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.
ecobhoy says:
April 17, 2015 at 11:13 am
TBK says:
April 17, 2015 at 10:55 am
ecobhoy:
April 17, 2015 at 10:51 am
my thoughts too!
Interesting if you read …….
“8.2.2 The Chargor shall cease using the Intellectual Property Rights immediately.” in the context of Allyjambo post at 9:58 am.
Now I’m not suggesting for a minute that it is the current situation…. but it is plausible!
——————————————————–
If you look at the kit you will see that the badge used is the badge I keep banging-on about viz the one that doesn’t appear to be trademarked anywhere.
It doesn’t even appear in the schedule of badges and crests contained in the contract documentation between TRFCL and SD wrt the £5 million loan.
It’s a real puzzler for me because I know SD wouldn’t use the badge on kit it sold without either owning the badge or having a licence to use it.
————————————
Is that badge not jointly owned by Green and Stockbridge?
I’m relying on memory here but i’m sure Ashley did not have all the IP locked down.
Given all roads seem to lead back to Rangers, I am finding my infrequent contributions on here more akin to an addiction to gossip in the steamy, than providing any real contribution to the deep structural issues surrounding Scottish football.
readcelt says:
April 17, 2015 at 11:48 am
“Given all roads seem to lead back to Rangers, I am finding my infrequent contributions on here more akin to an addiction to gossip in the steamy, than providing any real contribution to the deep structural issues surrounding Scottish football.”
Thats a good point, FWIW, I have come to the conclusion, that a final resolution to the Ranger’s issue, is a key milestone on the critical path to wider reform.
Hearts & Hibs have hopefully sent the first stones rumbling down the mountain, but, the key boulder is Rangers, (I’m going to run this analogy right off the cliff
), once that boulder is dislodged, the progress towards reform will become unstoppable.
Right now, the Ranger’s issue sucks resources and energy out of the effort for wider reform, clear that roadblock, and reform becomes possible.
EDIT
Strictly speaking Auldheid et al’s efforts are actually the first pebble, hopefully it will also generate momentum for change
I see that Jackie McNamara is advocating a top league of 16/18 teams. I couldn’t agree more, but with one proviso – it isn’t introduced until the end of next season.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32348963
Ecobhoy my comment on emotive language was not aimed at you in any way, if it were so I would have said so. I should have been more specific about identifying the Daily Record and its response to SD trying to sell more polyester blue tops earlier than they claim is usual. When I was at school we had a communist teacher of Latin who when he saw a pupil with a DR that he should not read it because it was tailored to a reading age of 12. My guess is that the current reading age of the paper is less than that. That is for a huge variety of reasons including the emergence of the digital native for whom physical news media is a curious relic of a bygone age.
As to selling the jerseys that was more of a west of Scotland double entendre than a literal statement of fact. I meant it more in a “sellt the jerseys sense”. As I have said before apart from other lthings I am trained in Theology and that kind of double meaning of words apparently appeals to a strongly intuitive type of mind rather than a strongly practical type.
I guess that I should be less cryptic but that would break the habit of a lifetime
As another payday looms at Ibrox with the source of the next emergency loan in some doubt, I’d love to see the list of creditors. Any public services or public companies will have some explaining to do if insolvency materializes. How many warnings do these creditors need that this is a sub-sub-sub-sub-prime company. Even a face painter would not get much sympathy for their loss this time around.
bfbpuzzled says:
April 17, 2015 at 12:13 pm
Funny you should mention reading age in the Record. Kezia Dugdale got some stick recently for poor grammar in her pieces. It turns out, that when columnists submit content to the Record, it is re-written in the “house” style. So, its not necessarily the columnists who are functionally illiterate
Eco – TRFC/RIFC need a free licence from SD to use hhe trademarks because SD are the owners – 100% – TRFC/RIFC have no rights whatsoever except those granted by SD – free or for money – albeit only until the loan is repaid. Without the free licence from SD, TRFC/RIFC would have no rights whatsoever to use any of these trademarks for any purposes, anywhere: website, stadium, tickets, stationary, ST books, shirts, Broxi, blazers etc. This is despite TRFC/RIFC claiming in a club staement that “Rangers remain the rightful and legal owners of their trademarks” which is utter nonsense – underlined by the need for SD to grant them a licence to use them for the duration of the loan. TRFC/RIFC were the owners, SD are the owners, TRFC/RIFC will be the owners again if and only if they repay the £5mil loan to SD.
As an aside, I wonder if AIM would have allowed a statement with such an obviously misleading and nonsensical claim. Maybe be a positive side effect of de-listing.
Seriously, don’t get me started on Ferguson at Clyde this season.
When he came in, it was all about using our youth system to populate our team, replacing Stefan McLuskey etc. with these fresh new talents. That went out the window after about a week, and instead we had a rash of what I can only describe as panic signings.
Come January, and with us in serious danger of finishing last and getting involved in a play off against a team with a winning habit, he basically jettisoned what was left of Duffy’s team, along with several of his summer signings, and filled the side with players who were well into their 30’s, and in several cases I mean WELL INTO. Clearly, having the Cardigan as a mentor made some impression.
We’ve started to pick up the odd win here and there, and combined with Montrose being the worst football team I’ve ever watched in my life, we’ve pulled away from bottom place. However, come next season when McLaughlin, Roberts, Murray etc. retire, then we’re back to square one again.
Apparently, Ferguson works very hard as Clyde manager, but you’ll have to take the word of our chairman for that, because the only public profile he has is unofficial Sevco spokesman in the DR – or rather, unofficial spokesman for a faction within Sevco.
I can’t tell you how irritating it was when we were in freefall, yet the only public utterances we got from our manager were all about the footballing car crash at Ibrox…..
I’ve said it before, but we have enough problems attracting fans due to our diddy club image, without our manager helping to foster that impression by only ever being seen to talk about another club.
He may settle into it and turn the club around, afterall it took Jim Duffy 3 seasons to get us to the playoffs, but I doubt he’ll be there that long. No doubt, in a Roy Keane fashion, Hamilton or someone will want him because he’s a ‘big’ name, regardless of his less than stellar managerial record.
Yes, if only Bazza’s stenographer “had of” done some simple fact-checking – but I digress. If, as suggested above, Rangers can be prevented from (or are even required to stop!) using Sports Direct’s intellectual property in the event of a default on the loan, would that mean they can no longer play under the name Rangers?
https://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmcase/Results/1/UK00001407531
stevo says:
April 17, 2015 at 1:04 pm
Yes, if only Bazza’s stenographer “had of” done some simple fact-checking – but I digress. If, as suggested above, Rangers can be prevented from (or are even required to stop!) using Sports Direct’s intellectual property in the event of a default on the loan, would that mean they can no longer play under the name Rangers?
https://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmcase/Results/1/UK00001407531
==========================================================
Yes, on default, SD become 100% permanent legal owners of the trandemarks specificed in the agreement. SD could licence them to anyone they chose: for any fee opr free, for use in some/all territories, for some/all purposes for a fix/variable period. SD would probaby get the biggest fees from a football club playing at Ibrox, but SD could decide against this at their sole discretion and grant all right to a tanning salon in Billericay or the grooming parlour next door.
mcfc @12.28 p.m
‘……Any public services or public companies will have some explaining to do…..’
———————
Regretably, I have not mastered the art of firing off successful FOI requests to public authorities, about, say, the amounts currently owed to ,say, The Police Service of Scotland ( I hate and fear the almost – to my mind- fascist ” Police Scotland” and the suspect philosophy behind such a name.But that is for another forum).
maybe someone on the blog might submit such a request? In respect of any of our money-spending authorities?
y
Oops! I’ve checked- ‘regrettably’ does have two ‘ t’s.
Even Homer nods, as they say.
stevo says:
April 17, 2015 at 1:04 pm
===============================================
Stevo – I mmeant to add . . .
Also if any football club, tanning salon or grooming parlour used the trademarks without specific permission from SD they would be in clear breach of trademark law and could be sued to cease and desist. SD would have a watertight case and would probably ask for substantial damages. And anyone using any word, phrase or symbol likely to give the impression of some connection with the trademarked words, phrases and symbols would be open to legal action by SD for “passing of”. That is aiming to gain benefit from pretending to be something you are not – vis-à-vis trademarks. . For example:
Starbucks tells village shop to remove ‘lookalike’ sign – BBC …
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-mid-wales-11318367
echobhoy Apr 17 10:32am.
Are we not dangerously close to the situation where a 10, 20, or 30grand creditor just says “enough is enough, I don’t even support Sevco” and demands payment. When nothing is forthcoming, he pushes them over the cliff.
You guys know all the technical terms, and can elaborate further.
I’ve no doubt when the post event creditors list is released, we will find more than a few suppliers who had not insisted on COD.
readcelt says:
April 17, 2015 at 11:48 am
I am finding my infrequent contributions on here more akin to an addiction to gossip in the steamy, than providing any real contribution to the deep structural issues surrounding Scottish football.
___________________
Interesting point, could it be that the whole RFC/TRFC saga is merely a squirrel to deflect us from the truly incompetent management and corrupt environment that Scottish football operates in? Meanwhile Doncaster and Regan pocket pay increases and bonuses.
TBK says:
April 17, 2015 at 10:19 am
Allyjambo:
———————-
…….. I’m not sure I understand? I thought Bike Mike had the merchandising deal stitched up in any case? That includes the so called ‘megastore’…
=================================================================================
Perhaps they hope that a lot of their fans will forget that and when the clamour goes up, make it available via Rangers Retail, etc
scapaflow says:
April 17, 2015 at 12:40 pm
Illiteracy?
“Barry Ferguson: If league had of been so worried about ‘sporting integrity’ back in 2008 then Rangers might have given Scotland a European trophy”
😥 😥 😥
ecobhoy says:
April 17, 2015 at 11:07 am
bfbpuzzled says:
April 17, 2015 at 10:47 am
…
And I think that’s the issue that angers a lot of Bears because they claim there were valid and better choices available that the Rangers Board chose to ignore in favour of Sd and MASH as well IIRC.
They may well be right – I just don’t know although it may well be that determination of the issue might well be decided in court.
…..
From what I remember, discussions were held pre – LFA with King & the 3B.
From what I recall a great deal of noise emanated from the King camp about the favourable finance and terms they had been prepared to offer against those on offer from SDH, whereas L,L&S cited the absence of acceptable ‘proof of funds’ as the reason for not ‘accepting’ the requisitioners ‘alleged’ loan finance.
The King camp railed at the time, insisting this was not the case, and such proof had been provided.
(Bear in mind that the board previously had accepted £1m in short term loans from Letham, and other similar loans on IIRC quite equitable terms terms from Easedales.)
This rebuttal of their ‘alleged’ loan finance was used by the King camp to stir up considerable disgruntlement among the bears, and became a rallying point for the boycott they orchestrated.
Now I would venture to suggest that recent events – particularly the non repayment of the £5m from the LFA, as well as speculation around the difficulty the requisitioners are having w.r.t. securing funding for April’s payroll, might perhaps weigh in support of the boards issued version of events at the time, and agin that of the King camp.
Specifically, PmcG suggests that Letham’s attempts to borrow recently on behalf of the club were not favourably received.
And his implication that SDH have estimated that – outwith King – (whose finances are intractable) the other RRM (including Park who is hors de combat pro tem, according to Phil) have only about £3m in total available liquidity.
This leads me to very much doubt what king was saying about having provided proof of funds to the board prior to the LFA being effected.
As Llambias said when being hounded by the lambmuchers,… “Ask Dave KIng… Where’s his Finance? Where’s his NOMAD?”
I don’t think these were the words of a man who had seen ‘Proof of funding’ but decided to ignore it.
Resin_lab_dog says:
April 17, 2015 at 1:41 pm
Unfortunately we can speculate all we like but that’s why I suggested perhaps the only way to get anywhere near an objecrive judgement on the merits is through a court case. I would certainly welcome that.
As to what any of the parties involved in this affair states – well I take them with buckets of salt – they all have axes to grind IMO. I’m lucky in that I don’t because it’s not my club and I don’t have any contract profits to worry about.
As to anyone raising money in The City to invest in Rangers well I think even Ashley might struggle with that one 😆
mcfc says:
April 17, 2015 at 1:29 pm
—————————–
…..and you’re worried about the trademarks?!?!? Reminds me of something else, but I can’t quite remember what, haha.
I was recently discussing a “same car” argument with a car salesman…. He used the following description as I considered purchasing one of the motor vehicles…
How about these wee numbers Sir…..Its a lovely blue colour, registration plate is “R4NQ3RS”……Its had a few owners in recent times and it recently changed its registration due to it being written off in a bad smash. The bodywork is the same but the engine has undergone some major upgrades with non standard (replica) parts. Some of the parts were sold off to finance another similar model. The badge is missing at the moment, but we hope to get that sorted out soon as a new one is on order. It still has most of its original parts. The log book is missing and we’re not really sure of its service history, but it looks every bit the original that rolled off the production line.…… or you could choose this one sir!……… “Its a lovely racing green colour, “C4LT1C”,…..One careful owner…. Same registration since manufacture, however it did changed to a Private Plate in 1994. We have all the original sales documentation. The engine, bodywork have undergone some minor upgrades and its had new tyres fitted due to wear and tear, its still has all its original parts and a full service history by the manufacturer noted in the log book. It still has an extended warranty and its a lovely example for year……
…..Essentially they’re the same make an model… its just down to which colour sir prefers though….. Honest gov!”
BorrowaTenner says:
April 17, 2015 at 1:31 pm
echobhoy Apr 17 10:32am.
Are we not dangerously close to the situation where a 10, 20, or 30grand creditor just says “enough is enough, I don’t even support Sevco” and demands payment. When nothing is forthcoming, he pushes them over the cliff.
——————————————————————
It’s always a difficult one for creditors. Some who get in early might get paid to dampen down tales that a company is on its uppers.
Others just cling-on in the hope that the company will survive and they always get fed tales of mañana mañana which of course seldom arrives.
And then it’s all over and if you’re lucky pennies in the £. As all the Rangers assets appear to be well tied-up – and I leave Ibrox out because I don’t know the position there – IMO creditors won’t even get pennies.
And that can put other businesses under and cost jobs and the spiral just widens.
ecobhoy says:
April 17, 2015 at 2:03 pm
Resin_lab_dog says:
April 17, 2015 at 1:41 pm
As to anyone raising money in The City to invest in Rangers well I think even Ashley might struggle with that one 😆
_________________________________________
I don’t think Letham was trying to raise finds in the city. According to PmcG it was his own bankers he approached.
And I am not speculating about what Llambias said to the press (‘Show us your finance? Show us your NOMAD’). That is a matter of public record.
As are the boards statements and those of DCK around the time the loan facility was setup. These are matters of fact not opinion.
Was DCK’s denouncement of the LFA used by him to rally the bears to the EGM cause? Well that is a matter of opinion and interpretation I accept, but I would suggest that most people’s opinions and interpretation would be that he probably did somewhat?
And would Llambias so vehemntly have challenged DCK to provide proof of finance, immediately after the EGM, if he had actually already seen clear evidence in January that those funds were in place and readily available?
He may well have. But I would say that it is – perhaps unlikely – since he would seem to have nothing to gain by doing so.
There are 2 persons (Llambias and King) with divergent views expressed very publicly on a single point (… the proof of funding relating to the January loan offer from the DCK consortium).
This single point is a pivotal one in the RIFC story so far.
At least one of the gentlemen must be lying.
And It would move things forward in the whole narrative if we could establish for sure which one.
One of the gentleman has 41 prior tax convictions and was called a liar by a High court judge.
The other has no criminal convictions and a business reputation to uphold.
I accept this proves nothing, but it is relevent circumstantial supporting evidence imo.
mcfc says:
April 17, 2015 at 12:45 pm
Eco – TRFC/RIFC need a free licence from SD to use hhe trademarks
—————————————————————–
I think you have completely the missed the point I was making which is the crest on the new season’s kit isn’t registered on any Trade Mark Register as far as I can trace.
It also isn’t even included in the list of Rangers Trade Marks specified in the six charges recently filed at Companies House in connection with the loan facility.
The other points you raised I am well aware of and have posted wrt them on previous occasions.
Re the IP ownership around the interlocking RFC logo
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/charlie-and-the-badge-kissers/
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/quite-an-image/
I guess those stories now ask more questions than they answer regards who owns what now and how many pieces of the pie MA has actually got hold of.
Resin_lab_dog:
April 17, 2015 at 2:19 pm
and some peddle the myth (PR) that the reason the T3B loan offer of £6.5m was rejected as “It is understood that Llambias wanted a guarantee that the Park consortium would not vote against James Easdale when an extraordinary general meeting is held in a few weeks. The consortium would not agree to that and its offer of emergency funding was turned down, with a £10m loan package from Sports Direct tycoon Mike Ashley approved by the board instead.”
LLambias was also asked directly by STV if the 2nd tranche of funds had been drawn down…. Asked why Rangers have begun the process of drawing down the second £5m of Mike Ashley’s £10m loan, he replied: “Because we have to. We have a duty to.”
Llambias was further asked: “Is Mr King not able to provide those funds?”. He replied: “Has he offered to provide funds? No he hasn’t”……
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/312723-derek-llambias-asks-where-is-dave-kings-nomad-and-questions-funds/
Resin_lab_dog says:
April 17, 2015 at 2:19 pm
I accept this proves nothing,
——————————————–
I agree with that and indeed that was the point made in my post that only in a court case have we any chance of hearing evidence that might allow an objective judgement to be made.
TBK says:
April 17, 2015 at 10:19 am
Allyjambo:
April 17, 2015 at 9:58 am
…….. I’m not sure I understand? I thought Bike Mike had the merchandising deal stitched up in any case? That includes the so called ‘megastore’….
___________________________
The thing is, the bears will understand now!
Their Messiah, King, led them to believe he would take care of everything…including that upstart Ashley!
TheClumpany says:
April 17, 2015 at 9:26 am
Have a Clumptastic Thursday!
——————————————
It has often been said that I “don’t know what day it is…”
Please don’t ever put me in charge of arranging SPFL fixtures…
Have a great FRIDAY, everyone…
ecobhoy says:
April 17, 2015 at 2:25 pm
============================================
Your increasing tetchiness is not good for you. I simply answered your question from earlier (see below). I’ll think twice before engaging with you again. I imagine others have alredy doing this.
ecobhoy says:
April 16, 2015 at 4:20 pm
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.
ecobhoy says:
April 17, 2015 at 10:51 am
Just a thought, and maybe not got this right, but aren’t TRFC contractually obliged to make up any shortfall in merchandise sales? Isn’t it the case that, if the bears don’t stump up for strips, it costs the club, not SD? Probably costs a couple of million if no strips are sold!
Was the saying, ‘…between a rock and a hard place’ coined down Govan way?
I hadn’t really thought about this before, but perhaps stating the obvious, if TRFC had stormed ahead to win the Championship, season ticket money could have been replenishing the coffers by now. As it is, they won’t know which Division they will be in and therefore presumably what they can reasonably price at until maybe the end of May?
Great to hear Ann Budge and Leanne Dempster pushing “sporting integrity” by the way. Cavalier press comment from SPFL along the sentiment of so what if the final Championship fixture is a day later betrays an extraordinary lack of appreciation of what integrity actually means!
readcelt says:
April 17, 2015 at 11:48 am
ecobhoy says:
April 17, 2015 at 11:13 am
Is that badge not jointly owned by Green and Stockbridge? I’m relying on memory here but i’m sure Ashley did not have all the IP locked down.
—————————————————————-
There have been claims that various people – including Green & Stockbridge – owned the RFC Scroll Crest topped by the 5 stars but I have never seen a shred of hard evidence to back it up.
I’ve posted a number of times about the issue but in condensed form that badge doesn’t appear to be registered on any official Trade Mark Registers. The RFC Scroll element of the badge was registered to TRFCL until the recent SD transfer.
And that’s the important point IMO because although the RFC Scroll has had 5 stars added it doesn’t make it a legally separate and distinct TM and even if it slipped through the registration net it could be successfully challenged.
The only way IMO anyone could own or be licencsed to use it is if TRFCL gave permission. That might well have happened but . . .
The Scroll Crest and stars was first used by Rangers IIRC in 2004 which long predates Green & Stockwell.
As I say a bit of a mystery and there’s no doubt it has been replacing the ‘Ready’ badge. Could be a marketing/branding preference but perhaps someone is earning money from its use.
ecobhoy says:
April 17, 2015 at 2:32 pm
Resin_lab_dog says:
April 17, 2015 at 2:19 pm
I agree with that and indeed that was the point made in my post that only in a court case have we any chance of hearing evidence that might allow an objective judgement to be made.
================
Well we know one of the parties would almost certainly be telling the truth in court. Presumably South Africa doesn’t have such stringent rules on contempt of court and perjury because its a big surprise the other party hasn’t got additional convictions for one or both of those given what the judge said about him. 😉
Allyjambo says:
April 17, 2015 at 2:50 pm
ecobhoy says:
April 17, 2015 at 10:51 am
Just a thought, and maybe not got this right, but aren’t TRFC contractually obliged to make up any shortfall in merchandise sales? Isn’t it the case that, if the bears don’t stump up for strips, it costs the club, not SD? Probably costs a couple of million if no strips are sold!
Was the saying, ‘…between a rock and a hard place’ coined down Govan way?
———————————————————-
I thought of that but was never sure from the bit in the accounts whether it was some kind of a one-off because of the change of shirt sponsor.
It seems impossible to believe that Rangers would sign a contract allowing a supplier to supply as many shirts as the supplier thought the company would seel and if that figure wasn’t reached then the company got paid for the shortfall.
But if the company jointly agreed with the supplier on a production estimate possible to get a keener cost price well they’ve got to be in the ball park with estimates or it costs.
Of course one would think there would be a variation clause from year to year especially in the rather unusual situation Rangers was in wrt starting in SFL3.
But maybe none of the masterminds at the club thought of that. Of course perhaps the shirt sales was a bit like the bonus payments and automarically went up each year 😆
ecobhoy:
April 17, 2015 at 2:25 pm
see readcelt post at 2:29 pm
Re the IP ownership around the interlocking RFC logo
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/charlie-and-the-badge-kissers/
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/quite-an-image/
Rumour I know, but Phil has been pretty much ‘on the mark’ as these things go….
despite not being an award winning stenographer……
tykebhoy says:
April 17, 2015 at 3:02 pm
ecobhoy says:
April 17, 2015 at 2:32 pm
I agree with that and indeed that was the point made in my post that only in a court case have we any chance of hearing evidence that might allow an objective judgement to be made.
================
Well we know one of the parties would almost certainly be telling the truth in court. Presumably South Africa doesn’t have such stringent rules on contempt of court and perjury because its a big surprise the other party hasn’t got additional convictions for one or both of those given what the judge said about him. 😉
————————————————————
I have to admit that if I was facing a possible 84 year jail sentence then I would have told bigger lies than DK. The difference is the court would have found me NG and awarded huge expenses in my favour 😎 Just call me Shady 😆
TheClumpany says:
April 17, 2015 at 2:38 pm
TheClumpany says:
April 17, 2015 at 9:26 am
Have a Clumptastic Thursday!
——————————————
It has often been said that I “don’t know what day it is…”
Please don’t ever put me in charge of arranging SPFL fixtures…
Have a great FRIDAY, everyone…
————-
Oh what’s a mere 24 hours in this endless saga? 😆
Btw, nice to see you posting here Your Clumpness, I regularly titter my way through you twitter timeline. If only some of that light-hearted banter could filter over here.
Excellent idea to quote one’s posts too, you’re now the second poster on this blog with that distinction
Re the new strip.
Is it therefore possible for MA to:-
1. Sell strips now before the clumpany goes bust and get some money in up front
AND
2. Have unsold strips guaranteed by the clumpany and therefore increase the % of debt controlled in the event of administration
He’s not daft, is he?
ecobhoy says:
April 17, 2015 at 2:13 pm
BorrowaTenner says:
April 17, 2015 at 1:31 pm
echobhoy Apr 17 10:32am.
Are we not dangerously close to the situation where a 10, 20, or 30grand creditor just says “enough is enough, I don’t even support Sevco” and demands payment. When nothing is forthcoming, he pushes them over the cliff.
——————————————————————
It’s always a difficult one for creditors. Some who get in early might get paid to dampen down tales that a company is on its uppers.
Others just cling-on in the hope that the company will survive and they always get fed tales of mañana mañana which of course seldom arrives.
And then it’s all over and if you’re lucky pennies in the £. As all the Rangers assets appear to be well tied-up – and I leave Ibrox out because I don’t know the position there – IMO creditors won’t even get pennies.
And that can put other businesses under and cost jobs and the spiral just widens.
——————————————————————
ecobhoy
Thank you for that, please excuse the bad manners for misspelling your name earlier.
With all the worthwhile assets tied down by Mr. Ashley., I wonder if HMRC would have any luck aquiring Ibrox (future leaseback), should RIFC fall foul of their own incompetance.
bfbpuzzled says:
April 17, 2015 at 12:13 pm
I guess that I should be less cryptic but that would break the habit of a lifetime.
——————————————————–
No stay as you are – you gave me a laugh and it shows why it’s better to question than sit and fester 😆
I will continue to plow my Missionary Way whether it’s practical or not as I’m an eternal optimist secure in the knowledge that things could always be much worse 😉
Cygnus X2 says:
April 17, 2015 at 3:15 pm
Re the new strip.
Is it therefore possible for MA to:-
1. Sell strips now before the clumpany goes bust and get some money in up front
AND
2. Have unsold strips guaranteed by the clumpany and therefore increase the % of debt controlled in the event of administration
He’s not daft, is he?
—————————————
The one fly in the ointment might be Ibrox IMO. If Rangers go under he owns all the important bits to launch a fully functioning football club except a stadium.
I suppose there are groundshare opportunities. But if Ibrox was out of the picture would Bears still demand to remain Ibrox-based? And perhaps Ibrox isn’t out of the picture.
Just think, he gets everything bar a stadium for £5 million. He can sell the whole kit and caboodle for £10 million and double his money. The Bears mean nothing to him. Any problems with Ibrox and left to whoever buys the rest from AShley.
Obviously Ashley might get funny money for the assets he holds and of course built into any sale will be a long-term contract to SD to continue supplying/selling kit.
A nice bit of business in anybody’s book. Quite simply if DK and T3B can’t scrape the money together to survive the next buyer of Rangers won’t be a RRM because there era will have passed.
It will probably be an overseas owner – low down on the billionaire radar scale – who wants to own a cut-price vanity project. Could well be someone from China or India who might well be interested in developing the game back home as well.
I really see the end of Ibrox in that kind of scenario but it will be too big, too expensive and too dilapidated. A nice modern, cheap to run stadium stadium with a 35K capacity would fit the bill.
I really can see it happening but probably not in the old stadium. But all the bits can be dismantle and built into the new stadium like the Blue Room, marble staircase. Not sure about the red-brick facade as that would be expensive to demolish brick by brick and rebuilt at a new stadium.
These are not comments made to annoy Bears – they are a possible way of saving their club although it won’t really be the same club.
The big problem could be in any Ashley sale of the bits and bobs is that an unscrupulous set of spivs might swoop on the opportunity. Indeed some of the mystery overseas investors might decide to step-up to the plate – who know strangers things have happened down Ibrox Way in recent times.
This thought has passed through my mind on various occassions in the last few months.
Clearly the EPL is a bigger and possibly better league than the SPL, but Sky’s payment of billion’s against a few million just doesn’t stack up.
A pro-rata payment for Scottish football is in the order of £300+million.
How can we get them to look at it(without Doncaster or Regan) to give a fairer contribution to Scotland.
I have read and heard that Sky receive 10% of their income from Bonnie Scotland, and put pennies into our game.
I would suggets that the punters up here start to make all sorts of change to their Sky package (if indeed not just cancelling it) to reduce reduce your monthly payment to them.
I suspect that cancellations or package reductions, in the order of ten thousands could get them around the table.
I think Ann Budge and Leanne Dempster would be more than able to represent the Scottish leagues.
Think about it?
How much rubbish do you pay for and never watch.
Its the rubbish I pay for and DO watch that bothers me more! 🙄
TBK says:
April 17, 2015 at 3:06 pm
ecobhoy:
April 17, 2015 at 2:25 pm
see readcelt post at 2:29 pm
Re the IP ownership around the interlocking RFC logo
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/charlie-and-the-badge-kissers/
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/quite-an-image/
Rumour I know, but Phil has been pretty much ‘on the mark’ as these things go….despite not being an award winning stenographer……
——————————————————-
Phil will have his sources and presumably trusts them and that’s why he has used their info. I have no probs with that.
My problem is that I have no hard evidence either way. I therefore am unable to accept or reject what Phil states.
Sources aren’t infallibe and often they have an axe to grind. Phil will have taken all that into account in deciding whether to use the material.
I can’t so still look for evidence. It’s clear from my reading of the loan documents wrt the assets that if Rangers trade marks are owned or licenced by anyone other than TRFCL or SD then a default has taken place.
That’s on the basis that TRFCL has legally confirmed that it was the owner of all listed trade marks on 27 January 2015. As I say the scroll RFC crest with 5 stars doesn’t appear on the list of trade marks covered by the asset documentation and I have also failed to find it registered on any official TM Register although it has been used since 2004.
So if anyone owns it it’s unlicenced which isn’t illegal as TM Registration isn’t compulsory although it’s normally the wise thing to do as it makes proving rights very easy without having to fight a legal battle.
But given the RFC Scroll element of the crest is registered as a TM throughout the world it makes the missing crest curious to say the least.
However in the fullness of time I’m sure all will become transparent 😎
BorrowaTenner says: April 17, 2015 at 3:58 pm
“Clearly the EPL is a bigger and possibly better league than the SPL, but Sky’s payment of billion’s against a few million just doesn’t stack up… A pro-rata payment for Scottish football is in the order of £300+million.
Based on what? A footballing equivalent on the Barnett Forumla? What are the viwing firgure for EPL matches versus SPFHell? And either way Sky would claim they are paying twice to treace the same audience…
Another week ends and still waiting for the first ever trade of RIFC’s de-listed shares at J P Jenkins. Is RIFC paying for this service? Is J P Jenkins an unwitting creditor?
http://lmmx.co.uk/companies/profile/rangers-international-foofball-club-plc/
Occasional comments from me.I much appreciate the benefits of this blog.
I posted some time ago the significance of the sole dissenting voice in the EBT appeal being female.It was mentioned earlier,those clubs taking the authorities to task are spearheaded by women,again,significant,a wholly different agenda.It is NO coincidence.
nawlite says:
April 17, 2015 at 2:04 pm
“passing of”. That is aiming to gain benefit from pretending to be something you are not
…..and you’re worried about the trademarks?!?!? Reminds me of something else, but I can’t quite remember what, haha.
==================================================
Thought that might get a chuckle – or a bit of irony reflux 🙂
mcfc says:
April 17, 2015 at 2:47 pm
============================================
Your increasing tetchiness is not good for you. I simply answered your question from earlier (see below). I’ll think twice before engaging with you again. I imagine others have alredy doing this.
————————————————————
I hadn’t realised my ‘tetchiness’ level had increased. I thought it was at its normal setting. As to my ‘ire’ setting which you referred to recently as I said at the time I don’t do ‘ire’ on the internet. If I did I would have a twitter account.
I find it’s a handy convention when replying to anyone’s post to actually identify the post one is replying to as it tends to save any confusion.
You have now explained that your post of: April 17, 2015 at 12:45 pm was actually in response to mine of: April 16, 2015 at 4:20 pm some 20 hours earlier but you didn’t identify that in your post this afternoon.
I assumed from the content of your post it referred to an up-to-date post of mine from this morning. If I had realised you were responding to something a day earlier I probably wouldn’t even have read your post never mind responded to it simply because things move on and they change. And the blog has been very busy.
Obviously people make-up their own mind about who or what they respond to. I tend to reply to most genuine posters who quote a post of mine – as I think its good manners – and I respond regardless of whether I agree with them or not.
I certainly don’t attempt to curry favour but state things as I see them and I try to provide evidence to back-up my opinions rather than repeat speculation ad nauseum. I have no problem with anyone repeating well-worn speculation it’s just that I am unlikely to engage with their post.
I trust I have cleared matters up for you and will continue to judge whether I should respond to you based on the contents of your post. I use the same standard for everyone and I’m sure they do the same.
As I say it would be helpful if you actually identify any posts of mine you respond to as that will ensure we are discussing the same issue which can lead to a better understanding IME.
Allyjambo says:
April 17, 2015 at 2:37 pm
___________________________
The thing is, the bears will understand now!
Their Messiah, King, led them to believe he would take care of everything…including that upstart Ashley!
________________________________________
I refer the honorable gentlemen to the answer I gave previously…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plZRe1kPWZw
In the hope that Doncaster is still travelling…and never to return to Hampden… 🙄
The SPFL could do with a radical approach, IMO, to revamp their organisation. It sounds like some member clubs are already making noises in anticipation of change.
I was thinking who could be a good candidate.
They could do worse than get this guy, not as CEO, [because they couldn’t afford him], but maybe as Non-Exec Chairman ? He is Scottish [raised on the Isle of Bute], has FA CEO experience, and not scared to noise up the old boys’ club.
“…Adam Crozier…
In his short tenure from 2000 to 2002, the FA relocated headquarters from Lancaster Gate to Soho Square, appointed the first ever foreign England national team manager, Swede Sven-Göran Eriksson, and became a more commercial organisation, maximising its revenues. He also reduced the average age of the FA’s staff from 55 to 32, progressed the Wembley Stadium redevelopment, and reduced the FA’s ruling body from a 91-member FA Board to a committee of 12.[3][6] His moves were not without criticism, with complaints from some about lack of consultation and of acting beyond his powers…
While at school, Crozier had trials with both Hibernian and Stirling Albion football clubs.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Crozier
Why would the Easdales be meeting with Ashley’s people, in company with venture capitalists?
“Phil MacGiollaBhain @Pmacgiollabhain · 58m 58 minutes ago
I understand that the Easdales met with Mike Ashley’s people in London yesterday. They also met with financiers and venture capitalists.”
Duelling Rangers?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myhnAZFR1po
scapaflow says:
April 17, 2015 at 5:30 pm
Why would the Easdales be meeting with Ashley’s people, in company with venture capitalists?
“Phil MacGiollaBhain @Pmacgiollabhain · 58m 58 minutes ago
I understand that the Easdales met with Mike Ashley’s people in London yesterday. They also met with financiers and venture capitalists.”…
===========================================================
A wild stab: Ashley is selling up?
The Easdales looking for funding to buy him out of his RIFC/TRFC interests ?
StevieBC says:
April 17, 2015 at 5:36 pm
And leave Kingco holding a bag full of debt?
Edit
Crozier? Be as well getting Fred the Shred out of the cellar
StevieBC says:
April 17, 2015 at 5:27 pm
They could do worse than get this guy, not as CEO, [because they couldn’t afford him], but maybe as Non-Exec Chairman?
——————————————————————-
I think professionally he’s way above the SFA level in any position there. And I really doubt if wild horses could drag him to Hampden although I wouldn’t be surprised if he ended-up back at the FA when he starts to look for an easier life.
I’m pretty sure his life is now totally centered down south with his wife and kids.
If you got down to the end of the Wiki article you’ll see what I think says it all:
I have had direct dealings with Crozier in the past – not many – but enough to know he’s sharp and has standards which he keeps to. He would be great for the SFA but it just will never happen IMO.
Anyway I wouldn’t have seen him as a non-exec chairman but either exec chairman with a much-beefed up role or chief exec but the SFA couldn’t get near matching the money he’s on. And who needs The Hampden Headache?
StevieBC says:
April 17, 2015 at 5:27 pm
In the hope that Doncaster is still travelling…and never to return to Hampden… 🙄
The SPFL could do with a radical approach, IMO, to revamp their organisation. It sounds like some member clubs are already making noises in anticipation of change.
I was thinking who could be a good candidate.
They could do worse than get this guy, not as CEO, [because they couldn’t afford him], but maybe as Non-Exec Chairman ? He is Scottish [raised on the Isle of Bute], has FA CEO experience, and not scared to noise up the old boys’ club.
“…Adam Crozier…
In his short tenure from 2000 to 2002, the FA relocated headquarters from Lancaster Gate to Soho Square, appointed the first ever foreign England national team manager, Swede Sven-Göran Eriksson, and became a more commercial organisation, maximising its revenues. He also reduced the average age of the FA’s staff from 55 to 32, progressed the Wembley Stadium redevelopment, and reduced the FA’s ruling body from a 91-member FA Board to a committee of 12.[3][6] His moves were not without criticism, with complaints from some about lack of consultation and of acting beyond his powers…
While at school, Crozier had trials with both Hibernian and Stirling Albion football clubs.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Crozier
1 0 Rate This
*****
Heaven forbid! He’s the last guy needed. Change management is not just about “slash and burn”.
You should ask people at the FA or Royal Mail about him. It should be noted that the transformation plan he implemented at Royal Mail was drawn up and begun before he joined. You might also want to probe exactly why he left the FA after only two years and how he got that RM gig.
WRT Meetings in London
I think the Easdales could only be in attendance for a couple of reasons: 1) Trying to find a way not to take a bath on the shares they hold. 2) possibly representing the proxies they used to hold/still hold for the mystery overseas investors.
Still it’s another one of the many puzzles – they didn’t vote nor did their proxies to support the Ashley Camp at the egm and yet reportedly they are still in the loop. I wonder why?
Could it be that mystery men sitting in tax havens holding onerous contracts are beginning to worry that all might be lost if Rangers go belly-up.
Could any of them be the ones with the key to Ibrox that completes the full pre-packaged football club sale to the highest bidder with some lucrative and newly onerous contracts flung in?
It might not be so much a meeting of minds but rather a combination of business interests.
scapaflow says:
April 17, 2015 at 5:43 pm
Crozier? Be as well getting Fred the Shred out of the cellar
—————————————————————–
IMO Hampden needs not shredders but chippers to get rid of all the old dead wood with sone serious slashing and burning to get things started.
The SFA is way beyond reorganisation. It either has to be replaced with something totally new or truly have a root and branch or even better – root canal – treatment carried out.
It won’t be Crozier but it would need to be someone like him otherwise the old ways will hide for a bit and come back out: still in charge; when the wind of change blows itself out.
WRT Meetings in London
————
Pure speculation but maybe to form a complaint that their 😕 shares were de listed or something
I do not claim second or even first sight but my earlier undernoted post is a tad spooky 🙄
ecobhoy says:
April 17, 2015 at 6:10 pm
scapaflow says:
April 17, 2015 at 5:43 pm
Crozier? Be as well getting Fred the Shred out of the cellar
—————————————————————–
IMO Hampden needs not shredders but chippers to get rid of all the old dead wood with sone serious slashing and burning to get things started.
The SFA is way beyond reorganisation. It either has to be replaced with something totally new or truly have a root and branch or even better – root canal – treatment carried out.
It won’t be Crozier but it would need to be someone like him otherwise the old ways will hide for a bit and come back out: still in charge; when the wind of change blows itself out.
1 0 Rate This
******
That’ll be Michael O’ Leary, then. 😆
ecobhoy says:
April 17, 2015 at 6:01 pm
WRT Meetings in London
I think the Easdales could only be in attendance for a couple of reasons: 1) Trying to find a way not to take a bath on the shares they hold. 2) possibly representing the proxies they used to hold/still hold for the mystery overseas investors.
__________________________________________________
Shareholders discussing litigation for losses resulting from delisting?
I still think the ‘abstention’ was part of a planned litigation strategy.
They could argue that they would have voted against the requisitioners BUT for the assurances given about the NOMAD and continued listings, and only abstained after they were misled.
Cluster One says:
April 17, 2015 at 6:21 pm
WRT Meetings in London
————
Pure speculation but maybe to form a complaint that their 😕 shares were de listed or something
—————–
It is speculation and it might be about delisting. Although I’m not sure that venture capitalists and financiers would be involved in a delisting meeting to decide presumably whether there’s a case for suing or not.
By the time anything got to court anyway the Rangers dice will have been thrown on the blue blaize Board Room table and the wager won or lost.
In terms of proving any loss it should be an interesting case if it gets to court. I’m sure SD if they pursue a case will do so on the basis of legal advice and not to put pressure on the new Board either emotionally or financially.
But as I have said before it would be nice to see the mystery overseas investors prove their financial loss in court especially if they only paid 1p a share and also held onerous contracts.
The court case might or might not happen – but one thing I’m certain of is that if it does we won’t see any mystery overseas investors in court 😆
ecobhoy says:
April 17, 2015 at 6:43 pm
Cluster One says:
April 17, 2015 at 6:21 pm
WRT Meetings in London
————
Pure speculation.
Thanks for reply
ecobhoy says:
April 17, 2015 at 6:43 pm
Cluster One says:
April 17, 2015 at 6:21 pm
WRT Meetings in London
————
Pure speculation but maybe to form a complaint that their 😕 shares were de listed or something
—————–
It is speculation and it might be about delisting. Although I’m not sure that venture capitalists and financiers would be involved in a delisting meeting to decide presumably whether there’s a case for suing or not.
……..
Depends… were they shareholders, maybe?
Resin_lab_dog says:
April 17, 2015 at 6:28 pm
ecobhoy says:
April 17, 2015 at 6:01 pm
WRT Meetings in London
I think the Easdales could only be in attendance for a couple of reasons: 1) Trying to find a way not to take a bath on the shares they hold. 2) possibly representing the proxies they used to hold/still hold for the mystery overseas investors.
__________________________________________________
Shareholders discussing litigation for losses resulting from delisting?
I still think the ‘abstention’ was part of a planned litigation strategy.
They could argue that they would have voted against the requisitioners BUT for the assurances given about the NOMAD and continued listings, and only abstained after they were misled.
———————————————–
I have no doubt that anyone who abstained in the egm vote will be closely questioned in court as to their motive given the dogs in the street knew the Nomad was going one way or another. I also think there will be interest in any blocs that made a decision not to vote.
And they will be asked why they listened to any assurances from DK given the previous observations on him by a South African judge. It might well be thought – like so many things on the markets – they took a course of action that didn’t work out financially for them. So what? Some win and some lose in AIM just like a casino which is probably better regulated.
Any hint of a planned liquidation strategy would see the case thrown out unless it could be proven that the new Board were involved in such a stratagem.
I really really want this to get to court but sadly I just don’t see it. Do you think venture capitalists and financiers would be at a delisting meeting? If they were then maybe they were trying to sell even better perpetual get rich quick schemes than some thought Rangers would provide.
Of course a lot of people have got rich off the back of Rangers and no doubt many will continue to do so in future if the club survives unless there is a radical change in the management/ownership culture.
Fan culture will never change – it’s about winning pure and simple. However it’s the management responsibility at every club to peg expectation levels to income levels.
ecobhoy says:
April 17, 2015 at 6:10 pm
Agree with that. before you can bring someone in to manage the change process, and neither a Crozier or a Fred archetype are what you want ❗ Scottish Football needs to have some idea of where it wants to go.
That vision thing, who you get in might be able to supply that, so that rules Fred out
, (as events at RBS demonstrated, once he got control), but without it, change is pretty pointless.
ecobhoy says:
April 17, 2015 at 7:23 pm
Resin_lab_dog says:
April 17, 2015 at 6:28 pm
ecobhoy says:
April 17, 2015 at 6:01 pm
WRT Meetings in London
I think the Easdales could only be in attendance for a couple of reasons: 1) Trying to find a way not to take a bath on the shares they hold. 2) possibly representing the proxies they used to hold/still hold for the mystery overseas investors.
__________________________________________________
Shareholders discussing litigation for losses resulting from delisting?
I still think the ‘abstention’ was part of a planned litigation strategy.
They could argue that they would have voted against the requisitioners BUT for the assurances given about the NOMAD and continued listings, and only abstained after they were misled.
———————————————–
I have no doubt that anyone who abstained in the egm vote will be closely questioned in court as to their motive given the dogs in the street knew the Nomad was going one way or another. I also think there will be interest in any blocs that made a decision not to vote.
______________________________________________________
The Nomad was only going if the requisitioners prevailed.
Current board were offering austerity. Requisitioners were offering investment + fan engagement .
Easy to justify why assurances about them having Nomad in place could sway such a judgement one way or another.
As for King’s pronouncements: LOTS of people believed him. The vast majority of TRFC fans. He was about to be appointed to the BOD for chrissake???… so he must have convinced a few people to take him at his word.
I think the litigation is valid because King did mislead imo, and this was to the detriment of shareholders imo .
“You should have known he was lying”? Is that to be the requisitioners defence!??? Really??! :irony: Good luck to them with that one!
“…At Record Sport, Keith Jackson’s top notch exclusives saw him lauded as Sports News Writer of the Year for the third year running…
Keith Jackson proved again he is Scotland’s foremost sports writer as he collected his deserved award.
He has spearheaded reports on the Rangers crisis for years and delivered a flurry of exclusives on the troubled club to secure his latest title, including revealing Newcastle owner Mike Ashley’s secret £1 deal for naming rights to its stadium.
In a picture exclusive, Keith also showed how Rangers director Sandy Easdale and a criminal wanted by Interpol tried to negotiate an Ibrox bailout.
Gary Ralston showed the strength in depth in our sports department as runner-up behind Keith…And last May he uncovered another financial scandal in football when he told how Rangers chief executive Graham Wallace could earn a 100 per cent bonus on top of his £315,000 pay…”
From the DR today [won’t post link].
So, the Scottish press believe that Keef is the best they’ve got for Sport ? 🙄
…must be a very, very low bar…
Resin_lab_dog says:
April 17, 2015 at 7:52 pm
The Nomad was only going if the requisitioners prevailed.
——————————————————-
Ah right so that’s why the ones that are whining they lost money didn’t vote to support the Nomad. Did they want to lose the vote?
The first rule of buying shares is quite simple. Don’t if you can’t afford to lose the money.
However I’m off out for my Friday pints so I’ll leave you to it. We’re only having a mini-session tonight because we’re making a day of it on Sunday. Let’s hope we have a celebration and not a wake 😆
As I have said repeatedly the only way to get to the bottom of what went on here is to have a court case and that might not come-up with the answers.
Will there be a court case? I very much doubt it because some people don’t want their identity or finances revealed. It’s that simple IMO.
However, personally I don’t care if there is a distant court case or not because it will have no actual impact on the short term future of Rangers. And my only interest in that is how it affects Scottish Football and the governance of our game.
It’s up to the Bears to decide who they want to support but IMO SD have to be careful in what they do because if Bears think they are being vindictive that will be even more that don’t buy shirts.
And getting over that reputational hump is something Ashley will no doubt be pondering on. And it’s the same if he calls in the loan which I am actually beginning to think he won’t do.
StevieBC says:
April 17, 2015 at 8:04 pm
OT, slightly, but Roy Greenslade was arguing recently that the Record may well find itself on the wrong side of history. He wasn’t talking about its sports coverage, but, nonetheless, the comment is on point.
ecobhoy says:
April 17, 2015 at 8:36 pm
Resin_lab_dog says:
April 17, 2015 at 7:52 pm
___________________________________
I fear we can’t both be satisfied this weekend, so you’ll forgive me for hoping your Sunday beers are paliative rather than celebratory.
But enjoy them come what may, and here’s hoping the game’s a cracker whoever prevails.
Stewart Regan claims there’s no timescale on Dave king being approved to take charge of rangers.
Regan ADDED “Rangers have not submitted their list of Directors yet.
Is there a rule that a club has to submit their list of Directors in a set time frame, or are all clubs in general given no timescale to submit a list of Directors to the SFA 😕
I don’t know fans of any club who like the current TV deal.
This Sunday will see the kick-off of a national cup semi-final ONE HOUR before the first train to arrive from Inverness. That is madness and could only be thought feasible by an imbecile who lives only five minutes from Hampden (the worst major football ground in the country by far).
Motherwell have been asked to go to Aberdeen on a Friday night recently also.
The real problem is that, regardless of how we cut it, we are next door to a monster. That monster takes all the cash, the limelight and that, unfortunately for us, also includes the best TV slots. What has to be remembered is that, as more and more games from the EPL and Championship are shown on live TV, the more marginalised our sport will become. We will be made to move times more and more often and that is the simple reality.
I’ve posted before that this is what happens, NOT when you sell your TV rights, but when through greed, incompetence, and complacency you treat the people that come through the turnstiles with contempt over a long period of time.
Not only are the times of our live games a farce but the scheduling of highlights display the complacency at the heart of our governing bodies. While the highlights themselves leave a lot to be desired kids, who remember are the next generation of supporters, cannot see them on a Sunday night when they have school the following day. Yes the highlights slot on a Saturday night is also taken by the neighbouring monster. Is it really any wonder you see so many kids wearing Man Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea, and Liverpool tops when a generation ago it was Scottish teams the kids would have worn.
One of the priorities of any TV deal should be the restoration of the Saturday nights highlights package.
Of course this can only come to pass when you have people in charge that care about fans and we know that Doncaster has absolutely no interest in them. The disdain displayed over the last few days has been a shambles even by his record.
It will be interesting to see how the resident media pack reacts to Anne Budge and Leeann Dempster. Will they be as ruthless as they would attempt to be with other chairmen?
Somehow I think both of these ladies will run rings round the clowns at Hampden who, if they revert to type, will attempt to close ranks in a wall of silence and only appear to quote from the rule book that always contains the caveat of “at the board’s discretion”. I personally hope the ladies are given lots of support from the other clubs, if not publicly then privately, and that they will shake the tree.
Anne Budge, being the successful business woman that she is, must be horrified by the way our sport is run; shambles from top to bottom, old boy network of incompetent clowns stumbling about from one calamity to another. She has hopefully watched for the last year and will now point out a few home truths.
Part of the problem of Scottish football is that far too many people are so close to the problem that they actually become part of it. We need a new perspective and outlook into how our sport can be streamlined and made more attractive to the public. The people in the corridors of power have fundamentally failed in this aspect. The world has moved on and it is about time a lot of our administrators did the same.