Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?

ByAuldheid

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Independent Enquiry?

SR No

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AT Never?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fit and Proper Person and Absence of Governance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AT Rangers were a mess financially everybody new that

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

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

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

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

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

SR We didn’t fail.

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

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

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

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

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

SR Well I think the articles

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

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

AT ??  (Interrupted)

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

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

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

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

The Nature of EBTS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AT Sometimes

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

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

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

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

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

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

If Carlsberg did irony!

End of Interview.

The Hard Not to Believe Conclusions

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

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

The reader will find it hard not to conclude that either

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

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

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

Annex One – Extracts from Lord Nimmo Smith Decision

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

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

 

Outline of the Scheme

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

Auldheid  Feb 2015

About the author

Auldheid author

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

5,190 Comments so far

tcup 2012Posted on8:30 pm - Mar 10, 2015


Commentators saying over 40k

Not a chance
Still 0-0 both sides should have scored
Queens playing counter attacking passing football
Rangers pump up to daily and trying to mucstell mid field

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on8:33 pm - Mar 10, 2015


ecobhoy says:
March 10, 2015 at 2:05 pm
The DT has a bit more info on the suspensions which I haven’t noticed elsewhere so worth a read.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/11461422/Rangers-suspend-Derek-Llambias-Barry-Leach-and-Sandy-Easdale.html
========================================================================
Eco…thank you for the link to the “Torygraph” article.

Whilst I am the first to admit that my knowledge of Company Law is just enough to keep me out of jail… 😀 …I am quite sure that you are either a director or are not…and I am familiar with the mechanisms to both appoint or remove directors from office…but to “suspend” them as directors…?

Where are Hirsute Pursuit and Campbellsmoney when you want them…?… 😀

View Comment

tcup 2012Posted on8:37 pm - Mar 10, 2015


HT 0-0

Boos being heard quiet audibly

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on8:42 pm - Mar 10, 2015


Deekbhoy says:
March 10, 2015 at 2:42 pm
Not sure what the benefit for King or for Ashley of allowing an insolvency event.

However don’t see Park wanting to be involved in any planned insolvency event.
============================================================================
Deekbhoy…as with many contributors to the blog, I am more than a tad confused with Friday’s events and subsequent nonsense…however, why indeed would Mr Park be involved with anything remotely resembling a “planned insolvency event”…?

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on8:44 pm - Mar 10, 2015


neepheid says:
March 10, 2015 at 3:21 pm

scapaflow says:
March 10, 2015 at 3:12 pm

let the man speak for himself
………..
Here’s my personal favourite-

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sj1r7m
=========================================

“…Craig Whyte has my full support for the moment.

His detractors continue to fail to convince or put forward a viable alternative and as long as that is the case he remains the only show in town.”

So this fresh, new NED for RIFC plc was quoting the above support for Whyte – in a publicly available article – and dated as late as 5th February 2012 ?!

Just over a week later RFC was in Administration.

Well before the 5th February, everyone and their dug knew all about Whyte – and that an insolvency event was imminent, [even if the SMSM were slow to admit the inevitable truth].

Business savvy, experience, wisdom, good judgement, etc…what does this NED bring to the plc ?

View Comment

tcup 2012Posted on8:46 pm - Mar 10, 2015


essexbeancounter says:
March 10, 2015 at 8:42 pm
/////////////

I think the question should be

Why keep running up the debt without an insolvency event

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on8:48 pm - Mar 10, 2015


essexbeancounter says:
March 10, 2015 at 8:33 pm

“For a director to dismiss another director without a board resolution they have to have authority to do so. A board resolution will be required if the decision to be taken falls outside normal day-to-day commercial decision-making. There is court of appeal authority (Smith v Butler 2012 – http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/314.html) that indicates that the dismissal of a director and shareholder falls outside of day-to-day commercial decision-making, such that a board resolution would be required. However, if the shareholders are in deadlock the appropriate majority vote required for the board resolution will not be obtained.”

http://www.gannons.co.uk/blog/the-cost-of-disagreeing-directors/

Edit

Meant to add am now convinced that there is no plan, they are winging it

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on8:49 pm - Mar 10, 2015


neepheid says:
March 10, 2015 at 3:01 pm
So, Leach and Llambias suspended? (and let’s not forget poor Sandy, of course). What can it all mean? Is King trying to force Ashley to push the big red insolvency button? But why? Now he has control,King can push it himself, surely?

One thing is nailed on certain. This company is currently insolvent without external funding. So it’s either a rapid cash injection (and I don’t mean ten bob) or administration.

Just this minute seen that Chris Graham is now on the Board of RIFC PLC. Words truly fail me.
===============================================================================
Neepheid…I think it is called “getting the fans onside”, or at least one of the many current warring factions, in preparation for “milking” them next season ticket renewal time…! 👿 👿 👿

PR blurb: Hey Ally, are you fed up with gardening yet…? We have some PR work for you, you know the type you did so well when Uncle Charlie asked you. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

View Comment

tcup 2012Posted on8:54 pm - Mar 10, 2015


tcup 2012 says:
March 10, 2015 at 3:17 pm
Just a thought

But could these suspension’s be the start of King’s true plan?

Either forcing Mr Ashley hand or for them to declare they can now have a good look under the hood?

Either or ends up with Admin

No great loss the MSM have been buttering up the fans for weeks telling them they may not get promoted So no loss there
Points deduction Who cares we weren’t getting promoted anyway

A few oneruse contracts kicked to the kirb and even better Back in the hands of RRM to make them a pretty penny

Over paid/over rated and unwanted players kicked out the door

And best of all a new streamline TRFC ready to start next season

Fans happy out in their thousands buying season tickets for this Real Rangers
And it was all Mr Ashley fault
And RRM saved us :mrgreen:

21 0 Rate This

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on8:57 pm - Mar 10, 2015


scapaflow says:
March 10, 2015 at 8:48 pm
essexbeancounter says:
March 10, 2015 at 8:33 pm

“For a director to dismiss another director without a board resolution they have to have authority to do so. A board resolution will be required if the decision to be taken falls outside normal day-to-day commercial decision-making. There is court of appeal authority (Smith v Butler 2012 – http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/314.html) that indicates that the dismissal of a director and shareholder falls outside of day-to-day commercial decision-making, such that a board resolution would be required. However, if the shareholders are in deadlock the appropriate majority vote required for the board resolution will not be obtained.”

http://www.gannons.co.uk/blog/the-cost-of-disagreeing-directors/
=================================================================================
Scapa…thank you for your usual prompt and informed reply.

However, I would retort:

1) Do you really expect me to read a real court judgement?…. 😀 😀 😀
2) Do you really expect me to disagree with the like of “Catherine” as portrayed in your second link?… 😳 😳 😳

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on9:02 pm - Mar 10, 2015


ianagain says:
March 10, 2015 at 8:05 pm
An oldie but Somehow it looks even funnier En Francais

Wonder which side of the “magic” number the crowd will fall tonight. Bet Charles has the turnstiles wired.

—————————————————–
François BOSCHER.

Charles Green vient d’acheter le château de Marcei, près d’Argentan. L’homme d’affaires a quitté la présidence du club écossais des Glasgow Rangers pour se consacrer à sa passion des chevaux.

L’histoire

Le football et les chevaux sont les deux passions de Charles Green. L’an dernier, il est devenu le patron des Glasgow Rangers. Un peu par hasard. « En mars 2012, on m’a contacté pour reprendre le club qui venait d’être placé en redressement judiciaire, mais j’ai refusé : j’avais juste envie d’acheter une propriété en Normandie pour y vivre avec mes 30 chevaux. » Il avait même trouvé l’endroit idéal, à Marcei près d’Argentan, mais la vente s’éternisait. Alors quand on le relance en mai pour diriger le consortium chargé de racheter le club de foot écossais, cette fois il dit « yes ».

49 000 spectateurs pour un match de 4e division

« Le club avait une dette de 100 millions de livres ! Un tour de table avec des investisseurs a réuni 25 millions, les administrateurs ont accepté d’éponger le reste. » En juin dernier, il est ainsi à la tête d’un club mythique (54 titres nationaux, une coupe d’Europe en 1972) mais… relégué administrativement en quatrième division écossaise.

Le challenge est double : redonner une surface financière au club et un niveau sportif digne de son standing. « En décembre, j’ai introduit le club en bourse à Londres, on a obtenu 25 millions de livres via des fonds d’investissement, et 6 000 fans ont ajouté 5,5 millions en devenant actionnaires. » Une mise en bourse déjà appliquée au club anglais de Sheffield United qu’il a dirigé entre 1996 et 1999.

Le pari fonctionne également sur le terrain, les fans suivent et le club enregistre un record mondial d’affluence pour un match de 4e division, avec 49 118 supporters… La saison prochaine, les Rangers joueront ainsi en 3e division, mais Charles Green n’en sera plus le président.

« Tout n’a pas été simple », admet-il. Il échoue dans son projet de faire transférer les Rangers vers le lucratif championnat anglais, « alors que les clubs gallois de Swansea ou de Cardiff y jouent bien ! » Un procès avec l’ancien propriétaire du club n’arrange rien. « Il y avait une pression quotidienne permanente… Sauver le club fut un défi que je ne regrette pas d’avoir mené, mais une fois la remontée en 3e division acquise, j’ai démissionné (le 18 avril, NDLR). Ma vie est ailleurs… »

Plus précisément en Normandie. « J’ai toujours été fasciné par les pur-sang. La Normandie étant l’épicentre du monde du cheval, c’est ici que j’ai décidé de commencer une nouvelle vie. » Pendant deux ans, du Mont-Saint-Michel à Lisieux, il visite une trentaine de propriétés et tombe sous le charme du château de Cordey à Marcei, commune de 200 habitants à la sortie d’Argentan. « A chacune de mes visites, c’est comme si le château me disait : « Achète-moi » », sourit le jeune sexagénaire.

Pour un peu plus de 400 000 €, il est devenu propriétaire de ce petit château du XVIIIe siècle et des 27 ha de prairie et de bois qui l’entourent. « J’espère avoir fini les travaux d’ici trois mois, et amener mes chevaux. » Pas la moindre chance de le voir replonger dans le football français, alors ? « En passant devant le stade d’Argentan, mon fils m’a taquiné en disant que ce serait un chouette challenge. Mais c’était juste une blague. » S’il le dit…
===============================================
A Blag it certainmaint was Charles.

7 0 Rate This
==============================================================================
Thanks to Glasgow Corporation Education Department and that old senior secondary school in Townhead,Glasgow for my “A” grade in my Higher French…you cannot trust these frogs…or Charles, Duke of Normandy in such matters… 😈 😈

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on9:07 pm - Mar 10, 2015


tcup 2012 says:
March 10, 2015 at 8:54 pm

Fans happy out in their thousands buying season tickets for this Real Rangers…
=================================
That would be a great name for the next iteration of the Govan club/company/thingy !

“Real Rangers” has a ring to it, invoking thoughts of a global, historic and hugely successful football team.

And mibbees they might try and sneak 10 stars onto the jersey, above the crest… 😕

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on9:11 pm - Mar 10, 2015


0BJD says:
March 10, 2015 at 3:10 pm
scapaflow says:

March 10, 2015 at 12:45 pm

Paul says:
March 10, 2015 at 12:40 pm

I would think that declaring war on your biggest creditor, who has security over many of your assets, and control of key income streams, is a novel, if not unique strategy.

If one were conspiracy minded, one might believe that the intention was to provoke an insolvency event, without the appearance of being responsible. :mrgreen:

————————————————————-
That cannot be the strategy as Ashley is the biggest creditor and he,therefore can “control” any insolvency process. I can only think that King and co are going to tackle the onerous contracts as being unfair or ultra vires in some way. King and co also need some advice on the Sevco 5088 non novation to Sevco Scotland scenario.
==============================================================================

OBJD…I may be wrong, as Mrs Essexbeancounter will testify, but I am labouring under the impression that “ultra vires” as a concept in Company Law, died the proverbial death in the Companies Act 2006…as imposed upon the the UK by the EC… 👿

I await the “incoming” with tinfoil hat on and correction from our resident legal personae.

View Comment

tcup 2012Posted on9:16 pm - Mar 10, 2015


Still 0-0 20mins to go

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on9:17 pm - Mar 10, 2015


essexbeancounter says:
March 10, 2015 at 8:57 pm

Ha, scary lady :mrgreen:

We were kicking it around earlier with a legal type, fwiw the company articles may contain the necessary authority, but, if the aggrieved parties decide to contest, it will get very messy, so no change there then. :mrgreen:

It not brogues bowlers & blazers that Slaters should be selling, but fecking stetsons, boots n chaps :mrgreen:

View Comment

devilsadvocatePosted on9:20 pm - Mar 10, 2015


tcup 2112
isnt the trick to run up more debt than ashenly thereby take contorl of the butchers appointment??
seems to me ashenly having to do something is a bit of a red herring, he doesnt have to do anything surely, he has the shirt on their backs isnt that what he wanted. He paid how much for his shares call that investment, he gets the shirts and for ‘freezing’ 5 mill from his actually worth, ( why isnt keefy calling him galactically wealthy he evens bids for planets) he gets control of any going bust events appointments,

so angers sell 40,00o ST’s at 500 quid a hit
thats 20 mill.
minus 5 mill for ashenly
minus 1/4 a month for that pesky not quite on the books payment say 3 mill for the year.

so we are down to 12 mill already as soon as we get our 20 mill st money.

then again 30,000 at 500 a pop = 15 mill

ok so maybe adjust the price for non premier league status 🙂 ‘AGAIN’ say 400
thats 30000 @400 = 12 mill (minus the 8 above)

so obvious question

Mr K how much debt do you envisage generating in the first 2 years of business and who will be financing that debt, has the service charges on this debt ( think CW at 3% per month) been accomadted in your cash flow analysis.

Have you sought legfal advise with regard to your arbritary announcements of directorships considering the business is currently under an AIM suspension.

you say the MSM i say the new scottish media because after some of the incredible work of some contributors on this site this is the new scottish media.

people really start looking at this stpory from a business angle its a lot more interesting,

angers forever sure as f angers me

KUTGW

I have the copytite on that one KUTGW u use u pay me, I even have a badge, u got badge how no we like badges.

Keep Up The Good Work

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on9:22 pm - Mar 10, 2015


Tincks says:
March 10, 2015 at 3:59 pm
Tincks says:

March 10, 2015 at 1:49 pm

I can’t even begin to speculate on what might be around the corner
———————————————-

Can’t believe I wrote the above this afternoon and than an hour later Chris Graham is appointed as a non exec director. Crivens, there are no words. There really are not. Can we have an emoticon for “shakes head in disbelief” please?
============================================================================
…sure thing Tincks…but only after the return of our “anti-hero” emoticon…I give you (drum roll”)…wee steaming jobby/jobbie (to appease Ecobhoy!)

View Comment

tcup 2012Posted on9:25 pm - Mar 10, 2015


devilsadvocate says:
March 10, 2015 at 9:20 pm
tcup 2112
isnt the trick to run up more debt than ashenly thereby take contorl of the butchers appointment??
seems to me ashenly having to do something is a bit of a red herring, he doesnt have to do anything surely, he has the shirt on their backs isnt that what he wanted.
////////////////

Exactly and he has it
Its part or Rangers Retail
Nothing to do with RIFC or TRFC

It is a separate entity and would survive any Insolvency event

View Comment

tcup 2012Posted on9:27 pm - Mar 10, 2015


Rangers 1-0 Queens

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on9:30 pm - Mar 10, 2015


scapaflow says:
March 10, 2015 at 9:17 pm
essexbeancounter says:
March 10, 2015 at 8:57 pm

Ha, scary lady :mrgreen:

We were kicking it around earlier with a legal type, fwiw the company articles may contain the necessary authority, but, if the aggrieved parties decide to contest, it will get very messy, so no change there then. :mrgreen:

It not brogues bowlers & blazers that Slaters should be selling, but fecking stetsons, boots n chaps :mrgreen:
=====================================================================
Slaters…?…still in business…? after all these years…? 😆 😆 😆

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on9:33 pm - Mar 10, 2015


Essex

heh heh heh

http://www.slaters.co.uk/stores/index/view/?id=19

Though more familiar with the Edinburgh branch….

View Comment

tcup 2012Posted on9:35 pm - Mar 10, 2015


Rangers 1-1 Queens

5mins to go

View Comment

TincksPosted on9:35 pm - Mar 10, 2015


essexbeancounter says:
March 10, 2015 at 9:22 pm

I miss that wee steaming jobby/jobbie 😥

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on9:35 pm - Mar 10, 2015


StevieBC says:

March 10, 2015 at 8:44 pm

neepheid says:
March 10, 2015 at 3:21 pm

scapaflow says:
March 10, 2015 at 3:12 pm
This part caught my eye.

let the man speak for himself
This morning sees Whyte answer many of the questions that have been raised in an interview with Tom English in Scotland on Sunday.

It is almost unprecedented that a chairman of Rangers should have to answer such detailed questions and I am impressed that Whyte has now stepped up several times to do so. The press in Scotland certainly never saw fit to question Sir David Murray in this way when his reckless spending brought the club to this point.
😳

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on9:39 pm - Mar 10, 2015


tcup 2012 says:
March 10, 2015 at 8:46 pm
essexbeancounter says:
March 10, 2015 at 8:42 pm
/////////////

I think the question should be

Why keep running up the debt without an insolvency event
========================================================================
Tcup…as with many of the vagaries in this omnishanbles, the answer can only lie within the brain cells of Mr Mike Ashley…!

It would appear to all that no one, but no one knows his real intentions, but relative to his (tiddler of) an investment, I am prompted by that immortal line :

“You are ‘aving a larf, ain’t yer…”…in my best Essex/Estuary English parlance…!

View Comment

tcup 2012Posted on9:42 pm - Mar 10, 2015


FT Rangers 1-1 Queens

Boos went from audible to Grizzly

View Comment

ianagainPosted on9:45 pm - Mar 10, 2015


King makes profits return!

18 x 25 quid.

35k being Charles break even number of choice.
Kerrching.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on9:47 pm - Mar 10, 2015


yakutsuki says:

March 10, 2015 at 7:40 am (Edit)

A wee bit late, but thanks Auldheid for the huge effort!

I have to be honest and say I read and
re-read but my brain near exploded each time with all the details – I’m simply one of those guys that find it impossible to keep track if the plot is anything more than simple. The parcel of brogues wish there was more brains like me, and less like you!

I can’t retain a picture of what’s going on when the plot thickens with red herrings, squirrels etc. I smell a rat, but can’t explain it if asked.

I don’t really read long posts on the blog because of this – nothing personal against the long posters, it’s me.

When it comes to films, I’ve never
went much further than old cowboy movies – plain and simple, and easy to enjoy.

What I’m getting at is, could someone sum up, maybe with bullet points the main points of ‘Whit Regan kens noo’ to help the likes of me? Or maybe I’m the only dunderheid? Thanks.
====================
I’ll have a go at a condensed version. (Others are free to weigh in with suggested revisions to produce a simplified message to put out there.)

1. SPL announced on 5th March 2012 that any EBTS from 1st July 1998 used by RFC with side letters would be examined.

2. EBTs with side letters from November 23 2000 only examined under the terms of reference of the SPL LNS Commission because details of three ebts, two with side letters, not provided to SPL lawyers in April 2012.

3. These earlier EBTS (along with the 23 November EBT) were irregular (using LNS terminology) and liability had been accepted by RFC for them in March 2011 because of their irregular nature and the fact RFC had denied existence of these side letters in 2005 from HMRC when asked if they existed.

4. This failure enabled LNS to treat all ebts as regular when three were judged by a FTT not to be, invalidating his judgement to treat all as regular.

5. This fact was drawn to attention of SPL lawyers and SP(F)L Board by TSFM.

6. SP(F)L lawyers failed to explain satisfactorily to TSFM why the withheld paperwork did not impact on the LNS decision.

7. SPFL Board provided with all the paperwork and argument. No action.

8. Fourteen journalists also provided with hard copy of same evidence and pointed at the argument on TSFM blogs. No action.

9. SP(F)L lawyers sent evidence and paperwork to SFA. No action.

10. LNS informed by e mail of events. No action.

11. Campbell Ogilvie, who initiated the first irregular ebt in 1999, was SFA President in June 2011 when the tax bill generated by the irregular ebts became overdue, was in receipt of a (BTC)ebt under dispute by HMRC, excused himself from the LNS investigation yet still testified and made no reference in his testimony to the distinction between the EBT types.

12. Stewart Regan may or may not have been told the distinction by Ogilvie. LNS was not.

13. In summary the LNS Commission was misdirected by the failure to supply evidence of the early irregular ebts, which may or may not have been deliberate, but regardless should be set aside.

View Comment

tcup 2012Posted on9:51 pm - Mar 10, 2015


Ianagin

After watching the game and seeing big patches of empty seats all around the stadium
I will stick by my original estimate of 30k in attendance

So that would make it break even at best

Edit

Besides I wouldn’t take Charles Greens estimate without documentation 😉

View Comment

pau1mart1nPosted on10:23 pm - Mar 10, 2015


chic said 42, so your 30k is pretty accurate.

View Comment

tcup 2012Posted on10:24 pm - Mar 10, 2015


Auldheid says:
March 10, 2015 at 9:47 pm
yakutsuki says:
//////////

Thanks for the condensed version

My apologies but
Will have a good read of it tomorrow
Sorry but after listening to DJ’s commentory for 90mins
My brain is beginning to turn to spinach 🙁

View Comment

zerotolerance1903Posted on10:27 pm - Mar 10, 2015


tcup 2012 says:
March 10, 2015 at 8:54 pm

Fans happy out in their thousands buying season tickets for this Real Rangers…
=================================
That would be a great name for the next iteration of the Govan club/company/thingy !

“Real Rangers” has a ring to it, invoking thoughts of a global, historic and hugely successful football team.

And mibbees they might try and sneak 10 stars onto the jersey, above the crest… 😕
____________________________________________

I always assumed that the next iteration would be called Third Rangers. 😐

View Comment

tcup 2012Posted on10:29 pm - Mar 10, 2015


Zero
Mine has a better marketing demographic :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on10:30 pm - Mar 10, 2015


There was plenty for the Rangers players to draw on with Ibrox great John Greig among a 35,018 crowd as guests of the new-look board, but there was a distinct lack of inspiration on the park with Queens coming closest in the first half when Michael Paton hit the post.

match report.

View Comment

douglas reynholmPosted on10:33 pm - Mar 10, 2015


tcup 2012 says:
March 10, 2015 at 9:51 pm

Got to be honest, giving running commentaries on games on Rangers TV gives some justification to those claiming it’s all about the Rangers….and yeah, I realise I’m about to talk about Rangers!

To be honest I believed DK (yup, I hear ya!) when he said he had a NOMAD lined up, mostly because he would look fairly stupid if one wasn’t produced. Now I know delisting from the AIM will be spun as like having signed a new player however He’ll have fallen over at his first major commitment, that can’t pass without comment, even by the most ferevent succulent lamb fiends.

I was willing to entertain the idea that maybe DK was willing to blow his own Cash on this venture, y’know maybe Phil and a few others were calling it wrong…..I mean, it can’t happen again surely! The recent board appointments and the lack of a NOMAD have killed that idea stone dead for me. This smacks of the kind of stunts cahrles green used to pull.

As for league reconstruction, I don’t think that’s a go-er, you need a season’s notice for a start I thought (or was that one of the conditions removed at the last re-construction?). The other thing is, the only Club who’s being affected financially with them being out the top league is Celtic and they’re not exactly struggling to pay the bills as things stand. Aberdeen, Dundee United even Motherwell are paying out transfer fees for the first time in years, I’m certainly not buying into this saving Scottish football Myth.

View Comment

yakutsukiPosted on10:38 pm - Mar 10, 2015


Auldheid says:
March 10, 2015 at 9:47 pm
———————————–

Magic! I will read your original again tomorrow now that I have the gist of things – Cheers!

View Comment

Jake CantonaPosted on11:06 pm - Mar 10, 2015


StevieBC says:
March 10, 2015 at 9:07 pm

That would be a great name for the next iteration of the Govan club/company/thingy !

“Real Rangers” has a ring to it, invoking thoughts of a global, historic and hugely successful football team.

————————

Provisional Rangers, Continuity Rangers…

View Comment

douglas reynholmPosted on11:07 pm - Mar 10, 2015


tcup 2012 says:
March 10, 2015 at 10:54 pm

Didn’t imagine this was the place to come for Match commentaries…Rangers, SPFL or other wise….I think other outlets have this side of things fairly well covered.

View Comment

douglas reynholmPosted on11:49 pm - Mar 10, 2015


Appologies everone for feeding the Troll!

Someone tweeted Rangers directors box tonight, Dingwall, Leggo, Craig Houston…they were all there. They’ve got the MSM covered now it looks like they’ve got the on-line community wined and dined as well. There won’t be too much dissention from the ranks if times get tough.

View Comment

mcfcPosted on11:52 pm - Mar 10, 2015


So 10,000 to 15,000 walk away bears walked back to Ibrox tonight to join in the celebrations. I wonder how many will return again to see the football, and more to the point how many will consider buying an ST. Tonight’s non-event could prove costly to the new regime. Once again it seems this squad just cannot raise its game under any circumstances.

View Comment

tcup 2012Posted on12:12 am - Mar 11, 2015


mcfc says:
March 10, 2015 at 11:52 pm
So 10,000 to 15,000 walk away bears walked back to Ibrox tonight to join in the celebrations
///////////….
Will try to give you an estimate at the weekend

Maybe working 🙁 (don’t know yet) but if I am not will tune in and let you know how big a turn out I think is there

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on12:39 am - Mar 11, 2015


:irony: No nomad, suspending Leach and Llambias, and appointing Chris Graham in the same breath.
This tells us that King et al have accepted that Instutional finance is dead in the water, and so will be looking for bears milk.
Winging it for sure.

Slow motion car crash ahead I feel.
And the way they are winning friends and influencing people does not bode well.
SFA ambulance standing by no doubt however.
Put out a crash call: “Mr Ogilvie, to the emergency room urgently”.

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on12:48 am - Mar 11, 2015


tcup 2012 says:
March 11, 2015 at 12:12 am

In all fairness 30 – 35k is a pretty good attendence for a Tuesday night. Kingco should be concerned about the booing, and the, ahem, quality of interaction with the customer base of their latest NED (or is that ned. I’m not quite sure to be honest), some training is required there! 😉

Honeymoons seem to be getting ever shorter in Scottish Public life

View Comment

tcup 2012Posted on12:59 am - Mar 11, 2015


Scapa

I did say in a previous post that I thought it was a good attendance
My point at the time was king/MSM claiming it would be a sellout
And commentators claiming over 40k

But let’s face facts 30k+ for any championship game is outstanding 😀

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on1:12 am - Mar 11, 2015


tcup 2012 says:
March 11, 2015 at 12:12 am

Wasn’t having a dig, some sections of the media in their eagerness to out-sycophant each other, are as usual doing the object of their affection great harm.

Kingco’s appointment of Graham may have pleased one section of the Rangers fanbase, but, other large sections are not feeling the love. It was a terrible decision on so many levels, I really don’t think King in particular understands the new Rangers dynamic, which could turn out to be a huge problem for him.

View Comment

douglas reynholmPosted on1:31 am - Mar 11, 2015


tcup 2012 says:
March 11, 2015 at 12:51 am

I’m an occasional poster and I ain’t the moderator on here, so I wouldn’t worry about what I think. I kind of reconise your name, so was a bit surprised at your posts.

The match Attendance was OK but given that this was their big hoose warming not so good. They’ll have to do a lot more work to get back those missing ST holders, tonight made it clear to me they won’t appear again as if by magic. When they deliberately disenfranchised a lot of ST holders to gain control of the club, there was no guarantee they’d come flooding back. Look at the first home match back after Rangers…er…hiatus. It was mid-week against East Stirling in the Ramdens, they got over 40’000.

View Comment

tcup 2012Posted on1:46 am - Mar 11, 2015


douglas reynholm says:
March 11, 2015 at 1:31 am
tcup 2012 says:
March 11, 2015 at 12:51 am
///////////////

You will find I don’t expect or ask people to agree with me
In fact I probably spend more time on the Naughty step on the blog than most (in fact probably more than anyone)

But I do not and never will accept being abused just because someone doesn’t agree

I do relish a good discussion
You don’t learn if you don’t question
And trust me I have learned a lot from this site

Don’t let our little spat put you off posting.
Trust me I will have plenty more and even some with yourself (just no name calling it brings you and myself down)
😀

View Comment

tcup 2012Posted on1:54 am - Mar 11, 2015


Look at the first home match back after Rangers…er…hiatus. It was mid-week against East Stirling in the Ramdens, they got over 40’000
/////////
Yes but that was a show of defiance and probably didn’t clash with a CL night
And if it did it would have been the qualifier’s not the CL quarter finals

So all in all a 30k+ turn out is pretty outstanding
Don’t think even most EPL teams would have got that tonight

Besides I think its about 2/3 weeks down the line before we can really judge if the fans are retuning or not

View Comment

douglas reynholmPosted on1:59 am - Mar 11, 2015


tcup 2012 says:
March 11, 2015 at 1:46 am

Nae Worries….I get into much worse spats on twitter and I’m on there with my own name, photo and everything! Didn’t know how to take your posts at first:-)

One things for sure, this script is about to get a lot more interesting with recent developments. I was losing interest for a while there when it looked like Mike Ashley was going to take a financially stable if slightly under funded club into the SPL, it’s become a lot more interesting again.

View Comment

tcup 2012Posted on2:21 am - Mar 11, 2015


Cluster One says:
March 10, 2015 at 10:30 pm
There was plenty for the Rangers players to draw on with Ibrox great John Greig among a 35,018 crowd as guests of the new-look board, but there was a distinct lack of inspiration on the park with Queens coming closest in the first half when Michael Paton hit the post.

match report.

19 1 Rate This
////////////////

Just read the whole of the DR’s match report

Mines was better
👿 👿 👿 👿

View Comment

yourhavingalaughPosted on6:19 am - Mar 11, 2015


I would imagine the 6th floor of the bunker will have the occupants scurrying about and discussing the end of season scenario which is about to develop,I sincerely hope they are as it more than likely to happen and a solution to the play offs and the SC Final should be decided,probably they will compromise with the get out clause with no relegation and 4 going up ,any takers.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on6:54 am - Mar 11, 2015


A lot of debate going on about the attendance at Ibrox last night. Officially it was around 10k less than the lower estimate I posted here yesterday morning. We don’t know if it included season ticket holders who did not attend. While 35k is a very good crowd for the Scottish Championship without a doubt, it still leaves the question of how much faith did it show in the new regime. I don’t go with the ‘Champions League night’ argument and it will be interesting to see whether it is an exception, rather than a rule for the rest of the season. It can’t be ignored that even under Green the fans backed them in far higher numbers, presumably because they thought a wealthy, all conquering club was their’s once again. High attendances appear to be a prerequisite for financing options and it appears clear to me with the latest (ridiculous IMO) board appointments there are a lack of quality people wanting to be involved. Jim McColl, Brian Kennedy, or Chris Graham – go figure! The occupants of the Ibrox director’s box last night made grim viewing for those of us who hope Scottish football can eventually move one. It looks to me as if they’re simply gearing up for one big fight against imaginary enemies instead.

View Comment

Hartsons CombPosted on7:09 am - Mar 11, 2015


From a post rated “popular” on RM addressed to the new board:

“There may be a very different type of boycott next season and maybe even the season after if we are still in the Championship – which is highly likely as turning this s*** around is no mean task even if you paid the best manager in the world to do it. And that boycott would trace its roots to your having had the chance to make an immediate positive intervention by installing a capable manager and you (Mr King) have failed to do it. Too many eyes on the past Boardroom battles and too many eyes on the future airy as yet unspecified plans and not enough eyes on the reality of here and now. Call that good quality leadership? I don’t.”

Honeymoon over?

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on8:43 am - Mar 11, 2015


tcup 2012 says:
March 11, 2015 at 7:53 am

For those who never got a chance to read
My match report
Here is a substandard version
Also my wee side note has now disappeared
Oh well looks like I’m heading for the naughty step again

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-match-reports/rangers-1-queen-south-1-5309039
———

Haha, minute-by-minute match reports probably more appreciated on twitter than here 😆

Just noticed The National’s match report mentions that the QotS equaliser was scored by a 17-year-old sub — seventeen! Not sure what the average age of the QotS team was but I’m guessing the home team’s was just slightly lower than the average age of the burgeoning directors box.

It’s odd how new opportunities to rescue the sutuation keep turning up, and being rejected. For example, right now, if they put out a team of eager kids — by bringing back those on loan — and installed Steven Pressley as manager (well, his type, doubt he’d take the job), they’d probably achieve a bit of success and get some fan approval. But dinosaur thinking reigns supreme. It’s looking like the football equivelent of Last Night of the Proms — though a bit more glum.

View Comment

AyeRightNawPosted on8:46 am - Mar 11, 2015


Bit disappointed that Queens dropped two points last night. Absolutely scunnered that points were lost to a goal scored by a loan player that the Govan club can’t afford.

I expressed my dismay at the financially doped loans here

http://www.tsfm.scot/spot-the-difference/comment-page-25/#comment-45356

And followed it with an email to Hearts, Hibs, Falkirk, Raith and Queens asking their views on the potential for unsporting advantage to be gained through the signings.

I said I wouldn’t be holding my breath awaiting a response, and it’s a good job I didn’t otherwise I’d be stiffer than RFC by now.

The developments down Govan way over the last few days show that Level5 are pulling out all the stops to deflect attention away from the money question. And no doubt there’s more to come.

Meantime the entity continues to survive solely by running on the fumes of Ashley’s f*rts. Apologies for the analogy but it seems entirely fitting given the circumstances.

( My polite enquiry to the clubs can be seen here http://www.tsfm.scot/spot-the-difference/comment-page-35/#comment-46189 )

The clubs’ scant disregard for customers is as unacceptable as it is expected.

View Comment

tcup 2012Posted on8:54 am - Mar 11, 2015


Danish Pastry says:
March 11, 2015 at 8:43 am
tcup 2012 says:
March 11, 2015 at 7
///////////

Danish

Should have read my side note 😆

Both sides had good young players on show

I know fanzine stuff
But it was just a bit of fun :mrgreen:

Besides first time I have wrote a report on anything Just ask my old teachers 😉

Edit

Also we have to remember most of the posters especially those from abroad (like yourselve)
Don’t have the equipment we both have to view these games
Even here in Scotland and the rest of the UK viewing is limited

So the only way they have to read somewhat unbiased reviews is on the net

View Comment

mcfcPosted on9:27 am - Mar 11, 2015


Beyond Incompetent, Beyond Parody

SFA can’t organise a football schedule involving a simple league, some play-offs and a couple of cup competitions – all designed by them and all within their total control. What exactly do these numpties do on the sixth floor for 37.5 hours per week.

“Extended SPFL season would wreak havoc on player contracts”

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/extended-spfl-season-would-wreak-havoc-on-player-contracts.120381385

View Comment

mcfcPosted on9:32 am - Mar 11, 2015


That directors’ box looks remarkably like a court dock to me. Home from home for some. 🙂

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/gary-ralston-ex-rangers-stars-managers-5309729

View Comment

mcfcPosted on9:38 am - Mar 11, 2015


DIY Army

Before the DIY Army rebuild Ibrox, shouildn’t they ask Mr KIng for “absolute transparency and accountability” on who owns Ibrox and who will benefit most financially from their charity work?

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on9:58 am - Mar 11, 2015


AyeRightNaw says:
March 11, 2015 at 8:46 am

Bit disappointed that Queens dropped two points last night. Absolutely scunnered that points were lost to a goal scored by a loan player that the Govan club can’t afford…

…Meantime the entity continues to survive solely by running on the fumes of Ashley’s f*rts. Apologies for the analogy but it seems entirely fitting given the circumstances.
———

Was this the same club that couldn’t afford to turn on the undersoil heating in time causing a TV match to be cancelled? Surely not.

If money is short, perhaps Mike’s gastric gas could be supplimented by serving copious amounts of Eggs in Purgatory at the next board meeting? Coia’s on Duke Street could probably arrange a special delivery. (Apologies if anyone finds that to be in poor taste. In that case, I’d recommend Eggs Benedict.)

By the way, the road sign ‘Fart Kontrol’ is quite common in Denmark. As is the use of a ‘Fartplan’ when making travel arrangements. It’s true.

PS tcup, I took it in the spirit you intended, although, via the wonders of modern science I did get a squint at the 2nd half. QotS were impressive. Quick passing and movement. Not short on skill either. Two points droppd by the visitors.

View Comment

helpmaboabPosted on10:04 am - Mar 11, 2015


The shape of things to come by the look of the woman bottom right.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/gary-ralston-ex-rangers-stars-managers-5309729

View Comment

tcup 2012Posted on10:17 am - Mar 11, 2015


Mcfc

Not a simple as you think
Clubs would have to renegotiate contracts Reinsure players etc

More to do with the clubs than the SFA

I’m sorry to say this
But the whole situation boils down to
Hibs being a victim of their own success

Besides they have still to play the semi final they are not in the final yet

View Comment

tcup 2012Posted on10:31 am - Mar 11, 2015


PS tcup, I took it in the spirit you intended, although, via the wonders of modern science I did get a squint at the 2nd half. QotS were impressive. Quick passing and movement. Not short on skill either. Two points droppd by the visitors.

Thanks Danish 🙂

Was only trying my best

My side note was about the young players involved in the game

Only problem I had was not knowing their names
And especially not knowing any of the QOS players names at all 😳 which I stated to my embarrassment

View Comment

AyeRightNawPosted on10:45 am - Mar 11, 2015


Danish Pastry says:
March 11, 2015 at 9:58 am

————————————-

Cease and desist please before we dive headlong into an hour of ‘something rotten in the state of Denmark’ gags (sic)!

Couldn’t resist that but know that I absolutely should have. Sorry.

View Comment

nowoldandgrumpyPosted on10:56 am - Mar 11, 2015


Just noticed this on http://www.lse.co.uk/member-info.asp?page=2&nick=Aquaboo
Do not know how true it is or posters reliability.

Self certified yet in contradiction to Article 10.2 (j) of the SFA articles? We have a meeting on Friday to confirm that we are one of 3 clubs who will submit a complaint to the SFA. The grounds of the complaint are based upon his directorship of the BoD of RFC from 2007 onwards when that Club used tax evasion measures which brought Scottish football into serious disrepute and ultimately led to the liquidiation of a very prominent member of the SFA. As a Director, he would be party to and complicit in the tax evasion. He did not take any actions to stop or inform authorities of the act.

Raith and Alloa will make the complaint formally next week. Our biggies tell us that more will be co-signatories. It was funny……a rabid Rangers bigot predicted it would be Celtic, Dundee united & Hibs the three instigators! More his sad way of thinking than reality!!!

View Comment

redlichtiePosted on11:01 am - Mar 11, 2015


AyeRightNaw says:
March 11, 2015 at 10:45 am
Danish Pastry says:
March 11, 2015 at 9:58 am

————————————-

Cease and desist please before we dive headlong into an hour of ‘something rotten in the state of Denmark’ gags (sic)!

Couldn’t resist that but know that I absolutely should have. Sorry.
≠===========

Eggsactly!

Scottish Football has a strong QoS.

View Comment

mcfcPosted on11:11 am - Mar 11, 2015


tcup 2012 says:
March 11, 2015 at 10:17 am

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

My understanding was that there used to be a traditional season end date (give or take) and that contracts were arranged around that. The SFA/SPFL restructured the leagues to introduce play-offs (more end of season games) but kept the traditional season end date. Changing the season end date professionally would have required several years’ notice due to player/staff contracts. But time was of the essence. Some say the change was rushed through to ease the journey should their favourite club have an exceptionally poor points to £mil spent ratio in full time football. In some scenarios of cups / play-offs the new structure would cause severe fixture congestion. But the good fellows on the sixth floor either didn’t think that far or chose to ignore the risk as inconvenient detail to a necessary master plan. Now those pesky scenarios have materialized, the good fellows are in a bit of a pickle because they can’t simply extend the season beyond the traditional end date because of contracts, insurance etc.

Am I miles off the mark?

The SFA makes Last of The Summer Wine look like the SAS.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on11:24 am - Mar 11, 2015


Folks

Re the post of a condensed version of the main blog at

http://www.tsfm.scot/did-stewart-regan-ken-then-wit-we-ken-noo/comment-page-5/#comment-49350

I see lots of thumbs up which is gratifying but I tend to go for getting points articulated rather than polishing them.

Given the condensed version will be more easy to read and so spread the word, does anyone want to suggest any amendments.

I’m thinking ahead to possible advert territory.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on11:29 am - Mar 11, 2015


redlichtie says:
March 11, 2015 at 11:01 am

Eggsactly!
———-

I remember the Egg language as a kind of code communication at primary. It consisted of puttng the word ‘egg’ into other words, especially on the ‘e’. Teacher became something
Iike ‘teggachegger’ and someone like masel with the name Peter became ‘Peggetegger’. I seem to remember ‘Archie’ became ‘eggArcheggie’.

Lots of very funny words, or meanings of words, here. If I say ‘boghandel’ you’d never think I meant a bookshop, or that a ‘killing’ is a kitten. So a ‘boghandel killing’ is not you think.

I’ll get ma dictionary.

View Comment

Top Cat 1874Posted on11:30 am - Mar 11, 2015


Tcup2012 @10.17am

Can’t agree that this potential balls-up is down to Hibs success on the field. It is down to the SPFL/SFA long-standing assumption that the OF (RIP) do not get involved in anything as demeaning as playoffs which are clearly the domain of the diddy clubs. Anyone looking objectively at the Championship this season would have had this scenario down as a possibility. All Doncaster’s fault I’m afraid.

View Comment

darkmoonPosted on11:31 am - Mar 11, 2015


Maybe this congestion problem with playoffs and contracts is a grand masterplan. 16 team premiership anyone?

View Comment

ForfolksakePosted on11:34 am - Mar 11, 2015


tcup 2012 says:
March 11, 2015 at 10:17 am
Mcfc

Not a simple as you think
Clubs would have to renegotiate contracts Reinsure players etc

More to do with the clubs than the SFA
__________________________________________________

Having been involved as a committee member at Welfare/Amateur level it is far simpler than it would seem.

All players registered with the SFA are required to take out insurance with Sportsguard, at amateur level you were insured for 364 days from the 1st of April to 31st of March if you played during the summer months. This covers you for official games, friendly matches or mixed training sessions as everyone calls them, training sessions and travelling to and from games.

Also having occasions where the season had to be extended to accommodate a Cup Final, all you need is authorisation from the relevant Association based at Hampden and the release date of all relevant players on the registration system can be extended to accommodate the season extension.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on11:42 am - Mar 11, 2015


For those following the Shareprophets revelations about Worthington Group, the injunction that Aiden Earley had taken out against Tom Winnifrith last week has been lifted (according to the LSE website). It may mean that TW will be free to make further claims against Worthington / Ware / Earley / Whyte.

View Comment

mcfcPosted on11:48 am - Mar 11, 2015


nowoldandgrumpy says:
March 11, 2015 at 10:56 am

Just noticed this on http://www.lse.co.uk/member-info.asp?page=2&nick=Aquaboo
Do not know how true it is or posters reliability.

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

From memory, I think Aquaboo would be at home here pointing out the obvious inconsistentcies and inaccuracies of the Ibrox-minded. So, I’d say there could be something in this complaint. If so, good luck to them.

View Comment

tcup 2012Posted on11:49 am - Mar 11, 2015


mcfc says:
March 11, 2015 at 11:11 am
tcup 2012 says:
March 11, 2015 at 10:17 am

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

My understanding was that there used to be a traditional season end date (give or take) and that contracts were arranged around that. The SFA/SPFL restructured the leagues to introduce play-offs (more end of season games) but kept the traditional season end date. Changing the season end date professionally would have required several years’ notice due to player/staff contracts. But time was of the essence. Some say the change was rushed through to ease the journey should their favourite club have an exceptionally poor points to £mil spent ratio in full time football. In some scenarios of cups / play-offs the new structure would cause severe fixture congestion. But the good fellows on the sixth floor either didn’t think that far or chose to ignore the risk as inconvenient detail to a necessary master plan. Now those pesky scenarios have materialized, the good fellows are in a bit of a pickle because they can’t simply extend the season beyond the traditional end date because of contracts, insurance etc.

Am I miles off the mark?

The SFA makes Last of The Summer Wine look like the SAS.
///////

I agree with you in principal

Had this discussion last week regarding TRFC players who are out of contract

This is more the clubs problem than the SFA

The clubs agreed to the restructuring

The clubs know what contracts the players are on and when they end

The clubs have decided not to renegotiate the players contracts and let them run down Leaving said players looking at unemployment

Not the SFA the clubs

Besides we are talking about a scenario that may or may not happen

Hubs still have a semi final tto play They are not in the final

Hibs are not garunteed a place in the playoffs as yet either
I’m sure a few other clubs will have a say in that as yet

Edit

You also alude to restructuring was for the benefit of 1 club (I to lean that way)

But now you want the SFA to restructure the end of the season to Suit 1 club

Irony

View Comment

Comments are closed.