable to HMRC. Quite how the SFA handled the processing of the Article 66 submission from RFC is subject to a resolution asking UEFA to investigate put to the Celtic AGM in November 2013 which is still in progress. As has been mentioned twice before Mr Regan has either been kept in the dark or was being less than honest with Alex Thomson. Interestingly Andrew Dickson who has been at Rangers in various administration and executive capacity since 1991 sat on 3 of the four UEFA Licensing Committee meetings during 2011. He may of course have excused himself from any discussions on this matter as the rules allowed, but was a full explanation why he did so, if indeed he did, offered? Would such an explanation have enlightened Mr Regan of what he was dealing with?

AT Sometimes things can be within the rules but from a PR point of view, indeed from a moral point of view, hate to introduce morality to football but can be the wrong thing to do. You would accept that?

SR Well I think that football around the world is going through a difficult time, clubs are in difficult financial circumstances, not just in Scotland, you look down into England and look at the clubs in Administration at the moment. You know Portsmouth and Port Vale in recent times and I think Plymouth is as well again. As far as that is concerned you know that indicates that clubs are living from hand to mouth and there are deals being done all the time with HMRC, payment plans being agreed. There is huge amounts of debt in football.

AT I’m just inviting you to accept that sometimes things can be within the rules but just look bad because morally, they are bad.

ST I think when taxes aren’t paid ehm VAT in particular, National Insurance Contributions of course that’s bad and I think we accept that and we know that in the current regime there is evidence to suggest that Rangers has not paid its taxes since Mr Whyte took over the club. That’s wrong that is against the spirit of the game and certainly we would look to deal with that and stamp out that type of behaviour which is not acting with integrity.

If Carlsberg did irony!

End of Interview.

The Hard Not to Believe Conclusions

There is always the danger in examining anything of finding what you want to be there rather than what is there and it is a danger any writer has to be aware of, but given the responses from Harper MacLeod on TSFM and the total lack of response from the SPFL and SFA when being informed of the missing evidence along with what has been written here it is hard not to conclude that the Lord Nimmo Smith Inquiry was deliberately set up in such a way as to produce two results

  • The minimising of the wrongful behaviour that had taken place from 1999 to 2012 when The Commission sat
  • The avoidance of the consequences of admitting that serious wrongdoing in the form of illegal payments had been made via irregular EBTs, which consequently made the players involved ineligible from the outset, making the Bryson ruling inapplicable in those cases with the consequences of that ineligibility on trophies and remuneration won.

The reader will find it hard not to conclude that either

  • there was a huge screw up by the SPL lawyers charged to set up the Commission which they might be able to defend
  • or
  • Vital knowledge was concealed within the SFA itself in order to achieve the above two results and
  • This knowledge was deliberately concealed because had it not been The Inquiry could not have come to the conclusion it did on player eligibility, not only because unlawful ebts were used in early instances, but also because the deliberate concealment from HMRC of the side letters to De Boer and Flo, the former also kept from Harper and MacLeod, suggests Rangers knew all along and in 2005 in particular that what they were doing since 2000 was morally wrong and against the spirit of the game. It perhaps also explains why HMRC is determined to push an appeal all the way.
  • This failure to supply all documents meant that the line being taken by Mr Regan in March 2012, when the Commission was being set up into the use of ebts and failure to register them with the SFA, came to fulfilment in the Decision of Lord Nimmo Smith himself, achieving the two aims suggested above.

Given that Harper MacLeod have said they passed on to the SFA in September 2014 the evidence kept from them by Rangers Administrators, has Stewart Regan spoken to either Ogilvie or Dickson since then about keeping him in the dark? Or did he know all along?

Of course these hard to believe conclusions could be discounted as delusional ramblings if either the SFA or SPFL were to say they would investigate the evidence kept from Harper MacLeod. It would also help if only one of the thirteen main stream journalists would look at the hard copy of the concealed documents they were provided with, because until someone who values sporting integrity does, the stench of corruption will hang over Scottish football for years to reek out anytime the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission is used as a justification for anything that it contains.

Annex One – Extracts from Lord Nimmo Smith Decision

[5] Although the payments in this case were not themselves irregular and were not in

breach of SPL or SFA Rules, the scale and extent of the proven contraventions of the disclosure rules require a substantial penalty to be imposed;


Outline of the Scheme


[35] As we have said, a controlling interest in Oldco was held by David Murray through the medium of Murray MHL Limited, part of the Murray Group of companies. Murray Group Management Limited (MGM) provided management services to the companies of the Murray Group. By deed dated 20 April 2001 MGM set up the Murray Group Management Remuneration Trust (the MGMRT). (We note that the MGMRT was preceded by the Rangers Employee Benefit Trust, but we are not aware that they were different trusts. We shall treat them as a continuous trust, which we shall refer to throughout as the MGMRT.)


[40] Mr Ogilvie learnt about the existence of the MGMRT in about 2001 or 2002, because a contribution was made for his benefit. He understood that this was non-contractual. Although as a result he knew about the existence of the MGMRT, he did not know any details of it. He subsequently became aware, while he remained director of Oldco, that contributions were being made to the MGMRT in respect of players. He assumed that these were made in respect of the players’ playing football, which was the primary function for which they were employed and remunerated. He had no involvement in the organisation or management of Oldco’s contributions to the MGMRT, whether for players or otherwise. He said:

“I assumed that all contributions to the Trust were being made legally, and that any relevant football regulations were being complied with. I do not recall contributions to the Trust being discussed in any detail, if at all, at Board meetings. In any event, Board meetings had become less and less frequent by my later years at Rangers.”

He also said: “Nothing to do with the contributions being made to the Trust fell within the scope of my remit at Rangers”.

However it should be noted that Mr Ogilvie was a member of the board of directors who approved the statutory accounts of Oldco which disclosed very substantial payments made under the EBT arrangements.


[88] In our opinion, this was a correct decision by Mr McKenzie. There is every reason why the rules of the SFA and the SPL relating to registration should be construed and applied consistently with each other. Mr Bryson’s evidence about the position of the SFA in this regard was clear. In our view, the Rules of the SPL, which admit of a construction consistent with those of the SFA, should be given that construction. All parties’ concerned – clubs, players and footballing authorities – should be able to proceed on the faith of an official register. This means that a player’s registration should generally be treated as standing unless and until revoked. There may be extreme cases in which there is such a fundamental defect that the registration of a player must be treated as having been invalid from the outset. But in the kind of situation that we are dealing with here we are satisfied that the registration of the Specified Players with the SPL was valid from the outset, and accordingly that they were eligible to play in official matches. There was therefore no breach of SPL Rule D1.11.


[104] As we have already explained, in our view the purpose of the Rules applicable to Issues 1 to 3 is to promote the sporting integrity of the game. These rules are not designed as any form of financial regulation of football, analogous to the UEFA Financial Fair Play Regulations. Thus it is not the purpose of the Rules to regulate how one football club may seek to gain financial and sporting advantage over others. Obviously, a successful club is able to generate more income from gate money, sponsorship, advertising, sale of branded goods and so on, and is consequently able to offer greater financial rewards to its manager and players, in the hope of even more success. Nor is it a breach of SPL or SFA Rules for a club to arrange its affairs – within the law – so as to minimise its tax liabilities. The Tax Tribunal has held (subject to appeal) that Oldco was acting within the law in setting up and operating the EBT scheme. The SPL presented no argument to challenge the decision of the majority of the Tax Tribunal and Mr McKenzie stated expressly that for all purposes of this Commission’s Inquiry and Determination the SPL accepted that decision as it stood, without regard to any possible appeal by HMRC. Accordingly we proceed on the basis that the EBT arrangements were lawful. What we are concerned with is the fact that the side-letters issued to the Specified Players, in the course of the operation of the EBT scheme, were not disclosed to the SPL and the SFA as required by their respective Rules.

[105] It seems appropriate in the first place to consider whether such breach by non-disclosure conferred any competitive advantage on Rangers FC. Given that we have held that Rangers FC did not breach Rule D1.11 by playing ineligible players, it did not secure any direct competitive advantage in that respect. If the breach of the rules by non-disclosure of the side-letters conferred any competitive advantage, that could only have been an indirect one. Although it is clear to us from Mr Odam’s evidence that Oldco’s failure to disclose the side-letters to the SPL and the SFA was at least partly motivated by a wish not to risk prejudicing the tax advantages of the EBT scheme, we are unable to reach the conclusion that this led to any competitive advantage. There was no evidence before us as to whether any other members of the SPL used similar EBT schemes, or the effect of their doing so. Moreover, we have received no evidence from which we could possibly say that Oldco could not or would not have entered into the EBT arrangements with players if it had been required to comply with the requirement to disclose the arrangements as part of the players’ full financial entitlement or as giving rise to payment to players. It is entirely possible that the EBT arrangements could have been disclosed to the SPL and SFA without prejudicing the argument – accepted by the majority of the Tax Tribunal at paragraph 232 of their decision – that such arrangements, resulting in loans made to the players, did not give rise to payments absolutely or unreservedly held for or to the order of the individual players. On that basis, the EBT arrangements could have been disclosed as contractual arrangements giving rise to a facility for the player to receive loans, and there would have been no breach of the disclosure rules.

[106] We therefore proceed on the basis that the breach of the rules relating to disclosure did not give rise to any sporting advantage, direct or indirect. We do not therefore propose to consider those sanctions which are of a sporting nature.

[107] We nevertheless take a serious view of a breach of rules intended to promote sporting integrity. Greater financial transparency serves to prevent financial irregularities. There is insufficient evidence before us to enable us to draw any conclusion as to exactly how the senior management of Oldco came to the conclusion that the EBT arrangements did not require to be disclosed to the SPL or the SFA. In our view, the apparent assumption both that the side-letter arrangements were entirely discretionary, and that they did not form part of any player’s contractual entitlement, was seriously misconceived. Over the years, the EBT payments disclosed in Oldco’s accounts were very substantial; at their height, during the year to 30 June 2006, they amounted to more than £9 million, against £16.7 million being that year’s figure for wages and salaries. There is no evidence that the Board of Directors of Oldco took any steps to obtain proper external legal or accountancy advice to the Board as to the risks inherent in agreeing to pay players through the EBT arrangements without disclosure to the football authorities. The directors of Oldco must bear a heavy responsibility for this. While there is no question of dishonesty, individual or corporate, we nevertheless take the view that the nondisclosure must be regarded as deliberate, in the sense that a decision was taken that the side letters need not be or should not be disclosed. No steps were taken to check, even on a hypothetical basis, the validity of that assumption with the SPL or the SFA. The evidence of Mr Odam (cited at paragraph [43] above) clearly indicates a view amongst the management of Oldco that it might have been detrimental to the desired tax treatment of the payments being made by Oldco to have disclosed the existence of the side-letters to the football authorities.

Auldheid  Feb 2015

About the author

Auldheid author

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

5,190 Comments so far

TartanwulverPosted on1:28 pm - Mar 10, 2015

bfbpuzzled says:
March 10, 2015 at 12:00 pm

Unskilled volunteers on a large building site without the proper certification working with possibly uninsured tradesmen in the presence of asbestos old wiring improper handling of heights other such dangers produces a whole range of really bad real immediate and potential risks.
The sentiment in the call for volunteers is laudable but opens up a whole lot of potential liability for a whole range of folk. It is easy to envisage scenarios where the whole site might be shut down licences lost and more. Cawing canny to the max is needed here,
The Construction Design & Management (CDM) regulations apply to all building work, meaning that risk assessments have to be carried out, hazards identified etc. Criminal law applies if broken.


New regulations are due to come into force from next month. I’m sure that whoever is planning the work will have ensured that the relevant regulations have been complied with, as they are industry standard.

View Comment

mcfcPosted on1:34 pm - Mar 10, 2015

PMG making mischief http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/the-miracle-of-ibrox/

View Comment

mcfcPosted on1:38 pm - Mar 10, 2015

Tartanwulver says:
March 10, 2015 at 1:28 pm

New regulations are due to come into force from next month. I’m sure that whoever is planning the work will have ensured that the relevant regulations have been complied with, as they are industry standard.


Hasn’t the £35mil Ibrox rebuild been contracted (onerously) to SD Stadium Refurbishments (Luxemburg) Ltd. I’m sure they will make sure that every expensive safety I is dotted and T is crossed.

View Comment

tearsofjoyPosted on1:43 pm - Mar 10, 2015

scapaflow says:

March 9, 2015 at 11:50 pm

sickofitall says:
March 9, 2015 at 10:54 pm

Not my field so I’m genuinely puzzled how this fits with things like public liability insurance, in terms of:

If a gallant volunteer gets hurt

If the work is shoddy and a member of the public gets hurt etc etc

Amateur hour stunts have become almost de rigueur at Ibrox, but this is plumbing new depths
Maybe DWP could send over the recalcitrant and the workshy tradesman among us to Ibrox and get Sevco to pay their dole money.

It’s a win , win!

Remove the “what’s in it for me , sense of entitlement culture and get Sevco back to “it’s rightful place”.

I don’t know what we do about changing the attitude or behavior of dole scroungers though. 🙄

View Comment

jimlarkinPosted on1:46 pm - Mar 10, 2015

On the plus side

a (New) Britannia has been launched today by HRH

. . . I’m sure the clients of Ibrokes will no doubt be singing it’s praises tonight ???

View Comment

TincksPosted on1:49 pm - Mar 10, 2015

So many times in the last two years I have thought that we must be entering the end game of this saga and that I had a handle on how it would all pan out.

I swear that I am more confused than ever today. I can’t even begin to speculate on what might be around the corner.

Which makes the last few days of MSM coverage all the more perplexing. The lack of self awareness from the Daily Record is startling. I would be worried for their reputation if they had one worth preserving :slamb:

View Comment

GoosyGoosyPosted on1:53 pm - Mar 10, 2015

Paul says:
March 10, 2015 at 12:40 pm
Now the new board has taken the huge step in publically stringing-up Ashley’s lieutenants, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to deduce the King faction neither want or need Ashley on their team. It would appear they are going out of their way to provoke Ashley into some action.
The question is, what are they trying to provoke Ashley in to doing?
Ashley controls Blue Pitch & Margarita and the onerous Spiv contracts (including the SD deal)
So Ashley`s goal is to lock up these contracts. This could be happen if King & co capitulate
An Ashley controlled insolvency event happens.
Ashley locks in the contracts via an Ashley(Sarver) CVA acquisition or an Ashley(Sarver) purchase of liquidated assets. This would be supervised by the Ashley appointed Prepack Administrator/Liquidator. TRFC are run as a poor relation to NUFC breaking even at a modest wage level
King needs a liquidation to clear out the onerous contracts. To keep gullible Bears onside he needs this liquidation to be blamed on Ashley. So the PR campaign may well get dirty very quicky
Kings may even hint that Ashley is behind Blue Pitch and Margarita and controls the onerous contracts.
So will an insolvency event happen soon?
If the loan terms legally require Ashley’s agreement before they can be repaid ,then King is stuffed
King and Co have to pour cash into the black hole from day one. There is no working capital apart from the second tranche of the SD loan
Time is on Ashley`s side if he is already legally entitled to appoint a Prepack Administrator/Liquidator
Ashley could hold the threat of liquidation over TRFC indefinitely
If he wanted to be mischievous Ashley could appoint LL&L to the Board of SD with special responsibility for the TRFC contract
I would imagine the anti-Ashley PR campaign by King &co will incline Ashley to do something in support of LL&L sooner rather than later.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on1:53 pm - Mar 10, 2015

So Acting Chairman Mini Murray’s first act seems to have been to get rid of two or three people from the previous board who may have voiced concerns about the new boards ability to manage and take the business forward.

I wonder which former Rangers Chairman gave him that idea? 🙂

View Comment

seniorPosted on1:56 pm - Mar 10, 2015


I know next to nothing re. company regulation, but being suspended from a board must be a fairly serious development. These three people, I guess, will not now pass F&T test if required.

I have no doubt that this Hari Kari action by the new board is designed to bring the house of cards crashing down and is a further step, they hope, in the journey to restore the old order to their proper place dept free.
I wonder if MA will play ball with them, if not then its demolition workers they will require not unskilled fans.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on1:58 pm - Mar 10, 2015

Tincks says:
March 10, 2015 at 1:49 pm

The saga will end when the folks at T’Rangers and there supporters, both fans and those in the MSM, shut the feck up and do ‘A Hearts’ i.e buckle down to a bit of hard work. Eat a bit of humble pie, keep your head below the parapet, then get on with restoring the club by first sorting out the finances and things on a sustainable manner.

Can’t see that happening BTW!!

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on2:05 pm - Mar 10, 2015

The DT has a bit more info on the suspensions which I haven’t noticed elsewhere so worth a read.


View Comment

mcfcPosted on2:06 pm - Mar 10, 2015

GoosyGoosy says:
March 10, 2015 at 1:53 pm

Ashley could hold the threat of liquidation over TRFC indefinitely
If he wanted to be mischievous Ashley could appoint LL&L to the Board of SD with special responsibility for the TRFC contract
I would imagine the anti-Ashley PR campaign


My guess is that Ashley will give the RRM and associates time and room to burn all their cash then go for Admin and pick up the pieces uncontested to gain 100% control. Then it’s Newcastle-zombie time – ticking over mid table for evermore – with occassional cup runs and Europa qualifiers for excitement. A new genreration of fans will forget about the glory days and buy his shirts and tat. If this sounds unlikely – when was the last time Newcastle won ANYTHING – and they are still fanatical about their “massive club” – partly driven by their hatred of Sunderland. I’ve seen the future and it is very profitable – for Ashley.

View Comment

DeekbhoyPosted on2:42 pm - Mar 10, 2015

Not sure what the benefit for King or for Ashley of allowing an insolvency event.

For Ashley as long as the retail contracts are in force then he should be happy. I assume when he first invested he never thought this was going to profitable but the retail contracts were his main aim. Insolvency I assume would stop these. He may be biggest creditor but he is never going to be allowed to own anything while still owning NUFC.

King on the other hand I assume is in it for the kudos of the blazer and tie and role of saviour. An insolvency event with him not as a director would not debar him from being part of any ‘new’ entity of course. However don’t see Park wanting to be involved in any planned insolvency event.

Is Ashley just ignoring them (PMG is implying that) and this move is just to get him round the table?

View Comment

wottpiPosted on2:55 pm - Mar 10, 2015

I keep saying it we should desist for talking about insolvency events.
The only way that will happen is if the new board goes bananas and starts offering mega contracts to players and possibly other employees that will catch up with them in a few years time.

There is really no need for a club with such a large support to go bust as long as the fans can be convinced it is worth turning up week in week out and paying their cash.

That is the big issue here. Bears need to turn out and enjoy supporting their club regardless of the result. If they get hacked off (or irony of ironies boycott the King board) due to lack of glory that is when things start to get tricky.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on3:01 pm - Mar 10, 2015

So, Leach and Llambias suspended? (and let’s not forget poor Sandy, of course). What can it all mean? Is King trying to force Ashley to push the big red insolvency button? But why? Now he has control,King can push it himself, surely?

One thing is nailed on certain. This company is currently insolvent without external funding. So it’s either a rapid cash injection (and I don’t mean ten bob) or administration.

Just this minute seen that Chris Graham is now on the Board of RIFC PLC. Words truly fail me.

View Comment

mcfcPosted on3:02 pm - Mar 10, 2015

Deekbhoy says:
March 10, 2015 at 2:42 pm

He may be biggest creditor but he is never going to be allowed to own anything while still owning NUFC.


Never say never. Ashley knows where the SFA stand on his pewrsonal shareholding. But he also knows that anonymous shareholders are OK and “not acting in concert” consortia are OK. You don’t have to work hard to get through this regulatory goal net.

View Comment

EstebanPosted on3:04 pm - Mar 10, 2015

Chris Graham gets a blazer? Are they nuts? Are the RRM timposters?

View Comment

mcfcPosted on3:04 pm - Mar 10, 2015

wottpi says:
March 10, 2015 at 2:55 pm

There is really no need for a club with such a large support to go bust as long as the fans can be convinced it is worth turning up week in week out and paying their cash.


With the Onerous Contracts I’m not sure STs and gate money are enough to cover their overheads – let alone their warp speed dash for their rightful place.

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on3:06 pm - Mar 10, 2015

neepheid says:
March 10, 2015 at 3:01 pm

The shark has been well and truly jumped

View Comment

mcfcPosted on3:08 pm - Mar 10, 2015

If 50,000 visit the shrine to enthrone the new Messiah tonight – will Charles de Normandy be dancing around his chateaux to Zadok the Priest?

View Comment

100BJDPosted on3:10 pm - Mar 10, 2015

scapaflow says:

March 10, 2015 at 12:45 pm

Paul says:
March 10, 2015 at 12:40 pm

I would think that declaring war on your biggest creditor, who has security over many of your assets, and control of key income streams, is a novel, if not unique strategy.

If one were conspiracy minded, one might believe that the intention was to provoke an insolvency event, without the appearance of being responsible. :mrgreen:

That cannot be the strategy as Ashley is the biggest creditor and he,therefore can “control” any insolvency process. I can only think that King and co are going to tackle the onerous contracts as being unfair or ultra vires in some way. King and co also need some advice on the Sevco 5088 non novation to Sevco Scotland scenario.

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on3:12 pm - Mar 10, 2015

let the man speak for himself



View Comment

mcfcPosted on3:16 pm - Mar 10, 2015

John Bennett and Chris Graham have been appointed as non-executive directors of RIFC with immediate effect.


View Comment

tcup 2012Posted on3:17 pm - Mar 10, 2015

Just a thought

But could these suspension’s be the start of King’s true plan?

Either forcing Mr Ashley hand or for them to declare they can now have a good look under the hood?

Either or ends up with Admin

No great loss the MSM have been buttering up the fans for weeks telling them they may not get promoted So no loss there
Points deduction Who cares we weren’t getting promoted anyway

A few oneruse contracts kicked to the kirb and even better Back in the hands of RRM to make them a pretty penny

Over paid/over rated and unwanted players kicked out the door

And best of all a new streamline TRFC ready to start next season

Fans happy out in their thousands buying season tickets for this Real Rangers
And it was all Mr Ashley fault
And RRM saved us :mrgreen:

View Comment

TBKPosted on3:17 pm - Mar 10, 2015


I seriously thought this was a joke….. apparently those ‘tarred with a sectarian/bigot’ brush are welcome too?

Glorious insight!

View Comment

wottpiPosted on3:18 pm - Mar 10, 2015

mcfc says:
March 10, 2015 at 3:04 pm

I know, I know!

I am the one that keeps bleating on about needing circa £14m per annum before you even look at the footballing side of things.

However, with a bit of austerity, surely cash from a full stadium of 51k plus income from corporates, TV, league and cup positions and whatever sponsorship/advertising are currently unencumbered should keep things rolling along quite nicely until you gain a bit of stability and credibility with those who may, in the future, lend you money to take things to the next level.

Other clubs would bite your hand of for such riches.

It is only when Zadok the Priest and the CL flag makes you deaf and blind to the realities of running a football club that things go to pot.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on3:21 pm - Mar 10, 2015

scapaflow says:
March 10, 2015 at 3:12 pm

let the man speak for himself

Here’s my personal favourite-


View Comment

scapaflowPosted on3:27 pm - Mar 10, 2015

wottpi says:
March 10, 2015 at 3:18 pm

It depends on how much there is in the allegations that the ticket money is effectively encumbered by payments that kick in at certain attendance levels.

In all seriousness short of the new board & others permanently funding operations, its hard to see a way forward, if the onerous contracts are as bad as advertised.

In many respects, nothing has really changed for the better since Whyte, arguably things are worse, £70m gone, they no longer have, a normal commercial bank account, scouting set up etc etc etc

Hard to see a soft landing for the new regime

View Comment

mcfcPosted on3:27 pm - Mar 10, 2015

wottpi says:
March 10, 2015 at 3:18 pm


Sorry if I got the wrong end of the stick. Yes, in any other hands this would be a perfectly workable business model – but not when infected with WATP. One of the saving graces for MCFC was that we always got 30K plus in the lower leagues so avoided the downward spiral effect of big club overheads with falling crowds and falling income.

But, anyone prepared to pay Chris Graham as a non-exec is away with the fairies when it comes to balancing the books and running a sensible business.

Ally for the board, Ally for the board, Ally for the board.

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on3:32 pm - Mar 10, 2015

neepheid says:
March 10, 2015 at 3:21 pm

This is a gem


View Comment

helpmaboabPosted on3:37 pm - Mar 10, 2015

James Forrest says:
March 9, 2015 at 10:47 pm

Another great piece James. So,how do we tie this in with what Auldheid has put together.How do we get the basics started? What’s involved? I’m sure there are lots of fans desperate to do something tangible. Action speaks louder than words but it has to have purpose and direction.
Ahll get ma leaflets.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on3:50 pm - Mar 10, 2015

mcfc says:
March 10, 2015 at 3:27 pm

Ally for the board, Ally for the board, Ally for the board.
They’re paying him anyway, so why not? Or Director of Football- he’s got an eye for a player, has Ally. But nothing could be crazier than the Chris Graham appointment. Is King’s big idea to take them back to the 50’s, in cultural terms? I’m really starting to wonder where this is going. None of it makes any sense.

wottpi is correct to say that there is a viable business in there somewhere, but not while the losses continue. Costs must be slashed to achieve that. Graham Wallace gave 127 days of his life to that task, and achieved very little, probably due to the infamous onerous contracts.

Maybe King can get rid of those contracts, but it will take time and cost money, however it is done. If he plans on going the legal route, it will take years and cost millions. Meanwhile, expenditure exceeds income. There is no cash in the bank. So it’s an immediate (and large) cash injection, or insolvency- take your pick.

View Comment

mcfcPosted on3:56 pm - Mar 10, 2015

Institute of Directors – The role of the non-executive director factsheet

“Essentially the non-executive director’s role is to provide a
creative contribution to the board by providing objective

Well that’s as far as I got before needing a change of solomons at the thought of Chris Graham as a non-exec director of RIFC. I’ll need to read the rest in the bath, I have a finite supply of St Michael’s finest.


View Comment

PaulPosted on3:58 pm - Mar 10, 2015

Fan representation on any football club board should be saluted and applauded, in fact, there are not enough fans on the boards of our football clubs in Scotland.

That being said, the appointment of Chris Graham to the Rangers board shouldn’t and can’t be welcomed. As easy as it is to dismiss Chris Graham as a narrow-minded figure of fun, his appointment points to a willingness by the new regime at Ibrox to embrace, encourage and embolden elements of their support that have no place in modern Scotland.

View Comment

TincksPosted on3:59 pm - Mar 10, 2015

Tincks says:

March 10, 2015 at 1:49 pm

I can’t even begin to speculate on what might be around the corner

Can’t believe I wrote the above this afternoon and than an hour later Chris Graham is appointed as a non exec director. Crivens, there are no words. There really are not. Can we have an emoticon for “shakes head in disbelief” please?

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on4:01 pm - Mar 10, 2015

I hadn’t got as far as thinking about the prospect of this:

“Barcabhoy ‏@Barcabhoy1 2 mins2 minutes ago
As non exec at RIFC, Rangers have the right to propose Graham for SFA committee’s .Another biased clown at Hampden ,just what the game need”

View Comment

valentinesclownPosted on4:13 pm - Mar 10, 2015

De javu or groundhog day down Govan way and in the smsm yet again. Get Ally and Walter back at Ibrox in some sort of paid employment, really? Is Charlie big hauns the mentor of Mr King. Did Charlie not use Ally and Walter to get bums on seats. I also heard on ssb that Mr Souness and Mr Gough would like to come back (not salaried) and gee up the team, as the presence of such legends would boost team morale and they would be in awe if Mr Souness showed up at the training ground. ffs what can you say or how can you respond to that.
Bums on seats is the key and Mr King IMO seems to be sticking to the tried and tested formula that panders to the hopeful and maybe gullible element of the Govan support.
RRM is the ultimate approach to solving the issues at Ibrox according to the smsm the board and also the majority of the fans,IMO.
Did RRM not aid in the old Rangers into liquidation? So are some of the same RRM going to repeat the history of the past? Are the fans going to follow follow yet again under the helpful guidance of their own board and the biased smsm?

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on4:18 pm - Mar 10, 2015

Paul says:
March 10, 2015 at 3:58 pm

Paul I would be fibbing if I said my sides were not aching right now, but, when the wheels come off this appointment, as they will, it will set back the cause of getting fan reps on boards by a decade.

That is the very un-funny side to this development, or one of them anyway 🙁

View Comment

TBKPosted on4:19 pm - Mar 10, 2015

@propa_gander to @chrisgraham76…

“Chris, what do you think will happen when it comes out you were complicit in spreading propaganda on behalf of Green&Whyte?”

@chrisgraham76 to @propa_gander

“Interesting allegation.Noted”

@propa_gander to @chrisgraham76…

“Not an allegation. Also noted.”

View Comment

TBKPosted on4:23 pm - Mar 10, 2015

I wonder whatever happened to Chris’s list…………?


“Chris Graham’s ‘Enemies of’ … if you missed it first time before he pulled it from his blog. Now of Rangers Standard!

The Enemies of Rangers Football Club
February 16, 2012

“You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.” Winston Churchill

It has been interesting, if not surprising, to watch the emergence of the enemies of our football club over the past few days. I think there is a danger over this period when our minds are rightly focussed on making sure Rangers survive and prosper that we forget some of the people who wish to see the club die. There are some obvious ones who we are well aware of already like Philip McGillivan and Peter Lawwell but there are others who will now be jumping on the bandwagon. So, with that in mind I’ve decided to keep a note of them. This post will be updated with the names and quotes from the people who want to see our club go out of business and are revelling in the possibility.

1) Mike Small – ” Who?” I hear you ask. Well it seems Mike is a friend of Philip McGillivan (Rangers hater and IRA supporter). He is described on the Guardian website, who gave him the platform to spew his hatred, as “the Editor of Bella Caledonia”. This in fact appears to be a blog much like this one but Mike clearly has ideas above his station. I won’t be providing links to either the Guardian piece he wrote on the 14th February or his blog because, frankly, I would prefer not to give them the hits but let me provide you with a few quotes from it.
“The club’s slide into administration could help rid Scottish football of ritualised bigotry and intergenerational hatred”
“After the loyalty she has been shown over the years, how can Her Majesty allow her Revenue & Customs to behave in this manner?”
“Establishment voices mutter confidently of the club’s fanbase and that the “”club will never die”. Such macho posturing is a default setting from the club’s supporters (who numbered 17,822 at the recent home defeat to Dundee United)”
“Rumours swirl that Graeme Souness waits in the wings like a moustachioed Sauron.”

I’m sure we can all agree that Mike is a funny guy….He may just be an idiot who believes everything his pal Philip tells him but I suspect he has his own hatred to keep him going, with his perception that Rangers are the root of all bigotry being a particular give-away.

2) Iain McGill – Again a rather obscure one but he is the Conservative Party candidate for Edinburgh Central and as such represents his party in what he says. He is also pictured on his website shaking hands with David Cameron. I wonder what the PM would think of McGill’s views after his wholehearted support for Rangers today? Mr McGill had the following to say on Mike Small’s piece in the Guardian:
Mr McGill not only has political aspirations but describes himself as a “businessman”. He is a director of Harmony Employment Agency http://www.harmonyemployment.com/meet-the-staff.html. Maybe he will find that Rangers fans who unwittingly use his services may decide not to, given his hatred for our club? Then perhaps he will see just how funny it is when businesses get into trouble and people face losing their jobs. Anyone who is not on Twitter and would like to contact Iain to discuss his views can do so via this linkhttp://www.voteiainmcgill.com/contact.aspx

3) Peter Lawwell – Well he had a chance to act in a dignified and magnanimous way but that isn’t really Peter’s way is it? Despite all evidence to the contrary he is adamant that his club don’t need Rangers. Perhaps he thinks people are interested in the outcome of a one team league? But really it’s just another chance for him to have a dig. Here is the quote today, I’m sure there will be many more…
“We are very disappointed with the First Minister’s claims that Celtic ‘need’ Rangers and that Celtic ‘can’t prosper unless Rangers are there’.

“This is simply not true. In a series of interviews given just three days ago, we made it abundantly clear that Celtic has a well defined strategy and a business plan independent of the fortunes of any other club. That remains absolutely the case.”

4) Matt McGlone – Now I hesitated to add this because Matt’s performance on Scotland Tonight on the 16th February was so shambolic that he’s more a figure of fun than a serious enemy. Indeed you could argue that the sight of him and Michael Kelly bickering was a genuine moment of light entertainment for us in hard times. Perhaps one day we will learn what the stuttering McGlone means when he says that Celtic are a “culture of people”?
However he has been added because despite the clown like fashion in which he put his point across there was no mistaking the hatred and desperation behind it. Michael Kelly might have been added too but actually after getting off to a bad start with the political point scoring he obviously felt necessary he seemed to return to his senses and realised that Celtic do indeed need Rangers and that Rangers “will continue”. Of course with crowds of 60,00 every week at Celtic Park ( no sniggering) they will soon be playing in the EPL…….

5) Neil Lennon – Well it was never likely that old popcorn teeth was going to be able to keep his mouth shut was it? Fresh from moaning about people commenting on his club he decides to comment on ours. Suffice to say he just couldn’t stop himself but with his past behaviour and abuse of our fans and players he could have been on this list straight away anyway

6) Hugh Keevins – Once again this is not a surprise name to appear on the list. Hugh has a long history of putting the boot into Rangers whilst sticking up for his team, Celtic. However this time he’s written a piece in the Daily Record ‘blog’ on 19th February which even the Celtic View might have thought twice about publishing. It’s long been a tactic of the media in Scotland to feed Celtic fans’ paranoia and this should do the job no matter what the outcome of Rangers’ administration. Well done Hugh, it’s quite possible that somebody, somewhere will be the victim of an act of violence because you felt the need to write lies in your paper. I’m sure the irony in the last quoted line of his ridiculous article won’t be missed. It’s you and your ilk who stoke the hatred with lies Hugh – and you know that.
“ the unmissable smell of favouritism has started to rise from Rangers’ journey back from administration”
“Celtic fans have carried the firm conviction for 100 years and more that Rangers are the ‘Establishment’ club in Scotland – and now they’re getting evidence to support their claim”
“ he said Rangers were “part of the fabric of society” in Scotland. Which makes Celtic what, precisely?”
“ the public purse has been dipped in a way that’s given cause to widespread concern and police intervention”
“Severe penalties will need to be imposed on the Ibrox club”
“a repeat of last season’s unedifying end to the championship looms on the horizon”
“now’s the time for the leading players in this off-field drama to be careful what they’re saying for fear of inflaming an already combustible situation”

7) Vespbar, 14 Drury Street, Glasgow G2 5AA – Obviously there are lots of Celtic bars out there that Bears would not frequent and vice versa. However, Vespbar in Glasgow’s city centre doesn’t advertise itself as such. It’s owners however have adopted the highly suspect “Jelly and Ice Cream when Rangers die” slogan to attract Celtic fans to their bar. I think it’s important that Rangers fans know just what the views of the owners of this place are and hopefully you will all choose to avoid it.

They have since deleted the offending tweet although they are retweeting Celtic fans on a regular basis with the #jellyandicecream tag. A tag which, if I supported a club that was embroiled in a child abuse scandal, I might choose to avoid…
“Got the Celtic game on today, showing on our big screen (120 inches). Ice cream and jelly at full time. “

8) Stuart Cosgrove – Stuart is a busted flush. It seems perhaps he knows this since his ‘comedy’ show “Off the Ball” on BBC Radio Scotland seems to have become more and more bitter as time has passed. Stuart seems to know about a criminal tax investigation that the rest of us are not aware of. He also seems to think he knows the outcome of this fantastical investigation which he unveiled on his show on the 18th February. Stuart has previous as a Rangers hater and is a big fan of using the word “hun” on his show. Not likely to be the only BBC employee on this list by the time we are done.
“Rangers have cheated their way to titles with illegal tax mechanisms”

I would ask those of you who read the blog to post comments here or tweet me including the names and quotes from people who revel in our misfortune over the coming weeks and months. If you can also provide links that would be helpful. I will update this post weekly so that when RFC is back on its feet we have a record of those who spoke out against us.

It appears Chris wants us to get involved.

He’s since removed this from his blog. In fact he’s just removed his blog! @scotnight I wonder why!? “

View Comment

neepheidPosted on4:25 pm - Mar 10, 2015


From the Telegraph-

Derek Llambias, Barry Leach and the Easdale brothers will never set foot inside Ibrox again, The Telegraph understands. On the day that a club investigation was launched into the conduct of Llambias, Leach and Sandy Easdale – the football board chairman, whose brother James quit as a plc director two weeks ago – for their part in the running of Rangers over the last six months, it is understood that it will be made clear to all four that they will not be welcome at the stadium, which is expected to host crowds of close to capacity for the Scottish Championship fixtures with Queen of the South tonight and Livingston on Saturday.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on4:36 pm - Mar 10, 2015

I’m no expert on the composition of the ideal board of a public limited company, or even a private one, but can anyone, setting aside the obvious character flaws, think of anything that someone like Chris Graham could bring to the board of any company, anywhere? It would appear he is on the board of his own, very small, company, with a small net liability, but I doubt that would stand him in good stead for such a position.

I would have thought that, ideally, RIFC plc would be endeavouring to gather the most experienced and astute board members they could find. There’s a long rocky road ahead, the last thing they need is passengers. Unless, of course, Graham offers some expertise in something other than bombast and dog whistling.

Does anyone have a clue to what he might bring that is of genuine value?

View Comment

The Cat NR1Posted on4:37 pm - Mar 10, 2015

First post on phone, so sorry for typos etc.

Re the CG appointment. RIFC PLC is the holding company. TRFC Ltd is the football club. If CG was being touted as a fans’ representative, he would be on the Ltd Co board, not the PLC. I posted before that DK appeared to lack understanding of the group structure. This seems to reinforce that concern.

View Comment

Head HunterPosted on4:38 pm - Mar 10, 2015

If Chris Graham is “passed” as a Director by the SFA’s Fit and Proper process we may all as well give up -seriously.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on4:41 pm - Mar 10, 2015

Anyone else wondering how long Uncle Mike may leave it until he asks for his two seats on the board?

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on4:43 pm - Mar 10, 2015

The Cat NR1 says:
March 10, 2015 at 4:37 pm
Allyjambo says:
March 10, 2015 at 4:36 pm

I’ve said before that I don’t think Mr King understands the forces that Green let out of the box and then empowered.

King probably does feel he owes something to the boycotters, but, he is going to need the fans who kept attending games as well. Chris Graham may be facing a tough audience here, but, for Rangers fans, he is the definition of marmite.

Interesting statement from Jack Irvine on behalf of Sandy Easdale, Sandy may not be going quietly


View Comment

mcfcPosted on4:54 pm - Mar 10, 2015

Allyjambo says:
March 10, 2015 at 4:36 pm

Does anyone have a clue to what he might bring that is of genuine value?


Unthinking, fawning loyalty to his RRM superiors.

One more director to instinctively vote against Ashley’s two nominees when the grown-up RRM can’t be arsed to jet-in or even conference-in.

View Comment

OttoKaiserPosted on5:08 pm - Mar 10, 2015

Just a supplementary thought following Auldheid’s forensic dissemination of one of the many weeping sores in the unedifying tale of two clubs (or is it company)…..
Has the option to pursue a FOI request to HMRC been taken up with the purpose of identifying precisely when the bill for the liability arising from the DOS (“wee tax case”) become overdue (crystallised) from an HMRC perspective? This being the crux of the argument in granting an licence. It would certainly put it to bed one way or another.

Clearly HMRC may not divulge kind of info on the grounds of commercial sensitivity but I would think it could be argued to be in the common interest if you are:

1. A UK Tax-payer
2. A responsible office bearer in a club that may have potentially had benefit if a licence was wrongly granted.
3. A shareholder in a listed club (or company!) that may have potentially had benefit if a licence was wrongly granted.

Unfortunately I fall afoul of all three of the above!

View Comment

The Rangers nil? Who missed the penalty?Posted on5:08 pm - Mar 10, 2015

tcup 2012 says:
March 10, 2015 at 10:27 am

Tcup, you asked in your post this morning “what the hell is a RRM”?.

I believe your inquiry has just been answered, in spades, by the latest board appointment.

He, King, Murray and the rest of the most recently mentioned luminaries of the ill-fated predecessor club share a mindset.

And it ain’t inclusive, and it ain’t pretty, no siree!

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on5:21 pm - Mar 10, 2015

At least C. Graham is a “transparent” appointment.

We can all see through him 😆 😆 😆

View Comment

mcfcPosted on5:30 pm - Mar 10, 2015

No Nomad in place after Mr King’s second full business day in charge. Although he’s had time to suspend three directors, appoint two directors and appoint a company secretary.

Priorities Mr King! Priorities!

6 days gone, 24 days to go to de-listing.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on5:37 pm - Mar 10, 2015

mcfc says:
March 10, 2015 at 5:23 pm

I believe it is just that when appointed a director it is a requirement that notification is given with regard to the number of shares that person holds in the company.

Park already had his 5m so this is just confirmation of his holding that ties in with his directorship.

You will however note that no such declaration was made for Paul Murray who must have no shares in the RIFC or is very slow making a declaration.

Similarly today’s appointments will also need to have their shares ownership flagged up over the next few days, if they have any.

View Comment

AmFearLiathMòrPosted on5:41 pm - Mar 10, 2015

Allyjambo says:
March 10, 2015 at 4:36 pm

Does anyone have a clue to what he might bring that is of genuine value?


PR value? If you’re trying to get the customers back in droves, nothing says ‘See? I’m with you’ than appointing the biggest mouthed, self appointed fans spokesman in the country.

However, I fear Level 5 may be on a permanent retainer as far as he’s concerned. Quite easy to throw mud at Stephen Thompson, Peter Lawell etc. when you’re merely a ‘fans spokesman’ – quite another if you’re an official employee of an organisation.

View Comment

mcfcPosted on5:41 pm - Mar 10, 2015

It occurs that maybe King does have a poodle Nomad lined up, but they are waiting for the SFA to rubber stamp King’s Fit and Proper card. If the Nomad plans to lean on the SFA’s Fit & Proper judgement, then we really have left the known universe.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on5:47 pm - Mar 10, 2015

mcfc says:
March 10, 2015 at 2:06 pm

My guess is that Ashley will give the RRM and associates time and room to burn all their cash then go for Admin and pick up the pieces uncontested to gain 100% control. Then it’s Newcastle-zombie time – ticking over mid table for evermore…

And for the good of football and society in general the very best option — which is a sad kind of thing to say.

The statements coming out and the appointment of Chris ‘the list’ Graham show what the new regime are about.

I was fascinated by Phil’s little snippet about the new kids on the block (or, the old kids returned to the block?) seeking an avenue of communication with Mike Ashley. And another little contretemps to follow is Irvine v Level5. I make Irvine ahead on points, so far 😆

I’m hoping Auldheid is not a lone wolf and that he has some influential people with him who’ll push the issue. Might be the only thing that will start the dominos falling. Otherwise latest developments might well cue national scunneration.

View Comment

beanosPosted on5:50 pm - Mar 10, 2015

mcfc says:
March 10, 2015 at 5:23 pm

its the notification of a director holding. he already had the shares but once appointed as a director this holding had to be declared.

View Comment

BawsmanPosted on5:51 pm - Mar 10, 2015

wottpi says:
March 10, 2015 at 4:41 pm
Anyone else wondering how long Uncle Mike may leave it until he asks for his two seats on the board?

Easy……………..Pay day :mrgreen:

View Comment

mcfcPosted on5:55 pm - Mar 10, 2015

Danish Pastry says:
March 10, 2015 at 5:47 pm

I was fascinated by Phil’s little snippet about the new kids on the block (or, the old kids returned to the block?) seeking an avenue of communication with Mike Ashley.


If they are deluded enough to think they can infect Ashley with Rangersitis – they have not been paying attention – and any plan based on this is toast.

I wonder if King and co do read this site and others (PMG, Forrest, Scotzine etc) to get a different perspective or whether they simply believe all this WATP, rightful place stuff as gospel. The latter is gaining ground with today’s events.

View Comment

mcfcPosted on6:01 pm - Mar 10, 2015

wottpi says:
March 10, 2015 at 5:37 pm


beanos says:
March 10, 2015 at 5:50 pm

Thanks, I deleted the comment when I engaged my brain and realised that must be it – but thanks for your patience with my dumb question 😳

View Comment

tcup 2012Posted on6:03 pm - Mar 10, 2015

The Rangers nil? Who missed the penalty? says:
March 10, 2015 at 5:08 pm

Well I did ask

And As they ask and you shall receive 😎

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on6:04 pm - Mar 10, 2015

In other news, an interesting appeal coming up

“PeatWorrier ‏@PeatWorrier 1m1 minute ago
The significance of this is that the Football Act will now be reviewed for compliance with Art 7 ECHR https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=b1edcaa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7 …”

PeatWorrier ‏@PeatWorrier 1m1 minute ago
That is, does the Offensive Behaviour Act specify what is and is not criminal with sufficient clarity, predictability and precision?

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on6:29 pm - Mar 10, 2015

Head Hunter 4.38

Based on the Chapter Alistair McKillop contributed to Bigotry Football and Scotland as well as some points he raises in The Rangers Standard he would be a much more sensible and less aggressive choice.

To appoint Mr Graham is to set up for a fight and I’m not sure he will put many bums an seats and certainly no brains.

It’s is if they want to settle imaginary scores first rather than build bridges.

Unbelievably stupid.

View Comment

mcfcPosted on6:30 pm - Mar 10, 2015

Institute of Directors – The role of the non-executive director factsheet – paragraph 2

The 1992 Cadbury Report initiated a debate about the
main functions and responsibilities of non-executive
directors. Today, it is widely accepted that non-executive
directors have an important contribution to make to the
proper running of companies and, therefore, more widely
to the economy at large. As the Cadbury Report said,
they: “should bring an independent judgement to bear on
issues of strategy, performance and resources including
key appointments and standards of conduct.”


View Comment

easyJamboPosted on6:33 pm - Mar 10, 2015

We have still got the interim accounts to 31/12/14 to look forward to before the end of the month.

Alternatively, that may be another excuse for de-listing from AIM.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:03 pm - Mar 10, 2015

Auldheid says:
March 10, 2015 at 6:29 pm

Based on the Chapter Alistair McKillop contributed to Bigotry Football and Scotland as well as some points he raises in The Rangers Standard he would be a much more sensible and less aggressive choice.

The chap McKillop is an accomplished writer and would represent a far more conciliatory figure if they are serious about building bridges within Scotland.

I had to laugh at Tom English on Twitter tonight saying he hopes Chris Graham minds his Twitter persona from now on. Meanwhile Twitter was littered with old tweets from Chris Graham indicating he is a wholly inappropriate person to occupy any club boardroom. Like others though, the smokescreen he enjoys from a sycophantic Rangers media will protect him, at least for a while. I wonder if he’ll tell Douglas Park how disgraceful it is he hires out a team bus to Celtic, because that’s about the level of his debate.

View Comment

yourhavingalaughPosted on7:39 pm - Mar 10, 2015

Anything worthwhile being discussed on SSB tonight.

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on7:45 pm - Mar 10, 2015

mcfc says:
March 10, 2015 at 5:55 pm

Danish Pastry says:
March 10, 2015 at 5:47 pm

I was fascinated by Phil’s little snippet about the new kids on the block (or, the old kids returned to the block?) seeking an avenue of communication with Mike Ashley.


They have 2 already shurely.
Llambias and Leach. 😆
there’s £7000 worth at least!

View Comment

tcup 2012Posted on7:49 pm - Mar 10, 2015

Well Ibrox no where near the sell out predicted

I would say just over 30k at the moment

Just announced saying kick off delayed to let pay at the gate fans in So we will see

View Comment

wottpiPosted on7:54 pm - Mar 10, 2015

If Ibrox is jumping tonight I wonder how some will manage to stay off the party songs.

View Comment

tcup 2012Posted on7:55 pm - Mar 10, 2015

Well kick off so much for the thousands and thousands beating down the door to get in

I would still say about 30k
Good turn out considering

Only problem may have to mute the TV DJ is commentating 😳

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on7:56 pm - Mar 10, 2015


I am reluctant to say too much at this point but we have what we need.

Sorry to be evasive but the process is at a crucial point and hopefully more detail will come out in next two weeks.

View Comment

tcup 2012Posted on8:02 pm - Mar 10, 2015


Would rather have the party songs at the moment
Than these so called commentators 👿

View Comment

ianagainPosted on8:05 pm - Mar 10, 2015

An oldie but Somehow it looks even funnier En Francais

Wonder which side of the “magic” number the crowd will fall tonight. Bet Charles has the turnstiles wired.

François BOSCHER.

Charles Green vient d’acheter le château de Marcei, près d’Argentan. L’homme d’affaires a quitté la présidence du club écossais des Glasgow Rangers pour se consacrer à sa passion des chevaux.


Le football et les chevaux sont les deux passions de Charles Green. L’an dernier, il est devenu le patron des Glasgow Rangers. Un peu par hasard. « En mars 2012, on m’a contacté pour reprendre le club qui venait d’être placé en redressement judiciaire, mais j’ai refusé : j’avais juste envie d’acheter une propriété en Normandie pour y vivre avec mes 30 chevaux. » Il avait même trouvé l’endroit idéal, à Marcei près d’Argentan, mais la vente s’éternisait. Alors quand on le relance en mai pour diriger le consortium chargé de racheter le club de foot écossais, cette fois il dit « yes ».

49 000 spectateurs pour un match de 4e division

« Le club avait une dette de 100 millions de livres ! Un tour de table avec des investisseurs a réuni 25 millions, les administrateurs ont accepté d’éponger le reste. » En juin dernier, il est ainsi à la tête d’un club mythique (54 titres nationaux, une coupe d’Europe en 1972) mais… relégué administrativement en quatrième division écossaise.

Le challenge est double : redonner une surface financière au club et un niveau sportif digne de son standing. « En décembre, j’ai introduit le club en bourse à Londres, on a obtenu 25 millions de livres via des fonds d’investissement, et 6 000 fans ont ajouté 5,5 millions en devenant actionnaires. » Une mise en bourse déjà appliquée au club anglais de Sheffield United qu’il a dirigé entre 1996 et 1999.

Le pari fonctionne également sur le terrain, les fans suivent et le club enregistre un record mondial d’affluence pour un match de 4e division, avec 49 118 supporters… La saison prochaine, les Rangers joueront ainsi en 3e division, mais Charles Green n’en sera plus le président.

« Tout n’a pas été simple », admet-il. Il échoue dans son projet de faire transférer les Rangers vers le lucratif championnat anglais, « alors que les clubs gallois de Swansea ou de Cardiff y jouent bien ! » Un procès avec l’ancien propriétaire du club n’arrange rien. « Il y avait une pression quotidienne permanente… Sauver le club fut un défi que je ne regrette pas d’avoir mené, mais une fois la remontée en 3e division acquise, j’ai démissionné (le 18 avril, NDLR). Ma vie est ailleurs… »

Plus précisément en Normandie. « J’ai toujours été fasciné par les pur-sang. La Normandie étant l’épicentre du monde du cheval, c’est ici que j’ai décidé de commencer une nouvelle vie. » Pendant deux ans, du Mont-Saint-Michel à Lisieux, il visite une trentaine de propriétés et tombe sous le charme du château de Cordey à Marcei, commune de 200 habitants à la sortie d’Argentan. « A chacune de mes visites, c’est comme si le château me disait : « Achète-moi » », sourit le jeune sexagénaire.

Pour un peu plus de 400 000 €, il est devenu propriétaire de ce petit château du XVIIIe siècle et des 27 ha de prairie et de bois qui l’entourent. « J’espère avoir fini les travaux d’ici trois mois, et amener mes chevaux. » Pas la moindre chance de le voir replonger dans le football français, alors ? « En passant devant le stade d’Argentan, mon fils m’a taquiné en disant que ce serait un chouette challenge. Mais c’était juste une blague. » S’il le dit…
A Blag it certainmaint was Charles.

View Comment

tcup 2012Posted on8:20 pm - Mar 10, 2015

Having a good look around as the game is being played
I would now say 30k as top estimate
Still a good crowd all the same
But not the sell out King was predicting

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on8:22 pm - Mar 10, 2015

mcfc says:
March 10, 2015 at 1:38 pm
Tartanwulver says:
March 10, 2015 at 1:28 pm

New regulations are due to come into force from next month. I’m sure that whoever is planning the work will have ensured that the relevant regulations have been complied with, as they are industry standard.


Hasn’t the £35mil Ibrox rebuild been contracted (onerously) to SD Stadium Refurbishments (Luxemburg) Ltd. I’m sure they will make sure that every expensive safety I is dotted and T is crossed.

31 0 Rate This
….Luxemburg you say…? Not more of this offshore tax avoidance/evasion/mitigation shurely Shirley?

View Comment

Comments are closed.