Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?

Posted on by

 

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

http://www.channel4.com/news/we-run-football-were-not-the-police-sfa-boss

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Independent Enquiry?

SR No

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AT Never?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fit and Proper Person and Absence of Governance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AT Rangers were a mess financially everybody new that

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

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

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

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

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

SR We didn’t fail.

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

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

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

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

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

SR Well I think the articles

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

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

AT ??  (Interrupted)

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

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

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

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

The Nature of EBTS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AT Sometimes

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

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

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

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

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

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

If Carlsberg did irony!

End of Interview.

The Hard Not to Believe Conclusions

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

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

The reader will find it hard not to conclude that either

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

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

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

Annex One – Extracts from Lord Nimmo Smith Decision

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

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

 

Outline of the Scheme

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

Auldheid  Feb 2015
This entry was posted in General by Auldheid. Bookmark the permalink.

About Auldheid

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 thoughts on “Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?”


  1. Resin_lab_dog says:
    April 13, 2015 at 3:42 pm

    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???
    —————–
    Find out tomorrow.
    Unless there’s been quite a bit of forelock tugging,ar*e licking,humility shown(and I don’t expect Ashley to act like this 😉 )then Mr Dingwall may well be the 1st to feel his wrath.
    Unless the case has been dropped for any reason then it’s SD v Dingwall,live from the RCJ at 11.30am,I think.


  2. neepheid says:
    April 13, 2015 at 3:19 pm

    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.
    ———————————————————-
    Well it all depends what is meant by an agreed minute. I have seldom seen a minute even for the tiniest organisation that is fully agreed. The minute was agreed by all fan board members at the meeting.

    However the only issue that was publicly raised after the meeting minute was published afaik was the one regarding the recquisitioners allegely soiling their troosers. Perhaps the annoyance it caused had nothing to do with the accuracy but more the crassness of the comment if true.

    However as far as I know nothing else was specifically commented on although I think there was obvious annoyance at the fan board publishing their minute. In the climate of the time I would have thought it was more than a tad optimistic to believe they would keep stuum.

    I don’t know if you have read the minute taken and published by the Fan Reps but it was obviously compiled from a tape recording. I would be happy to comment on any other minute from the meeting if it was put in the public domain.

    It’s a detailed note and actually not really a minute as I would take a minute. It appears to be a verbatim record of the conversation from the start to the end of the meeting.

    Obviously as BL and DL appear to still be directors of TRFCL I would assume that they would raise the issue if unhappy. In an earlier much more detailed post of mine I said I totally accepted that both men were honest and should be believed.

    Only IIRC I was surprised that the confirmation was apparently given just hours before the matter entered the public domain through Companies House. But as I wasn’t present at the meeting I would be happy to repeat any denial from BL or DL that the conversation as minuted by the fan board took place.

    Perhaps we could also get to the bottom of the alleged assault that took place – shortly after the fan board meeting broke-up at Ibrox – in a city centre hotel.

    Appears to be much more confusion surrounding that than the minute of the meeting 😆


  3. scapaflow says:
    April 13, 2015 at 4:04 pm
    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
    ———————————————————-
    The RNS of 27 January appears to make it clear that it is RIFC Plc because it states: ‘SD will also have the right to nominate two directors to the board of Rangers’.

    In the RNS RIFC is described “Rangers” or the “Company” but TRFCL is described as “the Club”.


  4. ecobhoy says:
    April 13, 2015 at 4:35 pm

    Cheers, they don’t half love to obfuscate :mrgreen:

    EDIT

    Still puzzled about why they are still on that board.


  5. TBK says:
    April 13, 2015 at 3:53 pm

    Resin_lab_dog:
    April 13, 2015 at 3:45 pm

    edit above. D Somers resignation of Appointment twice. I assume he held 2 posts?
    —————————————————–
    Could be a straight duplication error – happens a lot especially with online submission.


  6. SportsDirect really are cheeky chappies and I wonder what PL is going to say about it? And I wonder what BDO is going to say?

    Ashley’s trade mark spotters have just gone and listed the two ‘The Old Firm’ Trade Marks in their legal paperwork.

    It would appear that any exposure to the trade mark collector and you’re liable to have a SportsDirect poster hung round your neck and treadmarked – and those bloody tank tracks are sore on the feet.

    I posted on this the other day and wondered what was going to happen to the ‘Old Firm’ TMs as they were jointly owned by Celtic and The Rangers Football Club Plc which is the former name of RFC 2012 P.L.C. currently in liquidation.

    Looks as though SportsDirect sees a few bob in continuing the old rivalry. I wonder when the orange shirt will get trotted out?


  7. scapaflow says:
    April 13, 2015 at 4:40 pm

    ecobhoy says:
    April 13, 2015 at 4:35 pm

    Cheers, they don’t half love to obfuscate :mrgreen:

    EDIT

    Still puzzled about why they are still on that board.
    ———————————————————
    Is it not because of the employment dispute because IIRC directors can be classed as employees if they have a service contract or at least they used to be.

    I know some directors aren’t classed as employees but Office Holders but the key I believe is whether it’s a contract of service or for service, I could be wrong about that.


  8. ecobhoy says:
    April 13, 2015 at 5:12 pm

    there is some case law on removing directors in these sort of circumstances.

    But, its more about them being booted off RIFC, is no big deal, but tenaciously clinging on at TRFC, why? Charles & Imran were on the wee board as well, coupled with the fan rep going on the main board, rather than the club board.

    Its probably nothing, but gut feeling is that TRFC may actually be more important in all this than I thought.


  9. Ecobhoy re. joint ownership ofa trademark.

    “Trademarks shared by competitors… are supported by a non-precedential Trademark Trial and Appeal Board decision upholding the SWISS ARMY knife trademark. Like the SUPER HERO marks (jointly held by Marvel & DC Comics), the SWISS ARMY mark was jointly registered by competitors, Victorinox AG and Wenger SA. It was upheld on the basis that the registrants jointly “represent a single source” of the knives and due to their long-standing cooperation for quality control (today the US mark is owned solely by Victorinox AG which also owns the former competitor, Wenger SA).”
    http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/Blog/detail.aspx?g=4531a700-73d1-4476-b5ce-432e26f5af17

    However if agreement can’t be reached then a pn example of what may happen is in Aussie law: TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 – SECT 28: Application by joint owners states “If the relations between 2 or more persons interested in a trade mark are such that none of them is entitled to use the trade mark except:
    (a) on behalf of all of them; or
    (b) in relation to goods and/or services with which all of them are connected in the course of trade; ”

    This would imply that the trademark would be rejected as Celtic (presumably) didn’t agree to its use as the implication is that Celtic (commonly agreed to have been one half of the Old Firm with the “original” Rangers, which of course is a different question!

    From another website, IPKat “…One of the most vexing provisions is the question of what happens to the rights in the trade mark in the event that the agreement between the joint owners come to an end. Here, as well, the issue of how to dispose of the rights in the trade mark upon termination of the joint ownership must take into account the underlying principle that a trade mark is an indicator of source(or participation in the case of “The Old Firm”). What are the options?…

    The only practical option given on the blog is
    “2. One owner purchases the mark and licenses it the other owner– This is a version of no.1 to the extent that both former owners can in principle continue to use the mark after termination. Whether the parties want to go through the exercise of entering into a full-fledged licence agreement and, if so, whether one of the former owners is willing to settle for being a licensee (even an exclusive licensee), are open questions.”

    http://ipkitten.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/joint-ownership-of-trade-mark.html

    In this case I’d assume Sports Direct would be paying Celtic a license fee…. I guess this would be the most likely scenario.


  10. scapaflow says:
    April 13, 2015 at 5:25 pm
    ecobhoy says:
    April 13, 2015 at 5:12 pm

    there is some case law on removing directors in these sort of circumstances.

    But, its more about them being booted off RIFC, is no big deal, but tenaciously clinging on at TRFC, why? Charles & Imran were on the wee board as well, coupled with the fan rep going on the main board, rather than the club board.

    Its probably nothing, but gut feeling is that TRFC may actually be more important in all this than I thought.
    —————————————————–
    I hear what you say and to some extent agree basically because of the window of opportunity that existed when CG was the only director of Sevco Scotland prior to others came on Board. What contracts were done back then?

    But surely if TRFCL was still in control of any such contracts in any way or even involved then steps could be taken to tackle the contracts.

    I’ve got a copy of the TRFCL Mem & Arts and will need to look at voting off directors. But the usual way would be by an Ordinary resolution by calling a general meeting of members (shareholders) which requires a simple majority vote of over 50%.

    And that’s where I get stuck because I don’t know what happens if RIFC Plc is the single shareholder or not. Perhaps there are other shareholders and that might be a key.

    I suppose the Mem & Arts would determine whether the vote would be on a member basis or on the number of shares held. If it’s on shares held then I would assume RIFC Plc would easily hold a 50% majority.

    But it would take someone who knows about company law than to work that one out.

    But it could simply be that if the two were sacked there’s the pay off on the employment side but could there be a separate pay-off on the directorship side? If there is we could be starting to look at maybe something approaching £1 million or at least £750k.

    It all adds up especially when you add McCoist and McDowall. Perhaps the club board is simply regarded as toytown and having DL and BL sitting there means nothing as nothing of any significance will get discussed.

    Putting the fan rep on the main board is easily explainable in terms of the thankyou to the boycotters and again the wee board could have been regarded as a slur.


  11. Sports direct are appearing in the Royal Courts of Justice tomorrow as it happens.

    Court 18 of the Rolls Building, 11.30 am.


  12. I’d assumed that King and Ashley would come to some pragmatic arrangement eventually – as long as King can keep the milk and honey of merchandise sales flowing for SD.

    But if this from PMG’s latest is true – and he expresses it very confidently – then King and Murray (P)’s disrespect towards Ashley, his men and his Nomad seem to have had the bleedin obvious effect of draining all goodwill from the lender of last resort.

    “For the avoidance of doubt, Big Mike is VERY upset about this Rangers business.”

    http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/choose-your-weapons-and-your-words-carefully/


  13. mcfc says:
    April 13, 2015 at 6:47 pm

    _________________________________________________________

    Interesting also that Phil says Mash estimated the liquidity of the 3B excluding king at ~£3m. Probably enough to run the show until ST renewal but no further. And their willingness to do so is still TBD, bearing in mind that they are already in for £1.5m and some rapidly devaluing shares.

    Basically they have NO PROSPECT paying off SDH unless old short arms can dig something out.

    Its starting to look alot like a train wreck. Again.

    Wonder when the SFA will seek assurances from the BOD about funding to the end of the season again?

    … I would expect that the Mash backed guarantee that Llambias gave in that regard should now be worth even less than say … a promise made by Dave King to maintain the share listing.

    That EGM vote is looking less and less clever by the day.


  14. James Doleman says:
    April 13, 2015 at 6:44 pm
    Sports direct are appearing in the Royal Courts of Justice tomorrow as it happens.

    Court 18 of the Rolls Building, 11.30 am.
    ———

    Will you be there James, or are you still on the case of the deadly Sussex Cat? 🙂 (or was it Devon?)

    Btw, one of the funniest quotes so far from Cpt M on twitter:

    @Mac9974: Sevco: A Parody of a dead parrot wrapped up in an imitation of a ventriliquist’s dummy inside the back end of a pantomime horse


  15. mcfc says:
    April 13, 2015 at 6:47 pm
    …
    “For the avoidance of doubt, Big Mike is VERY upset about this Rangers business.”
    http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/choose-your-weapons-and-your-words-carefully/
    ==============================================

    Maybe Phil could elucidate, but I don’t understand the ‘personalised’ element of that statement.

    In relative terms, Ashley’s Ibrox related investment is the equivalent to one of us Bampots ‘investing’ 20 quid on the Euromillions on a Friday night.
    [Except Ashley is guaranteed a return]. 😉

    There are only so many hours in the day, and shirley on his list of priorities, RIFC/TRFC would not even appear on his daily radar ? An investment worth a fraction of 1% of his estimated net worth ?

    IIRC, Ashley has not made any public, personal statements wrt to RIFC/TRFC.
    Tellingly, IMO, he has not bothered to appear at any TRFC games.
    He has seemingly shunned the SMSM.

    Why would Ashley be bothered/angry about the likes of Murray/Park/King etc ?


  17. StevieBC says:
    April 13, 2015 at 7:57 pm

    Why would Ashley be bothered/angry about the likes of Murray/Park/King etc ?
    ________________________________________

    Perhaps in a similar way that we all get bothered/angry when a tiny little fly buzzes around us, it’s not going to do us any harm, but it is bloody annoying and we swat it away. For Ashley, dealing with King and co will amount to not much more than picking up a phone and telling some clever lawyer chappy to deal with it. In dealing with it he lets current and future protagonists know that, no matter how small they are, they won’t get the better of him!

    Additional question.

    If Ashley isn’t going to be bothered about King’s manoeuvres around RIFC/TRFC, why’d he get involved in the first place?


  18. Allyjambo says:
    April 13, 2015 at 8:13 pm
    StevieBC says:
    April 13, 2015 at 7:57 pm
    …
    If Ashley isn’t going to be bothered about King’s manoeuvres around RIFC/TRFC, why’d he get involved in the first place?
    ======================================
    And that is also a good question.

    I have absolutely no idea why Ashley would be bothered with RIFC/TRFC in the first place.

    The speculation which sounded ‘believable’ was that he was maybe using the Ibrox club to test the water/some ideas – with a view to possibly replicating elsewhere.


  19. Resin_lab_dog says:
    April 13, 2015 at 7:08 pm

    Wonder when the SFA will seek assurances from the BOD about funding to the end of the season again?
    ———————————————–

    You say ‘again’ RLD. Did they ever do so before? As far as I can see Rangers, past and present, have never been asked by the SFA for such assurances, but of course I could be wrong.


  20. StevieBC says:
    April 13, 2015 at 8:21 pm

    I have absolutely no idea why Ashley would be bothered with RIFC/TRFC in the first place.
    ______________________________________

    Just like everyone else, including King and the 3 Bears 😉

    We, at least, can enjoy the speculation, but I reckon those on the Ibrox board would give their eye teeth to know what it is he actually wants. If they knew, they might have a clue as to what to do, or just never have got involved in the first place.


  21. I can’t remember how many predictions there’s been over the last 2 years that Rangers was finished next week or next month. It has been continuous and yet they have stumbled on.

    As to Ashley getting personally involved to the stage that he gets upset I simply don’t see it. If I’m wrong and he’s upset then he has learnt a valuable lesson because IMO it means that he – or most likely his advisors – miscalculated how the Bears would react.

    If he’s angry at anyone then it’ll be those who should have known better. Looking at this with a detached view it would be simple for Ashley to destroy Rangers.

    But he won’t because it would cost him money. Even if he retakes control of the Board he will permanently lose a large chuck of the Ibrox support IMO which would hit merchandise sales.

    He is never the type of owner who’ll be loved because he won’t keep chucking money into buying players to fuel a journey to someone else’s Rightful Place.

    He’ll do a deal with RRM to run the football side – what I can’t even begin to guess at is whether DK will be included in that or not. I can see a certain appeal in getting rid of DK and saving the SFA a lot of grief figuring how not to pass King as a FPP.

    Perhaps the SFA might give MA his extra shareholding as a thank-you. But perhaps the SFA want DK on-board for their own reasons. If DK & T3B manage to survive financially and don’t get into the Premiership next season then another year in the Championship I think could finally kill them.

    But even if they do get into the Premiership where are they going to get the money to buy players to secure a top 6 place?

    It’s all too much of a gamble with a monthly loss of £1 million having to be found. It might not need Ashley but it needs his money.

    I think rapprochement must be the way with Uncle Mike handing back the badges although it would make sense to sell MP as well for a few million which would help a bit.

    But the big question is whether DK gets an invite to Mike’s party or not – I would say it will depend how many millions King is prepared to throw into the Ibrox charity pot. If he doesn’t produce the goods he’ll be sent packing.

    A frenetic PR campaign is tightly focussed against DK but the others – even including Murray – could survive to appease the masses. However Ashley will have been calculating whether football is worth the candle in terms of being actually involved in running a club. It really is small beer for him and there’s always the attendant risk of damage to his Brand.

    DK can’t run a football club from South Africa and he won’t walk away from an apparently very lucrative business there. But if he is ousted then who runs the Board – obviously PM doesn’t make the snuff IMO. The other two might be steady enough but not as the front runner.

    And that seems to be the really big problem for the Bears that they haven’t worked out yet. There doesn’t appear to be a RRM Saviour out there and it’s not because the times are a’changing.

    They’ve already changed but the message hasn’t penetrated the Ibrox bubble and when it finally does I simply don’t know what will happen – it is something beyond my comprehension.


  23. jockybhoy says:
    April 13, 2015 at 5:53 pm

    It wasn’t so much the joint ownership but that ‘The Old Firm’ TM seems to have escaped Green’s attention and might not have been purchased from D&P in June 2012.

    It certainly is corrently listed on the IPO as being jointly owned by Celtic and the old Rangers Holding Company currently going through the liquidation process.

    I’ll have to have another look at the SD/TRFCL deal to see if it makes anything clearer.

    However when we hear the cry: ‘We want the Old Firm back’ it might not mean a football match but a trade mark 🙄


  25. James Doleman says:
    April 13, 2015 at 9:42 pm
    RIFC website could do witn an update

    http://rangersinternationalfootballclub.com/shareholder-centre/advisers
    ===========================================================================

    Come on now JD, give wee Stevie from IT a break…

    He’s trying to source a new squad – for nothing – for next season, and he can’t be maintaining the website at the same time… 🙄


  26. upthehoops says:
    April 13, 2015 at 8:35 pm

    Resin_lab_dog says:
    April 13, 2015 at 7:08 pm

    Wonder when the SFA will seek assurances from the BOD about funding to the end of the season again?
    ———————————————–

    You say ‘again’ RLD. Did they ever do so before? As far as I can see Rangers, past and present, have never been asked by the SFA for such assurances, but of course I could be wrong.

    __________________________________________________

    Apologies. It was the SPFL not the SFA. My memory was getting confused between hopeless governing bodies. And we only have the Record’s word for it anyway , ergo…

    http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-boss-derek-llambias-gives-4930632


  27. StevieBC says:
    April 13, 2015 at 9:49 pm
    James Doleman says:
    April 13, 2015 at 9:42 pm
    RIFC website could do witn an update

    http://rangersinternationalfootballclub.com/shareholder-centre/advisers
    —————————————————————-
    Funny you lot talking about websites.

    I’ve just noticed that the Rangers domain names have been snaffled-up for the duration by SportsDirect just like the Trade Marks.

    Is there nothing sacred? Apparently not.

    Oh and you remember that brilliant idea of tweaking the old badges and crests to replace the ones held by SportsDirect? Well that’s a bummer.

    Because Rangers can’t:

    use in its business any other trade mark confusingly similar to the Trade Marks and shall not use the Trade marks or any word confusingly similar to the Trade Marks as, or as part of, its corporate or trading name.

    I’ll need to stop reading this stuff because it’s getting really scary and it’s dark outside woooooohoooooooo 🙁


  28. My instinct is that Ashley’s anger is more frustration or exasperation that the RRM just will not learn basic buisiness principles and insist on messing up what could be a nice little earner for him. So what ought to be easy and profitable and low maintenance – maybe even fun – is a recurring pain in the arse everytime he asks his minions about it. “Will no one rid me of these turbulent pricks?”


  29. The first document I read was the English One and I’m now on the Scottish one.

    I thought the English One was pretty draconian but dearie me you ought to see the Scottish One. I think it could stop a rhino stone dead in its tracks.

    This is serious stuff and if anything defaults – The End is Nigh ❗


  30. If Uncle Mike owns the domain names he could just punt to the highest bidder. (Tsfm correct me if I’m wrong, there exists a market for such)


  31. WOW ❗ Just reached the end of the Scottish Document and guess who the Sports Direct signatory was?

    Yip the man himself – Uncle Mike Ashley 💡

    Perhaps he actually is taking a personal interest which could well spell bad news for some 🙄

    It appears Somers signed on 27 January but Ashley on 11 February.


  32. Eco

    Shows it matters to him for sure. Looking a bit bleak for a love in with mini M?


  33. ianagain says:
    April 13, 2015 at 10:55 pm

    If Uncle Mike owns the domain names he could just punt to the highest bidder. (Tsfm correct me if I’m wrong, there exists a market for such)

    ______________________________________________

    Any number …
    Namesco, godaddy for example
    Always worth a lookup on ‘whois’ http://www.whois.com


  34. Eco @10.41

    To be fair, when it comes to stuff like using confusingly similar names and such like, they most certainly do have history! (Pun intended most deliberately!)


  35. ianagain says:
    April 13, 2015 at 10:55 pm

    If Uncle Mike owns the domain names he could just punt to the highest bidder. (Tsfm correct me if I’m wrong, there exists a market for such)
    ————————————————————-
    Only if there’s a default or the £5 million isn’t paid back so nothing to worry about there 🙁


  36. ecobhoy says:
    April 13, 2015 at 10:57 pm

    WOW ❗ Just reached the end of the Scottish Document and guess who the Sports Direct signatory was?

    Yip the man himself – Uncle Mike Ashley 💡

    Perhaps he actually is taking a personal interest which could well spell bad news for some 🙄

    It appears Somers signed on 27 January but Ashley on 11 February.

    ____________________________________________________________

    Could this explains why the new BOD are being so quiet compared to before the EGM?

    Wondering was it:
    Dignified silence?
    Stubborn Silence?
    Stunned silence?

    But maybe they are just scared of being sued for using SDs IPR without permission if they dare to inadvertently utter the word ‘Rangers’.

    😈


  39. ecobhoy says:
    April 13, 2015 at 2:07 pm
    _____________________________________________

    We know he had a stroke, his views on the Rangers situation, how important they are to him and his family. That’s it, I’m afraid. Hardly a ‘helluva lot about him.’ Who are you, or any of us for that matter, to sit in judgement regarding what is ‘sad’ about anyone’s life? The post appeared to be from a passionate fan who was wrong about certain aspects concerning his team. So not unlike many football fans.

    There is an abundance of offence to be found on football websites if you go looking for it. All this from a post that’s a week old, that’s come from a Rangers site, been reposted on here as an example of nothing in particular. Just a fan’s emotional outburst but its inspired comments about supremacy, cults, and now mental health.

    I’m not thin-skinned or easily offended and agree that posting online does open you up to comment. I try to decide if commenting on particular posts is relevant, required or respectful. I took the positives from it, whilst not agreeing with everything in it, but I don’t think it should have been on here in the first place.


  40. Ecobhoy says

    April 13 @ 1031pm

    I wondered about Mr Ashley closing the back door!

    See my post on April 11 @12.34 pm


  41. And another thing…

    http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/choose-your-weapons-and-your-words-carefully/#more-6154

    “The picture with Mr David Cunningham King’s finances appears less clear”

    _________________________________________________

    Noteworthy statement.
    So Mike has used his (not inconsiderable) wherewithal to go do some financial duedil on the current and prospective Directors of a company in which he has a significant shareholding (nothing wrong with that… displays sound business sense ) and it appears that the financial affairs of one of them – an individual with 41 prior convictions for tax evasion – might appear on the face of this, to be less than immediately straightforward to deconvolute.

    There certainly are any number of wholly innocent explanations for this state of affairs.

    Phil may just be paraphrasing incorrectly.
    Mike’s ferrets just might not be that good at digging in the jurisdictions where King operates.

    DCK could have a particularly complex series of financial arrangements for a whole host of entirely legitimate reasons.

    Or he may just keep his millions stuffed under the mattress, where no one can see them, but entirely legally?

    Or he could just be a very private person by nature who, is also adept at ensuring his financial history and security is managed very carefully?

    Yes.

    Any number of entirely innocent explanations as to why his net worth and liquidity might be difficult for any interested party to establish.

    I am sure there is nothing untoward in there that would perturb anyone. The past is the past and DCK will have learnt the lessons of previous mistakes, undoubtedly.

    Transparency is his new watchword after all.


  42. Resin_lab_dog says:

    Any number of entirely innocent explanations as to why his net worth and liquidity might be difficult for any interested party to establish.
    ———
    Didn’t he used to be on rich lists? Has he become more private or more poor? If he’d been better at private he might not have been noticed by SARS.


  43. I am always acutely conscious that this is TSFM and it should never be about one club despite 90% of the posts here, at least superficially, being focused on RIFC. I have no real idea of where Dave King makes his money nor how much he ultimately has, in much the same way that I have no idea about Dermot Desmond’s wealth. Recent talk has been all about who owns IP, but ultimately none of that matters except in how it impacts the ‘big picture’. Whether you are a smaller community club like Raith Rovers or a ‘giant’ like Rangers or Celtic, all clubs have a place in the spectrum. It also doesn’t need to be transparent beyond the annual accounts being made available on time and on a consistent basis. It just has to be fair and you have to live within your needs. If you have more supporters, you have a greater chance to be a bigger and more successful club. It doesn’t guarantee it though. It’s sport. The tribulations of Hearts, Motherwell, Dunfermline, Dundee, etc were all predicated by an environment of inflated debt fuelled by (S)DM – well, his backers actually. We can’t go back there and that’s why the authorities need to treat every club, well, the way they are treating Livingston. It may seem unfair that Celtic have such an advantage from being big and well run, but it is not the role of our authorities to decide who the competition should be. Cycles come and go and competition will strengthen. Logic says it should be ‘The Rangers’ but in practice it will be whoever makes the most of the talents at their disposal. The fantastic forensic analysis that takes place here should always shine a light on the big picture. All we want is a sport worthy of the name no matter what badge it wears.


  44. gamesabogey says:
    April 14, 2015 at 2:23 am
    ==============================

    A very good post, and pretty much along the lines of what many on here have expressed in the past. That is a Rangers, prepared to live within their means and the rules, could be an asset to the game. If that means an actual or potential impact on their on-field success then so be it. They will be no different from any other club in that respect.

    Instead though we’ve already had talk from Dave King of it being ‘acceptable’ for Celtic to win the league 45% of the time as long as they win the other 55%. Yet if Celtic drop some points from their next two games (not impossible), and Aberdeen take maximum points from the same (not impossible), we will have a real title fight that doesn’t involve a Rangers. Where does that fit in with Mr King’s vision for the future?


  45. I was thinking about some of the points raised on the value that Mike Ashley may or may not place in his dealings with Rangers.

    I get that his financial involvement is small beer compared to the value of his business(es) and his own personal wealth.

    I keep coming back to the fact that Mike Ashley installed one of his most trusted advisers Derek Llambias as CEO of the club/company. To me that is a big deal. You use your resources wisely. Ashley decided for whatever reason to place one of his best men in Edmiston drive.

    On the question why would Ashley take the Rangers debacle personally? I would imagine that this is quite high up the Ashley agenda, albeit it is impossible to know how much time he spends on this and the prime motive is not money. I would imagine that it is hard to forgive or forget when one of your best mates that you asked to do a job for you gets f@ck£d around so much.


  46. A wee reminder of what James’ reference to the Royal Courts of Justice is about.

    Just how much energy and money has been wasted on The Myth? Of course, Dingwall may succeed but there seems no end of avenues to fritter away fans’ of money — money that could have been better spent on a real newco. At the moment it’s looking a very divided fan group with ‘Ninjaman’ calling out Dave King and some other lot about to anoint him. I suppose Dingwall has deep pockets though, the propect of losing and being lumbered with expenses must have been reckoned into his financial plan.

    http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/mar/27/sports-direct-takes-rangers-fan-to-court-over-effort-to-access-shareholder-register


  47. Could be that Big Mike taking it personal is a result of the emotive and highly charged language being used both by SMSM and RRM via their Jim Traynor PR vehicle – seeing his legal right to the IPs being described as “grabbed” etc as well as the veiled threats to examine the small print of all his SD contracts to determine if they are legal is casting aspersions on his business character that frankly would have anyone getting a bit hot under the collar. Plus as Longtime Lurker says, the way his 2 trusted employees have been vilified and – even allegedly physically – attacked as crooks and somehow dishonest in their dealings at TRFC is something I don’t think he will allow to continue – reputations are everything.

    Somehow it got me thinking of Bob Hoskins in The Long Good Friday………


  48. A Date For Your Diary

    The SFA have an open goal to act with gravitas, Solomon-like wisdom and scrupulous fairness. Don’t miss it.

    Disciplinary update: Rangers FC
    Friday, 13 March 2015

    The Judicial Panel Disciplinary Hearing for Rangers FC scheduled for Monday, 16 March 2015 has been postponed at the request of the club. The hearing has been rescheduled for Thursday, 16 April 2015.

    http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=2566&newsCategoryID=41&newsID=14452


  49. incredibleadamspark says:
    April 13, 2015 at 11:52 pm
    ecobhoy says:
    April 13, 2015 at 2:07 pm
    _____________________________________________

    We know he had a stroke, his views on the Rangers situation, how important they are to him and his family. That’s it, I’m afraid.
    —————————————————–
    I have no idea whether he had a stroke or not. I don’t even know if he is a Rangers fan or some PR construct.

    IMO – and I doubt there’s any regular poster/lurker on this site would regard me as a Rangers Hater – the post espoused everything that is wrong with a fairly large section of the Rangers Support and will eventually lead to the death of Rangers.

    Of course he is entitled to his opinion and I have no problem with that. But when he states that opinion in public then others have a similar right to express their viewpoint.

    I haven’t gone back to read my post but I doubt if there’s anything in it which could be seen as objectionable as it’s not usually my style.

    As to his family I do remember in my post wondering if his wife – who has no interest in Rangers or football – would share the same view.


  50. Danish Pastry says:
    April 14, 2015 at 7:44 am

    I think we see here an example of how much effort Mike Ashley is prepared to make to sort out those who ‘annoy’ him. It would appear that Dingwall has not cost him any money, or even any personal interference, yet he’s set his attack dogs (legal crew) on him, and didn’t waste any time in doing it either.

    King and his mates have all done much more to interfere with his plans for RIFC/TRFC including organising a ticket ban that must surely have been very annoying to Ashley, plus the EGM and false claims made by King re NOMADs, not to mention the criticism levelled at MA’s RIFC board. I can’t imagine Ashley took a rare defeat (at the EGM) with a shrug of his shoulders either, he just used his customary media silence to leave his opponents without a clue as to his intentions.

    He appears to swat away flies instantly, while preferring to take his time to snare bigger nuisances to ensure they don’t come back for more.

    They do say actions speak louder than words, and Big Mike doesn’t say much.

    As yet, Ashley doesn’t appear to have made any moves against King and the 3Bears, he’s contented himself with tightening his grip on the club’s assets. Makes me wonder what it is he’s preparing for King and co that’s taking so much longer to initiate than the action against the fly, Dingwall!


  51. Allyjambo says:
    April 14, 2015 at 9:13 am

    ————————————

    All Ashley has to do about the RRM is absolutely nothing. Then when they fail in traditional hubristic style, it will be their failuire alone and there will be no quote from Ashley that the MSM can twist to divert blame towards him.

    Ali’s rope-a-dope comes to mind: “Is that all you’ve got Dave?”


  52. I have seen various comments wrt to Mark Dingwall in recent days over his purchase of 1 SportsDirect and his subsequent request for the shareholders’ list.

    His reason for that is given as being to raise the issue of the company’s employment policies especially wrt zero hours and possibly MNW.

    He also wishes to address the issue of the company’s retail contracts involving Rangers.

    He intends to use the list to contact the shareholders to argue that both these issues depress profits and therefore share price.

    I’m not sure if they do or not and IMO it doesn’t actually matter and neither does the fact that he might have additional motives.

    What’s at stake is the legal right as I understand it to buy a single share in any public company to attend the agm and also to be able to contact other shareholders on matters of mutual interest.

    So there are very serious issues at stake here and sadly in view of their import it’s a David & Goliath contest as MD afaik isn’t a HNWI and has been warned about the costs he could be landed with.

    The case is one of extreme importance to many campaigners in the UK and also for ordinary shareholders who are unhappy about a company where their pension might be invested and in view of recent changes in pension law this could increase the numbers in the concerned pensioner bracket.

    At the end of the day the court will require to decide and it will be an interesting one with enormous consequences.

    But let me share some info about Mr Dingwall that some might not know but which I have mentioned on here before.

    Back in the DM days at Ibrox Mr Dingwall and his FollowFollow group consistently raised the issue of the financial governance of Rangers at AGMs, other fan meetings and in his fanzine and leaflets.

    He IIRC was the only fan leader who did and one of the very very few fans who did. Dingwall believed the accounts didn’t make sense and he wanted to know where the money was actually coming from. For his troubles he was faced with – yes here we go again – pressure over the FollowFollow TM.

    However with the possibility that that particular issue may raise it’s head again I will say no more.

    But Dingwall came under serious pressure from DM and Rangers but continued to demand information. Many SMSM journos were well aware of the issues he was raising and I don’t think there was ever any story written or questions asked. They actually haven’t changed a lot other than to get more craven and useless.

    I am no admirer of some of the FollowFollow actions and utterings – especially in the early days – but they were on the ball wrt Rangers finances and publicly put their head above the parapet at a time when it took a bit of bottle to do so.

    Of course that has left a bit of a legacy of enmity where some other Bears who didn’t aske questions now sit and pray that they’ll never be asked the question: ‘What did you do daddy to stop Rangers selling their soul to the moneylenders’.


  53. Allyjambo says:
    April 14, 2015 at 9:13 am

    As yet, Ashley doesn’t appear to have made any moves against King and the 3Bears, he’s contented himself with tightening his grip on the club’s assets. Makes me wonder what it is he’s preparing for King and co . . .
    —————————————————————
    Possibly a business partnership.


  54. mcfc says:
    April 14, 2015 at 9:32 am

    You are quite possibly right, I too think he won’t actually do much ‘above the radar’ and probably whatever he does will go unnoticed by all but those involved. I think it’s possible that Ashley is waiting to see how the fit and proper decision goes, reasoning that if King fails, he’ll exit stage left, leaving Ashley the only show in town, while if King passes, Ashley then calls in his loan to force King’s hand – he either has the money, or he exits stage left!

    In my opinion it’s looking more and more like, if King doesn’t actually have the big bucks ready to put in, pretty damned soon, then Ashley wins, regardless of the FPP or anything else. Judging by the, very small admittedly, sample I’ve seen of postings from the more clued up bears, where any money is most likely to exist, there’s a deepening suspicion of King, and I get the feeling that, unless King puts in that substantial amount upfront, then not many will pony up in any share issue. While, should they fail to get listed on any market, no non-bears are going to be interested (not that many/any will be even if it is listed).


  55. The FPP is a red herring in a way – there is nothing to stop DK giving TRFC 30 million right now – apart from the fact there is nothing to put up as security for it.

    Ashley has scooped up the assets for his 5 million – DK only has Ibrox left to have as security – and there are questions on whether there already is security on the stadium that John Brown played for.

    So Big Mike is already ahead of DK – he got in there first to tie up the assets – now DK has to donate some of that 30 million warchest to Mike first before he can loan – or jet in to “invest” (copyright Keef) – and secure his loan against the assets – the same way Mike has done and has been vilified for.

    Seems very simple – pay off the loan from SD and he can move forward with the next planned steps to the CL music being played out…………

    Its so simple – yet somehow its not happening……….

    Can Keef ask him why?


  56. ecobhoy says:
    April 14, 2015 at 9:44 am

    …MD afaik isn’t a HNWI…
    —————————————
    = MD as far as I know isn’t a high nett worth individual?

    (My next best guess would be that he ‘isn’t a member of a Rangers-centric branch of the Women’s Institute’, but that doesn’t really fit the flow of the narrative)


  57. ecobhoy says:
    April 14, 2015 at 9:48 am

    Allyjambo says:
    April 14, 2015 at 9:13 am

    As yet, Ashley doesn’t appear to have made any moves against King and the 3Bears, he’s contented himself with tightening his grip on the club’s assets. Makes me wonder what it is he’s preparing for King and co . . .
    —————————————————————
    Possibly a business partnership.
    xxxxxxxxxxx

    Strangely enough, eco, I wondered while writing that post if, should Ashley’s manoeuverings end in defeat for the King camp, if some, or all, will be offered positions/partnerships with Ashley in one of his, no doubt, many business ventures. This way they have no choice but to talk him up and to encourage the support to buy, buy, buy!

    Of course, it may well be Ashley’s intention to offer them an outright partnership, rather than to try to ‘defeat’ them. That might well depend, though, on whether Ashley feels he can’t gain total victory (whatever he considers that to be) without them, or is so angry, and is satisfied he will win regardless, that he decides to just bulldoze his way to his ultimate result.


  58. Allyjambo says:
    April 14, 2015 at 9:13 am

    I think we see here an example of how much effort Mike Ashley is prepared to make to sort out those who ‘annoy’ him. It would appear that Dingwall has not cost him any money, or even any personal interference, yet he’s set his attack dogs (legal crew) on him, and didn’t waste any time in doing it either…
    ——–

    Very perceptive, as usual.

    I did get the impression that the whole scenario of boycott, starving club of funds, then using the contrived situation for a boardroom coup, was something that irked MA & associates big time. It looks to have been a bit of a dubious and risky strategy by the RRM. The concert party claim was also voiced, I seem to recall. Be interesting to know if a legal case is being prepared and if King is actually playing a massive bluff on everyone while remaining at arm’s length from any fallout.

    Oddly enough, it’s all happening against the backdrop of a few decent young players breaking into the team and a manager with a bit of a clue. Basically, what sensible fans want, and what could have been 3 years ago — if the football authorities had done the right thing.

    Secret 5-Way agreements, eh? Whit ur they like!


  59. ncredibleadamspark says:
    April 13, 2015 at 11:52 pm

    Regarding the letter from the Rangers supporter, I have seen some similar posts purporting to be from supporters, with the same sentiments, i.e. family, tradition, close friendships, etc.
    I had the feeling that they are placed as encouragement to the supporters to ‘keep up the good work’, and not actual true stories, but I could be wrong.

    ecobhoy says:
    April 14, 2015 at 9:44 am

    It’s a bad thing when someone powerful can prevent a legitimate request, basically by bullying. I would like to see Mr Dingwall succeed in this case.


  60. Danish Pastry says:
    April 14, 2015 at 10:31 am

    Oddly enough, it’s all happening against the backdrop of a few decent young players breaking into the team and a manager with a bit of a clue. Basically, what sensible fans want, and what could have been 3 years ago — if the football authorities had done the right thing.
    _______________________

    And isn’t this turnaround on the field covering up, to an extent, the lack of meaningful change in the boardroom! To many supporters, not just of TRFC, if the results on the field are OK, then everything is fine in the world. To many that are returning to Ibrox, it will all be down to Dave King and the return of the RRMs.

    I wonder if the old board had brought in McColl if the EGM would have had a different result, though probably there wouldn’t have been time for McColl’s changes to take effect, but his introduction was probably the best thing the new board could have done to, at least, buy themselves some time! Mind it wouldn’t have taken much to improve that team, and the youngsters that have been brought in probably would have been ruined under the previous management team if they’d ever got near McCoist’s first team coaching methods!


  61. It’s a bad thing when someone powerful can prevent a legitimate request, basically by bullying. I would like to see Mr Dingwall succeed in this case.

    SD’s legal team will argue that it wasn’t a legitimate request. From section 117 of the Companies act.

    (3)If on an application under this section the court is satisfied that the inspection or copy is not sought for a proper purpose—
    (a)it shall direct the company not to comply with the request, and
    (b)it may further order that the company’s costs (in Scotland, expenses) on the application be paid in whole or in part by the person who made the request, even if he is not a party to the application.

    I’ve no idea whether the onus is on Mark Dingwall to prove he was seeking “proper purpose” or for SD to prove he wasn’t.

    I don’t know who SD’s shareholders are or what Dingwall intended, but I have a curious image of him phoning a confused George Soros and berating him about injured loan players from Newcastle United. 😆


  62. FairBairn says:
    April 14, 2015 at 10:55 am

    It’s a bad thing when someone powerful can prevent a legitimate request, basically by bullying. I would like to see Mr Dingwall succeed in this case.
    _____________________________

    Totally agree with you on that. Although not connected in any real way, we might see in the SD v Dingwall case an example of what Ashley wants from TRFC, a means to an end! Contrary to my earlier post when I suggested Dingwall was no more than an annoying fly to Ashley because what he’d done was virtually inconsequential to him; but, of course, it’s not Dingwall he’s after, it’s a change in legislation that he wants. Ultimately the result won’t impact on TRFC at all, but it will on society in general, and make people like Ashley so much more powerful. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Ashley doesn’t put all that great an effort into winning the case, preferring to lose and take it to an appeal so that a precedent will be set, and thus changing the law in his favour!


  63. Allyjambo says:
    April 14, 2015 at 10:28 am
    ecobhoy says:
    April 14, 2015 at 9:48 am

    Of course, it may well be Ashley’s intention to offer them an outright partnership, rather than to try to ‘defeat’ them. That might well depend, though, on whether Ashley feels he can’t gain total victory (whatever he considers that to be) without them, or is so angry, and is satisfied he will win regardless, that he decides to just bulldoze his way to his ultimate result.
    ———————————————————-
    I think the biggest problem to figuring out what lies ahead is having no idea what Ashley’s goals are. I think it’s fair to say that he’s probably capable of achieving most of them no matter what they are.

    The biggest question for me has always been whether Ashley was using Rangers as a ‘test bed’ for a larger plan that extended beyond the Ibrox club and wasn’t necessarily dependent on retail kit sales.

    If that kind of diversification was the case then I think he has had plenty of useful feedback from his involvement with Rangers; their fans; the SMSM and further afield; the SFA/SPFL; Scottish business people and, strangely enough, the reaction from non-Rangers fans.

    So if there was a grand plan I think he will already have worked-out whether it’s worth pursuing further or not.

    However specifically wrt Rangers where is he: Well he controls or owns everything of value with the exception of Ibrox itself as far as we know. That comes with a debit side of course. IMO a sizeable number of fans hate him and probably won’t buy anything again from SportsDirect no matter how things turn out.

    The problem with all the securities/assets is that most have huge emotional attachment for the fans and so anything he does that affects them could have further negative impact on his core business of selling badged shirts and kit.

    It seems the actual returns back to Rangers from retail sales are at a level where a lot of Bears think it’s of no consequence whether they dry-up completely through boycott or not.

    One thing’s for sure is that by the day the Rangers support is not only becoming more fractured but more bitter towards each other and anyone else perceived to be an enemy.

    It’s on that basis that the defeat of DK and T3B might not be seen as the ‘victory’ that many online posters – whether they be Bears or not – are praying for with many different reasons.

    A profitable victory for Ashley IMO must be based on a team in blue playing out of Ibrox. Without that retail revenues will collapse IMO and there will be 1 or 2 start-ups of alternatives by supporters.

    However if the team in blue continues playing at Ibrox there is an issue over the level it reaches and the ratio between the level of expenditure required and the retail sales (and other income sources) generated to play at a certain level.

    I don’t think it’s automatic that the NUFC formula applies to Rangers quite simply because of the disparity in club income from the two leagues.

    So the more I look at it the more I can’t see Ashley wanting to get sucked into the football side of Rangers and if I’m right about that he needs someone else to run it while he quietly maximises revenues.

    I doubt that he is actually that happy about the publicity that surrounds his involvement with Rangers but he has not only a personal reputation to defend but his income streams from Ibrox.

    Former associates of his were parachuted into Ibrox and I think it’s fair to say the support weren’t impressed by them or their perormance. Of course supports are notorious for wanting victory and vast sums of other peoples’ money being thrown in to buy the players to achieve that.

    I think that Ashley could easily come to the conclusion that it’s unlikely that an accord can be reached with a majority of the Bears and IMO that percentage would fall if the RRM fail.

    So I think Ashley might believe he has a lot to gain by leaving the RRM in charge of the football with all the angst and ire that can generate and concentrate on the kerrching of the tills in SD Shops.

    He will financially support these RRM to protect his retail revenues and it has to be remembered that all of the assets handed over under the Loan Agreement was predicated on a £10 million loan but only £5 million was used.

    I would have thought that there should have been some kind of contractual give-back of some assets in the event the full £10 million wasn’t drawn-down.

    Even if that wasn’t included by the old Board there’s nothing to stop Ashley doing it now to give the RRM some Dignity in Defeat and I think the badges and crests are the easy one.

    Huge emotional kudos for Ashley and the RRM and what does it cost SD? Very little IMO because they already have a worldwide exclusive licence for the TMs and Rangers Retail sewn-up.

    But it gives that desperately needed ‘Victory’ and some capital to the RRM to get to ST sales and it really is going to be one day at a time for a long time IMO but with the Ashley insurance meaning they won’t fail financially.

    It could also open the way to joining the new Exchange IMO.

    However the fly in the ointment is DK. Does Ashley include or exclude him? He will exclude him if he reckons he’s a busted flush by failing the fans in not ponying-up his children’s inheritance to save his beloved club.

    The only way I can see DK now being allowed to remain is if he puts in £20 million or so and he’s already been there. Excluding him will, of course, earn a myriad of brownie points with the SFA.

    That may take him into the corridors of power at Hampden and as that auld granny of mine was won’t to opine: ‘Be careful what you wish for’ 😆

    I do think the new Board could be on the cusp of having events run away from them so I think the current interlude of non-seasonal panto might not have that long to run.


  64. ecobhoy says:
    April 13, 2015 at 10:57 pm
    WOW ❗ Just reached the end of the Scottish Document and guess who the Sports Direct signatory was?

    Yip the man himself – Uncle Mike Ashley 💡

    Perhaps he actually is taking a personal interest which could well spell bad news for some 🙄

    It appears Somers signed on 27 January but Ashley on 11 February.
    ——————————————————————-
    WRT the parallels between Livingstone and Thursdays hearing with Sevco, this could prove interesting. Neil Rankine was ordered to dispose of his interest in one of the clubs.
    As Ashley is a direct signatory on the docs, it seems logical he should be ordered to comply likewise on not only the docs you mention, but any other commitments he is signatory to.

    “And the governing body have given him until April 10 to dispose of his stake in either Livingston or the Methil outfit.”
    http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/551232/SFA-Livingston-Collapse-Dual-Ownership-Breach-Rules


  65. Allyjambo

    Totally agree with you on that. Although not connected in any real way, we might see in the SD v Dingwall case an example of what Ashley wants from TRFC, a means to an end! Contrary to my earlier post when I suggested Dingwall was no more than an annoying fly to Ashley because what he’d done was virtually inconsequential to him; but, of course, it’s not Dingwall he’s after, it’s a change in legislation that he wants. Ultimately the result won’t impact on TRFC at all, but it will on society in general, and make people like Ashley so much more powerful. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Ashley doesn’t put all that great an effort into winning the case, preferring to lose and take it to an appeal so that a precedent will be set, and thus changing the law in his favour!

    ___________________________________

    Perhaps Ashley has another agenda!
    If this case is fully contested and then appealed, the courts may well do what the Scottish media fail to do – expose and publish the corruption that is at the heart of football in Scotland.


  66. ecobhoy says:
    April 14, 2015 at 11:35 am

    The more I think on it, the more I see Ashley financing RRMs as a likely scenario, the problem being that those already on the board may have burned too many bridges with their open hostility to Ashley and the previous board. It will, of course, depend on how important the inclusion of RRMs might be to his plans, so he might be prepared to forgive and forget to achieve his end result.

    I think, at the moment, things aren’t as bad as might seem for the bears, as King will either pony up, or Ashley will come back into power. If King ponies up, then the future (short to medium term) is bright for the supporters. If he doesn’t, and Ashley ends up calling the shots, then the club will be in safe, but unspectacular, hands.

    I think the big danger to the club, though, is if Ashley feels he’s had enough mucking about and just decides to take what he has and leave the club with King and co and not much else! If Ashley leaves with all the assets he has secured in lieu of his £5m, then King will have to decide whether or not he’s prepared to, or can, finance the business with only, maybe, Ibrox as a fixed asset with the only income stream being crowd funded. He’d also need the lenders of the £1.5m to be prepared to accept shares in lieu of their loans.

    Looking at it that way, if King genuinely intends to take charge of TRFC, without Ashley, then he really must have, at the very least, £5m liquid enough to repay SD on demand, plus enough millions to see them to ST sales and beyond!


  67. ecobhoy says:
    April 14, 2015 at 11:35 am

    The biggest question for me has always been whether Ashley was using Rangers as a ‘test bed’ for a larger plan that extended beyond the Ibrox club and wasn’t necessarily dependent on retail kit sales.

    ===========================================================

    There comes a point for the very rich when they run out of big enough things to invest in easily at a market beating return. So they need to think laterally about their business, mega trends etc.

    If Ashley has a big plan for football it is probably as the business-Wonga to ailing football clubs with their IP and physical assets as security and possibly enough shares (if floated & xFA allowed) to be an activist investor.

    Rangers looked the perfect opportunity – dead cheap, big fanbase, obvious competitors to motivate business and even European probabilities. A bit like NUFC – only much cheaper and with the euro bit. Also a different FA so fewer complications with joint ownership.

    Thing is he didn’t see the massive, toxic, sub-prime “cultural” side to his project.

    My take is that it has been a disaster for him in that it did not work out well at all. And it has been a God send for him because he has learned more than he can ever have imagined about possible downsides of a deal. He probably thought he’d learned it all dealing with NUFC fans.

    So now his small investment has been worthwhile in a way he didn’t expect. He won’t want to lose face by losing everything but he’ll probably want to see it out to as tidy a conclusion as he can manage. He needs to think of his reputation before he enters the market as Football-Wonga in England, France, Germany, Spain, italy, USA, OZ etc – probably not Scotland again for a while 🙂

    Once he has worldwide football presence he’ll be thinking of making MASH a brand alongside Nike, Adidas etc.

    So Rangers is probably the first step in a very big plan – so very, very annoying that those feckin RRM keep pissing about and getting in the feckin way with their feckin petty WATP, Od Firm, crap. And as for the SFA well . . .


  68. y4rmy says:
    April 14, 2015 at 11:20 am

    I take all of the points in your post. The question is very important IMO especially wrt the centralisation of power in the UK.

    At what level of shareholding might an investor be deemed entitled to be provided with a list of fellow shareholders?

    It’s worth remembering that in terms of cost we’re talking about an electronic ‘dump’ of already created data in a standard format. So costs are minimal.

    I think there are intriguing issues raised by the case as I say like one share might not get you the info but buying a million does.

    And then the issue of the motives of the requester. These could often clash with the company aims but companies do get it wrong frequently.

    It’s also common knowledge that bitter infighting within different shareholding factions often take place and they try to influence non-aligned shareholders.

    Indeed we have some experience of blue-on-blue action recently at Ibrox and the war is far from over.

    I also have a vague memory that the former Ibrox Board hired people to phone shareholders – was that to try and advertise what a good job they were doing? I don’t know because I didn’t get a call 😆

    And then if this case is won what next? Will someone argue that a shareholder with 1 share isn’t allowed to attend agms or egms?

    I think we have to be careful about excluding even ‘quirky cranks’ from the affairs of large companies as they can often me the lone moral voice that’s lost in the rush to increase profits no matter the real costs involved often to the environment and thereby to the lives of individuals who don’t own even a single share and never will.


  69. Allyjambo says:
    April 14, 2015 at 11:25 am

    Spot on. I’m sure Ashley is quite annoyed with various people at the moment, you don’t get to where he is, without having an ego. However, what I suspect is really irking him, is the unwanted scrutiny he is receiving. The IOD, the prospect of being dragged kicking and screaming in front of a select committee, none of this is how Ashley likes to operate. Trying to embarrass Ashley,may actually be the least optimum strategy, he may decide to close out the bad publicity, by pulling the plug.

    I don’t like Dingwall, but, what he is seeking to do, is a piece of legitimate shareholder activism IMO. If the courts side with Ashley, the chilling effect will be very bad for everyone, action like this below, will become much, much harder

    http://www.ianfraser.org/investor-seeks-to-force-some-accountability-at-lloyds-banking-group/

    Ashley is many things, just because he is duffing up Rangers, does not make him a good guy. The enemy of my enemy is very rarely a friend


  70. Allyjambo says:
    April 14, 2015 at 12:07 pm
    ecobhoy says:
    April 14, 2015 at 11:35 am

    if King genuinely intends to take charge of TRFC, without Ashley, then he really must have, at the very least, £5m liquid enough to repay SD on demand, plus enough millions to see them to ST sales and beyond!
    —————————————————————–
    The only question in town since DK bought his shares is: ‘Does he have the dosh needed and will he spend it?’.

    It’s a very simple question. As to why no answer: Well I’ve always thought we might get an overseas investor popping-up with the promise of great wealth from the East.

    Said investor may have money or may not. However if they did due diligence what security would they find? The only possibility is Ibrox IMO but who knows if that’s available?

    A shareholding? How do you estimate the market value if the company has no unencumbered assets? Shares not backed by a profitable business and healthy asset base often end-up only of interest to specialist collectors and those with an emotional link.

    When more than 500 million shares have been issued in Rangers that means every supporter in the world has one and I would expect further demand to cease. So even as a collectible the future doesn’t look rosy to me.

    I should have mentioned in my piece about Ashley the perennial problem of the mystery overseas investors some reputedly holding onerous contracts. That really is a poser.

    But like Ashley it’s been around from the earliest of days so I doubt if he was unaware of their existance. Perhaps they can co-exist busineswise although I don’t think we’ve ever got to the bottom of why the Easdale proxies apparently abstained in the egm vote.


  71. AJ @ 12.07

    I think therein is DK’s problem AJ. He possibly, in fact probably, does have x £m ready to put in albeit on a £1 for £1 basis with other investors having been burnt that way before.

    Firstly I don’t think there are other non Ashley investors willing to match fund.

    Secondly, this is because the savvy investors can see that at best they are stuck in an onerous hole and at worst an onerous hole a division below where they need to be.

    Thirdly, the onerous hole is to the obvious detriment of the club but the obvious advantage of the true owners. They see no compunction in changing that situation. Why would they, especially the ones who were invited, in fact actually paid for the continuing party but who’s brogues are now deemed to be the wrong colour.

    Fourthly the only saviours in this are the fans. Are they willing to dig deep yet again to return to rightful ya de da’s? Most certainly yes, albeit with an issue over quantum! But they can very visibly see the depth, breadth and shifting nature of the onerous hole too. To be stuck in division 1 for another year would be symptomatic of this problem and whilst some might fund it to ‘see it through’ they can equally see, and don’t particularly fancy what’s waiting for them if they do.

    So, do they fund a big fish in a little pond to buy time, which is difficult when the two things you most crave are time and money, particularly when you a have recent history of ignoring both.

    Or do you go all out, exhaust yourself getting to the promised land, possibly with your trademarks and logos back (to be confirmed) and free of nasty pwoper on the radar billionaires but almost certainly still saddled with onerousness and the likelihood of still struggling on the park – almost a micro version of chasing the CL grail which didn’t end too well the last time.

    King knows all this. King wants somebody else to fund it. It was, for the best part of 30 years, the rangers way, and they are absolutely addicted to it.


  72. ecobhoy says:
    April 14, 2015 at 12:39 pm

    Said investor may have money or may not. However if they did due diligence what security would they find? The only possibility is Ibrox IMO but who knows if that’s available?

    ==================================================================

    Remember L&L got the SD surveyors in. Is Ibrox still an asset or a Grade II listed liability – regardless of encumberments?


  74. StevieBC says:

    April 13, 2015 at 7:57 pm

    mcfc says:
    April 13, 2015 at 6:47 pm

    There are only so many hours in the day, and shirley on his list of priorities, RIFC/TRFC would not even appear on his daily radar ? An investment worth a fraction of 1% of his estimated net worth ?

    Why would Ashley be bothered/angry about the likes of Murray/Park/King etc ?
    ______________________________________________________

    A v small part of his business but a very public one. Alpha business types like Mash don’t accept attempts to intimidate/slander/make a fool of them in public. Otherwise they don’t stay Alpha for very long. It’s a similar principle that leads to the absurdity of the USA invading Grenada in the 1980s for “national security”.


  75. MoreCelticParanoia says:
    April 14, 2015 at 1:12 pm

    ============================================

    Agree – but I think it’s a bit more nuanced. Ashley cares about the opinion of those he cares about – not the fan in the street.

    Ashley can reek revenge on King in the eyes of the business/investment community without blood and snot flying in public. For example, PMG’s account of his failure to gain investment in the City after the EGM, plus failing to get a Nomad and possibly failing to get ISDX listing will shred King’s credibility as a player. Ashley may be pulling strings behind some/all of these eg the RNS lissting KIng’s “issues” as a director is on record for all to see when checking him out.

Comments are closed.