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.
scapaflow says:
April 12, 2015 at 5:14 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.”
===============================================
Keith ‘heard’ Craig Whyte was a billionaire.
upthehoops says:
April 12, 2015 at 5:37 pm
When I did my ticket RADAR stood for Radio Aid to Detection & Ranging
now it means
Radio Aid to Deflection & Raging if you ask me
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.”
,,,,,,,,,,,,
The real issue is whether SD will agree to being repaid
I wouldn`t have thought that an interest free loan with no repayment date can be unilaterally paid back?
“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.”
But Dave, was the transfer of badges, crests etc not done at board level, not a media person in sight ? It seems the problem was that you were up against real professionals in the first place but at least you’ve recognised what you need to become . The Battle of Rock Ridge is imminent…….
Slightly off topic, but I have just been reading about a great footballer from Belfast and thought it deserved to be shared with more fitba fans.
Here’s a wee extract from BBC:
” Hasty scored 109 goals during six seasons at Dundalk and was joint leading scorer in the League of Ireland in the 1963-64 season with 35 goals.
Perhaps Hasty’s finest hour came in the European Cup in September 1963, when he created the first goal and scored the other in a 2-1 win away to FC Zurich as Dundalk became the first Irish team to win a match in the competition. ”
Nothing fantastic or unusual there, eh? Well,
not until you learn that Jimmy only had one arm!!!
There was a radio programme about him called ‘A diamond in the rough. Not sure if it’s on i player yet, but it would be well worth a listen if like me, you love a real football hero.
Jimmy tragically was murdered going to work
in Belfast by people who took exception to him.
I would have loved to have seen him in action.
PS, yes, it is on ‘i player.’
GoosyGoosy says:
April 12, 2015 at 5:59 pm
The real issue is whether SD will agree to being repaid
I wouldn`t have thought that an interest free loan with no repayment date can be unilaterally paid back?
———-
Sounds remarkably like an EBT :irony:
Developing story from Phil:
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/distance-learning/#more-6139
Phil’s latest. Things getting very interesting.
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/distance-learning/
Edit: I see Danish Pastry beat me to it!
Re phils latest. There only is one serious training area on Anniesland road.
Makes a change from when the old rangers trained at Partick cricket ground.
Looks like maybe the padlocks are imminent on MP.
I wonder if this Means that Mike Ashley now owns Sports Direct Park. Formally known as Murray Park 🙂
Twitter in overdrive now with rumours of an Ibrox Director about to resign. Rumours is what they will need to remain until such a point that something happens.
On a wider note re Phil’s story about Murray Park. Is it reasonable to ask whether Rangers, or the Murray Group, ever actually paid for this facility? Years ago Murray reduced the football club debt by £50M by attaching it to another area of his group. As we all know the bank wrote off hundreds of millions they were owed. I suppose we will never know if the money borrowed to build Murray Park was part of it.
http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/9052-rangers-international-football-club-statement
statement(eight)o’clock
andygraham.66 says:
April 12, 2015 at 8:09 pm
http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/9052-rangers-international-football-club-statement
statement(eight)o’clock
————————————————-
Jaysuz – that’s weak. Sounds as though Ashley has fired Mons Meg at 8 o’clock 🙄
It sounds as though the RRM are trapped like flies in Amber – I doubt if Bears will be happy with that. Shades of the Ticketus nightmare has returned on the difference between Scots and English Law to bite back.
Still sounds OK to me – a change of ownership doesn’t actually mean it’s actually a change of ownership 😆
. . . If you lend me a tenner – I’ll give you that fiver I owe you….
Mike, can We settle it by tossing a coin ?
Ok. . . Heads i win, tails you lose !?
andygraham.66 says:
April 12, 2015 at 8:09 pm
_______________________________________
This statement begs a simple, straight, unloaded ‘follow up’ question for any Journalist’s looking in, to put the the RIFC directors.
What is your assessment of the current status of the Loan Agreement underpinning the Loan facility referenced to in the RIFC statement of 8pm 12 April 2015?
Is it:
(a) Agreement is currently In effect?
(b) Agreement is currently In default?
(c) Agreement is currently In dispute?
(d) We currently don’t know.
A one letter answer (let alone a 1 word answer) to the above question would go a long way to clarifying and reassuring (or otherwise) the concerns of a great many stakeholders and interested onlookers.
Too good an opportunity for the board to pass up, to calm the bears nerves, surely?
A wee thought on the IP rights and the £5m loan.
Perhaps DT/T3B are in no rush to pay back the loan as the IP is largely monetized when said images are ironed onto a shirt – and there’s only one person in a position to make any money from the branded sportswear.
So ‘buying’ the badges back for £5m makes no sense in the short term ❓
parttimearab says:
April 12, 2015 at 8:34 pm
A wee thought on the IP rights and the £5m loan.
Perhaps DT/T3B are in no rush to pay back the loan as the IP is largely monetized when said images are ironed onto a shirt – and there’s only one person in a position to make any money from the branded sportswear.
So ‘buying’ the badges back for £5m makes no sense in the short term ❓
__________________________________________________
Or the long term, looking at the financial state of the club as things stand… 😈
The sports facilities on Anniesland Road are those occupied by Glasgow Accies Rugby and Cricket clubs.
upthehoops says:
April 12, 2015 at 7:36 pm
Phil’s latest. Things getting very interesting.
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/distance-learning/
———————————————————-
I think the cost would be higher in terms of both PL & EL in moving into a shared space rather than operating in your own private area.
However that’s a guess as I assume moving to shared facilities would mean abandoning the buildings, facilities and equipment which would reduce payments for some insurance cover although if equipment was moved to Ibrox then the insurance cost would increase there.
But will the new place have the swimming pool and indoor pitch? And any loss of all the specialist medical facilities at Murray Park would mean they couldn’t take on any more loan players from Newcastle so that would save them a few bob 🙄
From the RIFC statement :
“Accordingly a practice has developed of lenders taking absolute transfers subject to a back letter setting out that the transfer is in security and the property will be returned when the facility has been repaid.”
A back letter? Let’s hope nobody’s got access to a shredder, eh?
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
easyJambo says:
April 12, 2015 at 8:40 pm
The sports facilities on Anniesland Road are those occupied by Glasgow Accies Rugby and Cricket clubs.
————————————————-
Just as well they’re used to all those high punts up the park as they’ll know how to dodge all the flying balls.
Resin_lab_dog says:
April 12, 2015 at 8:38 pm
parttimearab says:
April 12, 2015 at 8:34 pm
So ‘buying’ the badges back for £5m makes no sense in the short term ❓
__________________________________________________
Or the long term, looking at the financial state of the club as things stand… 😈
================================
Or the long term, given there is no term to the £5m loan or the length of time the SD shirt deal still has to run…
Re the Daily Record “Ashley grabbed” etc.. No he did not he negotiated a commercial contract, to use grabbed is an inflammatory misuse of language.
parttimearab says:
April 12, 2015 at 8:34 pm
A wee thought on the IP rights and the £5m loan.
Perhaps DT/T3B are in no rush to pay back the loan as the IP is largely monetized when said images are ironed onto a shirt – and there’s only one person in a position to make any money from the branded sportswear.
So ‘buying’ the badges back for £5m makes no sense in the short term ❓
——————————————————————–
Ah but it’s not just the badges – it’s The Albion, The Edmiston Haunted Hoose, 26% of RRL, and a floating charge on ALL assets. But if Ashley gives them £100k for MP then they only owe him £4.9 million.
They’ll need to get The Albion back to turn it into a training assault course because if the Bears lose it and dig-up the rugby and cricket pitches they’ll get the heave-ho and have nowhere to go!
How far away is the nearest Nandos btw?
parttimearab says:
April 12, 2015 at 8:47 pm
Or the long term, given there is no term to the £5m loan or the length of time the SD shirt deal still has to run…
——————————————————–
Good point. I’ve seen references to the deal being for 5 or 7 years. But going by other contracts that have been agreed it could be in perpetuity.
I reckon all that’s left for Ashley to take is free permanent shirt sponsorship for SPORTSDIRECT as security for a very small loan.
The Rangers statement this evening acknowledged that once £5m loan is paid back the club IP will be returned from Sports Direct.
A relatively simple proposition. However, the statement makes no reference to when the directors plan to repay the loan to secure those prized items. Instead, reference is made to talks with Sports Direct will take place within the next 2 weeks.
Why the need to talk? Money talks: surely this is simple, loan repayment – IP ownership returned.
I suspect that the directors cannot access £5m to repay the loan and that the talks could be to ascertain what can be done to secure the assets -possibly a repayment plan?
Rumors this evening that a company/club director has or is about to resign. if this is true, I wonder if that director was asked for a loan to help repay the Sports Direct loan and then thought b@ll@cks to this, I’m walking away..
ecobhoy says:
April 12, 2015 at 8:52 pm
parttimearab says:
April 12, 2015 at 8:34 pm
Ah but it’s not just the badges – it’s The Albion, The Edmiston Haunted Hoose, 26% of RRL, and a floating charge on ALL assets.
===============
Not quite all the assets IIRC (Ibrox) but fair point Eco.
Still don’t see them being in too much of a rush to bring Edmiston house err…in house as it were…and the 26% of RRL won’t bring in any extra dosh…
upthehoops says:
April 12, 2015 at 7:36 pm
Phil’s latest. Things getting very interesting.
===============================================
If they are thinking of moving from MP I can’t think there would be any great short term financial benefit…unless they were paying someone to use it via some type of onerous contract…
And having thought of that could the same be true of Ibrox?
Could such contracts exist without surfacing in the accounts (hide it by tying it to TRFC rather than RIFC ?)
Possible?? Any thoughts???
Long Time Lurker says:
April 12, 2015 at 9:04 pm
The Rangers statement this evening acknowledged that once £5m loan is paid back the club crests will be returned from Sports Direct.
A relatively simple proposition. However, the statement makes no reference to when the directors plan to repay the loan to secure those prized items. Instead, reference is made to talks with Sports Direct will take place within the next 2 weeks.
Why the need to talk? Money talks: surely this is simple, loan repayment – IP ownership returned.
I suspect that the directors cannot access £5m to repay the loan and that the talks could be to ascertain what can be done to secure the assets.
Rumors this evening that a company/club director has or is about to resign. if this is true, I wonder if that director was asked for a loan to help repay the SD loan and then thought b@ll@cks to this, I’m walking away..
____________________________________________________
Interesting who this is … if it more than a rumour.
If it is Park, you would have to say its curtains, because he has enough about him to sniff out insolvent trading and enough to lose in not getting caught up in it.
If Mash is demanding £5m that he is entitled to which RIFC can’t access, erm… that would make them insolvent wouldn’t it?
But maybe its just PM standing aside for the anointed one?
how many directors are there? If one is going who?
Park must be the fav followed by Gilligan, unlikely to be the guy who came in with ChrisG. No way Potless gives up his dream job
So its one of the first two?
parttimearab says:
April 12, 2015 at 9:11 pm
upthehoops says:
April 12, 2015 at 7:36 pm
Phil’s latest. Things getting very interesting.
===============================================
If they are thinking of moving from MP I can’t think there would be any great short term financial benefit…unless they were paying someone to use it via some type of onerous contract…
And having thought of that could the same be true of Ibrox?
Could such contracts exist without surfacing in the accounts (hide it by tying it to TRFC rather than RIFC ?)
Possible?? Any thoughts???
___________________________________
If MP was encumbered with OC, wouldn’t have thought they’d be able to use it in security for the SD LA.
ergo… you gotta bet this is Mike padlocking the gates – if there is anything to it at all.
(Remember bears: If it wasn’t for Phil, no one would ever have known about the bailiff’s visits to Ibrox back in 2011. Who was on the BOD back then? Just sayin’… )
McMurdo minor is suggesting that this is now personal. plenty of twists and turn to come yet, to borrow a phrase from Eco
Perhaps Celtic could rent out Barrowfield.
parttimearab says:
April 12, 2015 at 9:11 pm
If they are thinking of moving from MP I can’t think there would be any great short term financial benefit…unless they were paying someone to use it via some type of onerous contract…
And having thought of that could the same be true of Ibrox?
—————————————————————-
As you noticed I genuinely no longer even think of Ibrox as a Rangers asset. I haven’t a clue who owns or controls it but I don’t think it’s TRFCL or RIFC Plc or even Ashley.
I wondered whether the twitter stuff about a director resigning might be because Gilligan and Murray showed as directors at Comapnies House on 20 March but Park’s announcement only got posed on 9 April.
Could that have started the rumours about cold feet?
There is only the three of them afaik.
Glasgow Academy/Academicals merged with Glasgow High School to form a rugby team called Glasgow Hawks. Glasgow High School has a long relationship with Rangers. GHS moved from Burnbank stadium in 1875 and Rangers moved in for a few years. Anyone wishing to look for any more info should look at GHS. I tried to delete the word Academy there, my phone won’t let me.
Two three three two says:
April 12, 2015 at 9:30 pm
Perhaps Celtic could rent out Barrowfield.
——————————————–
Nah! that would be State Aid. And I’d be a bit worried about Boydie running about on top of all those mine shafts 😆
If indeed Ashley is securing his grip on Assets(foreclosure is the word on Twitter wrt Murray Park)and with the ownership of Ibrox looking like it’s not in the hands of TRFC,then basically all King,the 3 bears etc have left is ownership of players contracts,12 of which expire at the end of May.
They’re still saddled with all the Ashley/onerous contracts etc though.
Unless ashley takes pity on them,there’s no way out.
Resin_lab_dog says:
April 12, 2015 at 9:22 pmIf MP was encumbered with OC, wouldn’t have thought they’d be able to use it in security for the SD LA.
===============
Rld, I was thinking more of a charge for the use of the facility rather than a charge on the property…
This I admit would be odd if the entity charging didn’t own or have a charge over the facility…but I’ve got to the stage where nothing would surprise me…and
(or perhaps Imran, rather) does seem to have been a rather creative fellow.
scapaflow says:
April 12, 2015 at 9:29 pm
McMurdo minor is suggesting that this is now personal. plenty of twists and turn to come yet, to borrow a phrase from Eco
———————————————————-
Well in tune with the nostalgia weekend theme – Let’s twist again ❗
ecobhoy says:
April 12, 2015 at 9:44 pm
Nah! that would be State Aid. And I’d be a bit worried about Boydie running about on top of all those mine shafts 😆
===========
No worries there…don’t think running about has ever been one of Boydie’s habits.. 😈
parttimearab says:
April 12, 2015 at 9:50 pm
—————————————
I’ve always thought Imran was the brains and Green the ringmaster cum illusionist ❗
“”Intellectual Property is counted as moveable property for these purposes and Scots Law doesn’t allow fixed security to be granted over moveable property.
“Accordingly a practice has developed of lenders taking absolute transfers subject to a back letter setting out that the transfer is in security and the property will be returned when the facility has been repaid.
“This is a common device adopted by most of the UK banks and other main commercial lenders.”
Does anyone know if this is the case, is it common practice?
‘I would have loved to have seen him in action.’
______________________________
Well I watched him play on a couple of occasions in Sligo Showgrounds.
His name was Jimmy Hasty, arm missing from just below the shoulder with white and black jersey pinned up.
He was a very good center forward full of tricks and intelligence and well able to handle himself.
ecobhoy says:
April 12, 2015 at 9:55 pm
parttimearab says:
April 12, 2015 at 9:50 pm
_____________________________________________________
‘Rather Creative Fellow!’ 😆
You wanna copyright that delicious little euphemism PTA! Love it.
TRFC has been well served with RCFs, it has to be said.
James Doleman says:
April 12, 2015 at 10:05 pm
“”Intellectual Property is counted as moveable property for these purposes and Scots Law doesn’t allow fixed security to be granted over moveable property.
“Accordingly a practice has developed of lenders taking absolute transfers subject to a back letter setting out that the transfer is in security and the property will be returned when the facility has been repaid.
“This is a common device adopted by most of the UK banks and other main commercial lenders.”
Does anyone know if this is the case, is it common practice?
———————–
Must confess I don’t have a clue.
What isn’t said though,is,whether it is or is not common practice,do TRFC have such a letter?.
I’m hesitant to go out on a limb here…but:
If the removal of the MA directors has triggered a default event on the £5m loan, TRFC/RIFC may already have been served with a calling up notice.
Generally speaking, once a calling up notice has been served, a borrower has two months to repay the debt or face the prospect of having the lender take possession of whatever assets have been secured under a fixed charge.
For heritable property (e.g. Murray Park) the property must be properly marketed and the best offer accepted. However, as I understand it, the sale of moveable property (e.g. trademarks and other IP) is not regulated. Therefore, the sale of trademarks could theoretically be made to a third party by SD/MA in a private sale for £1.
I must stress that I do not know whether TRFC/RIFC are in technical default, nor do I know whether SD/MA have begun enforcement action for repayment.
Interesting though.
James Doleman says:
April 12, 2015 at 10:05 pm
”Intellectual Property is counted as moveable property for these purposes and Scots Law doesn’t allow fixed security to be granted over moveable property.
“Accordingly a practice has developed of lenders taking absolute transfers subject to a back letter setting out that the transfer is in security and the property will be returned when the facility has been repaid.
“This is a common device adopted by most of the UK banks and other main commercial lenders.”
Does anyone know if this is the case, is it common practice?
———————————————————————
Good piece at Section 7 Intellectual Property: http://uk.practicallaw.com/8-504-1826?source=relatedcontent
Part of Section 7 states:
I think the problem referred to wrt floating charges is that you can’t actually collect unless there is an actual insolvency event, I could be wrong about that but it’ll probably be somewhere in the above link which is meant to deal with Scots Law.
The various fellows are all wrong viz Scots v English laws on IP. I’ve registered various semiconductor designs in the past (for the HS) and the only way to do it reliably is via the EU.
Which no doubt CG and Uncle Mike knows.
ianagain says:
April 12, 2015 at 10:29 pm
The various fellows are all wrong viz Scots v English laws on IP. I’ve registered various semiconductor designs in the past (for the HS) and the only way to do it reliably is via the EU.
Which no doubt CG and Uncle Mike knows.
0 0 Rate This
=========================================
Trademarks are not registered in the same way as patents – which, as you point out are dealt with at a European level.
Thanks for that Eco,
This jumped out: “fully perfected assignations of IP are rare in Scotland, and are generally considered uncommercial.”
James Doleman says:
April 12, 2015 at 10:05 pm
Found the bit wrt floating charge probs as opposed to fixed charge.
From Eco’s reference:
It is normal to do the paperwork; but only register the change of ownership if default has occurred (or is likely).
Ostensible transfer of full title of ownership was used in Scots house mortgages before the introduction of standard securities. I.E. The house was owned by the building society and transferred back at repayment of the loan. This is dredged from my memory of law lectures in 1978 so I may be havering but that is not the kind of thing I would know about merely from imagination.
Resin_lab_dog says:
April 12, 2015 at 8:29 pm
andygraham.66 says:
April 12, 2015 at 8:09 pm
________________________________________________
I should add to this:
If the answer is
(a) … the board are down the line and in the clear on this so far
If the answer is (b) or (c) they have serious questions to answer.
If the answer is (d) … they need to be replaced ASAP. EDIT then again… actually… its probably already too late, by now.
Hp, Eco et al
At this rate,I’ll be able to log TSFM hours as CPD
HirsutePursuit says:
April 12, 2015 at 10:42 pm
From Eco’s reference:
In practice, assignations are often signed up and delivered as conditions precedent, but not perfected until required by the lender (for example, on default or if default is likely). However, perfection of a security on insolvency may give rise to issues concerning hardening periods, alienations and preferences (see Question 23). In addition, given the need for the debtor to continue to deal with its IP, fully perfected assignations of IP are rare in Scotland, and are generally considered uncommercial.
It is normal to do the paperwork; but only register the change of ownership if default has occurred (or is likely).
__________________________________________________________
So… joining the dots: Could it be?
SDH (with their expensive lawyers, duedil and general propensity to dot i’s and cross t’s) probably consider that the LA is in default and are now proceeding along that basis.
RRM (with their hubris, WATP attitude etc.) are still trying to catch up with the paperwork. (Although the faster readers are resigning their directorships while they still can)
Could be getting interesting.
ianagain says:
April 12, 2015 at 10:29 pm
The various fellows are all wrong viz Scots v English laws on IP. I’ve registered various semiconductor designs in the past (for the HS) and the only way to do it reliably is via the EU.
Which no doubt CG and Uncle Mike knows.
————————————————————
@Ian – I think you slightly got the wrong end of the stick. It’s not so much about the best way to register your IP to protect it which depending on what you are trying to protect might require to be notified on a world-wide scale never mind European.
It’s about once your IP is registered and you have to give it as security for a loan to the lender. Because of the differences between English and Scots Law there are differences in how the conditions governing the loan have to be set out.
It doesn’t actually affect the IP Protection although, as in this case vis-a-vis Ashley and RFC, the ownership of the Trademark has been transferred by the method used but it’s still protected through the notification requirement to the national IPO.
As Rangers also had Trademarks registered in overseas countries there might be other legal glitches to overcome because of the different legal systems involved.
So I don’t think anyone is wrong but simply talking a wee bit at cross purposes.
Wouldn’t it be strangely ironic if a calling up notice for the £5m had been served on Mr Llambias and/or Mr Leach on the Morning they were suspended from duty.
I wonder if anyone has checked their in-trays.
HirsutePursuit says:
April 12, 2015 at 10:42 pm
From Eco’s reference:
It is normal to do the paperwork; but only register the change of ownership if default has occurred (or is likely)
————————————————-
I suppose there’s always the possibility that if it isn’t actually transferred and registered the original owner could sell it to someone else.
In view of the other assets held that would probably be unlikely here.
Perhaps The Man was just laying down the Law in a very public and humiliating way.
In effect he’s making it clear they can’t even afford to get their ‘Name’ and ‘Identity’ out of hock.
Now I could see that actually getting under the skin of a genuine RRM who might have wanted the money raised to pay-off Ashley only to find every other cupboard was bare.
That could well lead to such a director considering their position. If a new director walks at this stage then the house of cards will collapse IMO.
Eco HP
Presented and corrected chaps.
Youse really should open a wee law practice in the environs of Govan. Be invaluable to the stumblerers. 😈
HirsutePursuit says:
April 12, 2015 at 10:34 pm
ianagain says:
April 12, 2015 at 10:29 pm
The various fellows are all wrong viz Scots v English laws on IP. I’ve registered various semiconductor designs in the past (for the HS) and the only way to do it reliably is via the EU.
Which no doubt CG and Uncle Mike knows.
0 0 Rate This
=========================================
Trademarks are not registered in the same way as patents – which, as you point out are dealt with at a European level.
______________________________________________
Both patents and trademarks are dealt with on both UK (or more correctly in these terms GB) and EU levels, as well as under global jurisdictions US, Japan, China, etc.)
The relevant authorities are the UKPTO, The EPO/OHIM, and the USPTO etc.
Each Patent (or Trademark) needs to be separately registered (and the appropriate fee paid) in each of the designating states in which it will apply.
The UK/EU and World designation relates to means by which the patent or trademark may be registered and when PRIORITY is assigned. Priority is important. It is ‘being first’ with the idea or trademark.
Typically, with a patent or trademark, you want to file it quite early to prevent anyone else getting in ahead of you. It is also pertinent because if you publicise before filing, you may create ‘prior art’ that prevents your IPR from becoming enforceable, so if you want to use the protectable IPR in a publication (e.g. for advertising purposes) you should always file it first.
Normally you would file in your local PTO. But global treaties exist which means that once you have filed e.g. in the UK, then any subsequent filings of the same ‘art’ that you do – within certain time limits – e.g. within the EU or US can benefit from the same priority of the initial UK filing.
So you can file a UK patent. This establishes your priority. You can then use the art without prejudicing your ability to obtain your European or US patent subsequently, so long as you do follow up filings by a subsequent cut off date.
Thereby you can extend this patent or trademark to the whole of the EU at a subsequent point if you choose. The examination stage is what determines whether the IPR is granted, however.
It is perfectly possible for a patent or trademark to grant in the UK be be rejected within some of the EU designated states (or the US) because of prior art that those examiners turned up that the UK examiners didn’t.
Additionally, the EU PTO agreements allow a single examination process to apply to all contracting EU states simultaneously. However separate fees still apply to all individual countries and the patentee or trademarker chooses (on the basis of how much they want to spend/ can afford) which EU states they want their IPR to be effective in.
Essentially, how far you want your IPR protection to extend depends on where it has value and how much you want to spend on the filing and prosecution.
Nationally? EU wide? or worldwide? You pays your money, and takes your pick.
On a real flight of fantasy 🙂
A few months ago Neil Doncaster – completely unprompted – re-asserted his belief that a Club can move between corporate bodies. It seemed strange and completely out of context with the current discussions. This was when Mr King was making his move and I wondered at the time if there was already an acceptance that Rangers MkII would have to be sacrificed to get rid of the onerous contracts.
Of course, if some sort of pre-pack arrangement was to work, the Club trademarks would have had to have been part of the package.
By taking ownership of the Club’s trademarks, Mr Ashley has cleverly removed the option of dumping Mr Green’s Sevco Rangers incarnation… and protecting his hard won contracts.
Is the arrangement pretty much like using a pawn shop but without the deadline? Only someone’s put in some small print to take possession in certain circumstances, thereby creating an immediate deadline.
Having stormed in at the EGM, the RRM look to be left with the equivalent of preferred bidder status. I can’t help thinking they’re about to see what’s left when you separate the business from the ethereal club.
Wonder when string theory will surface in this panto ?
We`ve had just about everything else
Like most other Bampots, I have a very low opinion of the SMSM churnalists, :slamb:
So, fair play to Gordon Waddell for producing a thought provoking article.
Must admit, what with financial pressures etc., I thought that more SPL clubs would be fielding young players.
============================================
“…It’s the Young Player of the Year Award. Name me a dozen players in the SPFL Premiership who qualify and who’ve started 20 games or more.
…there are actually only four…‘regular’ Under-21 players in an entire division of 12 clubs.
…Which leads you to one natural conclusion. The commitment to youth development of most clubs is a complete and utter myth…”
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/gordon-waddell-managers-dont-want-5504306
Read this ‘article’ (pasted below) on ‘dothebouncy’
[one thing that I have to say – if it was Celtic that were in this situation and Celtic fans/supporters printed/published such utter ignorance and bull-stein, I would give up being a fan of Celtic and disassociate myself from these people !!
The other thing is – how can so many of them be so genuinely ignorant of the truth/facts]
. . . . .
The Pride,The Anger and Emotion
BY MORETHANACLUB – POSTED ON MARCH 6, 2015
POSTED IN: MEMBER’S ARTICLES
fans1I’m sat here tonight having a few beers and haufs feeling so proud and a little emotional thinking about the hell we have been put through over the last few years and how we have fought back and are taking our club back.
This football club, this british institution, this integral part of hundreds of thousands of peoples lives worldwide.
The pride comes from knowing that my sons ,son in law and myself have all played our own small part as a family in helping to reach this point as have thousands of other families and individuals in the wonderful Rangers family, contributing to Rangers First and proxying our shares to them to help save our club that not so long ago was fighting for its very existence.
My wife has asked me on many occasions over the last few years why I have got myself so upset and angry over it all. As she isn’t interested in football whatsoever she could never begin to even try and understand what The Rangers mean to me.
My anger stems from the actions of SPL, SFA, HMRC and the chairmen or CEOs of just about every club in the country who even after we proved in the highest court in the land we did nothing wrong not one had the common decency to apologise or admit they were wrong.
Why? That is where the emotion kicks in.
I didn’t put myself through it all just for me, it was also for many others past, present and future who had, have and will have the same feelings for the club that I do.
For our Gallant Pioneers, who had a dream that became in reality the greatest and most successful football club in the world.
For our clubs Legends, Struth, McPhail, Meiklejohn, Waddell, Thornton, Young, Greig, Baxter, Cooper, to name a very few. It is my duty as a Rangers supporter to ensure their exploits in that famous blue jersey are remembered forever.
For my Great Grandfather, who began the dynasty of Rangers fans in my family, I was brought up on stories of how over 100 years ago he would finish his shift knee deep in water down a coal mine and then walk the seven miles from his home to watch The Rangers.
For my Grandfather, auld Jock who told me stories of the greats he had seen ,the likes of Morton,Meiklejohn, McPhail, and Archibald winning the 1928 Scottish Cup Final ending a 25 year hoodoo in the competition. He also took a guy from this very forum who is a right good bear to his first game at Ibrox.
For my Father Wullie who had taken me as a baby to my first ever game and almost ended up divorced for doing so, and for taking me to countless games as a wee boy.
For my Uncle Ian, who always seemed to be the one at my back as I sat on the crush barrier was forever buying me scarfs badges etc and when we got home helped me put the colour photograph of the player in the citizen newspaper that day on my bedroom wall
For my Uncle Malky, lol every time I think of him I smile, the lovable rogue of the family who taught me The Sash, The Billy Boys, Derrys Walls the whole repertoire with all the add ons much to the annoyance of my wee ma.
For my sons, Billy,Allan and Stevie who I hope I have brought up to be good bears, especially Stevie who pushed and cajoled me into going back to games again after I had a major stroke, he looks after me well at every game sees me up the road when I’ve indulged in the bevvy a wee bit too much. God bless you Stevie boy.
For my Grandsons, young yet but learning, I’m sure they will be fine young bears.
For the 66 who lost their lives in the 1971 disaster that I was fortunate enough to survive, there were one million eighteen thousand bricks used in the construction of that magnificent facade on Edmiston Drive imo each and every one of them is dedicated to the memory of our absent friends, I could never have forgiven myself if I sat back and allowed that shrine to their memory fall into the hands of people who didn’t care about them or their loved ones.
Today sees a bright new dawn for The Rangers. I urge every bear and bearette to embrace it and give the new board your full support in making The Rangers great again , they deserve it, you deserve it, our legends, our dear departed,our children and grandchildren all deserve it too.
One day,not today, not tomorrow, not this season, probably not next season either, but one day, we are all going to wake up and we’re going to be the best football team on earth, winning everything and being the envy of every other club in the world because when we are together this great club of ours can achieve anything, and when that day comes well that’s, that’s when we honour the memory of them all.
jimlarkin says:
April 13, 2015 at 6:19 am
I love to start the day with a good laugh and a smile on my face 😛
I simply can’t work-out whether those are the words of a maudlin drunk in his cups or a bit of Club PR that has gone horribly wrong.
Of course it could be a clever bit of Reverse-PR from an old boarder supporter to show what section of the support is supporting the incomers with their pockets full of ‘tradition’ and a mind set fixed on continuing to do it the Rangers Way.
Would be great to hear the wife’s tale as I’m sure she would be singing a different tune. She won’t be dreaming about lovely fairy tales but wakening-up each morning to the stark reality of how the slow but inevitable slide of Rangers into financial oblivion affects her life and that of her children.
I’ve always said that it’s up to Rangers Supporters to decide what kind of club they want but that they have to live with the consequences.
Wrt to DK I have always doubted whether he has the will or indeed the money required to ‘save’ Rangers. The shambles over the Trade Marks has further convinced me that’s the case.
Perhaps he and other RRM can’t afford to pay £5 million to get the monkey off their back for the time being. However they can’t afford not to or they will be well on their way to losing the thinking Bears who aren’t sleeping and dreaming.
scapaflow says:
April 12, 2015 at 10:52 pm
Hp, Eco et al
At this rate,I’ll be able to log TSFM hours as CPD
======================================================================
Scapa…I already do…included as half an hour 😳 per day as “unstructured reading”…sure beats the pants of accountancy or taxation magazines or the Financial Times/Torygraph drudgeries…
essexbeancounter says:
April 13, 2015 at 7:52 am
I’m sending you a PM shortly.
JimLarkin @ 6:19
Thanks for the post. The old bear’s story left me feeling a bit sad. It is a well written piece that must make the people at the top of the Ibrox food chain very happy. As long as this old bear is around, he will do a fine job of helping to line their pockets.
I looked up definitions of the word ‘cult’ and one states ‘A relatively small group of people having (esp. religious) beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister, or as exercising excessive control over other members.’ Another defininition states ‘In extended use: a collective obsession with or intense admiration for a particular person, thing, or idea.’
You sometimes hear a club’s support being described as a ‘cult following’. In most cases, it is an exaggeration. They aren’t really a cult following. They are just paying customers that want to be entertained and if they aren’t entertained, they stop being customers.
This old bear demonstrates in his story why holding the keys to Ibrox will always have the potential to allow the removal of relatively small quantities of cash from a large number of gullible brainwashed tortured souls. If the number is large enough, then the key holder can live a fairly comfortable life as the cult leader.
I work with and are friends with intelligent members of this cult. No words can explain to them the position their beloved club is in. They simply will not take on board what I tell them, regardless of how I explain it to them. They think I have a problem, maybe I have?
So Jim, I understand your frustration but there doesn’t seem to be much we can do. As long as the SMSM continue to have the influence over them that they do, then these gullible Bears will continue to have their hard earned cash removed from them.
What they have at Ibrox is a true cult following, but not in the friendly sense of the word.
parttimearab; Resin_lab_dog
Re. Murray Park. Phil posted previously that the facility was a drain of £12-13m and ditching it would “be huge prgress towards break-even”.
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/murray-park/
There would obviously be some short-term costs making staff redundo and putting the place in mothballs, at worst, or selling it, best-case scenario (feel free to reverse those adjectives dpending on your feelings towards NewGers).
It’s another brick out of the mighty red facade but it has long seemed to me their only way forward.
JimLarkin @ 6:19
Bit rich that old Bluenose calling himself “morethanaclub” – a line beloved of Barcelona & Celtic… two teams not known for their liking of the team out of Ibrox. “Bearfacedcheek” might have been more appropiate.
But again it’s the conspiracy theories that do my head in… “so upset and angry over it all… My anger stems from the actions of SPL, SFA, HMRC and the chairmen or CEOs of just about every club in the country who even after we proved in the highest court in the land we did nothing wrong not one had the common decency to apologise or admit they were wrong” – deluded to the point of alternative reality.
Not a word about Murray’s profligacy; the admitted tax failures and the ones unresolved; Green’s ‘big ‘ands & Whyte’s lack of gold; of onerous contracts and misguided investment at best, downright chicanery at worst, and all of those things sanctioned by those who were ensconced at the top of the marble staircase.
And he wants everyone else to apologise to THEM? I’m embarrassed for the guy…
JimLarkin @ 6:19
The bit that got me was where this befuddled bear informs us all that “Rangers” wont be the best team in the world this year, and “probably” not next year either. You can almost hear the sighs of relief from Munich, Madrid and Barcelona. At least theyt have a couple of years to prepare themselves for a spell of world domination from Ibrox.
Seriously, though, the guy’s piece is actually literate, and he may well have a brain in his head, so where does garbage like that come from? Can he actually believe it? That post takes the WATP mentality to whole new levels of supremacist nonsense. Could it be a “Timposter” on the wind-up? I really hope so, because if not, there are serious issues within the Ibrox support.