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.
Could say a fair bit about the lot of sense talked on On and Off the Ball today but the salient point that struck me was that it is highly probable that those who are complaining about last weeks incident have never had a ref”s whistles anywhere near their lips, far less taken control of a game while wearing the black shirt.
An ex ref called the show and nearly repeated word for word my explanation from the other day of how six officials could easily miss the incident. Which was nice!!
Over the last few years many of us have put ourselves in the shoes of McCoist, Ashley, King, Smith, Wallace, Green,Patey, Doncaster, Regan and a list countless others. Given our track record I have just been surprised some couldn’t put themselves in the shoes of last weeks officials.
wottpi says:
subscriber: (824 comments)
April 25, 2015 at 10:26 pm
_______________________________________
I have never robbed, shot, or maimed anyone but I still know it’s wrong to do these things.
jean7brodie says:
April 25, 2015 at 10:37 p
I wholly agree those things are wrong but I can easily think of countless situations where I could undertake all three and justify them with ease.
It really is about about being able to take the blinkers off and walk in another’s shoes.
wottpi says:
subscriber: (825 comments)
April 25, 2015 at 11:11 pm
It really is about about being able to take the blinkers off and walk in another’s shoes.
__________________________________________________________
I get your point wottpi but we can never walk in other people’s shoes, try as we might because after a few hours or a day or so we can take them off and return to our own shoes. The theory is flawed.
We have to be more rational than that.
jimmci says:
April 25, 2015 at 7:33 pm
==========================================
In my opinion, Richard Gordon is a shining light to everyone in the media as to how you can openly support a club yet carry out media duties without fear or favour.
In my opinion Chick Young is an embarrassment to those of us who honestly pay our licence fee. I wonder if the club who Chick demanded be ‘treated as special’ in 2012 defaulted on the licence fee as well! Rangers promoted or St Mirren demoted – over to you Chick!
In light of Peter Houston’s comments today,I’m hoping there are arrangements put in place to ensure the Hearts/Sevco and Falkirk/Hibs games start at the same time particularly in the second half. I, like prob most on here, have noticed that the reason for Sevco games finishing behind all others, particularly at home, is because they rarely start the second half until after 1605. I assume Hibs will make the appropriate noises this week.
wottpi says:
April 25, 2015 at 11:11 pm
I posted last week regarding the way the SFA and the media had reacted to the Celtic “request for clarification” or “demand for answers” as it was portrayed. I also asked at the time why the SFA had went on full media spin first thing on Monday morning with the referee’s top guy spouting quiet inaccurate statements.
I doubted at the time that the referee’s report had come in by the time he went on the media offensive, ably abetted by former referee’s. What is the sense in that?
Regardless of what side of the fence you sit on, misinformation, and that is what this clearly was, is not helpful. It creates an atmosphere of mistrust. What was Mr Flemming thinking of? Was he thinking? Is this symptomatic of the open and transparent organisation?
It is this attitude of “Of course you can ask for an explanation………. as long as you DO NOT ask for an explanation”
It is this self preservation, introverted, arrogant attitude which creates and reinforces mistrust.
As I stated in my first comment; what we are talking about here is simply improving the standard of refereeing in our leagues. Why is that a no go area for the powers that be?
The attitude seems to be that they are the sole arbitrators of refereeing policy, training, and coaching yet this current crop are probably the worst I can remember in thirty eight years of watching top flight football.
Referee’s telling there assistants to leave major decision making up to them before they take to the park, as I have heard some do, is simply unacceptable. When watching a match and the ball goes out of play four feet from the assistant referee and he looks at the referee to make the decision, as I have often seen, makes a mockery of them even being there. They may as well sit on an arm chair with there slippers on for as much use as they are. Meanwhile they pick up over £800 for being a nodding dog. Simply not good enough!
That practice MUST end to allow decision making to be made by the people with, dare I say it, the best view of any incident. That allows the assistants to gain confidence by making decisions, allowing them to grow into the role, and graduate themselves. Perhaps that is why the referees give this instruction; they do not want the competition.
I admit that I would not want to be a referee but it is clear that some are struggling with this role and they are simply not getting better. If anything they are getting worse as they are not learning from mistakes they made earlier in their careers.
How anyone can defend the standard of refereeing we are watching week in week out is beyond me. By saying that they are poor for everyone is simply running away from the fact that they ARE poor!
Finally when a referee lies to get a manager in trouble and, when is discovered, as happened at Kilmarnock with Kenny Shiels a few years ago and the SFA do not dismiss that referee then we can only assume that that type of conduct is condoned if not encouraged…. as long as you are not caught. It makes you wonder what a referee has to do to get dismissed? That brings into question the honesty of EVERY referee in the land and that cannot be good for the reputation of their profession.
referee (ˌrɛfəˈriː)
(General Sporting Terms) the umpire or judge in any of various sports, esp football and boxing, responsible for ensuring fair play according to the rules
paulsatim says:
subscriber: (129 comments)
April 26, 2015 at 12:03 am
“I assume Hibs will make the appropriate noises this week.”
—
In their shoes, I’d focus just on winning the game against Falkirk. No one in Scotland would be surprised if there’s a wee honest mistake or two at Tynecastle. A lot of us will be surprised if there isn’t. If Hibs win, it won’t matter.
Really want hibs to win next week, hope hearts win but don’t see it ….. For various reasons 😉 And would love to see Falkirk winning the scottish cup final ………. 😎
Adeste Fideles : thanks for that clip, my memory not too shabby except for the score line. By the way, hell of an honest mistake for that goal, Robertson yards onside unless there was some other infringement.
Esteban says:
subscriber: (125 comments)
April 26, 2015 at 12:18 am
No one in Scotland would be surprised if there’s a wee honest mistake or two at Tynecastle. A lot of us will be surprised if there isn’t. If Hibs win, it won’t matter
==================================================
You are correct that if Hibs win it wont matter, but that does not mean that honest mistakes cannot happen in their game too.
To all fellow Bampots.
All football fans can read the printed SMSM, and various websites for a balanced view.
IMO, if you simply accept what you read in the papers…then you are simple.
To put into personal perspective: my Rangers supporting father in law, who is a retired professional, and who believes what he reads in the DR, stated to myself and my wife/his daughter that the TRFC shambles was a “Catholic conspiracy”. In our shock we didn’t respond.
The sooner the Ibrox club is dissolved the better, IMO.
There are a lot of positive stories out there, but they are trumped by the negative stories/PR p!sh emanating from Ibrox.
Scottish football would be in a MUCH healthier position without an Ibrox club, IMO.
Why can’t the governing bodies accept this ?!
StevieBC says:
subscriber: (838 comments)
April 26, 2015 at 6:50 am
======================================
Personally I think there is a place in Scottish football for an Ibrox club, but only one that lives within its means, and does not believe God has bestowed a natural superiority on it over all others. Given the fact they need monthly crisis loans, added to the arrogant comments we have already heard from King and Murray, we are a million miles away from an Ibrox club that could make a valuable contribution to our game.
That the likes of Mr Young is allowed promote and perpetrate lies and myths long since dispelled is a sad indictment on a publicly funded media outlet. He should be removed from our screens and airspace, to seek employment in an over populated job market. I suspect he would soon be embraced by some outlet or other having the same leanings as him but we the public would then have a choice about contributing to his pay packet.
The biggest objection to using video evidence to ASSIST (note NOT CRUCIFY) referees is that it would slow down the game. Objectors ignore the game slowing caused by injuries, real or faked, slow return of the ball at throw ins and twenty seconds to take a throw in. Substitutes taking ages to leave the park and referees taking ages to book players or set up a defensive wall.
My suggestion is that in televised games each team captain should be allowed one challenge per game. If it fails then no more challenges can be made. If it succeeds then the captain still has a challenge option available. This is the rule in televised cricket and tennis and similar TV help takes place in rugby union and league. The fourth official can thus assist the referee.
99% of football matches would never be televised or have goal line technology so we are only talking about the most important games where interest is high and the best referees are involved. It has greatly enhanced cricket and tennis and no one complains about it slowing down the game.
The very least the BBC should do with Mr Young is keep him away from Rangers games.
Looking at the Walter Smith clip led me to another, the inimitable Brian Clough in interview with John Motson. Interesting that he rips into the BBC for how they criticise referee-ing decisions. I wonder what Brian with his willingness to say just what he thought would have said about the amount of time that has been spent in the last week talking about one decision in one game, the first 30 minutes of Sportsound from 2pm on Saturday alone. An interview with John Hughes focussed on that one decision. I suspect Clough would have said it was completely and ludicrously over the top.
Fine talk about how to improve the standards of referee decisions but every team can suffer from and does suffer from mistakes. If we start from that point fair enough. Just focussing on one decision against one team will put, has put more pressure on the officials in every game Celtic play. That in my humble opinion is not the way to go.
Edit I should have added the link to the clip. See what he says at 5.29 before you reach for the reflex thumbs down!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqAZsoF-ghw
“As a critic, I’m far more qualified than you or your colleagues.”
It will be interesting as to how Peter Houston approaches the game with Hibs next week,does he rest players in case of injury,keep them fresh for the final,and also the chance of additional income for all championship clubs next season if the Rangers fail to gain promotion,after all if both Hearts & Rangers gain promotion will the TV companies still be interested in live matches from that division,somehow I don’t think so,interesting few weeks ahead for Scottish Football.
Taysider says:
subscriber: (94 comments)
April 26, 2015 at 10:20 am
Fine talk about how to improve the standards of referee decisions but every team can suffer from and does suffer from mistakes. If we start from that point fair enough. Just focussing on one decision against one team will put, has put more pressure on the officials in every game Celtic play. That in my humble opinion is not the way to go.
=========================================
I also have a humble opinion, and it concerns the ‘evens itself out’ argument, because I simply don’t agree with it. Some teams get more bad calls than others in my view, and I’m not inferring anything about the officials who make the bad calls.
A change of subject but I note that the front page headline on one of the Sunday papers is making much of the alleged sectarian term. It seems a Celtic supporting SNP candidate for Argyle & Bute has used the word H*n on a Celtic supporters website. What a none story and mischief making by the paper.
upthehoops says:
subscriber: (973 comments)
April 26, 2015 at 10:45 am
UTH
If there was a statistical analysis of controversial decisions in games which demonstrated a pattern of bias then that would be evidence to support that. Otherwise fair enough re your opinion but it is more about gut instinct. Most non Celtic / TRFC supporters believe that the majority of decisions in matches playing those teams are in their favour because of the sub conscious pressure on referees (crowd volume / number and controversy level attached to decisions).
Strangely enough it is perceived further down the pyramid. I was at a friendly where United were playing Forfar once and after United getting one decision a Forfar supporter next to me said typical, we never get any decisions against SPL teams.
Taysider says:
subscriber: (95 comments)
April 26, 2015 at 10:20 am
Brian Clough – a true legend. RIP.
One wonders what he would made of the succulence served up by the likes of Chick Young.
yourhavingalaugh says:
subscriber: (247 comments)
April 26, 2015 at 10:39 am
I would hope all managers approach Saturday’s games with the integrity we all demand from those running Scottish football. I doubt, anyway, that Stuart Houston feels particularly kindly towards Hibs, or rather their manager, after the words of last week, so Peter Houston could be neutral, at least. How the players approach the game might be totally different, as they will all be dreading injury that could lead to them missing out on, possibly, their one chance at top level glory. No one should blame them for that.
I see, though, that some twitterers of a green persuasion are suggesting that Hearts will lie down for their ‘cousins’. Hearts form has undoubtedly nosedived since securing the title, but anyone who thinks that they have been selective in who they play badly against should look back at their performance against Hibs. Insipid at best, and even worse than they played at Ibrox.
Every Hearts supporter wants to see Hearts rub TRFC’s nose in their own WATP sh@, but I look at the recent lack of urgency in Hearts play, and the sheer desperation of TRFC’s plight, and fear that my wife and I, in only our second visit to Tynecastle this season, will find our enjoyment peaks at the pre-match celebrations.
Hearts attitude on Saturday will be exactly the same as it would be if they were playing Hibs – they will want to win, but the sense of urgency might not be there.
rougvielovesthejungle says:
subscriber: (64 comments)
Brian Clough – a true legend. RIP.
One wonders what he would made of the succulence served up by the likes of Chick Young.
I had a slightly different reaction listening to Chick in that I was quite enjoying his obvious bias (i.e suffering as Falkirk went two ahead! Would love to have seen a Clough Chic interview!)
But lets face it the BBC really do struggle with the bias stuff. Was it Liam McLeod commentating and Wullie Miller summarising for ICT v Aberdeen yesterday? 🙂 Who are the neutral pundits for DUFC v Celtic today?!
CY should be put on gardening leave, as he would be an ideal scarecrow in Ally’s garden.
Esteban says:
subscriber: (125 comments)
April 26, 2015 at 12:18 am
No one in Scotland would be surprised if there’s a wee honest mistake or two at Tynecastle. A lot of us will be surprised if there isn’t. If Hibs win, it won’t matter
==================================================
You are correct that if Hibs win it wont matter, but that does not mean that honest mistakes cannot happen in their game too.
__________________________________________________
The clubs are to blame for this shambles, if they would stop acting like babes in arms and speak up and act, this sh…te would cease. What are the clubs afraid of.In my opinion the clubs, collectively, are the biggest disgrace in this whole saga. There are a half dozen mercenaries on the sixth floor and one or two clubs who have the game in Scotland almost destroyed and yet the vast majority of clubs follow the Judas Goat to their doom.
Taysider says:
subscriber: (95 comments)
April 26, 2015 at 11:06 am
===================================
Can Referees be swayed by a noisy crowd at Tyncastle or Pittodrie? Just asking. Going back to my point about decisions evening out, I just thin k it is too convenient an argument. The irony of some newspapers bringing up a thrown in Celtic shouldn’t have had in the 1989 cup final to back up their argument wasn’t lost on me. Having said all that in the absence of any other evidence the bad calls are simply down to poor officials, and also cheating players I must add, but I will never accept they always even out.
valentinesclown says:
subscriber: (213 comments)
April 26, 2015 at 11:21 am
I doubt he would be much use at scaring crows 🙄 and much too busy grovelling at his hero’s feet to make it as far as the garden!
upthehoops says:
subscriber: (974 comments)
April 26, 2015 at 11:23 am
I think refs can be swayed by a noisy crowd, but subconsciously. Just from a quick search of the net:
http://www.thesportinmind.com/articles/crowd-and-the-home-advantage/
Going back to 1989 doesn’t sounds very impressive but what about the Zaluska incident in the semi or the incident in the cup game against Hearts this season. Major resource demand to do it, but the way to an evidence based approach would surely be a statistical analysis over a season for say all top flight clubs.
Auldheid, having had the pleasure of working with Peter Lawell during my career I can only say that Waddell has got it half right. Driven, yes; politically astute, yes. But the rest is just muck spreading in my opinion. In my experience Peter was always a Celtic man through and through, he loves the club with a passion. But I always found him very professional and above board in all my dealings with him. Like all men in high office he can be ruthless but certainly not to the extent of Waddells statement “No-one he won’t attempt to control to get it”.
It’s a bit cruel, I know, so I won’t post the picture here, but there’s a photo on the net of a female TRC supporter at yesterday’s match with a TRFC scarf above her head, with the words ‘TREBLE MY ARSE’ writ large along it.
Now, in what other situation would any woman make a public request to have her backside enhanced to three times it’s natural size? And just how desperate for a put down of their hated rivals does any set of supporters have to be to think that it’s a put down to highlight their rivals only winning 2 out of 3 major honours (assuming they will win the league) while their own club gets blown away in their attempt to win the second tier Championship?
They really don’t have a very good idea of where they are in the grand scheme of things, do they? Nor do they realise just how stupid they look in their attempts to appear superior!
Three years now and still no changes at the sfa or spfl … One can only assume they still have total control … Sad really … Normal service a mere 3 months away …. Why ??? … There has to be a reason !
Everybody knows instinctively that poor or dodgy decisions at football matches should level out over the medium to long term. This is what should happen according to probability theory.
Even Walter Smith demonstrated his familiarity with the concept a few seasons back, “these things level out over the season”, or some such. And who can forget then Celtic manager Gordon Strachan’s rejoinder, “Well for that tae happen we’d need tae get aboot 15 penalty kicks in the next six games”, or words to that effect. A true professional, I don’t think anybody would accuse GS of being “Celtic-centric”.
Indeed bad decisions should level out for all clubs over the medium to long term. But when or if that levelling out fails to happen, we have to suspect that probability laws are being interfered with in the matter of decision making during games of football. Who could do such a thing?
Now might be a good time for everybody to start keeping records of incidents involving their own teams: date and time, teams involved, brief description of incident, match officials etc., and video evidence where possible. Maybe people already do.
I have over twenty years’ tapes (now converted to DVDs), CDs and DVDs. I think I can look at them with a reasonably open mind. Surprising, or maybe it’s not, how often the same officials, including linesmen, crop up as blunder prone. It’s then possible to get a reasonable assessment of which team(s) benefit most from the blunder bonus of points accrued from honest mistakes, and the people conferring the benefit.
We can’t rely on honesty from officials on or off pitch. We can’t count either on truth or even lack of bias coming from reporters and so called pundits. I think the knowledge that fans of every club were keeping records of these repeated mistakes would soon improve the awful standard of refereeing seen in this country, and who knows, maybe even the quality of sports’ journalism.
I was just thinking of how often the MSM have berated the Bampots for their fundamental belief that sporting integrity is the lifeblood of our game.
Wouldn’t it be poetic if Peter Houston demonstrated this next Saturday by fielding his youth team to play Hibs?!
Castaway says @1.11 p.m
‘..We can’t rely on honesty from officials on or off pitcch..’
————
On -pitch officials have, since my grandfather’s time , been accused of ‘ honest
mistakes’ by disgruntled fans of penalised teams.
What has been a real game changer was the 5-way agreement.
That is conclusive proof that the off-pitch officials cannot be relied on for truth and
honesty.
Bias and /or corruption of ‘front of house’ officials is, of course, to be deplored and dealt
with.
But dealt with by whom? By men who were prepared to sign the truly infamous piece of
nonsense known to us as the 5-way agreement?
That these men are still in office, and their pernicious actions have gone unchecked and uncorrected, is such a stain on the character of Scottish Football as can never be erased.
Who could possibly trust such creatures again??
Flippancy alert.
I also don’t accept that bad decisions even themselves out. After 55 years of supporting the Dons I know for a cast iron fact that we get more bad calls against us than the opposition do. There, I’ve said it and I feel better now. Fortunately I have a few Tartan Army mates (one Doonhamer springs to mind) who are always there to remind me that they would never get the benefit of the doubt when playing a “big” team like Aberdeen. He must be blind?
(How did the ref not see that the foul was outside the box today? I was listening on the radio and it was never a penalty!)
Castaway,
I don’t want the blog getting bogged down in refereeing stuff. 99% of it is highly subjective and based on the bias of the observer. It would be tedious in the extreme if we went down that road – so we won’t.
On the recent refereeing controversy. I think that one falls into the other 1% bracket, given the fact that by any objective standard there was a massive failure on the part of the officials. Even then though, the debate is only relevant to SFM in the wider context of that failure – not on the basis that it was a consequence of referee bias against one particular club, but on the basis that there were multiple official observers who all failed to spot the incident. Leaving aside refereeing bias, which I completely reject anyway, there appears to be a systematic failure which needs to be addressed.
The accusation that such a discussion constitutes a Celticcentric-ness on this site is nonsense, to those who have made those accusations, I suggest that they have not been paying attention to the general course of this blog over the last few years.
It is also a threat to the blog’s existence when people try to set up Celtic against the rest. If we have learned anything over the course of our many debates it is that to see things from the another’s perspective brings greater understanding.
It also seems a bit inconsistent that Celtic have long been criticised for failing to make a stand against the authorities but are castigated when they asked why the officials got it so wrong last week. If we welcomed Anne Budge or Turnbull Hutton or ICT (over the Meekings affair) questioning those in authority, it seems perverse that Peter Lawwell get in the neck for doing exactly the same.
There is no Celtic focus on this issue just for the sake of it – just that they are at the centre of the affair, and not by their own choosing. Had any other clubs been at the centre then the same discussion would have taken place.
For clarity, dragging up old refereeing controversies as positive proof of conspiracy (or rebuttal of same) is not appropriate to this blog.
Further, any comment on the perceived bias of this blog is not a topic for discussion on the main blog. Feel free to say so on the moderation thread or elsewhere.
Taysider says:
subscriber: (99 comments)
April 26, 2015 at 11:19 am
========================
As I said earlier there is much to learn from the Aberdeen supporting Richard Gordon who conducts himself impeccably. Too many others on BBC forget they are paid for by fans of all clubs. Chick Young easily the most biased pundit of them all IMO. Strangely it is all towards a team he claims not to support.
John Clark April 26, 2015 at 2:53 pm asks who could possibly trust the makers of the 5WA again.
=============================
Absolutely nobody John. The lot needs to be swept out. Unfortunately this includes the office staff, lawyers, drafters, everybody with any input or knowledge of the stuff that’s been taking place for years, and especially the last three or so, and have said nothing.
Hope this gets to you before the Fat Yaks. (Great name for a beer, typical Aussie.) Have you taken up permanent residence down there?
SFM says:
administrator: (388 comments)
April 26, 2015 at 3:18 pm
======================
I agree with you on that. My point was general. I’ve nothing to add on the subject. My purpose was to point up possible solutions in general for fans of all clubs wrt official injustices, on and off pitch. It’s only what I do myself. It might (unlikely) lead to improvement in two areas where the blog speaks as one: refereeing standards and quality of sports’ journalism, so called.
JC has since raised the 5WA of course, which is the burning issue.
Given the recent discussion on the monies received by Scottish clubs from Sky, compared with the amounts handed to English clubs, it was a bit galling today to see Sky Sports advertising on the electronic boards at Tannadice today. Galling because the advert was for the English premier League, and proclaimed “watch the games that matter”.
CastofThousands did an analysis of lots of data on cards etc back in August. I know there was lots of data because I provided a lot of it. If you search back you will find out what he discovered and, as I recall, there is little evidence of any great conspiracy although some referees are harder on some teams than others
upthehoops says:
As I said earlier there is much to learn from the Aberdeen supporting Richard Gordon who conducts himself impeccably…
——–
A class act not to mention the silkiest voice on sports radio. A vocal crooner among pundits.
Fisiani says:
subscriber: (48 comments)
April 26, 2015 at 9:17 am
The biggest objection to using video evidence to ASSIST (note NOT CRUCIFY) referees is that it would slow down the game. Objectors ignore the game slowing caused by injuries, real or faked, slow return of the ball at throw ins and twenty seconds to take a throw in. Substitutes taking ages to leave the park and referees taking ages to book players or set up a defensive wall.
======================================
And others so Fisiani doesn’t feel picked upon 😉
While I wholeheartedly agree with your observations on delaying the game, I would point out that in all those cases the ball is out of play and in theory the Official should be adding time at the end of the half.
The problem with adding reviews in football? Well first lest me cite your examples.
Tennis? The ball was in or out its point won or point lost dependent on the result of the review. The consequence is an immediate delay of a maximum few seconds before the next service or the break if it is on game point.
Cricket? Its still in or out, or 4 or 6 rather than the runs ran. The consequence is an immediate delay of a maximum of a few seconds before the next ball is bowled. In first class cricket that’s one ball in a minimum of 540.
Rugby? Both league and union its basically a matter of how to restart the game. Was it a try or held up, a knock on or a strip, a penalty or a scrum. The consequence is again a delay of a few seconds at what would always be a delay in play.
Football? Was it “foul play” or a goal or not? Consequence? Well in one answer to each case there is not a natural break in play. How long do you play on until the review (note in Rugby League a referee can only make a referral since the last play the ball which in Union would be Phase although I’m not aware of a specific restriction in Union)? I believe the next natural break in last week’s semi was well over a minute later and could have been several. Do you break play immediately for a review and massively increase the drop balls, or do you wait for the next natural break and add those potential several minutes on at the end if the review decides play should have been stopped.
I’m with John Clark(e) on this one. Scottish referees may just be incompetent, they may be worse but until those above them at the SFA inspire some confidence then confidence in the “foot soldiers” is going to be hard to come by.
PS I’ve this morning run the line for my son’s under 13 team. I was informed at half time by the 14-15 year old ref that the whole of the ball has to cross the whole of the line for it to be out. Had it been before the start or had I indicated for one that clearly hadn’t crossed the line I wouldn’t have found it as patronising as it was from a “kid” who clearly hadn’t understood obstruction and simulation. Fortunately I managed toi bit my tongue at the time.
For the avoidance of doubt in my last post my position was restricted to “ins and outs”. I did prevent a corner being taken from well outside the quadrant and indicated several corners left the field of play in-flight.
Next weekend’s Championship games are going to be under scrutiny, probably like never before
The football “High Heidyins”, and the appointed officials will be well aware of this, and I wonder if the officials will be given any additional briefing regarding the importance of being seen to be impartial
As the weekend approaches, you can be sure that the MSM will ramp up the rhetoric which will put additional pressure on the match officials too
Watch this space
ernie says:
subscriber: (120 comments)
April 26, 2015 at 2:55 pm
Flippancy alert.
I also don’t accept that bad decisions even themselves out. After 55 years of supporting the Dons I know for a cast iron fact that we get more bad calls against us than the opposition do. There, I’ve said it and I feel better now. Fortunately I have a few Tartan Army mates (one Doonhamer springs to mind) who are always there to remind me that they would never get the benefit of the doubt when playing a “big” team like Aberdeen. He must be blind?
(How did the ref not see that the foul was outside the box today? I was listening on the radio and it was never a penalty!)
_______________________________________________________
The answer to this apparent inconsistency is simpler and more interesting than you think. Straightforward cognitive bias. We can’t help it.
Both you and your ‘doonhammer’ mate are equally correct.
Because you both define ‘controversial’ decisions differently.
So any decision that goes against your respective teams is more likely to be considered controversial by you, whereas any decision that goes for your team is more likely to be considered clear cut by you.
So if we take you and your doonhammer mate and ask them to rank a load of decisions which are then subsequently verified by a ‘perfect’ definitive judge.
There are the following possible outcomes:
Decisions can be either clear cut or controversial.
Decisions can either be favourable or adverse.
Decision can either be correct or incorrect.
Whether a decision is favourable or unfavourable is always clear cut.
Whether it is correct or incorrect is – in our idealised scenario, also clear cut.
However whether a decision is controversial is a matter of opinion.
Decisions that go in our favour are more likely to be deemed clear cut by us – whether they are correct or incorrect.
Decisions that go against us are for more likley to be considered controversial by us – again whether they are actually correct or incorrect.
Therefore we will almost always determine that more of the controversial decisions go against us, and for the opposition.
Because we see controversy where they see none, and they see controversy where we see none.
Ergo, when you do the sums, both you and your doonhammer mate can prove that more of the controversial decisions go against ‘ourselves’.
And you are both right.
Resin_lab_dog says:
subscriber: (688 comments)
==================
Spot on Rld and a very fine, clear explanation. It still makes me laugh though that people dinna get it!
boywithoutanaitch says:
subscriber: (6 comments)
April 26, 2015 at 10:03 pm
Aye Highlander you’re probably right
You better watch you don’t get caught communicating with me, I’m obviously off message and a danger to democracy
_________________________________________________________
Chill out boywithoutanaitch, that sounds like paranoia 😛
boywithoutanaitch says:
subscriber: (7 comments)
April 26, 2015 at 10:16 pm
jean7
I’m chilled, just a bit confused
______________________________________________
I think we all are, for different reasons, so join the club!
😕 me too Jean 😕 hope we have some positive action in the coming week 😉
Folks,
It is a pity that some just aren’t getting this – or don’t want to hear. One person has already self-moderated tonight which is encouraging, but if the Meekings incident is looked at through either end of a Celtic prism, then it shouldn’t be posted here.
What happened today at Tannadice is one of the 99% of refereeing issues not really relevant to us. What happened last week was different because it gave rise to a wider debate (which has unfortunately been tarnished by those seeking to cause division).
If you can’t or won’t distinguish between the two, then you really aren’t getting TSFM at all. It is becoming apparent that debates like this see the reappearance of people who didn’t get it before they went off, and have learned nothing in their absence.
This is not a site for the systematic bashing of referees, or any individual club. If respect for other people’s sensitivities or the rules of the blog can’t be achieved, this really isn’t the place for you.
My last word on the moderation issues. I really am fed up having to explain moderation policy on this. Anyone else ignoring my hitherto polite requests will be removed.
Just a question to anyone who might know. Watched the DU/CFC game on Fox Soccer Channel today which is an American satellite network if I’m not mistaken. My question is who are they purchasing their broadcast rights from? Directly from the SPFL or a 3rd party deal from Sky or BT? Surely the SPFL would not miss out on an audience/revenue of a market that has 300 million potential viewers by allowing some other party to sell their product to this market. Just curious because foreign tv deals (to my knowledge)are rarely discussed here.
mmatim88 says:
subscriber: (2 comments)
April 27, 2015 at 2:11 am
Just a question to anyone who might know. Watched the DU/CFC game on Fox Soccer Channel today which is an American satellite network if I’m not mistaken. My question is who are they purchasing their broadcast rights from? Directly from the SPFL or a 3rd party deal from Sky or BT?…
=================================
As Fox is also part of Murdoch’s evil empire 😈 I would guess that the Scottish games are being shown via Sky’s rights.
As you may know, this is the second season that Scottish SPL games have been shown in the US on Fox Sports Channel.
On my cable package I would have to pay extra to view the channel – probably $20 a month.
And the irony is that on my basic cable package I get to see all EPL/Champions/Europa/Spanish/Italian/Dutch/French/MLS etc games for no additional charge !
[& OT, I asked at my local if they will be showing the Boxing next weekend. No they aren’t because it would cost $6,000 ! The charge is based on a bar’s maximum, allowable number of customers, and it’s not a big bar.]
Stevie BC, sorry not sure how to properly do the Stevie BC says: prelude to responding to your comment (not very computer savvy & intoxication taking hold) but hey ho. In regard to your answer to my query I suspected the same myself but just thought it so negligent and ridiculous that it couldn’t be the case. So if this is true (just a suspicion) Sky are actually clawing back a portion of the pittance they are paying for Scottish football.
I am in Toronto and we have the same coverage that you speak of on our cable package.
As I write this I am watching a replay of Everton/man utd game in a clash of the “greatest teams in the greatest league in the world”. And in a twist of irony/vindication I’ve just seen a fantastic goal scored by a product of our so called pub league.
According to an award winning sports journalist the SFA will rule on Dave King this week.
The overseas rights to Scottish Football were historically sold by IMG. Sky don’t have world-wide rights – or at least they didn’t last time I was involved in TV rights issues. At that time, around 9 years ago, the Sky rights involved only the UK & Ireland. IMG were tasked with marketing the rest (which resulted in the farcical Polsat episode).
If Sky are able to sub-let their rights, I have two observations;
1) That would be another financially crippling negotiating capitulation by the SPL/SPFL as it throttles off another potential revenue stream, and
2) It makes it even more embarrassing that there has been a failure to find a sponsor (if the Sky footprint is now World-wide as opposed to UK & Ireland-wide)
Off topic since not football but boxing related.
Tom English gets flak on here from time to time but yesterday he did an interview on Sports Nation with a real national hero,Ken Buchanan.
It has to go down as one of the best and most moving interviews I’ve ever heard.
Do yourselves a favour and listen to the podcast if you have time. I’m sure you’ll not be disappointed.
jimmci says:
subscriber: (72 comments)
April 27, 2015 at 8:42 am
Was just about to post this link to the written piece:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/scotland/32474375
One of my great sporting heroes, and the only one I can honestly say I competed with.
We were both members of the same boys club, though he was world champion before we ‘clashed’, on, as far as I am aware, the only 2 a-side football pitch in the world. I was 15, and there was the world light-weight boxing champion trying to beat me and a team-mate at our game!
He was a hard player, and not all that good, but so competative and we bounced off him. He would turn up from time to time, and the club trainer and founder, the great Eric Gardner, always got excited when Kenny appeared. Says a lot about Kenny that Eric held him so highly. Kenny, in turn, revered Eric who he considered, along with his father, the greatest influence of his career.
Eric Gardner, a teetotaller himself, would be heartbroken to see, in my opinion the greatest sportsman Scotland has ever produced, in this sad state.
In terms of style and ability, he was the Pele of boxing, and appreciated much higher in America than the land of his birth.
For the record, my team (of two) always beat him and his mate 😀 , and he’s a Jambo to boot!
Sorry to be so off topic, but there’s no one here where I live, in Derbyshire, who even seems to remember Britain’s greatest boxer, for me to talk to about him, such is the lack of interest the English have for non-English sportsmen whose achievements came before mass TV coverage!
Big Pink says:
administrator: (305 comments)
April 27, 2015 at 7:46 am
The overseas rights to Scottish Football were historically sold by IMG. Sky don’t have world-wide rights – or at least they didn’t last time I was involved in TV rights issues. At that time, around 9 years ago, the Sky rights involved only the UK & Ireland. IMG were tasked with marketing the rest (which resulted in the farcical Polsat episode).
If Sky are able to sub-let their rights, I have two observations;
1) That would be another financially crippling negotiating capitulation by the SPL/SPFL as it throttles off another potential revenue stream, and
2) It makes it even more embarrassing that there has been a failure to find a sponsor (if the Sky footprint is now World-wide as opposed to UK & Ireland-wide)
———-
Those overseas rights will, hopefully, be taken off the table at the next round of negociations. For the pitiful amount of money given to Scottish football there is absolutely no reason to include overseas & webcast rights. The TV companies couldn’t get a better deal if they’d sneaked a lobbiest into Hampden. One look at the current ad-strewn, down market SPFL website tells you everything you need to know about their level of ‘professionalism’.
Here’s what the home page of the SPFL website looks like when viewed from abroad. A banner ad straight through the logo. How amateurish and cheap does that look? There are three other ad blocks on the page. It looks like a site on a ‘free host’ with external ads included.
upthehoops April 27,at 7:22
According to an award winning sports journalist the SFA will rule on Dave King this week.
…………………………………
Anyone ever seen Keith J and Daryl B in the same room at the same time?
I stll don’t understand why companies like the SFA don’t or the SPFL don’t look at even trying out 1or 2 of the smaller cup competitions The leauge cup for example or the old Ramsden’s cup ( can’t remember who sponcers it now) on the internet Even just as a trial to see what interest there is
Wouldn’t cost much and what would they have to lose as they are virtually not telivised anyway
Could recoup any costs easily through advertisement on the site
Which they already do on the official SFA site
Just to illustrate further (it’s getting boring now, I know), I looked at two league associations — Latvia (pop. 1.9m) and Iceland (pop. 300,000). Neither body has banner ads through association logos. There are lists of sponsors (yes, sponsors) and Latvia has a classy ad down the page for Adidas boots. Here’s Iceland’s fitba association home page, a country whose entire population is 200,000 under that of Edinburgh. Over to you, SPFL…
http://www.cayugaspartans.com/sports/msoc/index
My sons college teams in America
During the season they streamed as many games as possible as did other colleges 🙂
Completely free to view as most of the work was done by students and the host site made their may ney through advertising so no cost to the college’s 🙂
Also you can go back and watch archived games
So what’s stopping the SFA/SPFL?
Internet TV isn’t the future Its the Present (Netflix, love film, kodi/xbmc to name but a few
SFM says:
April 26, 2015 at 11:35 pm
Agree with what you say regarding not wanting to stir up divisions but yesterday’s penalty incident is directly related to the wider debate following Meekings Handballgate given that a refereeing official had to make a decision based on a fast moving incident that occurred a few yards from his position.
There was much debate last week about refs needing to have video reviews to help the right decisions to be made and also the possibility of managers having challenge system.
Yesterdays penalty occurred at the edge of the box, the replay clearly shows contact being made outside the box. Contact was not maintained into the box. Such continuous contact from outside to inside the box is normally required for most refs to award a penalty being said contact is proof positive the attacking player was given no option with regard to regaining his footing/balance.
The whistle was blown as Rankin clearly initiated a challenge that had to be punished and you could see Collum’s mind whirring for a split second with regard to which way to go. As play had been fully stopped by the whistle this is the ideal time to undertake a video review. Had a video review option been available then Collum wouldn’t have pointed for a free kick or a penalty, my guess is his first instinct would have been to immediately signal for a review as opposed to making his own decision.
If a challenge system was available then this is the type of situation where McNamara would use one if Collum had immediately awarded a penalty and vice versa for Deila if it was only a free-kick. (Clearly the time of the incident and the score at the time would have an influence on whether or not a manager chose to challenge)
If a video review was employed, to the letter of the law then IMHO a free kick would have been the result yesterday.
I stress that I am not intending to make this a Celtic issue but look at it as a refereeing matter.
However the same questions posed last week end can be applied this weekend.
Therefore with the benefit of video review did Collum and his team make a ‘wrong decision’ or ‘miss’ something yesterday?
Afterall Rankin’s protest and those of his team mates closest to the incident of ‘its is outside the box’ is just as vociferous as Common’s and others claim for handball last week.
In the same way I can understand how the officials didn’t give a penalty last week I can wholly see why in the real time situation Collum gave a penalty yesterday.
Given a video review system would need to be employed with equality and impartially over all games then you have to ask yourself would such have added or taken anything away from yesterday game and how many complaints would have been made about it needlessly interrupting a game that was nearly over in terms of the result?
For me these are the types of issues that will come up week in week out if video reviews were introduced and managers, officials and fans would all end up focusing more and more time on these types matters as opposed to enjoying the playing of the game, refereeing warts and all.
jimmci says:
April 27, 2015 at 8:42 am
———————————
I heard some of the interview and will try to catch up with the rest.
Buchanan was articulate and surprisingly generous to Duran about the low blow. Came across really well
One of the best ever, in my opinion.
Sad about the way his life has gone.
wottpi says:
subscriber: (826 comments)
April 27, 2015 at 11:39 am
SFM says:
April 26, 2015 at 11:35 pm
Agree with what you say regarding not wanting to stir up divisions but yesterday’s penalty incident is directly related to the wider debate following Meekings Handballgate given that a refereeing official had to make a decision based on a fast moving incident that occurred a few yards from his position.
There was much debate last week about refs needing to have video reviews to help the right decisions to be made
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have always been against the introduction of video replays for football and I still am. The main reason being , as explained by other posters, is that unlike tennis and rubgy there is not the same break in play that allows a protest to be made and a revie to be considered.
I am happy to with the old maxim that the refs decision is final.
Sometimes you get them , sometimes you don’t. In the end , even refs are human with human frailties.
Where I do have a problem (and I will speak in particular as a fan of HMFC and specifically about the Kyrgiakos & Guidetti incidents) is it is predictable that those events occurred and there will undoubtedly be more of them. That is sadly , the nature of the game in Scotland. What I am against here is football becoming rugby – where even a simple try can often be delayed just because the ref will NOT make a decision and he avoids making a decision by asking the video judge to make it for him.
In my opinion, Scottish football suffers because refs are too often just not up to the job , are week willed and too open to make the “easy decision”. That’s what needs to be addressed in my opinion.
The play-offs promise to be even more fevered, whatever position Rangers finish in. “That is the worst thing about the result, it is now out of our hands,” said Walsh. “We have to be confident and show no fear in the play-offs. If we do that hopefully we will be back where we belong
There’s that phrase again 🙄
We don’t need video replays. We need to ban refs who favour one side over others. Ask a Dundee Utd fan about McCurry, Hearts fans about Dallas and Davies, A Falkirk fan on Saturday when the Rangers equaliser was in the 5th minute of 3 minutes added time, Celtic fans…….well, there’s a list.
andygraham.66 says:
April 27, 2015 at 12:45 pm
The play-offs promise to be even more fevered, whatever position Rangers finish in. “That is the worst thing about the result, it is now out of our hands,” said Walsh. “We have to be confident and show no fear in the play-offs. If we do that hopefully we will be back where we belong
There’s that phrase again
,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Yep
Show no fear (or embarrassment) when favoured by honest mistakes
,,,,,,,
and dont worry about red cards, penalties or extra extra injury time
If needed
they will happen
John Clarke
Sounds like a great idea, perhaps the Carindale Hotel is the closest pub for both of us?
Bawsman says:
subscriber: (214 comments)
April 27, 2015 at 12:51 pm
We don’t need video replays. We need to ban refs who favour one side over others. Ask a Dundee Utd fan about McCurry, Hearts fans about Dallas and Davies, A Falkirk fan on Saturday when the Rangers equaliser was in the 5th minute of 3 minutes added time, Celtic fans…….well, there’s a list.
——-
Worst ref performance in the televised matches I’ve viewed this year was at Tynecastle in the Hearts v TRFC match. Not just one incident but a whole serious of botched and cowardly rulings, or non-rulings as it turned out. And the ref was supposed to be one if the best.
andygraham.66 says:
subscriber: (290 comments)
April 27, 2015 at 12:45 pm
______________________________________________________
On the official Hearts website Ann Budge said: ‘On the question of pricing, we have taken a very simple approach. When we were relegated, we dropped all prices by 7%. Now that we are back where we belong, we are increasing the prices by the same, 7%. This means that we are offering season tickets at the 2013/14 pricing levels. We feel this is fair and hope our supporters will agree.’
I think she’s been fantastic for Hearts and Scottish football in general and hope she can take a more official and active role in the governance of our game. So I mention this not as a criticism of her but merely to point out it’s a phrase a number of clubs, fans and players use when discussing their own team. It really is a clichéd, meaningless phrase given an, in my view, unwarranted importance on here whenever used in connection with Rangers.