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.
paulsatim says:
April 16, 2015 at 12:15 am
__________________________________
Wow… unless I am mistaken, that looks like clear unambiguous evidence of ‘Ursus pacificus’, there.
These are shy cousins of the less prevalent, far less numerate, but much noisier and more conspicuous ‘Ursus bellator’. The ‘pacificus’ have perfected their camouflage to such an extent that their existence can be all to easily overlooked by the casual observer. sadly, this species is under real threat as a result of widespread disruption to their natural habitat, mostly brought about as a result of well intentioned attempts to check the uncontrolled spread of their more belligerent cousins, whose acidic excrement damages native fauna, and who are widely considered to be a parasitic pest, capable of wreaking untold damage to the finely balanced ecosystems they invade.
You were very lucky to catch the elusive pacificus in a rare moment of heuristic play there.
One to tell the grandkids, for sure.
Listen to Stuart McCall on the subject of the concluding round of SPFL Championship match scheduling at 46.40 of the 15 April 2014 edition of BBC Sportsound. http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/scotfoot
He thinks its an advantage to his team.
Wee post for the night shift brigade …
http://www.onfieldsofgreen.com/complete-incomprehension/
Whether it’s the governing bodies who treat us with contempt, the media that thinks we’ll swallow anything or the Sevco fans who really do believe that “it’s all about the Rangers”, Scottish football is filled to the rafters with folk who don’t understand that the rest of us want to watch our clubs in an environment which isn’t bent, run by people who care about its greater good.
Danish Pastry
I too think guidi on ssb is an obnoxious boor. . .like the belligerent loudmouth holding court to his sycophantic coterie in the pub . . . I suspect he is more self aware than some fellow “journos” and chaffs all the more at the low esteem in which they and particularily he and jackson are held .. certainly he is a very poor advert for ssb’s “corporate image”
Gerry McCulloch on the other hand does a more than decent job in my humble opinion.
I’m not totally clear on what penalty will apply if TRFC have an insolvency event in the next two weeks i.e. is the current/likely points cushion over Falkirk sufficient?
Is MA likely to wait until the play offs start?
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
Ron.an.Math says:
April 16, 2015 at 3:34 am
——-
Pub loudmouth was exactly the thought I had. McCulloch is very bright and clued up, gives the programne a quality boost. I can listen through the whole podcast when he hosts it.
Oddly enough, even Guidi & Keevins were bamboozled at the fixture thingy. Sometimes you think Doncaster is actually trying to get himself a golden hsndshake.
redlichtie says:
April 16, 2015 at 6:15 am
I’m not totally clear on what penalty will apply if TRFC have an insolvency event in the next two weeks i.e. is the current/likely points cushion over Falkirk sufficient?
Is MA likely to wait until the play offs start?
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
=======================================
I’m sure someone on here posted an e-mail reply from the SPFL on what happens in the case of an insolvency event during the play offs. I can’t remember the full details but it did not fill me with confidence that the morally right thing would happen.
abigboydiditandranaway@ 3.53 pm on 15th April
‘….Unless there are 2 qualified pharmacists…………Just mention Dougrie flats..
——–‘———————
I certainly will,abbdiara,with pleasure.
In view of the fact that it is now being stated that TRFCL is in default wrt its loan conditions with SD I thought I would try and work out from the actual documentation between SD & TRFCL filed at Companies House what might happen next.
I hasten to add that I have no idea whether TRFCL has defaulted because I have seen no actual proof of that fact so this is merely a paper exercise. I have used ordinary English and a lot of simplification to try and cut-through the legalese to make it understandable to ordinary mortals like myself.
In that process I might have made mistakes as I am not a lawyer so don’t rely legally on anything I state and check with the source documents and take appropriate legal advice.
This is just a glimpse into a possible Apocalypse already forming over Ibrox and Rangers. I’ll add other stuff as the day progresses.
Bond and Floating Charge Document:
I really am interested in timing as to what happens if there has been a default under the terms and condition relating to the £5 million loan from SD to TRFCL.
I posted late last night after getting home from the pub after the game and one of the things I mused about was if a default had taken place was any compulsory legal process mandatory. It appears not because:
That’s certainly a chilling, onerous and perfectly legal clause which TRFCL enterd into voluntarily and greatly speeds-up any timeframe. So let’s take a step back a bit as to some of the nuts and bolts. Remember we don’t know what constitutes a ‘default’ under the loan agreement because that term is defined in the loan agreement which has not been made public.
So let’s go on not so much a magical mystery tour but more a spine chilling tale where horror and mayhem lurks around every turning. The only protection from the abyss for Rangers appears to be the ‘back letter’ apparently seen by Paul Murray but which is not publicly lodged:
DEFINITIONS
Secured Assets covers ‘the whole of the property and undertakings’ of TRFCL excluding Ibrox Stadium.
Secured Obligations are: ‘Present and future monies, obligations and liabilities of TRFCL to SD under the Facilities Agreement whether actual or contingent together with interest, including unlimited default interest, accruing in respect of those monies, obligations or liabilities.
And so to football…
Falkirk are probably goosed: 4pts adrift in fifth place with their final games v Rangers and Hibs. Even if they get a point at Ibrox that’s their league season over.
QoS doubtless realise they need to do very little in their last three games to guarantee fourth; since they’re 5pts behind Hibs, third spot is probably beyond them and third or fourth spot makes little diff in the play-offs anyway.
Hibs have to play Livi, Alloa and Falkirk – the last one almost certainly a dead rubber for the Bairns.
Rangers face Dumbarton, Falkirk then an agitated Hearts side looking to end their title winning league season on a high.
At a guess I’d hazard that Hibs will take 4pts from their next two, then beat Falkirk. Rangers will take 4pts or 6pts from their next two then lose to Hearts.
Unless Hibs seriously fall apart in the next three games, they should finish second, leaving Rangers v QoS as the first play-off tie.
rabtdog says:
April 16, 2015 at 9:25 am
At a guess I’d hazard that Hibs will take 4pts from their next two, then beat Falkirk. Rangers will take 4pts or 6pts from their next two then lose to Hearts.
Unless Hibs seriously fall apart in the next three games, they should finish second, leaving Rangers v QoS as the first play-off tie.
=======================
If as you suggest Hibs take 7 points from their 3 games and TRFC win their next two it makes even more of a mockery of the decision to switch the Tynie game to Sunday. Given your scenario TRFC would go into that game only separated from Hibs by goal difference. Hibs at the moment have the better GD and if that remained the same or it is level TRFC would know a draw at Hearts would be sufficient to avoid the 3rd v 4th PO match (Park the bus?). If TRFC manage to get a better GD then Hibs before that last game they would know how many they can afford to lose by and still finish 2nd. TRFC have currently scored more goals than Hibs and I believe that’s still the 2nd tiebreaker after GD
OT
But I know you will forgive me. Very sad news for the Buckley family and the rest of us.
Hats off to Police Scotland, they pulled out all the stops when it mattered, credit where credit’s due
Well done.
Ecobhoy,
I wouldn’t take issue with your recent post at all , however i would be surprised if there is an insolvency event. King and Murray ran a vicious campaign to gain power. They made ridiculous claims, some of which have already proven to be false.
However they are now in control. They were particularly vocal about investing significant sums. Way in excess of the amount required to pay off the SD loan.
Should they fail to pay SD if requested , and in turn Rangers suffer an insolvency event, then I would be amazed if there is not legal action taken personally against King , Murray, Gilligan and the 3 Bears . Not only that, King & Co would suffer from media and fan hostility which would be the equal of anything directed at Whyte. Given Douglas Park has significant business interests in Scotland , I doubt he would be prepared to allow this ( unless he has been duped) . The others either have no material business interests in Scotland or in the case of Paul Murray , a business irrelevance.
I doubt SD actively want an insolvency , but are probably beyond the point of lending to stop it , as they have twice previously done.
Caveat all of the above with . Normal business logic does not apply at Rangers
paulsatim says:
April 16, 2015 at 12:33 am
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.
==============
Assuming we can now discount Falkirk from the play-off race then scenarios for a rearranged season end.
Not a problem if Hibs lose on Saturday.
Presumably not a problem if Hibs are eliminated by the 2nd leg of the Play Off QF on 13th May. (SPFL can probably leave it this long to see if they need to rearrange)
Becomes a problem if QotS are eliminated on 13th leaving a Hibs V TRFC semi concluded on 23rd (surely too late to rearrange a play off final potentially involving Hibs on 28th and 31st).
So as for TRFC season extending into June. I think Hibs would need to beat Falkirk in the cup and then lose the P-O SF to TRFC with the possibility still that one of them don’t make it that far anyway.
There is a simple way to assess the SPFL’s bona fides.
Hibernian should take up the offer to request that their fixture on Saturday 2nd May 2015 be moved.
They should request that it be moved to Monday 4th May 2015.
Barcabhoy says:
April 16, 2015 at 10:03 am
Ecobhoy,
Should they fail to pay SD if requested , and in turn Rangers suffer an insolvency event, then I would be amazed if there is not legal action taken personally against King , Murray, Gilligan and the 3 Bears . Not only that, King & Co would suffer from media and fan hostility which would be the equal of anything directed at Whyte. Given Douglas Park has significant business interests in Scotland , I doubt he would be prepared to allow this ( unless he has been duped) . The others either have no material business interests in Scotland or in the case of Paul Murray , a business irrelevance.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
That makes it simple then
Park resigns as a Director before Sevco implodes and can`t be blamed for the insolvency
hi tykebhoy
rangers have taken 4pts from their last 9… Falkirk •might• take a point off them; i would be pretty surprised if they beat Hearts…
It’s in Hibs’ own hands if they manage good results in the last three games really… i think moving rangers’ last fixture is pretty bent myself but the factor about ‘rangers knowing what they have to do’ could be pre-empted by Hibs not bollocksing things up…
scenario 1: rangers aren’t good enough to finish above Hibs, face six play-off games to reach top tier
scenario 2: rangers’ last-day-advantage squeezes them past Hibs – they then have four play-off games to contest
scenario 3: Hibs repeat what they did last season, bottle it, finish third, lose play-off tie with QoS – rangers still have to beat QoS and A N Other to reach top tier
but
i just stuck a tenner on Hibs to be second (even though rangers are favourites)
Senior @ 9.54am
I really hope the TD was a mistake, on here we are striving for fair play ………. But as with your post Senior some things are so much more important, respect to this poor girl and my heart is breaking for her family RIP Karen Buckley.
OK Lets deal with the charge wrt all Intellectual Property – rights to trademarks, domain names and the goodwill in them. There is more than one right enuff but the other will be dealt with later.
The first thing that catches my eye in this Deed is the definition of Default given as:
There’s a lot in those clauses – too much for even the most dedicated TSFM reader 🙂 So I will only look at things I think might be of importance:
Let’s look in more detail at 4.5 Ownership of Charged Assets – I think this is relevant because of various suggestions that TRFCL might not own all of its TMs and that indeed some might be owned by mystery overseas entities – Surely Not ❗
OK so to get £5 million from SD what did TRFCL agree to or warrant?
There’s loads of stuff in these clauses but I’ll just point to a couple: No Security created under this Deed is liable to be avoided, or otherwise set aside by the liquidation or administration of TRFCL.
Obviously TRFCL is also largely prevented from selling, leasing, transferring, or otherwise disposing or, of purporting to do so, wrt any of the Charged Assets.
As to Clause ‘0’ there isn’t one that I can see although it may be a typo for Clause 10 which deals with ‘Powers of Receiver and SD’. But there’s an awfy lot of stuff there – more power and testosterone than Power Rangers IMO so I’ll leave it for now.
My next post will deal with ‘The Scottish Security’. Bet you can’t wait 😆
“Grant Russell @STVGrant 2m2 minutes ago
Stewart Regan on SPFL fixture farce: “Sporting integrity is fundamental to any competition. I’m sure Neil Doncaster will listen to clubs.””
Is the united front at Hampden beginning to crack?
Hearts & Hibs standing together. Will the grubby wee men who run Scottish Football find their balls, & do the right thing now, please?
Danish Pastry says:
April 16, 2015 at 12:40 am
Is Marc Guidi the most rude pundit on tv or radio
…………………………
Guidi went beyond rudeness last night having a dig at the caller who only should have been on for a minute but had been on longer due to the update on the Karen Buckley case being reported just before he spoke. The caller obviously was thrown by it and made the point that it puts football into perspective.
To then have a pop at him for not getting to his point sooner was as crass and insensitive as I’ve heard. Shocking behaviour from Guidi.
Re Thumbs up and Thumbs down….
When someone gives a thumbs up, the conclusion is straightforward. They agree with the post and considered it to have merit
It’s less clear when someone gives a thumbs down. Is it possible to insist that anyone giving a thumbs down provides a reason why . It would stimulate debate on the site, and would seperate those with a genuine disgreement on a post from those who’s actions are merely vindictive
Re Ashley’s conditions re the loan.
I don’t see it as anything unusual.
As discussed the other day I have seen similar situations in my own field where we are asked to review contracts and agreement before signing. This is however no more than a courtesy being that when you go back and request changes or question areas of risk etc the bigger fishes lawyers basically tell you to ‘F off’ and you are left either signing up and taking the contract or walking away.
Invariably the issue are all around future risks that are highly unlikely to happen but the big fish has the savvy and power to make sure they come out of things smelling of roses if the unthinkable happens.
I am guessing SD has brokered similar deals elsewhere and the tying up of assets and rights is lodged fully within their lawyers DNA.
Given their financial might it is water of a ducks back whether or not someone takes the deal or not.
T’Rangers were desperate enough to sign up, so they are where they are and Big Mike covers his bet either way.
As mentioned previously I just can’t see him actively causing an insolvency event given the resulting bad PR and the potential to scupper any wider plans he has of keeping involved with football, here and abroad, and other sports to promote the SD brand.
As with Newcastle he just needs to be on the right side of the fence to keep the cash rolling in. He does’t need a Ratner’s type mistake to ruin his reputation which is why he keeps himself to himself and all we can do is guess his intentions.
wottpi says:
April 16, 2015 at 11:18 am
Re Ashley’s conditions re the loan.
I don’t see it as anything unusual.
——————————————-
Heaven Forbid that I should give the impression that it’s anything other than normal ontractual terminology or not legal. However as part of my hopes at bringing thinking Bears into the wider fellowship I thought it worthwhile to try and point out exactly what the agreements mean.
I also prefaced my initial post this morning by stating I had decided to do this and look through the Companies House paperwork because it has been stated as fact that a Loan default has already taken place.
I would have thought that a lot of posters/lurkers on TSFM might be interested in what might flow from a Loan Default – if true – and the only thing we have that allows us this albeit limited insight are the Charge details filed at Companies House.
capaflow says:
April 16, 2015 at 11:12 am
“Grant Russell @STVGrant 2m2 minutes ago
Stewart Regan on SPFL fixture farce: “Sporting integrity is fundamental to any competition. I’m sure Neil Doncaster will listen to clubs.””
_______________________________________________
It is still to early for squirrels to emerge from hibernation. I have spotted two already as the above post indicates. There must be a big event about to happen down in the woods when so many squirrels leave their winter beds so early.
I suppose the above rant could be used by academics as an example of paranoia, but you never know?
Barcabhoy says:
April 16, 2015 at 11:15 am
Re Thumbs up and Thumbs down….
When someone gives a thumbs up, the conclusion is straightforward. They agree with the post and considered it to have merit
It’s less clear when someone gives a thumbs down. Is it possible to insist that anyone giving a thumbs down provides a reason why . It would stimulate debate on the site, and would seperate those with a genuine disgreement on a post from those who’s actions are merely vindictive
——————————————————————
I have always felt that the TD facility actual prevents a lot of people from expressing an opinion which might bring the ire of the dreaded TD down on them.
I have some sympathy with your suggestion the the ID of TDers should be published as I would love to know who my very active and dedicated following in that area are although some are obvious and have been with me on various sites even with other names IMO 😆
However – I’m happy for them to remain anonymous. But it seems to me the simple way to encourage debate is to keep TUs and remove TDs. The TU count would still give the feeling/pulse of the blog public expression.
But the ending of TDs might encourage the more sensitive souls like myself to post 🙁 🙁 🙁
Seriously, I think most genuine posters who wish to disagree with a post or points in it do so quite openly. But there are others whose reasons remain unknown because they don’t articulate them.
I am always prepared to listen to counter arguments and change my position in the light of an arguments/facts presented. I really think that’s what’s so valuable about TSFM.
So for me anonymous TDers actually damage TSFM rather than enhance it.
Regan: “[Tax convictions] obviously a challenge for him and the club to try and present a case whereby the board can view it positively.”
Twitter, Grant Russell!!!!!
Morning all.
Various media outlets are reporting the following quote from Stewart Regan this morning in relation to the Championship final-day fiasco: “Sporting integrity is fundamental to any competition”.
Well fancy that, the penny has finally dropped! Or maybe it just seemed expedient for him to make this point on this particular day?
It says a lot about the history and ongoing state of governance in our game that Mr Regan’s simple, blindingly obvious, comment:
a) seems noteworthy;
b) makes many of us have a big hearty ironic chuckle; and
c) immediately makes football fans wonder if he *really* means it to the extent that he would act in its defence.
If Mr Regan views ‘sporting integrity’ (and I have seen the phrase put in inverted commas in various places – indicating it is a notion to be treated with some distain), as such a fundamental tenet, maybe he would like to commission a mass reexamination of various things that have happened over the past 5 years or so, so that wrongs can be made right and lessons learned for the future? Perhaps engaging with the issues raised by Resolution 12, and placing on record a view that the LNS Commission should be reopened, thereby making it more difficult for the League to ignore. Maybe the Five-Way agreement could be published too? Mr Regan might also offer a view on how it is that a club can liquidate, stiffing 276 creditors and yet still apparently continue as the “same club” according to Neil Doncaster. Where’s the sporting integrity in that?!
And while Mr Regan is in a mood to offer direct commentary on SPFL matters, maybe he could offer a firm view/condemnation of the mass sectarian/racist singing that was witnessed at the League Cup semi-final, which he indicated was a matter under the SPFL’s jurisdiction when challenged about it by journalists on Twitter.
Over to you Mr Regan…
Mr Regan, are you there? Stewart, come back! Come back!
Have a good day everyone.
Barcabhoy says:
April 16, 2015 at 11:15 am
Or to put it more succinctly
“Who are these people?”
Does he not mean:
Hold the back page, we may see a U Turn. Hearts are advising fans not to rearrange their travel plans
STV Sport @STVSport 2m2 minutes ago
Hearts suggest there may be a U-turn over decision to move Rangers final day match to Sunday.
EDIT
It won’t make any practical difference, as Doncaster is simply a well paid ventriloquists dummy , but nonetheless Doncaster really aught to resign if the SPFL is forced into a U Turn
He won’t of course, because his primary function is to act as a human shield for the grubby wee men who really run things
Hearts telling fans NOT to change arrangements for the Rangers match.
EDIT: Beat me to it scapa 🙂
Regan softening up DK for a KB with his comments regarding the “120-day+ Fit and Proper” review?
As the Sun would say, It was Anne & Leanne wot won it
“BBCBMcLauchlin @BBCBMcLauchlin 2m2 minutes ago Edinburgh, Scotland
All SPFL final say fixtures will now be played on Sat 2nd May with 12.15 kick off #BBCSportscot”
Scapaflow says
April 16. 2015 @1217 pm
If this is confirmed, Mr Doncaster should resign with immediate effect.
Well played, Ann Budge .
Gratifying that the SFA are undertaking a fit and proper assessment on DK. No mention however of any deadline required for him to provide information / make his case.
This is a worrying trend as the investigation over Mr Ashley’s dual ownership also seems open-ended.
This is no way to run investigations especially if the eventual outcomes could impact on possible points deductions and consequent league positions.
Another fail on the SFA’s governance record methinks.
With all this “sporting integrity” on show, and TSFM’s new attachment thingie – I thought I’d share this …
In reality all these men need to consider their positions, as the saying goes:
“The current SPFL Board is made up of Neil Doncaster (CEO), Ralph Topping (Chairman), Eric Riley (Celtic), Stephen Thompson (Dundee United), Duncan Fraser (Aberdeen), Eric Drysdale (Raith Rovers), Mike Mulraney (Alloa Athletic) and Ken Ferguson (Brechin City). “
Whilst the Journo’s clamour with indignation, remember the SPFL entered a secret agreement with a new club…… Remember that!!
It’s time the 5-way bed was up-ended, and the occupants tipped onto the floor to live amongst the rats they have nurtured.
And with that, the SPFL end their statement about moving the championship fixtures. WTF?!?
They are thanking SKY for messing around with fixtures in return for comparative peanuts, and making them look like a bunch of morons?!?
I think the last few years may have had unintended consequences as far as Scottish fans are concerned. It has allowed a levelling out of expectations and more focus on the domestic game, and with that, fans are beginning to question whether the piddling small amounts on offer for TV coverage are worth it.
I’m guessing that most of us attend games on here. Do YOU think it’s worth the hassle of 12.15 kick offs on a sunday on the other side of the country, just for a small handout?
I’m guessing Celtic, for example, must lose 10,000 off their crowd everytime a game is moved to a Monday evening or whatever, and other clubs , whilst not losing quite so much in numerical terms, will still see a similar relative loss to their attendances.
@STVgrant “Regan: “Paul Murray equally is being considered given he was a director of a football club in an insolvency event in previous five years”….”
Don’t you mean holding company ?
Big Pink says:
April 16, 2015 at 12:40 pm
I am sure Turnbull Hutton will be having a good chortle at all this, as he makes his last journey today
The resolution to the fixtures dispute which has been proposed this morning was the one that should have been proposed earlier without any fuss.
The broadcast request should have been foreseen; the integrity of the competition, in accordance with the universal standard of simultaneous fixtures, should have been paramount; the inconvenience to travelling supporters should have been taken into account when the broadcaster’s request was made; the clubs should have been consulted; and quite simply some common-sense should have been applied. None of this happened.
I have always been of the opinion that Neil Doncaster is simply the resident Aunt Sally in place to take the flack for the Chairmen and CEOs of the clubs, but this is not a strategic matter attributable to the faceless men who run the clubs. This is a simple administrative cockup on a scale which Laurel and Hardy would have difficulty matching – and it is quite simply a failure of the Chief Executive to achieve any level of competence at all.
Of course it is our opinion that Scottish Football is already a laughing-stock after the convolutions of the past three or four years. If Neil Doncaster survives this fecklessness, I think we may not be alone.
TheClumpany says:
April 16, 2015 at 11:52 am
“If Mr Regan views ‘sporting integrity’ (and I have seen the phrase put in inverted commas in various places – indicating it is a notion to be treated with some distain), “
———————————————————
This practice is very noticeable in print media.
In the daily Record today 😳 (my wife buys it)
entitled (back page)
“Capital rivals unite in rage”, continued on page 62,
Michael Gannon, re SPFL fixture mess ‘sporting integrity’ is in inverted commas.
This may have been because it was being used as a quote, however I have seen this quite often in print media. Like you, it appeared to me, to be a put down.
I may not be alone then.
TSFM attachment upload cool
AmFearLiathMòr says:
I’m guessing that most of us attend games on here. Do YOU think it’s worth the hassle of 12.15 kick offs on a sunday on the other side of the country, just for a small handout?
———————————
Celtic have made their view pretty clear. It’s not worth it to them , and finding an alternative to Sky who will pay an appropriate price and the appropriate respect is a high priority.
I have sympathy with smaller clubs who have less ability to replace the TV revenue, however I know that Sky are seen as a vulture by other clubs. They are not respected as a good partner . There is a view that Sky would happily see Scottish football in the gutter enabling them to focus all resources on the English market whilst still generating 10% of revenues from Scotland
http://sport.stv.tv/football/317430-regan-kings-tax-convictions-present-challenge-in-rangers-board-bid/?
Scapaflow says
April 16. 2015 @1217 pm
Well played, Ann Budge
________________________________________________
But not Leanne Dempster? I think she is just as worthy of praise here.
jimlarkin says:
April 16, 2015 at 1:42 pm
http://sport.stv.tv/football/317430-regan-kings-tax-convictions-present-challenge-in-rangers-board-bid/?
……………………………………………………….
While some outlets are starting to break ranks, it’s good to see old STV’s staunch support of the “company that ran the club” bollox.
They’ve clearly not recovered from their severe dose of Rangersitis.
One day perhaps……
Barcabhoy says:
April 16, 2015 at 1:28
…There is a view that Sky would happily see Scottish football in the gutter enabling them to focus all resources on the English market whilst still generating 10% of revenues from Scotland
———
I’m hearing more and more the possibility of a Scottish football stream app. I take it many clubs have a match-day camera or two in place already. A match-day online programme that somehow gathered these streams and offered a couple of featured matches plus live replays of goals going in elsewhere, a sort of ‘Open All Cameras’, could be worth trying. Need not be over complicated, basic stuff, modest pricing, so as to appeal to the many not the few; start a pilot project, grow the concept if successful with play-on-demand features and emphasise the broad church of Scottish football not just the same old. An alternative, perhaps mostly aimed at exiles? I’d sign up.
Since English football is on at all sorts of odd times those who still need their EPL fix could get that in the pub on the way home from a regular 3pm kick off.
New thinking needed from a younger generation. Keevins and co just don’t get it at all, judging by last night’s dinosaur chat on SSB.
jimlarkin says:
April 16, 2015 at 1:42 pm
http://sport.stv.tv/football/317430-regan-kings-tax-convictions-present-challenge-in-rangers-board-bid/?
================================================
The question is, exactly what “information” could King present to the SFA to neutralize the character flaws indicated by having 41 tax evasion convictions, each carrying a two year jail sentence. Will the information be made public so it can be challenged? Will SARs and the SA judiciary also be invited to present “information”. I’m holding my nose in anticipation of the inevitable.
Regan and Doncaster vying for Most Odious Public Figure 2015 award?
Blindsummit 63 says
April 16 2015@156pm
You got that wrong, t`was I, not Scpaflow, who failed to give credit to Leanne Demspster. This omission was caused by my lack of knowledge regarding her part.
Therefore, I now say,
Well played Leanne Dempster !
mcfc says:
April 16, 2015 at 2:13 pm
——————————-
That was my first thought, too, on listening to Regan on King. Everyone knows the reasons why he should fall foul of the SFA rules on both counts – 1. recent conviction and 2. recent involvement in the insolvency of a club, so what is Stewart telling DCK he needs to provide him with to get round that ‘obvious’ refusal?
In the Same STV report
King: He was also still on the board of directors at Rangers when the old company which operated the club went into administration in February 2012. The company subsequently entered liquidation and sold its assets to a newco.
Murray: “Paul Murray is equally being considered given that he was a director of a football club in an insolvency event in the previous five years.”
This latest fiasco neatly encapsulates the two principal issues that continually infuriate and inform the blog.
1. The perception, whether real or imagined, that one team in Scotland enjoys special treatment.
2. The whoring of the national game for TV money.
A familiar lack of any transparency means we won’t ever know exactly what informed the initial, pathetic decision to have the Hearts v Rangers game on the Sunday, but you can take your pick from the usual cocktail of incompetence, greed & corruption.
The governance of Scottish football is at the level of a banana republic.
Eoinel Jessi says:
April 16, 2015 at 2:35 pm
This latest fiasco neatly encapsulates the two principal issues that continually infuriate and inform the blog.
1. The perception, whether real or imagined, that one team in Scotland enjoys special treatment.
2. The whoring of the national game for TV money.
=========================================
And don’t forget
3. The incompetence and total lack of fitness for purpose of the governing bodies of Scottish football.
oddjob says:
April 16, 2015 at 2:14 pm
As I understand from Hibee relative, the SPFL tried twice to get Hibs to move their match as well, only to be told to “go do one”
The Cat NR1 says:
April 16, 2015 at 2:55 pm
========================================
I agree wholeheartedly.
Most depressing of all is that the powers that be appear to have learnt nothing over the last few years. They still don’t appear to understand the most basic elements of running a sporting competition: fairness and spectators.
Maybe Anne Budge represents a fresh willingness to challenge the status quo at Hampden. Forcing the Hearts v Rangers game back to the Saturday has to go down as a small win for sporting integrity, but I don’t expect it to herald the start of a new trend in that direction.
I hope I’m wrong because either Scottish football will change or it will die.
You got that wrong, t`was I, not Scpaflow, who failed to give credit to Leanne Demspster. This omission was caused by my lack of knowledge regarding her part.
Therefore, I now say,
Well played Leanne Dempster !
______________________________________________________________
My apologies to both of you then 🙂
I didn’t intend to be censorious of course, but merely to applaud Leanne’s equally good statement.
What was encouraging as a Hibs fan was to see our club actually make a statement at all. I’m also encouraged by the apparent united front with Hearts. We need more of our clubs to speak out together to hold the authorities to account.
It’s also heartening (pun intended) to perhaps see a more close working relationship between Hearts and Hibs developing. There have been years of rancor, caused by various events, which caused a poisonous atmosphere between the fans. They have become enemies instead of rivals. I for one am old enough to remember when this was not the case. Id love to see a healthy sporting only rivalry develop again between us, and this applies to all other Scottish clubs too. It’s supposed to be an exciting and enjoyable sporting contest not tribal warfare. So the emergence of Anne Budge and Leanne Dempster is a good thing for both clubs and Scottish Football in general.
Now if only we can get rid of Rod Petrie at Hibs, I could fully support my club again without reservations. One of the key players in the scandalous 5 way agreement and a firmly embedded old school blazer at the SFA. I’m ashamed of his part in the shenanigans of 2012 and for presiding over the decline of our club.
But anyway, well done Anne and Hearts and well done Leanne and Hibs. Let’s have some more please!
jean7brodie says:
April 16, 2015 at 11:46 am
Regan: “[Tax convictions] obviously a challenge for him and the club to try and present a case whereby the board can view it positively.”
Twitter, Grant Russell!!!!!
=============================================
Good grief.
Even when Regan does finally say something, it is management-speak gibberish.
A middle manager stuck in the headlights and totally out of his depth in an executive position.
Surely we deserve something better? (that last bit was rhetorical, of course)
Jamie Borthwick @jamiekborthwick 2m2 minutes ago
We’ve spoken to Ann Budge about the fixtures farce. She says it’s another reason to review the way Scottish football is run. @STVSport
Jamie Borthwick @jamiekborthwick 2m2 minutes ago
Budge: “Blatant disregard of what happens to supporters is a recipe for disaster” – full interview coming up on http://sport.stv.tv
I almost feel sorry for the Hampden Organ Grinders, almost
Edit
Steviebc
Not all the journos
“Ewan Murray @mrewanmurray 2m2 minutes ago
Guess what’s missing from these appalling SPFL statements? Any form of apology whatsoever to supporters. That’s the arrogance of these folk.”
Just in case anyone was in any doubt, the SPFL confirms to all and sundry;
– what a shambolic organisation it really is
&
– how the paying customers are continually treated like crap.
Putting everything else that has happened over the last 3 years to one side: in the real world this fixture cock-up would result in someone falling on their sword.
It should be Doncaster – but he’ll probably get a bonus !
Will the SMSM follow up on this particular shambles…? [I know, :slamb: ]
Forgive me if I am wrong but was today not the day for the SFA inquiry into TRFC and dual ownership issues?
Feck me, clearly the MBA course at the University of East Anglia, does not teach self-awareness
“Doncaster’s own self belief in that he is doing a great job in the corridors of power, extends to boasting about it to the University of East Anglia where he obtained an MBA.
He claimed: “When I came to apply for the post of Chief Executive of the Scottish Premier League, I had a strong sense of self-belief; I knew I could do that job. I knew that I was a resourceful and multitalented manager, capable of working at the highest level, in all areas of the role from finance to handling the media. And thanks to the MBA coursework, I felt as if there wasn’t really any major chink in my armour – there wasn’t any area of business in which I hadn’t had some relevant experience.””
http://www.scotzine.com/2015/04/spfl-more-bungles-than-an-episode-of-rainbow/
EDIT
Are we about to see U Turn number 2, send in the feckin clowns
Following yesterday’s announcement of the post-split fixtures the club can confirm Chairman, Jim Mann, has written to the Chief Executive of the SPFL in protest of the unfair treatment Kilmarnock FC have received.
In particular the club has highlighted the following issues:
1) The Club has two home fixtures post-split which means the Club will have played 18 home games and 20 away games by the end of the season.
2) The Club’s request to host a home fixture on Saturday 25 April, to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the 1964/65 season, was simply denied.
Speaking about yesterday’s fixture announcement Jim Mann stated “I feel very aggravated about the contents of the post-split fixtures and have protested in the strongest possible fashion to the SPFL. I do not feel our request to host a home fixture to coincide with the 50th Anniversary of the Club’s only title success was unreasonable and I felt that I had a duty to our fans, most importantly our season ticket holders, to speak up”.
Since sending the letter the Club has received a response from the SPFL and there will be a meeting to address the issues raised.
mcfc says:
April 16, 2015 at 2:13 pm
Regan and Doncaster vying for Most Odious Public Figure 2015 award?
=========================================================
Calling Regan a public figure is questionable, as he seems to have spent most of time barricaded in the bunker playing happy families with RCO.
Howard Hughes was seen more often.
feck me too-save me from the man who believes that he knows things. Adding self delusion to an MBA is surely very bad medicine…
scapaflow says:
April 16, 2015 at 4:05 pm
Feck me, clearly the MBA course at the University of East Anglia, does not teach self-awareness
“Doncaster’s own self belief in that he is doing a great job in the corridors of power, extends to boasting about it to the University of East Anglia where he obtained an MBA.
He claimed: “When I came to apply for the post of Chief Executive of the Scottish Premier League, I had a strong sense of self-belief; I knew I could do that job. I knew that I was a resourceful and multitalented manager, capable of working at the highest level, in all areas of the role from finance to handling the media. And thanks to the MBA coursework, I felt as if there wasn’t really any major chink in my armour – there wasn’t any area of business in which I hadn’t had some relevant experience.””
http://www.scotzine.com/2015/04/spfl-more-bungles-than-an-episode-of-rainbow/
====================================================================
Hmm.
If you ask anyone who lives in the Norwich area about ND, you will get a range of answers, none of which back up his opinion of his own worth.
However, that quote does not surprise me in the slightest.
Doncaster must be getting mentored by a chap with big hands, who lives in France ?
Maybe this ridiculous fixture mess could generate some momentum, and could be the unexpected catalyst to force some changes at the SPFL – and even the SFA ?
I know, but God loves a trier ! 😉
The Scottish Security is the agreement between SD and TRFCL solely covering the UK Registered Trade Marks. In time it may even become a term used very much in the way ‘The Scottish Play’ is mentioned.
It has been drawn-up to ensure the Security Assignation between TRFCL and SD is governed and construed in all respects in accordance with the Law of Scotland and for the benefit of SD, TRFCL irrevocably submits to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the Scottish Courts but without prejudicing the ability of SD to proceed against TRFCL in any other appropriate jurisdiction.
The document may actually be the ‘Back Letter’ referred to by Paul Murray as guaranteeing TRFCL still owns its UK-registered TMs. If so he must have helluva big empty back pockets.
The Charge explains that SD had agreed to provide a loan to TRFCL conditional on TRFCL first assigning the TMs to SD as security. As part of the Assignation SD granted TRFCL a conditional licence to use the TMs.
OK I’m not a lawyer nor is Paul Murray afaik but I admit being puzzled over why TRFCL, if it still owns the TMs, needs a licence to use them. However I’ll leave that one for the legal minds and deal with the more mundane issues that might be of more importance.
Worth noting: The Scottish Security doesn’t appear to cover overseas TMs nor the Rangers domain names.
The licence granted to TRFCL by SD is an exclusive royalty-free licence allowing TRFCL the use of the UK registered Rangers trade marks until the TMs are reassigned to TRFCL by SD on the irrevocable repayment of the loan or full discharge of the Security Liabilities.
No problems with that but there is another condition which could be a BIG problem:
The problem is we don’t know what these Default Events are so have no idea how likely they are to occur. I’m also not clear of the position if SD is aware of them but decides not to demand repayment of the loan. If that weakens the SD position then it might end-up in an insolvency event even though SD might not want to go down that road.
But TRFCL has agreed to pay or discharge to SD all the Secured Liabilities on demand in writing when they become due for payment or discharge ‘whether by acceleration or otherwise’. And I ponder the possible full meaning of those final words which suggest to me that the loan, with apparently no fixed repayment date, can be called in by the Lender simply by issuing a demand to pay notice within a specified period.
And this is where the nut can tighten at warp speed:
And the speed of action comes with SD already in pole position because they already have the power of attorney over the Securities before there’s even a Default Event:
So a Default IMO could prove fatal to TRFCL if SD wields its legal rights and even if it doesn’t it appears they might force the new Board to wave the white flag and depart with its walking wounded but leaving the bulk of a broken, defeated and dispirited army behind with Ashley as the only financially viable game in town.
Will the fans change sides? I actually think a helluva lot of them won’t and will simply throw in the towel. Many will find other sports and activities and will be lost to football probably forever but a few might actually form a new club. Obviously it would have to have a new name, new badges and new crests and create a new history
You know for those Bears with their thinking caps on it might well be worth ditching a helluva lot of the history. But it’s up to them, as always.
I know what has happened at Ibrox doesn’t amount to the definition of a ‘poison pill’ or at least I don’t think it does. But I wonder if the new Board had been aware that not a scrap of security was going to be left behind by the outgoing Board whether they would have continued with their plans or even bought any shares in the club.
But there’s a more disturbing side to all of this: The documents revealing all of the asset charges were published on Companies House between 10-11 February 2015, That was nearly a month before DK and T3B seized control at the egm.
Possibly all the distraction with changing locations and dates for the egm deflected attention from the real business being done. It beggars belief that the incomers weren’t aware the Ibrox cupboards were bare. If not? Why not?
If that’s the level of ability of then they shouldn’t be taking Ashley on but quietly crawl away and hope he forgets about them but I doubt that. Where were their advisors? Many berate Jack Irvine – often with good reason – but he is a PR professional down to his toenails and a good hack in his day.
He would never have missed those Companies House announcements. The SMSM missed them but that is par for the course and, of course, so did the Bears because they don’t have the required obsession to look below the surface and ignore the Leader Speak.
I think there’s going to be a helluva price to pay by a helluva lot of people for the terrible errors in judgement and diligence that have taken place in pursuit of a dead myth. It’s going to hurt badly but Rangers are about to arrive at their Rightful Place IMO.
Carfins Finest says:
April 16, 2015 at 3:58 pm
Forgive me if I am wrong but was today not the day for the SFA inquiry into TRFC and dual ownership issues?
———————————————————————-
Yes it is indeed scheduled for today after being adjourned last month at the request of the RRM.
Surely with Ashley taking control of all registered trademarks it is now a cut and dried case. This is afterall following on from the SFA saying he can have no more further influence.
It is the SFA though so I’ll reserve judgement until they come out with a formal statement
One thing living down here in England and forgive me my ignorance but why is there A Split in the League.. I have never understood it.. maybe someone can explain it to me.. thx
Taken from Stewart Regan’s Wikipedia entry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewart_Regan
“In response to these events, Regan pledged to make the Scottish game more “urgent, transparent and speedy””
That was in respose to the Dallas email incident. Hugh that is, not the Cowboys.
Did they miss off the final bit that said, “when it comes to dealing with 41 members of the SPL/SFL”?
If not, what has happened in the meantime that means that a straightforward FPP decision is taking longer than a Graham Wallace review? TRFC could delay their self-certification in perpetuity given the level of inertia on the sixth floor, or is that the idea?
Pie man,
Basically clubs 3-16 in the pecking order were desperate to play 4 times against Celtic and Rangers, and the only way to do it and ensure they could get as many teams as possible a cut of that pie (no pun intended) was to have a 12 team league where the diddies prize for finishing top 6 would give them the 4 games
12 team league would have meant 44 games without a split, a 10 team league would have meant some diddies missing out.
While welcoming Stewart Regan’s comments about the King FPP investigation as being far more hard hitting than I’d expect anyone of our current football governors to make, I feel there’s another area they should be considering over and above King’s historic massive failings (and they are massive, the guy’s a criminal!).
King’s recent involvement with RIFC/TRFC should be examined by the SFA as well. How could anyone who has been involved in calling for a boycott of a club, any club, be considered fit and proper to run any club? Calling for a boycott is bad enough, but it becomes even worse when he actually instigates a very successful boycott, losing a club possibly millions of pounds in revenue, and all so that he can manoeuvre himself into the boardroom of that club! He then usurps the board of that club using statements that are later found to be, at best, exaggerations; misleading, not only the shareholders, but the supporters as well. He has made promises of massive investment, without which he wouldn’t have got near the boardroom, that, despite the obvious urgency for money, have been (the promises) reduced to silence let alone not even resulting in money being trickled in.
Unless King turns up at Hampden with a cheque made out to RIFC for many millions, to prove his word is that of a reformed man, then his assertions that his past record should be dismissed shouldn’t even be considered. Without that money to back his claims, he is no better than a Craig Whyte, and that should be obvious to Regan and all the other SFA hierarchy!
Also something that should be taken into consideration is this: if he can instigate a successful boycott of the club he professes to love, what might he be prepared to do to other clubs that might stand in his, or TRFC’s, way?
Allyjambo says:
April 16, 2015 at 4:42 pm
At the risk of stealing Goosey’s thunder, it does feel that there might be several possible motives behind this “delay” in DCK sending in his mitigation evidence.
Drawing out the process may turn out to be very convenient for him