Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?


Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?


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


Introduction. I came across the above interview recently and listened to and transcribed it again as it reminded me of questions it raised then that the passage of time since has provided some insight into.

There is a lot to digest so the blog is broken into four sections.  Three parts cover the Interview plus what they seem to tell us now, knowing what was not known then viz:

  • Why No independent or independent element to the enquiry that became the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission. given the potential extent of the corruption at play?
  • Why no effective fit and Proper Person scrutiny and the absence of real governance?
  • EBTS and whether they constitute wrong doing and why that mattered so much and still does. plus
  • The “hard to not to believe” conclusions about the whole exercise with the benefit of what we ken noo.

There is also an Annex at the end with excerpts from the Lord Nimmo Smith Decision for ease of reference:

The comments (in bold italics) are based on what Regan said then and what we ken noo, either as facts or questions arising from them. It is a long read but hopefully readers will be enticed by this introduction to stay the course.

In the following “SR” is Stewart Regan CEO of the SFA and “AT” is Alex Thomson of Channel 4 News.

No Independent Enquiry?


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AT Never?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fit and Proper Person and Absence of Governance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AT Rangers were a mess financially everybody new that

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

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

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

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

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

SR We didn’t fail.

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

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

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

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

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

SR Well I think the articles

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

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

AT ??  (Interrupted)

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

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

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

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

The Nature of EBTS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AT Sometimes

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

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

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

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

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

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

If Carlsberg did irony!

End of Interview.

The Hard Not to Believe Conclusions

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

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

The reader will find it hard not to conclude that either

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

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

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

Annex One – Extracts from Lord Nimmo Smith Decision

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

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


Outline of the Scheme


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


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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

Auldheid  Feb 2015

About the author

Auldheid author

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

5,190 Comments so far

redlichtiePosted on9:34 am - Apr 13, 2015

GoosyGoosy says:
April 13, 2015 at 12:27 am

Wonder when string theory will surface in this panto ?

We`ve had just about everything else


Goosy, haven’t you seen Paul Murray on TV? Sometimes the light just catches those darn strings……

Scottish Football needs less Gerry Anderson types….

View Comment

helpmaboabPosted on9:36 am - Apr 13, 2015

White Heather Club to Marxism.Now that’s a Great Leap Forward.

View Comment

mcfcPosted on9:38 am - Apr 13, 2015

Just Two Things . .

. . . from the badge statement

PR 101: “the position is not as alarming as it may first appear.” communicates to your audience that things could hardly be worse but we need to pretend everything is OK for the children. So, best avoided.

Murray (P); “In fact, both parties [RIFC & SD] will come together within the next two weeks for talks.”

In three weeks time. . . .

RIFC; “We want our badges back.”

SD; “Yes, no problem, simply pay back the £5mil and the transfer charges and we’ll arrange that.”

RIFC; “They are our badges and we want them back.”

SD; “The contract terms are quite simple, all you need to do is . . .”

RIFC; “We demand our badges back”

SD; “Is there anything else?”

RIFC; “We didn’t sign that contract. It was some bad men who are under investiagation.”

SD; “Thank you for coming to Shirebrook. We look forward to seeing you here again for further meetings”

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on9:40 am - Apr 13, 2015

An unusual note of realism from Jackson:


View Comment

bfbpuzzledPosted on10:00 am - Apr 13, 2015

One of the tenets of the Govan cult is that “no one likes us we don’t care”. Why is an apology being looked for then for the wrongs which they believe that have been done to them?

The kind of oral history which is being narrated here is a kind of snake handling of the fundamentalist type. At the end of the day it is gruesome to watch but harms the participant more than the onlooker.
The mighty shield of the WATP mindset has been found wanting as their cultural hegemony has broken down painful raw scouring truth has intervened and confusion is the result.
All this talk of the most successful club in history and reverting to that is mad regarding the past and even more so the future that much is plain to see and more to be pitied than anything else.
Theirs is a cargo cult in more than one sense they are waiting for the return of the King from over the seas bearing great cargo of lucre. Their cult depends on a cargo in the West of Scotland sense- it is all the fault of drink

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on10:01 am - Apr 13, 2015

helpmaboab says:
April 13, 2015 at 9:36 am

White Heather Club to Marxism.Now that’s a Great Leap Forward.
It was actually co-operatism to lucky white heather 🙂 The marxism came later and eventually I discovered socialism, common sense and the wisdom that all things will pass eventually.

Even capitalism: Hopefully before the planet it utterly destroyed and can no longer support life of any description.

Despite the pleasure good football brings me I try to keep the game and its governance faults in perspective in terms of the bigger picture and the horrors visited day and daily – throughout the world – on its peoples, animals and environment.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on10:07 am - Apr 13, 2015


I live in South Africa. I am very rich. I love my (let’s say) Edinburgh football club, Hearts. They have been getting ripped off by successive owners for years. I am determined to rescue them from the clutches of these evil men and am prepared to invest millions into my club to ensure it’s eternal existence. Despite securing my own men onto the club’s board more and more serious problems continue to appear. A major problem is causing panic amongst the club’s support, the board’s response is to announce yet another probe and the problem, though spun as not a problem, will only truly go away with a large injection of cash.

Do I:

a) Jet in and take charge, putting all my weight and power into sorting out the immediate problem?

b) Spend time setting a fund raising scheme in motion to clear this immediate problem and to secure the club’s future?

c) Write a cheque using some of the millions I fully intended investing in the club anyway?

d) Jet off to the USA to watch a golf competition and ‘bump into’ a friendly Scots journalist who accepts my ‘prepared earlier’ puff piece?

e) Ask myself, if I really want to invest millions into a sport I love, should I choose one with a reasonable chance of making a profit (golf), or one in which I’ve already (or claim to have) lost millions?

Now me, being a daft Hearts supporter, who’s heart definitely rules his head, would probably do all of a), b) and c). I definitely would not do something as publicly casual as jetting off to a major golf tournament, particularly if all I’d done so far was to use publicity and PR to proclaim my unfailing loyalty to my club. Even from a business perspective I’d want the matter sorted very quickly, or, at the very least, to show that I was personally involved to a very high degree (even if not yet on the board) to instill confidence in potential investors and supporters alike.

To be honest, if I was a potential investor in any company, and it’s main driving force, who was touting for my money, put attending a golf tourny in another country as a greater priority than sorting out yet another major problem within the company, I’d be jetting of, with my money, as far away as my private jet could take me!

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on10:11 am - Apr 13, 2015

bfbpuzzled says:
April 13, 2015 at 10:00 am

‘the most successful club in history’

I suppose it all depends on how you define success – the standard of opposition – and any factors that might provide an unsporting advantage.

Need I say more other than times change and ancien régimes crumble and die usually riven by corruption and internal power struggles.

Sic transit gloria mundi.

View Comment

fara1968Posted on10:19 am - Apr 13, 2015

Just flying back from Augusta and got quite a relieved call from Mrs Spieth. She was so worried that the first year her son won the tournament old wag Dermott would break tradition and speak with the DR. She added, “I heard that mr Desmond was going to speak with Euan and I almost ran onto the 17th fairway to tell Jordan to shank it into the trees. Can you imagine the embarrassment of winning the tournament and being overshadowed by the big interview” “well right up until the cards were signed it was touch and go, the sweat was running down my shuck” she added. Then she got word the interview was a non starter. “The ghost of Old Tom Morris came up, grabbed me by the arm and said, “don’t worry hen I have it on authority that he ain’t gonna speak” “well that was that and I could concentrate on Jordan’s shots coming down the 18th “. “Phew”.

View Comment

incredibleadamsparkPosted on10:19 am - Apr 13, 2015

jimlarkin says:
April 13, 2015 at 6:19 am

Can we leave the guy alone please? Rangers clearly mean the world to him and, tipsy and emotional or not, it has brought generations of his family together. It’s also helped in his recovery from a stroke. Clearly there are parts that most on here would disagree with but it’s a post that is not for here. If we were to trawl through other fans websites I’m pretty sure we’d find plenty to disagree with, but we don’t. Just one teams websites.

This was a personal view and not representative of anything wider than that, no matter how desperately many on here want to generalize all Rangers fans and put them in a specific box. We don’t know a thing about this man and this type of thing stops just short of bullying. It’s pointing and laughing at someone and I think that’s a really poor show. I’d hope we’d be better than that on TSFM.

View Comment

helpmaboabPosted on10:20 am - Apr 13, 2015

Ecobhoy April 13 2015 at 10:01 am

Despite the pleasure good football brings me I try to keep the game and its governance faults in perspective in terms of the bigger picture and the horrors visited day and daily – throughout the world – on its peoples, animals and environment.

Amen to that.

View Comment

Madbhoy24941Posted on10:21 am - Apr 13, 2015

5 Million….

Think about that for a second!

– A business the size of Rangers
– A potential support that dwarfs most clubs in the World
– Some very prominent and well-heeled supporters.

5 million….

A board, which has recently committed to investing upwards of 50 million and cannot find 5 million to secure prized assets?

Think about that for a second!

Paying off the 5 million and having these assets returned does not actually improve the finances in any way, it does not make the situation any easier for the current men in charge. It offers the business NOTHING!

All it does is reduce the bank balance of at least one of those prominent supporters, now why would they want that when there is still a risk that the business might not succeed?

Is that actually an acknowledgement from The RRM that the risk is real and present?

5 Million….

Think about that for a second!

View Comment

helpmaboabPosted on10:26 am - Apr 13, 2015

Fara1968 Nearly choked on my toast laughing. :mrgreen:

View Comment

mcfcPosted on10:35 am - Apr 13, 2015

In Parallel or In Series

What comes first, the L&L investiagtion, the contracts investigation or the trademarks investiagtion. Do RIFC have the resources to do them all at once or does each have to take its turn. If I was L or L in an orange jump suit in Govantanamo Bay I’d we well pissed off if my “debriefing” was delayed by trivia like the trademark nonsense and doubly pissed off if I had to wait for Ashley’s contracts to be deciphered by someone whose lips move when they read.

View Comment

tayredPosted on10:38 am - Apr 13, 2015

ecobhoy says:
April 13, 2015 at 9:40 am
An unusual note of realism from Jackson:

Assuming you don’t mean the bit about how Scottish football needs a Rangers? I think that has been thoroughly disproved over the past few years.

Look how much more competitive the Premier league has been this year. It’s stretching out now at the top, the smaller squads being stretched (the length of the season for our representatives in Europe is ridiculous) , but give it another couple of years development and who knows…. I’d bet it keeps getting better as long as the top-loading of a certain club doesn’t destroy the natural balance of the entire league setup.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on10:39 am - Apr 13, 2015

Allyjambo says:
April 13, 2015 at 10:07 am

Haha, very good. Struck me as kind of odd annaw. Maybe he was hoping to meet Mr Desmond? But is Dave King the type of company Desmond keeps? Would he want to be photographed with Dave?

Funny how (according to KJ’s powers of telepathy) Strachan, Desmond, and so on, are obviously in agreement about the need for a club at Ibrox getting back to its rightful place — apparently so two teams can dominate Scottish fitba forever more.

What a snoozefest, though. Over-hyped, slow motion walking about on obessively manicured fairways and greens. If I was taking a week off at a sporting event I’d spend it in the vacinty of Craig Whyte’s ‘bolthole’ this week watching the tennis 😮

View Comment

erniePosted on10:49 am - Apr 13, 2015

incredibleadamspark says:
April 13, 2015 at 10:19 am
On the other hand I was brought up with a leaning towards the P.G.Wodehouse/Roderick Spode view on how to deal with supremacist, elitist cults with an inflated sense of entitlement. Point and laugh.
If they are taken seriously IMO then you become part of the problem. See the current media verification of UKIP as well as the “scottish fitba needs rangers” myth as examples. I add that if that piece was written about my club I’d be much keener and quicker to point and laugh; nip it in the bud I say, it’s a game of fitba. The only reason this mince is being perpetuated is the inability of a group of fans and their media to accept the real world of sporting competition versus their perception of their “proper” place.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on10:57 am - Apr 13, 2015

Allyjambo says:
April 13, 2015 at 10:07 am

I keep going back to the Dragon’s Den when one of the main questions is (and I am sure it is always asked but doesn’t necessarily make all the final edits) “What time, money and effort are you currently putting into the business?”

If it answer is anything resembling “not a lot” then the Dragon’s usually reply with “If you are not willing to put in the effort then why do you expect me to waste my kid’s inheritance money – I’m out”.

So far King looks like he is all bluster. He may pull it out of the bag but if not then no-one can say this time they weren’t warned.

View Comment

bluPosted on11:07 am - Apr 13, 2015

incredibleadamspark says:
April 13, 2015 at 10:19 am
Hear, hear.

ernie says:
April 13, 2015 at 10:49 am
ernie, deluded and deceived fans are the least concern for me.
My view is that TSFM pointing and laughing should be at:

a) the bandits involved with Rangers in its various incarnations

b) the people charged with governing Scottish football

c) the Scottish media reporting (sic) on a) and b)

View Comment

bfbpuzzledPosted on11:13 am - Apr 13, 2015

I am not laughing at the old Rangers man, there is a serious aspect to what he is expressing. If there is adherence to a belief that things will go back to a mythical golden age then nothing good will come on it. If the myth is one of cultural dominance then that is bad both for the group which he is part of and to others. We all live by a narrative but if his narrative is a dialectic between triumphalism and passive aggressive victim hood it cannot hold together.
If I come across as flippant then I do not intend to nor do I i tend to belittle folk. If one is prepared to publish long walks through personal history which offer a prognosis so far from achievable as to be daft then reactions should be expected.

Distributism not capitalism -as Chesterton proves one can make very serious points with a smile

View Comment

woodsteinPosted on11:13 am - Apr 13, 2015

bfbpuzzled says:

April 12, 2015 at 10:45 pm
The wording for the Insurance contract for (Name of proposer) was:-

The xyz building society Ltd as heritable creditors primo loco with Mr I A M Borrower as proprietor in reversion.

Which as you say meant that first dibs was building society and once the loan was repaid. This could be changed to Mr I A M Borrower.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on11:21 am - Apr 13, 2015

I have now witnessed the nadir of Scottish Journalism.

It comes with the publishing of the PR statement from Rangers over the Trade Marks they used to own and it proves the collective SMSM can’t rustle up a single brain cell between them.

‘It has been widely reported that the trademarks, the iconic symbols of our club, are now in the possession of Sports Direct.

‘Although the trademarks are registered in Sports Direct’s name, the position is not as alarming as it may first appear.

‘Rangers remain the rightful and legal owners of their trademarks and interim chairman Paul Murray has clarified this position with Sports Direct. Both parties will come together within the next two weeks for talks.

‘Confusion over ownership arose last week when it was noticed on a Government Intellectual Property site that they appeared to be the possessions of Sports Direct but this was as a consequence of the loan facility entered into by the previous board. In return for the loan, Sports Direct took security over all Rangers assets — but not Ibrox — including intellectual property owned by the club.

‘In England, it is possible to secure such rights by a fixed charge, but in Scotland, the equivalent of an English fixed charge can only be granted over heritable property — land and buildings.

‘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 lenders.

‘Rangers supporters can be reassured that Sports Direct fully accept that all of the IP rights registered in their name will be returned to the club when the loan facility of £5million is repaid.’

If I was a thinking Bear reading that gobbledegook I would be afraid, very afraid.

Not so much about the trademarks the club no longer owns but wrt the statement and what it reveals about the pro-tem Rangers chairman and his associates.

Personally I would be terrified to hear that PM had clarified the legal ownership position with SportsDirect. That smacks of Rangers not being able to pay for a legal opinion based on the actual documentation.

It is also akin IMO to believing that a wonga-style loaner won’t sell your house if you default on repayments. I wouldn’t listen to smoothe words from any lender who had me over a barrel but be heading for legal advice before my wife cut my throat.

As to both parties coming together in 2 weeks – I suppose SD will front-up a teaboy/girl while Ashley directs from behind the one-way mirror.

What ‘confusion’ over the ownership? There’s none! SD own every single trade mark no matter where it’s registered in the world. They even own the club and stadium names.

And what’s with: ‘They appeared to be in the posession of SportsDirect’. They ARE in the legal posession of SD having been signed over by the previous Board.

As a sweetener SD have allowed Rangers a possibly limited use of the Trade Marks – but what happens if there’s a loan default?

As to the bizarre references to differences in Scots and English Law I haven’t a clue of the point being made and I strongly suspect neither does Mr Murray. Fact: In Scotland either fixed or floating charges can be applied to Trade Marks.

I actually have little doubt that the Trade Marks will be returned if the £5 million loan is repaid although that’s without having seen any of the loan documentation.

But what would really worry me as a Bear is what happens if the loan is either not repaid or a default is triggered. There are various charges with respect to the loan afaik but they haven’t resulted in the transfer of actual ownership and this couldn’t happen until a default occurred.

However it seems the ownership transfer of the badges, crests and names has already taken place. So that ‘back-letter’ would need to be fireproof for Rangers but having watched how SD go about their business in terms of drafting contracts: Ah hae ma doots.

Still it’s nice to hear Mr Murray proclaim: ‘‘Rangers remain the rightful and legal owners of their trademarks’. That’s SportsDirect told then 🙂

I assume Rangers have already been in touch with the IPO Trade Mark Register to correct the unfortunate glitch describing SportsDirect as owner of all Rangers trade marks.

Errors can happen of course – I will be checking daily to see when Rangers have the public register corrected to show they retain uninterrupted ownership of their trade marks 😆

View Comment

incredibleadamsparkPosted on11:25 am - Apr 13, 2015

ernie says:
April 13, 2015 at 10:49 am

I spent my childhood going to Rangers matches with my family and many other games with my friends. We were never part of any ‘supremacist, elitist cults with an inflated sense of entitlement.’ We simply supported a team and enjoyed going to a football match together. Not so different to many on here. It was quality family time and when my grandfather became too ill to attend it was never the same for me and I drifted away.

So that’s where I was coming from, seeing a person behind the post. I felt he was being ridiculed because of the general negative perception of Rangers on here and thought that was unfair.

I hope that ridicule wasn’t on the minds of anyone here over that post – and you are correct in that we should be better than that here.

Actually I thought it was quite a heartfelt expression of love for a football team and in that sense no different from how many of us here would articulate our love of club.
The criticism of the poster’s sentiments as I read them was this; despite that poster’s eloquence, he was still in the “we did nothing wrong” camp – and perhaps that is the really worrying message.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on11:25 am - Apr 13, 2015

Danish Pastry says:
April 13, 2015 at 10:39 am

Strikes me that football, and Rangers, are not such an overwhelming priority in Dave King’s life. I suspect the participation in, and the kudos of ‘being seen’ that surrounds golf, is far more alluring to him. I also suspect that the, perceived amongst Rangers men, status that being involved with ‘Rangers’ exudes is Mr King’s real desire to be involved at Ibrox rather than any love of the club, though he is a supporter. He seems well able to give up a week of his, no doubt, busy schedule to ‘jet off’ to the golf (probably having enough business meetings, including business related press interviews, to justify making his expense ‘tax deductable’), yet seldom finds 90 minutes to take in a TRFC match on his frequent visits to Glasgow.

View Comment

jockybhoyPosted on11:26 am - Apr 13, 2015

Fair enough incredibleadamspark, it’s a lovely story he writes and nearly brought a tear to my gnarled old eye. I say nearly because my gnarled old eye then read about enjoyuing being taught the songs “with add-ons”, much to his ma’s chagrin. Well your ma knew better than your uncle “morethanaclub”.

Also the core message I took from it is still “we still believe, in the face of all the facts, Rangers has done nothing wrong, others have vindictively put us in this situation” – a stance, perpetuated by its repetition that I, and most on this site disagree with. If it’s not challenged, it gets further reinforcement. That’s one of the reasons I am here…

View Comment

incredibleadamsparkPosted on11:35 am - Apr 13, 2015

jockybhoy says:
April 13, 2015 at 11:26 am

I understand that but there was no reason to link to the guys post as a starting point for that particular debate. Didn’t need to be done. We know nothing about him and, in my view, it was a cheap shot to do so.

View Comment

mcfcPosted on11:38 am - Apr 13, 2015

Imagine My Surprise

Scotsman headline: “Rangers ‘in full control of badges’, says club”

But I don’t remember “in full control of badges” in the RIFC statement – because that would be factually incorrect and misleading. So I check the statement – and guess what – yes – it is not there – nor for that matter is it in the body of the Scotsman’s article.

So which club is the Scotsman quoting?
Who is the Scotsman quoting?
Do the quote marks indicate something that is not intended to be literal?

Let’s just say, the journalism is not as alarming as it may first appear.



View Comment

ThomTheThimPosted on11:42 am - Apr 13, 2015

ecobhoy says:
April 13, 2015 at 9:40 am
An unusual note of realism from Jackson:
I think that article is a sleekit piece “journalism”.
Ostensibly, it is about inviting King to let the Bears know of his plans. Fair enough.
However, the gist of the article is about swinging the F&P decision in his favour, by Dermot Desmond applying pressure on Peter Lawwell to use his “influence” on the Board.
He also misquotes Desmond as ” needing” Rangers and quoting the ” two years loss of £10m” to Celtic.
The £10m that PL stated was based over two years, citing the £100 reduction on Season Tickets, plus match day income for four fixtures against RFC, etc.
He could easily have written that Celtic have adjusted their financial model to suit the circumstances, thereby dismissing any notion of them being needed.
No club in Scotland needs RFC.

Another disingenuous bit was the introduction of King’s alleged legal position re his tax convictions was to suggest that in SA, tax convictions were really just a way for the authorities to collect revenue and the jail terms were an irrelevance….and the £40m was more or less a fine.
His bottom line was that PL could be corrupted to ensure that the Coronation can take place.
If Desmond had that control over Lawwell then Roy Keane would be in the Celtic dugout today.

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on11:50 am - Apr 13, 2015

I would argue that they need to get the trademarks back “home” as quickly as possible, regardless of any short to medium term financial concerns.

The badges are the heart of the myth that was sold so effective by Green. Symbols are hugely important to people, they can speak to the very core of our being.

If these symbols become disconnected with Rangers MkII in the collective consciousness of the fans, than, I submit they are royally fecked.

This is one of those moments in the affairs of men, where a miss-step could be fatal

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on11:51 am - Apr 13, 2015

tayred says:
April 13, 2015 at 10:38 am
ecobhoy says:
April 13, 2015 at 9:40 am
An unusual note of realism from Jackson:

Assuming you don’t mean the bit about how Scottish football needs a Rangers?
Correct. I mean the bit stated in the story headline that it’s time that DK unveiled his plans.

Of course the 14 TDs I have received for providing the link is fascinating. I would have thought that a change in direction from the usual fawning by Jackson might signal something.

Perhaps his old work colleague and boss has slipped him a juicy titbit of lamb on how the wind is blowing through the Ibrox corridors of power.

PR & Ra Meeja work in strange and mysterious ways their myths to publicise.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on11:56 am - Apr 13, 2015

ThomTheThim says:
April 13, 2015 at 11:42 am

As ever, that Jackson spin is just an example of The SMSM’s ‘if we can’t give the bears much succour, lets cause anger amongst the Celtic support towards their club’s board by suggesting they (the board) will support King, and therefor, TRFC!’

View Comment

TBKPosted on12:04 pm - Apr 13, 2015

April 13, 2015 at 11:21 am

“……As to the bizarre references to differences in Scots and English Law I haven’t a clue of the point being made and I strongly suspect neither does Mr Murray. Fact: In Scotland either fixed or floating charges can be applied to Trade Marks…………..”

……Absolutely agree!!

In fact, the MR01 documents lodged with Companies House by TRFCLtd, and the accompanying Trademark Assignation Security Document by Brodies LLP, it clearly states ……

“1.4 Any reference to any Scottish legal term for any action, remedy, method of judicial proceedings, legal document, legal status, Court official or any legal concept or thing that in respect of any jurisdiction other than Scotland shall be deemed to include what most nearly approximates in that jurisdiction to the Scottish legal term.”

My reading of this, is that this, has been made under Scottish Law by a pretty well versed legal firm (that being Brodies LLP in Edinburgh)

View Comment

mcfcPosted on12:09 pm - Apr 13, 2015

scapaflow says:
April 13, 2015 at 11:50 am

The badges are the heart of the myth that was sold so effective by Green. Symbols are hugely important to people, they can speak to the very core of our being.


Scapa – Alastair Johnston “an expert in the field of corporate branding” begs to differ. All you need to do is add a sqiggle here, insert an “I” there, prefix a “The” and bingo – new branding and nothing Ashley can do – of course you’d have to stop using “Rangers” and “RFC” and the red lion and “Ready” and . . .


I’m guessing Alastair forgot about this case – which is heavy handed but in no way unusual in trademark enforcement. So what are you going to call this new brand Alastair?

“Starbucks tells village shop to remove ‘lookalike’ sign”


View Comment

TBKPosted on12:12 pm - Apr 13, 2015

“2 Undertaking to pay

The Assignor undertakes to the Lender that it will pay and discharge ALL of the Secured Liabilities on demand in writing when the Secured Liability become due for payment or discharge (whether by acceleration or otherwise)”……..

that’s interesting! ON DEMAND FOR PAYMENT! then and only then will…..

“3.2 On irrevocable payment or discharge in flu of the Security Liabilities, the LENDER will promptly at the request and COST of the Assignor, re-assign Rights to the Assignor (or as the Assignor shall Direct)

Of course what the *Rangers or the media won’t tell you is that there are of course clause breakers in the document that state……for example ….. “the Lender shall be released from obligation to re-assign……. powers conferred in clause 10”

….. “10 Powers on Enforcement

At any time on or after the security created by or pursuant to this assignation becomes enforceable the Lender shall be entitled, without further notice, to exercise (or refrain from exercising) all rights and powers conferred on or exercisable by the owner of the Assigned Rights. In particular, but without limitation, The Lender, without further notice, shall be entitled to retain, sell or otherwise dispose of and convert into money any of the assigned rights with full power to sell any of the same and for such consideration as the Lender may think fit (subject to any duty implied by Law) and with full power to buy in or rescind or vary any contract of sale of the Assigned Rights……..”

View Comment

TBKPosted on12:15 pm - Apr 13, 2015

how does one upload documents? (and protect the provenance?)

Can I screen shot or insert a page PDF of the MR01 from Companies House.

View Comment

fara1968Posted on12:16 pm - Apr 13, 2015

When you have the gold of Sierra Madre in the pipeline why would you even start to worry about having badges?

View Comment

steph1895Posted on12:17 pm - Apr 13, 2015

I am not doubting the old guys integrity or blind support for his beloved Rangers.
We can all relate to stories of families passing down the boys own stuff of great players they had seen and matches they had attended.
The undercurrent of his argument is to highlight
“hey you listen to me because I am a genuine Rangers fan and I have something to say”
which comes across as pleading to the club/company that they should care.
More importantly all other football fans should sit up and listen because he has had enough of the situation (haven’t we all!!)
Where it falls down in my humble opinion is the attitude that this is all someone else’s fault, contrary to the evidence.
The blatent untruth of being found not guilty of charges relating to EBT side letters and bringing the game in to disrupute, from the highest court in the land is laughable.
You don’t get fined £250K if you are innocent – this smacks of someone who reads the MSM too much.
A murderer is still a murderer if he’s guilty of one or two murders, but not the seven he is accused of.
I like to think I am an educated person, but some of my blue persuasion professional colleagues, cannot be told the uncomfortable truth no matter how well thought out the way it is explained.
Hell IS the impossibility of reason.
Even if the MSM told the uncomfortable truth right now, the vast majority of The Rangers fans would still not believe it.
People will believe what they want to believe, but if the majority accept the untruth, then like Goebells in Nazi Germany, it becomes the whole truth and historical fact – this cannot be allowed to happen.
Commercialism has an agenda in Scottish football and unfortunately it has to have team in blue out of Ibrox to fulfill it.
Never has truth and realism been so far apart, that we are willing to accept history be re-written because it makes commercial and financial sense to do so.

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on12:31 pm - Apr 13, 2015

fara1968 says:
April 13, 2015 at 12:16 pm

All the gold of the Witwatersrand surely?

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on12:38 pm - Apr 13, 2015

TBK says: April 13, 2015 at 12:15 pm

how does one upload documents? (and protect the provenance?)
If extract of the document is just a screen grab, then save it as a jpg on your pc.

You can then use http://imgur.com/ without logging in to upload the image file. Once you have done that, copy and paste the url of the uploaded file in your next post.

Scribd is better for document files, although you will need to set up an account.

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on12:42 pm - Apr 13, 2015

mcfc says:
April 13, 2015 at 12:09 pm



TRFC Ltd directors, I’m seeing Dickson, Murray, Gilligan, and er Leach & Llambias showing as current directors. Anyone seen any forms going through removing Leach & Llambias?

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on1:07 pm - Apr 13, 2015

TBK says:
April 13, 2015 at 12:12 pm

Of course what the *Rangers or the media won’t tell you is that there are of course clause breakers in the document
Ah but you forget the power of the ‘back letter’ Paul Murray has in his pocket from SD.

Let’s hope it’s of more use than the one Chamberlain brought back although I doubt it.

It beggars belief for the media to print: ‘Rangers remain the rightful and legal owners of their trademarks’ without pointing out some hard facts.

These are that IMO Rangers will not again be the rightful and legal owners of their trademarks until they have repaid the £5 million loan and that no default is triggered.

View Comment

TBKPosted on1:14 pm - Apr 13, 2015

April 13, 2015 at 12:38 pm

many thanks EJ. I tried … but alas failed….. I am pre-Luddite generation 😳

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on1:15 pm - Apr 13, 2015

scapaflow says:
April 13, 2015 at 12:42 pm

TRFC Ltd directors, I’m seeing Dickson, Murray, Gilligan, and er Leach & Llambias showing as current directors. Anyone seen any forms going through removing Leach & Llambias?
The two Easdales and Somers are off and Dickson, Gilligan and Murray are on.

No termination for Llambias and Leach lodged.

The loan is between TRFCL and SD and perhaps this is where the default story about removing directors comes from.

View Comment

TBKPosted on1:16 pm - Apr 13, 2015

April 13, 2015 at 1:07 pm

Have you read the MR01 documents and accompanying agreements… Eye watering stuff!

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on1:22 pm - Apr 13, 2015

ecobhoy says:
April 13, 2015 at 1:15 pm

That’s what I’m wondering “The loan is between TRFCL and SD and perhaps this is where the default story about removing directors comes from.”

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on1:23 pm - Apr 13, 2015

TBK says:
April 13, 2015 at 12:04 pm
April 13, 2015 at 11:21 am

“……As to the bizarre references to differences in Scots and English Law I haven’t a clue of the point being made and I strongly suspect neither does Mr Murray. Fact: In Scotland either fixed or floating charges can be applied to Trade Marks…………..”
……Absolutely agree!!

I see you’re having probs loading docs – I do too so don’t bother trying.

However I would be interested in the dates on the paperwork as to when agreements were signed and who did the signing in terms of Rangers directors.

And are they signing as TRFCL or RIFC Plc directors

View Comment

TBKPosted on1:25 pm - Apr 13, 2015

April 13, 2015 at 1:23 pm

Do you want me to email/PM the docs ?

all signed by D Somers, Director on behalf of TRFCLtd

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on1:40 pm - Apr 13, 2015


On Fields of Green.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on1:45 pm - Apr 13, 2015

TBK says:
April 13, 2015 at 1:25 pm
April 13, 2015 at 1:23 pm

I’ll send you Email addy by PM

View Comment

TBKPosted on1:49 pm - Apr 13, 2015

Here’s a puzzler……..

I have 6no MR01 Particular of Charge notices.

1no relates to IP
1no relates to Trademarks
1no relates to a fixed charge over Mortgage of Shares (*Rangers Retail ltd)
1no relates to a standard security charge over Edmiston House and Albion Car Park
1no relates to a standard security charge over Training Centre, Auchenhowie Rd


1no relates to a “Bond and Floating Charge” – but has “Error – no property name supplied” on the document. The document is also signed and Dated 10/02/ 2014 ???? and submitted 27 January 2015?????

Can anyone explain what that last one means?

View Comment

jimlarkinPosted on2:00 pm - Apr 13, 2015

Sorry if been posted before and slightly off topic


View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on2:07 pm - Apr 13, 2015

incredibleadamspark says:
April 13, 2015 at 11:35 am
jockybhoy says:
April 13, 2015 at 11:26 am

I understand that but there was no reason to link to the guys post as a starting point for that particular debate. Didn’t need to be done. We know nothing about him and, in my view, it was a cheap shot to do so.
We don’t know who wrote it be it a genuine fan or a PR spinner for any of the various factions.

I think it’s valid to discuss the Rangers viewpoint that the original poster appears to espouse quite simply because IMO it’s what has helped bring Rangers to its current position. If the guy is telling the truth then we know a helluva lot about him.

Until his mindset – and that of others of a similar view – changes IMO there is little long-term hope for Rangers as a club operating within the rules wrt financial stipulations and sporting integrity.

I honestly started off laughing at the post as I thought it could be a Celtic fan taking the Mickey. That has slowly turned to sadness at the prison this guy is trapped in.

Jeesuz to have not only one’s own life – never mind those of all your family and generations to come – defined by support for a football club – any football club – is so sad.

As I mentioned in my post earlier: I wonder what his wife’s take is on an obsession that can damage mental health if not kept in check.

However when you post online you open yourself up to comment not all of which might be welcome.

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on2:11 pm - Apr 13, 2015

mcfc says:
April 13, 2015 at 12:09 pm

The pride of ICAS might need to have a word with the Lord Lyon as well :mrgreen:


View Comment

jockybhoyPosted on2:12 pm - Apr 13, 2015

TBK: Pre-Luddite? Wow.

Alyjambo 11.56: The SMSM’s ‘if we can’t give the bears much succour, lets cause anger amongst the Celtic support towards their club’s board by suggesting they (the board) will support King, and therefor, TRFC!’

Thank you for posting that, it it had been one of the green persuasion we’d be accused of all sorts of verdant myopia…

View Comment

tykebhoyPosted on2:17 pm - Apr 13, 2015

TBK says:
April 13, 2015 at 1:49 pm
Speculation as I haven’t seen the documents but the missing jigsaw piece, from all the rest of the MR01s, of the loan agreement was a security of a floating charge over all the assets (except Ibrox). That would presumably be why no specific property is stated.

Edit I have just noticed you say they were signed and dated almost a year before submission. Is that what you were querying? Has this been a year in the making?

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on2:23 pm - Apr 13, 2015

TBK says:
April 13, 2015 at 1:49 pm

1no relates to a “Bond and Floating Charge” – but has “Error – no property name supplied” on the document. The document is also signed and Dated 10/02/ 2014 ???? and submitted 27 January 2015?????

Can anyone explain what that last one means?
That could be automatic if the form was submitted electronically. The floating charge would cover all assets of TRFCL no matter where they were situated.

So perhaps whoever filled in the form didn’t define the various locations the assets would be located. But that could be a helluva list. I can’t remember the last floating charge I saw but I wonder is the form a Companies House proforma or a one-off done by the solicitor.

The form will have an identifying number which should help – possibly starting MR and then some digits.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on2:34 pm - Apr 13, 2015

ecobhoy says:
April 13, 2015 at 2:07 pm

However when you post online you open yourself up to comment not all of which might be welcome.

Spot on, Ecobhoy. If you don’t like the heat, just stay out of the kitchen.

I have often got a virtual “riddy” online, thanks to posting crap. It’s all part of the whole new media thing, the lesson being- think carefully before you post. And don’t even think about posting while bevvied. If someone posts whilst bevvied, or without proper thought, then criticism is likely to follow.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on2:35 pm - Apr 13, 2015

TBK says:
April 13, 2015 at 1:16 pm

April 13, 2015 at 1:07 pm

Have you read the MR01 documents and accompanying agreements… Eye watering stuff!
Just starting – will take a while to digest. Did you spot the reference to ‘uncalled capital’ in the floating charge document.

A definition for uncalled capital off the internet is:

Capital that a company has raised by issuing shares or bonds but that the company has not collected because it has not requested payment. See also: Authorized Shares.

I wonder if that applies?

View Comment

Kicker ConspiracyPosted on2:36 pm - Apr 13, 2015

From Rangers PR statement:

“…In return for the loan, Sports Direct took security over all Rangers assets — but not Ibrox — including intellectual property owned by the club…”


That wording grates on my suspicious ear.

Why not “except Ibrox”, or something similar?

The way it’s written could be equally true whether or not Ibrox is an asset belonging to Rangers.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on2:38 pm - Apr 13, 2015

ecobhoy says:
April 13, 2015 at 2:35 pm
TBK says:
April 13, 2015 at 1:16 pm

Signed by Somers in London on 27 January 2015.

And yet BL accompanied by DL told the official Rangers Fan Board meeting on the evenint of 10 February IIRC that the badges and crest remained the property of RFC.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on2:38 pm - Apr 13, 2015

jockybhoy says:
April 13, 2015 at 2:12 pm

The obvious is still obvious regardless of the preferred colour of the observer 😉

View Comment

TartanwulverPosted on2:50 pm - Apr 13, 2015

jimlarkin says:
April 13, 2015 at 2:00 pm

Of the billionaires out there, the BBC single out Ashley as needing a power check? While I find the zero hours contracts abhorrent, I’d have said the ones to start with are the offshore media magnates, and that there are many others who control vast swathes of property etc who are higher up the scale of offenders in terms of wielding excessive power in a democracy.

View Comment

TBKPosted on3:01 pm - Apr 13, 2015

Kicker Conspiracy at 2:36 pm

The document does refer to……

“”Excluded property” means ALL and WHOLE the subjects known as Ibrox Stadium, Edmiston Drive Glasgow G51 2XD being the subjects registered in the land register Scotland under title GLA210958; ”

Trouble is, other than in the “17. Definitions” section, I cannot see any reference to this in the actual document.

All that is referred to is the “Floating Charge over the Secured Assets”.

Helpfully though the “Secured Assets” are defined as having to exclude the “Excluded Property”…So (as we knew, Ibrox is not included in the Floating charge)… legalese eh!! 🙄

View Comment

mcfcPosted on3:02 pm - Apr 13, 2015

scapaflow says:
April 13, 2015 at 2:11 pm

mcfc says:
April 13, 2015 at 12:09 pm

The pride of ICAS might need to have a word with the Lord Lyon as well :mrgreen:



Are you suggesting that the £278k/mth is for that little red lion on the Ready badge 🙂

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on3:13 pm - Apr 13, 2015

mcfc says:
April 13, 2015 at 3:02 pm

Wouldn’t go that far, though you never know!

More that Johnson’s cunning plan, carries all the trade marks of Baldrick’s cunning plans, especially the “I have not played this video all the way to the end” quality

View Comment

neepheidPosted on3:19 pm - Apr 13, 2015

ecobhoy says:
April 13, 2015 at 2:38 pm

And yet BL accompanied by DL told the official Rangers Fan Board meeting on the evenint of 10 February IIRC that the badges and crest remained the property of RFC.

So far as I know, no agreed minute of that meeting has ever been published. All we have is a note taken by one of the fan representatives. So I would urge caution on stating as a fact anything based on one side’s version of events.

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on3:21 pm - Apr 13, 2015

ecobhoy says:
April 13, 2015 at 1:15 pm

scapaflow says:
April 13, 2015 at 12:42 pm

TRFC Ltd directors, I’m seeing Dickson, Murray, Gilligan, and er Leach & Llambias showing as current directors. Anyone seen any forms going through removing Leach & Llambias?
The two Easdales and Somers are off and Dickson, Gilligan and Murray are on.

No termination for Llambias and Leach lodged.

The loan is between TRFCL and SD and perhaps this is where the default story about removing directors comes from.


I think they are all gone from both companies.


Current and previous directorships of RIFC Ltd.
Shows Lambias and Leach ceased being RIFC Directors as of 6th March 2015, with returns to that effect submitted at cos hse.

They still show as directors of TRFC Ltd, however there were 5 director terminations and 1 secretary termination between Feb and April 2015, it looks like it is just paperwork catching up with events.

The secretary termination looks like CMS advisory.
The director resignations look like Easedale x2, Somers, Llambias and Leach.
The Easdeals & somers terminations have been reflected in the current driectors summary. And I can think of no one else that the 2 other director termination notices could apply to (C Graham not showing as appointed).

Paperwork for the later terminations showing as 20th March.


View Comment

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on3:26 pm - Apr 13, 2015

Phils latest:


View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on3:42 pm - Apr 13, 2015

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
April 13, 2015 at 3:26 pm


Sounds like they have pulled the Tiger’s tail once too often.
Mike doesn’t play nice with other kids I hear.
PMs conciliatory overtures not being well received???

View Comment

TBKPosted on3:43 pm - Apr 13, 2015

April 13, 2015 at 3:21 pm

….. “however there were 5 director terminations and 1 secretary termination between Feb and April 2015” ??

Sorry, I can only see 4 (that relate to directors) and of those, 3 are accounted for: Mr Alexander Easdale / Mr James Easdale & Mr David Somers as having retired

20 Mar 2015 Termination Of Appointment Of Director – D Somers
20 Mar 2015 Termination Of Appointment Of Director – D Somers
20 Mar 2015 Termination Of Appointment Of Director – A Easdale
02 Mar 2015 Termination Of Appointment Of Director – J Easdale

Duedil still show Mr Derek David Llambias & Mr Barry John Leach as being active as is the case.


View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on3:45 pm - Apr 13, 2015

TBK says:
April 13, 2015 at 3:43 pm

April 13, 2015 at 3:21 pm


My bad, apologies.
I see I misread the ‘secretary’ termination on Compnay check as a director termination.
Somers, 2 x easedale,

So who was 4?

Did CMS resign as both sec and director?

View Comment

TBKPosted on3:53 pm - Apr 13, 2015

April 13, 2015 at 3:45 pm

edit above. D Somers resignation of Appointment twice. I assume he held 2 posts?

View Comment

valentinesclownPosted on3:55 pm - Apr 13, 2015

In a statement, the Rangers board said: “It will not become custom and practice for the board of Rangers International Football Club to respond to every outbreak of media speculation regarding this club
This media speculation is bampot speculation/information and analysis. This media scares them as it is out of their control. This media just wants to save our game by seeking the truth and ultimately challenge our compliant smsm and our IMO corrupt SFA in relation to this ONE club. It is a real step forward that the Govan club released such a statement as a result of IMO the internet bampots input.
We are not going away and we are not delusional. Mr Jackson can push we need the Govan club as much as wants but Scottish football does not need them in the same way we do not need the likes of the DR.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on3:59 pm - Apr 13, 2015

I’ve undernoted sections wrt the Trademark issues – please do not take them as verbatim because I typed them up and as I’m on a very small screen today there could be some errors. Some bits I have also paraphrased which tend to be bracketed thus { }.

Secured Obligations: all present and future monies, obligations and liabilities of the Chargor to the Chargee under the Facilities Agreement, whether actual or contingent together with all interest (including, without limitation, default interest) acccruing in respect of those monies, obligations and liabilities.


The Chargor undertakes with the Chargee to pay the Secured Obligations to the Chargee within 7 days from the Chargee giving written notice to the Chargor that the Secured Obligations are due but have not been paid by the Chargor.


8.1 Timing

This security shall become immediately enforceable if a Default occurs {except where the Default is a failure by the Chargor to comply with the Secured Obligations when it only becomes immediately enforceable if the Default has continued for more than 7 days}

8.2 Enforcement
After this Security has become enforceable:

8.2.1 the Chargee may in its absolute discretion enforce all or any part of this Security in any manner it sees fit; and
8.2.2 The Chargor shall cease using the Intellectual Property Rights immediately.

9.2 Chargee’s powers on enforcement

Immediately upon this Security becoming enforceable or at any time therafter the Chargee may do all or any of the following:

9.2.1 exercise the power of sale and all other powers conferred by section 101 of the Act as varied or extended by this Deed.

9.2.2 {subject to certain Sections of the Insolvency Act} appoint one or more persons as a receive or receiver and manager of any Charged Assets; and

9.2.3 exercise all the powers of conferred on a Receiver by this Deed, the Act and the Insolvency Act 1986 without first appointing a Receiver or notwithstanding the appointment of a receiver


This Deed and any non-contractual obligations arising out of or in connection with this Deed shall be governed by English Law.


{English courts have jurisdcition and the Chargor has agreed to that}

(There is a reference to Scottish Courts as well but I haven’t got my head round that yet).

Quite simply if there’s no default and the £5 million is paid back then there’s no problem. I still haven’t figured out whether a default in any section of the Facilities Agreement means that a default in all sections is triggered.

But I’ll work away at this and see what I can figure out.

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on4:04 pm - Apr 13, 2015

TBK says:
April 13, 2015 at 3:43 pm
Resin_lab_dog says:
April 13, 2015 at 3:45 pm

It begs the question of whether the oft mentioned two directorships for SD, actually applies to TRFC rather than RIFC, which would raise a number of very interesting questions vis a vis Ibrox etc etc

View Comment

Comments are closed.