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.
TSFM says:
April 19, 2015 at 3:10 pm
____________________________________________
Commiserations to all CFC fans.
It was 120 minutes of incident and action.
The utter euphoria of Caley fans is palpable.
This was our cup final.
And now we have another one to look forward to.
Leaving aside the questionable refereeing, the spectacle was thrilling. Nailbiting. Nervewrecking. Unbelieveably intense.
The delight I feel at the result is tinged with a sense that there is probably never going to be as good a Caley team as this seasons for generations. As fans, we’ll probably never top this. So we’d better enjoy every second.
There is no way a team of our resources justifies players of the stature, ability, attitude and graft that we were privileged to witness this season. I feel a delight that is the very antithesis of entitlement, and it is all the sweeter for it.
If this is armageddon I’ll have more of the same please.
I think this article needs updating:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/scotland/26159324
Resin_lab_dog says:
April 19, 2015 at 4:17 pm
=================================
Hope you have a great day out at the final RLD. Out of interest how many do you reckon will come down? I’m presuming the SFA won’t move the kick off to 09:30hrs to avoid a clash with Sky Family showing repeats of Bonanza or the Waltons.
briggsbhoy says:
April 19, 2015 at 3:20 pm
Congratulations to Inverness Caley Thistle. Armegedon my arse, The Cup Final will be a massive family day out. Hopefully both pick up some support on the back of this.
_________________________________
… Brings the kids.
I really hope the SFA think of the fans and the future of the game and use the opportunity to do some fantastic family packages and concessions. Kids for a quid would be my preference.
There is a real opportunity to sow seeds for future generations.
Last years league cup final is teh template – it was full of youngsters and it was immense (apart from the result).
upthehoops says:
April 19, 2015 at 4:24 pm
Resin_lab_dog says:
April 19, 2015 at 4:17 pm
=================================
Hope you have a great day out at the final RLD. Out of interest how many do you reckon will come down? I’m presuming the SFA won’t move the kick off to 09:30hrs to avoid a clash with Sky Family showing repeats of Bonanza or the Waltons.
_____________________________________________________
Reckon 15K.
And that will leave Inverness half empty.
But I reckon a few Dons fans will come for the occasion to show solidarity (there’s really not much emnity between the clubs).
A 3pm tick off will help numbers. Will be a novelty for travelling ICT fans to get breakfast before the off.
Resin_lab_dog says:
April 19, 2015 at 4:39 pm
Reckon 15K.
And that will leave Inverness half empty.
But I reckon a few Dons fans will come for the occasion to show solidarity (there’s really not much emnity between the clubs).
A 3pm tick off will help numbers. Will be a novelty for travelling ICT fans to get breakfast before the off.
=================================
Any chance the Ross County fans will return the favour of the Invernesians who supported them in 2010?
Resin_lab_dog.
Congratulatoins to your team. While I think it’s fair to say that you were handed your chance, you still had to take it and you did playing some good flowing football.
Enjoy thd rest of your day and have a good one in May too.
Well done to Falkirk and ICT – watch one of the great cliches of Scottish football emerge in the SMSM: “the family final”
Having listened to the game it sounds that the officials had a shocker. Can’t wait to see the highlights later on tonight.
I was thinking about the comments re Twitter and TSFM.
My view is that RTC started an evidence led debate – the complexities of what happened re EBT, LNS etc. cannot be easily simplified to 140 characters.
Many posters make excellent posts on TSFM and Twitter: RTC; Barcabhoy and Phil. Alex Tomo makes good use of his “Tommo blog” and Twitter very well.
Personally I find Twitter good for what’s happening and TSFM for the detail and analysis behind the news.
#Theybothcomplementeachother 🙂
upthehoops says:
April 19, 2015 at 4:44 pm
Resin_lab_dog says:
April 19, 2015 at 4:39 pm
Reckon 15K.
And that will leave Inverness half empty.
But I reckon a few Dons fans will come for the occasion to show solidarity (there’s really not much emnity between the clubs).
A 3pm tick off will help numbers. Will be a novelty for travelling ICT fans to get breakfast before the off.
=================================
Any chance the Ross County fans will return the favour of the Invernesians who supported them in 2010?
_____________________________________________________
It would be nice if they did. The more the merrier.
And I wouldn’t even mind if they sat in the Falkirk end – as some may well do 😉 .
(There is a good rivalry between the highland clubs.)
I certainly don’t want to see County relegated and really hope they avoid the playoffs (with all due respect to Motherwell fans).
Re the prices for sky sports, it’s between 20 and 25 quid a month to add the sports channels to your package. The non sports packages start from 20 quidish up to about 35 quid(not including movies) you cant just get sky sports, you have to get one of the other packages and add sky sports to it. I recently cancelled my sky sports and it’s saving me £22.00 per month. I got bt sport from plusnet for 5.99 a month(for the baseball).
From a LINK Random Thoughts Re Scots Law by Paul McConville, that ecobhoy gave me.
Craig Whyte has been declared not to be a “fit and proper” person to be a director of a Scottish football club by the SFA.
the finding regarding Mr Whyte comes ten months after he took over at Ibrox,
———————-
Why if it took the SFA only ten months to find out if Mr Whyte was not fit and proper.
If i remember right, they said no timescale for the Mr King fit and proper.
Kilgore Trout says:
April 19, 2015 at 4:46 pm
Resin_lab_dog.
Congratulatoins to your team. While I think it’s fair to say that you were handed your chance, you still had to take it and you did playing some good flowing football.
—————————————–
So it goes.
21 4 Rate This
Congrats RLD
Your team took their chances. That alone warranted a win. Hope you lift the cup
Supercaleygoballisticofficialsareatrocious.
Congrats to ICT There is no doubt they played well, and I wish them the best of luck in the final.
I was disappointed today, though, by the poor attendance at the ICT end ground.
The cup final should be something special for all fans of participating teams.
I hope both sets of supporters have an enjoyable cup final day, not spoiled by incompetent officials.
Supercaleygoballisticofficialsareatrocious.
come on people, wake up ffs! SPORT its not religion, or politics, lets get it back to sport 4 all
Kilgore Trout says:
April 19, 2015 at 4:46 pm
Resin_lab_dog.
Congratulatoins to your team. While I think it’s fair to say that you were handed your chance,
_________________________________________
To be fair to Meekings it was pretty close in to him. He admitted it came off his hand and was lucky to get away with it. Desperate last ditch defending, rather than deliberate cheating imo. He had no idea where the ball was going to go.
A sending off would have been cruel in the circumstances, but most definitely not unfair.
And it should have been a penalty by rights, without question.
Had it been up the other end I would have been livid so can fully sympathise with the CFC disappointment. RD was very measured in the circumstances I thought.
As to the officials, well, if I was specsavers I’d be asking for my sponsorship money back around about now, before they tarnished my brand image any further.
So we lucked out there.
But we played our full part in an otherwise great game.
Proud of our guys.
yakutsuki says:
April 19, 2015 at 4:01 pm
Sorry eco but I was always taught that there’s nothing positive that results from egotism – no matter how many paragraphs are used in an attempt to justify it.
—————————————–
So I supppose it all boils down to who’s doing the teaching and whether they have any clue as to what they’re spouting.
However – let’s get back to things that really matter. Some might look for succour in the woeful refereeing today.
They would be wrong and not people who appreciate that every team has to deal with what is put in front of them.
On that basis ICT well-deserved their victory and perhaps RD has learnt a bit more of the intricancies of the Scottish game and why a Treble is so difficult.
I’ll probably go to the final but I hope that it won’t be taken as a sign of a bruised ego if I support Falkirk 😆
NB: I attended the Cup Final last year at Parkhead with my partner who, like me, had a great day our.
I think I may well have exceeded the twitter character count and I give due notice I will continue to do as I’m not a tweeter – simply someone with an ego 😎
Resin Lab Dog at 09:49pm
============================
I will take a couple of days to get over losing today but get over it I will. I said earlier that now ICT are there I’d like to see big Yogi Hughes get the success. He likes to play the daftie but he’s clearly got tactical awareness about him. Are you dreaming of European football in the highlands?
ecobhoy says:
April 19, 2015 at 10:46 pm
____________________________________________
Very magnanimous eco.
(although I do still find myself hoping some of your ‘luck’ rubs off onto your ‘adopted’ Bairns come May, obv. 😈 )
upthehoops says:
April 19, 2015 at 10:56 pm
Resin Lab Dog at 09:49pm
============================
Are you dreaming of European football in the highlands?
_____________________________
Surreal isn’t it? 😀
There will never be another season like this up here.
And this team will be talked about for generations.
We’re living through history, come what may.
ecobhoy says:
April 18, 2015 at 8:01 pm
More than One Poster with a BIG EGO on TSFM – I demand to know the names 😆
Ecobhoy you cheeky chappy
I note today uncle Mike diversified by several 100 millions into property in Chelsea via Mash. Maybe his plan for his millions is simply a mixed portfolio of risks. No more no less.
Really well done ICT. Shows how much a game can change with a slice of luck or not! If the blatant penalty had been awarded to Celtic and, the ICT player sent off, (it was so obviously a red card as the header was at least going in or going to the celtic player who wouldnt miss from 4 meters out)I firmly believe Celtic would have won the match. Still not ICTs fault that the referee and his assistants were really poor. 🙁 🙁
Days like today always make you question your own personal perspective. “Swings and roundabouts … you should walk in our shoes … paranoid”. I like to think that I have a mature, fairly unfiltered perspective, but when I discuss games I recognize that I am watching mainly one team and with hindsight I can see that my first view might have been coloured no matter how fair I know that I am. I think much is the same for match officials. They have an institutionalized view and when the majority of our officials are from the same ‘institution’, a statistical bias is to be expected. Not malicious, but expected. One advantage to the decline in that particular institution is that over time, the numbers will reduce. Maybe, in a generation or two, it’ll be better… we should have video refs by then!
Another day of Armageddon plus. My my whatever will the feeble minded at Hampden towers come up with to f this one up.
A pre game fly past of old firm players?
A 11am kick off?
Come on they must have something up their sleeve.
Having watched the ‘handball’ which wasn’t, the only point everyone can make – including the neutrals – is that the officiating was unacceptably poor, and more so for a national cup semifinal.
And how ‘poor’ will the officiating be for the Championship promotion play-off games ?
Especially when the SFA, SPFL and SMSM have very clearly stated a preference / bias, many times, for one particular club to get into the top league ASAP – and ‘justifying’ this stance on their belief that this would be for the good of Scottish football ?
IMO, ‘sporting integrity’ could very well be a hot topic again in a few weeks time… 😥
Auldheid, there has been no opprobrium directed against Meekings as it was a completely instinctive and understandable action. The lad himself said as much that he expected to walk. Why the ref and two assistants saw it differently is for them to explain, but of course they can’t. Transparency seems like such an unattainable virtue.
Video Referees are not the answer. Video Refs are now a part of 2 sports I watch (Cricket and Rugby League) and it is tearing them both apart.
It is always introduced as a way to stop the really bad decisions, but it always suffers from mission creep and is used to judge decisions it wasn’t meant to. All this does is undermine the referees even further.
Also think about how many times you are watching a game with your mates, see a replay and all have different opinions on what the correct decision is.
Whatever happened to just accepting the Referees decision good or bad? Referees make mistakes but players miss tackles, misplace passes, miss from point blank range or get sent off.
I can’t imagine why anyone would want to become a Referee in this toxic environment
Just seen a video clip (on son’s phone) and Alan Muir is clearly saying ‘hands hands hands’ maybe the ref couldn’t hear as well as see …….. 😉 or maybe his earpiece wasn’t working ….. This should be taken further ” Dougie Dougie” ringing a bell 😥
Is Rugby League not a form of Draughts? Video referal is a good thing when the decisions it reaches are correct or the evidence shows how marginal a decision must be. However in addition to that, the attitude of players and crowds must be one of respect to the referee and the game itsellf. Rugby players know the limits of dissent and the channeling of it. The limits are low and the Captain the only channel of it. It could not be otherwise. Crowds are partisan but not given to madness.
Having said all that if there was a dougie dougie element there it should be investigated although it is pretty blatant for such a skilled bunch of men. If one can live through Dresden’s firestorm and leave it to so it goes then we should learn something. -one for the trout if he exists.
Resin_lab_dog.
Whatever fallout there is from the actions of the decision makers in the game, I have no qualms over the actions of Josh Meekings.
An almost instinctive reaction in the heat of the moment. Completely understandable.
An infringement of the rules of a game? Yes.
An act of dishonesty? Absolutely not.
He and his team were fortunate that he escaped the consequences but they still had a game to win and did it entertainingly and well so, as Tartanwulver correctly points out,So It Goes. 😆
Enjoy the final. Same goes to any Falkirk fans on here.
I lived up in Caithness for a while a scary number of years ago and became aware then that the standards of football in the Highland League was at least the equal of that in the main divisions.
I’m not surprised that this has been shown to be the case.
I have to say that both you and Ross County have exceeded my expectations and I am happy with that.
Indeed,the fact that outside Celtic all the top 6 teams come from north of the central belt is quite refreshing.
I was prepared to shrug off the performance of the officials but based on the contradictory nature of some of the statements I am reading today, maybe I’ve still got some moaning to do.
But that is for elsewhere…. for now.
I think video review in cricket excellent. I often tape and ‘watch’ at top speed. The one bit I am guaranteed to stop and watch carefully is a review. I can’t go along with the idea that crowds don’t like them. The idea of a limited number of reviews adds a bit of skill for the captain. Also strange how appeals that are ‘definite’ are often not so definite that the team would use up a review …
Not such a success in rugby. Often review is because ref can’t see under a pile of bodies. Camera often does no better…
However apart from the eyesight issue of referees Scottish football seems to lack a consistent and useable definition of handball in the box. From week to week similar offences get radically different outcomes …
Congratulations to ICT, hope the SFA have the gumption to turn the final into a festival of football.
On TV coverage. Some sort of SPFL TV is certainly worth trying, it certainly couldn’t be much worse than the current deal. I wonder if a strategic partnership with the SRU would be worth exploring?
“However apart from the eyesight issue of referees Scottish football seems to lack a consistent and useable definition of handball in the box. From week to week similar offences get radically different outcomes …”
Very true.
I can recall two even more blatant examples than yesterday this season. The only thing that I can believe is that the ref thought that it was accidental due to how close Meekings was to the Celtic player at the time.
One thing is for certain though. The senior Scottish referees should not be in charge of a Sunday kickabout let alone a professional match. They are that bad.
Not one for conspiracy theories however can’t help thinking the DCK F&PP decision is dragging on to allow seasons tickets to be sold by both T’Rangers and other clubs.
Turn him down the Bears will be ragin. Approve and the rest will be up in arms.
Expect a decision, either way, in the off season while the fans are sunning themselves on foreign beaches and elsewhere.
“However apart from the eyesight issue of referees Scottish football seems to lack a consistent and useable definition of handball in the box. From week to week similar offences get radically different outcomes …”
Very true.
I can recall two even more blatant examples than yesterday this season. The only thing that I can believe is that the ref thought that it was accidental due to how close Meekings was to the Celtic player at the time.
One thing is for certain though. The senior Scottish referees should not be in charge of a Sunday kickabout let alone a professional match. They are that bad.
—————————————————————-
To be fair, it’s not just Scottish football, the same issue is apparent across Europe and no doubt further. The rules aren’t fit for purpose, there is no clear definition as to when it is “deliberate” and “accidental”. Taking Sunday, his hand was up in what is now declared an “unnatural position” (whatever the hell that is) and the ball struck it but then again he didn’t strike the ball so was that “hand-to-ball” or “ball-to-hand” which was the old unofficial means test.
Now, was his arm up for balance or to block the ball? I dunno, I don’t think it was deliberate but can easily see why others would say it was. That said I would have given a penalty, it stopped a clear goal scoring opportunity although I don’t think a red card would have been correct.
We always get the old these things balance out over a season statement at times like these. Over the course of a league season maybe they do, but Aberdeen also lost out in a semi-final this year due to a referee decision, a perfectly good goal disallowed. I guess the best we can ever hope for realistically is that referees get it just as wrong for everyone else. With the best will in the world they are going to make mistakes. Some won’t matter, a few will be major.
For the record, while we moan about our referees, are they really any worse than anywhere else? I’ve seen some shockers during the little EPL football I have watched this season.
I’m no Luddite but I’m not a fan of using video technology in football. Basically it’s the same rules from kids football through to the professional game and I quite like that simplicity. Start introducing technology into the mix, a camera on the goal line or decisions by replay, and the game fundamentally changes for those at the ‘top’ level compared to everyone else.
It would be expensive so the Premiership might have it but the Championship probably wouldn’t. What about League One, Two, Highland league, Amateurs, Juniors and Youth football? I doubt those leagues would have it available to them.
I never get too worked up about refereeing decisions as we expect a level of consistency from them that we never expect from anyone else in the game. I find Mark Hughes particularly annoying when it comes to this as he seems to blame the ref for EVERYTHING. So much so I’ve acquired a bit of a dislike for him.
They can get is shockingly wrong at times, like yesterday, but I reckon they get more right than they get wrong. It’s an impossible job and on occasion they are really not helped by the behaviour of the players or the managers. Possibly not a popular view but I think we should cut them some slack and show them a wee bit of appreciation. Not easy, I know.
gamesabogey says:
April 20, 2015 at 2:14 am
Auldheid, there has been no opprobrium directed against Meekings as it was a completely instinctive and understandable action. The lad himself said as much that he expected to walk. Why the ref and two assistants saw it differently is for them to explain, but of course they can’t. Transparency seems like such an unattainable virtue.
===================
Its interesting why no opprobrium is directed (which was not my intent) my intent was to say that he illegally stopped the ball going into the goal.
The defence you offer is it was instinctive and therein lies the problem. That defence makes it acceptable, that it just part of football and if you do it no opprobrium is attracted.
Perhaps in general terms if it were to attract opprobrium then it would become a lot less instinctive and a players first thought would be preservation of reputation rather saving his team.
If players don’t cheat, refs don’t get lambasted. The problem of course is that cheating is unacceptable when other teams do it and our team is on losing end, but if our team does it and we get away with it, then its OK.
So the problem passes up the line to supporters. Are you against cheating but only when your club is on the wrong end?.
On Twitter the Guedetti penalty v Hearts was brought up. Regardless of the ins and outs of that event I would rather at the time when watching that he would have told the ref he slipped.
If it had been for an equaliser however I might have to have dismounted my high horse.
Am I a dreamer? Maybe 🙂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72xn8O1vJb0
The answer lies in the lad who handballed and in all of us who made a judgement about it.
Brenda says:
April 20, 2015 at 6:57 am
Just seen a video clip (on son’s phone) and Alan Muir is clearly saying ‘hands hands hands’ maybe the ref couldn’t hear as well as see …….. 😉 or maybe his earpiece wasn’t working ….. This should be taken further ” Dougie Dougie” ringing a bell 😥
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Brenda
You may well be right
Any chance you could upload the clip ?
Congrats to ICT, but heads should roll at the SFA for the size of that crowd. This seems to come up every year a team from the North makes it to the latter stages of the cup. There is no provision made for them. I would imagine, given that it’s a 9/10 hour round trip by car, fans would be more than likely to travel by public transport, but the earliest buses and trains on a sunday from Inverness wouldn’t arrive in Glasgow until after kick off.
Result – a half empty stadium, and a tiny amount of Inverness fans (by the way, kudos to them for making the journey in the first place. Some of them might even have made it home by now). Given the loss of fan revenue, is it really worth moving to 12.15 kick off on a Sunday to please the broadcasters? Surely the fee that the SFA got for TV coverage wouldn’t cover the half million quid or so shortfall for a full house? Either move the game to Tannadice/Dens Park, take the potential hit of ticket sale revenue, and give the fans at least half a chance of getting there in time for kick off, or keep the 3pm kick off and tell the broadcasters where to go.
I seem to remember it being the same story for a Hearts/Inverness cup match a season or two ago. Middle of winter, and they set it as 12.15 kick off at Tynecastle, expecting fans to drive down the A9 (only the most notorious road in Scotland, mind) if they wanted to attend the game, because, again, public transport wouldn’t have got fans to Edinburgh in time for kick off.
These things just keep repeating and repeating, and yet no one in the media seems to want to take it up – I’m guessing because having pertinent reasons for a low crowd might detract from their ‘Scottish football is finished without the mighty Gers’ broken record.
Gabby says April 20 @ 4.47 a.m
‘..I can’t imagine why anyone would want to become a referee in this toxic environment’
……………..
unless he was happy to work for an organisation that created that very toxic environment by its wholesale abandonment of any notion of ‘sporting integrity’.
The 5-way agreement is proof positive of the lying, deceitful ,cheating hearts of the men who administer our game.
men utterly without principle,ready to temporise with outright villainous cheats, and make whores of themselves for craven or complicitly partisan reasons.
Incompetence I could live with. Deliberate, calculated ‘fixing’ by self-contradictory , secretly sworn agreements? No honest person, let alone sportsmanlike person, can be expected to live with that, and accept it.
Toxicity is as toxicity does.
Our game will die unless the poison is excised by the scalpel of Truth.
Tayred, the laws of the game state that it is a red card offence to use your hand to deny a clear goal scoring opportunity. Whether you think it is harsh or not that is the law.
John Clark says:
April 20, 2015 at 12:55 pm
Blimey John. Are you calling out the referee from Sunday as part of some conspiracy here?
Don’t get me wrong I agree with every point you make in relation to Doncaster, Regan et al. But I believe that the referees are simply incompetent at times or, to put it more generously, prone to mistakes.
mhaddog says:
April 20, 2015 at 1:11 pm
Tayred, the laws of the game state that it is a red card offence to use your hand to deny a clear goal scoring opportunity. Whether you think it is harsh or not that is the law.
——————————————————————-
Indeed they do, but then I wouldn’t have sent off Gordon either!
We have an issue where it may or may not have been a handball offence (as laid out in the obviously deficient rule book). Now why pile extra pressure on the referee by saying he must doubly punish the team? If it’s clear cut cheating then fine, if its debatable then that is one helluva call the referee has to make. Give penalty, send off player, 2-0 game well and truly over.
Thats no defence of the referee or offending player, but if the referee isn’t absolutely sure of what happened he is left with absolutely no room for compromise – all or nothing.
To return to Gordon, I think he made an attempt to get the ball and failed, penalty and yellow card would have sufficed. But then the referee isn’t allowed to use common sense anymore (although in many cases that perhaps isn’t necessarily a bad thing!). All it does, potentially, is deny the already small crowd the chance to see a decent game of football.
Fully agree with the statement above about the choice of Hampden. Tynecastle would have been ideal for Saturdays game, and personally I would have said Pittodrie or Dens for Sundays. Asking Inverness fans to get to Glasgow for a 12:15 kickoff is frankly obscene.
tayred says@ 1.16 pm
……….
No. But what sense can it possibly make to take money from a sporting body for upholding and applying the rules of the sport if that very body is itself a cheat?
What sense , more broadly, is there in putting any trust whatsoever in our sporting body.
That was the point I was trying to make.
,
John Clark says:
April 20, 2015 at 1:31 pm
Yeah, I get you. But if we really believe that there isn’t some separation in this between the appalling state of our governing body over simple human nature in terms of the referees then we really are in a very, very bad way indeed!
Tayred as regards Gordon I think the referee has some discretion. He has to decide if he was denying a clear goalscoring opportunity. A case could be made that the Caley player wouldn’t have got to the ball and therefore it wasn’t, but that may be my green tinted specs. Either way he did have discretion.
mhaddog says:
April 20, 2015 at 1:42 pm
Yeah, I’m sure you are right. That then takes it back to insisting that referees should not be allowed to use their common sense – god what a minefield! :irony:
mhaddog says:
April 20, 2015 at 1:11 pm
___________________________________________
Apologies for the pedantry but all handball offences need to be, in the referees opinion, deliberate in order for them to be a foul. On the Fifa website under ‘sending off offences’ it states:
There are seven offences for which a player, substitute or substituted player can be sent off and shown the red card if he:
1.Is guilty of serious foul play.
2.Is guilty of violent conduct.
3.Spits at an opponent or at any other person.
4.Denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own
penalty area).
5.Denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick.
6.Uses offensive or insulting or abusive language and/or gestures.
7.Receives a second caution in the same match
incredibleadamspark I wouldn’t disagree with that
Two things strike me about yesterdays refereeing performance.
1. A manager or a club has no recourse to officialy complain about the performance of match officials. If there is a route to disciplinary action then it is not widely published. If a manager in his post match interview were to publicly slate a referees performance then he would be up on a disciplinary charge so fast his feet wouldn’t touch the ground.
2. Why oh why do we not have television evidence. If that had been rugby or American football then the coach could call for a television timeout to have the footage reviewed. The TV judge could then advise the referee on dispute calls. Do what they do in tennis and limit the number of timeouts a coach can call to one per half.
In my view Celtic were denied a Cup final appearance by woeful refereeing decisions. Had Inverness had a man sent off and conceded a second goal just before half time then I believe there is little doubt that Celtic would have gone on to win. We cannot, in the 21st century allow such decisions to continue. Justice must be seen to be done with regard to the performance of match officials and we must utilise the technologies that are available to us to assist match officials in getting crucial calls right.
theoldcourse says:
April 20, 2015 at 2:41 pm
Waiting for TV reviews would kill the game. Part of the excitement of going to a live game is the atmosphere, can you imagine what would happen to the atmosphere if we had to stop over and over again? Also you can’t limit the number of calls like in tennis. What happens if a coach had used his calls then an incident like yesterdays happens – uproar all over again!
Excessive use of TV evidence is already damaging Rugby Union (although nothing to the extent of the awful state of the scrum at the moment) and it is a game that has natural stop and start.
Yeah, Celtic probably were denied a cup final appearance (but you cannot say for sure, strange things do happen in sport, unlikely maybe but not impossible). It’s not the first time this has happened to a team and one thing that is certain is it won’t be the last.
theoldcourse says:
April 20, 2015 at 2:41 pm
“In my view Celtic were denied a Cup final appearance by woeful refereeing decisions.”
All the handball incident did was deny the opportunity for Celtic to potentially go 2-0 up had they converted any penalty given.
Awarding a penalty and sending off a player does not guarantee or deny anything in terms of the outcome of the match. This is sport after all.
The issue once again comes down to what was seen at the exact monument by the officials. Looking the BBC highlights in real time I would suggest that the angles and player positioning conspire to make it difficult for the officials to determine whether or not it was hand or head that hit the ball.
It is only in the replays that the hand ball is obvious. On looking at the position of the Celtic players, Commons Johansen and Forrest they are all in ideal positions to see the handball in real time, but as I say they are not looking on the same line as the officials.
Sometimes the angles just don’t work out on the day. That said I fully support referees being fully reviewed and asked to explain themselves and all that information going to give them a rating and a smack on the wrist when required.
The only way round some of these decisions is to have some form of ‘time out’ and managers challenge system linked to a video review. Then you have to agree what level of ‘offense’ merits such treatment and so it goes on until fans are complaining that being denied a thrown-in in the last minute of a game denied them the chance to win.
tayred, in tennis if a player has used up their challenges and then something else happens then thats just tough for them.
wottpi, I did not say Celtic would have won. Indeed my very next sentence said “HAD Inverness had a man sent off and conceded a second goal”. A clear qualification that it was only a posisbility.
Also, did anyone else notice the Caley player falling over in the box after the disputed handball. Commons had turned away from the incident and was proceeding out of the box with his arms in the air, protesting the handball. An Inverness player, don’t know who, ran across him and then promptly fell to the ground clutching his head. Thankfully nothing came of it but I thought it a bit cynical.
Just to change the subject, what now for the world’s greatest football administrator, Scotland’s very own Mr Ogilvie? The attempt to fob him off on FIFA has failed, so now it is up to Scottish football to do its utmost to accommodate this paragon of all the virtues. After all, his term as SFA President is up next month, and unless exceptional steps are taken by the clubs at the SFA AGM to allow his term to be extended, (they surely wouldn’t, would they?) then a new President must be found, and CO is out on the street.
I’ve noticed that Mr Doncaster has been under some pressure recently from the bloodhounds of the Scottish press pack. Could this be a precursor to Doncaster being forced to step aside, to make way for the world’s greatest football administrator? Or how about that CEO vacancy at Ibrox- that would do nicely, I’m sure.
It would certainly reassure us all greatly to know that the revolving door between Hampden and the Blue Room at Ibrox is still in good working order, whatever other maintainance problems there may be at that fine stadium.
However my money is on him getting Doncaster’s job. I think that’s where the establishment would find his skills most useful.
But then what about the SFA President job? Do we know any of the runners and riders yet? Sorry, make that runner and rider, we really don’t want anything as shabby as a contested election, now, do we? I’m sure the high heid yins can sort this all out without any unpleasantness. Has Longmuir spent that big SFL bonus yet? He strikes me as just the right type.
theoldcourse says:
April 20, 2015 at 3:31 pm
tayred, in tennis if a player has used up their challenges and then something else happens then thats just tough for them.
Yes, absolutely. So I say again, what happens if the coach has used his appeals and then a handball situation as in Sunday occurs? Just tough luck? Then why not just stick with the original tough luck? That would at least save interrupting the game repeatedly, when at the end of the day it may not save some injustice being perpetrated?
Some light relief today for the man who would be King.
The proposals for a TV review capability such as that used in Rugby Union or League will need to be carefully thought through.
Union has a lot of natural breaks (scrums/lineouts) which football does not have and many of us egg chasers are frustrated by what we see as Referees always deferring to the 4th Official for try decisions. Can be just as frustrating and does not guarantee the right decision either, as has been seen on many occasions.
Watching McLean’s performance yesterday though was poor on a number of occasions. The penalty was frustrating enough to watch, but his inability to or refusal to play the advantage rule for Celtic was annoying. At least two breaks were penalised for Celtic for late whistles after Scott Brown, shrugged of heavy challenges to play the ball out and set up attacks. This breaking up of the game meant that neither team were able to develop any fluency or tempo.
If there is one lesson that I’d love to see football pick up from Rugby, it would be the development of the advantage rule, followed by the Captain being the only individual to approach a referee too.
yourhavingalaugh says:
April 20, 2015 at 3:59 pm
Some light relief today for the man who would be King.
=============
You wouldn’t by any chance know who he’s caddying for these days? Maybe he’ll get a big tip, then jet back to Glasgow in time for April’s payday at Ibrox.
neepheid says:
April 20, 2015 at 3:46 pm
…
However my money is on him getting Doncaster’s job. I think that’s where the establishment would find his skills most useful.
But then what about the SFA President job?…
===================================================
I would go for Longmuir for the SPFL CEO role.
The SFA constitution could be amended so that Ogilvie can stay on at Hampden as SFA President, ‘to navigate Scottish football’ with his unparalleled experience during these uncertain times, [or some such tosh].
And if that was to happen, then we could all deduce that change at either the SFA or SPFL is just not being supported by the member clubs.
Sorry Goosygoosy @ 12.44
He’s not in but it was on Twitter if that helps?? @officialkappa99
Two of the absent four have reappeared.
Andy Newport @AndyNewportPA · 26m26 minutes ago
Shane Ferguson and Kevin Mbabu to start for Rangers Under-20s v Celtic at Lennoxtown today. Match being played behind closed doors.
I’m not sure what is the most newsworthy, the appearance of Ferguson and Mbabu or the perceived need to play the game behind closed doors.
tayred says:
April 20, 2015 at 3:50 pm
theoldcourse says:
April 20, 2015 at 3:31 pm
tayred, in tennis if a player has used up their challenges and then something else happens then thats just tough for them.
Yes, absolutely. So I say again, what happens if the coach has used his appeals and then a handball situation as in Sunday occurs? Just tough luck? Then why not just stick with the original tough luck? That would at least save interrupting the game repeatedly, when at the end of the day it may not save some injustice being perpetrated?
____________________________________________________
To be fair, it WOULD keep officials honest (if they aren’t already – and I make no assertions either way) AND it would mitigate the effects of genuine incompetence.
The tennis system allows a challenge at the time, so a corrupt official can’t simply rely on his ‘honest mistakes’ going repeatedly unchallenged.
And only unsuccessful appeals discount the number of appeals remaining, so while the consequences of bad refereeing can be mitigated effectively, it also punishes players who are guilty of appealing frivolously, since only those who have appealed unsuccessfully on 3 occasion (causing interruptions) will face a situation where they have exhausted their challenges and so risk being the victim of a genuine ‘honest’ mistakes while their opponents continue to enjoy the benefit of TV justice.
The difficulty is that something are unavoidably subjective (e.g. yellow cards) e.g. because ‘intent’ is hard to call and persistent fouling hard to define.
Nevertheless I think it could work in many circumstances, and could even inject an ethos of integrity into proceedings.
One side effect would be an end to the unattractive gamesmanship of players trying to get fellow professionals needlessly booked, (because doing so would waste an appeal that might be needed for a penalty claim later on)
And as for ‘simulation’ – I think it would disappear to the extent that some players might need a change of career!
TSFM says:
April 19, 2015 at 3:10 pm
Warm congratulations to ICT (and Yogi 2 too!) on their qualification for the SC Final. Of course there are some issues which I am sure will be raised, 🙂
===========================================
Wow TSFM…you must be psychic… 😈
Neepheid,
Do we actually need a president of the SFA? Given the invisibility of the incumbent and his infamous excusing himself for key roles it might be argued that the role is just another blazeratti perk.
Just share out the tasks to the chairs of the various sub groups if you need an symbolic role, save the organisation a few bob, and start to drag the SFA out of the dark ages.
If there has to be a president, let’s have some oversight arrangement as well! Maybe involve the fans?
I know, I know….
Brenda says:
April 20, 2015 at 5:06 pm
Sorry Goosygoosy @ 12.44
========================
Here you go GG
https://vine.co/v/ez9FHT9uOjM
I see that Celtic are writing to the SFA about yesterday’s officiating. I wonder if they’ll query why ICT weren’t awarded a stonewall penalty when Zaluska blatantly assaulted Ofere in the penalty area. 😉
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32388618
Thank you Paulsatim 😉
Tough on the TDs, Highlander. I don’t think you deserve them and hope Celtic fans on here aren’t just being partisan. If the ‘handball’ decision should be questioned (and it should), then so can the later decision. Both ‘fouls’ were not penalised and for me they were both obvious, though with some explanation from the referee, it could be argued that both decisions were right. If he explained, say, that he thought the handball was too close to avoid, then you could understand him not giving it. NB having now seen it, my view is that Meekings’ hand moved toward the ball, either deliberately or instinctively and it should have been a penalty. Equally, if he explained that he thought Zaliuska fouled AFTER Ofere had ‘passed’ the ball to Ross (?) who had the advantage of shooting at an empty net, then again you could perhaps understand his not giving the penalty. It may all really come down to interpretation, but we can’t know that interpretation because lack of transparency means refs aren’t allowed to explain decisions. I hope your TDs aren’t due to your challenging a pro-Celtic decision – perhaps they are because of your ‘blatantly assaulted’ type of language. I hope this/these issues can be discussed and debated without aggressive partisan language from all.
http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2015/04/20/the-artful-dodger/
My recollection of listening to the wireless at the penalty that never was is that the commentators did not see it and John Rankin said that thee might have been a hand involved. It was only after referring to tv pictures that the handball was (emm…) fingered. If decisions are to be re-examined can we start with the one which kept Clyde out of Europe in the late 1960s come on Clyde manager you are a historian of the game are you not?
paulsatim says:
April 20, 2015 at 5:58 pm
Brenda says:
April 20, 2015 at 5:06 pm
Sorry Goosygoosy @ 12.44
========================
Here you go GG
https://vine.co/v/ez9FHT9uOjM
,,,,,,,,,,,
Thanks Brenda Paulsatim
We need a lip reader to b sure but its clear to me that the Linesman said very little
If he was claiming it was a handball he would have said more words so I reckon he either claimed that he missed the incident or said the equivalent of “no offence was committed”
However
When two officials witness an incident that is immediately claimed to be a penalty one would expect a “conversation” of perhaps 5 to 10 seconds This one is over in under 3 seconds
The first decision the Referee has to make is whether his view of the incident is supported by linesman
But it looks like
The linesman offered his opinion unasked and the Referee said nothing more than “ok” or “thanks”
which mad me wonder
In big decisions are Refs unwilling to make the call without corroboration?
i.e. did the linesman get his opinion in before the Ref had made up his mind?
https://vine.co/v/ez9FHT9uOjM
…”Given the level of reaction from our supporters and across football, we are duty bound to seek an understanding of what actually happened,” the club said.
“We have not been given any other specific explanation so far and this is simply to understand the circumstances of what went on and why such an obvious error was made.”
Celtic congratulated their opponents, describing Caley as “a fantastic club” and saying “reaching the final is a great achievement”…
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/32388618
==========================================================
That’s fair enough from CFC.
It’s not a complaint, but simply seeking clarification.
It’s the least that their fans/paying customers deserve.
I wouldn’t make any specific points about refs’ motivations.
They are human, and can/do make mistakes. I wouldn’t want their job.
However, in this day and age of instant communication and info sharing why can’t the refs provide some feedback ?
A twitter account where a ref could say, e.g. “no handball seen by myself nor linesmen, so no action taken”, or even, “Sorry, I should have spotted that handball but my line of view was blocked, as was the linesmen”.
It could also stop a lot of complaining by fans/clubs – and the focus could instead be more positive, i.e. how can we improve the standard of refeering ?
But the refs are managed by the SFA, and with such a shambolic organisation, why would anyone think we should have world class referees ?
And the SFA has repeatedly shown a distinct reluctance to engage with, or reply to fans’ queries by email/letter/phone.
Likewise, CFC should not have to ask for an explanation: the ref knows there is controversy around his officiating, and should be allowed to communicate his decision making thought processes.
And surely that could be an improvement to the Scottish game – for the fans’ benefit ?
Re “The Affair Of Meekings Arm”:
It (almost) proves that Additional Assistant Referees are pointless & powerless. Indeed, the very definition of spare doodahs at a hoohah’s wedding.
It also beggars belief that STV can report that there was no-one from the SFA available for comment today. Still, they also reported that S. Regan confirmed on a Tweet that it was a handball & blamed the AAR for missing it (not the Referee or the team of officials, just the AAR!).
incredibleadamspark says:
April 20, 2015 at 2:00 pm
mhaddog says:
April 20, 2015 at 1:11 pm
___________________________________________
Apologies for the pedantry but all handball offences need to be, in the referees opinion, deliberate in order for them to be a foul. On the Fifa website under ‘sending off offences’ it states:
There are seven offences for which a player, substitute or substituted player can be sent off and shown the red card if he:
1.Is guilty of serious foul play.
2.Is guilty of violent conduct.
3.Spits at an opponent or at any other person.
4.Denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own
penalty area).
5.Denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick.
6.Uses offensive or insulting or abusive language and/or gestures.
7.Receives a second caution in the same match
Two points. Firstly MacLean himself, in an instructional video, makes it clear that intent is irrelevant
Secondly if you watch the video of the incident Meekings clearly raises his hand to the ball. How intentional does it have to be?