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.
woodstein at 11:56 on Stenhousemuir.
This is one of the reasons I love this site- education as well as opinion.
Glad my club was on the right side.
ecobhoy’s Penny Dainty memory brought back memories of another of McCowan’s fine comestibles – namely the ha’penny caramel. This was a fairly healthy-sized square of McCowan’s Chocolate Toffee Bar. Unlike the Penny Caramel, it could not be ‘hoffed’ on the pavement edge, and was a more singular, less communal pleasure 👿 😈
I always recall a great line from John Byrne’s the slab boys when plukey faced Hector (I think that was his name) was described as having a face like a half chewed dainty carmel 🙂
Big Pink says:
April 11, 2015 at 12:56 pm
“it could not be ‘hoffed’ on the pavement edge”
——————————————-
You just reminded me of a mate who used to do just that with every penny dainty, so that one hauf could fit in his mouth, and he could sook it, he never chewed, we could never emulate this, the overwhelming desire to chew always won.
His stock of toffee always lasted longer than ours.
He did however sell out to Callard and Bowser Creamline toffee in big school! 🙄
How’s about this?
RIFC in hock to MA (SD) for £5m. Securities include IP, Car Park, Murray Park, a favourable % of the retail. In effect, the whole shebang.
TRFC ‘own’ Ibrox, the ownership taking the form of a long term lease, in perpetuity, the lease terms perhaps being ‘onerous’.
Plausible, or am I jist haverin?
mcfc says:
April 11, 2015 at 11:02 am
……… is he hoping to put cheap lipstick on a pig and flip RIFC for a quick profit once CL is ………
___________________________________________________
Nice analogy.
This may well have been DCK’s intention.
But this pig has only been surviving because it was fed on SDH leftovers.
And I think Mike wants some bacon, now.
btw this trademark thing is all about the first tranche RNS and contract. Surely this is the first thing the RRM looked at after the EGM coup as they considered taking the second tranche to pay the wages. So the RRM have known the full details since 6th Mar or soon after. Were the RRM ever planning to tell the fans that the trademarks had changed ownership and there was no plan to get them back – pre-EGM King said he had no plan to repay Ashley’s £5mil. Then Eco went and pointed out the IPO change of ownership and suddenly the RRM are outraged, a probe is launched and an invesigation is demanded into a matter they are fully aware of. Now that seems dishonest to me.
Murray (P); ”total transparency, total honesty and total openness”
King; “absolute transparency and accountability”
Just something I remembered from a couple of nights ago,due to this mornings revelation of a default on the loan.
Someone tweeted on Thursday night that TRFC fans would be apoplectic when they find out about Murray Park,following this by tweeting that his info is TRFC will soon be training at the Rugby fields in Anniesland.info came from the Rugby Club it seems.
If a default has ocurred,then it could be Ashley has moved to take control of murray Park also.
Just twitter though,so could be rubbish.
hoffed’ on the pavement edge,
It was good to share, even the paper that stuck, and the grit.
On the penny caramel nostalgia front, I would recommend to anyone out there hankering for that other planet we used to inhabit to have a look at
https://www.facebook.com/lostglasgowofficial
Fantastic resource, very evocative of tenement life – and a whole host of other things too. Good for anyone – not just the weegies 🙂
mcfc says:
April 11, 2015 at 2:25 pm
btw this trademark thing is all about the first tranche RNS and contract. Surely this is the first thing the RRM looked at after the EGM coup as they considered taking the second tranche to pay the wages. So the RRM have known the full details since 6th Mar or soon after. Were the RRM ever planning to tell the fans that the trademarks had changed ownership and there was no plan to get them back – pre-EGM King said he had no plan to repay Ashley’s £5mil. Then Eco went and pointed out the IPO change of ownership and suddenly the RRM are outraged, a probe is launched and an invesigation is demanded into a matter they are fully aware of. Now that seems dishonest to me.
Murray (P); ”total transparency, total honesty and total openness”
King; “absolute transparency and accountability”
———————————————————
Well, where to start if trying to reach an objective opinion with no vested interest in whether Ashley or RRM end-up owning or controlling Rangers.
I would think that to get any final and definive legal opinion on any contract between SportsDirect and Rangers would probably take 2/3 months, And then – if agreement wasn’t reached – it would need to be tested in court.
IMO TSFM posters have got to try and investigate the facts as impartially as possible and reach any conclusions on that basis.
I have no idea of the priority list of DK and T3B and I don’t think any poster on here is in a better factual position. As I have said on many previous occasions posters have every right to speculate.
As a Celtic supporter I don’t actually care what the RRM tell Bears or don’t tell Bears. Not my problem and not a problem IMO for Scottish Football.
We have to be careful and not be deflected from the real issue here and that is what is the SFA position. And even more importantly if that position is contrary to the interests and integrity of Scottish Football.
If we forget that then we might as well all go and join football fan sites and spout our partisan support for our individual teams.
I think TSFM means more than that and requires a broader view, It shouldn’t be pro or anti Ashley or pro or anti DK. It should be looking at what is actually happening and weighing-up how Scottish Football in a wider sense might be affected.
And the more factual evidence that can be included the better IMO. The use of emotive language and partisan support for one side or another isn’t helpful IMO.
The almost incessant attack on the DK camp from some posters has to be examined in a wider context and the question has to be raised: Why do some posters view all that RRM do as reprehensible and the previous – in a long line – incumbents as worthy of praise?
I actually find the demand for total transparency from DK as quite risible. There is no football club in Scotland where that happens and, indeed, virtually no business in Scotland where that happens.
A fixation that Rangers should be different IMO is a tad obsessive. Commercial organisations – especially in very difficult financial circumstances – must be careful about public statements they make.
If they have any sense they will not respond to pressure goading them into so doing to hand ammunition to internal or extenal factions seeking to establish control.
That’s a PR battle that TSFM IMO has got to look beyond – I believe we have to look at where this is going to end-up and how that will affect Scottish Football.
Perhaps I am totally mistaken in my opinion and and perhaps the majority of TSFM posters/lurkers believe that the main objective is the destruction of DK.
I have no problem with that – however I will no longer be here.
I really love the comment:
Well – just for balance – a few hours before this info was apparently put in the public domain at Companies House: Derek Llambias and Barry Leach told the Official Rangers Supporters Fan Board that the badges and crest remained the property of RFC.
Weren’t they aware of the terms of the Loan Deal? Didn’t they know that within a few hours Rangers would have given-up its trade mark rights and ownership?
Why didn’t they inform the fan borad of the actual facts?
The meeting in question with the fan Noard was a month before the egm where the pair of them were ousted as Rangers directors.
Plenty of questions require to be answered by both sides. However some are more important than others.
I think in the priority list on this one DL & BL outrank DK.
Transparency over the need to not to be transparent about certain matters is necessary. Apart from anything else some things needed to be dealt with out of the light -or off the radar even.
ecobhoy says:
April 11, 2015 at 4:24 pm
DCK’s ascension to the throne, is a symptom of the piss poor regulation of UK PLC not the cause.
Chatter is that the default, arose from sacking of DL & BL, material breach of loan conditions? The waters are still a bit muddy, though doubtless they will clear 😉
That’s a PR battle that TSFM IMO has got to look beyond – I believe we have to look at where this is going to end-up and how that will affect Scottish Football.
Perhaps I am totally mistaken in my opinion and and perhaps the majority of TSFM posters/lurkers believe that the main objective is the destruction of DK.
I have no problem with that – however I will no longer be here.
=========================================
IMO it’s not about the destruction of Dave King. It’s about the destruction of the culture that supports Dave King. The same culture that supported Charles Green, Craig Whyte, and David Murray. It is a culture that thrives with the support of the sporting media, much of the news media, and some politicians. Destroying that culture will remove the privilege currently granted to anyone who enters the front door at Ibrox as a majority shareholder. Even when that shareholder has a criminal record for major tax evasion the culture dictates he must be treated with deference, simply because he is a Rangers man.
ecobhoy says:
April 11, 2015 at 4:04 pm
Like you Eco, I couldn’t care less about RFC or RRM. It makes for some whimsical humour in my quieter moments, but in truth, I only really care about my own team.
However, I also care that the game we all play, share & watch and the leagues & competitions that our respective teams compete in, are fair and honestly contested with all playing by the rules.
One team, one club, didn’t play by those rules and the governing body, whose duty it was to enforce these rules(to put it mildly) looked the other way, while this behaviour was ongoing.
Therefore, I can understand why many posters are still affected by this, when considering the current set up down Edmiston way. I can also understand why many find it difficult to forget & move on. I can understand, even if I don’t agree, that many fans of other clubs want their pound of flesh from a club, that serially cheated & distorted the game for so many years.
Unfortunately, I suspect that this lasting enmity will continue for many years to come, but I hope that I’m wrong and we can move on at some point?
scapaflow says:
April 11, 2015 at 4:49 pm
ecobhoy says:
April 11, 2015 at 4:24 pm
DCK’s ascension to the throne, is a symptom of the piss poor regulation of UK PLC not the cause.
Chatter is that the default, arose from sacking of DL & BL, material breach of loan conditions? The waters are still a bit muddy, though doubtless they will clear.
————————————————————
You raise an interesting point over ‘sacking’. I simply don’t see that if they were ‘sacked’ as directors in accordance with Company Law that any UK Court would find that a legal reason for termianting a commercial contract.
Similarly afaik they haven’t been ‘sacked’ as employees but if they are and it’s in accordance with UK Employment Legislation then the same argument applies. They have a clear right of redress under employment legislation.
I am led to believe they have no connection with SportsDirect or Ashley so how does that allow the contract to be voided no matter whether the sacking was fair or unfair?
Also I wonder whether they were employed by TRFCL or RIFC Plc. The loan contract, allegedly voided. was with TRFCL and yet I would have thought the employment contract would have been with RIFC Plc. I could be wrong about that but I tend to think I’m not.
The big problem about the likes of twitter IMO is the empowerment it gives people who haven’t checked their facts before spouting rubbish. The character count limit also doesn’t help in that regard and that’s why personally I don’t use it.
The likes of TSFM is a different kettle of fish where we can advance different viewpoints and provide facts to support our possibly diverse opinions.
ecobhoy says:
April 11, 2015 at 5:13 pm
I should have put sacking in quotes as “sacking”, because as you point out, it is far from clear exactly what happened.
As to their connection or otherwise to the SD empire, again who the hell knows?
There are two themes in this saga of interest to me:
1. The governance of Scottish Football
2. The governance of UK PLC, and how that impacts on 1
Cygnus X-1 says:
April 11, 2015 at 5:05 pm
ecobhoy says:
April 11, 2015 at 4:04 pm
Like you Eco, I couldn’t care less about RFC or RRM. It makes for some whimsical humour in my quieter moments, but in truth, I only really care about my own team.
However, I also care that the game we all play, share & watch and the leagues & competitions that our respective teams compete in, are fair and honestly contested with all playing by the rules.
—————————————————–
Please don’t misunderstand my position. I totally agree with your beliefs wrt the wider game and, indeed, my main aim in posting on TSFM has always been to hold the SFA to account for its failings, weakness and IMO corruption.
It’s in that sense that I don’t give a stuff what Rangers does – I care about how the football authorities deal with them – or any other team – which deliberately breaks the rules.
As to normal stuff – where the rules aren’t broken – I would normally say I don’t care if Broxi Bear owns, operates amd controls Ibrox. That is an issue for the Bears.
Of course I now look at Broxi Bear in a different light as a pro-tem wholly-owned subsidiary of a holding company outwith the Rangers hegemony 😆
All this toffee & caramel talk makes me realise why the second part of my life has been a dental rescue mission 😀
So it’s either accomodation with Ashley or find the most RFC orientated club support and hope they’ll go for an amalgamation? Would solve a lot of problems, especially if you suddenly came to the pragmatic realisation — followed by public admission — that Sevco urnae Rangers.
Any clubs looking for a reinvention?
Eco
Of course I now look at Broxi Bear in a different light as a pro-tem wholly-owned subsidiary of a holding company outwith the Rangers hegemony 😆
But only the costume right? No ones back to slave ownership.. yet. Just wage slavery.
ianagain says:
April 11, 2015 at 5:30 pm
The poor beastie will be on a zero honey contract
upthehoops says:
April 11, 2015 at 4:58 pm
That’s a PR battle that TSFM IMO has got to look beyond – I believe we have to look at where this is going to end-up and how that will affect Scottish Football.
Perhaps I am totally mistaken in my opinion and and perhaps the majority of TSFM posters/lurkers believe that the main objective is the destruction of DK.
I have no problem with that – however I will no longer be here.
=========================================
IMO it’s not about the destruction of Dave King. It’s about the destruction of the culture that supports Dave King. The same culture that supported Charles Green, Craig Whyte, and David Murray. It is a culture that thrives with the support of the sporting media, much of the news media, and some politicians. Destroying that culture will remove the privilege currently granted to anyone who enters the front door at Ibrox as a majority shareholder. Even when that shareholder has a criminal record for major tax evasion the culture dictates he must be treated with deference, simply because he is a Rangers man.
——————————————————————–
I have to say UTH that I recognise my limitations and that means I know I can’t change the ‘culture’ that a fairly large section of the Rangers’ support still operate within.
Perhaps I should do more but I have always had a realistic view of my potential to change the world except when I was an active Marxist and listed on the Economic League Blacklist as a ‘special threat’ 😆
Change IMO within certain cultural aspects of the Ibrox support can only come about through direct action by the Scottish Government or through the slow drip of time which can change society for the better.
I know the latter works and have watched it happen in Scotland over many decades. How long it will take to deal with the general ‘cultural’ problem at Rangers I don’t know. I can’t even be sure whether the collapse of RFC will eradicate it or worsen the climate.
So I concentrate on what I believe can achieve a real change at the SFA in terms of cultural change within that organisation.
All I require is that all clubs are subject to the same rules and that these rules are applied equally and fairly without fear or favour.
I simply don’t care who owns or operates any football club other than the one I support. Other clubs are a matter for their supporters to worry about IMO. And supporters get the club they deserve and want in my experience.
It’s when these clubs are outwith or feel they are entitled to be outwith the rules and regulations I get interested. And that has to be separated IMO from the wishes of a section of their support.
It has to be the Ownership/management of the club that is held to account by the SFA.
ianagain says:
April 11, 2015 at 5:30 pm
Eco
Of course I now look at Broxi Bear in a different light as a pro-tem wholly-owned subsidiary of a holding company outwith the Rangers hegemony 😆
But only the costume right? No ones back to slave ownership. yet. Just wage slavery.
——————————————————–
Well I suppose it all depends on whether you define zero hours contracts as ‘slave ownership’ or ‘wage slavery’.
Personally I find it difficult to see that the end result is any different in terms of the profits earned by the slave masters and their gang bosses.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TFwprS_L6tg Yeah, you tell em Dave !!!!!
ecobhoy says:
April 11, 2015 at 4:04 pm
And the more factual evidence that can be included the better IMO. The use of emotive language and partisan support for one side or another isn’t helpful IMO.
================================================
Eco – you seem to have a problem with some very short steps of logic I’ve made and then haughtiiy dismiss the whole subject as irrelevant – so why waste pixels on it. It would be more constructive if you could pick my logic apart for the sake of discussion. Perhaps I’ve offended you in some way.
scapaflow says:
April 11, 2015 at 4:49 pm
ecobhoy says:
April 11, 2015 at 4:24 pm
DCK’s ascension to the throne, is a symptom of the piss poor regulation of UK PLC not the cause.
Chatter is that the default, arose from sacking of DL & BL, material breach of loan conditions? The waters are still a bit muddy, though doubtless they will clear 😉
_____________________________________________________
Barca on twitter suggesting that the EGM resolution led directly to the default.
LA allowed SD to nominate 2 directors to RIFC board ‘for the duration of the facility’.
Interpretation seems to be that DL and/or BL were nominated by SD (it would only ever need for one of them nominated by SD) and they had clearly been accepted by RIFC onto its BOD.
(This would need to be clearly established for the violation to be effected. But SD could have ‘nominated’ its directors, (including from directors already in office) at any time when the facility was in force)
ergo, by voting off any (of the) SD nominated director(s), this act would immediately precipitate a ‘fundamental’ breach of the LA, by the RIFC party.
In other words, the specific resolutions of the requisitioners relating to any SD nominated director(s) were constructed such that a default of the LA by RIFC became immediate and inevitable as soon as such a resolution was voted through.
The shareholders basically voted to unilaterally rip up a legally constructed and enforceable agreement.
This will explain by BL&DL never resigned, even when it became apparent that the requisitioners would carry the day, and also why the EGM had to go ahead.
If BL&DL had resigned like Somers, or the EGM resolutions had not gone through, no default of the LA would have been effected.
Interesting to note :slamb: subsequent reports that the new board ‘elected not’ to proceed with the drawdown of the second £5m tranche.
Because if the interpretation cited above proves correct, then they were already in default of the entire LA at that point, and stood absolutely no chance of accessing that funding!
Their best move would have been an immediate repayment of the first £5m, so that their breach would at least have been effected with ‘equitable remedy’ in place.
If (as it appears) they have not done so, then they probably don’t have a leg to stand on.
Eco – having read further – you seem to think I’m holding the RRM to a higher standard than L&L and previous regimes – wrong.
But when people involved in the crash of a previous club try to take the moral high ground with proposterous statements of T H O A they deserve to be held to their own standards and riduiculed when they fall so clumsily short.
Rangers Mk 1, went belly up, because it failed to live within its means. The problems with HMRC, HBOS, the arrival of Whyte all stemmed from an organisational culture that believed the normal rules of business did not apply to them
DCK was a big part of that culture for years, all the mood music he’s been playing, has been about returning to the good old days, which were rooted in that old culture.
Its hardly surprising if people feel that the burden of proof rests with Kingco, on whether or not Rangers MkII are going to be good corporate citizens.
This place (TSFM) is a good place.
I feel comfortable here.
I am not subjected to bad words, threats, slagging, discrimination etc etc.
Sometimes people need to express themselves without the fear of all of this.
Every post is an education. Every post.
I fully endorse this all inclusive approach.
Mr King, I believe, has a claim for £20m lodged with BDO, re an investment he made in the Oldco. This claim will have a serious effect on the payout to the other creditors, if he pursues it.
Considering that he was a director of the entity in process of liquidation, and he now stands ready to take control of Newco, how can he at any stage in the future defend the same club status.
Furthermore, if he does receive a payout from BDO, and that money is then used to fund the Newco,then we will have really plumbed the depths.
This site continues to inform and entertain. I’m sure I can’t be alone in not being able to check in more than once a day.
The complications of the two company set up and their inter-relationships set me thinking about how its all managed by the boards, execs, managers and staff.
Do they have enough staff?
Enough staff with the right expertise?
Am I right in thinking they share premises? Staff? Admin support? Admin systems? Supervisory structures? Desks with TRFC and RIFC drawers?
Does Stevie in IT do TRFC work three days a week and RIFC work the other two? Or does he do whatever is needed by for the two companies as it comes up? If there are different staff for the different companies do they work well together or are there internal stresses?
If any of this is actually the case, then its more than likely than uncounted snafus as likely without good managerial and supervisory skills and systems.
If it was also the case that TRFC also let go some staff recently then my guess is the remaining staff are under quite a bit of pressure.
Given there also seems to be a lack of an executive involvement – is that on both boards now? – can’t quite remember, – the situation might be one that is just storing up problems.
Are bills being paid on time? are records being kept? Are there long periods of time when stuff isn’t signed off by someone until a director approves? Is the necessary forward planning being done? Is anyone preparing the reports for the SFA for the licensing requirements?
Is anyone opening the mail from the SFA? Any mail?
Just wondering.
Big Pink 3.06
I had a look at the STV outside broadcast from Glasgow Cross at Hogmany in 1957.
I remember being there and how crowded it was and how bright the lights were.
I lived about 200 yards away in the Gallowgate and at 18.01 in I could see two brothers James and Pat Fagan who lived across the street from me.
Larry Marshall and the One O Clock Gang. Jimmy Nairn and Charlie Sim. All made a good living from the arrival of STV.
Auldheid says:
April 12, 2015 at 12:25 am
______________________________
not forgetting gangsters Dorothy Paul and Moira Briody 🙂
nor the Tommy Maxwell Quartet who played the intro and outro music – and included my old guitar tutor, the brilliant Ron Moore.
Loved hogmanay shows,they were shown in N.I.I still can see a very intoxicating Eddi Reader propping up an Edinburgh hallway singing a Dean Martin number, can anyone confirm?
Cygnus X-1 says 11th April 5.05 p.m.
“…..Unfortunately, I suspect that this lasting enmitywill continue for many years to come, but I hope that I’m wrong and we can move on at some point:”
__________________
It’s not really a question of enmity.
There can be no ‘ moving on’ until the canket of corruption has been excised from Scottish Football governance.
There must be public acknowlegdgement of and apology for the 5way agreement, public football declaration that SDM was a cheat, the stripping of all titles and honours ‘won’ by his cheating, public football acknowledgement that TRFC are NOT entitled to claim to be RFC of old, and the dismissal from office of all those involved in the scandalous deception and fraud perpetrated on us all.
When that happens, it may be time to move on.
gemen
CANKET should of course read Canker!
and I’m still in Brisbane, posting not at 3 a.m, but at noon.
More than a bit off topic, I’m now convinced your typing is better after a beer, John. 😆 What was the ‘tinny to typo’ ratio in your post?
Went to the last league home game for St (Candy) Rocks v Forth yesterday and was treated to good football from both sides,refereeing is tough at this level,no linesmen to assist,the Rock ran out 3-0 winners and has kept them in the mix ,Bertie Auld gave the home team a pep talk before the match with Celtic historian Pat Woods also up for the match,we where treated to some fancy footwork from Big B where he danced through the Forth defence for a sublime finish,on a day with a bitter wind making play difficult for both teams the fair dished up was well worth the £4 entry money,the pie and bovril at half time went down well also,all in all with the Grand National then later the golf,a decent Saturday .
Are you a supermarket worker who feels they have no choice but to claim state benefits? Email haveyoursay@bbc.co.uk with your stories.
If you would be happy to speak further to a BBC journalist, please include a contact telephone number.
Read our terms and conditions.
. . .
Saw this at the end of an article about staff in the retail industry.
I wonder what the “BBC journalist” would write if the story involved SD staff who are involved selling Rangers* items
. . . Would the “BBC journalist” then go off at a tangent
(since Rangers* are involved) and completely miss the point of the article or the discussion and change the ‘interview’ to their own agenda ??
I wonder who the poor soul is that seems to be constantly on the site and gives thumbs downt to,I imagine,all posts that contain certain words or phrases ,if it’s any comfort to you there is help available ,if you kindly give your contact details I will let you know where to get this help.
Wow ,that took 6m 30s on the countdown clock to get,2 TD ,where were you I demand to know,and did you click twice,tut,tut.
Big Pink
April 12, 2015 at 1:48 am
Ron Moore .Fine man indeed
Everytime I pass West Regent Street I think of my lessons with Ron in the top floor above Bradfords Music shop ,him sitting there patiently encouraging me in his Yorkshire Accent with a
recently extinguished Capstan smouldering
in the ashtray.
Happy days Indeed.
yourhavingalaugh says: April 12, 2015 at 9:30 am
Went to the last league home game for St (Candy) Rocks v Forth yesterday and was treated to good football from both sides,refereeing is tough at this level,no linesmen to assist,the Rock ran out 3-0 winners and has kept them in the mix ,Bertie Auld gave the home team a pep talk before the match with Celtic historian Pat Woods also up for the match,we where treated to some fancy footwork from Big B where he danced through the Forth defence for a sublime finish,on a day with a bitter wind making play difficult for both teams the fair dished up was well worth the £4 entry money,the pie and bovril at half time went down well also,all in all with the Grand National then later the golf,a decent Saturday .
===========================
Coincidently, I was there too yesterday. When Hearts aren’t at home on a Saturday, I try to visit a ground I haven’t been to before. I’ve been to all the SPFL grounds (including most of the former grounds) plus all the Junior grounds in the Lothians and Fife, so I’ve been branching out to the West region of late. My tally of Junior grounds is now up to 65.
It’s always good value at Junior grounds, although the pies are variable in quality. Yesterday’s was decent though.
As for the refereeing, you can’t get everything right, particularly offsides without linesmen, so the ref got some right and some wrong for both sides. However, he got the penalty badly wrong as the Forth defender made a great challenge to knock the ball out for what should have been a corner. The other two goals from Baboucarr were well taken though.
Just read the latest from – ibroxnoise.co.uk (I will paste below)
but in the article, the bloke is (ironically) castigating Alistair Johnstone for suggesting the ‘crest’ be altered slightly, so they don’t need to pay Bike Mike or get his authorisation for the present ones, as the ‘crest’ is part of the soul of the club and it would be a change too far to make ANY change, as it then would not be the original !!
(Obvoiusly not realising that changing Rangers Football Club, to, THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB or Rangers Football Club PLC, to, RANGERS INTERNATIONAL FOOTBALL CLUB PLC, does not constitute enough changes to render the ‘original’ one as substantive enough…and also, in the same article, the guy mentions the revelations about Big Mike and the fact BM has control of the ‘crest’, but the author, fails to mention where or who this information exclusive emanated from – take a bow – Eco )
5M to preserve Rangers’ soul – a small price to pay
The Mike Ashley crest story has reared its head again recently, even though it was broken months ago.
In essence, as part of the various loans to keep Rangers afloat, the Newcastle owner not only managed to snaff a couple of his own executives onto Rangers’ board, but he snatched Club trademarks, including the badge, and the entire Retail division too.
This resurfaced as a non-story with the notion that Rangers’ board were treating it as a matter of urgency as of a couple of days ago, when in reality the scenario has existed for many months and should have been one of the highest priorities from the get-go.
But, as previously mentioned, Ashley holds all the aces here and controls all the above. Simply because it is contractual, signed off, and legally bound.
However, the get-out is that if Rangers pay Sports Direct back the £5M, it voids the contracts. They become null, and Ashley will have absolutely no control. From STV:
“STV can reveal the “assignation” of the trademarks is not irrevocable and ownership should automatically be returned to the club upon repayment.”
In other words, this is not a one-way ticket, and can be reversed.
So when one witnesses Alastair Johnston being trotted out again (you know, the guy who helped Mark Daly win a BAFTA with his lies over Rangers) to suggest that the multimillionaires on Rangers’ board do NOT pay it back and instead alter over a century’s worth of Rangers’ history by rebranding the most important symbol of the Club, the crest, one cannot help but be astounded.
“I don’t mean a new badge entirely but to get as close as you can get to it without trespassing on what Ashley thinks he’s got the rights to.”
Johnston said. Or…Douglas Park (£100M), Dave King (£XXXM) or Paul Murray (£ ? M) can find a spare £5M among them and just pay the man off, get Sports Direct out of Rangers and let the Club move on at long last.
To truly advocate a rebrand of the crest, however moderate, suggests being out of touch to the point of being on Pluto.
King, Murray and Park, among others, fought for years to get Rangers. They have promised investment, millions of it. And the most important investment they can provide is safeguarding the Club’s very soul for the good of its future by securing back Retail, trademarks, directors, and of course that precious crest.
They have control, they are the ones who professed to do things ‘in the best interests of the Club’ (their words), so it is clearly time to put that cash where their mouths are and get Ashley off the Club’s back.
£5M among a group of millionaires is a small price to pay for Rangers’ best interests.
Flocculent Apoidea@ 8.58 a.m says
“…….tinny to typo ratio..”
______________
Ha, ha.
Flocculent Apoidea:
I have had one, and only one, 375 ml bottle of Coopers OrigInal Pale Ale. But the rest of my response to your post disappeared!
I had put a wee smiley icon, and had then written ” I suppose there is an optimum ratio at which the train of thought is well lubricated while the motor skills are still effective enough to express the thoughts. I haven’t yet found that ratio. Working on it, though.”
It’s this daft wee keyboard on this tablet thingy that’s the real problem, I think. It really is too easy to hit the wrong button, and not notice.
John Clark says:
April 12, 2015 at 12:52 pm
It’s this daft wee keyboard on this tablet thingy that’s the real problem, I think. It really is too easy to hit the wrong button, and not notice.
—————————————-
You may have already tried this John, in which case, please ignore. I can recommend using a tablet stylus (loads of types including mini ones available), which can assist greatly with tablet-writing precision in cases of not-having-reading-specs-on, or sausage-fingerness.
(P.S. Although I don’t think they are any help if the problem arises from the stubby holder having been replenished too many times with beers.)
Would I be right in saying that they can tinker all they like and get a badge similar to the previous club, but as soon as they change it it’s surely a new badge and cannot have any of the wording that MA has control of which would mean the words Rangers, Ready, Rangers Football Club and some others. Or I could be completely wrong…..I thinks SEVCO SCOTLAND is available…..or maybe not!
I’ve never quite known what to make of a couple of pieces of the jigsaw viz: Glasgow Rangers Ltd and Glasgow Rangers Football Club Ltd.
But the two dormant companies have recently awoken from their slumbers before being sent to their eternal rest. I wonder if they have any tales to tell?
A striking-off application for the companies was received by Companies House on 6 February 2015 and the first Gazette Notice for voluntary strike-off recorded on 24/02/15.
Both companies were incorporated on 25 October 2011 with the same registered office in Cressex Business Park, High Wycombe and on 15/11/2012 the registered offices were altered to a Holmer Green address still in High Wycombe. On 11/12/2013 the registered offices were again changed to a Gerards Cross address in Buckinghamshire only to change back to the earlier Holmer Green address in February 2014.
Lot of activity for dormant companies one might think whose purpose was listed on incorporation as: ‘operation of sports facilities’.
The sole director listed from incorporation is a Mr Gerard Moran, 49, who has also served as company secretary since incorporation at the initial registered office address. He also holds directorships in: Credit Agreement Auditors Ltd and Contract Renewals Ltd and has retired as a director of Gaselectric Renewals Ltd.
The latter company’s registered office was initially 145-157 ST JOHN STREET, LONDON, EC1V 4PY, before being moved to the Holmer Green and Gerards Coss addresses – as per the two ‘Glasgow Rangers’ Companies – before finally being transferred back to the original London registered address.
That address also happens to be the same as the registered office for Kieran Prior’s ‘Priority Trust’ charity but I’m sure this is simply coincidental.
Back in October 2011 Craig Whyte was questioned about the two ‘Glasgow Rangers’ companies and denied all knowledge of them and of any link to Rangers.
I suppose the striking-off might follow activity to protect the Rangers ‘Brand’ in view of the use of the ‘Rangers’ name coupled with ‘Glasgow’. If so, interesting that a positive result – in Brand Protection terms – happened shortly after the former Rangers Board giving Trade Mark ownership to SportsDirect. However, that too, is probably coincidental.
Hard to know what Mr Moran’s interest or intention in setting-up the companies actually was and why they have remained on Companies House Register for so long.
Tartanwulver@1.06 pm
_______________€
I didn’t know such things existed,even. Thanks for that: I’ll have a look tomorrow, because I may be here until end of May ( visa permitting) and using this tablet is trying my patience. My forefinger is not particularly fat,but it can easily hit 4, possibly 5, keys at a time at anything other a very careful and deliberate snail’s pace.
I think Jim Larkin has crystallised the situation regarding the IP rights. Given that, on the OCNC debate the OC side will point to those IP rights as the core of the “ethereal entity”, the choice is pretty much of the Hobson’s variety for KingCo.
Is “Rangers” worth £5m in the grand scheme of things? Is the heart and soul of their club worth the risk of not paying? In fact does any risk taking on that basis constitute a pass in a fit and proper RRM test?
The fact that KingCo are dithering at all on this (talking to SD instead of PAYING them) shows either the true nature of King’s intentions or the true quantum of the KingCo bank balance – although I won’t believe that £5m couldn’t be assembled very quickly.
The only excuse for KIngCo not paying up immediately is that a default event has occurred.
Big Pink says:
April 12, 2015 at 1:18 pm
It stretches my credulity beyond breaking point, that this would have come as a surprise to Kingco. There is simply no excuse, for Kingco not having a plan and funding in place, the second the EGM was over. None. Zip. Nada
OK, a football company is not a normal investment, but even so, going looking for new investors, 5 minutes after defaulting, (for whatever) reason on a £5M loan, & in the process potentially turning an income generator into a cost, will hardly build confidence among your potential investors.
Lunacy, sheer feckless lunacy
ecobhoy says:
April 12, 2015 at 1:14 pm
__________________________________________________
Vaguely recall some discussion somewhere that the GRFC registrations were probably the work of a ‘carpetbagger’ trying to ‘frontrun’ naming rights to a newco ahead of the liquidation?
Ecobhoy says
April 12 2015 @1.14pm
I remember, prior to administration, a guy in southern England registered a few companies using the words “Glasgow” and “Rangers”. The story was at the time he was doing it to block the use of those names in the future. I can’t remember the chap`s name unfortunately.
Coincidentally, Mr Ashley hails from the High Wycombe area.
On the Auldheid and Big Pink “One o’clock Gang” theme, I remember being taken by a new friend of the family ( a very personable and engaging chap who came from Silvergrove St in Brigton, and a few years older than I) to be in the studio audience in the Theatre Royal to watch that day’s edition, as it went out live.This was in 1960.
I was gobsmacked when, at the end of the show, he matter-of-factly took me ‘ backstage’ and introduced me to Larry Marshall and Charlie Sim and Jimmy Nairn, who greeted him with great warmth and affection and blethered about former times. (And, of course, were civil and welcoming to me).
It seemed clear enough to me that my friend must have had some kind of show-biz connection with them.
I regret that I was too backward an adolescent to ask him, and he did not volunteer to tell me,what the connection was.
I know that my friend , whose real name was Tony Casey, was no mean singer and, indeed, a very outgoing, personable chap, now long deceased.I’ve googled, of course, but I don’t doubt that if he had been any kind of performer he would have had a stage name.
Whatever, that experience of the backstage buzz and excitement after a live tv production has remained with me
Resin LD
Agree with you there. I remember a guy registered “Bafana Bafana” in South Africa (nobody had thought to do it) and both made money from it and got a lump sum pay off once SAFA eventually decided to pay and own the name. Maybe thus guy was taking a similar chance?
oddjob says:
April 12, 2015 at 1:46 pm
Ecobhoy says
April 12 2015 @1.14pm
I remember, prior to administration, a guy in southern England registered a few companies using the words “Glasgow” and “Rangers”. The story was at the time he was doing it to block the use of those names in the future. I can’t remember the chap`s name unfortunately.
Coincidentally, Mr Ashley hails from the High Wycombe area.
—————————————————————–
I remember that story at the time although the Bears plumped more for the explanation it was an obsessive Celtic Fan 😆 Surely Not! 🙄
The reason I decided to post it was really the proximity of the striking-off to the transfer of TM ownership which might mean nothing of course. I’ve always felt that maybe the guy was out to make a fast buck but it niggles away – why has he hung-on so long.
Why did none of the previous Rangers owners/boards including CW take any action? Was it a chip being banked for future use if required?
So many questions – so few answers.
I’ve watched the I o’clock Gang setimental trip and of course I remember them all. However – perhaps it says something about my interests when I say my attention was drawn more to the Beeb’s White Heather Dancers wae wee Andy – not that he was what riveted me to the wee black & white screen 😉
It got me into Scottish country dancing which stood me in good stead in various places and a lifetime of enjoying ceilidhs.
Totally OTT
ecobhoy says:
April 12, 2015 at 2:40 pm
A good chunk of my well spent youth was spent in the Royal Oak, which was run by two sisters Dprothy & Sandra who were both dancers in The White Heather Club. Some great nights when some of the old gang were in town, playing in panto, or in a production somewhere.
Getting your pint in was often a challenge, as there wasn’t really a queue for the bar, just folk crammed in from the bar to the door, (and up the stairs if you were in the free for all in the cellar) listening to the music.
Totally OTT, but like the Girls lol
Re the Sevco trademarks business.
Ecobhoy wondered why the Rangers scroll design with the 5 stars was not among the TM owned by SD.
According to PMG in October last year, this TM belongs to Imran Ahmad, Charles Green and Rafat Rizvi.
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/charlie-and-the-badge-kissers/#more-5191
Chico young in very high spirits as he reports a goal at £1brox for the hosts
The sun actually is shining on Leith at the moment 😉
Not so much in Gorgie though
ecobhoy@2.40 p.m.
———–‘
Ah, the White Heather dancers! When will we see their likes again?
The very epitome of maidenly grace and beauty (I speak of the girls, of course) , but utterly unattainable, and completely unaware and uncaring,anyway, of the chivalric readiness one had to die for even a wee personally aimed smile
from any of them, and especially from one’s favourite.
I am suddenly 15 again.And No actual lassie that one can actually speak to comes anywhere near the perfection to be seen on screen!
And I know bloody well that none of the actual lassies of whom I speak thought that I was their dream!
John Clark says:
April 12, 2015 at 3:29 pm
yeah, the pedestal and the reality was a bit different. In middle age, the girls sure as hell knew how to enjoy themselves, even at 18 keeping up was a challenge
scapa,
http://www.scotsman.com/news/pioneer-of-pub-folk-music-dies-after-battle-with-cancer-1-703021
Big Pink says:
April 12, 2015 at 4:01 pm
It was very sad, Dot never got to enjoy her retirement, though the send off was a bit special
last time I saw Sandra, she was was working in the bistro in the North British, as full of vim as ever
We used to start off in the West End Hotel, then up to Sandy Bells till about half an hour before closing, along to the Oak, out the Oak the back of 4, and wander down to the Penny Black or Old Salt for opening at 5:30am.
It would bloody kill me if I tried that now
scapaflow says:
April 12, 2015 at 3:11 pm
The sun actually is shining on Leith at the moment 😉
Not so much in Gorgie though
————
Got to say I’ve really enjoyed the Hibs matches this season. Enterprising and entertaining. Cracking stadium too. I was at part 1 of the Malmö humiliation and they’ve come so far since then. All done within budget and paying taxes. Cup semi and play-off all but certain. Lots to be proud of.
Dave King breaks his silence over the trademark ownership issue. Just a lot of positive noise IMO.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/dave-king-hits-back-over-5506108
Sergio Biscuits says:
April 12, 2015 at 2:56 pm
Re the Sevco trademarks business.
Ecobhoy wondered why the Rangers scroll design with the 5 stars was not among the TM owned by SD.
According to PMG in October last year, this TM belongs to Imran Ahmad, Charles Green and Rafat Rizvi.
————————————————————
I remember seeing that blog by Phil at the time because I was also posting on the subject. My query has always been more along the lines that the scroll crest surmounted by the 5 stars doesn’t appear afaik on any Trade Mark register anywhere in the world.
Its use by the club predates Rangers going into admin in Feb 2012 and Green’s arrival. It’s entirely possible Rangers took the view that there was no need to trademark it as the RFC scroll was the dominant part and tightly trademarked anyway.
Personally IMO it should have been separately trademarked. IIRC Phil also said that Green had a slice of the more traditional ‘Ready’ badge as well.
How these ‘slices’ might have been obtained I know not. But I would think that now Ashley owns the TMs that he will be doing his best to find out. Whether he can do anything about it is another matter of course.
John Clark says:
April 12, 2015 at 2:59 am
It’s not really a question of enmity.
There can be no ‘ moving on’ until the canket of corruption has been excised from Scottish Football governance.
There must be public acknowlegdgement of and apology for the 5way agreement, public football declaration that SDM was a cheat, the stripping of all titles and honours ‘won’ by his cheating, public football acknowledgement that TRFC are NOT entitled to claim to be RFC of old, and the dismissal from office of all those involved in the scandalous deception and fraud perpetrated on us all.
When that happens, it may be time to move on.
gemen
_______________________________________________________________________________
I agree completely with you John. Indeed in my original post to Ecobhoy, I had planned to posit the idea of a “Truth & Reconciliation” inquiry, as a means of wiping the slate clean & beginning again from year zero, but as court cases & legal investigations are currently in progress, I think it’s very unlikely, if at all, such an inquiry could ever take place, certainly within the next 3-5 years at least?
upthehoops says:
April 12, 2015 at 4:33 pm
The man is certainly shameless, when’s the next statement o’clock?
“It’s time that Rangers operated board issues at board level. In previous regimes the board has spent more time in the media than the football team. I think we’ve got to reverse that, we’ve got to become professionals.”
scapaflow says:
April 12, 2015 at 4:44 pm
The man is certainly shameless, when’s the next statement o’clock?
“It’s time that Rangers operated board issues at board level. In previous regimes the board has spent more time in the media than the football team. I think we’ve got to reverse that, we’ve got to become professionals.”
=============================
The delisting event looks more convenient by the day, or should that be more deliberate by the day? Conduct all business out of the public glare, and issue PR releases to a tail wagging press pack every now and then.
upthehoops says:
April 12, 2015 at 5:09 pm
Possibly, but at some point he is going to have to deliver, if he doesn’t, the reaction will be epic. Whyte will still be a hero by comparison
Edit
“keith jackson
I hear RFC legal team are satisfied ownership of all badges and crests will transfer back to the club on repayment of Ashley’s £5m loan.”