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.
Smugas says:
April 15, 2015 at 10:16 am
==========
Although Eco will probably slap me down for not presenting evidence I would strongly suspect the “attention elsewhere” option.
As pointed out earlier they outwardly have no Finance Director (Chairman possibly filling that role too) and no CEO. They must be very close to if not actually running on fumes (insolvent) and seem to be a bit panicked on whether they have or are about to default on the SD loan. I suspect they are far two worried to be bothered about losing 50% of the gate money from potentially 3 games.
But is that not part of a possible short term solution for them then? Bizarrely, and it would be a big risk with any squad, never mind their ageing one, coming 3rd might actually be in their financial interests?
Or are they so big they don’t need hand outs, what with their willing benefactors piling the cash in.
Can anyone explain what Paul Murray’s supposed greatness is? I am sure he is a very nice CA and has a nice raincoat/quaff of hair – however he has not owned or bought ever one single share in RIFC – he has not invested or loaned one single penny to RIFC/TRFC – he sat as he admitted blind and silent on SDM’s BOD and did nothing if anything at all to earn his perks – and yet he has at the 3rd attempt made it on the new clubs BOD because…………
Other than being DK’s mate, what does he bring to the table?
If I am Douglas Park or George Letham, I too would be wondering why am I am loaning money with no security while the chairman sits there giving interviews…………
mcfc says:
April 15, 2015 at 10:00 am
Resin_lab_dog says:
April 14, 2015 at 11:08 pm
Ah Doncaster… Is there no beginning to your competence?
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/fixture-farce-marathon-talks-tv-5519398
===========================================
So Neil, tell us about the EPL/SPFL equivalence and how you deserve far more money from TV and sponsorship deals. EPL/EFL 96 teams in four professional leagues, seven amateur league levels, extensive CL & Europa schedule involvement, hundreds of international players from a hundred countries, six cup competitions:
FA Cup: Levels 1 to 10 (and very occasionally 11)
Football League Cup: Levels 1 to 4
Football League Trophy: Levels 3 to 4 (and some seasons, Level 5)
FA Trophy: Levels 5 to 8
FA Vase: Levels 9 to 11
FA Inter-League Cup: Level 11 (contested by representative teams from each league)
Schedule that Neil! To help you understand, let’s do a little role play exercise. I’ll be Claude Littner and you are Stuart Baggs.
Stuart Baggs; “Because at the minute I’m a big fish in a small pond . . . ”
Claude;Littner; “You’re not a big fish! You’re not a big fish! You are not even a fish!!”
Start at 48 secs if you are very impatient 🙂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCOqDBbt1ak
ecobhoy says:
April 15, 2015 at 9:32 am
He has every asset currently in his control except players’ contracts and tbh the current Board might need to flog the few of them worth anything very rapid to get to ST time.
====================
Is that correct? I thought that the floating charge covered all assets except Ibrox, and the IP which has been transferred to SD pro tem.
Surely the floating charge would then cover player registrations, which I believe are assets? If so, Ashley could, I assume, force player sales in the event of a default.
ecobhoy says:
April 15, 2015 at 8:45 am
Eco, I think you and I are in agreement on this one.
I occasionally feel, that people let their entirely justified anger, blind them to the wider issues, this felt like one of those times.
I’m sure Paul Murray is looking at this very, very carefully (they should trademark that phrase).
Otherwise, it’ll crop up on social media one day and he’ll have to start another urgent investigation. He’s launched more probes than NASA.
Eco ,
I would doubt that the rest of Scottish football would accept having the permanent home of the National team and the HQ of the ruling body based at any Stadium that Rangers would call home.
An inbuilt advantage for every cup semi final or final , an effective endorsement that Rangers are The Establishment Club, despite being serial cheats for well over a decade .
Not to mention an even closer working relationship that would be seen as working to Rangers advantage and the disadvantage of every other club in the country.
neepheid says:
April 15, 2015 at 10:43 am
ecobhoy says:
April 15, 2015 at 9:32 am
He has every asset currently in his control except players’ contracts and tbh the current Board might need to flog the few of them worth anything very rapid to get to ST time.
====================
Is that correct? I thought that the floating charge covered all assets except Ibrox, and the IP which has been transferred to SD pro tem.
Surely the floating charge would then cover player registrations, which I believe are assets? If so, Ashley could, I assume, force player sales in the event of a default.
————————————————————
It’s certainly a problem. And IMO it’s caused mainly because afaik MA has never articulated what his vision of the short- medium – or long-term future of Ibrox or Rangers actually is as he sees it.
There have rightly been demands that the new Board produce these answers but Ashley has been around at least since Summer 2012 so I would expect his Master Plan surely must be nearing completion and a full announcement expected any day.
Personally I don’t give a monkey’s what he has planned for Rangers but I am interested in what effects his plan might have on wider Scottish Football interests.
As to player contracts – I believe that Green fell into the same trap over them and it cost him dearly. In an insolvency situation the players walk on TUPE if they choose and then there is always the question of the SFA registration which could create problems vis-a-vis transfers.
However let’s be realistic – what is the Rangers first team squad worth – probably much less than the cost of a good night out wirth Campbell Ogilvie 😆 What is it? Six loan players and 12 out of contract in weeks – a lucky bag would cost more.
Btw the floating charge might not cover all assets except Ibrox and the IP Rights. Aren’t Murray Park, The Albion and Edmiston Hoose secured by fixed charges? I would have thought that more usual
As to the IP being transferred pro tem – I suppose all charges are pro tem in the sense that they won’t be discharged until the loan is repaid or some other agreement is reached between the parties.
My understanding is that the only asset where ownership has actually been transferred is actually the IP Ownership items.
I haven’t yet managed to secure sight of the vaunted Chamberlain-style ‘back letter’ waved by PM nor the actual loan Facility Letter which defines what would constitute a default. Therefore it’s hard to be definitive.
Barcabhoy says:
April 15, 2015 at 11:48 am
Eco ,
I would doubt that the rest of Scottish football would accept having the permanent home of the National team and the HQ of the ruling body based at any Stadium that Rangers would call home.
——————————————————-
Merely flying kites or should that be drones these days 😆
A small attempt by myself to try and lift eyes to the wider view than become bogged down in personalities.
I simply don’t believe Ashley became involved in Rangers just to sell kit unless, of course, he believed the 500 million fans worlwide myth. If he did I’m sure Green could well be the ace salesman who peddled the tale.
Probably why he’s still as fast a sprinter as he was at school winning all those records 😆
Btw it wouldn’t he ‘home’ to Rangers in an ownership sense. They would just be tenants paying a hefty rental.
Value of player registrations- for some reason that puts Seasick Steve in mind ‘I started out with nothing and I’ve still got most of it left’ ; in fact that could be an anthem for some of the actors in this tragedy, I would have said players but that does not cover the field.
So are L&L hereos or villians – very confusing.
“Rangers are only paying 20% of on-loan Newcastle striker Haris Vuckic’s £10,000 weekly wages. The five Newcastle loan players at Ibrox command a total of £31,000 wages per-week, of which Rangers are only required to contribute £5,000. (Sun)”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/scottish/gossip/
ecobhoy says:
April 15, 2015 at 11:52 am
“I haven’t yet managed to secure sight of the vaunted Chamberlain-style ‘back letter’ waved by PM nor the actual loan Facility Letter which defines what would constitute a default. Therefore it’s hard to be definitive.”
May not be worth the effort, Eco, given how things worked out for Chamberlain.
tykebhoy says:
April 15, 2015 at 10:24 am
Smugas says:
April 15, 2015 at 10:16 am
==========
Although Eco will probably slap me down for not presenting evidence I would strongly suspect the “attention elsewhere” option.
As pointed out earlier they outwardly have no Finance Director (Chairman possibly filling that role too) and no CEO. They must be very close to if not actually running on fumes (insolvent) and seem to be a bit panicked on whether they have or are about to default on the SD loan. I suspect they are far two worried to be bothered about losing 50% of the gate money from potentially 3 games.
————————————————————-
Nope I won’t because although the evidence is always there it often isn’t accessible.
So we have to speculate and that can encompass a wide range of imaginations. Nothing wrong with that as long as the speculation is honest and not being used to advance ulterior motives which have not been disclosed.
Your mention of the loan default is a classic for me. The definitions of what actually constitutes a default and what would trigger one are in the Facility Letter.
The SMSM should be demanding to know what’s in it. Although I tend to think that in itself would constitute a default along the lines of that old joke: ‘If I tell you I’ll have to kill you’.
Who knows what’s in the Facility Letter. I would speculate there’s nothing twisted or obscure or that depends on issues such as DK becoming a director.
I think it will simply be a clause requiring Rangers to repay the loan on a demand by SD. I would assume there will be a period of time allowed but it won’t be a lot IMO.
And if the loan isn’t cleared in the time specified then a default will have taken place and basically it will all be over. Because I believe once the default process is triggered even if Rangers comes up with the cash then it could be refused by SD.
Whether they would accept it late or not is another matter.
ecobhoy says:
April 15, 2015 at 12:19 pm
And if the loan isn’t cleared in the time specified then a default will have taken place and basically it will all be over. Because I believe once the default process is triggered even if Rangers comes up with the cash then it could be refused by SD.
Whether they would accept it late or not is another matter.
============================================
Of course they’ll accept the money late – SD/Ashley don’t need it – and they don’t want to be driving the bus when/if it finally crashes – but only in return for another turn of the thumbscrews – a few more percent of that and a few year’s extension of this – just sign here Mr Murray – then it will be the true RRMs’ contract with SD/Ashley – not the previous regime’s (L&L’s). That will do nicely – see you next month.
ecobhoy says:
April 15, 2015 at 11:52 am
neepheid says:
April 15, 2015 at 10:43 am
ecobhoy says:
April 15, 2015 at 9:32 am
He has every asset currently in his control except players’ contracts and tbh the current Board might need to flog the few of them worth anything very rapid to get to ST time.
====================
Is that correct? I thought that the floating charge covered all assets except Ibrox, and the IP which has been transferred to SD pro tem.
Surely the floating charge would then cover player registrations, which I believe are assets? If so, Ashley could, I assume, force player sales in the event of a default.
————————————————————
It’s certainly a problem. And IMO it’s caused mainly because afaik MA has never articulated what his vision of the short- medium – or long-term future of Ibrox or Rangers actually is as he sees it.
There have rightly been demands that the new Board produce these answers but Ashley has been around at least since Summer 2012 so I would expect his Master Plan surely must be nearing completion and a full announcement expected any day.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Agreed
I still reckon the MA Master Plan is an Ashley (Sarver) buyout of the assets. Thereafter an “Overseas Owner” will do deals and shuffle players and costs between NUFC, SDI and TTRFC milking everybody including HMRC for the benefit of MA
IMO
There will be no CL music at Ibrox this side of 2050
So RFC* currently have a 500kpa player for 100kpa who appears to be not quite but almost single handedly getting them to the playoffs, with RFC* only required to pay the difference if he is successful.
And that is deemed a bad deal because???
Not much MSM build-up to tomorrow’s big match, delayed from 27th Jan and 16th March.
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=2566&newsCategoryID=41&newsID=14452
The charges:
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=2566&newsCategoryID=41&newsID=14110
ecobhoy says:
April 15, 2015 at 12:00 pm
Barcabhoy says:
April 15, 2015 at 11:48 am
Eco ,
_________________________________________
I simply don’t believe Ashley became involved in Rangers just to sell kit unless, of course, he believed the 500 million fans worlwide myth. If he did I’m sure Green could well be the ace salesman who peddled the tale.
_______________________________________________
imo Ashley became involved in TRFC because CG decided he needed him, and so made him the kind of offer he couldn’t refuse.
Like Ally McCoist in that respect.
But for that, I honestly really doubt that he’d be anywhere near the place.
He hung around because he was making money.
He probably wants TRFC to stay in business, so long as it is making him money. And he will try and ensure that the amount of money he makes is maximised.
Beyond that, I really don’t think he is fussed either way. As Phil has indicated there is a simple mathematical equation that explains Mash’s involvement:
1x £27m = TRFC – SDH
Gee69 says:
April 15, 2015 at 9:25 am
Just read this nonsense this morning.
Just play by the rules you’ve signed up to FFS
From the Daily Mail……………………………
…No one at that time anticipated you might have a Rangers-Hibs play-off final….
——————————————————————
How is that even possible?
Have Rangers already been moved to 11th in the Premiership when I wasn’t looking?
Is Mr Petrie (of the Secret 5way agreement) trying to shaft the other SPFL (non premiership) teams AGAIN ??
Shareholder control means nothing in a situation where a company is losing money by the day, and owes £5m to someone with a charge over everything,apart from Ibrox,which I suspect may already be subject to some sort of onerous contract which makes it useless as security.
As things stand, Ashley clearly controls every asset worth anything. Kingco manage the day to day operations, while paying L&L fat salaries for watching daytime TV. So why don’t Kingco pay Ashley his £5m back, and get some freedom to operate? Currently they are stitched up like a kipper.
The RR situation is history, they can never get that back without paying MA a ton of money (in my opinion). But they could liberate MP, the iconic Albion carpark, the even more iconic Edmiston House, the players registrations, the pens and pencils, the grass cutters, the rollers, the office furniture, the bike, the trophies,the loving cup, the list is endless.
So why not just give the guy his money back? Seems a steal for £5m, doesn’t it? And all you are doing is repaying him, no interest, no penalties, so what’s the problem here?
Although quite clearly there is a very big problem.
Re the palaver over the play-off gate shares. Do they expect the potential financial reward for finishing 2nd, 3rd, or 4th in the championship, to be higher than the gains for actually winning the Championship outright? I think they should be reminded that this is a kick-aboot for the also rans.
The final league positions might be settled by then so it could make no difference regarding the promotion play-offs. If league positions were a factor Rangers would still have to beat Hearts at Tynecastle where they have dropped 5 points all season, scored 53 goals and conceded 9. That’s a tough match for any team. Looks like the game will be on TV so I’d guess that broadcast income is the main factor at play here rather than conspiracies/sporting integrity issues.
http://www.onfieldsofgreen.com/dreaming-of-a-level-playing-field/
Which just makes it worse. Do the authorities really need a history lesson in why this is a bad idea? Really?
Here’s just one example (item 6 in the link). And Everton weren’t just on the beach: they were hungover (allegedly).
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2008/nov/21/football-arsenal-tottenham-everton-barcelona-real
Not that I’m still bitter. Oh no, not at all.
Without wishing to go too far off topic, may I say that Autumn is beginning to bite here in Brisbane, with temperatures dropping as low as 17 Celsius, and-I can scarcely believe it-I have a cold! Sneezing, runny nose, kind of cold
So,at 3.30 this afternoon I’ m in what my generation
still call ‘the chemist’s’ but which the moderns call
‘the pharmacy’ , and I get chatting to the
pharmacist.
Something about his mode of speech marked him out as not being a ñative born Aussie.And when he said that he came from Arnprior Road in the ‘mulk I
very naturally observed that he might perchance
know one David Cunningham King.
Knock me over with an emu’s feather or a
dingowall’s f..rt, but didn’t he volunteer the
information that his family moved into the very
house (a ‘police’ house!) previously occupied by the
said DCK’s old man!
Aye, a’right, it’s no exactly ‘casablanca’ and ‘ of all the gin joints….blah blah blah’ ( and what a truly great movie that was!).
But,I thought, of all the chemists shops in Brisbane, how did the one I went into happen to be one in which the ‘pharmacist’ is a Castlemilk Tim who once lived in the house in which a glib and ……… would-be director of a two and a bit year old football club once lived.
It is a very small world indeed. 😀
incredibleadamspark says:
April 15, 2015 at 2:46 pm
==============
Agreed that broadcast income is the main factor and I don’t think Crawford mentioned conspiracy. However Broadcast income has been put ahead of sporting integrity as the 3 Championship play off positions may rest on that match.
TRFC may enter it knowing they need to win to finish 2nd or much less likely need the win to gurantee 3rd.
They may enter it knowing that a draw will be sufficient.
It is entirely possible that the result will be immaterial but it wasn’t immaterial until the results 24 hours earlier.
All those give TRFC an unfair advantage over Hibs and QotS even though both will surely approach there last game with the intention of winning. The only way there would be no advantage is if Hibs and QotS positions were decided after each’s penultimate game.
Also while Hearts have dome wonderfully most of the season their record since tying up the Championship a home win over Alloa and defeats at Hibs and TRFC. Foot off the gas, blooding even younger fringe players while resting others? Only Jambos could tell me if the defeats are those or TRFC/ and Hibs improvements.
Having said all that if absolutely nothing rests on the game and both have “taken their feet off the gas” it could be a poor TV spectacle 😈
So, if I understand correctly, a majority of clubs need to vote for a majority of clubs to receive less money from the play-offs. Nothing to see here, move along.
jean7brodie says:
April 15, 2015 at 2:51 pm
http://www.onfieldsofgreen.com/dreaming-of-a-level-playing-field/
===================================================================
Good read – and he manages not to even mention the possibility of any honest mistakes.
Sports fans want sport. Sports fans want to pay to see sport. Sport needs scrupulous fairness, What is so difficult to understand. if you can’t understand that and organize that then get out of sport.
I nearly died of stress during MCFC v QPR in 2012 (1-2 at 90mins) as Dzeko equalized at 91:15 and Aguero scored at 93:20 to beat Utd to the premiership on goal difference – Utd were watching at Sunderland after winning their simultaneous match which had less added time. But the extreme stress turned to extreme joy for City on 93:20 (first league title in over 40 years) and extreme despair for Utd (oh well never mind) – and that’s sport – nothing like it. What is it the SFA / SPFL don’t understand – oh yes . . .
Incredibleadamspark@ 2.46. p.m
‘……I’d guess that broadcasting income is the main factor…’
___________
Theoretically you may be right.
But the hard, practical, inescapable fact jwe have to deal with is that we know our football authorities lie.
They simply cannot be trusted, those who sold the soul of sporting integrity .
We simply have to believe that the ‘thing’ they thought had to be saved at the expense of any kind of truth is still their uppermost concern.
tykebhoy says:
April 15, 2015 at 3:14 pm
____________________________________
Fair points but for me that’s still too many variables for this to be overtly advantageous for Rangers and there is still way too much football to be played before we get to that point. I think some people desperately want this to be seen as blatant favouritism towards Rangers. I don’t think that is the case. Other opinions are available, even on here. Sometimes.
John Clark says:
April 15, 2015 at 3:05 pm
Without wishing to go too far off topic, may I say that Autumn is beginning to bite here in Brisbane, with temperatures dropping as low as 17 Celsius, and-I can scarcely believe it-I have a cold! Sneezing, runny nose, kind of cold
So,at 3.30 this afternoon I’ m in what my generation
still call ‘the chemist’s’ but which the moderns call
‘the pharmacy’ , and I get chatting to the
pharmacist.
Something about his mode of speech marked him out as not being a ñative born Aussie.And when he said that he came from Arnprior Road in the ‘mulk I
very naturally observed that he might perchance
know one David Cunningham King.
Knock me over with an emu’s feather or a
dingowall’s f..rt, but didn’t he volunteer the
information that his family moved into the very
house (a ‘police’ house!) previously occupied by the
said DCK’s old man!
Aye, a’right, it’s no exactly ‘casablanca’ and ‘ of all the gin joints….blah blah blah’ ( and what a truly great movie that was!).
But,I thought, of all the chemists shops in Brisbane, how did the one I went into happen to be one in which the ‘pharmacist’ is a Castlemilk Tim who once lived in the house in which a glib and ……… would-be director of a two and a bit year old football club once lived.
It is a very small world indeed. 😀
————————————————————————————–
Unbelievable John Clark, utterly unbelievable…
Unless there are 2 qualified pharmacists from Arnprior Road in Castlemilk, both of whom emigrated to Australia, then I know the gentleman concerned…
Indeed, we played for the same school and boys guild teams…
If yer cold doesn’t clear up and you require further medication, tell Mick I was asking for him…
Just mention Dougrie flats and Strathclyde Uni…
GoosyGoosy says:
April 15, 2015 at 12:33 pm
…
IMO
There will be no CL music at Ibrox this side of 2050
=======================================================
Your are cruel GG.
Mibbees right…
…but still cruel…! 😆
incredibleadamspark says:
April 15, 2015 at 2:46 pm
The final league positions might be settled by then so it could make no difference regarding the promotion play-offs. If league positions were a factor Rangers would still have to beat Hearts at Tynecastle where they have dropped 5 points all season, scored 53 goals and conceded 9. That’s a tough match for any team. Looks like the game will be on TV so I’d guess that broadcast income is the main factor at play here rather than conspiracies/sporting integrity issues.
_______________________________________________________
Policing would be my bet.
Resin_lab_dog says:
April 15, 2015 at 4:07 pm
Policing would be my bet.
=================================================================
Possibly – but it seems Doncaster painted himself into a negotiating corner by leaving it so late and Police Scotland, who have growing budget pressure like every other public service, have rolled him over.
If SDoncaster understood the position of most fans he could have:
a) negotiated at the beginning of the season to get a good deal – with time to haggle.
b) insisted on same day matches and paid the Police overtime with a smile
c) been beyond criticism of the majority of fans/clubs by not handing an apparent advantage to the club perceived by all and sundry as the SFA /SPFL’s favorite.
The man’s a waste of space and it is a credit to you all that you so infrequently refer to his Englishness – which has not gone unnoted.
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/big-mike-maneuvers-into-position/#more-6163 …
mcfc says:
April 15, 2015 at 5:06 pm
Doncaster is where he is, because he does what he is told. A well paid monkey. I want the bloody organ grinders
Still scratching my head wrt King’s plan, or lack thereof…
For the last 3 years he has been jetting-in, mouthing off about RFC/TRFC to a fawning SMSM, then jetting-off again.
Recently, he apparently put his short arms in his pockets and bought some shares, forced board changes via an EGM…and then nothing seems to have happened since ?
If King is ultimately made to look like a prize chump by Mike Ashley, then King’s jetting-in to Glasgow might be permanently grounded – as the bears will be deriding him at every opportunity.
A mighty fall from ‘trumpeted RRM saviour’ to social leper amongst the bears ?
Just don’t get what King’s strategy is… 🙄
mcfc says:
April 15, 2015 at 5:06 pm
Resin_lab_dog says:
April 15, 2015 at 4:07 pm
______________________________________________
Are you impugning the ability of the SPFLs master negotiator to pull of a deal that is other than the very best that could have been achieved under any circumstances? :irony: 😆
How very dare you! 🙄
I demand to know upon what evidence one could possibly base such a supposition…
… leaving aside the 5WA, the lack of a league sponsor, the paltry yet onerous TV deals, etc. etc. obv 😉
StevieBC says:
April 15, 2015 at 5:58 pm
Still scratching my head wrt King’s plan, or lack thereof…
For the last 3 years he has been jetting-in, mouthing off about RFC/TRFC to a fawning SMSM, then jetting-off again.
Recently, he apparently put his short arms in his pockets and bought some shares, forced board changes via an EGM…and then nothing seems to have happened since ?
If King is ultimately made to look like a prize chump by Mike Ashley, then King’s jetting-in to Glasgow might be permanently grounded – as the bears will be deriding him at every opportunity.
A mighty fall from ‘trumpeted RRM saviour’ to social leper amongst the bears ?
Just don’t get what King’s strategy is… 🙄
_________________________________________________________
King rolls in…
Bears hail him as a saviour…
Pack out Ibrox in their droves…
City welcome him with open arms and pour hundreds of millions into hover pitches at Castle Ibrox,
Mike Ashley apologises humbly and begs cravenly to be allowed to negotiate his merchandising deals downwards…
Messi, Ronaldo join on a free transfer and pay to play, having succumbed to Rangersitis…
… I think that about covers it.
Resin_lab_dog says:
April 15, 2015 at 6:05 pm
StevieBC says:
April 15, 2015 at 5:58 pm
…
Just don’t get what King’s strategy is… 🙄
_________________________________________________________
King rolls in…
Bears hail him as a saviour…
Pack out Ibrox in their droves…
City welcome him with open arms and pour hundreds of millions into hover pitches at Castle Ibrox,
Mike Ashley apologises humbly and begs cravenly to be allowed to negotiate his merchandising deals downwards…
Messi, Ronaldo join on a free transfer and pay to play, having succumbed to Rangersitis…
… I think that about covers it.
=================================
Thanks for quickly clearing that up for me Rld !
King has achieved the first 2 objectives so far.
So, it’s just a timing issue then… 😕
StevieBC says:
April 15, 2015 at 6:10 pm
Resin_lab_dog says:
April 15, 2015 at 6:05 pm
StevieBC says:
April 15, 2015 at 5:58 pm
…
Just don’t get what King’s strategy is… 🙄
… I think that about covers it.
=================================
Thanks for quickly clearing that up for me Rld !
King has achieved the first 2 objectives so far.
So, it’s just a timing issue then… 😕
____________________________________
A matter of time and temperature Stevie… (… i.e when hell freezes over)
😀
Could King be waiting on the lever of promotion ,fill the stadium and I will invest,sounds about right.
Just off a flight (Ryanair economy) and also on the same flight was the world’s greatest football administrator did think about engaging with him on the subject of his role in this whole stinking mess Scottish football finds itself in. I backed off as I couldn’t be sure I would keep my cool (verbally) and he was with his wife so it would have been quite unfair to confront him in this enclosed space. What I did glean from afar was that he still favours Brown shoes, (more of a loafer type) and has the look of a man who at any time could recieve a tap on the shoulder from (police, fans, taxman)..lastly to end this take of my non encounter…Mrs O was reading a novel, called,”breaking the rules” 🙄 …Maybe she’s the brains behind all of this ??? She did have the courtesy to make sure she put the book into her bag before exiting passport control…so the likes of bampots like me wouldn’t see the title.
I wonder if Keef or other msm who look in here could confirm that she has read the book next time they are invited around for a sound bite about how he has another plan to save Scottish football and his beloved club / company.
At risk of repeating myself, I’m sure king and the 3b combined could raise the £5m if necessary. Unfortunately they know only too well that is not even a quarter of what is required and so to put it in now, on the basis that that is probably the extent of their war chest, would be like peeing on a refinery fire.
They thought bridge funding the inevitable shortfall to get them to where they think they deserve to be, and to be clear that is bridge funding on a strictly ‘soft’ ie non refundable basis, was for other little people to worry about.
Any news on the Guidette princible hearing he said they were dead? ( I have been away)
sarantseville 03 says:
April 15, 2015 at 7:41 pm
Just off a flight (Ryanair economy) and also on the same flight was the world’s greatest football administrator did think about engaging with him on the subject of his role in this whole stinking mess Scottish football finds itself in. I backed off as I couldn’t be sure I would keep my cool (verbally) and he was with his wife…
====================================
Oh, I do feel your frustration sarantseville 03 !
I would have had to bite on the back of the seat right in front of my face for the whole flight – to stop me having a go…and how were you sure it was Ogilvie ?
Was he wearing a new TRFC top for his holidays…? 🙄
Scotland needs strong – but sensible and courteous – Internet Bampots.
can anybody offer up a reason why my post, RE: the change of date of the hearts game on the last day of the season, has been deleted.
?????
just noticed that the post by james forrest linking his site was also
deleted. in fact a few posts immediately after my post seem to have been removed
Stevie BC …oh it was him. His passport gave him away .
He also had a well worn football kit bag as his main luggage with an old 25 squad number on it….he did have a matching belt for his brown foootwear. He definitely looks a bit troubled….as do most people who fly RyanAir to be fair.
Im sure im not the only one who gets annoyed having to scroll through the original post every time we go on to another page. (I realise this most recent post is particularly long …good though it is), All the original posts are long of course.
If it does annoy enough people perhaps we could get the webmaster to replace the post on each page with a link to page one. Anyone wanting to read or reread the post would only be one click away.
Or is it just me
The 6th floor at Hampden just can’t help themselves. Surely, in this day and age, there is no other country on the planet that would try and give one of their member clubs such an unfair advantage going into the last round of games? They are so blinkered in their love of the current Govan club that they can’t see what a laughing stock they make OUR national game.
Our governing bodies definitely need monitoring, especially of course the SFA. Can anyone on here put a figure on the bonus Stewart Regan is to receive for successfully implementing the pyramid league system? I’ve heard it’s a truly obscene figure. Almost enough to meet the April payroll at the SFA’s favoured club 🙄
crawford – click on the “View Comments” button at the top of the page.
Crawford.
Just below the title of the article there is a “view commments” button so no need to scroll past the article. I only noticed this a couple of weeks or so ago. I wonder how long it has been there.
Also when I go from one page to another I stay at the comments section. Don’t know why you would end up at start of article again.
Thanks for the advice but this button doesnt work on my pc for some reason.
Therefore I assumed everyone else was the same.
If everyones button works then the answer to my question Is it just me? is Yes
Although there are at least ten TUs who now know what that button does.
crawford says:
April 15, 2015 at 9:06 pm
Thanks for the advice but this button doesnt work on my pc for some reason…
================================
Mibbees your PC has been infected…with rangersitis ?
There’s a lot of it going around apparently. 😉
scapaflow says:
April 15, 2015 at 5:56 pm
mcfc says:
April 15, 2015 at 5:06 pm
Doncaster is where he is, because he does what he is told. A well paid monkey. I want the bloody organ grinders
————-
There seems to be a new professional class in British public life that requires mediocre skills, willful ignorance of the bleedin obvious, brass neck, immunity to common decency and a liking for mysteriously deserved bonuses.
I save the page in my bookmarks as such
http://www.tsfm.scot/did-stewart-regan-ken-then-wit-we-ken-noo/#comments
it goes to the last page, so the only small downside is when a page changes you need to go into the 2nd last page to check you havent missed anything.
when a new blog starts, then i replace the saved name with the name of the new blog, with the /#comments ending
There has been a statement from the SPFL RE the change of date at Hearts that sportsound are calling the worst press release ever.
Listen to it on podcast. Incredible!
Approx 09.35pm
First time on the blog today as just in from work and catching up with the latest fine mess hes got us into. Apparently both Hibs and Hearts have made scathing statements regarding the unfair fixtures ( I have nt read them yet)……but why oh why do the clubs not stand up for OUR game and chase these corrupt or at best incompetent clowns out of our national sport ??????????? 😡
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32312799
Compare and contrast with Wilson’s treatment of sevco which leads me to only one conclusion…
Anne budge statement
CLUB STATEMENT
By: Hearts Media on 15 Apr, 2015 19:01
At 10.43am today, the club received notice from the SPFL that our last home game of the season v Rangers is to be moved to Sunday 3rd May at 12.30pm. This was the first notification of any change that we received.
This has been done following selection of the game for a live TV broadcast. While we all knew that this was likely to be a strong candidate for televising and that the time might well change, we did not for one minute think that at this late stage, it would be moved to the Sunday….especially given our belief that all Championship games would require to be played at the same time.
Previously in the season we delayed the sale of tickets for the first Rangers game as long as we could as we realised that this fixture was highly attractive to broadcasters and likely for selection. In relation to this game, we attempted to do the same but in this case, it would seem to no avail.
On learning of the change, I immediately attempted to contact the SPFL and objected in strong terms to the proposed late change to this fixture on the grounds of it having a total disregard for the interests of supporters of both clubs and an apparent disregard for sporting integrity. I also spoke directly to Police Scotland who share our frustration and informed me that they had written with some strong reasons for objecting to the changed fixture, including duplication of work for them, re-allocation of resources, etc. but once again, to no avail.
Being given 17 days’ notice of this change is extremely disruptive and potentially very expensive for the fans, the sponsors and indeed the club. Overseas supporters have been in touch to advise that they will lose substantial amounts on travel; others have advised of lost earnings, holiday problems, etc.
None of this is good for any of us and on behalf of the club, I can only apologise.
When it also became apparent to us that our fixture was the only game to be moved, we were equally alarmed as rightly or wrongly, this casts a shadow over the sporting integrity of the Championship. While it may not be enshrined in the newly merged rule book of the SPFL, it is protocol the football world over for fixtures such as the last day of the Championship to be played simultaneously. To move only one, (or even 2 or 4) out of 5 fixtures would seem to be leaving our game wide open to unsavoury accusations. I wrote, raising this point, to the SPFL, copying all clubs. Correspondence received from the SPFL asking Championship clubs to state their case for a move, does little to alleviate our concerns re the perception of this matter.
I will be sending in a formal complaint to the SPFL in relation to this appallingly late decision. It is no wonder that clubs are finding it harder and harder to gain support from their fans when their interests can be so blatantly disregarded, especially at such short notice.
I am advised that this complaint will likely have no impact on the original decision but nevertheless, I want our supporters to know that we have taken all and any action that we could have and I will further comment on the situation once we have been updated by the League.
Ann Budge
This statement was brought to you using my new view comments button!
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/big-mike-maneuvers-into-position/
Dearie me shurely not?
Good for Ann Budge to speak up, although she admits that it probably won’t change anything.
Maybe next season, instead of the SPFL engaging IT consultants to produce the season’s fixture list – why don’t they just get Sky & BT to produce it for them ?
Save a lot of hassle ?!
Credit where it’s due, Tom English using tonight’s SPFL “what’s the problem” statement as evidence of Doncaster’s unfitness for purpose. (Apologies for my English btw!)
StevieBC says:
April 15, 2015 at 10:08 pm
Ms Budge is snookered unless she gets support from other clubs in the SPFL. If that support is not forthcoming,then I am sure the fans of all clubs will draw their own conclusions.
Ms Budge has not just laid down a gauntlet to the board of the SPFL, but also to all the other clubs. Will they do the decent thing? They haven’t up to now, or at least not voluntarily!
At least now, if there was anyone out there that was still troubled with some doubt as to whether Scottish Football was driven by money rather than sporting integrity, then now their mind can be at rest.
keith jackson @tedermeatballs · 1h 1 hour ago
If you think the SPFL is the eye of a shit-storm tonight then just wait till you see what else is brewing! Tomorrow should be interesting.
And when liked minded people decide if David King is a fit and proper person to be involved in Scottish Football, then you can bet a few krugerrand where that ones heading.
😆 😆 😆
#IALWAYSKNEW @DKeith0904 5m5 minutes ago
@mrrossmc @JohnnyUtah100 Even if we finish 3rd, pump Qots, pump Hibs and pump Motherwell, some folk will still find a conspiracy somewhere
Prince Vučkić @JohnnyUtah100 4m4 minutes ago
@DKeith0904 @mrrossmc If we pumped those three, I’d assume there was a conspiracy at work as well, tbf.
#IALWAYSKNEW @DKeith0904 4m4 minutes ago
@JohnnyUtah100 @mrrossmc fair point
Prince Vučkić @JohnnyUtah100 10m10 minutes ago
@DKeith0904 The idea of us playing in a televised, must win game…urrrrggghh.
Smugas says:
April 15, 2015 at 9:57 pm
________________________________________
In view of Ann Budge’s statement I would like to formally retract my well intentioned assertion of earlier today that the fixture movement was likely related to policing (and therefore had an innocent explanation) and instead assert that the Police objecting to the change of fixture in fact exposes our administrators (once again) to be venal fools of the first order.
What is worse, they are corrupt and shameless to boot.
Clearly the kind of woolly thinking that made DCK think he could waltz into town and restore the ‘natural order’ with a few earnest entreaties and an appeal to ‘traditional values’ still powers the thinking of our footballing establishment.
Well put on your mask and cape Mr. Doncaster. You have reduced a sport to a pantomime and what is more – unlike the WWF, you have failed to even reap the commercial benefits of sodoing.
You – Sir – are a clown.
And not of the laughing variety either.
A simple buffoon.
Damaging our sport by your association with it.
For the record… a stadium full of fans booing every time you take the field to present a trophy is probably a subtle hint that you should consider your position.
That is all.
(except to say its nice to see Hearts and Hibs uniting on so many issues these days. Transcending age old rivalries. Especially when they are both in the right.)
If Championship playoffs extended to June, due Hibs poss involvement in Scottish Cup Final, it would cost Sevco £100k to extend the players contracts, except for the 5 loanees whose contracts run till 10 June. According to Mr Jingle Jangle Jackson.
ianagain says:
April 15, 2015 at 10:08 pm
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/big-mike-maneuvers-into-position/
Dearie me shurely not?
————————————————————-
If the loan is in default then it will all be over in 7 days IIRC.
I’m just back from the game and the brain cells have taken a hammering – so I’ll check in the morning. We don’t know what the definition are of events which create a default but the charge documents clearly state what follows in the event of a default and it ain’t pretty.
And as I say I have 7 days in my head but I’ll check that out in the morning when I surface and post the procedure as outlined in the documentation supplied to Companies House by Rangers.
I dont know whether a default has taken place or not but I have no reason to think Phil has got it wrong. So it looks like the End Game is about to start and there’s very little play time left.
Perhaps SD won’t initiate the procedures outlined in the documentation but why wouldn’t they as to ignore them in a sense could be argued to be an acceptance of the default.
Nope IMO if there’s a default then SD will use the legal powers that flow from that default which means Scottish Football will be attending a funeral just after Doncaster’s farewell party.
I’m pretty sure Tom English won’t be getting an invite right enuff 👿
Is Marc Guidi the most rude pundit on tv or radio? His reactions towards some callers on Clyde tonight was again embarrassing, BUT there were a few very good calls from bright chaps suggesting an SPFL media intitative, via some kind of app that offers streaming of games. Keevins, unfortunately is a man of little or no vision; this excellent suggestion was met with we’re a poor wee league and our only hope is the return of The Four Fixtures 🙂
Another caller suggested that the game was being poorly marketed, and offered some concrete suggestions. Once again a caller was given the Basil Fawlty hairdryer by Guidi. You’d think Mr Guidi applied for a job at either the SFA or the SPFL by his defence of them 🙂
Still, some good thoughts tonight from callers on a 16-team top tier, media initiative independent of the tv deals, regionalisation, price restructuring, etc. A
We listen so you don’t have to
There are some very good callers filtering through and thanks to Gerry M. as host they’re being given a fair chance. Guidi & Keevins, though, sum up everything that’s wrong with their blinkered vision.
y4rmy says:
April 15, 2015 at 3:00 pm
Looks like the game will be on TV so I’d guess that broadcast income is the main factor at play here rather than conspiracies/sporting integrity issues.
Which just makes it worse. Do the authorities really need a history lesson in why this is a bad idea? Really?
Here’s just one example (item 6 in the link). And Everton weren’t just on the beach: they were hungover (allegedly).
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2008/nov/21/football-arsenal-tottenham-everton-barcelona-real
Not that I’m still bitter. Oh no, not at all.
===========================================================
I remember it well, and like you I remain bitter about the way that season finished.
At least the rules were immediately changed to prevent a repeat, whereas the Scottish governing bodies seem incapable or unwilling to do the same.
If the SPFL are prepared to sell out sporting integrity for only a few bob, is it not time for the tv deals to be ditched and a return to an across the board 3pm/7.45pm fixture list?